These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Walter Hart White
Heisenberg Minings
#2441 - 2014-05-26 21:54:23 UTC
Herr Wilkus wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:


A) In the original post, with the rig implementation, T2 rigs were needed to get to the same level of cargo as your charon can get prior to change. If you went for the charon because it had the max cargo, I assume you still want at least that capacity.

B) The change is slated to be to provide flexibility, why should we go with the implementation that grant less fo it?

C) That does not justify doubling the effective cost of some ship.

D) Lossmails would only look sexyer for a small time until everybody got used to freighter lossmail starting around 3 bill instead of 1,5 because of the added rig cost always being there.


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?


HTFU?
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#2442 - 2014-05-26 22:01:34 UTC
mynnna wrote:


If you balance freighters with lowslots to allow them to use a DCU without having 500k+ EHP simply by virtue of having a DC II fitted, the resulting stats look like this. You get 250k-280k EHP top end with a full tank, and 60-100k EHP with a full cargo fit.


That is why.

Would you still get similar results if you gave them a capital ship slot layout, including high slots similar to carriers?
And put most of their cargo into a special hold while leaving about a 100k base cargo hold that expanders would improve significantly but not game breakingly.

Or is that only using the gimped three slot 'customisation' option of fitting.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#2443 - 2014-05-26 22:02:53 UTC
Walter Hart White wrote:
HTFU?

That's not a valid reply to someone bringing up legitimate points in a balance thread. Shut up and go away.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)

Vhelnik Cojoin
Pandemic Horde High Sec Division
#2444 - 2014-05-26 22:11:46 UTC
Sipphakta en Gravonere wrote:
A freighter receiving remote-reps or supported by dedicated ECM boats is already capable of fending off a large group of attackers. I remember a jump freighter during jita which survived the coordinated attack of ~120 people due to receiving remote reps.

Hilarious statement. Do we even play the same game?

Freighter and JFs currently have most of their EHP as hull, which has zero resistances. Additionally remote hull reppers are extremely inefficient.

I wonder if we were at the same event with the 'repped' JF. There was one, which survived two coordinated ganking waves and yet died to the third, but it didn't survive the first two rounds due to either RR or ECM during the actual attack.

What happened was the CFC was using fleets of catalysts, yet during this attack at the perimeter gate, there were around a few hundred 'defenders'. As soon as the CFC fleet turned flashy at the beginning of the attack, then the whole blob was *massively* counter-ganked by the defenders. Despite this the JF survived with something like just 3% hull remaining, after which people reshipped to logistics ships and began repping it back up.

It was only just barely repped up when the CFC timers of 15 minutes had expired and they had had time to reship, so it took around *20 minutes* or so for the combined 'defender' fleet to do so. So yeah, RR during the actual attack, which lasted mere seconds, did zilch.

The exact same thing happened a second time, as catalysts evaporated left and right before they had time to do their full complement of damage prior to CONCORD stepping in. The third time the CFC reshipped to a fleet of Tornadoes and alpha'ed the JF down. That is how and why it died.

RR and ECM did nothing. There were hardly any ECM ships on the defender's side. Just brutal, brutal amounts of fast locking DPS able to counter-gank.

So yes, you can currently defend a JF against ~120 catalysts if you bring a huge number of defenders. Happy logistics, everyone. Roll

Have you Communicated with your fellow capsuleers today? It is good for the EvE-oconomy and o-kay for you.

James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#2445 - 2014-05-26 22:23:15 UTC  |  Edited by: James Amril-Kesh
Vhelnik Cojoin wrote:
Freighter and JFs currently have most of their EHP as hull, which has zero resistances. Additionally remote hull reppers are extremely inefficient.

Currently, yes. They're getting more in shield and armor though. So stop whining.

Vhelnik Cojoin wrote:
I wonder if we were at the same event with the 'repped' JF. There was one, which survived two coordinated ganking waves and yet died to the third, but it didn't survive the first two rounds due to either RR or ECM during the actual attack.

When was this? Burn Jita? He shouldn't have been flying his JF then. First mistake.

Vhelnik Cojoin wrote:
What happened was the CFC was using fleets of catalysts, yet during this attack at the perimeter gate, there were around a few hundred 'defenders'. As soon as the CFC fleet turned flashy at the beginning of the attack, then the whole blob was *massively* counter-ganked by the defenders. Despite this the JF survived with something like just 3% hull remaining, after which people reshipped to logistics ships and began repping it back up.

It was only just barely repped up when the CFC timers of 15 minutes had expired and they had had time to reship, so it took around *20 minutes* or so for the combined 'defender' fleet to do so. So yeah, RR during the actual attack, which lasted mere seconds, did zilch.

The exact same thing happened a second time, as catalysts evaporated left and right before they had time to do their full complement of damage prior to CONCORD stepping in. The third time the CFC reshipped to a fleet of Tornadoes and alpha'ed the JF down. That is how and why it died.

Yep, Burn Jita.

Vhelnik Cojoin wrote:
RR and ECM did nothing. There were hardly any ECM ships on the defender's side. Just brutal, brutal amounts of fast locking DPS able to counter-gank.

So yes, you can currently defend a JF against ~120 catalysts if you bring a huge number of defenders. Happy logistics, everyone. Roll

This is totally an every day occurrence everyone, we should balance against this. Roll

Enjoying the rain today? ;)

James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#2446 - 2014-05-26 22:24:57 UTC
"You can only defend a JF against a 120 catalysts if you bring a huge number of defenders."
Yeah dude, because 120 catalysts is a huge number of gankers and you will ONLY see that during Burn Jita.
If you fly during Burn Jita and get ganked, it's entirely your fault and you have no cause to cry about it.
Although feel free to cry about it because it's ******* hilarious.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)

Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#2447 - 2014-05-26 22:35:08 UTC
Vhelnik Cojoin wrote:
Sipphakta en Gravonere wrote:
A freighter receiving remote-reps or supported by dedicated ECM boats is already capable of fending off a large group of attackers. I remember a jump freighter during jita which survived the coordinated attack of ~120 people due to receiving remote reps.

Hilarious statement. Do we even play the same game?

Freighter and JFs currently have most of their EHP as hull, which has zero resistances. Additionally remote hull reppers are extremely inefficient.

I wonder if we were at the same event with the 'repped' JF. There was one, which survived two coordinated ganking waves and yet died to the third, but it didn't survive the first two rounds due to either RR or ECM during the actual attack.

What happened was the CFC was using fleets of catalysts, yet during this attack at the perimeter gate, there were around a few hundred 'defenders'. As soon as the CFC fleet turned flashy at the beginning of the attack, then the whole blob was *massively* counter-ganked by the defenders. Despite this the JF survived with something like just 3% hull remaining, after which people reshipped to logistics ships and began repping it back up.

It was only just barely repped up when the CFC timers of 15 minutes had expired and they had had time to reship, so it took around *20 minutes* or so for the combined 'defender' fleet to do so. So yeah, RR during the actual attack, which lasted mere seconds, did zilch.

The exact same thing happened a second time, as catalysts evaporated left and right before they had time to do their full complement of damage prior to CONCORD stepping in. The third time the CFC reshipped to a fleet of Tornadoes and alpha'ed the JF down. That is how and why it died.

RR and ECM did nothing. There were hardly any ECM ships on the defender's side. Just brutal, brutal amounts of fast locking DPS able to counter-gank.

So yes, you can currently defend a JF against ~120 catalysts if you bring a huge number of defenders. Happy logistics, everyone. Roll


Why shouldn't it take " a huge number" of defenders to defend against 120 attackers?

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Walter Hart White
Heisenberg Minings
#2448 - 2014-05-26 22:40:08 UTC
Vhelnik Cojoin wrote:
Sipphakta en Gravonere wrote:
A freighter receiving remote-reps or supported by dedicated ECM boats is already capable of fending off a large group of attackers. I remember a jump freighter during jita which survived the coordinated attack of ~120 people due to receiving remote reps.

Hilarious statement. Do we even play the same game?

Freighter and JFs currently have most of their EHP as hull, which has zero resistances. Additionally remote hull reppers are extremely inefficient.

I wonder if we were at the same event with the 'repped' JF. There was one, which survived two coordinated ganking waves and yet died to the third, but it didn't survive the first two rounds due to either RR or ECM during the actual attack.

What happened was the CFC was using fleets of catalysts, yet during this attack at the perimeter gate, there were around a few hundred 'defenders'. As soon as the CFC fleet turned flashy at the beginning of the attack, then the whole blob was *massively* counter-ganked by the defenders. Despite this the JF survived with something like just 3% hull remaining, after which people reshipped to logistics ships and began repping it back up.

It was only just barely repped up when the CFC timers of 15 minutes had expired and they had had time to reship, so it took around *20 minutes* or so for the combined 'defender' fleet to do so. So yeah, RR during the actual attack, which lasted mere seconds, did zilch.

The exact same thing happened a second time, as catalysts evaporated left and right before they had time to do their full complement of damage prior to CONCORD stepping in. The third time the CFC reshipped to a fleet of Tornadoes and alpha'ed the JF down. That is how and why it died.

RR and ECM did nothing. There were hardly any ECM ships on the defender's side. Just brutal, brutal amounts of fast locking DPS able to counter-gank.

So yes, you can currently defend a JF against ~120 catalysts if you bring a huge number of defenders. Happy logistics, everyone. Roll
I was there. Was brutal. Got popped the moment I left my warp. Never got podded though. I guess i can say I survived burn jita. Lost only 10m catalyst.

At any rate, this is totally unrelated. Higher tank is good. More kudos when you successfully gank pinata and maybe some logistic could be done safer than now.
Sarah Flynt
Red Cross Mercenaries
Silent Infinity
#2449 - 2014-05-26 22:51:54 UTC
Vhelnik Cojoin wrote:
Sipphakta en Gravonere wrote:
A freighter receiving remote-reps or supported by dedicated ECM boats is already capable of fending off a large group of attackers. I remember a jump freighter during jita which survived the coordinated attack of ~120 people due to receiving remote reps.

Hilarious statement. Do we even play the same game?

Hehe, the fairy tale of the easy to defend freighter gank again. Once a freighter gets bumped it's as good as dead. Even with defenders present you basically have no chance to defend it as the gankers can just keep bumping it and throw wave after wave at it. Repping up the hull takes far too long to be effective. I've seen enough single freighter ganks going on for far more than an hour, the victim being constantly bumped (and aggressed with noobships of course) without the slightest chance to escape. In the end they *always* died. None of them were during Burn Jita btw.

In light of people now ganking even empty jump freighters for the luls, doubling jump freighter EHP if the pilot is willing to accept a very heavy drawback of the primary function of his ship is more than justified and long long overdue.

All in all I find the second iteration of the changes well balanced. Freighter pilots finally get a real choice and there will still be enough people with two or three cargo expanders flying around that can easily be ganked.

Sick of High-Sec gankers? Join the public channel Anti-ganking and the dedicated intel channel Gank-Intel !

Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC
#2450 - 2014-05-26 23:28:37 UTC
Sarah Flynt wrote:


In light of people now ganking even empty jump freighters for the luls, doubling jump freighter EHP if the pilot is willing to accept a very heavy drawback of the primary function of his ship is more than justified and long long overdue.


No, this isn't misleading at all. Empty JF's are getting ganked on a daily basis. Thats funny.

What you are missing about the 'drawback' is that it really isn't a much of a drawback at all.

Its not the m^3, its the ISK value of what you can move without serious worry of a profitable gank. There is a huge range of tradable items that are needed all over highsec, and moving them is extremely easy - ganking being the only extant risk.

If this iteration is used, moving goods within highsec just became far, far easier because with triple EHP you can move 3x as many of those items in a single trip.

The only items contrained by the 'drawback' are expensive, but bulky items, like finished T2 ships.
We aren't talking about moving tritanium here.

Trade in mods, rigs, mid-to-high end raw materials will become much more fluid and therefore, less profitable, simply because its moving around highsec far more easily than it was previously.

Bad for EVE, because we are already at a state where prices are incredibly flat across empire. If anything, logistics needs to be MORE difficult.

Perhaps a lengthening of Concord response time - to 40-45 seconds in 0.5 is in order.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#2451 - 2014-05-26 23:32:28 UTC
Sarah Flynt wrote:
Vhelnik Cojoin wrote:
Sipphakta en Gravonere wrote:
A freighter receiving remote-reps or supported by dedicated ECM boats is already capable of fending off a large group of attackers. I remember a jump freighter during jita which survived the coordinated attack of ~120 people due to receiving remote reps.

Hilarious statement. Do we even play the same game?

Hehe, the fairy tale of the easy to defend freighter gank again. Once a freighter gets bumped it's as good as dead. Even with defenders present you basically have no chance to defend it as the gankers can just keep bumping it and throw wave after wave at it.

No you moron this only applies to an annual event that's like 3 days long.

Sarah Flynt wrote:
Repping up the hull takes far too long to be effective. I've seen enough single freighter ganks going on for far more than an hour, the victim being constantly bumped (and aggressed with noobships of course) without the slightest chance to escape. In the end they *always* died. None of them were during Burn Jita btw.

Abloo bloo bloo.

Sarah Flynt wrote:
In light of people now ganking even empty jump freighters for the luls

Yeah I'm sure this happens regularly. Roll

Enjoying the rain today? ;)

Walter Hart White
Heisenberg Minings
#2452 - 2014-05-26 23:39:52 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
some crap

So you asked for examples and got example which you then disregard? GG, no RE.
Warr Akini
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#2453 - 2014-05-27 02:35:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Warr Akini
Sarah Flynt wrote:
All in all I find the second iteration of the changes well balanced. Freighter pilots finally get a real choice and there will still be enough people with two or three cargo expanders flying around that can easily be ganked.


I'm definitely all for choice - as is EVE/CCP.

However, "there will still be enough people" and "can easily be ganked" are two wild assumptions, based on no data whatsoever (for the first part) and a very skewed perception of the ease of freighter ganking (for the second part).

And to me, they are easy. At least when they're sitting in 0.5 without a webber (or if they don't have an exit cyno). But you have to realize, your perception of the ease of ganking is based on my organization, the single most successful suicide freighter-ganking group in EVE Online (not trying to brag, trying to illustrate a point - if I wanted to brag, I would have been on EVE-O a lot more before this thread came up). We are good at what we do because we have manpower and logistics and a freakishly loud-yelling Head Minister telling people exactly what to do and where/when to do it. I have seen maybe one other organization put up sustained ganking on a small scale (CODE) - everyone else flops after 2-3 days and maybe comes back every now and again. So, if you were to sit down and look at 'number of freighters ganked' versus 'number of freighters flying at any one time,' the ratio would be absolutely minuscule. Even the number of freighters or jump freighters ganked in Niarja, Uedama, other chokepoint 0.5 pipes, versus the freighters being flown in those areas in a 24-hour cycle would -still- be minuscule.

And yet, the argument comes again down to numbers - we bring ten (or in the case of JFs or higher-sec systems much more), and all you have to do is bring two and/or have a little intelligence to survive.

Meanwhile, freighters and JFs gain between 60 and 150% of their EHP in tank mode and either don't lose any EHP or lose a maximum of 20% in cargo-fit mode.
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC
#2454 - 2014-05-27 02:36:51 UTC
I just don't think Fozzie really thought this balance round through very well because he's creating a gamestate that is radically different than before - significantly in favor of greater safety and carebear-ism.

Today, pre-Kronos - if you want to move multiple billions in valuable goods of moderate volume, your choices are:

1. Orcas can be tanked up to around 270K EHP - and they can haul around 60-70K m^3.
(This hauling profile obsoletes DSTs which have both smaller EHP, less utility, and less cargo.)
2. Freighters are around 150-200K EHP, for 900K+ m^3.
3. Jump Freighters between 250-300K EHP, with 350K+ m^3.

See the pattern? All of the large-volume haulers top out in the 250-300K EHP range. At those EHP levels, you aren't interesting to gankers until your cargo value goes north of 2.5-3 Billion ISK. In addition to this, JF's are ALREADY invulnerable to highsec ganking simply by having a cyno alt on standby in nearby lowsec. Bumping does not prevent jumping.

I envisioned the balance round to involve marginally increasing the maximum EHP with severe penalties in both alignment and cargo capacity. In addition, the use of rigs had a significant cost involved.

This new iteration is a mess however, as large-volume cargo movers are having their practical EHP doubled....or tripled.
This radically increases the ISK-value of mid-range cargo that can be moved without risk of a 'profitable' gank occurring.



1.Kronos Orcas are going to see their EHP pushed above 500K EHP range, if not more, due the combination of the new Hull Rigs and DC II, and still hauling around 60-70K m^3 general cargo, plus additional specialized bays.
2.Kronos Freighters are going to have a EHP/cargo profile superior to what JFs have today. (300-350K EHP with 350K m^3 cargo.)
3.Kronos Jump Freighters are going completely into carebear wet-dream world, shielding a whopping 130m^3 or so behind 620-720K EHP. (and they naturally retain the 'easy gank escape button')


I submit that this is a radically different game state to what we have today (and have always had) in EVE, and changes of this nature should be done with far more care than this knee-jerk reaction to whine-naught death threats.

Fozzie - trust me, I understand. I know how much it hurts inside when the nasty carebears say ugly things about you in the forums. But that doesn't mean we need three-quarters of a million hit point heavy haulers to make them like you again.


Oh yes - and to the idiots who are invariably going to come back with "Freighters were fine until Taloses were invented, now freighters need a buff" - Taloses DID exist before. Before the insurance nerf, they were called Insured Megathrons. And before the Concord-drone nerf, they were Insured Dominixes. Nor have bumping mechanics changed.

Gank ships haven't changed all that much at all. But on the freighter side - call this iteration what it is - a radical swing in favor of safer freighters and risk-free hauling.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#2455 - 2014-05-27 02:40:39 UTC
Walter Hart White wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
some crap

So you asked for examples and got example which you then disregard? GG, no RE.

You gave a bad example, so yeah.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)

Elvis Preslie
NRDS Securities
Apocalypse Now.
#2456 - 2014-05-27 05:06:43 UTC
Lazei wrote:
How are overloaded cargoholds handled when the patch hits for people who had logged off in space with full pre patch cargos? Tough luck that they didn't read patch notes?


Probably nothing happens until they dock. they just cant undock again until they fix the cargo.
Christopher Mabata
State War Academy
Caldari State
#2457 - 2014-05-27 05:06:56 UTC
As of right now the Jump Fuel Conservation units appear to only be for Jump Freighters, that said is there any chance a similar ( Maybe slightly less effective module ) that could be added later for Black Ops, Carriers, Dreads, and Supers? Im only Asking because i think a module or an implant set that slightly reduces fuel costs would be super beneficial not only for bigger alliances for moving cap fleets but also for smaller corps and alliances to move their goods in Carriers long distances or other jump capable assets.

♣ Small Gang PVP, Large Fleet PVP, Black Ops, Incursions, Trade, and Industry ♣ 70% Lethal / 30% Super-Snuggly / 110% No idea what im doing ♣

This Message Brought to you by a sweet and sour bittervet

Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#2458 - 2014-05-27 05:32:24 UTC
Yes another power projection buff is what eve needs

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#2459 - 2014-05-27 05:46:01 UTC
Christopher Mabata wrote:
As of right now the Jump Fuel Conservation units appear to only be for Jump Freighters

No, as of right now there's no information on them at all. Wait for that thread.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)

Sniper Smith
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#2460 - 2014-05-27 06:45:26 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Christopher Mabata wrote:
As of right now the Jump Fuel Conservation units appear to only be for Jump Freighters

No, as of right now there's no information on them at all. Wait for that thread.

Indeed..

But I doubt they will limit it to just JF's.. after all, if you wanna sacrifice tank/dps for saving in fuel, I don't see CCP wanting to stop you :)

Plus maybe it'll save Fuel, at the cost of max range or something.. Either way, we'll know by Jula 22nd lol