These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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, In General Vrs their cost, Vrs their ability to actually protect themselfs.
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#41 - 2013-02-05 19:39:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Nicolo da'Vicenza
DarthNefarius wrote:
Would be interesting to see if frieghters were given a lo slot how many people would fit DC II's versus cargo extenders

DCU II you would have to activate every system jump, which is bullcrap

I think it would go like this:

cargohold expanders (faster trip = more $$$)
nanofiber hull (faster trip = more $$$)
inertia stabilizers
warp core stabilizer
dcu II
Andracin
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#42 - 2013-02-05 19:40:08 UTC
DarthNefarius wrote:
Would be interesting to see if frieghters were given a lo slot how many people would fit DC II's versus cargo extenders


Or warp core stabs...but I would think a fair number might opt for inertia stabs as well....
Felicity Love
Doomheim
#43 - 2013-02-05 19:43:43 UTC
DarthNefarius wrote:
Would be interesting to see if frieghters were given a lo slot how many people would fit DC II's versus cargo extenders



Assuming some changes to CPU and POWER were made, I'd go with one high slot and see how many folks slam in an "Ice Stripper" and park in an ice field -- guaranteed there would be at least a few lemmings.

Roll

"EVE is dying." -- The Four Forum Trolls of the Apocalypse.   ( Pick four, any four. They all smell.  )
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#44 - 2013-02-05 19:45:22 UTC
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
DarthNefarius wrote:
Would be interesting to see if frieghters were given a lo slot how many people would fit DC II's versus cargo extenders

DCU II you would have to activate every system jump, which is bullcrap

I think it would go like this:

cargohold expanders (faster trip = more $$$)
nanofiber hull (faster trip = more $$$)
inertia stabilizers
warp core stabilizer
dcu II

This man is correct. If we were given a low slot on freighters it would be at the cost of cargo space... and even if that were not the case most people would simply opt to go for more cargo space.

Warp stabs in particular would only help you against the most inept gank squad imaginable.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Mara Pahrdi
The Order of Anoyia
#45 - 2013-02-05 19:51:44 UTC
DarthNefarius wrote:
Would be interesting to see if frieghters were given a lo slot how many people would fit DC II's versus cargo extenders

Most would fit cargo extenders. DC II would require effort and atk hauling. CCP can't fix stupid and afk.

Remove standings and insurance.
HollyShocker 2inthestink
HOW to PEG SAFETY
#46 - 2013-02-05 19:54:35 UTC  |  Edited by: E-2C Hawkeye
Turelus wrote:
Suicide ganking in general i way higher than it used to be but that's a part of EVE now.

Freighters are defenceless yes, but just because it fits 700k m3+ doesn't mean you need to lead all that space with items worth billions.
If you're using it to move valuable loot keep it down to 2mil or under, avoid common gank systems. If you need to move billions of ISK worth of stuff take the time to do more than one trip and save your freighter and ISK or use blockade runners for the small stuff.

My alt uses a Charon and the only time she has ever used the entire space was while moving stront and POS fuel from a friend, the total value was less than 500mil.


LMAO at this "If you're using it to move valuable loot keep it down to 2mil or under" Are you kidding? 2 mill? really? Then you dont need a freighter. Use your noob ship Roll

People should be using the ships for what they are designed for. People can gank you if you have 2mill or 2 bill. They may not have the ability to see whats in the container.

People exploiting flawed game design (bumping) for profit. Fix the poor game mechanic and you fix the problem.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#47 - 2013-02-05 20:29:47 UTC
HollyShocker 2inthestink wrote:


LMAO at this "If you're using it to move valuable loot keep it down to 2mil or under" Are you kidding? 2 mill? really? Then you dont need a freighter. Use your noob ship Roll

People should be using the ships for what they are designed for. People can gank you if you have 2mill or 2 bill. They may not have the ability to see whats in the container.

People exploiting flawed game design (bumping) for profit. Fix the poor game mechanic and you fix the problem.


I may be wrong here (I'm not) but I belive he ment to say 2 bil.

Also this is not exploiting poor game mechanics, It is exploiting peoples stupidity. Piracy is not and never has been an exploit.
Zilero
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#48 - 2013-02-05 20:36:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Zilero
Dr No Game wrote:
Zilero wrote:
xxVastorxx wrote:
luZk wrote:
You would be so much safer in your freigther if it had guns..Roll


Well you guys couldnt kill my mains deadpsace legion with 8 ships in jita when i gave you the chance to. So pretty sure a frieighter with guns, would be harder for ya.


Want to try that without:

a) Being all tank and no damage
b) Slaveset
c) Legion booster

and most importantly:

d) Without immediately deaggressing and docking up.

In other words: Come back when you have grown a pair Big smile

Really? You make a career wardeccing easy HiSec targets in Jita and you're telling someone else to grow a pair?


Do the math on 800k EHP tech 3 ships. In order to kill it you need an estimated effective of around 20,000.

Estimated times after undocking DPS to kill an 800k EHP ship:

10 seconds to lock / drop drones
10 seconds to get into optimal range
40 seconds left to shoot

In those 40 seconds you need to do 800k worth of damage.... so 20.000 DPS that actually hits. Considering battleships hit Tech 3s really badly you probably need 40,000 DPS worth of battleship DPS.... or 25-30,000 worth of DPS from Battlecruisers (that hit slightly better). Also, if the ship in question is a proteus, that DPS better not be kinetic damage....

This amounts to roughly 30 battleships or 20-25 Battlecruisers.

Unless you are fairly bad at counting how many people can shoot you in local I would say undocking a ship like that is akin to having no balls Big smile
HollyShocker 2inthestink
HOW to PEG SAFETY
#49 - 2013-02-05 21:48:16 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
HollyShocker 2inthestink wrote:


LMAO at this "If you're using it to move valuable loot keep it down to 2mil or under" Are you kidding? 2 mill? really? Then you dont need a freighter. Use your noob ship Roll

People should be using the ships for what they are designed for. People can gank you if you have 2mill or 2 bill. They may not have the ability to see whats in the container.

People exploiting flawed game design (bumping) for profit. Fix the poor game mechanic and you fix the problem.


I may be wrong here (I'm not) but I belive he ment to say 2 bil.

Also this is not exploiting poor game mechanics, It is exploiting peoples stupidity. Piracy is not and never has been an exploit.



Yea i m sure they meant for ships to be bumped repeatable with little or no defense against it and bumping causing no damage to either ship because thats a real world dynamic they forgot to program into the game.

You and people like you never fall short of of trying to justify reasons to take advantage of exploits.

No reason why this exploit can not be fixed.
Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
#50 - 2013-02-05 22:08:35 UTC
Mara Pahrdi wrote:
DarthNefarius wrote:
Would be interesting to see if frieghters were given a lo slot how many people would fit DC II's versus cargo extenders

Most would fit cargo extenders. DC II would require effort and atk hauling. CCP can't fix stupid and afk.


Nor should they try to fix stupid. You pay a price for stupid in this game.

That said....

The smart people would make good use of it. And since this game is about rewarding the clever and punishing the morons, I see nothing wrong with enabling a mechanic to allow a clever pilot an advantage. Be it adding a slot or freighter specific skills to train.

Mr Epeen Cool
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#51 - 2013-02-05 22:09:33 UTC
HollyShocker 2inthestink wrote:



Yea i m sure they meant for ships to be bumped repeatable with little or no defense against it and bumping causing no damage to either ship because thats a real world dynamic they forgot to program into the game.

You and people like you never fall short of of trying to justify reasons to take advantage of exploits.

No reason why this exploit can not be fixed.


Its a tactic to stop people from entering warp. It is also the only way to get a capital off a station/POS. CCP themselves have said this is fine and working as intended. If we had collision damage then Jita undock would be utter hell and fleets would be giant balls of fire. It is not an exploit, it is mechanics working as intended.
Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
#52 - 2013-02-05 22:17:08 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
CCP themselves have said this is fine and working as intended.


You really believe that?

You should know by now that CCP says that something is 'working as intended' when they can't be arsed to fix it. It gets fixed when enough people start exploiting it. No sooner.

And it is always 'working as intended' right up to the patch that fixes it.

Remember the glorious days of nano HACs, ghost training, Hulkageddon and many more examples. All working as intended until CCP fixed them.

Mr Epeen Cool
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#53 - 2013-02-05 22:19:39 UTC
ccp aren't going to buff noobships until you can run around with them with 80 plex in the hull safely, for the same reason they aren't going to 'buff freighters' overladen with loot.
Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#54 - 2013-02-05 22:21:59 UTC
xxVastorxx wrote:
As we all know by now we see Freighters and jump freighters in Highsec,lowsec,nullsec,Wh space always getting blasted to nothing,

the idea behind, moveing a whole world and then some is a cool idea, But what about cost vrs security ??

T1 Freighter hull 1.5 bill. *before mineral prices went thro roof 800 mill.
JF about 6.5 bill ish and up, havent checked their prices recently but seen them in that area.

Freighters juicy targets for suicide gankers, Same with JF, in the odd situations.

Push them off a gate with mach's *offgrid* then kill it.

So why no mid,or low slots CCP adding them would bring much less problems for the players that complain about looseing them.
Your still going to prolly loose it if suicide ganked, but why not make it harder for the person trying to gank it ?

I myself havent lost a Freighter or a JF, So not sure what it feels like.

So Question is will CCP help the Freighter,Jump Freighter's out by allowing them Low Slots, Mid slots.
In most movies you see freighters can even use defensive systems *guns,drones,tank etc,

It would look alot cooler if you seen killmails where a bunch of pilots tried suicide ganking a freighter but instead got owned by it. That would be better then kiling a Drake with a badger II. :D



Oh look, this thread again. People have explained why giving freighters any kind of slot is a bad idea.

This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#55 - 2013-02-05 22:30:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Ranger 1
Mr Epeen wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
CCP themselves have said this is fine and working as intended.


You really believe that?

You should know by now that CCP says that something is 'working as intended' when they can't be arsed to fix it. It gets fixed when enough people start exploiting it. No sooner.

And it is always 'working as intended' right up to the patch that fixes it.

Remember the glorious days of nano HACs, ghost training, Hulkageddon and many more examples. All working as intended until CCP fixed them.

Mr Epeen Cool


Well, in a perfect world CCP would probaby gladly make bumping more realistic. However the added calculations necessary to do so doesn't scale well and also require major reworking of undocking and fleet mechanics. So, for the moment, working as intended (as the other option isn't currently practical, and what we have now is workable).

Now this may all change with Tessellation, whereby such mechanics can be handled simply by the GPU. If/when that happens the mechanic may change... but until that time comes (if ever) then bumping is (for the time being, within our current limitations) working as intended.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
#56 - 2013-02-05 22:35:50 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:
Mr Epeen wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
CCP themselves have said this is fine and working as intended.


You really believe that?

You should know by now that CCP says that something is 'working as intended' when they can't be arsed to fix it. It gets fixed when enough people start exploiting it. No sooner.

And it is always 'working as intended' right up to the patch that fixes it.

Remember the glorious days of nano HACs, ghost training, Hulkageddon and many more examples. All working as intended until CCP fixed them.

Mr Epeen Cool


Well, in a perfect world CCP would probaby gladly make bumping more realistic. However the added calculations necessary to do so doesn't scale well and also require major reworking of undocking and fleet mechanics. So, for the moment, working as intended (as the other option isn't currently practical, and what we have now is workable).

Now this may all change with Tessellation, whereby such mechanics can be handled simply by the GPU. If/when that happens the mechanic may change... but until that time comes (if ever) then bumping is (for the time being, within our current limitations) working as intended.


I can't disagree.

But I will call it 'working because they lack the ability to fix it' from now on.

Mr Epeen Cool
Verity Sovereign
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#57 - 2013-02-05 22:40:31 UTC
Want more tank?
Give up cargospace, get an orca

Going AFK, can't be arsed to activate your DCII (or use a simple bot to activate it- oops did I say that?) then die, if you're not there to defend your ship, it should die.
Its not as safe as it used to be (when it had unscannable compartments that never dropped loot)- but its still better

I do think freighters should get some modules slots to allow some customization (if needed, nerf their cargo, so that one still cant get cap ships into high sec- though you could also increase the size of caps)

Let the players choose between the mighty DC II that will make them extremely hard to gank, but requires them to activate it after each jump, or the cargohold expander that allows them to move more stuff... or the reinforced bulkheads for the safer(harder to gank) slow AFK hauling, to the nano for moe dangerous but faster AFK hauling, to Istabs for faster hauling with warp to zero's.

mids -prop mof for speed... or ecm for defense?

utility high for a cloak?
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#58 - 2013-02-05 22:59:33 UTC
Just give freighters 1 PG and 0 cpu for their low slot
they can choose between adaptive nano plating, regenerative plating, cargohold expander, inertia stab, nanofiber...
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat
Working Stiffs
#59 - 2013-02-05 23:02:08 UTC
Freighters cannot have rigs or low slots, as that would allow for expanded cargo, and allow for packaged capitals to be hauled into hisec.

But freighters could have high slots or mid slots. However this would help the shield tanks and not the armor tanks.

For what it is worth, I currently own 6 Charons, and occasionally own 2 Rhea. I find not being AFK and not making myself a tempting target to be my best defense.
Josef Djugashvilis
#60 - 2013-02-06 00:08:34 UTC
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
Oh look an NPC corp character complaining about PVP again.


Oh look, tough talking null-sec pvpers' using NPC alts to move stuff again.

This is not a signature.