| Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
000Hunter000
Gallente
Missiles 'R' Us
   |
Posted - 2008.02.19 23:09:00 -
[91]
Yes fine fine, u fixed T2 freighters, now start working on an average Joe cargovessel allready.
no fancy stuff, just 100k base hold with 5% increase per level and 5% to agility per level (introduce a cargovessel skill which needs hauler skill to L5)
Give it shield/armor/hull stats of a BC and the sig of a BS and mebbe a 1/2/2 slot layout
People been screaming for one of these ever since ccp released the freighters
Cmon CCP u know u want to!
_______________________________________________________
CCP, let us pay the online shop with Direct Debit!!!
|
Laendra
|
Posted - 2008.02.20 04:31:00 -
[92]
Drop the changes, give them low and/or mid slots, with low cpu/powergrid, but a fitting bonus for shield and armor tanking or speed/agility fit (eliminate the ability to fit ECM), so people can truly have control over how their ships are setup. If player A wants to fit for max cargo, boom, let him...If player B wants to fit for survivability, boom, let him. If player C wants to fit for speed/agility, boom, let him. Isn't EVE supposed to be about PLAYER choices, and not some design team's definition about how a ship is supposed to be setup? Otherwise, why stop with Freighters? Why not hardwire complete ship setups, removing all flavor from all ships?
-------------------
|
Kakita J
Placid Reborn
Coalition Of Empires
|
Posted - 2008.02.20 13:47:00 -
[93]
There's a difference between restricting _sensible_ player choices and crippling choices altogether. Maybe you remember the time when every type of missile could be loaded into any type of launcher, and you could fit multiple MWDs too. This imbalanced some ships so far, which was not originally foreseen, that it was overhauled.
Now, same situation with dreads being used as cargo vessels:
They're meant to be siege war ships, they cost around ~2b. Still, they're more efficient at something than the ship that is supposed to be specialized for something. Two options: nerf the hell out of dreads with respect to the unintended role (because otherwise they're the multi-purpose ownmobile), or alternatively boost the hell out of JFs. I feel that even if JFs are boosted really far, people will STILL use dreads over them, since they already have the skills, and since JFs cost at least twice as much as dreads.
Not restricting player choice is not equivalent to "allow one ship class to be able to shine at more things than others". Or putting it differently, player choice is fine and dandy, but not at the cost of balance, because if something is inherently unbalanced, it actually restricts player choice by providing the single "best" multipurpose or bang-for-buck setup or ship.
--------------------------------------
"They better fix the *bleep* *bleep* *bleep* jump *bleep* gates before I *bleep**bleep**bleep* and then some."
|
Par'Gellen
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.02.20 13:51:00 -
[94]
Jump freighters are still all fail even with this "upgrade". If you want to see people buy them up then make them high-sec capable. You'd have to be a special kind of "borked in the head" to take that kind of isk into low sec. Oh and top it with the fact that it's totally defenseless and you can upgrade the "special" to "world class idiot".
---
To err is human. But it shouldn't be the company motto... |
ByFeve
Caldari
Northern Shadowrunners
Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.02.20 14:17:00 -
[95]
I really think the changes applies in the wrong way - all but the fuel reduction.
As many other, I think the solution is in giving it a setup of slots so one could choose to fit either tank, agility or cargospace at least. I'm not sure about a need to give them tank-possibility - perhaps it¦s enough that one could fit Hull upgrades as nanos or cargoexpanders or propulsion upgrades as inertia or overdrive - and as a "tank" alternative also the damagecontrol.
So perhaps with three lowslots and a Damage Control, an inertia and a Cargoexpander you reach about todays values in ship. But you could choose to make it weaker, but faster - or weaker but more heavy loading.
I also think a high-slot with a cloak is a must for a T2 ship that¦s built for 0.0 use. Even if it¦s only one high-slot and cloak is all it could fit I think this does ALOT for my own desire for this ship. I also see no reason why a Titan should be able to cloak and a freighter not 
What about rigslots then? I dunno, but if CCP takes that math in calculation a nerf of the base statistics could with ease lock this up as well. And all this goes for T1 version as well in my opinion.
But if this dev blog about the Jump-freighter is CCP's last answer I think it¦s a big failure that missed the biggest failure in this ships 
//ByF
|
Sahara Eternity
Amarr
Imperial Academy
|
Posted - 2008.02.20 15:29:00 -
[96]
I don't believe that Dreads and Rorq should be nerfed, I mean why ? Every time you introduce a new ship u have to nerf all the other ships - I find this amusing actualy. What's next ? U staited that a single ship isn't designed to do manny jobs widhout fitting differently. And it is true, a dread can't haul if it doesnt fit expanders (rigs+modules) wicth decrease conciderably his tanking abilities. U shoulda thought to that before u nerfed the carriers. (PS: what did u expect for people to use after u nerfed the carriers ? It was oblios that ppl will continue to use the ships they ALREADY have - who wants to train new skills for new ships, what shold they do with the ships they already have and been cut off <aka nerfed>). Nerfing Dreads and Rorq wont solve ure problem, it will simply create new ones. With the new ships only the richest alliances can afford to buy/produce JF, u intend to make the strongest even stronger ? Or give any one else a chance. Already, the new players don have a single chance to make something great in this game, u wanna ruind it for good ? Go ahead.
|
Bit Steen
|
Posted - 2008.02.20 16:38:00 -
[97]
hmm - after reading this all more or less i would say those points (in addition to the blog) are importand for the Jumpies.
- reduce the material you need to build the Jump freighter
- let us fit a cloaking device
what we dont need:
- 10 run copy
- shorter copy or production time
Cheers, Bit
|
Braaage
eXceed Inc.
eXceed.
|
Posted - 2008.02.20 18:12:00 -
[98]
 Originally by: Bit Steen
hmm - after reading this all more or less i would say those points (in addition to the blog) are importand for the Jumpies.
- reduce the material you need to build the Jump freighter
They can't reduce the build, billions will be wasted and it's a move likely to anger all those builders with them cooking and already built.
--
eve-guides.com
All about POSs, Outposts, Exploration, Mining, Invention, EVE Database + much more!! |
Treelox
Amarr
Market Jihadist Revolutionary Party
|
Posted - 2008.02.20 18:21:00 -
[99]
Originally by: Braaage
Originally by: Bit Steen
hmm - after reading this all more or less i would say those points (in addition to the blog) are importand for the Jumpies.
- reduce the material you need to build the Jump freighter
They can't reduce the build, billions will be wasted and it's a move likely to anger all those builders with them cooking and already built.
When has angering those that have come before ever stopped them?
--
|
Robert VonBraun
|
Posted - 2008.02.20 19:32:00 -
[100]
They only thing keeping JF from being used more often is there cost to manufacture/ buy. lower the amount t2 components required by 25-50% and they will become quite common. At its current cost it isnt worth it to buy. The cost of inventing the BPC isnt the issue, the problem is the cost of the t2 components. either lower the number of components required or lower the mats required to produce the components. |
|
|
Malena
Shiva
|
Posted - 2008.02.20 20:56:00 -
[101]
Originally by: Robert VonBraun
They only thing keeping JF from being used more often is there cost to manufacture/ buy. lower the amount t2 components required by 25-50% and they will become quite common. At its current cost it isnt worth it to buy. The cost of inventing the BPC isnt the issue, the problem is the cost of the t2 components. either lower the number of components required or lower the mats required to produce the components.
I must disagee, the cost of the components isn't the ONLY thing keeping them from being used more often. Certainly it is one of the primary ones, but not the only one. For me, the ridiculous copy time and the fact that you can have more runs, OR a chance for a not horrendous ME is also a major factor. If you want to improve use of them, I would suggest decreasing the obelisk copy time, or increasing the multiplier effect of decryptors and catalysts.
|
Stage one
|
Posted - 2008.02.21 00:38:00 -
[102]
Edited by: Stage one on 21/02/2008 00:39:29
I think when they introduced the covert cyno, that should be usable by jump freighter.
What people want is safe and effective logistic for 0.0 system. Which covert cyno can offer if jump freighter can able to jump through covert cyno.
That will make jump freigher very viable alternative since cyno is not detetable. ( which means safe!)
|
Lan al'Mandragoran
|
Posted - 2008.02.21 02:15:00 -
[103]
Originally by: Stage one
Edited by: Stage one on 21/02/2008 00:39:29
That will make jump freighter very viable alternative since cyno is not detectable. ( which means safe!)
That would be interesting but from the Dev blog you can see that CCP thinks the Jump Freighter should be escorted and part of introducing it was a way to make 0.0 Logistics harder not easier.
From the Dev blog Originally by: Stage one
Moving transport ships in EVE has been slow; they are generally less agile, slower in warp etc. On normal freighter runs, it's always the freighter that is holding back the pace of the gang. Since jumping is instantaneous, our way of slowing down jump freighters is by decreasing their jump range, forcing ships that are jumping with them as support to take shorter leaps. We think this it is a fine and fair compromise.
So wishing for a covert cyno or Cloak on a freighter seems to be a long shot if thats what CCP wants.
My suggestions...
First Nerf the Cargonaught. It needs fuel to run it siege mode and thus a-lot of cargo space, so add a fuel storage area instead.
Don't nerf the Rorquel it is an industrial ship even if it is geared more towards the mining side, and therefore should be able to haul. Instead of nerfing it reorganize the freighter line completely to something like this.
1. Introduce a battle-ship sized class freighter that cost about 100-200 mil to build.(make it tier 1)
2. Re-adjust the regular freighter to cost around 500 mil to build and drop the skills required to fly it. Perhaps consider making it none capital, cause ever other capital has a jump drive it never really fit to begin with. (make it Tier 2 Tech 1)
3. Re-adjust the Jump Freighter to cost around 1 bil to build. Lower the skills to fly it and make it be able to carry double what the Rorquel can carry. (Make this Tier 3 Tech 1)
4. Introduce a titan type of freighter(i.e the end game) that will cost about 10 billion. Make it skill training Titan like in time length(freighter V) and give it abilities to match (Make it Tech 2)
Since you have to worry about compensating the people who have already sunk isk into the Jump Freighter right now you can make any Jump Freighter currently in existence become the Titan type at patch day this will compensate those who have already bought /built them and I doubt they will complain.
This will give a clear route of progression to any player currently training or about to train the freighter skill tree. The 1 bil price tag, ability to carry more, and less training time will make them more used than rorquel. You allow for the possibility of extending this training on for a Titan type of freighter later which will give us players the incentive to train for a this type of ship in the future, even though it is very limited in application.
|
Marlona Sky
Caldari
D00M.
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.02.21 05:19:00 -
[104]
With the ship costing sooooo much. Even after the buff to the run amount that is mentioned (whatever that means for costs) it is still way too risky to be high sec ganked. The ability to be the only ship in EVE with a jump drive that can go into high sec is pointless if a gang of gank t1 fit battleships can melt it easily in empire. Even if this ship had 250 man escort in empire, it still can easily be sucide ganked. Why dont you give the hull some resistances?? All those hull hit point bonuses are not gonna make the difference with all the hull resistances being 0%. Please before you do the update and ignore everyone with suggestions, at least give it hull resistances of say 60% so it is less likely to be sucide ganked. This of course doesn't mean it will be safe to go into low sec or 0.0 without an escort like CCP wants. Who can argue with that?? If CCP keeps it at 0% all they are doing is shooting themselves in the foot. You want people to use these ships but everyone is too scared to get sucide ganked. Give it hull resistances CCP, show the EVE community that you care and listen to the player base. 
I challenge anyone out there (even CCP) to point out how giving the jump freighters a 60% hull resistances would be a bad idea!!!
|
Thargat
Caldari
North Star Networks
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.02.21 05:35:00 -
[105]
Edited by: Thargat on 21/02/2008 05:36:11
What's wrong with them?!
Well 60+ Trips with a JF for it to be more economical than a carrier for starters.
And more jumps required with a JF than a carrier (for the same reach) plus the fact that we'r talking about a non-combat ship here makes it riskier and more expensive than carrierhauling.
If you already own a carrier or two, or a hundred (in a corp) you really don't need a JF since it's just a waste of iskies.
There's only one sig that matters... and that's Radius. |
Gamer4liff
Caldari
Metalworks
THE INTERSTELLAR FOUNDRY
|
Posted - 2008.02.21 18:31:00 -
[106]
Why don't you just attack the problem at its source and find a new way (or ways) to get moon minerals/more moon minerals?
|
ATOM ANT
|
Posted - 2008.02.22 18:05:00 -
[107]
Too much isk for to small a bang.
A.A.
|
ashura'ka
|
Posted - 2008.02.22 20:23:00 -
[108]
i can buy 4 or 5 carriers at the price jump freighters are going for. disappointed ccp didnt make them a bit cheaper. still wont be getting one then.
|
Malena
Shiva
|
Posted - 2008.02.22 23:31:00 -
[109]
Originally by: ashura'ka
i can buy 4 or 5 carriers at the price jump freighters are going for. disappointed ccp didnt make them a bit cheaper. still wont be getting one then.
True, but can you fly 4-5 carriers at the same time and get the same cargo capacity? I don't dispute that they are too expensive, but using carrier cost comparison isn't going to get it changed.
|
Daddy Xerox
|
Posted - 2008.02.23 16:38:00 -
[110]
You want freighters to be used?
Make them the same price as the ship they're intended to replace: i.e. 1 bil, the same cost as a Carrier.
This being their price after factoring for invention inefficiency.
Right now they're priced completely out of the range of people who used carriers/dreads to refuel their POS's.
|
|
|
Original Copy
|
Posted - 2008.02.23 16:47:00 -
[111]
Originally by: ByFeve
I also think a high-slot with a cloak is a must for a T2 ship that¦s built for 0.0 use. Even if it¦s only one high-slot and cloak is all it could fit I think this does ALOT for my own desire for this ship. I also see no reason why a Titan should be able to cloak and a freighter not
QFT!!!
Give them a built in cloak, FFS, or something, to make them useful.
Or how about some other old suggestions such as this to put useful haulers into the game.
|
Marlona Sky
Caldari
D00M.
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.02.24 13:25:00 -
[112]
So is it true? CCP is nerfing the Rorqual jump range by -50%
|
zacuis
Great Big Research
|
Posted - 2008.02.24 14:01:00 -
[113]
i dam well hope they are nerfing the rorquel its totally needed hope the dread gets some nerf to fitting exanders too
|
BigWhale
Gallente
TGB Foo Corp
|
Posted - 2008.02.24 17:48:00 -
[114]
Nerf the rorqual hauling ability.
More cargo in cargohold, more fuel needed for jumpdrive and shorter jumps.
--
R, U & Y are letters, not words... |
Brka
Vendetta Underground
Rule of Three
|
Posted - 2008.02.24 20:43:00 -
[115]
Edited by: Brka on 24/02/2008 20:43:42
Do not nerf the rorqual hauling ability. TO force people to go to one ship or another because of a bad idea (jump freighters) is one of the worst development ideas you can do.
This boost is just a "no one is using our idea" boost in reality. Keep rorquals the way they are. If jump freighters still aren't used and utilized then you know it was a failing idea. Admit it and move on.
B
|
Laendra
|
Posted - 2008.02.25 00:35:00 -
[116]
How about we just introduce some new technology and change some existing to fix the main issue here....
New Technology
New Technology
- Freight Storage Bay
- Capital Industrial Ships (Freighter and Jump Freighter)
- Sized based on existing cargo bay sizes
- Not affected by Cargo Expanders
- May not be accessed during space flight
- May carry Shrink-wrapped and courier bundles
- Freight Expander I
- Capital Industrial Ships only
- 5% Freight Storage Bay increase per module (add then multiply)
- Jump Fuel Storage Bay
- Jump Capable Ships only
- Sized based on 4 max range jumps for max skilled pilot
- Only holds Jump Fuels (racial for ship)
- Jump Drive draws fuel directly from this bay
- May be accessed during space flight to transfer fuel to/from
- Jump Fuel Expander I
- Jump Capable Ships only
- 5% Jump Fuel Storage Bay increase per module (add then multiply)
- Capital Cargo Expander I
- Capital Ships Only
- 5% Cargo Bay increase per module (add then multiply)
Changes to Existing Technology
- Non-Capital Modules can no longer be fitted to Capital Ships
- Capital Ships require Capital Sized rigs, created either from Capital Sized salvage components, or more standard salvage components
- Capital Ship Cargoholds resized to account for lack of fuel needs (now only needs to account for ammo and "reinforced" modes)
[list=1]- Capital Corporate Hangar Bay elimited from Dreadnoughts (logistics is not a primary role)
- Increased to 30k for Motherships
- Increased to 50k for Titans
- May not carry anything but modules, rigs, ammo, jump fuel
- Change Rorqual to only be able to fit Ore and Compressed Ore into it's cargohold.
- Capital versions of modules not listed
Now, we can fix the Jump Freighter (by, among other things, adding slots and limiting them to only hauling or survivability) and non-critically nerf the Dreadnought and Rorqual, while fixing some other underlying issues with Capital Ships in general.
-------------------
|
Timaios
Art of War
|
Posted - 2008.02.25 13:19:00 -
[117]
Originally by: Laendra
How about we just introduce some new technology and change some existing to fix the main issue here....
<snip>
I don't really see how a complex solution is superior to an easy one (making a dedicated industry bay for the rorqual and a dedicated fuel bay for the dreadnought). For one, if CCP were to introduce new capital modules just to correct flaws in existing ships, it would open a huge can of worms. For example we would need new armor and shield hardeners in capital size, same for PDS, smartbombs, everything. T1, T2 and faction versions of them too. That would cause far more problems than it'd solve and clutter of very rarely used items and modules.
I still stand by my earlier view that the jump freighters have exactly three attributes which are important: cargo space, jump range and jump fuel consumption. Everything else is irrelevant, as the ships will always die if attacked in 0.0 and they have enough raw HP to last the 30 seconds in space when they do the logoffski in low-sec as it is, no changes to resists will make any difference. Also, the ship is supposed to travel by jumping, so agility and speed is pretty irrelevant (even if it wasn't, the ship is a turtle anyway).
The ship class should be balanced on the three attributes I mentioned, so that the furthest jumping ship has the largest jump fuel consumption and the smallest cargo space. At the moment there's no point in purchasing any other jump freighter than the one which has the largest cargo space after factoring in th required jump fuel consumption; all the others are obviously worse in terms of fulfilling the needs of the jump hauling ship.
|
Manfred Rickenbocker
|
Posted - 2008.02.25 18:15:00 -
[118]
Edited by: Manfred Rickenbocker on 25/02/2008 18:15:08
I guess the real question boils down to this: What are these ships going to be used for? To me, the only realistic use is for transporting large quantities of goods in and out of 0.0. Why? They can jump out from high-sec, and they carry large quantities (comparatively) one way with only one jump. The number of carriers and/or Rorquals required to do a similar task is around 3:1, so for a small corp or alliance 3 separate trips is far more dangerous than one big one. Particularly in more trafficked locations in low-sec, the advantage of only having to make one jump will attract less attention than multiple.
So, for the real meat, what will these ships NOT be used for? Intra-0.0 logistics. No matter what you do to change Rorqual and/or carrier cargo capacities and types, they will still be chosen over the jump freighter. If you are fleeing or reinforcing a combat position, they will invariably carry more than enough supplies to do the job, and they come with increased combat ability. There will always be more of those pilots than JF pilots. Even with reduced cargo, they would be enough to fully refuel POS towers. You can fit cloaks to them. etc. etc. etc.
So, it comes down to this: pretty much the only way these ships will be used is if there was a fundamental change to the way 0.0 operates. This includes population densities, sovereignty, and POS operation. The jump freighter is a good ship, just nothing really necessitates its use.
(Edit: readability)
------------------------
Peace through superior firepower: a guiding principle for uncertain times. |
Laendra
|
Posted - 2008.02.25 23:40:00 -
[119]
Originally by: Timaios
Originally by: Laendra
How about we just introduce some new technology and change some existing to fix the main issue here....
I don't really see how a complex solution is superior to an easy one (<snip>
A complex solution that fixes issues with current designs and "EVE-realism" is much better than a band-aid solution. Treat the disease, not the symptoms.
-------------------
|
El Mauru
Amarr
Nexus Analytics
Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2008.02.26 02:33:00 -
[120]
yep- rorqual and dread need to be nerfed for hauling :-/
Maybe by giving both the rorq and dread a extra *corp/fuel* hangar for compressed ore/stront and decreasing cargo capacity- :-/
-
 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |