These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#2281 - 2014-05-22 13:41:07 UTC
Daichi Yamato wrote:
Walter Hart White wrote:
Pensador wrote:
Thank God. For years all of we were expecting that.
Maybe this is the end of Ganking freighters
in high sec

That will never end. But it will raise the safe for transport value of goods. And that is a good thing.


safety is not good in eve. Saftey promotes complacency. Risk rewards effort.

u want things to be difficult because u want to be rewarded for ur efforts and risk. U want ur competition to lose out because they are lazy and/or died in a fire.



Complacency leads to bigger whales. Bigger whales will be at risk.
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#2282 - 2014-05-22 13:50:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Daichi Yamato
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Daichi Yamato wrote:
Walter Hart White wrote:
Pensador wrote:
Thank God. For years all of we were expecting that.
Maybe this is the end of Ganking freighters
in high sec

That will never end. But it will raise the safe for transport value of goods. And that is a good thing.


safety is not good in eve. Saftey promotes complacency. Risk rewards effort.

u want things to be difficult because u want to be rewarded for ur efforts and risk. U want ur competition to lose out because they are lazy and/or died in a fire.



Complacency leads to bigger whales. Bigger whales will be at risk.


i suppose ill have to wait and see.

just out of curiosity, how much would ppl charge for freighter ganking?

yeah, thats not gonna happen lol

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
KIller Wabbit
MEME Thoughts
#2283 - 2014-05-22 13:55:34 UTC
Aureus Ahishatsu wrote:
Holy hell this forum is ridiculous at how fast it's going. We're over 109 pages and it's only been up 5 days LOL.


Well when stupid stuff happens...
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#2284 - 2014-05-22 14:23:32 UTC
For those that suggest the CSM has no control over CCP, this is an object lesson.

Fozzie puts out moronic changes that the entire Eve universe hates, except the griefers.
Fozzie says he will talk with the CSM, and they are giving him good ideas.
72 hours later, Fozzie does a 180 and puts out changes past CSM members are stating are what the CSM wanted all along.
Warr Akini
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#2285 - 2014-05-22 14:27:18 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Complacency leads to bigger whales. Bigger whales will be at risk.


I keep seeing blanket statements like these being thrown around (and have since the beginning of time) - sure, idiots will continue to be idiots, but it's again a question of scaling (or balance). If you pump freighter EHP by 10x then you might see people hauling around a lot more money at once, making them "at risk," but I'd be willing to bet the number of people carrying 10x of goods (i.e. 100b versus 10b) will be a tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny fraction - mostly because people just don't have those kinds of assets. Usually. Meanwhile, the guys carrying the same old 1.5b are snugglier.

Not to say I know what the magic "I have more ehp therefore I carry x much more dollar" number is, but I wouldn't say anyone here can really assume that either.
Dave Stark
#2286 - 2014-05-22 14:32:06 UTC
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
Fozzie puts out moronic changes that the entire Eve universe hates, except the griefers.

actually, everyone hated the changes including the 'griefers'. the 'griefers' just got to be smug about it because we knew it was going to be a bad change and had been telling everyone that for as long as people had been asking for rig slots on freighters.

but don't let facts get in the way.
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#2287 - 2014-05-22 14:32:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Daichi Yamato
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
For those that suggest the CSM has no control over CCP, this is an object lesson.

Fozzie puts out moronic changes that carebears rage about and make threats of violence and rage quitting over, except the griefers.




FTFY

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
Gumpy Bitterhawk
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#2288 - 2014-05-22 14:45:19 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Daichi Yamato wrote:
Walter Hart White wrote:
Pensador wrote:
Thank God. For years all of we were expecting that.
Maybe this is the end of Ganking freighters
in high sec

That will never end. But it will raise the safe for transport value of goods. And that is a good thing.


safety is not good in eve. Saftey promotes complacency. Risk rewards effort.

u want things to be difficult because u want to be rewarded for ur efforts and risk. U want ur competition to lose out because they are lazy and/or died in a fire.



Complacency leads to bigger whales. Bigger whales will be at risk.


Frankly, Japan and Norway dont give no *****.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#2289 - 2014-05-22 14:51:18 UTC
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
For those that suggest the CSM has no control over CCP, this is an object lesson.

Fozzie puts out moronic changes that the entire Eve universe hates, except the griefers.
Fozzie says he will talk with the CSM, and they are giving him good ideas.
72 hours later, Fozzie does a 180 and puts out changes past CSM members are stating are what the CSM wanted all along.



Rigs on freighters were the brainchild of people like you. The gankers were always against the idea.
Dareth Astrar
Astrar Logistics and Engineering
#2290 - 2014-05-22 14:58:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Dareth Astrar
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey everyone the Op has now been updated with a revised version of the design. As many of you were anticipating, we will be achieving the goal of customizability through low slots instead of rig slots. Big thanks to everyone who has provided reasoned feedback in the thread and special thanks to the CSM.


Thank you for listening. Smile


Valterra Craven wrote:

I like this better but I still don't like the fact that armor can be tanked somewhat (resistance plates) and shields can not. This wouldn't have been a big deal had you leave HP values in hull so every could tank roughly equally, but since you guys moved such a large chunk of HP to shields and armor this seems to be an unfair advantage for armor based races.

I wish i knew how to edit EFT files to create fits based off this to see just what the difference is.


It's a valid point. There are ENAM's for armour tanks, but I don't recall a low slot shield resist module aside from the DCU, which we have been read clearly stated as not going to be a freighter suitable module.

That does swing things rather heavily one way on tanking front, which to be fair, does give you a reason other then racial role play to fly those other freighters now.

OK, there's a very sizable hit from Cargo Expander's negative to hull points for these ships, but I still think this is a better place then the previous rigs option.
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
#2291 - 2014-05-22 15:05:51 UTC
Dareth Astrar wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey everyone the Op has now been updated with a revised version of the design. As many of you were anticipating, we will be achieving the goal of customizability through low slots instead of rig slots. Big thanks to everyone who has provided reasoned feedback in the thread and special thanks to the CSM.


Thank you for listening. Smile


Valterra Craven wrote:

I like this better but I still don't like the fact that armor can be tanked somewhat (resistance plates) and shields can not. This wouldn't have been a big deal had you leave HP values in hull so every could tank roughly equally, but since you guys moved such a large chunk of HP to shields and armor this seems to be an unfair advantage for armor based races.

I wish i knew how to edit EFT files to create fits based off this to see just what the difference is.


It's a valid point. There are ENAM's for armour tanks, but I don't recall a low slot shield resist module aside from the DCU, which we have been read clearly stated as not going to be a freighter suitable module.

That does swing things rather heavily one way on tanking front, which to be fair, does give you a reason other then racial role play to fly those other freighters now.

OK, there's a very sizable hit from Cargo Expander's negative to hull points for these ships, but I still think this is a better place then the previous rigs option.



Freighters nor jump freighters will have the CPU to use an EANM either

They can use a ANP, which generally give less overall EHP than bulkheads. However 3 ANP also give great resists on an Ark, which lend itself very well to repping.

So, to prevent ganks, bulkheads are the way to go for strictly overall buffer, but if you want a bait ship, a JF with ANP x3 will be a friggin beast.
Sael Va'Tauri
Morgan Industry
Silent Infinity
#2292 - 2014-05-22 15:28:42 UTC
So, with the changes to potential EHP of a tanked Freighter, you might need the larger volley damage from a decent number of Tornados instead of a horde of catalysts to gank a freighter? I'm not sure that's the end of the world outside of a longer train time for the gank alt. What is the major problem here, again? Freighter pilot wants to carry something low volume and expensive, and tanks up - is there a reason that shouldn't require an increase in isk on the ganker side?

If you just want to grief freighter pilots, that should be easier with catalysts now given that you'll see a number of them running 3x cargo expanders...
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#2293 - 2014-05-22 15:53:33 UTC
Sael Va'Tauri wrote:
So, with the changes to potential EHP of a tanked Freighter, you might need the larger volley damage from a decent number of Tornados instead of a horde of catalysts to gank a freighter? I'm not sure that's the end of the world outside of a longer train time for the gank alt. What is the major problem here, again? Freighter pilot wants to carry something low volume and expensive, and tanks up - is there a reason that shouldn't require an increase in isk on the ganker side?

If you just want to grief freighter pilots, that should be easier with catalysts now given that you'll see a number of them running 3x cargo expanders...


You only switch from DPS to alpha if don't have the time to apply the DPS. Either because the security status of the system is to high or the target is getting massive reps between gun cycles.
HandelsPharmi
Pharmi on CharBazaar
#2294 - 2014-05-22 16:49:10 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:

The base EHP of all Freighters and Jump Freighters is being increased (since Expanded Cargoholds affect freighter hp more than cargo rigs do) and more emphasis is being placed on armor and shield than before (although all Freighters still gain the majority of their hitpoints from hull).
Note the change in the Jump Freighter HP bonus, which now only applies to their main tank and hull. The large increase in JF base HP and resist more than make up for the bonus change and all JFs have more base EHP than before.

ARK

Slot layout: 0H, 0M, 3(+3)L;
Fittings: 3(+2) PWG, 5(+4) CPU
Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 12000(+6000) / 63600(+26400) / 96000(-15000)
Base shield resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 0 / 20 / 47.5(+7.5) / 62.5(+12.5)
Base armor resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 50 / 35 / 34.375(+9.375) / 40(+20)


78 / 71 / 71 / 74 Armor Resistance is possible with a Armor tank without a booster or anything else... this is... amazing
Valterra Craven
#2295 - 2014-05-22 17:11:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Valterra Craven
So I've been playing around with the fitting tool here:

http://xyjax.com/optimizer_kronos/

and the most comparable fit to today is the following (for t1 freighters)

2x t2 Cargo holds
1x t2 ANP

This fit will yield a slight nerf to current m3 numbers for a slight boost in EHP numbers (this of course assumes all skills except racial freighter at 5 with the racials being at 4)

This fit also comes with a nerf to max velocity since cargo holds have not one, but two penalties.

Fozzie, any chance we could get a slight max velocity boost on all the freighters? Maybe 15-20m/s ?
Skia Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
#2296 - 2014-05-22 17:16:10 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
The permanence of customizability that relies completely on rigs. As the only classes to have rig slots alone with no fitting slots, Freighters and Jump Freighters would have allowed customization towards a player's most common use cases, but would still lack the very important ability to adjust fittings in response to changing needs and environments.

1) Contracts. We use them.

2) Fitting a ship means making a decision. It's interesting to make difficult decisions and face the consequences. It's not interesting to make clicky-clicky to swap to one of predefined standard fits like "max cargo" or "max speed".

3) The difference between "adjustment" and "total repurposing" is crucial. If I put 3x trimarks on my battleship, it is doomed to be passive armor tanked. I can choose to fit more tank or DPS depending on ~environments~ but god forbid if I put a shield booster and go ratting. You dont allow total repurposing even for T3 ships - yet - but allow it for T1 Freighters and "specialized" T2 JFs, seriously?


CCP Fozzie wrote:
  • The relative lack of interesting choices for Jump Freighter pilots.
    • Fuel rigs would have solved that issue much more elegantly. Because capital power projection in not what we want to stimulate, do we?
    And those abominations, warp speed modules...
    Dirk MacGirk
    Specter Syndicate
    #2297 - 2014-05-22 17:27:47 UTC
    CCP Fozzie wrote:
    James Amril-Kesh wrote:
    James Amril-Kesh wrote:
    CCP Fozzie wrote:
    To help address the lack of interesting options for Jump Freighters, we are planning to introduce a set of jump fuel conservation modules in the Crius release in July. These modules will not be available in Kronos.

    Will these modules be made exclusive to jump freighters or will other caps be able to use them?

    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.


    More information on these modules will be given at a later point.


    Fozzie - if players aren't doing anything interesting with their Jump Freighter i.e. jumping station to station, why feel the need to give them interesting options via a new mod? Not that I am adverse to saving some fuel, just not understanding the impetus to make up a mod using the logic that there aren't enough "interesting options for Jump Freighters". Especially when they are be given a bunch of new options for doing things that are as interesting as Jump Freighters get.
    Flyinghotpocket
    Small Focused Memes
    Ragequit Cancel Sub
    #2298 - 2014-05-22 17:37:09 UTC
    fozzie since they are getting lows can we just make them all armor tank? the shield freighter i cant help but feel if they wanted to armor resistance up wouldnt have a opportunity to do it as effectively as the armor tanked ones.

    just throw out rp reasons and make them all armor tanked.

    Amarr Militia Representative - A jar of nitro
    Rivr Luzade
    Coreli Corporation
    Pandemic Legion
    #2299 - 2014-05-22 17:49:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Rivr Luzade
    Skia Aumer wrote:

    2) Fitting a ship means making a decision. It's interesting to make difficult decisions and face the consequences. It's not interesting to make clicky-clicky to swap to one of predefined standard fits like "max cargo" or "max speed".


    I hope you understand the difference between Fitting and Rigging. All your examples fall in the Rigging part and have little to do with Fitting.

    UI Improvement Collective

    My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
    Hoshi Sorano
    Federal Navy Academy
    Gallente Federation
    #2300 - 2014-05-22 19:39:02 UTC
    I do think that the change from rigs to slots is a good one, both in terms of cost and options. However, I am a bit concerned about the decision to only allow low slots.

    CCP Fozzie wrote:
    The base EHP of all Freighters and Jump Freighters is being increased (since Expanded Cargoholds affect freighter hp more than cargo rigs do) and more emphasis is being placed on armor and shield than before (although all Freighters still gain the majority of their hitpoints from hull).
    (boldface added for emphasis)

    This statement would seem to indicate that using either armor or shield to tank a freighter should be viable options, but the limitation to low slots only means that there really are only options to boost armor. You even list armor tanking modules as an expected choice for freighter pilots. But where are the shield options?

    Basically, if you're going to start adding slots to freighters, don't do the job halfway; give the ships a full suite of slots and fitting options.