| 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 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |