Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Your calculations don't reflect real scenarios.
Attackers use mostly catalysts, so 58% kinetic damage and 42% thermal.


If attackers use tornados, you can expect, against shield tankers, 75% EM, 8% kinetic, 17% explosive damage.
If against armor tankers, tornados will deal 17% kinetic and 83% explosive.

An armor tanker can be tanked to counter explosive damage, while a shield tanker cannot do the same with EM, so the difference is even bigger.

Full-tanked charon: 409,000 m3 cargo / 289,000 EHP vs EM
Full-tanked obelisk: 550,000 m3 cargo / 314,000 EHP vs Kin (no slave set)

Low-tanked charon: 841,000 m3 cargo / 178,000 EHP vs EM
Low-tanked obelisk: 894,000 m3 cargo / 202,000 EHP vs Explosive (no slave set)

Original charon: 981,000 m3 cargo / 180,000 EHP
Original obelisk: 938,000 m3 cargo / 201,000 EHP

Charon: -2,000 EHP, -140,000 m3 cargo (low-tanked vs original)
Obelisk: +1000 EHP, -44,000 m3 cargo (low-tanked vs original)

This is clearly a nerf. FU ccp

Really? 3 T2 expanders takes a Charon with rank 3 in Caldari freighter up to 1,108,361 m3, doesn't it? (rather than the 902k m3 it was)

http://xyjax.com/optimizer_kronos/ (no, I've not checked it in Eve, as I don't fly a charon. Works with my Fenrir though)

Wow - you are so 'on the ball'. I see one post from someone who hadn't yet commented. Thats less than 'spring'.

As for myself, before the changes I noted how there would be imbalance on a staggering scale. Making a snap decision to get rid of rigs (good), and replace with lowslots (inadvertantly bad) is now the major issue.

Armour tanking freighters only from now on. Forget the Charon and Fenrir.

Slaves and ANP FTW.

Seems that highsec freightering now abounds with rage inducing options.

It's surprising how easily your smaller hold can still be filled with far too much stuff, such that people will want to gank you. Perhaps not with bulkheads though... which would make your hold even smaller.

Now the question arises: how low can you take cargohold on a freighter.


You sure can safely carry some expensive stuff with bulkheads, according to that handy calculator.

This thread is the best

Unless I am mistaken........
Hmmmm they lost cargo cap unless they add expanders which in turn causes them to lose armor thus making killing them even easier. It's humorous how founders of Burn Jita are singing the praises and defending the freighter nerf..........Disingenuous defense of the nerf is noted....

Actually, I depend on my friendly JF services as part of living in nullsec*. You might be surprised to know that, no, I'm not the only one. But don't stop raging or anything like that, by all means.

I do note, however, that a series of proposed changes to JFs were reduced in scope before the changes. Or something. It's in this very thread! Though I think it was a fuel thing, they're gonna make it cost more soon, sigh.


* They actually stopped running during Burn Jita, so yeah... had to plan ahead there, luckily we weren't invaded by te deadly Northern Associates. when that was happening.


I use a freighter out in nullsec, still thinking if I want more cargo or the better align, probably the align, freighter was far larger than I needed. Well, if I lose it somehow, getting a new one down to where I want it will be easier with the 3-istab lows option, can't complain too much.

I suppose you'd have to expand a freighter to carry an ihub, or drop a station egg now. How will we adapt... I think it will still die in one doomsday (can they be DDed?). Hm, I wonder if a (JF, of course) fuel use module would be useful. I imagine most people would just rather have a larger cargohold and make less trips in the first place...

That reminds me of the time a JF shipment appeared right in the middle of us fighting TEST's "foxcat" fleet in... that staging system across the regional gate from J5A (B-DBYQ).

SO I've been thinking a lot about why these changes are bad and why I hate them.

The answer seems to be that the changes to freighters and giving them lowslots is not inherently bad and the problem seems to lie with the module balance.

Based on what I'm seeing the penalties for cargo expanders and bulkheads are the problem.

So if we compare the charon from two days ago to the charon of today this is what we get.

Rubicon Charon:
Cargo is 942k
EHP is 180k

Kronos Charon
Cargo is 558k
EHP is 210k

Now if we start adding modules

x3 t2 Cargo expanders
Cargo is 1.15m
EHP is 160k

This looks fine so far. We see a modest boost in cargo capacity for a modest reduction in EHP

3x t2 bulkheads
cargo is 393K
EHP is 303k

What we have here is a significant lose in cargo for a significant gain in EHP. This looks fine at first glance, but when you consider the fact that the ship already lost 384k of its cargo just for the option to fit for EHP, and then combined with the fact that you loose even more cargo to do so, stings to say the least.

This is problematic when you realize that most ship fittings don't work this way. In other words the penalties you suffer for fitting mods (if they even have penalties) never detract from the main purpose of the ship. For example, fitting more tank on a ship doesn't penalize your dps, fitting ewar doesn't comprise your ships sensors, fitting speed doesn't comprise your warp time, etc etc.

What you've failed to realize with the bulkhead changes is that the penalty changes weren't necessary. Eve is a game about fitting choices and even fitting something on the ship in the first place is an opportunity cost. Aka if you fit for cargo you can't fit for EHP. if you fit for EHP you can fit for align, if you fit for align, you can't fit for warp speed. In other words, I think that if you reverted the bulkhead changes then these changes would be alot easier to swallow.