These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Saint Hecate
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#501 - 2014-05-18 03:44:19 UTC
I personally feel like these changes are a bit heavy handed. The jump freighters especially bother me. As with those changes, almost every aspect of the freighter is reduced. Having the option to rig the ships allows for some customization but at the end of the day, all the rigs do is Maybe bring ONE of the freighter back to its previous stats with little to no net positive :/. So i could restore part of my Cargo capacity at the cost of losing a large chunk of my EHP AND still having the nerf to align time. SadSadSad

I think its good if the freighters are toned back a bit but not to such a heavy degree. For example instead of reducing the Ark's cargo bay by 76000. Reduce it by 40000. That way if you rig for cargo you will have a reasonable net positive which may out way the negative of losing so much EHP. I think the biggest problem I have with the changes is that it feel like you lose out pretty heavily no matter what rigs you use. Seems almost more worthwhile to leave it unrigged and hemorrhage your losses.

I think it would be cool if you could introduce freighter specific rigs that do interesting things that may alter decision making/gameplay. I always liked the idea of a JF rig that would increase Jump range by 15% but if you are utilizing that range it would also have a 25% increased fuel cost for the extra distance traveled. So if say I jump to a beacon that is 10 LYs away im still within the standard range of the freighter so i dont receive the fuel penalty but say I jump to a beacon 13 LY away, because im utilizing the extra range I eat the 25% fuel penalty for the extra 3 LY used.

I also feel like this change is aimed pretty heavily towards incentivizing nullsec industry over importing which I suppose is a healthy thing for the game considering that by importing everything it leaves a lot of players in nullsec without anything to build.

Id say tweak the numbers some more so that the player doesnt feel like they are losing out on all sides regardless of what rig you pick. Im completely okay with the ships power being reduced I just dont want to feel like im losing out so much.

I am no expert on balance nor am I very good at trying to come up with solutions to EVE many many complex systems, I usually leave that to other people that are far smarter than I haha but I feel very strongly about this subject and I want to try and offer some constructive criticism.

Thanks for your time
Saint
Axe Coldon
#502 - 2014-05-18 03:45:16 UTC
Derath Ellecon wrote:
Kaahles wrote:
And for JF's? TBH those nerfs don't go far enough as far as I am concerned because if you have half a functioning brain and know how the game works the likelyhood of losing your JF is pretty damn slim to almost nonexistent. Breaks the whole risk vs reward thing.



Everyone loves to throw around Risk vs reward like they know wtf they are talking about.

There is more to risk than just how easy or hard it is to die.

Everytime I undock a JF I am putting a 6.2 bil hull at risk. That alone is a pretty big risk.

When I run a 0.0 jump freighter contract I could easily have upwards of 5bil of cargo in the hold. Thats 11.5 Billion isk I'm putting at risk jumping into hostile 0.0 space.

And for what? Maybe a 150-200mil reward? I'd be hard pressed to believe that anyone actually doing this is sitting there thinking "oh yea this is totally OP, I should be easier to kill"

Yes if I do everything right my overall risk of death is fairly low. Yet there are still thousands that get killed.


I agree. I think most that think this is great is because they are planning to kill jf's not fly them. If you make 100mil fee per trip its 60 trips to break even if you die..it will be 75 after if yoiu have t2 rigs.

Its a big oh well. If ccp sticks to their guns we live with it and life goes on. but they ask for feedback.so hope they rethink part of this.

No trees were killed in the sending of this message. However, a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.

Draconus Lofwyr
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#503 - 2014-05-18 03:49:05 UTC
Allison A'vani wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Simulacrum Clone wrote:
If you had any sincere compassion for freighter pilots, and a higher intelligence for customer satisfaction, you would have left the stats alone, but included 3 rigs for standard freighters, two for jump freighters and included one high, medium and low slot.

So now “compassion“ and “intelligence” has been synonymous with “throwing balance out the window” and “making changes without any concern for the repercussions”. Interesting…

Wilfully breaking the game doesn't seem particularly compassionate or intelligent.

Of course, the real problem here is that the intelligent thing to do would have been to ignore all the requests for fitting options on freighters, but unfortunately the devs are if anything too compassionate and just wanted to give these players what they had been begging for for so long.



Pretty much. Everyone who wanted rigs or fittings for Freighter / JF are dumb imo. They are perfectly balanced the way they are now.

This feels incarna level stupid. Might be time to purge Fozzie from the dev team and get someone new.



I am really thinking that CCP Fozzie is the most appropriate named Dev on the team, as in Fozzie bear, known for the bad jokes and dumb ideas. can someone please tell us he has been an elaborate joke on the EvE player base for the last few years?

this reminds me a LOT of the first mothership "buff" that had to be totally scrapped and rethought due to the overwhelming player outcry.
Isky von Purps
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#504 - 2014-05-18 03:50:55 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Tippia wrote:
See… there was a reason why I was against rigs on freighters from the very start… Straight

T2 capital rigs and a significant reduction in survivability requried and/or speed to get them back to where they were. Gee thanks.


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




Oh that's nice. Do they also simultaneously bring it back to the same EHP, align time and speed too?
Then will the materials needed to make a JF / F be adjusted down to cover the cost of rigs?

If the answer to either of these is No, then this is an outright nerf. At least give it the ability to run a DCU II and Bulkheads.
Derath Ellecon
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#505 - 2014-05-18 03:53:00 UTC
Saint Hecate wrote:
Stuff about Jump freighters



I think you missed this key quote from #14

CCP Fozzie wrote:
But yes, the fact that this is a small reduction in Jump Freighter power is completely intended.
stoicfaux
#506 - 2014-05-18 04:04:39 UTC
So. We're doing this to ensure that miners deliver their ore directly from the mining ship to a PoS ore compression array, because 25 pre-nerf freighter trips to transfer enough ore bought on the market in a station to a PoS for compression to fill a JF with compressed ore wasn't enough disincentive?

I too, am underwhelmed by needing to buy capital rigs to get my Providence back where it was.


How about introducing the Providence Mk II, which can be rigged, while leaving the original Providence as is? Let new customers buy the Mk II version of the various freighters for when a "customized" freighter is needed.

Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.

Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat
Working Stiffs
#507 - 2014-05-18 04:07:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Tau Cabalander
As an industrialist, I find it really telling that all the proposed industry changes make me want to stop doing industry.

CCP Seagull wrote:
There are some people who make things work - they pre-fit ships for a fleet op, they run mega-spreadsheets for the industry production lines needed to equip the war effort, build tools to manage a corporation or command large fleets. Their activities enable others to have fun in EVE.

What we have here is a failure to communicate.
Cloora
APEX Unlimited
APEX Conglomerate
#508 - 2014-05-18 04:10:03 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Told you so.

e: Dammit!! Missed by one post again. Cry


Why the hell are you telling me this? I didn't ask for any freaking changes to my Rhea I liked it the way it was.

http://www.altaholics.blogspot.com

Andrea Keuvo
Rusty Pricks
#509 - 2014-05-18 04:10:14 UTC
Odds that Fozzie posts in or even reads this thread again after today? Near zero I would bet.
Axe Coldon
#510 - 2014-05-18 04:13:01 UTC
Abrazzar wrote:
I am quite sure they were not nerfed to make room for the rigs. Those were just an afterthought to sell the straight up nerf of the freighters that were considered too good at what they were doing.



Too good? you must not play the same eve as i do. Freighters are super easy to gank as it is. Now they will be worth more..and be even more of a gank target.

When pilots wanted rigs (and slots) was to get their freighter beefed up. Not to make it more expensive to fly the same thing.


No trees were killed in the sending of this message. However, a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#511 - 2014-05-18 04:13:32 UTC
Abrazzar wrote:
I am quite sure they were not nerfed to make room for the rigs. Those were just an afterthought to sell the straight up nerf of the freighters that were considered too good at what they were doing.


This is exactly what we said would happen if freighters got rigs. The nerfs are all needed because of the rigs (aside from the agility nerf)
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#512 - 2014-05-18 04:15:24 UTC
Axe Coldon wrote:
Abrazzar wrote:
I am quite sure they were not nerfed to make room for the rigs. Those were just an afterthought to sell the straight up nerf of the freighters that were considered too good at what they were doing.



Too good? you must not play the same eve as i do. Freighters are super easy to gank as it is. Now they will be worth more..and be even more of a gank target.

When pilots wanted rigs (and slots) was to get their freighter beefed up. Not to make it more expensive to fly the same thing.



We told you they would be nerfed to compensate for the rigs.
Mostlyharmlesss
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#513 - 2014-05-18 04:20:30 UTC
This is completely in line with what CCP intends for all ships. They're forcing you to make a choice which will require you to think for yourself. More choices are almost always a good addition to the game.

Follow me on Twitter for the latest regarding GoonSwarm Federation and our recruitment drives!

Angelina Duvolle
Homeworld Technologies
#514 - 2014-05-18 04:22:10 UTC
Andrea Keuvo wrote:
Odds that Fozzie posts in or even reads this thread again after today? Near zero I would bet.


Yeah, at lease greyscale and some of the others will adjust things. Fozzy just flips us the bird and says, I think freighters are wayyyyy too overpowered and fun to play. He took near 0 feedback when they slowed them down and told us collectively to **** up a rope despite all the crying. Now he has the audacity to sell this as a buff when it is basically a slap in the face.


"Freighters are really fun and compelling, and we like flying them a lot!" - Said no one ever.....

How bout you address that problem instead of your typical 30% nerf - 29% buff garbage.
Derath Ellecon
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#515 - 2014-05-18 04:23:06 UTC
Andrea Keuvo wrote:
Odds that Fozzie posts in or even reads this thread again after today? Near zero I would bet.



You really don't know Fozzie then do you?

Given his history so far I'd bet a plex he keeps up on each and every one of the threads he has posted.
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat
Working Stiffs
#516 - 2014-05-18 04:24:20 UTC
Mostlyharmlesss wrote:
This is completely in line with what CCP intends for all ships. They're forcing you to make a choice which will require you to think for yourself. More choices are almost always a good addition to the game.

No, they are removing choice.

I'd be all for adding choice.
Angelina Duvolle
Homeworld Technologies
#517 - 2014-05-18 04:26:36 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
[quote=Axe Coldon]

We told you they would be nerfed to compensate for the rigs.



I didn't ask for rigs. I asked for them to be re balanced thoughtfully, given interesting roles or bonuses, or adding in mechanics, means, roles etc, that make flying them more fun, less boring.

You guys are nearly as unoriginal and lacking in creativity as fozzy.
Andrea Keuvo
Rusty Pricks
#518 - 2014-05-18 04:30:40 UTC
Derath Ellecon wrote:
Andrea Keuvo wrote:
Odds that Fozzie posts in or even reads this thread again after today? Near zero I would bet.



You really don't know Fozzie then do you?

Given his history so far I'd bet a plex he keeps up on each and every one of the threads he has posted.



No, I'm going off his history of rarely posting beyond page 1 and even more rarely adjusting anything based on player feedback.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#519 - 2014-05-18 04:32:25 UTC
Angelina Duvolle wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
[quote=Axe Coldon]

We told you they would be nerfed to compensate for the rigs.



I didn't ask for rigs. I asked for them to be re balanced thoughtfully, given interesting roles or bonuses, or adding in mechanics, means, roles etc, that make flying them more fun, less boring.

You guys are nearly as unoriginal and lacking in creativity as fozzy.


I spent the last two years telling people adding rigs would result in these nerfs and got nothing but abuse. You will forgive me if I take this time to smug it out while these same people rage about what they have brought upon themselves.
Isky von Purps
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#520 - 2014-05-18 04:32:37 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Daichi Yamato wrote:

u can exceed a current freighters capacity.
u can exceed a current freighters tank.
u can exceed a current freighters speed.

but u cant have all three at once. u have to choose.


Which is the problem in the first place.

They wanted it all, without having to think about it.



no this is not true.

It's perfectly fine for a change to be negative on multiple aspects and offsetting positive on another. This change is negative on multiple attributes and neutral to negligible positive on one. So these changes work, provided there is an offsetting buff in Concord reaction rates.