These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Dirk MacGirk
STK Scientific
The Initiative.
#181 - 2014-05-17 18:54:06 UTC
Tippia wrote:
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.


Well, I imagine you probably did catch some grief along the way. It's why I try to not read every thread in this cesspool. As for the complaints? Any change gets complaints. It's EVE. Too many will complain about anything just for the sake of complaining. It's why its hard to have any semblance of a rational thread for the devs to respond to.
Axe Coldon
#182 - 2014-05-17 18:54:19 UTC
I think its a horrible change. I was all looking forward to being able to haul 500k in my jf. To compensate for the 50% increase in isotopes ...and well to haul ihub upgrades without needed a titan.

Now instead i will be forced to have rigs just to haul what i was hauling so increased cost to ship, increased cost to fuel.

Once again industrialist/miners get crapped on. Just when I thought things were looking up. Oh well.

No trees were killed in the sending of this message. However, a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#183 - 2014-05-17 18:55:01 UTC
Aliath Sunstrike wrote:
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.

…except that it's the rigs themselves that make it huge. Unless you want to nerf all capital rigs, or introduce a completely new rig category, the freighters would have to be nerfed to accommodate the potential rig bonuses.

And that's part of the point: it would have to accommodate all of those potential bonuses — after all, all eventualities will have to be balanced — and the rigs would only be able to counteract one of the nerfs. So no matter how much you restrict the bonuses, be it by inventing new rigs or by limiting the number of rigs, or by nerfing the rigs, or by limiting which rigs can be fitted, the ship nerf to compensate will have to be the worst imaginable for every single stat and the sum total of those nerfs will always end up as a net nerf for the final fitted ship as a whole.

This is hardly rocket science, and therefore it is not even remotely surprising that we get this kind of change: because anything else would make them silly overpowered and completely imbalanced.
Maximus Andendare
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#184 - 2014-05-17 18:55:11 UTC
Very disappointed with these changes. They amount to nothing more than a giant freighter nerf. It's not even like freighters were overpowered before. They're incredibly easy to gank as it is, they don't award anything for being at the keyboard vs afk piloting, and they already were expensive.

If you wanted to add "customization," then you should have just added a single low slot. That way the pilot could have chosen a nanofiber for quicker aligns, reinforced bulkhead for safer afk travel, a damage control for at-the-keys higher active tank, expanded cargohold for cargo room, etc. That's all the customization you needed. Further "customization" could come from pilot implants.

But the changes that you have suggested--and are likely already locked in--are just an asinine nerf to a ship line that didn't need it. Adding tremendous cost to get what we already have, in an already expensive ship, doesn't make any sense. There's FAR better ways you could have gone about freighter customization without the huge nerf you're pushing here. Hell, you could have just introduced a "T3 freighter" that would have customization options.

This nerf though, no. Terrible. Bad.

-1 CCP

Enter grid and you're already dead, destined to be reborn and fight another day.

>> Play Eve Online FREE! Join today for exclusive bonuses! <<

Khanh'rhh
Sparkle Motion.
#185 - 2014-05-17 18:55:50 UTC
Kat Ayclism wrote:
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.


None of them.

But, to make a post which isn't just swinging at your lazy straw-man argument:

The JF + fuel changes should be seen as the stick.
The industry changes wrt manufacture in 0.0 are the carrot.

You then let the system start adjusting before you try to "negate" something in a much more comprehensive way.

But you already know this, which is why you are against it.

"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,

Sophaya Fortelleren
The Conference Elite
CODE.
#186 - 2014-05-17 18:57:00 UTC
The intention of the changes are to give freighters and ostensibly JFs more flexibility, I'll only speak for freighters though.

In the case of freighters the rigs are for giving flexibility, not necessarily buffs if I'm understanding CCP's intentions correctly. However the reduction in base cargo, has such a wide impact that it effectively negates any flexibility that can come from rigs, the reasoning being:


  • Industry deals with materials that take up a lot of m3
  • These minerals take up so much m3 that freighters have to move them.
  • Nerfing the base cargo m3 means before rigs, less can be held.
  • Therefore freighters have to do more hauls to transport these large loads
  • Additional loads means that any increases possible to align or warp speed will not yield a net time saving due to the time it takes to do these additional jumps
  • So freighters will have to use cargo rigs in order to negate the above.
  • This means the other rigs are useless. And so there is no flexibility, you have to use cargo rigs.


If we assume that most sensible freighter pilots carrry <1bil ISK in their cargo hold, in the event where you're not carrying high volume m3, the EHP reduction/redistribution still serves to make the freighter more gankable than they were before, given the self defeating rig situation as described above, it wouldn't make as much functional sense to go with the HP rigs. Another use of a freighter is to reliably move high value cargo rather than just big cargo, so the HP nerf is a valid concern here. Ultimately as things are it's very difficult to avoid a freighter ganking, and relies on the gankers making a mistake rather than anything you can do on your end to escape or with the incoming changes, mitigate risk.

It's worth bringing up while we're talking about freighters another issue with them though. As someone who likes to gank things.. a lot. It seems that in the case of freighters, it's just too easy mainly due to the fact that you can reliably interdict a freighter in high sec without incurring any sort of timer whatosever by simply using EVE's bumping mechanics.

So all in all, this doesn't seem to be making freighters flexible, or making them better, it's just making them worse at their function and making them a more expensive and now riskier investment as they're a softer target.

Not to say freighters should be better or worse, but I don't see how this can be seen as a rebalance as much as an effective nerf. Although I do think as things stand, a freighter should be more difficult to gank than it is. As it stands, there's nothing a freighter pilot can really do to avoid a gank, where's with a miner there's plenty they can do.
Khanh'rhh
Sparkle Motion.
#187 - 2014-05-17 18:57:29 UTC
Axe Coldon wrote:
I think its a horrible change. I was all looking forward to being able to haul 500k in my jf. To compensate for the 50% increase in isotopes ...and well to haul ihub upgrades without needed a titan.

Now instead i will be forced to have rigs just to haul what i was hauling so increased cost to ship, increased cost to fuel.

Once again industrialist/miners get crapped on. Just when I thought things were looking up. Oh well.


Good news buddy, you can haul more than you could before in the same freighter. You just can't do it whilst also having more EHP.

"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,

Maximus Andendare
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#188 - 2014-05-17 18:57:34 UTC
Tippia wrote:
make them silly overpowered and completely imbalanced.
Overpowered? Imbalanced? Compared to what? LOL. Not all terms apply to all classes. You want to talk about "overpowered?" How about look at the Orca. That's got enough meaningful room, FULL CUSTOMIZATION THROUGH MODULES, huge tank, quick align, etc. That's overpowered. A freighter than can do nothing but watch itself get bumped or suicide ganked? Overpowered? Imbalanced? Ha. No.

Enter grid and you're already dead, destined to be reborn and fight another day.

>> Play Eve Online FREE! Join today for exclusive bonuses! <<

Aliath Sunstrike
#189 - 2014-05-17 18:57:41 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Aliath Sunstrike wrote:
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.

…except that it's the rigs themselves that make it huge. Unless you want to nerf all capital rigs, or introduce a completely new rig category, the freighters would have to be nerfed to accommodate the potential rig bonuses.

And that's part of the point: it would have to accommodate all of those potential bonuses — after all, all eventualities will have to be balanced — and the rigs would only be able to counteract one of the nerfs. So no matter how much you restrict the bonuses, be it by inventing new rigs or by limiting the number of rigs, or by nerfing the rigs, or by limiting which rigs can be fitted, the ship nerf to compensate will have to be the worst imaginable for every single stat and the sum total of those nerfs will always end up as a net nerf for the final fitted ship as a whole.

This is hardly rocket science, and therefore it is not even remotely surprising that we get this kind of change: because anything else would make them silly overpowered and completely imbalanced.


OMG you are dense.

I am not talking about changing rigs...just decreasing the nerf a tad on the ships. JEBUS CRIST!

Continuous player since 2007.

Dirk MacGirk
STK Scientific
The Initiative.
#190 - 2014-05-17 18:57:57 UTC
Marlona Sky wrote:


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.


That's the issue in that regard. Is what it is. We'll see where it shakes out.
CynoNet Two
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#191 - 2014-05-17 18:58:36 UTC  |  Edited by: CynoNet Two
Tippia wrote:
it currently looks like downgrading to a freighter will be the best move, and as a bonus, that frees up a lot of capital. P


Not when everyone else is selling off JFs :)

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


You know this is a feedback thread, right? These are planned changes, not final changes. Go look at how the other stickied threads around here have resulted in amendments. How about making a case for alternatives rather than spitting out a 100-paragraph dummy?

With that in mind, I'd like to question the need for a cargo penalty to HP rigs when combined with the sizeable reduction to base JF cargo. Outside of high-sec you're probably just better off using a Rorqual than using a HP-rigged JF. I see two options here:
1) A JF role bonus to reduce the HP rig cargo penalty, or
2) Adjust JF base stats so that Cargo, EHP and agility are all on par with their current levels when used with T1 rigs of that type. T2 rigs should provide a bonus over the current levels.

Anyone T1 rigging for cargo would see the same cargo levels as now with slightly worse agility and EHP, but T2 rigs would give more cargo than now.
Anyone T1 rigging for HP would suffer a reduction in cargo and agility compared to now, but T2 rigs would give more EHP than now.
Anyone T1 rigging for agility would have less cargo and EHP than now, but T2 rigs would give better agility than now.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#192 - 2014-05-17 18:59:36 UTC
i also find it strange that you have left the shield/armour and hull HP bonuses on the JF's..

surely increasing shield HP for caldari and armour HP for the rest would make more sense allowing you remove off racial HP bonuses and hull bonus?

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

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#193 - 2014-05-17 19:00:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
theelusiveyoda wrote:
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.

Everyone realised that, which is how we could predict this nerf such a long time ago.

You'll note that they also changed the size of repackaged capitals, so that particular reason for rethinking it doesn't fly as well any more. Really, short of opting for “let's not give them rigs at all”, there is no way to rethink the rig change and end up with the same kind of nerfs.

Maximus Andendare wrote:
If you wanted to add "customization," then you should have just added a single low slot.
That would have required the same kind of nerfs. Actually, it would have required even bigger ones since a single low slot can do a whole lot more than a couple of rigs can.

This was also a part of the oft-repeated “told you so” package.

CynoNet Two wrote:
Not when everyone else is selling off JFs :)
Dammit. Good point.
It should free up some capital, though, because even with these nerfs, I don't expect freighter + rigs to beat a JF in price. P
Khanh'rhh
Sparkle Motion.
#194 - 2014-05-17 19:00:48 UTC
Maximus Andendare wrote:
Very disappointed with these changes. They amount to nothing more than a giant freighter nerf. It's not even like freighters were overpowered before. They're incredibly easy to gank as it is, they don't award anything for being at the keyboard vs afk piloting, and they already were expensive.

If you wanted to add "customization," then you should have just added a single low slot. That way the pilot could have chosen a nanofiber for quicker aligns, reinforced bulkhead for safer afk travel, a damage control for at-the-keys higher active tank, expanded cargohold for cargo room, etc. That's all the customization you needed. Further "customization" could come from pilot implants.

A low slot would have been a massive net buff. There was no need for a massive buff. This lets you customize your freighter, whilst keeping the relative power about where it was overall, but actually makes it better if it's trying to do one thing well.

"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,

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#195 - 2014-05-17 19:01:02 UTC
Aliath Sunstrike wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Aliath Sunstrike wrote:
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.

…except that it's the rigs themselves that make it huge. Unless you want to nerf all capital rigs, or introduce a completely new rig category, the freighters would have to be nerfed to accommodate the potential rig bonuses.

And that's part of the point: it would have to accommodate all of those potential bonuses — after all, all eventualities will have to be balanced — and the rigs would only be able to counteract one of the nerfs. So no matter how much you restrict the bonuses, be it by inventing new rigs or by limiting the number of rigs, or by nerfing the rigs, or by limiting which rigs can be fitted, the ship nerf to compensate will have to be the worst imaginable for every single stat and the sum total of those nerfs will always end up as a net nerf for the final fitted ship as a whole.

This is hardly rocket science, and therefore it is not even remotely surprising that we get this kind of change: because anything else would make them silly overpowered and completely imbalanced.


OMG you are dense.

I am not talking about changing rigs...just decreasing the nerf a tad on the ships. JEBUS CRIST!


Cant do that, the nerfs are needed to keep them balanced. (Aside from that agility nerf)

I spent years telling people this is what would happen and now we all get to suffer together.
Aliath Sunstrike
#196 - 2014-05-17 19:01:57 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Aliath Sunstrike wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Aliath Sunstrike wrote:
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.

…except that it's the rigs themselves that make it huge. Unless you want to nerf all capital rigs, or introduce a completely new rig category, the freighters would have to be nerfed to accommodate the potential rig bonuses.

And that's part of the point: it would have to accommodate all of those potential bonuses — after all, all eventualities will have to be balanced — and the rigs would only be able to counteract one of the nerfs. So no matter how much you restrict the bonuses, be it by inventing new rigs or by limiting the number of rigs, or by nerfing the rigs, or by limiting which rigs can be fitted, the ship nerf to compensate will have to be the worst imaginable for every single stat and the sum total of those nerfs will always end up as a net nerf for the final fitted ship as a whole.

This is hardly rocket science, and therefore it is not even remotely surprising that we get this kind of change: because anything else would make them silly overpowered and completely imbalanced.


OMG you are dense.

I am not talking about changing rigs...just decreasing the nerf a tad on the ships. JEBUS CRIST!


Cant do that, the nerfs are needed to keep them balanced. (Aside from that agility nerf)

I spent years telling people this is what would happen and now we all get to suffer together.


Yes you can. Just take the numbers Fozzie is throwing out and decrease the nerf a tad. Make it less painful. Do I need to start pulling numbers here>?

Continuous player since 2007.

Dave Stark
#197 - 2014-05-17 19:03:15 UTC
Aliath Sunstrike wrote:
Yes you can. Just take the numbers Fozzie is throwing out and decrease the nerf a tad. Make it less painful. Do I need to start pulling numbers here>?


pull out all the numbers you want, but they are what they are in order to keep things balanced when people got the rig slots they so desperately desired.
Kat Ayclism
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
#198 - 2014-05-17 19:04:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Kat Ayclism
Khanh'rhh wrote:
Kat Ayclism wrote:
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.


None of them.

But, to make a post which isn't just swinging at your lazy straw-man argument:

The JF + fuel changes should be seen as the stick.
The industry changes wrt manufacture in 0.0 are the carrot.

You then let the system start adjusting before you try to "negate" something in a much more comprehensive way.

But you already know this, which is why you are against it.

And they've stated that there will be little or no need for importing in their longterm goal where? And that lines up with having certain resources necessary for production only available in certain space how?

Have a think at it again, we'll wait while you catch up with the rest of the class.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#199 - 2014-05-17 19:05:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Aliath Sunstrike wrote:
OMG you are dense.
No. You're just not understanding why we're getting this nerf.

Quote:
I am not talking about changing rigs...just decreasing the nerf a tad on the ships.
They are reduced compared to what one might expect because they threw in a couple of other changes to alter some of the context that the ships have to be balanced against. Either way, balance has to be maintained and that balance must include all eventualities. Thus, it will always end up a net nerf to the ship as a whole, even if you can restore (or even surpass) some of the old abilities.

Quote:
Yes you can. Just take the numbers Fozzie is throwing out and decrease the nerf a tad. Make it less painful.
You mean make it unbalanced. Yeah, see… that doesn't work for when you're trying to make things balanced.
Gilbaron
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#200 - 2014-05-17 19:05:20 UTC
T-N-T wrote:
funny thing what only nulli goons and pl doesnt like these changes))others fine with them


Whenever something like that happens you can be pretty sure that something is seriously wrong.