Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Would you still get similar results if you gave them a capital ship slot layout, including high slots similar to carriers?
And put most of their cargo into a special hold while leaving about a 100k base cargo hold that expanders would improve significantly but not game breakingly.

Or is that only using the gimped three slot 'customisation' option of fitting.

Hilarious statement. Do we even play the same game?

Freighter and JFs currently have most of their EHP as hull, which has zero resistances. Additionally remote hull reppers are extremely inefficient.

I wonder if we were at the same event with the 'repped' JF. There was one, which survived two coordinated ganking waves and yet died to the third, but it didn't survive the first two rounds due to either RR or ECM during the actual attack.

What happened was the CFC was using fleets of catalysts, yet during this attack at the perimeter gate, there were around a few hundred 'defenders'. As soon as the CFC fleet turned flashy at the beginning of the attack, then the whole blob was *massively* counter-ganked by the defenders. Despite this the JF survived with something like just 3% hull remaining, after which people reshipped to logistics ships and began repping it back up.

It was only just barely repped up when the CFC timers of 15 minutes had expired and they had had time to reship, so it took around *20 minutes* or so for the combined 'defender' fleet to do so. So yeah, RR during the actual attack, which lasted mere seconds, did zilch.

The exact same thing happened a second time, as catalysts evaporated left and right before they had time to do their full complement of damage prior to CONCORD stepping in. The third time the CFC reshipped to a fleet of Tornadoes and alpha'ed the JF down. That is how and why it died.

RR and ECM did nothing. There were hardly any ECM ships on the defender's side. Just brutal, brutal amounts of fast locking DPS able to counter-gank.

So yes, you can currently defend a JF against ~120 catalysts if you bring a huge number of defenders. Happy logistics, everyone.

"You can only defend a JF against a 120 catalysts if you bring a huge number of defenders."
Yeah dude, because 120 catalysts is a huge number of gankers and you will ONLY see that during Burn Jita.
If you fly during Burn Jita and get ganked, it's entirely your fault and you have no cause to cry about it.
Although feel free to cry about it because it's ******* hilarious.

I was there. Was brutal. Got popped the moment I left my warp. Never got podded though. I guess i can say I survived burn jita. Lost only 10m catalyst.

At any rate, this is totally unrelated. Higher tank is good. More kudos when you successfully gank pinata and maybe some logistic could be done safer than now.

No, this isn't misleading at all. Empty JF's are getting ganked on a daily basis. Thats funny.

What you are missing about the 'drawback' is that it really isn't a much of a drawback at all.

Its not the m^3, its the ISK value of what you can move without serious worry of a profitable gank. There is a huge range of tradable items that are needed all over highsec, and moving them is extremely easy - ganking being the only extant risk.

If this iteration is used, moving goods within highsec just became far, far easier because with triple EHP you can move 3x as many of those items in a single trip.

The only items contrained by the 'drawback' are expensive, but bulky items, like finished T2 ships.
We aren't talking about moving tritanium here.

Trade in mods, rigs, mid-to-high end raw materials will become much more fluid and therefore, less profitable, simply because its moving around highsec far more easily than it was previously.

Bad for EVE, because we are already at a state where prices are incredibly flat across empire. If anything, logistics needs to be MORE difficult.

Perhaps a lengthening of Concord response time - to 40-45 seconds in 0.5 is in order.

So you asked for examples and got example which you then disregard? GG, no RE.

I just don't think Fozzie really thought this balance round through very well because he's creating a gamestate that is radically different than before - significantly in favor of greater safety and carebear-ism.

Today, pre-Kronos - if you want to move multiple billions in valuable goods of moderate volume, your choices are:

1. Orcas can be tanked up to around 270K EHP - and they can haul around 60-70K m^3.
(This hauling profile obsoletes DSTs which have both smaller EHP, less utility, and less cargo.)
2. Freighters are around 150-200K EHP, for 900K+ m^3.
3. Jump Freighters between 250-300K EHP, with 350K+ m^3.

See the pattern? All of the large-volume haulers top out in the 250-300K EHP range. At those EHP levels, you aren't interesting to gankers until your cargo value goes north of 2.5-3 Billion ISK. In addition to this, JF's are ALREADY invulnerable to highsec ganking simply by having a cyno alt on standby in nearby lowsec. Bumping does not prevent jumping.

I envisioned the balance round to involve marginally increasing the maximum EHP with severe penalties in both alignment and cargo capacity. In addition, the use of rigs had a significant cost involved.

This new iteration is a mess however, as large-volume cargo movers are having their practical EHP doubled....or tripled.
This radically increases the ISK-value of mid-range cargo that can be moved without risk of a 'profitable' gank occurring.


1.Kronos Orcas are going to see their EHP pushed above 500K EHP range, if not more, due the combination of the new Hull Rigs and DC II, and still hauling around 60-70K m^3 general cargo, plus additional specialized bays.
2.Kronos Freighters are going to have a EHP/cargo profile superior to what JFs have today. (300-350K EHP with 350K m^3 cargo.)
3.Kronos Jump Freighters are going completely into carebear wet-dream world, shielding a whopping 130m^3 or so behind 620-720K EHP. (and they naturally retain the 'easy gank escape button')


I submit that this is a radically different game state to what we have today (and have always had) in EVE, and changes of this nature should be done with far more care than this knee-jerk reaction to whine-naught death threats.

Fozzie - trust me, I understand. I know how much it hurts inside when the nasty carebears say ugly things about you in the forums. But that doesn't mean we need three-quarters of a million hit point heavy haulers to make them like you again.

Oh yes - and to the idiots who are invariably going to come back with "Freighters were fine until Taloses were invented, now freighters need a buff" - Taloses DID exist before. Before the insurance nerf, they were called Insured Megathrons. And before the Concord-drone nerf, they were Insured Dominixes. Nor have bumping mechanics changed.

Gank ships haven't changed all that much at all. But on the freighter side - call this iteration what it is - a radical swing in favor of safer freighters and risk-free hauling.

Probably nothing happens until they dock. they just cant undock again until they fix the cargo.

Yes another power projection buff is what eve needs

Indeed..

But I doubt they will limit it to just JF's.. after all, if you wanna sacrifice tank/dps for saving in fuel, I don't see CCP wanting to stop you :)

Plus maybe it'll save Fuel, at the cost of max range or something.. Either way, we'll know by Jula 22nd lol