Player Features and Ideas Discussion

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4606434#post4606434




I should gamble today !!

But at least you said "fair". And come on, shield and armor ain't saving you when the bad men come. Should you be chosen, chances are you've been scanned and were deemed both worthwhile and killable. The best tank is to make yourself the lesser of their possible targets through what you choose to carry onboard. The fit and tank is secondary.

So what, freighters and JF got more base tank. That's probably going to lead to an increase in ganking if anything as pilots get cocky and take even less care with their cargo.

It's going to impart a sense of invincibility that won't in reality exist.

Trimming your quote down a bit.

From the business perspective, you're absolutely right - less cargo means more time spent, more "labor cost" (of course equates to zero for many), but using the term exposure indicates a misunderstanding of how ganking actually works. In order to carry out a successful gank of this magnitude, you have to pass a certain threshold of damage and bring that damage to bear generally in one sitting, especially when it comes to jump freighters. So, a 3% drop in your target's EHP means you have to bring the same amount of guys more or less, whereas a 75% boost in your target's EHP means you have to bring nearly double the amount of guys you brought for the same target pre-patch. It doesn't matter how exposed said target is - the only really relevant thing in the end is its EHP on the ganking side.

Because if it's the latter you're basically just giving capital ships reduced fuel consumption in certain circumstances.
Of course that could be mitigated by making them really big (e.g. 4,000 m3 like other capital mods) so you can't refit them without sacrificing huge portions of your fleet hangar.

This is a really interesting way to "balance" fuel consumption low-slot modules against other caps/blackops BS. Hopefully we get a feedback thread for these; there's a couple of potential issues I would like to bring up and/or be pre-empted on, but this is not the thread for it.

Don't you think you went a little bit overboard in terms of raw EHP? - there's a very large gap between the obelisk and providence compared to the charon and fenrir - where the fenrir will be beyond the tank of a TQ obelisk according to this: http://eve.beyondreality.se/pics/Kronos/FreighterCargoTank.png

That's fair.

I like the overall changes but I have a real issue with the above. I think it's more the way that Fozzy is selling this rather than the change itself as there will only be 1 option in reality.

The term "interesting option" isn't interesting when you cross this over with the other changes.

JF's are having their fuel usage increase by 50% in kronos. Now unless these modules actually save more than the 50% then every single JF pilot will be running with them. This restricts the "options" to 1.

However, this presents another problem as if the modules can achieve better than 50% reduction, what's the point in the other change to fuel.

I'm not saying the changes are wrong, but if I were CCP, I'd maybe step back and actually think about what they're attempting to achieve rather than throwing out some dubious idea's.

Edit:

I guess you could go for fuel price vs cargo space. That's 2 options I guess but it just feels maybe the module has come about from the backlash on the fuel increase.

Can we also assume that the jump fuel conservation modules are usable on all ships fitted with a jump drive? (i.e. travel fit carriers)