These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[Kronos] Hull Hitpoint Rigs

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Vhelnik Cojoin
Pandemic Horde High Sec Division
#201 - 2014-05-07 19:14:36 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
I'm all caught up on this thread, and although I won't make a decision quite yet, I do find the arguments for hull rigs affecting cargo to be quite compelling. I'll give it some more thought.

Great news, thanks! Please try and expedite your thinking on this issue and make some bombastic, final remarks to this effect before the good people from GSF and CODE. wakes up and realizes their mistake. Pirate

Have you Communicated with your fellow capsuleers today? It is good for the EvE-oconomy and o-kay for you.
Ranamar
Nobody in Local
Deepwater Hooligans
#202 - 2014-05-07 19:54:22 UTC
Abrazzar wrote:
Considering the ships the hull rigs are most effective, i.e. Orca and Freighters, a cargo penalty would make their usefulness rather dubious.


I wouldn't care on my T1 freighter because it's usually half-empty anyway. (Otherwise, I wouldn't be terribly concerned about hull rigs, tbh, and would be putting align/warpspeed rigs on.) My Orca, though... I might actually care about using its max cargo from time to time. (Not often, I'll admit, but CDFEs are also not a bad choice on an Orca, tbh.)
Malcolm Malicious
A Blessed Bean
Pandemic Horde
#203 - 2014-05-08 11:39:31 UTC
I'm dying to test out my new hull doctrines, when will we see Kronos changes on the test server?
Mr LaboratoryRat
Confederation of DuckTape Lovers
#204 - 2014-05-08 20:49:42 UTC
how about fixing hull reps/hullmods in the first place when you are planning on hull tanks?
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#205 - 2014-05-08 23:04:30 UTC
Mr LaboratoryRat wrote:
how about fixing hull reps/hullmods in the first place when you are planning on hull tanks?

Bulkhead and DC ll are both in good places, no fixing needed there.
Hull Reps - Could possibly (I mean - really) do with some love.

For most applications, Hull Rigs will best suit a buffer tank alongside Bulkheads and DCll.

Not sure having a reduction in cargo size is the best way to go for a penalty on Hull rigs. Without expanders or optimization rigs Orca has 37,500 m of cargo space. Which is already halved by fitting hull rigs, DC ll and Bulkhead.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#206 - 2014-05-09 13:41:52 UTC
gascanu wrote:
to be honest a reduction in cargo it's not really a penalty on a bait hull tanked bs; and will be a very big hit on freighters; so maybe the speed penalty is the right thing for now


a bait tanks purpose is to sit there and get shot. speed is not much of a penalty to them either.

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
Delhaven
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#207 - 2014-05-09 17:33:33 UTC
For freighters and Orcas, it really doesn't make a difference whether it's a cargo or speed penalty.

With a speed penalty: if you're on autopilot odds are good that you really aren't that worried about shaving a couple of minutes off of a trip (10-20 seconds per gate). If you're not on autopilot, it makes no difference.

If you do care about the time, you'll put on agility, velocity, and/or warp speed rigs.

With a cargo penalty: for freighters hauling high value stuff, a drop of 40-90K m3 won't be missed because the ship is probably only half-full anyway. For an Orca, if you're putting on hull rigs a loss of 2-3K m3 of cargo is insignificant, and the corporate and ship maintenance bays don't change.

If you haul a lot of high volume, low value stuff you'll put on cargo rigs.

For combat ships and fringe cases: a drop in velocity might matter, and a drop in cargo will rarely matter.

Personally, I'd rather see the cargo penalty.
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat
Working Stiffs
#208 - 2014-05-13 03:40:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Tau Cabalander
Since the rigs are really for freighters and jump freighters, it seems, It would be an extreme pity to have the drawback be cargo.

Velocity will be a great penalty for freighters, as it is the primary concern of AFK haulers. If they want to be more secure, they have to sacrifice travel time. [Time spent traveling AFK to gate activation distance is typically greater than time spent in warp. Hence the Fenrir is the most popular AFK hauler.]

Jump freighters are already slow, and have good tank, and these rigs will force them to sacrifice even more velocity for more tank.

Win-win.

Also, if you use a structure rig with a cargo drawback, then using a cargo rig to compensate is a given, which removes choice and flexability, which was the whole point of the exercise in the first place.
Hrett
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#209 - 2014-05-13 05:10:16 UTC
These are going to create some monster Gallente fits. You can now have a two slot tank in your lows (dcu + bulkhead) plus 3 hull rigs. Then devote the rest of your lows to mag stabs, ddas, TEs and ODs. Vexor Sexor.

Goodnight Darlene.

spaceship, Spaceship, SPACESHIP!
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#210 - 2014-05-13 06:12:16 UTC
Delhaven wrote:
For freighters and Orcas, it really doesn't make a difference whether it's a cargo or speed penalty.

With a speed penalty: if you're on autopilot odds are good that you really aren't that worried about shaving a couple of minutes off of a trip (10-20 seconds per gate). If you're not on autopilot, it makes no difference.

If you do care about the time, you'll put on agility, velocity, and/or warp speed rigs.

With a cargo penalty: for freighters hauling high value stuff, a drop of 40-90K m3 won't be missed because the ship is probably only half-full anyway. For an Orca, if you're putting on hull rigs a loss of 2-3K m3 of cargo is insignificant, and the corporate and ship maintenance bays don't change.

If you haul a lot of high volume, low value stuff you'll put on cargo rigs.

For combat ships and fringe cases: a drop in velocity might matter, and a drop in cargo will rarely matter.

Personally, I'd rather see the cargo penalty.


Fitting Hull Rigs alone effectively removes 40k m3 from the Orcas cargo capacity, Bulkhead ll and DCU ll, removes another 30k m3 and you want to remove more by having a Cargo Capacity Drawback on Hull Rigs?
Adding a speed deficit to hull rigs for a ship that does 75m/s now, sort of defeats the purpose of fitting the extra hull, once you leave the safety of highsec..

While 30k or 40k Cargo reduction on a T1 Freighter may not have much effect - The same reduction applied to a JF has a massive impact - 50% more fuel being required to move a JF about + reduction to carrying capacity by fitting rigs = Disaster for Lowsec and Nulsec logistics.
Further reducing the speed of JF's by having speed drawback for hull rigs = More time for gankers to get through the extra bit of hull you picked up with the rigs.

Hull Rigs, IMO should have the same Drawback as Engineering Rigs - None - The ships they will benefit most already have enough draw backs. Speed, Agility, Target Value, just to name a few. Why give them the ability to help overcome some of the drawbacks then add drawbacks that all but neutralize what they are being given.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#211 - 2014-05-13 06:56:11 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Fitting Hull Rigs alone effectively removes 40k m3 from the Orcas cargo capacity, Bulkhead ll and DCU ll, removes another 30k m3 and you want to remove more by having a Cargo Capacity Drawback on Hull Rigs?
Adding a speed deficit to hull rigs for a ship that does 75m/s now, sort of defeats the purpose of fitting the extra hull, once you leave the safety of highsec..

While 30k or 40k Cargo reduction on a T1 Freighter may not have much effect - The same reduction applied to a JF has a massive impact - 50% more fuel being required to move a JF about + reduction to carrying capacity by fitting rigs = Disaster for Lowsec and Nulsec logistics.
Further reducing the speed of JF's by having speed drawback for hull rigs = More time for gankers to get through the extra bit of hull you picked up with the rigs.

Hull Rigs, IMO should have the same Drawback as Engineering Rigs - None - The ships they will benefit most already have enough draw backs. Speed, Agility, Target Value, just to name a few. Why give them the ability to help overcome some of the drawbacks then add drawbacks that all but neutralize what they are being given.


As much as I see your reason here for freighters and jump freighters, hull rigs without drawbacks are not going to happen. Simple reason: they can also be used on other ships, where draw backs are absolutely essential. In the end, this means a (potential) massive nerf to freighters and jump freighters.

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.
Mournful Conciousness
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#212 - 2014-05-13 08:51:53 UTC
I'm struggling to understand why a reduction in sub-warp speed is in any way a drawback for a freighter or industrial.

Slow boating these ships is an error. They should be in warp.

The max speed in no way affects the time to warp.

Thus the speed penalty is no penalty at all for industrials.

It's barely a penalty for combat ships, since we have already learned to live with the idea that trim arks slow a ship down.

Embers Children is recruiting carefully selected pilots who like wormholes, green killboards and the sweet taste of tears. You can convo me in game or join the chat "TOHA Lounge".
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#213 - 2014-05-13 08:56:47 UTC
Rivr Luzade wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Fitting Hull Rigs alone effectively removes 40k m3 from the Orcas cargo capacity, Bulkhead ll and DCU ll, removes another 30k m3 and you want to remove more by having a Cargo Capacity Drawback on Hull Rigs?
Adding a speed deficit to hull rigs for a ship that does 75m/s now, sort of defeats the purpose of fitting the extra hull, once you leave the safety of highsec..

While 30k or 40k Cargo reduction on a T1 Freighter may not have much effect - The same reduction applied to a JF has a massive impact - 50% more fuel being required to move a JF about + reduction to carrying capacity by fitting rigs = Disaster for Lowsec and Nulsec logistics.
Further reducing the speed of JF's by having speed drawback for hull rigs = More time for gankers to get through the extra bit of hull you picked up with the rigs.

Hull Rigs, IMO should have the same Drawback as Engineering Rigs - None - The ships they will benefit most already have enough draw backs. Speed, Agility, Target Value, just to name a few. Why give them the ability to help overcome some of the drawbacks then add drawbacks that all but neutralize what they are being given.


As much as I see your reason here for freighters and jump freighters, hull rigs without drawbacks are not going to happen. Simple reason: they can also be used on other ships, where draw backs are absolutely essential. In the end, this means a (potential) massive nerf to freighters and jump freighters.

The fix for that is really quite simple.
Drawbacks apply to hulls not rigs. This could be built into the rigs so bonuses and attributes on ships don't need to be changed.
EG; Hull Rig Drawback, -10% to speed, does not apply to Capital Industrial Ships, Jump Freighters or Freighters.

I understand the need for drawbacks on combat hulls but if the drawbacks apply to those mentioned, they could create a balance where the rigs are of very little or no benefit.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#214 - 2014-05-13 10:43:46 UTC
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
I'm struggling to understand why a reduction in sub-warp speed is in any way a drawback for a freighter or industrial.

Slow boating these ships is an error. They should be in warp.

The max speed in no way affects the time to warp.

Thus the speed penalty is no penalty at all for industrials.

It's barely a penalty for combat ships, since we have already learned to live with the idea that trim arks slow a ship down.


Have you ever landed 2.5 km away from a station and slowboated to the station's docking range?

And I don't see why autopiloting an empty freighter is "an error", it's as viable a way to travel as with any other ship.

Sgt Ocker wrote:
The fix for that is really quite simple.
Drawbacks apply to hulls not rigs. This could be built into the rigs so bonuses and attributes on ships don't need to be changed.
EG; Hull Rig Drawback, -10% to speed, does not apply to Capital Industrial Ships, Jump Freighters or Freighters.

I understand the need for drawbacks on combat hulls but if the drawbacks apply to those mentioned, they could create a balance where the rigs are of very little or no benefit.


That would certainly be a good option; however, knowing CCP Fozzie, this is unlikely to happen.

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.
Meytal
Doomheim
#215 - 2014-05-13 19:45:31 UTC
Would be awesome if you could also buff hull repair and remote hull repair modules a bit as well. The remote rep mods can't be overheated, and they repair maybe half as much over time as the remote armour rep modules. Equalizing cost and cycle time between armour rep and hull rep modules, and adding overheating to the hull rep modules might be sufficient to keep them lower-demand but still pull them out from the bowels of unused modules and under-trained skills.
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#216 - 2014-05-13 21:53:31 UTC
After some thinking over the feedback in this thread and discussion with the CSM, we've decided to switch the penalty for the hull hp rigs to cargo capacity.

We are also going to swap the speed penalty on all reinforced bulkhead modules to an equal percentage cargo capacity penalty. The agility penalty will remain intact at this time.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie
Vivi Udan
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#217 - 2014-05-13 21:57:20 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
We are also going to swap the speed penalty on all reinforced bulkhead modules to an equal percentage cargo capacity penalty.


Do this mean that Freighters/JFs will be getting low slots too?

The Mittani of House GoonWaffe, First of His name, King of the Goons and VFK, Master of griefing, Lord of the CFC, Warden of the West, and Protector of Deklein.
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#218 - 2014-05-13 21:57:39 UTC
Vivi Udan wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
We are also going to swap the speed penalty on all reinforced bulkhead modules to an equal percentage cargo capacity penalty.


Do this mean that Freighters/JFs will be getting low slots too?

Not at this time.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie
Mournful Conciousness
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#219 - 2014-05-13 21:58:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Mournful Conciousness
CCP Fozzie wrote:
After some thinking over the feedback in this thread and discussion with the CSM, we've decided to switch the penalty for the hull hp rigs to cargo capacity.

We are also going to swap the speed penalty on all reinforced bulkhead modules to an equal percentage cargo capacity penalty. The agility penalty will remain intact at this time.


Oh well, that's the end of the hull tanked Dominix and Armageddon plan then Sad

Embers Children is recruiting carefully selected pilots who like wormholes, green killboards and the sweet taste of tears. You can convo me in game or join the chat "TOHA Lounge".
Marc Callan
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#220 - 2014-05-13 22:06:25 UTC
Ouch. I just realized that there's one edge case that would get hurt by a cargohold penalty to bulkhead modules.

An Orca flown by a pilot with ICS IV, with two T2 cargohold rigs and a T1 ACR, can do the DC/bulkhead hull tank, fit a MWD for pulse-to-warp, and carry a battleship in its main cargohold - it's got over 50K of space that way, with a 200K+ EHP tank. With a bulkhead chewing up cargo space instead of slowing the ship down, that possibility is gone.

Which I suspect is part of the point, huh?

"We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be." - Kurt Vonnegurt