These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
 

[Hyperion] Jump Drive Economizer Modules

First post First post
Author
Carniflex
StarHunt
Mordus Angels
#101 - 2014-08-02 10:12:02 UTC
Twizted3 wrote:
I don't see how others are not saying this module is a terrible idea, at 3500 m3 no one is going to use it, can't carry extra fittings or extra fuel, can't justify using them on blackops because you can't take them off and refit using a depot.

This is basically admitting the fuel change was a bad idea then releasing a module to supposedly fix it, but making the module so huge it isn't worth using, again doesn't effect the big bloc alliances at all because they have the isk to pay for all their pilots fuel, and the resources to put carrier refits at the last jump before getting into combat.

Just put fuel back the way it was and leave it alone. You are making it much much worse.


You are sitting in too tight box mate. Ofcource you can refit them on BLOPS without major issues. You just cant carry them comfortably ;) But nothing prevents you leaving one (or more of them) in the depot if you need to refit for something else. With some careful juggling with jetcans and expanders you could even make it so that your fuel truck can pick it up .. or something.

It's just not that relevant for BLOPS scene as it does not affect bridging and if you are hopping around just yourself you most likely are better off with something else instead of this fuel conservation module as BLOPS are already reasonably fuel efficient per ly (as long as they do not need to bridge other stuff around with them). For purely bridge BLOPS which is fitted for that it is probably still better to go with full expanders instead of fitting one or more of these.

But dunno perhaps it would make sense in some scenarios to use some of these on blops. Although BLOPS would benefit more from something that would make it able to extend its jump range.

Here, sanity... niiiice sanity, come to daddy... okay, that's a good sanity... THWONK! GOT the bastard.

Carniflex
StarHunt
Mordus Angels
#102 - 2014-08-02 10:16:03 UTC
xplosiv wrote:
typical
Seriously these modules are a kick in the teeth because the people who will get most out of them are yet again the big alliance who can bridge industrials with backup fits or have secondary fits in their forward bases to swap out to.


The easiest solution, in my opinion, is just bringing Roqual along if you absolutely need to refit and store these in space. It can be expanded to ~130 k base cargo and has also 50 000 corp hangar. Only issue is ofc that Roqual, if I remember correct, is a bit shorter jump range than carriers. And it adds some complexity to the refitting procedure.

Here, sanity... niiiice sanity, come to daddy... okay, that's a good sanity... THWONK! GOT the bastard.

Jamaica Merchant
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#103 - 2014-08-02 11:12:28 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:

The primary goal here is to provide an interesting set of choices to capital pilots (especially Jump Freighter pilots) in how to fill up their low slots for any given activity.


I can hardly think of anything more interesting than contemplating capital low slots.

Desert Ice78
Gryphons of the Western Wind
#104 - 2014-08-02 11:45:13 UTC
Voyager Arran wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Sigras wrote:
Please make the modules capital sized (>=4000 m^3) otherwise you may as well just reduce the jump fuel cost of all ships by 25% and call it a day...

If these modules are allowed to be 5 m^3 like most other modules not specifically tied to a ship class then every carrier will just carry around 4-5 of them and insta switch them out when they land.


The currently planned volume of these modules is 3500m3


People need to pay more attention to this detail.

At best, a carrier can tote around two, and that leaves them without room for any other capital modules in their fleet hangar and also gives up 7,000 m3 that could have just been more fuel. Dreads won't be able to carry any of them at all.

That size seems to be a bit excessive. 2000m3 would be a better balance, me thinks.

I am a pod pilot: http://dl.eve-files.com/media/corp/DesertIce/POD.jpg

CCP Zulu: Came expecting a discussion about computer monitors, left confused.

Hevymetal
POT Corp
#105 - 2014-08-02 12:46:54 UTC
I support this idea, however 3500m3 does seem a bit much.

One of you Eve math gurus wanna do the calculations on this one?

An archon with a full fuel bay, jump fuel conservation V and 7 lows fitted the best versions of these 10% including the stacking penalties can go how far now before needing refueling?

Max Goldwing
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#106 - 2014-08-02 17:40:06 UTC
Hevymetal wrote:
I support this idea, however 3500m3 does seem a bit much.

One of you Eve math gurus wanna do the calculations on this one?

An archon with a full fuel bay, jump fuel conservation V and 7 lows fitted the best versions of these 10% including the stacking penalties can go how far now before needing refueling?


6th and 7th module is probaly not worth it, with 5 you get 32.27% with 7 you get 33.36% less fuel usage.
Alundil
Rolled Out
#107 - 2014-08-02 17:53:40 UTC
Ripard Teg wrote:
Why is there no limit on the number of these that you can fit?

I am concerned about certain alliances who shall remain nameless buying four of these for each of their carriers and supers. By doing so, they avoid the bulk of the nerf you stuck the rest of us with...

This is exactly the point. It completely invalidates the effects of the isotope changes (making them more expensive) for those groups that can, and make no mistake WILL, purchase these in bulk for their capital fleets. This makes perfect sense as an Alliance-level capital fleet expense item. Groups with more ISK than they know what to do with (read: blocs and heads of rental+moon empires) won't even bat an eye at buying these by the hundreds.

However, for other less well supported (propped up) capital pilots, mainly those smaller alliances without moons or renter, or smaller corps, or even individual pilots, will be effectively priced out of these and stuck with the isotope price hike you hit them with. With no mitigation available due to no "Scrooge McDuck" piles of ISK.

Why would these items even be conceptualized if you, CCP, were concerned with the ease of teleportation across the map and then made an change just a few short months ago to make it a little less easy, or at least more expensive to do. This reverses that for those who can pay.

IDGI

I'm right behind you

Hopelesshobo
Hoboland
#108 - 2014-08-02 17:57:59 UTC
Catherine Laartii wrote:


To be quite honest, I think it would be impressive if you added something to increase jump RANGE. That would have a lot more potential to shake things up. Twisted


Yes, lets make eve even smaller, so the large coalitions have an even easier time moving around and controlling an even larger portion of nulsec. That has got to be a GREAT idea, have 1 coalition controlling all of nulsec....how can that possibly be boring?

Lowering the average to make you look better since 2012.

Snake O'Donell
Core Impulse
#109 - 2014-08-02 18:04:15 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Strata Maslav wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Sigras wrote:
Please make the modules capital sized (>=4000 m^3) otherwise you may as well just reduce the jump fuel cost of all ships by 25% and call it a day...

If these modules are allowed to be 5 m^3 like most other modules not specifically tied to a ship class then every carrier will just carry around 4-5 of them and insta switch them out when they land.


The currently planned volume of these modules is 3500m3


There doesn't seem to be any specification currently with the fitting to any specific ship. Theoretically you could take a frigate, fit these modules to it and store it inside your carrier. It would still be very difficult to fit these in space still but allow you to refit easily in a station.


Good point, and easy enough to solve. We have the technology.

Ok, so when I move my dread fleet the whole way across the galaxy, I just dock up one jump out of my destination, unfit these mods, and replace with damage mods and leave it in the station. When I jump out of combat I just refit in station again. Once again this mainly ends up really affecting small alliances without pre-established jump points and large logistics chains, well barely even effecting large alliances and coalitions.
Paikis
Vapour Holdings
#110 - 2014-08-02 19:16:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Paikis
I'm not even in the big blocks and I think the constant tears over fuel costs for "the little guy" are a joke. In fact, I'd place myself firmly in the position of being "the little guy" and I have no trouble fueling my capitals. The current price for a carrier is 1.35 billion. If you can afford the hull, you can afford another 300-500mil to fit it.

And if you can't afford jump fuel, then you've got bigger problems than these modules. Get yourselves sorted out and stop the tears. It's embarrassing.
Kane Fenris
NWP
#111 - 2014-08-02 20:32:17 UTC
Paikis wrote:
I'm not even in the big blocks and I think the constant tears over fuel costs for "the little guy" are a joke. In fact, I'd place myself firmly in the position of being "the little guy" and I have no trouble fueling my capitals. The current price for a carrier is 1.35 billion. If you can afford the hull, you can afford another 300-500mil to fit it.

And if you can't afford jump fuel, then you've got bigger problems than these modules. Get yourselves sorted out and stop the tears. It's embarrassing.


its about the economics

I suggest you read this

its an intresting article (warning its long!)
there is explained in detail why there are only two power blocks in eve nullsec and why game mechanics do not allow a more inhomogenious null space.

its because of mecanics like this (fuel changes)
(fuel costs and now even worse allowing parties that have a good infrastructure to even safe more fuel)

Paikis
Vapour Holdings
#112 - 2014-08-02 22:30:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Paikis
Kane Fenris wrote:
its about the economics

I suggest you read this

its an intresting article (warning its long!)
there is explained in detail why there are only two power blocks in eve nullsec and why game mechanics do not allow a more inhomogenious null space.

its because of mecanics like this (fuel changes)
(fuel costs and now even worse allowing parties that have a good infrastructure to even safe more fuel)


I read that post when it came out. I don't see the relevance to this issue. It talks about why there are two blocks, this discussion is about jump fuel costs.

I say again, there is absolutely nothing stopping you from going to low sec and getting some of these modules for yourself, or running missions/anoms/mining for long enough to just buy one. Just as there is no reason why you wouldn't be able to afford the increased jump fuel.

If you can afford a ship with a jump drive, then you can afford to fuel it. End of story. Just do more of what you did to buy the hull.

I mean, has anyone even bothered to do the maths on how much jump fuel costs? I have, and a max range jump for a JF is only 15mil, where it used to be 10m. Talk about a storm in a teacup. If you're making this big of a fuss over 15m now, but you were fine with 10m previously, then please turn in your capitals, because you're too dumb to be flying them.
Pheusia
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#113 - 2014-08-03 00:21:19 UTC
Carniflex wrote:
Mariner6 wrote:
Lowsec again? No issue with that I guess but it would be nice if something like this could be seeded in NPC Null only. Might spice things up a bit down here. Some extra small gang incentive would be nice like your doing in lowsec with your clone tags, mordus legion etc etc. But you know....amp it up a bit down here for some more risk/reward aspects. Its been getting quiet around here in Syndicate of late and not much better in other NPC null.


It is indeed a bit odd that CCP is ignoring the NPC null. For all practical purposes NPC null is low sec with bubbles and bombers and titan doomsday's. So CCP should act towards it like a subset of low sec instead of putting it in the same bin with sov null which is a lot different beast.


Well said that man. lo-sec has received a great series of buffs lately. NPC 0.0 could do with some love.
Kane Fenris
NWP
#114 - 2014-08-03 10:43:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Kane Fenris
Paikis wrote:
Kane Fenris wrote:
its about the economics

I suggest you read this

its an intresting article (warning its long!)
there is explained in detail why there are only two power blocks in eve nullsec and why game mechanics do not allow a more inhomogenious null space.

its because of mecanics like this (fuel changes)
(fuel costs and now even worse allowing parties that have a good infrastructure to even safe more fuel)


I read that post when it came out. I don't see the relevance to this issue. It talks about why there are two blocks, this discussion is about jump fuel costs.

I say again, there is absolutely nothing stopping you from going to low sec and getting some of these modules for yourself, or running missions/anoms/mining for long enough to just buy one. Just as there is no reason why you wouldn't be able to afford the increased jump fuel.

If you can afford a ship with a jump drive, then you can afford to fuel it. End of story. Just do more of what you did to buy the hull.

I mean, has anyone even bothered to do the maths on how much jump fuel costs? I have, and a max range jump for a JF is only 15mil, where it used to be 10m. Talk about a storm in a teacup. If you're making this big of a fuss over 15m now, but you were fine with 10m previously, then please turn in your capitals, because you're too dumb to be flying them.



its like i said in my first post :

- huge aliances corps wil just have a place in their infrastructure to refit them and massively save on costs where small corps cant
its not a huge impact but its the same type of mechanic -> benefits for the bigger

- apart of that whole benefit for the bigger its just a bad gameplay mechanic "to be forced" to refit is just a sort of anoying time sink that doesnt ad to fun complexity that makes eve uniqe but just booring/anoying stuff you have to do to be efficient
Christopher Tsutola
State Navy
#115 - 2014-08-03 12:52:04 UTC
Rowells wrote:
PotatoOverdose wrote:


Also I wasn't clear on this: Will the modules affect blops bridges which use normal fuels instead of stront?

The last answer I saw was no affects to any bridging. Just the jump-druve


I was unclear on this as well since bridge fuel is stront and the cost to jump a ship is based of the base jump cost of the bridging ship if these do reduce the cost of BLOP bridges then i'm fine with them and i think it would fix most of the problems with BLOPS in general. if it doesn't affect the bridge however there wont be much point fitting these on BLOPS. This isn't much of a problem if they were only intended for capital ships however and not BLOPS
Domanique Altares
Rifterlings
#116 - 2014-08-03 16:42:09 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:

The primary goal here is to provide an interesting set of choices to capital pilots (especially Jump Freighter pilots) in how to fill up their low slots for any given activity.


Then you have failed before you started.

You have provided no interesting choices. What you have done is provided for a new module that will be used on most if not all travel fits, and almost never on a combat fit. That's not new, or interesting.
Christopher Tsutola
State Navy
#117 - 2014-08-03 16:51:13 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:

The fuel reduction per module is:
Limited Jump Drive Economizer - 4%
Experimental Jump Drive Economizer - 7%
Prototype Jump Drive Economizer - 10%


As many have stated this will just cause anyone who uses these mods to only go for the Prototype something you have said you wanted avoided with the meta modals why not start your balancing with these give some small buff to each of them


Prototype would just stay with its 10%

but give the limited perhaps a boost to bridge cost and the experimental a boost to cap cost


now these bones are not the best for one it looks like they don't want them to effect bridge cost just examples of things related to jump drives i could think of off hand and would help to add to the choices a pilot could make
Skia Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
#118 - 2014-08-04 05:08:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Skia Aumer
Domanique Altares wrote:
Then you have failed before you started.

You have provided no interesting choices. What you have done is provided for a new module that will be used on most if not all travel fits, and almost never on a combat fit. That's not new, or interesting.

They failed the moment they scrapped the idea of freighter rigs.
With rigs, you have to think first, then make decisions and finally suffer the consequences. Without, you just take spare modules anywhere you go and refit anytime you wish.

As an example, when I run a freighter full of goodies, I fit bulkheads to have a chance against gankers. When I autopilot back, I fit nanofibers. When sometimes I need to haul craptons of ore - I have cargoholds too. Just a few clicks were added into the game, nothing interesting. These economizers are a bit more tricky because they have rather big volume, but still not even 10% as fun as if they were rigs.
Kane Fenris
NWP
#119 - 2014-08-04 10:19:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Kane Fenris
Skia Aumer wrote:
Domanique Altares wrote:
Then you have failed before you started.

You have provided no interesting choices. What you have done is provided for a new module that will be used on most if not all travel fits, and almost never on a combat fit. That's not new, or interesting.

They failed the moment they scrapped the idea of freighter rigs.
With rigs, you have to think first, then make decisions and finally suffer the consequences. Without, you just take spare modules anywhere you go and refit anytime you wish.

As an example, when I run a freighter full of goodies, I fit bulkheads to have a chance against gankers. When I autopilot back, I fit nanofibers. When sometimes I need to haul craptons of ore - I have cargoholds too. Just a few clicks were added into the game, nothing interesting. These economizers are a bit more tricky because they have rather big volume, but still not even 10% as fun as if they were rigs.


totally agree with you both.

if those jump mdules were rigs you wouldnt have the problem i see with those mods and dont create unnecessary clicks
(ofc nobody in the galaxy would fit them well maybe to jf's.... but thats another point)

problem was the feigther rig thing had some flaws of its own.

to me the best solution wold be if theres a need in the economy (from dev side) to cut on fuel prices just give the reduction of 2-3 of those mods fitted to all jumpable ships.
if theres no need then do nothing at all -> dont bring those mods in the game
they offer NOTHING that could be consdiered as FUN
Mindo Junde
Bunnie Slayers
#120 - 2014-08-04 10:30:19 UTC
Kane Fenris wrote:
Paikis wrote:
I'm not even in the big blocks and I think the constant tears over fuel costs for "the little guy" are a joke. In fact, I'd place myself firmly in the position of being "the little guy" and I have no trouble fueling my capitals. The current price for a carrier is 1.35 billion. If you can afford the hull, you can afford another 300-500mil to fit it.

And if you can't afford jump fuel, then you've got bigger problems than these modules. Get yourselves sorted out and stop the tears. It's embarrassing.


its about the economics

I suggest you read this

its an intresting article (warning its long!)
there is explained in detail why there are only two power blocks in eve nullsec and why game mechanics do not allow a more inhomogenious null space.

its because of mecanics like this (fuel changes)
(fuel costs and now even worse allowing parties that have a good infrastructure to even safe more fuel)


the word your looking for is heterogeneous, beyond that your are correct

Seems that whoever in CCP came up with this module is more interested in undoing any attempts to balkanise null sec, for whatever moronic reason. Its a sad day when everybody wants CCP to change sov and CCP are trying to keep it????