EVE Search - New Dev Blog, Nozh's Jump Freighter!

All Channels

EVE Information Portal

New Dev Blog, Nozh's Jump Freighter!

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 :: [one page]
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)

CCP Saint C C P	Posted - 2008.02.15 16:15:00 - [1] What did you love and/ or hate about the æJump FreightersÆ? Were they not pretty enough or maybe didnÆt hold enough cargo? Wait, what am I saying, we made them for you so obviously you must have just loved them! Joking aside, weÆve taken a look at them and decided we can improve what was thought to be impossible. Nozh is the man of the hour , or day even, with his newest Dev Blog Jump Freighters in Trinity 1.1! ThatÆs right; this Dev Blog is about Trinity 1.1! Now, go and enjoy the read! When your finished lets hear your thoughts and feelings on the pretty new additions to the Jump Freighter. But remember, donÆt break any rules when you comment, it would make me such a sad panda. Saint Community Representative EVE Online, CCP Games Email/Netfang


Chribba Otherworld Enterprises Otherworld Empire	Posted - 2008.02.18 08:36:00 - [2] Jump jump jump, everybody jump! Secure 3rd party service ■ Do you Veldspar?

zacuis Great Big Research	Posted - 2008.02.18 08:41:00 - [3] simple doesnt go far enough. nerf the rorquel
Max Leadfoot PAK	Posted - 2008.02.18 08:44:00 - [4] nice changes i guess... and WOW first time in the first page of a devblog :)
Batolemaeus Caldari Free-Space-Ranger Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2008.02.18 08:55:00 - [5] <3 that devblog. Thanks a lot, this was badly needed :)
Shubs Gallente Dragons Of Redemption Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.02.18 08:55:00 - [6] Having a smaller Cargohold but being able to jump is a benefit to some and not others, the jump frieghters will become more popular as the prices drop, i have the skill to fly one on my alt but dont intend to fly one at the current cost,simply isnt worth it. I beleive they should have some defense capabilities, Mid slots for Capital Shield Boosting, Armor Tanks for the Amarr and Gallente ones. However this may see people "stabw*e" them,or fit ECM but penaltys could be ensured, people may fit Cargoexpanders but this runs at a risk, they wont have the defensive capabilities that they could have had, and if they die, they more then likely will have more to lose.. But tbh,I cant wait for them to become more popular, nice juciy targets .My views are not of that of my Corp or Alliance .Im not a carebear,Mining isnt the slightest in my interest but I offer my view,if you dont like my views tough **zle
Hardigeen	Posted - 2008.02.18 08:58:00 - [7] Edited by: Hardigeen on 18/02/2008 09:04:09 Again your didn't listen what your player base was telling you. This boost does not make them much more attractive. People will still use Rorqual and dreadnoughts due to much lower price. If you really want jump freighters to be used then make sure they have the longest range and make sure no other ship can do what they can (nerf other ships used as haulers). Do you really think that hull bonus will help a jump freighter pilot if he is tackled? Until then, jump freighters will be a luxury and not too many will be interested in one.
Lilly Boyter Amarr Scorpio Whirlwind Cluster	Posted - 2008.02.18 09:03:00 - [8] Many, many kisses and thanks for this wonderful change.
Bad Brown	Posted - 2008.02.18 09:18:00 - [9] Like one of the guys said, it still has no major advantage over the Rorqual and Dreadnoughts for certain 0.0 hauling. Still, whatÆs done is done and the changes are in the right direction although prices will have to come down a lot, any alliance would far prefer 3 dreads to one jump freighterà maybe IÆm missing the point.
Varrakk Phantom Squad Insurgency	Posted - 2008.02.18 09:30:00 - [10] This changes nothing, still too expensive and too vulnerable. Much more efficient to refuel POS's with a MWD-Cargonaught
MotherMoon Huang Yinglong FOUNDATI0N	Posted - 2008.02.18 09:39:00 - [11] Edited by: MotherMoon on 18/02/2008 09:41:21 very nice guys. however I would thin about giving them even more of a fuel decrease bonus, hell give them a 15% per level and decrease the jump range. make them the best jumper fuel wise very seen.
Erotic Irony 0bsession	Posted - 2008.02.18 09:39:00 - [12] Now do Black ops. ___ Eve Players are not very smart. Support Killmail Overhaul
Ms Vanity Caldari Hulk Industries	Posted - 2008.02.18 10:27:00 - [13] "We also made them a bit easier to manufacture, increasing the max production runs on their blueprints to 10 runs. " This wont have any marked impact on the cost of these ships... Increasing the number of runs for a max run bp will only effect the invented bps that have more than 1 run decryptor used.... and those are very inefficient bpcs. If u are using the +4 decryptor, then the only change is it costs 4 times less to invent... considering invention cost is less than 5% of the total cost (in my experience) then these changes will only decrease cost by 3 or 4 % It has no impact at all on bpcs invented with the best ME decryptor. Teh only real potential impact i can see is a drop in the price of freighter bpcs. So they will be better, but they wont be cheaper.
Helison Gallente Times of Ancar Pure.	Posted - 2008.02.18 10:30:00 - [14] While the changes are not so bad, I think that they are not enough. ) Price: Is much too high. It will be reduced a bit by the invention change, but I think that also the needed materials need to be reduced. A price of 2B to 2.5B should be ok for the current abilities of the jf. ) Cargo: is ok ) Survivability: Change the HP-Bonus to some sort of bonus to resistancies. Then it would be easier to remote-rep the jf. ) Slots: I think the biggest bonus would be one high-slot, to be able to fit a cloaking device. Every other jump-able ship is able to cloak. It¦s just no option to risk a multi-billion ship for most corps and alliances. So either they have to be cheaper or you make them less vulnerable. *) Reducing jump-fuel cost even more, could also be a good idea.
Rob Stark Serenity and Hungarian Operational Team	Posted - 2008.02.18 10:56:00 - [15] Nice changes, but these won't make them more popular. Until the price won't be around 2-2.5B, you won't see more of them flying around.
Jameroz Art of War	Posted - 2008.02.18 11:11:00 - [16] Good changes, but I don't think it's still enough to make them popular. I mean the dread's cargo space can be quite huge and the bigger jump range is definately nice. So nerf the other ships!
Sprobe Panta-Rhei Phoenix Allianz	Posted - 2008.02.18 11:48:00 - [17] short question: does the ratio NEEDED FUEL/LY pay off? answer: if yes: go on, change the jump freighter if no: nerf the rorquals cargo (just kidding)
xttz GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.18 11:51:00 - [18] Some nice changes, although as far as the survivability buff goes I don't think it justifies the cost of the ship. Perhaps a resistance bonus to improve support when using a gang of logistics ships, or a Blockade Runner-style warp core strength per leve bonus. Say 0.5 base strength then +0.5 per level of Jump Freighter, giving the ship a solid +3 bonus if someone chose to specialise with Jump Freighter V. Can any CCP staff confirm/deny if Motherships will recieve a similar re-balancing in Trinity 1.1? They've so far been ommited from any devblogs. Originally by: zacuis my second and slighly shorter argument is that neither expander dreads or the rorquel are ment as haulers (i`ll give u that rorquels should be able to haul ore but they shouldnt be delivering pos fuel and combat equipment Dreads perhaps, Rorquals no way. Rorquals are intended as a Capital Industrial Ship. Nerfing them like this is like claiming that Impels and Iteron Vs shouldn't be able to haul both pos fuel and ore. Rorquals were specifically given the cargohold buff to compensate for the carrier nerf. Rorqs also act as a less-efficient T1 alternative to the Jump Freighter.
Kransthow AWE Corporation Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2008.02.18 11:52:00 - [19] Stil useless. Its role is so narrow it needs to be able do its job far more effectively than any other methods of moving resources around. It needs to move things at a lower fuel to cargo ratio, be able to do its job faster than any other method (increase jump range) and finally needs to do these things cheaper than any other option. At the moment it is outperformed by the rorqual and cargo expanded dreads, in no way does it justify its high price tag when it is outperformed by cheaper, more versatile ships (tbh the rorqual is pretty useless aswell, its only good for hauling ).
Kazuo Ishiguro House of Marbles Zzz	Posted - 2008.02.18 12:03:00 - [20] The agility bonus, although better than the near-useless top speed bonus it replaces (mainly because it increases survivability), is still not going to make much of a difference as long as jump range is the limiting factor in determining how fast these ships can travel. The Rorqual should not be anything like as good at hauling as it currently is - it ought to give 100% or even larger bonuses to mining yield in exchange for a sharp cut in capacity. It might be an idea to give it a cargo bonus that applies only while the industrial core is active so that it can hold ore for processing. My research services Spreadsheets: Top speed calculation - Halo Implant stats
Franga NQX Innovations	Posted - 2008.02.18 12:08:00 - [21] Kk. Originally by: Rachel Vend ... with 100% reliability in most cases ... General Aesthetics Changes Thread
Rawne Karrde An Tir Libertas Fidelitas	Posted - 2008.02.18 12:10:00 - [22] Due to your descision to keep it "on par" with a ship that is 1/3 to 1/4 the cost of a jf, they still won't be used until you buff them more or nerf that which is "on par" cough Rorqual cough expanded dread cough.
Njara Naoltaos	Posted - 2008.02.18 12:57:00 - [23] 10 Run BPC? If you invent a jump freighter, from a 1 Run freighter BPC, you get a 10 Run Jump Freighter BPC?
Zirketch Kruug Minmatar Ta'liq	Posted - 2008.02.18 13:04:00 - [24] I still think that the freighters in this game are totally gimped. So much so, that if it were possible I'd take a standard oil-tanker design from earth of old (circa: 2000 AD) and attach some rockets to it. Largest in world fleet then had a cargo hold capacity of just under 500,000 m3 and was called the "Jahre Viking". So until, the freighters in this game start with something considerably more than some old rusting Tanker as a base stat, all freighters in this game are gimped. Mind you, I have no intention of flying one myself, but one day I may have need for one, and when that time comes, I would expect it to out class the hold capacity of an oil tanker.
Daelin Blackleaf	Posted - 2008.02.18 13:08:00 - [25] Edited by: Daelin Blackleaf on 18/02/2008 13:09:06 Restrict Rorqual hold to ore, minerals, and compressed ore only. Restrict Dreadnought hold to capital ammunition and strontium only. ...and reduce the price further. Having this ship kept so expensive is another barrier for entry for smaller corps wanting to get into 0.0. If you start making it harder for 0.0 residents to steamroll, blob, hold and supply large tracts space while making it easier for them to hold small areas and fight off massed aggressors 0.0 might just become interesting again.
Feronia Gallente Magma Industries	Posted - 2008.02.18 13:10:00 - [26] This is certainly a step in the right direction and these changes would actually mean something if there wasn't a cheaper solution to 0.0 hauling, known as Rorqual.
Tedric Genco Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2008.02.18 13:25:00 - [27] Ok, this is a 1/2 way fix. You have still not addressed the single biggest issue with JFs. That issue is: ISK!!! The final cost needs be in the order of 5-7B total cost (invention + manf). Getting rid of the speed in place of agility: Excelent, since when does a JF need speed? More cargo space: nice bonus. I've been mulling over the concept of a JF for about 2 years and came to the conclusion that a cargo space of about 1/3 of a Freighter V pilot is about right. But, the Rorqual sort of knocks that sideways. I'm still not sure how to position the Rorqual/JF ships, moving-cargo relationship wise.... :/ Increased durability: interesting, that is about all I can say. Freighters are not supposed to be slow moving blobs of HP. Decreased fuel costs (skill based): mildly interested, give me something more useful. If you are flying a JF, you have isk. you are moving stupid amounts of stuff in very quick order. "We also made them a bit easier to manufacture, increasing the max production runs on their blueprints to 10 runs." How pointless. Are you aware of the time needed to make a 1 run BPC? multiply that by 2 or 5 or 10? No point. I'm willing to bet CCP 100M isk, that in the next 6 months, less than 5 people will start a 10 run BPC of a freighter. I can see it being raised for 'just in case' but really? 10 run? If you want to make JFs really practical/used, lower the total T2 material costs. Lower the total cost (invention included) to around 5-7B isk. I also feel that Freighter V should be required for these beasts. Think of them as the Industrial equivilent of a Titan, the 'be all and end all' of industrials. Tedric.
Arkady Sadik Gradient Electus Matari	Posted - 2008.02.18 13:25:00 - [28] Hm. There was an idea before of giving capital ships a special "fuel bay" like POSes, so you can reduce their normal cargo capacity (especially Dreadnaughts). But you are missing the main feature a Rorqual has over a jump freighter that makes the rorqual, or actually any other capital, more desirable than a jump freighter for most situations. And that's a single high slot for a cloak. Without that, you are enormously vulnerable in between jumps if you go deeper into 0.0. A Rorqual just warps off the cyno and cloaks. A jump freighter just sits in a safe spot and can be probed out. The current solution I've seen in use is that people just put up small towers at the waypoints. If that's the intended effect, ok. :-)
Daan Sai HAZCON Inc	Posted - 2008.02.18 13:50:00 - [29] Edited by: Daan Sai on 18/02/2008 13:51:13 [edit spling] Cut their cost to 2-2.5 billion to compete with the alternatives Give them a non-turret high slot for a cloak Give them the means to carry assembled rigged ships Take a loooooong look at the T2 invention process, and see if you should really make them T2 or expensive Tier 2 T1 (like moms). The sheer time it will take to copy out the freighter bpcs alone is horrible let alone the other issues around invention.
Grimpak Gallente Trinity Nova	Posted - 2008.02.18 14:03:00 - [30] increasing runs of the bpc's only solves half of the problem. decreasing the copy time of the freighter bpo's is where most of the problems are. --- Trinity Nova Mercenary Services Web Site - Nominated for the 2008 E-ON Magazine Awards
Schneiderr Asgard Schiffswerften Ev0ke	Posted - 2008.02.18 14:09:00 - [31] costs involved are fine, just increase the jumprange a little and we are fine :)
Kazuo Ishiguro House of Marbles Zzz	Posted - 2008.02.18 14:17:00 - [32] Edited by: Kazuo Ishiguro on 18/02/2008 14:17:27 Brief comparison: Can cloak between jumps: Rorqual: yes, Dreadnought: yes, JF: no Usefulness when not hauling: Rorqual: moderate, Dread: good, JF: liability Approx. ISK equivalent in JFs: Rorqual: 3, Dread: 3, JF: 1 Volume hauled in terms of JFs: Rorqual: 1/3 Dread: 1/4 Survivability: Rorqual: OK (slots), Dread: Excellent, JF: Poor (no slots) Fuel per (m^3 * ly) as a % of what a JF can do: to follow when I have time Originally by: Tedric "We also made them a bit easier to manufacture, increasing the max production runs on their blueprints to 10 runs." ... I think what's meant here is that the 'production limit' attribute on jump frieghter blueprints is being increased to 10. This means people will be able to use decryptors to get additional runs, as with other ships. Nost of the time it won't be worthwhile, however- all the decryptors that add runs do so at a significant cost to ME, which negates the saving in invention costs when building such massive ships. My research services Spreadsheets: Top speed calculation - Halo Implant stats
Reptzo Master Miners	Posted - 2008.02.18 15:24:00 - [33] I don't have a problem with the cost. Make them cost 10 bil for all i care, but make them worth it. The limited cargo hold and the extreme vulnerability while jumping is what makes the rorqual and dreads more appealing. It needs a larger cargo hold (more then the current boost), and the ability to fit a cloak. I don't see the need to let it hold assembled ships, cause carriers are great at that now. But the jump freighter needs more than a 500k cargo hold, realistically, it would be nice if it could haul the capital pos structures.
Gridwalker Amarr	Posted - 2008.02.18 15:53:00 - [34] If you wanted us to use them, you should have made them tier-2 instead of tech-2 and issued BPO's for them. -Grid
gordon861 Minmatar PROGENITOR CORPORATION Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2008.02.18 16:14:00 - [35] Another idea to make them cheaper and therefore more popular is to give an invented BP for them a base of ME+4, so if you use a max run decryptor it drops to a ME-2. But also these should never have been Tech 2 ships, they should have been Tier 2, and then you could have made Tech 2 from them with Transport Ship style survivability. Extra HP probably won't help as once they are caught they are going to die ! Increase survivabilty by giving the T1 3 rig slots and the T2 2 rig slots, it would make each freighter a different target and require different setups to kill/gank. Originally by: CCP Arkanon I frown on employees being power players to the extent that their gameplay results in any sort of domination over others. I donÆt believe CCP employees should run the EVE universe.
Hugh Ruka Caldari Exploratio et Industria Morispatia	Posted - 2008.02.18 16:26:00 - [36] make them able to use covert cynos as jump beacons. Originally by: Aravel Thon Originally by: Nith Batoxxx Hi my alt just leanred to fly the ferox............... I am so so terribly sorry...
SentryRaven KIA Corp KIA Alliance	Posted - 2008.02.18 16:29:00 - [37] Dear Mr Nozh, since you seem to be the transport ship Guru, please take a look at http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=234417 Would you be so kind to give the 571 poster and thousands of readers a simple answer if a small cargo freighter, with around 100-125k m¦ (just one freight can... nothing more...) for a reasonable price around 200M would be feasible or has been even thought about? My thread has been going for a good 3 years now without any kind of response. If you will never implement this, please just say so, so I can stop taking a look at that thread every time I am on eve-o and a good load of people can finally have some sort of answer. With best regards, SentryRaven KIA Noobship Pilot
Katana Seiko Gallente	Posted - 2008.02.18 17:28:00 - [38] Edited by: Katana Seiko on 18/02/2008 17:30:49 Yay, let's party... Who offers his jump freighter as party hall? @Sentry: We're probably getting the Orca some time soon (Nozh? nudge), that might do the trick... --- This is your Captain speaking. Thank you for flying with our spaceline. Please remain seated until the ship has completely burned out. Thank you.
sci0gon Tech 2 Ammo Holdings Limited Tech Holdings Limited	Posted - 2008.02.18 17:31:00 - [39] lol saint i dont mean to burst your bubble but a JF worth 6-7bil with a cargohold of 367.000m¦ is still weak. if you want more people in them then you really should reduce the build costs to drop the price a little. it should be worth at most 3-4bil anshar = 6.5bil ark = 7bil nomad = 6.5bil rhea = 6-7bil your forgetting that a lot of us eve players are tight and dont like parting with isk over something that just doesnt seem worth it even with the proposed changes that you have mentioned why should we spend a extra 4.5-5bil on something like that? We also made them a bit easier to manufacture, increasing the max production runs on their blueprints to 10 runs. Is a 1 run freighter bpc going to deliver a 10 run bpc? I'm asking cos its only possible to make a 1 run freighter bpc. also if that does change does that mean your going to do the same with other ships that are invented or is that just for capital ships?
Traeon Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2008.02.18 17:33:00 - [40] Quote: Can cloak between jumps: Rorqual: yes, Dreadnought: yes, JF: no I think this is major reason why JF's suck. It's a multi bilion isk kill waiting to happen when it's charging for the next jump. A single cov-ops could probe and hold it down. Also, shouldn't a JF it cost more like 2 bil instead of 7+?
Ma Talune Minmatar	Posted - 2008.02.18 17:48:00 - [41] Nozh if you are comming again this year at the gankaton I'll give you a beer of choice!
Braaage eXceed Inc. eXceed.	Posted - 2008.02.18 17:56:00 - [42] They are MUCH too expensive but CCP cannot change the build without compensating all the corps/players that have built them or have them in build now and I'd hate to think how many that is. Also what about the players that have already forked out 7-10B for one? You'd have to compensate them as well. I do agree though they are just a chunk of empty metal for 7-10B...... These changes are welcome but nowhere near enough to make the ship viable for the cost. At 5.5B average build cost they should be special!! -- eve-guides.com All about POSs, Outposts, Exploration, Mining, Invention, EVE Database + much more!!
Alz Shado Ever Flow	Posted - 2008.02.18 18:15:00 - [43] Edited by: Alz Shado on 18/02/2008 18:18:48 Most useless ship ever. Survivability? If one gets caught, it's dead. You can give it 1m hit points and that doesn't change the fact it's a floating can. Make it more agile? It's a JUMP freighter, alignment really doesn't matter unless you took it into Empire (where it'll get suicide ganked just because it's a 7 BILLION DOLLAR SHIP Here's the real problems that none of these changes adequately solves: -Too expensive -Doesn't hold nearly enough -Doesn't jump nearly far enough -Too expensive -No defense at all, not even a cloak. Cut the price down to about 1.5b, give it 50% of a freighter's hold, and let it jump the same distance as a rorqual. Otherwise, I'll be convinced that you guys really have your heads in the sand about this one. And btw: Can we have our mini-freighter already? 500m, 120km3 hold, +1 WCS built in. Thanks!
zacuis Great Big Research	Posted - 2008.02.18 18:24:00 - [44] all the people saying they are too expencive u guys are missing the point here. the idea is to make 0.0 hauling hard. i could go on at lengh why this is a good thing for the game but many have argued the point and wont here. its not a popular veiw. but it is a one that will make the game better. i truly beleive that. the price is about right but u need to remove the chear better defended options of rorquel and expander dreads. the fix is not to buff the jf`s in some meaning less way. someone pointed out that the rorquel is a capital industrial ship and hence it should be able to haul. i disargee. im not gonna argue in this thread anylonger cos im flogging a dead horse ccp has wmped out on making 0.0 logistics harder. im wasting the skin on the end of my fingers it seems.
MotherMoon Huang Yinglong FOUNDATI0N	Posted - 2008.02.18 18:24:00 - [45] I can't help but agree that making them non-tech 2 might be a good idea.
Caligulus Legion of Lost Souls	Posted - 2008.02.18 18:28:00 - [46] Good first attempt CCP but it's not enough. There needs to be a greater decrease in cost for these things. ------------------------------------------------- ** You're out of your mind! ** Well that's between me and my mind.
Caligulus Legion of Lost Souls	Posted - 2008.02.18 18:31:00 - [47] Edited by: Caligulus on 18/02/2008 18:33:27 Originally by: Kazuo Ishiguro Edited by: Kazuo Ishiguro on 18/02/2008 14:17:27 Brief comparison: Can cloak between jumps: Rorqual: yes, Dreadnought: yes, JF: no Usefulness when not hauling: Rorqual: moderate, Dread: good, JF: liability Approx. ISK equivalent in JFs: Rorqual: 3, Dread: 3, JF: 1 Volume hauled in terms of JFs: Rorqual: 1/3 Dread: 1/4 Survivability: Rorqual: OK (slots), Dread: Excellent, JF: Poor (no slots) Fuel per (m^3 * ly) as a % of what a JF can do: to follow when I have time Originally by: Tedric "We also made them a bit easier to manufacture, increasing the max production runs on their blueprints to 10 runs." ... I think what's meant here is that the 'production limit' attribute on jump frieghter blueprints is being increased to 10. This means people will be able to use decryptors to get additional runs, as with other ships. Most of the time it won't be worthwhile, however- all the decryptors that add runs do so at a significant cost to ME, which negates the saving in invention costs when building such massive ships. Bingo. How did you miss this CCP? The cost of invention is completely absorbable for a cap ship. It's the -ME that's killing it. It adds "billions" to the cost which coupled with the above comments makes this still completely useless. and too that... Quote: If you wanted us to use them, you should have made them tier-2 instead of tech-2 and issued BPO's for them. -Grid skip this T2 garbage and solve the problem. ------------------------------------------------- ** You're out of your mind! ** Well that's between me and my mind.
Zarch AlDain The Establishment Establishment	Posted - 2008.02.18 18:48:00 - [48] Ok, first up - a lot of you are completely overstating the case and all that will do is get your argument dismissed immediately. They are far from useless, in particular the ability to load them in empire and then jump them FROM HIGH SEC is invaluable. The current changes are very good and the argument for not increasing the jump range is a convincing one. What I will say though is that I would really like to see them given some slots. Assume that a cargo expander will be fit so remove the 25% increase (or make it a 5% one) and then give them one low, one mid and one high. That then gives them options to use cloaks, tanking modules, damage controls, cap power relays, etc as seems appropriate for the purpose they are being used for. Zarch AlDain
Gangus Minmatar Matari BackBone	Posted - 2008.02.18 19:19:00 - [49] this is all well and good, but still leaves us begging for the answer to the obvious question... roughly when are we gonna see Trinity 1.1?? We're seeing all these bugs that you've said need fixing, but all we're getting this patch is a change to the login box... (heres a really understated, sarcastic "yay!") Please let us know when the needed changes are coming into play, the current bugs are killing our POS research, (yes i know, off topic) as to remove blueprints etc from a POS we need to have the Starbase Config role, and that simply isn't safe to hand out willy nilly. Never mess with a guy in an ugly ship. He's bitter and has nothing to lose.
Timaios Art of War	Posted - 2008.02.18 19:25:00 - [50] Like everyone else has commented, I'll echo the views expressed earlier. The ship just isn't cost-effective at any level. The cargo expanded rorqual is cheaper (superior cost-effectivness) and a expanded dread is a multirole ship that you can take to those POS parties when needed. Both cost about 30% (or less) of a jump freighter. The biggest advantage of the jump freighter is, as the kind fellow from EST commented, it's ability to jump from highsec. That's an amazing ability. But there's no particular reason why I'd pay 4-5 billion extra for just that capability. Now, if you would nerf both the rorqual and the dread and utterly decimate their ability to haul, I would. I mean, please. Find a way to nerf the hauling dreads and rorquals, make it your top priority, do it for rev 1.1. I don't care how you do it, as long as it's done. Please. (I would not mind that the build costs of the jump freighter were lowered so that they would be cheaper, but it's not something that's really needed. Jumphauling is something that should not be easy and everyday business and the capability for it should not come cheap.)
Panta Shay	Posted - 2008.02.18 20:11:00 - [51] Originally by: Zarch AlDain Ok, first up - a lot of you are completely overstating the case and all that will do is get your argument dismissed immediately. They are far from useless, in particular the ability to load them in empire and then jump them FROM HIGH SEC is invaluable. The current changes are very good and the argument for not increasing the jump range is a convincing one. What I will say though is that I would really like to see them given some slots. Assume that a cargo expander will be fit so remove the 25% increase (or make it a 5% one) and then give them one low, one mid and one high. That then gives them options to use cloaks, tanking modules, damage controls, cap power relays, etc as seems appropriate for the purpose they are being used for. Agree. Combine 1 slot of each type with a nerf to hauling dreds and roqs and you are on your way to justifying cost. Dreds need a fuel bay that can only hold stront and a much smaller cargo. Roquals should get a big (300%?) cargo bonus when in siege mode so they can temporarily hold ore for compression, but their in flight cargohold could be nerfed big time. If you want a ship worth 3 times as much as its competitors to be popular it needs to do the job at least 3 times as well.
Terradoct Gallente The xDEATHx Squadron Legion of xXDEATHXx	Posted - 2008.02.18 20:12:00 - [52] Edited by: Terradoct on 18/02/2008 20:13:38 Originally by: Timaios Now, if you would nerf both the rorqual and the dread and utterly decimate their ability to haul, I would. And make Eve from "Here we give you a tool, use is ans you wish" to "You can't use you BMW 525 for rally, because it's not WRS model". Stop nerfing ships and nerfing players abylity to use ships as we wish. The easyest solution will be to made them Tier 2. It was a misstake from the begining, CCP was told about it many times befor realesing them. Now they try to make them popular, that what happend when you are stabborn and do not listen others.
Lock out Bald Industrial Corporation	Posted - 2008.02.18 20:30:00 - [53] Edited by: Lock out on 18/02/2008 20:30:59 Yeah, jump freighters should never have been made T2, they just don't fit in. Change them to tier 2 with a higher build requirement than regular freighters (2 or 3 times as much) and they'll be fine. Making them T2 over-complicates things, and it just isn't necessary.
Traeon Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2008.02.18 20:39:00 - [54] Quote: all the people saying they are too expencive u guys are missing the point here. the idea is to make 0.0 hauling hard. i could go on at lengh why this is a good thing for the game but many have argued the point and wont here. its not a popular veiw. but it is a one that will make the game better. i truly beleive that. I agree that 0.0 logistics is low risk to risk free thanks to the existing capitals that do the job so well. Adding a gimped jump freighter won't change a thing about that though.
Ravoc Gallente	Posted - 2008.02.18 21:08:00 - [55] For each jump freighter pilot, you can easily find 10+ cargo dread pilots...
orionbeta Gallente Free Galactic Enterprises Infinite Innovation	Posted - 2008.02.18 21:58:00 - [56] Interesting on the 10Run BPC... can Nozh give more details on this? Does this mean that the amount of time to create a 1 RUN Friegther BPC is now going to equal the same amount of time to create a 10 Run BPC or is the amount of time to create a 10 Run BPC going to equal 10 times the amount of time for a 1 Run BPC? or Is the 10 Run BPC limit only for the Jump Frieghter and then we will have the ability to use decryptors that will increase the number of runs? The other changes are in the right direction. All I can say without releasing too much information is people should have patience it takes time to set up production lines for a ship like this, and once they are up and running the price will decrease. With the increased supply and lower demand on the market the prices will slowly decrease. I know exactly how much it costs to produce these ships minus the overhead and profit margin from a material cost perspective. But for those of you waiting for a 1.5B - 2.5B Jump Frieghter... don't hold your breath.
John McCreedy Caldari Eve Defence Force Insurgency	Posted - 2008.02.19 00:18:00 - [57] It's been said repeatedly and I wish you would listen. The biggest problem is the run off time for a BPc of a Cap ship. It takes far, far too long. You should reduce the copy time for Frighters which will encourage more Jump Freighters and thus natural competition will drive their prices down. Make a Difference
Craminu Gallente Viking Research and Production space weaponry and trade	Posted - 2008.02.19 01:20:00 - [58] quote: So why didn't we give it an increased jump range? 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. ----------------------------------------------------------- okay am i misreading this or are they nerfing the jump range as it is now? or just not increasing it? Viking Research bpc sale
Steppa Gallente Dawn of Fire Ka-Tet	Posted - 2008.02.19 05:25:00 - [59] Perhaps I'm behind the times as I'm just popping my head in now and then since Trinity was released (RL is a ***** sometimes). Sure, do the changes you're talking about but two major things need to happen: 1) Give it jump range at least equal to carriers. Just because you think logistics should be difficult doesn't equal fun. This is a game remember. 2) Bridge the gap between the T1 standard freighters and the jump-freighters. Make it jump/gate capable with even a quarter or a third of the cargo and reduce both the range and the skill reqs. Make this intermediate ship class inexpensive enough to fit in between what we have now.
Xykanth Roldeir	Posted - 2008.02.19 06:01:00 - [60] I'm suprised no one else has said anything about this. The biggest drawback of all that I can see is having to train a rank 10 freighter skill to level 5 before even starting to fly a Jump freighter. I may be wrong in a few of my figures, but isn't that about 2 months training on one skill. Lowering the skill requirements alone will cause them to be much more commonly used that anything else that I could possibly think of. In the meantime the cargonaught still sounds like the best option.
Princess Xenia Caldari School of Applied Knowledge	Posted - 2008.02.19 06:23:00 - [61] "We also made them a bit easier to manufacture, increasing the max production runs on their blueprints to 10 runs. " LOL.. do you use this excuse to suggest inventors can compete with T2 ship BPO owners???
Hidden Path	Posted - 2008.02.19 06:43:00 - [62] Originally by: Princess Xenia "We also made them a bit easier to manufacture, increasing the max production runs on their blueprints to 10 runs. " LOL.. do you use this excuse to suggest inventors can compete with T2 ship BPO owners??? I guess he is, since there are no BPO's for jump freighters at all.
Hidden Path	Posted - 2008.02.19 06:48:00 - [63] Originally by: Xykanth Roldeir I'm suprised no one else has said anything about this. The biggest drawback of all that I can see is having to train a rank 10 freighter skill to level 5 before even starting to fly a Jump freighter. I may be wrong in a few of my figures, but isn't that about 2 months training on one skill. Lowering the skill requirements alone will cause them to be much more commonly used that anything else that I could possibly think of. In the meantime the cargonaught still sounds like the best option. It is level 4 and always have been.
Xykanth Roldeir	Posted - 2008.02.19 06:56:00 - [64] Originally by: Hidden Path It is level 4 and always have been. I stand corrected. Training to level 4 isn't so bad.
Timaios Art of War	Posted - 2008.02.19 08:01:00 - [65] Originally by: Terradoct Edited by: Terradoct on 18/02/2008 20:13:38 Originally by: Timaios Now, if you would nerf both the rorqual and the dread and utterly decimate their ability to haul, I would. And make Eve from "Here we give you a tool, use is ans you wish" to "You can't use you BMW 525 for rally, because it's not WRS model". Stop nerfing ships and nerfing players abylity to use ships as we wish. The easyest solution will be to made them Tier 2. It was a misstake from the begining, CCP was told about it many times befor realesing them. Now they try to make them popular, that what happend when you are stabborn and do not listen others. I don't think it's like you say. There's a difference between tools and multitools, in my opinion. You can turn the raven into a nanoship with torpedoes and NOSs, like the nanophoon of old. But it will not do a good job at it. In similar vein, you can turn the drake into a nanodrake, but it still won't compete with the dedicated speedtanking ships where the hull was developed for speed in the first place. What I mean is that there should be versatility and different options on what to do with the tools you are given, but no such tools which are outright superior either in performance or cost-effectiveness in areas which are not their specialty. But, it must still be possible to use the tool for various purposes. Perhaps I came off as a bit too drastic with my comments about decimating cargo dreads and rorquals. Perhaps reducing their nonrole cargo capacity to one third of what it is now would do the trick. One could still haul with the rorqual or dreads, but jump freighter would be far superior to it. Nevertheless, it might then still be vialbe to haul with a dread/rorqual in some circumstances or when it's really necessary and no other means are available. But it would not be cost effective by any means. What I'm trying to tell is that EVE is big, but ease of logistics makes it small. I like the ideas about building jump bridge networks and as such, which is building the logistic infrastructure which is vulnerable to attack. I don't like the ability to easily support that huge infrastructure, however.
Carniflex Caldari Fallout Research Fallout Project	Posted - 2008.02.19 09:27:00 - [66] Quote: We also made them a bit easier to manufacture, increasing the max production runs on their blueprints to 10 runs. Does this mean that this change is not on TQ yet but is coming instead in 1.1 patch ? I kinda understood that it was supposed to be on live server already.
Verite Rendition Caldari F.R.E.E. Explorer Atrum Tempestas Foedus	Posted - 2008.02.19 09:45:00 - [67] Originally by: Daan Sai Edited by: Daan Sai on 18/02/2008 13:51:13 Cut their cost to 2-2.5 billion to compete with the alternatives Give them a non-turret high slot for a cloak Give them the means to carry assembled rigged ships Take a loooooong look at the T2 invention process, and see if you should really make them T2 or expensive Tier 2 T1 (like moms). The sheer time it will take to copy out the freighter bpcs alone is horrible let alone the other issues around invention. This right here is a great list of exactly what's wrong with the current Jump Freighter, none of which gets addressed by the fixes going in to Trinity 1.1. The JF is a giant flying liability, the cost means few people can afford them in the first place, and the lack of a cloak makes it a ripe target for ganking. The price needs to be in line with the most expensive cap ships (Dread/Rorq) at around 2bil and they need to at least be able to fit a cloak if not a moderate tank too. With a Rorq right now if your cloak fails you can atleast try to hold out long enough for your mates to hotdrop some carriers as support, you can't do either of those with a JF. No one wants to spend 7bil on a ship they can never use because the situation is always too risky. ---- FREE Explorer Lead Megalomanic EVE Automated Influence Map
Niki Silver Ethereal Imperium	Posted - 2008.02.19 10:27:00 - [68] Edited by: Niki Silver on 19/02/2008 10:31:47 edit: spelling Might see a few more of them around if it didn't take a friggen month to make an inventable BPC... Ethereal Imperium [E-IMP] is recruiting! Please visit our webpage for more information.
Kakita J Placid Reborn Coalition Of Empires	Posted - 2008.02.19 10:37:00 - [69] I think the inability to cloak is the biggest letdown (lame as it is). It is standard today for everyone and their dog to fit a cloak, because it can't realistically be countered. As long as this difference between dreads/rorqual and the JFs persists, you can forget about people using JFs. You _must_ find a solution to cloaked ships not being scannable, and not consuming fuel of some kind. Either make them scannable (meh) or make the cloak consume fuel (yay). Still, people who really want to be cloaked (capital jump logistics pilots do) will spend the fuel without a second thought, so the JF is still at a disadvantage. Alternatively, nerf the rorq's and dreads' cargo hauling capacity, and face a massive outcry from players, probably at least on the scale of the (averted, for now) carrier nerf outcry. People don't like having their capabilities artificially cut short because a minority (the devs ) think it would be better for the game, if a specific aspect was harder all of a sudden (0.0 logistics). The solution I think would be to make the ships in question more role specific. If you effectively jump-cargo-nerf the dreads and rorqual in some way, compensate players by buffing them to encourage their intended usage. Rorqual could get a bigger bonus to mining foreman links, and the native ability to fit 3 links (like fleet CS). Dreads could be given a substantially higher siege mode damage boost. This might sound drastic on first glance, but if you run the numbers on DPS, dreads deal around a measly 200% of the DPS of BSes that cost 1/10th tops. Maybe make them even more specialized to hit stationary targets, aka even bigger nerfs to tracking and explosion velocity. I think this would hardly make them overpowered in fleet battle situations, it would mainly cut down the time to take down a POSes shields (from a four hour gank fest to a say two hour gank fest). The real battle occurs when the POS comes out of reinforced, anyway. Or the duration and fuel consumption of all siege/deployed modes could be halved, so you can enter and leave siege mode more readily. -------------------------------------- "They better fix the bleep bleep bleep jump bleep gates before I bleepbleepbleep and then some."
Marlona Sky Caldari D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.02.19 11:27:00 - [70] I'm sure to get flamed here but here goes... Having a jump freighter be escorted by a gang thru non-empire space is just not realistic. Not when you can use a cargonaught/rorqual with a cloak. Now, what if you made the jump freighter not so defensless. As in being able to fit a tank and guns on it like other ships. If it cost so much, and you dont want to increase its jump range, well then give the pilot more bang (literally) for his buck. What fool goes into the wild west and doesn't pack a gun with them? Now I'm not talking about it being like some crazy PvP ship, but the ability to tank to a degree and shoot back. Not capital guns but enough grid to fit a bunch of anti-bs and smaller guns. Do some things to it where it gets severly penalized for fitting EW so its not used as a bait ship, but why not give it the slots and rig layout to make the attackers have to earn that kill. I am not talking like 2-3 turret/launchers either... it is a big ship, no less than the max 8 high slots for turrets/launchers. I mean who is really gonna complain like, "ZOMG, the jump freighters are to over powered!!" I don't fly any freighters but if I was a freighter pilot in the EVE universe, you can bet your last ISK I would have put some guns on it to make its survivabilty in the harsh universe a bit better. And a drone bay too!
Daan Sai HAZCON Inc	Posted - 2008.02.19 11:42:00 - [71] Originally by: Kakita J The solution I think would be to make the ships in question more role specific. If you effectively jump-cargo-nerf the dreads and rorqual in some way, compensate players by buffing them to encourage their intended usage. This is the antithesis of the player sandbox concept that Eve started with. No thanks. For example the cargonaught is a great solution in reach of a small corp who can just about work towards one group owned capital ship to help their low sec expansion plans. Just because the designers only thought they would be used in siege mode against POSs, doesn't mean a logistics dread is a bad thing in any way. If you don't have a fleet reserve to hot drop in when the freighter gets jumped, then you wouldn't bother. A dread has a small chance to defend itself, vital for small groups without huge alliance resources. As it is going, I feel the JF is an elite huge alliance tool, with little or no bearing for many many eve pilots and smaller groups. If all a smaller group can risk is a dread and you cry 'nerf the dread to force people to use the JF, then you are being unfair and in fact are undermining the fundamental design philosophies that went into Eve in the first place. If you went this path then ship roles like the destroyer salvager would never arise. The lowsec mining Apoc is a cooool idea. And a Dominix is the swiss army knife of battleships. So please, whatever else happens, please don't try to force pre-concieved ideas about specific roles by crippling items/ships for other purposes. If the JF is to compete with the Rorq or a dread for popular jump freight, then it has to be a role neutral change like pricing and production ease, not by ad hoc nerfing of other ships. My 2c.
XLR Eight Viziam	Posted - 2008.02.19 11:42:00 - [72] Originally by: CCP Nozh So why didn't we give it an increased jump range? ..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. I don't really get it, what do you mean by support here. Are you imagine future of the freighter runs with capital support fleet jumping with it (caps online)? But capitals can't follow it to hi sec so you will need a regular support fleet as well to protect this juicy target against hi sec gankage. But in case we use regular support fleet then isn't it better to use the T1 freighters? It can haul more, it's cheaper, it doesn't need cap fleet support, easier lo learn to fly. It doesn't have as much HP but it does't really matter, it is less agile but it makes no difference if there is a webber in the fleet. The only real advantage would be the jumprange boost but we don't seem to be on the same page with this one. Anyways, I still don't see the whole picture, why is it worth to buy one T2 freighter instead of two dreads.
Timaios Art of War	Posted - 2008.02.19 11:58:00 - [73] Originally by: Daan Sai Originally by: Kakita J The solution I think would be to make the ships in question more role specific. If you effectively jump-cargo-nerf the dreads and rorqual in some way, compensate players by buffing them to encourage their intended usage. This is the antithesis of the player sandbox concept that Eve started with. No thanks. For example the cargonaught is a great solution in reach of a small corp who can just about work towards one group owned capital ship to help their low sec expansion plans. Just because the designers only thought they would be used in siege mode against POSs, doesn't mean a logistics dread is a bad thing in any way. Yes, but I still argue that the ship whose main role is not to haul (but can be modified to do so at the expense of other abilities, like everything else in this sandbox) should not be more efficient or cost-efficient outside it's planned role than the ship planned for that specific role. But, as stated earlier, the greatest ability of JF's (the ability to jump from highsec) is something (and the only thing at the moment) that might eventually make JF's more popular. That's something that this patch is not affecting in any way, nor giving any new incentives to purchase the best JF.
Daan Sai HAZCON Inc	Posted - 2008.02.19 12:23:00 - [74] Edited by: Daan Sai on 19/02/2008 12:24:22 Originally by: Timaios Yes, but I still argue that the ship whose main role is not to haul (but can be modified to do so at the expense of other abilities, like everything else in this sandbox) should not be more efficient or cost-efficient outside it's planned role than the ship planned for that specific role. But, as stated earlier, the greatest ability of JF's (the ability to jump from highsec) is something (and the only thing at the moment) that might eventually make JF's more popular. That's something that this patch is not affecting in any way, nor giving any new incentives to purchase the best JF. Fair points, but personally I feel that if the cargonaught competes with JF cost effectiveness, we should improve the JF, by making it much easier/cheaper to obtain and run, rather than crippling the dread which was minding it's own business. This sort of competitive evolution needs the participants to improve themselves not get the competition handicapped - otherwise you end up with everyone the lesser (ships in our case). Ideally the JF should greatly improve long range heavy logisitics, not just provide an alternative that has had little or no big impact (for lots of reasons). Fill Eve with JFs I say. Make them the cheapest capital, as they really can only do one thing well, and make them do that so well that people go 'Wow, I/we waaant one.' Frankly I detect some timidity on the part of CCP designers. I like the changes suggested here, but they just don't go far enough to tip the balance, and the T2 issues are somewhat of an unnecessary barrier. Have you tried to copy multiple run bpcs off a capital BPO to go into the invention process? ( It seems to me that motherhsips should be T2 and JFs T1 ) Anyway, good points on all sides here, nice to have a rational discussion, but I'm off to train for a dread for now, as I figure I can get through one lowsec gate myself....
Timaios Art of War	Posted - 2008.02.19 12:42:00 - [75] Originally by: Daan Sai Edited by: Daan Sai on 19/02/2008 12:24:22 Originally by: Timaios Yes, but I still argue that the ship whose main role is not to haul (but can be modified to do so at the expense of other abilities, like everything else in this sandbox) should not be more efficient or cost-efficient outside it's planned role than the ship planned for that specific role. But, as stated earlier, the greatest ability of JF's (the ability to jump from highsec) is something (and the only thing at the moment) that might eventually make JF's more popular. That's something that this patch is not affecting in any way, nor giving any new incentives to purchase the best JF. Fair points, but personally I feel that if the cargonaught competes with JF cost effectiveness, we should improve the JF, by making it much easier/cheaper to obtain and run, rather than crippling the dread which was minding it's own business. This sort of competitive evolution needs the participants to improve themselves not get the competition handicapped - otherwise you end up with everyone the lesser (ships in our case). Ideally the JF should greatly improve long range heavy logisitics, not just provide an alternative that has had little or no big impact (for lots of reasons). Fill Eve with JFs I say. Make them the cheapest capital, as they really can only do one thing well, and make them do that so well that people go 'Wow, I/we waaant one.' Frankly I detect some timidity on the part of CCP designers. Yes, drastic improvement of JF's is also a possibility - as long as it is clearly the most effective jump hauling ship there is. Of course, there's limit to buffing the JF, and that is the good old T1 freighter; they need to be less effective in hauling, because T1 freighters cannot be buffed in terms of cargo capacity, otherwise we'd have freighter hauling cap ships into highsec. Unless, of course, one wants to increase the volume of unpackaged cap ships. I'm not against that at all, though. Perhaps CCP should start with an idea on how easy they want to make the logistics in the first place and then go with the freighter design. In a sense we are getting mixed signals (jump bridges easing logistics, carrier nerf making it more difficult, and the of jump freighters being a bit iffy). And to point I do agree with what you say about developers being a bit timid (or probably too careful) with respect to JF's. They truly need to sit down and think on how to make the ship more attractive/cost-effective than dreads or rorquals for hauling purposes.
Verite Rendition Caldari F.R.E.E. Explorer Atrum Tempestas Foedus	Posted - 2008.02.19 13:03:00 - [76] Originally by: Timaios But, as stated earlier, the greatest ability of JF's (the ability to jump from highsec) is something (and the only thing at the moment) that might eventually make JF's more popular. That's something that this patch is not affecting in any way, nor giving any new incentives to purchase the best JF. Does anyone really find the jump-from-highsec ability all that useful? The ship is a massive target for ganking in high-sec just due to the infamy that would come from it, and as we know it's basically impossible to stop a freighter gank-squad once they start. Furthermore since it can't jump in to high-sec, you have to jump your 7 billion ISK hostile magnet in to a .4 chokepoint to get it back in to high-sec, there can't be too many people thrilled about that. ---- FREE Explorer Lead Megalomanic EVE Automated Influence Map
Timaios Art of War	Posted - 2008.02.19 13:29:00 - [77] Originally by: Verite Rendition Originally by: Timaios But, as stated earlier, the greatest ability of JF's (the ability to jump from highsec) is something (and the only thing at the moment) that might eventually make JF's more popular. That's something that this patch is not affecting in any way, nor giving any new incentives to purchase the best JF. Does anyone really find the jump-from-highsec ability all that useful? The ship is a massive target for ganking in high-sec just due to the infamy that would come from it, and as we know it's basically impossible to stop a freighter gank-squad once they start. Furthermore since it can't jump in to high-sec, you have to jump your 7 billion ISK hostile magnet in to a .4 chokepoint to get it back in to high-sec, there can't be too many people thrilled about that. I'd try to overcome this by jumping at a quiet moment, perhaps utilizing an alternative jumproute, using a station with a large docking radius or just using a POS to jump to. It certainly doesn't eliminate the risk, but reduces it a great deal. And besides, with other alternatives, you need to use that lowsec chokepoint twice: first to get the cargo in and the second time to get the cargo out of there (if you're bringing something back). Sure, freighter ganksquads are a possible threat but one could always haul the cargo in to highsec startpoint with a regular freighter in smaller lots that aren't worth ganking and then switching to JF just for the trip to 0.0.
Blubeanz Caldari D.M.Z. Free Trade Zone.	Posted - 2008.02.19 14:11:00 - [78] Why isn't everyone flying one?...... Umm maybe it's because they are going for 10.4 bil on contract :p that could be a reason ya think -Blu
Max Essen Gallente Serenity Engineering and Transport Company deadspace society	Posted - 2008.02.19 15:32:00 - [79] At the current cost, the JF is really an uber-alliance tool who can afford and protect it properly. This is not a tool for every little corp or fledgling alliance otherwise, I would have one. Real Men Structure-Tank
Manfred Rickenbocker	Posted - 2008.02.19 15:35:00 - [80] Edited by: Manfred Rickenbocker on 19/02/2008 15:38:32 I think the word "nerf" is inappropriate to whats going on... that aside... How is jump fuel consumption calculated? Its some value of distance and mass correct? So the more massive a ship is, the more fuel is required to move it across the depths of space. Maybe I am confusing this with jump bridges or something, but in this equation, the mass of the ship's cargo is not accounted for. If this is true, in order for ships to calculate fuel consumption correctly, it'd be best to have cargo mass or volume factored in to fuel cost or make jump distance relative to mass/volume. This way if you "hauler" fit a ship, you have to pay for it with a little extra fuel. This is predicated on one thing: that each ship has a base allowed additional mass/volume, for example the Moros carries 8,500m3 standard, so even if it were filled to the brim without cargo mods it would not affect the jump distance or fuel consumption. Don't outright reduce dread hauling capacity as its already difficult to jam enough fuel, strontium AND ammo for a long POS siege. If you must muck with cargo capacity, give it a separate fuel bay to compensate. Another possible solution would be the addition of a penalty on cargo expander mods such that it reduces jump drive efficiency for increased cargo capacity. Similar to how these mods reduce the speed of a ship, it should similarly affect jump range and/or fuel consumption These ideas obviously need to be fiddled with... but it seems that the prevailing idea is that in order to boost the perceived JF utility, either A) the ship cost needs to drop significantly or B) utility relative to other ships needs to increase. ------------------------ Exploration: A discipline for those who have a lot of time, don't want to put in a lot of effort, and have a high tolerance for mental anguish.
Moridin Interstellar eXodus R0ADKILL	Posted - 2008.02.19 16:34:00 - [81] i think the primary reason jump freighters are not poppular is the simple reason it just takes to dammed long building them. i got a -1pe copy cooking and that takes me 24 days. also relative speking few people are active building them since high price means low demand and high risk. beside that i agree with high cost on the thing. now just nerf the Roqual and il be happy.
suzy homemaker	Posted - 2008.02.19 16:42:00 - [82] I think one of the ongoing problems here is the whole slotless ship design is flawed. Give freighters and J-Freighters slots and make people choose cargo or defense. IMHO its been the problem all along in not having that option. Suzy
DrAtomic Atomic Heroes Phalanx Alliance	Posted - 2008.02.19 17:37:00 - [83] From an alliance standpoint of view with a jump bridge network in place the jump freighter is a nice tool; however more often then not POS refueling is done by individuals rather then by teams (in my expierence with 0.0 alliances). Freighters allready filled that role nicely for bringing in the fuel for large alliances. The jump freighter is a nice addition for them. However carriers filled a role for lots of smaller corps/alliances/indiviuals, that role is not replaced by the jump freighter. Mainly due to the lack of available support needed for escort purposes. Thus the majority shifts to using Dreads or Rorquals for those purposes, since they can be flown by one person with cyno alts without support (sure it requires pre-scouting for managable hostilities but this is how they are used and how carriers were (and still are) used. Shorter jump range means increased operational costs if the fuel bonus makes the total cost involved less or equal to covering the same distance with a Dread/Rorqual/Carrier then that issue is gone. It still leaves two major issues; 1. Even with the increased HP a freighter or jump freighter with escort will still be primaried even with huge support fleets. When you can do 8 bil of damage, knowing what damage type to do, how much dps it takes and knowing that you'll blow up a lot of isk worth in their holds as well their wont be a reason not to sacrifice 15 BS to gank it; heck even suicide ganking it with 80 BS still yields a win in isk lost versus destroyed fights and that's what counts in the end. This whole thing is basicly a huge issue with all forms of haulers/transports/freighters; no matter the amount of support you bring they are easy prey. A solution could be to give them rep amount bonusses on remote reps received. A real zero sec example is when we scouted out a MM freighter run with support near a midstop POS, we ganked 1 of their freighters with 30 interceptors, had a second one in hull but warped out because they were starting to get locks on us plus their remote rep support was starting to acquire locks on their freighters as well. We didnt loose a single ship, was great fun for us but also very lame from a protection point of view (they had the support but still lost one). 2. A single 25 mil interceptor with scram and web is enough to imobilize an unsupported Jump Freighter. - - - Originally by: CCP Wrangler If you can understand our goal, disagree with our solution and offer a solution that is equal or better your opinion has a better chance of being heard...
Gimpb	Posted - 2008.02.19 18:23:00 - [84] What about e-war immunity? As in need an interdictor to stop 'em. Might be too much, I suppose.
Arlenna Molatov Caldari The 59th Parallel	Posted - 2008.02.19 18:56:00 - [85] I think the consensus here is, and I totally agree.... youhave to nerf the ships that brought about these changes. Change the cargo of the Rorq and dreads. If Dreads are combat ships, limit the # of cargo expanders they can use, give them cargo slots. Just like turret slots. Perhaps do the same to the Rorq as well.
Seriya Caldari Eve Defence Force Insurgency	Posted - 2008.02.19 19:29:00 - [86] I honestly don't think you've gone far enough. They're still really not much better than Rorquals and cost 5 times more. The vast majority of players will still find it way more cost efficient to use a Rorqual or Dread with expanders, leaving Jump Freighters very much in the lurch.
Malena Shiva	Posted - 2008.02.19 19:39:00 - [87] WHEN?!
Adam Coyle Caldari Vesa Supply Corp	Posted - 2008.02.19 20:26:00 - [88] Jump Freighters was a nice idea and these changes will take it a bit of the way. I would like to see some improvments though: * Give Freigthers 3 rig slots and Jump Freighters 2 rig slots (as mentioned above) * Boost cargo space even further on both Freigthers and Jump Freighters (liked the comparison with the oil tanker) * Fix the blueprint copy bug that increases the copy time per skill level instead of lowering the copy time. * Maybe even give the Jump Freighter some Warp Strength bonus like the small Blockade Runners (maybe only +1 Warp Strength) For the bigger corporations and alliances the price is not so much of a problem, the problem for them is to produce enough Freighter BPC so you can start the invention process with reasonable success. For smaller alliances the price is an issue, but then again so is the problem of getting enough support ships protecting them. For smaller alliances a new ship class would be much more useful. Today Industrials and Transports are in the Cruiser class and Freighters and Jump Freighters are in the Capital class. A new ship class for hauling that are in the Battleship class would make much more sence for smaller Alliances and medium corporations. Cargo haul should be in the range of holding a single Freighter can. All other stats should be in the range of comparing a cruiser to a battleship and then boost an industrial the same amount, give or take a few.
Gnulpie Minmatar Miner Tech	Posted - 2008.02.19 22:38:00 - [89] Copy time of the freighter bpo is a big problem at the moment. Another one is the range issue. Why not incorporating a single med slot where you can fit a module which lets you chose: big cargo/short range, normal cargo/normal range, small cargo/big range. Call it auxillary jump drive or whatever Otherwise it is good to see that CCP looks into things after they noticed that it didn't work as intended and that they are going to improve the thing in question instead of nerfing everything else to promote the other thing.
Kweel Nakashyn Minmatar Aeden Tau Ceti Federation	Posted - 2008.02.19 22:55:00 - [90] Edited by: Kweel Nakashyn on 19/02/2008 22:56:02 Edited by: Kweel Nakashyn on 19/02/2008 22:55:26 Originally by: Varrakk This changes nothing, still too expensive and too vulnerable. Much more efficient to refuel POS's with a MWD-Cargonaught +1, or a Rorqual. The price is something that should be looked at. Noone wants to buy a 2B ship without being able to fit a tank. End of story... 2isk
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 bleepbleepbleep 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- :-/ -
Timaios Art of War	Posted - 2008.02.26 15:50:00 - [121] Originally by: Laendra 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. But what are those issues that need such drastic fixes? You listed lots of changes but did not state which issues they would address - thus I responded accordingly.
Lil Mule	Posted - 2008.02.26 19:33:00 - [122] I think if CCP is planning on Nerfing the Rorq and dreads (as everyone is requesting), they should inform the community ASAP. We're talking about 2 billion isk purchases that players are making, its a significant hit to their wallet if the ship turns out to be a pile of crap later that has little to no use (ie: Rorq - and no, please dont flame about how it will still be useful for hauling minerals back and forth as its primary purpose is intended to be. The bottom line is if its nerfed, the ship will take a serious functionality hit) I personally havent invested in a Rorq (although Ive wanted to) for the sole reason that Im expecting a nerf. I cant afford to be stuck with a lemon at a later date. ----------------------------------------------- People enjoy flying Amarr for the same reason they like being tied up in leather, whipped and called names
wert668	Posted - 2008.02.26 22:32:00 - [123] Price is OK. I'm sick of ships that have every one. Anshar is sitting dug even if he fly at top speed ^__^ I know, it is really big ship. What I want is resistance to all electronics attacks. No webs, scramblers... you can run away, what else you can do with ship that doesn't have guns or tank? Do this, and all JFs will be saved.
Laendra	Posted - 2008.02.26 23:20:00 - [124] Originally by: Timaios But what are those issues that need such drastic fixes? You listed lots of changes but did not state which issues they would address - thus I responded accordingly. ask and ye shall receive New Technology Freight Storage Bay - Removes logic from checking Cargohold access while in space, changes it to only FSB, which is one less thing to fubar later on, also allows more logic based on the freighter's capacity, and increase to FSB due to fittings, if desired 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 - Allows limitations on FSB size, instead of allowing the Expanded Cargohold IIs, etc., from massively increasing size when slots are added Capital Industrial Ships only 5% Freight Storage Bay increase per module (add then multiply) Jump Fuel Storage Bay - eliminates fuel from cargohold, which eliminates a need for a cargohold (or one more than a couple of hundred m¦, for inspace transfers of cyno fuel, bookmarks, etc.), also allows expansion of jump fuel storage capacity without affecting cargo 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 - allows expansion of total jump range while sacrificing something else (most likely armor or cargohold) Jump Capable Ships only 5% Jump Fuel Storage Bay increase per module (add then multiply) Capital Cargo Expander I - allows expansion of capital ship cargohold 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 - prevents the one size fits all that should never have applied to Capital Ships (Shield Hardeners, Armor Hardeners, etc., which should, if nothing else, overload those modules if you attempt to use them to affect capital sized 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) - self explanatory [list=1] Capital Corporate Hangar Bay elimited from Dreadnoughts (logistics is not a primary role) - self explanatory Increased to 30k for Motherships - Motherships are the goddesses of logistics, and should have large corp hangars to support fleet operations Increased to 50k for Titans - Titans are the gods of logistics, being mini-stations in their own right, and should have plenty of extra corp storage. May not carry anything but modules, rigs, ammo, jump fuel - eliminates the use for non support transportation Change Rorqual to only be able to fit Ore and Compressed Ore into it's cargohold. - nerf it to only capable of supporting its role Capital versions of modules not listed - Capital Shield EM Hardener, et.al. for the reason listed above 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 - 2008.02.27 12:04:00 - [125] Originally by: Laendra stuff While I see what you're trying to achieve, I don't really see it being productive. In a nutshell, I'd say that your proposals would: - remove all non-capital modules from capital ships - make it possible to add slots to freighters and vary their effective cargo space - limit the dread and rorqual cargo capacity - make the jump fuel storage capacity adjustable While the ideas are indeed interesting (and CCP once hinted at something similar during the carrier nerf discussion, namely making the cargo space depend on modules only capitals can fit), it is problematic in many ways. (And why didn't you propose a jump range extension module, btw?) First of all, such a drastic replacement would remove all modules from capital ships and require them to be replaced with new ones. This is quite a mess, considering there are over ten thousand caps in existence, and both titans and moms can't even dock to make these changes. Also, industry based no producing modules for capital ships only is probably not going to work. Duplicating every single possible T1 and T2 module and rig for capital ship size means that many of those modules will never be built. It's an additional strain on industrial operations. In addition, unless faction and officer counterparts of capital modules are introduced, there will be one setup for each capital ship, which is most optimal for its' purpose. And if the counterparts are introduced, looting them in 0.0 will be very difficult. In a sense, I feel that while improving the flexibility of certain hulls (namely the freighters), your proposal drastically limits the flexibility of practically all fittings. And while removing certain logic (such as checking cargohold while in space), it adds the logic of needing to always check if a module can be fitted to a certain hull when the ship is being fitted.
Laendra	Posted - 2008.02.27 13:20:00 - [126] Originally by: Timaios Originally by: Laendra stuff While I see what you're trying to achieve, I don't really see it being productive. In a nutshell, I'd say that your proposals would: - remove all non-capital modules from capital ships - make it possible to add slots to freighters and vary their effective cargo space - limit the dread and rorqual cargo capacity - make the jump fuel storage capacity adjustable While the ideas are indeed interesting (and CCP once hinted at something similar during the carrier nerf discussion, namely making the cargo space depend on modules only capitals can fit), it is problematic in many ways. (And why didn't you propose a jump range extension module, btw?) First of all, such a drastic replacement would remove all modules from capital ships and require them to be replaced with new ones. This is quite a mess, considering there are over ten thousand caps in existence, and both titans and moms can't even dock to make these changes. Also, industry based no producing modules for capital ships only is probably not going to work. Duplicating every single possible T1 and T2 module and rig for capital ship size means that many of those modules will never be built. It's an additional strain on industrial operations. In addition, unless faction and officer counterparts of capital modules are introduced, there will be one setup for each capital ship, which is most optimal for its' purpose. And if the counterparts are introduced, looting them in 0.0 will be very difficult. In a sense, I feel that while improving the flexibility of certain hulls (namely the freighters), your proposal drastically limits the flexibility of practically all fittings. And while removing certain logic (such as checking cargohold while in space), it adds the logic of needing to always check if a module can be fitted to a certain hull when the ship is being fitted. I see nothing wrong with requiring T1/T2/Faction/Officer modules being replaced with Capital versions of them. T1 and T2 markets are over saturated anyway, this would give another avenue for splitting them up. By making these new Cap Ship modules T1, that leaves room for T2/Faction/Officer mods to be created by CCP to fill the void, as most high end pilots are already fitting Faction/Officer mods that have been in game for ages, it gives them incentive to go out and find those rare capital NPCs to get the new mods. Granted they would be hard to come by, and very expensive to buy, but shouldn't capital faction/officer mods be a whole lot freaking harder to come by than ones that fit a non-Capital ship? I'd say give a 30 day grace time to get the modules replaced in the ships, then forcibly remove the modules that remain, via server patch much like the did for the ships that had their slots changed, but the modules stayed....but prevent fitting non-capital modules during that time, so that through attrition and normal fitting changes (for different purposes), they all end up getting replaced. And a lot of the reasoning behind wanting Cap Ship modules duplicating non-Cap Ship modules, is EVE-Realism. It's not realistic, to me, to imagine that a T1 armor hardener can have any meaningful effect on the tremendously large amount of armor that a capital ship has when compared to a standard T1 ship. Maybe Tracking Computers and Enhancers and stuff that really shouldn't be affected by the size differences, but a capital line would make the limitations globally effective for capitals (unless they added a type attribute of say "allowCapitalFit" or something of that nature to the various modules that were not changed to capital sized. Jump range (LY) extender modules, I think, are things that could be added or at least looked at, as well as possibly a jump efficiency module to reduce jump fuel required even further, so adding that with a jump fuel expander would significantly increase the amount of jumps without refueling. -------------------
Nekopyat	Posted - 2008.02.27 17:24:00 - [127] Originally by: zacuis the price is about right but u need to remove the chear better defended options of rorquel and expander dreads. the fix is not to buff the jf`s in some meaning less way. See, this kind of thought bothers me a bit and goes against the entire sandbox nature of EvE. The sequence I REALLY don't want to see here is: Players find innovative solution to problem Developers want players to play a particular way, introduce 'correct' solution. Players quickly discover their innovative solution is better. Developers nerf player solution to force 'correct' solution. This kind of behavior ****es people off. Sandboxes should reward people for thinking on their feet and coming up with cool ways of playing, not punish them for not playing the 'correct' way. Now, if the devs buff JFs then they are taking a more positive path,.. providing a built in solution BETTER then what players came up with themselves. However, if we were going to follow real market behavior, what should probably happen is ORE and Empire would look at how people are using the roqual and dreads then release modified versions of THOSE ships that preform the hauling tasks better. This type of solution would create a stronger connection between in-universe behavior and responses from the shipyards. mmmm.. demand side economics.... (unfortunately ship design in EvE is strongly supply side economics)
Warya Snake Eyes Inc Rule of Three	Posted - 2008.02.28 05:52:00 - [128] This dev blog is talking about boosting JF. The current proposal is great and is a positive improvment. Why people want to nerf Roq? That ship is an industrial ship that finanly aids large and small mining ops in remote space and i do not understand how making it worst improves JC. I think people should realy focuse on things that are needed in JC like and post those ideas like. -cloake. -high resist. -longer jump range. -lower price. -------------------------------- One day the lag will get us all.
Xade Caldari K.T.P	Posted - 2008.02.28 09:51:00 - [129] Edited by: Xade on 28/02/2008 09:52:56 Its good to see CCP have made some much needed improvements to this ship however i have read most comments in here and see there is very few positive ones. The main problem is their are cheaper alternatives to this which not only are alot cheaper but cost less to run in fuel too. Why does a jump freighter need to use 3 time more fuel than any other capital currently available ? You can argue that its ship mass requires it but titans and motherships stil only use 1000 per ly and they are alot bigger. Surely if CCP wanted to encourage the use of gangs to escort cargo they wouldn't have introduced the jumpfreighter in the first place ? It doesn't work that way people want it because its quick having gangs trailing behind defeats the object and you may aswell use a normal freighter. I have seen battleships last longer than freighters when they get attacked so why make it 4.5-6bil to manuafacture and secondly what is the insurance payout on this ship ? no one seems to have mentioned this at all. This is a T2 ship afterall so why are their T1 ships not even designed for the job that do a more efficient job of hauling than a jump freighter that costs 3-4 times more (base cost)
Ginko Joukai	Posted - 2008.02.29 22:57:00 - [130] Please PLEASE make smaller, less expensive FREIGHTERS! A regular freighter with 150k m3 cargo space that sells for 300 mill. A jump freighter with 80k m3 cargo space and long jump range WITH higher fuel cost per jump BUT that only costs 800 million isk and which can operate in empire (using the existing gates as 'cynos' .. player flies to gate, menu option to 'lock on' to target gate inside jump range and hit the jump button..there would be a CONCORD FEE for this). It's really depressing for trader characters to be outgunned in every sense of the word by everyone in the game because our ONLY options are to go from a weenie hauler to a massive super expensive freighter (or ********ly expensive jump freighter). Its like combat characters being told they can only fly up to a destroyer and then jump into a blackops battleship as their only 'next step up' ship option.
Butter Dog The Littlest Hobos Insurgency	Posted - 2008.03.01 11:04:00 - [131] Price isnt an issue. Its a large T2 hull, its GOING to be expensive. 'Affordable' is a relative term. The question is if it worth the extra cost over the Rorqual. In my opinion, being in a corp which runs complex reaction chains several jumps from Empire, the Jump Freighter is worth the extra ISK following this boost. It will greatly reduce the amount of time we spend running logistics, and you can't really put a price on that. A high slot would be nice, yes. As would even more cargo space. But they are good ships if you have a lot of deep 0.0 volume hauling to do on a routine basis. ----------
zacuis Great Big Research	Posted - 2008.03.02 18:41:00 - [132] im sencing that ccp just doesnt care what we think about these changes due to there total lack of any responce to are concerns
Rawne Karrde An Tir Libertas Fidelitas	Posted - 2008.03.03 07:45:00 - [133] Doesn't surprise me in the least. We all know that unless it shoots something ccp doesn't care. Look how long it took to get multiple wallet divisions, pos bonus to actually work for moon mining equipment etc... The crap thing is, it is CCP's game and we can choose to pay to play or not, but we all know that in a year or two CCP will be like oh yeah so we noticed people still aren't using jf's and they'll finally give them the bonus that we recommend now. Then again, what do we know, we're just the ones inventing, building and flying the dam things...
Braaage eXceed Inc. eXceed.	Posted - 2008.03.03 11:15:00 - [134] The prices will come down as T2 materials come down in price, I've been monitoring this daily and build is now about 3.5B to 4.2B but the prices change daily. The other problem is that those prices are now and it takes a month to build one so you wont see prices drop overnight. Slightly OT I know but..... -- eve-guides.com All about POSs, Outposts, Exploration, Mining, Invention, EVE Database + much more!!
Rawne Karrde An Tir Libertas Fidelitas	Posted - 2008.03.03 12:50:00 - [135] Originally by: Braaage The prices will come down as T2 materials come down in price, I've been monitoring this daily and build is now about 3.5B to 4.2B but the prices change daily. The other problem is that those prices are now and it takes a month to build one so you wont see prices drop overnight. Slightly OT I know but..... I would have to disagree with you. Moon material prices are coming down since jump freighter inventors have largely stopped their operations greatly reducing demand. So, what do you think is gonna happen once the patch comes and people start inventing again? To boot, instead of using decryptors that give me -1 or me -2, people have stars in their eyes wanting to make multi run bpc with an me of -3, -5 or -6... You do realize even at current prices that not only increases cost of production by about 700 mil each lvl of -me, but also creates much more demand to soak up moon materials pushing the prices back up. Its gonna get worse not better.
Final Word	Posted - 2008.03.05 16:45:00 - [136] here's a kind of out of the box idea ... make a pos structure kinda like the jump gates that is designed for jump freighters ... maybe allowing the jump freighter to jump to that spot at maybe 15 ly away .. or something like that .... kinda like a recall home and make it have to be activated like a cyno ..... just an idea but hey it gives a definate advantage to the jf doesn't require altering it any and I dont think anyone would mind paying 100-300 mill for an item that allows them to bring there jump freighter home faster .. might have to make it useable with some form of sovern level but still. Juts an idea though
Final Word	Posted - 2008.03.05 16:58:00 - [137] Edited by: Final Word on 05/03/2008 17:01:49 Edited by: Final Word on 05/03/2008 16:59:32 or even better if ccp wants these to be ships that are escorted .... make them able to bring other ships with them i.e. create jump portals that allow them to bring smaller than capital ships with them I guarantee people will start using jump freighters even more ..... that ability alone would make them fly off the shelfs faster than you could say hey guys I have a jump frieghter for sale or give them some ability that makes them jump farther per capital ship jumping with them ... I.E. both ships work together to jump farther than the shortest jump ship can do on its own. lol theres something that'll get ccp's brain juices churning!
Clerence Thomas Gallente Black Lotus Heavy Industries Ethereal Dawn	Posted - 2008.03.06 21:34:00 - [138] I dunno, personally I find that CCP has taken to using the approach that most MMOs that are getting ready to die use - heavy use of the nerf bat on things that weren't broken followed by misguided buffs to other things as a little bit of an apeasment to the player base they betrayed. Now, to the topic at hand - jump freighters. For them to be worth it they need 2 things - a minimum of double cargo capacity and a cloak. Alternatively they need to be able to squeeze the 750k of outpost eggs and super cap assembly arrays. Talk of buffing their defense is a joke unless you want to give them real defense (which you don't, you always want them to be easy ganks... fair enough I suppose - your game.) If you want people to buy them you need to un-nerf the isk flow. Congratuations on stopping the inflation in EVE, but it has come at a very heavy cost - market saturation with stuff that nobody can afford. Give my hulk a respectable margin again and i'll buy a JF (I won't use it because it's not practical for any role i'd want to use it - check out my cargo rorq - it's more practical at a quarter of the cost for half the capacity and a _MAJOR_ upgrade in survivability,) but i'll buy it to keep the isk flowing. Oh, you can't do that because the inventors not only invent them like crazy, but are doing so and selling on thin to negative margins... Le Sigh. Not that CCP listens to me. :) -- "There are over 500 million fire arms in worldwide circulation. That is one fire arm for every twelve people on the planet. The only question is... How do we arm the other eleven?"
Laendra	Posted - 2008.03.06 23:42:00 - [139] Nice to know that Nozh is keeping up with his topic... -------------------
Gyvate Templars of Space Black Star Alliance	Posted - 2008.03.09 21:14:00 - [140] Personally, I'm always going to have a problem with "Game Balance" and "Risk vs Reward" being hauled out as perfectly acceptable reasons to toss all logic and common sense out the window. The JF is a flying hatbox with a jump drive. You can equate it to the larger / faster supertankers and/or container ships here on earth. A Carrier is a seriously complex war machine with a billion or so moving parts and specialized equipment with no other use than to wage war. The supertanker or container ship costs about 200 to 300 million dollars to build. The carrier costs at least 2 billion. See my point? In Eve, the very un-complex hatbox costs 6 billion, and the very complex weapon system costs 700 mil. I'm sorry. I just can't suspend my disbelief that far. -G
Demjon	Posted - 2008.03.10 16:33:00 - [141] The problem with 0.0 logistics is that the individual pilot can't get supplies when they need it. The jump freighter is an attempt to solve this problem on a broad scale. The solution to this problem is the blockade runner transport ship. The reason it is not currently used for blockade running is simply because it can not run a blockade typical of 0.0. This typically involves a large bubble and sniper bs, hacs, and intercepters and thier like. Can the so called blockade runner transport ship make it to the gate from 30km+ under these conditions? or vise versa out of the bubble to warp out from the gate? the answer is of course; No! We have all seen gate camps ranging from 5 to hundreds of pvp fit ships. I suggest that the blockade runner be buffed to support an advanced tank on the level of a BS with resistance buffs like the Rokh for instance. In addition to that I would give it another role buff along with its +2 warp stabilization: immunity to webbification! With an improved tank, webbification immunity, and +2 to warp stabilization, and the ability to fit a tank and a micro warp drive the blockade runner has a chance to make it through a small to medium size gate camp. This would allow individuals to supply themselves and transport commercial goods to empire space. Removing the fear of a small gang or individual pirate when flying a blockade runner will encourage trade in 0.0. Over powering the blockade runners warp drive is still possible but that should not be the end of the conflict, it should be able to RUN from attackers. Isn't that what it is for?
drassic	Posted - 2008.03.10 18:51:00 - [142] The only real thing I see wrong witht he JF is that it's in need of EW increases. I can't see a small frig with one scram being able to hold down a 6bil isk frighter. I think the JF should be moved closes to that of the mother ship which is immune to EW. If anything having a +3 or +4 would help. That way a fleet would have to fit the right ships to be able to lock it do. The other thing that gets me is "BUMPING" if a small ship with a MWD is able to bump a JF off of alinement should not some type of damager be done to both ships? Plus it should be counted as aggression.. Thats my two cents. Drass
Calvinton	Posted - 2008.03.10 21:55:00 - [143] Oh, and just for the record, I think the jump freighter should have been seeded better, this would have kept the price down and also allow smaller/younger corperations to build or buy them. We have used the jump frieghter. It very disconcerting when you not only lose cyno pilots to pirates, and that we are broad casting we got something coming in. Then we have to spend hours if not days for the pirates to thin out because they saw the jump frieghter come in. I agree that here has to be some draw backs and for game play sake the pirates have to be allow at least a little shot at you. And I also agree that the jump freighters jump drives should not be affected by some plus one scramber, seems to me that the jump drive should be concidered different tech than warp drives. What I mean is that yeah you can keep me from warping to the gate, but you should not be able to keep me from jumping out that's if I can get a cyno in place before I die.
xaja	Posted - 2008.03.13 06:49:00 - [144] the jump range is really more of a problem than you think, cause most alliances have fixed jump routes, with POS's along the way and such... I think a lot of people will just prefer to jump with less cargo, but be able to use the existing routes. Good optimized routes are notoriously difficult to set up, given the lay of the land... ... _____________________________________ I'm Paper; Rock's fine, nerf Scissors
Patriak Marlowe Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2008.03.15 01:21:00 - [145] Hi, what we have to ask ourselfs is: What are the problems with the Jump Freighters 1) Price, which results in that there are too few of them around cause noone can afford them, cmon its a hauler. 2) Vulnerability, easy to kill, but haulers should be. 3) Easy to see in local and warp to in a t1 frig and scram=Dead. 4) T2 and inshurance! Here are my humble suggestions: 1) Make the JF inv. to EW like motherships. Any EW that affects them is scram and web anyway! They could still be bubbled (Dictors and Heavy Dictors and there are plenty of them around), but not scrammed by a noob in a t1 frig. Allso they could still even be held in place or at least delayed by a ship Neuting them (with enough neuts), its not like they will be shooting back hehe. 2) Make them have a short caprecharge time so they can jump faster, but long enough to still let ppl who are careless and/or stupid get what they deserve (fex. jump into a system that is hostile or full of pirates)! (This makes more sense than giving them any slots to fit cloak or somthing IMHO). And finally the most important part! 3) Make them Tier 2 instead of T2. Make it doubble mineralcost of normal Tier1 Freighter, consisting mostly of high end minerals. Marketprice 1.5b? Fair play: To compensate the inventors then give them a BPO for every BPC thay have! If somone is building one, has built one or bought one? Give them a 1-2 extra ship for every ship that they are building and give 1-2 to everyone that has allready built, bought one. That should be fair? Benefits: -This would make them cheaper and would probably reduce the load on the T2 components market (all t2 components needed to build pewpew ships anyway hehe) while putting a minimal strain on the regular mineral market, maybe high end would get a little bit more expensive, that aint so bad is it -Pilots would be able to insure them and not get broken economically by a single loss -Many pilots could afford them and many pirates would be able to find many new jucy targets jumping in low sec with LOTS of LOOT -I would allso think that most pilots that are inventing, building or buying them would be pleased with the compensation I suggested -No need to nerfbat the other cap's (easyer programming ftw) as there would be plenty of JF flying around soon enough and most pilots would prefere to use the JF for hauling, but some might do the occational haul in a dread or a Rorq or even a titan(who cares), but still JF would be "THE BEST FOR LOW-SEC AND 0.0 HAULING" I think this would make everyone happy, haulers, builders, pirates, alliances etc. Well maybe not the guy that holds the nerfbat @ CCP Im going to train my main for capships, but as it stands then Im going for Dread and maybe later a Rorq... If the JF get fixed. Im probably getting one P.s. I almost forgot this very important point. Make the fuelcost the same as for all other caps!!! If not then PLEASE give us an valid argument that would make sense. I think it would be cool if the OP would give some feedback
Han Lector Wyland-Yutani Corporation	Posted - 2008.03.16 21:09:00 - [146] According to the Jita market report, not a single Anshar sold since the boost patch even though it dropped the price for half a billion or so. And I don't see too many selling on the contracts either. I guess "boost" you gave to the Jump Freighters is not a boost at all considering the fact that pilots really don't want them, at least not what you get for the price. Well done CCP.
Crexa g guild Imperial Republic Of the North	Posted - 2008.03.19 03:29:00 - [147] Edited by: Crexa on 19/03/2008 03:34:37 Dreads are just fine. Rorquals are just fine. Jump Freighters are just fine. All is fine... There is no need to nerf anything or boost anything. Peeps are having delusions of grandeur in regards to what the jump freighter can and should do. And are crazy to support nerfs of any other ship versus just boosting the ones that are sorely lacking, of which there are none in this area of ship class. Also, I find it interesting that people only began complaining about the cargo capacities for the dreads and lately for the recently introduced Rorqual, after the introduction of the Jump Freighter and the nerf on carriers. Where were your concerns over the dreads cargo capacity 2 or 3 years ago? Ahh.. thats right! It didn't affect you then, so of no concern and no consequence... How convenient. Now that you have been completely convinced by my arguements... /semi-sarcasm off If there was one fix i would support, it would be to the material build list. I would substitute some required T2 materials for T1 materials, to reduce the cost by 20%, and relieve the construction burden a bit.
Mighty Dread Republic University	Posted - 2008.03.20 04:41:00 - [148] The cost of this ship means it's pretty much meant for the uber rich corps or alliances. Still I agree that I don't see how the ship can pay for itself nor do I see it as a ship that can be easily replaced. But hey that's fine, let the rich have their new toy. How about giving the not so rich players more variety of industrial ships? Hell I can't even begin to afford a 1 Bill isk freighter.
Red Leg	Posted - 2008.03.30 16:52:00 - [149] Just UN NERF the carriers
Han Lector Wyland-Yutani Corporation	Posted - 2008.04.04 05:32:00 - [150] What a useless ship.... Look here, this is how much interest people have in buying one even though the price is almost at the build cost. Jump freighters are a joke
Adamai Gallente Naval Protection Corp Carpe Universitas	Posted - 2008.04.29 15:46:00 - [151] you could just give the jump freighters 500km3 as standard allow say 2 rig slots for cargo optimisation rigs and lower the price some or build requirements.
Adamai Gallente Naval Protection Corp Carpe Universitas	Posted - 2008.04.29 15:47:00 - [152] Originally by: Red Leg Just UN NERF the carriers or do this lol i agree with this post
Ottman	Posted - 2008.05.03 23:26:00 - [153] well i said it once before this design was coming up, t1 design, 50 % of freighter cargo space. the current design ccp brought in, sorry i never asked for a t2 design only the already big corps and alliances can afford, and with cargo space that dont match the needs of ppl, that ship sorry is not well designed, too expensive and not useful enough, must ccp open t2 capital ships with jump freighter ? cant you design a t2 carrier instead ? why always hit those who do the hard industrial work inside eve ? i am very dissapointed about that ccp, to say it straight MfG ottman

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 :: [one page]

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.