These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Aerissa Nolen
Doomheim
#1681 - 2014-05-21 05:47:42 UTC
Aerissa Nolen wrote:
I've been working on a web tool to help wrap my head around these changes. Fairly limited right now but gets some basic info across. Works in IGB as well, does not require trust.

http://xyjax.com/optimizer_kronos/index.html


Just a note to anyone who might have looked at this tool earlier -- it has been updated with implants, rigs, and the ability to swap between Rubicon and Kronos data. Just in time for Fozzie to announce something that breaks it all :)
handige harrie
Vereenigde Handels Compagnie
#1682 - 2014-05-21 05:48:39 UTC
I don't get why CCP won't put heavier negative modifiers on the rigs instead of nerfing the ships themselves, making the use of Rigs have more impact increases choice, since you can also opt to not use rigs and have a jack of all trades, master of none setup.

Baddest poster ever
Sniper Smith
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#1683 - 2014-05-21 05:50:11 UTC
handige harrie wrote:
I don't get why CCP won't put heavier negative modifiers on the rigs instead of nerfing the ships themselves, making the use of Rigs have more impact increases choice, since you can also opt to not use rigs and have a jack of all trades, master of none setup.

Probably because they don't want to have to buff every other cap ship to make up for what they are trying to do with JUST the Freighter and Jump Freighter.
handige harrie
Vereenigde Handels Compagnie
#1684 - 2014-05-21 05:58:49 UTC
No other cap ships use the rigs Freighters or JF's will mainly use (Align time, Increased Cargohold, Hull Hitpoints) and seeing how powerful they are on cap ships when stacked in absolute numbers (removing x second of align time, +xxx K m3 or a massive raw EHP increase) heavier penalties on better base stats wouldn't be too bad imho.

Baddest poster ever
Sniper Smith
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#1685 - 2014-05-21 06:12:30 UTC
All the cap ships CAN use them.
Some likely will, like Rorq's. Not to mention all the crazy fits you find in WH's.
CCP can't just make chances because they don't feel some caps won't use em. They have to assume every rig of a class can be used on any ship.

Also, most caps still have Large rigs, from before Cap rigs were introduced last year. And CCP does not change your fits when they update it.. It's why people can have everything from Frigates to T3's with Large Rigs, back from when there was just one size.
Sixx Spades
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#1686 - 2014-05-21 06:13:07 UTC
The Rorqual would like a word with you.

Using a weapon as a deterrent in a diplomatic situation is only viable when you have proven that you have deployed it in the past and are willing to use it in the future.
Cardano Firesnake
Fire Bullet Inc
#1687 - 2014-05-21 06:49:29 UTC
I suppose that the price impact is not important.

The Freighter price will probably not down after the patch but you will have to pay capitals rigs also.
And as it is rigs, you will have to destroy them to change the configuration of the freighter or have a freighter for each purpose.

A Charon: 1.39B, Three cargohold optilization I 240M.
Another Charon, 1.39B, Three Hull tank rigs I 210M.

Needless to tell about Tech II Rigs.

Posted - 2010.07.01 11:24:00 - [4] Erase learning skills, remap all SP. That's all.
handige harrie
Vereenigde Handels Compagnie
#1688 - 2014-05-21 06:55:42 UTC
Why would anyone care how much EHP their rorq has? The EHP of a rorq is less important than the EHP of a freighter in Highsec. If you get caught in a rorq, you're doing something else wrong or if you wanted to be risky, you should have been prepared for it. Max Cargo fit is not prepared for being risky.

In my experience though, all a rorq does is either sit in a POS or sit in station or wait outside a station, so it can dock or jump. In the off chance you do care, you shouldn't fit all Carghold rigs, just as it is now.

The rest of the Caps can still use the rigs without problem, want to increase the Cargohold of you Archon instead of Trimarks/CCC? Go nuts. Just know you have less Hull HP than you would have now. When you want to turn a ship into a hauler, you get hauler penalties. If you want a Dread with the align time of a battleship there should be harsh penalties.

Baddest poster ever
Adrien Crosse
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#1689 - 2014-05-21 07:10:36 UTC
Rorquals are also due for a full role overhaul and rebalance anyway, little point balancing other things around their current state.
Dave Stark
#1690 - 2014-05-21 07:22:55 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Ladies and gentlemen this is your nightly message to let you know that I've caught up to this point in the thread and that we still have not forgotten about you. Big smile

There's a version two of the design currently posted for the CSM in their internal forums, they've responded largely positively so far. I'm going to let them think about it overnight and if all looks good we'll post the proposal for public feedback tomorrow.

Thanks as always!


is that version "leave freighters as they are, and remember that popular suggestions aren't always good suggestions"?
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate
#1691 - 2014-05-21 07:35:01 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Ladies and gentlemen this is your nightly message to let you know that I've caught up to this point in the thread and that we still have not forgotten about you. Big smile

There's a version two of the design currently posted for the CSM in their internal forums, they've responded largely positively so far. I'm going to let them think about it overnight and if all looks good we'll post the proposal for public feedback tomorrow.

Thanks as always!


is that version "leave freighters as they are, and remember that popular suggestions aren't always good suggestions"?


Dave: They really should lock this thread on your last comment. lol
Gregor Parud
Imperial Academy
#1692 - 2014-05-21 07:38:10 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Ladies and gentlemen this is your nightly message to let you know that I've caught up to this point in the thread and that we still have not forgotten about you. Big smile

There's a version two of the design currently posted for the CSM in their internal forums, they've responded largely positively so far. I'm going to let them think about it overnight and if all looks good we'll post the proposal for public feedback tomorrow.

Thanks as always!


Given that the CSM is largely 0.0 sock puppets we can probably conclude from this that version two has no change whatsoever to diminish Jfreighter performance.
Dave Stark
#1693 - 2014-05-21 07:42:22 UTC
Dirk MacGirk wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Ladies and gentlemen this is your nightly message to let you know that I've caught up to this point in the thread and that we still have not forgotten about you. Big smile

There's a version two of the design currently posted for the CSM in their internal forums, they've responded largely positively so far. I'm going to let them think about it overnight and if all looks good we'll post the proposal for public feedback tomorrow.

Thanks as always!


is that version "leave freighters as they are, and remember that popular suggestions aren't always good suggestions"?


Dave: They really should lock this thread on your last comment. lol


no, need to get more posts than tippia.

seriously though, i don't really see what other choices there are. people, rightly, don't want to see their freighters nerfed. alternatively, we can't let a power creep begin.

between those two facts, we have a class of ship that's already well balanced between racial variants, doesn't encroach on another ship's role, and does it's intended role very very well.

there's no reason not to leave them as they are, and in doing so we satisfy the "don't nerf my freighter" side, and the "can't start a power creep" side.

having said that; after seeing the sisi notes and the new jump rigs... we're probably well past the point of no return now.
Dave Stark
#1694 - 2014-05-21 07:44:03 UTC
Gregor Parud wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Ladies and gentlemen this is your nightly message to let you know that I've caught up to this point in the thread and that we still have not forgotten about you. Big smile

There's a version two of the design currently posted for the CSM in their internal forums, they've responded largely positively so far. I'm going to let them think about it overnight and if all looks good we'll post the proposal for public feedback tomorrow.

Thanks as always!


Given that the CSM is largely 0.0 sock puppets we can probably conclude from this that version two has no change whatsoever to diminish Jfreighter performance.


and who did you vote for?
Gregor Parud
Imperial Academy
#1695 - 2014-05-21 07:52:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Gregor Parud
Dave Stark wrote:
Gregor Parud wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Ladies and gentlemen this is your nightly message to let you know that I've caught up to this point in the thread and that we still have not forgotten about you. Big smile

There's a version two of the design currently posted for the CSM in their internal forums, they've responded largely positively so far. I'm going to let them think about it overnight and if all looks good we'll post the proposal for public feedback tomorrow.

Thanks as always!


Given that the CSM is largely 0.0 sock puppets we can probably conclude from this that version two has no change whatsoever to diminish Jfreighter performance.


and who did you vote for?


Low seccers combined with people who have decent ideas and realistic views.
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate
#1696 - 2014-05-21 07:54:59 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Dirk MacGirk wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Ladies and gentlemen this is your nightly message to let you know that I've caught up to this point in the thread and that we still have not forgotten about you. Big smile

There's a version two of the design currently posted for the CSM in their internal forums, they've responded largely positively so far. I'm going to let them think about it overnight and if all looks good we'll post the proposal for public feedback tomorrow.

Thanks as always!


is that version "leave freighters as they are, and remember that popular suggestions aren't always good suggestions"?


Dave: They really should lock this thread on your last comment. lol


no, need to get more posts than tippia.

seriously though, i don't really see what other choices there are. people, rightly, don't want to see their freighters nerfed. alternatively, we can't let a power creep begin.

between those two facts, we have a class of ship that's already well balanced between racial variants, doesn't encroach on another ship's role, and does it's intended role very very well.

there's no reason not to leave them as they are, and in doing so we satisfy the "don't nerf my freighter" side, and the "can't start a power creep" side.

having said that; after seeing the sisi notes and the new jump rigs... we're probably well past the point of no return now.


Yeah, we're through the looking glass.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#1697 - 2014-05-21 08:04:58 UTC
Gregor Parud wrote:
Low seccers combined with people who have decent ideas and realistic views.

You mean realistic views like "freighters and jump freighters don't need to be changed, they're fine as they are"?

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
JanSVK
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1698 - 2014-05-21 09:16:29 UTC  |  Edited by: JanSVK
This is a bad change CCP. I suggest rethink, delay or cancel.

You only achieving one think with this. More grinding.

handige harrie wrote:
I don't get why CCP won't put heavier negative modifiers on the rigs instead of nerfing the ships themselves, making the use of Rigs have more impact increases choice, since you can also opt to not use rigs and have a jack of all trades, master of none setup.


I think this would be an awesome alternative. Keep the current freighter stats and give them an increase in rig penalties or aditional penalties when fitting rigs to get your desired effects.

Thanks.
Digger Pollard
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#1699 - 2014-05-21 09:26:55 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Ladies and gentlemen this is your nightly message to let you know that I've caught up to this point in the thread and that we still have not forgotten about you. Big smile

There's a version two of the design currently posted for the CSM in their internal forums, they've responded largely positively so far. I'm going to let them think about it overnight and if all looks good we'll post the proposal for public feedback tomorrow.

Thanks as always!


Too late, Fozzie, I'm already unsubbed...
After all, this isn't first offense. If nobody is going to protect the industry from getting covered in Fozzie, might as well quit preemptively.
Gregor Parud
Imperial Academy
#1700 - 2014-05-21 09:34:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Gregor Parud
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Gregor Parud wrote:
Low seccers combined with people who have decent ideas and realistic views.

You mean realistic views like "freighters and jump freighters don't need to be changed, they're fine as they are"?


No I mean "freighters are fine in and of themselves, the problem is that they make use of Jump bridges which should be nerfed just as jump capable ships (and thus Jfreighters) should be nerfed". We need more separation because that helps local null sec industry and lowers the focus on high sec industry (this will of course also require a substantial buff to null in this regard).

Anything with jump or bridging capability (BO excluded) needs to be toned down dramatically. Freighters, being given rig slots and thus having to be rebalanced because of it, is an entirely different issue and discussion.