These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
123Next pageLast page
 

Give freighters low slots.
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Cardano Firesnake
Fire Bullet Inc
#1 - 2013-04-02 13:01:34 UTC
The number of Freighters destroyed in Highsec have exploded since the T3 BC.
8 Talos are enough to destroy a freighter.

As CCP modified the Mining barges to give Miners a chance, it would be fair to give to freighter pilots the chance to survive sometimes.

I think it could be interestening to reduce the base cargohold of the freighters and give them three low slots.
Perharps modfiyng some others stats I don't know.

So the pilot could choose if he want more cargohold (fitting three expanded cargoholds) or more tank (fitting damage controller and Reinforced Bulkheads II or Plates.

I think it is always more interestening to have the choice.

Posted - 2010.07.01 11:24:00 - [4] Erase learning skills, remap all SP. That's all.
Chaotic Mind
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#2 - 2013-04-02 13:03:26 UTC
Tech 3 Freighters with all sort of amazing possibilities... that's what you really want
Cardano Firesnake
Fire Bullet Inc
#3 - 2013-04-02 13:08:28 UTC
Stop trolling ;-)
No I don't want a cloaky nulli freighter ;-)
I just think it i too easy to kill freighters today an dit is not funny to have a ship that you cannot custom at all.
Imagine if all the ships were like the freigters all fitted with no way modify them.

Posted - 2010.07.01 11:24:00 - [4] Erase learning skills, remap all SP. That's all.
Chaotic Mind
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#4 - 2013-04-02 13:20:56 UTC
that's why Tech 3...

- Tank Subsystem (lowers cargospace and speed)
- Cargo Subsystem (lowers defence and speed)
- Speed Subsystem (lowers cargo and tank)
- maybe jumpdrive (makes JF obsolete)

this would leave the freighter without any slots, but still very versatile
De'Veldrin
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#5 - 2013-04-02 13:51:29 UTC
You will not get low slots or rigs on freighters without gimping their existing capabilities. This is because someone will stuff cargo hold expanders on them and use them to drag carriers into highsec to roflstomp level 4s and war targets. No one really wants to nerf freighters to the required extent necessary to make this happen.

De'Veldrin's Corollary (to Malcanis' Law): Any idea that seeks to limit the ability of a large nullsec bloc to do something in the name of allowing more small groups into sov null will inevitably make it that much harder for small groups to enter sov null.
Cardano Firesnake
Fire Bullet Inc
#6 - 2013-04-02 14:22:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Cardano Firesnake
De'Veldrin wrote:
You will not get low slots or rigs on freighters without gimping their existing capabilities. This is because someone will stuff cargo hold expanders on them and use them to drag carriers into highsec to roflstomp level 4s and war targets. No one really wants to nerf freighters to the required extent necessary to make this happen.


Yes! I know that. this is why I thought to reduce the base cargohold capacity of the freighters so they will have their actual capacity with all the low slots fitted with the best expanded cargohold.

So, if you tank your freighter you reduce its cargohold.

Posted - 2010.07.01 11:24:00 - [4] Erase learning skills, remap all SP. That's all.
Bugsy VanHalen
Society of lost Souls
#7 - 2013-04-02 14:37:26 UTC
Cardano Firesnake wrote:
The number of Freighters destroyed in Highsec have exploded since the T3 BC.
8 Talos are enough to destroy a freighter.

As CCP modified the Mining barges to give Miners a chance, it would be fair to give to freighter pilots the chance to survive sometimes.

I think it could be interestening to reduce the base cargohold of the freighters and give them three low slots.
Perharps modfiyng some others stats I don't know.

So the pilot could choose if he want more cargohold (fitting three expanded cargoholds) or more tank (fitting damage controller and Reinforced Bulkheads II or Plates.

I think it is always more interestening to have the choice.

I would be happy to see them with just a couple rig slots. Still can not fit anything, but can rig it for resists, cargo, speed, agility, whatever.

Make it so you need to fill the rig slots with T1 cargo expanders to hit the current cargohold size. But would need to be balanced so T2 rigs would not allow the cargohold to get to big. I believe there is a reason why a even a max skilled Char does not reach 1,000,000 m3 cargo.
De'Veldrin
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#8 - 2013-04-02 15:59:44 UTC
Bugsy VanHalen wrote:
I believe there is a reason why a even a max skilled Char does not reach 1,000,000 m3 cargo.

That reason is because CCP doesn't want carriers sneaking back into highsec in the bellies of freighters.

De'Veldrin's Corollary (to Malcanis' Law): Any idea that seeks to limit the ability of a large nullsec bloc to do something in the name of allowing more small groups into sov null will inevitably make it that much harder for small groups to enter sov null.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#9 - 2013-04-02 16:06:52 UTC
First off I'd like to see the source of your information regarding freighter kills 'exploding' since the introduction of tier 3 BCs. Please show us the facts and figures on this, we would love to know.

Next the idea. Why would we want our freighters nerfed?
With this change the following would be the case:

Want the same cargo hold? Then your EHP is vastly reduced and your ship slower.

Want the same EHP? Then your cargo will be vastly reduced and your ship slower.

The freighter is perfectly balanced for it's role, why would you want to nerf it this way?

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#10 - 2013-04-02 16:09:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Let me get this straight...to get back up to the current m3 you want to nerf your structure HP to Hell and back, have I got that right? So instead of 8 tier 3 BC it would take only 4 or fewer?

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Lloyd Roses
Artificial Memories
#11 - 2013-04-02 16:19:37 UTC
Sounds like you don't need lowslots, you need a griffin.
Cardano Firesnake
Fire Bullet Inc
#12 - 2013-04-02 16:41:26 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Let me get this straight...to get back up to the current m3 you want to nerf your structure HP to Hell and back, have I got that right? So instead of 8 tier 3 BC it would take only 4 or fewer?


No reduce only the cargohold.
So if you fit tank modules it will more tanked than now but with less cargohold capacity than now.

Posted - 2010.07.01 11:24:00 - [4] Erase learning skills, remap all SP. That's all.
Cardano Firesnake
Fire Bullet Inc
#13 - 2013-04-02 17:03:46 UTC
Mag's wrote:
First off I'd like to see the source of your information regarding freighter kills 'exploding' since the introduction of tier 3 BCs. Please show us the facts and figures on this, we would love to know.

Next the idea. Why would we want our freighters nerfed?
With this change the following would be the case:

Want the same cargo hold? Then your EHP is vastly reduced and your ship slower.

Want the same EHP? Then your cargo will be vastly reduced and your ship slower.

The freighter is perfectly balanced for it's role, why would you want to nerf it this way?


http://themittani.com/features/should-freighter-ganking-be-nerfed
http://k162space.com/2012/10/15/highsec-freighter-gank-statistics/

The Freighter statistics would have to be modified to be balanced.
The principal idea is that the freighter could be custom so the pilot would have to choose between align time, speed, HP and capacity.
In the end you could have a more tanky freighter (or a faster freighter) than now but with less capacity or a freighter with quite the same capacity than now with the same HP than now and same speed and align time. (If you fit expanded cargohold)

Posted - 2010.07.01 11:24:00 - [4] Erase learning skills, remap all SP. That's all.
Dave Stark
#14 - 2013-04-02 17:15:31 UTC
Cardano Firesnake wrote:
As CCP modified the Mining barges to give Miners a chance, it would be fair to give to freighter pilots the chance to survive sometimes.


except the changes were to stop 5/6 ships being redundant.

which of the 8 freighters is redundant?
sabre906
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#15 - 2013-04-02 17:17:01 UTC
De'Veldrin wrote:
You will not get low slots or rigs on freighters without gimping their existing capabilities. This is because someone will stuff cargo hold expanders on them and use them to drag carriers into highsec to roflstomp level 4s and war targets. No one really wants to nerf freighters to the required extent necessary to make this happen.


Can't launch drones or fighters in highsec carrier. They're there only for vanity purposes.

I'm against merely out of self interest - my vanity carrier will fall in value.
Everyone else who's against it also do so out of self interest - freighters will be harder for them to gank.Lol

Freighters, and all t1 industrials, desperately needed higher hp. A better way to do it would simply be changing base stats. The "battle badger" was always just a fun joke, it'll never be anywhere close to competitive in pvp even with 10x the base hp.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#16 - 2013-04-02 17:19:26 UTC
Cardano Firesnake wrote:
Mag's wrote:
First off I'd like to see the source of your information regarding freighter kills 'exploding' since the introduction of tier 3 BCs. Please show us the facts and figures on this, we would love to know.

Next the idea. Why would we want our freighters nerfed?
With this change the following would be the case:

Want the same cargo hold? Then your EHP is vastly reduced and your ship slower.

Want the same EHP? Then your cargo will be vastly reduced and your ship slower.

The freighter is perfectly balanced for it's role, why would you want to nerf it this way?


http://themittani.com/features/should-freighter-ganking-be-nerfed
http://k162space.com/2012/10/15/highsec-freighter-gank-statistics/

The Freighter statistics would have to be modified to be balanced.
The principal idea is that the freighter could be custom so the pilot would have to choose between align time, speed, HP and capacity.
In the end you could have a more tanky freighter (or a faster freighter) than now but with less capacity or a freighter with quite the same capacity than now with the same HP than now and same speed and align time. (If you fit expanded cargohold)
Neither of those links prove freighter ganking has 'exploded' since Teir 3 BC. The first talks of the rise of ganking, but without figures to prove this. The second only shows freighter ganks in 2012. For your assertion to be correct, we'll need figures before the introduction and after. A year either side will do, with proof of course.

The fact you keep forgetting with this princiiple, is this. With your change, no matter what fitting you put on a freighter, it wouldn't be as good as now.You will not be able to have more EHP, cargo, speed etc etc. This change means a nerf.

So why do you want to nerf the freighter?

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
sabre906
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#17 - 2013-04-02 17:26:05 UTC
Mag's wrote:
Cardano Firesnake wrote:
Mag's wrote:
First off I'd like to see the source of your information regarding freighter kills 'exploding' since the introduction of tier 3 BCs. Please show us the facts and figures on this, we would love to know.

Next the idea. Why would we want our freighters nerfed?
With this change the following would be the case:

Want the same cargo hold? Then your EHP is vastly reduced and your ship slower.

Want the same EHP? Then your cargo will be vastly reduced and your ship slower.

The freighter is perfectly balanced for it's role, why would you want to nerf it this way?


http://themittani.com/features/should-freighter-ganking-be-nerfed
http://k162space.com/2012/10/15/highsec-freighter-gank-statistics/

The Freighter statistics would have to be modified to be balanced.
The principal idea is that the freighter could be custom so the pilot would have to choose between align time, speed, HP and capacity.
In the end you could have a more tanky freighter (or a faster freighter) than now but with less capacity or a freighter with quite the same capacity than now with the same HP than now and same speed and align time. (If you fit expanded cargohold)
Neither of those links prove freighter ganking has 'exploded' since Teir 3 BC. The first talks of the rise of ganking, but without figures to prove this. The second only shows freighter ganks in 2012. For your assertion to be correct, we'll need figures before the introduction and after. A year either side will do, with proof of course.

The fact you keep forgetting with this princiiple, is this. With your change, no matter what fitting you put on a freighter, it wouldn't be as good as now.You will not be able to have more EHP, cargo, speed etc etc. This change means a nerf.

So why do you want to nerf the freighter?


You don't need articles telling you freighter gank, along with other industrial ganks, have increased. Just search kb for Niarja freighter kills. Or better yet, undock.P
John Brewster
Castletech Research
#18 - 2013-04-02 17:43:24 UTC
Mag's wrote:

Neither of those links prove freighter ganking has 'exploded' since Teir 3 BC. The first talks of the rise of ganking, but without figures to prove this. The second only shows freighter ganks in 2012. For your assertion to be correct, we'll need figures before the introduction and after. A year either side will do, with proof of course.

The fact you keep forgetting with this princiiple, is this. With your change, no matter what fitting you put on a freighter, it wouldn't be as good as now.You will not be able to have more EHP, cargo, speed etc etc. This change means a nerf.

So why do you want to nerf the freighter?


It's a bit weird that an experienced player like you keeps misunderstanding such an easy topic.

Since you are rewriting the stats, you can do so in such a way that, for example, with 3 Cargo Expander II a freighter would have exactly the same stats as today. If you take off the expanders, you lose cargo capacity, but gain some other thing, for example tank, or speed, or whatever. This is a buff, not a nerf.

Also, this is not a trial, the links are enough to get a good feeling of the situation, and CPP does have the stats to verify, if they need.

If you disagree that freighter ganking is skyrocketing, feel free to provide proof of this. A year either side will do, with proof of course.
JB
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#19 - 2013-04-02 17:53:33 UTC
Cardano Firesnake wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Let me get this straight...to get back up to the current m3 you want to nerf your structure HP to Hell and back, have I got that right? So instead of 8 tier 3 BC it would take only 4 or fewer?


No reduce only the cargohold.
So if you fit tank modules it will more tanked than now but with less cargohold capacity than now.


Look up cargo expanders and their impact on structure HP and also speed.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#20 - 2013-04-02 17:56:07 UTC
still haven't seen anything that suggests freighter ganking has increased.

thanks to the goon campaign it has become more renown. but that does not necessarily mean more frequent.

i wouldnt even say there is anything wrong with freighter ganking. carry less, use contracts, orca's, avoid systems, escorts etc etc etc

there are a bunch of ways to discourage or throw off a gank.

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
123Next pageLast page