These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Freighters - Why not give them a Damage Control?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Davir Sometaww
Spooks On Pings
SE7EN-SINS
#1 - 2014-10-23 03:52:06 UTC
I'm curious, after seeing constant freighter kills and seeing no real forum post on this subject, my question is:

Why don't they just let freighters be able to sport a damage control?
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#2 - 2014-10-23 04:21:13 UTC
Because it would effectively double their HP (putting it above 600k) and make it unreasonably hard to gank them.

The key word here is "reasonable."

Right now it takes a lot of people to bring down one man in a large ship. And no, cost is not the most important balancing factor here. It is the amount of effort required to either defend or attack.

How did you Veterans start?
Davir Sometaww
Spooks On Pings
SE7EN-SINS
#3 - 2014-10-23 04:28:04 UTC
A ship that is literally larger than a carrier, you'd think it SHOULD be unreasonably hard to gank. 15-20 Talos's bumrushing one doesn't seem like a reasonable choice - given that it is in High Sec in 1.0 Security Systems.
Chainsaw Plankton
FaDoyToy
#4 - 2014-10-23 04:50:44 UTC
think of all the jobs a carrier can do, now think of all the jobs a freighter can do...

also if a freighter is bigger than a carrier why can it use jump gates? (although I suppose that won't matter in a few weeks)

@ChainsawPlankto on twitter
Davir Sometaww
Spooks On Pings
SE7EN-SINS
#5 - 2014-10-23 04:53:33 UTC
Its changing soon, carriers will use gates
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#6 - 2014-10-23 04:54:27 UTC  |  Edited by: ShahFluffers
A freighter is a capital sized ship that gives up all combat capability in order to move small fleets or markets worth of stuff... it isn't all that hard to imagine that it won't have anywhere near the tanking ability of a combat-oriented capital ship (because all of that combat related equipment was tossed in favor of making cargo room).

And to take down 600k worth of HP in a 1.0 system (5 second response time) would require 70 to 100 Tech 2 fit Talos... or 50 something Tech 2, artillery-fit Tornados.

Quote:
Its changing soon, carriers will use gates

They still won't be able to enter high-sec though. Blink

How did you Veterans start?
Davir Sometaww
Spooks On Pings
SE7EN-SINS
#7 - 2014-10-23 05:09:45 UTC
Valkin Mordirc
#8 - 2014-10-23 05:48:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Valkin Mordirc
What Shahfluff is saying


is if a freighter had 600k of EHP it WOULD take around 70 Talso's to kill it,
#DeleteTheWeak
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#9 - 2014-10-23 05:58:07 UTC  |  Edited by: ShahFluffers
Davir Sometaww wrote:
There are ways to make Concord look somewhere else.

Doesn't matter.
CONCORD always responds within a given time frame. In a 1.0 system they will respond within 5 seconds. In a 0.5 system it takes 15 seconds.
They will however, respond sooner if they are already on grid.

Davir Sometaww wrote:
It doesn't take 70 talos's

It does if a freighter could fit a damage control in addition to two T2 reinforced bulkheads. An Obelisk can have upwards of 650k ehp with such a fit (closer to 750k ehp with high-grade slaves and warfare links).

Requiring even 15 to 20+ people to bring down ONE ship (that is not even geared towards combat) that has put minimal to no effort into protecting itself (when it is obviously a ship that requires support from others) fits my idea of unreasonable.
Hell... Marauders require less to take down.

edit: you look again at those freighters in the killmails you linked you will notice that many are actually "anti-tanked" with nanofibers and cargo-expanders. It takes less dps to bring them down.
And the one freighter that is tanked with reinforced bulkheads (the Nomad) just happens to also be the freighter with the lowest base tank of the four.

How did you Veterans start?
Davir Sometaww
Spooks On Pings
SE7EN-SINS
#10 - 2014-10-23 06:00:56 UTC
Well possibly as an idea, the damage control would severly limit cargo space - They could make a new module of damage control designed for freighters but severely reduces cargo space.
Valkin Mordirc
#11 - 2014-10-23 06:06:46 UTC
Davir Sometaww wrote:
Well possibly as an idea, the damage control would severly limit cargo space - They could make a new module of damage control designed for freighters but severely reduces cargo space.



It would seem to me, that you want a module that makes you ungankable.


Which all though I'm not the biggest fan of code, I don't think is really fair, as the ganking style of gameplay would be directly effected.


Freighters were already given a buff by allowing lowslots in the first place, just be happy you can fit bulkheads in the first place.


#DeleteTheWeak
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#12 - 2014-10-23 06:16:27 UTC  |  Edited by: ShahFluffers
Quote:
Well possibly as an idea, the damage control would severly limit cargo space - They could make a new module of damage control designed for freighters but severely reduces cargo space.


You're still missing the point though.

With your idea freighter pilots don't have to put much, if any, effort into making themselves unreasonably hard to gank in high-sec. The benefit that one module (a damage control) provides is immense.
There is a reason almost all combat ships fit them and that freighters were purposefully not designed to fit them when they were rebalanced in the not too distant past.

How did you Veterans start?
Rockstede
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#13 - 2014-10-23 07:12:42 UTC
Davir Sometaww wrote:
A ship that is literally larger than a carrier, you'd think it SHOULD be unreasonably hard to gank.




Your comparing apples and oranges here, think about the real life equivalent of these 2 vessels.

Something like the USS Eisenhower VS an Oil Supertanker.

The Eisenhower is a warship with many layers of defence in place that can (in theory) stay afloat even after multiple missile strikes due to it's compartmentalized design. In other words, you plow a missile into the side of a US aircraft carrier and the crew will just seal off the area that is affected and the ship will survive.


An Oil Supertanker is a giant 1 skinned box with zero defences, it's entire bulk dedicated to carrying freight (in this case oil). After a missile strike, there is nothing for the crew to seal off in order to save the ship.


I know comparing eve to real life is in most cases quite silly however in this case it has merit ^^
Luwc
State War Academy
Caldari State
#14 - 2014-10-23 07:43:39 UTC
Snuff Box.

Giving freighters DCUs

I am too old for this ****

http://hugelolcdn.com/i/267520.gif
Davir Sometaww
Spooks On Pings
SE7EN-SINS
#15 - 2014-10-23 08:32:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Davir Sometaww
Luwc wrote:
Snuff Box.

Giving freighters DCUs

I am too old for this ****



Its really for epic bait

Edit:

And curiosity as well, jealous of the expensive freighter kills - tbh
Jacob Holland
Weyland-Vulcan Industries
#16 - 2014-10-23 09:27:50 UTC
Rockstede wrote:
The Eisenhower is a warship with many layers of defence in place that can (in theory) stay afloat even after multiple missile strikes due to it's compartmentalized design. In other words, you plow a missile into the side of a US aircraft carrier and the crew will just seal off the area that is affected and the ship will survive.


An Oil Supertanker is a giant Multi-Skinned box with zero defences, it's entire bulk dedicated to carrying freight (in this case oil). After a missile strike, the inherently designed failsafes minimise the amount the crew have to do to keep the ship intact and prevent spillages of disasterous proportions.


FYP... Or is it still the 1970s?
Syrias Bizniz
some random local shitlords
#17 - 2014-10-23 10:14:21 UTC
Davir Sometaww wrote:
A ship that is literally larger than a carrier, you'd think it SHOULD be unreasonably hard to gank. 15-20 Talos's bumrushing one doesn't seem like a reasonable choice - given that it is in High Sec in 1.0 Security Systems.



Given that it's designed to haul loads of cargo rather than being dropped into battle and sustain heavy fire one would assume it hasn't a lot of defenses.
Ralph King-Griffin
New Eden Tech Support
#18 - 2014-10-23 12:47:33 UTC
ShahFluffers wrote:
Quote:
Well possibly as an idea, the damage control would severly limit cargo space - They could make a new module of damage control designed for freighters but severely reduces cargo space.


You're still missing the point though.

With your idea freighter pilots don't have to put much, if any, effort into making themselves unreasonably hard to gank in high-sec. The benefit that one module (a damage control) provides is immense.
There is a reason almost all combat ships fit them and that freighters were purposefully not designed to fit them when they were rebalanced in the not too distant past.

exactly this,they were very deliberately given restrictive fitting room with the dcu specifically in mind.

Murderers of Negotiable Motivations

=]|[=
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#19 - 2014-10-23 13:46:38 UTC
Keep in mind that when CCP re-worked freighters to give them slots, they also adjusted their base stats considerably. Rest assured that if you ever get your DCU2, CCP will very likely reduce freighter hull HP by 50% or so to compensate.

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs
Agondray
Avenger Mercenaries
VOID Intergalactic Forces
#20 - 2014-10-23 15:46:51 UTC
Davir Sometaww wrote:
A ship that is literally larger than a carrier, you'd think it SHOULD be unreasonably hard to gank. 15-20 Talos's bumrushing one doesn't seem like a reasonable choice - given that it is in High Sec in 1.0 Security Systems.


15-20 talos to gank is atleast better then 20 catalyst that i watched shoot several freighters, atleast talos cost more and could either make the gankers take a larger hit in wallet or look for specific targets. the catalyst gangs dont do that as they are cheaper they can afford to not be selective

"Sarcasm is the Recourse of a weak mind." -Dr. Smith
12Next page