|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 29 post(s) |
Axe Coldon
Coldon Enterprises Axion Bionics
28
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 18:54:00 -
[1] - Quote
I think its a horrible change. I was all looking forward to being able to haul 500k in my jf. To compensate for the 50% increase in isotopes ...and well to haul ihub upgrades without needed a titan.
Now instead i will be forced to have rigs just to haul what i was hauling so increased cost to ship, increased cost to fuel.
Once again industrialist/miners get crapped on. Just when I thought things were looking up. Oh well. |
Axe Coldon
Coldon Enterprises Axion Bionics
28
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 19:42:00 -
[2] - Quote
Paranoid Loyd wrote:The people have got what they asked for, let the bloodbath begin
The PVPers got what they wanted maybe..not the industrialists. Cost will go up for everyone. |
Axe Coldon
Coldon Enterprises Axion Bionics
28
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 19:56:00 -
[3] - Quote
Batolemaeus wrote:Khanh'rhh wrote: All add up to weaning 0.0 off the teat of all imports, all the time. No, the announced changes on the table don't do this in one fell swoop, because that would be really silly.
I would agree with you if this was actually what CCP was doing. But the order of changes is backwards. First, the components for 0.0 industry need to be available. That is, resources for rigs and t2 production and fuel. All of those are heavily regional, as you might be aware. If it was possible to produce effectively in 0.0 I'd be doing it already. Spending 120M per jf roundtrip plus two accounts worth of cynoalts is kind of expensive. Imports won't cease or reduce by raising costs for importing when it is literally impossible to replace importing with production.
Not only is the materials for industry region based (somewhat) , in null you can't always get to the other regions. You can't dock and you sure as hell can't slow boat a freighter through gates. Null will never have the production of high sec. It can't. Logistics won't allow it.
I have talked to tons of 'old timers" with 10's of billions (likely hundreds) stuck in stations they can't dock in anymore. You can't always get all your stuff out when your station goes into reinforce, especially not if you have a large industry operation.
Eve is a sand box but we are constrained by the game rules CCP gives us. We choose to build in high sec. This does nothing to convince major industrialist to move 100 bil in bpo's and material to null and start building. Instead we will just eat higher overhead and goods in null will goods will be even higher still.
Pvpers are always whining about the markup in null..well congrats..you got your wish..it will go higher.
|
Axe Coldon
Coldon Enterprises Axion Bionics
30
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 00:31:00 -
[4] - Quote
What I don't get is why is a cargo nerf necessary to this change.
As of this moment, (May 18 00:24 eve time) a T2 Capital cargo rig in Jita is 724 mil. So 2 of them would be 1.448 bil. Why not leave the cargo capacity as it is for the JF, add the rig slots. If a person is willing to add 1.4 bil to a ship that already cost him 6 bil how does it hurt the game for him to have more cargo capacity.
A RHEA with 2 t2 rigs and no nerf would have been over 500k. So for those willing to spend the bucks they could move sov upgrades and even packaged orca's.
I don't see how that hurts the game. I don't see the logic of nerfing an already overpriced totally defenseless ship.
Plus if you dont nerf the cargo then more would be willing to forgo the 1.4 billion to add some tank..making a JF more fun instead of an overpriced Null Necessity . |
Axe Coldon
Coldon Enterprises Axion Bionics
30
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 03:17:00 -
[5] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Axe Coldon wrote:What I don't get is why is a cargo nerf necessary to this change. Because you'd be able to get too much cargo space otherwise.
That is absurd. Nerf the normal freighters cargo I don't care. but getting 500k in a jf is not too much.
Its like CCP is trying to force us into building in null. Its a sandbox. Where we build should be up to us. Not make draconian changes so we have to follow their idea of where and how industry should be conducted.
|
Axe Coldon
Coldon Enterprises Axion Bionics
30
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 03:45:00 -
[6] - Quote
Derath Ellecon wrote:Kaahles wrote:And for JF's? TBH those nerfs don't go far enough as far as I am concerned because if you have half a functioning brain and know how the game works the likelyhood of losing your JF is pretty damn slim to almost nonexistent. Breaks the whole risk vs reward thing. Everyone loves to throw around Risk vs reward like they know wtf they are talking about. There is more to risk than just how easy or hard it is to die. Everytime I undock a JF I am putting a 6.2 bil hull at risk. That alone is a pretty big risk. When I run a 0.0 jump freighter contract I could easily have upwards of 5bil of cargo in the hold. Thats 11.5 Billion isk I'm putting at risk jumping into hostile 0.0 space. And for what? Maybe a 150-200mil reward? I'd be hard pressed to believe that anyone actually doing this is sitting there thinking "oh yea this is totally OP, I should be easier to kill" Yes if I do everything right my overall risk of death is fairly low. Yet there are still thousands that get killed.
I agree. I think most that think this is great is because they are planning to kill jf's not fly them. If you make 100mil fee per trip its 60 trips to break even if you die..it will be 75 after if yoiu have t2 rigs.
Its a big oh well. If ccp sticks to their guns we live with it and life goes on. but they ask for feedback.so hope they rethink part of this. |
Axe Coldon
Coldon Enterprises Axion Bionics
31
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 04:13:00 -
[7] - Quote
Abrazzar wrote:I am quite sure they were not nerfed to make room for the rigs. Those were just an afterthought to sell the straight up nerf of the freighters that were considered too good at what they were doing.
Too good? you must not play the same eve as i do. Freighters are super easy to gank as it is. Now they will be worth more..and be even more of a gank target.
When pilots wanted rigs (and slots) was to get their freighter beefed up. Not to make it more expensive to fly the same thing.
|
Axe Coldon
Coldon Enterprises Axion Bionics
32
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 12:42:00 -
[8] - Quote
Cyrek Ohaya wrote:My experience with JFs is that they jump from HS to LS and then to Null without any risk whatsoever, they don't even need align time to do it, what's the trouble then, use an ordinary freighter for highsec.
You must not use a JF. It makes the transition back to high sec. To do that it jumps to low sec and then has to go thru a high sec gate like everyone else..and there it can get ganked. There is the risk. Because you warp to 0 and jump its near impossible to get you on the low sec side. They do the high sec gank thing.
In jumping out of null/npc stations there is risk though not as much as before. Certain stations have almost no zero range at undock. What they do is wait above the station with a bumping ship and bubblers (null). You undock and they bump you away from zero while the guy puts a bubble up so you can't jump and you are bumped so you can't get back in. Then drop in the killing fleet and you are dead. No it doesn't happen much but it does. Just pointing out there is risk in cyno'ing.
and sometimes jf's go into systems with no stations. with a ship 1/3 to 1/2 the cost of a super is it to much to ask for a high slot to put in a cloaking module.
Eve tries to be real in a sense. but if it was real I would commission one of the major manufacturers for a bigger jf with the ability to modify it. The equivalent in game would be low med and high slots available.
I don't care so much about the freighter nerf as I do the jump freighter. When I get to high sec from null I transfer the load to a normal freighter (since the t3 battle cruisers were added to the game). So my Charon's will be fit for max agility and ehp. as long as they have a cargo capacity of a jf that is fine with me. But its insane that 10,000 years in the future they haven't figured out how to mount even 1 gun on a freighter. No modules no modifications. A big floating coffin. Well I would ask for increased jump range..hell I could think of lots of things.
It would never happen but increase the jump range to the same as a carrier. That offsets the bitter taste of nerfing some. On a long trip can save a cyno. Doesn't' save fuel or fix cargo but a 3 cyno jump is better then a 4 cyno jump.
And if you are going to nerf the core cargo hold they should be cheaper to make.
It kills me that people want the core logistics nerfed to the point they can wipe everything out and no one can function in high. Eve exists because of high sec. If there never was a High sec Eve would have died out long long ago. The brilliance of the developers of eve was having a High Low Null. You kill High you Kill EVE! And that is "I told you so"
You need a Council of Interstellar Industry and Mining. Made of of people in that profession not those that want to kill them.
|
Axe Coldon
Coldon Enterprises Axion Bionics
32
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 13:04:00 -
[9] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:Axe Coldon wrote:Cyrek Ohaya wrote:My experience with JFs is that they jump from HS to LS and then to Null without any risk whatsoever, they don't even need align time to do it, what's the trouble then, use an ordinary freighter for highsec. You must not use a JF. It makes the transition back to high sec. To do that it jumps to low sec and then has to go thru a high sec gate like everyone else..and there it can get ganked. There is the risk. Because you warp to 0 and jump its near impossible to get you on the low sec side. They do the high sec gank thing. In jumping out of null/npc stations there is risk though not as much as before. Certain stations have almost no zero range at undock. What they do is wait above the station with a bumping ship and bubblers (null). You undock and they bump you away from zero while the guy puts a bubble up so you can't jump and you are bumped so you can't get back in. Then drop in the killing fleet and you are dead. No it doesn't happen much but it does. Just pointing out there is risk in cyno'ing. and sometimes jf's go into systems with no stations. with a ship 1/3 to 1/2 the cost of a super is it to much to ask for a high slot to put in a cloaking module. Eve tries to be real in a sense. but if it was real I would commission one of the major manufacturers for a bigger jf with the ability to modify it. The equivalent in game would be low med and high slots available. I don't care so much about the freighter nerf as I do the jump freighter. When I get to high sec from null I transfer the load to a normal freighter (since the t3 battle cruisers were added to the game). So my Charon's will be fit for max agility and ehp. as long as they have a cargo capacity of a jf that is fine with me. But its insane that 10,000 years in the future they haven't figured out how to mount even 1 gun on a freighter. No modules no modifications. A big floating coffin. Well I would ask for increased jump range..hell I could think of lots of things. It would never happen but increase the jump range to the same as a carrier. That offsets the bitter taste of nerfing some. On a long trip can save a cyno. Doesn't' save fuel or fix cargo but a 3 cyno jump is better then a 4 cyno jump. And if you are going to nerf the core cargo hold they should be cheaper to make. It kills me that people want the core logistics nerfed to the point they can wipe everything out and no one can function in high. Eve exists because of high sec. If there never was a High sec Eve would have died out long long ago. The brilliance of the developers of eve was having a High Low Null. You kill High you Kill EVE! And that is "I told you so" You need a Council of Interstellar Industry and Mining. Made of of people in that profession not those that want to kill them. none of this works if you aren't absolutely awful. it's all avoidable.
Not true. IF they lay in wait..put you on contact and all your alts and are out to get you..the high sec gank will happen. If someone is bound and determined to kill your jf in high there is nothing you can do. Yes dying in null is avoidable. I never undock without eye's on the station. but in high..they logoff at the gate and use alts to spot you.
|
Axe Coldon
Coldon Enterprises Axion Bionics
34
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 20:21:00 -
[10] - Quote
See, while people say it does, I wonder if that that's not just an urban legend like the "recycling alts" that people always talk about.[/quote wrote: also how do they know it's 1 guy with mutliboxing software, not just 20 really well co-ordinated pilots?
http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=23381051
http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=23364606
Here is one of them, Wrong Target Sorry__. Are you seriously going to try and tell me those aren't an isboxer group?
There is also the Amm_i group that often gank with him...
http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=22913391
Go through the KB histories a bit. There are actually a lot more not on killboards because they don't post them. My alliance mates see them happen though since it is in their best interest to scout choke points.[/quote]
How can one tell by a kill board whether the attacking gang used ISBOXER..which far as I know is allowed. Its not bot software |
|
Axe Coldon
Coldon Enterprises Axion Bionics
34
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 04:35:00 -
[11] - Quote
Dr Mr CCP Fozzie,
I get that you want to change the Meta Game and shake things up. I think we all do. And maybe you do want us to do more in null. I rather think you just want to enable us to make more in null. That I approve of. But null doesn't operate the same as high sec. It can't. I would like to see more hulls made there and most cap's. But its too big an operation to make the hundreds (or thousands) of modules rigs and other stuff that goes into ships. The big guys can do it..their home turf is more stable. But if you want to mess up the Meta Game..one assumes that is give others a chance to come into power, cause wars over resources and such nerfing freighters does none of that.
With all the buffing you have being doing to indies..and mining barges..a massive nerf to freighters was very unexpected. That is alot of the uproar. We all assumed we were getting a buff.
I still don't get how it hurts anyone to not nerf us but give us way more tank. I think its not too unrealistic to cost 1bil to gank a Freighter..(as in the old days before T3 bc's.)
What always bothered me was the high cost of a JF for how lilttle it holds. Yes I know they are the greatest thing since sliced butter. I fly one and I wouldn't give it up for nothing...not even if you nerf the hell out of it. It can jump from High sec to Low Null. No other cap ship can do that. But I don't see how nerfing it helps shake things up.
If you want some exciting conflict, give JF's Low Med and High slots. 1 or 2 each. They are T2's after all. The only T2 capital in the game. So yes. all my jf's would have cloaks on them. But think of the big battles if people wanted to change their cap modules (the 4k ones) in a big battle so they call in a JF to jump in. Hoping to get it to a safe spot and cloak. and the other side finds out and tracks it down (after all has to decloak to unload). Now that is meta game change.
For a 6 bil isk ship (more usually) its painfully sad in terms of ehp and abilities. With 1/3 the cargo approximately of a regular freighter you would think it would have heavier armor and such. And being T2 some fancy options.
Do what you want with regular freighters. As people point out, they have options. They can switch to Orca's or Indy's. We can't. Not for any serious industry production like you want. In null its JF or Rorq. but for moving goods to high you have to unload a Rorq in low and indy it to high. A scary and dangerous proposition. And some will do that. But its no reason to force them. This is a sandbox. We want choices. Not to be pushed into a corner.
I assume by "mixing up the meta game" you want to help the smaller guy. The guy without titans. The guy with out deep pockets. For that we need JF's. We don't have the logistics to keep a titan safe. So for big ticket items we pay thru the nose for a titan bridge. But the rest we haul our selves or find a buddy with a jf to haul it.
JF's should be massively buffed or you should make the cost to make them only 2 or 3 bil.
To me a Charon doesn't need any more capacity. But I would want to only have to use t1 rigs to get it where it is now. If I can afford 2 t2 cargo rigs in a charon I would expect to get more capacity then now and the trade of is I will probably die in a gank.
But a JF is T2 Capital. The ONLY ONE!. It deserves either a massive reduction in price or way way more buff. 2 slots in L M H, and rigs. I would reduce the cargo of the Rhea to 300k and the other accordingly. Keep the agile ones agile. Have each good at something. Rhea size, (I dont know the rest) one for tank one for agility one for something else). |
Axe Coldon
Coldon Enterprises Axion Bionics
35
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 15:06:00 -
[12] - Quote
Sniper Smith wrote:M'uva Wa'eva wrote:If there was a concer about subcaps gaining the warp speed rig, it could be handled like the Covert Ops Cloak for bombers, etc... with an absurdly high CPU requirement offset with a 100% reduction in CPU fitting cost for the freighter class. They removed the CPU Requirement being the limiting factor a few updates ago.. it's now a "Can be fitted to" field.. As people found a way to make an Avatar fit it with the right Officer CPU mods lol. But I agree.. OR, you can give it negative effects.. Max locked targets to 0, or something.. Would also be nice as you could still fit it, to quickly move a BS or something, but not viable in combat conditions. Give it a penalty to cargo so you still have to pick between space and speed..
Holy Cow that is brilliant. Fit to any ship but max locked targets is ZERO. For moving around lows (in bs) could be warp stabs and warp modules. Though for dps could still use smart bombs. they don't require a lock. but that shouldn't be much of a concern. |
Axe Coldon
Coldon Enterprises Axion Bionics
35
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 16:18:00 -
[13] - Quote
1st off I own multiple JF and Freighters and I never asked for any rigs or any changes at all. I only made posts where I was happy they were adding rigs..but that was before Saturdays massive nerf post. I take it all back.
I think we need to realize (and God help us agree) the JF and Freighter really have different roles.
And the JF is T2. But as many pointed out..those I think also fly them..cargo is king on them. I was trained on and owned Gal Freighters but switched to Rhea just to get a little bit extra cargo on my Jump Trips. Fuel is expensive (4 cynos 100 mil fuel cost round trip atm before changes) and every little bit helps.
So I am against any cargo nerf at all. if they want to add rigs fine..but cough cough the goons guy's idea is better. 3 low slots. but I still think a JF should get M and H because it its T2 after all. And if you keep its capacity and let the slots or rigs add to it..then it deserves its price tag. Other wise the cost to make it should be in line with the reduction in base cargo capacity. They have modified the build cost of caps before based on changes..this should be no different.
The fact is JF's were fine. More capacity is always nice..but fine. I still want 500k capacity with T2 rigs. I see no harm in that gameplay wise. God forbid I spend a few less hours hauling and a few more hours on fun stuff.
Changing normal freighters I totally like if I can get more tank and such. but again I like the slots also.
What you don't all get is that anything added to a freighter doesn't need to be balanced with a nerf. It's NOT A COMBAT SHIP. It doesn't effect game play. If I need to move 5 Mil m3's around in Null. More or less capacity wont change anything. Its station to station jumps, dock in 5 secs. Just more or less time. High sec is a whole different ball game. Believe it or not, there is no ganking in Null. Its kill or be killed. You are safe or you aren't. there is no in between. Will he kill me? Hell yes he will kill you. Ha!
High Sec's want options to offset the increased DPS of ships that has made freighters so vulnerable the last couple years. And with Isk inflation hauling 1 bil is hardly practical....well to avoid gank you would need to haul no more then the cost of a gank. If a 50% drop rate no more then 2x the cost of a gank. If that is 300mil..then 600mil. That isn't crap to a hauler. That is silly. They should cost at least as much to gank as the value of the ship. So their reward is picking one with decent cargo. |
Axe Coldon
Coldon Enterprises Axion Bionics
38
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 20:51:00 -
[14] - Quote
NickSuccorso wrote:CCP Fozzie, this change is a great start!
Every freighter pilot here needs to understand that this "re-balance" isn't intended to help freighters in their current role. It is clearly intended to reverse the damage that freighters and jump freighters have done to Eve game play.
Eve needs local production, regional economies, and a reason for people to move into low-sec.
Eve was so much more fun before the introduction of jump bridges and jump freighters. People had to mine and build things locally. That meant there were players in the asteroid belts, hauling things through gates, out in space!
The only major problem with this change is that it isn't enough. CCP Fozzie, it is very important that jump bridges be dealt with as well during this re-balance.
Gee I hope you are being sarcastic.
Unless they remove Jump Freighters stuff will still go back and forth.
The problem with trying to explain industry in null is it is not within the confines of a forum. It would be long and bore everyone. And anyways this is supposed to be a sandbox. We import because we want too. Plain and simple.
After the industry changes (compression and such) I do plan to make as much as i can in null and only send the excess to high. But there will be excesses to send. And they will go with or without the nerf. Main reason is the higher refine rate in null. That alone will encourage us to make as much as we can out there. And its possible to establish a regional hub within coalitions. Well that is and has been true for a long time.
Oddly enough..I import because why send the jf back empty. Null has more rare ore then high. well High has none. ha. So you export and import goods you do not want to make yourself on the return trip. So as long as goods move to high..goods will move back to null. and anyways ccp has said they like that. They purposely make it so not everything is in one location.
Forcing actions hurts the little guys more. I think the future is the little guy. The cool thing about eve is who will be the next super power? (not me, I don't care) IF we make it hard on the little guys then its harder for them to rise to power.
Honestly I think we are just repeating ourselves over and over. Now we just have to see if CCP will tweak the changes or leave as is or delay or what. |
Axe Coldon
Coldon Enterprises Axion Bionics
39
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 15:00:00 -
[15] - Quote
Mar Drakar wrote:Allison A'vani wrote:Mar Drakar wrote:Kids how about you stop crying and deal with it.
back the day there weren't even carriers to jump around, and we dealt with it. Then carriers came and it became much easier then JFs came and it became "whatever"
imo this nerf isn't going far enough, and the very concept of multiple consecutive jump drive activations should be nerfed by logarithmic scale.
CCP, please MAKE NEW EDEN BIG AGAIN .
This step is a step in good direction. "Back in the day," T2 prices were ridiculously high. Thanks to invention and the proliferation of JF (to move the region locked moon goo), you can use t2 ships and modules with out paying an obscene amount for them. Also, "back in the day," was before the high sec ice belt nurf, so isotopes were extremely cheep. You are welcome btw. back in the day isotopes weren't used as sugar too... back in the day you couldn't traverse the whole of eve in 15 minutes I agree that some things went for the better (t2 invention, pos towers not used for sov anymore, carriers not allowing indys with stuff in ship bay...), but you cannot deny that eve is now SMALL, and this is THE major problem currently, and seems like CCP acknowledges this but does so by going in circles. And before you tell me about moongoo moving, our corp had 20 large towers farm back when IRON was alive, and somehow we could survive without JF's, moon goo is no reason to have JF's in place, and moving big bulky resources across the eden SHOULD be more prohibiting task than it is now. so my point stands MAKE EVE LARGE again.
Make Eve large by expanding the universe not by nerfing ships. Let us go places no one has gone before. Discover new galaxies..idk how they implement it. But more systems not harder to travel in the ones we have.
|
Axe Coldon
Coldon Enterprises Axion Bionics
39
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 15:44:00 -
[16] - Quote
Mar Drakar wrote:Axe Coldon wrote:Mar Drakar wrote:
back in the day isotopes weren't used as sugar too... back in the day you couldn't traverse the whole of eve in 15 minutes
I agree that some things went for the better (t2 invention, pos towers not used for sov anymore, carriers not allowing indys with stuff in ship bay...), but you cannot deny that eve is now SMALL, and this is THE major problem currently, and seems like CCP acknowledges this but does so by going in circles.
And before you tell me about moongoo moving, our corp had 20 large towers farm back when IRON was alive, and somehow we could survive without JF's, moon goo is no reason to have JF's in place, and moving big bulky resources across the eden SHOULD be more prohibiting task than it is now.
so my point stands MAKE EVE LARGE again.
Make Eve large by expanding the universe not by nerfing ships. Let us go places no one has gone before. Discover new galaxies..idk how they implement it. But more systems not harder to travel in the ones we have. Who needs more useless space that is reachable from anywhere in 15+2 minutes?, oh 15+5? that's bonus 3 regions into every direction, ~quadrupling the space that may be accessed. More systems would only have diminishing return for expansion currently, they would be either in reach from everywhere, or in reach from certain places... for vast majority of entities that would make them effectively irrelevant. There should be no means of traversing galaxy on a whim, plain and simple. Logistics should require effort as it used to so yet again CCP MAKE EVE BIG AGAIN
I disagree. If space was sufficiently larger..you would get game play elsewhere. My idea would be far away..maybe 8-10 cyno jumps another low/high sec region. Surrounded by its own null. You could go from here to there..but be so far to trade anything of size would be too expensive. IT would develop its own alliances and power brokers..which eventually would invade Old Eve. It would be cool.
Make the connections between the 2 areas NPC space so it can't be controlled by any one alliance. (except manned gate camps and such. Put no stations between so no safe docking for caps. And it the connections are npc can be no user stations either.
And of course high slots for jf's so they can cloak. Want more fun make it so titans' can't traverse the distance. this is accomplished simply by having an area where the gate to gate range is beyond the jump range of the titan..the ship with the shortest jump distance. Would also mean no bridging between areas. Which would further its isolation.
The wild west of eve. Have the concord response there be slower by 100%. could do lots of stuff to make it more dangerous. and some upsides to make it worthwhile. You want get people in the game, I guarantee it will get them in in droves. A new beginning.
Could eve make the sov rules there different. the sky is the limit.
|
Axe Coldon
Coldon Enterprises Axion Bionics
41
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 14:54:00 -
[17] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey everyone the Op has now been updated with a revised version of the design. As many of you were anticipating, we will be achieving the goal of customizability through low slots instead of rig slots. Big thanks to everyone who has provided reasoned feedback in the thread and special thanks to the CSM. The most significant issues raised in the thread about the previous version of the design are: - The permanence of customizability that relies completely on rigs. As the only classes to have rig slots alone with no fitting slots, Freighters and Jump Freighters would have allowed customization towards a player's most common use cases, but would still lack the very important ability to adjust fittings in response to changing needs and environments.
- The relative lack of interesting choices for Jump Freighter pilots. Due to the very unique situation of Jump Freighters, they did not receive very significant benefits from any rigs other than cargohold optimization. This is partially an issue with the lack of gameplay around JF use and their near complete safety when used optimally, but it also reflected a lack of good options.
To deal with the first issue, we are making the significant change of providing the goal of customizability through low slots rather than rig slots. Keeping this path balanced requires a few extra tricks but we believe that it will provide a more interesting set of gameplay choices for freighter pilots to make on an everyday basis. All Freighters and Jump Freighters will receive 3 low slots, and not receive any rig slots. They will have very restrictive powergrid and cpu totals, and a special role bonus that allows the use of Reinforced Bulkhead modules. In Kronos we are also adding a new set of low-slot warp speed enhancing modules that can be obtained through low-sec exploration. These modules will increase warp speed by a flat addition of 0.2, 0.25 or 0.3 au/s each. We expect that these will be popular modules for use on Freighters. To help address the lack of interesting options for Jump Freighters, we are planning to introduce a set of jump fuel conservation modules in the Crius release in July. These modules will not be available in Kronos. So we expect that most Freighter and Jump Freighter pilots will use their three low slots to mix and match the following modules to meet their needs: - Expanded Cargoholds
- Reinforced Bulkheads
- Hyperspatial Accelerators (warp speed modules)
- Inertia Stabilizers
- Overdrive Injector Systems
- (For certain armor tanking fits) Adaptive Nano Platings
- (For Jump Freighters) Capacitor Power Relays
- (For Jump Freighters after the Crius release) Jump Fuel Conservation Modules
The base cargo capacity of Freighters is being decreased so that a set of three Tech Two Expanded Cargoholds adds 21-25% cargo above the previous maximum values. For Jump Freighters, three T2 Expanders will increase cargo capacity by 1-2%. This means that Freighters can get significantly higher maximum capacity than before using modules, and we're increasing the volume of packaged capital ships (to 1.3 million m3) and unpackaged station containers (to 2 million m3) to compensate. The base EHP of all Freighters and Jump Freighters is being increased (since Expanded Cargoholds affect freighter hp more than cargo rigs do) and more emphasis is being placed on armor and shield than before (although all Freighters still gain the majority of their hitpoints from hull). Let us know what you think!
I like it. If there must be change, this is the better way to go then rigs. I am especially intrigued with jump fuel conservation. modules. Not running a full load, throw those babies on there. What no mid or high slots but I guess a cloaked JF is too much for people to handle.
Looking forward to stats so we can see how much we can buff ehp on a normal freighter if we don't need max cargo.
Thats what I get for speculating and making a bunch of t2 cap cargo rigs.
|
Axe Coldon
Coldon Enterprises Axion Bionics
41
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 15:00:00 -
[18] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:I want to take this opportunity to remind people that pre-patch market speculation is never guaranteed and CCP takes no responsibility for any isk lost from speculation.
LOL yeah. Buyer beware or something.
I will use my lifetime supply of t2 cap cargo rigs eventually. I like to have 1 on rorqs |
Axe Coldon
Coldon Enterprises Axion Bionics
41
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 16:50:00 -
[19] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Worried about your jump freighter? Send it along with a battlecruiser providing armor or shield resist boosts.
Should we be worried a CSM member thinks BC's can jump..or does he know something we don't know.
You can escort a JF with a carrier though. And it is done occasionally. |
Axe Coldon
41
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 18:37:00 -
[20] - Quote
addelee wrote:Oooooh; I've a nice conspiracy theory that's spawned out of this. I've just noticed the bonus '-10% jump fuel requirements' for JF's.
So essentially, the fuel changes effect all capital size ships and above except JF's. If you pick most large scale battles, they've involved these ships and if you also look at said battles, the servers cannot cope and either get hit with 95% TiDi or they just crash. Either way, not good press. Part of this was the drone problem and this has been fixed in the super cap nerf and drone 'rebalancing'.
But ship numbers are high as well and no one likes to lose titans and supers as they take so long to build due to nullsec bottlenecks and the sheer cost and time of them. So sub-caps turn up to defend their larger brothers/sisters.
If fuel prices are increased, in theory, less jump capable ships will be fielded as it costs that must more to go to war (wars are already expensive). If less caps are being fielded, less large scale war will happen and the less the servers will crash and the less bad press goes out.
Is that what we're attempting to achieve in all this?
Maybe but I can't imagine a 50% increase in fuel cost would deter anyone from bringing their fancy capital. Don't buy the car if you can't afford the gas. Same goes here.
Not all capital pilots get their fuel provided to them. Generally only when they have to refuel along the way because the total distance takes more fuel then they can hold. So I can't see an individual pilot not going to a battle just because he needs more isk for isotopes. He will just rat more (or however he makes isk) between battles.
And we all know the super alliances are filthy rich and won't care the fuel cost...in the cases where they provide the fuel. _________________________________________________________________________________________________ No trees were killed in the sending of this message. However, a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced. |
|
Axe Coldon
41
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 03:54:00 -
[21] - Quote
CCP Fozzie,
Well the changes are good. Heard that alot. It concerns me there is no way to boost the shields of the shield tank freighters and everyone will be trading in their Caldari Freighters for Amarr.
Can you come up with some way to shield tank without messing up the balance. i.e. a special freighter only mod that does shield resistances instead of armor. Or add 1 midslot with super low power and cpu and then a mid version of adaptive nano.
I get racially the charon should have shield instead of armor but the armor tanked ones will be able to take best advantage of the change.
If you can't that's fine. 3 low slots are better then no slots. _________________________________________________________________________________________________ No trees were killed in the sending of this message. However, a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced. |
Axe Coldon
41
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 20:10:00 -
[22] - Quote
Hoshi Sorano wrote:I do think that the change from rigs to slots is a good one, both in terms of cost and options. However, I am a bit concerned about the decision to only allow low slots. CCP Fozzie wrote:The base EHP of all Freighters and Jump Freighters is being increased (since Expanded Cargoholds affect freighter hp more than cargo rigs do) and more emphasis is being placed on armor and shield than before (although all Freighters still gain the majority of their hitpoints from hull). (boldface added for emphasis) This statement would seem to indicate that using either armor or shield to tank a freighter should be viable options, but the limitation to low slots only means that there really are only options to boost armor. You even list armor tanking modules as an expected choice for freighter pilots. But where are the shield options? Basically, if you're going to start adding slots to freighters, don't do the job halfway; give the ships a full suite of slots and fitting options.
A mid slot or 2 and a new module that is the equivalent of adaptive nano only for shields. So could still keep cpu and power low to limit what we can put their. _________________________________________________________________________________________________ No trees were killed in the sending of this message. However, a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced. |
Axe Coldon
42
|
Posted - 2014.05.28 20:16:00 -
[23] - Quote
Rab See wrote:Its been said, but any Dev input on the issue of the armour freighters having an advantage on tanking using low slots?
Adaptive Nanos and the variants:
3x Coreli ANP on Provi: 46000 EHP with minimum 60% on explosive.
The same on a Charon ... 15000 EHP with minimum 60% on explosive.
The Fenrir and Obelisk sit in the middle of course, Fenrir worse for armour significantly.
Thats a massive fundamental difference. Understandably hard to balance with no midslots and resulting penalties for using bulkheads to tank. This is amplified on the T2 variants ... the sudden change to lowslots from rigs may have created this blind spot.
Can we add some flavour to the shield variants - agility for the Fenrir, speed for the Charon ... make them worthwhile. Otherwise the tiny differences mean its a nerf in all but name.
Well if they don't do anything about shield tanked freighters I plan to switch to the Amarr Freighter.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________ No trees were killed in the sending of this message. However, a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced. |
|
|
|