These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Zappity
New Eden Tank Testing Services
#1121 - 2014-05-19 12:51:31 UTC
Why not change freighters to use Large rigs? Keeps the design goal of choice, doesn't hurt the little guy as much.

Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.
mynnna
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1122 - 2014-05-19 12:51:57 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.


Three lows creates for a lot more options and makes more of a spectrum instead of huge swings. It also makes the downsides and upsides more meaningful. For example with a single low, cargo would have to drop by only about 10%, maybe even as little as 5%, to make there be a reasonably sized upside to fitting the expander instead. But if you're only giving up 5-10% of your cargo, then fitting a DC II or really anything else becomes far too much of a no-brainer - there's just no longer much of a trade-off involved.

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal
Ben Hatton
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#1123 - 2014-05-19 13:01:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Ben Hatton
mynnna 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.


Three lows creates for a lot more options and makes more of a spectrum instead of huge swings. It also makes the downsides and upsides more meaningful. For example with a single low, cargo would have to drop by only about 10%, maybe even as little as 5%, to make there be a reasonably sized upside to fitting the expander instead. But if you're only giving up 5-10% of your cargo, then fitting a DC II or really anything else becomes far too much of a no-brainer - there's just no longer much of a trade-off involved.


I would vote for 2 lows personally as it achieves similar objectives to the rig plan without being over the top (though I must admit I haven't done the numbers, basing this on gut feel).
2 cargo exp, 2 bulkheads, 2 nanofibers or any combination of the such seems good. But yeah, the DCU not something that should be able to be fitted as it puts it in the too much category.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#1124 - 2014-05-19 13:07:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
…come to think of it, why do bulkheads require so much CPU?

I mean, is there any specific reason for it or any use case that they're trying to avoid by giving it a CPU draw of some larger weapon systems? Maybe the damage control problem could be circumvented by keeping the grid and cpu at zero, since the modules you'd generally want to fit — expanders, istabs, maybe the oddball nanos — all have no fitting requirements. It locks out warp stabs, but hey… P

That only leaves the suggested warp speed mod which is 1) only a suggestion and 2) a completely new mod so it wouldn't alter any pre-existing module balancing if you included a “can only be fitted on…” restriction to it.
Wulfy Johnson
NorCorp Security
#1125 - 2014-05-19 13:09:04 UTC
Well eighter way, removing more ehp off these already fragile ships, making them more common with lower ehp will result in a rabbits race for kb padding. To me that would more of an isk sink short term, and leaves a no choice in fitting long term.
Ben Hatton
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#1126 - 2014-05-19 13:10:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Ben Hatton
Wulfy Johnson wrote:
Well eighter way, removing more ehp off these already fragile ships, making them more common with lower ehp will result in a rabbits race for kb padding. To me that would more of an isk sink short term, and leaves a no choice in fitting long term.


Buying items off the market is not an isk sink dude, please don't confuse this. You are giving your isk to another player in a trade.
ArmyOfMe
Teddybears.
#1127 - 2014-05-19 13:13:43 UTC
Adrien Crosse wrote:
Mr JewBearJr wrote:
ArmyOfMe wrote:
Im all for a nerf of jf's, as they make 0,0 life way to easy. I dont really see the point in nerfing normal freighters in such a way though, as you'r allready seeing them beeing popped all over empire space anyhow.



This.. a million times this..


Except this change does nothing to that end. People who use JFs now are still going to use them after the change.

well i said i was all for a JF nerf, not that i felt this was the correct way to go about it.
If it was up to me we still wouldnt have jf's. And the ppl living at the outer ages would have a bloody hard time with their logistics (no i hate titan bridges as well), but they should be greater rewards for living in those regions (and yes, i hate jumpbridges to)

GM Guard > I must ask you not to use the petition option like this again but i personally would finish the chicken sandwich first so it won´t go to waste. The spaghetti will keep and you can use it the next time you get hungry. Best regards.
ArmyOfMe
Teddybears.
#1128 - 2014-05-19 13:15:20 UTC  |  Edited by: ArmyOfMe
Allison A'vani wrote:
For my rhea to even get to where it is right now I have to dump 1.2b on rigs + buy a high grade nomad set. Thank CCP for a dumb change that makes me waste 3 - 4b.

Since when was there hg nomad sets???Roll

GM Guard > I must ask you not to use the petition option like this again but i personally would finish the chicken sandwich first so it won´t go to waste. The spaghetti will keep and you can use it the next time you get hungry. Best regards.
mynnna
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1129 - 2014-05-19 13:15:59 UTC
ArmyOfMe wrote:
Adrien Crosse wrote:
Mr JewBearJr wrote:
ArmyOfMe wrote:
Im all for a nerf of jf's, as they make 0,0 life way to easy. I dont really see the point in nerfing normal freighters in such a way though, as you'r allready seeing them beeing popped all over empire space anyhow.



This.. a million times this..


Except this change does nothing to that end. People who use JFs now are still going to use them after the change.

well i said i was all for a JF nerf, not that i felt this was the correct way to go about it.
If it was up to me we still wouldnt have jf's. And the ppl living at the outer ages would have a bloody hard time with their logistics (no i hate titan bridges as well), but they should be greater rewards for living in those regions (and yes, i hate jumpbridges to)


If you saw the kind of "greater rewards" it'd take to make living in deep nullsec without any of that capability worthwhile, you'd probably be whining about those, too.

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal
Sipphakta en Gravonere
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1130 - 2014-05-19 13:20:22 UTC
Wulfy Johnson wrote:
Well eighter way, removing more ehp off these already fragile ships, making them more common with lower ehp will result in a rabbits race for kb padding. To me that would more of an isk sink short term, and leaves a no choice in fitting long term.


1. Freighters aren't fragile, they take considerable effort, manpower and strategy to gank.
2. No-one cares about KB stats, except for some ~elite-pvp~ groups, which are largely unimportant and easy to deal with.
3. Every freighter killed is a giant ISK faucet, spewing several hundred million ISK into the economy.
Dave Stark
#1131 - 2014-05-19 13:22:25 UTC
TIL: ships with nearly 200k ehp are fragile.
De'Veldrin
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#1132 - 2014-05-19 13:24:03 UTC
This is one of those ideas that falls firmly into the category of "Be careful what you wish for."

Everyone, and I mean everyone, (including moi, Tippia, and IIRC Mags) who actually understood what giving rigs to freighters would do to them spent (literally) years trying to shoot down the proposals to change them. It seems the ignorant masses finally got what they (thought) they wanted.

Well, at the very least Miniluv will have a good time.

De'Veldrin's Corollary (to Malcanis' Law): Any idea that seeks to limit the ability of a large nullsec bloc to do something in the name of allowing more small groups into sov null will inevitably make it that much harder for small groups to enter sov null.
ArmyOfMe
Teddybears.
#1133 - 2014-05-19 13:25:38 UTC
mynnna wrote:


If you saw the kind of "greater rewards" it'd take to make living in deep nullsec without any of that capability worthwhile, you'd probably be whining about those, too.

The great thing for me is that ive played long enough to remember when ppl were living in those regions. Before jf's, before freighters even. I remember those long lasting trips through 0,0 with a bs fleet as escort. But we did it anyhow. I think you underestimate ppl's desires to live in 0,0 and make themselfs a home.

GM Guard > I must ask you not to use the petition option like this again but i personally would finish the chicken sandwich first so it won´t go to waste. The spaghetti will keep and you can use it the next time you get hungry. Best regards.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#1134 - 2014-05-19 13:26:09 UTC
So, mynnna, since you are most heavily involved in the thread, could you tell us what the CSMs thoughts are, in general, about this proposed change so far?

I know we already had core weigh in, so it would be nice to hear the general tone of things.

"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.
Valterra Craven
#1135 - 2014-05-19 13:26:45 UTC
I Love Boobies wrote:
Valterra Craven wrote:
Fozzie, I know you guys see these posts, and I know you can't comment on everything, and lastly I know that introducing art assets to the game takes time. However this is my proposal and will likely be far more appeasing to all parties involved than the current changes.

Leave the current freighters as they are.

Make smaller new freighters.

Make them have half the cargo, hit points, align time and build cost and double the warp speed.

Give them 3 rig slots

Win

OR

Leave the current freighters alone

Make ONE new freighter in the ORE line with the above stats and say that ORE needed something with better agility for deep space mining or some mobo jumbo like that.


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


Because an orca has 500k m3???
De'Veldrin
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#1136 - 2014-05-19 13:28:16 UTC
Steijn wrote:
Steve Ronuken wrote:


Rigs don't drop.

In case people are wondering where we are, we're talking with Fozzie, and keeping an eye on the thread, to pick out good posts.


Leave freighters as they currently are. There, thats a good post imo.


I was about to post the same thing. Freighters were fine. Slow loot pinatas when flown by the incoimpetent, but fine otherwise.

De'Veldrin's Corollary (to Malcanis' Law): Any idea that seeks to limit the ability of a large nullsec bloc to do something in the name of allowing more small groups into sov null will inevitably make it that much harder for small groups to enter sov null.
Dave Stark
#1137 - 2014-05-19 13:32:12 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:
I Love Boobies wrote:
Valterra Craven wrote:
Fozzie, I know you guys see these posts, and I know you can't comment on everything, and lastly I know that introducing art assets to the game takes time. However this is my proposal and will likely be far more appeasing to all parties involved than the current changes.

Leave the current freighters as they are.

Make smaller new freighters.

Make them have half the cargo, hit points, align time and build cost and double the warp speed.

Give them 3 rig slots

Win

OR

Leave the current freighters alone

Make ONE new freighter in the ORE line with the above stats and say that ORE needed something with better agility for deep space mining or some mobo jumbo like that.


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


Because an orca has 500k m3???


400k smb
50k ore bay
40k fleet hangar
whatever your cargo ends up at with skills and fittings...

yeah, it does have 500k m3... technically.
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#1138 - 2014-05-19 13:34:14 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Valterra Craven wrote:
I Love Boobies wrote:
Valterra Craven wrote:
Fozzie, I know you guys see these posts, and I know you can't comment on everything, and lastly I know that introducing art assets to the game takes time. However this is my proposal and will likely be far more appeasing to all parties involved than the current changes.

Leave the current freighters as they are.

Make smaller new freighters.

Make them have half the cargo, hit points, align time and build cost and double the warp speed.

Give them 3 rig slots

Win

OR

Leave the current freighters alone

Make ONE new freighter in the ORE line with the above stats and say that ORE needed something with better agility for deep space mining or some mobo jumbo like that.


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


Because an orca has 500k m3???


400k smb
50k ore bay
40k fleet hangar
whatever your cargo ends up at with skills and fittings...

yeah, it does have 500k m3... technically.


Of which you can only use 40k to transport things that are not assembled ships or ore. Yeah, that is certainly a good ship to transport Courier Contracts or quantities of modules, minerals, etc.

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
Kaerakh
Obscure Joke Implied
#1139 - 2014-05-19 13:34:37 UTC
I'd just like to take this moment to say to all those carebears that wanted Freighter customization congratulations, and now I'd like to tell them I TOLD YOU SO about the massive cargo nerf for customization. Lol

Schrodinger's Hot Dropper

The Fate of Forum Alts

Guaranteed Success
De'Veldrin
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#1140 - 2014-05-19 13:38:01 UTC
Kaerakh wrote:
I'd just like to take this moment to say to all those carebears that wanted Freighter customization congratulations, and now I'd like to tell them I TOLD YOU SO about the massive cargo nerf for customization. Lol

I told you so always feels good.

De'Veldrin's Corollary (to Malcanis' Law): Any idea that seeks to limit the ability of a large nullsec bloc to do something in the name of allowing more small groups into sov null will inevitably make it that much harder for small groups to enter sov null.