These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#2021 - 2014-05-21 18:00:21 UTC
Kathtrine wrote:
QuestionWhy don't you just allow all fittings and rigs on them and let the players make up their minds on how to fit them?

AttentionThough I am sure they will just be fit for fuel and cargo personally.

Both of which I don't have a problem with.

On this issue I see a lot of waffle and lack of time put it. I know you want to do something... but doing crappy things is not the answer.




why don't we let frigates fit titan doomsdays and let the players make up their mind on if they should fit them
Althalus Stenory
Flying Blacksmiths
#2022 - 2014-05-21 18:01:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Althalus Stenory
Providence and obelisk are fine as they are now (since they are armor)
Fenrir and Charon should have 1 or 2 low slot, and at least 1 (or 2 if only 1 low) med slots for buffers.

Armor freighters can use adaptive nano, why the fenrir or charon couldn't use an invul ?

Anyway, i'm fine with the new rebalance :p (really better and more interesting than rigs)

EsiPy - Python 2.7 / 3.3+ Swagger Client based on pyswagger for ESI
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#2023 - 2014-05-21 18:02:06 UTC
Tau Cabalander wrote:
So with rigs I could fit 2x T2 and regain what I already had, plus gain a "utility" rig.

Now even that isn't possible. Cry

Maybe it is just me, but I still don't see any point to all of this. I was happy with my fleet of Charons and Rheas as-is.


They were changing anyway so we can;t have the superdupergood freighter we had.

Lowslots are better than rigs because it's not millions of ISK/refit. Scrapping T2 rigs because you need cargo or tank on a somewhat regular basic would of killed any profitability of owning a freighter.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#2024 - 2014-05-21 18:02:31 UTC
Grenn Putubi wrote:
Can someone justify to me how altering all the freighters' tanks to rely more heavily on armor or shield and then giving all the freighters low slots but no mids is fair?
Largely because armour-tanking them still isn't particularly effective compared to hull tanking them.

Best-case scenario is that it buys you ~96k EHP, which should be compared to the ~171k you get if you go the hull route on the same ship.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#2025 - 2014-05-21 18:04:29 UTC
Althalus Stenory wrote:
Providence and obelisk are fine as they are now (since they are armor)
Fenrir and Charon should have 1 or 2 low slot, and at least 1 (or 2 if only 1 low) med slots for buffers.

Armor freighters can use adaptive nano, why the fenrir or charon couldn't use an invul ?

Anyway, i'm fine with the new rebalance :p (really better and more interesting than rigs)


Use bulkheads for better results in any case.
Brib Vogt
Doomheim
#2026 - 2014-05-21 18:06:19 UTC
I don't like the whole bunch of changes.

You give all ships the ability of more tank but you decrease cargo hold right from the start. Additionally your bulkheads on the testserver have a 10% cargo penalty too. So tanky fits become even more nerfed cargo wise. And don't forgett the resuction of hull, which make the bulkheads nerfed 2 times.

cr.ap

I can understand the bulkhead change but why stripping the cargo capacity from the start. And why giving them such limited fitting possibilities.
Aureus Ahishatsu
Deadspace Knights
#2027 - 2014-05-21 18:06:20 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Ok, new tables:

• New alignment times depending on base and a more balanced fit (red = worse than Rubicon, Green = better than rubicon).

• The full gamut of Tank vs. Cargo (red = worse than both base and Rubicon stats; yellow = better than Rubicon, worse than base; blue = better than base, worse than Rubicon; green = better than both).

I haven't really done any other combos because the other sensible modules (CPR, istab, hacc) either have no effect at all or no effect that freighter pilots care about.

tl;dr: the only ones who have anything to complain about anything anymore are gankers…


How did you calculate your tanks? The base ehp seems rather high?
Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#2028 - 2014-05-21 18:07:39 UTC
Sven Viko VIkolander wrote:
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
TheMercenaryKing wrote:
Love the new update, but one question, when will damage controls become passive mods?


That indeed is a good question.


No greater nerf to ganking / would there ever be.

Well I'm more excited about one less standard fit PvP module I have to activate after every single jump that originally was meant to be a passive module. Hopefully they can get drone control units to be passive as well.
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#2029 - 2014-05-21 18:08:14 UTC
Brib Vogt wrote:

I can understand the bulkhead change but why stripping the cargo capacity from the start. And why giving them such limited fitting possibilities.

They have to reduce the cargo so that when people fit expanded cargoholds, the amount of cargo that freighters can carry does not explode out of control. It's the price you pay for customizability.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Brib Vogt
Doomheim
#2030 - 2014-05-21 18:08:32 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Althalus Stenory wrote:
Providence and obelisk are fine as they are now (since they are armor)
Fenrir and Charon should have 1 or 2 low slot, and at least 1 (or 2 if only 1 low) med slots for buffers.

Armor freighters can use adaptive nano, why the fenrir or charon couldn't use an invul ?

Anyway, i'm fine with the new rebalance :p (really better and more interesting than rigs)


Use bulkheads for better results in any case.


No it is not. CCP reduced the hull hp significantly. Therefore bulkheads won't increase the hp much because they work percentage wise. Additionally one bulkhead reduces cargo hold capacity by 10% (TEST server)
Brib Vogt
Doomheim
#2031 - 2014-05-21 18:09:52 UTC
Querns wrote:
Brib Vogt wrote:

I can understand the bulkhead change but why stripping the cargo capacity from the start. And why giving them such limited fitting possibilities.

They have to reduce the cargo so that when people fit expanded cargoholds, the amount of cargo that freighters can carry does not explode out of control. It's the price you pay for customizability.


but why adding another cargo penalty on tanky fits?
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#2032 - 2014-05-21 18:10:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Aureus Ahishatsu wrote:
How did you calculate your tanks? The base ehp seems rather high?

Sum of base shield/armour/hull HP × skill bonuses × ¼ of ∑ 1/(1-resist)

Brib Vogt wrote:
No it is not.
Yes it is, unless you start slapping deadspace or officer resists on them.

3× 15% resist bonus = ~48% more EHP on armour
3× 25% HP bonus = ~95% more EHP on hull.

In just one case will armour EHP be more than hull EHP, and even then, the difference in EHP increase makes quick work of that tiny gap.
Aureus Ahishatsu
Deadspace Knights
#2033 - 2014-05-21 18:13:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Aureus Ahishatsu
Tippia wrote:
Azami Nevinyrall wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Providence: 350k EHP + 383k m³
Ark: 577k EHP(!) + 118k m³

Any of these strike your fancy? Blink

Oh trust me, they do!

Until I see *Final* numbers and on TQ, I'm not changing any skillque...

Pff. What's this “being sensible” stuff you're doing. Getoutahere! Lol


On a more serious note, these are the base tank stats I'm calculating from. Can anyone check to see if I've missed something because it doesn't seem like it… These are the base stats from the OP, and the effective EHP for each tier includes skills at V (so +25% from Mechanics, Hull Upgrades, and Shield Mgt, and +50% for the JFs).


How are you calculating the sehp and aehp? those seem really off. Below was my ehp for each of the 4 damage types for the shield of the fenrir.

em 48000
therm 57600
kin 67200
exp 72000

edit: these were calculated with the following equation ehp = base+[base * (resist/100)]
Arya Regnar
Darwins Right Hand
#2034 - 2014-05-21 18:16:37 UTC
You can forget about ganking anshars alltogether 670k+ ehp.
They can still carry well over 100k m3 at that ehp.

Base hp was increased too much, for everything.

EvE-Mail me if you need anything.
Legion40k
Hard Knocks Inc.
Hard Knocks Citizens
#2035 - 2014-05-21 18:16:55 UTC
Mr Fozzie the revised changes are hereby APPROVEEEDDD Big smile

they make so much more sense

thanks!

\o/
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#2036 - 2014-05-21 18:17:11 UTC
Aureus Ahishatsu wrote:
How are you calculating the sehp and aehp? those seem really off. Below was my ehp for each of the 4 damage types for the shield of the fenrir.

[…]

edit: these were calculated with the following equation ehp = base+[base * (resist/100)]

You've left out the 25% skill bonus. All my numbers are for all-V setups.
marly cortez
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#2037 - 2014-05-21 18:17:24 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
addelee wrote:

JF's are having their fuel usage increase by 50% in kronos.


This is not correct. The fuel change is currently scheduled for Crius.


Makes no odd's when you bring it in, it is just plain wrong headed for the so many reasons already mentioned in this thread, and how far you missed the mark as to how risk averse JF pilots are for the most part. Anything that detracts from logistics in this manner, from increased fuel costs to decreased cargo capacity will not get you what you want in terms of Null Sec industry expansion, taking into account all the other changes your proposing and have already slipped into game no one if they take the time to look at it as an overall picture of Null Sec operations will see all of this as anything other than one massive nerf fest perpetrated and spun off as being good for the game when in reality it's simple an attempt by the PvP lobby to turn Null Sec into a facsimile of Empire stupidity.

Were the thought came from that these things are used in fleets to provide defense I have no idea, again another one of those 'I thought it so it must be so', ideas, freighters rarely move in fleets defensive or otherwise, draws attention see...not good. suggest you study how it's done and ask why Null Sec Alliances do it that way, they are not in the business of allowing CCP or anyone for that matter to gank valuable ships and cargo no matter how much you might think it's fun to do.

all the other tinsel rubbish tinkering with Jump freighters and freighters is just that simply because if it gets caught it's going to die, make it as agile and as fast as in inty if you like, the results will still be the same, once pinned it's done for. so why bother in the first place, nothing in these changes is good news and overall it smacks of change because you have nothing better to do.

Tackle Sov, take on the PoS monster, PoCo's and PI click fests all items already long flagged as game detractors and stop tinkering with stuff that already works and works well

Humanity is the thin veneer that remains after you remove the baffled chimp.
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
#2038 - 2014-05-21 18:18:10 UTC
Althalus Stenory wrote:
Providence and obelisk are fine as they are now (since they are armor)
Fenrir and Charon should have 1 or 2 low slot, and at least 1 (or 2 if only 1 low) med slots for buffers.

Armor freighters can use adaptive nano, why the fenrir or charon couldn't use an invul ?

Anyway, i'm fine with the new rebalance :p (really better and more interesting than rigs)


Minimum CPU needed for invuls is 27 tf (caldari/DG/gistum C-type). Aside from the DCUII (which is 30 tf), all DCUs need less than that. Stick with bulkheads as far as tank mods are concerned anyways, you get much better EHP values in both armor and shield freighters.

"Tomahawks?"

"----in' A, right?"

"Trouble is, those things cost like a million and a half each."

"----, you pay me half that and I'll hump in some c4 and blow the ---- out of it my own damn self."
Moloney
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#2039 - 2014-05-21 18:18:25 UTC
Just forget the change all together please. There is nothing interesting about a one trick poney getting nerfed into the ground.

Only change needed: NONE.

Only nerf needed: NONE.

purpose of freighter is to get stuff from point A to B. Leave it alone!
Brib Vogt
Doomheim
#2040 - 2014-05-21 18:18:37 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Aureus Ahishatsu wrote:
How did you calculate your tanks? The base ehp seems rather high?

Sum of base shield/armour/hull HP × skill bonuses × ¼ of ∑ 1/(1-resist)

Brib Vogt wrote:
No it is not.
Yes it is, unless you start slapping deadspace or officer resists on them.

3× 15% resist bonus = ~48% more EHP on armour
3× 25% HP bonus = ~95% more EHP on hull.

In just one case will armour EHP be more than hull EHP, and even then, the difference in EHP increase makes quick work of that tiny gap.


your numbers are correct. but "Use bulkheads for better results in any case." is still not true because you would end up in -30% cargo capacity for a freighter!