These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#1561 - 2014-05-20 18:17:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Valterra Craven wrote:
Saying something doesn’t make it true.
Doesn't change the fact that mu was the only valid answer.

Quote:
Fitting is always a factor in terms of the benefits a module provides.
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.

Quote:
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.
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.

Quote:
Really?
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.

Quote:
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
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.
Thanatos Marathon
Moira.
Villore Accords
#1562 - 2014-05-20 18:19:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Thanatos Marathon
Dirk MacGirk wrote:


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.


1. Time and to a lesser degree risk (with scout alts moving a blockade runner is easy, just time consuming) With the cost change per M3 to move it as well as inheriting greater risk due to a couple extra seconds of align or reduced EHP I may not want to risk the JF as often.

2. FW Lowsec (Black Rise). We build as much as we can locally and stock our own market.

3. Yup, it is a matter of finding a balance point. If the cost of living went up 50% in a year in the USA there would be riots. The rich for the most part wouldn't be the ones in the streets, but plenty of other people would be. There is nothing wrong with being rich (or internet space rich), but allowing the little guy to climb the ladder as it were is important for player morale.
QUENTIN SLACKER
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#1563 - 2014-05-20 18:23:29 UTC  |  Edited by: QUENTIN SLACKER
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
Aureus Ahishatsu
Deadspace Knights
#1564 - 2014-05-20 18:23:54 UTC
Tippia wrote:


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.


They're not giving freighters lows are they? If they are i missed that. That would change a lot. My point was just that with the rigs which are incredibly expensive do not make the ship very versatile. I would be all for that cause then you are right you could simply fit expanders, plating etc. whatever was necessary for the given task but i'm not going to be destroying rigs left and right for the various tasks.

Tippia wrote:

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.


I understand exactly what you are saying here. However the freighters like the t1 large indies had BOTH nerfed. there was no increase in hold. in fact there was a decrease with all of the increase they are describing requiring one to fit rigs/modules making it impossible to meet even what they were currently at.

Tippia wrote:

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. Blink

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.


Except for the fact the ship bonuses top speed NOT agility which encourages afk travel. If anything they should have had them bonus agility like the other indies or give them a significant tank increase. The speed bonus with the light tank is rather confusing as what benefit do you have to that bonus if now it requires active piloting to even meet the tank it had before?
Derath Ellecon
Lotek Academy
#1565 - 2014-05-20 18:34:55 UTC
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.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#1566 - 2014-05-20 18:37:43 UTC
Aureus Ahishatsu wrote:
They're not giving freighters lows are they? If they are i missed that. That would change a lot. My point was just that with the rigs which are incredibly expensive do not make the ship very versatile. I would be all for that cause then you are right you could simply fit expanders, plating etc. whatever was necessary for the given task but i'm not going to be destroying rigs left and right for the various tasks.
No, they're not, but Mynnna had a proposal for that idea that spun out into some other small changes that could be made to avoid the bigger pitfalls (such as the massive argument above about how supposedly overpowered bulkheads are Lol).

And I was only talking about what they did during the industrial tiercide — how it wasn't the kind of blanket nerf it was presented as.

Quote:
I understand exactly what you are saying here. However the freighters like the t1 large indies had BOTH nerfed. there was no increase in hold. in fact there was a decrease with all of the increase they are describing requiring one to fit rigs/modules making it impossible to meet even what they were currently at.
Yes, that is kind of the point of the whole change. It's not meant to be a buff; it's just meant to give freighters options. The price of those options is an overall worse ship. That's why I always argued against fitting options: I wanted to keep my excellent-at-everything (jump) freighter. As for the indies, some of them had their cargo increased, some did not — it all depended on how bad they were compared to each other before. The top performers came down a bit; the bottom performer came up a lot. I'm guessing that your perception there is somewhat born out of your ship being in a fairly good spot to begin with.

Quote:
Except for the fact the ship bonuses top speed NOT agility which encourages afk travel. If anything they should have had them bonus agility like the other indies or give them a significant tank increase.
It got an agility increase. Remember, agility is better the lower it is — for the Mammoth, they changed it from 1.0 to 0.91. Since agility translates directly into align time, that's 9% faster aligning right there. Sure, and istab gives you twice as much, but still… it's half a slot that can be used for something else. P
Dave Stark
#1567 - 2014-05-20 18:39:19 UTC
Derath Ellecon wrote:
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.
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#1568 - 2014-05-20 18:40:43 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.



https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=search&topic=Freighters+and+Jump+Freighters+Rebalance&forumID=270&csmbadge=1

We've been talking on thread. Not in huge detail, but behind the scenes, we've been talking with Fozzie.

Screaming and ranting isn't a good way to get a response, but just chatting is a good way bring people round to your PoV. Repeating what someone else has said isn't particularly beneficial either. Be assured, we take this seriously.

We've been keeping an eye on the good posts in thread, and using them to shape the discussion, where appropriate.

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter

Andre Vauban
Federal Defense Union
Gallente Federation
#1569 - 2014-05-20 18:44:04 UTC
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.

.

Dave Stark
#1570 - 2014-05-20 18:49:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Dave Stark
sisi changes
http://pastebin.com/5NdjVCGU
source
there's mention of fuel rigs.

"his ship modification is designed to decrease the fuel requirements of jump drive travel at the expense of fuel bay capacity.
Penalty: Using more than one type of this module or similar modules that affect the same attribute on the ship will be penalized."

enjoy.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#1571 - 2014-05-20 18:52:09 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
sisi changes
http://pastebin.com/5NdjVCGU
source
there's mention of fuel rigs.

"his ship modification is designed to decrease the fuel requirements of jump drive travel at the expense of fuel bay capacity.
Penalty: Using more than one type of this module or similar modules that affect the same attribute on the ship will be penalized."

enjoy.

ShockedLolPirate
ISD Tyrozan
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
#1572 - 2014-05-20 18:56:28 UTC
A post containing private correspondence with GMs has been removed.

Forum rule 9. Posting of private CCP communication is prohibited.

ISD Tyrozan

Captain

Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Interstellar Services Department

@ISDTyrozan | @ISD_CCL

XxRTEKxX
256th Shadow Wing
Phantom-Recon
#1573 - 2014-05-20 18:59:26 UTC  |  Edited by: XxRTEKxX
Steve Ronuken 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.



https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=search&topic=Freighters+and+Jump+Freighters+Rebalance&forumID=270&csmbadge=1

We've been talking on thread. Not in huge detail, but behind the scenes, we've been talking with Fozzie.

Screaming and ranting isn't a good way to get a response, but just chatting is a good way bring people round to your PoV. Repeating what someone else has said isn't particularly beneficial either. Be assured, we take this seriously.

We've been keeping an eye on the good posts in thread, and using them to shape the discussion, where appropriate.


Thanks for the response. However, my question remains unanswered. Where does the CSM stand on the proposed changes?
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate
#1574 - 2014-05-20 19:00:13 UTC
ISD Tyrozan wrote:
A post containing private correspondence with GMs has been removed.

Forum rule 9. Posting of private CCP communication is prohibited.


Couldn't you have just removed the part about the CCP response? Because the original part was classic EVE-O forum material

Give me my skillpoints back. LOL
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#1575 - 2014-05-20 19:02:16 UTC
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. Smile

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. Smile

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.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.

Valterra Craven
#1576 - 2014-05-20 19:04:57 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Saying something doesn’t make it true. Doesn't change the fact that mu was the only valid answer.
If by valid you mean that it’s completely meaningless, then sure.

Tippia wrote:
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
In this case? You start putting cit torp launchers on a dread and suddenly you have infinite CPU all of a sudden? Fitting is always a factor because no ship has infinite fitting resources.

Tippia wrote:
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.


Hey look a fallacy! The other possibility is that the tanking style doesn’t have the proper support modules to make it an effective choice. Aka both modules could potentially be fine on their own and together, but still aren’t effective when viewed against the other choices a player can make because they lack the other choices that other tanking styles provide.

Tippia wrote:
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.


And why am I comparing them to battleship mods, oh right, because again comparable modules do not exist for the class we are talking about… or did you miss that whole point? So the question then becomes WHY they don’t exist. Is it because there wasn’t time? They weren’t thought about? Or even because if they did they would be stupidly overpowered?!

Likely a combination of all of the above.

Tippia wrote:

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.


No, the original question was why should bulkheads be the one off exception to how every other tanking module works in the game? Your response is because they are completely underpowered relative to all of the other tanking modules. And my answer is that just because an entire way of doing things is underpowered doesn’t mean we should acknowledge that fact by putting a square peg into a round that is an even nicher use case than what we currently have. What should be done instead is that Hull tanking and all aspects of it should receive a massive rebalance as well as the only ship that does so: the orca. (Which given everything changed in the last year needs one anyway…) But you’d rather cut off your nose to spite your face instead of just acknowledging that simple fact.
BEPOHNKA
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#1577 - 2014-05-20 19:05:41 UTC  |  Edited by: BEPOHNKA
Steve Ronuken 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.



https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=search&topic=Freighters+and+Jump+Freighters+Rebalance&forumID=270&csmbadge=1

We've been talking on thread. Not in huge detail, but behind the scenes, we've been talking with Fozzie.

Screaming and ranting isn't a good way to get a response, but just chatting is a good way bring people round to your PoV. Repeating what someone else has said isn't particularly beneficial either. Be assured, we take this seriously.

We've been keeping an eye on the good posts in thread, and using them to shape the discussion, where appropriate.



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.
Retar Aveymone
DJ's Retirement Fund
Goonswarm Federation
#1578 - 2014-05-20 19:08:29 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
sisi changes
http://pastebin.com/5NdjVCGU
source
there's mention of fuel rigs.

"his ship modification is designed to decrease the fuel requirements of jump drive travel at the expense of fuel bay capacity.
Penalty: Using more than one type of this module or similar modules that affect the same attribute on the ship will be penalized."

enjoy.

who cares

HIGH GRADE PIRATE IMPLANTS

no longer will my titan character have to be gimped in his training because he uses slaves

no longer will my freighter character be as gimped in his training because he uses nomads

:happysun:
Vincintius Agrippa
Crimson Serpent Syndicate
#1579 - 2014-05-20 19:16:59 UTC
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!
Only YOU can prevent internet bullying!
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#1580 - 2014-05-20 19:20:52 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:
If by valid you mean that it’s completely meaningless, then sure.
No, by valid I mean valid. Just because you don't understand the term does not mean it's meaningless, nor does it mean that you get to replace it with some disconnected statement of your choice.

If you still don't understand the answer, you can (sitll) ask. Don't worry, I won't bite.

Quote:
In this case?
Yes, in this case. A low-slot is far more valuable than 40tf CPU, especially on a Phoenix, since the other, far more useful modules you want to put in that slot cost more CPU.

Quote:
Hey look a fallacy! The other possibility is that the tanking style doesn’t have the proper support modules to make it an effective choice.
Just one problem: it does. It has the most effective support module of them all, as it happens. So that's not really a possibility at all, nor is it a fallacy unless what you said was all wrong… which, I'll grant you, is highly probable.

Quote:
And why am I comparing them to battleship mods, oh right, because
…it's the only way for your claim to be true. Unfortunately, it also makes your claim nonsensical and irrelevant since it is based on an utterly invalid comparison. What's left is to compare it against the modules that doe the same thing (modify EHP by a percentage) and which are used for capships… and what do you know? The bulkheads come dead last. So any claim that they're overpowered runs afoul on either being based on an invalid comparison or being ad odds with reality.

The reasons why capships don't have their own buffer modules aren't particularly relevant to the question of whether bulkheads are overpowered or not. The only thing that really matters is whether the other percentage-based modules that aid in tanking are spectacularly bad in comparison, and they're not. In fact, they're all much better. Thus, bulkheads simply can't be overpowered.

Quote:
No, the original question was why should bulkheads be the one off exception to how every other tanking module works in the game?
…which was answered. You then made the counter-claim that they were somehow overpowered, and you have been struggling and failing to support this claim ever since, which is what has created this back-and forth. All you've managed to do is demonstrate the exact opposite in at least two different ways.

Either way, the conclusion is the same: bulkheads are not overpowered — they are, if anything, underpowered. It makes quite a lot of sense to remove their fitting costs. Doing so actually provides a solution to the key problem of giving freighters low slots, and it has pretty much zero bad side-effects. The only thing that comes close is that some miners will be able to tank a bit more, but if they are willing to give up their MLUs for that, all power to them.