These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Freighters need fittings!!!

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Mr Pragmatic
#21 - 2012-11-26 06:34:54 UTC
Galaxy Pig wrote:
Sigh... Show us on the doll where the mean goons touched you...


Sigh, show us how many wallet transactions you have, to be a good sympathizer. What?

Super cali hella yolo swaga dopeness.  -Yoloswaggins, in the fellowship of the bling.
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#22 - 2012-11-26 06:37:40 UTC  |  Edited by: ShahFluffers
There was a rather ugly thread in the F&I forums about this. Basically freighters would have to be SEVERELY nerfed in order to receive fitting slots... otherwise people would play the min/max game and do some insane things with them.

For example...
For every low slot you add you would have to nerf a freighter's cargo by 27.5% (the amount given by a T2 Cargo Expander), structure by 25% (the amount given by a T2 Reinforced Bulkhead), and speed and agility by similar amounts as well... all to prevent people by going over 1 million m3 cargospace (so people don't ship capitals into high-sec) or getting more EHP than most combat capital ships.

And this is just low slots. You would have to further nerf cargo space and speed/agility for every rig slot you give it.

How did you Veterans start?
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#23 - 2012-11-26 06:38:31 UTC
Bane Necran wrote:
Ahh yes, It's so harsh out there in 0.0 with all that convenience. Those of us in hisec losing freighters can only imagine how hard things must be for you all.

You're right to spend the spare time all your luxury affords coming into hisec to gank those who lack it.

If you think null is so great, just go there? If you think it entails such luxury, just go to the recruitment forum and find a 0.0 alliance to join. There's literally hundreds, and the demand for new members far outstrips the supply. Why? Well, you'll learn after you join up and take advantage of all that luxury.

I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:

https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
EI Digin
irc.zulusquad.org
#24 - 2012-11-26 06:39:44 UTC
ShahFluffers wrote:
There was a rather ugly thread in the F&I forums about this. Basically freighters would have to be SEVERELY nerfed in order to receive fitting slots... otherwise people would play the min/max game and do some insane things with them.

For example...
For every low slot you add you would have to nerf a freighter's cargo by 27.5% (the amount given by a T2 Cargo Expander), structure by 25% (the amount given by a T2 Reinforced Bulkhead), and speed and agility by similar amounts as well... all to prevent people by going over 1 million m3 (so people don't ship capitals into high-sec) or getting more EHP than most combat capital ships.

And this is just low slots. You would have to further nerf cargo space and speed/agility for every rig slot you give it.


Don't let facts get in the way of a "good" idea.

Death to GOON
Rordan D'Kherr
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#25 - 2012-11-26 06:49:27 UTC
MeBiatch wrote:
Pretty much just like mining ships used to need more ehp to have the chance to survive now too do freighters need the ability to have fittings to have a chance to survive.

We have "emergent gameplay to thank for this"

CCP did not know this would be a tactic and thus when Freighters were designed it did not make sense for them to have fittings but the times are a changing as my Dylan would say...

so...

I propose each ship gets 5 fitting points:

all 4 ships get one high slot and one rig slot

then caldari/min get 3 mid slots and 2 low slots

and gal/ amarr get 2 mid and 3 low slots

they would have 1000 base pg and 300 base cpu

yes you can survive in a current freighter if you have alts and such... but you should not have to use an alt for a ship to survive...

give the ships a fighting chance...


Making superduperbattlestars out of a freighter? No.

Freighter = Cargo + HP. Since ever.

Don't be scared, because being afk is not a crime.
Galaxy Pig
New Order Logistics
CODE.
#26 - 2012-11-26 06:50:07 UTC
Mr Pragmatic wrote:
Galaxy Pig wrote:
Sigh... Show us on the doll where the mean goons touched you...


Sigh, show us how many wallet transactions you have, to be a good sympathizer. What?


Huh?

Highsec is owned by players now. Systems 0.5-1.0 are New Order Territory. All miners and other residents of Highsec must obey The Code. Mining without a permit is dangerous and harmful to the EVE community. See www.MinerBumping.com
Eugene Kerner
TunDraGon
Goonswarm Federation
#27 - 2012-11-26 06:53:05 UTC
MeBiatch wrote:
Pretty much just like mining ships used to need more ehp to have the chance to survive now too do freighters need the ability to have fittings to have a chance to survive.

We have "emergent gameplay to thank for this"

CCP did not know this would be a tactic and thus when Freighters were designed it did not make sense for them to have fittings but the times are a changing as my Dylan would say...

so...

I propose each ship gets 5 fitting points:

all 4 ships get one high slot and one rig slot

then caldari/min get 3 mid slots and 2 low slots

and gal/ amarr get 2 mid and 3 low slots

they would have 1000 base pg and 300 base cpu

yes you can survive in a current freighter if you have alts and such... but you should not have to use an alt for a ship to survive...

give the ships a fighting chance...


ok cut the Cargo bay by at least 50 % and give them fitting-slots.

TunDraGon is recruiting! "Also, your boobs [:o] "   CCP Eterne, 2012 "When in doubt...make a diȼk joke." Robin Williams - RIP
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc
Tactical-Retreat
#28 - 2012-11-26 07:12:28 UTC
I agree that being unable to choose the fitting configuration of a ship in EvE Online is just... not natural. (Ok, shuttles too, but shuttles are just gift packages around the pod)

Why not giving freighters 3 rigs slots, 1 high and 3/2 or 2/3 mid/low, and reducing their base cargohold so that with T1 rigs + expanded cargohold II we reach roughly the same cargo ?

Signature Tanking Best Tanking

[Ex-F] CEO - Eve-guides.fr

Ultimate Citadel Guide - 2016 EVE Career Chart
ISD TYPE40
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#29 - 2012-11-26 07:13:08 UTC
Thread moved from GD to F&I - ISD Type40.

[b]ISD Type40 Lt. Commander Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department[/b]
Crimeo Khamsi
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#30 - 2012-11-26 07:19:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Crimeo Khamsi
Copying and pasting from another thread here 5 minutes ago on this very topic, my suggestion:

* Default freighters hold 1/2 as much as they do now AND
* Default freighters are 1/2 as nimble as they are now AND
* Default freighters have 2/3 the armor they have now AND
* Default freighters are a little slower (75%?) than they are now, BUT
* Freighters get 3 low slots

(This is just enough nerf to not allow capital ships to be transported into high sec, and a suitably severe penalty for adding more armor to a freighter than they currently have for anti-gank, which would require all three slots)
Galaxy Pig
New Order Logistics
CODE.
#31 - 2012-11-26 07:22:22 UTC
Decisions decisions...

Highsec is owned by players now. Systems 0.5-1.0 are New Order Territory. All miners and other residents of Highsec must obey The Code. Mining without a permit is dangerous and harmful to the EVE community. See www.MinerBumping.com
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#32 - 2012-11-26 07:43:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Destiny Corrupted
Crimeo Khamsi wrote:
Copying and pasting from another thread here 5 minutes ago on this very topic, my suggestion:

* Default freighters hold 1/2 as much as they do now AND
* Default freighters are 1/2 as nimble as they are now AND
* Default freighters have 2/3 the armor they have now AND
* Default freighters are a little slower (75%?) than they are now, BUT
* Freighters get 3 low slots

(This is just enough nerf to not allow capital ships to be transported into high sec, and a suitably severe penalty for adding more armor to a freighter than they currently have for anti-gank, which would require all three slots)

The problem is that two bulkheads and a DCU II multiply the hull value by 3.9. Even if you reduce the armor, the EHP would still shoot up about 250% (3.5x). Considering current break-even points for ganks, you'd be looking at a minimum haul value of about 11 billion just to not lose money on the gank, on average.

Freighter-ganking does NOT need a nerf; player stupidity does.

I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:

https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
Dawn DiDacyria
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#33 - 2012-11-26 10:27:41 UTC
Crimeo Khamsi wrote:
Copying and pasting from another thread here 5 minutes ago on this very topic, my suggestion:

* Default freighters hold 1/2 as much as they do now AND
* Default freighters are 1/2 as nimble as they are now AND
* Default freighters have 2/3 the armor they have now AND
* Default freighters are a little slower (75%?) than they are now, BUT
* Freighters get 3 low slots

(This is just enough nerf to not allow capital ships to be transported into high sec, and a suitably severe penalty for adding more armor to a freighter than they currently have for anti-gank, which would require all three slots)



With your suggestion the the max cargo would not surpass 1 mil m3 on:
Fenrir
Obelisk
Providence

On Charon though you would get, with 5 in Caldari Freighter Skill, 490'625 m3 start and 1'016'904 m3 with 3x 27.5% expanders. So would need even more than a 50% nerf to set 3 lows up.

Also, right now a Charon (will keep using that one as an example) starts with 824'250 m3 once a character can fly it initially.
That would be 412'125 m3 with halving the initial capacity.
With 3x 27.5% expanders you would end up with 854'199 m3, or with making the Freighter start with more capacity on first flight than it does today. This is true of all the Freighters.

It would basically mean that the freighters would be better at one thing, but worse at the rest, any way you want to set it or risk them becoming too god at one or two things, like way too much EHP as Destiny Corrupted pointed out.

If it's to happen it needs to be a lot more thought out before giving a viable suggestion that can work.

Cheers
Vengeance Thirst
Sons Of Decebal
#34 - 2012-11-26 10:33:11 UTC
From my very limited experience with freighters but constantly involved in logistics as a director of a 60man corp and ceo of another I can tell you what freighters need:

Freighters need be modular and just 2 modules are needed: 1 for moving stuff like right now and 1 for moving assembled ships like a carrier.

Why? Because moving the pvp/pve/indi ships across the high sec / empire of a 60 man corp is ******* nightmare.
Crimeo Khamsi
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#35 - 2012-11-26 17:55:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Crimeo Khamsi
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Crimeo Khamsi wrote:
Copying and pasting from another thread here 5 minutes ago on this very topic, my suggestion:

* Default freighters hold 1/2 as much as they do now AND
* Default freighters are 1/2 as nimble as they are now AND
* Default freighters have 2/3 the armor they have now AND
* Default freighters are a little slower (75%?) than they are now, BUT
* Freighters get 3 low slots

(This is just enough nerf to not allow capital ships to be transported into high sec, and a suitably severe penalty for adding more armor to a freighter than they currently have for anti-gank, which would require all three slots)

The problem is that two bulkheads and a DCU II multiply the hull value by 3.9. Even if you reduce the armor, the EHP would still shoot up about 250% (3.5x). Considering current break-even points for ganks, you'd be looking at a minimum haul value of about 11 billion just to not lose money on the gank, on average.

Freighter-ganking does NOT need a nerf; player stupidity does.


First of all, I meant 50% of the original EHP total, not just armor, sorry to have been unclear.

Reinforced bulkheads and DCU's already use up powergrid and CPU (unlike cargohold expansions, nano structures, etc.). Thus, this could be controlled by throttling the amount of CPU/powergrid on freighters too, so that you can't fit all that stuff. Not just by nerfing armor more.

For example, 50 CPU max (with fantastic fitting skills or using the third slot for co-processor, you could have like 130% or so of hitpoints you have now, but slower align, less cargo, and less speed)

Quote:
On Charon though you would get, with 5 in Caldari Freighter Skill, 490'625 m3 start and 1'016'904 m3 with 3x 27.5% expanders. So would need even more than a 50% nerf to set 3 lows up.

That's fine. 35-40% or whatever is needed to make it just barely too small seem reasonable, too.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#36 - 2012-11-26 18:54:18 UTC
Why do you want to nerf freighters, when you could ask for a new ship type instead?

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Eugene Kerner
TunDraGon
Goonswarm Federation
#37 - 2012-11-30 15:16:24 UTC
I tell you what freighters need...a freaking long way to get them skilled so the pilots actually get to know the game before they transport the fortune of whole planets through New Eden.
Also...losses still happen to a minority of players that are either to lazy or to naiv to scout (or both) and then run to forums to complain about it constantly with their main and ALL their alts...

TunDraGon is recruiting! "Also, your boobs [:o] "   CCP Eterne, 2012 "When in doubt...make a diȼk joke." Robin Williams - RIP
Syzygium
Ventures Bar
Sleeper Protocol
#38 - 2012-11-30 19:15:36 UTC
This discussion is rahter sad... as if it would be impossible to redesign freighters in a way that they could operate with slots.

All this "oh we cannot do this because if you do x then players do y!!! is crap. You can fit carriers, dreads, rorquals all as you like and no one bothers if fit A has 3.9x the EHP of fit B. If the player wants to make the desicion to fit more tank and give up 50% of their cargo, so let them. If he makes the decision to give up 50% tank to get 990k cargospace, so let them.

What exactly is so bad, if a freighter with bulkheads and damage control has 4 times the ehp it has now? That you can't gank it with 8 Tier3 BCs any more? Cry me a river. The pilot gave up half a million m³ cargo capacity for that advantage.

Amarr 6L-2M-4H-3R (0 Turrets, 0 Launchers)
Caldari 4L-4M-4H-3R (0 Turrets, 0 Launchers)
Gallente 5L-3M-4H-3R (0 Turrets, 0 Launchers)
Minmatar 5L-3M-4H-3R (0 Turrets, 0 Launchers)

and then recalculate the base hull-armor-shield and cargo stats that they would be as tanky as today in max-cargo fit while still not breaking the 1m³ line. Leave the rest up to the players, if they want to "tank" their freighter and give up half their cargo for it - fine thing, that freedom every other pilot has as well, be it a hauler or a combat ship sacrificing dps for buffer.

The only thing that would change is that you would actually need to check the fit and recalculate your chances before ganking a freighter that is not max-cargo fitted.

[and before someone cries "booh hoo you are afraid of goons!!!" - I am a -10 and have killed quite a few freighters myself. I am surely not afraid of being ganked in a freighter. I just see that there is no valid reason to give all other pilots the choice beween tank, agility and offense/cargo whatever - just not freighters/jumpfreighters]
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#39 - 2012-12-02 02:38:10 UTC
Syzygium wrote:
This discussion is rahter sad... as if it would be impossible to redesign freighters in a way that they could operate with slots.

All this "oh we cannot do this because if you do x then players do y!!! is crap. You can fit carriers, dreads, rorquals all as you like and no one bothers if fit A has 3.9x the EHP of fit B. If the player wants to make the desicion to fit more tank and give up 50% of their cargo, so let them. If he makes the decision to give up 50% tank to get 990k cargospace, so let them.

What exactly is so bad, if a freighter with bulkheads and damage control has 4 times the ehp it has now? That you can't gank it with 8 Tier3 BCs any more? Cry me a river. The pilot gave up half a million m³ cargo capacity for that advantage.

Amarr 6L-2M-4H-3R (0 Turrets, 0 Launchers)
Caldari 4L-4M-4H-3R (0 Turrets, 0 Launchers)
Gallente 5L-3M-4H-3R (0 Turrets, 0 Launchers)
Minmatar 5L-3M-4H-3R (0 Turrets, 0 Launchers)

and then recalculate the base hull-armor-shield and cargo stats that they would be as tanky as today in max-cargo fit while still not breaking the 1m³ line. Leave the rest up to the players, if they want to "tank" their freighter and give up half their cargo for it - fine thing, that freedom every other pilot has as well, be it a hauler or a combat ship sacrificing dps for buffer.

The only thing that would change is that you would actually need to check the fit and recalculate your chances before ganking a freighter that is not max-cargo fitted.

[and before someone cries "booh hoo you are afraid of goons!!!" - I am a -10 and have killed quite a few freighters myself. I am surely not afraid of being ganked in a freighter. I just see that there is no valid reason to give all other pilots the choice beween tank, agility and offense/cargo whatever - just not freighters/jumpfreighters]


the EHP of the suggested freighter fit for tank rather than capacity would be something over 500k. frankly ridiculous considering its a transport. then lets consider that adding a DCU would mean the end of afk hauling cause u have to activate it after every gate.

current freighters are already optimised. giving them fitting options would mean nerfing the hell out of them.

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
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#40 - 2012-12-02 09:03:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Reaver Glitterstim
Snow Axe wrote:
MeBiatch wrote:
give the ships a fighting chance...


So when they devote their lows and rig to cargo expanders and a single t1 boost in the mids and die even easier than they do now, do you come back and cry for CCP to make the ships stronger because abloo bloo gankers?
Yes.

I want this to happen. Please make fitting freighters possible!!

I think ideally a properly tanked freighter should be able to survive a suicide gank that costs as much as the hull (minimum), and a poorly tanked freighter (like one with cargo expanders) should have less EHP than they have now.

Power to the players.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."