These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc
Tactical-Retreat
#141 - 2014-08-07 15:36:05 UTC
TAckermassacker wrote:
everyone wants to gank travelfit carriers, please let them exchange their damage control for a fuel conversator!


Is that what allows you to talk to your fuel when you feel alone in space? Big smile

Signature Tanking Best Tanking

[Ex-F] CEO - Eve-guides.fr

Ultimate Citadel Guide - 2016 EVE Career Chart

Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#142 - 2014-08-07 15:59:07 UTC
I agree with the restriction. While it would have been nice to have on blackops BS, I was less enthused about having the jump drive economy modules available for supercarriers and titans, whose fleet hangars are large enough to carry them without issue. Keeping the modules available only for logistics vessels like Rorquals and Jump Freighters with low to no combat or force projection utility is a good move.

It also gives me a little faith that the Rorqual, one of my favorite and most-used ships, will retain its logistics role going forward.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

Angrod Losshelin
Critical Horizon
#143 - 2014-08-07 17:06:02 UTC
Justin Cody wrote:


Before cynos and bridges sub capitals HAD to use gates. Now gates are for peasants. Gates were natural chokes and made fights happen. Now? Pfft.

force projection needs a complete nerf...no wait not nerf. It needs to be rethought.


Come to WH space and let the peasants use gates.

Check out my Podcast! My Blog!

Desert Ice78
Gryphons of the Western Wind
#144 - 2014-08-07 22:33:35 UTC
Altrue wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey everyone. Thanks for the feedback so far.

After some more discussion we're going to go ahead and limit the fitting of these modules to Jump Freighters and Rorquals. Those are the only places where they would see extensive use anyways and the rest of the ships were muddying the waters a bit too much.


It seems logical to me.

Does this change of mind also comes with a change of volume?

+1

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.

James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#145 - 2014-08-08 03:17:40 UTC  |  Edited by: James Amril-Kesh
Are you looking over your numbers on the jump fuel cost increase to see if that was a worthwhile change with intended consequences, or is that a done deal and you're not going to bother?

Enjoying the rain today? ;)

Shock Beer
Never Not AFK
#146 - 2014-08-08 06:42:24 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey everyone. Thanks for the feedback so far.

After some more discussion we're going to go ahead and limit the fitting of these modules to Jump Freighters and Rorquals. Those are the only places where they would see extensive use anyways and the rest of the ships were muddying the waters a bit too much.



Why would someone be jumping a rorqual around?
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#147 - 2014-08-08 08:11:04 UTC
Shock Beer wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey everyone. Thanks for the feedback so far.

After some more discussion we're going to go ahead and limit the fitting of these modules to Jump Freighters and Rorquals. Those are the only places where they would see extensive use anyways and the rest of the ships were muddying the waters a bit too much.



Why would someone be jumping a rorqual around?

120k cargo + 30k fleet hangar + 250k ore hold + less fuel use than JF makes it a really good industry logistics ship. Especially if you don't want a dedicated JF.
Skia Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
#148 - 2014-08-08 09:24:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Skia Aumer
CCP Fozzie wrote:
After some more discussion we're going to go ahead and limit the fitting of these modules to Jump Freighters and Rorquals. Those are the only places where they would see extensive use anyways and the rest of the ships were muddying the waters a bit too much.

Yay, sandbox!
These should have been rigs from the very beginning, now look what a nonsense you are creating.
Stop it.
Make the rigs. And introduce freighter rig slots in the next expansion.

And btw, "they would anyway" phrase... Should I remind you the story about jet-can mining?
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#149 - 2014-08-08 11:49:09 UTC
Skia Aumer wrote:
And introduce freighter rig slots in the next expansion.

You're pretty oblivious, aren't you?

Enjoying the rain today? ;)

Carniflex
StarHunt
Mordus Angels
#150 - 2014-08-08 13:03:56 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey everyone. Thanks for the feedback so far.

After some more discussion we're going to go ahead and limit the fitting of these modules to Jump Freighters and Rorquals. Those are the only places where they would see extensive use anyways and the rest of the ships were muddying the waters a bit too much.


I find this decision highly disappointing. I was really looking forward for fitting these on a BLOPS I use to haul my pod around and/or on a suitcase carrier. This restriction severely limits the player choice in the matter. Also - I believe these would have seen much more frequent use on Carriers than they would on JF's.

On a JF and Roqual the decision is pretty straightforward (depending if you have full bay of stuff, if not fit these) and on top of that the JF nor Roqual has any issues whatsoever carrying these around and/or refitting. If you limit it only for the JF / Roqual then you might as well reduce the volume to 100 m3. Or if you want the volume to be relevant for the Roqual then you would need to increase it above 16 600 m3 per module. The 3500 m3 size is after all specifically targeted at carriers and if carriers cant fit these there is no point of clinging to that particular size.

Granted on a suitcase carrier the decision is just as straightforward - always fit these.

Anyway - I know that patch is sort of creeping near - but have you considered perhaps adding a meaningful penalty to these modules and still allow them to be fitted on all jump capable ships. The most obvious meaningful penalty is ofc course the jump range (give JF and Roqual a role bonus negating that penalty if that is the main location where these modules are supposed to be used). Say, for example, the modules would give the currently proposed fuel savings AND the same percentage penalty into the jump range (similarly stacking penalized).

That would be in my opinion a meaningful decision to be made. Just banning the modules outright on anything but the ships on which they are "designed" to work is limiting player choice and emergent behavior. I can understand why it is needed in some cases (like cov ops cloaks) but the smaller is the number of "exceptions" in the rules the more sand I have in my sandbox.

So I would respectfully request you to reconsider this decision if this is still possible. If not then please add more universal modules for fuel reduction in the next patch without this artificial restriction.

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

Lynne Rankin
Slow Chidlren at Play
SL0W CHILDREN AT PLAY
#151 - 2014-08-08 13:39:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Lynne Rankin
+1 Carniflex.

I am disturbed by the sudden decision to restrict the use of these modules to only Rorquals and Jump Freighters. It's a disturbing trend, more and more modules and ships are getting told "Not for you," Or "NOOOOOO!"

In the 3 years I've been playing there was certainly emergent gameplay, as Carniflex mentioned, but now it's becoming less of a feature and more classified as 'False Advertisement' in my opinion.

With these changes being made to the JDEM, I can firmly assure you that no one will be using these modules ever. Jump Freighters have a hard enough time getting from deep high-sec to border null without getting closer. Now they practically have to jump into the border system and then make a second, or third, jump into deep null if they have JDEMs fitted, as if your Jump Drive Calibration is sitting at lvl 1 or 2.

Take some risks, CCP. Make a few bans on what the item can be fitted on, but don't do a global ban. Otherwise you might as well rename these 'Industrial Jump Drive Economizers', since without industrial in the name the module is misleading.


Come Hyperion, we need another module to put in the graveyard.
RIP Reactive Armor Hardner
RIP Target Spectrum Breaker
RIP Jump Drive Economizer Modules
(I could list stuff like automatic targeting systems, passive targeting systems etc, but we all know those by heart)
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#152 - 2014-08-08 19:30:33 UTC
Lynne Rankin wrote:
Now they practically have to jump into the border system and then make a second, or third, jump into deep null if they have JDEMs fitted, as if your Jump Drive Calibration is sitting at lvl 1 or 2.
Where are you getting this from?
Lynne Rankin wrote:
I am disturbed by the sudden decision to restrict the use of these modules to only Rorquals and Jump Freighters. It's a disturbing trend, more and more modules and ships are getting told "Not for you," Or "NOOOOOO!"
Tou must have also been disturbed when you found out bastions was only for marauders, siege/triage only for dreads/carriers, and covert cloaks/cynos only fitting on covert ops ships. It's nothing new. What this does is keep the impact of the fuel changes on normal capitals while giving the JF the lowslot option(s) that were promised.
PotatoOverdose
Royal Black Watch Highlanders
#153 - 2014-08-08 22:26:14 UTC
Carniflex wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey everyone. Thanks for the feedback so far.

After some more discussion we're going to go ahead and limit the fitting of these modules to Jump Freighters and Rorquals. Those are the only places where they would see extensive use anyways and the rest of the ships were muddying the waters a bit too much.


I find this decision highly disappointing. I was really looking forward for fitting these on a BLOPS I use to haul my pod around and/or on a suitcase carrier. This restriction severely limits the player choice in the matter. Also - I believe these would have seen much more frequent use on Carriers than they would on JF's.

On a JF and Roqual the decision is pretty straightforward (depending if you have full bay of stuff, if not fit these) and on top of that the JF nor Roqual has any issues whatsoever carrying these around and/or refitting. If you limit it only for the JF / Roqual then you might as well reduce the volume to 100 m3. Or if you want the volume to be relevant for the Roqual then you would need to increase it above 16 600 m3 per module. The 3500 m3 size is after all specifically targeted at carriers and if carriers cant fit these there is no point of clinging to that particular size.

Granted on a suitcase carrier the decision is just as straightforward - always fit these.

Anyway - I know that patch is sort of creeping near - but have you considered perhaps adding a meaningful penalty to these modules and still allow them to be fitted on all jump capable ships. The most obvious meaningful penalty is ofc course the jump range (give JF and Roqual a role bonus negating that penalty if that is the main location where these modules are supposed to be used). Say, for example, the modules would give the currently proposed fuel savings AND the same percentage penalty into the jump range (similarly stacking penalized).

That would be in my opinion a meaningful decision to be made. Just banning the modules outright on anything but the ships on which they are "designed" to work is limiting player choice and emergent behavior. I can understand why it is needed in some cases (like cov ops cloaks) but the smaller is the number of "exceptions" in the rules the more sand I have in my sandbox.

So I would respectfully request you to reconsider this decision if this is still possible. If not then please add more universal modules for fuel reduction in the next patch without this artificial restriction.

JF full load out of Hisec into null --> Cargo expander
JF light/empty load out of null to high --> economizer

Likewise, fitting all the low slots of an archon with the fuel economizer modules would basically negate the recent fuel change that ccp implemented, so that wasn't going to happen.

Basically, what you wanted to do with your blops/suitcase carrier is exactly the reason why CCP doesn't want to do it.
PotatoOverdose
Royal Black Watch Highlanders
#154 - 2014-08-08 22:28:34 UTC
Rowells wrote:
Lynne Rankin wrote:
Now they practically have to jump into the border system and then make a second, or third, jump into deep null if they have JDEMs fitted, as if your Jump Drive Calibration is sitting at lvl 1 or 2.
Where are you getting this from?
Lynne Rankin wrote:
I am disturbed by the sudden decision to restrict the use of these modules to only Rorquals and Jump Freighters. It's a disturbing trend, more and more modules and ships are getting told "Not for you," Or "NOOOOOO!"
Tou must have also been disturbed when you found out bastions was only for marauders, siege/triage only for dreads/carriers, and covert cloaks/cynos only fitting on covert ops ships. It's nothing new. What this does is keep the impact of the fuel changes on normal capitals while giving the JF the lowslot option(s) that were promised.


I for one am deeply disturbed that I can't fit 7 bomb launchers to my phoon.
Lynne Rankin
Slow Chidlren at Play
SL0W CHILDREN AT PLAY
#155 - 2014-08-09 02:19:29 UTC
Not editing my post, but apparently I need to learn to read a bit more.

The jump drive range reduction was one of Caniflex's proposed penalties, and because of my skimming eyes (rushing off to work) I made a misinterpretation.
Carniflex
StarHunt
Mordus Angels
#156 - 2014-08-09 06:54:24 UTC
PotatoOverdose wrote:

JF full load out of Hisec into null --> Cargo expander
JF light/empty load out of null to high --> economizer

Likewise, fitting all the low slots of an archon with the fuel economizer modules would basically negate the recent fuel change that ccp implemented, so that wasn't going to happen.

Basically, what you wanted to do with your blops/suitcase carrier is exactly the reason why CCP doesn't want to do it.


That is not true. The fuel consumption was increased by 50%. The fuel cost reduction caps out at approx 25% with the 10% versions because of stacking penalties. Fitting anything above 4 is pretty much pointless.

As for the reason why - well we can only speculate but my suspicion is that it's not the fuel reductions on blops which made them do that decision. I can see few possibilities.
(1) The reduction in online POS numbers might have been far more drastic than they expected after the industry expansion. So they feel that they must somehow burn all the isotopes to maintain luractivity of the ice mining.
(2) The implemented the restriction mechanic to make it impossible to fit these on frigates and such for easy carrying in a carrier. Then the Q&A guys who were already stressed bcos of the patch creeping near went somethign on the lines of "no way in hell can we test all combinations of that before the patch" and the decision was made to just leave em for Roq and JF (a lot less Q&A). Basically a lazy shortcut to squeeze something already advertised for the upcoming patch into the available time resources.
(3) It is theoretically possible that they might be worried about Carriers using that. I cant quite figure out why, exactly, would they be worried about that other than the abovementioned 2 points as for large coalitions the fuel cost is kinda pointless, their pilots do not buy their own fuel anyway and at most it might mean an extra JF run to the refueling midpoint. Small entities and solo pilots are not moving large enough distances on regular basis to have an significant effect.
(4) There might have been technical problems when trying to make it so that one can not fit a frigate fitted with these in a carrier. This would be a just lazy shortcut to remove the "problem" altogether from the agenda.

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

Christopher Mabata
Northern Accounts and Systems
#157 - 2014-08-10 19:13:16 UTC
Capqu wrote:
do they work on bridges


neither the rorqual nor the Jump Freighter can bridge so no

♣ Small Gang PVP, Large Fleet PVP, Black Ops, Incursions, Trade, and Industry ♣ 70% Lethal / 30% Super-Snuggly / 110% No idea what im doing ♣

This Message Brought to you by a sweet and sour bittervet

Christopher Mabata
Northern Accounts and Systems
#158 - 2014-08-10 19:16:21 UTC
And while i must admit it is dissappointing that i will not be able to fit these to my Thanatos It does make sense, would be too easy to fit 3 of these and then refit when you drop your carrier fleet to full combat fit. Which circumvents the whole fuel amount and cost change CCP put in place. Oh well, good change either way and its a step foreward to making the rorqual viable once more

♣ Small Gang PVP, Large Fleet PVP, Black Ops, Incursions, Trade, and Industry ♣ 70% Lethal / 30% Super-Snuggly / 110% No idea what im doing ♣

This Message Brought to you by a sweet and sour bittervet

Carniflex
StarHunt
Mordus Angels
#159 - 2014-08-11 11:39:14 UTC
Christopher Mabata wrote:
And while i must admit it is dissappointing that i will not be able to fit these to my Thanatos It does make sense, would be too easy to fit 3 of these and then refit when you drop your carrier fleet to full combat fit. Which circumvents the whole fuel amount and cost change CCP put in place. Oh well, good change either way and its a step foreward to making the rorqual viable once more


I would not go as far as to say it's "too easy" to fit 3 of these. The volume was 3500 m3 meaning you can not carry three in a carrier no matter how you spin it. Sure you could fit these and/or then drop into a can but it would expose these modules to some risk if refitting in space.

Ofc the normal procedure would be to fit these for travel and then refit in a last station before combat zone leaving these mods in station.

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

Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#160 - 2014-08-11 13:58:06 UTC
Carniflex wrote:
Christopher Mabata wrote:
And while i must admit it is dissappointing that i will not be able to fit these to my Thanatos It does make sense, would be too easy to fit 3 of these and then refit when you drop your carrier fleet to full combat fit. Which circumvents the whole fuel amount and cost change CCP put in place. Oh well, good change either way and its a step foreward to making the rorqual viable once more


I would not go as far as to say it's "too easy" to fit 3 of these. The volume was 3500 m3 meaning you can not carry three in a carrier no matter how you spin it. Sure you could fit these and/or then drop into a can but it would expose these modules to some risk if refitting in space.

Ofc the normal procedure would be to fit these for travel and then refit in a last station before combat zone leaving these mods in station.


Can't you just go all the way untiil the very last jump with some dude in a JF to hold all the modules and log-off to be "hidden" in space while you fight in a full combat fit, then relog when the shoooting is done and the first jump out of the fight system is amde to give back all the modules to low-cost travel back home? Sure it's extra logistic work but many player organisation would only see it as a minor muscle flexing over what they already do...