These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Ships & Modules

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
12Next page
 

Expanded Cargoholds One Positive stat yet Two Negative ones?

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Mr Burnz
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1 - 2014-06-25 19:08:16 UTC
Why does the expanded cargoholds have two negatives affecting them?

[url] https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Expanded_Cargohold_II[/url]

Item name Cargo capacity bonus Structural HP bonus Max velocity penalty
Basic Expanded Cargohold 15% -10% -20%
Marked Modified SS Expanded Cargo 17.3% -10% -20%
Expanded Cargohold I 17.5% -25% -15%
Type E Altered SS Expanded Cargo 19.6% -10% -20%
Mark I Modified SS Expanded Cargo 20% -24% -14%
Alpha Hull Mod Expanded Cargo 21.9% -10% -20%
Type D Altered SS Expanded Cargo 22.5% -23% -13%
Partial Hull Conversion Expanded Cargo 24.2% -10% -20%
Beta Hull Mod Expanded Cargo 25% -22% -12%
Expanded Cargohold II 27.5% -20% -10%
Local Hull Conversion Expanded Cargohold I 27.5% -21% -11%


Is it common for a module that buffs one stat to have two negative stats attached to it? And if this one module class were to be broken down into two sub types (one for +cargo -structure, and one for +cargo, -velocity) would that address some of the concerns for the freighter pilots out there?
Grezh
Hextrix Enterprise
#2 - 2014-06-25 19:11:53 UTC
Cloaking device had a scan res penalty along with the speed penalty which both make sense considering the power of the mod, I don't really see the power in cargo expanders to warrant such drawback unless I'm missing something.
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
#3 - 2014-06-25 19:13:14 UTC
Why exactly do cargo expanders need to be changed?
Mr Burnz
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#4 - 2014-06-25 19:14:42 UTC
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:
Why exactly do cargo expanders need to be changed?


I don't know if they do or not. It just struck me as odd that they had those two negative effects attached to them.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#5 - 2014-06-25 19:15:56 UTC
Why should it concern freighter pilots? They have options and can now fit as they wish. Options being freinds and not filling with billions of ISK worth of items with just expanders.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
De'Veldrin
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#6 - 2014-06-25 19:19:14 UTC
Mag's wrote:
Why should it concern freighter pilots? They have options and can now fit as they wish. Options being freinds and not filling with billions of ISK worth of items with just expanders.


I still say having friends is way overpowered and CCP should nerf friends.

De'Veldrin's Corollary (to Malcanis' Law): Any idea that seeks to limit the ability of a large nullsec bloc to do something in the name of allowing more small groups into sov null will inevitably make it that much harder for small groups to enter sov null.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#7 - 2014-06-25 19:25:07 UTC
De'Veldrin wrote:
Mag's wrote:
Why should it concern freighter pilots? They have options and can now fit as they wish. Options being freinds and not filling with billions of ISK worth of items with just expanders.


I still say having friends is way overpowered and CCP should nerf friends.
Indeed. CCP should make a concerted effort to change the game into a MSO.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#8 - 2014-06-25 19:30:12 UTC  |  Edited by: ShahFluffers
Reinforced Bulkheads have a mass and speed penalty. They also require a non-insignificant amount of CPU to fit. Of course... freighters get to ignore the CPU thing.

Warp Core Stabilizers heavily penalize targeting speed and targeting range in addition to requiring CPU to fit.

Certain Tech 2 ammos penalize range and tracking speed in exchange for a little extra damage.


Two penalties are fairly common if the benefit outweighs it... especially if no stacking penalties apply to the bonus.

How did you Veterans start?
Kaerakh
Obscure Joke Implied
#9 - 2014-06-25 19:35:43 UTC
Mag's wrote:
De'Veldrin wrote:
Mag's wrote:
Why should it concern freighter pilots? They have options and can now fit as they wish. Options being freinds and not filling with billions of ISK worth of items with just expanders.


I still say having friends is way overpowered and CCP should nerf friends.
Indeed. CCP should make a concerted effort to change the game into a MSO.


Freighter with a friend fitted with a stasis web is the most uncatchable force in all of EVE.

Schrodinger's Hot Dropper

The Fate of Forum Alts

Guaranteed Success
Mr Burnz
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#10 - 2014-06-25 19:40:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Mr Burnz
ShahFluffers wrote:
Reinforced Bulkheads have a mass and speed penalty. They also require a non-insignificant amount of CPU to fit. Of course... freighters get to ignore the CPU thing.

Warp Core Stabilizers heavily penalize a targeting speed and targeting range in addition to requiring CPU to fit.

Certain Tech 2 ammos penalize range and tracking speed in exchange for a little extra damage.


Two penalties are fairly common if the benefit outweighs it... especially if no stacking penalties apply to the bonus.



Ohh....... Yeah thanks man for actually answering my question. So after i read this I went and looked up something that looked like it should be somewhat related to the Expanded Cargoholds as a counter and found an Overdrive Injector.

https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Basic_Overdrive_Injector_System

Now unless I'm reading it wrong that module appears to only really lower your cargohold. Shouldn't it also have a negative effect to some extent on your structure?

Sorry guys I'm a noob and am just trying to see how these things relate to each other.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#11 - 2014-06-25 19:41:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Mag's
Kaerakh wrote:
Mag's wrote:
De'Veldrin wrote:
Mag's wrote:
Why should it concern freighter pilots? They have options and can now fit as they wish. Options being freinds and not filling with billions of ISK worth of items with just expanders.


I still say having friends is way overpowered and CCP should nerf friends.
Indeed. CCP should make a concerted effort to change the game into a MSO.


Freighter with a friend fitted with a stasis web is the most uncatchable force in all of EVE.
But for the love of God, can we please think of the children freighter pilots. Sad

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Kaerakh
Obscure Joke Implied
#12 - 2014-06-25 19:54:57 UTC
Mag's wrote:
Kaerakh wrote:
Mag's wrote:
De'Veldrin wrote:


I still say having friends is way overpowered and CCP should nerf friends.
Indeed. CCP should make a concerted effort to change the game into a MSO.


Freighter with a friend fitted with a stasis web is the most uncatchable force in all of EVE.
But for the love of God, can we please think of the children freighter pilots. Sad

That's right. They might be listening. Attention I shouldn't be detracting from CODE's affairs. That just wouldn't be neighborly of me.

Mr Burnz wrote:

Sorry guys I'm a noob and am just trying to see how these things relate to each other.


In which case this is a discussion and not a proposal for an idea. and you should have posted this in a discussion board if you wanted to discuss this before posting an actually relevant idea. Personally I see nothing wrong with cargo hold expanders in the current game balance. It both increases your risk while increasing your reward, and the stats it detracts from are stats the most hauling ships don't benefit from overly to begin with so it has negligible impact(hair splitters stay back! I didn't say all!) . You should be happy CCP was that generous.

Schrodinger's Hot Dropper

The Fate of Forum Alts

Guaranteed Success
Mr Burnz
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#13 - 2014-06-25 20:16:31 UTC
Kaerakh wrote:
[

Mr Burnz wrote:

Sorry guys I'm a noob and am just trying to see how these things relate to each other.


In which case this is a discussion and not a proposal for an idea. and you should have posted this in a discussion board if you wanted to discuss this before posting an actually relevant idea. Personally I see nothing wrong with cargo hold expanders in the current game balance. It both increases your risk while increasing your reward, and the stats it detracts from are stats the most hauling ships don't benefit from overly to begin with so it has negligible impact(hair splitters stay back! I didn't say all!) . You should be happy CCP was that generous.



Well it is "Features and Ideas Discussion" so it sounded like this was the discussion board for it. You'll forgive me as I had thought the forum moderators here had ISD in their avatar.
Kaerakh
Obscure Joke Implied
#14 - 2014-06-25 20:18:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Kaerakh
Mr Burnz wrote:
Kaerakh wrote:
[

Mr Burnz wrote:

Sorry guys I'm a noob and am just trying to see how these things relate to each other.


In which case this is a discussion and not a proposal for an idea. and you should have posted this in a discussion board if you wanted to discuss this before posting an actually relevant idea. Personally I see nothing wrong with cargo hold expanders in the current game balance. It both increases your risk while increasing your reward, and the stats it detracts from are stats the most hauling ships don't benefit from overly to begin with so it has negligible impact(hair splitters stay back! I didn't say all!) . You should be happy CCP was that generous.



Well it is "Features and Ideas Discussion" so it sounded like this was the discussion board for it. You'll forgive me as I had thought the forum moderators here had ISD in their avatar.


Yes, but you're discussing a module not an idea. Roll

if your post had been: "Remove X penalty from expanders." Then it would be an idea. Roll

Schrodinger's Hot Dropper

The Fate of Forum Alts

Guaranteed Success
Benny Ohu
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#15 - 2014-06-25 20:19:49 UTC
it would have been moved here anyway.
Kaerakh
Obscure Joke Implied
#16 - 2014-06-25 20:23:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Kaerakh
Benny Ohu wrote:
it would have been moved here anyway.


It doesn't contain an idea. So therefore it wouldn't have been. What's your logic? There's absolutely no proposal behind the original post:
Mr Burnz wrote:
Why does the expanded cargoholds have two negatives affecting them?

[url] https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Expanded_Cargohold_II[/url]

Item name Cargo capacity bonus Structural HP bonus Max velocity penalty
Basic Expanded Cargohold 15% -10% -20%
Marked Modified SS Expanded Cargo 17.3% -10% -20%
Expanded Cargohold I 17.5% -25% -15%
Type E Altered SS Expanded Cargo 19.6% -10% -20%
Mark I Modified SS Expanded Cargo 20% -24% -14%
Alpha Hull Mod Expanded Cargo 21.9% -10% -20%
Type D Altered SS Expanded Cargo 22.5% -23% -13%
Partial Hull Conversion Expanded Cargo 24.2% -10% -20%
Beta Hull Mod Expanded Cargo 25% -22% -12%
Expanded Cargohold II 27.5% -20% -10%
Local Hull Conversion Expanded Cargohold I 27.5% -21% -11%


Is it common for a module that buffs one stat to have two negative stats attached to it? And if this one module class were to be broken down into two sub types (one for +cargo -structure, and one for +cargo, -velocity) would that address some of the concerns for the freighter pilots out there?



All this is is a discussion of a subset of modules and the decision making for why they were made a specific way. Which ergo means this is a general EVE discussion. Not a proposal and discussion for an idea. Roll

Schrodinger's Hot Dropper

The Fate of Forum Alts

Guaranteed Success
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#17 - 2014-06-25 20:31:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Kaarous Aldurald
If you look at their past actions, and most especially in the recent Freighter thread, it's fairly obvious that cargo is a stat that is budgeted as having a fairly high cost.

So yeah, working as intended.

[edit: Oh, and this belongs in Ships and Modules.

"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.
Benny Ohu
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#18 - 2014-06-25 20:32:19 UTC
Quote:
Which ergo means this is a general EVE discussion.

where it'd be moved here. so stick your ergos up your subset and stop shitting up the thread
Kaerakh
Obscure Joke Implied
#19 - 2014-06-25 20:33:55 UTC
Benny Ohu wrote:
Quote:
Which ergo means this is a general EVE discussion.

where it'd be moved here. so stick your ergos up your subset and stop shitting up the thread


Please just point to where the new idea in the original post is. I'm begging you.

Schrodinger's Hot Dropper

The Fate of Forum Alts

Guaranteed Success
Mr Burnz
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#20 - 2014-06-25 20:39:31 UTC
Benny Ohu wrote:
it would have been moved here anyway.


Thanks Benny. Yeah I didn't know where else to post it.

Quote:
Yes, but you're discussing a module not an idea. Roll

if your post had been: "Remove X penalty from expanders." Then it would be an idea. Roll


I guess this could be "the idea" (initially but not entirely) of the post if you will.....

Quote:

And if this one module class were to be broken down into two sub types (one for +cargo -structure, and one for +cargo, -velocity) would that address some of the concerns for the freighter pilots out there?


Although normally in a process where you're looking for information and have a desire to have ideas thrown around, limiting yourself to just a blanket statement is fairly short sighted. And in general not conducive to anything. Well except painting yourself into a corner and setting yourself up for a "my @*@ is bigger than his @*@*" kind of contest.

But yes I guess that could be considered "splitting hairs" as well Roll
12Next page