Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Kids how about you stop crying and deal with it.

back the day there weren't even carriers to jump around, and we dealt with it.
Then carriers came and it became much easier
then JFs came and it became "whatever"

imo this nerf isn't going far enough, and the very concept of multiple consecutive jump drive activations should be nerfed by logarithmic scale.

CCP, please MAKE NEW EDEN BIG AGAIN .

This step is a step in good direction.

Exactly. Jumpfreighter, just like supercapitals, should´ve never been added to the game.
Cynos and jump capable ships should´ve been reserved for very small ships, not the biggest ones. Make EVE big again!

The weird thing is that they're too blind to see that the things they always want - safer, quicker hauling of greater volumes - are directly damaging to their own profession.

The main result of highsec freighters is to allow people to congregate together in fewer, bigger hubs, bringing more and more industrialists into competition with each other, damaging their own profit margins.

Ban freighters from highsec entirely. Let Jita die. Let new minor hubs based on local industry spring up. Let reduced competition increase profit margins and open niches for new industrialists.

i'd rather we ban you. all you do is whine about people's posts.

Lol, now this is what butthurt looks like ladies and gentlemen.

he wanted feedback he's getting it. tough cookie if his feelings are getting hurt.. I don't care, not like I can expect him to stick around for the next 10 yrs working on eve.. fact is I honestly think he's screwing up the game even more before he departs. it has been done plenty of times before by dev's.

he reminds me of a sith right now. I don't trust him.. period.. now that's my opinion and I don't care if it makes you burst a blood vessel.

Here's a thought - Make the nerfs to the freighters recoverable by 1 rig. So if you put on hull, cargo and agility rigs, it is basically the same as they are at present. The difference here is that you can have two of those rigs to boost the ships above their current level, so you can have them be more exceptional than now instead of simply bringing them back up to what was lost. Oh and increase the m3 of packaged capitals as needed of course.

So .. on top of 50% increase in fuel cost the jump freighter gets also 50% nerf to the carrying capacity, significant nerf to the agility and reduction in ehp?

Like really? You have deep null sec regions overpopulated or what is the issue?

No, I mean the one where you flat out said that I was trolling. I only asked if you were because you've already admitted that you're doing it once, and I only said you were spamming because you were spamming.

Maybe you should pay more attention to what I'm actually writing and less to the confused mess that's going on inside your head. That's how all your fallacies are created.

Bulkheads are hull upgrades. Their benefits are much the same as all other hull upgrades. As demonstrated, they're very weak compared to all other attempts at tanking a ship, and as such there's nothing that's in the way of making them fit like the other hull upgrades — it's not suddenly going to make them overpowered since their tanking stats won't change a bit.

I'm saying that your illustration only proves that the modules that expand your HP buffer are not part of the tanking arsenal on cap ships. Your argument doesn't work for dreadnoughts because you're not fitting it like a dreadnought; for the same reason, your argument doesn't work for freigthers since they would follow the same fitting philosophy. You haven't demonstrated any kind of balance problem; you've demonstrated that fitting a ship incorrectly yields poor results. If we instead use the proper arsenal for tanking a capship, we quickly see how woefully underpowered bulkheads are compared to the alternative options.

So you argument is a strawman fallacy. If no-one fits a capship that way, you think there might be a reason for it? Do you also think there might be a reason why they don't fit your supposedly “overpowered” bulkheads either?

No, you didn't prove that because you didn't use comparable modules. By picking a capship, you disqualified any kind of raw buffer expansion from being part of the discussion, be it armour plates or shield extenders. If you want to compare against those, use a ship and fit that actually makes use of those modules like, say, a BC or a BS.

If you're going to use a capship as your testing bench, you'll notice that all modules on it are percentage based. You'll also quickly notice that bulkheads give pitiful percentages compared to the other modules. Finally, you'll notice that bulkheads have massively inflated fitting costs compared to many of those modules, especially once you factor in the percentage bonuses they give.

That's not a comparable example. That's you making a nonsensical comparison between a pretty stupid fit and a completely idiotic fit. Let's provide an actual point of comparison instead.

1 DCU II
3 Invuln II
1.72mil EHP.

Far more tank per fitting space and far fewer wasted slots. Oh, and do you know what it was that created that boost in your example? I'll give you five guesses, and the first four don't count… In fact, let's remove that factor from the equation and just do an apples-to-apples comparison: 4× bulkheads come out as +220k EHP; 3× Invuln IIs come out as +450k EHP. Wasting slots and CPU on all those “overpowered” bulkheads give us less than half of what we get from the comparable module, on top of a crapton of downsides we really don't want to deal with.

The point is this: bulkheads' percentage-based boost is the norm for cap ships, and is in fact far lower than what you get from conventional tanking methods. This actually holds true for subcaps as well, where relative buffer size, higher resists, and higher value on other low-slot modules makes the small increase in hull HP a mere afterthought — something you might squeeze in if you have nothing better to do. It certainly isn't overpowered — the fact that you have to use a failfit to even begin to give the appearance of bulkheads being better shows this with utmost clarity.

We don't even have to use fits to see this. Simple maths will do.
• Bulkhead — +20% hull EHP, infers penalties on the ship, 40/1 fitting cost.
• DCII — +150% hull EHP, +18% armour EHP, +14% shield EHP, ε cap draw, 30/1 fitting cost.
• Invuln II — +43% shield EHP, decent cap draw, 44/1 fitting cost.
• EANM II — +33% armour EHP, no cap draw, 36/1 fitting cost.

Well look at that… lowest bonus, second highest fitting cost, significant penalties. Yes, that combination just screams overpowered.

So: since every sensible option on a capship yields better tank for fitting space anyway (and fitting space is not something they lack so differences there are minute); since all other hull upgrades cost 0/0; since subcaps only ever fit bulkheads because they have a slot and some CPU left over; since subcaps also yield far better tank using other modules in their fewer lowslots; there is nothing that becomes imbalanced by removing the fitting costs for bulkheads as well.

Either or under criminal timer.