Player Features and Ideas Discussion

In my opinion this seems like to much of a nerf to everything.

I'm not sure I understand why the need for EHP, align time and cargo needing to be reduced. It does make sense to me to reduce cargo so that with the addition of rigs they don't balloon out of proportion. But I've never really thought they needed slower align time or less EHP. Actually I've often thought the opposite.

I support Mynna's idea of lowslots instead of rigs.

I would also support lowslots and rigs. Would require adjustment to cargo. But I don't think there is a strong need to reduce align time or EHP.

I believe lowslots or lowslots and rigs is a much better option that the current plan do to not being a large isk burden on the up and coming professional hauler. Where a decent size group or null sec bloc can fit out a JF with an extra billion worth of rigs or have 3 different rigged freighters that is much harder for the first time freighter pilot.



Though if I personally was going to rebalance Freighters and make them more interesting. I would give them 2 highslots, one turret or launcher. 6 slots in the mids and lows, and about half the CPU and grid of a dread. I would also move away from having most of their EHP in Hull and give them more racial flavored tanks. With a boost to EHP of 10-25% when fit for full tank from now. If this needed to be delay the release of the change I would be ok with this.

Nope. It is, in fact, the only sensible answer to your false dichotomy.

Nope. How are bulkheads imbalanced? How would making them take up no fitting space make them more imbalanced?

So the answer to the post is not "Mu". The answer to the post is "these are not the only two options, here are some other examples."

That's how to not be an evasive non nonsensical troll.

That is not what you wrote.

Hull tanking is not viable for just one ship, nor is it viable for all ships.

The possibility of it being somewhere in between those two extremes seems to have escaped you.

Oh, and I see Rivr Luzade has no idea what the difference is between a suicide gank and any time a freighter dies, ever.

You should really look up on it. And if in fact you are not that shockingly ignorant, then that's a pretty poor attempt at trolling even for you.

I don't own any trolls, be they of an “a” type or otherwise.


“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.”

Nothing about how they are imbalanced. Nothing about how giving them fitting space would make them more imbalanced. So “exactly this” is referring to something completely different than I'm asking for.

What I'm asking is: how are bulkheads imbalanced? How would making them take up no fitting space make them more imbalanced?

Where did he say anything of the kind?

In which case, like I said, you are really bad at false dichotomies.

I know it is now hopefully obvious, but this change is so bad that I have to add to the numerous posts here.

This change is badly thought out - nerfing several attributes because you can now get rigs to improve 1 or 2 of them is not sensible - EHP and agility nerfs are just not needed - even if some rigs can improve them. From a game point of view is even nerfing cargo space could be argued is not that much of an issue - there is the gank attraction penalty of having too much cargo

this change is poorly communicated - to use this method to say this change is part of balancing when it has the potential to completely change the way people play the game, seems to show either a lack of understanding of the way the game is played or a care factor of zero (or less)

Maybe they should get a single high slot for a Covert Ops cloak.

Not particularly if it's in response to just more ad hominem fallacies.

It's entirely in line with the other hull upgrades. vOv
But yes, you're right. Their benefits should be vastly higher for the kind of fitting cost they have — the low bonus they provide doesn't make much sense with that kind of CPU requirement.

Yeah, see… the entire mistake you're making here is that you think that balance involves behaving like other modules. What other modules do is irrelevant. What you have to ask is what the effects are on a ship for fitting this module and how it stacks up to other options available.

As it happens, the percentage-based bonus from bulkheads is generally a smaller increase than the fixed amount added by shield and armour buffers, unless we're talking about a ship where those tanking types are not particularly effective. The percentage-based bonus also gets around the problem of having different-sized moduels and having to balance them against all kinds of ships you can fit them to. It's a niche module for a niche usage on a niche selection of ships, and the fitting cost is entirely reasonable for the bonus it provides.

It's a few percentages more hull EHP, compared to the massive increase you'd get from, say, a suitcase. So to balance the module, the 40tf increase needs to be slashed by a massive amount to compare favourably to the 25tf of a DCI or 30tf of a DCII.

Just one problem: they're not imbalanced. They are, in fact, very low-performing for their cost. A DCII gives 10× as much for ¾ the cost, so a balanced fitting cost of a T2 bulkhead would be somewhere around 3 tf. We might as well round that down to 0. So, in fact, giving them no fitting reqs would make them more balanced than they currently are — that way, they can be used as slot-wasteful but more granular versions of DCUs, and would allow for a 0/0-capability slotbased freighter solution that still had a sane tanking option.

Furthermore, since they offer so little advantage to most ships (again, some niches exist for a few other ships), using it as essentially a filler module for any left-over lowslots you might have just gives it a bit more usage, and a bit more choice for the ships, which is always nice.