These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page12
 

Freighters - Why not give them a Damage Control?

Author
Battle BV Master
Bacon Never Dies
#21 - 2014-10-23 16:07:19 UTC
Well you know I do normal PVP and don't own a freighter so I don't have a personal stake in this argument.

But it does seem to be a little too easy. Cata's are too cheap for what they can achieve in this regard.

Also just up Concords response time not increase the tank makes more sense really.

This is because all reasonable travel will include a 0.5 system. Hub to hub and such, the 0.5 system isn't a choice when traveling its manditory. Which is odd in a sandbox game.

If you could avoid them by taking a longer route that be something different. But they can't be avoided.

EVE is based on risk and reward. So either make safe travel MUCH slower, if you have a DC you'll only go 25% the speed?! Or make 0.5s avoidable also increasing travel time.Or have a DC really cut the cargo down to 25%.

Or just remove the Catalyst from the game, its useless if you're not ganking anyways. Any other ship would cost enough to make it 'fair' again

tl;dr

Its too easy to gank at the moment, there are many ways to fix it. Pick one above or think of one yourself...
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#22 - 2014-10-23 16:43:48 UTC

Freighters are in a solid state balance wise, where you need to chose between tank, capacity, and agility.

Suicide ganking is an very solid part of this game, although it has grown a bit excessive late. Sadly, increasing concord response times a little bit really won't alter the situation much. There are only two ways to truly alter it:

1.) Address bumping. Currently there is 1 method to escape a bumping machariel. Have a fleetmate in a fast ship (inty) burn 150 km's out in the direction they are bumping you and warp to them then warp to safety. I've used this technique to save my freighter when they targetted it for suicide ganking, and it works fairly well. This information simply needs to be disseminated, and hopefully good samaritans will step up.

2.) Address Concord manipulation. If you really, truly want to "limit" suicide ganking, make it so you cannot coerce concord to move to different areas of the system. If they spawn on a gate, they stay on that gate until they despawn. Give them a reasonable despawn timer (30-60 minutes). This then opens up the loophole of carebears using noobship alts to spawn concord protection in belts and places, so that would need limiting too. I don't believe suicide ganking has reached a level where CCP needs to make major game changes like this yet.
Fret Thiesant
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#23 - 2014-10-23 22:35:47 UTC
I like the idea of Damage Control on freighters. Keeps them up longer meaning you can have a fleet defend it meaning it's a conflict driver.
Ned Thomas
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#24 - 2014-10-24 00:36:31 UTC
Want a freighter with 600,000+ ehp?

Bring logi.

Balshem Rozenzweig
24th Imperial Crusade
Amarr Empire
#25 - 2014-10-24 07:44:39 UTC
Never ganked or been ganked but I still think you guys are forgetting about the impact it would have on haulers. One of the most awesome things EVE has is that you actually have to pay people to move your stuff, because you are afraid to do it yourself. This is literally awesome. No other game has it.

TL;DR - any buff to haulers = less profit for haulers as more people will haul their things themselves.

"NUTS!!!" - general McAuliffe

Rockstede
Thirtyplus
Goonswarm Federation
#26 - 2014-10-24 09:05:15 UTC
Jacob Holland wrote:
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?


No it's not the 1970's and you didn't fix my post. Despite the changing conventions on single skinned tankers there are still a great number of them in service.

Regardless my point was that a military vessel is designed to withstand an assault by enemy military forces using in most cases weaponary specifically designed for that task.

A freighter, whether single, double or triple skinned will still suffer much more due to it's cavernous and hollow nature.
PhantomMajor
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#27 - 2014-10-25 00:32:33 UTC
If you can't have a dcu, how about some rig slots?
Aqriue
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#28 - 2014-10-26 17:57:29 UTC
Remove Nanofibers and Cargo Expanders from the utility of a freighter since it kills hull, no rigs required. Interia Stab work just as well as a nano for decreasing align time while increasing your sig size (but freighters are already the size of a moon!), Cargo expanders are just for setting up gank contracts through Uedema on 25 day old newb corp alts (took me 3 seconds to figure out this guy after seeing the multiple spam) setting 1 billion collateral with an m3 size that requires three expanders since it exceeds the base of a freighter....problem solved, gankers have to try harder with more people instead of **** poor design limitations and human stupidity + lazy.

Freighter is perfectly fine, at base stats, unless you want to reinforce it with bulk heads or decrease align times or warp faster...max cargo size for courier should be like 500k m3 for contracts and cannot be exceed, current freighter hitpoints are fine so long as you don't over price the cargo. Restrict the freighter pilot, not the ganker and the ganker won't whine....freighter pilot just has to be in the target scope several more times traveling to jita to carry the same capacity which makes the ganker happier with more opportunities and the freighter pilot happier with slightly higher chance of survival cause gankers are risk adverse unless the price is right.
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#29 - 2014-10-26 18:23:59 UTC
CCP giveth and CCP taketh away. If you could fit a DCU, they would nerf the overall EHP to the point where fitting it became mandatory. Which means you might as well not be able to fit it.

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#30 - 2014-10-27 15:43:25 UTC
PhantomMajor wrote:
If you can't have a dcu, how about some rig slots?


If they add rig slot to current freighter, they will also nerf the base EHP of them, the base cargo and potentially the agility too to counter the possible effect of each rig combo.

Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#31 - 2014-10-27 15:48:13 UTC
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
If you really, truly want to "limit" suicide ganking

To date, the only people who seem interested in limiting suicide ganking any further are victims and a small yet vocal minority. CCP certainly isn't interested as highlighted by CCP Falcon's comments in the link in my sig.

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs

Jacob Holland
Weyland-Vulcan Industries
#32 - 2014-10-28 14:17:36 UTC
Rockstede wrote:
Regardless my point was that a military vessel is designed to withstand an assault by enemy military forces using in most cases weaponary specifically designed for that task.

A freighter, whether single, double or triple skinned will still suffer much more due to it's cavernous and hollow nature.

Ignoring the umbrage...
Without the need for maintaining structural integrity for bouyancy (not a factor in a spacecraft) it may well be that the "civilian" cargo vessel is less vulnerable:

It has far fewer crew. While the military vessel needs a fighting complement the cargo vessel can generally get by on a small bridge crew and an engineering crew.
It has fewer and smaller critical systems. The military vessel has more powerful engines, magazines, more significant life support, weapon systems, more expansive sensor suites...etc. The cargo vessel effectively has a navigational sensor array (with the usual back-ups) at the front, engines at the back... and almost nothing in between.
There is little (if any) point in pressurising cargo space and shipping air from one station to another, particularly in the case of an unladen cargo vessel. Meanwhile the military vessel must keep every active sector pressurised...

The upshot is that, as a proportion of the area it presents as a target the military vessel has a very high level of things critical to its continued operation, these areas are very well protected but any penetrating shot will cause significant damage...
The cargo vessel on the other hand is mostly empty space, penetrate most of it and the approximate effect is the same as a complete miss - put a hole in a chamber which is effectively already open to the void and nothing really changes.

If a tank shot penetrates a tank it's likely a kill. If a tank shot hits the trailer of a big rig it likely pases through without even slowing down significantly.


With regard to the assertions that a Damage Controlled Freighter would be "too hard to gank"...
If the changes to Freighters had been limited to the addition of a single lowslot and 39TF of CPU (after skills) (allowing the fitting of a Damage Control II - you could make it 29TF after skills to limit it to T1 if T2 was too much) and the changes which occured to capital ships anyway, some freighters would be harder to gank - though whether they would be unacceptably hard to gank is another question entirely.

However...
The Damage Control is an Active module. Therefore only pilots who are at their keyboards would get the benefit of them.
The lowslot could also be used for Nanos or Expanded Cargoholds. Not only would these prevent the use of a Damage Control but they directly reduce the Freighter's structure tank. And people would be using them... faster autopiloting or more cargo have always been sufficient draw for some to abandon defence.

Therefore, while a proportion of the freighters would be harder to gank, there would be another proportion which would be easier - and mostly autopilotting to boot.
Jessica Duranin
Doomheim
#33 - 2014-10-28 16:25:53 UTC
Allow DCUs for freighters and reduce structure by 50%.
That's the only way I see how this could work.
It would still be an EHP buff for pilots that are at the controls without making them ungankable.(is that even a word?)
However it would cause lots of tears from the afk- and "I want to fit 3 cargoextender!!!" -people.
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#34 - 2014-10-28 16:42:52 UTC
Jessica Duranin wrote:
Allow DCUs for freighters and reduce structure by 50%.
That's the only way I see how this could work.
It would still be an EHP buff for pilots that are at the controls without making them ungankable.(is that even a word?)
However it would cause lots of tears from the afk- and "I want to fit 3 cargoextender!!!" -people.



The idea of enabling them to fit was stupid enough we really don't need to expand on it.
Jacob Holland
Weyland-Vulcan Industries
#35 - 2014-10-28 17:26:38 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
The idea of enabling them to fit was stupid enough we really don't need to expand on it.

I thought it made sense... right up until they talked about how...
Slight reductions (and I don't think 50% was needed) in capacity and possibly tank and a single slot - DC for tankier freighters, Cargo Expander for larger or Nano/warp speed thingy for faster - take your choice.
Previous page12