These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Esur A'saw Ti
Wont To Buy
#581 - 2014-05-18 07:17:06 UTC
baltec1 wrote:


Whats daft is people think 30 freighters getting ganked a month constitutes "out of control ganking".

This is entirely the fault of highsec bears, you nerfed yourselves.


Are you trolling or just terrible reading comprehsion? Being able to kill a freighter with 10 cata in highsec is stupid, I couldn't care less if you could do it against autopilot freighters tho.
It doesn't matter if it's only 30/month, imagine if you could easily kill jfs with 10 inty just camping gates with a "mobile jf interceptor 3000", people would complain because it's a bad design, same here.
Risk vs reward, having options that doesn't require alts or corpmates (since moving a freighter is tedious and unfun) all that.
Barton Breau
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#582 - 2014-05-18 07:17:53 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:

This means that Freighters can get significantly higher maximum capacity than before using rigs


Either someone correct my finger math or write up a paper what causes beancounting trump reason, trying to sell a 20% increase as "significantly higher".
Abulurd Boniface
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#583 - 2014-05-18 07:18:54 UTC
M'uva Wa'eva wrote:

What would make the choices more meaningful, rather than set and forget choices like rigging, would be if they could be achieved via regular slots and modules like almost every other ship in Eve. Then I could choose to fly through hisec with increased cargo (but at the risk of reduced EHP), or choose to reduce my cargo (but increase my tank), or buff my agility when I plan to do lots of inter-station hauling (at the cost of reduced cargo and EHP). That would lead to a variety of choices I'd have to make every time I undock my freighter, which would, to be honest, make one of the boringest professions in eve slightly more interesting and thoughtful than the brain numbering state of logistics today for many people.


This is a very sensible trade off that would give true flexibility. If it was done like this I think all objections in this thread would simply evaporate.
Kosher Jew
#584 - 2014-05-18 07:20:50 UTC
o rly stop... after great f... idea with RML.. now this Evil
Akrasjel Lanate
Immemorial Coalescence Administration
Immemorial Coalescence
#585 - 2014-05-18 07:21:15 UTC
My Obelisk Sad

You are nerfing JF, yet there is no nerf in there jump range why is that ? Blink

CEO of Lanate Industries

Citizen of Solitude
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#586 - 2014-05-18 07:21:52 UTC
Gumpy Bitterhawk wrote:
Give me 1 good reason why a 6.5 billion isk ship (7.5 soon), wich needs a second account to be able to work (cynos) is in need of nerfing? Literally, 1 good reason? It costs half a ******* super as it is already.

You know, im not sure what i like more, the old ccp that didnt lissen to their members and changed stuff around slowly but fairly, or the new ccp that wants constant input from their members and then drasticly changes **** without there being any need for it...


I found this post pretty funny
Mag's
Azn Empire
#587 - 2014-05-18 07:23:41 UTC
Gumpy Bitterhawk wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Mag's wrote:
Ahh so I was also correct and did in fact say this would happen. I shall now join the 'Told you so' group.

Always, always be careful what you wish for.

i think we're getting some t-shirts made up.


I think the 'I told you so' guys should start a new thread and start backpadding around in there, because its getting pretty annoying in this one.
We had to put up with some quite distasteful abuse, when we were informing those that asked for this change. In almost each and every thread that came along. So excuse me for laughing at your request and saying the following.

Told you so.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#588 - 2014-05-18 07:24:52 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Mag's wrote:
Ahh so I was also correct and did in fact say this would happen. I shall now join the 'Told you so' group.

Always, always be careful what you wish for.

i think we're getting some t-shirts made up.
Put me down for one. Cool

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
corbexx
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#589 - 2014-05-18 07:29:33 UTC
Alexander McKeon wrote:
Fozzie, for the love of Bob, please undo those mass increases! Keep them under 1M mass so that they can still fit through an M555 or D792 wormhole between high class w-space and hisec. You have not presented ANY compelling balance reason whatsoever for preventing wormhole residents from using freighters. Mass is not just a component in the align time calculation, it is of vital concern for it's ability to access certain regions of space.

If this change goes through as proposed we're going to see a lot of freighters stuck in wormholes until they get a lowsec connection adjacent to high, making wormhole logistics even more painful than it already is, which is not needed at all.

Edit: After a few minutes thought, these changes seem aimed at preventing Titan-bridged freighters from becoming a more economical method of transport than JFs, but that's no reason to screw over wormhole folks. Increasing max jump mass on those holes isn't possible either, or caps would enter HS through them. You can either forbid freighters from using direct C5/C6 --> HS connections, or permit titans to bridge freighters cheaply; I urge you to pick the latter.



Thanks for this, I missed it as well but have raised the issue now.

Corbexx for CSM X - Wormholes still deserve better
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#590 - 2014-05-18 07:30:53 UTC
here's a compelling balance reason: wormholes are dumb
Ghazbaran
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#591 - 2014-05-18 07:33:44 UTC
M'uva Wa'eva wrote:
Co-founder of Black Frog checking in. I probably fly jump freighters as much as nearly anyone in Eve, and I'm not quite sure how I feel yet, despite the pages of comments that have gone before me!...

...What would make the choices more meaningful, rather than set and forget choices like rigging, would be if they could be achieved via regular slots and modules like almost every other ship in Eve. Then I could choose to fly through hisec with increased cargo (but at the risk of reduced EHP), or choose to reduce my cargo (but increase my tank), or buff my agility when I plan to do lots of inter-station hauling (at the cost of reduced cargo and EHP). That would lead to a variety of choices I'd have to make every time I undock my freighter, which would, to be honest, make one of the boringest professions in eve slightly more interesting and thoughtful than the brain numbering state of logistics today for many people.


I feel comfortable with this. Rigs feel too permanent. I agree with this. The balance would not feel so bad if we could choose what we fit before we undock and refit on the go depending on daily events.
Zloco Crendraven
BALKAN EXPRESS
Shadow Cartel
#592 - 2014-05-18 07:39:27 UTC
JF are ruinng EVE. They should be nerfed eve more by not allowing them to jump drive in or out of lowsec. Nullsec alliances should rely on gathering resources in nullsec instead import everything from jita.

BALEX, bringing piracy on a whole new level.
Sipphakta en Gravonere
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#593 - 2014-05-18 07:41:09 UTC
Esur A'saw Ti wrote:

Are you trolling or just terrible reading comprehsion? Being able to kill a freighter with 10 cata in highsec is stupid, I couldn't care less if you could do it against autopilot freighters tho.


It's impossible to kill any freighter in high-sec with only 10 catalysts, assuming no war-dec or suspect flagging is involved.

Quote:
It doesn't matter if it's only 30/month, imagine if you could easily kill jfs with 10 inty just camping gates with a "mobile jf interceptor 3000", people would complain because it's a bad design, same here.
Risk vs reward, having options that doesn't require alts or corpmates (since moving a freighter is tedious and unfun) all that.


If freighter ganking was as easy and profitable as most carebears think it is, there would be a lot more people doing it.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#594 - 2014-05-18 07:44:47 UTC
Esur A'saw Ti wrote:
baltec1 wrote:


Whats daft is people think 30 freighters getting ganked a month constitutes "out of control ganking".

This is entirely the fault of highsec bears, you nerfed yourselves.


Are you trolling or just terrible reading comprehsion? Being able to kill a freighter with 10 cata in highsec is stupid, I couldn't care less if you could do it against autopilot freighters tho.
It doesn't matter if it's only 30/month, imagine if you could easily kill jfs with 10 inty just camping gates with a "mobile jf interceptor 3000", people would complain because it's a bad design, same here.
Risk vs reward, having options that doesn't require alts or corpmates (since moving a freighter is tedious and unfun) all that.


You numbers are out on how many cats are needed to kill a freighter.

Its funny how you go on about how you shouldn't need alts or corpmates to fly a freighter yet rage about a fleet being needed to kill said freighter. You arnt getting your perfect safety and your quest to get it has just backfired in everyones face.
Kumiko Kawasumi
Helios Adeptus Mechanicus
#595 - 2014-05-18 07:49:42 UTC
Alter was ist das denn für ein schwules Update. Fuc king ccp noobs. 1bil. rigs for nix ..............lol. Wer sitzt da eigendlich und denkt sich sowas aus. Sind die alles bei CCP besoffen ?.

Die save and slow......................................

MFG
Alexander McKeon
Perkone
Caldari State
#596 - 2014-05-18 07:50:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Alexander McKeon
My suggestion would be to not put rigs on freighters, but to instead give them one or more subsystem slots. This accomplishes the goal of giving freighters limited customization while vastly simplifying the balance possibilities as compared to letting them equip traditional modules. Keep the base stats of freighters as they are, or slightly nerfed in the case of JFs if their power is being intentionally checked, then provide a series of freighter-specific subsystems each with associated trade-offs (+warp speed/ -cargo capacity or +capacity/-align time, etc) This would accomplish your goal of adding meaningful choices for freighter pilots to make, NOT require high investments in expensive capital rigs which cannot be cheaply swapped around, and avoid the requirement of an across-the-board freighter nerf so as to prevent them from excelling too much in any one area after rigs have been applied.

This proposal would likely require the delay of the freighter changes to the next release, but the people who spoke to me today about unsubbing freighter alts in protest would surely thank you.
Gumpy Bitterhawk
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#597 - 2014-05-18 07:55:08 UTC
Mag's wrote:
Gumpy Bitterhawk wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Mag's wrote:
Ahh so I was also correct and did in fact say this would happen. I shall now join the 'Told you so' group.

Always, always be careful what you wish for.

i think we're getting some t-shirts made up.


I think the 'I told you so' guys should start a new thread and start backpadding around in there, because its getting pretty annoying in this one.
We had to put up with some quite distasteful abuse, when we were informing those that asked for this change. In almost each and every thread that came along. So excuse me for laughing at your request and saying the following.

Told you so.


So, what you are trying to say is, you got trolled, and thats a good excuse to **** up the thread with 'i told you so' **** every 2 or so posts? Get out.
Kumiko Kawasumi
Helios Adeptus Mechanicus
#598 - 2014-05-18 07:56:46 UTC
Nerv Fighter and JF super ccp, gz deppen.

Die save and slow..................

MFG
Mag's
Azn Empire
#599 - 2014-05-18 07:58:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Mag's
Gumpy Bitterhawk wrote:
Mag's wrote:
We had to put up with some quite distasteful abuse, when we were informing those that asked for this change. In almost each and every thread that came along. So excuse me for laughing at your request and saying the following.

Told you so.


So, what you are trying to say is, you got trolled, and thats a good excuse to **** up the thread with 'i told you so' **** every 2 or so posts? Get out.
You may wish to label the ones asking for this change, trolls. Seeing the reaction to the changes we predicted, you may indeed be correct. Which only goes to make this change even funnier.

But, we told you so. Blink

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Nex Killer
Perkone
Caldari State
#600 - 2014-05-18 08:01:12 UTC
Dirk MacGirk wrote:
Nex Killer wrote:
Nex Killer wrote:
I have a question about this change the Charon is losing about 30% of its base cargo correct? So does that mean in the BPO is it going to use 30% less capital Cargo Bays? So from needing 105 to only needing 74? Because I think that is only fair with this change and it makes sense.


In hopes of Fozzie seeing this.


LOL are you serious? Like, seriously serious. Build requirements don't go down. Not for supers or titans or anything


Yes I'm serious. Why is that crazy? Build requirements have changed in the past with other ships I don't see why they can't change for capital when is such a dramatic change like this. If freighters were only losing like 5% base cargo fine you wouldn't have to change anything, but they are losing 27-30% of their old base. That is a crazy amount seeing how half of the build requirement for a freighters is capital cargo bays. If supercarriers were to lose 30% of their drone bay I would expect to see a reduction in their build requirements of drone cargo bays.

If they were to lower the capital cargo bays required to build a freighter you'll save about ~260M in build costs and hopefully lowering the sell price a little for people. With that saved isk they can go buy some rigs, but at the moment there isn't a reason to even put rigs on fighters because the rigs themselves cost to much. Tau Cabalander explains it very well:

Tau Cabalander wrote:
I was looking forward to the ADDED CHOICE these changes would bring, but instead they REMOVE CHOICECry

Pre-Kronos Charon: 785,000
Post-Kronos Charon: 550,000

Post-Kronos Rigs:
Rig 1: No choice → Capital Cargohold Optimization II (20% for 660,000), -150 Calibration
Rig 2: No choice → Capital Cargohold Optimization II (20% for 792,000), -150 Calibration
Rig 3: Limited Choice → 100 Calibration
Cost: 1.45 billion ISK at current market prices [likely higher post-Kronos], more than the Charon itself!,

Can't fit a structure rig in the optional slot, as it will reduce cargohold /facepalm I told you that was a bad idea for a drawback.

The only logical possibility is a Capital Hyperspatial Velocity Optimizer I or II.


Now hopefully the price of rigs will go down a few with more people building them. But as of right now there isn't a real reason for people to buy 1.45B in rigs when they could buy a new freighter if they got ganked. Lowering the build price for a freighter and the lowering price of rigs will hopefully get people using rigs on their freighters.