These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
MaraudR73
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1301 - 2014-05-19 19:03:45 UTC  |  Edited by: MaraudR73
Sipphakta en Gravonere wrote:
MaraudR73 wrote:
I will have to pay 1.5 Billion for T2 rigs to get the same cargohold on my Rhea and then I still get the align-time nerf!


Once the market settles and there is actual demand for t2 cargo rigs, the prices will be much much lower. Currently almost nobody builds them because they moved very slowly (if they sold at all) before this change was announced.



Even if they get cheaper, I still have to PAY for rigs on a ship that will still be worse AFTER you put those rigs on.
S'No Flake
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#1302 - 2014-05-19 19:10:35 UTC
MaraudR73 wrote:
Sipphakta en Gravonere wrote:
MaraudR73 wrote:
I will have to pay 1.5 Billion for T2 rigs to get the same cargohold on my Rhea and then I still get the align-time nerf!


Once the market settles and there is actual demand for t2 cargo rigs, the prices will be much much lower. Currently almost nobody builds them because they moved very slowly (if they sold at all) before this change was announced.



Even if they get cheaper, I still have to PAY for rigs on a ship that will still be worse AFTER you put those rigs on.


It's called nerf :)
And it won't be the only ship that was nerfed in EVE...
Marc Rene
Doomheim
#1303 - 2014-05-19 19:20:34 UTC
When rigs for freighters were first announced I thought great finally a way to customize my ship somewhat, but to be honest what I am seeing makes me wonder why you are even bothering? Save yourself the work as what you are proposing currently seems counter productive.

I can understand the changes to jump freighters to a certain extent, as this is an attempt to force people to source locally and reduce the airmiles on goods in nulsec somewhat, but given the size and revenues of the old boys club this is a flawed approach as ultimately you are attempting to balance on cost, which won't hurt the incumbents so much as just build the barrier for entry for new players even higher.

I can't understand why you are removing tank from standard freighters, they are laughably easy to gank currently and if anything the pendulum has swung too far that way - when I first heard about rig slots on freighters I thought great CCP are finally giving haulers a chance to defend themselves, instead you are forcing people to spend out on capital rigs to get their tank back to what it was.

Reducing the cargo capacity seems a bit pointless, you already countered packaged capitals entering Hi by increasing their size - and it is going to make it an even bigger pain when you want to move base of operation (as the push/pull industry changes in Kronos are meant to drive you to do). You can't transport many rigged ships via courier contract in a freighter as it is now - you run out of space before you get near the current 1bn gank bait limit.
S1euth
Perkone
Caldari State
#1304 - 2014-05-19 19:22:11 UTC  |  Edited by: S1euth
Does anyone actually find internet spaceship truck driving fun in this game? Why nerf something to ensure more time is spent doing something that is not enjoyable?!

This is an opportunity to make the game more fun.
Ranamar
Nobody in Local
Of Sound Mind
#1305 - 2014-05-19 19:25:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Ranamar
Steve Ronuken wrote:
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
I'm sorry, but it is insane to balance agility, speed, capacity, and tank around such a powerful module.


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.


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'


Not a perfect solution, but...
Keep the 1CPU/1PG, which locks almost everything out, while adding low slots. (This keeps DCII and most other modules off.)
Possibly add a -100% fitting role bonus for bulkheads, if we want bulkheads to be fittable. Do the same for WCS if we want WCS fittable, but that seems like a trap option to me.

I can't guarantee a full list, but I think slots but no fittings leaves:
Inertia Stabilizer
Nanofiber Internal Structure
Expanded Cargohold
Overdrive
a single adaptive nano plating (and then you're out of grid...)
I guess you can fit a single co-processor to increase your 1 CPU by 10%. Lol

Am I missing anything?

WCS, armor layering, and bulkheads all require some CPU. The one unfortunate lack here is the inability to improve the freighters' warp speed.
Buzz Dura
S0utherN Comfort
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#1306 - 2014-05-19 19:27:44 UTC
Drezen Tor wrote:
Buzz Dura wrote:
I did not find enough out of the box suggestion, here some :


add a med slot
keep the only 1cpu/1PG

role bonus :
Autopilot warp at zero
Can fit Target Spectrum Breaker
-100% requirement to Target Spectrum Breaker


And get CONCORDed in high sec? Yeah, that sounds like a great change...


that is something that can be changed too !
Gavin Dax
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1307 - 2014-05-19 19:31:28 UTC
Don't like these changes at all.

Modules are much better suited to this because rigs can only be removed if they are destroyed. Optimal rigs for the freighter will change for each trip the freighter makes depending on cargo/destination. So really, these don't allow any useful customization at all. You get intel that there are some potential gankers in your path? Ok refit to hull rigs! Oh wait... that will cost you 600 mil.

Everyone knows 90% of freighters will just use the cargo rigs, so this is not a very useful change.

IMO, at the very least freighters should not be allowed to fit cargo rigs. Keep the cargoholds the same as before. Jump fuel/range rigs are also a better idea IMO for the jump freighters.

I also thought one of the goals of freighter changes would be to do something to increase the variability and risk/reward involved in HS ganking (so it's not as simple as "what's the EHP? ok we need x many nados/catalysts to guarantee the kill"). But I guess that wasn't considered as part of these changes?
Valterra Craven
#1308 - 2014-05-19 19:31:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Valterra Craven
Tippia wrote:
Valterra Craven wrote:
But you aren't arguing to make the hull buffer module more viable. Removing the fitting requirements from the model wasn't the imbalanced aspect of them anyway
Then we're back to: how so?
How are they imbalanced?


I don't understand why you are being intentionally dense.

You said that no one fits hull tanking mods because they aren't viable... so if you believe they aren't viable, then please say why. When you do so I will tell you why they aren't balanced. It has nothing to do with fitting.


Tippia wrote:
Valterra Craven wrote:
doing so would only make them fittable in this one off case in which devs have already stated they don't like doing.
Which case would that be?


Let me rephrase, changing the fitting requirements to what you are proposing would not improve their viability on any other ship while only benefiting the freighter case if you were to give it low slots and keep the CPU the same.
Batolemaeus
Mahlstrom
Northern Associates.
#1309 - 2014-05-19 19:37:49 UTC
Marc Rene wrote:

I can understand the changes to jump freighters to a certain extent, as this is an attempt to force people to source locally


Local production without local resources. You are a funny guy.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#1310 - 2014-05-19 19:40:13 UTC
S1euth wrote:
Does anyone actually find internet spaceship truck driving fun in this game? Why nerf something to ensure more time is spent doing something that is not enjoyable?!

This is an opportunity to make the game more fun.


I would be very interested in hearing how you propose to make hauling "more fun".

Do elaborate on that.

"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.

ISD Dorrim Barstorlode
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
#1311 - 2014-05-19 19:40:59 UTC
Removed some off topic posts.

ISD Dorrim Barstorlode

Senior Lead

Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Interstellar Services Department

Domanique Altares
Rifterlings
#1312 - 2014-05-19 19:49:18 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
S1euth wrote:
Does anyone actually find internet spaceship truck driving fun in this game? Why nerf something to ensure more time is spent doing something that is not enjoyable?!

This is an opportunity to make the game more fun.


I would be very interested in hearing how you propose to make hauling "more fun".

Do elaborate on that.


http://i.imgur.com/V7KpPiK.jpg
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#1313 - 2014-05-19 19:57:59 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:
You said that no one fits hull tanking mods because they aren't viable.
No. I said that you only very rarely fit them because hull tanking isn't a proper tanking style outside of Orcas and (now) freighters. As such, giving them no fitting requirements won't affect any other ships, which is a good thing since the point would be to give freighters, specifically, a tanking option that freed them from the problems of damage controls under the proposed scheme.

Quote:
When you do so I will tell you why they aren't balanced.
So you can't say why they're imbalanced.

Quote:
Let me rephrase, changing the fitting requirements to what you are proposing would not improve their viability on any other ship while only benefiting the freighter case if you were to give it low slots and keep the CPU the same.
And?
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
#1314 - 2014-05-19 20:02:53 UTC
Removed a ranting post.

ISD Dorrim Barstorlode

Senior Lead

Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Interstellar Services Department

Dave Stark
#1315 - 2014-05-19 20:02:57 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
S1euth wrote:
Does anyone actually find internet spaceship truck driving fun in this game? Why nerf something to ensure more time is spent doing something that is not enjoyable?!

This is an opportunity to make the game more fun.


I would be very interested in hearing how you propose to make hauling "more fun".

Do elaborate on that.


i propose the same idea suggested for everything else; shoehorn an irrelevant and terrible minigame in to it.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#1316 - 2014-05-19 20:04:00 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
S1euth wrote:
Does anyone actually find internet spaceship truck driving fun in this game? Why nerf something to ensure more time is spent doing something that is not enjoyable?!

This is an opportunity to make the game more fun.


I would be very interested in hearing how you propose to make hauling "more fun".

Do elaborate on that.


i propose the same idea suggested for everything else; shoehorn an irrelevant and terrible minigame in to it.


Since it has to do with cargo, I suggest a Tetris ripoff game.

"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.

Dave Stark
#1317 - 2014-05-19 20:04:35 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
S1euth wrote:
Does anyone actually find internet spaceship truck driving fun in this game? Why nerf something to ensure more time is spent doing something that is not enjoyable?!

This is an opportunity to make the game more fun.


I would be very interested in hearing how you propose to make hauling "more fun".

Do elaborate on that.


i propose the same idea suggested for everything else; shoehorn an irrelevant and terrible minigame in to it.


Since it has to do with cargo, I suggest a Tetris ripoff game.

i'm more a minesweeper kind of guy, personally.
Valterra Craven
#1318 - 2014-05-19 20:08:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Valterra Craven
Tippia wrote:


Also, because no-one seriously fits hull when armour or shield is an option, and armour and shield is what really separates the races so it doesn't particularly affect most ships. It's not really the fitting restrictions that keep people from fitting hull tanks, but the sheer lunacy of hull tanking. Well, with one exception: Orcas. And post-patch freighters.



I've bolded the important part of your words. Why is hull tanking sheer lunacy?

Tippia wrote:
No. I said that you only very rarely fit them because hull tanking isn't a proper tanking style outside of Orcas and (now) freighters. As such, giving them no fitting requirements won't affect any other ships, which is a good thing since the point would be to give freighters, specifically, a tanking option that freed them from the problems of damage controls under the proposed scheme.


Saying something is lunacy and saying something isn't a proper tanking style are not the same thing. The first has connotations that the idea isn't viable, while the other has connotations that it could be viable but is not optimal.

So I will ask again, why is hull tanking not viable/lunacy?

Tippia wrote:
Quote:
Let me rephrase, changing the fitting requirements to what you are proposing would not improve their viability on any other ship while only benefiting the freighter case if you were to give it low slots and keep the CPU the same.
And?


And balancing mods around one use case when they could be used on numerous ships is bad balancing.
Sniper Smith
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#1319 - 2014-05-19 20:15:34 UTC
Hull Tanking isn't viable, except on the Rorq and Orca, because you can't add resists beyond a DCUII and can't efficiently rep (even the best Hull rep is a joke compared to Armor or Shield).

It used to be an option, back when you COULD add hull resists and such, but isn't anymore. It's a joke, people that do it, do it for novelty, cause in every case outside the Orca and Rorq, tanking Armor or Shield would yield better results.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#1320 - 2014-05-19 20:16:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Valterra Craven wrote:
I've bolded the important part of your words. Why is hull tanking sheer lunacy?
Because of the low EHP and non-existing rep rates you get out of it compared to the intended tanking style of the ship.

Quote:
So I will ask again, why is hull tanking not viable/lunacey?
It's entirely viable. You're just confusing two completely unrelated words.

Quote:
And balancing mods around one use case when they are used on numerous ships is bad balancing.
What other ships are those? How is it bad balancing to balance around the ships that use a given module? And how are bulkheads imbalanced? How would making them take up no fitting space make them more imbalanced? You're not making any sense here.