Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Yes. That's a balance you have to strike in your fitting. I just got the idea from Mynnna's post earlier about what it would look like in numerical terms. The big problem is the DCII and what it does at both ends of the spectrum: on the one hand, how much hull would have to go down to allow them; on the other hand how much stronger that one module makes the ship.

So the idea then becomes: what if we skip over both that massive nerf and the massive swing in results by simply disallowing the module. Afaik, bulkheads and expanders don't cancel each other out completely, so fitting both means you end up with something that's better than baseline, but with a more moderated variance and without the extremes of 60% omni-resists, and you can tailor the end result with a bit more granularity.

Come to think of it, this also makes a three-slot solution more interesting than a two-slot one since you can't fit an equal number of expanders and bulkheads and have to pick one over the other.

The crucial modules for a 0 CPU/0 grid freighter would be: cargo expanders, istabs, concevably nanos (but why fit them over istabs?), and possibly also the warp speed mod mynnna also proposed (in which case it needs class restrictions rather than massive fitting space requirements). Bulkheads need to be on that list too as the only module that offers any kind of tanking without favouring shields or armour and without creating the huge swing in stats that a suitcase does.

The difference is only in who mentioned it first. Being the second still means you mentioned it. You rather have to for your response not to be off topic and nonsensical. Would you prefer that interpretation instead? That you were just spamming irrelevant troll posts?

which is arguably why rig slots were chosen instead of low slots. in order to accommodate the potential use of a DCII the nerf to freighter EHP would have been unpleasant.

Ships can fiitit rigs com say
http://gamersplatform.de/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/2371600-9530080022-13605.gif

ccp say ship rebalance com say
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-RtwUSRfGyzU/TfCmV69zjuI/AAAAAAAAAIY/gF_04e91C9k/s1600/fuck_u_.jpg

A few issues to clarify that I keep seeing repeated, at least in regard to T1 freighters:

• there is no nerf to T1 agility; this was a typo, it has been fixed; T1 agility/mass has not changed
• the nerf to T1 EHP is being drastically over-stated in this thread, at least as it applies to hisec ganking; I believe because people were using rigs that reduced tank to compensate for the T1 agility "nerf" that turned out to be a mistake
• the actual nerf if you want similar EHP/agility as now is a slight nerf to T1 cargo sizes and slightly increased pricing (owing to having to buy rigs)
• the slight nerf to *default* cargo size comes with the buff of added flexibility and specialization options

I'm happy with the change to T1 freighters. Cargo size was the least relevant limitation on hisec freight. You will hit unsafe ISK values LONG before you hit cargo size limitations in 90% of the cases for things you want to haul. I will happily take a small nerf to default cargo sizes in exchange for customization choices.

The indirect price increase (through rigs) is a bit more annoying, but whatever. As pointed out already, the relevant rig prices have a long way to fall once demand increases, so looking at current Jita sell values is not a good way to determine the eventual cost. It will be lower than most seem to expect.

And if you happen to be in a minority hauling bulk, low value items (Trit!) all day every day, go buy a Charon and rig it up for pure cargo and be happy with the BUFF you just got because now you can haul about 20% more and still be under normal ganking values.

Rigs are permanent upgrades, and cannot be easily swapped to fit the situation. I'm alright with simply adding rigs to freighters, I'd prefer the ability to fit modules though. Preventing the use of DCU2's shouldn't be that arduous, and would allow a nice balance spot between the modules already in the game.

Harder than you might think.

Eve has no understanding of 'only these modules' or 'but not that class of ship'

What eve are you playing?

Bastion mods, siege mods, MWJD mods, strip miners.... all have ship restrictions tied them. Would it be a hack to say that this mod could fit on every ship but a freighter? Yes. Would it be hard to do based on current code? Doesn't seem likely.

Well… there is an easy way: give them 0 CPU. That rather ruins the ability to fit a DCU.
I can't think of any modules that increase CPU by a fixed amount the way you can with MAPCs and grid, and any percentage-based ones would just increase 0 by some percentage of 0 (i.e. 0). But maybe there is one and it's just too obscure to ever see the light of day?

That said, could you gently kick some dev and make them investigate what kind of disaster zero-CPU bulkhead modules would cause?

They all have “this class”, not “not that class” restrictions. The difference is pretty significant since turning the former into the latter would entail listing every ship class in the game, and every time you add a new class (or alter an old one) you have to remember to add that to the list.

Why should bulkheads be the exception? Armor Plates have fitting requirements... and thus so should bulkheads.

As long as you are changing the ship stats, why not take a look at the ship skill bonuses, too?

The JF bonuses are good, but the freighter 5% bonus per level to maximum velocity has always been something of a joke.

Perhaps this can be changed to a bonus to agility or a bonus to warp speed?

(Apologies if this has already been suggested in an earlier post)