These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#2621 - 2014-06-05 17:04:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Rowells
Valterra Craven wrote:
Rowells wrote:
Angelus Arareb wrote:
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.

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...

You didn't read the whole thing did you? just the first few sentences, perhaps?


I corrected your snip for you to the part i was referring to.

he should still be around 1.1mil. thats about 200k more than rubicon.

e: hell, even with caldari freighter at 1, three expanders should give him more than pre-patch
Frostys Virpio
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#2622 - 2014-06-05 17:20:13 UTC
Rowells wrote:
Valterra Craven wrote:
Rowells wrote:
Angelus Arareb wrote:
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.

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...

You didn't read the whole thing did you? just the first few sentences, perhaps?


I corrected your snip for you to the part i was referring to.

he should still be around 1.1mil. thats about 200k more than rubicon.

e: hell, even with caldari freighter at 1, three expanders should give him more than pre-patch


Not sure since he\s obviously talking about the yet to be released T3 module. We don't know yet what the % cargo bonus on those is...
Firzam Aakiwa
Perkone
Caldari State
#2623 - 2014-06-05 18:07:14 UTC
Lolly ==> look that guys http://eve.battleclinic.com/loadout/70443-Ark-Adriana.html 1 million EHP with his ARk without loosing Cargo bay capacity. This new patch give a great boost for some factionnal Jump freighter.
Valterra Craven
#2624 - 2014-06-05 19:43:14 UTC
Rowells wrote:

You didn't read the whole thing did you? just the first few sentences, perhaps?


I corrected your snip for you to the part i was referring to.

he should still be around 1.1mil. thats about 200k more than rubicon.

e: hell, even with caldari freighter at 1, three expanders should give him more than pre-patch


No, I read the whole thing, the new max has nothing to do with what he was saying. and adding 100k~ is more like what we were talking about for a huge penalty to EHP.
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#2625 - 2014-06-05 20:37:43 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:
Rowells wrote:

You didn't read the whole thing did you? just the first few sentences, perhaps?


I corrected your snip for you to the part i was referring to.

he should still be around 1.1mil. thats about 200k more than rubicon.

e: hell, even with caldari freighter at 1, three expanders should give him more than pre-patch


No, I read the whole thing, the new max has nothing to do with what he was saying. and adding 100k~ is more like what we were talking about for a huge penalty to EHP.

thats not what he said. He said he was at similar levels of cargo with 3 cargo expanders, which is nothing but wrong. I never mentioned EHP and in that particular subject neither did he.

He said he gets similar to before fully fit, i show thats wrong, you come and make comments on subjects irrelavent to the specific matter i was referring to.
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#2626 - 2014-06-06 08:01:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Rivr Luzade
Firzam Aakiwa wrote:
Lolly ==> look that guys http://eve.battleclinic.com/loadout/70443-Ark-Adriana.html 1 million EHP with his ARk without loosing Cargo bay capacity. This new patch give a great boost for some factionnal Jump freighter.


I wouldn't call 168k m³ cargo space "without loosing[sic] Cargo bay capacity", if you compare it to the previous 344k m³ (the numbers on this Battleclinic post seem a bit off, especially in the Cargo department when I compare it to the Ark in the Pilot Optimizer). However, it's still pretty impressive HP values there, remains to be seen if this helps to deter ganks or just invites them for a try even more. Blink

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.

Mag's
Azn Empire
#2627 - 2014-06-06 08:49:58 UTC
Rivr Luzade wrote:
Firzam Aakiwa wrote:
Lolly ==> look that guys http://eve.battleclinic.com/loadout/70443-Ark-Adriana.html 1 million EHP with his ARk without loosing Cargo bay capacity. This new patch give a great boost for some factionnal Jump freighter.


I wouldn't call 168k m³ cargo space "without loosing[sic] Cargo bay capacity", if you compare it to the previous 344k m³ (the numbers on this Battleclinic post seem a bit off, especially in the Cargo department when I compare it to the Ark in the Pilot Optimizer). However, it's still pretty impressive HP values there, remains to be seen if this helps to deter ganks or just invites them for a try even more. Blink
Indeed. Saying without losing capacity, is rather disingenuous.

I will say this though, don't be surprised at another balance pass in the future. In regards to EHP.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.

Lei Merdeau
Hidden Agenda
Deep Space Engineering
#2628 - 2014-06-06 11:00:09 UTC
Mag's wrote:

I will say this though, don't be surprised at another balance pass in the future. In regards to EHP.


and I think it will be much easier to do if they do something about the module penalties.


Vhelnik Cojoin
Pandemic Horde High Sec Division
#2629 - 2014-06-06 11:12:46 UTC
In other news it was today revealed, that the explosions from Fail Fit Freighters are still lighting up the skies of HiSec, as James 315 and his merry men go about their daily business.

...and the gankers saw that the changes were good and all is well in New Eden. Cool

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

Vhelnik Cojoin
Pandemic Horde High Sec Division
#2630 - 2014-06-06 11:22:12 UTC
Firzam Aakiwa wrote:
Lolly ==> look that guys http://eve.battleclinic.com/loadout/70443-Ark-Adriana.html 1 million EHP with his ARk without loosing Cargo bay capacity. This new patch give a great boost for some factionnal Jump freighter.

Given the low base cargo hold of the JFs, plus the cost of ship, fittings and clone, I'd say that is working as intended.

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

Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#2631 - 2014-06-06 11:44:57 UTC
Mag's wrote:
Rivr Luzade wrote:
Firzam Aakiwa wrote:
Lolly ==> look that guys http://eve.battleclinic.com/loadout/70443-Ark-Adriana.html 1 million EHP with his ARk without loosing Cargo bay capacity. This new patch give a great boost for some factionnal Jump freighter.


I wouldn't call 168k m³ cargo space "without loosing[sic] Cargo bay capacity", if you compare it to the previous 344k m³ (the numbers on this Battleclinic post seem a bit off, especially in the Cargo department when I compare it to the Ark in the Pilot Optimizer). However, it's still pretty impressive HP values there, remains to be seen if this helps to deter ganks or just invites them for a try even more. Blink
Indeed. Saying without losing capacity, is rather disingenuous.

I will say this though, don't be surprised at another balance pass in the future. In regards to EHP.



Without loosing /further/ capacity is accurate.

Without losing (compared to pre Kronos) capacity isn't.

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter

Doris VanGit
Resilience.
The Initiative.
#2632 - 2014-06-06 14:29:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Doris VanGit
Ok time for my 2 pennies worth. Firstly i apologies if i repeat anything said by others, these forums send my eyes a little of balance. So i aint gonna read all the posts.

Its a nice touch, adding the module slots to such expensive ships. However, it would have been alot nicer to have the cpu available to fit a damage control or a warp core stab!

A damage control may help the surviverbility of say the Rhea, were its main defence is a shield and hull buff. However, no EM resists on these.

To my knowledge unless i have missed something, the are no low slot mods or skills to improve hull resists.

Therefore when the usual Goon, burn jita arises. They could loose twice as many ships to CCP instead Blink

But on a side note that has nothing to do, with this thread. Why on a normal day in EVE, you cant enter Jita if numbers are too High. But burn Jita arises On every man and his dog are in there?

Like i say just my 2 pennies worth.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#2633 - 2014-06-06 14:49:53 UTC
Doris VanGit wrote:
Ok time for my 2 pennies worth. Firstly i apologies if i repeat anything said by others, these forums send my eyes a little of balance. So i aint gonna read all the posts.

Its a nice touch, adding the module slots to such expensive ships. However, it would have been alot nicer to have the cpu available to fit a damage control or a warp core stab!

A damage control may help the surviverbility of say the Rhea, were its main defence is a shield and hull buff. However, no EM resists on these.

To my knowledge unless i have missed something, the are no low slot mods or skills to improve hull resists.

Therefore when the usual Goon, burn jita arises. They could loose twice as many ships to CCP instead Blink

But on a side note that has nothing to do, with this thread. Why on a normal day in EVE, you cant enter Jita if numbers are too High. But burn Jita arises On every man and his dog are in there?

Like i say just my 2 pennies worth.


A suitcase is simply too powerful on a freighter, hence why CCP wisely chose to not allow it to be fitted.
Frostys Virpio
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#2634 - 2014-06-06 14:51:38 UTC
Doris VanGit wrote:
Ok time for my 2 pennies worth. Firstly i apologies if i repeat anything said by others, these forums send my eyes a little of balance. So i aint gonna read all the posts.

Its a nice touch, adding the module slots to such expensive ships. However, it would have been alot nicer to have the cpu available to fit a damage control or a warp core stab!

A damage control may help the surviverbility of say the Rhea, were its main defence is a shield and hull buff. However, no EM resists on these.

To my knowledge unless i have missed something, the are no low slot mods or skills to improve hull resists.

Therefore when the usual Goon, burn jita arises. They could loose twice as many ships to CCP instead Blink

But on a side note that has nothing to do, with this thread. Why on a normal day in EVE, you cant enter Jita if numbers are too High. But burn Jita arises On every man and his dog are in there?

Like i say just my 2 pennies worth.


If they were to enable you to use a DCU, the unfitted EHP would fall completely and the DCU would then be a mandatory module for everybody. This add 0 options, in fact, it would remove options. Not sure about stabs as I don't see what is the balance tradeoff for fitting stabs...

As for burn Jita, people deserve to die there with how much publicity it has.
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC
#2635 - 2014-06-06 15:16:01 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:


Herr Wilkus wrote:

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


Well actually its a fact.


And you conveniently ignore the substance of most of my own, and others' posts.

Where did Freighters and JF's get nerfed?

First, alignment wasn't touched at all, it can only be improved upon by gaining lowslots.

Cargo you say?
Sure, the m^3 was significantly reduced when you fit for EHP.

But that isn't the important value when hauling in highsec.
Ganking is the ONLY threat to a freighter pilot. And gankers don't care about how much "m^3" you are carrying.
Bulky, low value cargo that requires Cargo Mods are not profitable to gank and not interesting.
Gankers care about ISK value vs EHP.

95% of trade items that will stack up into '5-6 Billions ISK' fits quite neatly into the reduced cargobay of Freighters and Jump Freighters, but in turn, are shielded by twice as much EHP - doubling the size of the fleet required to destroy it.

This often reduces the profitability to zero - meaning very, very low risk of ganking.

Especially when you can fit for 1 Million EHP in highsec.

Ridiculous, and shows how little thought Fozzie put into this version.

Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#2636 - 2014-06-06 16:14:54 UTC
Herr Wilkus wrote:

Ridiculous, and shows how little thought Fozzie put into this version.


It only shows how weak gankers seemingly have become.

Besides, CODE does seem to defy all your fears quite successfully in Aufay at the moment. Blink

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.

Valterra Craven
#2637 - 2014-06-06 17:29:57 UTC
Herr Wilkus wrote:


And you conveniently ignore the substance of most of my own, and others' posts.

Where did Freighters and JF's get nerfed?

First, alignment wasn't touched at all, it can only be improved upon by gaining lowslots.

Cargo you say?
Sure, the m^3 was significantly reduced when you fit for EHP.

But that isn't the important value when hauling in highsec.
Ganking is the ONLY threat to a freighter pilot. And gankers don't care about how much "m^3" you are carrying.
Bulky, low value cargo that requires Cargo Mods are not profitable to gank and not interesting.
Gankers care about ISK value vs EHP.

95% of trade items that will stack up into '5-6 Billions ISK' fits quite neatly into the reduced cargobay of Freighters and Jump Freighters, but in turn, are shielded by twice as much EHP - doubling the size of the fleet required to destroy it.

This often reduces the profitability to zero - meaning very, very low risk of ganking.

Especially when you can fit for 1 Million EHP in highsec.

Ridiculous, and shows how little thought Fozzie put into this version.



The substance where you ignore the stark reality of how stupid the average Eve player is and what the average fit of mining barges etc is despite groups like Code existing? People are and will fit freighters just as foolishly. As the above posts show, things have not changed in the ganking department, nor will they.

Besides, bulkheads are nothing but a double nerf to ganking the way they are, and what's amazing is that gankers actually wanted this. They wanted cargo reductions to bulkheads despite knowing correctly that A. even with those reductions it still wouldn't be close to the m3 vs value thresholds and B that most eve players are stupid. What I'm trying to say is that you should have hoped that they were kept the same, because even though you could fit bulkheads it would have also allowed you to fit more cargo making the m3/ehp ratios stay the same.
Valterra Craven
#2638 - 2014-06-06 17:43:29 UTC
Rowells wrote:

thats not what he said. He said he was at similar levels of cargo with 3 cargo expanders, which is nothing but wrong.

He said he gets similar to before fully fit, i show thats wrong, you come and make comments on subjects irrelavent to the specific matter i was referring to.


That's correct he said "similar". Given the changes, a 100k m3 change when talking about roughly 900k m3 is similar.

This was your correction:

Rowells wrote:

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

New max is 1.2mil/m3


Note that same !=similar. You corrected something incorrectly. Also, note that max doesn't enter into the equation at any end of the spectrum of his post.
Sigras
Conglomo
#2639 - 2014-06-06 21:40:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Sigras
Herr Wilkus wrote:
And you conveniently ignore the substance of most of my own, and others' posts.

Where did Freighters and JF's get nerfed?

First, alignment wasn't touched at all, it can only be improved upon by gaining lowslots.

Cargo you say?
Sure, the m^3 was significantly reduced when you fit for EHP.

But that isn't the important value when hauling in highsec.
Ganking is the ONLY threat to a freighter pilot. And gankers don't care about how much "m^3" you are carrying.
Bulky, low value cargo that requires Cargo Mods are not profitable to gank and not interesting.
Gankers care about ISK value vs EHP.

95% of trade items that will stack up into '5-6 Billions ISK' fits quite neatly into the reduced cargobay of Freighters and Jump Freighters, but in turn, are shielded by twice as much EHP - doubling the size of the fleet required to destroy it.

This often reduces the profitability to zero - meaning very, very low risk of ganking.

Especially when you can fit for 1 Million EHP in highsec.

Ridiculous, and shows how little thought Fozzie put into this version.

With Catalysts, it costs about 1,000 ISK per damage to suicide gank something.

A providence with a full high grade slave set, specifically fit to tank Kinetic/Thermal, and a damnation boosting has a 460,000 EHP tank against Kinetic/Thermal

This means that it will cost the gankers about 460,000,000 ISK to suicide gank him which means that the break even point is still under a billion ISK...

And you're complaining why?

EDIT: excuse me, I just thought of fitting deadspace armor resist mods in the lows... this gives it a 549,000 EHP resist to Kinetic Thermal meaning the break even point is now 1.1 billion, but given the number of 10-20 billion ISK lossmails ive seen, still not really killing your profit margins.

Just another fun fact, this means you're gank-profitable if you're half full of mexallon
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#2640 - 2014-06-06 22:36:41 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:
Rowells wrote:

thats not what he said. He said he was at similar levels of cargo with 3 cargo expanders, which is nothing but wrong.

He said he gets similar to before fully fit, i show thats wrong, you come and make comments on subjects irrelavent to the specific matter i was referring to.


That's correct he said "similar". Given the changes, a 100k m3 change when talking about roughly 900k m3 is similar.

This was your correction:

Rowells wrote:

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

New max is 1.2mil/m3


Note that same !=similar. You corrected something incorrectly. Also, note that max doesn't enter into the equation at any end of the spectrum of his post.

Now I know for sure that you're not reading anything.

200k difference is not very similar considering it's 22% difference.

And his exact words were: " right about the same as it would have been without the patch."

Did he say similar there? Nope, he said right about the same. Which is still wrong. And yes Max was mentioned. He was comparing his old maximum capacity with the new maximum capacity. I used fully fit fully skilled Max as a reference point. So yes, is Max did Enter into the equation.