These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Lidia Caderu
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
#1621 - 2014-05-20 20:53:42 UTC
Quote:
base capacity of all Freighters and Jump Freighters is going down, by between 27 and 30%.

Thank you Fozzie
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#1622 - 2014-05-20 21:01:53 UTC
Alexis Nightwish wrote:
Instead, make jumps cost fuel relative to the distance jumped (possibly going up exponentially with distance?),

Gee if only there were some attribute that says that jumps take a certain amount of fuel per light year of jump distance.
And the only way to do this is with a linear relation between jump distance and fuel use, otherwise people would just make lots of smaller jumps instead of a few big jumps. If that's your goal you should just nerf jump range.

Alexis Nightwish wrote:
and don't allow cynos to be lit within 1AU of any celestials. Suddenly JFs aren't invulnerable, and we get a nice power projection nerf at the same time. Win-win.

And suddenly we get some pretty good nerfs to content creation too. Many battles would never be able to happen. This is not what anyone really wants.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Valterra Craven
#1623 - 2014-05-20 21:05:08 UTC
Tippia wrote:
I won't bite.
I don’t believe you and evidence of prior behavior speaks to the contrary.

Tippia wrote:
Fair enough. I thought for a moment that they cost 44, not 40. The point is still the same: the bulkhead is a waste of a slot, and it's not skipped over for a lack of CPU — it's skipped over because there are far better things to put in that slot. Pretty much anything, in fact, is a better use of the slot. People might start fitting it if it was free (and they were a bit daft), but that rather suggests once more that they are far from overpowered.


I don’t understand how the bulkhead in that case is a waste of slot… If that’s the case then the bulkhead that’s fitted to the orca is just a waste of a slot there as well. After all what I’m proposing is basically the same thing, you have your invuls in mids on the orca just like the phoenix and you have your dcu as well. A PDU offers marginal HP compared to the bulkhead and not much in terms of cap recharge unless you are trying to stack with cap charge mods to get cap stable, at which point buffer tanks are irrelevant and its more about repairing HP. The 4th BCU only offers marginally better DPS due to the stacking penalties. So again, if the bulkhead is such a waste, what other module would be a better fit?

Tippia wrote:
They have the same superior hull-tanking support module as every other ship in the game. You understand the value of resistances over just bulk HP, yes? And you understand the value of massive resist bonuses over very very tiny raw HP increases?


And you understand that buffer tanks aren’t the only way to tank ships as well? I understand the value of resistances, but only to a point. There’s a reason sub caps fit a mix of resistances and HP boosters. Resistances are stacking penalized and therefore at some point the best option is to fit a mix a both. But when you have 200k HP and you buff that by 25% and it’s not stacking penalized that’s not very very tiny…
Sniper Smith
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#1624 - 2014-05-20 21:05:09 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
So, someone mentioned this earlier but I think it bears repeating.

If a lowslot is given with sufficient fittings to put a DCU 2 on there, the end result will be a crapton of ganked freighters and an ocean of tears.

Because such an addition will result in a hefty nerf to overall capability, but moreso because if people could be asked to be at their keyboard for each jump to turn on a module then freighters would not autopilot so much.

Yes they would.. cause people are Lazy.

I'd expect the most common Freighter would be 3x Cargo.. Some might fit a DCUII, but they would still auto.. thus not turning it on..
Others would auto with a DCUII, and turn it on after each jump, but still have it on another screen or behind their other windows..

So no you see an Auto'ing Freighter, scan shows it has a DCUII, 2x Cargo, do you take the gank and assume it's off, or on..


I like the idea of variety.. Much more variation for the people hauling, and risk/reward for the people ganking..
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#1625 - 2014-05-20 21:05:34 UTC  |  Edited by: James Amril-Kesh
But really I cast my vote on making no changes to freighters and jump freighters at all.

In an ideal world I'd like a system where you could keep the current stats of freighters, or you could decide to make tradeoffs like somewhat more agility for a lot less tank and cargo, somewhat more tank for a lot less agility and cargo, or somewhat more cargo for a lot less agility and tank. That's not currently possible though because nothing that improves any of those attributes has a deleterious effect on the other two (at least not in the same sense or degree).

Autopiloters would no doubt choose more cargo for less tank and agility, when really their smart option would be to choose more tank for less agility and cargo.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Valterra Craven
#1626 - 2014-05-20 21:16:37 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
But really I cast my vote on making no changes to freighters and jump freighters at all.
.

I think a vast majority of people in this thread now that they've realized what this change means now want this instead. At best you can hope for is that they role it back in a year like they are doing with loot spew... one of the worst mechanics I've seen from them in awhile....
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#1627 - 2014-05-20 21:17:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Valterra Craven wrote:
I don’t believe you and evidence of prior behavior speaks to the contrary.
So stay wilfully ignorant then. That's your problem.

Quote:
I don’t understand how the bulkhead in that case is a waste of slot…
The same way anything else is a waste of a slot: because it doesn't offer any compelling advantage over any of the other modules you could fit. Pretty much everything else you could fit will help you every time you pull the ship out; bulkheads do not.

Quote:
If that’s the case then the bulkhead that’s fitted to the orca is just a waste of a slot there as well.
No, because there aren't really any other modules that offer any valuable advantage for that ship. It has everything it needs already. Some forego it for a bit more cargo or for a RCU because they don't want to rig it for grid, but both are very situational.

On a phoenix, a PDU offers more shields, which is what you're tanking anyway, and more cap, which is one of the things you need the most in almost any capship. A BCU offers damage which is always more valuable — it is, after all, the primary purpose of the ship. Even some sensors are more beneficial.

Quote:
And you understand that buffer tanks aren’t the only way to tank ships as well?
…and in all other tanks (especially on capships) resists are king. That's why DCUs are the ultimate tanking support module. If something is eating into your gtfo-buffer, things have gone wrong anyway since your primary tanking method has long since failed. Dual-tanking is a spectacularly bad idea and tanking on your last legs is almost just as bad since you have no room for error. There are a couple of ships where GTFO is all that's relevant, though… and on none of them are bulkheads overpowered. On the rest of the ships, they simply don't add anything of value.
Valterra Craven
#1628 - 2014-05-20 21:19:53 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Valterra Craven wrote:
Tippia wrote:
• Replacing it with a WCS gives 25% more hull EHP and you're now safe from a single long point. Yay. Lol

You do realize that stabs take fitting right?
You do realise we're talking about a completely different scenario now, right?


You do realize I added an edit before you posted right?
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#1629 - 2014-05-20 21:21:22 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:
You do realize I added an edit before you posted right?

You do realise that it makes no difference, right?
And you do realise that what I quoted was what was in your post at the time, right?

Again, you made a mistake. Live with it.
Valterra Craven
#1630 - 2014-05-20 21:24:35 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Valterra Craven wrote:
You do realize I added an edit before you posted right?

You do realise that it makes no difference, right?
And you do realise that what I quoted was what was in your post at the time, right?

Again, you made a mistake. Live with it.


What was the mistake?
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#1631 - 2014-05-20 21:26:23 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:
What was the mistake?
You assumed that CPU and grid was in any way a problem because you failed to read and thus didn't notice that we're talking about a completely different scenario.
Valterra Craven
#1632 - 2014-05-20 21:33:57 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Valterra Craven wrote:
What was the mistake?
You assumed that CPU and grid was in any way a problem because you failed to read and thus didn't notice that we're talking about a completely different scenario.


No, it appears the problem is that I assumed you were working under your old proposal + the new one and bulkheads wouldn't require CPU. So instead of giving freighters 29 CPU you'd be giving them 59 CPU and 1 grid. (since they already have 1 each)
Emiko Rowna
Keys To The Stars
#1633 - 2014-05-20 21:40:31 UTC
Oh a cat fight, where is my popcorn?
Mag's
Azn Empire
#1634 - 2014-05-20 21:41:06 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Valterra Craven wrote:
What was the mistake?
You assumed that CPU and grid was in any way a problem because you failed to read and thus didn't notice that we're talking about a completely different scenario.


No, it appears the problem is that I assumed you were working under your old proposal + the new one and bulkheads wouldn't require CPU. So instead of giving freighters 29 CPU you'd be giving them 59 CPU and 1 grid. (since they already have 1 each)
Yes, that would be your mistake.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#1635 - 2014-05-20 21:41:58 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:
No Yes, it appears the problem is that I assumed you were working under your old proposal
In other words, you assumed that CPU and grid was in any way a problem because you failed to read and thus didn't notice that we're talking about a completely different scenario. I fixed your post, by the way.

So yes, you made a mistake. Live with it.
Vincintius Agrippa
Crimson Serpent Syndicate
#1636 - 2014-05-20 21:43:10 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Valterra Craven wrote:
You do realize I added an edit before you posted right?

You do realise that it makes no difference, right?
And you do realise that what I quoted was what was in your post at the time, right?

Again, you made a mistake. Live with it.


What was the mistake?


HHm, you two share a striking resemblance to eachother :)
Only YOU can prevent internet bullying!
Mag's
Azn Empire
#1637 - 2014-05-20 21:46:44 UTC
Vincintius Agrippa wrote:
Valterra Craven wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Valterra Craven wrote:
You do realize I added an edit before you posted right?

You do realise that it makes no difference, right?
And you do realise that what I quoted was what was in your post at the time, right?

Again, you made a mistake. Live with it.


What was the mistake?


HHm, you two share a striking resemblance to eachother :)
No not really. Tippia is his usual logical self. Whereas Valterra is, well, highly illogical and prone to large memory lapses as well as complete removal from reality in one instance.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Ramona Quimby
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#1638 - 2014-05-20 21:52:08 UTC
Unsub three accounts.

Freighters could easily be buffed tank wise 3 to 10 times in EHP, just to keep up with how easy it has become to kill them.

Instead they're being nerfed to please Goons and Gankers.

Stop nerfing hi-sec and buffing null-sec.

Instead: Buff hi-sec, nerf null-sec, and ban null-sec players from CSM, only hi-sec and low-sec should matter. Nerf-null.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#1639 - 2014-05-20 21:55:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Mag's
Ramona Quimby wrote:
Unsub three accounts.

Freighters could easily be buffed tank wise 3 to 10 times in EHP, just to keep up with how easy it has become to kill them.

Instead they're being nerfed to please Goons and Gankers.

Stop nerfing hi-sec and buffing null-sec.

Instead: Buff hi-sec, nerf null-sec, and ban null-sec players from CSM, only hi-sec and low-sec should matter. Nerf-null.
Many Goons and gankers actually warned those silly pilots who asked for this. We/they, didn't want it.

I will take your stuff if you no longer need it. Cool

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#1640 - 2014-05-20 22:00:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Ramona Quimby wrote:
Instead they're being nerfed to please Goons and Gankers.

Stop nerfing hi-sec and buffing null-sec.
You realise, of course, that this change has every potential to create problems for goons and gankers; that they weren't part of the groups who advocated this change; and that this hits nullsec harder than it does highsec.

Mag's wrote:
No not really. Tippia is his usual logical self. Whereas Valterra is, well, highly illogical and prone to large memory lapses as well as complete removal from reality in one instance.

I think he might be referring to our appearance, except that Valterra is a beat-up old Civire who can't even dress herself properly and who lacks my fabulous ass. Blink