These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Kethry Avenger
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#1381 - 2014-05-19 23:13:23 UTC
In my opinion this seems like to much of a nerf to everything.

I'm not sure I understand why the need for EHP, align time and cargo needing to be reduced. It does make sense to me to reduce cargo so that with the addition of rigs they don't balloon out of proportion. But I've never really thought they needed slower align time or less EHP. Actually I've often thought the opposite.

I support Mynna's idea of lowslots instead of rigs.

I would also support lowslots and rigs. Would require adjustment to cargo. But I don't think there is a strong need to reduce align time or EHP.

I believe lowslots or lowslots and rigs is a much better option that the current plan do to not being a large isk burden on the up and coming professional hauler. Where a decent size group or null sec bloc can fit out a JF with an extra billion worth of rigs or have 3 different rigged freighters that is much harder for the first time freighter pilot.



Though if I personally was going to rebalance Freighters and make them more interesting. I would give them 2 highslots, one turret or launcher. 6 slots in the mids and lows, and about half the CPU and grid of a dread. I would also move away from having most of their EHP in Hull and give them more racial flavored tanks. With a boost to EHP of 10-25% when fit for full tank from now. If this needed to be delay the release of the change I would be ok with this.
Valterra Craven
#1382 - 2014-05-19 23:16:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Valterra Craven
Tippia wrote:


Valterra Craven wrote:
Right, I'm the one evading when you provide nonsensical answers like this: "Mu".
Just because you don't understand the answer does not mean it's nonsensical. Look up the term (or just ask) if you don't know what it means.


Uh huh. So the phrase "not nothing" when asked a point blank simple question isn't evasive and nonsensical. Good to know that I'm not the troll after all. At least I answered your posts.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#1383 - 2014-05-19 23:22:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Valterra Craven wrote:
Uh huh. So the phrase "not nothing" when asked a point blank simple question isn't evasive and nonsensical.
Nope. It is, in fact, the only sensible answer to your false dichotomy.

Quote:
At least I answered your posts.
Nope. How are bulkheads imbalanced? How would making them take up no fitting space make them more imbalanced?
Valterra Craven
#1384 - 2014-05-19 23:22:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Valterra Craven
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Valterra Craven wrote:

So I will ask you point blank:

Is hull tanking viable for one ship, or all ships?


Neither, and you are really bad at false dichotomies.


So if I'm so bad at false dichotomies, what other options are there for hull tanking if "viable" or "not viable" aren't the only two options?
Valterra Craven
#1385 - 2014-05-19 23:24:16 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Valterra Craven wrote:
Uh huh. So the phrase "not nothing" when asked a point blank simple question isn't evasive and nonsensical.
Nope. It is, in fact, the only sensible answer to your false dichotomy.


So the answer to the post is not "Mu". The answer to the post is "these are not the only two options, here are some other examples."

That's how to not be an evasive non nonsensical troll.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#1386 - 2014-05-19 23:25:42 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:
So the answer to the post is not "Mu".
Yes it is.

Quote:
So if I'm so bad at false dichotomies, what other options are there for hull tanking if "viable" or "not viable" aren't the only two options?
But that wasn't the question, now was it?

Oh, and: how are bulkheads imbalanced? How would making them take up no fitting space make them more imbalanced?
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#1387 - 2014-05-19 23:29:49 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Valterra Craven wrote:

So I will ask you point blank:

Is hull tanking viable for one ship, or all ships?


Neither, and you are really bad at false dichotomies.


So if I'm so bad at false dichotomies, what other options are there for hull tanking if "viable" or "not viable" aren't the only two options?


That is not what you wrote.

Hull tanking is not viable for just one ship, nor is it viable for all ships.

The possibility of it being somewhere in between those two extremes seems to have escaped you.

"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.

Valterra Craven
#1388 - 2014-05-19 23:30:10 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Valterra Craven wrote:
So the answer to the post is not "Mu".
Yes it is.


If your a troll it is.

Tippia wrote:
Oh, and: how are bulkheads imbalanced? How would making them take up no fitting space make them more imbalanced?


See post #1375 for my stated answer that states exactly this.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#1389 - 2014-05-19 23:31:59 UTC
Oh, and I see Rivr Luzade has no idea what the difference is between a suicide gank and any time a freighter dies, ever.

You should really look up on it. And if in fact you are not that shockingly ignorant, then that's a pretty poor attempt at trolling even for you.

"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.

Valterra Craven
#1390 - 2014-05-19 23:32:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Valterra Craven
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Valterra Craven wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Valterra Craven wrote:

So I will ask you point blank:

Is hull tanking viable for one ship, or all ships?


Neither, and you are really bad at false dichotomies.


So if I'm so bad at false dichotomies, what other options are there for hull tanking if "viable" or "not viable" aren't the only two options?


That is not what you wrote.

Hull tanking is not viable for just one ship, nor is it viable for all ships.

The possibility of it being somewhere in between those two extremes seems to have escaped you.


No, it hasn't escaped me. I'm saying that I have seen no other provable examples to counter your point that what I've said isn't true. In fact, if what you are saying is true, the statement "Hull tanking is only currently viable for one ship" would be easily demonstrated as false by ONE example. So, let me ask you point blank. How many ships is hull tanking viable on?

Edit:
OR put another way, how many ships would hull tanking be viable on that if lost people wouldn't laugh their butts off at your stupid fit?
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#1391 - 2014-05-19 23:33:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Valterra Craven wrote:
If your a troll it is.
I don't own any trolls, be they of an “a” type or otherwise.

Quote:
See post #1375 for my stated answer that states exactly this.

“Its not bad to balance around ships that use a given module. Its bad to balance around ships that use a given module when the module should be just as viable on other ships in the game. Because they are tanking mods and tanking mods require fitting tradeoffs. You shouldn't get something for nothing.”

Nothing about how they are imbalanced. Nothing about how giving them fitting space would make them more imbalanced. So “exactly this” is referring to something completely different than I'm asking for.

What I'm asking is: how are bulkheads imbalanced? How would making them take up no fitting space make them more imbalanced?

Quote:
I'm saying that I have seen no other provable examples to counter your point that what I've said isn't true.
Where did he say anything of the kind?
Semidurr
Immortalis Inc.
Shadow Cartel
#1392 - 2014-05-19 23:38:36 UTC
Tippia wrote:

Let's compare that to the daily losses in one of the least flown ship types in the game. Oh my… many times more. For something that doesn't really ever see the light of day. Yeah, “exceedingly” seems quite accurate for the rarity of freighter kills, and even more so for suicide ganks when you consider how commonly they are flown and how rarely they are lost.



Let's not compare daily losses of the >PVP-ONLY< hulls worth 25m each with 1b+ freighters that got nothing to do with pvp.

Making such comparisons is simply stupid. Ugh
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#1393 - 2014-05-19 23:40:12 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:

No, it hasn't escaped me.


In which case, like I said, you are really bad at false dichotomies.

"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
#1394 - 2014-05-19 23:40:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Semidurr wrote:
Let's not compare daily losses of the >PVP-ONLY< hulls worth 25m each with 1b+ freighters that got nothing to do with pvp.

Making such comparisons is simply stupid. Ugh

Not particularly. We have to establish how common it is that a ship is lost. Using one of the least used ship types in the game gives us a kind of worst-case baseline for rarity of loss. Freighters, it turns out, does not even reach that baseline — that's how rare freighter losses are.

Oh, and one is a ship that can easily avoid situations that gets it killed; the other is one that is very commonly flown into hostile territory and which, if caught, needs some fancy flying to get out of there. The former still gets killed tons more. Claiming that freighters have nothing to do with PvP essentially just says that they're pretty much never killed.
Preto Black
Solar Clipper Trading Company
#1395 - 2014-05-19 23:44:59 UTC
I know it is now hopefully obvious, but this change is so bad that I have to add to the numerous posts here.

This change is badly thought out - nerfing several attributes because you can now get rigs to improve 1 or 2 of them is not sensible - EHP and agility nerfs are just not needed - even if some rigs can improve them. From a game point of view is even nerfing cargo space could be argued is not that much of an issue - there is the gank attraction penalty of having too much cargo

this change is poorly communicated - to use this method to say this change is part of balancing when it has the potential to completely change the way people play the game, seems to show either a lack of understanding of the way the game is played or a care factor of zero (or less)

Valterra Craven
#1396 - 2014-05-19 23:46:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Valterra Craven
Tippia wrote:
Valterra Craven wrote:
If your a troll it is.
I don't own any trolls, be they of an “a” type or otherwise.


... because pointing out simple grammar mistakes ins't trollish apparently... <- left one there just for you...

Tippia wrote:


What I'm asking is: how are bulkheads imbalanced? How would making them take up no fitting space make them more imbalanced?


Well for one, their relative benefits don't make sense to their fitting costs now.

a t2 bulkhead provides a 25% bonus to hull for a measly one grid and 40 cpu (yes I'm ignoring the other penalty, but only because I'm ignoring the penalties of the other mods in my comparison)

While at the same time comparing them to their counterparts (plates and extenders) really doesn't make sense because neither of those are percentage based and have sizing variants.

In order to balance them currently they would need to have straight HP values like current shield and armor mods do. They would also need to come in variants of small, medium, and large or some approximation of that.

Giving them no fitting reqs would only further to make matters worse and make them more imbalanced when compared to other mods. 40 CPU isn't nothing to an ORCA, Are you saying that you want to decrease the fitting on ORCA's by 40 to compensate for this as well?
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#1397 - 2014-05-19 23:49:37 UTC
Maybe they should get a single high slot for a Covert Ops cloak. Twisted

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.

Valterra Craven
#1398 - 2014-05-19 23:54:40 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Valterra Craven wrote:

No, it hasn't escaped me.


In which case, like I said, you are really bad at false dichotomies.


Either way, you still can't/haven't shown even one more example besides the Orca where hull tanking is viable. I'm sure neither of us is going to take the time to fit every ship in game with a hull tank to find out if even one more example exists. So again, your point is irrelevant.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#1399 - 2014-05-19 23:57:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Valterra Craven wrote:
... because pointing out simple grammar mistakes ins't trollish apparently.
Not particularly if it's in response to just more ad hominem fallacies.

Quote:
Well for one, their relative benefits don't make sense to their fitting costs now.
It's entirely in line with the other hull upgrades. vOv
But yes, you're right. Their benefits should be vastly higher for the kind of fitting cost they have — the low bonus they provide doesn't make much sense with that kind of CPU requirement.

Quote:
In order to balance them currently they would need to have straight HP values like current shield and armor mods do.
Yeah, see… the entire mistake you're making here is that you think that balance involves behaving like other modules. What other modules do is irrelevant. What you have to ask is what the effects are on a ship for fitting this module and how it stacks up to other options available.

As it happens, the percentage-based bonus from bulkheads is generally a smaller increase than the fixed amount added by shield and armour buffers, unless we're talking about a ship where those tanking types are not particularly effective. The percentage-based bonus also gets around the problem of having different-sized moduels and having to balance them against all kinds of ships you can fit them to. It's a niche module for a niche usage on a niche selection of ships, and the fitting cost is entirely reasonable for the bonus it provides.

It's a few percentages more hull EHP, compared to the massive increase you'd get from, say, a suitcase. So to balance the module, the 40tf increase needs to be slashed by a massive amount to compare favourably to the 25tf of a DCI or 30tf of a DCII.

Quote:
Giving them no fitting reqs would only further to make matters worse and make them more imbalanced when compared to other mods.
Just one problem: they're not imbalanced. They are, in fact, very low-performing for their cost. A DCII gives 10× as much for ¾ the cost, so a balanced fitting cost of a T2 bulkhead would be somewhere around 3 tf. We might as well round that down to 0. So, in fact, giving them no fitting reqs would make them more balanced than they currently are — that way, they can be used as slot-wasteful but more granular versions of DCUs, and would allow for a 0/0-capability slotbased freighter solution that still had a sane tanking option.

Furthermore, since they offer so little advantage to most ships (again, some niches exist for a few other ships), using it as essentially a filler module for any left-over lowslots you might have just gives it a bit more usage, and a bit more choice for the ships, which is always nice.
Valterra Craven
#1400 - 2014-05-20 00:00:20 UTC
Holder