These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#1041 - 2014-05-19 05:27:37 UTC
Some things to bear in mind, when you think a developer should respond to you quickly:

The developers are, primarily, in Iceland. That's GMT.
They don't, in general, work weekends. If they're responding, it's on their own time.


So don't expect a quick response, when you post at 3am Monday morning. Smile

(I know most of you are reasonable. There are one of two posts which suggest otherwise for some individuals)

In addition, a quick turn around on a change suggests that it's had less thought put into it. So you'll want to think about that.

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
mynnna
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1042 - 2014-05-19 05:53:26 UTC  |  Edited by: mynnna
"Why not modules instead" is a bit of a common question, so on a whim I threw together a concept for just that.

New Module: "Warp Speed Lowslot"
Requires Warp Drive Operation V
50 CPU
+35% Warp Speed

The most obvious issue with low slots on freighters is lack of a warp speed rig. Solve that with a warp speed low slot. At +35% you get a bit larger benefit than with three T1 warp speed rigs, though smaller than three T2 rigs, but at 50 CPU you'll be making some major choices to fit them. The high fitting cost also serves as a check against their casual use for subcaps, as they'd be a huge, huge deal for shield tanking subcaps. 50 CPU isn't necessarily a final number but I'm not sure about going lower either.

e: Has been pointed out to me that this module would instantly obsolete the new Angel bonuses. This is somewhat problematic, but for now I'm not going to worry about it.

Providence

Amarr Freighter Bonus per level:
+5% Cargo Capacity
+5% Maximum Velocity

Slot Layout: 0H, 0M, 3L
Fitting: 5 PWG, 100 CPU
Defense (shields / armor / hull): 2500 (-2500) / 12000 (-12000) 60000 (-52500)
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time / warp speed): 70 / 0.0625 / 900,000,000 / 107.22s / 1.37
Cargo Capacity: 500000 (-235000)


Charon

Caldari Freighter Bonus per level:
+5% Cargo Capacity
+5% Maximum Velocity

Slot Layout: 0H, 0M, 3L
Fitting: 5 PWG, 100 CPU
Defense (shields / armor / hull): 32500 (+26500) / 6000 (-14000) 45000 (-61250)
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time / warp speed): 60 / 0.0625 / 960,000,000 / 114.37s / 1.37
Cargo Capacity: 517500 (-267500)


Obelisk

Gallente Freighter Bonus per level:
+5% Cargo Capacity
+5% Maximum Velocity

Slot Layout: 0H, 0M, 3L
Fitting: 5 PWG, 100 CPU
Defense (shields / armor / hull): 3000 (-2313) / 8000 (-14500) 62500 (-57500)
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time / warp speed): 65 / 0.0625 / 940,000,000 / 111.99s / 1.37
Cargo Capacity: 500000 (-250000)


Fenrir

Minmatar Freighter Bonus per level:
+5% Cargo Capacity
+5% Maximum Velocity

Slot Layout: 0H, 0M, 3L
Fitting: 5 PWG, 100 CPU
Defense (shields / armor / hull): 30000 (+24375) / 8000 (-13250) 44000 (-56000)
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time / warp speed): 80 / 0.0625 / 820,000,000 / 97.69s / 1.37
Cargo Capacity: 492500 (-227500)

Still no free lunch here; you're not getting better at everything at once, unless I messed up somewhere. For the most part it hews to the same overall principles as with rigs (tighten the gap between the different classes a bit) but the upsides are bigger (though the downsides are too) and you can hit a lot of interesting combos. It also doesn't demand a fortune to swap. Use of low slots is obviously an advantage for the armor tanking freighters. To offset that, shield freighters put a great deal of their EHP into shields while armor freighters continue to focus mainly on structure. This has the following effects:

  • Fully tanked (DCII+2x Bulkheads), armor freighters have the most EHP, by ~10% or so.
  • When "low penalty tanked" (DC plus either two PDS II for shields or two hardeners for armor), armor has the most EHP by about the same ~10% when considering blaster damage specifically.
  • With two tank mods, they're about even.
  • With one tank mod, shield freighters have slightly more EHP, and more still with no tank mods.


A few fit examples for illustration; this all assumes all skills at V and Tech II mods.

DC II, 2x Bulkhead
Providence: 324k EHP, 495k cargo
Charon: 297k EHP, 512.3k cargo
Obelisk: 328k EHP, 504k cargo
Fenrir: 291k EHP, 487.6k cargo

DC II, 2x Expanders
Providence: 151k EHP, 1.016m cargo
Charon: 167k EHP, 1.051m cargo
Obelisk: 148k EHP, 1.036m cargo
Fenrir: 164.5k EHP, 1m cargo

3x Expander
Providence: 65k EHP, 1.295m cargo
Charon: 96k EHP, 1.34m cargo
Obelisk: 60k EHP, 1.32m cargo
Fenrir: 94.7k EHP, 1.28m cargo

DC II, Expander, Bulkhead
Providence: 218.6k EHP, 709k cargo
Charon: 217.7k EHP, 734k cargo
Obelisk: 218.7k EHP, 723k cargo
Fenrir: 214k EHP, 698k cargo

"Low Penalty" tank (DCII, Thermal & Kinetic hardener for Providence/Obelisk, 2x PDS II for Charon & Fenrir)
Providence: 229k EHP (omni), 253k EHP (against Caldari Navy Antimatter), 625k cargo
Charon: 224k EHP (omni), 230.6k EHP (against CNAM), 646.9k cargo
Obelisk: 225k EHP (omni), 241.9k EHP (against CNAM), 637.5k cargo
Fenrir: 220k EHP (omni), 226k EHP (against CNAM), 615.6k cargo

DC II, 2x Inertia Stabilizers
Providence: 218k EHP, 625k cargo, 25.3s align
Charon: 218k EHP, 646.9k cargo, 26.9s align
Obelisk: 218.6k EHP, 637.5k cargo, 26.4s align
Fenrir: 214k EHP, 615.6k cargo, 23s align.

One warp speed low is 1.85 AU/s. Two is 2.41 AU/s. If the CPU allowed fitting three, that'd be 2.9 AU/s.

Going to sleep now, if people like the idea maybe I can whip through jump freighters to illustrate them as well.

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal
Walter Hart White
Heisenberg Minings
#1043 - 2014-05-19 06:25:50 UTC
I would really like if they switch from capital to large rigs. The prices are insane, for Capital Hyperspatial Velocity Optimizer II x 2 you need 0.5b with cheapest order right now, who knows how much it will be after the change... and who knows how much Capital Transverese Bulkheads II will cost...
Ben Hatton
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#1044 - 2014-05-19 06:29:37 UTC
mynnna wrote:
"Why not modules instead" is a bit of a common question, so on a whim I threw together a concept for just that.



I think you are onto something there, 2 low slots would seemingly achieve the desired outcomes mostly, plus provide a cheaper more flexible outcome for pilots. Obviously, the trade offs will still be required (less baseline cargo space etc), but this is a much less painful approach for those involved, especially those who require cargo today, speed tomorrow and then cargo next weekend for example.
Oxide Ammar
#1045 - 2014-05-19 06:29:59 UTC
Walter Hart White wrote:
I would really like if they switch from capital to large rigs. The prices are insane, for Capital Hyperspatial Velocity Optimizer II x 2 you need 0.5b with cheapest order right now, who knows how much it will be after the change... and who knows how much Capital Transverese Bulkheads II will cost...


Actually they need to tackle the whole salvage profession and rigs material cost especially T2.

Lady Areola Fappington:  Solo PVP isn't dead!  You just need to make sure you have your booster, remote rep, cyno, and emergency Falcon alts logged in and ready before you do any solo PVPing.
Luscius Uta
#1046 - 2014-05-19 06:31:39 UTC
This is the worst idea that ever came out of Fozzie's head, and a lot of people will agree that he had some pretty terrible ideas before.

Freighters worked well without slots and rigs, and by reducing their cargo and forcing them to use expensive capital rigs, you're both increasing their price and reducing their effectiveness (since freighters are all about their cargo). Only two things I would change about Freighters is give them higher warp speed (2.0 AU/s is enough) and way more tank, maybe even make their tank about the same as Rorqual's (since it's a challenge to fill a Freighter full of anything other than Veldspar without making it a gank target). It's also a bit silly that Jump Freighters have more tank (in terms of raw EHP, as better resists are expected for a T2 ship) as they comparably spend much less time in space and are therefore much less likely to be ganked if the pilot has brains.

Needless to say, despite of how much I dislike the man, I'm disgusted to see death threats against Fozzie. We would be all happy if he just got fired Big smile

Which gives me an idea:

If this post gets 100 likes, I promise to start a CSM campaign next year with the sole purpose of requesting CCP to fire Fozzie and undo all the damage he caused

Workarounds are not bugfixes.
Sniper Smith
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#1047 - 2014-05-19 06:39:01 UTC
Walter Hart White wrote:
I would really like if they switch from capital to large rigs. The prices are insane, for Capital Hyperspatial Velocity Optimizer II x 2 you need 0.5b with cheapest order right now, who knows how much it will be after the change... and who knows how much Capital Transverese Bulkheads II will cost...

T2 Cap Cargo Rigs are ~720m ea.. that's 1.45B just to get back the cargo you sit at now. And that doesn't even begin to address the tank change.

Personally I'd rather no rig change, or for CCP to compensate us in some way. I mean this isn't a minor change. You are making everyone with a Freighter Pay MORE than the Freighter is worth in Rigs, just to get back what it is now. Not some minor change in a frigate, or a module, but a change that costs Billions.

Changing the rigs to Large would offset a lot of the cost.. I mean an Orca is a "Capital" and it also uses large rigs, so it's not unjustifiable. Or make it so all ships currently assembled, would have the Rigs already on them to keep them ~ where they are now.. That way all NEW people getting into it would be able to factor in the massive increase in cost, without punishing the existing pilots..

I donno.. There's no simple answer.. Except as mynnna mentioned, change it to low slots.. and add a Warp Speed lowslot that can only be fit to some ships.. (like Bastion and MJD's).. 20% increase in Warp, -10% cargo ?
Ranamar
Nobody in Local
Deepwater Hooligans
#1048 - 2014-05-19 06:39:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Ranamar
Walter Hart White wrote:
I would really like if they switch from capital to large rigs. The prices are insane, for Capital Hyperspatial Velocity Optimizer II x 2 you need 0.5b with cheapest order right now, who knows how much it will be after the change... and who knows how much Capital Transverese Bulkheads II will cost...


Capital Hyperspatial Velocity rigs don't cost that much to build. (It's about on par with CCCCs for T1; T2 is much cheaper than a T2 CCCC.) The thing is, though, nobody actually builds them, because nobody actually buys them... so currently the cheapest T1 one in Jita is 100M ISK for some insane profit if you ever manage to sell however many you build.

Edit for clarity: There's currently no market, so people price them at whatever the **** they want. If there was actually demand, someone would force the price down to sell theirs faster than the next guy's.
Oxide Ammar
#1049 - 2014-05-19 06:43:39 UTC
Aerissa Nolen wrote:
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


God Bless You, Please post this in separate thread in science and industry section in forums, so you can get the feedback regarding this wonderful tool.

Lady Areola Fappington:  Solo PVP isn't dead!  You just need to make sure you have your booster, remote rep, cyno, and emergency Falcon alts logged in and ready before you do any solo PVPing.
Alexander McKeon
Perkone
Caldari State
#1050 - 2014-05-19 06:44:28 UTC
Allowing modules to be fit to freighters opens up a huge can of worms, metaphorically speaking, which is why I advocated a subsystem-based approach. It would require more design time, possibly delaying the release, but it would permit a degree of tuning not otherwise possible and not require multiple hulls for different tasks.
ELWhappo Sanchez
#1051 - 2014-05-19 06:45:46 UTC
3 low slots would work out a lot better than rigs that's for sure.
I sold my freighter till all this blows over.
if rigs get put in and the changes posted by fozzie go through I won't be buying another one.
still a big hit to cargo space as it is I would have lost 350km3 out of my 850km3 if I wanted the same tank and align time.
so my orcas are a better choice for hs hauling in the future.
Barton Breau
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#1052 - 2014-05-19 06:50:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Barton Breau
mynnna wrote:


e: Has been pointed out to me that this module would instantly obsolete the new Angel bonuses. This is somewhat problematic, but for now I'm not going to worry about it.



Well, the same way omnis obsolete the domi, one would think. Worst case you could slap 500pg requirement on it.
M'uva Wa'eva
Black Frog Logistics
Red-Frog
#1053 - 2014-05-19 06:52:53 UTC  |  Edited by: M'uva Wa'eva
Mynna's proposed solution with the use of low slots is, in principle, in a single word, brilliant. Thanks for putting some solid numbers and thought into the idea several of us have expressed already.

There remain tradeoffs between cargo and tank as with the rigs, but they are customisable and changeable rather than effectivcely permanent. They provide interesting gameplay choices for a freighter pilot every time they undock, and fully meet the risk/reward principle (more cargo, less tank; more tank, less cargo; faster align, less tank and cargo; faster warp, less tank and cargo and align) so there is still most definitely no free lunch for freighter pilots. But the lunch is a lot more palatable.

If there was a concern about subcaps gaining the warp speed rig, it could be handled like the Covert Ops Cloak for bombers used to be handled, etc... with the CPU requirement increase further, offset with a 100% reduction in CPU fitting cost for the freighter class. Or, as is pointed out in the post below, just by having a "Can be fitted to" field limiting its use to freighters, if that was a desired outcome.
Sniper Smith
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#1054 - 2014-05-19 07:00:05 UTC
M'uva Wa'eva wrote:
If there was a concer about subcaps gaining the warp speed rig, it could be handled like the Covert Ops Cloak for bombers, etc... with an absurdly high CPU requirement offset with a 100% reduction in CPU fitting cost for the freighter class.

They removed the CPU Requirement being the limiting factor a few updates ago.. it's now a "Can be fitted to" field.. As people found a way to make an Avatar fit it with the right Officer CPU mods lol.

But I agree..

OR, you can give it negative effects.. Max locked targets to 0, or something.. Would also be nice as you could still fit it, to quickly move a BS or something, but not viable in combat conditions. Give it a penalty to cargo so you still have to pick between space and speed..
M'uva Wa'eva
Black Frog Logistics
Red-Frog
#1055 - 2014-05-19 07:02:52 UTC  |  Edited by: M'uva Wa'eva
Thanks for the correction, Sniper. I was going off the old behaviour - as you point out, it could be handled much more elegantly with the "Can be fitted to" field, if desired to restrict to freighters.
Milla Goodpussy
Garoun Investment Bank
#1056 - 2014-05-19 07:09:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Milla Goodpussy
to hell with these changes.. thanks ccp fozzie for seriously ruining any remaining fun I had in this game.

now you've gimped freighters and provide no reason for someone to risk all that isk on a jump freighter.. you sir have provided more ammo to allow folks to play other games.
Pestario Vargas
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1057 - 2014-05-19 07:12:47 UTC
Thank you for these changes CCP. I can hardly wait.
Dave Stark
#1058 - 2014-05-19 07:27:08 UTC
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
[quote=Maldiro Selkurk]I want gank pilots to have to scan my Charon to see what defenses (or k thereof) I have on my ship.
[/qu,ote]
so you're willing to take a massive freighter nerf, just so gankers have to click 1 more button before they gank you?


There is no nerf, if rigs AND MODS are added to freighters it just makes them like all the other ships in the game (i.e. meaningful choice at a cost).

Let me ask you this, what if every ship in the game had no rigs and no mods, you got hull bonuses and that was it?

Would you even be playing this game?


alternatively, you could just answer the question that i put to you.


There is no nerf under the plan I proposed no matter how many times I have to restate that fact it isn't going to change. You can adjust the hulls and then make rigs - mods to either put it back exactly like it is now or choose to rig + mod differently if you so choose just like all the other ships in the game.

Now its my turn to ask you to respond to my question because it is relevant to the seriously restricted options currently available to freighter pilots.


OP disagrees. it's quite obvious any fitting slot is accompanied by a nerf.

get your head out of the clouds.
Jacob Holland
Weyland-Vulcan Industries
#1059 - 2014-05-19 07:47:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Jacob Holland
The stated aim in the Fanfest mention of this was greater customisation. And yet the choice was Rigs?!?
The value of customisation is surely that the ship can be adjusted to suit needs which may be different today than they were yesterday and will be tomorrow (I'm going to Jita today, I'll fit for as many EHP as possible; tomorrow I'll be moving veldspar three jumps from the corp mining op to a station with a good refinery...).
Rigs aren't suitable for that task, they're far too permanent.

So was the only reason for the choice how potentially tough a freighter with a DCII would have been?


Additional thought:

One of the things which drove freighter capacity very particularly was always the size of Outpost Eggs and so forth. Are all those null infrastructure operations going to required cargo rigs to make them more vulnerable?
Anathema Device
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1060 - 2014-05-19 07:51:18 UTC
Lithorn wrote:
I had trained for these ships (jump freighters) but now the changes being made have certainly made up my mind as to whether I will ever buy them, decidedly no. Compared to this, other capital ships with some hauling capability are a far better trade-off for most tasks, especially now after these proposed changes.
Better fuel usage, better jump range, better price.

Surely you must admit they would still have a role as an in-systems hauler between stations.