These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Hiryu Jin
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1861 - 2014-05-21 15:49:39 UTC
Did you guys (ccp) get bored one day and decide to troll the **** out of everyone?
Jattila Vrek
Green Visstick High
#1862 - 2014-05-21 15:49:44 UTC
If the 0,3 AU/s warp speed accellerators are affordable (although I doubt it), then there will be little reason to fit an Inertial Stabilizer, except on very short warps. This module may also be usefull on an Orca. For subcaps this module is quite underwhelming.
Cielle Tische
Who Armed the Carebears
#1863 - 2014-05-21 15:49:46 UTC
Mmmmmm... I actually liked the Rigs idea better, and for one specific reason.

I could live with spending a couple hundred mil to get my cargo back up to what it is now (and actually higher) at the expensive of armor. T1 Capital Cargo Rigs == 15% Cargo, -10(5)% armor. I could live with 160m for three of those

I'm not sure, however, if I can live with Cargo Expanders. T2 Expanded Cargohold == +27.5% Cargo, -20% Structure. That's just too much tank loss for something that relies on structure tank.


OBELISK - CURRENT
Shield: 5,313
Armor: 22,500
Structure: 120,000
(RHP: 147,813)
Cargo-Skillless: 750,000
Cargo-Skilled: 937,500

OBELISK - RIGGED (3x cargo)
Shield: 14,000
Armor: 34,295
Structure: 110,000
(RHP: 158,295)
Cargo-Skillless: 669,185.00
Cargo-Skilled: 836,481.25

OBELISK - LOWS (3x expanders)
Shield: 14,000
Armor: 40,000
Structure: 56,320
(RHP: 110,320)
Cargo: 911,975.625
Cargo-Skilled: 1,139,969.53125

OBELISK - LOWS (2x expander + 1x bulk)
Shield: 14,000
Armor: 40,000
Structure: 88,000
(RHP: 142,000)
Cargo: 715,275.00
Cargo-Skilled: 894,093.75

Now then on top of that... Bulkheads were mentioned as being changed to reduce cargo instead of velocity, which then moots the point of trying to use one to counter the expanders' penalty. (Calculations above using currently listed freighter changes and currently ingame modules). Basically what I'm saying is... I think certain things need to be taken into consideration before these changes are made final. As long as Bulkheads don't take out of cargo, I think it'll be fine, because people who want "as close to now" can just do the 2x expander 1x bulk method, but if it does, it'll end up cutting that down to 795,743.43 cargo, which is far substandard compared to now.

Developer of www.eveidb.com - Relational EVE database! [Still under construction]
Valterra Craven
#1864 - 2014-05-21 15:50:42 UTC
Daichi Yamato wrote:
Valterra Craven wrote:
Daichi Yamato wrote:

- low slot shield mods that can only be fit to freighters?


PDU!!!!!!


if thats a power dag, then cpu may be a bit of an issue...


yes, which is why I'm arguing for a role bonus to cpu fitting just like they did with bulkheads!
Digger Pollard
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#1865 - 2014-05-21 15:51:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Digger Pollard
So we still cannot have old capacity and EHP back, and it's still a nerf.
But I guess it's a bit less of a nerf, at least concerning Jita-bound freighters, they can now be somewhat more resilient towards easymode ganking, while being fit for capacity in general use hauling away from gank systems.
But in the meantime, Obelisk is useless for the latter and Charon is useless for the former, with Fenrir being untankable without losing his prized agility, the title of The Freighter goes from Obelisk to Providence.

P.S. If the bulkheads are really changed to take out cargo, then the nerf is too massive and I prefer staying unsubbed.
Takanuro
Eve Faction Trade Exchange
#1866 - 2014-05-21 15:51:33 UTC
Aureus Ahishatsu wrote:
So after doing some more excel fun.... It looks pretty good. with 2 t2 expanded cargoholds and a t2 bulkhead you can get pretty sufficient cargo with a decent tank. My only real concern is what has been stated before with the slight imbalance given to the two armored ships vs shield tanks. I wouldn't expect them to be equal but given the set up i just listed for example the fenrir and charon are sitting in the 124 - 135 ehp while the providence is somewhere in the 165-180 ehp and the still tanky obelisk is in the 170 - 185 range. 40k ehp seems like a rather large gap especially when you consider this gap is only amplified after skills are taken into consideration.

Again let me reiterate before Tippia comes in throwing her DA card, not looking for them to be equal but at the current set up i see the price in provies and especially obe's going up. i mean have you seen the ehp of the new obe with 3 bulkheads??? 200 + ehp before even taking skills into account holy hell!


I was thinking the Providence with a couple of A-Type Adaptive Nano Platings would offer a pretty reasonable armor tank in future? I don't have the tools to theory craft it though.

Yes, we're going to die, but you're coming with us!
Barbara Nichole
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#1867 - 2014-05-21 15:52:37 UTC
Quote:
• The permanence of customizability that relies completely on rigs.
not a real issue.
Quote:
• The relative lack of interesting choices for Jump Freighter pilots.
yes, well I was hoping for some new cap rigs.
Quote:
They will have very restrictive powergrid and cpu totals
this is why I did not want slots.
It's not completely bad.. but I am a little disappointed. Please do not use this change as an opportunity to leave freighters in a worse spot then they were before the change.. that's all I can ask at this point.

  - remove the cloaked from local; free intel is the real problem, not  "afk" cloaking -

[IMG]http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a208/DawnFrostbringer/consultsig.jpg[/IMG]
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1868 - 2014-05-21 15:53:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Tippia wrote:
Lara Divinity wrote:
so basicly i have been training for a month for somthing that is now gonna get nerfed like hell n dont even feel like buyin nomore bcos of it


There was a reason for you to invest in the skill books and start training, right?
That reason will not go away with the patch. Whatever problem you were having that you thought you would need a freighter to solve, you'll still need a freighter to solve. Just keep plugging away at those skills — the needs and solutions will remain the same as always.


This is so true. People will still be using freighters no matter what since they will still be the only class to move large amounts of material with some degree of protection/safety.

These changes may in fact help. If you are moving lots of expensive stuff, but not going to be filling up your cargo hold then you'll want to go for tank. If you are going to be moving lots of inexpensive stuff, then you may end up going for cargo space.

The cargo space nerf is, IMO, a weak argument. Nobody (with half a brain) fills up their obelisk with more than about 700 million in cargo anyways. Unless you are moving vast amounts of veldspar, you will rarely fill a freighter up. So taking even a big hit on the cargo space is not something most people will be crying over. Now having the ability to add more tank means you can move your stuff with even more safety/protection.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Kaius Fero
#1869 - 2014-05-21 15:55:35 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Victoria Sin wrote:

No, no Goonie, I didn't say I didn't want a load of catalysts to be able to kill my Jump Freighter. I definitely did not say that. If I remember correctly and I could be wrong because I wrote it ages ago (like 10 minutes or something) and that's a very long time, was that this 6 billion isk ship should have much better defensive capabilities than it does at present and that it should not die to a relatively small number of very low skilled Goon alts in Catalysts, hence fitting a DCII is not unreasonable.

I think if you read back that is in fact what I said. And you do realise that when you talk about "new players" what you mean is the brand new high-sec ganking alt some bitter-vet just spawned, don't you?

Terrible.


I love how you think I'm a Goon. It shows a lot of your mentality if you don't think it's possible anyone can disagree with you in honesty.

No, by the way. That non combat ship should not have better defenses, and you should not be immune to the actions of a whole bunch of people just because your ship costs more than their ships. Asking to double your tank for a 1 million isk module is not reasonable.

What you're asking for is to have new players handcuffed by pricetags just because your entitlement tells you that you should never have to die.

Pathetic.

Fuk yeah, I like it! How about you and your buddies get down to Somalia, buy some cheap ass speed boats and start ganking those carebear american freighters? Then send us some selfie's from the captain cabin? Now that would be cool! And don't forget to send a GF in local!

Anselmo & The Illegals
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#1870 - 2014-05-21 15:55:56 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:
Daichi Yamato wrote:
Valterra Craven wrote:
Daichi Yamato wrote:

- low slot shield mods that can only be fit to freighters?


PDU!!!!!!


if thats a power dag, then cpu may be a bit of an issue...


yes, which is why I'm arguing for a role bonus to cpu fitting just like they did with bulkheads!


oh, in that case, adding 15.36% to all resists is better than 5% shield cap and 8.5% recharge...by quite a bit. and even tripling the effects of PDU's wont equal the affect resists have because of logi.

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
Polo Marco
Four Winds
#1871 - 2014-05-21 15:56:33 UTC
Now THAT is righteous. Flexible, balanced, and not too nerfy. I'll still be flying escort on the most valuable loads in hisec, but overall it offers many options.

I still don't see the nerfing of JF capacity as compatible with the stated 'spread industry' game plan. Extra fuel cost doesn't bother me nearly as much as the extra time required jumping back and forth to empire in order to import materials and get your finished goods to market. Making both Rorque and JF ranges equivalent to carriers and DNs would go even further to aid the 'spread'. There would be a slight lessening in pew pew due to this, but players will still HAVE to fight a serious interdiction attempt.



heh heh.. so Fozzie....... I was laughing yesterday at the vanishing single-crystal superalloy I-beams... would you submit to a little PVP paintball at fanfest next year with any of those impatient speculators who took a bath yesterday ?

Eve teaches hard lessons. Don't blame the game for your own failures.
Azami Nevinyrall
172.0.0.1
#1872 - 2014-05-21 15:57:13 UTC
Can you, at least on the JF....maybe on the Freighter....put a little more wiggle room with the CPU to fit a DCU?

At least on the JF, which is extremely expensive! It should have ALOT more tanking abilities then it's T1 counterpart. With it's already smaller cargohold, players will be deciding to pick Cargohold expanders...which reduce tank, as we already know. Or go full tank and loose precious cargo space.

It's a good balance!

...
Aliath Sunstrike
#1873 - 2014-05-21 15:57:13 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
NEW CHANGES



PERFECT! I don't know who suggested the low slots instead of rigs, but GREAT job. These are the changes we deserve! Blink


I can't find a detractor as you increased the packages size of cap ships and stations to match the increased Freighter math. Pleasantly surprised all around. Loving the flexibility this brings and thank you for not making me shell out billions for new rigs, then billions for two more freighters.

+ one million good sir.

Loving the warp modules and the soon to come fuel modules. You are the man Fozzie. Tell CCP to give you a da%n raise already!

Continuous player since 2007.
Silvetica Dian
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#1874 - 2014-05-21 15:57:22 UTC
Marcus Iunius Brutus wrote:
Single-crystal Superalloy I-beam price crash in 3... 2... 1...
People with buy orders at 1M ISK that are at work now probably cry.


They were at over 1.4 mill in amarr until i sold mine into them.......
none over a mill in amarr any more.
i logged out a of a pith penal to log my market alt to sell them and then back to pith penal. got to it just in time.

Money at its root is a form of rationing. When the richest 85 people have as much wealth as the poorest 3.5 billion (50% of humanity) it is clear where the source of poverty is. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/20/trickle-down-economics-broken-promise-richest-85
Valterra Craven
#1875 - 2014-05-21 15:58:26 UTC
Daichi Yamato wrote:
Valterra Craven wrote:
Daichi Yamato wrote:
Valterra Craven wrote:
Daichi Yamato wrote:

- low slot shield mods that can only be fit to freighters?


PDU!!!!!!


if thats a power dag, then cpu may be a bit of an issue...


yes, which is why I'm arguing for a role bonus to cpu fitting just like they did with bulkheads!


oh, in that case, adding 15.36% to all resists is better than 5% shield cap and 8.5% recharge...by quite a bit. and even tripling the effects of PDU's wont equal the affect resists have because of logi.


This is true, but at this point its better than nothing :/
Midori Tsu
Evolution
Northern Coalition.
#1876 - 2014-05-21 15:58:53 UTC
is it intended that the JFs won't be able to put on a single T2 CPR?
Ammzi
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#1877 - 2014-05-21 16:00:01 UTC
Azami Nevinyrall wrote:
Can you, at least on the JF....maybe on the Freighter....put a little more wiggle room with the CPU to fit a DCU?

At least on the JF, which is extremely expensive! It should have ALOT more tanking abilities then it's T1 counterpart. With it's already smaller cargohold, players will be deciding to pick Cargohold expanders...which reduce tank, as we already know. Or go full tank and loose precious cargo space.

It's a good balance!


No - not unless hull is going to be cut by 60 %.
DC is way too overpowered on a freighter. You are already looking at very high ehp post kronos.
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#1878 - 2014-05-21 16:00:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Daichi Yamato
Azami Nevinyrall wrote:
Can you, at least on the JF....maybe on the Freighter....put a little more wiggle room with the CPU to fit a DCU?

....

It's a good balance!


FFS. READ.

Xander Phoena wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Azami Nevinyrall wrote:
Ok, these changes I'm happy with!

Now, can we get the CPU to 30 to put a DCU II on there? Then I'll happily buy one and use it alot!


It was done this way to specifically avoid you being able to double your tank with one module.


This.

You aren't getting DCUs on a freighter.

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
Lyn Fel
Black Frog Logistics
Red-Frog
#1879 - 2014-05-21 16:02:13 UTC
Just trained Astronautics Rigging IV on 6 characters... Can I has my SP back? Lol
Hiryu Jin
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1880 - 2014-05-21 16:02:19 UTC
so instead of a kick in the balls, we're supposed to be happy with a punch to face?