Player Features and Ideas Discussion

QFT.
It's an absolute nonsense argument. The idea that there's no possible way to balance it out, and that the addition of slots would automatically mean they were either drastically overpowered or drastically underpowered is ridiculous.

the irony of your signature has made my day.
People have explained why you are wrong and you still can't see it.
if freighters had normal fittings then both their cargo and HP would have to be nerfed hugely to avoid the possibility of either rediculous cargobays (preventing moving carriers and dreads to high sec is often mentioned) or the possibility for stupid high tanks on these ships.
so you would either end up with
a) possibility of insane tank
b) possibility of insane high cargo
c) possibility of neither a or b and thus a ship that is worse the current freighters either in terms of tank or cargo depending on how you fit it.
d) there is no d.

almost no one wants a or b.
c is a nerf.
thus allowing them to fit modules will result in a nerf.
i don't see how this can be made any easier to understand.

wut?

they were designed with capacity in mind. all other attributes; speed, durability, weapons, electronics etc were all sacrificed in the name of MOAR capacity. defense came after. and it still has the tank of a battleship...what more could u possibly need?

Solution possibility: Instead of allowing to use general modules, create Freighter specific mid or low slot modules. (eliminates the use of DCs, invulns, or other tank items that unbalance the tanks.) Like the others below, make it a short term boost; hell, make it booster run, resistance based on the charge size (come up with a continuum between 2% and 20% or something. Someone else would have to determine what would be reasonable.) Have a set capacity that can take any size, but make it so they only have XX seconds per charge, and only one of the largest charge could fit. Not reloadable in space. NO REP ABILITY.
This one could be dangerous as the cycle time compared to the response time of CONCORD would have to be worked out pretty heavily.

Solution possibility: Modify current resistances to more evenly cover all damage types, just not as good over all.
This would amount to a nerf.

Solution possibility: grant high-slots, but only allow freighter specific versions of small or medium weapons that activate on being attacked. Give them large built in capacity (say 500 rounds of small or 250 medium), but no reloads in space. To prevent offensive use, make the ship selects target, not the pilot. To prevent use by AFK pilots, must be activated manually, and reactivated periodically. Keep number allowed small (4 or fewer) and DPS mild, but enough to make gankers decide if its really worth the trouble. (Give freighter pilots a safe feeling without being so OP that they are unreasonable; self escort you might call it.)
This option, i would say needs to be debated as to merits, as I don't see to many issues with implementation, but someone else might.

Solution possibility: allow one mid-slot able to use a freighter specific ECM module that breaks all locks on the ship (prevent use as ECM bomber) within XX range (ships at long point range may be able to retain hold) against it for say 3-10seconds. Has to be manually activated, 1 min cool down. Make it unlike the Bursts in that it affects only locks on the ship, and doesn't attract CONCORD on use. Something like that BS thing they added a while ago.
This option could cause havoc with gankers, and need balanced against CONCORD response times.

Solution Possibility: Start an escort service for freighters. We got all sorts of improved ships now, especially EAFs that could cause serious issues for gankers if they were implemented right. ECM works pretty well, too.
This option could be implemented now... and realistically, while boring, can be worth it depending on cargo.

I can see that having Freighters have tanks like that of capital combat ships is completely stupid OP. It would also require more commitment to pop one.

I would not be against this idea. I like the idea of a lite-frieghter fitted between an Orca & Freighter. That would be a separate discussion though as I'm sure there's more than enough 2-cents to be spent on that topic.

now that i can get behind.

to avoid ganks. i take mine through low sec from time to time. u dnt have to wait for the gankers to attack first in low sec.

I want freighters to have 1 low slot, with the use of a tech II cargo expander putting them at current cargo capacity. But another thing that would be cool is mini-freighters, and these could have light fitting options and just enough space to haul one freight can plus some change.

lol, The OP'd DC2, lol.
Like the OP'd catalyst?
And WHEN did I mention the VALUE of the freighter? I didn't. I mentioned the value of the gankers.
With the gankers being so low value it forces freighters to have low limits on what they carry, which is ********. Why have a freighter if it cant freight? The orca is a much better ship for freighting goods, since it has twice the EHP. So A MINING SUPPORT VESSEL is a better freighter than a freighter? How do you not see why that is wrong?
And if you acteally read what I wrote, cargo expanders would do nothing, since the bay would be a special bay, not a cargo bay. meaning all they have to balance is defense.
gankers should have to THINK about what modules are on a ship. Instead freighters have a flat EHP that you need to put no effort into considering. If people are given the opportunity to pick omnitank or specific tank, etc, its creates diversity.
But please, go ahead and tell me how you are saying this to stop a freighter nerf, not because you want to gank freighters with greater ease.

tl;dr
Freighters should be better at freighting than an orca.

its not about AFK hauling tho. whether ur actively hauling or not, u should not get a MASSIVE boost to tank for almost no loss in other attributes