Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Doesn't change the fact that mu was the only valid answer.

Not really, no. It's only a factor if it eats away at a rare resource. In this case, the resource in question is not the fitting space but the module slot, and since the benefits this module provide are so small compared to the alternatives, its fitting price is almost entirely irrelevant. Making it in line with the other modules of its class makes sense from a purely logical perspective, and doesn't create any balancing issues due to its niche uses and low performance. The slot itself is by far more costly than the CPU it requires.

You mean the tanking style that can only be done with two modules: bulkheads (which provide a very small bonus) and DCUs (which provide a very large bonus) as a whole is underpowered. Then it rather follows that of the two possible combinations, the one that provides the much smaller-bonused module is what brings the whole package down, rather than the one that provides a massive bonus. The massive-bonus one does not even manage to drag the small-bonus module out of the realm of “underpowered”.

So what you're saying is that bulkheads are not so much underpowered as super-underpowered since they manage to drag down DCUs that low. They have the best supporting module in the game and still doesn't manage to climb higher than underpowered.

Yes, really. Your using modules normally fitted to cruiser and battlecruisers as a point of comparison means that your fit has no connection with reality and that your comparison only proves that you know how to failfit a ship. It shows nothing that has any relevance whatsoever to balance. Using your deplorable methodology, I can easily prove that citadel cruise missiles are immensely overpowered and need to be nerfed to hell and back.

After all:
• Phoenix w/ 3× Citadel Cruise I + Siege II = 72k alpha; nearly 3k DPS.
• Revelation w/ 3× Heavy Beam Laser II + Siege II = 342 alpha; nearly 80 DPS.

Of course, that's just nonsense, and you know it. You also know that your point of comparison is nonsense. You know that the conclusion from your comparison is nonsense. You know that your entire position is nonsense. If we actually do a proper comparison, we come to the same conclusion every time: bulkheads do not even nearly provide the same performance as the other modules you'd want to fit to tank your capship. Any claim that they are overpowered is therefore fundamentally idiotic unless all forms of capship tanking is deemed overpowered in one fell swoop.

My true answer hasn't changed: it's still mu. You can keep inventing all the nonsensical strawman arguments you want, but that just makes you a liar and a troll — it does not in any way alter my answer. The quote you're now attempting to shoe-horn in doesn't even address the same issue, so it's very obviously not an answer to the question.

And no, that was neither the original question nor the entire point, so you manage to be as utterly and completely wrong about that as you have been about every single thing you've ever said. The original question, and the entire point of the conversation, was “How are bulkheads imbalanced? How would making them take up no fitting space make them more imbalanced?” — questions you have not been able to answer in a way that supports your original claim.

Instead, using your failures as very helpful support, we have satisfactorily proven — beyond any doubt — that bulkheads are not overpowered, but are rather, if anything, massively underpowered. If we compare them in a vacuum, they come out behind the other modules. If we compare them in context, they come out behind the other modules. You have not been able to come up with any scenario where they offer any kind of advantage (much less an overpowered one) and you've shown that they are actually such a drag that they make an entire tanking style under-perform. We can therefore further conclude that reducing their fitting requirements will not unbalance anything, since it does not alter their performance in any way, and no matter how cheap, they will not replace those other modules.

just pull down your pants and dump on JFs more Please ty

garbage update
**** changes

ffs if ur gonna do this to freighter / jump freighters at least give them a low slot

In case it hasn't been said yet. The new freighters are up on SiSi for your rig testing pleasure.

I'll be honest, Im not as upset in some ways but annoyed with others. I think the cargo nerf is manageable on freighters, but I think the EHP nerf was too great.

with 3 T1 trimarks I can only get an obelisk slightly higher on EHP than before. The only reason I find this to be an issue is that it seems in many other areas of rebalance, ships have been balanced to account for some of the power creep in recent years, while one ship most susceptible (a freighter with no offensive capabilities) is seeing too much of a reduction.

try using hull rigs, since they provide more EHP.

Fozzie,
Can you please elaborate on CCP's intentions of these changes? I personally think these changes suck as they are going to make my life more difficult as I am a JF pilot supplying a lowsec alliance. With these changes, in coordination with the industry and mineral changes, is going to shut down our capital business and massively disincentive us from using BC and up hulls. It will be very expensive and time consuming to haul enough BC and up hulls via JF. With the reprocessing changes, it will not be cost effective to haul minerals for BC and up (hauling raw uncompressed minerals for cruiser and down still works).

-Does CCP want to see less BC and up in lowsec? If the answer is yes, then these changes are good. If the answer is no, then these changes are bad.

-Does CCP want to see sov nullsec as the only cost effective and viable place to produce capitals? If the answer is yes, then these changes (along with the reprocessing changes) are good. If not, these changes are bad.

-Does CCP want to severely limit the ability of smaller corporations alliances to move across EVE universe while still allowing larger corporations the ability to move across the EVE universe at will? If the answer is yes, then these changes are good. If the answer is no, then these changes are bad.


I personally feel that the main "problem" in EVE today is how small the universe has become and the ability for corporations and alliances to move pilots, ships, and materials anywhere in Eve in minutes. I believe CCP sees this problem as well but continues to attempt to apply duct-tape to the problem rather than fix it. The real answer lies in adding new limits around pilots ability to jump to cynos. Let it be fast, easy, and cheap to move pilots, ships, and materials within one cyno jump but have it become exponentially worse as we increase the number of cyno jumps.

Thanks for the response. However, my question remains unanswered. Where does the CSM stand on the proposed changes?

I see people are beginning to realize why some of us were pointing out years ago that begging for the ability to rig a freighter might not actually be something you're going to be happy with if you actually get it.

Interesting changes, it will be even more so when things finally end up getting tweaked a bit more.

I'm not going to comment much more than this at the current time, as quite frankly I think the game would be vastly improved in a number of ways if Jump Freighters were removed from the game completely.

For those debating whether local markets will be strengthened by these changes, yes, they likely will be. However this particular change will only have an ancillary effect.

The main boost that local markets will get will come with the industry changes next release. To one degree or another the market hubs will follow the industrial hubs (at least in an effort to keep shipping distances to a minimum), and those are going to be shifting around a great deal.

So the industry changes will likely lead to a greater need to ship large quantities of goods around New Eden (which is a very good thing), which means these changes will have a small but noticeable impact... reinforcing the upcoming pressure to develop local trade hubs instead of simply shipping everything to and from Jita (and the handful of other largish trade hubs).

I also suspect the increased level of shipping, AND increased pressure to develop local markets, will be felt in all area's of space... which will be a bit of a first.

Again JF JUMP to points not use star gates...

Again freighters use star gates ...

Only one class will be effected from this change, and why nerf hual of them makes no sense at all keep it the same with rigs for now.


The changes we face are not what we want at all so listen to us on the forums. Give us good replies and point us to them.. That's were we should be at this point.

I dont see why this change was implemented in the first place. There arent many ways to fit a jf or freighter anyway. So there shouldn't have been a big surprise to how people fit them.

The goal of freighters is to move the maximum amount of cargo from point A to point B in the least amount of time with the most efficiency, without getting ganked.

Cargo or agility rigs on a freighter? Blasphemy. Agility mods? What madness! Low-grade NOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMaaaaaaaaaaaaadddds? Sacrilege!