These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Pasocon Otaku
#1201 - 2014-05-19 15:32:31 UTC
Here's a straightforward way to make it a cross between light nerf and small improvement -- instead of whacking stats so hard that you can't get 'back to par' even with T2 rigs ...

Overall
Use capital rigs (to set appropriate resource cost)

Freighters:
Drop cargo capacity 26.25%, so that it takes two T1 cargo rigs to get back to par
Drop EHP such that it takes one T1 hull HP rig to get back to par
... this would mean spending ~10% of the value of your ship to keep it current. Not horrible.
If you choose to go T1/T2/T2, you're spending ~100% of ship's value for modest improvement in one or two areas.

Jump Freighters
It's obvious they want to nerf them more than a little; so that pilots feel they're getting something out of their beating --
Drop cargo by 15%, agility by 11.7%, and EHP by {T1 Hull HP rig} -- so you can keep two of three at par ... or spend ~15% the value of your ship and have a slight bump in two [but still the nerf in the third].
CivilWars
Half Empty
xqtywiznalamywmodxfhhopawzpqyjdwrpeptuaenabjawdzku
#1202 - 2014-05-19 15:34:19 UTC
As a wormhole inhabitant I would just like to remind all of you null sec folks of what you told us a couple of weeks ago when a nerf was announced to our game play. Just because something has been one way for the last several years does not mean you are entitled to it always being that way. I don't own or fly freighters or jump freighters, but I do support these changes, and before you tell me I don't know anything about hauling since I don't do it I will remind you that I was told you guys didn't need to live in WHs to tell us how they should be run. I will admit it is much more entertaining when the shoe is on the other foot though.

Hidden Fremen liked your forum post:

Jack Miton liked your forum post:
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#1203 - 2014-05-19 15:34:50 UTC
So, if anyone is interested in seeing precisely how the numbers turned out, TMC has a pretty good article on the subject.

http://themittani.com/news/proposed-freighter-and-jump-freighter-changes-kronos

To put things in perspective, the T1 freighters are not in a terrible state. Triple T1 hull rigs allow you to give up a bit less than 50% of your cargo in exchange for an extra ~70k EHP. Notably the Charon still gets just above 500k cargo space with that.

The other side is that you can give up around ~15k EHP in exchange for between a 6% and just under 10% boost in cargo. The Charon comes out the worst in those numbers, with the Obelisk being the big winner there.

Notably however, no combination of rigs can really get you back to where you were before. With two cargo rigs and one hull rig you are looking at a slight gain in EHP, and around a 14% loss in cargo capacity. Perhaps the Providence and the Obelisk can manage it with a Trimark.

"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
#1204 - 2014-05-19 15:35:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Valterra Craven
Tippia wrote:


Valterra Craven wrote:
I never once brought up the orca.
That was never the question, either.


Maybe not your's but it was his. To answer your original question. I don't want a smaller more tankier version of the freighter (which would be the JF) I wanted a smaller less tankier version than a freighter so that a ship would exist in its proper pre-nerfed form so that it could have rigs.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#1205 - 2014-05-19 15:38:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Valterra Craven wrote:
Maybe not your's but it was his.
No, not his either.
You claimed that you ever said anything about orcas in any of your posts. He demonstrated that your claim was wrong.

Quote:
To answer your original question. I don't want a smaller more tankier version of the freighter (which would be the JF) I wanted a smaller less tankier version than a freighter so that a ship would exist in its proper pre-nerfed form so that it could have rigs.
It wasn't really a question. It was a demonstration that what you're asking for is pretty much already in the game. We have a neat progression of an almost constant doubling of capacity between DST → Orca → JF → Freighter. There's very little room for any additional ships in that progression.
Walter Hart White
Heisenberg Minings
#1206 - 2014-05-19 15:42:43 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

Just gtfo.
Valterra Craven
#1207 - 2014-05-19 15:45:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Valterra Craven
Tippia wrote:
Valterra Craven wrote:
Maybe not your's but it was his.
No, not his either.
You claimed that you ever said anything about orcas in any of your posts. He demonstrated that your claim was wrong.


No, what he did was showed that the word orca existed in my post. What it didn't do was show anything else.

Tippia wrote:
Valterra Craven wrote:
To answer your original question. I don't want a smaller more tankier version of the freighter (which would be the JF) I wanted a smaller less tankier version than a freighter so that a ship would exist in its proper pre-nerfed form so that it could have rigs.
It wasn't really a statement. It was a demonstration that what you're asking for is pretty much already in the game. We have a neat progression of an almost constant doubling of capacity between DST → Orca → JF → Freighter. There's very little room for any additional ships in that progression.


And I would agree with your assessment if nothing were changing. But things change, and with change old things don't hold up anymore.

With the proposed nerfs fozzie suggested, your progression chart doesn't hold up anymore. My point was merely that if we must have change for the sake of it, it would create far less fuss to create a pre-nerfed ship than it would to nerf an existing one to give it false choices.
Dave stark
#1208 - 2014-05-19 15:46:23 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:
What it didn't do was show anything else.

yes it did. read the post.
Valterra Craven
#1209 - 2014-05-19 15:51:07 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Valterra Craven wrote:
What it didn't do was show anything else.

yes it did. read the post.


I did read it.

Your argument was that I was whining about what an orca could and could not do.
My response was that you were wrong and I never mentioned the orca. My point still stands. I never did mention the orca. Someone else brought it up and I corrected them.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#1210 - 2014-05-19 15:52:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Valterra Craven wrote:
No, what he did was showed that the word orca existed in my post. What it didn't do was show anything else.
It showed that you said something about orcas in your posts, thereby proving your claim wrong. You forgot what you had said and made a boo-boo. Just live with it.

Quote:
And I would agree with your assessment if nothing were changing. But things change, and with change old things don't hold up anymore.
They hold up even more now since there's a lot more variation in the ships that fill out any gaps that existed before. In fact, if it weren't for these changes, the DST wouldn't even be on the list since they're so awful at the moment.
Dave stark
#1211 - 2014-05-19 15:52:50 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Valterra Craven wrote:
What it didn't do was show anything else.

yes it did. read the post.


I did read it.

Your argument was that I was whining about what an orca could and could not do.
My response was that you were wrong and I never mentioned the orca. My point still stands. I never did mention the orca. Someone else brought it up and I corrected them.

go and read the posts, you're just embarrassing yourself with how wrong you are.

you said you didn't mention orcas; i quoted the post where you did. you were wrong; it's that simple.
Valterra Craven
#1212 - 2014-05-19 15:56:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Valterra Craven
Tippia wrote:
Valterra Craven wrote:
No, what he did was showed that the word orca existed in my post. What it didn't do was show anything else.
It showed that you said something about orcas in your posts, thereby proving your claim wrong. You forgot what you had said and made a boo-boo. Just live with it.


I won't live with it because he was wrong. I never mentioned nor did I ever whine about anything.


Tippia wrote:
Valterra Craven wrote:
And I would agree with your assessment if nothing were changing. But things change, and with change old things don't hold up anymore.
They hold up even more now since there's a lot more variation in the ships that fill out any gaps that existed before.


While there may be variation there is no functional way to achieve the same stats of the ship you had before. If you chose to buff one to get back to where you were you also nerf your ship in another way even more.
Delhaven
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1213 - 2014-05-19 15:57:00 UTC
Aerissa Nolen wrote:
I've been working on a web tool to help wrap my head around these changes. Fairly limited right now but gets some basic info across. Works in IGB as well, does not require trust.

http://xyjax.com/optimizer_kronos/index.html
Thank you. This has been really useful to try and figure out how to best deal with these... changes.

One upside to this: I'll be able to get my Obelisk up to 1.93 AU/sec, which reduces the worst part of freighting. Sure I lose a third of my cargo capacity, but who moves big volumes of stuff with a freighter anyway?

I can't wait to see what Black Frog will be doing with this. I feel bad for the folks there who will have to come up with the new load limits.
Ice Dealer
Ice Dealer Corporation
#1214 - 2014-05-19 15:57:58 UTC
I wanted to reply to this thread.
Thank you Fozzie for spending time on your weekend responding.

I really feel betrayed with this change.
I first heard "rigs on freighters!" And my reaction was like a lot of other people "no, because you will nerf them down so they NEED rigs to be like they are now. "
That is not giving us choice. That is making us spend more on rigs for no reason other then making them the same as pre nerf.

Here is an idea, your own idea actually from the Transport ship changes. Give them a "bay". Make the bay the same size as they are now, and only let skill change how big the size is. Then give us rigs.

Now rigs are not competing for cargo size, they are an added utility.
Faster? Use a rig. More tank? Use a rig. Use less fuel for a JF? Maybe a rig (I posted a proposal about these rigs) All rigs already have a draw back.

Also, you won't get the dreaded power creep. We won't be able to haul more then we currently do. No need to change re packaged cap ships.

TL; DR: Keep it as simple as you can.

Unless there are more changes you are trying to accomplish. If you are trying to decrease logistical ability, please state that.
Valterra Craven
#1215 - 2014-05-19 15:58:24 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Valterra Craven wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Valterra Craven wrote:
What it didn't do was show anything else.

yes it did. read the post.


I did read it.

Your argument was that I was whining about what an orca could and could not do.
My response was that you were wrong and I never mentioned the orca. My point still stands. I never did mention the orca. Someone else brought it up and I corrected them.

go and read the posts, you're just embarrassing yourself with how wrong you are.

you said you didn't mention orcas; i quoted the post where you did. you were wrong; it's that simple.


And I didn't mention orcas.

Here I will make this simple

These were the people that mentioned orcas:
I Love Boobies
Azami Nevinyrall
Tippia

I responded to their mentionings. That is not the same as what you are accusing me.
Dave stark
#1216 - 2014-05-19 15:59:16 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:
And I didn't mention orcas.

yes, you did. as per the quote i've linked, several times.
Valterra Craven
#1217 - 2014-05-19 16:00:30 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Valterra Craven wrote:
And I didn't mention orcas.

yes, you did. as per the quote i've linked, several times.


You can say this all you want, but it doesn't make it anymore true.
Dave stark
#1218 - 2014-05-19 16:02:10 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Valterra Craven wrote:
And I didn't mention orcas.

yes, you did. as per the quote i've linked, several times.


You can say this all you want, but it doesn't make it anymore true.

no, the fact that you said it, and i subsequently quoted it, proves it to be true.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#1219 - 2014-05-19 16:03:14 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:
You can say this all you want, but it doesn't make it anymore true.
That's true enough. It can't really be more true than true, which it is, as demonstrated by the post where you mention them.

Now, if you want to claim that you didn't mention Orcas, can you explain what you were doing when you mentioned orcas in the post in question?
Valterra Craven
#1220 - 2014-05-19 16:03:46 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Valterra Craven wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Valterra Craven wrote:
And I didn't mention orcas.

yes, you did. as per the quote i've linked, several times.


You can say this all you want, but it doesn't make it anymore true.

no, the fact that you said it, and i subsequently quoted it, proves it to be true.


Well had the fact that I said it actually occurred. it would have proved it. But because it didn't happen, its not true.