These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[Kronos] Freighters and Jump Freighters Rebalance [Updated]

First post First post First post
Author
Shinnan Krydu
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#161 - 2014-05-17 18:36:36 UTC
Dear CCP

Have you ever heard of the straw that broke the camel's back?

I've played EVE since 2005. I've taken a couple of breaks but I've been a pretty loyal customer. I've spent years of subscription time (and thousands of subscription dollars) training my characters into their specialized roles to be able to do what I need them to do. And now suddenly I feel like the enemy, that CCP has decided that my playstyle is no longer desired in the game.

What do I do? I mine nullsec ice with a small multibox fleet and haul the compressed ice to empire, where I refine it and sell it on the empire market. Doesn't sound like much, but I can (and have) cause large market swings in ice product prices if I'm not careful to space out my trips to empire and my sell orders, so it's not an insignificant operation in the EVE economy. It's enough to PLEX all of my accounts the past year or so, plus save most of the way towards what I need for a super plus fit and implants, while I train the pilot.

When you nerfed the Hulk so that it could no longer stand up to nullsec rats without support, I switched to Mackinaws. Having every pilot in a mack meant I didn't need a dedicated hauler pilot, so it worked out. You made the mack the best compromise between defense and productivity and now you are surprised that they are used so much, so it's time for nerf. Switching a pilot to a Miasmos and the rest to Skiffs gives me most, but not all, of my production capability back, and seems a waste of an exhumer pilot. I can deal with that, but you aren't done yet.

You seem to forget that you deliberately made empire ice mining not sufficient for New Eden's ice needs back during the Odyssey ice changes. You seem to forget that capital ships use racial isotopes that are only found in certain areas of space. You seem to think that the centralization of the economy and power projection in the game is a result of logistics being too easy, and not a result of the game and the pilot's skill levels maturing as the game grows older. Somehow you have created a Utopia in your mind where Eve is Balkanized like it was back in the 2005-2009 era, completely ignoring the fact that it is a natural progression of competitive human organizations to ally together against enemies until only two coalitions face each other.

Until and unless you make it where capital ships and POS towers can use nonspecialized fuel, we need trade in New Eden. I can't believe you honestly expect nullsec dwellers to crosstrain all the racial capital ships and use only those that use the local fuel, their purposes vary too widely. Same goes for POS towers. In order for that trade to happen, all nullsec movers are already looking at double to triple the transport cost, and who knows how high it will go.

These jump freighter changes are ill-considered and an additional burden on top of the same people you have been slamming repeatedly the past month or so with all your nerfs and changes. At some point, even the loyal among us reach a breaking point. I'm not willing to spend for 5-6 months worth of PLEX at 700mil each to retrain my JF pilot, that I took years training to excel at his job (freighter 5 and jump freighter 5 are NOT short skills people) and retrain him into a Rorqual so that I can kind of get back to where I was.

Before all of the "so long carebear" posts come rolling in, let me further say that most of my characters serve a dual purpose. The Rorqual pilot is fully trained leadership pilot that provides fleet links, several exhumer pilots are also carrier and dread pilots, some are scouts and hotdrop cynos, and my main combat pilot is an FC and a new pilot trainer.

Do you hear what I'm saying? I'm not just a carebear that mines ice. I'm a small but not inconsequential cog in the EVE economy as well as a content creater, a veteran pilot and a loyal customer. Until now.

Now I've had enough. I've watched you deliberately cultivate a more vicious and rude playstyle and playerbase until the community has turned from enjoyable to toxic. The impetus for my breaks has generally been the excesses of that community, but this time it's you, CCP.

8 accounts logging off. And this time, I don't intend to come back.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#162 - 2014-05-17 18:39:33 UTC
Dirk MacGirk wrote:


No need for you and that other genius Dave Stark to be douches about it. But since you've gone down that path, kudos to you for being the sage prognosticators of EVE. Nerfing was to be expected. I think it's the level that drew my attention. Just a tad much. Bit I'm sure your crystal ball already knew that.


I was expecting worse to be honest.
Adrien Crosse
Black Frog Logistics
Red-Frog
#163 - 2014-05-17 18:39:56 UTC
Mr JewBearJr wrote:
ArmyOfMe wrote:
Im all for a nerf of jf's, as they make 0,0 life way to easy. I dont really see the point in nerfing normal freighters in such a way though, as you'r allready seeing them beeing popped all over empire space anyhow.



This.. a million times this..


Except this change does nothing to that end. People who use JFs now are still going to use them after the change.
Dave Stark
#164 - 2014-05-17 18:40:08 UTC
Dirk MacGirk wrote:
No need for you and that other genius Dave Stark to be douches about it.


we're really not.
you asked, we told.
Nightingale Actault
Borderland Dynamics
#165 - 2014-05-17 18:41:46 UTC
Batolemaeus wrote:
Nightingale Actault wrote:


With the increases to cost per m3 to JF materials from HS to NS, especially low value materials such as tritanium, the localized ore gathered becomes increasingly viable to use in and around the area where it is gathered.


Nobody used a JF to move trit. We use mineral compression. Which has always been efficient enough that it was only needed for t1 heavy doctrines. Demand for those (and for caps) far outstrips what you can mine without continuous interruption and without the huge expenses involved with moving ore from refinery to manufacturing outpost.

The bulk of my cargo is and has always been things that can not be built locally. Or, to just quote myself:

just a few pages back I wrote:

Am I supposed to extract non-local isotopes from my behind? Will non-local T2 materials into being? Found a praying circle to wish for a divine delivery of non-local rig parts? Perform a summoning of faction modules? Sacrifice a newbie in hopes for plentiful datacore harvest? Wish for decryptors?


Yes, some of those items will need to be brought in. Most of those however, are small items (though I do feel your pain with isotopes). Mineral compression going away will still mean that localized gathering of ore becomes exponentially more important. More miners in space means more targets. More targets equals more chances for smaller gang pvp.
Khanh'rhh
Sparkle Motion.
#166 - 2014-05-17 18:43:15 UTC
Kat Ayclism wrote:
While I appreciate that you are talking from the standpoint of an illiterate without the ability to think things through that has to have blinders on to make it through the day lest you be distracted by some fanciful new lie, your point here is still dipshitted and wrong. What is intended to drive industry to null is the advantages contained there to production.

There's not really any effective change that negates the need for importing- nor should there be, since no space should be an island. So no, this is at a cross purpose to what the **** they are trying to achieve by making the importing that will always be necessary more of a needlessly complicated mess and serves as a higher barrier to entry.


But I suppose my simple pointing out of facts will fall flat on your dulled mental facilities and all you'll see is "Grr Goon" again.


You might want to look over some (or any) of the recent moves CCP have been making in this area. Your argument is silly on the face of it, because "importing will always be necessary" is what CCP are working towards changing systemically.

Importing will always happen, but leaving it the only logical option is something CCP are trying to steer the game away from, and making JF logistics slightly harder (and more expensive) are directly aimed at that.

Seems easier to just jump around and go "grrrrCHANGE!!" instead though, right?

"Do not touch anything unnecessarily. Beware of pretty girls in dance halls and parks who may be spies, as well as bicycles, revolvers, uniforms, arms, dead horses, and men lying on roads -- they are not there accidentally." -Soviet infantry manual,

Kat Ayclism
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
#167 - 2014-05-17 18:45:10 UTC
Khanh'rhh wrote:
Kat Ayclism wrote:
While I appreciate that you are talking from the standpoint of an illiterate without the ability to think things through that has to have blinders on to make it through the day lest you be distracted by some fanciful new lie, your point here is still dipshitted and wrong. What is intended to drive industry to null is the advantages contained there to production.

There's not really any effective change that negates the need for importing- nor should there be, since no space should be an island. So no, this is at a cross purpose to what the **** they are trying to achieve by making the importing that will always be necessary more of a needlessly complicated mess and serves as a higher barrier to entry.


But I suppose my simple pointing out of facts will fall flat on your dulled mental facilities and all you'll see is "Grr Goon" again.


You might want to look over some (or any) of the recent moves CCP have been making in this area. Your argument is silly on the face of it, because "importing will always be necessary" is what CCP are working towards changing systemically.

Importing will always happen, but leaving it the only logical option is something CCP are trying to steer the game away from, and making JF logistics slightly harder (and more expensive) are directly aimed at that.

Seems easier to just jump around and go "grrrrCHANGE!!" instead though, right?

What changes negate the need of importing?

Go on, find them.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#168 - 2014-05-17 18:46:09 UTC
Dirk MacGirk wrote:
No need for you and that other genius Dave Stark to be douches about it.

You know, with the kind of abuse and ignorance we've had to endure when explaining this all these years… yes, yes there is. Lol

Quote:
Bit I'm sure your crystal ball already knew that.
My crystal ball predicted it quite nicely, aside from the JF agility nerf. If anything, it's not as bad as expected. The crystal ball certainly predicted the amount of complaints that would follow and that we'd be able to say I told you so. So…


I told you so.
Allison A'vani
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#169 - 2014-05-17 18:46:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Allison A'vani
This is possibly one of the worst changes I have ever seen. Anyone who actually flies jump freighters a lot will tell you that this is an awful change. For my rhea to even get to where it is right now I have to dump 1.2b on rigs + buy a high grade nomad set. Thank CCP for a dumb change that makes me waste 3 - 4b.

You are directly nurfing Alliance level logistics. The amount of burn out that already exists is staggering. You now want people to have to carry 50% more fuel without increasing the size of the fuel bay, thus further nurfing how much cargo I can hold due to having to carry 200K+ isotopes in my cargo hold (instead of 100k).


TL:DR, increase in Jump cost + cargo hold nurf + agi nurf = 3-4b to get your JF back to just a bit less **** than before.
Gevlon Goblin
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#170 - 2014-05-17 18:47:56 UTC
Before all things: I support nerfing freighters and JFs. JFs made low/null hauling risk free, Freighters made highsec hauling effort free. I'm happy about these changes.

However, this not a rebalance and CCP does a disservice to itself calling it that way. "Rebalance" is "this ship was a bit out of line, let's fix it". You are not changing a ship, but the gameplay status quo: "get everything in Jita an jump it to our HQ" will be changed to "mine it locally, build it locally, move only speciality items". This should be announced and explained like you did with drone assist limiting, because these changes are at the same magnitude.

About the details: I'm not sure that people who casually throw "with T2 rigs" around notice that T2 capital rigs are 0.5-1B. T2 rigging a freighter will surely cost more than the hull. Even with full T1 tanking rigs, the EHP/ISK of a freighter will likely be worse than now. Remember that you can't insure rigs, while the T1 hulls or Freighters were pretty well covered.

My blog: greedygoblin.blogspot.com

Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#171 - 2014-05-17 18:48:03 UTC
You guys also seem to think everything in null still hinges on Jita. Industry still needs work, but to carry on that all is lost and null will implode into nothing because your JF took a slight nerf is ridiculous. Maybe look into building stuff out in null so you don't have to ship in 100% of everything?

Then again that may have more to do with mineral availability so I'm not sure. I think I'll just sit back and watch the world burn a bit.
Aliath Sunstrike
#172 - 2014-05-17 18:48:08 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Aliath Sunstrike wrote:
And my question to Fozzie is....why make it a nerf!? Can't this be a "power creep" buff all across the board and just ADD rigs. Why does it have to be #[email protected]#@ $ painful.

Because it wouldn't be “power creep” — it would be a ridiculously overpowered mega-buff. Counter-balancing the potential bonuses from rigs with nerfs to ensure that the end results were not insane was inevitable.

…oh, and power creep itself is bad, especially for a ship class that didn't particularly need any buffs.


Yes Tippia - queen of forum warrioring...I get that.

Anyone with a moderate view of life though would get my point darling. It is to say just a moderate buff to current to balance out the cost of rigs. I didn't say it had to be HUGE.

Continuous player since 2007.

FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#173 - 2014-05-17 18:49:03 UTC
Dawn Harbinger wrote:
First, if the goal of the JF nerf is to encourage industry in null sec why not just limit the jump range (+ the increased fuel cost) rather than just make them worse overall and even less fun to fly?

Secondly, asking someone who has already invested a lot of time and effort into acquiring such an expensive ship to pay nearly 2 billion more isk on capital rigs with nothing to show for it is a huge disappointment. If I'm going to invest that much into a ship I want to be excited about the benefits. Let us gain enough armor HP to take advantage of our T2 resists, let us increase our agility to warp off from beacons faster, etc. A return to the "baseline" does nothing to excite players or show off their prized ships.

*that JB align nerf Sad


This is the real kick in the balls. It would be one thing if adding two rigs to the JF could actually make it better in some respect, even if it was not massively better.

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#174 - 2014-05-17 18:50:13 UTC
Marlona Sky wrote:
You guys also seem to think everything in null still hinges on Jita. Industry still needs work, but to carry on that all is lost and null will implode into nothing because your JF took a slight nerf is ridiculous. Maybe look into building stuff out in null so you don't have to ship in 100% of everything?

Then again that may have more to do with mineral availability so I'm not sure. I think I'll just sit back and watch the world burn a bit.


Get yourself into that DST thread, you are going to love what you see.
Dirk MacGirk
STK Scientific
The Initiative.
#175 - 2014-05-17 18:50:52 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Dirk MacGirk wrote:


No need for you and that other genius Dave Stark to be douches about it. But since you've gone down that path, kudos to you for being the sage prognosticators of EVE. Nerfing was to be expected. I think it's the level that drew my attention. Just a tad much. Bit I'm sure your crystal ball already knew that.


I was expecting worse to be honest.


Well, I guess it's always safest to expect a worst case scenario when changes are announced on a stage in Iceland. Though, there is only so deep I'm willing to go into that hole in order to manage my own expectations. But I hear ya. Hey guys, look at the bright side, it could have been worse. There, all fixed. lol
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#176 - 2014-05-17 18:51:33 UTC
Shinnan Krydu wrote:
Dear CCP

*mega snip*

8 accounts logging off. And this time, I don't intend to come back.


Can I have your stuff?

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#177 - 2014-05-17 18:52:32 UTC
shouldn't the caldari ones have more shields than armour?

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using

Allison A'vani
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#178 - 2014-05-17 18:53:13 UTC
Gevlon Goblin wrote:
Before all things: I support nerfing freighters and JFs. JFs made low/null hauling risk free, Freighters made highsec hauling effort free. I'm happy about these changes.

However, this not a rebalance and CCP does a disservice to itself calling it that way. "Rebalance" is "this ship was a bit out of line, let's fix it". You are not changing a ship, but the gameplay status quo: "get everything in Jita an jump it to our HQ" will be changed to "mine it locally, build it locally, move only speciality items". This should be announced and explained like you did with drone assist limiting, because these changes are at the same magnitude.

About the details: I'm not sure that people who casually throw "with T2 rigs" around notice that T2 capital rigs are 0.5-1B. T2 rigging a freighter will surely cost more than the hull. Even with full T1 tanking rigs, the EHP/ISK of a freighter will likely be worse than now. Remember that you can't insure rigs, while the T1 hulls or Freighters were pretty well covered.



Based on what you just said it is pretty obvious you have zero clue what you are actually talking about when it comes to risk nor effort required to move massive amounts of stuff.
theelusiveyoda
Death Troopers
PURPLE HELMETED WARRIORS
#179 - 2014-05-17 18:53:59 UTC
In the thread: ccp realizes that a cargo rig expanded freighter could move a packaged capital ship so Nerf the storage of them so that they don't have to rethink the rigs changes.
Chic Botany
Doomheim
#180 - 2014-05-17 18:54:02 UTC
Just what have you got against industry CCP?

Scrapping the mod/mineral compression making anyone who builds capitals haul loose ore around to compress then haul it some more.

Then you say "I know, let's give freighters rig slots" "Yaaay cry the industrialists, we might be able to cut the upcoming 34 freighter loads of veldspar down to 30 if we put in cargo expanders Smile"

But then the mighty hand of CCP exclaims "THOU SHALT NOT CARRY THAT MUCH VELDSPAR IN THINE CARGO HOLD" and verily proceeds to shrink said ships to the poor slaves have to spend much isk getting it back to where it was before.

"HA!" cries CCP "NOT ONLY DID WE SHRINK YOUR SHIPS, WE ALSO SHOT YOUR ELITE JUMP FREIGHTER IN THE LEG SO NOW IT MANEUVERS LIKE A SICK PIG IN CUSTARD!"

"....Shocked....What?......X....Straight.......Ugh....." says the player


And just what does
Quote:
This means that Freighters can get significantly higher maximum capacity than before using rigs, and we're increasing the volume of packaged capital ships (to 1.3 million m3) and unpackaged station containers (to 2 million m3) to compensate.

It's like giving you a candy and just as you take it, you get punched in the face. You seriously need to work on your announcement skills, at least break the good and bad news over 2 sentences.

You give us the potential to move more, but then increase the size of things that people might want to move. I understand increasing packaged capital ship sizes as otherwise people would put a carrier into their freighter in low sec and then fly it into high sec, but why station containers, they hold 1 million m3 and take 1 million m3 space, so why change it?