These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#1261 - 2014-05-19 17:13:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Tau Cabalander wrote:
You are aware that bulkheads will reduce cargo, right?

Cargo capacity is the raison d'être for freighters / jump freighters.
Yes. That's a balance you have to strike in your fitting. I just got the idea from Mynnna's post earlier about what it would look like in numerical terms. The big problem is the DCII and what it does at both ends of the spectrum: on the one hand, how much hull would have to go down to allow them; on the other hand how much stronger that one module makes the ship.

So the idea then becomes: what if we skip over both that massive nerf and the massive swing in results by simply disallowing the module. Afaik, bulkheads and expanders don't cancel each other out completely, so fitting both means you end up with something that's better than baseline, but with a more moderated variance and without the extremes of 60% omni-resists, and you can tailor the end result with a bit more granularity.

Come to think of it, this also makes a three-slot solution more interesting than a two-slot one since you can't fit an equal number of expanders and bulkheads and have to pick one over the other.

The crucial modules for a 0 CPU/0 grid freighter would be: cargo expanders, istabs, concevably nanos (but why fit them over istabs?), and possibly also the warp speed mod mynnna also proposed (in which case it needs class restrictions rather than massive fitting space requirements). Bulkheads need to be on that list too as the only module that offers any kind of tanking without favouring shields or armour and without creating the huge swing in stats that a suitcase does.

Valterra Craven wrote:
What I'm saying is that when you evaluate things in a chronological order there is a difference between something being mentioned and something being responded to.
The difference is only in who mentioned it first. Being the second still means you mentioned it. You rather have to for your response not to be off topic and nonsensical. Would you prefer that interpretation instead? That you were just spamming irrelevant troll posts?
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#1262 - 2014-05-19 17:14:08 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:

I love the idea of lowslot fitting on freighters, but I firmly believe the DCU is too potent to balance a ship with such insane amounts of structure. Remove the ability to fit a DCU on a freighter if you give it a low slot.

then you're forcing all freighters to armour tank.


As it is, a DCU is a single slot, pragmatically no drawback module that would DOUBLE the tank of a freighter. I'm sorry, but it is insane to balance agility, speed, capacity, and tank around such a powerful module.

Next, I disagree with you on the "forcing all freighters to armor tank".

Have you looked at the stats of a Charon?
Shields: 7500
Armor: 25000
Structure: 130000+

A bulkhead will still add more raw EHP than an EANM. If you could et 80% resists with 4 modules, you'd still add less EHP than 4 bulkheads to that ship! The difference though, is that RR works MUCH, MUCH better on the ship with resists. So, while I agree you are forced to "armor tank" if you have logi along, that has as everything to do with the distribution of HP, and nothing to do with a DCU2.

The main issue is with DCU's, is that one DCU2 adds more EHP than 4x Bulkheads, which makes balancing the "tanking" vs capacity / agility / speed way out of whack. It basically forces balancing to assume the dcu is fit, which is another phrase for making that module mandatory. I think a more interesting balance would be achieved by taking the DCU out of the picture, and balancing along the lines of bulkheads, cargo expanders, etc.
Dave stark
#1263 - 2014-05-19 17:17:37 UTC
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
I'm sorry, but it is insane to balance agility, speed, capacity, and tank around such a powerful module.


which is arguably why rig slots were chosen instead of low slots. in order to accommodate the potential use of a DCII the nerf to freighter EHP would have been unpleasant.
Punctator
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1264 - 2014-05-19 17:17:48 UTC
stupid as always CCP...
it is just sad, notheing more to say
coolkay
Herrscher der Zeit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#1265 - 2014-05-19 17:23:07 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#1266 - 2014-05-19 17:25:23 UTC
Vincent Athena wrote:
If you rig a bit for both, both are less.


Not entirely true.

If you rig for both, tank goes up a bit, cargo goes down a bit.

"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.

Aerissa Nolen
Doomheim
#1267 - 2014-05-19 17:26:36 UTC
A few issues to clarify that I keep seeing repeated, at least in regard to T1 freighters:


  • there is no nerf to T1 agility; this was a typo, it has been fixed; T1 agility/mass has not changed
  • the nerf to T1 EHP is being drastically over-stated in this thread, at least as it applies to hisec ganking; I believe because people were using rigs that reduced tank to compensate for the T1 agility "nerf" that turned out to be a mistake
  • the actual nerf if you want similar EHP/agility as now is a slight nerf to T1 cargo sizes and slightly increased pricing (owing to having to buy rigs)
  • the slight nerf to *default* cargo size comes with the buff of added flexibility and specialization options


I'm happy with the change to T1 freighters. Cargo size was the least relevant limitation on hisec freight. You will hit unsafe ISK values LONG before you hit cargo size limitations in 90% of the cases for things you want to haul. I will happily take a small nerf to default cargo sizes in exchange for customization choices.

The indirect price increase (through rigs) is a bit more annoying, but whatever. As pointed out already, the relevant rig prices have a long way to fall once demand increases, so looking at current Jita sell values is not a good way to determine the eventual cost. It will be lower than most seem to expect.

And if you happen to be in a minority hauling bulk, low value items (Trit!) all day every day, go buy a Charon and rig it up for pure cargo and be happy with the BUFF you just got because now you can haul about 20% more and still be under normal ganking values.
Valterra Craven
#1268 - 2014-05-19 17:31:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Valterra Craven
Tippia wrote:

Valterra Craven wrote:
What I'm saying is that when you evaluate things in a chronological order there is a difference between something being mentioned and something being responded to.
The difference is only in who mentioned it first. Being the second still means you mentioned it. You rather have to for your response not to be off topic and nonsensical. Would you prefer that interpretation instead? That you were just spamming irrelevant troll posts?



Well its not an interpretation, that is pretty much what I was doing. Much like a vast majority of the posts by both and you Dave.
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#1269 - 2014-05-19 17:33:06 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
I'm sorry, but it is insane to balance agility, speed, capacity, and tank around such a powerful module.


which is arguably why rig slots were chosen instead of low slots. in order to accommodate the potential use of a DCII the nerf to freighter EHP would have been unpleasant.


Rigs are permanent upgrades, and cannot be easily swapped to fit the situation. I'm alright with simply adding rigs to freighters, I'd prefer the ability to fit modules though. Preventing the use of DCU2's shouldn't be that arduous, and would allow a nice balance spot between the modules already in the game.

Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#1270 - 2014-05-19 17:33:22 UTC
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:

I love the idea of lowslot fitting on freighters, but I firmly believe the DCU is too potent to balance a ship with such insane amounts of structure. Remove the ability to fit a DCU on a freighter if you give it a low slot.

then you're forcing all freighters to armour tank.


As it is, a DCU is a single slot, pragmatically no drawback module that would DOUBLE the tank of a freighter. I'm sorry, but it is insane to balance agility, speed, capacity, and tank around such a powerful module.

Next, I disagree with you on the "forcing all freighters to armor tank".

Have you looked at the stats of a Charon?
Shields: 7500
Armor: 25000
Structure: 130000+

A bulkhead will still add more raw EHP than an EANM. If you could et 80% resists with 4 modules, you'd still add less EHP than 4 bulkheads to that ship! The difference though, is that RR works MUCH, MUCH better on the ship with resists. So, while I agree you are forced to "armor tank" if you have logi along, that has as everything to do with the distribution of HP, and nothing to do with a DCU2.

The main issue is with DCU's, is that one DCU2 adds more EHP than 4x Bulkheads, which makes balancing the "tanking" vs capacity / agility / speed way out of whack. It basically forces balancing to assume the dcu is fit, which is another phrase for making that module mandatory. I think a more interesting balance would be achieved by taking the DCU out of the picture, and balancing along the lines of bulkheads, cargo expanders, etc.


Low slot only allowing bulkhead, inertia stabs and cargo expander. Yes there would be tradeoff for sure but at least it would being real flexibility instead of just an illusion because people surely won't scrap rigs left and right to use that "flexibility" like they would with slots...
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#1271 - 2014-05-19 17:37:18 UTC
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
I'm sorry, but it is insane to balance agility, speed, capacity, and tank around such a powerful module.


which is arguably why rig slots were chosen instead of low slots. in order to accommodate the potential use of a DCII the nerf to freighter EHP would have been unpleasant.


Rigs are permanent upgrades, and cannot be easily swapped to fit the situation. I'm alright with simply adding rigs to freighters, I'd prefer the ability to fit modules though. Preventing the use of DCU2's shouldn't be that arduous, and would allow a nice balance spot between the modules already in the game.




Harder than you might think.

Eve has no understanding of 'only these modules' or 'but not that class of ship'

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter

Dave stark
#1272 - 2014-05-19 17:38:58 UTC
Steve Ronuken wrote:
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
I'm sorry, but it is insane to balance agility, speed, capacity, and tank around such a powerful module.


which is arguably why rig slots were chosen instead of low slots. in order to accommodate the potential use of a DCII the nerf to freighter EHP would have been unpleasant.


Rigs are permanent upgrades, and cannot be easily swapped to fit the situation. I'm alright with simply adding rigs to freighters, I'd prefer the ability to fit modules though. Preventing the use of DCU2's shouldn't be that arduous, and would allow a nice balance spot between the modules already in the game.




Harder than you might think.

Eve has no understanding of 'only these modules' or 'but not that class of ship'


any chance of CCP going back on this?

it's clear nobody likes the changes, and the "alternatives" are just as unlikable.
freighters are already balanced anyway, it's not like this is needed in any way, shape, or form.

honestly, the best solution to this to leave freighters alone.
Valterra Craven
#1273 - 2014-05-19 17:40:20 UTC
Steve Ronuken wrote:
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
I'm sorry, but it is insane to balance agility, speed, capacity, and tank around such a powerful module.


which is arguably why rig slots were chosen instead of low slots. in order to accommodate the potential use of a DCII the nerf to freighter EHP would have been unpleasant.


Rigs are permanent upgrades, and cannot be easily swapped to fit the situation. I'm alright with simply adding rigs to freighters, I'd prefer the ability to fit modules though. Preventing the use of DCU2's shouldn't be that arduous, and would allow a nice balance spot between the modules already in the game.




Harder than you might think.

Eve has no understanding of 'only these modules' or 'but not that class of ship'


What eve are you playing?

Bastion mods, siege mods, MWJD mods, strip miners.... all have ship restrictions tied them. Would it be a hack to say that this mod could fit on every ship but a freighter? Yes. Would it be hard to do based on current code? Doesn't seem likely.
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat
Working Stiffs
#1274 - 2014-05-19 17:41:19 UTC
Aerissa Nolen wrote:
A few issues to clarify that I keep seeing repeated, at least in regard to T1 freighters:

  • the slight nerf to *default* cargo size comes with the buff of added flexibility and specialization options


I disagree, as I don't have a choice how I will rig.

I went with a Charon since ever m3 matters to me. My alts trained Caldari Freighter 5 for the same reason. The current proposed changes mean I must fit at least 2x T2 cargo rigs, or all that investment is lost and I'm worse off.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#1275 - 2014-05-19 17:41:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Steve Ronuken wrote:
Harder than you might think.

Eve has no understanding of 'only these modules' or 'but not that class of ship'

Well… there is an easy way: give them 0 CPU. That rather ruins the ability to fit a DCU. Blink
I can't think of any modules that increase CPU by a fixed amount the way you can with MAPCs and grid, and any percentage-based ones would just increase 0 by some percentage of 0 (i.e. 0). But maybe there is one and it's just too obscure to ever see the light of day?

That said, could you gently kick some dev and make them investigate what kind of disaster zero-CPU bulkhead modules would cause?

Valterra Craven wrote:
What eve are you playing?

Bastion mods, siege mods, MWJD mods, strip miners.... all have ship restrictions tied them.
They all have “this class”, not “not that class” restrictions. The difference is pretty significant since turning the former into the latter would entail listing every ship class in the game, and every time you add a new class (or alter an old one) you have to remember to add that to the list.
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#1276 - 2014-05-19 17:45:08 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Steve Ronuken wrote:
Harder than you might think.

Eve has no understanding of 'only these modules' or 'but not that class of ship'

Well… there is an easy way: give them 0 CPU. That rather ruins the ability to fit a DCU. Blink
I can't think of any modules that increase CPU by a fixed amount the way you can with MAPCs and grid, and any percentage-based ones would just increase 0 by some percentage of 0 (i.e. 0).

Could you gently kick some dev and make them investigate what kind of disaster zero-CPU bulkhead modules would cause?


Hell, the freighter's bonus could include a 100% reduction in the CPU requirements of bulkheads. They've done this with cloaks in the past.
Valterra Craven
#1277 - 2014-05-19 17:45:09 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Steve Ronuken wrote:
Harder than you might think.

Eve has no understanding of 'only these modules' or 'but not that class of ship'

Well… there is an easy way: give them 0 CPU. That rather ruins the ability to fit a DCU. Blink
I can't think of any modules that increase CPU by a fixed amount the way you can with MAPCs and grid, and any percentage-based ones would just increase 0 by some percentage of 0 (i.e. 0).

Could you gently kick some dev and make them investigate what kind of disaster zero-CPU bulkhead modules would cause?



Why should bulkheads be the exception? Armor Plates have fitting requirements... and thus so should bulkheads.
Gospadin
Bastard Children of Poinen
#1278 - 2014-05-19 17:46:18 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Gospadin wrote:
Why shouldn't we be able to get to the same point we are now?

because the whole point of a change is to depart from the current situation.

not that we should depart from the current situation.


Exactly.

IMO, two t1 cargo and one t1 bulkhead should give the exact same stats that the ships have today

tune the base stats so that's true, and then people can decide where to go from there

more tank? go with more bulkheads
more cargo? go with more cargo
rich? have some of both, using t2 rigs
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
#1279 - 2014-05-19 17:46:33 UTC
As long as you are changing the ship stats, why not take a look at the ship skill bonuses, too?

The JF bonuses are good, but the freighter 5% bonus per level to maximum velocity has always been something of a joke.

Perhaps this can be changed to a bonus to agility or a bonus to warp speed?

(Apologies if this has already been suggested in an earlier post)
Nightingale Actault
Borderland Dynamics
#1280 - 2014-05-19 17:47:12 UTC
Tau Cabalander wrote:
Aerissa Nolen wrote:
A few issues to clarify that I keep seeing repeated, at least in regard to T1 freighters:

  • the slight nerf to *default* cargo size comes with the buff of added flexibility and specialization options


I disagree, as I don't have a choice how I will rig.

I went with a Charon since ever m3 matters to me. My alts trained Caldari Freighter 5 for the same reason. The current proposed changes mean I must fit at least 2x T2 cargo rigs, or all that investment is lost and I'm worse off.


So you are currently filling each and every freighter to max cargo for every trip? Are you above or below 1 billion isk cargo value?