These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Author
Mag's
Azn Empire
#21 - 2013-10-17 17:01:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Mag's
You do realise ISBoxer doesn't actually break that rule? Or are you choosing to only read the parts of it that fit your argument?

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.

supernova ranger
The End of Eternity
#22 - 2013-10-17 17:51:16 UTC
1. Freighters are boring and painful to fly
2. They serve the purpose of transporting goods that are high volume & low cost
3. They are intended to fly in high-sec only, the logistics of bringing it through hostile space is mind boggling and impractical (6x-10x webbers and scouts)

Just live with the fact that the ship sucks in general but serves its purpose and move on.
Vrenth
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#23 - 2013-10-17 20:57:44 UTC
Sipphakta en Gravonere wrote:
Vrenth wrote:
Because the text he quoted is in english, fool... from the english EULA that everyone agrees to before logging into the game.


For all I know he could have said:

...quote of the english part of the eula...

"That means that you are allowed to have your input sent to multiple windows, because that function isn't against the eula."

How many people using programs to send key-/mouseinput to multiple windows have been banned?


It means what it says. It's a binding contract, it's not open to interpretation.
Sipphakta en Gravonere
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#24 - 2013-10-17 21:18:04 UTC
Vrenth wrote:
It means what it says. It's a binding contract, it's not open to interpretation.


I still don't know what that German GM said. Is it binding as well? What languages do I need to speak? Why is no-one being banned who sends keystrokes to multiple windows? What does ISBoxer do? (I don't use it)
Katrina Oniseki
Oniseki-Raata Internal Watch
Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
#25 - 2013-10-17 21:30:05 UTC
Sipphakta en Gravonere wrote:
Oh, of course Freighters should be looked at and given choices. They just shouldn't be buffed, because that is not needed. A good proposal was:

Reduce freighter EHP, agility and cargohold, give them lowslots:

Use cargohold expanders for same cargospace as current freighters
Use nanofibers for same agility as current freighters
Use reinforced bulkheads and DCU for same EHP as current freighters

Bam. Choices.


I'm pretty sure that's called a nerf. You're taking a ship that had all three at the same time, and making it so they must choose between them with no added benefit.

That may be choices, but it's also a nerf.

Katrina Oniseki

Octoven
Stellar Production
#26 - 2013-10-17 21:40:04 UTC
the ONLY way I would support such a change is to allow one low slot only on in order to put on a DCU...that gives you an insane amount of HP but ONLY if you pay attention and turn it on in every system. Other than that, do like most people do and escort it with a webber. You don't need to spend insane amounts of isk to get one...no need for a ceptor just use a dual webbed condor fit for speed. I guarantee you you will never get ganked as long as you do it right.

Decloak timer is 30 seconds, so if your freighter makes it to the gate and jumps through before your 1 minute aggro timer is up just leave it cloaked until you are through the gate. Initiate warp and alt tab to fly to the frieghter MWDed...lock enroute, and dual web. Rinse and repeat. The only place this isnt viable is undocking because of station velocities; however, use an insta-warp and go from there.
Sipphakta en Gravonere
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#27 - 2013-10-18 08:38:42 UTC
Katrina Oniseki wrote:
I'm pretty sure that's called a nerf. You're taking a ship that had all three at the same time, and making it so they must choose between them with no added benefit.

That may be choices, but it's also a nerf.


True. But there is no way to add choices to freighters without buffing or nerfing the base stats and like I said, a buff is likely not needed. They have enough defenses (otherwise more than a few freighters each day would get ganked), enough cargo-hold (the freighters I scan a rarely full) and a reasonable good agility (they could use a bit more to warp in, say, 30 seconds, but with the use of webbers it's a moot point).

Freighters seem to be in a good state, because even low-reward courier contracts get accepted and done within hours of posting them - indicating a lot of people enjoy flying them.
Tilly Delnero
Doomheim
#28 - 2013-10-18 09:50:04 UTC
Draconigea wrote:
The only thing is, that they DONT allow or disallow a specific tool. So ISBox is not illegal itself...but the FUNCTION of sending a single command to multiple clients IS a violation of the ToS:

No.

Why have the anti-ISBoxer threads not died yet? CCP's interpretation of the EULA is all that matters, not yours or mine.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#29 - 2013-10-18 10:40:03 UTC
Draconigea wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:

CCP have stated they don;t officially endorse it but the use of it is not against the EULA as long as it breaches none of the other terms of the EULA. ISBoxer is used by miners and gankers every single day, so if it's suddenly not allowed, they are doing a terrible job at enforcing it.

Nice link....did you read it?

GM Lelouch wrote:

Multiboxing is not inherently in violation of our EULA, a player is not breaking the EVE game rules by virtue of simultaneously operating multiple accounts alone. Multiboxing software can however be in violation of the EULA.

The only thing is, that they DONT allow or disallow a specific tool. So ISBox is not illegal itself...but the FUNCTION of sending a single command to multiple clients IS a violation of the ToS:

Quote:

3. You may not use your own or any third-party software,macros or other stored rapid keystrokes or other patterns of play that facilitate acquisition of items, currency, objects, character attributes, rank or status at an accelerated rate when compared with ordinary Game play. You may not rewrite or modify the user interface or otherwise manipulate data in any way to acquire items, currency, objects, character attributes or beneficial actions not actually acquired or achieved in the Game.


It is as clear as it can be...but just because too many idiots are using this tool, all believe its legal...

If you speak german, read this: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3588651#post3588651
So explain to me why ISBoxer players are not being banned then? There's thousands of them.
They state in that thread, other threads and the blog that multiboxing software itself is not against the rules and as long as the macro functionality is not being used to automate functions, the sharing on a single click across to multiple clients is not a violation. If it was, then ISBoxer would be in violation, since that's what it's designed to do. Personally I'm a fan of ISBoxer being banned, but it isn't. There are plenty of people using it with no repercussions. The reason being that an ISBoxer fleet cannot run 24/7 like a bot fleet, so does less economic damage, while still providing CCP with a bucket load of extra payments. Why would they chose to cut off that supply by banning it?

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Crayne
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#30 - 2013-10-18 10:55:16 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
So explain to me why ISBoxer players are not being banned then?


I have 1 (one) word for you...profit.
Sipphakta en Gravonere
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#31 - 2013-10-18 11:21:01 UTC
Crayne wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
So explain to me why ISBoxer players are not being banned then?


I have 1 (one) word for you...profit.


That is certainly one part. The other part is that the "broadcast to all windows" functionality is not a violation of the eula.
Allandri
Liandri Industrial
#32 - 2013-10-18 12:17:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Allandri
Freighters could be given one capital rig slot and one low slot at the expense of removing 30-50% of their current cargohold and EHP

You want to fit an expander in that low? Go ahead and remove 20% of your structure. You want to put a cargohold optimization rig in it as well? Go ahead and remove up to 10% of your armor.

You want to be sensible and protect yourself? Install that damage control unit and a useful astronautic rig to help your agility / warp speed

I want people to have more options to be stupid
Dr0000 Maulerant
Union Nanide and Tooling
#33 - 2013-10-18 13:31:38 UTC
Allandri wrote:
Freighters could be given one capital rig slot and one low slot at the expense of removing 30-50% of their current cargohold and EHP

You want to fit an expander in that low? Go ahead and remove 20% of your structure. You want to put a cargohold optimization rig in it as well? Go ahead and remove up to 10% of your armor.

You want to be sensible and protect yourself? Install that damage control unit and a useful astronautic rig to help your agility / warp speed

I want people to have more options to be stupid


I'm assuming everyone wanting to nerf the freighter is a gankist, I just don't understand why they all hate Ihubs so much.

Tell me again about how every playstyle you dont engage in "doesn't require any effort" and everyone who does it needs to die in a fire. Be sure to mention about how you tried it once but it was too easy/boring/ethnic-homophobic slur. 

Silvetica Dian
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#34 - 2013-10-18 14:13:38 UTC
Shonion wrote:
Its not about
- how many freighter ganked per day or where
- how easy it or not
- good or bad freighter ganking.

You pointed out well, but i guess didn't want this way, that the risk/reward ratio is changed during the last years.

From: 1-1,5b risk (needed bs to gank) / noone ganked freighter below 2-3b cargo

To: 300m risk (25 catalyst) / gank anything coming throught the gate

So the risk of ganking a freighter is drasticly decreased during the last years, means its not a big risk to do it, however if you want to earn some money too you need to choose expensive ones, but if you don't care, you can easily make 1B damage (cost of freighter) to anyone for only 300m cost ships.


Ganking freighters is good, because its isk sink. What i saying is, its inballanced atm.



I have been involved in one freighter gank and 1 titan gank.
FC was elo knight in both cases.
Titan gank resulted in a cfc titan dieing in a system full of online cfc caps and with a very large escort fleet on standby to protect their caps. Lonely Ryan lost his titan that day.
Freighter in high sec survived in structure and warped off.
both tooks similar amounts of time waiting (about 2 hours) for something interesting to happen.
so in my experience freighters are harder to gank than titans and even if we had killed it i wouldn't be anywhere near as happy as i was getting on the titan kill.
killing frieghters even if cat herding pilots into doing it were easy would remain dull and would remain a poor source of isk/hr.
The only reason people do it at all is because a few pilots stick many multiple of billions in their cargo and many of them cry epic tears.
people who want to make big profit ganking in high sec go after incursion pilots and blinged out mission runners. often these are far more expensive ships, easier loot to grab, easier loot to see and far far less EHP.
OP is as wrong as the other 50 people who posted this this the last month and will remain wrong for the foreseeable future.

Money at its root is a form of rationing. When the richest 85 people have as much wealth as the poorest 3.5 billion (50% of humanity) it is clear where the source of poverty is. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/20/trickle-down-economics-broken-promise-richest-85

Allandri
Liandri Industrial
#35 - 2013-10-18 14:17:16 UTC
Dr0000 Maulerant wrote:
Allandri wrote:
Freighters could be given one capital rig slot and one low slot at the expense of removing 30-50% of their current cargohold and EHP

You want to fit an expander in that low? Go ahead and remove 20% of your structure. You want to put a cargohold optimization rig in it as well? Go ahead and remove up to 10% of your armor.

You want to be sensible and protect yourself? Install that damage control unit and a useful astronautic rig to help your agility / warp speed

I want people to have more options to be stupid


I'm assuming everyone wanting to nerf the freighter is a gankist, I just don't understand why they all hate Ihubs so much.


My suggestion is not necessarily a nerf though. Sure some traders might ***** about the lowered cargo capacity and much lower EHP but it fits with EVE play style of risk vs reward.

As for IHUBs, plenty of people have been bitching about sov warfare for years
Sarah Stallman
Pen2 Logistics
#36 - 2013-10-18 17:15:51 UTC
I maintain that freighters aren't broken. On the whole, I think Rubicon's warp changes will decrease overall jump times for freighters, and the align times are in keeping with their size. The move significantly more m3/hour than anything else in game, and pay for that capability with being somewhat fragile. If a freighter can "safely" carry a billion ISK in cargo, plus another 1-1.5 for its own value, that's plenty.

It just means that for large operations you need an escort, or you can hire a professional (Blue Frog) to do it for you.
supernova ranger
The End of Eternity
#37 - 2013-10-18 17:26:40 UTC
Stop using escort and freighter in same sentence. Ur an idiot if you think that helps at all...

Freighters are easy prey for capital hot drops in low and null, hence the reason why jump freighters were released. It's impossible for t1 freighters to make it to nullsec period and without the OP jumpfreighters they'd stand no chance at overcoming logistical issues.

In highsec, the escorts don't have time to respond... A gank is supposed to be instantaneous!
Sipphakta en Gravonere
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#38 - 2013-10-18 18:26:07 UTC
supernova ranger wrote:
In highsec, the escorts don't have time to respond... A gank is supposed to be instantaneous!


In most cases it isn't. Since it's more economical to gank with high-DPS, low-alpha ships (Catalyst, Brutix, Talos) than with high-alpha, low-dps ships (Tornados, Hurricanes), the escort has enough time to intervene. I have had a lot of ganks fail due to ECM intervention (Griffins are very very easy to train into). If freighter ganking is so easy and unpreventable, why do so few freighters die to suicide ganks each day?
supernova ranger
The End of Eternity
#39 - 2013-10-18 18:41:26 UTC
Sipphakta en Gravonere wrote:
supernova ranger wrote:
In highsec, the escorts don't have time to respond... A gank is supposed to be instantaneous!


In most cases it isn't. Since it's more economical to gank with high-DPS, low-alpha ships (Catalyst, Brutix, Talos) than with high-alpha, low-dps ships (Tornados, Hurricanes), the escort has enough time to intervene. I have had a lot of ganks fail due to ECM intervention (Griffins are very very easy to train into). If freighter ganking is so easy and unpreventable, why do so few freighters die to suicide ganks each day?


Freighters don't die because they don't put more then a bill in their hold which makes ganking them unprofitable. You'd be surprised how cheap things don't add up to be that much...

Though I can see your idea working in general, it's not practical... The counter to your tactic would to be to bring destroyers to knock off your griffins/ blackbirds or just blow them up as they are aggroing the corp in attacking. Someone should be scouting a freighter and see it coming... Plan for it... And throw it into the ganking profitability equation.
Sipphakta en Gravonere
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#40 - 2013-10-18 18:58:00 UTC
supernova ranger wrote:
Freighters don't die because they don't put more then a bill in their hold which makes ganking them unprofitable. You'd be surprised how cheap things don't add up to be that much...


I'm scanning on a popular gate in The Forge. Just now we had to let http://goonmetrics.com/cargo_scan/80091/?price_type=buy pass because we failed. And there are a lot of freighters with values over 2Bill that we don't gank because it's not worth the effort of coordinating 15 people (bumpers, dps, looters). If it were easy, we would kill a freighter every 16-20 minutes.

Quote:
Though I can see your idea working in general, it's not practical... The counter to your tactic would to be to bring destroyers to knock off your griffins/ blackbirds or just blow them up as they are aggroing the corp in attacking. Someone should be scouting a freighter and see it coming... Plan for it... And throw it into the ganking profitability equation.


While, yes, there is a counter to everything (as it should be), the point is that freighters in general (there are exceptions) don't want to protect their assets and come crying on the forum for a change - because grrrrr-Goons. The gankers have adapted to all the changes to suicide ganking (CONCORD spawn time lowered, untankable CONCORD, removal of sling-shot ganking, removal of relative safe looting etc) - why should we not expect freighter/industrial pilots to do the same?