These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#1601 - 2014-05-20 20:00:45 UTC
maths can be pretty hard Sad

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Derath Ellecon
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#1602 - 2014-05-20 20:02:07 UTC
Vincintius Agrippa wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Vincintius Agrippa wrote:
As for fuel rigs:
That like saying "This rig reduces the capacitor need need of entering warp, but decreases warp speed".


it's not like saying that at all


No, but it is a good approximation of most people attitudes toward it.

Perhaps this is a better one:
Starting June, car manufacturers are doubling the mpg of their new vehicles, but they are cutting the size of all current gas tanks by half. ------- You see, it defeats the f******g purpose.




Except that it doesn't. You still spend less on fuel.

And to use the car analogy, in general car manufacturers seem to size a tank to go a certain distance. Regardless of MPG most vehicles seem to have around a 400-600mile range per tank.

JF will be about the same. They will be able to jump the same number of LY per tank. But it will cost less since it is burning less fuel. I don't see a problem with that.
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate
#1603 - 2014-05-20 20:02:29 UTC
Retar Aveymone wrote:
Vincintius Agrippa wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Vincintius Agrippa wrote:
As for fuel rigs:
That like saying "This rig reduces the capacitor need need of entering warp, but decreases warp speed".


it's not like saying that at all


No, but it is a good approximation of most people attitudes toward it.

Perhaps this is a better one:
Starting June, car manufacturers are doubling the mpg of their new vehicles, but they are cutting the size of all current gas tanks by half. ------- You see, it defeats the f******g purpose.


gas isn't free


gas, grass or a$$. nobody rides for free

And yes, the could cut the size of the tank even if they increased the MPG. They aren't saying you can go further on one tank of gas, just that the car is more efficient at going the same distance as before. MPG is different than Distance to Empty
Vincintius Agrippa
Crimson Serpent Syndicate
#1604 - 2014-05-20 20:04:01 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:
Retar Aveymone wrote:
Vincintius Agrippa wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Vincintius Agrippa wrote:
As for fuel rigs:
That like saying "This rig reduces the capacitor need need of entering warp, but decreases warp speed".


it's not like saying that at all


No, but it is a good approximation of most people attitudes toward it.

Perhaps this is a better one:
Starting June, car manufacturers are doubling the mpg of their new vehicles, but they are cutting the size of all current gas tanks by half. ------- You see, it defeats the f******g purpose.


gas isn't free

Exactly, the same trip is costing you half as much... which in this case is exactly the point, not increasing your range.



I'd rather have a large gas tank and better gas mileage :)
Only YOU can prevent internet bullying!
Dave Stark
#1605 - 2014-05-20 20:04:05 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
maths can be pretty hard Sad

i liked maths better when it involved numbers.

it became the devil when writing an equation was like writing an essay in greek.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#1606 - 2014-05-20 20:05:29 UTC
Aureus Ahishatsu wrote:
bulk heads OP?? waaah?? OK just caught up your earlier convo. don't want to get too much into it except if they were so OP why is it that ships which have their greatest amount of hp in the hull(orca's) still will shield tank the majority of the time....... The only purpose bulkheads even serve atm is to just be a giant buffer. This brings me to the suggestion i made on the hull rigs forum about creating an ORE logi ship that gives a bonus to remote hull reps since their is NO TIME REASONABLE way to repair hulls outside of stations.
Well, yes. His argument is basically “onoz, look at this large bonus! If we don't compare it to anything relevant it looks really big on its own! OMGZ OP!” Never mind that it's a pretty tiny bonus and that anything even remotely overpowered instantly shows up everywhere. Reality can be such a drag when you're making baseless assumptions after all. Lol

Quote:
So can we all agree just to tell CCP don't push this update and leave the freighters alone? Big smile
Yes. Although I'm warming up to the lowslot idea…

Quote:
Not necessarily. the only one to receive a cargo boost was the tyra or badger II. the rest had a cargo reduction or didn't move while all lost a mid slot
Fair enough, but then, it was a rebalance and a reshuffling of roles, and not just an indy buff. Granted, I might be a bit over-neutral since I can fly anything and don't care which is better at what, but I felt there was more room for fitting for purpose after the change.

Quote:
I understand that but it still doesn't change the fact a velocity bonus is pointless on this ship if it's supposed to be the gtfo ship. Maybe burning back to gate in low? IDK.

It's a minmatar ship. If it doesn't go fast, the tape will peel off before it gets there. It's speed bonus or sucking vacuum! P
Dave Stark
#1607 - 2014-05-20 20:06:59 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Quote:
So can we all agree just to tell CCP don't push this update and leave the freighters alone? Big smile
Yes. Although I'm warming up to the lowslot idea…

bad tippia.
no. no low slots.
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate
#1608 - 2014-05-20 20:13:54 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Quote:
So can we all agree just to tell CCP don't push this update and leave the freighters alone? Big smile
Yes. Although I'm warming up to the lowslot idea…

bad tippia.
no. no low slots.


Don't fear the lowslots Dave. They too will come at a cost and we'll get another hundred pages of tears from people who can't do the math. Probably a pretty severe nerf to base stats. But the level of real flexibility should vastly outweigh changes to the base stats. Far more so than all this BS related to a discussion about rigs alone.

At some point these ships have to come into the same realm as all other ships in the game. Either leave them alone (change is bad) or rebalance them from the ground up.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#1609 - 2014-05-20 20:14:06 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Quote:
So can we all agree just to tell CCP don't push this update and leave the freighters alone? Big smile
Yes. Although I'm warming up to the lowslot idea…

bad tippia.
no. no low slots.

Weeell… it all hinges on the idea that they'll stay at 0+0 CPU and grid, and that the modules that can be used will be restricted that way. This creates a much smaller pool of modifications that can happen and much smaller counter-balancing nerfs. It might even be possible to almost retain a sensible middle-ground while still allowing for specific (non-excessive) boosts.
Sniper Smith
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#1610 - 2014-05-20 20:15:10 UTC
I like the lowslot idea.

Other than the fact that it's cheaper, it's also more versatile, and allows you to change your freighter for the task.. re-rigging really isn't an option with Capital Rigs :p

I mean I need to move a LOT of crap.. Cargo.. On the way back I'm not moving much, but it's worth a fair bit.. Tank.. Gotta get it done faster ? Agility..

I won't miss the loss of warpspeed rigs as an option.. though I think adding a warpspeed low-slot item, would open up a lot of gameplay options.. if the penalty was right..
Dave Stark
#1611 - 2014-05-20 20:18:46 UTC
Dirk MacGirk wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Quote:
So can we all agree just to tell CCP don't push this update and leave the freighters alone? Big smile
Yes. Although I'm warming up to the lowslot idea…

bad tippia.
no. no low slots.


Don't fear the lowslots Dave. They too will come at a cost and we'll get another hundred pages of tears from people who can't do the math. Probably a pretty severe nerf to base stats. But the level of real flexibility should vastly outweigh changes to the base stats. Far more so than all this BS related to a discussion about rigs alone.

At some point these ships have to come into the same realm as all other ships in the game. Either leave them alone (change is bad) or rebalance them from the ground up.


i honestly don't think freighters need touching. they do what they were intended to do fine, the variation between races is good. there's no need to give them fittings, of any kind.

they're probably the most well balanced ship class we have in eve in their current state. they don't need flexibility, they have one job; they move junk from A to B. a job that they do remarkably well.
Sniper Smith
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#1612 - 2014-05-20 20:19:15 UTC
Tippia wrote:

Weeell… it all hinges on the idea that they'll stay at 0+0 CPU and grid, and that the modules that can be used will be restricted that way. This creates a much smaller pool of modifications that can happen and much smaller counter-balancing nerfs. It might even be possible to almost retain a sensible middle-ground while still allowing for specific (non-excessive) boosts.

I'll be honest.. they can nerf my Freighter HP into the ground if they let me fit a DCUII to gain it back.. Here's why..

I'm actually awake when I move my freighter, so I can turn it on.. others aren't, so not my problem. Also, it lets me fit the ship for the need.. I don't need huge tank if I'm just moving a lot of m3 of crap.. On the other hand I might move something of value, and want 2x Bulkhead and a DCUII..

In any case the true tank REQUIRES you to be there. Awake and alert. Making afk hauling still viable, but at much more diminished returns or higher risk.
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#1613 - 2014-05-20 20:25:32 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Dirk MacGirk wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Quote:
So can we all agree just to tell CCP don't push this update and leave the freighters alone? Big smile
Yes. Although I'm warming up to the lowslot idea…

bad tippia.
no. no low slots.


Don't fear the lowslots Dave. They too will come at a cost and we'll get another hundred pages of tears from people who can't do the math. Probably a pretty severe nerf to base stats. But the level of real flexibility should vastly outweigh changes to the base stats. Far more so than all this BS related to a discussion about rigs alone.

At some point these ships have to come into the same realm as all other ships in the game. Either leave them alone (change is bad) or rebalance them from the ground up.


i honestly don't think freighters need touching. they do what they were intended to do fine, the variation between races is good. there's no need to give them fittings, of any kind.

they're probably the most well balanced ship class we have in eve in their current state. they don't need flexibility, they have one job; they move junk from A to B. a job that they do remarkably well.


u could remove racial freighters and make one ORE freighter. wouldnt change much.
same with all haulers.

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
Dave Stark
#1614 - 2014-05-20 20:27:05 UTC
Daichi Yamato wrote:
u could remove racial freighters and make one ORE freighter. wouldnt change much.
same with all haulers.


too much hassle.

besides, the variation between races gives freighters "choice" as it is. especially since cross training for freighters is trivial now.
Sniper Smith
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#1615 - 2014-05-20 20:31:00 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Daichi Yamato wrote:
u could remove racial freighters and make one ORE freighter. wouldnt change much.
same with all haulers.


too much hassle.

besides, the variation between races gives freighters "choice" as it is. especially since cross training for freighters is trivial now.

Also the Provi/Ark is Sexy.
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#1616 - 2014-05-20 20:32:22 UTC
Sniper Smith wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Daichi Yamato wrote:
u could remove racial freighters and make one ORE freighter. wouldnt change much.
same with all haulers.


too much hassle.

besides, the variation between races gives freighters "choice" as it is. especially since cross training for freighters is trivial now.

Also the Provi/Ark is Sexy.


so sexy...and the only one i dnt have :(

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
#1617 - 2014-05-20 20:46:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Sniper Smith wrote:
I'll be honest.. they can nerf my Freighter HP into the ground if they let me fit a DCUII to gain it back.. Here's why..

I'm actually awake when I move my freighter, so I can turn it on.. others aren't, so not my problem. Also, it lets me fit the ship for the need.. I don't need huge tank if I'm just moving a lot of m3 of crap.. On the other hand I might move something of value, and want 2x Bulkhead and a DCUII..

In any case the true tank REQUIRES you to be there. Awake and alert. Making afk hauling still viable, but at much more diminished returns or higher risk.

Good point. I suppose the baseline would then be something along the lines of DCUII, Expander II, Bulkhead II. Hmm… the problem is that we get this:

• Replacing expander (losing 22% cargo from baseline) with a bulkhead means you get 50% more hull EHP at max tank.
• Replacing it with an istab gives 20% faster align, only 25% more hull EHP
• Replacing it with a WCS gives 25% more hull EHP and you're now safe from a single long point. Yay. Lol
• Ditching the bulkhead (-17% hull EHP and +12% cargo from baseline) for another expander gives you 44% more cargo.
• Ditching both the bulkhead and DCU for full cargo gives you 80% less hull EHP and 84% more cargo than baseline.

It's a bit swingy and the variance comes at a very low cost. We have a 130 percentage point difference between maximum and minimum tank and 106pp between max and min cargo. And we still have an absolute upper bound for cargo capacity of 1.3M m³, so the maximum baseline for cargo has to be 700k m³ (which in practice means that everyone + dog will fly around with just over 1M…). If we go by the results of the OP, the maximum CCP wants to see is much less — somewhere around 1.1M — which would put the baseline at 590k (i.e. 848k with one extra expander).
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#1618 - 2014-05-20 20:49:17 UTC
So, someone mentioned this earlier but I think it bears repeating.

If a lowslot is given with sufficient fittings to put a DCU 2 on there, the end result will be a crapton of ganked freighters and an ocean of tears.

Because such an addition will result in a hefty nerf to overall capability, but moreso because if people could be asked to be at their keyboard for each jump to turn on a module then freighters would not autopilot so much.

"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
#1619 - 2014-05-20 20:51:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Valterra Craven
Tippia wrote:

• Replacing it with a WCS gives 25% more hull EHP and you're now safe from a single long point. Yay. Lol


You do realize that stabs take fitting right? 20-35 cpu and 1 grid...

And if the baseline is one DCU you'd you have to lose the DCU to fit a stab.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#1620 - 2014-05-20 20:53:24 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:
Tippia wrote:
• Replacing it with a WCS gives 25% more hull EHP and you're now safe from a single long point. Yay. Lol

You do realize that stabs take fitting right?
You do realise we're talking about a completely different scenario now, right?