These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Fittable freighters possible?

Author
Loraine Gess
Confedeferate Union of Tax Legalists
#21 - 2014-02-18 21:37:51 UTC
Tippia wrote:
[
Loraine Gess wrote:
I'm assuming CCP modifies the hull HP upwards (or not because that could be ********) to compensate for the new need for expanders
Why? The request was that the freighters are given customisation abilities, not that they're given a blanket buff. If people wanted a blanket buff, they could just ask for one and not muck around with all this obfuscation.




I am imagining a world where this unnecessary feature actually gets added... it looks a lot like this one, except everything is the same (but only after you fit cargo expander IIs to your freighter)




My point being is that I agree in the entirety that freighters are perfectly optimized and that if CCP wanted you to carry bajillions more of m^3 in your cargo they'd rebalance freighters. That would make for a hilarious patch though. Not T3 rebalancing, not blops, but freighter rebalance expansion...
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#22 - 2014-02-18 21:41:07 UTC
donmess wime wrote:
EVE HQ Allows for custom ships. I made a Fenrir with 2 low slots and 3 rig slots. I added Reinforced Bulkheads II, DCU II, and 3 Capital cargohold optimisation rigs. Then i nerfed the stock attributes until the build would be excactly like the current one, cargo wise, EHP and speed wise.

…making it a pointless measure. You'd also have to nerf the attributes even further to counter the eventuality that they fit expanders instead of the bulkhead and DCU. So no matter what, you'd end up with a ship that was much worse in every way, just because you wanted to decide exactly how it should suck.

Personally, I prefer my freighters not to suck to begin with.
unidenify
Pandemic Horde Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#23 - 2014-02-18 21:42:11 UTC
Carmen Electra wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Because for every low slot you give them, you have to reduce their cargo space by 22% to ensure that they can't reach 1M m³.


You do? Pretty sure OP just wants to be able to buff his existing freighter with mods. What terrible thing happens when you can haul >1M m³?


you can carry capital ship in freighter if it have more than 1 million m3

why it is hard to understand this?

CPP don't want capital ships in high sec for game balance reason.

by allow more than 1 million m3, they will need to add more codes to prevent capital ships from enter high sec.

so, in their view it is simple to left freighter like it is now.
donmess wime
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#24 - 2014-02-18 22:06:13 UTC  |  Edited by: donmess wime
Im not convinved fittable freighters is a bad idea. Im not convinced they will be worse of. With the custom Fenrir, 2 low and 3 rig slots, 70 CPU and 2 powergrid, fitted for maximum tank - and these numbers arent final, they can be tweaked to make the fits more more diverse - fitted for maximum tank i ended up with about 230k EHP with All skills V compared to 170k ehp the current one has.
Fitted for maximum m3, all skills V, Tech 2 rigs and expanders, the freighter will carry just under 1,6m m3 have 77k EHP, but will cost over 2.2 billion. That might make it over powered. But thats with All skills V. If no skills are V, it carries 1,2m m3 and has 57k EHP and 73m/s.
Batelle
Filthy Peasants
#25 - 2014-02-18 22:10:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Batelle
Tippia wrote:
donmess wime wrote:
Why would a freighter be worse off with lo and rig slots?

Because for every low slot you give them, you have to reduce their cargo space by 22% to ensure that they can't reach 1M m³.
To get back to their current carrying capacity you'll have to fill them with cargo expanders, each of which reduces their hull HP (i.e. where they have the brunt of their hitpoints) by 20%.

So what you end up with is a ship that carries less and/or dies faster.


make existing cargobay a special freighter hold instead of 'capacity.' Cargo rigs and expanders now have no effect
Add slots

This would buff freighters. This isn't a problem, because any proposal asking to making them fittable is implicitly asking for a buff anyway. I think the only reason to oppose this is if you don't think they need a buff, in which case you can just say so instead of throwing around crap like OMG CAPITALS.

not rocket science.

"**CCP is changing policy, and has asked that we discontinue the bonus credit program after November 7th. So until then, enjoy a super-bonus of 1B Blink Credit for each 60-day GTC you buy!"**

Never forget.

donmess wime
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#26 - 2014-02-18 22:12:58 UTC
If that is the case then you might as well not bother. Players hate restrictions so if you are going to make it fittable you do it properly and not by cheating and making a special cargohold.
Loraine Gess
Confedeferate Union of Tax Legalists
#27 - 2014-02-18 22:13:38 UTC
Batelle wrote:
Tippia wrote:
donmess wime wrote:
Why would a freighter be worse off with lo and rig slots?

Because for every low slot you give them, you have to reduce their cargo space by 22% to ensure that they can't reach 1M m³.
To get back to their current carrying capacity you'll have to fill them with cargo expanders, each of which reduces their hull HP (i.e. where they have the brunt of their hitpoints) by 20%.

So what you end up with is a ship that carries less and/or dies faster.


make existing cargobay a special freighter hold instead of 'capacity.' Cargo rigs and expanders now have no effect
Add slots

not rocket science.




Then we get ridiculous EHP freighters and battlefreighters



I fail to see why this is needed
Erotica 1
Krypteia Operations
#28 - 2014-02-18 22:16:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Erotica 1
Give freighters only expanded cargo hold choices and increase capital packaged size. Easy peasy.

See Bio for isk doubling rules. If you didn't read bio, chances are you funded those who did.

unidenify
Pandemic Horde Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#29 - 2014-02-18 22:17:22 UTC
donmess wime wrote:
Im not convinved fittable freighters is a bad idea. Im not convinced they will be worse of. With the custom Fenrir, 2 low and 3 rig slots, 70 CPU and 2 powergrid, fitted for maximum tank - and these numbers arent final, they can be tweaked to make the fits more more diverse - fitted for maximum tank i ended up with about 230k EHP with All skills V compared to 170k ehp the current one has.
Fitted for maximum m3, all skills V, Tech 2 rigs and expanders, the freighter will carry just under 1,6m m3 have 77k EHP, but will cost over 2.2 billion. That makes it a little over powered.


I have 448k EHP with DCII and Bulkhead reinforcement II in low slot

with 3 rigs to boost cargo, I fall to 441k EHP

still huge boost over current, plus 1.49 million cargo
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#30 - 2014-02-18 22:17:50 UTC
donmess wime wrote:
Im not convinved fittable freighters is a bad idea. Im not convinced they will be worse of.
Have you tried reading the thread? It has been explained pretty thoroughly by now…

Quote:
If that is the case then you might as well not bother.
That's the whole point. Anything you do to them ends up in one of two camps: the “why bother” camp or the “omgz nerfed to hell” camp.

They're pretty much perfect as is, and there is no real problem with that that requires modules to solve, especially not given how much they'd have to be altered (read: made worse) in order to accommodate that ability.
Batelle
Filthy Peasants
#31 - 2014-02-18 22:17:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Batelle
Loraine Gess wrote:
I fail to see why this is needed


Updated my post as you wrote this. IMO, even if freighters had their HP doubled, whales would still be whales.

PS, if you gank fails because OMG ehp, you can just bump the freighter and reship. Ganking isn't going anywhere.

"**CCP is changing policy, and has asked that we discontinue the bonus credit program after November 7th. So until then, enjoy a super-bonus of 1B Blink Credit for each 60-day GTC you buy!"**

Never forget.

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#32 - 2014-02-18 22:20:10 UTC
Batelle wrote:
This would buff freighters. This isn't a problem, because any proposal asking to making them fittable is implicitly asking for a buff anyway.
If they want a buff, they should ask for a buff rather than muck around with all this pointless obfuscation.

Quote:
I think the only reason to oppose this is if you don't think they need a buff, in which case you can just say so instead of throwing around crap like OMG CAPITALS.
And that just proves that you're presumptive and clueless.
donmess wime
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#33 - 2014-02-18 22:26:17 UTC
Erotica 1 wrote:
Give freighters only expanded cargo hold choices and increase capital packaged size. Easy peasy.



Your not supposed to increase capital size since that could cause trouble for people currently storing them in POS'es etc. Desabling it from entering af freighter is simpler, even tho its repacked, it should not be able to get through the doors
Erotica 1
Krypteia Operations
#34 - 2014-02-18 22:27:03 UTC
I still think increasing their cargo capacity and decreasing their tank would be hilarious, especially if courier prices were reduced dramatically due to all the extra hauling capacity.

See Bio for isk doubling rules. If you didn't read bio, chances are you funded those who did.

Unsuccessful At Everything
The Troll Bridge
#35 - 2014-02-18 22:27:35 UTC
I think by now we all realize, that when given the chance to fit for max(yield/cargo/etc) or max tank, Most highseccers will always not go with tank.


Give the freighter pilot a single low slot, and a 20% increase in hull hitpoints, 85% of the pilots will fit a damn Expanded Cargohold II and negate the buff, .1% will fit an actual Damage Control, .9% would simply leave the slot blank, and 14% would run to the forums and demand SP reimbursement and more slots.



Since the cessation of their usefulness is imminent, may I appropriate your belongings?

donmess wime
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#36 - 2014-02-18 22:29:51 UTC
Erotica 1 wrote:
I still think increasing their cargo capacity and decreasing their tank would be hilarious, especially if courier prices were reduced dramatically due to all the extra hauling capacity.


I keep thinking about companies who haul stuff for a living. I think a fittable freighter would be great here. And a freighter fitted for tank would be hilarious. Them failed ganks.
Batelle
Filthy Peasants
#37 - 2014-02-18 22:31:09 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Batelle wrote:
This would buff freighters. This isn't a problem, because any proposal asking to making them fittable is implicitly asking for a buff anyway.
If they want a buff, they should ask for a buff rather than muck around with all this pointless obfuscation.

Quote:
I think the only reason to oppose this is if you don't think they need a buff, in which case you can just say so instead of throwing around crap like OMG CAPITALS.
And that just proves that you're presumptive and clueless.


I'm just trying to get to the heart of the matter. "Pointless obfuscation" is a perfect descriptor for this side issue of packaged capitals. Its unfortunate it took two pages, thanks for that.

"**CCP is changing policy, and has asked that we discontinue the bonus credit program after November 7th. So until then, enjoy a super-bonus of 1B Blink Credit for each 60-day GTC you buy!"**

Never forget.

donmess wime
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#38 - 2014-02-18 22:31:35 UTC
Unsuccessful At Everything wrote:
I think by now we all realize, that when given the chance to fit for max(yield/cargo/etc) or max tank, Most highseccers will always not go with tank.


Give the freighter pilot a single low slot, and a 20% increase in hull hitpoints, 85% of the pilots will fit a damn Expanded Cargohold II and negate the buff, .1% will fit an actual Damage Control, .9% would simply leave the slot blank, and 14% would run to the forums and demand SP reimbursement and more slots.





2 Slots would be optimal from an options perspective. From a balance perspective it gets a little more complicated. But who said it was going to be easy?

The more slots the more players have to play around with, and that should ultimately be the goal.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#39 - 2014-02-18 22:33:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Batelle wrote:
"Pointless obfuscation" is a perfect descriptor for this side issue of packaged capitals.
…aside from being the exact reason why they can't just be given rig- and lowslots. So it's not so much a pointless obfuscation as it is a pretty salient and glaring obstacle.

donmess wime wrote:
The more slots the more players have to play around with, and that should ultimately be the goal.
Before going there, though, you rather need to address the question of why do they need any at all. Right now, you just want to add them to have slots. But what is it you actually what to achieve? What is the problem you're trying to solve? How is it not being fulfilled by what's already at your disposal?
Loraine Gess
Confedeferate Union of Tax Legalists
#40 - 2014-02-18 22:37:00 UTC
I think all T2 ships should be given a third rig slot


Why? Because choice





I think all faction ships should be given a more calibration


Why? Because choice




I think all battleships should be 8/8/8 layouts


Why? Because choice





Does anyone see the problem with this line of thinking?