These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Sarrein Razor
RazorEnterprise
#2641 - 2014-06-07 00:59:46 UTC
Nice way to drive ppl off ccp. I dearly regret to have resubbed now.

Can someone explain to me how i can get the old performance of my Providence and Ark back?

If i fit expanders i lose sublight speed (which nerfs autopilot freighters flying). If i fit bulkheads i just about get what my Ark had prepatch on my Providence.

Not to mention that the Ark is now utterly worthless. A Rorqual will do almost everything the Ark can way better now in terms of hauling into dangerous territory and costs only a fraction of it and consumes less fuel while doing it and can fit a shitton more modules (i.e. cloak).

I demand to know who did this, where he lives and where i can buy pitches and torches close by. I think i want to visit him/her and *thank* him/her in the classic way of unhappy people.

Oh, and while you are at it, i also need the addess of the guy who ruined the navy apoc (it used to be golden) and the carthum ship line.

-> off into the forest to get some firewood, think i'll need it soon.
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC
#2642 - 2014-06-07 02:35:15 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:

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.


Did you fail to understand my post? Or are you intentionally being obtuse?

m^3/EHP is not important to gankers. Because most freighters are relatively empty. (unless they are hauling ice or trit)

The only thing that matters is ISK in cargo/EHP.
And potential EHP has doubled - or in the case of the Anshar, more than doubled.

Sure, some freighters will failfit.
But there is a big difference between a miner fitting for yield (and neglecting tank), and a freighter pilot fitting cargohold expanders.

The miner benefits from fitting for yield.

On the other hand, fitting a freighter for m^3 is pointless when your freighter is 2/3 empty. And ganking is a very remote risk when you are hauling the kind of low-value/bulk items that could take up 1 Million or more M^3.

Why is this? Because the vast majority of items on the market (mods/rigs/mid-high end mins) are far too expensive to fill a 900K+ m^3 freighter before your ISK value goes well into gank-bait territory.


No, i have no doubt that CODE. and Miniluv will continue to do good work, but I see no reason for CCP to, with a single poorly thought out patch - double their ganking costs, and severely curtail the number of profitable targets out there.

And for people that insist on using Catalyst costs as a reasonable example of 'ganker costs' - you must think getting 65 Catalyst pilots together is a trivial thing. Because that is what it would take to kill a new Anshar in 0.5. Costs scale considerably in higher sec from there. And that new Ark-fit goes over 1 Million EHP? That would take about 85-90 Catalysts.

Sounds reasonable. Roll

I can't tell if the carebears whining about their freighters are simply metagaming or just incredibly stupid. Get handed a massive buff and they keep screaming for more. Absolutely ridiculous.

Temenus Alexander
Alexander Enterprises
#2643 - 2014-06-07 03:51:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Temenus Alexander
CCP Fozzie wrote:


So we expect that most Freighter and Jump Freighter pilots will use their three low slots to mix and match the following modules to meet their needs:
  • Expanded Cargoholds
  • Reinforced Bulkheads
  • Hyperspatial Accelerators (warp speed modules)
  • Inertia Stabilizers
  • Overdrive Injector Systems
  • (For certain armor tanking fits) Adaptive Nano Platings
  • (For Jump Freighters) Capacitor Power Relays
  • (For Jump Freighters after the Crius release) Jump Fuel Conservation Modules



Yeah... about those bulkheads. Kinda hard to do with no freaking (ok, 1.3 actual) cpu.

EDIT: Ok, I see now that they CAN be fit due to the 100% cpu reduction role bonus. When looking at modules on the market or even from inventory with the fitting window open while mousing over the item, all visual/tooltip indications are that they cannot be fit.
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC
#2644 - 2014-06-07 04:19:09 UTC
Temenus Alexander wrote:


Yeah... about those bulkheads. Kinda hard to do with no freaking (ok, 1.3 actual) cpu.


L2Read.
Temenus Alexander
Alexander Enterprises
#2645 - 2014-06-07 04:21:00 UTC
Herr Wilkus wrote:
Temenus Alexander wrote:


Yeah... about those bulkheads. Kinda hard to do with no freaking (ok, 1.3 actual) cpu.


L2Read.


L2 "Eat At Joe's"
Christopher Mabata
Cynosural Edge
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
#2646 - 2014-06-07 04:33:41 UTC
under Ships and Modules i designed a relatively expensive Providence fit that can get over half a million EHP ( yep 500,000 ), look for my post. it has the max amount of cargo possible without sacrificing tank. ( no expanders on it )

However the pod to fly it is expensive. I think it will be worth it for some pilots who carry alot of cargo or cargo of "Elevated Price"

Buyer be warned

♣ Small Gang PVP, Large Fleet PVP, Black Ops, Incursions, Trade, and Industry ♣ 70% Lethal / 30% Super-Snuggly / 110% No idea what im doing ♣

This Message Brought to you by a sweet and sour bittervet

Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#2647 - 2014-06-07 06:02:17 UTC
Herr Wilkus wrote:
And for people that insist on using Catalyst costs as a reasonable example of 'ganker costs' - you must think getting 65 Catalyst pilots together is a trivial thing. Because that is what it would take to kill a new Anshar in 0.5. Costs scale considerably in higher sec from there. And that new Ark-fit goes over 1 Million EHP? That would take about 85-90 Catalysts.

Sounds reasonable. Roll


Absolutely. This Ark costs you ~8.8B + possible cargo of lets say, in your numbers, 4B, which makes 12.8B ISK value. 75 Catalyst, on the other hand, cost you between 700M to 900M, not even a 12th of the gank target. Sounds absolutely reasonable to me.

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
#2648 - 2014-06-07 06:20:08 UTC
Herr Wilkus wrote:
Valterra Craven wrote:

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.


Did you fail to understand my post? Or are you intentionally being obtuse?



I understood your post completely. What I'm saying is that if the bulkheads penalties aren't a real penalty, ie I can't hit max m3 with them fitted before I hit the gank threshold, then gankers shouldn't have petitioned for this change to the penalty.

Think of it this way: The change allowed afkers to have more EHP without speed loss and if they aren't hitting max m3 then that was a win for them and a loss for you since they can now carry more value afk. If the penalty was kept the same, they still aren't hitting max m3 before the gank threshold, but now they move through space slower.

On the flip side, if the target isn't afk and they are willing to risk higher thresholds the new penalty limits them since they could have carried more cargo and thus had a better or higher potential value/ehp ratio.

As far as the jf's HP, given the fact that the cost to reach those HP values is pretty steep (at least 330mil for the high end ANP mods and another potential couple bil in implants) and the cost of the initial ship itself your argument doesn't seem to meet the balance threshold. Aka if a player is going to spend 10+bil on a ship to get its hp values high then requiring you to get more cats make sense (even though that's already not an efficient way to do things since the best way would be a mix of destroyers and bc's, but thats besides the point). Personally I think you are skewing the numbers a bit in your favor. I'm willing to bet if done correctly it would take less than 40 actual players.
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC
#2649 - 2014-06-07 09:08:34 UTC
Rivr Luzade wrote:
Herr Wilkus wrote:
And for people that insist on using Catalyst costs as a reasonable example of 'ganker costs' - you must think getting 65 Catalyst pilots together is a trivial thing. Because that is what it would take to kill a new Anshar in 0.5. Costs scale considerably in higher sec from there. And that new Ark-fit goes over 1 Million EHP? That would take about 85-90 Catalysts.

Sounds reasonable. Roll


Absolutely. This Ark costs you ~8.8B + possible cargo of lets say, in your numbers, 4B, which makes 12.8B ISK value. 75 Catalyst, on the other hand, cost you between 700M to 900M, not even a 12th of the gank target. Sounds absolutely reasonable to me.


No, not reasonable. 75 Pilots is a ridiculously large number of pilots to coordinate for this activity, outside of Burn Jita.
And there is no call to require double the size of ganking fleets (and costs) overnight.

Also, as Tippia is so fond of saying: "Cost is not a balancing factor." The fact that X ISK value of ships can destroy Y value of other ships is irrelevant. There is no formula in EVE that says X must be >= Y. There is no relationship whatsoever.

Lastly, your Ark costs 8.8 Billion and is already 100% gank-proof. Without needing 1 Million EHP.
Its called a Jump engine. Learn how to use it.

The minute somebody bumps your Ark and you fear a gank, light a cyno, jump out, Win 100% of the time.

With that in mind, I don't understand why they needed a buff at all.



Mag's
Azn Empire
#2650 - 2014-06-07 09:14:19 UTC
Steve Ronuken wrote:
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.
And when he talks about the new patch being a boost, we compare it to the old. So no, you are losing capacity in this instance.

Please stop posting, you're not very good at it. One can see just how bad, in the tooltip thread.

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

Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC
#2651 - 2014-06-07 09:26:00 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:


As far as the jf's HP, given the fact that the cost to reach those HP values is pretty steep (at least 330mil for the high end ANP mods and another potential couple bil in implants) and the cost of the initial ship itself your argument doesn't seem to meet the balance threshold. Aka if a player is going to spend 10+bil on a ship to get its hp values high then requiring you to get more cats make sense (even though that's already not an efficient way to do things since the best way would be a mix of destroyers and bc's, but thats besides the point). Personally I think you are skewing the numbers a bit in your favor. I'm willing to bet if done correctly it would take less than 40 actual players.


OK, I see your point on the bulkheads. As in, giving them more cargo only gives freighters the ability to stuff more goods into it, making them more gankable. I still don't consider speed to be an important factor in freighter flight, as either the freighter pilot is AFK (and the precise time of arrival likely won't matter as the freighter will likely be idle in dock for some time before the pilot's return). Or, the pilot is manually jumping and speed means nothing.

As far as EHP goes, again, ISK cost of ships are not a balancing factor. Small ships kill big ships all the time. Small numbers of gankers have always been able to blow up individual large valuable targets. But requiring gankers to go from mustering fleets of 75 pilots (up from 30-35 or so) to kill a single JF is ridiculous. Especially considering these numbers are for 0.5 - the most forgiving systems in highsec.

Especially when you consider that Jump Freighters can escape at any time with the press of a single button.

gascanu
Bearing Srl.
#2652 - 2014-06-07 09:46:35 UTC
Herr Wilkus wrote:
Valterra Craven wrote:


As far as the jf's HP, given the fact that the cost to reach those HP values is pretty steep (at least 330mil for the high end ANP mods and another potential couple bil in implants) and the cost of the initial ship itself your argument doesn't seem to meet the balance threshold. Aka if a player is going to spend 10+bil on a ship to get its hp values high then requiring you to get more cats make sense (even though that's already not an efficient way to do things since the best way would be a mix of destroyers and bc's, but thats besides the point). Personally I think you are skewing the numbers a bit in your favor. I'm willing to bet if done correctly it would take less than 40 actual players.


OK, I see your point on the bulkheads. As in, giving them more cargo only gives freighters the ability to stuff more goods into it, making them more gankable. I still don't consider speed to be an important factor in freighter flight, as either the freighter pilot is AFK (and the precise time of arrival likely won't matter as the freighter will likely be idle in dock for some time before the pilot's return). Or, the pilot is manually jumping and speed means nothing.

As far as EHP goes, again, ISK cost of ships are not a balancing factor. Small ships kill big ships all the time. Small numbers of gankers have always been able to blow up individual large valuable targets. But requiring gankers to go from mustering fleets of 75 pilots (up from 30-35 or so) to kill a single JF is ridiculous. Especially considering these numbers are for 0.5 - the most forgiving systems in highsec.

Especially when you consider that Jump Freighters can escape at any time with the press of a single button.


no no, you assuming that gankers only need to fly t1 very cheap ships is ridiculous.
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#2653 - 2014-06-07 11:41:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Rivr Luzade
Herr Wilkus wrote:

As far as EHP goes, again, ISK cost of ships are not a balancing factor. Small ships kill big ships all the time. Small numbers of gankers have always been able to blow up individual large valuable targets. But requiring gankers to go from mustering fleets of 75 pilots (up from 30-35 or so) to kill a single JF is ridiculous. Especially considering these numbers are for 0.5 - the most forgiving systems in highsec.


Why is that ridiculous? You need to muster sizable dread fleets to RF or kill a well defended tower in reasonable amounts of time. You need to muster sizable subcap/cap fleets to murder a carrier/super cap. And you complain that you need muster a big fleet and put sizable effort into killing 1 well-EHP'd (it's not defense) ship? Whether you can or cannot do it the way you did it before is fairly unimportant as haulers also need to adapt: what you want to do is illicit in High sec space and expecting that it should be made easier (which it has, in the majority of the case, become, except for 2 edge cases) is ridiculous.

Besides, even if you fail to gank the target on the first attempt, you already inflict massive damage to the target in form of immense repair cost, be it time spent with remote hull/armor repair ship or repair shop in stations.

In any possible way (if a gank succeeds or fails) the gankers always win.

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.

Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC
#2654 - 2014-06-07 15:48:42 UTC
gascanu wrote:

no no, you assuming that gankers only need to fly t1 very cheap ships is ridiculous.



I'm NOT.

I'm calling out the idiots that are saying "It takes only X million ISK to blow up a fully tanked Anshar if you use Catalysts."
Because they are trying to show how 'cheap' ganking is, and why a massive ganking nerf is justified.

I'm pointing out that using that many Catalysts is unwieldy and has costs of its own. As in, creating a massive fleet that simply does not happen.

It much more likely that Taloses or Tornados would be used - which makes the cost of ganking much greater (if fleet size a bit more managable).

Doesn't change the fact that the number of ships (and thus the cost) required to gank a freighter doubled in a single patch - meaning a very large number of potential targets are now 'safe' from ganking if profit is the motive.

Considering that, A) Jump Freighters were already 100% safe. and B) Even freighter ganks are rare, relative to the number of freighters out there - I'm trying to understand why such a massive nerf to the profession was warranted.
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC
#2655 - 2014-06-07 16:05:52 UTC
Rivr Luzade wrote:

In any possible way (if a gank succeeds or fails) the gankers always win.


First, I've noticed that you, again, failed to respond to my argument about Jump Freighters already are gank-proof due to having a Jump Engine, and therefore do not need massive EHP as well. That is why they cost so much, after all. Ignoring it doesn't make it go away.

But then you follow up with nonsense.

Gankers always win???
Repair costs??? Are you serious?

Are you forgetting that ganking was nerfed quite a bit recently and no longer collect insurance?
Gankships are not insured (a previous nerf) and is a massive gamble in terms of ISK, if it is not recouped through cargo recovery.

A failed (unprofitable) gank occurs for any number of reasons.

-3rd party interference.
-mishandling of the gank because of inexperience, or gankers AFK when order to attack given.
-JF pilot not asleep and jumped out.
Even if the target is destroyed, then there is another pile of failure conditions that can occur.
-cargo stolen
-cargo didn't drop
-cargo blown up by 3rd party
-cargo value miscalculated

The situation being created here, however - is that even if a 4-5 Billion ISK freighter does trundle along, (not as common as you think) - it can, with minimal effort be fit to be completely uneconomical to gank. Meaning more cargo is moved more safely and more AFK.

Result: massive buff for haulers and nerf for gankers. Highsec needed to be even safer? Really?
Valterra Craven
#2656 - 2014-06-07 16:45:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Valterra Craven
Herr Wilkus wrote:



As far as EHP goes, again, ISK cost of ships are not a balancing factor. Small ships kill big ships all the time. Small numbers of gankers have always been able to blow up individual large valuable targets. But requiring gankers to go from mustering fleets of 75 pilots (up from 30-35 or so) to kill a single JF is ridiculous. Especially considering these numbers are for 0.5 - the most forgiving systems in highsec.

Especially when you consider that Jump Freighters can escape at any time with the press of a single button.



Well if cost of ships is not a balancing factor then neither is number of players to kill a ship. Especially since the numbers you quote would mean that that group is bad at it.
Valterra Craven
#2657 - 2014-06-07 16:47:55 UTC
Herr Wilkus wrote:


Considering that, A) Jump Freighters were already 100% safe.


If they were 100% safe before patch and are 100% safe after, then these changes are irrelevant and you have nothing to complain about.
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#2658 - 2014-06-07 19:59:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Rivr Luzade
Herr Wilkus wrote:
Rivr Luzade wrote:

In any possible way (if a gank succeeds or fails) the gankers always win.

First, I've noticed that you, again, failed to respond to my argument about Jump Freighters already are gank-proof due to having a Jump Engine, and therefore do not need massive EHP as well. That is why they cost so much, after all. Ignoring it doesn't make it go away.


I though you were good enough to find this in my "always win" part. But let me break it down a bit further:

If you take a regular CC for gate-gate travel with a JF and you are forced to jump to a cyno, and even more so after Crius, you pay a lot more ISK than you get reward. Ganker win. Once the gank has started, you cannot even escape because you are warp disrupted. Gank either succeeds and you lose your ship, CC, collateral and maybe even your pod, or gank fails, your ship survives, but you have immense repair cost. Ganker win. If you bring valuable good to a hub and you are being ganked, you lose either your/your alliance members' months of ratting and collecting or in case of a jump back to a cyno, reduce their profits considerably. Ganker win. Or take valuable minerals to transport to your production plant, something that, thanks to CCP's wisdom, is going to happen very often in the future: if you need to jump out, your margins are reduced in the best or gone in the worse case. Ganker win.

Herr Wilkus wrote:
A failed (unprofitable) gank occurs for any number of reasons.

-3rd party interference.
-mishandling of the gank because of inexperience, or gankers AFK when order to attack given.
-JF pilot not asleep and jumped out.
Even if the target is destroyed, then there is another pile of failure conditions that can occur.
-cargo stolen
-cargo didn't drop
-cargo blown up by 3rd party
-cargo value miscalculated

The situation being created here, however - is that even if a 4-5 Billion ISK freighter does trundle along, (not as common as you think) - it can, with minimal effort be fit to be completely uneconomical to gank. Meaning more cargo is moved more safely and more AFK.


3rd parties are effectively shut out from interference because ganked wrecks are yellow and you, if you gank a freighter, usually need a freighter to pull the stuff out (unless you do loot picking with a can), which makes you go suspect and free-to-shoot for everyone. Your cargo in the wreck is in most cases perfectly safe for you to grab with provided protection from your own group. Blowing up the wreck is a possibility, but you still have the killmail. And that is what the majority of gankers are after.

If you are inexperienced, you simply don't try to gank JF. Inexperience or not, you must be outright ignorant to the reality if you attack a target in the full knowledge that you cannot successfully gank it. You take on targets that you can gank and build up experience, before try to make a fool of yourself on bigger fish.

Moreover, we seem to have a very starkly differing view on economic efficiency. If you really think that ganking a ship costing ten+ times more than the all the gank ships together and still call it uneconomical, I am afraid we will never reach a common denominator. And yes, I always bring back numbers and ISK as factor because you are not talking about anything else. Every post you write contains the always same litany about how ganking is unprofitable, how you rely on the loot and how a couple of hundred millions more make your gank uneconomical. IF ISK was not a balancing factor, you would not constantly come back to the ISK factor of gankers.

Herr Wilkus wrote:
Result: massive buff for haulers and nerf for gankers. Highsec needed to be even safer? Really?


It is not getting any safer with these changes. A tiny little bit more convenient for haulers, but by far not safer. However, I refuse to accept that activities, which are supposed take place in Low sec and 00 sec, should be even easier to do in High sec than it already is the case. If you want to annoy people, do it where everyone is supposed to live and have this kind of pleasure.

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.

Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC
#2659 - 2014-06-07 20:05:10 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:
Herr Wilkus wrote:


Considering that, A) Jump Freighters were already 100% safe.


If they were 100% safe before patch and are 100% safe after, then these changes are irrelevant and you have nothing to complain about.


Nope. Don't be stupid.

A JF pilot traversing highsec, using good practice, can carry as much ISK as they like, doesn't matter. 10 Billion, 20 Billion.
However - sometimes JF pilots make mistakes.

-Sometimes they AFK and aren't there to hit the jump button.
-Sometimes they fail to load fuel in their fuel bay, and therefore can't jump.
-Sometimes they fail to have a cyno ready when they traverse a high risk ganking system.

In these cases, IF gankers are willing to bring extra bumpers (they are quite agile), and more gankships, they CAN kill it.

Slapping an additional 400-600K EHP onto the hull is just a easy way to coddle lazy freighter pilots. No matter how braindead the pilot, or how AFK they are - at no point is the hull worth ganking when carrying 4-8 Billion ISK.

SOO much easier than taking a few precautions listed above to protect a 6-8 Billion ISK ship.

I'm quite convinced that most of the freighter 'nerf' whining is simply forum metagaming. Are carebears really so stupid to not see what a gift they were handed by Fozzie? Just about every industrial ship in the game has been given a straight up buff, some of them ridiculously so.

PVP ships used for ganking? Nope, mostly nerfed or given neutral changes that don't effect burst damage capability at all.



Valterra Craven
#2660 - 2014-06-07 20:25:00 UTC
Herr Wilkus wrote:
Valterra Craven wrote:
Herr Wilkus wrote:


Considering that, A) Jump Freighters were already 100% safe.


If they were 100% safe before patch and are 100% safe after, then these changes are irrelevant and you have nothing to complain about.


Nope. Don't be stupid.



I'm not the one claiming anything is 100% safe anywhere.