These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#801 - 2014-05-18 16:51:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Ncc 1709 wrote:
1 lowslot on the frighter would mean , dcu as tank, cargo expander as cargo, inertia stab for agility or nano or even a Capital AAR

…put another way: a 50% nerf in base EHP; a 10–15% nerf in base cargo capacity; a 10–15% nerf in base agility; a 10–15% nerf in base armour resists; probably a couple of capacitor nerfs, etc etc etc.

That's for one lowslot. I don't want to even begin to look at what would be required to accommodate two of them.
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#802 - 2014-05-18 16:52:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Dracvlad
Daichi Yamato wrote:
Ncc 1709 wrote:
1 lowslot on the frighter would mean , dcu as tank, cargo expander as cargo, inertia stab for agility or nano or even a Capital AAR


one of these is disproportionately more powerful than the others.


The DCU II of course, but it is a common perception that it is just too easy to gank freighters and Jump Freighters, except for the gankbears of course...

But why nerf it, it will make it a challenge for you gankbears, you want a challenge don't you?

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#803 - 2014-05-18 16:54:19 UTC
Wulfy Johnson wrote:

Assuming freighters are in such a good state as of today that nerfs are needed to allow them player chosen buffs.


That's not an assumption. Cargohold can NOT be permitted above a certain level. Tank too. The agility can stand to be increased a bit, but it's the exception.

Quote:

Damage controll to get them trough risky systems or carrying around 4-5 t1 bs hulls, where the value has reached the grey area for ganking, cargo expanders when carrying ord and minerals or other high volume low value goods, inertia for house cleaning.

These nerfs are not needed as the ship wont get "overpowered"


Yeah, it would become overpowered immediately. You would have to nerf each area that could be improved with a module, by only slightly less than the extreme of the module can provide a benefit.

Cargo expanders for example. The T2 can give 27.5% bonus, yes? So if they got a lowslot, they'd have to lose about 23% cargo to keep them under the capital carrying mark.

Same thing with tank. A DC2 would give it so much more EHP that it's overall tank would have to be nerfed close to 40% to compensate.

And in the end all you do is lose.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Ray Kyonhe
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#804 - 2014-05-18 16:54:31 UTC
Vhelnik Cojoin wrote:
Ray Kyonhe wrote:
Until someone will start to actually do what you refer to as infeasible and cut the prices, of course.

You mean similar to how local prices on the street go down in the real world, when local trade barriers go up?

I don't think so...

More like someone will make additional efforts locally you don't want to do yourself and win the market.

Survey/voting system inbuilt to the game client: link_Reforming corp and taxation system: link_New PvE content (reward collective gameplay): link
Maldiro Selkurk
Radiation Sickness
#805 - 2014-05-18 17:00:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Maldiro Selkurk
Ammzi wrote:
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:


Are we getting mods so we get the flexibility we wanted at the cost of paying for rigs and mods....NO!


I fear on behalf of all freighter pilots the day they can use a low slot module.

Take a watermelon, let it represent the ehp of a freighter.
Now take an axe to the watermelon and you get to pick the smallest of the two sizes as your new freighter ehp after being given a low slot.


Thanks, this is exactly what I want: choices !

I want gank pilots to have to scan my Charon to see what defenses (or lack thereof) I have on my ship. I want them to do more than have a static setup for ganking every Charon they see because they know exactly what defenses it is using because that setup cannot be changed.

Yes, i realize it will cost ISK, yes I'm prepared to pay that cost even if it means capital cost outlays, yes I fully understand what I'm asking for CCP to do as far as freighters are concerned.

This will also be more interesting for gankers (i put this in because they always seem so concerned for we high sec players getting bored or something), because now they have to have a fleet of different ship set ups and scan ships and make important decisions like, lets let this one pass it is too defense heavy, another will be along shortly with weaker defenses and we'll gank that one or lets gank this guy he is running full shiny and maybe we'll get lucky on drops.

Yawn,  I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#806 - 2014-05-18 17:02:25 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Wulfy Johnson wrote:

Assuming freighters are in such a good state as of today that nerfs are needed to allow them player chosen buffs.

That's not an assumption. Cargohold can NOT be permitted above a certain level. Tank too. The agility can stand to be increased a bit, but it's the exception.

It's bizarre, really.

Here, in this very thread, we have indisputable evidence of what kind of nerfs are required to accommodate something as relatively benign as rigs. They offer rather small bonuses and they are fairly inflexible.

Now people are appalled by these (ultimately rather small) nerfs and want to see even more capable stat boosts instead, still apparently completely oblivious to the connection between allowing boosts and the nerfs that will have to accompany them. How does that conclusion even happen?! Ugh

Why could people not just leave the poor master-at-everything freighters alone. Cry
NinjaStyle
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#807 - 2014-05-18 17:03:15 UTC  |  Edited by: NinjaStyle
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey everyone, here's the skinny on the rebalance to Freighters and Jump Freighters. As we announced at the Fanfest keynote, a big part of this rebalance is the ability to use rigs.

To compensate for the ability to use rigs, the base capacity of all Freighters and Jump Freighters is going down, by between 27 and 30%.
This means that Freighters can get significantly higher maximum capacity than before using rigs, and we're increasing the volume of packaged capital ships (to 1.3 million m3) and unpackaged station containers (to 2 million m3) to compensate.
Because Jump Freighters only have two rig slots their maximum cargo is only going to be about 4% higher than current (with T2 rigs) and with T1 cargo rigs their cargo holds will be between 4 and 7% smaller than current.

Base HP is dropping on all of these ships, but by a much smaller percentage than cargo. They are gaining armor and shield, and losing some hull. This is especially noticeable on the JFs, which are now getting racial T2 resists to armor and shield at the same level as Marauders. The extra resists mean that Jump Freighters end up with about the same EHP as before.


if you had to nerf them THIS MUTCH just to give us 3 or 2 lousy Rig slots IT WAS NOT WORTH GETTING.

the fact you had to nerf everything to not make 1 single thing to powerfull speaks VOLUMES to how terribly executed this is and thats only if you focus all the rigs towards this single thing and yet we are stuck with all the other nerfs if we do?! yeah thats GREAT but not worth the rig slots!!! it allso seems no consideration has been given to the fact that capital rigs might be expencive and that the bonus from these should be suffecient to atleast show up overall rather than in 'nerfed unless you go full t2 on a JF' and yet as I mentioned that 1 thing you rig for is the only thing slightly better???? Not worth the Rigs to lose so mutch!

edit: was it even taken into consideration that the rigs themselves allso come with negative side effects just to use? so either way you will further nerf your ship just to try to regain some of the lost! This really looks terrible in any way I look at it! to think I looked forward to rigs on these ships!
Dave Stark
#808 - 2014-05-18 17:03:25 UTC
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:
I want gank pilots to have to scan my Charon to see what defenses (or lack thereof) I have on my ship.

so you're willing to take a massive freighter nerf, just so gankers have to click 1 more button before they gank you?
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#809 - 2014-05-18 17:04:07 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
Lets repeat what you said
…and notice that it is not even remotely what you claimed I said. That was just some nonsense you made up because you couldn't provide any kind of coherent point or counter-argument.

Quote:
The changes being imposed by Fozzie are in fact
“In fact?” What do you base that on?


I cannot for the life of me work out why you think that improving industry in null sec does not mean making it so they produce items in null sec, your sentence is complete trash, which is why you edited it out when you made that statement, lets reapt it again to expose your woeful ignorance:

Tippia wrote:
The big nullsec alliances weren't particularly fussed about industry being local — they just wanted null industry to not be a thoroughly braindead proposition... .


As for the reduction is usability and efficiency of Jump Freighters, why would they do that? That has to be a reason above just tinkering with things that if you look at it at face value could have been left alone, but no they tinkered with it and to what ends, it sure is not to make them more difficult to gank, as if CCP would ever do something as sensible as that.

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#810 - 2014-05-18 17:05:07 UTC
Tippia wrote:

Why could people not just leave the poor master-at-everything freighters alone. Cry


Read the post above yours.

Not sure if it's stupidity transcending hopefulness, or hopefulness transcending stupidity.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Wulfy Johnson
NorCorp Security
#811 - 2014-05-18 17:06:31 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Wulfy Johnson wrote:

Assuming freighters are in such a good state as of today that nerfs are needed to allow them player chosen buffs.


That's not an assumption. Cargohold can NOT be permitted above a certain level. Tank too. The agility can stand to be increased a bit, but it's the exception.

Quote:

Damage controll to get them trough risky systems or carrying around 4-5 t1 bs hulls, where the value has reached the grey area for ganking, cargo expanders when carrying ord and minerals or other high volume low value goods, inertia for house cleaning.

These nerfs are not needed as the ship wont get "overpowered"


Yeah, it would become overpowered immediately. You would have to nerf each area that could be improved with a module, by only slightly less than the extreme of the module can provide a benefit.

Cargo expanders for example. The T2 can give 27.5% bonus, yes? So if they got a lowslot, they'd have to lose about 23% cargo to keep them under the capital carrying mark.

Same thing with tank. A DC2 would give it so much more EHP that it's overall tank would have to be nerfed close to 40% to compensate.

And in the end all you do is lose.



Cargo i can agree on beeing adjusted to not hitting the barrier, but the tank and inertia is needless to go after as all it does is having gankers need to prepare more and lift the grey area more. So how many more gankships are needed would you say?
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
#812 - 2014-05-18 17:07:09 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:
I want gank pilots to have to scan my Charon to see what defenses (or lack thereof) I have on my ship.

so you're willing to take a massive freighter nerf, just so gankers have to click 1 more button before they gank you?



They could always just make freighters immune to scanning

That would cause a ruckus, but would be more in line with the risk/reward

Freighter ganking has zero risk, except maybe the loot fairy, and all the rewards
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat
Working Stiffs
#813 - 2014-05-18 17:07:49 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Ok thanks to the goodposters in this thread so far. I'll definitely be taking the feedback here into account.

I currently own 4 Charons and 2 Rhea.

Fozzie, how about rig drawback role bonuses? This way you could have finer control over the effects to freighters vs. jump freighters.
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#814 - 2014-05-18 17:08:08 UTC
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:
Ammzi wrote:
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:


Are we getting mods so we get the flexibility we wanted at the cost of paying for rigs and mods....NO!


I fear on behalf of all freighter pilots the day they can use a low slot module.

Take a watermelon, let it represent the ehp of a freighter.
Now take an axe to the watermelon and you get to pick the smallest of the two sizes as your new freighter ehp after being given a low slot.


Thanks, this is exactly what I want: choices !

I want gank pilots to have to scan my Charon to see what defenses (or lack thereof) I have on my ship. I want them to do more than have a static setup for ganking every Charon they see because they know exactly what defenses it is using because that setup cannot be changed.

Yes, i realize it will cost ISK, yes I'm prepared to pay that cost even if it means capital cost outlays, yes I fully understand what I'm asking for CCP to do as far as freighters are concerned.

This will also be more interesting for gankers (i put this in because they always seem so concerned for we high sec players getting bored or something), because now they have to have a fleet of different ship set ups and scan ships and make important decisions like, lets let this one pass it is too defense heavy, another will be along shortly with weaker defenses and we'll gank that one or lets gank this guy he is running full shiny and maybe we'll get lucky on drops.


It does not matter they are set up to gank the ship as it is now, there is a slight increase in defensive ability if you fit T2 rigs, big deal!

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#815 - 2014-05-18 17:08:43 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:
Daichi Yamato wrote:
Ncc 1709 wrote:
1 lowslot on the frighter would mean , dcu as tank, cargo expander as cargo, inertia stab for agility or nano or even a Capital AAR


one of these is disproportionately more powerful than the others.


The DCU II of course, but it is a common perception that it is just too easy to gank freighters and Jump Freighters, except for the gankbears of course...

But why nerf it, it will make it a challenge for you gankbears, you want a challenge don't you?


common misconception. and i am a freighter pilot.

why nerf either? why buff either? things were fine.

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
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#816 - 2014-05-18 17:08:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Dracvlad wrote:
I cannot for the life of me work out why you think that improving industry in null sec does not mean making it so they produce items in null sec
That's because it's just some incoherent nonsense you've made up for god knows what reason, rather than something I've actually said. If you stop arguing against your own inventions and instead just calmly read what I wrote, it's actually very very easy to understand.

You have yet to provide any kind of counter-argument to what I actually said. Maybe you should try doing that, hmm…? If there's any particular part you fail to process for whatever reason, just ask. I won't bite.

Quote:
As for the reduction is usability and efficiency of Jump Freighters, why would they do that?
Because it's required if they want to add rigs to them, like so many people have been asking them to do.
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#817 - 2014-05-18 17:10:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Dracvlad
Tippia wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
I cannot for the life of me work out why you think that improving industry in null sec does not mean making it so they produce items in null sec
That's because it's just some incoherent nonsense you've made up for god knows what reason, rather than something I've actually said. If you stop arguing against your own inventions and instead just calmly read what I wrote, it's actually very very easy to understand.

You have yet to provide any kind of counter-argument to what I actually said. Maybe you should try doing that, hmm…? If there's any particular part you fail to process for whatever, just ask. I won't bite.

Quote:
As for the reduction is usability and efficiency of Jump Freighters, why would they do that?
Because it's required if they want to add rigs to them, like so many people have been asking them to do.


Into insults, shows you are losing the plot there, also I noticed you removed that quote again so I will add it back:

Tippia wrote:
The big nullsec alliances weren't particularly fussed about industry being local — they just wanted null industry to not be a thoroughly braindead proposition... .


ShockedBig smileRollLol

As for your comment on rigs, why the hell would people ask for rigs when there was massive increased cost and no benefit, I have Freighters and Jump Freighters and I never asked for rigs that cost me a fortune, and if I fitted T2 would give me a slight benefit, makes sense to me, not!

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#818 - 2014-05-18 17:11:10 UTC
Kenneth Feld wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:
I want gank pilots to have to scan my Charon to see what defenses (or lack thereof) I have on my ship.

so you're willing to take a massive freighter nerf, just so gankers have to click 1 more button before they gank you?



They could always just make freighters immune to scanning

That would cause a ruckus, but would be more in line with the risk/reward

Freighter ganking has zero risk, except maybe the loot fairy, and all the rewards


First of all, it's not zero. Concord will destroy your ship 100% of the time, so the risk is 100%. Steps taken to mitigate the effects of that risk is called smart gameplay.

Secondly, ganking is only as easy, and as profitable, as bad players make it for us.

Thirdly, I have seen 8 billion isk killmails that drop less than 300mil. It does happen, and since the possibility of that happening is NOT zero, that means that risk is in fact involved in any gank, regardless of how much the freighter is hauling.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Dave Stark
#819 - 2014-05-18 17:12:03 UTC
Kenneth Feld wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:
I want gank pilots to have to scan my Charon to see what defenses (or lack thereof) I have on my ship.

so you're willing to take a massive freighter nerf, just so gankers have to click 1 more button before they gank you?



They could always just make freighters immune to scanning

That would cause a ruckus, but would be more in line with the risk/reward

Freighter ganking has zero risk, except maybe the loot fairy, and all the rewards


so the answer is no?
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#820 - 2014-05-18 17:13:42 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:
Into insults
So stop using them. I'll keep repeating it until you get with the program: you have yet to provide any kind of counter-argument to what I actually said. Maybe you should try doing that, hmm…? If there's any particular part you fail to process for whatever, just ask. I won't bite.

If you keep going with the nonsensical fallacies, you will never accomplish anything.