These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Batolemaeus
Mahlstrom
Northern Associates.
#1321 - 2014-05-19 20:17:31 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.


You make hauling more fun by making it take less time. This is a zero sum game. Less time spent hauling is more time spent actually having fun in the game.


How about supplying a small roaming gang worth of people shouldn't take up my entire evening so that I can't even fly with them.

A quick jita supply run takes me about 4 hours in total. This nerf makes it take even longer. Supplying people has taken over so much of my play time that I've long burnt out and I haven't found much willpower to still fleet up. One thing will have to go. Judging by the atrocious attrition rate for logistics people, most people just quit entirely...

Logistics needs a boost. It should be easier to supply people. I don't care what has to be changed to do this, but giving line members in 0.0 the ability to source resources locally would be a nice step. Local productions jobs are much easier to go through if I could just set and forget buyorders for everything I need. I can stomach regular redeployments, but the current state of the empire umbilical cord is terrible.
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#1322 - 2014-05-19 20:22:39 UTC
Batolemaeus 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.


You make hauling more fun by making it take less time. This is a zero sum game. Less time spent hauling is more time spent actually having fun in the game.


this is true.

missions also take too long and are boring. let me run missions faster but make the same amount of money per mission. what could go wrong.

Mining too falls into this scenario. increase my yield and lower cycle rate. i is good a economics :3

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
Valterra Craven
#1323 - 2014-05-19 20:27:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Valterra Craven
Tippia wrote:
Because of the low EHP and non-existing rep rates you get out of it compared to the intended tanking style of the ship.

It's entirely viable.


Hull tanking is not viable on any ship currently with two exceptions as stated above. And the ONLY reason its viable on those two ships is because they have massive Hull HP with meager shield and armor HP. If those two ships had been balanced properly when they first came out, they would be balanced around capital ship armor or shield tanks since that's what those two ships are. Its been awhile since those ships were released, but given CCP's history I don't think that those two ships being the only one in game that can fit viable hull tanks was done intentionally. If it was, that, much like these changes were a bad idea.

Tippia wrote:
Valterra wrote:
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.


Well, according to this statement: "It's entirely viable." You yourself made the argument that Hull tanking was viable for all other ships. So if that's the case, then balancing around the freighter is a bad way to balance. So which is it? Is hull tanking viable on all ships? I'm not the one thats making no sense here.
NickSuccorso
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
#1324 - 2014-05-19 20:30:39 UTC
CCP Fozzie, this change is a great start!

Every freighter pilot here needs to understand that this "re-balance" isn't intended to help freighters in their current role. It is clearly intended to reverse the damage that freighters and jump freighters have done to Eve game play.

Eve needs local production, regional economies, and a reason for people to move into low-sec.

Eve was so much more fun before the introduction of jump bridges and jump freighters. People had to mine and build things locally. That meant there were players in the asteroid belts, hauling things through gates, out in space!

The only major problem with this change is that it isn't enough. CCP Fozzie, it is very important that jump bridges be dealt with as well during this re-balance.

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#1325 - 2014-05-19 20:32:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Valterra Craven wrote:
Hull tanking is not viable on any ship currently with two exceptions as stated above.
In other words, it's viable. Oh, and it's only one proper exception has been mentioned — the Rorqual is better off shield tanking.

Quote:
If those two ships had been balanced properly when they first came out, they would be balanced around capital ship armor or shield tanks since that's what those two ships are.
No, one is a capital and is balanced around capital shield tanking; the other is a hybrid and (somewhat) balanced around hull tanking if you want to push the envelope; regular shield tanking if you want to use it as a large-capacity hauler — being a ship that is allowed in highsec, it can't even begin to have anything to do with capital-scale tanking.

Quote:
You yourself made the argument that Hull tanking was viable for all other ships.
Nope. That's just some nonsensical strawman you've made up.

You also keep failing to answer the question: 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?

Or are you just trolling again?
Batolemaeus
Mahlstrom
Northern Associates.
#1326 - 2014-05-19 20:38:54 UTC
Daichi Yamato wrote:
this is true.

missions also take too long and are boring. let me run missions faster but make the same amount of money per mission. what could go wrong.

Mining too falls into this scenario. increase my yield and lower cycle rate. i is good a economics :3


These are not equivalent.
Batolemaeus
Mahlstrom
Northern Associates.
#1327 - 2014-05-19 20:44:50 UTC
NickSuccorso wrote:

Eve was so much more fun before the introduction of jump bridges and jump freighters. People had to mine and build things locally. That meant there were players in the asteroid belts, hauling things through gates, out in space!


It wasn't.

Freighter convoys were such a crappy experience that people rushed to get their cargorevs in place. I lost so many hours to that boring tripe, and I don't want it back ever again. As soon as titan bridges were in game, people rushed to get them to ease logistics and reduce attrition rates on their people.

Also, this isn't 2006 anymore. The standard to be competitive is t2, because CCP made t2 that much more powerful than t1. That means you either have t2 or you perish. Pandora's Box has been opened many years ago, you aren't going to reverse it now. T2 means importing. Always. If you don't, you die.
Jack Earthfire
Everse Defense Initiative
#1328 - 2014-05-19 20:49:06 UTC
NickSuccorso wrote:
CCP Fozzie, this change is a great start!

Every freighter pilot here needs to understand that this "re-balance" isn't intended to help freighters in their current role. It is clearly intended to reverse the damage that freighters and jump freighters have done to Eve game play.

Eve needs local production, regional economies, and a reason for people to move into low-sec.

Eve was so much more fun before the introduction of jump bridges and jump freighters. People had to mine and build things locally. That meant there were players in the asteroid belts, hauling things through gates, out in space!

The only major problem with this change is that it isn't enough. CCP Fozzie, it is very important that jump bridges be dealt with as well during this re-balance.



Three Thumbs up!.. have only two, but who cares: Three Thumbs up! Big smile
Axe Coldon
#1329 - 2014-05-19 20:51:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Axe Coldon
NickSuccorso wrote:
CCP Fozzie, this change is a great start!

Every freighter pilot here needs to understand that this "re-balance" isn't intended to help freighters in their current role. It is clearly intended to reverse the damage that freighters and jump freighters have done to Eve game play.

Eve needs local production, regional economies, and a reason for people to move into low-sec.

Eve was so much more fun before the introduction of jump bridges and jump freighters. People had to mine and build things locally. That meant there were players in the asteroid belts, hauling things through gates, out in space!

The only major problem with this change is that it isn't enough. CCP Fozzie, it is very important that jump bridges be dealt with as well during this re-balance.



Gee I hope you are being sarcastic.

Unless they remove Jump Freighters stuff will still go back and forth.

The problem with trying to explain industry in null is it is not within the confines of a forum. It would be long and bore everyone. And anyways this is supposed to be a sandbox. We import because we want too. Plain and simple.

After the industry changes (compression and such) I do plan to make as much as i can in null and only send the excess to high. But there will be excesses to send. And they will go with or without the nerf. Main reason is the higher refine rate in null. That alone will encourage us to make as much as we can out there. And its possible to establish a regional hub within coalitions. Well that is and has been true for a long time.

Oddly enough..I import because why send the jf back empty. Null has more rare ore then high. well High has none. ha. So you export and import goods you do not want to make yourself on the return trip. So as long as goods move to high..goods will move back to null. and anyways ccp has said they like that. They purposely make it so not everything is in one location.

Forcing actions hurts the little guys more. I think the future is the little guy. The cool thing about eve is who will be the next super power? (not me, I don't care) IF we make it hard on the little guys then its harder for them to rise to power.

Honestly I think we are just repeating ourselves over and over. Now we just have to see if CCP will tweak the changes or leave as is or delay or what.

No trees were killed in the sending of this message. However, a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.
Cor'len
Doomheim
#1330 - 2014-05-19 20:55:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Cor'len
Dearest CCP,

Please stop f*cking up this game. Is it completely utterly out of the realm of possibility for you to actually do something nice for players, for once? Like making logistics less annoying?


Obviously not, because you keep doing these things.



Here's a heartfelt wish from my heap of alts to all you game designers (nerf artists): Go home. Get some sleep. Find a different line of work - I suppose demolition work might suit you, because it's all about breaking down things, and sometimes even breaking down the hopes and dreams of other people?

Just don't f*ck up the game any more than it already is. Thanks!


-Cor
Markus45
Doomheim
#1331 - 2014-05-19 20:56:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Markus45
How is this a nerf exactly?

Freighters:
- You are given the option to fit more EHP at the cost of cargohold
- You are given the option to fit more cargohold at the cost of a small amount EHP
- You are given more shield/armor thereby increasing the viability of RR support

Jump Freighters:
- You are given the option to fit more EHP, to the point of having absurd EHP, at the cost of cargohold
- You are given the option to fit more cargohold at the cost of a small amount of EHP
- You are given substantially more shield/armor and T2 resists thereby making RR support very viable.

Nerf? What?

Look at the charts
http://themittani.com/news/proposed-freighter-and-jump-freighter-changes-kronos

Children's books in my day. Children's books today.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#1332 - 2014-05-19 20:58:27 UTC
Markus45 wrote:
How is this a nerf exactly?

Freighters:
- You are given the option to fit more EHP at the cost of cargohold
- You are given the option to fit more cargohold at the cost of a small amount EHP
- You are given more shield/armor thereby increasing the viability of RR support

Jump Freighters:
- You are given the option to fit more EHP, to the point of having absurd EHP, at the cost of cargohold
- You are given the option to fit more cargohold at the cost of a small amount of EHP
- You are given substantially more shield/armor and T2 resists thereby making RR support very viable.

Nerf? What?

Look at the charts
http://themittani.com/news/proposed-freighter-and-jump-freighter-changes-kronos


Not getting an across the board buff counts as a nerf now, didn't you know?

"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.
Sniper Smith
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#1333 - 2014-05-19 21:01:16 UTC
Markus45 wrote:
How is this a nerf exactly?

Freighters:
- You are given the option to fit more EHP at the cost of cargohold
- You are given the option to fit more cargohold at the cost of a small amount EHP
- You are given more shield/armor thereby increasing the viability of RR support

Jump Freighters:
- You are given the option to fit more EHP, to the point of having absurd EHP, at the cost of cargohold
- You are given the option to fit more cargohold at the cost of a small amount of EHP
- You are given substantially more shield/armor and T2 resists thereby making RR support very viable.

Nerf? What?

Look at the charts
http://themittani.com/news/proposed-freighter-and-jump-freighter-changes-kronos

And maybe tomorrow all your PVP ships should require a new mod to keep doing what they are doing, a module which costs as much or more than your ship+fit as it stands now.

If CCP made a chance where each PVP ship needed to fit a mod(s) to stay where it's at, then you'd go postal too.

This isn't like a change to just the Mega or something, this is a change to ALL ships that can do the job.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#1334 - 2014-05-19 21:06:19 UTC
Sniper Smith wrote:
Markus45 wrote:
How is this a nerf exactly?

Freighters:
- You are given the option to fit more EHP at the cost of cargohold
- You are given the option to fit more cargohold at the cost of a small amount EHP
- You are given more shield/armor thereby increasing the viability of RR support

Jump Freighters:
- You are given the option to fit more EHP, to the point of having absurd EHP, at the cost of cargohold
- You are given the option to fit more cargohold at the cost of a small amount of EHP
- You are given substantially more shield/armor and T2 resists thereby making RR support very viable.

Nerf? What?

Look at the charts
http://themittani.com/news/proposed-freighter-and-jump-freighter-changes-kronos

And maybe tomorrow all your PVP ships should require a new mod to keep doing what they are doing, a module which costs as much or more than your ship+fit as it stands now.

If CCP made a chance where each PVP ship needed to fit a mod(s) to stay where it's at, then you'd go postal too.

This isn't like a change to just the Mega or something, this is a change to ALL ships that can do the job.


The difference being that people asked, ad nauseum, for freighters to get rigs.

So quit trying to make this about PvP ships vs. PvE ships. This is about buyer's remorse from fools who thought they could have their cake and eat it too.

"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.
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#1335 - 2014-05-19 21:07:39 UTC
Sniper Smith wrote:

And maybe tomorrow all your PVP ships should require a new mod to keep doing what they are doing, a module which costs as much or more than your ship+fit as it stands now.

If CCP made a chance where each PVP ship needed to fit a mod(s) to stay where it's at, then you'd go postal too.

This isn't like a change to just the Mega or something, this is a change to ALL ships that can do the job.


lol wat? u mean like a hurricane where u have to buy an entire faction ship, not just T2 mods, to get it to do what it used to?

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
Valterra Craven
#1336 - 2014-05-19 21:08:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Valterra Craven
Tippia wrote:
Valterra Craven wrote:
Hull tanking is not viable on any ship currently with two exceptions as stated above.
In other words, it's viable.


Tippia wrote:
Valterra Craven wrote:
You yourself made the argument that Hull tanking was viable for all other ships.
Nope. That's just some nonsensical strawman you've made up.


See the words you stated in literally the same post: "in other words, it's viable". This statement the way phrased means that if hull tanking is viable on a ship in the entire game then its viable period. And if its viable period that applies to all other ships as well.

Just because something works in one case doesn't mean something is generally viable.

So I will ask you point blank:

Is hull tanking viable for one ship, or all ships?

If it is viable for all ships than balancing in the way you are proposing is bad. If its viable for one ship already then adding the freighter case to it and not subsequently balancing around both ships is bad, which is what your suggestion also does.

Tippia wrote:
Or are you just trolling again?


So I'm trolling when I say I think your idea is bad and try to offer reasons why. But you aren't when you try to defend your idea post? I mean I'm fine admitting that defending ones idea is trolling if you are willing to fall under than banner as well.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#1337 - 2014-05-19 21:10:54 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:

So I will ask you point blank:

Is hull tanking viable for one ship, or all ships?


Neither, and you are really bad at false dichotomies.

"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.
B Plague
Remnant of an Empire
#1338 - 2014-05-19 21:11:20 UTC
YES! GREAT IDEA *sarcasm*. Anyone that can afford a freighter should have to drop another bill in rigs to make proper and equivalent use of it; and seeing as high sec suicide ganks are already super common, let us lower its defence to continue the policy of running off industry people! I feel that to balance the subtractions being made, as well as the added cost we have to invest for the rigs, that the base cost needs to be reduced to match. When you wield your nerf bat can't you at least be fair about it?
Sniper Smith
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#1339 - 2014-05-19 21:12:30 UTC
Daichi Yamato wrote:
lol wat? u mean like a hurricane where u have to buy an entire faction ship, not just T2 mods, to get it to do what it used to?

Now if that was more than just one ship, but ALL Cruisers/BS's you'd have a proper analogy. It's not like there are a dozen lines of Freighters and they are only changing one..


Also, I wasn't one of the people asking for the change.. I knew it was gonna be a disaster the moment he said it at Fanfest.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#1340 - 2014-05-19 21:14:19 UTC
B Plague wrote:
and seeing as high sec suicide ganks are already super common


Highsec suicide ganks on freighters are exceedingly rare.

"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.