Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Red Frog Freight have just announced they will lower their cargo limit from 860.000m3 to 715.000m3: https://sites.google.com/site/rffguidelines/rff-service-changes

This s*cks.

Jump freighters are OP. They are OP because of jump/cyno mechanics, not because of tank, agility, cargo, or whatever other attribute you want to haphazardly whack around with the nerf bat.

You want to make it more appealing to do industry in null, and within smaller areas? This isn't the way to do it. Instead, make jumps cost fuel relative to the distance jumped (possibly going up exponentially with distance?), and don't allow cynos to be lit within 1AU of any celestials. Suddenly JFs aren't invulnerable, and we get a nice power projection nerf at the same time. Win-win.

The T1 freighter nerfs are way too harsh. It's basically like this:

CCP: We're all about "player choice", so we're going to take a slightly UP ship class that has no alternatives to its use and nerf the **** out of it. But to make it okay we'll make sure you can get approximately the pre-nerf value in ONE area by using incredibly expensive rigs.

Freighter Pilot: So what you're saying is that you're going to kick me in the balls, and tell me it's okay because now I can buy Aspirin?

CCP: You got it! ^^

FP: So basically a nerf is totally justified so long as one nerfed aspect can be restored with all your rig slots? What a load of bull****!

Carrier Pilot: Something something Nyx...

Interesting. Does that mean they're requiring all of their pilots to spend 80M ISK on a Cargohold Optimization Rig to reach that volume?

I'd have guessed that they'd have dropped it to 500K m3 to accommodate all of the various rigging options.

I don't think you have to be able to haul the max to fly for them. Clearly your choice of contracts will be smaller if you can't though.

Either way that is a 17% increase in the cost of hauling raw materials. That will get passed on in the finished product price to the consumer. Not a huge issue on its own, but in July when we pass on the job install costs that might get "interesting".

I'm curious how many other unintneded consequences will cascade from this?

You mean the one where you accused me of trolling or the one where you accused me of spamming? See the thing is you know that you started this BS in the first place. So I'm not sure how you have the right to argue such points when I've done no such thing but respond to your posts showing the hypocrisy of your words.



Correct, I misunderstood what you were implying. I thought you were trying to that because you don't believe bulkheads are unbalanced that hull tanking is viable and thus were bringing repair mods into the discussion. That aside, I also know that just because a mod rests in a certain spot in the market list doesn't mean that that is how the modules are balanced. The other hull upgrades ARENT tanking modules and are thus not balanced like they are. Bulkheads are a tank module and as such rightly have fitting requirements even though in the current meta their benefit is woefully overpowered to their fitting cost.



I have no idea what you trying to say here. But at least we agree one one thing: Expanders are not tanking modules and bulkheads are.



The problem is that we are arguing at two ends of the spectrum. I'm arguing that hull tanking isn't viable on more than one ship due to the meta. You are arguing that bulkheads aren't overpowered when their benefits are applied to the cap ship class.

So on point: *Sigh* Right, do you really think someone thats been in game since 2005 would actually fit a capship that way? What I actually proved was that in terms of their fitting costs that they give orders of magnitudes more effective HP than comparable modules.

But as usual you have to keep moving the goal posts even though you are only argueing that bulkheads aren't overpowered and DCU's are not bulkheads. So lets look at another comparable example. If you were to make a similar fit comparison and did just invuls and extenders and then did a DCU and bulkheads, the outcome is still the same. Orders of magnitudes better buffs than comparable.

1 DCU t2
4 bulkheads t2
1.3mil effective hp boost

1 t2 invul
4 t2 large extenders
164k effective hp boost

But lets keep going... even at the best case of 5 t2 invuls thats still only half a mil effective HP boost.

My point is merely this: bulkheads percentage based boosts for cap ships are overpowered given the huge amount of hull they all have. The ONLY reason people don't hull tank cap ships is because there are no cap ship hull repair mods. (Assuming of course these were properly balanced to give decent amounts of hull hp for cap used if they even existed)

Is someone taking a dump before heading off to LoL land?

your stupidity is beyond belief!

you take a fine class of ships and f*** it in every way possible. now it's

less cargo

less EHP

fuckton more expensive.

whatever you think you're doing, you've got **** for brains.

As I understand it, they require their pilots to have one rig.

I'm not sure if you're joking, but I actually really like this idea. I can't really imagine it happening though, too much butthurt.

This kind of logic still continues to baffle me. Do you think the big alliances and coalitions move all our personal things? Sure they may pay for fuel to move our combat-related gear, but when it comes to our personal stuff, or output related to industry, or loot that needs to be sold, that's on us. Now some of us may be personally better off than others, but I'm pretty sure the average pilot in a big nullsec alliance has the same issues as anyone else.