Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Max cargo, your EHP drops by 3%. Your agility isn't effected at all. You keep trying to pretend that a loss in speed means something. It doesn't. Maybe you should knock it off.

Max Tank fit has a smaller cargohold. Agility is the same. And again, it appears you are pretending speed matters.
Is the smaller cargohold really a penalty? Only if you are hauling bulkier, lower value items. But then, nobody is ganking you for a load of tritanium either, so who cares about EHP in this context? The real benefit is now being able to cram twic as much ISK into a still spacious cargobay without worry of a profitable gank - because the cost would be greater than the likely drop.

If you fit for agility: You lose potential cargo space - but you gain both EHP (over current versions) AND get a massive decrease in alignment time. (and JF's were already pretty quick) So. yet again your statements are inaccurate.

When you say specious things like this, it makes it very hard to take you seriously.
It looks more like forum metagaming. (As in, I can't acknowledge the massive buff received in fear it will be rolled back, so I will declare the patch a nerf and carry on complaining.....)

Especially with that fit.
I mean, yes - I too put Overdrive II's on Cargohold Expanded ships.
Placing mods that essentially wipe out each other's attributes is not a good use of low slots.

Yes and no.

The Procurer is not getting a buff, it is getting a nerf. It is losing a mid-slot. More speed and drone bandwidth won't help being suicide ganked while AFK mining in high-sec. T2 barges will have more yield than it comparatively than before too.

The rest of your post is correct though. The changes to all industrials ships in Kronos is an overall buff and I have absolutely no freakin' idea how anyone is complaining.

The loss of the mid on the procurer was retraced some time ago.

When PVP ships are rebalanced, it's only one direction. Faster, easier, non-escapable, non-effort PVP.

Hey everyone, just wanted to remind you all that we will be keeping a close eye on these changes as they hit TQ and we are of course committed to a balanced environment between defense and offense.

We don't believe that these changes skew the balance too far against suicide gankers, although they do provide some good options for smart players to manage their risk.

Last week i saw a Charon explode near me in a 0.5. It took sixteen ships, fourteen of which were catalysts with t2 fittings, the other two were a brutix and a vexor. The brutix/vexor did not out perform the catalysts, so presumably sixteen catalysts at approximately 10 million each would do the job.

So pre-patch we're looking at 160 million isk to explode a freighter. You have a 50% drop rate, which gives you a return on freighter loads of above 320 million isk. That's if you need to do if for profit, and are not funding the catalysts some other way.

I appreciate people who fly around in catalysts ganking freighters will have difficulty seeing that there is a problem here, but nevertheless there is a problem...

Mack got a yield and lock time nerf. It also got it's resist bonus moved to the exhumer skill, meaning a reduction in tank for anyone without exhumer V. Saying it wasn't toned down is inaccurate as it's losing in 1 or depending on skill training 2 categories by which the ships are measured.

Two questions:

1) Was it intentional to give the armor freighters a massive edge in EHP potential by allowing them passive resistance/layering modules?

With the added advantage of extra EHP shifted to armor, slave implants, and t2 resist profile on JFs, this gives the armor freighters a rather unfair advantage in EHP over the shield variants, without any drawbacks. The minmatar freighters are especially at a disadvantage as the Fenrir/Nomad don't have the cargohold advantage the Charon/Rhea do, and have an even more pathetic pool of EHP.

2) Can we PLEASE have more details on that jump-drive fuel reducing module that was mentioned above?

Will it be a capital module? (~4000m3 and massive fitting) Will it be a % reduction in fuel consumption? If so, does that imply a limited number of them can be fit, or stacking penalty? Can I put 7 of them on a Redeemer and bridge forever? Or will it be like a nanofiber, with zero fitting but with a crippling drawback, like cap regen or EHP?

Totally unwanted? I am very sure that this is absolutely not totally unwanted.

If you want to gank, there will be still enough freighters flying around as paper thin, max cargo boats that you can easily gank with 10 Catalysts, even less than it used to be. If you really want to gank a JF with full EHP mods and filled with 6-10+ in loot, do so in Low sec where they jump in or invest the proper amount of Tornados/Talos/Brutix/Vexor. The ISK efficiency on such a gank is still vastly in your favor as you do not need to invest 13B+ in the gank. If you cannot get enough gankers to gank this kind of EHP, it's not the fault of the game, it's your fault for failing to prepare yourself properly.

Now stop complaining and recruit some gankers into your corp so that you can gank 800k EHP in Uedama.

Or instead: Get your brain working on how you can entice more people to go to 00 sec so that this kind of JF don't need to come to High sec in the first place and instead only fly around in 00 sec or Low sec to local trade hubs. You are probably not able to break Jita completely, but you can at least try to diminish its influence.

Oh dear, I misread your unwarranted. Shall I reformulated my post? I can assure you that nothing is going to change, except for the wording in the first line.

Let's do it so that you can live on in peace:

Totally unwarranted? I am very sure that this is absolutely not totally unwarranted.