Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Carebear industrialists have been demanding more tank and speed in their big spacetrucks for god knows how long - now that they're giving the option of that (but with a tradeoff, of course) they poop their spacepants and rage and rage and rage.

Good changes, and delicious tears. Great job Fozzie, more of this sort of thing.

It concerns me that to address a few points, you have made such massive structural changes to the hauling backbone that keeps this game running.

I was concerned with the coming industrial changes, but willing to see them in practice on SiSi for a while before making final comments.

We may be a small corporation, but we had already adopted an approach of attempting to perform industry outside of a major hub. The problem has always been hauling the massive quantities of materials around to actually make it possible.

One of our regular builds used to comprise of the following:

Tritanium 1,464,196,468
Pyerite 291,120,685
Mexallon 81,465,340
Isogen 15,966,498
Nocxium 3,588,315
Zydrine 912,678
Megacyte 460,246

1,857,710,230 total units.
18,577,102.3 m3 volume.
Charon's Maxed Pilots (which we needed): 981,250 m3
Total Loads: 18.93, so 19 round trips to collect minerals

New Charon Max Load before rigs: 687,500 m3
Total Loads: 27.02, so 28 round trips. (47.37% increase in runs!!!!)

I disagree with those that say just rig it up and shut-up. Industry isn't as profitable as people seem to think, a point I may discuss greater later.

Realistically you have to make the profit to pay for the costs you are incurring. Nothing new, just the basics of any business, so realistically it's only 3xT1 Capital rigs that will be afforded regularly. So what is that impact:

New Charon Max Load with 3xT1 Capital rigs: 1,045,602 m3
Total Loads: 17.76, so 18 rounded up. Already much slower to move then 6 months ago with the warp speed and travel changes!

So with all these changes, with additional cost per ship used, we save 1 round trip. I'm sorry, but the practicality of the claimed benefit is being somewhat over claimed here, as everyone is only looking at the T2 rigged max end results only.


After many years of performing our building on a fortnightly basis, we long ago realized the time and effort, lack of fun and lacking of reliable profitability (by the time big items and build batches came out, market depreciation and peoples inability to do basic maths by consistently just undercut the lowest on market in Jita already, often negated the profit to barely average out to 1-5% after sales costs) actually had most people migrate to running Incursions or anything else to make a living AND try to get enjoyment from, what is after all a Game, and not to have it be like work which they were trying to escape!

It strikes me that there were a few things with these changes that CCP focused on, and really forgot the cause-effect of all others.

* EHP were high. Fine, so they obviously wanted to increase ganking of freighters in high sec. Not something I think is sensible given they are the backbone supporting the economy, but fine.
* Didn't want certain things to fit into freighters after the changes. Fine, the simple option is increase the volume of those things so that they don't.
* Give freighters an ability to customize a load-outs. This could have been done more easily with module slots, and at a far reduced cost to the pilots of those ships. The reason I think they did this with rigs is they realize they've created a massive array of Capital Rig BPO's that are never ever used! There are reasons for that, examine those before assuming this is a sensible option for customization.


So why did people keep asking for rigs?
I'm not going to lie, we would have liked to have seen bigger cargo holds, but with the profits being made it also has to factor in the additional costs of any change affecting the business.

Practical terms that were regular reasons:
* Size of ships packages were high. Some stupidly so, for example you could only fit 1 Orca in a charon, as they were 500k m3. Personally I would have preferred to have seen reductions in silly sizes before reductions in hauling sizes.
* CCP keep missing/ignoring the industrial points:
Ore compression is one thing, but actually what is needed is Mineral compression, so that much more can be moved in smaller number of trips. This is still lacking, and the means by which players did this with modules is now less viable, and post the industrial patch not at all viable considering the reprocessing of modules and items given the massive losses.
* Hauling is painfully slow now, and exceptionally boring for a game, nearly as boring as mining!


Sadly, all things considered it just strikes me that over the past year all the changes CCP keep making are to increase player time trying to make money, reduce the quantity they can make, and increase the cost of everything else so having fun in PvP is much greater end cost to the economy.

I know I joined for the PvP and found Industry to be an interesting mental pursuit, but with competition coming from other games in the coming year or so, I think CCP may be wise to remember this is a game for entertainment and enjoyment, not yet another form of personal work.

I've already stopped playing as much in PvP, currently not going to waste my time on industrial elements that aren't worth the time invested in terms of results and performance in isk growth, and sadly looking at these changes highly doubtful I'll bother wasting time with the new industrial changes, which will also likely be bringing additional material consumption with it....

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.

Funny thing is, Gunslinger was also a part of the group that informed those asking for fitting changes, what would happen. So your idea on who you think was/is listened to, is way off.

Given the fact that cargo is taking around a 30% nerf, I assume the material components of building freighters is going to drop by 30% as well? Since we purchase freighters to haul things, and we're going to have to buy rigs to bring them back to their pre nerf status, its only logical to reduce the cost of freighters so we keep everything the same, right?

That was the answer. The "warm feeling". The same thing the JF pilots are getting :)

That 30% cargo space is empty space, technically from an RP point of view there would be more cost as you filling that empty space with the systems and fittings to host the new rigs.

There are several on here saying it isn't a nerf and gives better flexibility. however it does not. And further more not all of us use freighters for the industrial purposes you mentioned. for example now i'll need two different freighters to do the task of one. as it is used of multitude of purposes ranging from high value low space material to low value high m3 ice. are you going to destroy your cargo rigs used to transport ice? no that's a huge loss when you need to transport something of value. The fact this so called "flexibility" is sem-permanent is the problem.

back in the day isotopes weren't used as sugar too...
back in the day you couldn't traverse the whole of eve in 15 minutes

I agree that some things went for the better (t2 invention, pos towers not used for sov anymore, carriers not allowing indys with stuff in ship bay...), but you cannot deny that eve is now SMALL, and this is THE major problem currently, and seems like CCP acknowledges this but does so by going in circles.

And before you tell me about moongoo moving, our corp had 20 large towers farm back when IRON was alive, and somehow we could survive without JF's, moon goo is no reason to have JF's in place, and moving big bulky resources across the eden SHOULD be more prohibiting task than it is now.


so my point stands MAKE EVE LARGE again.