These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Make cargo expanders stacking penalised
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Xe'Cara'eos
A Big Enough Lever
#1 - 2015-07-27 17:33:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Xe'Cara'eos
in our current system, a very large proportion of cargo (~40%) is given by the final expander

this will make more fitting choices viable on haulers, especially Amarr haulers, and will help newbs learn that it is often sensible and REASONABLE to fit a DC onto your hauler.

yes, hauler cargo's will need to be rebalanced somewhat, but I think their other stats can probably stay constant (at least for first pass, they can be changed later)

thank you

EDIT:

before anyone calls this a 'nerf suicide ganking thread' - please explain exactly what about this mechanic is a direct nerf to suicide ganking - as far as I see, this is encouraging people to fit sensibly, and making it practical to do so.

EDIT:

my vision is that with a max cargohold fit, you should get about the same cargo as current (in all haulers), but when you drop a single expander for a DC, you don't lose such a great percentage of your cargo, so it encourages the choice of 'oooh dangerous space, let's put a DC in instead of that last expander' without the current 'but then I lose nearly half of my cargo-space'

For posting an idea into F&I: come up with idea, try and think how people could abuse this, try to fix your idea - loop the process until you can't see how it could be abused, then post to the forums to let us figure out how to abuse it..... If your idea can be abused, it [u]WILL[/u] be.
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#2 - 2015-07-27 17:47:06 UTC
So are you asking for a massive nerf to hauling, a complete rebalance of the cargoholds of every single ship in the game, or something else entirely?
FireFrenzy
Cynosural Samurai
#3 - 2015-07-28 07:50:33 UTC
i'll respond for @OP...

Yes.

(this is a disperaging comment incase you dont realise)
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#4 - 2015-07-28 07:56:44 UTC
Not sure this would nerf suicide ganking but rather buff it. Less cargo hold for the same negative hit on your structure is going to mean haulers having to make more trips. In fact making the cargo expanders less effective would potentially put more perceived pressure on newer players to add the last module rather than use a DC II to try to minimize the number of runs they make.
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#5 - 2015-07-28 09:14:05 UTC
Antimatter is a great teaching tool. It is a much better teaching tool than adding stacking penalties. What you are actually asking for is a way to have your cake and eat it too. You want to get a larger base cargo hold, without suffering the drawback that currently comes with fitting that third or fourth expanded cargo hold.

It is already unreasonable to fit for maximum cargo in dangerous space - which I define as anywhere that has a sizable non-friendly population - I do not think you need to provide more disincentives for not fitting for maximum agility.

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

Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#6 - 2015-07-28 09:57:00 UTC
I wouldnt mind this, but the very reason (non-specialised) haulers have as many low slots as they do is to make max cargo fits.

So slot layout, base cargo and the stats of expanders and their penalties all should be part of the balancing.

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
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#7 - 2015-07-28 10:21:30 UTC
Please tell me how I sensibly fit my freighter.

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
Grezh
Hextrix Enterprise
#8 - 2015-07-28 10:44:46 UTC
I'm in favour of normalizing fitting by both buffing the modules that don't have stacking penalties and giving them stacking penalties. However any such change would happen after the current module teiracide as it opens a can on worms in terms on ship balance. For example, currently amarr industrials have much lower base cargoholds because they get more lows for fit expanders and are balanced between eachother by having small differences in capacity when fit only for cargo. This implies that when they do something like rebalance expanders for stacking penalties they would also have to rebalance all current industrials.
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
#9 - 2015-07-28 13:22:07 UTC
Xe'Cara'eos wrote:
ias far as I see, this is encouraging people to fit sensibly, and making it practical to do so.

I hope this is a joke. Cause if it is not then you obviously do not have a clue.
How does adding stacking penalties to expnders make it easier to have a practical fit?
And what is your interpretation of a practical fit?
Same cargo, less safety / or the same safety they currently have with less cargo how do either of these equate to a more "practical" fit?

As I read back through this whole topic before hitting the post button it occurs to me that this is just another buff ganking topic very thinly disguised.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#10 - 2015-07-28 14:11:29 UTC
I see no reason for this, other than 'just because'. So I say no.

Sometimes a full cargo fit is the ideal option. It's up to the player to understand under which circumstance this ideal is viable, not you.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Xe'Cara'eos
A Big Enough Lever
#11 - 2015-07-28 16:15:20 UTC
my vision is that with a max cargohold fit, you should get about the same cargo as current (in all haulers), but when you drop a single expander for a DC, you don't lose such a great percentage of your cargo, so it encourages the choice of 'oooh dangerous space, let's put a DC in instead of that last expander' without the current 'but then I lose nearly half of my cargo-space'

Added to original post

For posting an idea into F&I: come up with idea, try and think how people could abuse this, try to fix your idea - loop the process until you can't see how it could be abused, then post to the forums to let us figure out how to abuse it..... If your idea can be abused, it [u]WILL[/u] be.
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#12 - 2015-07-28 16:21:54 UTC
Xe'Cara'eos wrote:
my vision is that with a max cargohold fit, you should get about the same cargo as current (in all haulers), but when you drop a single expander for a DC, you don't lose such a great percentage of your cargo, so it encourages the choice of 'oooh dangerous space, let's put a DC in instead of that last expander' without the current 'but then I lose nearly half of my cargo-space'

Added to original post


How do you define "dangerous space?" Fitting a Damage Control II on a T1 Hauler in 0.0 or Low Sec will do nothing to save you.

Even in High Sec, fitting a DCU II instead of something else will do very little to save you, it may just take your opponent an extra Catalyst or two. The extra 2000 EHP is basically meaningless.

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

Xe'Cara'eos
A Big Enough Lever
#13 - 2015-07-28 16:23:53 UTC
Danika Princip wrote:
So are you asking for a massive nerf to hauling, a complete rebalance of the cargoholds of every single ship in the game, or something else entirely?


rebalance of THE CARGO CAPACITY of every hauler in game, as edge case combat ships being used as haulers are not a major concern:
to clarify- definite rebalance would be needed:
Both Caldari T1 haulers
Both Amarr T1 haulers
wreathe and Mammoth
nereus and Itty V
orca & noctis
providence, charon, obelisk, fenrir
ark, rhea, anshar, nomad
impel, crane, viator, prowler

possibly need a rebalance:
prorator, crane, occator, mastodon
hoarder, miasmos, kryos, epithal (but probably not)
bowhead, ?rorqual - again (but probably not)

For posting an idea into F&I: come up with idea, try and think how people could abuse this, try to fix your idea - loop the process until you can't see how it could be abused, then post to the forums to let us figure out how to abuse it..... If your idea can be abused, it [u]WILL[/u] be.
Xe'Cara'eos
A Big Enough Lever
#14 - 2015-07-28 16:27:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Xe'Cara'eos
FT Diomedes wrote:
Xe'Cara'eos wrote:
my vision is that with a max cargohold fit, you should get about the same cargo as current (in all haulers), but when you drop a single expander for a DC, you don't lose such a great percentage of your cargo, so it encourages the choice of 'oooh dangerous space, let's put a DC in instead of that last expander' without the current 'but then I lose nearly half of my cargo-space'

Added to original post


How do you define "dangerous space?" Fitting a Damage Control II on a T1 Hauler in 0.0 or Low Sec will do nothing to save you.

Even in High Sec, fitting a DCU II instead of something else will do very little to save you, it may just take your opponent an extra Catalyst or two. The extra 2000 EHP is basically meaningless.


I define dangerous space as anywhere you're not sure what the contents of local will do..... so trade hubs, known ganker locations that LOOK clear, perhaps WH logistics, because you're either in warp, on a WH or 'safe' at POS/in HS

this would change NOTHING in low/null and systems where you think you'll be safe,

BUT - with edge case systems, it'll make it easier for people to choose a sensible option where they only need a few extra k EHP, likely as a defense against opportunistic gankers, rather than dedicated kill-groups

apologies for double post

For posting an idea into F&I: come up with idea, try and think how people could abuse this, try to fix your idea - loop the process until you can't see how it could be abused, then post to the forums to let us figure out how to abuse it..... If your idea can be abused, it [u]WILL[/u] be.