These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#221 - 2014-05-17 19:34:50 UTC
Rivr Luzade wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
this was a change demanded by the playerbase, don't blame ccp for giving the people what they wanted.

I am pretty certain this is exactly not what the player base wanted. Roll

No, it pretty much is. They were just too blinded by ~~moar m³~~ to listen to pick up on what their dream “improvement” would cost them.

It's kind of like how can flipping and ninja looting and similar annoyances were born.
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#222 - 2014-05-17 19:35:11 UTC
Daichi Yamato wrote:
Rivr Luzade wrote:
Daichi Yamato wrote:

and trust me, this really could have been a heavier nerf. They could have made it so u couldnt exceed current capacity amounts. There was little need to buff max capacity on freighters, but they've done it.


I laughed for a second. You get meager 4% more cargo space for over a Billion more ISK and much reduced HP, or you go T1 and have less cargo, less HP and still increased cost for the ship. That is not a buff at all, that's not even a buffy.


im surprised it took u a second to realise ur wrong and stop laughing.

max possible capacity has gone up. more than 4% for T1 freighters. perhaps freighters over all havent been buffed, but in the respects of max capacity, yes, yes they have.


4% is "gone up" for you? No wonder that the current state of the societies is so rotten if we are pleased with and praise such awesome improvements.

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.

nahjustwarpin
SUPER DUPER SPACE TRUCKS
#223 - 2014-05-17 19:36:48 UTC
Gevlon Goblin wrote:
The whole drama is based on bad CCP communication. They should stand out and say "we don't like everything built in Sobaseki, sold in Jita and moved to everywhere else. We want you to build stuff locally. Hauling from Jita is meant to be an auxiliary source of items. Because of this, we nerf Freighters and JFs to the ground, like we did with AFK-sentry fleets and AoE Doomsdays"

Again: I like this change and I believe it will revitalize industry in nullsec, which is very much needed.



If you think people will lower their income to mining level, you're wrong. If this would happen people will just leave null for better income in lvl4s or incursions and just stop having 3+ accounts. If CCP really wants people to start mining in null (and this is how it looks like with industry changes) then i lee playerbase nothing but dropping
PotatoOverdose
Royal Black Watch Highlanders
#224 - 2014-05-17 19:36:53 UTC
We're nerfing cargo, agility, and hull tank of your JFs, but hey with rigs you might get one of those back at the expense of the others. Maybe.

Yay.....you made one of the most mind numbingly boring and dull aspects of the game slightly more tedious. What joy! Well done. Out of curiosity, do any other MMOs come with an integrated EuroTruck Simulator 2014?

Drak Fel
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#225 - 2014-05-17 19:37:09 UTC
Marlona Sky wrote:
You guys also seem to think everything in null still hinges on Jita. Industry still needs work, but to carry on that all is lost and null will implode into nothing because your JF took a slight nerf is ridiculous. Maybe look into building stuff out in null so you don't have to ship in 100% of everything?


This might come as a surprise, but not everyone that plays Eve enjoys having to deal with industry and find it to be a very tedious activity. We would prefer to buy our shooty things. I did not know that what Eve needed to really get people to enjoy playing the game was to force more nonfun activities on the entire player base.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#226 - 2014-05-17 19:37:27 UTC
Rivr Luzade wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Charlemeign wrote:
Nice to see another utterly ******** update by ccp.

this was a change demanded by the playerbase, don't blame ccp for giving the people what they wanted.


I am pretty certain this is exactly not what the player base wanted. Roll


No this is exactly what they asked for. What they didn't think about is the nerfs that would have to accompany the rigs. Now, if all of these people against this change had spoken up every time a thread popped up demanding rigs and not kept quite while a handfull of us tried to tell people getting rigs would result in nerfs we might not be in this situation.

But we are and so we have to get on with it. Fortunately I have been expecting this for years and this nerf is an indirect buff to gankingTwisted
Allison A'vani
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#227 - 2014-05-17 19:38:01 UTC
I can understand nurfing the cargo for the rigs, that is fair, but a 18s increase in align time is absolutely brutal. No one is ever going to rig for agility ever. JF is 100% about cargo hold so you can reduce the amount of trips. If you reduced the agi nurf then this would be a decent change imo. Especially since the Rhea with t2 rigs only nets 4% increase in cargo capacity.
Allison A'vani
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#228 - 2014-05-17 19:39:08 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Rivr Luzade wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Charlemeign wrote:
Nice to see another utterly ******** update by ccp.

this was a change demanded by the playerbase, don't blame ccp for giving the people what they wanted.


I am pretty certain this is exactly not what the player base wanted. Roll


No this is exactly what they asked for. What they didn't think about is the nerfs that would have to accompany the rigs. Now, if all of these people against this change had spoken up every time a thread popped up demanding rigs and not kept quite while a handfull of us tried to tell people getting rigs would result in nerfs we might not be in this situation.

But we are and so we have to get on with it. Fortunately I have been expecting this for years and this nerf is an indirect buff to gankingTwisted



The reason for this is that no one actually took them serious at all.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#229 - 2014-05-17 19:39:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Rivr Luzade wrote:
4% is "gone up" for you?
It's not “gone down” and it's not “stayed the same”. So what else is there?

Scarlet Thellere wrote:
-yes you can improve your cargo but you will loose on tank -get little more money(cos rigging for cargo will not yield much higher cargo-space compared to pre-patch with much more risk

-yes you improve your tank and you move much less stuff with a little more safetly compared to pre-patch, so again you earn less. (whole lot less).
Yup. Such is the nature of the kind of choice people have been asking for. Some even suggested that this kind of trade-off would be an improvement over what we have right now. We had the best of all worlds, and now you have to pick one area and sacrifice all others — player choice, as the proponents called it. P

Allison A'vani wrote:
The reason for this is that no one actually took them serious at all.

That was their mistake, and it was hardly the first one. Sooner or later, you'd think they'd learn. Lol
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate
#230 - 2014-05-17 19:40:32 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Rivr Luzade wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
this was a change demanded by the playerbase, don't blame ccp for giving the people what they wanted.

I am pretty certain this is exactly not what the player base wanted. Roll

No, it pretty much is. They were just too blinded by ~~moar m³~~ to listen to pick up on what their dream “improvement” would cost them.

It's kind of like how can flipping and ninja looting and similar annoyances were born.


Funny thing is, when the rig change was announced I never really considered cargo being necessary. Tank more likely. Rarely do I find capacity the issue relative to the value of what I am carrying and where I am carrying it. However now, it almost seems as though the only choice will be to cargo rig it. The only question is whether to use T1 or what are some of the most expensive rigs in the game for just a little bit more space.
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#231 - 2014-05-17 19:40:37 UTC
Scarlet Thellere wrote:

-yes you can improve your cargo but you will loose on tank -get little more money(cos rigging for cargo will not yield much higher cargo-space compared to pre-patch with much more risk


this is what people asked for. more space but at the price of tank.

Scarlet Thellere wrote:

-yes you improve your tank and you move much less stuff with a little more safetly compared to pre-patch, so again you earn less. (whole lot less).


yep, it was what ppl were asking for.

are a lot of ppl also forgetting that u can half the penalty of rigs with skills?

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

Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#232 - 2014-05-17 19:42:03 UTC
Rivr Luzade wrote:

4% is "gone up" for you? No wonder that the current state of the societies is so rotten if we are pleased with and praise such awesome improvements.


1.04>1.00

gg

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

Axe Coldon
#233 - 2014-05-17 19:42:33 UTC
Paranoid Loyd wrote:
The people have got what they asked for, let the bloodbath begin Twisted


The PVPers got what they wanted maybe..not the industrialists. Cost will go up for everyone.

No trees were killed in the sending of this message. However, a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.

Allison A'vani
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#234 - 2014-05-17 19:43:06 UTC
Dirk MacGirk wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Rivr Luzade wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
this was a change demanded by the playerbase, don't blame ccp for giving the people what they wanted.

I am pretty certain this is exactly not what the player base wanted. Roll

No, it pretty much is. They were just too blinded by ~~moar m³~~ to listen to pick up on what their dream “improvement” would cost them.

It's kind of like how can flipping and ninja looting and similar annoyances were born.


Funny thing is, when the rig change was announced I never really considered cargo being necessary. Tank more likely. Rarely do I find capacity the issue relative to the value of what I am carrying and where I am carrying it. However now, it almost seems as though the only choice will be to cargo rig it. The only question is whether to use T1 or what are some of the most expensive rigs in the game for just a little bit more space.



If you have ever moved fuel blocks for your alliance in a JF, then you will realize that t2 cargo rigs will be required if this change goes into effect.
Dave Stark
#235 - 2014-05-17 19:43:15 UTC
Rivr Luzade wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Charlemeign wrote:
Nice to see another utterly ******** update by ccp.

this was a change demanded by the playerbase, don't blame ccp for giving the people what they wanted.


I am pretty certain this is exactly not what the player base wanted. Roll


the many, many threads asking for it, and the large cheer at fanfest make me certain it is what they wanted.
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate
#236 - 2014-05-17 19:44:32 UTC
Calling now for Burn Jita 3.5 in September. Let's make it semiannual now that freighters will probably die much easier now with higher ship values for extra goodness.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#237 - 2014-05-17 19:45:04 UTC
Allison A'vani wrote:


The reason for this is that no one actually took them serious at all.


That's why our policy is to challenge everything stupid that is said that would harm gameplay and/or balance, no matter how daft it looks.
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#238 - 2014-05-17 19:46:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Rivr Luzade
baltec1 wrote:
Rivr Luzade wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Charlemeign wrote:
Nice to see another utterly ******** update by ccp.

this was a change demanded by the playerbase, don't blame ccp for giving the people what they wanted.


I am pretty certain this is exactly not what the player base wanted. Roll


No this is exactly what they asked for. What they didn't think about is the nerfs that would have to accompany the rigs. Now, if all of these people against this change had spoken up every time a thread popped up demanding rigs and not kept quite while a handfull of us tried to tell people getting rigs would result in nerfs we might not be in this situation.

But we are and so we have to get on with it. Fortunately I have been expecting this for years and this nerf is an indirect buff to gankingTwisted


This is not an indirect buff, this is a very open and outright buff to ganking. As if this was the most pressing problem to solve. Roll

And yeah, many people have probably left the drawbacks of rigs out of sight. However, is it really too much to ask for improvements on ships that could need some improvements to make them actually a little bit better usablef for a price? Now they are even less usable, less gank-proof and require a higher price. I don't see where Risk vs. Reward is balanced in the slightest here.

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#239 - 2014-05-17 19:47:01 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Axe Coldon wrote:
Paranoid Loyd wrote:
The people have got what they asked for, let the bloodbath begin Twisted


The PVPers got what they wanted maybe..not the industrialists. Cost will go up for everyone.


We didn't want this. Hence why we fought this every time the idea for rigs on freighters was posted.

Industrialist carebears just managed to nerf themselvesStraight
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#240 - 2014-05-17 19:47:30 UTC
Axe Coldon wrote:
Paranoid Loyd wrote:
The people have got what they asked for, let the bloodbath begin Twisted

The PVPers got what they wanted maybe..not the industrialists.

I suppose it's a matter of semantic precision…

The industrialists got what they asked for; the gankers got what they wanted. The former just chose to turn a blind eye to how what they were asking for was not going to bring what they wanted, and the latter (mostly) stayed quiet because they knew that the best way to get what you want is to have your opposition promote it. Blink

Sure, some nasty evil gankers like baltec broke rank and warned the industrialists, but that was just interpreted as gankers trying to keep the industrialists away from what they wanted…