These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Dave Stark
#1101 - 2014-05-19 11:24:41 UTC
Walter Hart White wrote:
What power creep?


the power creep that happens when you do nothing but buff ships.
Lara Corinthian
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1102 - 2014-05-19 11:26:11 UTC
Fine, not gonna make a lot of difference to me.

BUT why stop at rigs, why not allow fitting of some modules? Doesn't make sense to me.
Expanded cargo holds, stabs, ABs, active reps, ability to have a scram (bait freighter?) Tractor beam in high maybe?
Would make them more exciting and give more game play opportunities? An orca can fit them, why not the poor freighter?
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
#1103 - 2014-05-19 11:26:41 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.


Except they called it and were right all along. I don't see how that makes them "have zero usefulness".

"Tomahawks?"

"----in' A, right?"

"Trouble is, those things cost like a million and a half each."

"----, you pay me half that and I'll hump in some c4 and blow the ---- out of it my own damn self."
Dave Stark
#1104 - 2014-05-19 11:28:41 UTC
Lara Corinthian wrote:
BUT why stop at rigs, why not allow fitting of some modules?


because that requires even bigger nerfs than the ones already proposed.
Walter Hart White
Heisenberg Minings
#1105 - 2014-05-19 11:38:11 UTC
Sobaan Tali wrote:
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.


Except they called it and were right all along. I don't see how that makes them "have zero usefulness".

It is useless right now, to post "told you so" except for masturbating your own ego.
Walter Hart White
Heisenberg Minings
#1106 - 2014-05-19 11:40:50 UTC
mynnna wrote:
Perfect solution.

This is how you do nerf. You nerf base ship with expectation of people fitting it. No one flies unfit ships, thus base stats mean nothing. Unlike with rigs, which you have to sadly fit in, forever, for huge amount of ISK.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1107 - 2014-05-19 11:41:05 UTC
Walter Hart White wrote:

It is useless right now, to post "told you so" except for masturbating your own ego.


Its also useless to come here and ask why CCP are making these nerfs.
Dave Stark
#1108 - 2014-05-19 11:43:10 UTC
Walter Hart White wrote:
Unlike with rigs, which you have to sadly fit in, forever, for huge amount of ISK.


wrong, you can destroy and replace rigs.
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#1109 - 2014-05-19 11:44:50 UTC
Walter Hart White wrote:

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....


Rigs arent balanced on their own. their penalties are small, and can be further halved by skills. Some rigs dnt even have penalties.

like it or not, the ability to move things like ships is power. ability to move more things faster and safer is more power.

Daichi Yamato wrote:


so why not just allow freighters to carry 20mil m3 and make repackaged capitals 21mil m3?

Because theres a point where logistics becomes too easy and transforms competition from effort and risk taking to simply having a skillbook trained or not. With across the board increases to capacity with no trade offs, importing items becomes easier, safer and faster, and that means it becomes cheaper. Prices level across the galaxy which means the rewards are less for anyone who does any work.

its a nerf to ppl who set up shop in a certain location to build and sell certain items.
its a nerf to ppl who pay attention and use escorts when they haul.
its a nerf to inter-regional traders.

the real beneficiaries of making all this easier to do is ppl who dnt really pay attention to where they set up shop, cant be bothered to check regional prices and afk haul.

you want things to be harder, because u want to be rewarded for ur efforts and u want ur competition to lose out for being lazy or dying in a fire because hes bad at space ships.

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
Jessica Danikov
Network Danikov
#1110 - 2014-05-19 11:57:59 UTC
If we were allow modules, is it of benefit to introduce rigs and incrementally balance against those first, or is it better to recalibrate the entire baseline at once, modules and rigs all at once?

I understand the misgivings about introducing modules, but ultimately fitting ships is central to the flying in space experience and gives variety and interesting choices to doing so and it seems wrong to me to deny this of freighters. Those problems need to be identified and dealt with rather than aborting because problems have been encountered.

The Orca is a comparable hisec brick and it does have module slots. Is the Orca unbalanced fitting ewar or tackle or having tank mods in the lows? Are there any lessons from the Orca we can take and use to avoid unbalancing freighters with mods? Equally, how would freighters with mods be differentiated from the Orca to keep the ships from filling the same niche?
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1111 - 2014-05-19 12:10:10 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Jessica Danikov wrote:
If we were allow modules, is it of benefit to introduce rigs and incrementally balance against those first, or is it better to recalibrate the entire baseline at once, modules and rigs all at once?

I understand the misgivings about introducing modules, but ultimately fitting ships is central to the flying in space experience and gives variety and interesting choices to doing so and it seems wrong to me to deny this of freighters. Those problems need to be identified and dealt with rather than aborting because problems have been encountered.

The Orca is a comparable hisec brick and it does have module slots. Is the Orca unbalanced fitting ewar or tackle or having tank mods in the lows? Are there any lessons from the Orca we can take and use to avoid unbalancing freighters with mods? Equally, how would freighters with mods be differentiated from the Orca to keep the ships from filling the same niche?


The orca came out with mods and rigs in mind. If you add low/med/high slots to freighters then we will see enormous nerfs to the freighter line.
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#1112 - 2014-05-19 12:12:47 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Jessica Danikov wrote:
If we were allow modules, is it of benefit to introduce rigs and incrementally balance against those first, or is it better to recalibrate the entire baseline at once, modules and rigs all at once?

I understand the misgivings about introducing modules, but ultimately fitting ships is central to the flying in space experience and gives variety and interesting choices to doing so and it seems wrong to me to deny this of freighters. Those problems need to be identified and dealt with rather than aborting because problems have been encountered.

The Orca is a comparable hisec brick and it does have module slots. Is the Orca unbalanced fitting ewar or tackle or having tank mods in the lows? Are there any lessons from the Orca we can take and use to avoid unbalancing freighters with mods? Equally, how would freighters with mods be differentiated from the Orca to keep the ships from filling the same niche?


The orca came out with mods and rigs in mind. If you add low/med/high slots to freighters then we will see enormous nerfs to the freighter line.



mids not so much.. but lows.. hell yes

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
mynnna
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1113 - 2014-05-19 12:19:56 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Jessica Danikov wrote:
If we were allow modules, is it of benefit to introduce rigs and incrementally balance against those first, or is it better to recalibrate the entire baseline at once, modules and rigs all at once?

I understand the misgivings about introducing modules, but ultimately fitting ships is central to the flying in space experience and gives variety and interesting choices to doing so and it seems wrong to me to deny this of freighters. Those problems need to be identified and dealt with rather than aborting because problems have been encountered.

The Orca is a comparable hisec brick and it does have module slots. Is the Orca unbalanced fitting ewar or tackle or having tank mods in the lows? Are there any lessons from the Orca we can take and use to avoid unbalancing freighters with mods? Equally, how would freighters with mods be differentiated from the Orca to keep the ships from filling the same niche?


The orca came out with mods and rigs in mind. If you add low/med/high slots to freighters then we will see enormous nerfs to the freighter line.


https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4611899#post4611899 Bigger upsides, but bigger downsides as well.

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#1114 - 2014-05-19 12:29:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
mynnna wrote:
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.
The only real problem I see is that, as is to be expected from modules, you can get huge effects for a very small cost. I got the impression from Fozzie that the idea was not to particularly buff them but as your numbers show, it's fairly easy to end up with something that's strictly better than what we have, which I fear puts the viability at risk. At the same time, to pull the end result back would mean making the base numbers truly horrible, and it would be easy to simply ruin the ship with bad fits (which I suppose has its own appeal).

Maybe it would be easier if it were only two slots? I'm thinking about the huge variety you can squeeze out of the Orca's lows as a point of comparison, and it just gives fewer moving parts you have to worry about, but it still provides some options rather than just “DCII or die”.

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

That would be nice.
Wulfy Johnson
NorCorp Security
#1115 - 2014-05-19 12:33:01 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.

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.



Something like this is way more realistic than rigs and allows for fitting towards what task you have at hand without dishing out hundreds of mill in waste to provide a "noob isksink", dough i still belive one low would serve that puropse better with less gimping of the ship.

Thanks for providing some numbers.
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#1116 - 2014-05-19 12:36:28 UTC
Hashi Lebwohl wrote:
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.



omg because 1 single day without max cargo capability will be the end of the world.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#1117 - 2014-05-19 12:38:39 UTC
Wulfy Johnson wrote:
Something like this is way more realistic than rigs and allows for fitting towards what task you have at hand without dishing out hundreds of mill in waste to provide a "noob isksink", dough i still belive one low would serve that puropse better with less gimping of the ship.

Thanks for providing some numbers.

One low creates its own (pretty significant) headache: we still have that annoying DCII that needs to be taken into account — 2.5× the hul EHP of anything you fit it to. As long as it does what it does, hull generally has to come down in order to not be completely silly. At the same time, people will want to fit cargo expanders, but since the base hull is down from having to anticipate the DCII, you start out at almost half the current EHP, and then it gets another chunk cut out by a single expander… and suddenly you have a cargo-fitted freighter that is weaker than most mining barges.

With only one slot, the DCII kind of becomes the only viable module so you might as well just fold it into the ship and not have the lowslot at all, at which point we're right back where we started.
Dave Stark
#1118 - 2014-05-19 12:44:55 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Wulfy Johnson wrote:
Something like this is way more realistic than rigs and allows for fitting towards what task you have at hand without dishing out hundreds of mill in waste to provide a "noob isksink", dough i still belive one low would serve that puropse better with less gimping of the ship.

Thanks for providing some numbers.

One low creates its own (pretty significant) headache: we still have that annoying DCII that needs to be taken into account — 2.5× the hul EHP of anything you fit it to. As long as it does what it does, hull generally has to come down in order to not be completely silly. At the same time, people will want to fit cargo expanders, but since the base hull is down from having to anticipate the DCII, you start out at almost half the current EHP, and then it gets another chunk cut out by a single expander… and suddenly you have a cargo-fitted freighter that is weaker than most mining barges.

With only one slot, the DCII kind of becomes the only viable module so you might as well just fold it into the ship and not have the lowslot at all, at which point we're right back where we started.


the solution is to move away from hull taking. however if we're only giving freighters low slots that means everything must armour tank. unless we also add mid slots.
and everything gets very messy, very quickly, for a set of changes we don't need.

the easiest solution to this whole 'mess' is to just leave freighers as they are since they're already perfectly fine. each individual freighter has a unique aspect to it and it doesn't encroach upon any other ship's role.
Azami Nevinyrall
172.0.0.1
#1119 - 2014-05-19 12:46:01 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:

Make smaller new freighters.


I'll say this slowly for you...

DEEP SPACE TRANSPORT SHIPS!

-OR-

ORCA

...
Wulfy Johnson
NorCorp Security
#1120 - 2014-05-19 12:47:12 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Wulfy Johnson wrote:
Something like this is way more realistic than rigs and allows for fitting towards what task you have at hand without dishing out hundreds of mill in waste to provide a "noob isksink", dough i still belive one low would serve that puropse better with less gimping of the ship.

Thanks for providing some numbers.

One low creates its own (pretty significant) headache: we still have that annoying DCII that needs to be taken into account — 2.5× the hul EHP of anything you fit it to. As long as it does what it does, hull generally has to come down in order to not be completely silly. At the same time, people will want to fit cargo expanders, but since the base hull is down from having to anticipate the DCII, you start out at almost half the current EHP, and then it gets another chunk cut out by a single expander… and suddenly you have a cargo-fitted freighter that is weaker than most mining barges.

With only one slot, the DCII kind of becomes the only viable module so you might as well just fold it into the ship and not have the lowslot at all, at which point we're right back where we started.



Eighter way it allows for adjustments to be made and adjusted when needed. Doing this the rig way is madness.