These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[Kronos] Blockade Runner Rebalance

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
#221 - 2014-05-19 13:12:50 UTC
The one area you certainly can't argue against is sitting on Jita gate on a sunday afternoon with traffic control for 2 hours.

That happens to good pilots, bad pilots and everyone in between

Having a single ship int he game that can't be scaned is not the end of the world if they want to sit on the gate and spam jump for a bit with some expensive cargo, and get scanned and ganked before the gate to jita opens
Torgeir Hekard
I MYSELF AND ME
#222 - 2014-05-19 14:20:25 UTC
So, leaving the rolled homogeneous ships aside, the minniie ship is not the lightest and fastest anymore?

This makes negative amount of sense.

How about giving it the least max capacity (less than 12K aka 4 giant secure conts with max cargo fit), but returning the proper mass and agility?
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#223 - 2014-05-19 14:29:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Gypsio III
Yongtau Naskingar wrote:

Gypsio III wrote:
I want it removed for purely selfish reasons, to enable me to AP around in an empty BR more safely. I'll still be safe while hauling valuable cargo, because I'm not an idiot.

AP should not be safe.


I didn't say it should be. Read again.

I think it should be about as safe as using another ship with similar stats, and more importantly, I think your safety should be influenced by your own actions.

Right now, it's essentially pure dumb luck whether your empty APing BR gets ganked, because attackers can't tell if your hold is empty. That's a "feature" that's unique to BRs and, like most things involving pure dumb luck instead of skill or analysis, is fundamentally bad design.

It's much better game design for getting ganked to be a consequence of your own decisions. Now, you could argue that APing at all in a BR is a "bad decision" - and you'd be right, because it is stupid, and that's why I don't do it. But I don't regard this as acceptable from a design POV because it's essentially removing a pilot's options. It also forces a binary "safe because not APing" or "at risk because APing" state, with no gradations in between - which is another feature typical of bad design.
Tharin Malkyre
Knights of the Ouroboros
#224 - 2014-05-19 15:00:48 UTC
Looks pretty tasty. My Prowler is gaining weight Sad But it's getting T2 resists Big smile I'll take it.

And dat warp speed. I already have mine rigged with an extra warp speed rig, so 9 au/s here I come P
Arnpior
SUNDERING
Goonswarm Federation
#225 - 2014-05-19 15:58:49 UTC
Gypsio III wrote:
Currently, the scan immunity bonus essentially means that you can't AP around in an empty BR, you have to fly it manually everywhere. This can be a real pain.
...
Now, you could argue that APing at all in a BR is a "bad decision" - and you'd be right, because it is stupid, and that's why I don't do it.



So..... if you dont AP at all in your BR..... then how is it a real pain that you have to manualy fly it everywhere ?

You guys are so full of ****.
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#226 - 2014-05-19 16:18:47 UTC
Arnpior wrote:
Gypsio III wrote:
Currently, the scan immunity bonus essentially means that you can't AP around in an empty BR, you have to fly it manually everywhere. This can be a real pain.
...
Now, you could argue that APing at all in a BR is a "bad decision" - and you'd be right, because it is stupid, and that's why I don't do it.



So..... if you dont AP at all in your BR..... then how is it a real pain that you have to manualy fly it everywhere ?

You guys are so full of ****.


I have no idea what point you're trying to make here. Are you sure you understand the subject?

The scan immunity means that it is unnecessarily dangerous to AP an empty BR about.
Ergo, I don't do it, and fly manually instead.
This is a real pain.
This is bad design and results in a bad user experience.
Ergo, scan immunity should be removed.
This is no loss to the class because the cloak provides scan immunity for non-AP work.

Straight
Kasife Vynneve
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#227 - 2014-05-19 17:38:29 UTC
Michael Harari wrote:


Use a t3. Tengu can get 1k cargo, 200k ehp with full passive tank (you can get a bit more if you arent autopiloting) and covops cloak. You can trade rigs for more cargo.

Legion can get 600k ehp, but obviously no cargo expanders on that. Has enough room for t2 bpos though


Prior to me training Transports I used my Legion to move things in and out of Null, while yes interdiction nullification was good to have gee I was glad to have more space withe the BR ~ particularly when it came to carrying command centers. Felt silly putting cargo rigs on a T3 just make them fit.

Love my cloaky now and I look forward to these changes as was always puzzled by the tanking bonus on them.
Sheeana Harb
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#228 - 2014-05-19 18:05:23 UTC
I'm disappointed that Prowler is loosing a bit of it's agility and gaining mass. Minmatar ships are know for being fast (and made of paper) and it is illogical to see this trait not being kept on arguably the most advanced sub-capital industrial ship.

The current trade-off for Prowler is one extra high, smaller cargo and the greatest agility. With the patch Prowler will loose the advantage of an extra high, will keep the smallest cargo and loose agility (altough gaining an extra low). It will be very hard to justify using Prowler after the patch unless someone has trained for it(which was probably for the extra high and agility).

I would very much like to see Prowler keeping its Minmatar theme.
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#229 - 2014-05-19 18:50:01 UTC
Sheeana Harb wrote:
I'm disappointed that Prowler is loosing a bit of it's agility and gaining mass. Minmatar ships are know for being fast (and made of paper) and it is illogical to see this trait not being kept on arguably the most advanced sub-capital industrial ship.

The current trade-off for Prowler is one extra high, smaller cargo and the greatest agility. With the patch Prowler will loose the advantage of an extra high, will keep the smallest cargo and loose agility (altough gaining an extra low). It will be very hard to justify using Prowler after the patch unless someone has trained for it(which was probably for the extra high and agility).

I would very much like to see Prowler keeping its Minmatar theme.

I think it ends up netting almost 0 change. Taking away from the agility multiplier makes it more agile, while adding mass counteracts that. however adding mass does help its agility when using speed modules.
Myrthiis
Boon Odd Ducks Bath Toys
#230 - 2014-05-19 19:32:21 UTC
Ok time for final thought on these changes .

-First scanning immunity should'nt be removed ,gankers should still take the gamble to blow an empty BR .
-Bubble immunity should'nt be intoduced on these hulls are they are already quite slippery.
-Transport bonus are fine and stong warpspeed is especially good ,for any pilot really behind is computer and ccp should be keeping this policy.

On the hulls themselves every ships can fit for 10 K m3 and an align time of 5 s with a Nano and T2 cargo rigs except the Crane with less than 10 k m3 and 6 s align time.
On the fits ,u could apply on them there is two superiors BR Viator and Prorator who can fit Cover Cyno+ Cov ops + 10 mn experimental Mwd and keep their 10 k m3 cargo and align time .
Prowler miss half a point of grid to do so (162.5/163) and need a 1 % grid implant to do so bye bye Eifyr and Co. 'Rogue' Warp Drive Speed WS-610 and variant .Plz CCP and Fozzie fix this .
Crane is inferior in everyway in comparaison to the three others and should be sent back at near light speed in his engineer face.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#231 - 2014-05-19 19:41:09 UTC
Yongtau Naskingar wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
I am a blockade runner pilot and memeber of the corp that industrialised ganking and gave everyone the gank catalyst and just about every single new gank tactic in the last three years as well as the people behind burn jita..

Hm-mm, so even though the first few posts in this thread by you were meant to imply that you're arguing this as a BR pilot, you're now admitting you're arguing this as a ganker. Alright, that's some progress at least. So basically, you want to have it easy and see which autopilot BRs are packing and which aren't.

Why not? Morons who autopilot should get their BRs blown up if they're carrying expensive ****.
You should really be for removing the scan immunity because otherwise your empty AP BR would be getting blown up as well.

Yongtau Naskingar wrote:
That's not the question in this thread. The question in this thread is, why do you (the ganker) need protection against bad luck? Answer that, and then you can argue for removing the unscannable bonus.

Nobody is arguing that they should. We're arguing that player safety should be influenced by their decisions. If you want to autopilot in an empty BR then objectively speaking your risk goes down if you can be cargo scanned.
If you want to autopilot in a loot pinata BR then your risk will go up as it should be.
Your risk of being ganked autopiloting shouldn't be independent of your decision to carry juicy trinkets.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#232 - 2014-05-19 19:46:08 UTC
Myrthiis wrote:

On the fits ,u could apply on them there is two superiors BR Viator and Prorator who can fit Cover Cyno+ Cov ops + 10 mn experimental Mwd and keep their 10 k m3 cargo and align time .
Prowler miss half a point of grid to do so (162.5/163) and need a 1 % grid implant to do so bye bye Eifyr and Co. 'Rogue' Warp Drive Speed WS-610 and variant .Plz CCP and Fozzie fix this .
Crane is inferior in everyway in comparaison to the three others and should be sent back at near light speed in his engineer face.



Based on this, without access to EFT, I'd totally support a bit more PG for the Prowler and Crane. I wonder how they compare when fit with probe launcher instead of covert cyno.

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

Myrthiis
Boon Odd Ducks Bath Toys
#233 - 2014-05-19 19:48:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Myrthiis
They are both fine with it core probe launcher only consume 1 PG,but crane has still the crappiest align time and cargo
Myrthiis
Boon Odd Ducks Bath Toys
#234 - 2014-05-19 19:50:30 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Yongtau Naskingar wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
I am a blockade runner pilot and memeber of the corp that industrialised ganking and gave everyone the gank catalyst and just about every single new gank tactic in the last three years as well as the people behind burn jita..

Hm-mm, so even though the first few posts in this thread by you were meant to imply that you're arguing this as a BR pilot, you're now admitting you're arguing this as a ganker. Alright, that's some progress at least. So basically, you want to have it easy and see which autopilot BRs are packing and which aren't.

Why not? Morons who autopilot should get their BRs blown up if they're carrying expensive ****.
You should really be for removing the scan immunity because otherwise your empty AP BR would be getting blown up as well.

Yongtau Naskingar wrote:
That's not the question in this thread. The question in this thread is, why do you (the ganker) need protection against bad luck? Answer that, and then you can argue for removing the unscannable bonus.

Nobody is arguing that they should. We're arguing that player safety should be influenced by their decisions. If you want to autopilot in an empty BR then objectively speaking your risk goes down if you can be cargo scanned.
If you want to autopilot in a loot pinata BR then your risk will go up as it should be.
Your risk of being ganked autopiloting shouldn't be independent of your decision to carry juicy trinkets.


We have understood that Goonswarm are bored to gank empty BR ,but no thanks keep the immunity on BR as there is no valid reason to remove it .
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#235 - 2014-05-19 20:21:06 UTC
Myrthiis wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Yongtau Naskingar wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
I am a blockade runner pilot and memeber of the corp that industrialised ganking and gave everyone the gank catalyst and just about every single new gank tactic in the last three years as well as the people behind burn jita..

Hm-mm, so even though the first few posts in this thread by you were meant to imply that you're arguing this as a BR pilot, you're now admitting you're arguing this as a ganker. Alright, that's some progress at least. So basically, you want to have it easy and see which autopilot BRs are packing and which aren't.

Why not? Morons who autopilot should get their BRs blown up if they're carrying expensive ****.
You should really be for removing the scan immunity because otherwise your empty AP BR would be getting blown up as well.

Yongtau Naskingar wrote:
That's not the question in this thread. The question in this thread is, why do you (the ganker) need protection against bad luck? Answer that, and then you can argue for removing the unscannable bonus.

Nobody is arguing that they should. We're arguing that player safety should be influenced by their decisions. If you want to autopilot in an empty BR then objectively speaking your risk goes down if you can be cargo scanned.
If you want to autopilot in a loot pinata BR then your risk will go up as it should be.
Your risk of being ganked autopiloting shouldn't be independent of your decision to carry juicy trinkets.


We have understood that Goonswarm are bored to gank empty BR ,but no thanks keep the immunity on BR as there is no valid reason to remove it .


We just gave you two.

Nobody has yet given a reason why a ship that cannot be locked when flown well need to also be impossible to scan.
Myrthiis
Boon Odd Ducks Bath Toys
#236 - 2014-05-19 20:56:31 UTC
Baltec 1 you are so simple that this is amusing ,you are trying to hide what u want behind logic .
- You just want to remove the unscannability to let BR come back on autopilot once empty in the purpose to save time for multi adds vet .You hope than once scanned ,they could made it throught .

Sorry but there is two rules i've learn the first time i logged in EVE the first one is "fly what u can afford to loose" the second is "never fly a ship on autopilot".

SO here is your answer,BR need unscannability because it forces their owners to actively fly them to avoid destruction , this isn't a bonus but a malus ...
Sheeana Harb
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#237 - 2014-05-19 21:13:50 UTC
baltec1 wrote:


We just gave you two.

Nobody has yet given a reason why a ship that cannot be locked when flown well need to also be impossible to scan.


Fozzie has and I strongly suggest you read the whole thread before engaging in further conversation.

Just in case you wouldn't bother reading it for the second time:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
...However it can be a useful tool for carrying extremely high value cargos and it fits so perfectly with the thematic role of the Blockade Runners that I am quite hesitant to remove it completely....




I personally hope cargo scanning immunity will stay even though it has made my time flying Blockade Runners riskier.
Lemmih AI
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#238 - 2014-05-19 21:15:04 UTC
baltec1 wrote:

Nobody has yet given a reason why a ship that cannot be locked when flown well need to also be impossible to scan.

Top of the page
Kenneth Feld wrote:
The one area you certainly can't argue against is sitting on Jita gate on a sunday afternoon with traffic control for 2 hours.

That happens to good pilots, bad pilots and everyone in between

Having a single ship int he game that can't be scaned is not the end of the world if they want to sit on the gate and spam jump for a bit with some expensive cargo, and get scanned and ganked before the gate to jita opens
Sheeana Harb
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#239 - 2014-05-19 21:20:20 UTC
Rowells wrote:

I think it ends up netting almost 0 change. Taking away from the agility multiplier makes it more agile, while adding mass counteracts that. however adding mass does help its agility when using speed modules.


I don't undestand why an additional mass would be useful with speed modules, the current Prowler only needs one cycle of MWD to get out of a bubble (which I believe is the only reason you would use a speed module). I also don't agree that modules are required to get the benefit of a racial theme. E.g. many Caldari ships have superior weapon range and strong shields by default (ship bonuses).
Soldarius
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#240 - 2014-05-19 21:28:14 UTC
Awesome. Now I can cram a 4th GSC into my Viator. Effective cargo capacity: 15934.8 with T1 rigs, 17030.4 with T2.

And dat extra high slot is pure frosting.

http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY