Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Fair enough, I saw the edit. I'm still dubious of the claim though. The most I've seen is people saying that, no, you can indeed boost your abilities beyond what you had before, but that this ability comes at a predictable cost. It may not be a net buff, but nor is it a total nerf either since you can get those higher values.


Tip for linking: either make sure it is completely separate from other words around it, or use the in-line {url} mark-up. Aaaaanyway.

My point is that what they did was to give you some additional capital (cargo space and lowslots) that you can trade for increased abilities elsewhere, or perhaps more accurately, not spend modules on improving. If they give the ship a 30% cargo increase, then that's one expander you don't have to fit. It's much the same as how range bonuses for guns can be turned into damage bonuses: you can now use shorter-ranged ammo to exchange that range for more damage in situations where you'd normally be stuck with some mediocre mid-range/snore-damage ammo.

That's kind of the beauty of the attribute and fitting system in the game — with some fiddling, almost anything can be traded against anything. Ok, so the Mammoth was able to get 15k EHP passively. It can still get it actively, and more. Moreover, the Mammoth was changed to be a fast transport, and they certainly did that. Not being around is the best tank there is.

Agility is once again something you can trade against other stats. Slap some additional bulk on that thing and laugh as your align times end up the same as they always were.

he doesnt get it. hes just blinded by nerd rage.

He's talking about Carniflex.

sigh, then there was absolutely no need for him to quote my post.

GrrrNullsec

He actually knows why this changes are bad, everyone else that comes here and start blabbing about carebear tears is really close minded becasue huge alliances and small gang/solo pvpers like myself own freighters to move their assets around.

So if you think this changes only affect carebears you have no idea of whats going on this will affect EVERYONE freighter pilots or not.

nm

You mean the one where you asked me if I was trolling and I said I’d admit to trolling only if you admitted that your “I told you so” posts were trolling as well? Besides I never said that your whole argument was invalid just because you were and are trolling. I was simply saying you’re being a butt hole for the sake of it.



Maybe you should write better instead of inviting confusion with posts like “Mu.”



Bulkheads are hull upgrades only because that’s how they were classified when the game first came out. How many market changes have been made recently to move things around to where they actually make since? Bulkheads ARE tanking modules because the only reason for adding more HP is if you want to ya know live longer…. I’ll get to their OPness later.

Just because no one fits that way doesn’t mean that the modules aren’t overpowered. So if you want to use real examples lets provide better context with the first example you provided, 1 dcu t2 and 3x invul t2. At level 5 skills this has an effective HP of 1.78mil hp. Now, I’m not saying the most people fit a PDU in that second low slot, but let’s say for the sake of the argument that most people do. In doing so you get a little bit better cap and your EHP jumps to 1.83mil. BUT, instead, lets’ put a t2 bulkhead there… your hp jumps from 1.78 to 1.934! AMAZING! You get 100k more EHP for that one slot than you do for using a PDU! Now the real question I would ask is why no fits a large t2 shield extender? Is it because the measly boost in EHP it gives for a cap ship isn’t worth the slot compared to just adding another invul or maybe another hardner?



No, it’s not. It was an example to illustrate my point of how your idea was bad. The question asked was why are BULKHEADS overpowered, not DCU’s, not invuls, and not any other module. So I tried to show you using the only comparable modules we have to them which are mods like extenders, and then you change your argument to add in other things like DCU’s and invuls.

[quote=Tippia ]
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.


"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."

I’m not disqualifying anything. I was simply showing an extreme edge case that is possible. The point of balance is not to look at things that are working. It’s to look at things that don’t. Now the reason I picked a cap ship is several fold. A. your idea was to give low slots to a freighter, not to a bc, not to a cruiser or anything else. A freighter is a cap ship. B. Cap ships have problems in terms of fitting buffer modules because of the current meta. Generally speaking, for all sub cap ship classes, buffer fits typically include both resists and raw hp boost mods aka 2-3 invuls and a couple extenders for shields. However for cap ships, there are no raw HP mods that offer usable boosts on cap ships BESIDES bulkheads. This includes extenders, and this includes plates. For example, if there was a mod that gave your ship a 25% percent straight boost to shield HP you’d see a vastly different fit on caldari cap ships than you do today. But there isn’t and the reason is because a boost like that on a cap ship would be over powered.

Now as far as I’m concerned your comparison to other modules that aren’t raw HP boosters is garbage. You know as well as I do that A. Hull starts out with no resist, and B that there are no other Hull resist mods besides the DCU. If hull tanking was properly coded to be comparable to other forms of tanking this comparison would be easier. Further, your comparison numbers are a bit skewed. T2 bulkheads give 25% to hull. If you want to argue that no one fits hull tanks because of how skewed the current meta is towards other mods that’s fine. But that doesn’t change the fact that bulkheads and hull tanking in general is broken. You know it and I know.

What the hell is going on at Rekyavik....

Post #1 tells:


Post #9 tells me:


So what is true? First post wrotes with T1 rigs less cargo than now. 9 posts later "T1 rigs are enough???"

So for me it's just the next nerf: I have to install T1 or T2 captial size rigs to get the same cargo. But with (massive?) dropped EHP. A single Capital Cargohold Optimization II starts with 700mil - so there is absolute no relation to put one ore two of them into a freighter.


3 Days 79 Pages and 1500 replies... that's really cazy... nothing more to comment about this nerf !


PS: An acceptable change would be: slightly less cargo (10%) wihtout and noticeable more (20%) cargo with rigs so I know what the 700mil are for!