These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#1341 - 2014-05-19 21:15:12 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.



This is noble goals, but what do freighters in High sec have to do with that?

As for the 00 sec and Low sec part, I completely understand and support that kind of development. 00 sec is just as stagnant because players are lazy and feel way to entitled to an easy life, especially in Sov 00. This easy mode should stop.

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.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#1342 - 2014-05-19 21:18:33 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:
See the words you stated in literally the same post: "in other words, it's viable".
See how they don't include the strawman bit you added?

Quote:
Is hull tanking viable for one ship, or all ships?
Mu.

Quote:
So I'm trolling when I say I think your idea is bad and try to offer reasons why.
Since you offer no reasons why, yes.

I'll ask again. Last chance this time — any further evasions or general failure to respond will be interpreted as you trolling; as their not being imbalanced; and as their being no appreciable effect on balance from giving them zero fitting requirements as far as you can tell.

Here goes: 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?
Platinum Playa
Black Hole Weaponry
#1343 - 2014-05-19 21:19:15 UTC
"Game Balance" and "Choices" would mean that you could put a certain configuration of rigs and get a ship with the same stats as the previous stats. This would then allow people to sacrifice some stat to gain some other stat by swapping out the "standard config of rigs". Anything else is a nerf! So, unless they change the numbers to match this strategy, lets just call a spade a spade and accept this as what it is... a huge nerf to the hauling industry!

There is no argument that anyone can make to define this any other way that is not just a euphemism for nerf. Its obvious that they wish to drastically increase the cost of transportation in order to put economic pressure to use their new industrial changes and produce locally, use only jump freighters of the race for the fuel in your operating area, and isolate from economic interaction areas of space (except where HUGE price differentials put counter economic pressure).

Many people who say prices will not change and "I will still undercut all" are the ones without good spreadsheets and are not taking into account all the expenses and time. These are the stupid industrialists who waste all their game time to make squat/hour.
Valterra Craven
#1344 - 2014-05-19 21:23:49 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


I have looked at the charts... and I still think this is an across the board nerf.

You are given the option to fit more EHP at the cost of cargohold.
Right, so I gain around 40% HP to loose 50% cargo and at best it costs half of the value of the ship to do so. Nerf
I also

- You are given the option to fit more cargohold at the cost of a small amount EHP
Right, so I gain around 10% more cargo to loose 10% HP and at best it costs half of the value of the ship to do so. Nerf

Any of the rest of your examples suffer the same problem. Little gain for massive cost.
Wulfy Johnson
NorCorp Security
#1345 - 2014-05-19 21:24:56 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
B Plague wrote:
and seeing as high sec suicide ganks are already super common


Highsec suicide ganks on freighters are exceedingly rare.


oh, they will return soon tm. war is over, people gets bored, hisec gets it.. circle of live..
Jattila Vrek
Green Visstick High
#1346 - 2014-05-19 21:28:23 UTC
I'm not unhappy with this. I was unhappy with the warp changes, now I can undo that at the cost of some EHP and a third of my cargo space. And some isk.
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#1347 - 2014-05-19 21:33:15 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
B Plague wrote:
and seeing as high sec suicide ganks are already super common


Highsec suicide ganks on freighters are exceedingly rare.


Can't remember when I laughed as hard the last time.

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.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#1348 - 2014-05-19 21:37:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Rivr Luzade wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Highsec suicide ganks on freighters are exceedingly rare.

Can't remember when I laughed as hard the last time.

5–15 kills per day, many of which aren't even suicide ganks since they happen outside of highsec and/or during wardecs? Yeah, that's laughably rare.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#1349 - 2014-05-19 21:39:52 UTC
Rivr Luzade wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
B Plague wrote:
and seeing as high sec suicide ganks are already super common


Highsec suicide ganks on freighters are exceedingly rare.


Can't remember when I laughed as hard the last time.
This link is meant to prove what exactly?

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#1350 - 2014-05-19 21:46:28 UTC
Mag's wrote:
Rivr Luzade wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
B Plague wrote:
and seeing as high sec suicide ganks are already super common


Highsec suicide ganks on freighters are exceedingly rare.


Can't remember when I laughed as hard the last time.
This link is meant to prove what exactly?


That freighter ganks in High sec are not "exceedingly rare". Roll

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.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#1351 - 2014-05-19 21:49:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Mag's
Rivr Luzade wrote:
Mag's wrote:
Rivr Luzade wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
B Plague wrote:
and seeing as high sec suicide ganks are already super common


Highsec suicide ganks on freighters are exceedingly rare.


Can't remember when I laughed as hard the last time.
This link is meant to prove what exactly?


That freighter ganks in High sec are not "exceedingly rare". Roll
Oh. So as it didn't, why post it?

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Valterra Craven
#1352 - 2014-05-19 21:50:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Valterra Craven
Tippia wrote:
.See how they don't include the strawman bit you added?


You mean how they exactly include evasion and confusion and state that hull tanking is viable because its viable on just one ship?

Tippia wrote:
Mu.


Figures you can't answer a simple question.

Tippia wrote:
Since you offer no reasons why, yes.


You mean I didn't offer reasons that you agreed with. The balancing convention to date is that mods that modify attributes that modify your HP in any way have fitting requirements. This is true for plates and this is true for extenders and it should be true for bulkheads. Balancing bulkheads just so they could fit your one off idea is bad because as stated the hole field of hull tanking should be balanced for all ships to make them viable(and this is something that's been asked for ad nausem just as much as rigs for freighters has)

Tippia wrote:

I'll ask again. Last chance this time — any further evasions or general failure to respond will be interpreted as you trolling; as their not being imbalanced; and as their being no appreciable effect on balance from giving them zero fitting requirements as far as you can tell.

Here goes: 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?


Right, I'm the one evading when you provide nonsensical answers like this: "Mu".
As to your opinion on what my posts are or not is irrelevant.

Its not bad to balance around ships that use a given module. Its bad to balance around ships that use a given module when the module should be just as viable on other ships in the game. Because they are tanking mods and tanking mods require fitting tradeoffs. You shouldn't get something for nothing.
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#1353 - 2014-05-19 21:51:52 UTC
Mag's wrote:
Rivr Luzade wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
B Plague wrote:
and seeing as high sec suicide ganks are already super common


Highsec suicide ganks on freighters are exceedingly rare.


Can't remember when I laughed as hard the last time.
This link is meant to prove what exactly?


I believe it's meant to prove that freighters are entirely safe in 0.7 sec and higher.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#1354 - 2014-05-19 21:52:33 UTC
Rivr Luzade wrote:
That freighter ganks in High sec are not "exceedingly rare". Roll

If the number of them killed on an average day can be counted on the fingers of one hand, that qualifies pretty well as rare to an extreme degree. Come back when you're at least well into the double digits. Lol
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#1355 - 2014-05-19 21:53:00 UTC
Mag's wrote:
Oh. So as it didn't, why post it?


We seem to have different standards on the word "exceedingly". I for one rather follow the dictionary's definition in this case. Blink

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.
Enthes goldhart
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1356 - 2014-05-19 21:53:14 UTC
I like the changes!

But it would be nice to have a low slot.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#1357 - 2014-05-19 21:53:34 UTC
Gypsio III wrote:
Mag's wrote:
Rivr Luzade wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
B Plague wrote:
and seeing as high sec suicide ganks are already super common


Highsec suicide ganks on freighters are exceedingly rare.


Can't remember when I laughed as hard the last time.
This link is meant to prove what exactly?


I believe it's meant to prove that freighters are entirely safe in 0.7 sec and higher.
That may be it and he was a little confused.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#1358 - 2014-05-19 21:56:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Mag's
Rivr Luzade wrote:
Mag's wrote:
Oh. So as it didn't, why post it?


We seem to have different standards on the word "exceedingly". I for one rather follow the dictionary's definition in this case. Blink
Standards against what definition exactly? Do you have knowledge on the amount of suicide ganks of freighters, compared with the amount of freighters runs per day? (In high sec and outside of war decs of course.)

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#1359 - 2014-05-19 21:58:17 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Rivr Luzade wrote:
That freighter ganks in High sec are not "exceedingly rare". Roll

If the number of them killed on an average day can be counted on the fingers of one hand, that qualifies pretty well as rare to an extreme degree. Come back when you're at least well into the double digits. Lol


I am back. :>

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.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#1360 - 2014-05-19 22:01:00 UTC
Rivr Luzade wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Rivr Luzade wrote:
That freighter ganks in High sec are not "exceedingly rare". Roll

If the number of them killed on an average day can be counted on the fingers of one hand, that qualifies pretty well as rare to an extreme degree. Come back when you're at least well into the double digits. Lol


I am back. :>
With yet another link that doesn't help your cause. You are a strange fellow.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.