These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Ships & Modules

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Reinforced Bulkheads: not logical
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Amber Solaire
COMA Holdings
Cosmic Maniacs
#1 - 2014-06-05 21:54:28 UTC
I do not understand how CCP could overlook the very fact why the Reinforced Bulkheads were not used more.

I believe it has something to do with the fact that they reduce cargohold size....


So now Freighters have got their cargohold size reduced, only to fit a module that reduces said cargohold size even more??

As Mr Spock says: This is not logical
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#2 - 2014-06-05 21:59:16 UTC
Expanded cargoholds reduce hull hp amounts and increase cargohold amount.
Reinforced bulkheads reduce cargohold amount and raise hull HP.

Everything seems fine.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Last Wolf
Umbra Wing
#3 - 2014-06-05 22:03:19 UTC
Your argument is illogical.

That awkward moment at the Gentlemen's Club when you see your sister on the stage....and you're not sure where to put the money....
Atomeon
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#4 - 2014-06-05 22:06:55 UTC
NO, everything is not fine.
If they want to add 3 low slots and help freighters to "tank" better, that item it should be a Damage Control II, and let the 2 other slots for cargo expanders or the new modules for warp speed.
Amber Solaire
COMA Holdings
Cosmic Maniacs
#5 - 2014-06-05 22:12:55 UTC
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
Expanded cargoholds reduce hull hp amounts and increase cargohold amount.
Reinforced bulkheads reduce cargohold amount and raise hull HP.

Everything seems fine.



The hull HP was reduced by CCP:
Now you can increase it to a level not as high as before Kronos, while at the same time getting your
already reduced cargo size reduced even more

If there is logic in that formula somewhere.........I don`t see it


(btw, each t2 cargohold expander, when fitted, reduces hull HP by 20%, ie 60% less hull HP, if 3 are fitted)
Antillie Sa'Kan
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#6 - 2014-06-05 22:22:26 UTC
Hush. The hull tanked Taranis is now even more awesome.
Loraine Gess
Confedeferate Union of Tax Legalists
#7 - 2014-06-05 22:35:26 UTC
Atomeon wrote:
NO, everything is not fine.
If they want to add 3 low slots and help freighters to "tank" better, that item it should be a Damage Control II, and let the 2 other slots for cargo expanders or the new modules for warp speed.





So you want to an across-the-board buff with no rationale? Yeah no.
Traedar
InterStellar Trading Syndicate
#8 - 2014-06-05 22:53:31 UTC
Loraine Gess wrote:
Atomeon wrote:
NO, everything is not fine.
If they want to add 3 low slots and help freighters to "tank" better, that item it should be a Damage Control II, and let the 2 other slots for cargo expanders or the new modules for warp speed.





So you want to an across-the-board buff with no rationale? Yeah no.


It wouldn't be the first ship to get an across-the-board buff. I think the rationale is they are pretty easy gank. When a ship of that size and cost is taking a chance carrying 2B in cargo, you can expect whining.

The DCU has a significant downside that IMO justifies the buff that it would give: it's active, so no afk flying.

Did freighters really need a nerf?
Aerie Evingod
Midwest Miners LLC
#9 - 2014-06-05 22:59:07 UTC
Traedar wrote:
Loraine Gess wrote:
Atomeon wrote:
NO, everything is not fine.
If they want to add 3 low slots and help freighters to "tank" better, that item it should be a Damage Control II, and let the 2 other slots for cargo expanders or the new modules for warp speed.





So you want to an across-the-board buff with no rationale? Yeah no.


It wouldn't be the first ship to get an across-the-board buff. I think the rationale is they are pretty easy gank. When a ship of that size and cost is taking a chance carrying 2B in cargo, you can expect whining.

The DCU has a significant downside that IMO justifies the buff that it would give: it's active, so no afk flying.

Did freighters really need a nerf?



The fact that a DCU is an active module qualifies as a "significant downside"? Wow....
Jeanne-Luise Argenau
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#10 - 2014-06-05 23:06:59 UTC
actually 2 freighters made it out of the changes rly fine. They are Obelisk and Providence. Reason they r ******* armor tanked so fit 1 adaptive nano plate 2 cargohold expanders and u pretty much have the old hull. Now charon give me a shield resistence mod like adaptive nano plating for low and i will say the changes were great. Or give the Charon a far bigger cargohold or the ability to fit a DC as i said in the official freighter rebalance thread.

(Fenrir same case just not as bad as charon)
Praxis Ginimic
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#11 - 2014-06-05 23:07:31 UTC
Freighters didn't get a nerf, thay got a balance. You wanted fitting choices... now make them.
Paranoid Loyd
#12 - 2014-06-05 23:18:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Paranoid Loyd
Traedar wrote:
I think the rationale is they are pretty easy gank.


Anyone who says this, has no idea what they are talking about.

Pressing F1 is easy, yes, but finding the target and organizing a bunch of belligerents to work as a cohesive unit is the hard part. Pirate

"There is only one authority in this game, and that my friend is violence. The supreme authority upon which all other authority is derived." ISD Max Trix

Fix the Prospect!
Last Wolf
Umbra Wing
#13 - 2014-06-05 23:28:45 UTC
The new freighters have larger cargos, larger tanks, and can warp and travel much faster than the old ones... Just not all at the same time.

That awkward moment at the Gentlemen's Club when you see your sister on the stage....and you're not sure where to put the money....
Jacob Holland
Weyland-Vulcan Industries
#14 - 2014-06-06 12:41:41 UTC
But is there a fit which is no slower (agility and velocity), with as many EHP and as much cargo as a pre-Kronos freighter?

If so then there is no nerf, it's merely a matter of fitting choice.
In reality the impossibility of this task means that the "customisation options" are at teh expense of a significant nerf.

Of particular note, prior to the change from righs to lowslots, freighters would have been the only ships ever to suffer modification to allow for rig addition - imaging the rage if every battleship had had their shield, armour, structure, speed and weapon hardpoints reduced to allow for the possibility of rigging...
Maeltstome
Ten Thousand Days
#15 - 2014-06-06 13:32:37 UTC
Antillie Sa'Kan wrote:
Hush. The hull tanked Taranis is now even more awesome.


SHHHH! That's a secret!
Praxis Ginimic
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#16 - 2014-06-06 21:17:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Praxis Ginimic
Jacob Holland wrote:
But is there a fit which is no slower (agility and velocity), with as many EHP and as much cargo as a pre-Kronos freighter?

If so then there is no nerf, it's merely a matter of fitting choice.
In reality the impossibility of this task means that the "customisation options" are at teh expense of a significant nerf.

Of particular note, prior to the change from righs to lowslots, freighters would have been the only ships ever to suffer modification to allow for rig addition - imaging the rage if every battleship had had their shield, armour, structure, speed and weapon hardpoints reduced to allow for the possibility of rigging...


I find it difficult to believe but from statements like this I have to assume that you don't fly other ships.

Allow me to enlighten you. Every ship in the game, made more extreme by each balance pass, is forced to choose between tank, raw dps, dps application, utility, speed/agility, stealth, or cargo... but never more than two of any of those aspects at the same time and only with any particular strength in one.

The only exception has been freighters. That glaring exception has been resolved. I hope you have enjoyed your ride on the fitting gravy train but from now on you must slog through the mud with the rest of us.

Edited for reasons you will never truly understand
Goldensaver
Maraque Enterprises
Just let it happen
#17 - 2014-06-06 21:25:04 UTC
Amber Solaire wrote:
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
Expanded cargoholds reduce hull hp amounts and increase cargohold amount.
Reinforced bulkheads reduce cargohold amount and raise hull HP.

Everything seems fine.



The hull HP was reduced by CCP:
Now you can increase it to a level not as high as before Kronos, while at the same time getting your
already reduced cargo size reduced even more

If there is logic in that formula somewhere.........I don`t see it


(btw, each t2 cargohold expander, when fitted, reduces hull HP by 20%, ie 60% less hull HP, if 3 are fitted)

Do you even multiply? I mean, seriously. Almost everything in EVE is multiplicative, not additive. How do retards continue to get this **** wrong? It's 47.8% less hull HP, dumbass. Each reduces the hull HP by 20% which means that after it's been reduced by 20% to 80% it gets reduced by 20% of 80% to 64%. Then from there it loses 20% of 64% and drops to 51.2%.

Learn basic game mechanics and simple math before you even try to discuss balance. If you don't understand things, you can't possibly understand if it's balanced or not. Ignorant fool.
Marc Durant
#18 - 2014-06-06 23:23:53 UTC
Amber Solaire wrote:
I do not understand how CCP could overlook the very fact why the Reinforced Bulkheads were not used more.

I believe it has something to do with the fact that they reduce cargohold size....


So now Freighters have got their cargohold size reduced, only to fit a module that reduces said cargohold size even more??

As Mr Spock says: This is not logical


Just because you don't like the bonuses and what they do, doesn't make it illogical.

Yes, yes I am. Thanks for noticing.