These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Wulfy Johnson
NorCorp Security
#2101 - 2014-05-21 19:33:23 UTC
Hauling next generation - Move current JF's over to T1, and give us new T2 freighters and JF's with full out fitting capability, and options into roles.
Daenika
Chambers of Shaolin
#2102 - 2014-05-21 19:40:15 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…


Erm...

Since when to Bulkheads reduce cargo space? I thought that was just istabs. Bulkheads appear to only have 3 effect: increased hull HP, reduced top speed, (slight) increase to inertia.

Are they changing that? Or did you accidentally include the istab cargo reduction in your numbers?
Valterra Craven
#2103 - 2014-05-21 19:40:49 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Adaptive Nano Platings are hardly even worth talking about.


Well in the sense that your correction was incorrect it is worth talking about. (Been there done that, same thread even!)
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#2104 - 2014-05-21 19:41:33 UTC
Wulfy Johnson wrote:
Hauling next generation - Move current JF's over to T1, and give us new T2 freighters and JF's with full out fitting capability, and options into roles.


And stats nerfed to **** to make sure they are not unbalanced.
Valterra Craven
#2105 - 2014-05-21 19:42:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Valterra Craven
nevermind.
Dave Stark
#2106 - 2014-05-21 19:43:13 UTC
Daenika wrote:
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…


Erm...

Since when to Bulkheads reduce cargo space? I thought that was just istabs. Bulkheads appear to only have 3 effect: increased hull HP, reduced top speed, (slight) increase to inertia.

Are they changing that? Or did you accidentally include the istab cargo reduction in your numbers?


since kronos, see the hp rig thread for details on bulkheads being changed.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#2107 - 2014-05-21 19:43:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Daenika wrote:
Erm...

Since when to Bulkheads reduce cargo space? I thought that was just istabs. Bulkheads appear to only have 3 effect: increased hull HP, reduced top speed, (slight) increase to inertia.

Are they changing that? Or did you accidentally include the istab cargo reduction in your numbers?

They're changing it:

“We are also going to swap the speed penalty on all reinforced bulkhead modules to an equal percentage cargo capacity penalty. The agility penalty will remain intact at this time.”

Valterra Craven wrote:
my bet is that now that you just pointed it out it gets changed.
It's bad to bet against an outcome when the outcome is already known.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#2108 - 2014-05-21 19:44:21 UTC
Daenika wrote:
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…


Erm...

Since when to Bulkheads reduce cargo space? I thought that was just istabs. Bulkheads appear to only have 3 effect: increased hull HP, reduced top speed, (slight) increase to inertia.

Are they changing that? Or did you accidentally include the istab cargo reduction in your numbers?


They are changing that. I'm pretty sure it was in the original OP but got removed with the new version.
Walter Hart White
Heisenberg Minings
#2109 - 2014-05-21 19:45:15 UTC
Daenika wrote:
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…


Erm...

Since when to Bulkheads reduce cargo space? I thought that was just istabs. Bulkheads appear to only have 3 effect: increased hull HP, reduced top speed, (slight) increase to inertia.

Are they changing that? Or did you accidentally include the istab cargo reduction in your numbers?

Changed that weeks ago. Gankers cried about that, so they changed it. :)
Ines Tegator
Serious Business Inc. Ltd. LLC. etc.
#2110 - 2014-05-21 19:46:20 UTC
Tippia wrote:

They're changing it:

“We are also going to swap the speed penalty on all reinforced bulkhead modules to an equal percentage cargo capacity penalty. The agility penalty will remain intact at this time.”


For the record, I'm completely OK with this change. The limiting factor on cargo in highsec is the Cost/Profit threshold for gankers, not actual cargo space. Raising EHP lets me carry more / more valuable cargo then raw space would.

Overhaul Dscan!
Maldiro Selkurk
Radiation Sickness
#2111 - 2014-05-21 19:46:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Maldiro Selkurk
This plan is win !

Big smile

Yawn,  I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#2112 - 2014-05-21 19:49:13 UTC
Walter Hart White wrote:

Changed that weeks ago. Gankers cried about that, so they changed it. :)


That, or the CSM pointed out that it needed to be done thanks to the Orca. Which is what Fozzie referenced in the post before the edit.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Vincintius Agrippa
Crimson Serpent Syndicate
#2113 - 2014-05-21 19:50:56 UTC
Shizuken wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:


The base cargo capacity of Freighters is being decreased so that a set of three Tech Two Expanded Cargoholds adds 21-25% cargo above the previous maximum values. For Jump Freighters, three T2 Expanders will increase cargo capacity by 1-2%.
This means that Freighters can get significantly higher maximum capacity than before using modules, and we're increasing the volume of packaged capital ships (to 1.3 million m3) and unpackaged station containers (to 2 million m3) to compensate.



I am still not sure why CCP is so afraid of caps in highsec, especially even unassembled ones. It would make trading them easier.


Is the cap ban before they changed the old aoe doommsdays? if so then i understand. Cant have titans doing supernovas' on the jita undock.

But now, doomsdays are "aimed" weapons.I dont see why not now.

Ofcourse If they did naturally, using doomsdays in hisec would be a criminal offence and youd get alpha'd by concord.
Only YOU can prevent internet bullying!
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#2114 - 2014-05-21 19:51:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Oh, and for those thinking that armour-tanking is a good idea…

Providence: gives up 33.1pp tank for 160k m³.
Charon: gives up 35.6pp tank for 171k m³.
Obelisk: gives up 38.8pp tank for 162k m³.
Fenrir: gives up 26.0pp tank for 160k m³.
Ark: gives up 18.4pp tank for 50k m³.
Rhea: gives up 36.7pp tank for 53k m³.
Anshar: gives up 36.6pp tank for 51k m³.
Nomad: gives up 27.9pp tank for 49k m³.

To clarify: if the providence armour tanks, it gets a 33.1 percentage points lower tank increase (18.2% rather than 51.3%) than if it had chosen to hull tank, but doesn't lose the 30% cargo space that a full hull tank costs.
Vincintius Agrippa
Crimson Serpent Syndicate
#2115 - 2014-05-21 19:52:32 UTC
Celly S wrote:
Dersen Lowery wrote:
They're already used to taking measures to avoid getting caught



^^This^^

as well as what the other poster said about freighters and fleets.

I almost never tell anyone when I'm flying my JF until after I'm where I need to be... like my hairdresser, "only my cyno alt knows for sure"

o/
Celly Smunt



Oh, I get your name now lol.
Only YOU can prevent internet bullying!
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#2116 - 2014-05-21 19:53:25 UTC
Vincintius Agrippa wrote:
Shizuken wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:


The base cargo capacity of Freighters is being decreased so that a set of three Tech Two Expanded Cargoholds adds 21-25% cargo above the previous maximum values. For Jump Freighters, three T2 Expanders will increase cargo capacity by 1-2%.
This means that Freighters can get significantly higher maximum capacity than before using modules, and we're increasing the volume of packaged capital ships (to 1.3 million m3) and unpackaged station containers (to 2 million m3) to compensate.



I am still not sure why CCP is so afraid of caps in highsec, especially even unassembled ones. It would make trading them easier.


Is the cap ban before they changed the old aoe doommsdays? if so then i understand. Cant have titans doing supernovas' on the jita undock.

But now, doomsdays are "aimed" weapons.I dont see why not now.

Ofcourse If they did naturally, using doomsdays in hisec would be a criminal offence and youd get alpha'd by concord.


The capital ban is to stop large powerblocs trivially dominating high sec.

If the ban was removed, then the face of hi-sec would change overnight.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Ines Tegator
Serious Business Inc. Ltd. LLC. etc.
#2117 - 2014-05-21 19:58:59 UTC
Vincintius Agrippa wrote:


Ofcourse If they did naturally, using doomsdays in hisec would be a criminal offence and youd get alpha'd by concord.


It would almost be worth the pain of nullsec alliances wardeccing and extorting everyone in sight just to see a few CONCORD / Titan killmails :P

Almost.

Overhaul Dscan!
Walter Hart White
Heisenberg Minings
#2118 - 2014-05-21 20:00:21 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Vincintius Agrippa wrote:
Shizuken wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:


The base cargo capacity of Freighters is being decreased so that a set of three Tech Two Expanded Cargoholds adds 21-25% cargo above the previous maximum values. For Jump Freighters, three T2 Expanders will increase cargo capacity by 1-2%.
This means that Freighters can get significantly higher maximum capacity than before using modules, and we're increasing the volume of packaged capital ships (to 1.3 million m3) and unpackaged station containers (to 2 million m3) to compensate.



I am still not sure why CCP is so afraid of caps in highsec, especially even unassembled ones. It would make trading them easier.


Is the cap ban before they changed the old aoe doommsdays? if so then i understand. Cant have titans doing supernovas' on the jita undock.

But now, doomsdays are "aimed" weapons.I dont see why not now.

Ofcourse If they did naturally, using doomsdays in hisec would be a criminal offence and youd get alpha'd by concord.


The capital ban is to stop large powerblocs trivially dominating high sec.

If the ban was removed, then the face of hi-sec would change overnight.

Well make it so you can't assemble capital in hi sec. Done, fixed. That way people can trade ones in stations/hi sec but not fly ones.
Wulfy Johnson
NorCorp Security
#2119 - 2014-05-21 20:00:51 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Wulfy Johnson wrote:
Hauling next generation - Move current JF's over to T1, and give us new T2 freighters and JF's with full out fitting capability, and options into roles.


And stats nerfed to **** to make sure they are not unbalanced.


Of course, but moving into specialization and roles, and options to gimp your probably very expensive ship at your own pleasure. Also gives that line of gameplay more than 2 months of skilltraining..
Gevlon Goblin
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#2120 - 2014-05-21 20:04:38 UTC
Many people mentioned that Armor freighters will be ahead of shield ones, but the situation is worse than what a raw EHP calculation would say. Shields have a 0% EM resist hole. In the OP resists were mentioned, but only Nomad gets EM resist. On the other hand the armor has no such resist hole. Any reasonable ganker would open with a few tornadoes with faction EMP L to eat the shield and then the Taloses finish the armor and hull.

My point is that it takes about half as many ships to remove the shield of a Charon than to remove the armor of a Providence.



My blog: greedygoblin.blogspot.com