These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Ranamar
Nobody in Local
Deepwater Hooligans
#221 - 2014-05-13 22:11:48 UTC
Huh... for some reason I thought bulkheads currently increased mass instead of doing a speed decrease and an agility penalty. TIL.

I'm trying to parse your post... a "equal cargo penalty" means that whatever they currently lose in speed they'll lose in cargo instead? (so, like, -11% speed becomes -11% cargo?)
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#222 - 2014-05-13 22:37:46 UTC
Ranamar wrote:

I'm trying to parse your post... a "equal cargo penalty" means that whatever they currently lose in speed they'll lose in cargo instead? (so, like, -11% speed becomes -11% cargo?)

Yes.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie
Abulurd Boniface
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#223 - 2014-05-13 22:48:47 UTC
Harvey James wrote:
and who would use them?


How about: real men?

How long have you been here?

Real men hull tank. What do you think they do this for?
Abrazzar
Vardaugas Family
#224 - 2014-05-13 22:50:08 UTC
So when are we going to see the changes to freighters so we can fully understand what that means for the transportation business?

Sovereignty and Population

New Mining Mechanics
Mournful Conciousness
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#225 - 2014-05-13 22:54:32 UTC
Law of unintended consequence alert:

Bulkheads are used by dread pilots to rescue the dread while still in triage once the cap is gone.

Now when dreads refit they will find gat the cargo hold is suddenly overful.

Has CCP coded for this consequence?

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".
Adarnof
Kingsparrow Wormhole Division
Birds of Prey.
#226 - 2014-05-13 22:59:51 UTC
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.


The orca use case right now falls into two categories: assembled ships and bulky cargo that doesn't quite justify a freighter. Making bulkheads and rigs reduce cargo capacity effectively reduces that to simply assembled ships. A standard orca fit right now (DC2 + bulkhead and T1 cargo rigs) can barely haul more than a bestower in its main bay as is, once cargo penalties get introduced that's going to drop even more. Unless you're moving ships most people will be better off nerfing the cargo in their freighter with these rigs for some added survivability.

Killing the rorqual and then the orca is a bit harsh, don't you think? The only reason I'll be owning either of these post-expansion is for their new-found yellowness.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#227 - 2014-05-13 23:05:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Sgt Ocker
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.

Wow, so you can have a tanky Orca - As long as you don't want to put anything in the cargo hold. Orca gets penalized in cargo size 4 times by fitting Hull Rigs and Bulkhead.
I was looking forward to a few more lowsec mining runs in my Orca, not worth it if you can't fit enough ore in it to make the trip worthwhile.
Rorqual will suffer even more, it has a tiny Fleet hangar for its use and now to finally be able to put a reasonable tank on it you lose 3/4 of your Cargo Hold.

I take it we have no indy representatives on the new CSM or did they just get shouted down by the, "I want to kill industrial ships" crowd that dominates CSM's.

You've given any combat ship with the viability to fit a hull tank a massive boost (cargo space is irrelevant) and nerfed the few industrial ships (cargo space is everything) that could have used hull rigs.

CCP Fozzie; I think your "Eve is all about PVP" focus is a little too narrow minded.

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.
Arronicus
State War Academy
Caldari State
#228 - 2014-05-13 23:12:48 UTC
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
Law of unintended consequence alert:

Bulkheads are used by dread pilots to rescue the dread while still in triage once the cap is gone.

Now when dreads refit they will find gat the cargo hold is suddenly overful.

Has CCP coded for this consequence?


CCP seems to have addressed this by ensuring that you cannot fit triage to a dreadnaught. As for overfull cargoholds, this isn't anything new, any shouldn't cause any problems, unless of course, you eject from the ship, you'll get a warning that the ship is overfilled.
Mournful Conciousness
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#229 - 2014-05-13 23:14:01 UTC
Arronicus wrote:
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
Law of unintended consequence alert:

Bulkheads are used by dread pilots to rescue the dread while still in triage once the cap is gone.

Now when dreads refit they will find gat the cargo hold is suddenly overful.

Has CCP coded for this consequence?


CCP seems to have addressed this by ensuring that you cannot fit triage to a dreadnaught. As for overfull cargoholds, this isn't anything new, any shouldn't cause any problems, unless of course, you eject from the ship, you'll get a warning that the ship is overfilled.


Forgive me, I of course meant siege.

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
#230 - 2014-05-13 23:15:48 UTC
Arronicus wrote:
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
Law of unintended consequence alert:

Bulkheads are used by dread pilots to rescue the dread while still in triage once the cap is gone.

Now when dreads refit they will find gat the cargo hold is suddenly overful.

Has CCP coded for this consequence?


CCP seems to have addressed this by ensuring that you cannot fit triage to a dreadnaught. As for overfull cargoholds, this isn't anything new, any shouldn't cause any problems, unless of course, you eject from the ship, you'll get a warning that the ship is overfilled.

Or in the case of a capital, you try to warp or jump.
Overloaded cargo = no warp, no jump.

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.
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat
Working Stiffs
#231 - 2014-05-13 23:17:47 UTC
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.

Well, that pretty much made both useless for haulers, in my opinion.

Is there some explanation of the reasoning?
Sven Viko VIkolander
In space we are briefly free
#232 - 2014-05-13 23:53:00 UTC
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.


Hull tanked Gallente ships here I come!!!

Serious question though: For a ship like an Orca, will the hull rigs decrease the cargo of just the personal cargo area, or all the hangars (fleet, ore hold, ship maintenance bay)? Sorry if this is obvious. In either case, my Orca hauler thanks you.
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
#233 - 2014-05-14 00:32:14 UTC
Sven Viko VIkolander wrote:
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.


Hull tanked Gallente ships here I come!!!

Serious question though: For a ship like an Orca, will the hull rigs decrease the cargo of just the personal cargo area, or all the hangars (fleet, ore hold, ship maintenance bay)? Sorry if this is obvious. In either case, my Orca hauler thanks you.



In the past, anything that reduces cargo or increases cargo is just the cargo bay. The others are holds or hangar.
Utopa Kashuken
Eos Tribe
#234 - 2014-05-14 01:50:41 UTC
How about Hull Resistance Rigs? They will be awesome.
Catherine Laartii
Doomheim
#235 - 2014-05-14 02:25:21 UTC
Powers Sa wrote:
Can you adjust the HULL Rig penalties to add a reduction to cargo for choosing to fit tank?
This would force the player to choose between tank or cargo, and making it a real choice with drawbacks either way. The cargo rigs should reduce hull, and the hull rigs should reduce cargo. This would be the best balance and reinforce the choices and roles the players will use these ships for.

Players frequently moving higher value will have to move less but be safer. Players moving low value but high volume will be less of a valuable target, but accepting risk with the fitting choice.

While cargo rigs currently reduce armor, it would make far more sense for astronautics rigs in general to have a hull penalty, rather than armor. It makes little sense that ship modifications to improve engine performance would take away armor as a penalty.
Having this would be ideal, I think. Either that, or introducing these hull rigs as an astronautic rig rather than an armor rig, and having the same penalties for cargo apply to all astro rigs, while renaming all astronautic rigs, "hull rigs" in the same way we have hull upgrades.
Catherine Laartii
Doomheim
#236 - 2014-05-14 02:32:28 UTC
Daichi Yamato wrote:
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
Liafcipe9000 wrote:
Tengu Grib wrote:
Real men hull tank. Thanks CCP! Now we can do it for REAL!

this.

I checked the numbers in evehq. A hull tanked neutageddon will have more ehp than an armour tanked neutageddon - if you ignore the effect of gang links.

This is because the hull rigs give a 5% larger bonus when compared to trimarks.



lol whats a domi look like?

Navy domi with 3 shield mods, 2 bulkheads and 3 hull rigs pulls 175k ehp. 3 bulkheads pulls a hair over 200k. It also gets over 50k hull hp.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#237 - 2014-05-14 03:14:37 UTC
Catherine Laartii wrote:
Powers Sa wrote:
Can you adjust the HULL Rig penalties to add a reduction to cargo for choosing to fit tank?
This would force the player to choose between tank or cargo, and making it a real choice with drawbacks either way. The cargo rigs should reduce hull, and the hull rigs should reduce cargo. This would be the best balance and reinforce the choices and roles the players will use these ships for.

Players frequently moving higher value will have to move less but be safer. Players moving low value but high volume will be less of a valuable target, but accepting risk with the fitting choice.

While cargo rigs currently reduce armor, it would make far more sense for astronautics rigs in general to have a hull penalty, rather than armor. It makes little sense that ship modifications to improve engine performance would take away armor as a penalty.
Having this would be ideal, I think. Either that, or introducing these hull rigs as an astronautic rig rather than an armor rig, and having the same penalties for cargo apply to all astro rigs, while renaming all astronautic rigs, "hull rigs" in the same way we have hull upgrades.

That wouldn't work very well. Cargo optimization rigs ARE Astronautic rigs.

It is very easy for people who don't fly Indy, Haulers to say - reduce cargo.

If Hull rigs are to so dramatically affect the orca they will not be worth fitting. Simply opting to fit Hull rigs effectively reduces your cargo capacity by 50%, then it is further reduced by the rigs themselves.

Seems balanced to me. not. The only ships able to use Hull rigs without drawbacks affecting their viability to do their job, will be combat ships.
Effectively, combat ships get a bonus to Hull rigs, while Haulers are penalized.

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.
Valterra Craven
#238 - 2014-05-14 03:59:45 UTC
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.


So. What you've done is simultaneously released an item in game that everyone wanted and also made a majority of the people that would want to use no longer want to do so....

Seriously?

None of the combat rigs have what I would call meaningful penalties. Aka increase dps at the expense of alpha, or increase range at the expense of tracking, etc... I know you guys don't exactly throw fitting at ships, but those penalties are not very meaningful compared to this change. All of the ships that would use it for its intended purpose now no longer want to because it hampers their main role.

I think you should revert this change, or make rig personalities actually meaningful on all rigs instead of continually penalizing indy types for no reason.
Valterra Craven
#239 - 2014-05-14 04:00:33 UTC
Also, where the hell are my hull tanking links and leadership skills... Oops
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#240 - 2014-05-14 05:52:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Rivr Luzade
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.


So, fulfilling the expectations as always. Roll How much hull HP do freighters lose with your other nerf? I mean, you need to create an artificial demand for these rigs, right? Freighter pilots need to compensate the lost HP with these rigs in order to not being gankable by 1 Catalyst and in turn pay with cargo and increased exposure to PVP. And of course we also need to install cargo rigs and pay with even more HP in order to have at least some meaningful cargo space on the ships. So, everything going according to the plan? Roll

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.