These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
#961 - 2014-05-18 20:23:37 UTC
Vigilanta wrote:
I dont ever think anyone assumed choice would come without a cost, I think most imagined that with the introduction of rigs we would have the opportunity to marginally increase cargo and tank ./ or speed, OR massively improve cargo OR tank. Please note the or. The main issue that is created with the current proposed set of changes is that there really isn't a middle ground.
Maybe some didn't, but if you look back at the threads they are chock-full of people who seem to assume that the only cost would be something along the lines of rig penalties and nothing more. The reason why these kinds of overarching nerfs to the base stats are needed never got past their blinders.

The same goes for the middle ground: the notion that the middle ground would forcibly be something pretty bad since the balancing had to compensate for the extremes never sunk in. In truth, they actually end up being much less severe than expected — in most cases, you can shift the penalties to something that doesn't hurt too much.

Quote:
Realistically, freighters were in dire need of a buff, as someone who has been bumped around madrimille for 15 minutes there is no way one can consider the current gank meta fair or balanced.
Sure it is. There are ways of escaping from that kind of trap but nothing sane or sensible done to the freighters themselves could ever help you there. What you have there is a one-vs-many “problem”, not a ship problem. Not the quotation marks on the first since it's entirely fair and balanced that many pilots working together can beat one. Realistically, freighters were so far from needing a buff that the best you could hope for was that they remained the same. Instead, we got rigs and all the nerfs that had to follow.

Freighters were in an excellent position if people just flew them properly. Jump freighters were, if anything, slated for a slight nerf but many thought it would stop with the fuel changes.

As for your suggestions, yes, they would all make the nerfs sting less. The question is, why should they? They're already mild compared to what could have been, and all you're really doing is creeping back towards not having rigs to being with.

handige harrie wrote:
try making a freighter have the same EHP AND cargo in Kronos as now, Tech 1 rigs will only get your so far....

Nah. I think I'll instead adapt to the new balance and pick and choose what I need from the ship rather than (futilely) trying to reconstruct a state that no longer exists. Blink

I think I may have already picked the two rigs I need to get back to what I want from my JF, but I'll have to test it on sisi against another set up to see which one works best. Neither of them will be T2 even though it's almost a sensible investment compared to a JF's price tag. But then, I also have to test it against a fully (still T1) rigged freighter to see if I can cash out some profit in the process.
#962 - 2014-05-18 20:24:26 UTC
Tippia wrote:
handige harrie wrote:
This is CCP saying people with one account are not wanted in EVE. It's cheaper to haul with 2x freighters now than it is with 1x with Rigs.
So your freighters cost less than 300M ISK? Can I a buy one five? P


with all the crossed out text in your posts, you should change your name to Tippex.
C C P Alliance
#963 - 2014-05-18 20:24:51 UTC
Lena Lazair wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
The numbers are now corrected in the OP.


Can you confirm in contrast that the agility nerf to JFs is intentional? (from 0.05 to 0.0625)?


It's intentional, although I have been seeing a few good arguments for reconsidering it in the thread so far.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie

#964 - 2014-05-18 20:27:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Daichi Yamato
Dave Stark wrote:
Daichi Yamato wrote:
which can still be collected in various ways and give different out comes.

not if you have population data.


What was used by peeps in the thread was the US population and a year.

but what if u only live in arizona and dnt really travel anywhere else. i expect the average number of lightning storms is higher or lower in arizona than the entire US average. so the actual chance of being struck by lightning in a given year is actually different for this person who doesnt leave arizona.

what data u use and why is upto u. but when ppl say the chance of something happening is such and such, the number they give u is meaningless to ur individual circumstances. thats what im trying to say.

also using past records as data is flawed because even though something has happened in the past, does not necessarily mean its going to happen in the future.

Probability isnt exact doesnt really exist as nothing is truly random. its what we use when we dnt know all the information, and we never know all the information because it involves everything in the universe, known and unknown. Causality and all that.

/rant

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

#965 - 2014-05-18 20:32:31 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
It's intentional, although I have been seeing a few good arguments for reconsidering it in the thread so far.

\o/
Empyreus
#966 - 2014-05-18 20:33:06 UTC
This really upsets me. All the reasons have been said by others so I'm not going to relist them. I'm just throwing in saying I'm with the rest of the logistics pilots out there. These changes are horrible.

Hey Fozzie, I heard Riot's accepting applications.
Caldari State
#967 - 2014-05-18 20:46:08 UTC
How about delaying this and release it with the industry changes?

I understand that you want to have industry more spread out, more hubs, make it more costly to transport a lot of wares, but this is going to hurt until the industry stuff happens.

Its like replacing half a working system with one made to work with another that isn't out yet.
Caldari State
#968 - 2014-05-18 20:48:09 UTC
What I honestly got out of this is that you nerf multiple areas so we can't boost something to extremes (ie align time, agility and cargo) but giving us the ability to only get one back on par or higher. So it's an over all nerf.

They already cost a small fortune to buy, and to use. They no longer are in a position to run nullsec economy, and their purpose can't be replaced by boosts to Production. I'm sorry but massive T2 production will never meet the needs of nullsec. You have to use outside resources, and that means highsec. CCP shouldn't be trying to sever the only link nullsec and highsec have with each other. If EVE is a massive sandbox we need to have some type of interlinking relationship.
#969 - 2014-05-18 20:58:06 UTC
just keep the damm rigs already llike someone said before all this changes for stupid rigs n the outcome is worse then before
leave the freighters as they r so everybody can stop bitchin
#970 - 2014-05-18 20:59:27 UTC
I've been working on a web tool to help wrap my head around these changes. Fairly limited right now but gets some basic info across. Works in IGB as well, does not require trust.

http://xyjax.com/optimizer_kronos/index.html
#971 - 2014-05-18 20:59:47 UTC
Just out of curiosity....

I fly a Freighter, I should not carry more than a bil worth in cargo to make it worth while for gankers (probably pre-talos rule)

With the current changes, I buy the HP rigs and which cost around 1-15b so technically gankers no longer need any cargo value to make any gank cost effective?

If I am wrong please let me know but it seems like I really shouldn't bother hauling anything due to risk vs reward.
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#972 - 2014-05-18 21:04:20 UTC
lombodo wrote:
Just out of curiosity....

I fly a Freighter, I should not carry more than a bil worth in cargo to make it worth while for gankers (probably pre-talos rule)

With the current changes, I buy the HP rigs and which cost around 1-15b so technically gankers no longer need any cargo value to make any gank cost effective?

If I am wrong please let me know but it seems like I really shouldn't bother hauling anything due to risk vs reward.


Rigs don't drop.

In case people are wondering where we are, we're talking with Fozzie, and keeping an eye on the thread, to pick out good posts.

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter

#973 - 2014-05-18 21:06:06 UTC
Steve Ronuken wrote:
lombodo wrote:
Just out of curiosity....

I fly a Freighter, I should not carry more than a bil worth in cargo to make it worth while for gankers (probably pre-talos rule)

With the current changes, I buy the HP rigs and which cost around 1-15b so technically gankers no longer need any cargo value to make any gank cost effective?

If I am wrong please let me know but it seems like I really shouldn't bother hauling anything due to risk vs reward.


Rigs don't drop.

In case people are wondering where we are, we're talking with Fozzie, and keeping an eye on the thread, to pick out good posts.


Leave freighters as they currently are. There, thats a good post imo.
#974 - 2014-05-18 21:08:21 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Lena Lazair wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
The numbers are now corrected in the OP.


Can you confirm in contrast that the agility nerf to JFs is intentional? (from 0.05 to 0.0625)?


It's intentional, although I have been seeing a few good arguments for reconsidering it in the thread so far.


The best argument is that Eve is supposed to be fun and engaging gameplay. Making flying a freighter or jump freighter less fun or even less engaging is poor design. I'm all in favor of smaller cargos across the board, but make the ships less horrible to fly. I say lower freighter cargo holds to around 600k m3, jump freighters to 250k m3, and make them align/warp 30% faster.

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

Goonswarm Federation
#975 - 2014-05-18 21:15:45 UTC
Steve Ronuken wrote:
lombodo wrote:
Just out of curiosity....

I fly a Freighter, I should not carry more than a bil worth in cargo to make it worth while for gankers (probably pre-talos rule)

With the current changes, I buy the HP rigs and which cost around 1-15b so technically gankers no longer need any cargo value to make any gank cost effective?

If I am wrong please let me know but it seems like I really shouldn't bother hauling anything due to risk vs reward.


Rigs don't drop.

In case people are wondering where we are, we're talking with Fozzie, and keeping an eye on the thread, to pick out good posts.


What's the opinion on a freighter now costing 2 freighter worth of ISK to have the same function as previously? Anyone who went with the charon most likely did it because of the best cargo capacity in class. This then require fitting 1,4 bill ISK worth of rigs on it.
Tactical Supremacy
#976 - 2014-05-18 21:17:44 UTC
FT Diomedes wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Lena Lazair wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
The numbers are now corrected in the OP.


Can you confirm in contrast that the agility nerf to JFs is intentional? (from 0.05 to 0.0625)?


It's intentional, although I have been seeing a few good arguments for reconsidering it in the thread so far.


The best argument is that Eve is supposed to be fun and engaging gameplay. Making flying a freighter or jump freighter less fun or even less engaging is poor design. I'm all in favor of smaller cargos across the board, but make the ships less horrible to fly. I say lower freighter cargo holds to around 600k m3, jump freighters to 250k m3, and make them align/warp 30% faster.


I would be happy with this, there are good reasons for game balance to reduce cargo capacity and make jumps more expensive, especially after the advantages you gave to null sec industry, but apart from the reduction in capacity leave as is, though an improved alignment would be appreciated as its so damn boring to move anything.

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp

Gallente Federation
#977 - 2014-05-18 21:26:31 UTC
Steve Ronuken wrote:
lombodo wrote:
Just out of curiosity....

I fly a Freighter, I should not carry more than a bil worth in cargo to make it worth while for gankers (probably pre-talos rule)

With the current changes, I buy the HP rigs and which cost around 1-15b so technically gankers no longer need any cargo value to make any gank cost effective?

If I am wrong please let me know but it seems like I really shouldn't bother hauling anything due to risk vs reward.


Rigs don't drop.

In case people are wondering where we are, we're talking with Fozzie, and keeping an eye on the thread, to pick out good posts.



good to hear

i think for many freight and logistics stuff is just boring, but it is essential to the economy and the game. making some of these things harder does not seem to make that game any bettter. lets face it piloting a freighter is simlly boring game play.....making that game play cost billions more than it currently does with zero return is just daft

i think this should be shelved - look what CCP came up with when the t1 halulers were actually reblanced....some of thise changes are awesome...mineral haulers, pi specialists etc... that battle nereus is bloody brilliant.

i would rather CCP take the time and look at all the options for this than rush into a lets add rigs option. One that lets the player make decisions about cost and effectiveness. Not one that nerfa an entire class and then forces you to spend billions to get back what you had.

perhaps there could be cargo control by putting specialized holds on freighters....ie only soo much general cargo...maybe a fleet hanger.....or a rig to add a specialized bay

that is all outside this current discussion but i think that we should not proceed with this current change without thinking about the whole gamit of options.....we have waited this long to even consider changing freighters and stuff up...i have zero problem waiting longer to get it done right
#978 - 2014-05-18 21:28:42 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
"Risk".

As in "possibility of incurring loss".

Just because it's a 100% possibility does not mean that the loss isn't there. It doesn't mean the loss doesn't count.

And as for this hilarious statement:

Digger Pollard wrote:

Secondly, ganking is only as EXTREMELY easy as people ARE FORCED to make it for you, because there is no alternative to a freighter and no alternative to what you haul - you haul what you have to. There is no alternative to a route either. Just how much easier could it be?



You are not forced to do anything. There is no game mechanic forcing you to put too much isk into your cargohold, and no game mechanic that forces you to autopilot.

And there is certainly no game mechanic forcing you to not use a web escort.

Those things are all choices you make.

Are you ******* kidding me? I have ganker alt, I know this. There is NO RISK. Ships you fly are cheap/free and you are criminal anyways, so you don't care about stat penalty. With 20 t2 fit gankalysts is what, 300m? If 300m drops, you are neutral. If anything more, you are in profit. What the **** are you talking about? With CODE it's even more fun. You don't care about cargo at all. You gank anyone.
#979 - 2014-05-18 21:32:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Althalus Stenory
Sounds like a troll "because we add rigs, we just change everything to adapt", in other word, put rigs if you want, at least, the same value as before. (btw, you can have more, but at what cost ?)

IMO, it would have been a better improvement to make slighter changes regarding those announced, but adding something like a few "hull resistance" by level since instead of that speed bonus nobody cares about :
- freighter are hull "tanked" (at least, if we say they can tank)
- they cannot warp quick
- they cannot defend themselves.

With triple Hull HP rigs, you'll get around 50-59k more EHP (since hull have no resist), really nothing, but you'll lose 150k m3 cargohold.
But let's say you add 2% hull res (all res) by racial freighter skill level, so 10% res at level 5. you get something like this for the obelisk (best hull hp with the current announcements)
- base HP : 97500
- 3 hull rigs bonus HP (t2, 20% per rigs): 58200
And it would give something like 171k hull EHP with the 10% res. Even if we add shield and armor EHP, it's still not "ungankable" (it should still be gankable!) but, it shouldn't be a free "6 tornado gank target".

it is now really worth the cargo loss :P

tl;dr;
give a few hull resistance to freighters to allow them being "serious ganking target" if they want to be so, but still easy target when they chose to use cargo rigs.

EsiPy - Python 2.7 / 3.3+ Swagger Client based on pyswagger for ESI

#980 - 2014-05-18 21:32:39 UTC
Walter Hart White wrote:

Are you ******* kidding me? I have ganker alt, I know this. There is NO RISK.


people who pretend to have ganker alts is also something that never gets old.

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

Forum Jump