These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Regan Rotineque
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#101 - 2014-05-17 17:55:17 UTC
Batolemaeus wrote:
Regan Rotineque wrote:
Yes we will be making more things there


How exactly?

Am I supposed to extract non-local isotopes from my behind? Will non-local T2 materials into being? Found a praying circle to wish for a divine delivery of non-local rig parts? Perform a summoning of faction modules? Sacrifice a newbie in hopes for plentiful datacore harvest? Wish for decryptors?


Point taken - you are correct - i can see more basic needs being met in null - on the t1/ammo side but anything that requires the luxuries that ONLY exist in high sec markets is going to take its toll - and be more expensive.

Why would I ever do research or anything in null ? Its going to cost me more to stay in null when i can just set up my pos in some ass backwards part of high sec and let my alts toil there.

I can move t2 products around high sec much more efficiently and cheaply so t2 production stays in and around high sec.

And we still end up exporting to null - just costing us more in jump fuel - which in turn ends up being paid by the line grunt - who may or may not see any point in fleeting up anymore since his bomber now costs 100m isk. (im being sarcastic now)




Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#102 - 2014-05-17 17:55:22 UTC
Told you so.

e: Dammit!! Missed by one post again. Cry
Nightingale Actault
Borderland Dynamics
#103 - 2014-05-17 17:55:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Nightingale Actault
Excellent changes.

Freighter pilots now have to choose between tank, cargo, time into warp, or warp speed. If you were filling your cargo full before you were likely doing it wrong anyways creating a giant gank target, and by going max cargo after the changes you are doing the same. Choosing to cut short time from your align or massive combined time from your warp speed is another choice that freighter pilots will need to ask themselves. With the changes to warp speed affecting freighters the way they have, I definitely like the option of choosing a safe amount of materials to transport at a faster warp speed for less total transport time.
Dave Stark
#104 - 2014-05-17 17:56:02 UTC
Aliath Sunstrike wrote:
Can't this be a "power creep" buff all across the board and just ADD rigs. Why does it have to be #[email protected]#@ $ painful.

no, power creeps are bad.
Powers Sa
#105 - 2014-05-17 17:56:13 UTC
Kat Ayclism wrote:
These changes are ******* stupid. Can you stop just changing things to change things? It does not validate your work to be screwing up the things that are right when there's other ships that actually need the rebalancing efforts.

Also, again these changes are at cross odds with the supposed intent to make localized production more possible in null- YOU STILL WILL ALWAYS HAVE TO IMPORT/EXPORT.


So your solution?
LOL EVERYTHING USES MORE FUEL AND ALL THE JFS CAN HOLD LESS AND ARE LESS AGILE


Stop swinging around like a 5yo in the dark with a baseball bat. This isn't quality balancing, it's dogshit

lmao

Do you like winning t2 frigs and dictors for Dirt Cheap?https://eveninggames.net/register/ref/dQddmNgyLhFBqNJk

Remeber: Gambling addiction is no laughing matter unless you've lost a vast space fortune on the internet.

Sigras
Conglomo
#106 - 2014-05-17 17:58:03 UTC
Abrazzar wrote:
Batolemaeus wrote:
Abrazzar wrote:
So, what's better: Resistance rigs or trimarks for my Providence? Kinetic or thermal or explosive? Decisions, decisions.


Hull rigs (if released) and implants. It's a no-brainer, really. Has always been.

But my hull hitpoints just got nerfed while my armor got boosted. Makes no sense to stick with hull when I can't have the benefit of resistances with it. There are no hull resist rigs.

it doesnt matter, on the most armor tanky freighter (the ark) your resist profile gives you 71,820 armor EHP while you still have 111,000 hull (before skills)

This means that a T2 trimark will give you 14,364 extra EHP, and a T2 hull HP rig will give you 27,750 EHP

The only time I can see trimarks being better would be if you had a damnation follow you around with links on.
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#107 - 2014-05-17 17:58:08 UTC
Nightingale Actault wrote:
Excellent changes.

Freighter pilots now have to choose between tank, time into warp, or warp speed. If you were filling your cargo full before you were likely doing it wrong anyways creating a giant gank target, and by going max cargo after the changes you are doing the same. Choosing to cut short time from your align or massive combined time from your warp speed is another choice that freighter pilots will need to ask themselves. With the changes to warp speed affecting freighters the way they have, I definitely like the option of choosing a safe amount of materials to transport at a faster warp speed for less total transport time.


Filling your freighter with Tritanium worth 400M makes you a big gank target? Please give me something from your mushrooms. Smile

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.

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#108 - 2014-05-17 17:59:23 UTC
Aliath Sunstrike wrote:
And my question to Fozzie is....why make it a nerf!? Can't this be a "power creep" buff all across the board and just ADD rigs. Why does it have to be #[email protected]#@ $ painful.

Because it wouldn't be “power creep” — it would be a ridiculously overpowered mega-buff. Counter-balancing the potential bonuses from rigs with nerfs to ensure that the end results were not insane was inevitable.

…oh, and power creep itself is bad, especially for a ship class that didn't particularly need any buffs.
Nightingale Actault
Borderland Dynamics
#109 - 2014-05-17 18:01:26 UTC
Rivr Luzade wrote:
Nightingale Actault wrote:
Excellent changes.

Freighter pilots now have to choose between tank, time into warp, or warp speed. If you were filling your cargo full before you were likely doing it wrong anyways creating a giant gank target, and by going max cargo after the changes you are doing the same. Choosing to cut short time from your align or massive combined time from your warp speed is another choice that freighter pilots will need to ask themselves. With the changes to warp speed affecting freighters the way they have, I definitely like the option of choosing a safe amount of materials to transport at a faster warp speed for less total transport time.


Filling your freighter with Tritanium worth 400M makes you a big gank target? Please give me something from your mushrooms. Smile


Choosing one of the cheapest materials you would be transporting is a great way to counter my point, however I don't believe that a majority of the items being transported are going to be along these same lines.

Additionally, and off that topic, I believe these changes are also a great way to increase the viability of localized nullsec manufacturing. If less items are being JF into nullsec it will give greater opportunity for those items to be created locally at profitable levels.
Dr Drugs
Perkone
Caldari State
#110 - 2014-05-17 18:01:27 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Tippia wrote:
See… there was a reason why I was against rigs on freighters from the very start… Straight

T2 capital rigs and a significant reduction in survivability requried and/or speed to get them back to where they were. Gee thanks.


T1 rigs are easily enough to bring normal freighters above their current cargo values.


what about drawback on cargo rigs ?
l0rd carlos
the king asked me to guard the mountain
Silent Company
#111 - 2014-05-17 18:01:28 UTC
As a non freighter Pilot I like those changes.
Now people have to decide if they want max cargo, max agility or max tank.

It adds a choice to the game :)

Youtube Channel about Micro and Small scale PvP with commentary: Fleet Commentary by l0rd carlos

Cardano Firesnake
Fire Bullet Inc
#112 - 2014-05-17 18:02:08 UTC
So I will have to rig my Fenrir with capital rigs to have the same cargohold or to make it more tanky but so slow that it will be a pain to transport anything.
As if it was not already horrible to transport things with a freighter....

Posted - 2010.07.01 11:24:00 - [4] Erase learning skills, remap all SP. That's all.

T-N-T
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#113 - 2014-05-17 18:02:21 UTC
So many carebears tears! P
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate
#114 - 2014-05-17 18:03:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Dirk MacGirk
Keep your rigs. If you're going to go full popsicle with the changes to compensate, I'm just not sure any of it was worth it. Drawbacks on rigs are one thing, but seriously, nothing good has come of this.

Those cheers you heard at FanFest? Silenced, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in utter fricken disbelief. I fear something terrible has happened.
Qoi
Exert Force
#115 - 2014-05-17 18:03:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Qoi
Edit: This post was assuming that Cargo rigs are stacking penalised. I changed it accordingly.

To offset a 30% nerf, you need a 43% increase with rigs. T1 Rigs only give you 45% more and T2 rigs will give you 55%.

With the full investment (doubling your freighter price) you will get about 9% more cargo on a Charon than before. You will also have slower align times, less EHP. And don't forget that cargo rigs nerf armor tanks.

http://eve-industry.org

Zebs Clone
Zebra Corp
Goonswarm Federation
#116 - 2014-05-17 18:05:08 UTC
l0rd carlos wrote:
As a non freighter Pilot I like those changes.
Now people have to decide if they want max cargo, max agility or max tank.

It adds a choice to the game :)



in a way yes. I now need 2 jf's and 2 freighters. one for cargo and one for everything else. so that's one expensive choice.

better to just leave them as they are and cancel the rig changes for them imo
Batolemaeus
Mahlstrom
Northern Associates.
#117 - 2014-05-17 18:05:26 UTC
Nightingale Actault wrote:

Additionally, and off that topic, I believe these changes are also a great way to increase the viability of localized nullsec manufacturing. If less items are being JF into nullsec it will give greater opportunity for those items to be created locally at profitable levels.


I did a short look through my "shipping manifests" in recent times. About 10% of my cargo could have been produced in 0.0. Mostly ships and some ammo.

So...how exactly is this supposed to improve 0.0 manufacturing?
Dave Stark
#118 - 2014-05-17 18:05:31 UTC
Dirk MacGirk wrote:
Those cheers you heard at FanFest? Silenced, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in utter fricken disbelief. I fear something terrible has happened.


what disbelief? you've been told for a long time that this would happen.
T-N-T
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#119 - 2014-05-17 18:06:02 UTC
funny thing what only nulli goons and pl doesnt like these changes))others fine with them
Vivi Udan
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#120 - 2014-05-17 18:08:32 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:

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.
...
Let us know what you think!



Call me crazy but I don't want to spend $7,000,000,000+ isk on a Jump Freighter anymore. The only rigs that seem to be viable on a JF are cargo rigs and if T1 rigs are going to REDUCE the overall cargo compacity [T2 cargo rigs only cost $732,949,999.98 isk in Jita right now] than what was the point of adding rig slots in the first place?

The only reason [I can think of] to but something other than cargo rigs on a JF is if you plan on flying it into High Sec...where you you might as well use a normal Freighter/Red Frog.

I am confused by this proposition for Jump Freighters.

The Mittani of House GoonWaffe, First of His name, King of the Goons and VFK, Master of griefing, Lord of the CFC, Warden of the West, and Protector of Deklein.