These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Khanh'rhh
Sparkle Motion.
#261 - 2014-05-17 20:04:21 UTC
Batolemaeus wrote:
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*

This is certainly valid criticism of what it seems CCP are trying to do, but I'm not prepared to be a raving opponent to all change because I can't guarantee it will always work out best for me.
If anything, in this case I am rather hopeful of good systemic changes, as CCP are definitely slow-cooking these changes.

I'd rather support the changes than adopt a very defeatist "CCP won't get it right, so why change anything" style position.

"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,

Money Makin Mitch
Paid in Full
#262 - 2014-05-17 20:04:30 UTC
Fozzie strikes again

keep ******* ships up bro. never stop. never change.
Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#263 - 2014-05-17 20:05:28 UTC
Joshua Trader wrote:
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!




Have fun with the vaporware that stole your money.

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.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#264 - 2014-05-17 20:05:40 UTC
Oh my God... I just realized.

They released these changes to distract from the UI thread.

"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.
Buzz Dura
S0utherN Comfort
#265 - 2014-05-17 20:07:33 UTC
http://i.imgur.com/b4obsew.png

technically,all freighters are now pretty much the same in capacity. You can have better cargo or same cargo with very little improvement of hull HP with 1 hull rig...

JF are .... well ... plug the cargo rig because you d'ont have really the choice... As you don't change rig often !!!
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#266 - 2014-05-17 20:07:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Zakarumit CZ wrote:
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
They're a must if you want a stronger ship. Choosing one comes at the cost of a slower ship that carries less. You can also choose one that carries more — preferably low-value goods — but at the cost of being weaker and slower. You can also choose to be faster, but at the cost of… actually, it doesn't cost that much. You'll have so-so capacity and HP, though so I suppose you can consider that a “cost” of sort when compared to the other options.

So sure you can choose. Your choice just needs to align with what it is you intend to carry and how you intend to fly the ship. If anything, the complaint is that you have to choose, or you'll end up with a ship that is strictly worse in every way than the current setups.

It's kind of funny, really… normally, people are futzing over the balanced between the jack-of-all-trades is and the master-of-one. Here, people chose to champion a jack-of-one-trade over a master-of-all. P

Joshua Trader wrote:
There is no way any freighter needs a nerf.
Agreed, but the only way to avoid one is to not give them any fitting capabilities. They don't really need a buff either since it's fairly easy to remain a worthless target.
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#267 - 2014-05-17 20:10:30 UTC
Joshua Trader wrote:
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!




its exactly that 'cake and eat it too' thinking that got u here. well done.

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
xXchochiXx
Industrial Mining and Mayhem
Sigma Grindset
#268 - 2014-05-17 20:11:02 UTC  |  Edited by: xXchochiXx
So this put me off buying a jf :( a lowslot for dcu would be nice maybe a hi slot for cloak but this radical ideas but more practical
Buzz Dura
S0utherN Comfort
#269 - 2014-05-17 20:12:45 UTC
CCP if youwant to choose between several setup to carry more load, more tank or more speed etc
why don't you forget about rigs and add low slots instead. Rigs are expensive refit !
Dagonett
Doomheim
#270 - 2014-05-17 20:13:34 UTC
Marlona Sky wrote:
Jump Freighters currently are over powered and you guys know it. This change is a slight nerf and still leaves the ship incredibly useful.



HOW ARE THEY OP?
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#271 - 2014-05-17 20:14:22 UTC
Buzz Dura wrote:
CCP if youwant to choose between several setup to carry more load, more tank or more speed etc
why don't you forget about rigs and add low slots instead. Rigs are expensive refit !


That would still mean you get these nerfs.
Allison A'vani
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#272 - 2014-05-17 20:14:37 UTC
xXchochiXx wrote:
So this put me off buying a jf :( a lowslot for dcu would be nice mate hi for cloak but this radical ideas but more practical


Neither of those thing are remotely needed, the only time your JF should ever be at risk is in high sec when you are making your way back. A DCU is basically worthless if you are pointed, a cloak is useless as well since any ship can burn the minimal distance and easily decloak you since you are such a massive target. They can be off by 3k from the center of your ship and still decloak you. This change is just bad, end of story. Both freighters and JF were 100% perfectly fine the way they were.
Kat Ayclism
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#273 - 2014-05-17 20:16:55 UTC
Khanh'rhh wrote:


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.


You see ad-hominem is "that's wrong, because you're stupid,"

NOT "that's wrong, This is why. Also, you're stupid."

I'm not sure why that's difficult for you to understand. You could remove all of those things you're nitpicking about and the points would still stand, whereas if we removed the insults and attacks on person/affiliation from your argument we would be left with nothing supporting what you're saying.

I'm pretty sure that in that very post you just quoted I said that it's an incentive not to move production to null. You've selectively ignored that part where I point out that their drivers are at cross-purposes because it doesn't fit your idea that I'm blindly lashing at this rather than specifically pointing out just what the hell is wrong with these balancing efforts-

They have no idea how to align their incentives and disincentives into a uniform direction because they're so completely out of touch with how the playerbase will actually perceive a change so they keep throwing up things that actively counter the direction they're trying to go in.

Importing is still currently needed. They have incentivized null production, however they have DISINCENTIVIZED the logistics necessary to ACTUALLY DO SO. That means a low adoption rate by their users, which means having to fix the **** up later on and pushes off actually making any self-contained production in null viable.

...Not to mention, they'll never want it to be fully self-contained anyway because that negates the resource benefits of certain spaces. Kinda what I was pointing the **** out by asking you:

"And that lines up with having certain resources necessary for production only available in certain space how?"

These moronic changes actively make their goal of nullsec production HARDER to achieve.
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#274 - 2014-05-17 20:17:02 UTC
What a mess.

This is clearly one of the rare changes that the cartels did not dictate to CCP, based on the wild swings in opinions.
Thank goodness I don't use a freighter anymore.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#275 - 2014-05-17 20:19:47 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Buzz Dura wrote:
CCP if youwant to choose between several setup to carry more load, more tank or more speed etc
why don't you forget about rigs and add low slots instead. Rigs are expensive refit !

That would still mean you get these nerfs.

In fact, it would probably mean you get even harsher nerfs. Three rig slots let you increase your tank by ~60%, so they had to reduce the base stat by ~20% to end up with a reasonable max number. Imagine what kind of nerf they would have had to apply if you could increase your tank by 150%. Ugh
Batolemaeus
Mahlstrom
Northern Associates.
#276 - 2014-05-17 20:22:03 UTC
Khanh'rhh wrote:

This is certainly valid criticism of what it seems CCP are trying to do, but I'm not prepared to be a raving opponent to all change because I can't guarantee it will always work out best for me.
If anything, in this case I am rather hopeful of good systemic changes, as CCP are definitely slow-cooking these changes.

I'd rather support the changes than adopt a very defeatist "CCP won't get it right, so why change anything" style position.



Don't you think enabling 0.0 and especially deep 0.0 ability to produce locally should come before nerfing importing?

I try to have a realistic outlook on things, and with the glacial speed of CCP, I'd prefer they fix A before they nerf B which A depends on.

Change away as much as you want, but make sure players actually have a way to adapt. There's no way not to import currently, so fix that, then hurt importing if it hasn't already diminished by itself.
Triturus Alpestris
Bad Taste.
#277 - 2014-05-17 20:25:18 UTC
CCP add low slot and we will forgive you.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#278 - 2014-05-17 20:26:28 UTC
Triturus Alpestris wrote:
CCP add low slot and we will forgive you.

Why do you want them to nerf freighters three time as much as they already have?
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#279 - 2014-05-17 20:26:52 UTC
Buzz Dura wrote:
http://i.imgur.com/b4obsew.png

technically,all freighters are now pretty much the same in capacity. You can have better cargo or same cargo with very little improvement of hull HP with 1 hull rig...

JF are .... well ... plug the cargo rig because you d'ont have really the choice... As you don't change rig often !!!

This is a pretty good image, but there's one problem -- a Freighter can't have three T2 cargo rigs. It can only fit two T2 and one T1.

The jump freighters are fine, though.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate
#280 - 2014-05-17 20:26:58 UTC
Conceptual question: the focus has thus far been on cargo capacity. The premise that they needed to nerf base capacity because some players might up their capacity. But is top-end capacity, within reason, really the big issue? Is the ability to haul "moar" stuff from here to there really what focus was on when they considered and approved rigs?

I just don't see cargo capacity, past a certain point, that significant to force projection or hurting the game. It's a necessary evil in order to keep higher-level game functionality operating.

When I first heard the announcement for rigs, my first inclination was that this was really a response to the generic tanks on freighters. See an Obelisk and know: this much DPS needed to kill it before Concord responds. Call it an Anti-Burn Jita change. Not just BJ, but throwing a bit of a wrinkle into everyday hisec ganking. But in the end, I don't think it is going to work out like that. Yes, I know you could add some tank rigs. But with such a major hit to base capacity, that probably won't be the outcome. I just don't see capacity being the issue, no matter what level its at. Cargo value comes into play much more than top-end capacity in most circumstances. The rest, meh. I think their concern over "moar cargo" was a bit much.