These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat
Working Stiffs
#1281 - 2014-05-19 17:48:40 UTC
Steve Ronuken wrote:
Eve has no understanding of 'only these modules' or 'but not that class of ship'

Erm... you sure?

* Covert cloaking device
* Covert cyno
* Bomb Launcher
* Interdiction sphere launcher
* Warp disruption field generator
* Siege module
* Triage module
* Industrial core
* Clone vat
* Gang link
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#1282 - 2014-05-19 17:48:58 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:
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.


saying a module can only fit on these types of ships appears to be different to saying a module can fit on everything but these types of ship.

perhaps u could do it the long way and say the the DC can only be fit on these (list of every ship of the game except freighters). but thats the difficult part, and something always goes wrong when u do it like that.

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
#1283 - 2014-05-19 17:50:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Valterra Craven wrote:
Why should bulkheads be the exception?
Because they're hull upgrades. The other hull upgrades don't have any fitting requirements.

Also, because no-one seriously fits hull when armour or shield is an option, and armour and shield is what really separates the races so it doesn't particularly affect most ships. It's not really the fitting restrictions that keep people from fitting hull tanks, but the sheer lunacy of hull tanking. Well, with one exception: Orcas. And post-patch freighters.
Bagehi
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
#1284 - 2014-05-19 17:51:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Bagehi
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.

3 T1 cargo rigs lead to an increase (to just over 1m rather than just under 1m) cargo capacity as far as I can tell. It is a bit annoying that there will be a significant increase to the cost of owning a freighter/jf because of this change. That said, the JFs are the ones that are getting the shaft with these changes.

Release jump fuel use reduction rigs along with this change and I think people might be less grumpy. There just aren't any useful rigs for these ships besides cargo rigs and maybe some nav rigs (depending on how people haul), so this just functions as an increased barrier to entry for large volume hauling.

Also, the secondary bonuses for both JFs and freighters are kinda silly. Agility bonus to something that travels by jumping? Speed % bonus to something that has almost no speed and spends 90% of its time in warp?
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#1285 - 2014-05-19 17:52:06 UTC
Tau Cabalander wrote:
Steve Ronuken wrote:
Eve has no understanding of 'only these modules' or 'but not that class of ship'

Erm... you sure?

* Covert cloaking device
* Covert cyno
* Bomb Launcher
* Interdiction sphere launcher
* Warp disruption field generator
* Siege module
* Triage module
* Industrial core
* Clone vat
* Gang link


There is a difference, as you would know if you had read above.

Those modules have "Only XYZ can fit this" as opposed to "A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I,J,K,L,M,N,O,P,Q,R,S,T,U,V,W except XYZ can fit this".

So yeah, they're coded a bit differently.

"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.

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#1286 - 2014-05-19 17:53:33 UTC
Tau Cabalander wrote:
Steve Ronuken wrote:
Eve has no understanding of 'only these modules' or 'but not that class of ship'

Erm... you sure?

* Covert cloaking device
* Covert cyno
* Bomb Launcher
* Interdiction sphere launcher
* Warp disruption field generator
* Siege module
* Triage module
* Industrial core
* Clone vat
* Gang link

Again, all of those have “can only be fitted to” attributes. None of them have any kind of “can't be fitted to” attribute. The fact that they can't be fitted to some ships is just a result of a ship not being on the approved list.

If, for instance, the industrial core had a “not that class of ship”-style restriction, it would have to list every class in the game except one, which is a really ugly way of doing things. Instead, it just lists the one it can be fitted to.
Buzz Dura
S0utherN Comfort
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#1287 - 2014-05-19 17:57:44 UTC
I did not find enough out of the box suggestion, here some :


add a med slot
keep the only 1cpu/1PG

role bonus :
Autopilot warp at zero
Can fit Target Spectrum Breaker
-100% requirement to Target Spectrum Breaker
Valterra Craven
#1288 - 2014-05-19 17:57:54 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Valterra Craven wrote:
Why should bulkheads be the exception?
Because they're hull upgrades. The other hull upgrades don't have any fitting requirements.

Also, because no-one seriously fits hull when armour or shield is an option, and armour and shield is what really separates the races so it doesn't particularly affect most ships. It's not really the fitting restrictions that keep people from fitting hull tanks, but the sheer lunacy of hull tanking. Well, with one exception: Orcas. And post-patch freighters.


And my point is that hull tanking upgrades aren't properly balanced and making them require 0 fitting just to fit the freighter case is horrible and only furthers their imbalance.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#1289 - 2014-05-19 17:59:16 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:
And my point is that hull tanking upgrades aren't properly balanced and making them require 0 fitting just to fit the freighter case is horrible and only furthers their imbalance.

How so?
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#1290 - 2014-05-19 18:01:13 UTC
Buzz Dura wrote:
I did not find enough out of the box suggestion, here some :


add a med slot
keep the only 1cpu/1PG

role bonus :
Autopilot warp at zero
Can fit Target Spectrum Breaker
-100% requirement to Target Spectrum Breaker


out the box and into space

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

XxRTEKxX
256th Shadow Wing
Phantom-Recon
#1291 - 2014-05-19 18:02:18 UTC
This is not a good change. Idea of rigs on freighters was great, but not this massive nerf. Two thumbs down or two middle fingers up are what these changes look like.
Valterra Craven
#1292 - 2014-05-19 18:02:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Valterra Craven
Tippia wrote:
Valterra Craven wrote:
And my point is that hull tanking upgrades aren't properly balanced and making them require 0 fitting just to fit the freighter case is horrible and only furthers their imbalance.

How so?


Well you said so earlier yourself, no one fits hull upgrade tanking mods seriously except in two cases. This is not balanced. The drone rebalance thread is a perfect example of this. Two types of drones weren't getting used because they suck (and this will likely still be the case afterwards) so they got changed. Since there are three types of HP and people only tank two of them because the third isn't viable, then the third is not balanced.
Aerissa Nolen
Doomheim
#1293 - 2014-05-19 18:07:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Aerissa Nolen
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.


Collectively, WE have a choice how to rig. YOUR choice is that every last m3 matters to you, so you will rig for m3. Your max skilled, optimally rigged Charon just had its cargo capacity increased by 14% at a cost of about 7% reduction in EHP.

Now, maybe you complain about cost of T2 cargo rigs? In which case, use only T1 cargo rigs and bump your cargo by ONLY 6% from current for a pittance compared to hull cost. Still at only a 7% reduction in EHP.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#1294 - 2014-05-19 18:07:39 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:
Well you said so earlier yourself, no one seriously fits hull upgrade tanking mods seriously except in two cases. This is not balanced.
No, it just means that only two (well, three) classes are set up in such a way that they benefit from hull tanking. That in and of itself is not unbalanced.

Even if it were, that would just mean that making the hull buffer module more viable would improve the balance, not make it more imbalanced.
Drezen Tor
What is Dead May Never Die
League of Robots
#1295 - 2014-05-19 18:28:12 UTC
Buzz Dura wrote:
I did not find enough out of the box suggestion, here some :


add a med slot
keep the only 1cpu/1PG

role bonus :
Autopilot warp at zero
Can fit Target Spectrum Breaker
-100% requirement to Target Spectrum Breaker


And get CONCORDed in high sec? Yeah, that sounds like a great change...
Valterra Craven
#1296 - 2014-05-19 18:28:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Valterra Craven
Tippia wrote:
Valterra Craven wrote:
Well you said so earlier yourself, no one seriously fits hull upgrade tanking mods seriously except in two cases. This is not balanced.
No, it just means that only two (well, three) classes are set up in such a way that they benefit from hull tanking. That in and of itself is not unbalanced.

Even if it were, that would just mean that making the hull buffer module more viable would improve the balance, not make it more imbalanced.


But you aren't arguing to make the hull buffer module more viable. Removing the fitting requirements from them wasn't the imbalanced aspect of them anyway and doing so would only make them fittable in this one off case in which devs have already stated they don't like doing.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#1297 - 2014-05-19 18:37:08 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:
But you aren't arguing to make the hull buffer module more viable. Removing the fitting requirements from the model wasn't the imbalanced aspect of them anyway
Then we're back to: how so?
How are they imbalanced?

Quote:
doing so would only make them fittable in this one off case in which devs have already stated they don't like doing.
Which case would that be?
Ydnari
Estrale Frontiers
#1298 - 2014-05-19 18:39:52 UTC
These changes are fine and should be implemented as originally posted.

--

MaraudR73
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1299 - 2014-05-19 18:47:42 UTC  |  Edited by: MaraudR73
I paid almost 7 Billion for my Rhea and now I have to pay 1.5 Billion more to get a ship that is worse then before????

Hell no to these Jump Freighter changes!!!

I will have to pay 1.5 Billion for T2 rigs to get the same cargohold on my Rhea and then I still get the align-time nerf!

Is this CCP trying to get money out of peoples pockets?




No to this ridicilous nerf!
Sipphakta en Gravonere
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1300 - 2014-05-19 18:59:30 UTC
MaraudR73 wrote:
I will have to pay 1.5 Billion for T2 rigs to get the same cargohold on my Rhea and then I still get the align-time nerf!


Once the market settles and there is actual demand for t2 cargo rigs, the prices will be much much lower. Currently almost nobody builds them because they moved very slowly (if they sold at all) before this change was announced.