These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Joan Greywind
The Lazy Crabs
#61 - 2014-02-19 07:36:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Joan Greywind
Although these threads usually are intended as buff freighters all those gankers scare me, the op does fundamentally make a good point.

This is a game about choices, and all ships follow this rule except freighters. What he's saying is make the players choose between different attributes, was it cargohold, tank or speed. It is still specialized in hauling, but just give the players options so they can feel that they have more control over the fate of their ship. Why are freighters the only exception?

The capital thing can be easily solved by making the volume of capitals 2m m3+, won't affect anything (hanger arrays can also be modified).

The bears will benefit by thinking they have more m3 to haul in.

The gankers will benefit by ganking ships with more m3 in them, but less tank or maneuverability.


By I still don't think it is such a big issue that CCP actually allocates already limited resources to this.
Motoko Innocentius
Domus Dei
#62 - 2014-02-19 08:20:56 UTC
The opposition claiming capitals being the biggest issue is easily averted with a change to capital sizes when packaged, so this isn't really an issue.

Freighter building companies must have noticed the need for faster, tankier more capable freighters required in this age, due to this it would not be odd that freighters would get slots to fit with. There is no need to nerf the freighters in anyways as this would be an advancement to the freighters created by the increase of hostilities in concord safeguarded space.

Anyone fitting badly is always fitting badly and that shouldn't be an issue in this matter either, those fitting wisely for what they are doing will prevail and gain.
Rhatar Khurin
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#63 - 2014-02-19 08:36:09 UTC
Give all freighters 1 high slot and 1 mid slot, see what all the imaginative peeps do with them i say

Jacob Holland
Weyland-Vulcan Industries
#64 - 2014-02-19 09:00:29 UTC
I can't think of a usage case which would be harmed if freighters were given a corp hangar array (600,000m3 would allow for all possible fitted BS IIRC with minimal reduction to the maximum courier contract size), had their cargobays reduced to 600,000m3 (for the Fenrir)/ 650,000m3 (for the Charon), and gain one lowslot.

The initial gain in cargo space is numerically significant but in terms of what you can move it could be argued that it's negligable - the ship couldn't move packaged capitals, it could move an additional max sized courier contract, most of the freighter runs I see are short capacity or require multiple freighters (or multiple trips) and probably still would.

Whether the gains are justifiable is a different matter of course - but in terms of how it could be done...
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#65 - 2014-02-19 09:08:27 UTC
Motoko Innocentius wrote:
The opposition claiming capitals being the biggest issue is easily averted with a change to capital sizes when packaged, so this isn't really an issue.
…aside from the many follow-up effects and balance changes they will entail, all to do something that no-one has been able to explain why it is needed to begin with.

Quote:
Freighter building companies must have noticed the need for faster, tankier more capable freighters required in this age,
…and thus they gave us jump freighters.

They also don't have any real incentive to reduce the amount of ships they sell. Twisted
Ai Shun
#66 - 2014-02-19 09:13:39 UTC
Tippia wrote:
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?


Was there ever an answer to this question?
Motoko Innocentius
Domus Dei
#67 - 2014-02-19 09:17:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Motoko Innocentius
Tippia wrote:
Motoko Innocentius wrote:
The opposition claiming capitals being the biggest issue is easily averted with a change to capital sizes when packaged, so this isn't really an issue.
…aside from the many follow-up effects and balance changes they will entail, all to do something that no-one has been able to explain why it is needed to begin with.

Quote:
Freighter building companies must have noticed the need for faster, tankier more capable freighters required in this age,
…and thus they gave us jump freighters.

They also don't have any real incentive to reduce the amount of ships they sell. Twisted


There are no multiple issues when a capitals volume is changed when it is repackaged, there is no relation in eve between volumes and so forth like there are in real life. It's even possible to have a capital with 100 000 000 000 cubic meter size when packaged and 10 cubic meter size when unpackaged.

Jf's have a jump drive, and they do not have slots, they also lack ehp. Corporations get more by having their product as the best one, opposed to having, letsay ores orcas the best ones. We need better freighters, working better for tasks we need them for.

(alternatively i'd like to see deepspace transports given more cargo space and supersized tanks.. battle impels *drool*)

edit: Just to add, there is a high demand for moving medium volume parts in highsec, current freighters can't move these due to low ehp. A ship capable of 200 000 cubic meter cargo bay with very high ehp is ideal for this. Orca can't do this, Freighter can't do this and Jump freighter can't do this. Now argue me, why should there not be a freighter capable of jf style cargo space but instead of jump engine, it would be bulked with increased defense ? :)
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#68 - 2014-02-19 09:33:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Motoko Innocentius wrote:
There are no multiple issues when a capitals volume is changed when it is repackaged,
…aside from all the mechanisms that involve those volumes. The fact that you don't realise this doesn't bode well for any suggestions you're making since you're not considering all those secondary and tertiary effects of your “simple” change (which again somewhat lacks a good reason for ever happening).

Quote:
Jf's have a jump drive, and they do not have slots, they also lack ehp.
They are faster, tankier, and more capable. Exactly what the doctor ordered.
They have a bit over 200k m³ and very high EHP. The solution you're looking for already exists.

Ai Shun wrote:
Was there ever an answer to this question?
Of course not.
“I want” doesn't have any reason or reasoning behind it other than “I want”.
Motoko Innocentius
Domus Dei
#69 - 2014-02-19 09:43:59 UTC
Dear tippia, there are no mechanics involving packaged ship volumes. Volumes are handwritten, decided by someone. Only mechanic a packaged ship effects is eating cargo space. Give us these multiple examples of secondary and tertiary effects.

Jf's only have 315k ehp, it is not enough. 300k more ehp for a freighter, bringing it to 500k would be good. And i'm sure losing 600k cubic meters of cargo space is a huge loss for that.

You seem to be only viewing this from a point of view that affects gankers, and maybe you have some sadistic desire to force freighters pilots to go up and down with only 50k m3 onboard.. You should also consider the requirements of industrials. We require cargo space coupled with ehp. None of the current ships are able to provide what is needed.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#70 - 2014-02-19 10:14:01 UTC
Motoko Innocentius wrote:
Dear tippia, there are no mechanics involving packaged ship volumes. Volumes are handwritten, decided by someone. Only mechanic a packaged ship effects is eating cargo space. Give us these multiple examples of secondary and tertiary effects.
Everything to do with capital ship arrays and hangars on POSes.

Quote:
Jf's only have 315k ehp, it is not enough.
It's more than enough as it is and you can go much much higher by not picking the weakest of them. Hell, you can quite easily push an Ark into 500k EHP territory.

Quote:
You should also consider the requirements of industrials. We require cargo space coupled with ehp.
I am one so drop the “we” nonsense. Between freighters, JFs, Orcas and BRs, you have everything you'd ever need.
Joan Greywind
The Lazy Crabs
#71 - 2014-02-19 14:43:32 UTC
Motoko Innocentius wrote:
Dear tippia, there are no mechanics involving packaged ship volumes. Volumes are handwritten, decided by someone. Only mechanic a packaged ship effects is eating cargo space. Give us these multiple examples of secondary and tertiary effects.

Jf's only have 315k ehp, it is not enough. 300k more ehp for a freighter, bringing it to 500k would be good. And i'm sure losing 600k cubic meters of cargo space is a huge loss for that.

You seem to be only viewing this from a point of view that affects gankers, and maybe you have some sadistic desire to force freighters pilots to go up and down with only 50k m3 onboard.. You should also consider the requirements of industrials. We require cargo space coupled with ehp. None of the current ships are able to provide what is needed.



Thank you for coming in and polluting a good point with your carebear thoughts. The op's point was not a blanket buff to freighters because "they need more ehp" they have enough.

The whole idea is to make freighters like every other ship in game, where player choices can affect the ship at the expense of other things, you want more ehp fine, but that means less speed and less cargo. You want to have more cargo, fine but less ehp and less speed and so on and so forth. Fittings will allow to do that, and the argument that you can fill that with other types of ship is bad game design, as if the same logic is applied to other types of ships then they won't have any fittings either. You want more speed on your bc? Fly a cruiser, you want more tank on your bc? Fly a bs. Why are freighters the only ships in game with no control over their stats?

Capitals can be solved easily by playing around with the volume numbers on the capitals themselves and capital hanger arrays, it just changing a few numbers around no hassle.

As I said before I am still not so sure it is such an important thing, that CCP allocates precious man power resources on it, but it is definitely a good point.
donmess wime
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#72 - 2014-02-19 15:37:00 UTC  |  Edited by: donmess wime
PotatoOverdose wrote:
You want to know the reason freighters won't get fittings? Ok, here it is:

Think about the reason you made this thread, the train of thought that went: "oh boy! wouldn't it be cool if my freighter could do XYZ!?"

Got it? Good.

Congratulations! That's the exact reason why it'll never happen. Why? Because freighters freight. They don't tank amazingly well. They don't align quickly. They don't fit stabs. They freight. That is what they do, and that is all they will ever do, because that is their role, and that is all they need to do.


Accodring to this reasoning pvp pilots should not get fitting as well, niether should mining barges, or tier 1,2,3 industrials. But they do, because thats what makes eve interesting, you would hear an uproar of CCP released a ship for PVP that was not customizable. Because, its only purpose is to PVP.
donmess wime
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#73 - 2014-02-19 15:49:31 UTC
If you want to put fittings on a freighter you can go two routes as far as i can tell and you will have to choose one. Either it will possible to fit it for sick tank, or sick m3. The point being, either the afforementioned Fenrir with 2 low and 3 rig slots will be balanced to have ~180k EHP with 2 Expanded Cargohold II's + 3 Cargohold Optimisation Rigs, which will mean it will have alot of higher stock EHP than it does currently, meaning you could slap a DCU II and Reinforced Bulkheads+Armor rigs on it for an "incredible" tank. I use qoutation marks because even on Carriers and Dreadnoughts a DCU II makes a huge difference in EHP when fitted, so its actually normal when it comes to capitals, which a freigher is, after all.

The numbers i got, and i do encourage you to do the same if you think the idea is interesting, when making a custom fenrir with EVE HQ and fitted it, was a buffer of 600k EHP on a freighter. However it was only able to haul around 350k m3. If you combined tank and cargo expanders you would end up with about 300k EHP and 600k m3.

So i think thats the way to go. But its going to be hard for people to swallow that a freighter can potentially be able to obtain a buffer of 600k EHP with perfect skills and equipment. Of course it will be significantly slower and carry much less, so it evens out in the end.
stoicfaux
#74 - 2014-02-19 16:20:40 UTC
And what's wrong with putting a mining laser, or better yet, a full flight of mining drones on a freighter?


Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.

Eram Fidard
Doomheim
#75 - 2014-02-19 16:26:33 UTC
While I absolutely love the idea of stripping down a cargo freighter and filling every available m3 with whateverthefuckyouwant; I think you need to read this before posting more ideas. Thanks.

Poster is not to be held responsible for damages to keyboards and/or noses caused by hot beverages.

stoicfaux
#76 - 2014-02-19 16:27:56 UTC
On a more serious note, if freighter pilots find their cargo size is limited more by ganking profitability than by available goods to transport, then we probably need to throw them a bone. Meaning, the ganking business probably shouldn't be allowed to overshadow the business side of freight hauling.

Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.

Hoshi Sorano
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#77 - 2014-02-19 22:38:30 UTC
donmess wime wrote:
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


This reminds me of a random conversation I had years ago with a friend of mine; it was intended as a joke, but I think it illustrates a point here. This took place while I had been reading an article about the construction of a large convention center:

Me: "Hey, it says here that the center will be big enough to fit a 747 inside - look, there's even a drawing showing how it would fit."

Friend: "So?"

Me: "So, we should check it out and see if it's true!"

Friend: "How are you going to do that?"

Me: "There's an airport nearby; they've got to have some 747s."

Friend: "No, I mean how are you going to get the plane inside?"

Me: "The place has double doors, right?"

Friend: *facepalm*


The point being that just because something is large enough to contain an object, it doesn't mean that there is a convenient way of getting it in or out. This is a perfectly reasonable and logical justification for not allowing packaged capitals inside a freighter even if the freighter has the raw cargo capacity to contain it. So really, the argument that freighters can't have fittings because they can't be allowed to carry 1M m3 is a bit of a strawman; there are ways around it that make perfect sense. Anyone claiming otherwise sounds as I did in the conversation above, except that you're actually serious. A collective facepalm over this is well deserved.

Personally, I would love to be able to fit a freighter to hold ~300k m3 cargo, but have better tank, speed, or agility. As it stands right now, freighters are too large for what I do, and Orcas and other options are too small. In EVE as in life, options are a good thing, and there is really no good reason a freighter should not be customizable just like any other ship larger than a shuttle.

For those who are concerned that this would make some freighters too strong to gank, consider that if it were possible to give a freighter more tank for less capacity, there could be more regular use of freighters in low/null. Imagine the opportunities for gate camps! Sure, some freighters in highsec might be harder to gank, but there could also be bigger targets to take down where Concord doesn't care.
PotatoOverdose
Royal Black Watch Highlanders
#78 - 2014-02-19 23:04:44 UTC  |  Edited by: PotatoOverdose
donmess wime wrote:
PotatoOverdose wrote:
You want to know the reason freighters won't get fittings? Ok, here it is:

Think about the reason you made this thread, the train of thought that went: "oh boy! wouldn't it be cool if my freighter could do XYZ!?"

Got it? Good.

Congratulations! That's the exact reason why it'll never happen. Why? Because freighters freight. They don't tank amazingly well. They don't align quickly. They don't fit stabs. They freight. That is what they do, and that is all they will ever do, because that is their role, and that is all they need to do.


Accodring to this reasoning pvp pilots should not get fitting as well, niether should mining barges, or tier 1,2,3 industrials. But they do, because thats what makes eve interesting, you would hear an uproar of CCP released a ship for PVP that was not customizable. Because, its only purpose is to PVP.

Wooosh.

Tell me, can a freighter hull, by itself without fittings, be used to haul the largest volumes in the game? Yes, yes it can.

Tell me, can a rifter hull, by itself without fittings, be used to tackle or shoot any other ship? No, no it can't.

It's not about customization, it's about roles. A freighter doesn't need additional modules to freight. It does need additional modules to align quickly, fit stabs, or tank better. But none of those are it's role. A rifter can't pvp without modules, hence it needs them to fill it's role.

As for magical hypothetical scenarios that don't happen and will never happen (see the part of your argument in bold), any moron can come up with an unfittable pvp ship that is simply amazing. Point in case: CCP introduces a frigate that has the old AOE shootable-through-cyno-into-another-system doomsday built into the hull; no one would ever suggest it's underpowered. And now we've both made up hypothetical scenarios with no relation to reality. Cookies for everyone.
PotatoOverdose
Royal Black Watch Highlanders
#79 - 2014-02-19 23:08:13 UTC
stoicfaux wrote:
On a more serious note, if freighter pilots find their cargo size is limited more by ganking profitability than by available goods to transport, then we probably need to throw them a bone. Meaning, the ganking business probably shouldn't be allowed to overshadow the business side of freight hauling.


Have you seen the sheer number of freighter in Jita and surrounding systems at any time of the day, but especially peak hours?

Freighters are fine.
CERA Elitist
The Prometheus Society
#80 - 2014-02-19 23:20:47 UTC
Battle Freighter is best Freighter! \o/