These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Hashi Lebwohl
The Graduates
The Initiative.
#1081 - 2014-05-19 09:39:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Hashi Lebwohl
In the past, when an announcement is made that will have a requirement to get the appropriate skills there is time given between that announcement and when the change goes live.

Time to Kronos -> 15 days

Time to learn a rig skill to 5 -> 13 -16 days depending upon attributes and if jury rigging has been trained.

I think there is not enough time for a dev blog to be published on this change and for players to adapt, and for this reason this change, if it remains the same, should be delayed until the July expansion.
Dave Stark
#1082 - 2014-05-19 09:44:19 UTC
Hashi Lebwohl wrote:
Time to learn a rig skill to 5 -> 13 -16 days depending upon attributes and if jury rigging has been trained.

good job you only need IV for t2 rigs. which takes about 3-4 days.
Oxide Ammar
#1083 - 2014-05-19 10:12:00 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Hashi Lebwohl wrote:
Time to learn a rig skill to 5 -> 13 -16 days depending upon attributes and if jury rigging has been trained.

good job you only need IV for t2 rigs. which takes about 3-4 days.


The penalty is significant for capital ships, which in this case is freighters getting it to 5 is nice but if he doesn't have other thing to train.

Lady Areola Fappington:  Solo PVP isn't dead!  You just need to make sure you have your booster, remote rep, cyno, and emergency Falcon alts logged in and ready before you do any solo PVPing.
Dave Stark
#1084 - 2014-05-19 10:20:17 UTC
Oxide Ammar wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Hashi Lebwohl wrote:
Time to learn a rig skill to 5 -> 13 -16 days depending upon attributes and if jury rigging has been trained.

good job you only need IV for t2 rigs. which takes about 3-4 days.


The penalty is significant for capital ships, which in this case is freighters getting it to 5 is nice but if he doesn't have other thing to train.


as is the bonus, they're all % based.
Neoxan
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1085 - 2014-05-19 10:22:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Neoxan
Rigs are a static option, if you want to nerf freighters to the ground in exange to give them the ability to customize them then let them have 1 or 2 low slots and forget about the rig stuff, 2 or 3 low slots are the best option imo, for example inertias if you want to go fast, expanded cargoholds for cargo, overdrives for autopilot, damage control for tank, if you give them rigs youll need to have 3 or 4 freigthers, one for each role.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#1086 - 2014-05-19 10:25:49 UTC
Domanique Altares wrote:
I love how absolutely angry people are when they get both what they asked for and what was coming at the same time.


It's because they think they're special.

Same reason why they were crying for rigs in the first place, by the way. They think they're special, so "it won't happen to me" when they autopilot with 4billion in the cargo hold through the Uedama pipe.

And because they think they're special, they also thought that when they said "we just want more options/choice", they told themselves it would come with no sacrifices. They told themselves it would come as a net buff to everything.

Because they think they're special. Which is why such rage and anger, because this isn't about pixels, to them it's an attack on their very self identity.

Because they think they're special.

"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.
Narjack
CragCO
#1087 - 2014-05-19 10:42:05 UTC
mynnna wrote:
"Why not modules instead" is a bit of a common question, so on a whim I threw together a concept for just that.

New Module: "Warp Speed Lowslot"
Requires Warp Drive Operation V
50 CPU
+35% Warp Speed

The most obvious issue with low slots on freighters is lack of a warp speed rig. Solve that with a warp speed low slot. At +35% you get a bit larger benefit than with three T1 warp speed rigs, though smaller than three T2 rigs, but at 50 CPU you'll be making some major choices to fit them. The high fitting cost also serves as a check against their casual use for subcaps, as they'd be a huge, huge deal for shield tanking subcaps. 50 CPU isn't necessarily a final number but I'm not sure about going lower either.

e: Has been pointed out to me that this module would instantly obsolete the new Angel bonuses. This is somewhat problematic, but for now I'm not going to worry about it.


Awesome idea! Maybe add a huge targeting penalty or some such when you use these (kind of like stabs) so they are not abused in PvP? Might actually be nice to be able to throw them onto a BS so that maybe you just need to move a distance but don't have a carrier option at the moment/jump gate etc. Throw one on your BS for faster travel/refit when you get to your destination (I'm thinking mobile depot.) All around the low slot idea makes a lot of sense.
Walter Hart White
Heisenberg Minings
#1088 - 2014-05-19 10:54:25 UTC
I hide all posts from tippia, Kaarous, Dave Start and likes of those, and voila, thread is nice again! Recommend everyone doing that.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1089 - 2014-05-19 10:58:16 UTC
Walter Hart White wrote:
I hide all posts from tippia, Kaarous, Dave Start and likes of those, and voila, thread is nice again! Recommend everyone doing that.


So, you are hiding the post from the people who predicted this would happen if rigs were added in a thread on deciding the future of freighters?

Wouldn't it be a better idea to listen to them, given how they know what changes would mean.
Dave Stark
#1090 - 2014-05-19 10:59:06 UTC
Walter Hart White wrote:
I hide all posts from tippia, Kaarous, Dave Start and likes of those, and voila, thread is nice again! Recommend everyone doing that.


you could at least spell my name right, it's right there for you to copy.
Walter Hart White
Heisenberg Minings
#1091 - 2014-05-19 11:01:46 UTC
Ranamar wrote:
Walter Hart White wrote:
I would really like if they switch from capital to large rigs. The prices are insane, for Capital Hyperspatial Velocity Optimizer II x 2 you need 0.5b with cheapest order right now, who knows how much it will be after the change... and who knows how much Capital Transverese Bulkheads II will cost...


Capital Hyperspatial Velocity rigs don't cost that much to build. (It's about on par with CCCCs for T1; T2 is much cheaper than a T2 CCCC.) The thing is, though, nobody actually builds them, because nobody actually buys them... so currently the cheapest T1 one in Jita is 100M ISK for some insane profit if you ever manage to sell however many you build.

Edit for clarity: There's currently no market, so people price them at whatever the **** they want. If there was actually demand, someone would force the price down to sell theirs faster than the next guy's.

Eve central reports 250m for cheapest t2 one.
Walter Hart White
Heisenberg Minings
#1092 - 2014-05-19 11:03:56 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Walter Hart White wrote:
I hide all posts from tippia, Kaarous, Dave Start and likes of those, and voila, thread is nice again! Recommend everyone doing that.


So, you are hiding the post from the people who predicted this would happen if rigs were added in a thread on deciding the future of freighters?

Wouldn't it be a better idea to listen to them, given how they know what changes would mean.

If they were saying anything useful, maybe. All they say is the same thing all over the thread. I don't need to read "told you so" * number_of_posts(tippia, any_thread) + number_of_posts(kaarous, any_thread) + number_of_posts(dave_start, any_thread);

All they do, in every single thread, if there is someone unhappy with CCP changes, they troll the **** out of them. That is all they do. They have zero usefulness in community and should be removed from it.
Dave Stark
#1093 - 2014-05-19 11:08:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Dave Stark
Walter Hart White wrote:
They have zero usefulness in community and should be removed from it.

we told players they'd be unhappy with rig slots on freighters.
they are unhappy.

instead of having lots of unhappy people crying very hard, they could have listened to us.
yes, another "i told you so post" but that's all we can do when our actual, helpful, posts went ignored anyway.

we were helpful, we told you what would happen and why it would happen. you all chose to ignore that, so we've got every right to be smug as ****.

having said that; we were wrong in one aspect. fozzie was far more benevolent than we thought he would be and raised the packaged capital volume to 1.3m instead of imposing even harsher cargo nerfs.
probag Bear
Xiong Offices
#1094 - 2014-05-19 11:11:06 UTC
Freelancer117 wrote:
You should lower the total ship material costs (including the extra materials pre-Kronos) by between 27 and 30%.


Oh hey, there's an actually good suggestion in this thread. I like this.

Walter Hart White wrote:
Ranamar wrote:
Walter Hart White wrote:
I would really like if they switch from capital to large rigs. The prices are insane, for Capital Hyperspatial Velocity Optimizer II x 2 you need 0.5b with cheapest order right now, who knows how much it will be after the change... and who knows how much Capital Transverese Bulkheads II will cost...


Capital Hyperspatial Velocity rigs don't cost that much to build. (It's about on par with CCCCs for T1; T2 is much cheaper than a T2 CCCC.) The thing is, though, nobody actually builds them, because nobody actually buys them... so currently the cheapest T1 one in Jita is 100M ISK for some insane profit if you ever manage to sell however many you build.

Edit for clarity: There's currently no market, so people price them at whatever the **** they want. If there was actually demand, someone would force the price down to sell theirs faster than the next guy's.

Eve central reports 250m for cheapest t2 one.


I will gladly sell you 50 T2 CHVOs per day at 135m each, ad infinitum, if you guarantee that you will buy them.

As in, you're missing the entire point of the post you quoted. T2 CHVOs are cheap as dirt compared to T2 CCCs or trims. The only reason the cheapest is at 250m is because no one ever buys them. Low demand means high prices.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1095 - 2014-05-19 11:13:10 UTC
Walter Hart White wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Walter Hart White wrote:
I hide all posts from tippia, Kaarous, Dave Start and likes of those, and voila, thread is nice again! Recommend everyone doing that.


So, you are hiding the post from the people who predicted this would happen if rigs were added in a thread on deciding the future of freighters?

Wouldn't it be a better idea to listen to them, given how they know what changes would mean.

If they were saying anything useful, maybe. All they say is the same thing all over the thread. I don't need to read "told you so" * number_of_posts(tippia, any_thread) + number_of_posts(kaarous, any_thread) + number_of_posts(dave_start, any_thread);

All they do, in every single thread, if there is someone unhappy with CCP changes, they troll the **** out of them. That is all they do. They have zero usefulness in community and should be removed from it.


We spent two years telling people this very thing would happen if rigs were added and got nothing but abuse from these people.

In this very thread we are getting countless "why are you doing this CCP" posts and we are answering them. We are also getting a large number of other posts asking for a reduction in the nerfs but to keep the rigs or to add low and med slots. Im sorry if you think its getting repetitive but we are answering the same questions and demands over and over again.
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#1096 - 2014-05-19 11:16:20 UTC
King Fu Hostile wrote:
It might be more sensible to keep the stats as they are, and add the rig slots. I can't see any negative effects of faster, bigger, or tankier freighters tbh.



Freighters dnt need a buff. Power creep is bad.

CCP Fozzie wrote:

I do want to clarify that although it's very possible that a lot of these numbers can change, we're not going to simply give JFs a gigantic buff to their cargoholds and call it a day. The fast movement of goods across the galaxy has its advantages and also its disadvantages, and we are not going to simply let power creep get out of control in this area.

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
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#1097 - 2014-05-19 11:17:41 UTC
probag Bear wrote:
Freelancer117 wrote:
You should lower the total ship material costs (including the extra materials pre-Kronos) by between 27 and 30%.


Oh hey, there's an actually good suggestion in this thread. I like this.

Walter Hart White wrote:
Ranamar wrote:
Walter Hart White wrote:
I would really like if they switch from capital to large rigs. The prices are insane, for Capital Hyperspatial Velocity Optimizer II x 2 you need 0.5b with cheapest order right now, who knows how much it will be after the change... and who knows how much Capital Transverese Bulkheads II will cost...


Capital Hyperspatial Velocity rigs don't cost that much to build. (It's about on par with CCCCs for T1; T2 is much cheaper than a T2 CCCC.) The thing is, though, nobody actually builds them, because nobody actually buys them... so currently the cheapest T1 one in Jita is 100M ISK for some insane profit if you ever manage to sell however many you build.

Edit for clarity: There's currently no market, so people price them at whatever the **** they want. If there was actually demand, someone would force the price down to sell theirs faster than the next guy's.

Eve central reports 250m for cheapest t2 one.


I will gladly sell you 50 T2 CHVOs per day at 135m each, ad infinitum, if you guarantee that you will buy them.

As in, you're missing the entire point of the post you quoted. T2 CHVOs are cheap as dirt compared to T2 CCCs or trims. The only reason the cheapest is at 250m is because no one ever buys them. Low demand means high prices.



https://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/blueprints/0/31169/-4/5/-4/5 141 million to make, around 2 million to invent.

And that's with no decryptor. A symmetry decryptor drops it to 130 million and around 1 million a shot.
Process drops it to 113, and 7 million to invent.

There's a /lot/ of wiggle room on those prices.

As probag said, low market movement. tends to lead to inflated prices.

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
Walter Hart White
Heisenberg Minings
#1098 - 2014-05-19 11:20:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Walter Hart White
Daichi Yamato wrote:
King Fu Hostile wrote:
It might be more sensible to keep the stats as they are, and add the rig slots. I can't see any negative effects of faster, bigger, or tankier freighters tbh.



Freighters dnt need a buff. Power creep is bad.

CCP Fozzie wrote:

I do want to clarify that although it's very possible that a lot of these numbers can change, we're not going to simply give JFs a gigantic buff to their cargoholds and call it a day. The fast movement of goods across the galaxy has its advantages and also its disadvantages, and we are not going to simply let power creep get out of control in this area.


What power creep? 1.3m cargo hold? What, so more gankers can fit their wallet? Usually, the cargo >800m3 is rare and only useful for minerals if you want to keep collateral low. If you don't, well, more power to you. Please, haul 1.3m m3 of plexers for all I care. This would hardly imbalance anything at all. For 1.4b for rigs, you get 1.3m m3 space. And? You pay two times for freighter, so you should get some bonus out of it...

That is what CCP should get. Rigs are not buff. Rigs are balanced on their own. They buff and nerf at same time. No need to nerf further....
TianRei
UK Freedom Fighters
Wrecking Machine.
#1099 - 2014-05-19 11:20:16 UTC  |  Edited by: TianRei
[spoiler]
mynnna wrote:


"Why not modules instead" is a bit of a common question, so on a whim I threw together a concept for just that.

New Module: "Warp Speed Lowslot"
Requires Warp Drive Operation V
50 CPU
+35% Warp Speed

The most obvious issue with low slots on freighters is lack of a warp speed rig. Solve that with a warp speed low slot. At +35% you get a bit larger benefit than with three T1 warp speed rigs, though smaller than three T2 rigs, but at 50 CPU you'll be making some major choices to fit them. The high fitting cost also serves as a check against their casual use for subcaps, as they'd be a huge, huge deal for shield tanking subcaps. 50 CPU isn't necessarily a final number but I'm not sure about going lower either.

e: Has been pointed out to me that this module would instantly obsolete the new Angel bonuses. This is somewhat problematic, but for now I'm not going to worry about it.

Providence

Amarr Freighter Bonus per level:
+5% Cargo Capacity
+5% Maximum Velocity

Slot Layout: 0H, 0M, 3L
Fitting: 1 PWG, 100 CPU
Defense (shields / armor / hull): 2500 (-2500) / 12000 (-12000) 60000 (-52500)
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time / warp speed): 70 / 0.0625 / 900,000,000 / 107.22s / 1.37
Cargo Capacity: 500000 (-235000)


Charon

Caldari Freighter Bonus per level:
+5% Cargo Capacity
+5% Maximum Velocity

Slot Layout: 0H, 0M, 3L
Fitting: 1 PWG, 100 CPU
Defense (shields / armor / hull): 32500 (+26500) / 6000 (-14000) 45000 (-61250)
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time / warp speed): 60 / 0.0625 / 960,000,000 / 114.37s / 1.37
Cargo Capacity: 517500 (-267500)


Obelisk

Gallente Freighter Bonus per level:
+5% Cargo Capacity
+5% Maximum Velocity

Slot Layout: 0H, 0M, 3L
Fitting: 1 PWG, 100 CPU
Defense (shields / armor / hull): 3000 (-2313) / 8000 (-14500) 62500 (-57500)
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time / warp speed): 65 / 0.0625 / 940,000,000 / 111.99s / 1.37
Cargo Capacity: 500000 (-250000)


Fenrir

Minmatar Freighter Bonus per level:
+5% Cargo Capacity
+5% Maximum Velocity

Slot Layout: 0H, 0M, 3L
Fitting: 1 PWG, 100 CPU
Defense (shields / armor / hull): 30000 (+24375) / 8000 (-13250) 44000 (-56000)
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time / warp speed): 80 / 0.0625 / 820,000,000 / 97.69s / 1.37
Cargo Capacity: 492500 (-227500)

Still no free lunch here; you're not getting better at everything at once, unless I messed up somewhere. For the most part it hews to the same overall principles as with rigs (tighten the gap between the different classes a bit) but the upsides are bigger (though the downsides are too) and you can hit a lot of interesting combos. It also doesn't demand a fortune to swap. Use of low slots is obviously an advantage for the armor tanking freighters. To offset that, shield freighters put a great deal of their EHP into shields while armor freighters continue to focus mainly on structure. This has the following effects:

  • Fully tanked (DCII+2x Bulkheads), armor freighters have the most EHP, by ~10% or so.
  • When "low penalty tanked" (DC plus either two PDS II for shields or two hardeners for armor), armor has the most EHP by about the same ~10% when considering blaster damage specifically.
  • With two tank mods, they're about even.
  • With one tank mod, shield freighters have slightly more EHP, and more still with no tank mods.


A few fit examples for illustration; this all assumes all skills at V and Tech II mods.

DC II, 2x Bulkhead
Providence: 324k EHP, 495k cargo
Charon: 297k EHP, 512.3k cargo
Obelisk: 328k EHP, 504k cargo
Fenrir: 291k EHP, 487.6k cargo

DC II, 2x Expanders
Providence: 151k EHP, 1.016m cargo
Charon: 167k EHP, 1.051m cargo
Obelisk: 148k EHP, 1.036m cargo
Fenrir: 164.5k EHP, 1m cargo

3x Expander
Providence: 65k EHP, 1.295m cargo
Charon: 96k EHP, 1.34m cargo
Obelisk: 60k EHP, 1.32m cargo
Fenrir: 94.7k EHP, 1.28m cargo

DC II, Expander, Bulkhead
Providence: 218.6k EHP, 709k cargo
Charon: 217.7k EHP, 734k cargo
Obelisk: 218.7k EHP, 723k cargo
Fenrir: 214k EHP, 698k cargo

"Low Penalty" tank (DCII, Thermal & Kinetic hardener for Providence/Obelisk, 2x PDS II for Charon & Fenrir)
Providence: 229k EHP (omni), 253k EHP (against Caldari Navy Antimatter), 625k cargo
Charon: 224k EHP (omni), 230.6k EHP (against CNAM), 646.9k cargo
Obelisk: 225k EHP (omni), 241.9k EHP (against CNAM), 637.5k cargo
Fenrir: 220k EHP (omni), 226k EHP (against CNAM), 615.6k cargo

DC II, 2x Inertia Stabilizers
Providence: 218k EHP, 625k cargo, 25.3s align
Charon: 218k EHP, 646.9k cargo, 26.9s align
Obelisk: 218.6k EHP, 637.5k cargo, 26.4s align
Fenrir: 214k EHP, 615.6k cargo, 23s align.

One warp speed low is 1.85 AU/s. Two is 2.41 AU/s. If the CPU allowed fitting three, that'd be 2.9 AU/s.

Going to sleep now, if people like the idea maybe I can whip through jump freighters to illustrate them as well.


[/spoiler]
Excellent idea ... really really excellent
CCP MAKE IT SO ...
Belle Mallissima
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#1100 - 2014-05-19 11:21:13 UTC
Ok, looking at those figures, a freighter pilot who rigs ONLY to retain current capacity will be significantly less tanky and vastly slower.

Plus the cost of rigs is simply raising the entry bar to large scale hauling,
Personally, I'd prefer that the rigs on freighters be held back and thought through again.

My thoughts on that process are as follows:
1: It should be possible to (with only T1 rigs) retain current EHP, cargo capacity and manoeuvrability.
2: It should be possible to accomplish point 1 for under 200million ISK (at current market prices)
3: That the current (and proposed ) rig selection allows the player to balance their tank/capacity and speed nicely.
4: Should cargo rigs be required to retain current capacity on a hull, that speed and agility of the hulls would require buffing in order that the changes do not make flying the ships even more painful than currently.
5: I'd rather like to see a manufacturing cost reduction to both freighters and (especially) JF to counter the increased cost of having to rig the things.