These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Jeanne-Luise Argenau
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#2601 - 2014-06-04 17:42:48 UTC
CCP pls work on the charon,

i know the changes hitting but i hadnt had a chance to test it beforehand. Possible changes i see on a Charon is making it possible to fit a DC or switching the base shield hp into armor and structure or add alot more base cargohold. The current version of the Charon is unuseable compared to the Providence or Obelisk.
Yuri Fedorov
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#2602 - 2014-06-04 18:10:43 UTC
Vhelnik Cojoin wrote:

*snip*

And the other way round, fitting for max. cargo, is mostly for hauling uncompressed ore and ice. Here you cannot squeeze enough cargo into the ship to make ganking profitable, regardless of the reduced EHP. Conversely, if people want to gank you 'for teh lulz' then they would do so both with the old and the - slightly lower - new max. cargo EHP.



Also in some cases like in Aufay, you will get ganked regardless of any factors. Its purely a lottery game and they aren't looking for profit.
Valterra Craven
#2603 - 2014-06-04 18:16:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Valterra Craven
Vhelnik Cojoin wrote:

On the other hand, then the old Reinforced Bulkhead penalty to velocity would have been a nasty trade-off for AFK hauling in your tanked freighter. This is why I basically jumped with two feet and said 'Yes, please!' when Fozzie asked for comments on this suggested change.


... So basically you want your cake and to eat it to. You're fine with the changes because it made your gameplay better. aka you can now afk with more goods in your freighter at the same speed as before. Sounds like the yes please was a way to screw other people over to your benefit. Seems to me that the trade off should still be speed since you are afking with more HP. You get no trade offs while everyone else gets massive ones that don't afk.
Vhelnik Cojoin
Pandemic Horde High Sec Division
#2604 - 2014-06-04 18:27:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Vhelnik Cojoin
Valterra Craven wrote:
... So basically you want your cake and to eat it to. You're fine with the changes because it made your gameplay better. aka you can now afk with more goods in your freighter at the same speed as before. Sounds like the yes please was a way to screw other people over to your benefit. Seems to me that the trade off should still be speed since you are afking with more HP. You get no trade offs while everyone else gets massive ones that don't afk.

If you wish, then I will try and dig out the relevant part of the thread, where the module changes were discussed. *Everybody* approved of the suggested change, including people from the GSF and various HiSec ganking groups. I even went as far as asking CCP Fozzie to try and quickly make up his mind. This before people woke up and realized why the penalty change was actually good for the HiSec haulers.

Apparently no-one bothered to think this through, even though I tried to hit them with a clue-by-four.

Either that, or many of them realized there will still be plenty of fail-fit freighters to gank, while they themselves can benefit from the change when flying AFK on their hauler alts.

Have you Communicated with your fellow capsuleers today? It is good for the EvE-oconomy and o-kay for you.

Valterra Craven
#2605 - 2014-06-04 19:08:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Valterra Craven
Vhelnik Cojoin wrote:
Valterra Craven wrote:
... So basically you want your cake and to eat it to. You're fine with the changes because it made your gameplay better. aka you can now afk with more goods in your freighter at the same speed as before. Sounds like the yes please was a way to screw other people over to your benefit. Seems to me that the trade off should still be speed since you are afking with more HP. You get no trade offs while everyone else gets massive ones that don't afk.

If you wish, then I will try and dig out the relevant part of the thread, where the module changes were discussed. *Everybody* approved of the suggested change, including people from the GSF and various HiSec ganking groups. I even went as far as asking CCP Fozzie to try and quickly make up his mind. This before people woke up and realized why the penalty change was actually good for the HiSec haulers.

Apparently no-one bothered to think this though, even though I tried to hit them with a clue-by-four.

Either that, or many of them realized there will still be plenty of fail-fit freighters to gank, while they themselves can benefit from the change when flying AFK on their hauler alts.


Well I spoke up in that thread and I for sure didn't agree with that change, so no, not everyone did. I'm also sure I wasn't the only detractor either. As far as the opinion of GSF, and ganking groups... well its not worth more than the poop in my toilet, since they both knew that this was far more likely to create juicier targets than not and they were both salivating like rabid dogs at the thought of more meat.

Edit: Post 238: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4590841#post4590841
Vhelnik Cojoin
Pandemic Horde High Sec Division
#2606 - 2014-06-04 19:31:11 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:
Well I spoke up in that thread and I for sure didn't agree with that change, so no, not everyone did. I'm also sure I wasn't the only detractor either. As far as the opinion of GSF, and ganking groups... well its not worth more than the poop in my toilet, since they both knew that this was far more likely to create juicier targets than not and they were both salivating like rabid dogs at the thought of more meat.

Edit: Post 238: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4590841#post4590841

I stand corrected. Not everybody approved of the change.

Here is my earlier post in that thread, where I kind of suggested that some people may live to regret their support of this change.

I'm confused though, whether that discussion took place before the decision was made to give freighters low instead of rig slots.

Have you Communicated with your fellow capsuleers today? It is good for the EvE-oconomy and o-kay for you.

Valterra Craven
#2607 - 2014-06-04 19:34:04 UTC
Vhelnik Cojoin wrote:


I'm confused though, whether that discussion took place before the decision was made to give freighters low instead of rig slots.


Considering that the penalty for freighter is the same regardless of it being lows or rigs, its kinda irrelevant when it took place since the effects are the same either way. Aka bulkheads and bulkhead rigs both reduce cargo...
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC
#2608 - 2014-06-04 22:08:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Herr Wilkus
I swear to god, the capacity of carebears for complaining is endless.

They get a free Corvette, and they complain that it doesn't have cigarette lighters, and then insist on a years supply of smokes in the bargain.

The other guy got it right, this is a large buff for carebears and a major nerf for gankers. Unless Concord response time is doubled, this will double the number of gankships required to tear down most freighters worth ganking.

For any 90% of trade items out there, the max EHP freighter is all that is needed.
Only idiots or players moving large amounts of unrefined ice/ore will need to use Cargo Expanders.
Most people who have 6-8 Billion ISK in assets to move are usually not idiots, even if a few of them, certainly, go the extra mile.

On the other hand, Red Frog should easily be able to lower their rates now, as the profitability of suicide ganking freighters was just massively decreased. Sure, ganks for laughs can continue - but laughs don't pay for PLEX, or buy new Taloses.
DefConn4
Astartes' Guardians
Spades Alliance
#2609 - 2014-06-04 23:44:47 UTC
Gee thanks CCP just tuck another summer patch nerf into indy, like we dont have enough of em already, im gonna call this patch the summer indy nerf, which its all it boils down to, not a single area of indy are in any way buffed, except maybe for that friggin hulk foozie wanted so badly for ppl to play around with, guess waht fuzzie donlop, it aint gonna happend by slapping a useless thing as extra range on it. l2 listen to community and dont go nerfing the one we used to be used majorly by buffing the one with already a significantly good tank and expect ppl to go for a squishy ship like the hulk which at some point was the final goal for every single miner now its become a deathtrap just waitin to happen
DefConn4
Astartes' Guardians
Spades Alliance
#2610 - 2014-06-04 23:52:28 UTC  |  Edited by: DefConn4
Herr Wilkus wrote:
I swear to god, the capacity of carebears for complaining is endless.

They get a free Corvette, and they complain that it doesn't have cigarette lighters, and then insist on a years supply of smokes in the bargain.

The other guy got it right, this is a large buff for carebears and a major nerf for gankers. Unless Concord response time is doubled, this will double the number of gankships required to tear down most freighters worth ganking.

For any 90% of trade items out there, the max EHP freighter is all that is needed.
Only idiots or players moving large amounts of unrefined ice/ore will need to use Cargo Expanders.
Most people who have 6-8 Billion ISK in assets to move are usually not idiots, even if a few of them, certainly, go the extra mile.

On the other hand, Red Frog should easily be able to lower their rates now, as the profitability of suicide ganking freighters was just massively decreased. Sure, ganks for laughs can continue - but laughs don't pay for PLEX, or buy new Taloses.


u seriously dont get it dude, in a patch more or less just stacked with indy nerf, why would we not complain? if they nudge a lil bit on ur pvp ships u wont hear the end of it, they mess up our profit entierely and u call foul? good job gettin the facts. mins prices is in the toilets save for maybe trit. plex price souring to new hights and now they messing with our capacity to haul ur products on top of everything else.
id like to see pvpers reaction if they got hit with a simular nerf across all boards as this summer patch turns out to be
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC
#2611 - 2014-06-05 05:35:05 UTC
DefConn4 wrote:

u seriously dont get it dude, in a patch more or less just stacked with indy nerf, why would we not complain? if they nudge a lil bit on ur pvp ships u wont hear the end of it, they mess up our profit entierely and u call foul? good job gettin the facts. mins prices is in the toilets save for maybe trit. plex price souring to new hights and now they messing with our capacity to haul ur products on top of everything else.
id like to see pvpers reaction if they got hit with a simular nerf across all boards as this summer patch turns out to be


Your sub-literate rant doesn't jive with reality.

You can whine that the Charon came out slightly worse than other freighters, but the class as a whole came out much stronger - insanely so. Never before has so much ISK been movable without meaningful risk. DST got a huge buff across the board, as did the Orca (due to the creation of hull rigs).

Carebears crying nerf in this case is just sad and irrational.

Sorta like a man lopping his ding-dong off, taking hormones and dressing up in drag - then having the nerve to demand people pretend that he's a woman. Sane people just laugh and shake their heads. You simply can't change what you are, even if you can find some quack masquerading as a doctor willing to tell you otherwise.

Just saying freighters got nerfed doesn't make it so.
And freighters didn't even NEED a buff. As it is, their ganking is quite rare relative to the huge numbers that exist and roam freely.

And what are you on? Minerals are quite high relatively speaking, especially low-ends. I remember Tempest battleships costing less than 70M.
cynomakinggirl
No Risk No ISK
#2612 - 2014-06-05 09:56:55 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:
SO I've been thinking a lot about why these changes are bad and why I hate them.

The answer seems to be that the changes to freighters and giving them lowslots is not inherently bad and the problem seems to lie with the module balance.

Based on what I'm seeing the penalties for cargo expanders and bulkheads are the problem.

So if we compare the charon from two days ago to the charon of today this is what we get.

Rubicon Charon:
Cargo is 942k
EHP is 180k

Kronos Charon
Cargo is 558k
EHP is 210k

Now if we start adding modules

x3 t2 Cargo expanders
Cargo is 1.15m
EHP is 160k

This looks fine so far. We see a modest boost in cargo capacity for a modest reduction in EHP

3x t2 bulkheads
cargo is 393K
EHP is 303k

What we have here is a significant lose in cargo for a significant gain in EHP. This looks fine at first glance, but when you consider the fact that the ship already lost 384k of its cargo just for the option to fit for EHP, and then combined with the fact that you loose even more cargo to do so, stings to say the least.

This is problematic when you realize that most ship fittings don't work this way. In other words the penalties you suffer for fitting mods (if they even have penalties) never detract from the main purpose of the ship. For example, fitting more tank on a ship doesn't penalize your dps, fitting ewar doesn't comprise your ships sensors, fitting speed doesn't comprise your warp time, etc etc.

What you've failed to realize with the bulkhead changes is that the penalty changes weren't necessary. Eve is a game about fitting choices and even fitting something on the ship in the first place is an opportunity cost. Aka if you fit for cargo you can't fit for EHP. if you fit for EHP you can fit for align, if you fit for align, you can't fit for warp speed. In other words, I think that if you reverted the bulkhead changes then these changes would be alot easier to swallow.




best post so far, thank you

"The internet is a reliable source of information." - Abraham Lincoln

Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#2613 - 2014-06-05 12:43:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Alavaria Fera
That would be because you aren't fitting balance changes to your ship...

Simply noting "there's a cost, give me more benefit" isn't a great argument for where the balance point lies. Of course you rather it lie further away from the nerf side...

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?

Valterra Craven
#2614 - 2014-06-05 14:51:49 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
That would be because you aren't fitting balance changes to your ship...

Simply noting "there's a cost, give me more benefit" isn't a great argument for where the balance point lies. Of course you rather it lie further away from the nerf side...


I'll note that there's a difference between "there's a cost, give me more benefit", and "there's a cost, give me less penalty".
Lei Merdeau
Hidden Agenda
Deep Space Engineering
#2615 - 2014-06-05 14:55:28 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:

Considering that the penalty for freighter is the same regardless of it being lows or rigs, its kinda irrelevant when it took place since the effects are the same either way. Aka bulkheads and bulkhead rigs both reduce cargo...


Rig penalties are reduced by the relevant rig skill.
Valterra Craven
#2616 - 2014-06-05 15:00:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Valterra Craven
Herr Wilkus wrote:

Your sub-literate rant doesn't jive with reality.


While I agree his post was hard to read, why not instead stick to the meat of what he's saying instead of insulting him? It doesn't change his argument and it doesn't change yours.

Herr Wilkus wrote:

You can whine that the Charon came out slightly worse than other freighters, but the class as a whole came out much stronger - insanely so. Never before has so much ISK been movable without meaningful risk. DST got a huge buff across the board, as did the Orca (due to the creation of hull rigs).


I always love how people make the risk vs reward argument. Eve is so skewed in terms of risk vs reward towards griefers that it isn't even funny. What risk is there for people creating accounts solely to spam jita or other trade hubs for isk? They never leave station and even if they did losing a pod wouldn't matter to them since they have no sp invested. OR how about the code butts that bump miner ships? They have no real risk because A they fly nothing of value, and B there are no counter tactics to their griefing. So as a miner you either pay up or find somewhere else to play. As much as the devs want to make this argument I don't think I've ever seen them make meaningful balancing decisions to ensure that risk vs reward actually exists in this game.

Herr Wilkus wrote:

Carebears crying nerf in this case is just sad and irrational.


Well actually its a fact.

Herr Wilkus wrote:


Just saying freighters got nerfed doesn't make it so.
And freighters didn't even NEED a buff. As it is, their ganking is quite rare relative to the huge numbers that exist and roam freely.



No, but the fact that they did does make it so, whether how minor or major is up for debate, their abilities are not the same they were. While we agree that they didn't need a buff, people are upset because they didn't need a nerf either. They should have just left well enough alone.
Valterra Craven
#2617 - 2014-06-05 15:01:06 UTC
Lei Merdeau wrote:


Rig penalties are reduced by the relevant rig skill.


They are also never zero.
Frostys Virpio
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#2618 - 2014-06-05 15:34:03 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:
Vhelnik Cojoin wrote:


I'm confused though, whether that discussion took place before the decision was made to give freighters low instead of rig slots.


Considering that the penalty for freighter is the same regardless of it being lows or rigs, its kinda irrelevant when it took place since the effects are the same either way. Aka bulkheads and bulkhead rigs both reduce cargo...


I'd rather not have to scrap millions upon millions of ISK worth of rigs whenever I want to do a different fit on a freighter. Full T2 cargo was basically the price of a new freighter every time you rigged it for example.
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#2619 - 2014-06-05 16:23:42 UTC
Angelus Arareb wrote:
Three days ago I was finally able to climb into my brand new Charon. I LOVED it, after training for so long I was ecstatic to finally not ever having to use a bestower or itereon again to transport my stuff. Then Chronos came and I logged onto my freighter which I had trained up to level 3 and guess what, after a 15% increase to cargo capacity via training it now had the same cargo capacity as a Jump Freighter. I thought that's ok I'll just install 3 T3 cargo expanders. It was then I found that with the 3 installed it was right about the same as it would have been without the patch. So where is the benefit to this "upgrade" I lost a bunch of armor and was able to maintain the same cargo capacity.........Is this an attempt by CCP to make it easier for the next burn jita to be even easier for freighter kills? I feel like I just got ganked and all the time I spent training for this is now wasted b/c I am an even easier/bigger target. *Good job guys way to go!* -End Sarcasm- Whoever came up with the idea to slash cargo capacity to such an extreme degree needs to be slapped silly. I mean seriously, if you wanted to provide customization for freighters you could do so w/o such drastic effects, i.e. making freighters unable to use cargo expanders for one. There easy solution, problem solved. Come on CCP get it together and fix this, I just showed it's not hard to resolve.

if your cargo is the same as before, you're doing something wrong.

New max is 1.2mil/m3
Valterra Craven
#2620 - 2014-06-05 16:32:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Valterra Craven
Rowells wrote:
Angelus Arareb wrote:
Then Chronos came and I logged onto my freighter which I had trained up to level 3 and guess what, after a 15% increase to cargo capacity via training it now had the same cargo capacity as a Jump Freighter.

if your cargo is the same as before, you're doing something wrong.

New max is 1.2mil/m3


You appear to have missed the relevant part...