These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Freighters need fittings!!!

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Buzzy Warstl
Quantum Flux Foundry
#61 - 2012-12-06 14:52:07 UTC
Syzygium wrote:
Daichi Yamato wrote:

the EHP of the suggested freighter fit for tank rather than capacity would be something over 500k. frankly ridiculous considering its a transport. then lets consider that adding a DCU would mean the end of afk hauling cause u have to activate it after every gate.

current freighters are already optimised. giving them fitting options would mean nerfing the hell out of them.

who exactly said that you cannot alter the base values of armor/shield/hull? Your "500k eHP" value is based on their current stats. that has nothing to do with the rebalanced eHP after a possible patch.

Currently Freighters have 190k eHP - THAT is ridiculous for a CAPITAL ship. No one cries that a Rorqual has 500k eHP (unfitted!) or even 1.5m eHP (fitted), which is also a Capital Industrial Ship. There would be nothing wrong with Freighters at 300k eHP untanked to 900k eHP tanked and Jumpfreighters between 500k and 1.5m. Even an Orca, not nearly 1/4th the Size of a Freighter, has roughly 250k-300k eHP if you tank it properly.

So: valid arguments against fittable freighters: still zero.

The cargo hold of a highsec capable ship cannot be large enough to hold a packaged capital ship under any conditions.

Any change to freighters to allow for fitting for tank would therefore need to allow for the possibility that it could be fit for cargo space instead (because people would) and therefore the base cargo capacity would need to be reduced such that the best possible fit (T2 rigs, cargo expanders, max skills) would still be under that limit.

Then we get all the freighter pilots who haven't trained for "best possible fit" complaining about how badly freighters have been nerfed with the smaller cargo bay.

If that's not a good enough reason for you to understand why at least *current* freighters won't be changed I have to assume you've never had a customer service type job and have never experienced first hand the level of indignant outrage *any* change provokes.

http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm Richard Bartle: Players who suit MUDs
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#62 - 2012-12-07 13:06:09 UTC
Buzzy Warstl wrote:
The cargo hold of a highsec capable ship cannot be large enough to hold a packaged capital ship under any conditions.

Any change to freighters to allow for fitting for tank would therefore need to allow for the possibility that it could be fit for cargo space instead (because people would) and therefore the base cargo capacity would need to be reduced such that the best possible fit (T2 rigs, cargo expanders, max skills) would still be under that limit.
Or you can change the volume of packaged capital ships. Aw, did I trample on your argument? Here, have a cookie and get off the forums.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Syzygium
Ventures Bar
Sleeper Protocol
#63 - 2012-12-07 13:49:06 UTC
Buzzy Warstl wrote:

The cargo hold of a highsec capable ship cannot be large enough to hold a packaged capital ship under any conditions.

Any change to freighters to allow for fitting for tank would therefore need to allow for the possibility that it could be fit for cargo space instead (because people would) and therefore the base cargo capacity would need to be reduced such that the best possible fit (T2 rigs, cargo expanders, max skills) would still be under that limit.

Then we get all the freighter pilots who haven't trained for "best possible fit" complaining about how badly freighters have been nerfed with the smaller cargo bay.

If that's not a good enough reason for you to understand why at least *current* freighters won't be changed I have to assume you've never had a customer service type job and have never experienced first hand the level of indignant outrage *any* change provokes.

That argument has been repeated over and over again and it has been made void every time.

No matter what you change in a game like EvE Online, you will ALWAYS have one group of players who will cry over it. On the other hand, the number of freighter pilots who will THANK YOU for being able to fit Nanofibers when flying empty or Tankmods when moving high value goods, will be A LOT greater. And the other group that is crying can still invest the few days to skill for cargo-maximizing equipment and then have back their almost 1 mio. m³ cargospace.

The exact problem is... what exactly? The change would benefit a lot of players while hurting some who are too lazy to skill for max efficiency. Tsss...
Buzzy Warstl
Quantum Flux Foundry
#64 - 2012-12-07 15:57:48 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Buzzy Warstl wrote:
The cargo hold of a highsec capable ship cannot be large enough to hold a packaged capital ship under any conditions.

Any change to freighters to allow for fitting for tank would therefore need to allow for the possibility that it could be fit for cargo space instead (because people would) and therefore the base cargo capacity would need to be reduced such that the best possible fit (T2 rigs, cargo expanders, max skills) would still be under that limit.
Or you can change the volume of packaged capital ships. Aw, did I trample on your argument? Here, have a cookie and get off the forums.

It's the reason it exists, and they had to set the line somewhere.

If they increased the size of packaged capital ships by 10 times and allowed freighters to carry almost that we'd have the same whining in 6 months when the new, bigger freighters were getting popped by larger fleets because they were carrying greater value in stuff.

Have your cookie back, it's half-baked.

And get off the forums if that's the best you can do.

http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm Richard Bartle: Players who suit MUDs
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#65 - 2012-12-07 16:49:38 UTC
Surely if CCP implemented this, they would make cargo expanders disallowed by perhaps making the space a special Freighter Bay like the barges have ore holds...

Giving you the ability to add mods seems like a good idea to me though - if only because it will mean there will be different freighter fits to contend with. At present if you know the freighters well enough you can pretty much guess their EHP and know exactly how much damage and of what type to deal. Throw in specific hardeners and such and it because less precise.

I like it.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Buzzy Warstl
Quantum Flux Foundry
#66 - 2012-12-07 17:06:16 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Surely if CCP implemented this, they would make cargo expanders disallowed by perhaps making the space a special Freighter Bay like the barges have ore holds...

Giving you the ability to add mods seems like a good idea to me though - if only because it will mean there will be different freighter fits to contend with. At present if you know the freighters well enough you can pretty much guess their EHP and know exactly how much damage and of what type to deal. Throw in specific hardeners and such and it because less precise.

I like it.

That would be a reasonable way to approach it. Give it a nominal cargo bay and a substantial fleet bay.

I expect that it would be a new class of ship, though, since there is a certain design appeal to the current freighter design.

http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm Richard Bartle: Players who suit MUDs
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#67 - 2012-12-07 22:34:41 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Surely if CCP implemented this, they would make cargo expanders disallowed by perhaps making the space a special Freighter Bay like the barges have ore holds...

Giving you the ability to add mods seems like a good idea to me though - if only because it will mean there will be different freighter fits to contend with. At present if you know the freighters well enough you can pretty much guess their EHP and know exactly how much damage and of what type to deal. Throw in specific hardeners and such and it because less precise.

I like it.



No it doesn't, you just scan it before you open fire.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#68 - 2012-12-07 22:43:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Syzygium wrote:
That argument has been repeated over and over again and it has been made void every time.
Quite the opposite. It has been repeated over and over again because no-one can ever come up with any counter-argument to this hard limit and yet keeps suggesting a change that must result in a freighter nerf.

Lucas Kell wrote:
Surely if CCP implemented this, they would make cargo expanders disallowed by perhaps making the space a special Freighter Bay like the barges have ore holds.
If all you wanted is to have a lowslot that — in the end — only ever is used for one module (because you have to disallow all alternatives), then it would be far better to just ask for a straight-up buff than for a change that would require all kinds of recoding and special-purpose rules.

…but that would expose the reason for the suggestion (never mind that the actual suggestion is a nerf, rather than a buff) and no-one can think of a good reason why freighters need such a buff.

That's the fundamental flaw with this suggestion: it proposes to solve something that is not a problem and ends up being a massive nerf to freighters for no good reason.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#69 - 2012-12-08 00:11:02 UTC
Danika Princip wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Surely if CCP implemented this, they would make cargo expanders disallowed by perhaps making the space a special Freighter Bay like the barges have ore holds...

Giving you the ability to add mods seems like a good idea to me though - if only because it will mean there will be different freighter fits to contend with. At present if you know the freighters well enough you can pretty much guess their EHP and know exactly how much damage and of what type to deal. Throw in specific hardeners and such and it because less precise.

I like it.



No it doesn't, you just scan it before you open fire.

Well yes, you can scan it, but that's the point. At the moment you can just look and say "that's an X and its EHP is Y"
Now you would need to go, So I've seen it, scanned it, now I know its fitted with these mods so its got about X% resists of this an a base HP of Y so its EHP is Z.
It start to be more complex than it currently is, which I think is a good thing.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#70 - 2012-12-08 00:58:04 UTC
Syzygium wrote:


The exact problem is... what exactly? The change would benefit a lot of players while hurting some who are too lazy to skill for max efficiency. Tsss...


no ur struggling to understand that it needs it limitations. freighters should not carry caps, u should also not have to change the volume of caps in order for freighters to work. Freighters should no be ungankable, there should never be no risk when it comes to anything in eve, least of all transportation. in fact, the transportation of 'valuables' should be one of the riskiest tasks to undertake, like mining and pvp.

the mere fact that ppl are now considering changing the volumes of caps, and in another thread making a passive DCU, having freight specific holds etc etc should already tell u that its not going to work. why implement something that requires u to modify other ships and create new modules when u can just create alternative freighters with the traits ur looking for BY DESIGN rather than modification? at least that way the freighter doesnt get nerfed.

one other thing, EVE is not about making things easier for the players, or it wasn't. What originally drew me to eve was it was uncompromising and forced the players to work hard to get ahead. for example, how many eve players would be thankful for the ability to instantly transport any and all there assets from one end of the galaxy to the other by teleportation? probably a lot. But, would it be a good mechanic? of course not

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#71 - 2012-12-08 01:13:51 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Surely if CCP implemented this, they would make cargo expanders disallowed by perhaps making the space a special Freighter Bay like the barges have ore holds...

Giving you the ability to add mods seems like a good idea to me though - if only because it will mean there will be different freighter fits to contend with. At present if you know the freighters well enough you can pretty much guess their EHP and know exactly how much damage and of what type to deal. Throw in specific hardeners and such and it because less precise.

I like it.


you get a like from me sir...

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#72 - 2012-12-08 01:21:34 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Syzygium wrote:
That argument has been repeated over and over again and it has been made void every time.
Quite the opposite. It has been repeated over and over again because no-one can ever come up with any counter-argument to this hard limit and yet keeps suggesting a change that must result in a freighter nerf.

Lucas Kell wrote:
Surely if CCP implemented this, they would make cargo expanders disallowed by perhaps making the space a special Freighter Bay like the barges have ore holds.
If all you wanted is to have a lowslot that — in the end — only ever is used for one module (because you have to disallow all alternatives), then it would be far better to just ask for a straight-up buff than for a change that would require all kinds of recoding and special-purpose rules.

…but that would expose the reason for the suggestion (never mind that the actual suggestion is a nerf, rather than a buff) and no-one can think of a good reason why freighters need such a buff.

That's the fundamental flaw with this suggestion: it proposes to solve something that is not a problem and ends up being a massive nerf to freighters for no good reason.



incase you guys are wonder tippis is an indy guy... so its in his interest for stuff to die...

he was against the mining buff... due to the same reason... less ships dying means less isk in his wallet...

The problem is not really a problem in a negative way its called emergent gameplay... players figured out cool stuffz about the game that was not an initial game design and subsequently the original designs that ccp had in mind for the ships were in effect obsolete... this has now been fixed for mining ships but not for freighters...

you should as a player in a ship have valid counters... like like mining ships needed counters so too do freighters...

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#73 - 2012-12-08 01:24:16 UTC
Daichi Yamato wrote:
for example, how many eve players would be thankful for the ability to instantly transport any and all there assets from one end of the galaxy to the other by teleportation? probably a lot. But, would it be a good mechanic? of course not


dont tell this guy about jump drives... he would be pissedBlink

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#74 - 2012-12-08 02:32:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Daichi Yamato
MeBiatch wrote:
Daichi Yamato wrote:
for example, how many eve players would be thankful for the ability to instantly transport any and all there assets from one end of the galaxy to the other by teleportation? probably a lot. But, would it be a good mechanic? of course not


dont tell this guy about jump drives... he would be pissedBlink


which has a limited range, capacity and is excluded from high sec (where the ganking that inspired this thread happens genius)

dont tell this guy about scouts, webs, ecm, boosts or implants, or he may just learn2eve and then we'll be stuck with him forever.

the fact that freighters are getting ganked is not a problem. it was never CCP's intention to make freighters invincible so their 'ideas' for the ship are not obsolete or ppl wouldnt still be using them.

i'd accept that emergent gameplay and the addition of tier 3 BC's may have made ganking cheaper (ignoring the insurance changes of course). But this should only encourage haulers to carry less in their holds and/or fly with escorts. This change in hauling behavior would also be emergent gameplay (go us!).

what isnt emergent gameplay is coming onto the forums and asking for changes so that u do not have to face the choice of either: carrying less and surviving, or carrying more and running the risk of gank. could that behavior be called emergent whining instead? or just pure and lazy greed?

if u happen to be incapable of compromising ur cargo value, then there are still ways to reduce the risk of ganking through the use of modules, alts (or other players) and just being plain cautious and avoiding 'dangerous' systems.

TL:DR
u dont need fittable freighters, u need:
1) Friends
2) To be more creative
3) To compromise and adapt
4) To stop blaming CCP

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
Minty Moon
#75 - 2012-12-08 06:52:23 UTC
so if youre having issues with your freighters dying and you want to make them stronger. We just discovered/realized something in another thread....

UPGRAGE AND BUY AN EFFING JUMP FREIGHTER

Just like when you moved on from T2 haulers to have something bigger and more secure. You need to save your pennies and buy the next big thing


And for those that are too lazy to do the math, we did and calculated a JF's EHP using implants and t3 boosters at near 600k EHP thats a bit over half a billion EHP. Plenty of protection until you start trying to move 50bil in that and complain it then needs a lowslot Roll

(Player Opened Direct Wormholes) (Expanding on Wormholes)