These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Allison A'vani
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#281 - 2014-05-17 20:28:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Allison A'vani
Triturus Alpestris wrote:
CCP add low slot and we will forgive you.


Now that I think about it, if the changes are kept EXACTLY how they are and you add a low slot then this would be acceptable. A T2 Inertia stab would make up for the massive agility nurf and then the rigs would make up for the cargo nurf. Otherwise, this is still an absolutely awful change. I still think that this should not have even been considered in the first place.

EDIT: Talking about for JF, regular freighters I don't really care about either way.
Querns
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#282 - 2014-05-17 20:30:26 UTC
Allison A'vani wrote:
Triturus Alpestris wrote:
CCP add low slot and we will forgive you.


Now that I think about it, if the changes are kept EXACTLY how they are and you add a low slot then this would be acceptable. A T2 Inertia stab would make up for the massive agility nurf and then the rigs would make up for the cargo nurf. Other wise, this is still an absolutely awful change.

EDIT: Talking about for JF, regular freighters I don't really care about either way.

No one would fit an istab to that low slot. They'd always fit a cargo expander, every time.

Then, they'd have to reduce the cargohold further to compensate. No thanks.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#283 - 2014-05-17 20:30:33 UTC
Dirk MacGirk wrote:
Conceptual question: the focus has thus far been on cargo capacity. The premise that they needed to nerf base capacity because some players might up their capacity. But is top-end capacity, within reason, really the big issue? Is the ability to haul "moar" stuff from here to there really what focus was on when they considered and approved rigs?

I just don't see cargo capacity, past a certain point, that significant to force projection or hurting the game. It's a necessary evil in order to keep higher-level game functionality operating.

When I first heard the announcement for rigs, my first inclination was that this was really a response to the generic tanks on freighters. See an Obelisk and know: this much DPS needed to kill it before Concord responds. Call it an Anti-Burn Jita change. Not just BJ, but throwing a bit of a wrinkle into everyday hisec ganking. But in the end, I don't think it is going to work out like that. Yes, I know you could add some tank rigs. But with such a major hit to base capacity, that probably won't be the outcome. I just don't see capacity being the issue, no matter what level its at. Cargo value comes into play much more than top-end capacity in most circumstances. The rest, meh. I think their concern over "moar cargo" was a bit much.


Its to stop us shipping capitals into jita.
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#284 - 2014-05-17 20:31:17 UTC
Dirk MacGirk wrote:
Conceptual question: the focus has thus far been on cargo capacity. The premise that they needed to nerf base capacity because some players might up their capacity. But is top-end capacity, within reason, really the big issue? Is the ability to haul "moar" stuff from here to there really what focus was on when they considered and approved rigs?

I just don't see cargo capacity, past a certain point, that significant to force projection or hurting the game. It's a necessary evil in order to keep higher-level game functionality operating.

When I first heard the announcement for rigs, my first inclination was that this was really a response to the generic tanks on freighters. See an Obelisk and know: this much DPS needed to kill it before Concord responds. Call it an Anti-Burn Jita change. Not just BJ, but throwing a bit of a wrinkle into everyday hisec ganking. But in the end, I don't think it is going to work out like that. Yes, I know you could add some tank rigs. But with such a major hit to base capacity, that probably won't be the outcome. I just don't see capacity being the issue, no matter what level its at. Cargo value comes into play much more than top-end capacity in most circumstances. The rest, meh. I think their concern over "moar cargo" was a bit much.


im actually pleased i can carry more. i can now carry more than one assembled battleship in more than one type of freighter now. great for moving things before a dec. and i guess that also applies to incursion runners.

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

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#285 - 2014-05-17 20:31:36 UTC
Allison A'vani wrote:
Triturus Alpestris wrote:
CCP add low slot and we will forgive you.


Now that I think about it, if the changes are kept EXACTLY how they are and you add a low slot then this would be acceptable. A T2 Inertia stab would make up for the massive agility nurf and then the rigs would make up for the cargo nurf. Otherwise, this is still an absolutely awful change. I still think that this should not have even been considered in the first place.

EDIT: Talking about for JF, regular freighters I don't really care about either way.


Any extra lowslot means a 20% nerf to cargo is needed on the hull.
Allison A'vani
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#286 - 2014-05-17 20:31:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Allison A'vani
Querns wrote:
Allison A'vani wrote:
Triturus Alpestris wrote:
CCP add low slot and we will forgive you.


Now that I think about it, if the changes are kept EXACTLY how they are and you add a low slot then this would be acceptable. A T2 Inertia stab would make up for the massive agility nurf and then the rigs would make up for the cargo nurf. Other wise, this is still an absolutely awful change.

EDIT: Talking about for JF, regular freighters I don't really care about either way.

No one would fit an istab to that low slot. They'd always fit a cargo expander, every time.

Then, they'd have to reduce the cargohold further to compensate. No thanks.



Back to my original point that this is an awful change in the first place. No matter what CCP does, this will be a bad change. Just leave freighters and JF the way they are.
Batolemaeus
Mahlstrom
Northern Associates.
#287 - 2014-05-17 20:32:09 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
[

Its to stop us shipping capitals into jita.


Increasing repackaged values of capital ships and sov upgrade mods is one sql query away.
Buzz Dura
S0utherN Comfort
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#288 - 2014-05-17 20:32:33 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Buzz Dura wrote:
CCP if youwant to choose between several setup to carry more load, more tank or more speed etc
why don't you forget about rigs and add low slots instead. Rigs are expensive refit !


That would still mean you get these nerfs.


Yes but you will have a choice with refit in your cargo.. I don't bring up a collection of T2 capital rigs usely...
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#289 - 2014-05-17 20:33:46 UTC
Batolemaeus wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
[

Its to stop us shipping capitals into jita.


Increasing repackaged values of capital ships and sov upgrade mods is one sql query away.


And now you just broke a bunch of other things.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#290 - 2014-05-17 20:34:55 UTC
Buzz Dura wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Buzz Dura wrote:
CCP if youwant to choose between several setup to carry more load, more tank or more speed etc
why don't you forget about rigs and add low slots instead. Rigs are expensive refit !


That would still mean you get these nerfs.


Yes but you will have a choice with refit in your cargo.. I don't bring up a collection of T2 capital rigs usely...


See this post people?

Its posts like the one above that got us this nerf.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#291 - 2014-05-17 20:35:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Dirk MacGirk wrote:
I just don't see cargo capacity, past a certain point, that significant to force projection or hurting the game. It's a necessary evil in order to keep higher-level game functionality operating.
Cargo capacity was always the limiting factor.
Initially they couldn't give freighters rigs or modules because that would allow them to transport capitals into highsec. They (somewhat) mitigated here by increasing the size of repackaged caps, but that has follow-on effects for all the stuff in the game that has to deal with those capships and it is still a limiting factor that puts an upper bound on how much they can allow us to modify our freighters.

…and that's the easy one. Everything else is part of a complex balance structure where you don't want to make ships too strong or too capable compared to everything else flying out there, and freighters were in a very good spot already. So any net buff would have to be mirrored by a net nerf.

Allison A'vani wrote:
Now that I think about it, if the changes are kept EXACTLY how they are and you add a low slot then this would be acceptable.
If they added a low slot, it would be unacceptable to keep the changes the way they are — they would have to reduce everything even further (and add more stuff to the nerf list) to compensate for all the additional abilities, exactly like they've already done to compensate for the rigs.

baltec1 wrote:
Any extra lowslot means a 20% nerf to cargo is needed on the hull.

…and an additional 50–60% nerf to hull HP, and a reduction in armour resists, and a reduction in agility, etc etc etc.
MissBehaving
Perkone
Caldari State
#292 - 2014-05-17 20:36:08 UTC
This is crap and you know it.
Allison A'vani
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#293 - 2014-05-17 20:36:10 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Buzz Dura wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Buzz Dura wrote:
CCP if youwant to choose between several setup to carry more load, more tank or more speed etc
why don't you forget about rigs and add low slots instead. Rigs are expensive refit !


That would still mean you get these nerfs.


Yes but you will have a choice with refit in your cargo.. I don't bring up a collection of T2 capital rigs usely...


See this post people?

Its posts like the one above that got us this nerf.



Dumb pubbies being dumb pubbies, what do you expect from those who ask for changes like this...
Allison A'vani
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#294 - 2014-05-17 20:37:47 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Dirk MacGirk wrote:
I just don't see cargo capacity, past a certain point, that significant to force projection or hurting the game. It's a necessary evil in order to keep higher-level game functionality operating.
Cargo capacity was always the limiting factor.
Initially they couldn't give freighters rigs or modules because that would allow them to transport capitals into highsec. They (somewhat) mitigated here by increasing the size of repackaged caps, but that has follow-on effects for all the stuff in the game that has to deal with those capships and it is still a limiting factor that puts an upper bound on how much they can allow us to modify our freighters.

…and that's the easy one. Everything else is part of a complex balance structure where you don't want to make ships too strong or too capable compared to everything else flying out there, and freighters were in a very good spot already. So any net buff would have to be mirrored by a net nerf.

Allison A'vani wrote:
Now that I think about it, if the changes are kept EXACTLY how they are and you add a low slot then this would be acceptable.
If they added a low slot, it would be unacceptable to keep the changes the way they are — they would have to reduce everything even further (and add more stuff to the nerf list) to compensate for all the additional abilities, exactly like they've already done to compensate for the rigs.



This is exactly why I have been saying for the 7 posts I made before that one, that these changes are bad to begin with and CCP should leave JF and freighters the way they are.
Khanh'rhh
Sparkle Motion.
#295 - 2014-05-17 20:39:37 UTC
Kat Ayclism wrote:
I'm not sure why that's difficult for you to understand. You could remove all of those things you're nitpicking about and the points would still stand, whereas if we removed the insults and attacks on person/affiliation from your argument we would be left with nothing supporting what you're saying.

No, you're just left with an answer you don't like, which has been my point since your bucket-of-tears opening post.
Quote:
...Not to mention, they'll never want it to be fully self-contained anyway because that negates the resource benefits of certain spaces. Kinda what I was pointing the **** out by asking you:

"And that lines up with having certain resources necessary for production only available in certain space how?"

It doesn't. I also believe that is the point; 0.0 was never meant to be homogeneous with no incentive to take and own other regions. OTEC only worked because various entities across the map worked together. If you want the ability to obtain and control certain resources without needing to blue/NIP most of the map, then it will need to be regional.
Quote:
Importing is still currently needed. They have incentivized null production, however they have DISINCENTIVIZED the logistics necessary to ACTUALLY DO SO. That means a low adoption rate by their users, which means having to fix the **** up later on and pushes off actually making any self-contained production in null viable.

Yup.
This is a valid complaint. The difference in our opinions is that I am of the belief we are in the growing-pains stage of change (andd embracing it) and you're yelling down the attempt to affect any change at all.
You can't just make importing completely non-viable overnight, you need to slowly make changes, which then make organisations do a top-down evaluation and conclude "the time has come for us to seriously look at meeting our material needs locally".

A lot more changes need to happen between here and there, but christ, don't be that guy wailing against all change, and definitely don't be that guy if you're only doing it because you don't personally think the outcome benefits you.

"Do not touch anything unnecessarily. Beware of pretty girls in dance halls and parks who may be spies, as well as bicycles, revolvers, uniforms, arms, dead horses, and men lying on roads -- they are not there accidentally." -Soviet infantry manual,

Ptrum
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#296 - 2014-05-17 20:39:39 UTC
Why cant ccp just give freighters and JF low and mid slots and lower the cargo.
It should be as if you use all cargo expenders and t1 cargo rigs you should have the cargo space as you normally do before kronos and if you do t2 rigs you should get a boost.
Why do i need to spend a few billion in t2 rigs to get back to where i started?
Kaius Fero
#297 - 2014-05-17 20:39:58 UTC
This is fukin brilliant ... it gets better and better Roll

/facepalm

Anselmo & The Illegals

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#298 - 2014-05-17 20:40:45 UTC
Allison A'vani wrote:
This is exactly why I have been saying for the 7 posts I made before that one, that these changes are bad to begin with and CCP should leave JF and freighters the way they are.

Ok. Fair enough. It's hard to keep track of who says what. Lol

And anyway, the changes they've done would not be sufficient to make up for a lowslot since you can do a whole lot more with one than you can with three rig slots, so my main point stands: no, it would not be an acceptable trade.
Mira Dawn
Easily.Offended
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#299 - 2014-05-17 20:40:45 UTC
HAHAHAHAAAAA Thank You CCP LOL

I can imagine that right how did you come up with the changes

"Ok we have no more Ideas what we can put in this ******* Addon. What can we do ? Idias, NOW!

Dev0001: Hmm, we can give more useless ships?

Masterdev: NO ! We give them ******* six Ships. We cant give them more.

Dev002: I have an Idea! I have an Idea! *jump* We give Frighter Rig Slots !

Master Dev: Hmmmm..... But then they are Better ! NO!

Dev0003: Hmm, we can nerf them so they are worse then before.

Master Dev: HHMMM ! Yes that we do!



long Story short: No one need this ****. For what we need Rigs if you nerf the Freighter atter the change?





Buzz Dura
S0utherN Comfort
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#300 - 2014-05-17 20:41:30 UTC
i see some people can't discuss without being rude...

It's just a game. Get your life back...