Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Well, consider this:
The carebears are complaining about not getting > 1 Million EHP via (passive) DCII's because they want to be invincible.

Experienced gankers understand its a problem when 720K EHP JFs move 6-8 Billion in cargo in highsec with negligible risk.
Max EHP on the Anshar should be half of that, and base agility should take a hit across the board - shouldn't be 'all upside' on that statistic.

Main difference is carebears are far more numerous and can easily build a tower of whine into a threadnaught.
Now they are happy so they aren't commenting.
On the other hand, the (far smaller number of) gankers are used to nerfs by now, kind of like a battered wife.

So I can see how the lack of overall thread debate could be confused with 'happiness'.

After reading this I went from "This won't be too bad." to questioning the drug choices CCP staff is making. I'm not subbed to support your habit here. I'm sure you have arguments in favor of a few of the changes, but overall there is no way to make a strong stance for nerfing stuff this hard over and over.

So I assume to keep the same cargo: lose overall agility, velocity, and EHP to compensate
Etc, Etc.

A) I wasn't proposing going back to the first iteration, just saying that if rigs are the device used to give freighters more flexibility, there is more latitude to give them higher stats (due to the inherent inflexibility of rigs)

Its simple:
If Low slots used = easy, cheap modification - freighter stats should be objectively weaker.
If Rigs used = expensive, less flexible modifcation - freighter stats could be bumped up relative to the lowslot iteration.

Still, no matter what 'means' is used, the current abilities need to be dialed back, as the 2nd iteration is clearly a very large buff to freighters and highsec logistics in general. As I said, the highsec 'Break-Even Cargohold ISK value' number is going to easily triple, from 2-3 Billion up to 6-8 Billion, and this is not good for the game. Hauling that kind of loot should not be an 'set autopilot, AFK haul' affair.

B) explained above.

C) its a side benefit that helps fix the ridiculously low salvage price issue.

D) Are you saying gankers would prefer smaller lossmails?

I'm not actually sure what the guy you're quoting is getting at, but he's probably saying that 3b freighter killmails will just become the new 1.5b freighter killmails due to rigs, something like killmail inflation.

Could you explain what kind of problems this creates "for the game"?

If you autopilot into me in a 0.5, I'll maybe find a way to kill it - but you'll be VERY hard-pressed to find people with the resources, time and organization to pull that off except on a special occasion. Otherwise, 720k EHP is a giant turnoff. And outside of 0.5/0.6, saying 'just bring alpha tornados' means you're bringing 65+ to kill that Anshar, something you wouldn't see at all outside Burn Jita, guaranteed.

The risk may not be 'negligible' in the sense that it isn't worth considering, but it is certainly approaching that level.

I'd be interested to know why not (not in terms of "they don't have enough CPU"), why the decision was made to restrict the fitting to prevent the fitting of Damage Controls.
Doing so on a combat ship would be impossible (without applying strip miner or cov ops cloaking device fitting restrictions, due to the requirements of all of the other modules they require, not least their guns...) but I can't imagine it even being considered.
Similarly, when Rigs were the method of choice, the nerfs which "allowed" rigs to be fitted were out of place; when rigs were first introduced there were no such global changes to balance the potential for rig fitting.
When I first became aware of the sort of threads which (probably) led to this change I envisaged a minimalist approach - a counter to packaged capital ships (the current increase in packaged size being sufficient, a ban on packaged ships in freighter holds and the allowance of ships in freight containers would also have worked) and a single lowslot: The clear choice would have been Tank (DCII), Capacity (Expanded Cargohold), Align time/speed (Nano), or re-Jump time (Cap Flux Coil)... Would the impact have been significant? particularly compared to the current changes.

ban JF from hi sec, make the last stop for them in low sec then they have to use freighters.

undock > warp to safe spot > align > get webbed > warp to the first gate to hisec.

Problem solved.

i just remembered this thread. nice to see change happening the way you want.

I was obviously not talking about that use case, but thanks for assuming I don't know how jump drives work.

Obviously for people who use their jump freighters to move stuff between high (Jita in other words) and low/null, the risk is minimal regardless of how little or how much tank your JF has. What about those that use theirs entirely in highsec (e.g. Tippia) to take advantage of its extra agility, warp speed, and tank? Those people don't generally have exit cynos.

But Warr Akini is right, 720k EHP is pretty ridiculous. It's true then, I guess, that they do have way too much tank.