These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page12
 

Hauling improvements

First post
Author
Hermann Simm
Doomheim
#21 - 2012-10-09 13:59:17 UTC
Tarn Kugisa wrote:
Freighters are basically containers with warp drives
+1

You'd have to make SURE they can't fit 1,000,000 M3 into the cargo hold at max skills and with T2 rigs+expanders
I think it'd be pretty hilarious to have a WCS'd freighter

The year isn't 2006 anymore, ccp can easily make it so stargates deny jumps if you have contraband or in this case a carrier or a dread in cargo
Dori Tos
Doomheim
#22 - 2012-10-09 16:48:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Dori Tos
Corteztkiller wrote:
Ewwww Dori Tos your really trying to take this off of the original topic posted. Please don't, your idea is terrible and it takes away from what is a much more interesting fix to freighters.

I'm not anti pvp or anti gank, in fact I'm for both of those. I believe gankers are important to this game. If you act like an idiot you should be ganked. I simply think freighters are broken because they don't provide pilots with any fitting trade-offs.

Safe highsec is not how you fix this game. Giving people reasonable choices, is the way to fix it.


I'm not against pirates, gank, and certainly not against pvp. I'm just against high sec pirates, I think they are lame.They just spam alt factories so they can gank in high sec forever like if there was no reprimand for doing it... it's broken.

as for the idea... I agree it's a little drastic.. we should make only hauling class ships impossible to target near hi sec gates. ^^

I'm delicious.

Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#23 - 2012-10-09 17:44:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Mallak Azaria
Dori Tos wrote:
Yeah right, then you make another gank alt and voila! good sec status and no kill rights ! and I hope you are kidding when you say losing their ship is a penalty, they make much more than they lose...


Alt recycling to avoid sec status doesn't happen these days as much as people seem to think. It has been an issue in the past, but people seem to think it's still a regular thing. It's not.

A suicide ganker losing a ship is indeed a penalty, regardless of the knowledge that it's going to happen. We only make much more than we lose because we have to selectively pick our targets. Fortunately, a lot of people go out of their way to make ganking them profitable. This isn't a flaw in game design, it's a flaw in the victims mindset.

This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#24 - 2012-10-09 17:46:10 UTC
Dori Tos wrote:
Corteztkiller wrote:
Ewwww Dori Tos your really trying to take this off of the original topic posted. Please don't, your idea is terrible and it takes away from what is a much more interesting fix to freighters.

I'm not anti pvp or anti gank, in fact I'm for both of those. I believe gankers are important to this game. If you act like an idiot you should be ganked. I simply think freighters are broken because they don't provide pilots with any fitting trade-offs.

Safe highsec is not how you fix this game. Giving people reasonable choices, is the way to fix it.


I'm not against pirates, gank, and certainly not against pvp. I'm just against high sec pirates, I think they are lame.They just spam alt factories so they can gank in high sec forever like if there was no reprimand for doing it... it's broken.

as for the idea... I agree it's a little drastic.. we should make only hauling class ships impossible to target near hi sec gates. ^^


I've been playing this game for four years, and routinely freight stuff around highsec. I have NEVER lost an indy nor a freighter due to highsec ganks, and I make regular trips down the trade hub routes. It is EASY to not get ganked.... I've also mined in a hulk (before the changes), and NEVER lost it despite multiple suicide gank attempts. I've had plenty of can thieves and ninja salvagers mess with me when mission running, yet have NEVER lost a ship do to them....

The reason I've had so much success in keeping my stuff safe, is not because CCP flips some magical switch that makes me immune to "bad guys". It's because I pay attention to how I fit my ship, I pay attention to the game mechanics, I pay attention to how much crap I put in a cargo bay, and I take my time and do things carefully and intelligently.

Your idea is completely bad... it is nothing more than a cry for mommy's protection: "I can't handle highsec gankers, CCP make me safe" !! This is inappropriate for EvE, and most players despise that attitude...

The proposal, to allow fitting options on freighters is a decent idea to give players a choice on how they fit their ships. It puts the choice in the players hands, so idiots that do stupid things will continue to die, but people that are smart and cautious will continue to excel. Can you understand why the OPs proposal has merit, but yours is considered complete crap? Do you understand the difference, that one is about enabling players, and yours is about disabling players?

And a note: People are ganking freighters with t2 fit tier 3 BC's. Those aren't 1-week dessie alts used to gank hulks. It takes THREE MONTHS to train into those ships & T2 weapons, and it takes 3 weeks to train the t1 versions. Players don't just roll these characters (which is an exploit) when their Sec Status drops. They deal with the sec hits, just like they deal with the half a billion in ship losses incurred every time they perform a gank operation. They are playing the game, where it's worth the time to organize, the loss of ships, the loss of sec status, and the danger from killrights to gank freighters.... and the reason it's worth their time and energy has EVERYTHING to do wtih what that freighter pilot puts in his cargo bay!
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#25 - 2012-10-09 18:14:01 UTC

@ OP.....

These are things that should be addressed when enabling fitting options on freighters:

1.) Hauling limits: The maximum hauling limit should not enable repackaged capitals into highsec. While this could be handled by increasing the size of repackaged capitals, there may be issues with the cargo capacity of X-L ship assembly arrays and the like. Reducing the hauling capacity of freighters seems like the easiest solution, such that a maxed-out hauling fit doesn't exceed the 1m m3 limit.

2.) Balance between EHP and haulage: In truth, the EHP of freighters is really solid at the moment, ranging from 150-200k EHP. However, with a single DCU, most freighter EHP's would receive an enormous boost.... Too much of a boost in my opinion. I'd hope that not only base haulage is reduced, but that the base EHP is reduced to that of an orca. An orca's base EHP is about 65k EHP, but is boosted to 150k EHP with a single DCU2. It is also well balanced in terms of shield/armor/hull HP, where Reinforced bulkheads provide the optimal EHP boost, but at expense to agility and speed. These are good trade-offs when trying to tank a hauler.

3.) Highslots: While I'd love to see cyno-freighter-bait, I really dont' want cloaky freighters. One of the biggest vulnerabilities of a freighter in nullsec is their inability to "hide". Web-to-warp is the most common tactic for moving them, which earns them an aggression timer and prevents the log-off-to-get-safe tactics. Essentially, if you allow a cloak on a freighter, they become much, much safer to move, which is generally a bad thing.

4.) Midslots: Midslots allow for lots of interesting items. Tackle, EWAR, Propulsion, etc. Until Freighters can actually target something, the only useful modules are ECM burst and propulsion modules. Frankly, I think allowing prop mods on freighters is a bad idea. MWD's and AB's can be pulsed to essentially speed up align times... and if coupled with cloaks, we might end up with MWD-Cloak-warping freighters.... YUCK! I really don't see a need for any midslots on a freighter.... This also makes them expensive to repair, which is a good thing.
Dori Tos
Doomheim
#26 - 2012-10-09 21:28:42 UTC
Quote:
Your idea is completely bad... it is nothing more than a cry for mommy's protection: "I can't handle highsec gankers, CCP make me safe" !! This is inappropriate for EvE, and most players despise that attitude...


Iol it's not a cry for mommy's protection, I'm merely proposing that high security space be secure.Why does that revolt people like you so much? you're like " oh I've hauled and mined for 4 years never lost anything I'm so brilliant" yeah whatever man, you must be way better than all those people who lost their cargoes in their noob days.

You know There are new players who are going to lose much of their hard earned assets in one of those under-tanked ultra vulnerable haulers because they don't even know that people can gank them in high sec.

And if CCP is not going to change anything to the situation ( which is completely fine with me btw) they could at least specify to new players that high sec is a dangerous place filled with gate camps and high standing pirates that will blow you up at the first sign of valuable cargo. Or is that too much "hand holding" too?

and yes I understand that my proposal is about disabling people, it's exactly the goal, it's exactly why I like it.I could make hundreds of analogies with our world,the ultimate sandbox, to prove my point.

I'm delicious.

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#27 - 2012-10-09 22:01:03 UTC
Dori Tos wrote:
Quote:
Your idea is completely bad... it is nothing more than a cry for mommy's protection: "I can't handle highsec gankers, CCP make me safe" !! This is inappropriate for EvE, and most players despise that attitude...


Iol it's not a cry for mommy's protection, I'm merely proposing that high security space be secure.Why does that revolt people like you so much? you're like " oh I've hauled and mined for 4 years never lost anything I'm so brilliant" yeah whatever man, you must be way better than all those people who lost their cargoes in their noob days.

You know There are new players who are going to lose much of their hard earned assets in one of those under-tanked ultra vulnerable haulers because they don't even know that people can gank them in high sec.

And if CCP is not going to change anything to the situation ( which is completely fine with me btw) they could at least specify to new players that high sec is a dangerous place filled with gate camps and high standing pirates that will blow you up at the first sign of valuable cargo. Or is that too much "hand holding" too?

and yes I understand that my proposal is about disabling people, it's exactly the goal, it's exactly why I like it.I could make hundreds of analogies with our world,the ultimate sandbox, to prove my point.


I agree with you that CCP should CLEARLY indicate that Highsec is not SAFE space, just safer space. And I make that point very clear to people in the new citizens forums. I've read several of the newbie manuals presented there and elsewhere, and specifically wrote the authors (often re-writing paragraphs for them) to make sure they CLEARLY state that highsec is not SAFE space, only space with harsher penalties.

And as for real life.... you can't disable jack **** (at least not where I live, the U.S.)! The government doesn't prevent me from doing something terrible, be it drowning a kitten, kicking a baby, or even donating to the Tea Party. Instead, it attempts to punish me when I do commit such atrocities! EvE is very similar, with punishments handed out to rule breakers.... That's why, rather than inhibiting illegal aggression, CCP deploys Concord as a police force... it doesn't directly protect you, unless some moron commits a crime under their nose, but instead hunts down and punishes players that do commit crimes to insure they answer for their injustices.

High Sec is not safe, it has never been safe, and it is not intended to be safe. I'm sorry CCP failed to provide you with a memo clearly stating this, but now you know... Please go and spread the word!
Dori Tos
Doomheim
#28 - 2012-10-09 22:20:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Dori Tos
Quote:
(at least not where I live, the U.S.)


Oh ok,it must be because I am Canadian. ^^ We have a more "care bear" approach to problems.

I'm delicious.

Nycodemis
National Institute of Mental Health
#29 - 2012-10-10 05:19:39 UTC
Dori Tos wrote:
I'm merely proposing that high security space be secure.


It is secure, relative to low and null sec. No area of space is truly safe and that is by design. The idea of having a no-kill zone within 10k of a gate is so un-EVE. If there is no risk, why bother playing.

Yes, it could be abused and Yes, that could be resolved, but the best resolution in this case is not to implement such a feature. I've never suicide ganked anyone, but if something like this were ever implemented I would go from 7-year-vet to former-EVE-player the day of release. There is a visceral nature to EVE that makes it unlike anything else. Such a change would diminish that.
Corteztkiller
Trivium
#30 - 2012-10-10 19:29:19 UTC
I love the line about terrible things you can do "donating to the tea party".

Please ask your government to make that illegal.

Just to be quite clear i'm Canadian and i'm not a care bear. Lets keep this thread on the topic of allowing people choice. Honestly the day CCP makes it so you just can't lock certain types of ships is the day I unsubscribe and a lot of people with me. Then this game will go belly up really quick.

Back to Gizznitt's on topic comments, I have to agree that certain types of fits could make freighters op and ccp would need to be careful if they implemented this idea. Mostly though I would just like to see people tank freighter for higher value cargo runs, or nano them if they are moving small amounts of low value stuff, or do a max cargo version and die in a fire to gankers.

Choice is the key to life in this game both good and bad.

Also, on the carrying capitals front. From my original idea I was saying this change shouldn't increase what freighters can haul it should simply make it so that they can lower their hauling amount and trade it for higher tank than a freighter currently allows. Ideally the freighters hauling capacity should not change if fitted for max cargo.
ISD Flidais Asagiri
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#31 - 2012-10-11 21:41:34 UTC
Good day

Suggested changes always elicit emotional responses, lets face it change can be good or bad, but lets keep on topic and not make it personal.

On On

ISD Flidais Asagiri Lt. Commander Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department

Tess La'Coil
Messerschmitt Vertrieb und Logistik
#32 - 2012-10-12 16:30:52 UTC
What are all you people complaining about the "1.000.000m3 can't be over reached! This will bring Caps to highsec OHNOES!"

Rubbish, if CCP decide to enlarge the cargoholds past 1.000.000m3 they'll simply increase the packaged size of the caps that have a risk of fitting in there... You really think they'd not adjust it?
Someone once said I was a muppet. If that's so, I'm quite sure the Swedish Chef is my brother. 
Doddy
Excidium.
#33 - 2012-10-12 16:44:32 UTC
The sole balancing factor on freighters huge game breaking cargo holds is that they are slow and fragile (for their size). Giving them any options to make them faster or tougher or even bigger holds just makes them even more op than they are now (they have already killed regional markets and 0.0 industry between them). Freighters being ganked is a total red herring anyway, no one needs to fill thier freighter with valuable sthat make them targets.
Inquisitor Kitchner
The Executives
#34 - 2012-10-12 17:46:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Inquisitor Kitchner
Would there really be a point in fitting a cloak to a freighter in high sec?

I can decloak a frigate with a drake if we see it come through the gate I'm sure I can get a freighter.

However it would make an interesting nullsec combination:

Freighter + Carrier = ships can refit to absolutely anything on the fly. + mobile ammo dump.

"If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared." - Niccolo Machiavelli

Taiwanistan
#35 - 2012-10-12 18:20:06 UTC
lol victims thinking victimy thoughts.

TA on wis: "when we have a feature that is its own functional ecosystem of gameplay then hooks into the greater ecosystem of EVE as a whole, and it provides good replayability."

Soon Shin
Scarlet Weather Rhapsody
#36 - 2012-10-12 19:21:08 UTC
CCP made it clear they don't want anymore new capitals(carriers and dreads) in highsec. So something will have to be done to prevent freighters from reaching 1 million cargohold ( A packed carrier/dread, is 1 million).
Previous page12