These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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] Freighters and Jump Freighters Rebalance [Updated]

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Walter Hart White
Heisenberg Minings
#2081 - 2014-05-21 18:53:23 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Walter Hart White wrote:
My main issue now is that you can't shield tank freighter but you can armor tank...

The question is, why would you want to do either?

Because DCU2 is ******.
Celly S
Neutin Local LLC
#2082 - 2014-05-21 18:54:20 UTC
Dersen Lowery wrote:
They're already used to taking measures to avoid getting caught



^^This^^

as well as what the other poster said about freighters and fleets.

I almost never tell anyone when I'm flying my JF until after I'm where I need to be... like my hairdresser, "only my cyno alt knows for sure"

o/
Celly Smunt

Don't mistake fact for arrogance, supposition for fact, or disagreement for dismissal. Perception is unique in that it can be shared or singular. Run with the pack if you wish, but think for yourself. A sandwich can be a great motivator.
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate
#2083 - 2014-05-21 18:55:54 UTC
Draconus Lofwyr wrote:
for the most part, these are much better changes than the original rig proposal, i do have one small issue with the change in regards to the jump freighter cargo space reduction.

with the proposed changes, a fully tanked jump freighter cargo is reduced below the standard hold space of a cargo expanded rorqual. and the rorqual has much higher ability to active tank than a jump freighter with many more fitting options and a lower jump fuel usage. there may need to be some minor tweaks on the jump freighter to make it competitive for use such as a bonus that reduces cargo space penalty on re-enforced bulkheads to keep their utility viable. As it is, with the ore compression changes, the rorqual will already be more advantageous for carrying compressed ore due to the 250k ore hold on top of the 170k of normal storage potential.


Then your option would be to use a Rorqual in that case. Especially when talking about hauling ore, Rorquals have always been a better choice. Unless of course you need to go into hisec or through a gate.
TigerXtrm
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#2084 - 2014-05-21 18:56:44 UTC
Lol @ all the capital rig speculants Lol

But thanks for taking a second look at stuff based on our feedback instead of pushing it through anyway. I've noticed this has become a thing for CCP more and more and I like it a lot, so keep it up.

My YouTube Channel - EVE Tutorials & other game related things!

My Website - Blogs, Livestreams & Forums
Draconus Lofwyr
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#2085 - 2014-05-21 18:57:36 UTC
Dirk MacGirk wrote:
Draconus Lofwyr wrote:
for the most part, these are much better changes than the original rig proposal, i do have one small issue with the change in regards to the jump freighter cargo space reduction.

with the proposed changes, a fully tanked jump freighter cargo is reduced below the standard hold space of a cargo expanded rorqual. and the rorqual has much higher ability to active tank than a jump freighter with many more fitting options and a lower jump fuel usage. there may need to be some minor tweaks on the jump freighter to make it competitive for use such as a bonus that reduces cargo space penalty on re-enforced bulkheads to keep their utility viable. As it is, with the ore compression changes, the rorqual will already be more advantageous for carrying compressed ore due to the 250k ore hold on top of the 170k of normal storage potential.


Then your option would be to use a Rorqual in that case. Especially when talking about hauling ore, Rorquals have always been a better choice. Unless of course you need to go into hisec or through a gate.


i plan on it as i have both options, i just wanted to bring it up as something to be considered and is this working as intended. is this a part of what CCP mentioned about increasing the uses of the rorqual in previous industry changes posts.
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate
#2086 - 2014-05-21 19:04:25 UTC
Draconus Lofwyr wrote:
Dirk MacGirk wrote:
Draconus Lofwyr wrote:
for the most part, these are much better changes than the original rig proposal, i do have one small issue with the change in regards to the jump freighter cargo space reduction.

with the proposed changes, a fully tanked jump freighter cargo is reduced below the standard hold space of a cargo expanded rorqual. and the rorqual has much higher ability to active tank than a jump freighter with many more fitting options and a lower jump fuel usage. there may need to be some minor tweaks on the jump freighter to make it competitive for use such as a bonus that reduces cargo space penalty on re-enforced bulkheads to keep their utility viable. As it is, with the ore compression changes, the rorqual will already be more advantageous for carrying compressed ore due to the 250k ore hold on top of the 170k of normal storage potential.


Then your option would be to use a Rorqual in that case. Especially when talking about hauling ore, Rorquals have always been a better choice. Unless of course you need to go into hisec or through a gate.


i plan on it as i have both options, i just wanted to bring it up as something to be considered and is this working as intended. is this a part of what CCP mentioned about increasing the uses of the rorqual in previous industry changes posts.


No, I wouldn't think so. Those changes are different. The rorqual just naturally has an advantage when it comes to hauling ore. Even today JF's can't carry as much ore as a fully expanded rorqual (250k + 126k + 30k). The rorq also uses less fuel, so if hauling ore from A to B, it's probably the better choice all around anyway. Except for that hisec and gate thing.
Allison A'vani
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#2087 - 2014-05-21 19:08:34 UTC
Dirk MacGirk wrote:
Draconus Lofwyr wrote:
Dirk MacGirk wrote:
Draconus Lofwyr wrote:
for the most part, these are much better changes than the original rig proposal, i do have one small issue with the change in regards to the jump freighter cargo space reduction.

with the proposed changes, a fully tanked jump freighter cargo is reduced below the standard hold space of a cargo expanded rorqual. and the rorqual has much higher ability to active tank than a jump freighter with many more fitting options and a lower jump fuel usage. there may need to be some minor tweaks on the jump freighter to make it competitive for use such as a bonus that reduces cargo space penalty on re-enforced bulkheads to keep their utility viable. As it is, with the ore compression changes, the rorqual will already be more advantageous for carrying compressed ore due to the 250k ore hold on top of the 170k of normal storage potential.


Then your option would be to use a Rorqual in that case. Especially when talking about hauling ore, Rorquals have always been a better choice. Unless of course you need to go into hisec or through a gate.


i plan on it as i have both options, i just wanted to bring it up as something to be considered and is this working as intended. is this a part of what CCP mentioned about increasing the uses of the rorqual in previous industry changes posts.


No, I wouldn't think so. Those changes are different. The rorqual just naturally has an advantage when it comes to hauling ore. Even today JF's can't carry as much ore as a fully expanded rorqual (250k + 126k + 30k). The rorq also uses less fuel, so if hauling ore from A to B, it's probably the better choice all around anyway. Except for that hisec and gate thing.


If you are producing super capitals, you will still just titan bridge a freighter full of compressed ore. The Rorq is still the aborted step child when it comes to hauling stuff (tbh if they removed the restrictions on what can go into the ship maintenance array, then you would see a lot more of them).
Alexis Nightwish
#2088 - 2014-05-21 19:09:08 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
Tippia wrote:
Ok, new tables:

• New alignment times depending on base and a more balanced fit (red = worse than Rubicon, Green = better than rubicon).

• The full gamut of Tank vs. Cargo (red = worse than both base and Rubicon stats; yellow = better than Rubicon, worse than base; blue = better than base, worse than Rubicon; green = better than both).

I haven't really done any other combos because the other sensible modules (CPR, istab, hacc) either have no effect at all or no effect that freighter pilots care about.

tl;dr: the only ones who have anything to complain about anything anymore are gankers…

Thanks for the tables. I personally think the numbers look great.

*Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal.

CCP approaches problems in one of two ways: nudge or cludge

EVE Online's "I win!" Button

Fixing bombs, not the bombers
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate
#2089 - 2014-05-21 19:13:10 UTC
Allison A'vani wrote:
Dirk MacGirk wrote:
Draconus Lofwyr wrote:
Dirk MacGirk wrote:
Draconus Lofwyr wrote:
for the most part, these are much better changes than the original rig proposal, i do have one small issue with the change in regards to the jump freighter cargo space reduction.

with the proposed changes, a fully tanked jump freighter cargo is reduced below the standard hold space of a cargo expanded rorqual. and the rorqual has much higher ability to active tank than a jump freighter with many more fitting options and a lower jump fuel usage. there may need to be some minor tweaks on the jump freighter to make it competitive for use such as a bonus that reduces cargo space penalty on re-enforced bulkheads to keep their utility viable. As it is, with the ore compression changes, the rorqual will already be more advantageous for carrying compressed ore due to the 250k ore hold on top of the 170k of normal storage potential.


Then your option would be to use a Rorqual in that case. Especially when talking about hauling ore, Rorquals have always been a better choice. Unless of course you need to go into hisec or through a gate.


i plan on it as i have both options, i just wanted to bring it up as something to be considered and is this working as intended. is this a part of what CCP mentioned about increasing the uses of the rorqual in previous industry changes posts.


No, I wouldn't think so. Those changes are different. The rorqual just naturally has an advantage when it comes to hauling ore. Even today JF's can't carry as much ore as a fully expanded rorqual (250k + 126k + 30k). The rorq also uses less fuel, so if hauling ore from A to B, it's probably the better choice all around anyway. Except for that hisec and gate thing.


If you are producing super capitals, you will still just titan bridge a freighter full of compressed ore. The Rorq is still the aborted step child when it comes to hauling stuff (tbh if they removed the restrictions on what can go into the ship maintenance array, then you would see a lot more of them).


Yeah no doubt. Lots of things change when you start talking about the ore required for supers in the future.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#2090 - 2014-05-21 19:16:14 UTC
Walter Hart White wrote:
My main issue now is that you can't shield tank freighter but you can armor tank...

No you can't.
Go back and look at the modules that you can fit.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Sniper Smith
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#2091 - 2014-05-21 19:18:26 UTC
If you armor tank your freighter, you're choosing to tank it in a sub-optimal way, and I support you eventual death.
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
#2092 - 2014-05-21 19:19:10 UTC
Ammzi wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
TheMercenaryKing wrote:
Love the new update, but one question, when will damage controls become passive mods?


That indeed is a good question.


The answer to this question is "not in Kronos, but possibly at a later date".

Either way that's a discussion for another thread since these ships cannot fit Damage Controls.


Don't you think you went a little bit overboard in terms of raw EHP? - there's a very large gap between the obelisk and providence compared to the charon and fenrir - where the fenrir will be beyond the tank of a TQ obelisk according to this: http://eve.beyondreality.se/pics/Kronos/FreighterCargoTank.png




Your numbers are wrong- you rounded cargo expanders to 28%, they should only be 27.5%
Walter Hart White
Heisenberg Minings
#2093 - 2014-05-21 19:19:31 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Walter Hart White wrote:
My main issue now is that you can't shield tank freighter but you can armor tank...

No you can't.
Go back and look at the modules that you can fit.


CCP Fozzie wrote:

  • (For certain armor tanking fits) Adaptive Nano Platings
    		•
    Valterra Craven
    #2094 - 2014-05-21 19:19:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Valterra Craven
    James Amril-Kesh wrote:
    Walter Hart White wrote:
    My main issue now is that you can't shield tank freighter but you can armor tank...

    No you can't.
    Go back and look at the modules that you can fit.


    Yes, you can. I'd say the same thing to you, but for the sake of not being a d!ck like others, I will just tell you that armor mods exist that don't require cpu and only need 1 grid.... Look under the group called Resistance Plates....
    Daichi Yamato
    Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
    #2095 - 2014-05-21 19:20:46 UTC
    Vincintius Agrippa wrote:

    .........And you guys like to pretend that all you do is pvp.

    Its genuinely difficult to articulate how much u fail.

    Vincintius Agrippa wrote:

    Pay closer attention to what I was trying to say,
    1. This game isnt solely about pvp. Never has, Never should be. I doubt anyone would enjoy the game if it was full of nuthing but gankers, greifers, and blobs. Once again its SANDBOX, make of it as you will.
    2. Non pvp'ers and non pvp activities ARE the backbone of this game. For, if no one is building and no one is mining, what do you fight in? Capsules? Likewise, Pvp is also a backbone because they buy a significant amount of the things being built.
    3. Mining: Carebear activity
    Missioning: Carebear Activity,
    Market trading carebear activity. Regardless of where and how you choose to do so. Most of which Is done with alts I assume.
    4. Neither you or your alts is mining, missioning, or trading 23hrs a day 7 days a week like carebears in highsec. Or, any more than a few hours a day. If your are its afk. If its afk your a carebear just like the guys in highsec. If you arent, your still a carebear because your mining all day.
    5. Your isk alts don't count.
    6. Mining in nullsec doesnt make you not a carebear.
    7 Missioning in null sec does not make you not a carebear.

    8. Major alliances don't count because all of that mining and missioning happens in their space. So all those alts are "secure" so to speak.

    Long story short, Carebearing supports eve. No matteer how you try to disguise it. End of discussion.

    Edit: Fine, PVE isnt like regular carebearing. It's like PVE Carebearing.


    *sigh* ill try one last time.Roll

    1. this game IS about players competing with eachother. They compete for resources, territory, prices and buying power and they attack eachother. Thats PvP.

    2. When u mine, u are PvP'ing. When u sell an item on the market, ur PvP'ing. Its all PvP.

    In answer to the other point as its just splurg:
    u can be a miner or a freighter pilot and not think it wrong that ganking is part of the game. i know, im one of those players. Many players contribute to the economy without being anti-PvP. So if all the anti-PvP players left tomorrow, the economy may notice, but it wouldnt break down.

    long story short: this game does not depend in anyway on players who think its wrong that non-consensual PvP is part of this game (carebear). It in no way depends on players who think that ganking, scamming, meta-gaming etc should be made impossible. There are more than enough players who PvE and understand these plays are acceptable.

    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
    Tippia
    Sunshine and Lollipops
    #2096 - 2014-05-21 19:23:21 UTC
    Kenneth Feld wrote:
    Your numbers are wrong- you rounded cargo expanders to 28%, they should only be 27.5%

    Yup. I blame the DB I copied from. It's a whole 13k m³ difference at the top end. P

    Updated.
    Frostys Virpio
    State War Academy
    Caldari State
    #2097 - 2014-05-21 19:25:40 UTC
    Tippia wrote:
    Kenneth Feld wrote:
    Your numbers are wrong- you rounded cargo expanders to 28%, they should only be 27.5%

    Yup. I blame the DB I copied from. It's a whole 13k m³ difference at the top end. P

    Updated.


    Think of all the PLEX which can fit in 13k m3.

    :D
    James Amril-Kesh
    Viziam
    Amarr Empire
    #2098 - 2014-05-21 19:25:58 UTC
    Adaptive Nano Platings are hardly even worth talking about.

    Enjoying the rain today? ;)
    Ines Tegator
    Serious Business Inc. Ltd. LLC. etc.
    #2099 - 2014-05-21 19:28:36 UTC
    I approve of the updated stats (EHP especially). That is all.

    Overhaul Dscan!
    Angelina Duvolle
    Homeworld Technologies
    #2100 - 2014-05-21 19:29:01 UTC
    RE: the adaptive nano thing.

    They wouldn't be the best tank at all.

    That said, you might be hauling something where you don't want to give up all your cargo, or can't due to it's size.
    In that case, you might throw on some adaptive nano's.

    That's a trade-off, cargo for survivability, and it's not a bad thing.