These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Kronos] Freighters and Jump Freighters Rebalance [Updated]

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Avalloc
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#1541 - 2014-05-20 16:43:07 UTC
I thought they wanted MORE people to migrate out to nullsec, not LESS.

You're nerfing JF capacity along with fuel consumption too. Yes, the nullsec occupant isn't going to be please but more so you just increased the barrier of entry for anyone wanting to move out there. Leaving JF fuel consumption as it is pre-Kronos might be kinder for everyone, especially players who want to expand.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#1542 - 2014-05-20 16:56:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Valterra Craven wrote:
Maybe you should write better instead of inviting confusion with posts like “Mu.”
Mu was the only vaild answer to the question.

Quote:
Bulkheads ARE tanking modules because the only reason for adding more HP is if you want to ya know live longer…
…which doesn't particularly impact how they should be priced in terms of fitting.
That price is more related to what class of modules they belong to.

Quote:
Just because no one fits that way doesn’t mean that the modules aren’t overpowered.
Yes, it does. You see, if something is overpowered, players exploit the hell out of it. It's just what they do. It's kind of a defining trait of something overpowered: that it outshines all options and everyone uses it as much as they can. No-one is exploiting bulkheads for the simple reason that they're pretty weak as modules go. They have a couple of niche uses that makes them an interesting option, but for the most part, it's not a good use of a slot.

If something is rarely fitted, this is your first clue that, if anything, it may actually be underpowered. It simply cannot be overpowered because then it would not be fitted rarely. If you try to argue otherwise, you have simply not understood how fitting works.

Quote:
No, it’s not. It was an example to illustrate my point of how your idea was bad.
Too bad that it failed to do so since you invented a scenario that has no connection with reality. You only managed to demonstrate that bulkheads are indeed not overpowered, since the alternatives are so much better. If the module you're trying to paint as overpowered utterly fails to outperform even a bog-standard fit, your arguments deflates like a soufflé in a sheet metal roller.

All you're doing is showing that it is possible to fit a ship badly. That doesn't demonstrate anything about balance and utterly fails to prove any kind of overpoweredness. If anything, it just shows that you have to invent the most absurdly adverse conditions for your assumptions to come true because under normal circumstances, they are nonsense — the effects you're wishing for simply does not appear. By picking irrelevant modules, you've disqualified your example as a valid comparison, and you've disqualified your argument since it no longer has anything to support itself with.

Moreover, since the question was whether bulkheads were overpowered or not, we have to compare it to the other options available. On a capship, those options are hardeners, DCUs, maybe the odd PDU. As demonstrated, they all outshine the poor little bulkhead. What you ignorantly believe is a change in the argument is a comparison to see whether the supposedly overpowered module outperforms other modules. Since it does not, it can't be overpowered. It's that simple. If you have problems separating a methodology for comparison with an argument, it's pretty alarming (but it explains why you're so confused by such simple facts).

Or is your argument now that all capship tanking modules are overpowered?

Quote:
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.
…and as such, trying to compare bulkheads with a buffer module is nonsensical and proves nothing. Ok, not quite true. It proves you have no argument. It proves you have to invent a nonsense scenario to support your position, which makes your position nonsense as well.

You have yet to demonstrate a scenario where bulkheads are overpowered. They aren't overpowered on capships because all other tanking options (hardeners) are a better use of your space. They aren't overpowered on subcaps because all other tanking options (buffers and hardeners) are a better use of your space. They can't be overtpowered on freighters because they will be the only option and the results will remain within the realms of what is already balanced.

So not only are bulkheads not overpowered, as amply demonstrated, and as confirmed your failure to show otherwise, but reducing the fitting requirements also does nothing to that current balance. It simply puts them in line with the other hull upgrades and opens up a new avenue of allowing freighter modification without running afoul of the modules that would actually be overpowered, such as the good old suitcase.
Hiryu Jin
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1543 - 2014-05-20 17:08:42 UTC
CCP's an abusive partner and we're all their battered victims. We love you, yet all you do is hurt us.
TopTrader
Tech3 Company
#1544 - 2014-05-20 17:23:22 UTC
Overall i like the idea of customizing but for me there could be more options and where are you innovations? Its like Freighter got no rigs right? just give them some and name it customizing LOL

The bonuses are still the same - this is really boring and not cool at all. I would like to see freighter bonuses like:
- +5-10% Cargo Capacity but more difference in cargo and agility in the freighter itsself
-> maybe different bonuses for each race, its still a freighter, that meanc cargospace, but yes ther ships are damn slow
- some sort of allign time and/or agility, speed not that important, but not make them warp and allign like a battleship
-> you just click warp and wait till the ship start to warp and then you wait and wait

The bonuses for the jumpfreighter are still the same too- this is really boring and not cool at all. I would like to see bonuses like:
- +5-10% Cargo Capacity but more difference in cargo and agility in the freighter itsself
- some sort of allign time and/or agility, speed not that important
-> you just click warp and wait till the ship start to warp and then you wait and wait
+
- 10% jump fuel requirements, i dont know about that, i think right direction
- maybe some kind of hull resist(only a little bit). I feel armor, shield, hull hp is the wrong way...

Personally i dont need every day the maximum of my cargo of the freighter so i will use a mix of the new capital rigs. If i take a look at the rigs overall i have to say that the rigs not always have the best results like a lot of jumpfreighter pilots already described. To customize the freighter is still a good idea but but ..was you said on fanfest i from my perspective expected more way more, im sad.
Thanatos Marathon
Moira.
#1545 - 2014-05-20 17:27:37 UTC
All,

Some of you are looking at this as a total nerf to JF's and logistics, and with current numbers it is fairly harsh for those who cannot afford to constantly replace T2 rigs (see the little guy), but it doesn't mean that something didn't need to be done, nor that JFs weren't overpowered (and boring - no choices) and in need of some form of reduction (even at the rediculous cost in isk and sp).

Upsides to the change in combination with increase in fuel price as I see them (there may be more that I am missing off the top of my head):

Diversity:
People will rig and fit their ships different and different things will happen based on that. Above and beyond that it lines them up with every other ship in the game (rig slots). Would some alternate rigs be nice to have to expand the options? I think so.

Slight push towards local production (each little bit counts): By increasing fuel costs by roughly 50% and decreasing cargo unless you want to get your JF ganked it makes a little bit more sense to try and mine locally in lowsec and especially nullsec, (though I would like to note that mining/ratting/salvaging in FW Lowsec is much more dangerous than in null, so if you want to build anything that requires salvage you will still probably jump 99% of it in).

Reduced power of JFs:
Many of you will disagree with me, but only CCP can probably pull the numbers to show how much m3 of stuff is moved from highsec to lowsec/nullsec via Jump Freighters instead of via other means of shipping. As it stands now getting a Jump Freighter toon and ship (usually multiple) is almost mandatory for all PVP corps that are active in low/null as it is the most efficient way to stock almost everything. A slight reduction in Jump Freighter Cargo space along with the price increase of isotopes makes the choice of how to move stuff around in dangerous space more interesting for those that aren't BLOC sized alliances. Will you use a Blockade runner next time? Will you go back to the days of trying to push a regular freighter through? More choice and harder decisions with corresponding consequences is a net plus imo when looking at balancing.

The downsides as I see them now:

The numbers hit to align time/ehp are going to make JF ganking much easier (and quite a few of them are already getting killed, perhpas you could provide the exact numbers?). You can either rig for align time (and then not have the EHP to deal with a half decent gank), or you can rig for EHP (and have an align time that makes it much easier to bump you off, after which EHP doesn't matter much).

Under that scenario you are either
A.) more likely to be ganked in highsec, even if your hold is empty.
B.) more likely to get bumped and ganked off station.

Is the design goal to get more Jump Freighters killed even after adding on to the cost of them? If not then I would seriously consider a 50% reduction in the hit to EHP & Align time, before rigging. After all, if people "make the decision" to rig for space, even 50% of the nerf you are proposing to unrigged EHP and Align time makes them much easier to bump/gank in highsec.

Costs: You are driving costs up by a significant amount in terms of SP and ISK. This only makes it harder for those on the ground floor to work their way up, but has almost no impact what so ever on massive coalitions. Perhaps to balance it out while retaining the benefits of the rigging changes you could look at reducing the amount of materials needed to produce these ships and bring the cost back in line with their current amounts (IE new JFs/Freighters cost as much to build with rigs as those currently cost without).

In closing, thank you for adding diversity and choice to logistical shipping, but please remember us little guys.

- Than

JUSTK is recruiting
Emizeko Chai
Freight Club
#1546 - 2014-05-20 17:33:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Emizeko Chai
Jattila Vrek wrote:
Aureus Ahishatsu wrote:
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.

You don't need cargo rigs to move high volume low value items, use warp speed rigs, which will give you almost the same m3/hr moved as cargo rigs. Warp speed rigs work for both cases.


One of the smartest posts in the thread. Everyone's focused on m3 and not realizing that it's total m3/hour throughput that really matters, and this rig opportunity will mean a single freighter pilot can push more m3 per hour while remaining below a given gank value threshold per trip. An Ascendancy set makes it even better. Yes, even with the align changes -- which look big on an unskilled ship, but when you look at the final align times with skills, are only going to change by a couple of seconds.

This rigging change has the potential to be a boon, especially for those pilots who didn't travel full very often. They get their hauling done sooner, and in less total time.

I think it needs to also be said:

Only a fool would think abusive behavior towards devs is going to work better than constructive criticism. There's been some really ugly comments in this thread. Even if you hate the change, there's no reason to hate the dev. They are sincerely trying to improve the game. Rational argument might help you, abuse isn't going to.
Vincintius Agrippa
Crimson Serpent Syndicate
#1547 - 2014-05-20 17:34:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Vincintius Agrippa
Question, will everything in eve cost significantly more because of this? After all everything is shipped with freighters. This seems like a loose loose situation. Less capacity means more trips. Then fuel nerf means it cant go as far. Sure you can fit rigs, but these rigs cost almost a bi each, and now that 1bil jf jumps to 4bil.

Casual patches and upgrades that increase gameplay are fine, but the inert tendency to push the nerf button every month or so isnt. Most of ccp's "balancing" involve destroying one thing and building another up. It's like half of the changes that get made are just because the devs were feeling bored and wanted to do something to pass the time. Most changes or re-balances arent justified in lore or rl common sense. Which is why people get so upset.
ex.
You like a certain ship. You like the way it looks, you like the way it flies, you like and understand what you can do in it.
CCP sees this and grabs the hammer of thor. They cut pg and cpu and increase mass and lower agility. And historically they do the opposite to your ships direct competitor. Essentially making something that seems popular worse, just because it is popular.

Now i dont think one should reign supreme, but I dont think everything should be equal either. There should be a counter to your ship. Meaning each ship should be able to counter the other and atleast have equal chance of survival on paper. However know what you can and can't fight. Unquestionably certain ships in this game need love, most of whom are caldari, but instead of of the nerf hammer you guys could make other ships and modules seem equally attractive.

Also worth mentioning, most people in eve, regardless of what they say fly ships because they like the design of it, next come the weapon system. To be perfectly onest, above frigs, 85% of the ships are just butttarded. Thery are ulgy in plain words. A lot less variety aswell.

"HEY MAN MORE SHIPS IS THE LAST THING WE NEED MAN, AND NOT A SOLUTION!"
NO, more ships isnt the only answer, but it is part of the solution.
Only YOU can prevent internet bullying!
Valterra Craven
#1548 - 2014-05-20 17:36:03 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Mu was the only vaild answer to the question.


Saying something doesn’t make it true. See below.

Tippia wrote:
which doesn't particularly impact how they should be priced in terms of fitting.
That price is more related to what class of modules they belong to.


Fitting is always a factor in terms of the benefits a module provides. If that wasn’t the case then t2 mods wouldn’t take more fitting. Now class is A FACTOR, but these modules have NO CLASS. Aka there are no small and medium and large versions. Therefore their balance has to be spread across the whole spectrum of classes and fitting is an important way to do that.

Tippia wrote:
Yes, it does. You see, if something is overpowered, players exploit the hell out of it. It's just what they do. It's kind of a defining trait of something overpowered: that it outshines all options and everyone uses it as much as they can. No-one is exploiting bulkheads for the simple reason that they're pretty weak as modules go. They have a couple of niche uses that makes them an interesting option, but for the most part, it's not a good use of a slot.

If something is rarely fitted, this is your first clue that, if anything, it may actually be underpowered. It simply cannot be overpowered because then it would not be fitted rarely. If you try to argue otherwise, you have simply not understood how fitting works.


I understand what you getting at with players and exploiting, but the problem is not that bulkheads aren’t overpowered, its that hull tanking is underpowered. If hull tanking had the same options that others did then bulkheads would have to be significantly tweeked. No one fits bulkheads not because they are underpowered but because the supporting modules around them make no fin sense.

Tippia wrote:
Too bad that it failed to do so since you invented a scenario that has no connection with reality.


Really? So the fitting I just mentioned in my previous post of 1 dcu t2 and 1 t2 bulkhead has no connection with reality… Good to know that your reality is skewed.

But let’s get back to the point, and really the entire point of this back and forth in the first place on the freaking question I asked you originally. “Is hull tanking viable on one ship or all ships?”

And here is your true answer:
“They aren't overpowered on capships because all other tanking options (hardeners) are a better use of your space. They aren't overpowered on subcaps because all other tanking options (buffers and hardeners) are a better use of your space.”

Granted you were speaking specifically of bulkheads, but because as you demonstrated, you can’t evaluate just one module in vacuum against its similar competing modules, this equally applies to hull tanking in general as well. In other words, if hull tanking were viable then more people would do it on more ships than just one.

But seriously, was that answer so dang hard that it required all of this back and forth to get to?
Dave Stark
#1549 - 2014-05-20 17:38:16 UTC
Vincintius Agrippa wrote:
Question, will everything in eve cost significantly more because of this?


i doubt it.
Aerissa Nolen
Doomheim
#1550 - 2014-05-20 17:41:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Aerissa Nolen
I have a really simple suggestion to help with the cargo issue, assuming that CCP did not intend to nerf cargo capacity for the general use-case. (EDIT: I have updated my optimizer tool (see my sig) with a button that lets you try out these changes).

Give T1 freighters 250 calibration instead of 400. This would allow a T1 freighter to fit no more than 1 T1 and 1 T2 cargo rig at maximum. You could not have 2 x T2 rigs OR 3 x T1 rigs (or 2 x T2 + 1 T1). Then re-up the base cargo sizes by 50,000m3 from the current suggested values to compensate for not being able to use 3 cargo rigs.

Most other rigs of interest for a T1 freighter are 50/75 calibration and will fit just fine within the 250 limit. The only ones at 100/150 are the aux thrusters and polycarbons, but I see no reason they can't have the same restricted use as the cargoholds since base agility/velocity is not changing on T1 freighters anyway.

This may have been suggested elsewhere, but it would be a really simple change to the proposal. Here is what the sizing would look like in this case, based on max skills:

Charon:
no rigs: 762,500
1 T1: 876,875
1 T2: 915,000
2 T1: 1,008,406
1 T2 + 1 T1: 1,052,250

Obelisk:
no rigs: 737,500
1 T1: 848,125
1 T2: 885,000
2 T1: 975,344
1 T2 + 1 T1: 1,017,750

Providence:
no rigs: 725,000
1 T1: 833,750
1 T2: 870,000
2 T1: 958,812
1 T2 + 1 T1: 1,000,500

Fenrir:
no rigs: 712,500
1 T1: 819,375
1 T2: 855,000
2 T1: 942,281
1 T2 + 1 T1: 983,250

EDIT2: Another interesting case to consider is 2 x T1 holds + 1 x T1 transverse (using up all calibration). That would give a max skilled fenrir almost exactly the same cargo capacity as now, with a slight boost to EHP from current (about 9% -- and if you just reduce transverse rigs to 15%/20% instead of 20%/25%, it's about a 4% boost which is probably more reasonable). At the cost of spending 250m ISK in rigs for your ship. That seems like a baseline most freighter pilots might be OK with.
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate
#1551 - 2014-05-20 17:43:08 UTC
Thanatos Marathon wrote:
All,

Some of you are looking at this as a total nerf to JF's and logistics, and with current numbers it is fairly harsh for those who cannot afford to constantly replace T2 rigs (see the little guy), but it doesn't mean that something didn't need to be done, nor that JFs weren't overpowered (and boring - no choices) and in need of some form of reduction (even at the rediculous cost in isk and sp).

Upsides to the change in combination with increase in fuel price as I see them (there may be more that I am missing off the top of my head):

Diversity:
People will rig and fit their ships different and different things will happen based on that. Above and beyond that it lines them up with every other ship in the game (rig slots). Would some alternate rigs be nice to have to expand the options? I think so.

Slight push towards local production (each little bit counts): By increasing fuel costs by roughly 50% and decreasing cargo unless you want to get your JF ganked it makes a little bit more sense to try and mine locally in lowsec and especially nullsec, (though I would like to note that mining/ratting/salvaging in FW Lowsec is much more dangerous than in null, so if you want to build anything that requires salvage you will still probably jump 99% of it in).

Reduced power of JFs:
Many of you will disagree with me, but only CCP can probably pull the numbers to show how much m3 of stuff is moved from highsec to lowsec/nullsec via Jump Freighters instead of via other means of shipping. As it stands now getting a Jump Freighter toon and ship (usually multiple) is almost mandatory for all PVP corps that are active in low/null as it is the most efficient way to stock almost everything. A slight reduction in Jump Freighter Cargo space along with the price increase of isotopes makes the choice of how to move stuff around in dangerous space more interesting for those that aren't BLOC sized alliances. Will you use a Blockade runner next time? Will you go back to the days of trying to push a regular freighter through? More choice and harder decisions with corresponding consequences is a net plus imo when looking at balancing.

The downsides as I see them now:

The numbers hit to align time/ehp are going to make JF ganking much easier (and quite a few of them are already getting killed, perhpas you could provide the exact numbers?). You can either rig for align time (and then not have the EHP to deal with a half decent gank), or you can rig for EHP (and have an align time that makes it much easier to bump you off, after which EHP doesn't matter much).

Under that scenario you are either
A.) more likely to be ganked in highsec, even if your hold is empty.
B.) more likely to get bumped and ganked off station.

Is the design goal to get more Jump Freighters killed even after adding on to the cost of them? If not then I would seriously consider a 50% reduction in the hit to EHP & Align time, before rigging. After all, if people "make the decision" to rig for space, even 50% of the nerf you are proposing to unrigged EHP and Align time makes them much easier to bump/gank in highsec.

Costs: You are driving costs up by a significant amount in terms of SP and ISK. This only makes it harder for those on the ground floor to work their way up, but has almost no impact what so ever on massive coalitions. Perhaps to balance it out while retaining the benefits of the rigging changes you could look at reducing the amount of materials needed to produce these ships and bring the cost back in line with their current amounts (IE new JFs/Freighters cost as much to build with rigs as those currently cost without).

In closing, thank you for adding diversity and choice to logistical shipping, but please remember us little guys.

- Than


Holy Space Jesus, too much wrong here, but let's hit the key points.

1. Nobody who owns a jump freighter and uses a JF is going to switch to using a blockade runner or regular freighter to move their stuff through a hostile area just because JF may use more fuel or have less space. They'll just make more jumps and pass along increased costs.

2. None of this will create more local production or markets. Perhaps a few marginal areas will exist, but bulk will still be in hubs. That's where the customers will be, thus that is where the goods will be. Or try selling your stuff locally and hope you have enough customers to buy it.

3. Quit yapping about the big blocs and nullsec super alliances. The alliance itself may be rich enough to not care about any of this in terms of costs, but the average nullsec player doesn't get all their stuff moved for them by the alliance. Quit making it sound like the average nullsec player is somehow so different from the average hisec player in this regard.
XxRTEKxX
256th Shadow Wing
Phantom-Recon
#1552 - 2014-05-20 17:48:58 UTC  |  Edited by: XxRTEKxX
Where does the CSM currently stand on the proposed new changes? Are they in favor of this direction, or with the majority here who are against the changes?

I haven't seen any statements from them yet.
Thanatos Marathon
Moira.
#1553 - 2014-05-20 17:51:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Thanatos Marathon
Dirk MacGirk wrote:
,


Holy Space Jesus, too much wrong here, but let's hit the key points.

1. Nobody who owns a jump freighter and uses a JF is going to switch to using a blockade runner or regular freighter to move their stuff through a hostile area just because JF may use more fuel or have less space. They'll just make more jumps and pass along increased costs.

2. None of this will create more local production or markets. Perhaps a few marginal areas will exist, but bulk will still be in hubs. That's where the customers will be, thus that is where the goods will be. Or try selling your stuff locally and hope you have enough customers to buy it.

3. Quit yapping about the big blocs and nullsec super alliances. The alliance itself may be rich enough to not care about any of this in terms of costs, but the average nullsec player doesn't get all their stuff moved for them by the alliance. Quit making it sound like the average nullsec player is somehow so different from the average hisec player in this regard.


1. My blockade runner will see more use (and I may pickup a DST)
2. We will end up building more destroyer & cruiser hulls and shipping in fewer
3. Ok, perhaps I should just say spacerich instead of nullblock. The spacerich aren't impacted as much because they have a much larger pool of isk to pull from.

JUSTK is recruiting
Thanatos Marathon
Moira.
#1554 - 2014-05-20 17:54:44 UTC
XxRTEKxX wrote:
Where does the CSM currently stand on the proposed new changes? Are they in favor of this direction, or with the majority here who are against the changes?

I haven't seen any statements from them yet.


Check their websites. For example Sugar Kyles

JUSTK is recruiting
Sniper Smith
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#1555 - 2014-05-20 17:54:49 UTC
XxRTEKxX wrote:
Where does the CSM currently stand on the proposed new changes? Are they in favor of this direction, or with the majority here who are against the changes?

I haven't seen any statements from them yet.

Considering Fozzie said lastnight he was in talks with them, I have to assume they aren't cheering about it either.. I was hoping Fozzie would have posted the results of the talk by now, along with some changes lol
Delhaven
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1556 - 2014-05-20 17:59:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Delhaven
Aerissa Nolen wrote:
I have a really simple suggestion to help with the cargo issue, assuming that CCP did not intend to nerf cargo capacity for the general use-case. (EDIT: I have updated my optimizer tool (see my sig) with a button that lets you try out these changes).

Give T1 freighters 250 calibration instead of 400. This would allow a T1 freighter to fit no more than 1 T1 and 1 T2 cargo rig at maximum. You could not have 2 x T2 rigs OR 3 x T1 rigs (or 2 x T2 + 1 T1). Then re-up the base cargo sizes by 50,000m3 from the current suggested values to compensate for not being able to use 3 cargo rigs.

Most other rigs of interest for a T1 freighter are 50/75 calibration and will fit just fine within the 250 limit. The only ones at 100/150 are the aux thrusters and polycarbons, but I see no reason they can't have the same restricted use as the cargoholds since base agility/velocity is not changing on T1 freighters anyway.

This may have been suggested elsewhere, but it would be a really simple change to the proposal. Here is what the sizing would look like in this case, based on max skills:

[Numbers]
This seems like a pretty simple and elegant solution. I like it.

EDIT: Brilliant tool, by the way.
BEPOHNKA
Ner Vod Fleet Systems
Goonswarm Federation
#1557 - 2014-05-20 18:01:02 UTC  |  Edited by: BEPOHNKA
This goes out too CCP Fozzie,

How should be look at the changes set in front of us all. The changes which CCP has layout is no good at all. Here is idea of which I would have lay out for both a freighter with rigs and jump freighter with rigs. Both are used differently in the game so.. both classes should have a different effect from the rigs. So here is what I would lay out and WHY...

I understand why your trying to cut down size to make up the different from the rigs on a capital haulers. The sizes should not be cut down at all because nothing is being hurt from the game. So just to cut down size 4% with t2 rigs is not the right way of doing things. Just leave it alone for now until you look at the low slots in the game for the freighter class.

Freighter ability to use rigs would be effect by align times. Without rigs haul, it can warp ++ / align faster ++.
Jump Freighter ability to use rigs would be effect by jump range and fuel uses. With out rigs more jump range ++ / less fuel ++.

Reason behind this is because JF don't use star gates CCP they JUMP.... Freighter use the star gates....


PROVIDENCE

Amarr Freighter Bonus per level:
+5% Cargo Capacity
+5% Maximum Velocity

Slot layout: 0H, 0M, 0L;
Rigs: 3(+3) Slots, 400 Calibration, Uses Capital Rigs
Fittings: 1 PWG, 1 CPU
Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 5000 / 36000(+12000) / 92500(-20000)
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time / warp speed): 70 / 0.0625 / 900,000,000 / 107.22s / 1.37
Cargo Capacity: 530000(-205000)m3


CHARON

Caldari Freighter Bonus per level:
+5% Cargo Capacity
+5% Maximum Velocity

Slot layout: 0H, 0M, 0L;
Rigs: 3(+3) Slots, 400 Calibration, Uses Capital Rigs
Fittings: 1 PWG, 1 CPU
Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 15000(+9000) / 20000 / 87500(-18750)
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time / warp speed): 60 / 0.0625 / 960,000,000 / 114.37s / 1.37
Cargo Capacity: 550000(-235000)m3


OBELISK

Gallente Freighter Bonus per level:
+5% Cargo Capacity
+5% Maximum Velocity

Slot layout: 0H, 0M, 0L;
Rigs: 3(+3) Slots, 400 Calibration, Uses Capital Rigs
Fittings: 1 PWG, 1 CPU
Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 8000(+2687) / 30000(+7500) / 97500(-22500)
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time / warp speed): 65 / 0.0625 / 940,000,000 / 111.99s / 1.37
Cargo Capacity: 540000(-210000)m3


FENRIR

Minmatar Freighter Bonus per level:
+5% Cargo Capacity
+5% Maximum Velocity

Slot layout: 0H, 0M, 0L;
Rigs: 3(+3) Slots, 400 Calibration, Uses Capital Rigs
Fittings: 1 PWG, 1 CPU
Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 10000(+4375) / 28000(+6750) / 82500(-17500)
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time / warp speed): 80 / 0.0625 / 820,000,000 / 97.69s / 1.37
Cargo Capacity: 520000(-200000)m3



ARK

Amarr Freighter Bonus per level:
+5% Cargo Capacity
+5% Agility

Jump Freighters Bonus per level:
+10% to shield, armor and hull hitpoints
-10% jump fuel requirements

Slot layout: 0H, 0M, 0L;
Rigs: 2(+2) Slots, 400 Calibration, Uses Capital Rigs
Fittings: 1 PWG, 1 CPU
Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 6000 / 43200(+14400) / 111000(-24000)
Base shield resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 0 / 20 / 47.5(+7.5) / 62.5(+12.5)
Base armor resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 50 / 35 / 34.375(+9.375) / 40(+20)
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time / warp speed): 84 / 0.0625(+0.0125) / 900,000,000 / 77.98(+15.6)s / 1.5
Signature Radius: 2800(-12)
Cargo Capacity: 199000(-76625)m3


RHEA

Caldari Freighter Bonus per level:
+5% Cargo Capacity
+5% Agility

Jump Freighters Bonus per level:
+10% to shield, armor and hull hitpoints
-10% jump fuel requirements

Slot layout: 0H, 0M, 0L;
Rigs: 2(+2) Slots, 400 Calibration, Uses Capital Rigs
Fittings: 1 PWG, 1 CPU
Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 18000(+10800) / 24000 / 105000(-22500)
Base shield resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 0 / 40(+20) / 47.5(+7.5) / 50
Base armor resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 50 / 58.75(+13.75) / 34.375(+9.375) / 10
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time / warp speed): 72 / 0.0625(+0.0125) / 960,000,000 / 83.18(+16.64)s / 1.5
Signature Radius: 2930(-2)
Cargo Capacity: 207000(-87375)m3


ANSHAR

Gallente Freighter Bonus per level:
+5% Cargo Capacity
+5% Agility

Jump Freighters Bonus per level:
+10% to shield, armor and hull hitpoints
-10% jump fuel requirements

Slot layout: 0H, 0M, 0L;
Rigs: 2(+2) Slots, 400 Calibration, Uses Capital Rigs
Fittings: 1 PWG, 1 CPU
Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 9600(+3224.4) / 36000(+9000) / 117000(-27000)
Base shield resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 0 / 30(+10) / 55(+15) / 50
Base armor resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 50 / 43.125(+8.125) / 51.25(+16.25) / 10
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time / warp speed): 78 / 0.0625(+0.0125) / 940,000,000 / 81.44(+16.28)s / 1.5
Signature Radius: 2880(-4)
Cargo Capacity: 203000(-78250) m3


NOMAD

Minmatar Freighter Bonus per level:
+5% Cargo Capacity
+5% Agility

Jump Freighters Bonus per level:
+10% to shield, armor and hull hitpoints
-10% jump fuel requirements

Slot layout: 0H, 0M, 0L;
Rigs: 2(+2) Slots, 400 Calibration, Uses Capital Rigs
Fittings: 1 PWG, 1 CPU
Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 12000(+5250) / 33600(+8100) / 99000(-21000)
Base shield resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 25(+25) / 30(+10) / 40 / 50
Base armor resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 70(+10) / 43.125(+8.125) / 25 / 10
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time / warp speed): 96 / 0.0625(+0.0125) / 820,000,000 / 71.05(+14.21)s / 1.5
Signature Radius: 2700(-8)
Cargo Capacity: 195000(-75000)m3

Let us know what you think![/quote]
TopTrader
Tech3 Company
#1558 - 2014-05-20 18:04:33 UTC
Thanatos Marathon wrote:
XxRTEKxX wrote:
Where does the CSM currently stand on the proposed new changes? Are they in favor of this direction, or with the majority here who are against the changes?

I haven't seen any statements from them yet.


Check their websites. For example Sugar Kyles


I just read the part, and he also mentioned the little detail of the prices as well. I cant imagine what will going on after the addon. The big nerf is live and no one can fit rigs...cause to expensive and/or no one on the market. Like he said addional to rigs, modules and other stuff would be cool without making them overpowered but we still speaking of freighters :)
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate
#1559 - 2014-05-20 18:06:09 UTC
XxRTEKxX wrote:
Where does the CSM currently stand on the proposed new changes? Are they in favor of this direction, or with the majority here who are against the changes?

I haven't seen any statements from them yet.


Just a blurb but links to other things re: CSM views

https://sites.google.com/site/csmwire/news/djfunkybaconitsbestiholdoffontalkingabouttheseforafewdays
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate
#1560 - 2014-05-20 18:12:00 UTC
Thanatos Marathon wrote:
Dirk MacGirk wrote:
,


Holy Space Jesus, too much wrong here, but let's hit the key points.

1. Nobody who owns a jump freighter and uses a JF is going to switch to using a blockade runner or regular freighter to move their stuff through a hostile area just because JF may use more fuel or have less space. They'll just make more jumps and pass along increased costs.

2. None of this will create more local production or markets. Perhaps a few marginal areas will exist, but bulk will still be in hubs. That's where the customers will be, thus that is where the goods will be. Or try selling your stuff locally and hope you have enough customers to buy it.

3. Quit yapping about the big blocs and nullsec super alliances. The alliance itself may be rich enough to not care about any of this in terms of costs, but the average nullsec player doesn't get all their stuff moved for them by the alliance. Quit making it sound like the average nullsec player is somehow so different from the average hisec player in this regard.


1. My blockade runner will see more use (and I may pickup a DST)
2. We will end up building more destroyer & cruiser hulls and shipping in fewer
3. Ok, perhaps I should just say spacerich instead of nullblock. The spacerich aren't impacted as much because they have a much larger pool of isk to pull from.


1. If you were using JF before when you could have used a blockade runner, why didn't you? Apparently this wasn't an m3 decision or a time decision (more trips with less m3). You going to take on more risk your high value things for some fuel savings?

2. building more in null, low, where and shipping to where?

3. Yes, the space rich will always be able to adapt better. Just like the real rich adapt better to changes in the real world. Nothing new there. But the whole null versus anywhere else thing is such a meme at this point. Null is made up of more than just the space rich. As is hisec and lowsec.