These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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] Freighters and Jump Freighters Rebalance [Updated]

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#241 - 2014-05-17 19:48:22 UTC
If the intent is truly to make null sec less of a big blob and give smaller entities a chance to set up their own independent empires, then you need to redistribute the resources across space better. Give me the option to get more than one kind of ice in a region. Give me the ability to get a good distribution of salvage and moon minerals without having to import everything. Then make it really hard to import, export, and project power. That will make it more viable to divide null sec up into a bunch of independent city states vice the two huge power blocs we currently have.

Nerfing all the transportation systems before making these changes is putting the cart before the horse.

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#242 - 2014-05-17 19:48:22 UTC
Rivr Luzade wrote:


This is not an indirect buff, this is a very open and outright buff to ganking. As if this was the most pressing problem to solve. Roll

And yeah, many people have probably left the drawbacks of rigs out of sight. However, is it really too much to ask for improvements on ships that could need some improvements to make them actually a little bit better usablef for a price? Now they are even less usable, less gank-proof and require a higher price. I don't see where Risk vs. Reward is balanced in the slightest here.


Oh you can get a great deal more tank now, you just have to sacrifice that cargo bay.
nahjustwarpin
SUPER DUPER SPACE TRUCKS
#243 - 2014-05-17 19:49:24 UTC  |  Edited by: nahjustwarpin
Dirk MacGirk wrote:
Calling now for Burn Jita 3.5 in September. Let's make it semiannual now that freighters will probably die much easier now with higher ship values for extra goodness.


It think they should do something quite the opposite. Instead of making more publicity to the game, let it stagnate. Less new players, less income for ccp.
Allison A'vani
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#244 - 2014-05-17 19:50:02 UTC
I don't know why it isn't absolutely blatant now to CCP that anyone who actually knows anything about or takes place in alliance logistics (aka is not just a high sec pubbie) DOES NOT WANT THIS CHANGE.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#245 - 2014-05-17 19:51:14 UTC
nahjustwarpin wrote:
Dirk MacGirk wrote:
Calling now for Burn Jita 3.5 in September. Let's make it semiannual now that freighters will probably die much easier now with higher ship values for extra goodness.


It think they should do something quite the opposite. Instead of making more publicity to the game, let it stagnate.


Nah, we will just torch more overstuffed freighters.
beerthief
Templar Construction Battalion
#246 - 2014-05-17 19:52:48 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:

T1 rigs are easily enough to bring normal freighters above their current cargo values.


CCP Fozzie wrote:

and with T1 cargo rigs their cargo holds will be between 4 and 7% smaller than current.


one of these is not like the other
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#247 - 2014-05-17 19:53:56 UTC
Rivr Luzade wrote:

However, is it really too much to ask for improvements on ships that could need some improvements to make them actually a little bit better usablef for a price?


except i would say freighters didnt need improvements. Nor does ganking need a nerf. Things were/are in good shape.

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
Khanh'rhh
Sparkle Motion.
#248 - 2014-05-17 19:54:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Khanh'rhh
Batolemaeus wrote:
Khanh'rhh wrote:

All add up to weaning 0.0 off the teat of all imports, all the time. No, the announced changes on the table don't do this in one fell swoop, because that would be really silly.


I would agree with you if this was actually what CCP was doing. But the order of changes is backwards.

First, the components for 0.0 industry need to be available. That is, resources for rigs and t2 production and fuel. All of those are heavily regional, as you might be aware.

If it was possible to produce effectively in 0.0 I'd be doing it already. Spending 120M per jf roundtrip plus two accounts worth of cynoalts is kind of expensive.

Imports won't cease or reduce by raising costs for importing when it is literally impossible to replace importing with production.


Regional you say? Something you might want to fight over?

Yeah, that's not something CCP have directly done in the past Blink

I mean, you are right, but you're right because CCP are taking baby-steps rather than laying out every change at once. On a longer timeline, nothing you are mentioning is a problem that can't be addressed, and some are ultimately good things if you see them another way.
Kat Ayclism wrote:
You know who cares about my eve-o likes the least? Me. It's not ad-hominem when you explain why someone is wrong, friend, so toss out your Fallacy of the Day calendar because it clearly didn't explain that one well enough for you.

They eliminated the need for compression-importing via modules and shifted it to compression importing via raw materials. Still importing.

The industry changes provide benefits to production within null, that does nothing to the importing aspect. It is a driver to get people into null. This driver is then effectively neutered by the other two changes you listed. They're big sticks smacking the ever-living **** out of those same people they are trying to draw to null. They add needless expense and difficulty to producing in null, which is going to make it a very hard sell to drag anyone that might shift to null.

You see what I did there? I didn't just make blind assertions, I explained out the hows and whys of what I'm saying- unlike you, who chose to stop simply at "this change totally means this, you're stupid," while also ignoring the content of the post you were responding to, specifically:
"And they've stated that there will be little or no need for importing where? And that lines up with having certain resources necessary for production only available in certain space how?"

You know... the entire meat of the post.

I also didn't have to attack your affiliations to make my point- I addressed your argument, rather than attacking you. If only there was some fallacy I could point to...

Say, you didn't throw that Fallacy of the Day calendar out yet, did you?


You're seriously trying to run to the moral high-ground after:
Quote:
Kat Ayclism wrote:
These changes are ******* stupid. Can you stop just changing things to change things? It does not validate your work to be screwing up the things that are right when there's other ships that actually need the rebalancing efforts.

Also, again these changes are at cross odds with the supposed intent to make localized production more possible in null- YOU STILL WILL ALWAYS HAVE TO IMPORT/EXPORT.


So your solution?
LOL EVERYTHING USES MORE FUEL AND ALL THE JFS CAN HOLD LESS AND ARE LESS AGILE


Stop swinging around like a 5yo in the dark with a baseball bat. This isn't quality balancing, it's dogshit


[...]

we'll wait while you catch up with the rest of the class

[...]

While I appreciate that you are talking from the standpoint of an illiterate

[...]

your point here is still dipshitted and wrong

[...]

your dulled mental facilities


Top lel. That's some pretty revisionist thinking there.

The problem is, when you repeatedly say such openly naive things as "needless expense" without conflating that to being the same thing as an incentive not to, I know the problem is you don't want to change, yet see the need to do so. Compression-importing doesn't replace compression-importing via 425mm railguns and you know it.

When we accept that yes, CCP are using a stick, we can also see that CCP are using a carrot. Here, you said it yourself: "The industry changes provide benefits to production within null".

Soooooooooo....

We have added costs and effort of importing, as well as benefits to doing it in nullsec. What does that give us?

Your argument is nonsensical not because you are stupid, but because you are knowingly arguing a position out of self interest, rather than what is actually happening.

"Do not touch anything unnecessarily. Beware of pretty girls in dance halls and parks who may be spies, as well as bicycles, revolvers, uniforms, arms, dead horses, and men lying on roads -- they are not there accidentally." -Soviet infantry manual,

Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#249 - 2014-05-17 19:54:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Rivr Luzade
baltec1 wrote:
Rivr Luzade wrote:


This is not an indirect buff, this is a very open and outright buff to ganking. As if this was the most pressing problem to solve. Roll

And yeah, many people have probably left the drawbacks of rigs out of sight. However, is it really too much to ask for improvements on ships that could need some improvements to make them actually a little bit better usablef for a price? Now they are even less usable, less gank-proof and require a higher price. I don't see where Risk vs. Reward is balanced in the slightest here.


Oh you can get a great deal more tank now, you just have to sacrifice that cargo bay.


Which doesn't make the ship any better at all, but I guess that is the point behind the changes. Smile

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.
Dave Stark
#250 - 2014-05-17 19:56:01 UTC
Rivr Luzade wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Rivr Luzade wrote:


This is not an indirect buff, this is a very open and outright buff to ganking. As if this was the most pressing problem to solve. Roll

And yeah, many people have probably left the drawbacks of rigs out of sight. However, is it really too much to ask for improvements on ships that could need some improvements to make them actually a little bit better usablef for a price? Now they are even less usable, less gank-proof and require a higher price. I don't see where Risk vs. Reward is balanced in the slightest here.


Oh you can get a great deal more tank now, you just have to sacrifice that cargo bay.


Which doesn't make the ship any better at all.


I find that functioning ships are infinitely better than wrecks.
can't board a wreck.
Axe Coldon
#251 - 2014-05-17 19:56:18 UTC
Batolemaeus wrote:
Khanh'rhh wrote:

All add up to weaning 0.0 off the teat of all imports, all the time. No, the announced changes on the table don't do this in one fell swoop, because that would be really silly.


I would agree with you if this was actually what CCP was doing. But the order of changes is backwards.

First, the components for 0.0 industry need to be available. That is, resources for rigs and t2 production and fuel. All of those are heavily regional, as you might be aware.

If it was possible to produce effectively in 0.0 I'd be doing it already. Spending 120M per jf roundtrip plus two accounts worth of cynoalts is kind of expensive.

Imports won't cease or reduce by raising costs for importing when it is literally impossible to replace importing with production.


Not only is the materials for industry region based (somewhat) , in null you can't always get to the other regions. You can't dock and you sure as hell can't slow boat a freighter through gates. Null will never have the production of high sec. It can't. Logistics won't allow it.

I have talked to tons of 'old timers" with 10's of billions (likely hundreds) stuck in stations they can't dock in anymore. You can't always get all your stuff out when your station goes into reinforce, especially not if you have a large industry operation.

Eve is a sand box but we are constrained by the game rules CCP gives us. We choose to build in high sec. This does nothing to convince major industrialist to move 100 bil in bpo's and material to null and start building. Instead we will just eat higher overhead and goods in null will goods will be even higher still.

Pvpers are always whining about the markup in null..well congrats..you got your wish..it will go higher.

No trees were killed in the sending of this message. However, a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#252 - 2014-05-17 19:59:18 UTC
Rivr Luzade wrote:


Which doesn't make the ship any better at all, but I guess that is the point behind the changes. Smile


Welcome to what we have been telling people wanting rigs for years.
Sipphakta en Gravonere
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#253 - 2014-05-17 19:59:36 UTC
beerthief wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:

T1 rigs are easily enough to bring normal freighters above their current cargo values.


CCP Fozzie wrote:

and with T1 cargo rigs their cargo holds will be between 4 and 7% smaller than current.


one of these is not like the other


The latter quote is about jump freighters, the first quote about normal freighters.
Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#254 - 2014-05-17 19:59:46 UTC
Allison A'vani wrote:
I don't know why it isn't absolutely blatant now to CCP that anyone who actually knows anything about or takes place in alliance logistics (aka is not just a high sec pubbie) DOES NOT WANT THIS CHANGE.


You can thank all of the clueless highsec people who have been screaming for a lowslot or rigs on freighters for 2 years now. We warned them that freighters would end up being worse but they refused to listen.

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.
Batolemaeus
Mahlstrom
Northern Associates.
#255 - 2014-05-17 19:59:48 UTC
Khanh'rhh wrote:

I mean, you are right, but you're right because CCP are taking baby-steps rather than laying out every change at once. On a longer timeline, nothing you are mentioning is a problem that can't be addressed, and some are ultimately good things if you see them another way.


I'd be on board with the changes to the JF if the order of changes was different.

Also, you're putting way too much trust in CCP's ability to iterate. They have an absolutely dreadful track record. *cough*Dominion*cough*
beerthief
Templar Construction Battalion
#256 - 2014-05-17 20:01:01 UTC
Sipphakta en Gravonere wrote:
beerthief wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:

T1 rigs are easily enough to bring normal freighters above their current cargo values.


CCP Fozzie wrote:

and with T1 cargo rigs their cargo holds will be between 4 and 7% smaller than current.


one of these is not like the other


The latter quote is about jump freighters, the first quote about normal freighters.


you are correct, i apologise for my error.
Zakarumit CZ
Zakarum Industries
Forgers United
#257 - 2014-05-17 20:01:25 UTC
Althought its nice to see freighters to use rigs and I think the increase size of caps and containers is an OK adjustment as well as lowering cargo, I am not really satisfied with the lowered HPs for freighters. They are already easy pickings and mostly sitting ducks with almost no chance for defence against bumping and ganging. Those changes mean that HP or resist rigs are almost a must, which doesnt give people the choice they wanted with the rigs addition Sad
CCP should keep freigher HPs as they are.
Joshua Trader
Black Hole Logistics
#258 - 2014-05-17 20:01:25 UTC
As someone who worked his ass off for months to buy and fly an ARK I for one am happy with the changes. At least now that they are making the game literally ****, I wont have to swap between star citizen and eve once it comes out.

There is no way any freighter needs a nerf. They all need their HP buffed 200%. I should be able to carry at least 2b isk through high sec without worry of gank. You know how easy it is to put 1b isk in a freighter with the prices these days?

GJ CCP STAR CITIZEN IS LOOKING BETTER EVERYDAY!
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#259 - 2014-05-17 20:01:53 UTC
beerthief wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:

T1 rigs are easily enough to bring normal freighters above their current cargo values.


CCP Fozzie wrote:

and with T1 cargo rigs their cargo holds will be between 4 and 7% smaller than current.


one of these is not like the other


The first quote is about Freighters. The second quote is about Jump Freighters.

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#260 - 2014-05-17 20:03:04 UTC
Mallak Azaria wrote:
Allison A'vani wrote:
I don't know why it isn't absolutely blatant now to CCP that anyone who actually knows anything about or takes place in alliance logistics (aka is not just a high sec pubbie) DOES NOT WANT THIS CHANGE.


You can thank all of the clueless highsec people who have been screaming for a lowslot or rigs on freighters for 2 years now. We warned them that freighters would end up being worse but they refused to listen.


Instead, all of them kept telling me I was just trying to keep them from getting what they deserved.

Well, in a manner of speaking, I guess that's true.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.