These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Freighters need fittings!!!

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#41 - 2012-12-02 10:52:21 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Snow Axe wrote:
MeBiatch wrote:
give the ships a fighting chance...


So when they devote their lows and rig to cargo expanders and a single t1 boost in the mids and die even easier than they do now, do you come back and cry for CCP to make the ships stronger because abloo bloo gankers?


I think ideally a properly tanked freighter should be able to survive a suicide gank that costs as much as the hull (minimum), and a poorly tanked freighter (like one with cargo expanders) should have less EHP than they have now.


cost varies depending on what ur ganking with. as mentioned in another thread, it can take 6 - 8 Talos' for a cost of around a bil, or it can take up to 40 cheap catalysts for a cost of less than 100mil.

and if freighters go up in price and combat ships like the talos went down in price, then what?

u cannot link the cost to gank to the hull price, it just doesn't work.

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
Mara Pahrdi
The Order of Anoyia
#42 - 2012-12-02 11:07:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Mara Pahrdi
MeBiatch wrote:
yes you can survive in a current freighter if you have alts and such... but you should not have to use an alt for a ship to survive...

give the ships a fighting chance...

I wasn't afk. But I was autopiloting some stuff on a lonely alt through Uedama in an Obelisk last week. Suddenly the whole overview went yellow. On both gates. Everything full of evil Goons.

I must be doing something wrong I guess. They didn't shoot me.

Oh, btw: First time I've ever seen them there.

MeBiatch wrote:
I propose each ship gets 5 fitting points:

all 4 ships get one high slot and one rig slot

then caldari/min get 3 mid slots and 2 low slots

and gal/ amarr get 2 mid and 3 low slots


No low slots for freighters. Those damn things are slow enough as it is. And what would they need a high slot for? Scanning in wormholes?

If they have to get slots, give them midslots only for some shield tanking.

Remove standings and insurance.
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#43 - 2012-12-04 06:05:40 UTC
low slots would be for inertia stabs so you turn faster... that with a mwd on the mid and maybe a cloak or bait cyno on the high... maybe even a dcu II so you could potentially survive till concord gets there.

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#44 - 2012-12-04 06:06:54 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Snow Axe wrote:
MeBiatch wrote:
give the ships a fighting chance...


So when they devote their lows and rig to cargo expanders and a single t1 boost in the mids and die even easier than they do now, do you come back and cry for CCP to make the ships stronger because abloo bloo gankers?
Yes.

I want this to happen. Please make fitting freighters possible!!

I think ideally a properly tanked freighter should be able to survive a suicide gank that costs as much as the hull (minimum), and a poorly tanked freighter (like one with cargo expanders) should have less EHP than they have now.

Power to the players.



this guy gets it.

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#45 - 2012-12-04 07:19:19 UTC
Daichi Yamato wrote:
u cannot link the cost to gank to the hull price, it just doesn't work.
You can with tech 1 ships, because it's based on mineral values. Even capital ships are made out of standard minerals. You also have to add in the blueprint prices, but those are somewhat anchored based on the original blueprint price as set by the NPC corp that sells it. So capital prices will potentially change less (or more in rare cases) than sub-cap prices, but changing the mineral values changes them both. Freighter and gank ship prices will never change dramatically in proportion to one another.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Minty Moon
#46 - 2012-12-04 08:59:43 UTC
You actually don't need rigs or even slots to improve a ships defenses. There are a few ways to defend boost your defenses solo or in a fleet. Just everyone seems to ignore them and think the only way to defend yourself is with ship slots.

Quoting myself from another thread on this exact thing. On why Freighters are fine as is, and freighter pilots just arent thinking outside the box enough. Or just refuse to use the already implemented in game mechanics to buff up their freighters defense.

Quote:
there is room for improvement, but the hull is fine itself. There are mechanics to improve around you that need to be utilized, but aren't because everyone wants a solo play solution to every problem that comes from groups

I actually have never seen anyone complain that there freighter was ganked with a full slave set, noble mechanic implant, a noble hull upgrade, and fleet boosts down the line. My cheap little fitting app on my phone using implants and a single legion booster boosts a provi's EHP from 193.7k to 289.9k!. Thats almost an extra 100k ehp

My only quarrel is I don't think a charon could be assisted to match that amount of EHP or resistance

You also might be interested to know that also according to my fitting tool. Freighters get a 25% resist across the board against projectile ammo already built in o.O Hmm apparently CCP did adjust for the tier 3's alpha being exploited

(Player Opened Direct Wormholes) (Expanding on Wormholes)
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#47 - 2012-12-04 09:39:35 UTC
Improving defenses is one thing, making them viable is another. There's no good reason to prevent a pilot from having a wide array of options, just because "there are a few options", especially when those few options available frequently are useless. So when you know people are out there ready to gank your freighter and you have some moderately expensive and very large cargo to move a long ways, you have a handful of options currently:

1.) don't fly
2.) make 2-3 trips
3.) bring several friends in expensive logistics ships

If this is what you're limited to, what's the point of the freighter at all? You might as well just fly it all in orcas and/or industrials.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#48 - 2012-12-04 15:19:52 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Daichi Yamato wrote:
u cannot link the cost to gank to the hull price, it just doesn't work.
You can with tech 1 ships, because it's based on mineral values. Even capital ships are made out of standard minerals. You also have to add in the blueprint prices, but those are somewhat anchored based on the original blueprint price as set by the NPC corp that sells it. So capital prices will potentially change less (or more in rare cases) than sub-cap prices, but changing the mineral values changes them both. Freighter and gank ship prices will never change dramatically in proportion to one another.



yes but basing balancing on prices is a terribad idea... (remember the titans)

balance is balance... price is irrelevant

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
swampbug
Subsidy H.R.S.
Xagenic Freymvork
#49 - 2012-12-04 18:11:39 UTC
I dont have an issue with current mechanics, but after reading this thread, it seems some overthinking is happening. If you want some tank/agility options for a freighter but dont want to allow an increase in cargo: Just put a restriction on the modules that affect that. ie: Cargo Expander II- cannot be fit on freighters. Same for rigs. They already have limits placed on some modules, so the coding shouldnt be hard to implement. Just my 2 cents. Either way i'll still be flying my freighter.
Minty Moon
#50 - 2012-12-04 21:21:53 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Improving defenses is one thing, making them viable is another. There's no good reason to prevent a pilot from having a wide array of options, just because "there are a few options", especially when those few options available frequently are useless. So when you know people are out there ready to gank your freighter and you have some moderately expensive and very large cargo to move a long ways, you have a handful of options currently:

1.) don't fly
2.) make 2-3 trips
3.) bring several friends in expensive logistics ships

If this is what you're limited to, what's the point of the freighter at all? You might as well just fly it all in orcas and/or industrials.


.... if youre hauling expensive cargo and you choose as your primary option isn't #3 but im sorry but thats your own damn fault.

I reserve haulers to moving battleships and minerals around. If i need to haul expensive amounts of either those I bring logstics friends and make sure im implanted to cut down on my travel time. If not im make several trips, put small expensive loot in protected small ships. I.E. stealth bombers or stealth t3 depending on the ultimate value.

Seriously it takes 6-7 accounts at min to pop a freighter that's half a dozen people to take out that ONE ship.


Seriously this argument gets old fast, because all it amounts too is "I want to carry more expensive stuff at one time, but cant cause it risks my ships =(. CCP give me something so i can more protect myself because i'm too cheap to buy implants to protect my billion isk invest in my ship and the several billion+ worth of items I want to haul at once without having to make more trips to be safe"

Its always "well they can pop me so easily!" ya well it takes half a dozen ships to do it at min if the freighter pilot hasn't already beefed up its defense with whats available. And then that argument also ignores the fact that any ship solo can be taken down easily with enough numbers. I've seen T3's ganked in hisec just like freighters. They can adjust their fittings all they like, but everyone can still be popped. No one is an exception. Freighters already have built in protection against the ganking thats been going on and they have options of fleet support in addition to whats built in.


I do agree its a problem though. But the current ships are fine as is. It's just a matter of flying them smart.

The best option I think to keep to the freighter spirit and just develop a new t2 frieghter. In fact that is the only good solution and ill make a thread about it

(Player Opened Direct Wormholes) (Expanding on Wormholes)
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#51 - 2012-12-04 22:01:34 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Daichi Yamato wrote:
u cannot link the cost to gank to the hull price, it just doesn't work.
You can with tech 1 ships, because it's based on mineral values. Even capital ships are made out of standard minerals. You also have to add in the blueprint prices, but those are somewhat anchored based on the original blueprint price as set by the NPC corp that sells it. So capital prices will potentially change less (or more in rare cases) than sub-cap prices, but changing the mineral values changes them both. Freighter and gank ship prices will never change dramatically in proportion to one another.


ship prices are not directly linked to mineral prices either.

when trit goes up 1isk per unit, a ship that takes 7million trit to build does not suffer a price increase of exactly 7million isk.

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#52 - 2012-12-05 02:49:46 UTC
swampbug wrote:
I dont have an issue with current mechanics, but after reading this thread, it seems some overthinking is happening.
I think it's a lot of underthinking.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Tarn Kugisa
Kugisa Dynamics
#53 - 2012-12-05 04:47:37 UTC
Snow Axe wrote:
MeBiatch wrote:
give the ships a fighting chance...


So when they devote their lows and rig to cargo expanders and a single t1 boost in the mids and die even easier than they do now, do you come back and cry for CCP to make the ships stronger because abloo bloo gankers?


how would someone flying a billion ISK ship be that stupid?
also CCP would prevent cargo expanders because no ship is allowed to have a 1 Million M3 continuous cargo hold. It prevents capitals from being moved by repackaging.

Be polite. Be efficient. Have a plan to troll everyone you meet - KuroVolt
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#54 - 2012-12-05 09:24:49 UTC
Tarn Kugisa wrote:
Snow Axe wrote:
MeBiatch wrote:
give the ships a fighting chance...


So when they devote their lows and rig to cargo expanders and a single t1 boost in the mids and die even easier than they do now, do you come back and cry for CCP to make the ships stronger because abloo bloo gankers?


how would someone flying a billion ISK ship be that stupid?
also CCP would prevent cargo expanders because no ship is allowed to have a 1 Million M3 continuous cargo hold. It prevents capitals from being moved by repackaging.



Never underestimate the stupidity of empire dwellers. These are the people who used to fit hulks for max yield, with nothing even resembling a tank, and wonder why they got ganked. These are the people who undock with 80 PLEX in a frigate, or who try and fly ships full of BPOs through Rancer. If it's a terrible idea, they will do it.
Micheal Black
Eze Technologies
#55 - 2012-12-05 09:31:22 UTC
Yes. 5 max slots split up between the medium and low slots.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#56 - 2012-12-05 09:59:27 UTC
Danika Princip wrote:
These are the people who undock with 80 PLEX in a frigate, or who try and fly ships full of BPOs through Rancer.
Like the guy in a Velator carrying 120 Minmatar drone spec skills, I killed a few years back.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Eternus3
Gods Holy Light Bringing You're Penance
#57 - 2012-12-05 12:46:57 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Savos Arenn wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
So in short you want to nerf freighters.

Thats an odd interpretation

Not if you use the grey matter. Fighters cannot be allowed to carry a million meters squared so because those rig and low slots can be used for cargo expanders thd freighters cargo will have to be nerfed. That means in order to get the cargo size we currently have we will have to make our freighters easyer to gank. This means that no matter how you fit them you would not be able to carru as much as we currently can. Thats a nerf.




The whole point is to say fit a invulnerability field, damage control II and maybe some armor resists..... not more cargo space anyone that would sacrafice structure for more space is just stupid and would cry after getting ganked. Just make it so the rig/low slots can not fit any kind of cargo boosting fittings.
Bubba Hightower
Doomheim
#58 - 2012-12-05 16:09:30 UTC
How about an actual in universe explanation to buff freighters without considering that whole 1 mil m3 point? Basically (and yes I know this is flawed to an extent considering industrials and all that), but why not say in the ship description something like "Because these enormous ship hulls were built to maximize cargo hold, it is not possible to expand cargo capacity in any way." That way, we eliminate the whole bigger cargo hold by not allowing cargo rigs or cargo expanders and then maybe give them 1 low and mid slot each? Alternatively maybe two in mid one low or two low one mid based on the race. Of course, this would also introduce a new game system change where a ship is re-introduced as not being able to fit a module not because of a CPU or PG limitation, but because of a hull limitation which might not go over too well.
Souisa
Subhypersonics
#59 - 2012-12-05 16:19:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Souisa
If you are gonna make freighters fittable you might as well do it properly from the beginning. Players should be able to fit whatever module they want, providing the ship has enough CPU and powergrid to fit it :) I mean we shouldnt be moving restrictions just to put some new ones in :)

Just because the freighter will be able to transport more than 1kk m3 albeit be very poorly tanked, and thus be able to take capitals into high-sec does not mean the freighters should not be fittable, i mean the freighter should not be worse of because of the relative low volume on repacked capital ships. Instead, the capital ships should have their volume increased to prevent them from entering when the fittable freighter is introduced. Also you will probably need to add a passive DCU. Works like the EANM for armor, but for hull, boosting resists by a certain amount. Else AFK haulers will take a significant hit to their buffer. Those are the only concerns for making a freighter fittable, and with the introduction of a hull EANM and a volume increase on capital ships there should be no problems, and we can go ahead and get a fittable freighter to enjoy.

And just for the record i think normal freighters should have 2 low slots and 3 rig slots, and thats it. High and medium slots should be reserved for jump freighters in order to keep the two classes unique from each other:) Also a cloak on a jump freighter sounds appealing as hell.

o/
Syzygium
Ventures Bar
Sleeper Protocol
#60 - 2012-12-06 07:06:13 UTC
Daichi Yamato wrote:

the EHP of the suggested freighter fit for tank rather than capacity would be something over 500k. frankly ridiculous considering its a transport. then lets consider that adding a DCU would mean the end of afk hauling cause u have to activate it after every gate.

current freighters are already optimised. giving them fitting options would mean nerfing the hell out of them.

who exactly said that you cannot alter the base values of armor/shield/hull? Your "500k eHP" value is based on their current stats. that has nothing to do with the rebalanced eHP after a possible patch.

Currently Freighters have 190k eHP - THAT is ridiculous for a CAPITAL ship. No one cries that a Rorqual has 500k eHP (unfitted!) or even 1.5m eHP (fitted), which is also a Capital Industrial Ship. There would be nothing wrong with Freighters at 300k eHP untanked to 900k eHP tanked and Jumpfreighters between 500k and 1.5m. Even an Orca, not nearly 1/4th the Size of a Freighter, has roughly 250k-300k eHP if you tank it properly.

So: valid arguments against fittable freighters: still zero.