These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Ben Hatton
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#1181 - 2014-05-19 14:36:33 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Ben Hatton wrote:
So, basically, this change is going to happen in one way or another. To present a player backd solution to the change we dont like, do we throw our weight behind Mynnna's numbers or what? Cause we need to come up with a coherent counter proposal and move on from all this other fluff.

Like I said, this will happen, we need to band together and make it happen in a better way.


the optimal solution is for freighters to be left the hell alone, and for people to think before they ask for changes.



Agreed, but that's not going to happen so lets move onto how it should happen and come up with something better. IMO, ppl should be liking Mynnna post so it gets some love
Valterra Craven
#1182 - 2014-05-19 14:37:23 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Valterra Craven wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Valterra Craven wrote:
Right. I never said anything about orcas in any of my posts.

might want to check your posting history.

such as here

Valterra Craven wrote:
Because an orca has 500k m3???




Context. You offered an incorrect rebuttal to an idea post that I offered as an alternative to these changes. You were the one that brought up Orcas not me. Without your foolish post offering up the orca as a suitable alternative to my thoughts, these two pages of me stating what orca's actually do and don't do wouldn't exist.

Read the original post I made. There was no mention of Orca's or DST's or any other hauling ship.

I will say that you might have had a point way back when carrier hauling was a thing and JF's didn't exist. But that day has long come and gone.


context? you said you didn't mention the orca in any of your posts (plural), we proved that you did.


This might make things clearer: (since forgetting words is bad)

I didn't mention the orca in any of my "original" posts. I wasn't whining about what the orca could or could not do. I didn't bring up the orca. You did.
Dave Stark
#1183 - 2014-05-19 14:37:34 UTC
Ben Hatton wrote:
but that's not going to happen

based on the fact that in their current state, freighters are fine and don't need any changes what so ever. i think it's a possibility.
Dave Stark
#1184 - 2014-05-19 14:38:34 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:
This might make things clearer: (since forgetting words is bad)

I didn't mention the orca in any of my "original" posts. I wasn't whining about what the orca could or could not do. I didn't bring up the orca. You did.

let's just clear things up easily; you were wrong.
we proved it.
Azami Nevinyrall
172.0.0.1
#1185 - 2014-05-19 14:38:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Azami Nevinyrall
Valterra Craven wrote:
Azami Nevinyrall wrote:
Valterra Craven wrote:

Make smaller new freighters.


I'll say this slowly for you...

DEEP SPACE TRANSPORT SHIPS!

-OR-

ORCA


I'll say this slowly for you... none of those ships do 500k m3.


So, you want a new ship line, that is smaller/faster/hold/tanky then current ships?

I like your argument to WHY it should be in the game...

Also...Orca

36,000 Cargo
+ 400,000 Ship Bay
+ 40,000 Fleet Hangar
+ 50,000 Ore Hold
= 526,000...!!!!!1!!!!oneone1!!

So, yes it does technically have....slightly more then 500,000 m3

Also...it has a tank!
Drone bay
Battle Orca capabilities
...3 reasons why I'd HAPPILY fly an Orca over a Freighter.......at a fraction of the price!

...

Valterra Craven
#1186 - 2014-05-19 14:48:11 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Valterra Craven wrote:
This might make things clearer: (since forgetting words is bad)

I didn't mention the orca in any of my "original" posts. I wasn't whining about what the orca could or could not do. I didn't bring up the orca. You did.

let's just clear things up easily; you were wrong.
we proved it.


You proved I was wrong about what exactly?
Valterra Craven
#1187 - 2014-05-19 14:50:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Valterra Craven
Azami Nevinyrall wrote:
Valterra Craven wrote:
Azami Nevinyrall wrote:
Valterra Craven wrote:

Make smaller new freighters.


I'll say this slowly for you...

DEEP SPACE TRANSPORT SHIPS!

-OR-

ORCA


I'll say this slowly for you... none of those ships do 500k m3.


So, you want a new ship line, that is smaller/faster/hold/tanky then current ships?

I like your argument to WHY it should be in the game...

Also...Orca

36,000 Cargo
+ 400,000 Ship Bay
+ 40,000 Fleet Hangar
+ 50,000 Ore Hold
= 526,000...!!!!!1!!!!oneone1!!

So, yes it does technically have....slightly more then 500,000 m3

Also...it has a tank!
Drone bay
Battle Orca capabilities
...3 reasons why I'd HAPPILY fly an Orca over a Freighter.......at a fraction of the price!


If you are going to compare apples to apples an Orca has exactly 76km3 cargo (without modifiers)

Also if you noticed in my orginal post, the goal was never to get a tankier ship or one that had combat abilities. The ship I mentioned would have half the cargo and half the TANK but would allow customization.
Maldiro Selkurk
Radiation Sickness
#1188 - 2014-05-19 14:50:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Maldiro Selkurk
mynnna wrote:

"Why not modules instead" is a bit of a common question, so on a whim I threw together a concept for just that.


This is a solution headed in the right direction, controls costs and provides flexibility (toss in a few custom freighter only mods and this is win).

p.s. obligatory.....grrr goons!

Yawn,  I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.

Dave Stark
#1189 - 2014-05-19 14:52:04 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Valterra Craven wrote:
This might make things clearer: (since forgetting words is bad)

I didn't mention the orca in any of my "original" posts. I wasn't whining about what the orca could or could not do. I didn't bring up the orca. You did.

let's just clear things up easily; you were wrong.
we proved it.


You proved I was wrong about what exactly?


read the posts and find out.
Valterra Craven
#1190 - 2014-05-19 14:52:30 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Valterra Craven wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Valterra Craven wrote:
This might make things clearer: (since forgetting words is bad)

I didn't mention the orca in any of my "original" posts. I wasn't whining about what the orca could or could not do. I didn't bring up the orca. You did.

let's just clear things up easily; you were wrong.
we proved it.


You proved I was wrong about what exactly?


read the posts and find out.


I will when you do.
Dave Stark
#1191 - 2014-05-19 14:59:15 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Valterra Craven wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Valterra Craven wrote:
This might make things clearer: (since forgetting words is bad)

I didn't mention the orca in any of my "original" posts. I wasn't whining about what the orca could or could not do. I didn't bring up the orca. You did.

let's just clear things up easily; you were wrong.
we proved it.


You proved I was wrong about what exactly?


read the posts and find out.


I will when you do.


get on with it then, reading it was how i proved you wrong.

alternatively: you could just really suck at english and have no idea what's going on, i guess.
Aureus Ahishatsu
Deadspace Knights
#1192 - 2014-05-19 14:59:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Aureus Ahishatsu
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.


Yes, but now it will take two t2 cargo rigs required to even get to the current freighter capacities. TBH this is a pretty hefty kick in the balls to anyone with a freighter pilot. allow me to explain

I'll use a fenrir for this example since I own one and did the calculations. Because most people won't switch ammo when ganking a freighter, I took each of the 4 damage types and calculated roughly what the total EHP would be if you were using only that damage type. Below are the results. Note: these do not take the individual skill or implants into account.

Current Fenrir

Type Shield Armor Total (100,000 hp added for hull which has no resist so same for all types)
em 5625 34,000 139,625
therm 6750 28,687 135,437
kinetic 7875 26,562 134,437
exp 8437 23,375 131,812

New Fenrir
Type Shield Armor Total (82,500 hp added for hull which has no resist so same for all types)
em 10000 44,800 137,300
therm 12000 37,800 132,300
kinetic 14000 35,000 131500
exp 15000 30,800 128,300

So as you can see the ship just received a few thousand EHP nerf to begin with. And lost 200,000m3 of space to go along with it hassah! looks like all that armor is gonna take up some of that precious storage space. This nerf gets amplified though once you start putting on any of the rigs that one would expect to be on a freighter such as astro rigs which all reduce armor. the result drops the EHP down to barely over 120K. I would expect that for someone going for max cargo with 3 cargo rigs but with calibration t2 ones won't be possible and now a pilot will be required to fit either 3 t1 rigs or 2 t2 rigs JUST to get to the current capacities of freighters.

Lets assume the best and your freighter pilot is capable of If using just the t2 rigs. You use 2 t2 cargo rigs to get JUST ABOVE what the current fenrir capacity is. We'll throw in a t2 trimark rig then to compensate for the armor loss of the first two rigs but now you're slower. So now you have a freighter that can barely hold more than the current one. has less of a tank and travels slower..... I honestly was expected there to be a slight nerf to the cargo and tank to compensate for the fact you can boost these now but this is a little much I think. I would rather have the freighters have more base cargo with a 50% reduction in the effectiveness of cargo rigs.

And before someone points out yes you could instead swap the trimark for a t2 hull hp rig to come out which would push the freighter slightly over it's current EHP however the hull rigs have already stated they would reduce cargo as a penalty so you would essentially have counter boosting rigs at that point.
Axe Coldon
#1193 - 2014-05-19 15:06:00 UTC
Sniper Smith wrote:
M'uva Wa'eva wrote:
If there was a concer about subcaps gaining the warp speed rig, it could be handled like the Covert Ops Cloak for bombers, etc... with an absurdly high CPU requirement offset with a 100% reduction in CPU fitting cost for the freighter class.

They removed the CPU Requirement being the limiting factor a few updates ago.. it's now a "Can be fitted to" field.. As people found a way to make an Avatar fit it with the right Officer CPU mods lol.

But I agree..

OR, you can give it negative effects.. Max locked targets to 0, or something.. Would also be nice as you could still fit it, to quickly move a BS or something, but not viable in combat conditions. Give it a penalty to cargo so you still have to pick between space and speed..


Holy Cow that is brilliant. Fit to any ship but max locked targets is ZERO. For moving around lows (in bs) could be warp stabs and warp modules. Though for dps could still use smart bombs. they don't require a lock. but that shouldn't be much of a concern.

No trees were killed in the sending of this message. However, a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.

Valterra Craven
#1194 - 2014-05-19 15:11:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Valterra Craven
Dave Stark wrote:

get on with it then, reading it was how i proved you wrong.


Here are my posts in this thread from the last few days

wrote:

#1062 Posted: 2014.05.19 00:56

Fozzie, I know you guys see these posts, and I know you can't comment on everything, and lastly I know that introducing art assets to the game takes time. However this is my proposal and will likely be far more appeasing to all parties involved than the current changes.

Leave the current freighters as they are.

Make smaller new freighters.

Make them have half the cargo, hit points, align time and build cost and double the warp speed.

Give them 3 rig slots

Win

OR

Leave the current freighters alone

Make ONE new freighter in the ORE line with the above stats and say that ORE needed something with better agility for deep space mining or some mobo jumbo like that.


#1183 Posted: 2014.05.19 13:26

I Love Boobies wrote:


Already in game... it's called an Orca.

Because an orca has 500k m3???


#1191 Posted: 2014.05.19 13:41




Azami Nevinyrall wrote:

I'll say this slowly for you...

DEEP SPACE TRANSPORT SHIPS!

-OR-

ORCA

I'll say this slowly for you... none of those ships do 500k m3.


#1196 Posted: 2014.05.19 13:47

Tippia wrote:

If you just want a sturdier, faster ship with half the cargo, JFs pretty much do that already. Orcas do about half of what a JF does (if we ignore the ship hangar). DSTs do about half of whan an Orca does.

The goal here is to comprise.

People wanted riggable freighters and those of us that are sane don't want these massive across the board nerfs.

JFs cost 7-8x times as much as regular freighters.

These would cost around the same as orcas, wouldnt have the boosting of orcas and would be totally devoted to hauling.

Personally I want nothing to change here at all, but I'm trying to come up with reasonable solutions.


No where did I bring up Orca's. In each of these posts I am responding to someone else that is bringing up a false equivalency arguments. Orcas can not do the same job as freighters. DST and other haulers can not do the same jobs as freighters. They still wouldn't be competitive with the riggable mini freighter I'm fighting for.

What I want is for this change to not to go through and freighters be left alone. In loo of that I'm proposing that instead of nerfing a class across the board to give people what they've foolishly been asking for that instead we create an already nerfed ship that has what these people want. Case close.
Falkor1984
The Love Dragons
#1195 - 2014-05-19 15:13:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Falkor1984
/Me shakes his head in disbelief.

Like I mentioned dozens of times before already: slow ass ships are BORING as ****. Basically with this change you are forcing us to fly our haulers slower or more often, unless we want to sacrifice tank. All options are not very compelling to say the least.

I can't rant because the forum censorship will step in, but let's just say you have not thought this through very well. Eve-offline tells the story how well you are doing with these and other recent changes, just saying.
Tora Hamaji
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#1196 - 2014-05-19 15:26:43 UTC
It never ceases to amaze me how CCP manages to break every promise and botch every positive change time after time after time!

Here is the KEYNOTE about freighters/jfs

http://youtu.be/k07Uu7qUEa0?t=46m39s

I quote fozzie:
Quote:
This means you'll be able to increase your cargohold BEYOND CURRENT STANDARDS with cargo rigs


And then this thread....

seriously, so dumb........ so idiotic...... so disappointing....... so typical........
Dave Stark
#1197 - 2014-05-19 15:28:51 UTC
Tora Hamaji wrote:
It never ceases to amaze me how CCP manages to break every promise and botch every positive change time after time after time!

Here is the KEYNOTE about freighters/jfs

http://youtu.be/k07Uu7qUEa0?t=46m39s

I quote fozzie:
Quote:
This means you'll be able to increase your cargohold BEYOND CURRENT STANDARDS with cargo rigs


And then this thread....

seriously, so dumb........ so idiotic...... so disappointing....... so typical........


but you can increase them beyond current standards, that's why capital ships are now 1.3m when packaged.
Ben Hatton
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#1198 - 2014-05-19 15:30:57 UTC
Tora Hamaji wrote:
It never ceases to amaze me how CCP manages to break every promise and botch every positive change time after time after time!

Here is the KEYNOTE about freighters/jfs

http://youtu.be/k07Uu7qUEa0?t=46m39s

I quote fozzie:
Quote:
This means you'll be able to increase your cargohold BEYOND CURRENT STANDARDS with cargo rigs


And then this thread....

seriously, so dumb........ so idiotic...... so disappointing....... so typical........



Yeah thread sucks, but to clear it up for you, you will indeed be able to increase the hold beyond what it is now. Check this awesome tool out...
http://xyjax.com/optimizer_kronos/index.html
0mni Ca
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1199 - 2014-05-19 15:31:50 UTC  |  Edited by: 0mni Ca
Tora Hamaji wrote:
It never ceases to amaze me how CCP manages to break every promise and botch every positive change time after time after time!

Here is the KEYNOTE about freighters/jfs

http://youtu.be/k07Uu7qUEa0?t=46m39s

I quote fozzie:
Quote:
This means you'll be able to increase your cargohold BEYOND CURRENT STANDARDS with cargo rigs


And then this thread....

seriously, so dumb........ so idiotic...... so disappointing....... so typical........

They didn't lie, they just omitted the fact that you need 2x T2 Capital Cargo rigs going for 700M ISK and climbing each, and that the BEYOND CURRENT STANDARDS is a ~5% increase in current capacity with the T2 rigs, oh and that when you do this, you sacrifice speed and tank.

I know that these changes will be implemented, so I have given up on trying to fight it, gonna get 2x T1 Capital Cargo Rigs, and just bend over once again ...

Fozzie seemed so nice in person :(
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#1200 - 2014-05-19 15:32:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Tora Hamaji wrote:
It never ceases to amaze me how CCP manages to break every promise and botch every positive change time after time after time!
They didn't break any promises, though.
You can do exactly what they said you will be able to do, and the price for being able to do so is entirely in line with what was expected.

Valterra Craven wrote:
I never once brought up the orca.
That was never the question, either.