These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Vyzia
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#161 - 2014-08-12 00:41:45 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
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?


Not at this time, no.


Given the ship restrictions is the large size still required?
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#162 - 2014-08-12 01:28:37 UTC
Vyzia wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
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?


Not at this time, no.


Given the ship restrictions is the large size still required?

Well, you can now truly consider it a capital module so it still follows the pattern. and I don't really think your going to see a lack of space in those two ships to hold 3 of them.
Vyzia
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#163 - 2014-08-12 03:49:06 UTC
Rowells wrote:
Vyzia wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
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?


Not at this time, no.


Given the ship restrictions is the large size still required?

Well, you can now truly consider it a capital module so it still follows the pattern. and I don't really think your going to see a lack of space in those two ships to hold 3 of them.


Good point, i was actually thinking of the hypersptial accelerator as a comparison so maybe that needs to be bigger too.
Carniflex
StarHunt
Mordus Angels
#164 - 2014-08-12 07:51:27 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
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...


Too much hassle to use JF. You could use ofc Roqual which is better in that regard and/or additional JF but it would be too much hassle and increased complexity. Considering the outpost density it would be far far easier to just dock / refit 1j out and less possibility of seriously mess up.

Not that it matters as I am not holding my breath about CCP revisiting their decision whatever were the logic behind it. It is still ofc disappointing limitation removing the player choice where it should be left up to the players to decide.

EVE would be a bit different game when back in the beginning CCP would have made it so that you can not eject ore nor put it in a jet-can. Even if it would have made their design process simpler. In my opinion this change is in a nutshell telling us "that is this modules intended use/role and we will not let you use it any other way".

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

Stalence
Caldari Colonial Defense Ministry
Templis CALSF
#165 - 2014-08-12 18:15:22 UTC
Tho'mas wrote:
Catherine Laartii wrote:
I suppose this is supposed to counterbalance the increased fuel requirements; fair enough.

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


I believe force projection is already bad enough in the current state of the game. I would not like to see jump range increased.


This isn't about PL's hot drop getting go-go-gadget length though. This is about easing logistics for rorquals and jump freighters.

Member of #tweetfleet @stalence // Templis CALSF // YouTube Channel

FlinnRyder
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#166 - 2014-08-12 22:37:06 UTC
how does it help JF's and rorq that much if a jf has to choose lower fuel cost at the expense of cargo capacity?
trading one maybe efficient way for another....

this 50% increase has kinda destroyed the market on topes. the smaller groups that need jf's and rorq for logistics of moving in and out have kinda stopped using them and the bigger groups arent phased at all by this change. Would be nice if you could find a solution that nerfed the carriers and supers without damaging smaller corps that barely use jump drive ships unless to move goods in and out.

Also it would be nice if CCP could find more of a use for Liquid Ozone and Heavy Water. I've been seeing how its being mined but there is even less of a market for it then the topes... dark glitter gelidus and glare crust are all over the place with these resources that have very little use. compared to the topes.
Christopher Mabata
Northern Accounts and Systems
#167 - 2014-08-12 22:47:47 UTC
FlinnRyder wrote:
how does it help JF's and rorq that much if a jf has to choose lower fuel cost at the expense of cargo capacity?
trading one maybe efficient way for another....

this 50% increase has kinda destroyed the market on topes. the smaller groups that need jf's and rorq for logistics of moving in and out have kinda stopped using them and the bigger groups arent phased at all by this change. Would be nice if you could find a solution that nerfed the carriers and supers without damaging smaller corps that barely use jump drive ships unless to move goods in and out.

Also it would be nice if CCP could find more of a use for Liquid Ozone and Heavy Water. I've been seeing how its being mined but there is even less of a market for it then the topes... dark glitter gelidus and glare crust are all over the place with these resources that have very little use. compared to the topes.


Part of the point of capital ships is you need people to back you up, even if they are alts. They don't function independently and as such should not be cheap to maintain, Its not hard to afford fuel for a carrier or a Jump freighter even after to 50% buff to consumption. Thats the bane of small corp carriers and such, you just dont have the same assets and liquid capital as larger groups and as such have to adapt to maintain your style of life.

And i agree heavy water needs some more use, but ozone is fine since you need it for cynos and POS Fuel.

♣ 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

FlinnRyder
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#168 - 2014-08-12 22:53:45 UTC
my desire would be that ccp could find a way to nerf the power of coalitions and such without effecting smaller groups that only really use the rorq's or jump freighters for moving or mining. these may not be the effecting forces on our market right now. it could just be that in anticipation for Crius everyone took to heavy mining ice and it was nice when the market demand jumped but now its crashing for the excessive amounts available. and less demand
Paynus Maiassus
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#169 - 2014-08-13 02:45:55 UTC
These were not mentioned in the dev blog about what's coming in Hyperion. Are they not making it in?

I noticed that I haven't commented on them anywhere. I love the idea of these modules. They meet their goal of creating more options. They don't actually solve huge problems, but they do create more options and I will definitely be using them if they come out.

Reading this thread I would say that commentary on them is either positive, or unrelated discourses about how other ideas could also fix the problems that these modules address, and comments about details of the size of the modules or their bonuses or whatever. But overall, nobody has said these things are a bad idea. They're a good idea. Unless it takes 500 people hundreds of hours to implement them, please do. I sincerely hope they make it in with Hyperion. Since I don't do wormholes, there's really not anything in Hyperion for me to get excited about other than these modules. If they make it in, I will be very excited.

In my view, the large volume of these things may succeed in preventing exploitation by big capital fleets. The bonuses they provide are appropriate to their general application. If you wanted to increase the bonuses you may have to put in some hard controls (JFs and Rorqs only). But as originally presented I like them and I doubt they will be exploited by the big cap groups and they will be a nice boon to the little guy JF and Rorq users like me.

Just my two cents.

Still just loving Crius folks. Incredible improvement to indy.
Kniht
#170 - 2014-08-13 11:39:58 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
:Update: They can only be fit to Jump Freighters and Rorquals. :Update:
...
These modules all have a volume of 3500m3.

With the restriction to these ships, do they need to be 3500m3?

o/ fly crazy

PotatoOverdose
Royal Black Watch Highlanders
#171 - 2014-08-14 04:02:43 UTC
Kniht wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
:Update: They can only be fit to Jump Freighters and Rorquals. :Update:
...
These modules all have a volume of 3500m3.

With the restriction to these ships, do they need to be 3500m3?

I'd support making them smaller....say 1000m3, but it really doesn't make that much of a difference.
Christopher Mabata
Northern Accounts and Systems
#172 - 2014-08-14 04:53:34 UTC
well 3500m3 makes since since in essence this mod is somehow re calibrating your jump drives and re-routing fuel so you dont use as much per jump. So you do need room for all that hardware, processors, as well as any additional hull integration.

That aside 3500m3 isnt really that big you can still fit 3 in a blockade runner and several hundred in freighters. Besides when will you be moving more than 3 at a time in anything not a freighter or jump freighter anyways? Even if your bringing mods for a dozen people your probably going to be using something with the cargohold to boot.

♣ 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

BadAssMcKill
Aliastra
#173 - 2014-08-14 22:14:39 UTC
So what's the reasoning behind making them Rorq/JF only
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc
Tactical-Retreat
#174 - 2014-08-15 09:26:33 UTC
BadAssMcKill wrote:
So what's the reasoning behind making them Rorq/JF only


Reduce a bit freighting costs when you're not moving the max capacity of these ships. So that the isk/m3 doesn't increase too much when moving less than the maximum.

Signature Tanking Best Tanking

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

Ultimate Citadel Guide - 2016 EVE Career Chart

Plaid Rabbit
Enlightened Industries
Goonswarm Federation
#175 - 2014-08-15 16:12:33 UTC
Please add modules that are interesting for players to chose, with these new modules it will literally be:

Can I remove a cargo expander? Yes: Okay, fit another conservation module. Repeat.

This aren't exciting decisions for a pilot to make, they just add more boringness to an already boring process (moving things around).
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#176 - 2014-08-16 00:39:26 UTC
Plaid Rabbit wrote:
Please add modules that are interesting for players to chose, with these new modules it will literally be:

Can I remove a cargo expander? Yes: Okay, fit another conservation module. Repeat.

This aren't exciting decisions for a pilot to make, they just add more boringness to an already boring process (moving things around).

It's not like there are many interesting things to do with a JF to begin with. Rorqual already has access to most most modules so no lack of fun there.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#177 - 2014-08-16 01:01:29 UTC
Rowells wrote:

It's not like there are many interesting things to do with a JF to begin with. Rorqual already has access to most most modules so no lack of fun there.


that doesn't mean they shouldn't i'd like to see each of the different meta levels do something a little different so it isn't just the meta 4 being used
Nolak Ataru
Singularity Expedition Services
Singularity Syndicate
#178 - 2014-08-16 18:23:45 UTC
Introduce a capital officer drone / merc carrier. Give him a chance to drop an officer version.

Can probably take the AI from the L5 carrier missions, but make it so he jumps out at 25% armor (Assuming the officer is armor tanked) unless there's a bubble or a HIC on him.
Major Trant
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#179 - 2014-08-18 08:56:37 UTC
I assume the original reason for having the 3500m size was to give a hard choice to cap pilots with limited room to carry them if not fitted. But now that they are limited to JFs and Rorqs can their size come down?

Virtually, every JF will be carrying 3 of these, with really the only other choice (when a jump is occurring, as opposed to slow boating through high sec), being the expanded cargohold when you have a large cargo. So losing 10500m3 to carry them for the return journey is a poor option.
Talvorian Dex
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#180 - 2014-08-19 20:19:05 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 tend to disagree. A lot of people buy carriers specifically to move their stuff around (I used to have a travel carrier that was meant to cart me back and forth on deployments). It sounds like the issue of fitting too many won't be a problem given the size of the module. Why this change?

Writer of Target Caller, an Eve Online PvP blog, at http://targetcaller.blogspot.com