Player Features and Ideas Discussion

They suck, no one would ever use them

do we even get our skillpoints back since i was training for the regular prepatch freighter n not this piece of crap nerf that is goin to come out if i knew this sooner i wouldnt have been training for the damm freighter at all it is just goin to become a giant ganking target easy kill juicy killmail so yh ccp return me my skillpoints all the days i put into training for a ship i prolly wont even buy nomore
(can use my skillpoints that i wasted training for this thing in a better manner and for a better ship)

ill just keep hauling with a fleet of orcas
2 orcas plus mods is 1.4billion
for the price tag on the new freigthers u can get a fleet of orcas better tanked faster align and decent cargo space for what i need it to do...... move ice
so yh ccp i would like for over 20 days worth of training and skillpoints back so i can use em elsewhere since its all bout making choices now i chose not to get into the freighter buziness anymore ill just go smaller and use my not yet refunded skillpoints in an other specialization max out the orca for example instead of this insanity
not to mention the needless isk i wasted to get the damm skillbooks refunding the skillpoints is a fair deal in my opinion for those who have been training for somthing that has become utterly pointless to get

Yea except for the fact that the margins on most industry require mass production, and that mass producation capacity cant be bought up in nullsec. It has to go somewhere, additionally, there is alot of stuff you jsut cant get in 1 area of nullsec or another. Nullsec is realistically too hostile of a place to harbor the # of miners required to supply the kind of industry you are talking about either. Especially with the global this system has miners index viewable by all players.

Not many good ones that I know of to the first but granted for me it is just a here and there thing, not a way of life. I just dont think the current gank mechanics vs what a freighter can do to defend itself are very realistic. And even if i brought 8 friends any gank group with half a brain will always win because they are based on 1-2 volley, 7 guys cant stop the 2 volley without some very lucky jams. so its not an issue of one vs many its an issue of easy to alpha. Your only way around it is webs which is akin to increased agility (mind blown).

But that aside, i just would like to see a higher barrier to entry on ganking, I.E. hit point increase via rigs or otherwise, with marginal reduction in cargo, based on the numbers ive seen im not going to be able to acheive say, 750k m3 cargo and greater hitpoints that current. (correct me if im wrong, who knows)

I think they are doing this so we all build our own stargates when they roll that out. But that will not be for several expansions.

Sure, what's a couple of billion extra for a hauler to earn with a smaller cargo bay to carry less freight and a thinner hull to be more easily ganked.

Changes proposed in the original post of Fozzie appear to me as poorly thought and planned.

As somebody that has stakes at both sides of freighter business (I do null logistics, empire logistics and freighter ganking), I would recommend CCP to leave the freighters and Jump Freighters as they are, or if they really must be changed, consider getting a team on the job that actually has knowledge about the usage of these ships, and can propose and implement useful changes that does not break the balance between viable logistics capability and piracy in EVE.

Overall, these changes are by no means beneficial to either gankers, or people who do null or empire logistics. Quite the contrary, both sides of the fence suffer from these so called 'freighter buffs'. New ISK sinks are created and even with those sinks, the utility of Jump Freighters and Freighters in their current form will not be attained by logistics people if these ridiculous changes go into effect, while on the other hand, with maximum tank rigged freighters (albeit with useless and gutted cargo space) ganking meta will shift into more expansive ships fit with high end modules and specialized ammo.

I'm terribly sorry to state this Fozzie (and to an extent, Rise) but you two seem to have taken the "changes for the change's sake" mantra lately. I have witnessed the same pattern in the Rattlesnake changes, in which, you two have gutted the ship largely against frigate sized opponents by severely restricting their utility to drones of specific sizes and attempted to explain this uncalled for nerf as "Well, you can fit Rapid Light Missile launchers to counter frigates", which in reality actually cut back the Rattlesnake's DPS to insignificant levels as compared to current ungutted Rattlesnake combination of Cruise Missiles/Torpedos and sets of Scout/Heavy/Sentry drones.

If something is not broken, I would rather have you two refrain from fixing it. Or you know, if you want to improve something without disturbing the balance of certain aspects of the game, have someone look into it with actual experience and insight. I do not think that you two are paying attention and actually considering the greater affect of the ridiculous changes you keep pushing for.

I have paid attention to Rise and Fozzie continually referring to a set of rules that they have stated they must adhere to for making ship changes. While they are continuing to gut more and more ships with their changes, perhaps they should let us know whatever set of rules is making them appear to have committed to create an elephant in china shop impression as far as ship balance in EVE is concerned.

Already in game... it's called an Orca.

Dr Mr CCP Fozzie,

I get that you want to change the Meta Game and shake things up. I think we all do. And maybe you do want us to do more in null. I rather think you just want to enable us to make more in null. That I approve of. But null doesn't operate the same as high sec. It can't. I would like to see more hulls made there and most cap's. But its too big an operation to make the hundreds (or thousands) of modules rigs and other stuff that goes into ships. The big guys can do it..their home turf is more stable. But if you want to mess up the Meta Game..one assumes that is give others a chance to come into power, cause wars over resources and such nerfing freighters does none of that.

With all the buffing you have being doing to indies..and mining barges..a massive nerf to freighters was very unexpected. That is alot of the uproar. We all assumed we were getting a buff.

I still don't get how it hurts anyone to not nerf us but give us way more tank. I think its not too unrealistic to cost 1bil to gank a Freighter..(as in the old days before T3 bc's.)

What always bothered me was the high cost of a JF for how lilttle it holds. Yes I know they are the greatest thing since sliced butter. I fly one and I wouldn't give it up for nothing...not even if you nerf the hell out of it. It can jump from High sec to Low Null. No other cap ship can do that. But I don't see how nerfing it helps shake things up.

If you want some exciting conflict, give JF's Low Med and High slots. 1 or 2 each. They are T2's after all. The only T2 capital in the game. So yes. all my jf's would have cloaks on them. But think of the big battles if people wanted to change their cap modules (the 4k ones) in a big battle so they call in a JF to jump in. Hoping to get it to a safe spot and cloak. and the other side finds out and tracks it down (after all has to decloak to unload). Now that is meta game change.

For a 6 bil isk ship (more usually) its painfully sad in terms of ehp and abilities. With 1/3 the cargo approximately of a regular freighter you would think it would have heavier armor and such. And being T2 some fancy options.

Do what you want with regular freighters. As people point out, they have options. They can switch to Orca's or Indy's. We can't. Not for any serious industry production like you want. In null its JF or Rorq. but for moving goods to high you have to unload a Rorq in low and indy it to high. A scary and dangerous proposition. And some will do that. But its no reason to force them. This is a sandbox. We want choices. Not to be pushed into a corner.

I assume by "mixing up the meta game" you want to help the smaller guy. The guy without titans. The guy with out deep pockets. For that we need JF's. We don't have the logistics to keep a titan safe. So for big ticket items we pay thru the nose for a titan bridge. But the rest we haul our selves or find a buddy with a jf to haul it.

JF's should be massively buffed or you should make the cost to make them only 2 or 3 bil.

To me a Charon doesn't need any more capacity. But I would want to only have to use t1 rigs to get it where it is now. If I can afford 2 t2 cargo rigs in a charon I would expect to get more capacity then now and the trade of is I will probably die in a gank.

But a JF is T2 Capital. The ONLY ONE!. It deserves either a massive reduction in price or way way more buff. 2 slots in L M H, and rigs. I would reduce the cargo of the Rhea to 300k and the other accordingly. Keep the agile ones agile. Have each good at something. Rhea size, (I dont know the rest) one for tank one for agility one for something else).

I think the attribute reductions are too strong, especially with Jump Freighters.

Hauling stuff is not fun. There is no fun game play, either. You undock, jump to your next cyno and dock again. Repeat.

Hauling, logistics in general is a job the "enablers" in this game do. They move millions and millions of ships and equipment from one place to another so everyone who likes shooting space ships actually has space ships.

You are reducing 3 attributes and giving us the means to get one of them back to where they were before spending 1b+ on T2 rigs.

The "increase" in cargo capacity especially on the Rhea is a joke (if you used a different JF before you are bad anyways). Mose JF will use cargo rigs anyways because of the way you use them: You jump from station to station.

Still it is a big disadvantage. The longer align time just makes it more not-fun to move them between a station and a POS, or from lowsec into Jita.

I can live with the tank vs cargo decision and think that could lead to interesting decision making, because either I play it safe or try to mitigate the risk of being ganked in highsec. And I mean only highsec, if you are cought in null or low, you are buggered usually and no tank in the world will save you.

But making them take longer to align at the same time is really just reducing the quality of live and time to do fun things for JF pilots.

One way to do this could be to only allow certain rigs on them, like increase of hull hitpoints or cargohold optimizers, but exclude any modifications to the propulsion system like align time etc. and put those values back to where they are now.