|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 29 post(s) |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21774
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 16:26:00 -
[1] - Quote
SeeGǪ there was a reason why I was against rigs on freighters from the very startGǪ
T2 capital rigs and a significant reduction in survivability requried and/or speed to get them back to where they were. Gee thanks. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21774
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 16:34:00 -
[2] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:T1 rigs are easily enough to bring normal freighters above their current cargo values. Yes, but I fly a JF. I picked it because of its nippy align speed, good tank, and descent-enough cargo hold.
I can restore one of those at a massive cost. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21776
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 16:55:00 -
[3] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Actually the tank on your JF is about the same as before, thanks to the extra resists. So you get one of the three for free! GǪbut it then gets gutshot by the Nozzle Joints I will have to fit to make it not behave like a drunken cow.
Quote:But yes, the fact that this is a small reduction in Jump Freighter power is completely intended. Figured as much.
Paranoid Loyd wrote:The people have got what they asked for, let the bloodbath begin YeahGǪ again, there's a reason why I've always been against this idea.
Silvetica Dian wrote:That wasn't the point. No one thought that getting rigs would leave us with a lower cargobay. WeeeeellGǪ exactly what it would do and how was always up for grabs, but that you'd end with a net change to the ship that made it worse than before was entirely expected. People just couldn't get that idea through their heads and thought that somehow rigs would only make things better in one area you could pick.
It's exactly what Loyd said GÇö be careful what you ask for and all that. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21777
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 16:58:00 -
[4] - Quote
Querns wrote:Oh -- I think I answered my own question. The JF agility adjustment is meant to compensate for the potential for rigging the Jump Freighter for agility.
My question then becomes "do you think that there is a compelling reason for anyone, ever, to rig for agility?" Jump freighter usage is all about cargo, cargo, cargo. I will, if I keep it (which is questionable).
I picked a JF over a normal freighter for highsec use because it offered higher survivability and faster movement. The higher cargo was pointless since that just made it more worth-while to attack, and I wanted that improved survivability and movement exactly to avoid that problem.
Eternal Error wrote:This is stupid. It is also exactly what was to be expected by anyone who actually engage a couple of neurons on the topic.
Eff it. I'm just going to use this thread to post a big GÇ£I told you so!GÇ¥ snipe on the top of every page. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21777
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 17:04:00 -
[5] - Quote
Abrazzar wrote:Everybody! Speculate now in capital rigs! Anyone want to buy a Nomad? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21779
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 17:10:00 -
[6] - Quote
Querns wrote:Why not rig it for warp speed, instead? You spend a lot more time in warp then you do aligning. Hmm, well yes, with these changes that will certainly be the case. I suppose it also doesn't hurt that much of I lose 10% from my irrelevant 1 tf CPU.
Quote:Regarding the safety angle, rigging for hull HP is going to be a lot more effective at safeguarding you than align. Yes, but with the already low cargo capacity, I'll end up with a ship that will only carry slightly more than an Orca, with the Orca still being (far) faster and more sturdy. If I did it with a regular freighter, it might be an idea (as mentioned in my first post edit), but it won't save my trusty old Nomad.
Also, told you so!
GǪdammit, missed by one post. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21779
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 17:12:00 -
[7] - Quote
BackStreet Babe wrote:poor changes. now you have to spend 1.2b extra on a jf to get to the same cargo as before but a with slower align. Yes, but it will most likely also be a bit weaker too. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21781
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 17:18:00 -
[8] - Quote
Iris Bravemount wrote:Can't really comment on JFs I don't use those, maybe their nerf is deserved. It's kind of deserved from the viewpoint of how easily they can just bypass many dangers with their jump drive. This change balances that out by making all the parts where you can't jump a lot more slow and dangerous.
As for the rest, it was all to be expected. Hence the obligatory GÇ£told you soGÇ¥.
Retar Aveymone wrote:your nomad was already a bad choice because many gankers will kill jfs on sight rather than just cost-effective ones If they're out to get me, yes. But outside of special occasions, that's pretty much never the case. Four years and not so much a a lock-on suggests that it was a pretty good choice since it's such a poor target.
Your perspective is likely to vary with your corp ticker, though. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21786
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 17:27:00 -
[9] - Quote
Proton Power wrote:This is in no way helpful to freighters; it is pure nerf unless you only haul small amounts and put in 3 rigs for war/speed/agilty; Everyoen else that uses freighters for what they are meant have been nerfed... *clears throat*
Told you so.
This is exactly what everyone of us who was against this idea said was going to happen. It really shouldn't be any surprise.
Dave Stark wrote:even with the reduced hull values? Should be. The Providence gets an 18% reduction in hull; each T1 hull rig gives a 20% bonus. You should be able to squeeze another 50k EHP out three of them. I haven't checked whether bumping its armour might give you more, though. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21793
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 17:52:00 -
[10] - Quote
Because people asked for this nerf. We tried to tell them that it was going to be a nerf, but they wanted it anyway because the prospect of more m-¦ suppressed all rational thought. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21797
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 17:55:00 -
[11] - Quote
Told you so.
e: Dammit!! Missed by one post again. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21797
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 17:59:00 -
[12] - Quote
Aliath Sunstrike wrote:And my question to Fozzie is....why make it a nerf!? Can't this be a "power creep" buff all across the board and just ADD rigs. Why does it have to be #$@#@ $ painful. Because it wouldn't be GÇ£power creepGÇ¥ GÇö it would be a ridiculously overpowered mega-buff. Counter-balancing the potential bonuses from rigs with nerfs to ensure that the end results were not insane was inevitable.
GǪoh, and power creep itself is bad, especially for a ship class that didn't particularly need any buffs. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21798
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 18:10:00 -
[13] - Quote
Dirk MacGirk wrote:Those cheers you heard at FanFest? The ones fuelled by ignorance of what was obviously going to happen, like so many of us had been saying all that time? Yeah, they just woke up and understood what we've been saying.
Quote:I fear something terrible has happened. Nothing that wasn't entirely expected.
GǪno, the amount of Gǣtold you soGǥ smugging isn't likely to go down any time soon.
T-N-T wrote:funny thing what only nulli goons and pl doesnt like these changes))others fine with them No, we're not. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21798
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 18:14:00 -
[14] - Quote
Adrien Crosse wrote:So, what's the point of all this? Giving people what they want. vOv GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21804
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 18:23:00 -
[15] - Quote
Steijn wrote:no, to do that you would leave everything as it is and then the rigs let you make it better than it currently is. That was never going to happen. Hell, some of the GÇ£player choiceGÇ¥ advocates even said that nerfs would be fine because choice trumps all.
So here we are: the player choice asked for is here, and to make it fit and still retain any sense of balance, nerfs will have to happen. Ask and ye shall receive. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21804
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 18:30:00 -
[16] - Quote
Dirk MacGirk wrote:Told rigs. Implicitly told that rigs will have to be balanced, if you have any sense.
Quote:Unless you were told more than that. Which they were not when "rigs coming to freighters" was proudly proclaimed on stage to wild applause. Or did I miss an announcement someplace? Every time people have suggested that freighters be given rigs, a number of us have pointed out that this addition must be accompanied by nerfs to make the rigged ships fit within the overall balance of the game. Every time.
Anyone who has suggested this addition has seen the warning of what will inevitably accompany it. Disbelief is not the right way of describing it. Recovery from temporary loss of common sense or wilful ignorance is more accurate. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21804
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 18:34:00 -
[17] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Goons are about the only people happy with this change as it will mean even easier kills for us and even more bloated freighters to blow up.
Miniluv sends its regards. Grr goons.
Ammzi wrote:We told you this was gonna happen. Every single one of you advocates for low slots and rigs to freighters. We told you they would take some of your candy away in return for giving you a cake. But ooh, did you listen? Nope.
The changes are to be expected, except JF align nerf. That's a bit uncalled for. So much this. Especially the agility nerf GÇö it's the only part that threw me a bit and makes me wonder how to compensate for it. Since I'm going to have to join the minions of semi-AFKers anyway, it currently looks like downgrading to a freighter will be the best move, and as a bonus, that frees up a lot of capital. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21808
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 18:46:00 -
[18] - Quote
Dirk MacGirk wrote:No need for you and that other genius Dave Stark to be douches about it. You know, with the kind of abuse and ignorance we've had to endure when explaining this all these yearsGǪ yes, yes there is.
Quote:Bit I'm sure your crystal ball already knew that. My crystal ball predicted it quite nicely, aside from the JF agility nerf. If anything, it's not as bad as expected. The crystal ball certainly predicted the amount of complaints that would follow and that we'd be able to say I told you so. SoGǪ
I told you so. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21811
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 18:55:00 -
[19] - Quote
Aliath Sunstrike wrote:Anyone with a moderate view of life though would get my point darling. It is to say just a moderate buff to current to balance out the cost of rigs. I didn't say it had to be HUGE. GǪexcept that it's the rigs themselves that make it huge. Unless you want to nerf all capital rigs, or introduce a completely new rig category, the freighters would have to be nerfed to accommodate the potential rig bonuses.
And that's part of the point: it would have to accommodate all of those potential bonuses GÇö after all, all eventualities will have to be balanced GÇö and the rigs would only be able to counteract one of the nerfs. So no matter how much you restrict the bonuses, be it by inventing new rigs or by limiting the number of rigs, or by nerfing the rigs, or by limiting which rigs can be fitted, the ship nerf to compensate will have to be the worst imaginable for every single stat and the sum total of those nerfs will always end up as a net nerf for the final fitted ship as a whole.
This is hardly rocket science, and therefore it is not even remotely surprising that we get this kind of change: because anything else would make them silly overpowered and completely imbalanced. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21814
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 19:00:00 -
[20] - Quote
theelusiveyoda wrote:In the thread: ccp realizes that a cargo rig expanded freighter could move a packaged capital ship so Nerf the storage of them so that they don't have to rethink the rigs changes. Everyone realised that, which is how we could predict this nerf such a long time ago.
You'll note that they also changed the size of repackaged capitals, so that particular reason for rethinking it doesn't fly as well any more. Really, short of opting for GÇ£let's not give them rigs at allGÇ¥, there is no way to rethink the rig change and end up with the same kind of nerfs.
Maximus Andendare wrote:If you wanted to add "customization," then you should have just added a single low slot. That would have required the same kind of nerfs. Actually, it would have required even bigger ones since a single low slot can do a whole lot more than a couple of rigs can.
This was also a part of the oft-repeated GÇ£told you soGÇ¥ package.
CynoNet Two wrote:Not when everyone else is selling off JFs :) Dammit. Good point. It should free up some capital, though, because even with these nerfs, I don't expect freighter + rigs to beat a JF in price. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21814
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 19:05:00 -
[21] - Quote
Aliath Sunstrike wrote:OMG you are dense. No. You're just not understanding why we're getting this nerf.
Quote:I am not talking about changing rigs...just decreasing the nerf a tad on the ships. They are reduced compared to what one might expect. Balance has to be maintained and that balance must include all eventualities. Thus, it will always end up a net nerf to the ship as a whole, even if you can restore (or even surpass) some of the old abilities.
Quote:Yes you can. Just take the numbers Fozzie is throwing out and decrease the nerf a tad. Make it less painful. You mean make it unbalanced. Yeah, seeGǪ that doesn't work for when you're trying to make things balanced. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21816
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 19:12:00 -
[22] - Quote
Aliath Sunstrike wrote:In the mean time you get rigs, but owners don't ***** about the nerf and it is a tad power creep. And by POWER CREEP I MEAN, some more cargo space, some more HPs, etc etc. Power creep inherently means that everyone loses.
Quote:We get rigs, but we get a slight buff to compensate. Compensate for what? The rigs are the buff. The nerfs are there to compensate for this and to maintain balance. And no, a bit of power creep is not acceptable because it means your implementation is a failure.
The addition of rigs must be accompanied with a net nerf to the ships. There is no way around that that isn't inherently bad for the game. That's why some of us were against them all along. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21819
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 19:34:00 -
[23] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:Dave Stark wrote:this was a change demanded by the playerbase, don't blame ccp for giving the people what they wanted. I am pretty certain this is exactly not what the player base wanted. No, it pretty much is. They were just too blinded by ~~moar m-¦~~ to listen to pick up on what their dream GÇ£improvementGÇ¥ would cost them.
It's kind of like how can flipping and ninja looting and similar annoyances were born. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21819
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 19:39:00 -
[24] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:4% is "gone up" for you? It's not GÇ£gone downGÇ¥ and it's not GÇ£stayed the sameGÇ¥. So what else is there?
Scarlet Thellere wrote:-yes you can improve your cargo but you will loose on tank -get little more money(cos rigging for cargo will not yield much higher cargo-space compared to pre-patch with much more risk
-yes you improve your tank and you move much less stuff with a little more safetly compared to pre-patch, so again you earn less. (whole lot less). Yup. Such is the nature of the kind of choice people have been asking for. Some even suggested that this kind of trade-off would be an improvement over what we have right now. We had the best of all worlds, and now you have to pick one area and sacrifice all others GÇö player choice, as the proponents called it.
Allison A'vani wrote:The reason for this is that no one actually took them serious at all. That was their mistake, and it was hardly the first one. Sooner or later, you'd think they'd learn. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21820
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 19:47:00 -
[25] - Quote
Axe Coldon wrote: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. I suppose it's a matter of semantic precisionGǪ
The industrialists got what they asked for; the gankers got what they wanted. The former just chose to turn a blind eye to how what they were asking for was not going to bring what they wanted, and the latter (mostly) stayed quiet because they knew that the best way to get what you want is to have your opposition promote it.
Sure, some nasty evil gankers like baltec broke rank and warned the industrialists, but that was just interpreted as gankers trying to keep the industrialists away from what they wantedGǪ
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21825
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 20:07:00 -
[26] - Quote
Zakarumit CZ wrote:Those changes mean that HP or resist rigs are almost a must, which doesnt give people the choice they wanted with the rigs addition They're a must if you want a stronger ship. Choosing one comes at the cost of a slower ship that carries less. You can also choose one that carries more GÇö preferably low-value goods GÇö but at the cost of being weaker and slower. You can also choose to be faster, but at the cost ofGǪ actually, it doesn't cost that much. You'll have so-so capacity and HP, though so I suppose you can consider that a GÇ£costGÇ¥ of sort when compared to the other options.
So sure you can choose. Your choice just needs to align with what it is you intend to carry and how you intend to fly the ship. If anything, the complaint is that you have to choose, or you'll end up with a ship that is strictly worse in every way than the current setups.
It's kind of funny, reallyGǪ normally, people are futzing over the balanced between the jack-of-all-trades is and the master-of-one. Here, people chose to champion a jack-of-one-trade over a master-of-all.
Joshua Trader wrote:There is no way any freighter needs a nerf. Agreed, but the only way to avoid one is to not give them any fitting capabilities. They don't really need a buff either since it's fairly easy to remain a worthless target. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21827
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 20:19:00 -
[27] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Buzz Dura wrote:CCP if youwant to choose between several setup to carry more load, more tank or more speed etc why don't you forget about rigs and add low slots instead. Rigs are expensive refit ! That would still mean you get these nerfs. In fact, it would probably mean you get even harsher nerfs. Three rig slots let you increase your tank by ~60%, so they had to reduce the base stat by ~20% to end up with a reasonable max number. Imagine what kind of nerf they would have had to apply if you could increase your tank by 150%. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21827
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 20:26:00 -
[28] - Quote
Triturus Alpestris wrote:CCP add low slot and we will forgive you. Why do you want them to nerf freighters three time as much as they already have? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21827
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 20:35:00 -
[29] - Quote
Dirk MacGirk wrote:I just don't see cargo capacity, past a certain point, that significant to force projection or hurting the game. It's a necessary evil in order to keep higher-level game functionality operating. Cargo capacity was always the limiting factor. Initially they couldn't give freighters rigs or modules because that would allow them to transport capitals into highsec. They (somewhat) mitigated here by increasing the size of repackaged caps, but that has follow-on effects for all the stuff in the game that has to deal with those capships and it is still a limiting factor that puts an upper bound on how much they can allow us to modify our freighters.
GǪand that's the easy one. Everything else is part of a complex balance structure where you don't want to make ships too strong or too capable compared to everything else flying out there, and freighters were in a very good spot already. So any net buff would have to be mirrored by a net nerf.
Allison A'vani wrote:Now that I think about it, if the changes are kept EXACTLY how they are and you add a low slot then this would be acceptable. If they added a low slot, it would be unacceptable to keep the changes the way they are GÇö they would have to reduce everything even further (and add more stuff to the nerf list) to compensate for all the additional abilities, exactly like they've already done to compensate for the rigs. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21829
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 20:40:00 -
[30] - Quote
Allison A'vani wrote:This is exactly why I have been saying for the 7 posts I made before that one, that these changes are bad to begin with and CCP should leave JF and freighters the way they are. Ok. Fair enough. It's hard to keep track of who says what.
And anyway, the changes they've done would not be sufficient to make up for a lowslot since you can do a whole lot more with one than you can with three rig slots, so my main point stands: no, it would not be an acceptable trade. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21830
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 20:45:00 -
[31] - Quote
Ptrum wrote:Why cant ccp just give freighters and JF low and mid slots and lower the cargo. *sigh*
Look at the limited amount of things you can do with rigs, and the limited bonuses they provide. Then look back at the OP to see what they had to do to accommodate those few options and small:ish boosts and still maintain a semblance of balance.
Now look at the massive amount of things you can do with low and midslots and the size of the bonuses they provide. Then imagine what they would have to do to the hulls to accommodate what you just asked them to unlockGǪ GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21830
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 20:49:00 -
[32] - Quote
chef Shi wrote:when is there ever gonna be any love for the freigthers,? When there's need for it.
Right now, there really isn't any, but people kept chanting for the ability to choose even though it was blatantly obvious that fitting choice would come at a huge cost.
Missss Deathwhisper wrote:So CCP why would you not give Freighters and JFs a real fitting loadout Because it would make them awful, and look how well the very small nerf required to give them rigs is received.
Tappits wrote:What is the problem with been able to move Packaged Capital ships in empire in T2 rigged Freighters? Give them a flag GǪbecause if your solution cascades into having to solve more and more problems the more you're trying to fix, what you're doing isn't a solution but an endless source of complication. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21830
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 20:54:00 -
[33] - Quote
Tappits wrote:Were is the constructive criticism? your a terrible idea. What problem are you trying to solve by creating a new problem that needs to be solved, and how is solving the first worth the headache you just created?
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21831
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 21:14:00 -
[34] - Quote
Labrena wrote:I don't see the need for the nerf to cargo capacity on the ships.
You've already shown that you can restrict what goes into bays, so you simply make it so packaged capital ships and station containers cannot be put into courier contracts and into the cargo bay's of freighters. That would require the construction of a completely new special hold that wouldn't be affected by the rigs anyway. So if you want to do what people wanted to do with rigs, you now have to create new rigs to alter special holds, which will alter the balance of other shipsGǪ
See how trying to solve your problem cascades into multiple new problems? Why not just make it easy and reduce cargo space to make sure that the end result doesn't get too high? What is the value of getting so much higher cargo holds and how does it outweigh the headache created by all the problems it spawns? Oh, and what makes it a good idea to have those huge cargo holds to begin with? Restrictions are valuable in the decisions they create.
Quote:People were not asking for rigs to be added to freighters, to get an overall nerf without spending another 1-2b on their ships. They rather were and were told as much on every occasion. They just chose to ignore the obvious downsides of what they were asking for.
Quote:It really seems like no thought at all was put into these changes. It looks like a lot of thought went into them. They even managed to reduce the required nerfs to more palatable levels than one would have expected. No, the problem is that little thought went into the demand that freighters be given rigs, since that's where the problem lies. We will never get back our excellent-at-everything freighters now that people have gotten their wish of being able to choose what their ship should be good at. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21853
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 23:58:00 -
[35] - Quote
Cyran Reinhard wrote:Well, Jump Freighters are meant to jump....if you aren't Jumping, why do you have a JF? Because they have more EHP and travel faster than a normal freighter, both of which improve survival chances by a fair amount. They also don't sucker you into filling up on too much valuables, which is a bonus since it lets those main traits work their magic.
Actually, when I run the numbers (from the OP, which curiously enough don't always agree with EFT or Pyfa), it's not quite as bad as feared. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21859
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 00:37:00 -
[36] - Quote
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. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21859
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 01:12:00 -
[37] - Quote
Kristalll wrote:They also cost 6x as much, GREATLY increasing your chances of gank. Not particularly greatly unless someone is specifically out to hurt your wallet rather than pad their own.
I mean, sure, I hear the argument a lot and it makes sense, but it requires a very different and much rarer intention on the gankers' part, so it's not nearly as bad as it's often made out to be.
Digger Pollard wrote:Freighter was already too vulnerable, now it's even more vulnerable, hauls less, and costs another freighter to make it just a bit less terrible and still a lot worse than it were. Nah. They weren't particularly vulnerable to begin with and now they can be made very sturdy indeed. The entire point with this change, as the proponents so often pointed out, is that now you get to choose what it will be good at. Making them less vulnerable is one of those options. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21859
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 01:33:00 -
[38] - Quote
Ersahi Kir wrote:Without a low slot this update is nothing but herp a derp.
I am actually embarrassed for the balance team. Why would you want to see them even more nerfed than this? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21859
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 01:42:00 -
[39] - Quote
It Maybeatrap wrote:Next change: Freighters get +1 low slot and lose 80% hull hp.
80% would probably be overkill, but since even a T1 suitcase doubles your hull EHP, a reduction in the 50% region wouldn't be at all surprising. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21863
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 02:33:00 -
[40] - Quote
Simulacrum Clone wrote:If you had any sincere compassion for freighter pilots, and a higher intelligence for customer satisfaction, you would have left the stats alone, but included 3 rigs for standard freighters, two for jump freighters and included one high, medium and low slot. So now GǣcompassionGǣ and GǣintelligenceGǥ has been synonymous with Gǣthrowing balance out the windowGǥ and Gǣmaking changes without any concern for the repercussionsGǥ. InterestingGǪ
Wilfully breaking the game doesn't seem particularly compassionate or intelligent. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21902
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 11:21:00 -
[41] - Quote
Tau Cabalander wrote:I was looking forward to the ADDED CHOICE these changes would bring, but instead they REMOVE CHOICE[GǪ] Post-Kronos Rigs: Rig 1: No choice GåÆ Capital Cargohold Optimization II (20% for 660,000), -150 Calibration Rig 2: No choice GåÆ Capital Cargohold Optimization II (20% for 792,000), -150 Calibration Rig 3: Limited Choice GåÆ 100 Calibration You have plenty of choice for all three slots. There is nothing that says you must return to the old carrying capacity, and 2+ù T1 gets you close enough without the massive cost. You choose to dictate that you must get back to the old values on two slots alone. That is your choice. You can make a different one.
Axe Coldon wrote:That is absurd. Nerf the normal freighters cargo I don't care. but getting 500k in a jf is not too much. Seeing as JFs are often presented as offering a problematic ease of use and ease of logistics even in the 300k range, 500k certainly seems like it would stray into the GÇ£too muchGÇ¥ category. I fully understand that it also makes them stray into the GÇ£very nice to have since they can now do stuff you normally need a freighter forGÇ¥ territory, but if anything, that just furthers the argument that it is too much.
Dave Stark wrote:Dirk MacGirk wrote:Freighters were fine. yes they were. i'm personally hoping for a CCP 180 and say "yeah we'll leave freighters alone, but this is what balance looks like... be careful what you wish for". i doubt it will happen, though. so on a more realistic level; i think they should at least knock it down to large rigs (justification: orca) if they're not going to scrap these changes. That would be glorious and a lesson for the ages (that will be forgotten by July).
Freighters being fine was the argument against this change all along since they were very good in every aspect they needed to be good in. But no, GÇ£player choiceGÇ¥ and GÇ£sacrificing a for bGÇ¥ (read: increasing the m-¦ and ignore what it would cost) was hammered home as much better to have than a spectacularly well-rounded ship. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21902
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 11:36:00 -
[42] - Quote
Dirk MacGirk wrote:If the goal is flexibility for a ship, and the result is a major overhaul to base stats, why stop at rigs? Rigs are traditionally a secondary form of augmentation. Mods are where the real flexibility comes in.
I recognize that could mean CCP does even more to the base stats and the end result might be a much bigger change than we are destined to get now. But why not just get it all out of the way now? Absorb a full freighter revamp that puts freighters on the same field as every other ship in the game. That way, we adapt to the big change (tears and all), but future rebalancing efforts would be at the margin and akin to the rebalancing associated with other ship classes.
Again, apologies to those that may have logically answered why this was a bad in the past. You already hit on the reason: because it would basically mean reducing the ships to rubble and building them up from there. Their base stats would be horrible and people would ragequit over the nerfs in droves. The problem is that you have to balance for the extreme scenario, which means that the more reasonable ones always end up worse than before.
You have to adjust cargo with the guy who fills the lows and rig slots with nothing but cargo expansion in mind; you have to adjust tank with the guy who fills them with nothing but tank in mind; you have to adjust travel speed with the guy who fills them with speed mods in mind. The guy who wants a balance between cargo and agility and tank will end up with something that is mediocre in all three and which does not stack up to the old ships' capabilities because the overall baseline had to come down to compensate for those extremist fits.
I mean, yes, in a sense you're right. If they want to do it, they should just go all out, but that means freighters as we know them will be completely gone and a vastly different ship class will come in their place. Personally, I was always in the GÇ£don't nerf my freighterGÇ¥ camp so I would prefer to see them remain as they are, and with a fitted freighter class being added as a new (generally worse, but contextually better) option. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21906
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 13:13:00 -
[43] - Quote
Abrazzar wrote:I still say the nerfs had nothing to do with the addition of rigs and the 'told you so' crowd is missing this point intentionally just to harvest more tears. Firs came the nerfs and to sell them as (semi-)boosts rigs were thrown in. Under this point of view the changes suddenly become logical. It just as logical the other way around, and more parsimonious too since they could just nerf stuff if they wanted to without any need to sell anything. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21913
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 14:14:00 -
[44] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:Ignorant people claiming it was JF pilots asking for rigs are just GǪstating facts, and are being met with abuse now as then when pointing out the obvious consequences.
Quote:this is really pushing it to make industry local, which is what the big 0.0 alliances wanted, nothing to do with people wanting and not getting improved EHP for their freighters and Jump Freighters. The big nullsec alliances weren't particularly fussed about industry being local GÇö they just wanted null industry to not be a thoroughly braindead proposition. The Crius changes will address that to some extent, but the main problem is that null industry can't be local. It relies on materials that can't be had locally, but which have to be imported from all over the place (via higsec).
This change makes such imports more annoying and will, if anything, concentrate industry more around the central trading hubs than before. Granted, in many cases it's thoroughly inefficient to import the materials rather than the final product regardless, so the effect will be fairly minor. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21916
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 15:02:00 -
[45] - Quote
Barton Breau wrote:That is not given, numbers can be tweaked and extremes accepted (like the new +20% cargo freighters).
That extreme isn't very extreme, for one, but its limiting factor was also able to be adjusted upwards. That is not always the case. In fact, I'd say that it's very rare that it's the case.
But even in your example, look at what those extremes have done: we accept a new upper bound for hauling volume that is 20% higher. That's effectively just one T2 rig. But look what they had to do to compensate for the fact that you can fit three rigs: the other two had to be completely swallowed up by the nerf.
And cargo is a very slight adjustment on the scale of things. Let's take the oft-mentioned DCII for instance. If you could fit one of those on a freighter, you'd almost triple its EHP, before we even fit anything else. That's so way over the top, and it comes so cheaply, that the baseline hull, shield, and armour values had to all come down to compensate so the end result GÇö should someone be so evil as to fit one GÇö would maybe only be that 20%. The mere possibility to fit a DCII requires hull HP to drop by nearly 50%.
Now do this same calculation across every statistic and every possibility and you'll end up with massive nerfs across the board. Of course, you have a limited amount of slots so you can't compensate for all of them GÇö at most you can push one up to the extreme value, or perhaps more sanely, you can push one up to its previous value and compensate a second one half-way. That just leaves every other stat on the ship worse off than before. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21916
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 15:03:00 -
[46] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:That was a most amusing troll post, if you seriously believe all of that then I pity you... So I'm right then, seeing as how you can't present an argument to the contrary and have to go right for continue the ad hominems. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21919
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 15:18:00 -
[47] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:Well for example you said that null sec alliances were not asking for a buff in manufacturing So you decided to change from an ad hominem fallacy to a strawman fallacy. Yeah, I think I'll hang on to that GÇ£can't prove me wrong so applies fallacy insteadGÇ¥ interpretation because it's the only one that makes sense. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21919
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 15:20:00 -
[48] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey everyone. I haven't caught up on the entire thread yet (still working through page 19) but I wanted to quickly let you guys know that the mass values that were previously listed in the OP for freighters were a mistake on the forum post. We never changed the freighter mass values, and have no intention of preventing them from travelling through highsec wormholes.
The numbers are now corrected in the OP.
Ok, back to reading the rest of the thread. I'll let you guys know when I'm caught up. Bah! Now I have to update my spreadsheets and everything will look much better. Stop ruining our complaintsGǪ wait what? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21923
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 15:31:00 -
[49] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Derath Ellecon wrote:Knew I was right welcome to team 'i told you so', have a t-shirt. Who do we lobby to get this in the NeX?
Aiphona wrote:You are forcing JF pilots to buy 2 T2 rigs for 1.48 BILLION to fly the SAME ship that aligns 16 seconds slower!! I had the same reaction first, but remember that they're giving base stats. Align time, in particular, drops dramatically once you factor in all the agility bonuses you collect on your way to JFs.
Look at this for where you end up with all-Vs. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21925
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 15:56:00 -
[50] - Quote
Regan Rotineque wrote:what i dont understand is why you nerfed the freighters
could you not have left the stats the same and then built negative modifiers into the rigs? GǪthereby nerfing all capital ships rather than just balance freighters? Yeah, no. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21925
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 16:04:00 -
[51] - Quote
Lair Osen wrote:I think he means that the Rigs have inbuilt drawbacks already so why is an extra massive nerf needed? It sounds like he wants more.
And still, that's an even simpler answer: because they have to keep the freighters balanced even after the bonuses that rigs will provide. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21925
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 16:06:00 -
[52] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:Lets repeat what you said GǪand notice that it is not even remotely what you claimed I said. That was just some nonsense you made up because you couldn't provide any kind of coherent point or counter-argument.
Quote:The changes being imposed by Fozzie are in fact GÇ£In fact?GÇ¥ What do you base that on?
Harvey James wrote:are cargohold rigs stacking penalized? Not as far as I know. They don't say anything to the effect and none of the fitting tools apply any such penalties. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21925
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 16:15:00 -
[53] - Quote
Regan Rotineque wrote:keep reading tippia
i said later that the penalties apply to freighter and jump freighter class vessels That effectively means you're creating a completely separate rig class, which means you've now created more problems and balance issues through your solution. Is the creation of that problem worth it for solving your first perceived issue?
Like I said earlier in the thread, if a GÇ£solutionGÇ¥ cascades into new problems that have to have their own special unique tweaks and solutions, chances are that it's not a good solution to begin with, especially when there's already a perfectly serviceable way out.
Quote:the point of my post is to try to actually give some choice to the ship owner You have plenty of choice. The entire problem is that some people assumed all along that being given choice would itself come without a cost, but that was never going to happen GÇö choice itself is too valuable, and the full array of choices you can make have to fit in the overall balance of the game.
Quote:im saying leave me what i had and let ME chose what nerf I want This solution lets you do that. You're just unhappy with the size of the nerfs your choice leaves you with. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21926
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 16:35:00 -
[54] - Quote
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:The ONLY people claiming I expected a net buff out of this is you and your kind. I expected them to set it up so that when you rigged and modded your freighter you could get it to exactly the same level of defense, maneuverability, capacity...etc...etc...etc as you do now. GǪand as has been explained on multiple occasions now (as in the past), you will never be able to do that because the amount of nerfs required to properly balance all fitting combinations would by far outnumber what you'd be able to compensate for with a limited fitting space.
Regan Rotineque wrote:what i find amuzing about your post is that i would bet How much?
Quote:you either dont own, or even fly a freighter As has been made abundantly clear by now, I've been against this idea since the first time I saw it come up. Would you like to take a stab at guessing why that is?
Quote:what i dont like is that they nerf the entire ship then force you to put back the parts you want. Tough. That's the only way to do it that doesn't cascade into a whole new set of problems that is far bigger than the tiny grievance you're having. Either you use the existing systems GÇö which are largely based on adding bonuses to a less capable hull GÇö or you invent a completely new one that is specific to this one ship class, which does the exact opposite by adding penalties to a capable one. Since the latter is simply not worth it, we get the former, and that means the freighter hulls have to be made less capable.
It's really as simple as that. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21928
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 16:39:00 -
[55] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:Regan Rotineque wrote: CCP is fond of saying risk vs reward these changes are 100% risk and 0% reward since all the changes do is increase the value of a km by addi expensive rigs to it Reward/Trade off Capacity / tank + speed tank / capacity + speed speed / capacity + tank GǪand, hell, with the final numbers I'm seeing once you apply skills and more sensible (i.e. less extremist) fits, you sometimes don't even have to put two of those factors in the risk column. Depending on the final outcome, I may even ha spotted a few where you get two of them on the reward side of the calculationGǪ GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21928
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 16:51:00 -
[56] - Quote
Ncc 1709 wrote:1 lowslot on the frighter would mean , dcu as tank, cargo expander as cargo, inertia stab for agility or nano or even a Capital AAR GǪput another way: a 50% nerf in base EHP; a 10GÇô15% nerf in base cargo capacity; a 10GÇô15% nerf in base agility; a 10GÇô15% nerf in base armour resists; probably a couple of capacitor nerfs, etc etc etc.
That's for one lowslot. I don't want to even begin to look at what would be required to accommodate two of them. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21931
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 17:02:00 -
[57] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Wulfy Johnson wrote: Assuming freighters are in such a good state as of today that nerfs are needed to allow them player chosen buffs.
That's not an assumption. Cargohold can NOT be permitted above a certain level. Tank too. The agility can stand to be increased a bit, but it's the exception. It's bizarre, really.
Here, in this very thread, we have indisputable evidence of what kind of nerfs are required to accommodate something as relatively benign as rigs. They offer rather small bonuses and they are fairly inflexible.
Now people are appalled by these (ultimately rather small) nerfs and want to see even more capable stat boosts instead, still apparently completely oblivious to the connection between allowing boosts and the nerfs that will have to accompany them. How does that conclusion even happen?!
Why could people not just leave the poor master-at-everything freighters alone. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21933
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 17:08:00 -
[58] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:I cannot for the life of me work out why you think that improving industry in null sec does not mean making it so they produce items in null sec That's because it's just some incoherent nonsense you've made up for god knows what reason, rather than something I've actually said. If you stop arguing against your own inventions and instead just calmly read what I wrote, it's actually very very easy to understand.
You have yet to provide any kind of counter-argument to what I actually said. Maybe you should try doing that, hmmGǪ? If there's any particular part you fail to process for whatever reason, just ask. I won't bite.
Quote:As for the reduction is usability and efficiency of Jump Freighters, why would they do that? Because it's required if they want to add rigs to them, like so many people have been asking them to do. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21933
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 17:13:00 -
[59] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:Into insults So stop using them. I'll keep repeating it until you get with the program: you have yet to provide any kind of counter-argument to what I actually said. Maybe you should try doing that, hmmGǪ? If there's any particular part you fail to process for whatever, just ask. I won't bite.
If you keep going with the nonsensical fallacies, you will never accomplish anything. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21933
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 17:16:00 -
[60] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:I have no argument. I know. That explains why you have yet to provide any kind of counter-argument to what I actually said, so maybe you should try doing that rather than just troll a lot, hmmGǪ? If there's any particular part you fail to process for whatever, just ask. I still won't bite. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21936
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 17:24:00 -
[61] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:Counter argument to your stupid counter argument, you are really bad at this. Your counter argument beingGǪ what? And what stupid about my argument? Again (no, it won't go away no matter how hard you try to avoid it GÇö only actually answering the questions will do that): you have yet to provide any kind of counter-argument to what I actually said, so maybe you should try doing that rather than just troll a lot, hmmGǪ? If there's any particular part you fail to process for whatever, just ask. I still won't bite.
I'm beginning to think that you don't even know what the supposed argument was to begin with by now because you've managed to confuse yourself so much with your fallacies. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21938
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 17:52:00 -
[62] - Quote
Digger Pollard wrote:First of all, it's zero. You know about concord, so it's not a risk, it's actually something you can reliably count on. GǪand that doesn't preclude it from being a risk (especially since it isn't a 100% chance).
Quote:Secondly, ganking is only as EXTREMELY easy as people ARE FORCED to make it for you, because there is no alternative to a freighter and no alternative to what you haul - you haul what you have to. There are plenty of alternatives in what you haul, how much of it you haul, what you haul it in, what route you take (yes, there are alternatives), how you fly that route, what protections you bring along etc etc etc. No-one is forcing you to do anything.
Quote:Thirdly, I have seen 10 billion isk killmails which drop 11 billion, due to price calculator and jita price difference. That just proves that the risks are huge.
No matter what, any attempt at framing ganking as risk free is inherently ignorant and rather disqualifies anyone who makes that kind of claim from taking part of the discussion since they are so unfamiliar with the topic. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21946
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 18:05:00 -
[63] - Quote
Kenneth Feld wrote:All 3 of those definitions rely on an unkown outcome GǪand they're very simplistic common-language descriptions rather than proper analytic definitions.
Risk is not limited to unpleasant outcomes, nor does it arbitrarily cut of parts of the probability spectrum. Any outcome that you can assign any probability to can be expressed as a risk. The higher the probability and/or outcome, the higher the risk.
The risks involved in ganking are so far away from zero that anyone who claims that they're even close has immediately proven themselves completely unfamiliar with everything related to ganking. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21949
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 18:20:00 -
[64] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:baltec1 wrote:What you want would result is an enormous nerf to freighters. a fact he's clearly unwilling to accept due to the fact that he refused to answer the question. An unwillingness that is baffling since this very thread is proof positive of exactly what we've been saying all this time. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21950
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 18:31:00 -
[65] - Quote
Digger Pollard wrote:Not killing a target with near-zero ehp variety and zero tanking variety? It's called random number generator. The name should be a hint. It is also called not knowing what else the target brings and not being able to judge the EHP beforehand.
Quote:As well as getting twice the expected. On average you will get 50%, so it's not a risk in the long run. >_< Did you just say that? You can't have it both ways. Either you're talking about averages and percentages, or you're saying that there is no risk. You can't first say one and then conclude the other because they are inherently contradictory.
Quote:Gank fleet under attack? Yes. Remember that whole probability of outcome thing? Here's something that can happen with a decidedly bad outcome.
Quote:This is hilarious argument. Unless you're worse than my dog at eve, your freighter won't get the crimewatch flag It rather has to, you know, since there aren't that many ships that can pick up and handle freighter-sized loads of loot.
Quote:Removal-of-consequences tags are still there or I missed something? Those don't really help and is just a pointless waste of ISK for a career ganker.
So with those answers in mind, I feel pretty confident of my previous GÇ£0 risk = 0 insightGÇ¥ model for ganking risk assessments. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21950
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 18:54:00 -
[66] - Quote
Kenneth Feld wrote:If you don't know how to launder your loot with the fleet hangar in an Orca You mean the one that can't fit many of the things that a freighter will carry? Yeah, no. That's not a very good way of doing things. Oh and hey, it doesn't remove the risk of the freighter getting ganked by the way.
Agh. Quote limit. Let's do it this way.
Digger Pollard wrote:1. Target is a freighter - zero tanking variety. 2. It must be sitting on top of a freighter or they won't make it to counter gank. 3. Gank fleets being ganked are simply impossible 4. There are things like freight containers you can deploy from your freighter and put stuff there with another account 5. Loot fairy? You can't have it both ways in a single occurrence, but you WILL have it both ways in a long run 1. Incorrect. 2. Incorrect. 3. Incorrect. 4. Wow. Actually correct, assuming the loot is small enough, which is far from guaranteed. It doesn't remove it as a risk factor though. After all, people around here claim that freighter ganks happen for all kinds of reasonsGǪ 5. Which means it's an indisputable risk.
Quote:So with those answers in mind, I feel pretty confident than the only real risk in ganking is being worse than my dog at eve. In other words, you are fundamentally ignorant about everything even remotely related to ganks and even more clueles about risk as a concept. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21953
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 19:00:00 -
[67] - Quote
Digger Pollard wrote:Not to mention that a booster will not boost freighter ehp more than 1%-2%, which is negligible. Incorrect. Even more so with these new numbers. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21953
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 19:04:00 -
[68] - Quote
Digger Pollard wrote:Currently avoiding gank is 100% impossible even for gods. So how do you explain its monumental rarity and how people can go through their entire account lives without being victims of (or even seeing) one?
Frostys Virpio wrote:I wonder if the best use is gonna be armor rigs + armor boost + slave set now. It kind of looks like it because they're going to end up with an awful amount of armour it seems. I'm guessing that it's to slightly compensate for the assumed astronautic rig penalties, since even Caldari freighters will benefit immensely from armour boosting. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21954
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 19:09:00 -
[69] - Quote
Digger Pollard wrote:Tippia wrote:So how do you explain its monumental rarity and how people can go through their entire account lives without being victims of (or even seeing) one?
Somebody other than Tippia should ask me this so I could answer. I have no answer. Yeah, that's what happens when you pull such nonsensical ideas out of nowhere.
By the way, would you like to venture a guess at how much a Charon GÇö decidedly not an armour tanker GÇö benefits from having armour boosting in the system? Would you like to revise your 1GÇô2% number for something more realistic?
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21956
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 19:19:00 -
[70] - Quote
Digger Pollard wrote:First, there is no rarity, just over-estimation of how many freighters actually pass per hour. Do you have any statistics to support this assertion?
Quote:Second, there are easier targets Third is gankers being simply too lazy. So you're saying that it's actually very rare.
Quote:They are crying to make freighters as easy to gank as miners, and it looks like they are succeeding. Do you have any examples of this actually happening? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21957
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 19:33:00 -
[71] - Quote
handige harrie wrote:This is CCP saying people with one account are not wanted in EVE. It's cheaper to haul with 2x freighters now than it is with 1x with Rigs. So your freighters cost less than 300M ISK? Can I a buy one five? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21961
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 20:23:00 -
[72] - Quote
Vigilanta wrote:I dont ever think anyone assumed choice would come without a cost, I think most imagined that with the introduction of rigs we would have the opportunity to marginally increase cargo and tank ./ or speed, OR massively improve cargo OR tank. Please note the or. The main issue that is created with the current proposed set of changes is that there really isn't a middle ground. Maybe some didn't, but if you look back at the threads they are chock-full of people who seem to assume that the only cost would be something along the lines of rig penalties and nothing more. The reason why these kinds of overarching nerfs to the base stats are needed never got past their blinders.
The same goes for the middle ground: the notion that the middle ground would forcibly be something pretty bad since the balancing had to compensate for the extremes never sunk in. In truth, they actually end up being much less severe than expected GÇö in most cases, you can shift the penalties to something that doesn't hurt too much.
Quote:Realistically, freighters were in dire need of a buff, as someone who has been bumped around madrimille for 15 minutes there is no way one can consider the current gank meta fair or balanced. Sure it is. There are ways of escaping from that kind of trap but nothing sane or sensible done to the freighters themselves could ever help you there. What you have there is a one-vs-many GÇ£problemGÇ¥, not a ship problem. Not the quotation marks on the first since it's entirely fair and balanced that many pilots working together can beat one. Realistically, freighters were so far from needing a buff that the best you could hope for was that they remained the same. Instead, we got rigs and all the nerfs that had to follow.
Freighters were in an excellent position if people just flew them properly. Jump freighters were, if anything, slated for a slight nerf but many thought it would stop with the fuel changes.
As for your suggestions, yes, they would all make the nerfs sting less. The question is, why should they? They're already mild compared to what could have been, and all you're really doing is creeping back towards not having rigs to being with.
handige harrie wrote:try making a freighter have the same EHP AND cargo in Kronos as now, Tech 1 rigs will only get your so far.... Nah. I think I'll instead adapt to the new balance and pick and choose what I need from the ship rather than (futilely) trying to reconstruct a state that no longer exists.
I think I may have already picked the two rigs I need to get back to what I want from my JF, but I'll have to test it on sisi against another set up to see which one works best. Neither of them will be T2 even though it's almost a sensible investment compared to a JF's price tag. But then, I also have to test it against a fully (still T1) rigged freighter to see if I can cash out some profit in the process. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21962
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 20:32:00 -
[73] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:It's intentional, although I have been seeing a few good arguments for reconsidering it in the thread so far. \o/ GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21967
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 21:55:00 -
[74] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:This is not a risk. Who cares about the drop when you gank? The professional gankers.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21968
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 22:01:00 -
[75] - Quote
Allison A'vani wrote:The risk is still zero since all you have to do is ship scan the freighter 3 or 4 times. No. The only way for the risk to be zero is for all probabilities and all outcomes to be zero. They're not. There are simply far too many GÇ£ifGÇ¥s and far too many RNG rolls involved. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21971
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 22:07:00 -
[76] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Tippia wrote:Allison A'vani wrote:The risk is still zero since all you have to do is ship scan the freighter 3 or 4 times. No. The only way for the risk to be zero is for all probabilities and all outcomes to be zero. They're not. There are simply far too many GÇ£ifGÇ¥s involved. And when there's even one, the risk is not zero. And we all know the loot fairy exists, even the fake ganker. The main point of confusion seems to be the perception that, just because you can hedge and mitigate your risks, they don't exist. That's where the logic goes off the tracks. The fact that you can (and have to) hedge and mitigate them is precisely because the risks exist and you want to reduce them as much as possible.
Short of injecting code into TQ, that mitigation and hedging will not make the risks go away. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21971
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 22:10:00 -
[77] - Quote
Allison A'vani wrote:Look at that politician speak. There is zero risk involved That is indeed pure politician speak you're providing: you're ignoring the facts and definitions and data and altering them all to fit your narrative. The fact remains, the risks are not zero. You accidentally prove this byGǪQuote:you have an alt with a passive targeter and a ship scanner. If [yadda yadda] GǪhaving to do all this stuff just to mitigate those risks. You can't get rid of them. You can just choose to gamble on better odds. The risk is not gone.
Quote:This isn't rocket science, it is pretty simple probability. GǪand as long as that probability Gëá 0 (which it never ever is, so don't even bother lying about it) there is risk. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21971
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 22:12:00 -
[78] - Quote
Allison A'vani wrote:If you read my last post, you will see how insignificant the risk really is. You mean, not zero. Oh, and idiots losing valuable ships to wardecs isn't the kind of ganking people are talking about.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21972
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 22:20:00 -
[79] - Quote
Allison A'vani wrote:The risk is the limit of X as X approaches the axis. Not that either.
Quote:Even then, catalyst ganking done over a large period of time still will net a profit. Good. That means the game is working properly and that it is possible to take make a living off of the stupidity and mistakes of other players.
Quote:This is why in every one of my post actually arguing about the changes I have only cared about agility and cargo size. Tank really means nothing. Neither does agility or cargo size at that point. No ship stat counteracts decision-making failures. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21997
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 12:29:00 -
[80] - Quote
mynnna wrote:Still no free lunch here; you're not getting better at everything at once, unless I messed up somewhere. For the most part it hews to the same overall principles as with rigs (tighten the gap between the different classes a bit) but the upsides are bigger (though the downsides are too) and you can hit a lot of interesting combos. It also doesn't demand a fortune to swap. Use of low slots is obviously an advantage for the armor tanking freighters. To offset that, shield freighters put a great deal of their EHP into shields while armor freighters continue to focus mainly on structure. The only real problem I see is that, as is to be expected from modules, you can get huge effects for a very small cost. I got the impression from Fozzie that the idea was not to particularly buff them but as your numbers show, it's fairly easy to end up with something that's strictly better than what we have, which I fear puts the viability at risk. At the same time, to pull the end result back would mean making the base numbers truly horrible, and it would be easy to simply ruin the ship with bad fits (which I suppose has its own appeal).
Maybe it would be easier if it were only two slots? I'm thinking about the huge variety you can squeeze out of the Orca's lows as a point of comparison, and it just gives fewer moving parts you have to worry about.
Quote:Going to sleep now, if people like the idea maybe I can whip through jump freighters to illustrate them as well. That would be nice. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
21997
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 12:38:00 -
[81] - Quote
Wulfy Johnson wrote:Something like this is way more realistic than rigs and allows for fitting towards what task you have at hand without dishing out hundreds of mill in waste to provide a "noob isksink", dough i still belive one low would serve that puropse better with less gimping of the ship.
Thanks for providing some numbers.
One low creates its own (pretty significant) headache: we still have that annoying DCII that needs to be taken into account GÇö 2.5+ù the hul EHP of anything you fit it to. As long as it does what it does, hull generally has to come down in order to not be completely silly. At the same time, people will want to fit cargo expanders, but since the base hull is down from having to anticipate the DCII, you start out at almost half the current EHP, and then it gets another chunk cut out by a single expanderGǪ and suddenly you have a cargo-fitted freighter that is weaker than most mining barges.
With only one slot, the DCII kind of becomes the only viable module so you might as well just fold it into the ship and not have the lowslot at all, at which point we're right back where we started. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22004
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 13:07:00 -
[82] - Quote
GǪcome to think of it, why do bulkheads require so much CPU? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22009
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 13:38:00 -
[83] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:Of which you can only use 40k to transport things that are not assembled ships or ore. It's upwards of 100k, actuallyGǪ but it makes the ship a lot worse if you do.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22009
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 13:43:00 -
[84] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:I'll say this slowly for you... none of those ships do 500k m3. If you just want a sturdier, faster ship with half the cargo, JFs pretty much do that already. Orcas do about half of what a JF does (if we ignore the ship hangar). DSTs do about half of whan an Orca does. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22010
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 13:49:00 -
[85] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Sipphakta en Gravonere wrote: 3. Every freighter killed is a giant ISK faucet, spewing several hundred million ISK into the economy.
I really really dislike people that don't understand what terms mean before they use them. At best freighter ganks are a sink No. You don't understand what the term means. We're talking about ISK here. No ISK is removed from the game. Every freighter loss is a giant ISK faucet since their destruction creates ISK through insurance.
Wulfy's original claim was that reducing the freighters' EHP made them into an ISK sink. Sipphakta entirely accurately corrected him by pointing out that a freigther kill is an ISK faucet.
Rivr Luzade wrote:None is suitable to transport things between 100k and 300k m-¦. Again, JFs fit that role perfectly. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22011
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 13:58:00 -
[86] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:I like how you are correcting me by putting words in my mouth. You mean by cutting off your failed attempt at correcting him when he was right all along?
Quote:Sinks and faucets can apply to game items as well as isk. Yes, but we're only talking about iSK here. You started by saying that you dislike when people misuse the term faucet and sinks, as if to imply that his correct answer was a misuse of the term. You then went off on a completely irrelevant tangent.
Quote:Insurance applys to every ship in game so the applicability to this ship is rather limited when talking about game balance as a whole. We're not talking about game balance as a whole. We're talking about how reducing the EHP on freighters does not turn them into ISK sinks. So how about you stop trying to make yourself correct by putting words in other people's mouths, hmmGǪ?
Quote:NO WHERE IN MY RESPONSE DID I MENTION THE TERM ISK. In other words, your response was 100% irrelevant. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22011
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 14:00:00 -
[87] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:Tippia wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote:None is suitable to transport things between 100k and 300k m-¦. Again, JFs fit that role perfectly. They absolutely don't. You mean aside from being highly suitable for transporting things between 100k and 300k m-¦? So what about them is it that makes them unsuitable for that task? Is it their 300k+ m-¦ cargo hold? Is it their increased EHP? Is it their faster aligning? Is it their faster warp speed? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22011
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 14:05:00 -
[88] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:I never said anything about orcas in any of my posts. Valterra Craven wrote:Because an orca has 500k m3??? Valterra Craven wrote:These would cost around the same as orcas, wouldnt have the boosting of orcas and would be totally devoted to hauling. SoGǪ yeah.
AlsoGǪQuote:People wanted riggable freighters and those of us that are sane don't want these massive across the board nerfs. Those of us who are sane don't want riggable freighters since that forcibly means massive nerfs across the board. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22011
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 14:11:00 -
[89] - Quote
Ben Hatton wrote:Hey petty people, back on topic please....... Ok. No, reducing EHP does not make freighters into ISK sinks, quite the opposite. It doesn't really do anything since you can just compensate for it if that's what you're after. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22011
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 14:17:00 -
[90] - Quote
Ben Hatton wrote:No im just done with the my dicks bigger than yours bickering.... Make up your mind. You asked for us to get back on topic. I got back on topic. Now you're fed up with that too? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22014
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 14:27:00 -
[91] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Tippia wrote: Now you're fed up with that too? it has been going on for like 60 pages now, to be fair. I suppose. The faucet/sink confusion was a bit of a new angle, though. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22017
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 15:32:00 -
[92] - Quote
Tora Hamaji wrote:It never ceases to amaze me how CCP manages to break every promise and botch every positive change time after time after time! They didn't break any promises, though. You can do exactly what they said you will be able to do, and the price for being able to do so is entirely in line with what was expected. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22018
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 15:38:00 -
[93] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Maybe not your's but it was his. No, not his either. You claimed that you ever said anything about orcas in any of your posts. He demonstrated that your claim was wrong.
Quote:To answer your original question. I don't want a smaller more tankier version of the freighter (which would be the JF) I wanted a smaller less tankier version than a freighter so that a ship would exist in its proper pre-nerfed form so that it could have rigs.
It wasn't really a question. It was a demonstration that what you're asking for is pretty much already in the game. We have a neat progression of an almost constant doubling of capacity between DST GåÆ Orca GåÆ JF GåÆ Freighter. There's very little room for any additional ships in that progression. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22026
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 15:52:00 -
[94] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:No, what he did was showed that the word orca existed in my post. What it didn't do was show anything else. It showed that you said something about orcas in your posts, thereby proving your claim wrong. You forgot what you had said and made a boo-boo. Just live with it.
Quote:And I would agree with your assessment if nothing were changing. But things change, and with change old things don't hold up anymore. They hold up even more now since there's a lot more variation in the ships that fill out any gaps that existed before. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22026
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 16:03:00 -
[95] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:You can say this all you want, but it doesn't make it anymore true. That's true enough. It can't really be more true than true, which it is, as demonstrated by the post where you mention them.
Now, if you want to claim that you didn't mention Orcas, can you explain what you were doing when you mentioned orcas in the post in question? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22031
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 16:10:00 -
[96] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Well had the fact that I said it actually occurred. it would have proved it. So it's proven then, since it is indeed a fact that you said it.
Look, you're just clogging up the thread with this idiotic refusal to accept reality. You mentioned them. It's right there in the thread. You thought you hadn't, or you made a mistake about what people were saying, but the facts are the facts. Just live with it GÇö it will all be deleted anyway. Also, look up what the word GÇ£mentionGÇ¥ mean because you seem to be a bit confused by it.
Quote:I responded to their mentionings. That is not the same as what you are accusing me. You're so far around the bend now it's getting silly. He's not accusing you of anything. He's saying that you mentioned orcas. You did. In responding to other people bringing them up, you mentioned them GÇö you rather had to unless you wanted to make a completely nonsensical answer.
Quote:I didn't mention them GǪaside from in your posts, as has been amply demonstrated. Just because others brought them up, it does not mean you didn't mention them too. You mentioned them, their capabilities, and how you didn't feel they fit your needs.
Quote:Think of it like the Clinton scandal. In other words, your'e trying to escape the inescapable fact by ignoring large portions of what a word means and only accepting a very tiny part of how it can be interpreted even though that just makes you seem dishonest and ignorant of what happened? Yes, it's a lot like that. You still mentioned Orcas, though, and no amount of screaming and kicking and wishing you didn't do it will change this proven fact. Again, live with it. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22032
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 16:25:00 -
[97] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Well if I am guilty of clogging this thread up, then you are equally as guilty for it as well and therefore are no point of authority to lecture me on the topic. Tu quoque is a fallacy.
Quote:I'm not. His accusation was that my posts over a two page history were wines about the orca's capabilites. I'm arguing that I couldn't be whining about something I didn't even bring up and could care less about since they aren't getting any changes Doesn't matter who brought them up. You're the one who said that their capabilities aren't sufficient for you. He may have overstated the ferocity in your statement, but it's still a statement you made.
Quote:And what I'm saying is that if you change the word "orca" with the word "they" it functionally changes nothing GǪand since GÇ£mentionGÇ¥ also means GÇ£referenceGÇ¥ that's hardly a surprise. You referenced them. You even mentioned them by name. The mention is there, no matter how much you claim it isn't. You have decided that you will only accept the meaning GÇ£bring upGÇ¥, which means you have dived head first down the true scotsman well. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22032
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 16:44:00 -
[98] - Quote
Abrazzar wrote:Berluth Luthian wrote:What about jump drive rigs that increase range or efficiency? You do realise that it would be a rig that increases range but decreases efficiency and/or a rig that increases efficiency but decreases range. And you'd get a general nerf to efficiency and range up front. It's also debatable how well it would fit into a general mood of trying to reduce capital ship projection. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22033
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 16:53:00 -
[99] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote: I love the idea of lowslot fitting on freighters, but I firmly believe the DCU is too potent to balance a ship with such insane amounts of structure. Remove the ability to fit a DCU on a freighter if you give it a low slot.
then you're forcing all freighters to armour tank. They could still hull tank with bulkheads, but I still think that the best method of doing that would be to alter bulkhead fitting requirements and just make sure a DC would be out of reach for what you can get onto a freigther.
So I really wonder what the effects would be if bulkheads became free to fit. Are any ships that could currently benefit from fitting them barred from doing so? Are there any ships where it's currently impossible to do so and where making it possible to fit bulkheads would massively alter their balance? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22033
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 17:02:00 -
[100] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Tippia wrote:They could still hull tank with bulkheads, slight revision; then you're excluding freighters the option of shield tanking without that strange pseudo fitting low slot module. To be fair, I'm excluding a lot more than that. The idea of having a ship that can only fit fitting-free modules intrigues me. The main problem, as noted above, is that some modules would have to be made free to fit to make that part of the equation work. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22035
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 17:13:00 -
[101] - Quote
Tau Cabalander wrote:You are aware that bulkheads will reduce cargo, right?
Cargo capacity is the raison d'+¬tre for freighters / jump freighters. Yes. That's a balance you have to strike in your fitting. I just got the idea from Mynnna's post earlier about what it would look like in numerical terms. The big problem is the DCII and what it does at both ends of the spectrum: on the one hand, how much hull would have to go down to allow them; on the other hand how much stronger that one module makes the ship.
So the idea then becomes: what if we skip over both that massive nerf and the massive swing in results by simply disallowing the module. Afaik, bulkheads and expanders don't cancel each other out completely, so fitting both means you end up with something that's better than baseline, but not with a more moderated variance and you can tailor the end result with a bit more granularity.
The crucial modules for a 0 CPU/0 grid freighter would be: cargo expanders, istabs, concevably nanos (but why fit them over istabs?), and conceivably the warp speed mod mynnna also proposed (in which case it needs class restrictions rather than massive fitting space requirements). Bulkheads need to be on that list too as the only module that offers any kind of tanking without favouring shields or armour and without creating the huge swing in stats that a suitcase does. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22039
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 17:41:00 -
[102] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Harder than you might think.
Eve has no understanding of 'only these modules' or 'but not that class of ship' WellGǪ there is an easy way: give them 0 CPU. That rather ruins the ability to fit a DCU. I can't think of any modules that increase CPU by a fixed amount the way you can with MAPCs and grid, and any percentage-based ones would just increase 0 by some percentage of 0 (i.e. 0).
Could you gently kick some dev and make them investigate what kind of disaster zero-CPU bulkhead modules would cause? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22039
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 17:50:00 -
[103] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Why should bulkheads be the exception? Because they're hull upgrades. The other hull upgrades don't have any fitting requirements.
Also, because no-one seriously fits hull when armour or shield is an option, and armour and shield is what really separates the races so it doesn't particularly affect most ships. It's not really the fitting restrictions that keep people from fitting hull tanks, but the sheer lunacy of hull tanking. Well, with one exception: Orcas. And post-patch freighters. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22039
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 17:53:00 -
[104] - Quote
Tau Cabalander wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:Eve has no understanding of 'only these modules' or 'but not that class of ship' Erm... you sure? * Covert cloaking device * Covert cyno * Bomb Launcher * Interdiction sphere launcher * Warp disruption field generator * Siege module * Triage module * Industrial core * Clone vat * Gang link Again, all of those have GÇ£can only be fitted toGÇ¥ attributes. None of them have any kind of GÇ£can't be fitted toGÇ¥ attribute. The fact that they can't be fitted to some ships is just a result of a ship not being on the approved list.
If, for instance, the industrial core had a GÇ£not that class of shipGÇ¥-style restriction, it would have to list every class in the game except one, which is a really ugly way of doing things. Instead, it just lists the one it can be fitted to. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22041
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 17:59:00 -
[105] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:And my point is that hull tanking upgrades aren't properly balanced and making them require 0 fitting just to fit the freighter case is horrible and only furthers their imbalance. How so? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22041
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 18:07:00 -
[106] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Well you said so earlier yourself, no one seriously fits hull upgrade tanking mods seriously except in two cases. This is not balanced. No, it just means that only two (well, three) classes are set up in such a way that they benefit from hull tanking. That in and of itself is not unbalanced.
Even if it were, that would just mean that making the hull buffer module more viable would improve the balance, not make it more imbalanced. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22042
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 18:37:00 -
[107] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:But you aren't arguing to make the hull buffer module more viable. Removing the fitting requirements from the model wasn't the imbalanced aspect of them anyway Then we're back to: how so? How are they imbalanced?
Quote:doing so would only make them fittable in this one off case in which devs have already stated they don't like doing. Which case would that be? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22043
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 19:57:00 -
[108] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:You said that no one fits hull tanking mods because they aren't viable. No. I said that you only very rarely fit them because hull tanking isn't a proper tanking style outside of Orcas and (now) freighters. As such, giving them no fitting requirements won't affect any other ships, which is a good thing since the point would be to give freighters, specifically, a tanking option that freed them from the problems of damage controls under the proposed scheme.
Quote:When you do so I will tell you why they aren't balanced. So you can't say why they're imbalanced.
Quote:Let me rephrase, changing the fitting requirements to what you are proposing would not improve their viability on any other ship while only benefiting the freighter case if you were to give it low slots and keep the CPU the same. And?
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22043
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 20:16:00 -
[109] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:I've bolded the important part of your words. Why is hull tanking sheer lunacy? Because of the low EHP and non-existing rep rates you get out of it compared to the intended tanking style of the ship.
Quote:So I will ask again, why is hull tanking not viable/lunacey? It's entirely viable. You're just confusing two completely unrelated words.
Quote:And balancing mods around one use case when they are used on numerous ships is bad balancing. What other ships are those? How is it bad balancing to balance around the ships that use a given module? And how are bulkheads imbalanced? How would making them take up no fitting space make them more imbalanced? You're not making any sense here. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22043
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 20:32:00 -
[110] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Hull tanking is not viable on any ship currently with two exceptions as stated above. In other words, it's viable. Oh, and it's only one proper exception has been mentioned GÇö the Rorqual is better of shield tanking.
Quote:If those two ships had been balanced properly when they first came out, they would be balanced around capital ship armor or shield tanks since that's what those two ships are. No, one is a capital and is balanced around capital shield tanking; the other is a hybrid and balanced around hull tanking GÇö being a ship that is allowed in highsec, it can't even begin to have anything to do with capital-scale tanking.
Quote:You yourself made the argument that Hull tanking was viable for all other ships. Nope. That's just some nonsensical strawman you've made up.
You also keep failing to answer the question: how is it bad balancing to balance around the ships that use a given module? And how are bulkheads imbalanced? How would making them take up no fitting space make them more imbalanced?
Or are you just trolling again? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22044
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 21:18:00 -
[111] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:See the words you stated in literally the same post: "in other words, it's viable". See how they don't include the strawman bit you added?
Quote:Is hull tanking viable for one ship, or all ships? Mu.
Quote:So I'm trolling when I say I think your idea is bad and try to offer reasons why. Since you offer no reasons why, yes.
I'll ask again. Last chance this time GÇö any further evasions or general failure to respond will be interpreted as you trolling; as their not being imbalanced; and as their being no appreciable effect on balance from giving them zero fitting requirements as far as you can tell.
Here goes: how is it bad balancing to balance around the ships that use a given module? And how are bulkheads imbalanced? How would making them take up no fitting space make them more imbalanced? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22045
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 21:37:00 -
[112] - Quote
5GÇô15 kills per day, many of which aren't even suicide ganks since they happen outside of highsec? Yeah, that's laughably rare. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22046
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 21:52:00 -
[113] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:That freighter ganks in High sec are not " exceedingly rare". If the number of them killed on an average day can be counted on the fingers of one hand, that qualifies pretty well as rare to an extreme degree. Come back when you're at least well into the double digits. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22048
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 22:03:00 -
[114] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:We seem to have different standards on the word "exceedingly". I for one rather follow the dictionary's definition in this case. Somewhere around a dozen of them are lost on a daily basis. Only maybe half of those are from suicide ganks.
Let's compare that to the daily losses in one of the least flown ship types in the game. Oh myGǪ many times more. For something that doesn't really ever see the light of day. Yeah, GǣexceedinglyGǥ seems quite accurate for the rarity of freighter kills, and even more so for suicide ganks when you consider how commonly they are flown and how rarely they are lost.
Valterra Craven wrote:Right, I'm the one evading when you provide nonsensical answers like this: "Mu". Just because you don't understand the answer does not mean it's nonsensical. Look up the term (or just ask) if you don't know what it means.
Quote:Its not bad to balance around ships that use a given module. Its bad to balance around ships that use a given module when the module should be just as viable on other ships in the game. Because they are tanking mods and tanking mods require fitting tradeoffs. You shouldn't get something for nothing. They do require trade-offs, especially in the proposed scenario. And the module is just as viable on other ships in the game.
You still failed to answer the main question: how are bulkheads imbalanced? How does reducing their fitting requirements to nothing make them more imbalanced?
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22048
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 22:12:00 -
[115] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:now burn jita is an exceedingly rare event Once a year? Not very common and definitely not average. It's also exceedingly easy not to lose a freighter to it. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22052
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 23:22:00 -
[116] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Uh huh. So the phrase "not nothing" when asked a point blank simple question isn't evasive and nonsensical. Nope. It is, in fact, the only sensible answer to your false dichotomy.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22052
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 23:25:00 -
[117] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:So the answer to the post is not "Mu". Yes it is.
Quote:So if I'm so bad at false dichotomies, what other options are there for hull tanking if "viable" or "not viable" aren't the only two options? But that wasn't the question, now was it?
Oh, and: how are bulkheads imbalanced? How would making them take up no fitting space make them more imbalanced? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22052
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 23:33:00 -
[118] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:If your a troll it is. I don't own any trolls, be they of an GÇ£aGÇ¥ type or otherwise.
Quote:See post #1375 for my stated answer that states exactly this. GÇ£Its not bad to balance around ships that use a given module. Its bad to balance around ships that use a given module when the module should be just as viable on other ships in the game. Because they are tanking mods and tanking mods require fitting tradeoffs. You shouldn't get something for nothing.GÇ¥
Nothing about how they are imbalanced. Nothing about how giving them fitting space would make them more imbalanced. So GÇ£exactly thisGÇ¥ is referring to something completely different than I'm asking for.
What I'm asking is: how are bulkheads imbalanced? How would making them take up no fitting space make them more imbalanced? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22054
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 23:40:00 -
[119] - Quote
Semidurr wrote:Let's not compare daily losses of the >PVP-ONLY< hulls worth 25m each with 1b+ freighters that got nothing to do with pvp. Making such comparisons is simply stupid. Not particularly. We have to establish how common it is that a ship is lost. Using one of the least used ship types in the game gives us a kind of worst-case baseline for rarity of loss. Freighters, it turns out, does not even reach that baseline GÇö that's how rare freighter losses are.
Oh, and one is a ship that can easily avoid situations that gets it killed; the other is one that is very commonly flown into hostile territory and which, if caught, needs some fancy flying to get out of there. The former still gets killed tons more. Claiming that freighters have nothing to do with PvP essentially just says that they're pretty much never killed. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22054
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 23:57:00 -
[120] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:... because pointing out simple grammar mistakes ins't trollish apparently. Not particularly if it's in response to just more ad hominem fallacies.
Quote:Well for one, their relative benefits don't make sense to their fitting costs now. It's entirely in line with the other hull upgrades. vOv But yes, you're right. Their benefits should be vastly higher for the kind of fitting cost they have GÇö the low bonus they provide doesn't make much sense with that kind of CPU requirement.
Quote:In order to balance them currently they would need to have straight HP values like current shield and armor mods do. Yeah, seeGǪ the entire mistake you're making here is that you think that balance involves behaving like other modules. What other modules do is irrelevant. What you have to ask is what the effects are on a ship for fitting this module and how it stacks up to other options available.
As it happens, the percentage-based bonus from bulkheads is generally a smaller increase than the fixed amount added by shield and armour buffers, unless we're talking about a ship where those tanking types are not particularly effective. The percentage-based bonus also gets around the problem of having different-sized moduels and having to balance them against all kinds of ships you can fit them to. It's a niche module for a niche usage on a niche selection of ships, and the bonus it provides is entirely reasonable for the result you get out.
It's a few percentages more hull EHP, compared to the massive increase you'd get from, say, a suitcase. So to balance the module, the 40tf increase needs to be slashed by a massive amount to compare favourably to the 25tf of a DCI or 30tf of a DCII.
Quote:Giving them no fitting reqs would only further to make matters worse and make them more imbalanced when compared to other mods. Just one problem: they're not imbalanced. They are, in fact, very low-performing for their cost. A DCII gives 10+ù as much for -+ the cost, so a balanced fitting cost of a T2 bulkhead would be somewhere around 3 tf. We might as well round that down to 0. So, in fact, giving them no fitting reqs would make them more balanced than they currently are GÇö that way, they can be used as slot-wasteful but more granular versions of DCUs, and would allow for a 0/0-capability slotbased freighter solution that still had a sane tanking option.
Furthermore, since they offer so little advantage to most ships (again, some niches exist for a few other ships), using it as essentially a filler module for any left-over lowslots you might have just gives it a bit more usage, and a bit more choice for the ships, which is always nice. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22054
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 00:14:00 -
[121] - Quote
Semidurr wrote:Apples and oranges. Do you got any hard data on how often ewar frigs are used? CCP occasionally publishes stats on these things. Ewar frigates consistently end up at the very bottom of the list. The GÇ£commonly gankedGÇ¥ ships tend to end up at the top. And yet, the (far) more rarely used ships are being killed in far higher numbers than the much more commonly used gank targets.
Quote:Why dont compare freighters to dst which are fulfilling similiar role in similiar environment? There were 7 dst and 16 freighters destroyed on may 18. Does it mean that dst are superior hauling ships? No, it means that freighters are destroyed more often. It tells us nothing about their other qualities. As it happens, though, what we were interested in is how common it is for a ship to be destroyed GÇö specifically in a suicide gank. 16 in a day (of which at most half even qualify as suicide ganks) is a pathetically low number compared to how common the ships in question are. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22057
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 00:27:00 -
[122] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Shame IGÇÖm not using ad hominem fallacies. Incorrect.
Quote:Which are also not balanced relative to other tanking mods. They're not tanking mods so why would you make that comparison?
Quote:ItGÇÖs not a mistake. Yes it is, because you're confusing method with result.
Let's look at the Phoenix for simplicity's sake. If we give it 5+ù RB2, it gains 480k EHP. That's obviously a pathetically small increase at an insanely wasteful cost. If we instead give it 1+ù DCII, it gains 448k GÇö almost as much GÇö for a fraction of that cost. If we try to give a proper buffer tank (a couple of Invulns and a suitcase), we've doubled the tank for less than the bulkheads' cost (and this is before we even taken things like repping and siege mode into consideration).
We, intelligently enough, don't use buffer modules because none exist on an XL-size level. I mean, yes, your basic answer is correct: the bulkhead isn't balanced in the sense that they don't stack up well to the other modules on this ship. The intent of your answer is wrong: the bulkheads are vastly underpowered compared to the other tanking options available.
Giving the bulkheads a 0/0 fitting cost would make them far more balanced (but still a horribly bad option for this ship). GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22057
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 00:46:00 -
[123] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Then lets see some examples. See the post that started it, perhaps? And the one that followed. Of course, you'll just claim that you didn't say what you said like last timeGǪ
Quote:Since when are repair modules not tanking mods? Oh myGǪ you don't even know what hull upgrades are. We're not talking about repair modules here.
Quote:And given the topic of what we are talking about (capital ships) My argument works for the freighter too. More accurately, your argument doesn't work for freighters either, since expanders are not part of the tanking arsenal, and in the end, it turns out that bulkheads are actually underpowered compared to all the other options. Since their fitting requirements have no effect on that particular characteristic, lowering them to 0/0 makes no difference for that balance.
Quote:The problem here is that you think I'm arguing bulkheads are underpowered. No, I don't. I know you're trying (and failing) to do the opposite. The example you used proved that you have no idea how capships are fitted. What you actually and accidentally proved was that bulkheads are underpowered; that if there is a balance problem, it's in the opposite of the direction you're thinking; and that reducing their fitting requirements to be in line with the other hull upgrades won't create or inflate any kind of imbalance. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22064
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 11:13:00 -
[124] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:You mean the one where you accused me of trolling or the one where you accused me of spamming? No, I mean the one where you flat out said that I was trolling. I only asked if you were because you've already admitted that you're doing it once, and I only said you were spamming because you were spamming.
Quote:Correct, I misunderstood what you were implying. I thought you were trying to that because you don't believe bulkheads are unbalanced that hull tanking is viable and thus were bringing repair mods into the discussion. Maybe you should pay more attention to what I'm actually writing and less to the confused mess that's going on inside your head. That's how all your fallacies are created.
Bulkheads are hull upgrades. Their benefits are much the same as all other hull upgrades. As demonstrated, they're very weak compared to all other attempts at tanking a ship, and as such there's nothing that's in the way of making them fit like the other hull upgrades GÇö it's not suddenly going to make them overpowered since their tanking stats won't change a bit.
That aside, I also know that just because a mod rests in a certain spot in the market list doesn't mean that that is how the modules are balanced. The other hull upgrades ARENT tanking modules and are thus not balanced like they are. Bulkheads are a tank module and as such rightly have fitting requirements even though in the current meta their benefit is woefully overpowered to their fitting cost.
Quote:I have no idea what you trying to say here. But at least we agree one one thing: Expanders are not tanking modules and bulkheads are. I'm saying that your illustration only proves that the modules that expand your HP buffer are not part of the tanking arsenal on cap ships. Your argument doesn't work for dreadnoughts because you're not fitting it like a dreadnought; for the same reason, your argument doesn't work for freigthers since they would follow the same fitting philosophy. You haven't demonstrated any kind of balance problem; you've demonstrated that fitting a ship incorrectly yields poor results. If we instead use the proper arsenal for tanking a capship, we quickly see how woefully underpowered bulkheads are compared to the alternative options.
Quote:So on point: *Sigh* Right, do you really think someone thats been in game since 2005 would actually fit a capship that way? What I actually proved was that in terms of their fitting costs that they give orders of magnitudes more effective HP than comparable modules. So you argument is a strawman fallacy. If no-one fits a capship that way, you think there might be a reason for it? Do you also think there might be a reason why they don't fit your supposedly GÇ£overpoweredGÇ¥ bulkheads either?
No, you didn't prove that because you didn't use comparable modules. By picking a capship, you disqualified any kind of raw buffer expansion from being part of the discussion, be it armour plates or shield extenders. If you want to compare against those, use a ship and fit that actually makes use of those modules like, say, a BC or a BS.
If you're going to use a capship as your testing bench, you'll notice that all modules on it are percentage based. You'll also quickly notice that bulkheads give pitiful percentages compared to the other modules. Finally, you'll notice that bulkheads have massively inflated fitting costs compared to many of those modules, especially once you factor in the percentage bonuses they give.
Quote:So lets look at another comparable example. If you were to make a similar fit comparison and did just invuls and extenders and then did a DCU and bulkheads, the outcome is still the same. Orders of magnitudes better buffs than comparable.
1 DCU t2 4 bulkheads t2 1.3mil effective hp boost
1 t2 invul 4 t2 large extenders 164k effective hp boost That's not a comparable example. That's you making a nonsensical comparison between a pretty stupid fit and a completely idiotic fit. Let's provide an actual point of comparison instead.
1 DCU II 3 Invuln II 1.72mil EHP. Far more tank for far less fitting space and far fewer wasted slots.
The point is this: bulkheads' percentage-based boost is the norm for cap ships, and is in fact far lower than what you get from conventional tanking methods. This actually holds true for subcaps as well, where relative buffer size, higher resists, and higher value on other low-slot modules makes the small increase in hull HP a mere afterthought GÇö something you might squeeze in if you have nothing better to do. It certainly isn't overpowered GÇö the fact that you have to use a failfit to even begin to give the appearance of bulkheads being better shows this with utmost clarity.
We don't even have to use fits to see this. Simple maths will do. GÇó Bulkhead GÇö +20% hull EHP, infers penalties on the ship, 40/1 fitting cost. GÇó DCII GÇö +150% hull EHP, +18% armour EHP, +14% shield EHP, +¦ cap draw, 30/1 fitting cost. GÇó Invuln II GÇö +43% shield EHP, decent cap draw, 44/1 fitting cost. GÇó EANM II GÇö +33% armour EHP, no cap draw, 36/1 fitting cost.
Well look at thatGǪ lowest bonus, second highest fitting cost, significant penalties. Yes, that combination just screams overpowered.
So: since every sensible option on a capship yields better tank for fitting space anyway (and fitting space is not something they lack so differences there are minute); since all other hull upgrades cost 0/0; since subcaps only ever fit bulkheads because they have a slot and some CPU left over; since subcaps also yield far better tank using other modules in their fewer lowslots; there is nothing that becomes imbalanced by removing the fitting costs for bulkheads as well. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22065
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 11:32:00 -
[125] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:Thank you and what the hell is that kill? -10 sec status pilot? CONCORD doesn't care about sec status, only about recent criminal acts. It was either a timer or a ship swap that went wrong. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22065
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 11:56:00 -
[126] - Quote
KIller Wabbit wrote:I have no problems with trade offs, but how about we ask him to give you a 40% nerf of your guns and see what you say? In exchange for what? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22065
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 13:34:00 -
[127] - Quote
Aureus Ahishatsu wrote:Very well put. I'm curious when CCP is going to realize that you can only force so much PVP action on industrialist and increased mineral costs before they just say screw this and throw in the towel. I already gave a break down how this is clearly a nerf to freighters (despite what others may say) in my earlier article. I can't remember seeing anyone saying it isn't a nerf. And anyway, industrialists don't care about mineral costs GÇö all those costs are transferred over to the customer anyway.
Quote:Sadly the freighter went the way of the of the "other" t1 industrial ship post change. (mammouth, bestower, itty V, tyra) which are rarely used other than nitch roles now because they increased their bay size but gave them zero tank. The increase in bay size means you can tank them harder than before without a loss in relative capacity. You, as a industrial pilot, choose to give them zero tank. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22065
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 14:15:00 -
[128] - Quote
Aureus Ahishatsu wrote:Ok so i''m going to be nice about this but clearly you didn't read my post earlier so don't say it was not a nerf unless you can counter what i already posted. You knowGǪ if you're going to respond to a post, it helps if you actually read the post first. Otherwise, you risk ending up GÇö as you have done now, and as you did in your previous post GÇö with some pretty silly fallacies. I would suggest that you read my post and try again.
Quote:As for the second statement yes they DID nerf the tank of the 2nd t1 industrial ships all around which you can go read here https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3263705. As you can see everyone one of these ships had a mid slot removed which is far more valuable than a small 200 (yes hundred not thousand) shield hp increase. 404 Page not found. But I'll blame the forum's autolinking for that one.
If you read through that thread, you'll notice a few things: most of them get some minor tank buff. Most of them get more slots that can be used for tanking, and as mentioned: by giving them more base cargo, you can tank them harder. CCP did not give them GÇ£zero tankGÇ¥. In fact, they made it a lot easier to tank them well. Only you, the pilot, can give them zero tank that through your fitting decisions. You can also decide to not do that but instead make them more sturdy. The only real exception was the Itty V, which was a bit out of line with how good it was in relation to the other old tier-2 haulers. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22067
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 15:11:00 -
[129] - Quote
Aureus Ahishatsu wrote:Touche I thought you were arguing at first that it was not a nerf which i quickly changed but not before you quoted it. Fair enough, I saw the edit. I'm still dubious of the claim though. The most I've seen is people saying that, no, you can indeed boost your abilities beyond what you had before, but that this ability comes at a predictable cost. It may not be a net buff, but nor is it a total nerf either since you can get those higher values.
Quote:They removed the possibility of tanking them any way other than shield by removing the majority of all other hp. but then removed mid slots which are necessary to try and fit resists. I'll relinking but the forum gods may crap on this link as well. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3263705The mammoth for example was capable of getting nearly 15k ehp completely passive. Now you are lucky if you can even get 7k. Not that 15k was much but 7 k is a completely joke. They also REMOVED base cargo from this ship as well and added a low which is near worthless for shield tanking when you already had 4. Anyhow that is for another forum and i will return back to the freighter talk now. Tip for linking: either make sure it is completely separate from other words around it, or use the in-line {url} mark-up. Aaaaanyway.
My point is that what they did was to give you some additional capital (cargo space and lowslots) that you can trade for increased abilities elsewhere, or perhaps more accurately, not spend modules on improving. If they give the ship a 30% cargo increase, then that's one expander you don't have to fit. It's much the same as how range bonuses for guns can be turned into damage bonuses: you can now use shorter-ranged ammo to exchange that range for more damage in situations where you'd normally be stuck with some mediocre mid-range/snore-damage ammo.
That's kind of the beauty of the attribute and fitting system in the game GÇö with some fiddling, almost anything can be traded against anything. Ok, so the Mammoth was able to get 15k EHP passively. It can still get it actively, and more. Moreover, the Mammoth was changed to be a fast transport, and they certainly did that. Not being around is the best tank there is.
Agility is once again something you can trade against other stats. Slap some additional bulk on that thing and laugh as your align times end up the same as they always were. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22067
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 15:26:00 -
[130] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote:he doesnt get it. hes just blinded by nerd rage. i get it, but you can't give me rigs if i already have them. so he simply didn't answer the question of; what do i get? but the fact that you couldn't see it, does dictate that you're blinded by nerd rage. He's talking about Carniflex. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22071
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 16:22:00 -
[131] - Quote
Lara Divinity wrote:so basicly i have been training for a month for somthing that is now gonna get nerfed like hell n dont even feel like buyin nomore bcos of it There was a reason for you to invest in the skill books and start training, right? That reason will not go away with the patch. Whatever problem you were having that you thought you would need a freighter to solve, you'll still need a freighter to solve. Just keep plugging away at those skills GÇö the needs and solutions will remain the same as always.
Quote: if it should be a sandbox then stop forcing ppl to move to nullsec by changin the hell out off everything This has absolutely nothing to do with nullsec, and even less to do with forcing people to move anywhere at all. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22075
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 16:56:00 -
[132] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Maybe you should write better instead of inviting confusion with posts like GÇ£Mu.GÇ¥ Mu was the only vaild answer to the question.
Quote:Bulkheads ARE tanking modules because the only reason for adding more HP is if you want to ya know live longerGǪ GǪwhich doesn't particularly impact how they should be priced in terms of fitting. That price is more related to what class of modules they belong to.
Quote:Just because no one fits that way doesnGÇÖt mean that the modules arenGÇÖt overpowered. Yes, it does. You see, if something is overpowered, players exploit the hell out of it. It's just what they do. It's kind of a defining trait of something overpowered: that it outshines all options and everyone uses it as much as they can. No-one is exploiting bulkheads for the simple reason that they're pretty weak as modules go. They have a couple of niche uses that makes them an interesting option, but for the most part, it's not a good use of a slot.
If something is rarely fitted, this is your first clue that, if anything, it may actually be underpowered. It simply cannot be overpowered because then it would not be fitted rarely. If you try to argue otherwise, you have simply not understood how fitting works.
Quote:No, itGÇÖs not. It was an example to illustrate my point of how your idea was bad. Too bad that it failed to do so since you invented a scenario that has no connection with reality. You only managed to demonstrate that bulkheads are indeed not overpowered, since the alternatives are so much better. If the module you're trying to paint as overpowered utterly fails to outperform even a bog-standard fit, your arguments deflates like a souffl+¬ in a sheet metal roller.
All you're doing is showing that it is possible to fit a ship badly. That doesn't demonstrate anything about balance and utterly fails to prove any kind of overpoweredness. If anything, it just shows that you have to invent the most absurdly adverse conditions for your assumptions to come true because under normal circumstances, they are nonsense GÇö the effects you're wishing for simply does not appear. By picking irrelevant modules, you've disqualified your example as a valid comparison, and you've disqualified your argument since it no longer has anything to support itself with.
Moreover, since the question was whether bulkheads were overpowered or not, we have to compare it to the other options available. On a capship, those options are hardeners, DCUs, maybe the odd PDU. As demonstrated, they all outshine the poor little bulkhead. What you ignorantly believe is a change in the argument is a comparison to see whether the supposedly overpowered module outperforms other modules. Since it does not, it can't be overpowered. It's that simple. If you have problems separating a methodology for comparison with an argument, it's pretty alarming (but it explains why you're so confused by such simple facts).
Or is your argument now that all capship tanking modules are overpowered?
Quote:Now the reason I picked a cap ship is several fold. A. your idea was to give low slots to a freighter, not to a bc, not to a cruiser or anything else. A freighter is a cap ship. B. Cap ships have problems in terms of fitting buffer modules because of the current meta. GǪand as such, trying to compare bulkheads with a buffer module is nonsensical and proves nothing. Ok, not quite true. It proves you have no argument. It proves you have to invent a nonsense scenario to support your position, which makes your position nonsense as well.
You have yet to demonstrate a scenario where bulkheads are overpowered. They aren't overpowered on capships because all other tanking options (hardeners) are a better use of your space. They aren't overpowered on subcaps because all other tanking options (buffers and hardeners) are a better use of your space. They can't be overtpowered on freighters because they will be the only option and the results will remain within the realms of what is already balanced.
So not only are bulkheads not overpowered, as amply demonstrated, and as confirmed your failure to show otherwise, but reducing the fitting requirements also does nothing to that current balance. It simply puts them in line with the other hull upgrades and opens up a new avenue of allowing freighter modification without running afoul of the modules that would actually be overpowered, such as the good old suitcase. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22078
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 18:17:00 -
[133] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Saying something doesnGÇÖt make it true. Doesn't change the fact that mu was the only valid answer.
Quote:Fitting is always a factor in terms of the benefits a module provides. Not really, no. It's only a factor if it eats away at a rare resource. In this case, the resource in question is not the fitting space but the module slot, and since the benefits this module provide are so small compared to the alternatives, its fitting price is almost entirely irrelevant. Making it in line with the other modules of its class makes sense from a purely logical perspective, and doesn't create any balancing issues due to its niche uses and low performance. The slot itself is by far more costly than the CPU it requires.
Quote:I understand what you getting at with players and exploiting, but the problem is not that bulkheads arenGÇÖt overpowered, its that hull tanking is underpowered. You mean the tanking style that can only be done with two modules: bulkheads (which provide a very small bonus) and DCUs (which provide a very large bonus) as a whole is underpowered. Then it rather follows that of the two possible combinations, the one that provides the much smaller-bonused module is what brings the whole package down, rather than the one that provides a massive bonus. The massive-bonus one does not even manage to drag the small-bonus module out of the realm of GÇ£underpoweredGÇ¥.
So what you're saying is that bulkheads are not so much underpowered as super-underpowered since they manage to drag down DCUs that low. They have the best supporting module in the game and still doesn't manage to climb higher than underpowered.
Yes, really. Your using modules normally fitted to cruiser and battlecruisers as a point of comparison means that your fit has no connection with reality and that your comparison only proves that you know how to failfit a ship. It shows nothing that has any relevance whatsoever to balance. Using your deplorable methodology, I can easily prove that citadel cruise missiles are immensely overpowered and need to be nerfed to hell and back.
After all: GÇó Phoenix w/ 3+ù Citadel Cruise I + Siege II = 72k alpha; nearly 3k DPS. GÇó Revelation w/ 3+ù Heavy Beam Laser II + Siege II = 342 alpha; nearly 80 DPS.
Of course, that's just nonsense, and you know it. You also know that your point of comparison is nonsense. You know that the conclusion from your comparison is nonsense. You know that your entire position is nonsense. If we actually do a proper comparison, we come to the same conclusion every time: bulkheads do not even nearly provide the same performance as the other modules you'd want to fit to tank your capship. Any claim that they are overpowered is therefore fundamentally idiotic unless all forms of capship tanking is deemed overpowered in one fell swoop.
Quote:But letGÇÖs get back to the point, and really the entire point of this back and forth in the first place on the freaking question I asked you originally. GÇ£Is hull tanking viable on one ship or all ships?GÇ¥
And here is your true answer My true answer hasn't changed: it's still mu. You can keep inventing all the nonsensical strawman arguments you want, but that just makes you a liar and a troll GÇö it does not in any way alter my answer. The quote you're now attempting to shoe-horn in doesn't even address the same issue, so it's very obviously not an answer to the question.
And no, that was neither the original question nor the entire point, so you manage to be as utterly and completely wrong about that as you have been about every single thing you've ever said. The original question, and the entire point of the conversation, was GÇ£How are bulkheads imbalanced? How would making them take up no fitting space make them more imbalanced?GÇ¥ GÇö questions you have not been able to answer in a way that supports your original claim.
Instead, using your failures as very helpful support, we have satisfactorily proven GÇö beyond any doubt GÇö that bulkheads are not overpowered, but are rather, if anything, massively underpowered. If we compare them in a vacuum, they come out behind the other modules. If we compare them in context, they come out behind the other modules. You have not been able to come up with any scenario where they offer any kind of advantage (much less an overpowered one) and you've shown that they are actually such a drag that they make an entire tanking style under-perform. We can therefore further conclude that reducing their fitting requirements will not unbalance anything, since it does not alter their performance in any way, and no matter how cheap, they will not replace those other modules. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22080
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 18:37:00 -
[134] - Quote
Aureus Ahishatsu wrote:They're not giving freighters lows are they? If they are i missed that. That would change a lot. My point was just that with the rigs which are incredibly expensive do not make the ship very versatile. I would be all for that cause then you are right you could simply fit expanders, plating etc. whatever was necessary for the given task but i'm not going to be destroying rigs left and right for the various tasks. No, they're not, but Mynnna had a proposal for that idea that spun out into some other small changes that could be made to avoid the bigger pitfalls (such as the massive argument above about how supposedly overpowered bulkheads are ).
And I was only talking about what they did during the industrial tiercide GÇö how it wasn't the kind of blanket nerf it was presented as.
Quote:I understand exactly what you are saying here. However the freighters like the t1 large indies had BOTH nerfed. there was no increase in hold. in fact there was a decrease with all of the increase they are describing requiring one to fit rigs/modules making it impossible to meet even what they were currently at. Yes, that is kind of the point of the whole change. It's not meant to be a buff; it's just meant to give freighters options. The price of those options is an overall worse ship. That's why I always argued against fitting options: I wanted to keep my excellent-at-everything (jump) freighter. As for the indies, some of them had their cargo increased, some did not GÇö it all depended on how bad they were compared to each other before. The top performers came down a bit; the bottom performer came up a lot. I'm guessing that your perception there is somewhat born out of your ship being in a fairly good spot to begin with.
Quote:Except for the fact the ship bonuses top speed NOT agility which encourages afk travel. If anything they should have had them bonus agility like the other indies or give them a significant tank increase. It got an agility increase. Remember, agility is better the lower it is GÇö for the Mammoth, they changed it from 1.0 to 0.91. Since agility translates directly into align time, that's 9% faster aligning right there. Sure, and istab gives you twice as much, but stillGǪ it's half a slot that can be used for something else.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22080
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 18:52:00 -
[135] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:sisi changes http://pastebin.com/5NdjVCGUsourcethere's mention of fuel rigs. "his ship modification is designed to decrease the fuel requirements of jump drive travel at the expense of fuel bay capacity. Penalty: Using more than one type of this module or similar modules that affect the same attribute on the ship will be penalized." enjoy.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22080
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 19:20:00 -
[136] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:If by valid you mean that itGÇÖs completely meaningless, then sure. No, by valid I mean valid. Just because you don't understand the term does not mean it's meaningless, nor does it mean that you get to replace it with some disconnected statement of your choice.
If you still don't understand the answer, you can (sitll) ask. Don't worry, I won't bite.
Yes, in this case. A low-slot is far more valuable than 40tf CPU, especially on a Phoenix, since the other, far more useful modules you want to put in that slot cost more CPU.
Quote:Hey look a fallacy! The other possibility is that the tanking style doesnGÇÖt have the proper support modules to make it an effective choice. Just one problem: it does. It has the most effective support module of them all, as it happens. So that's not really a possibility at all, nor is it a fallacy unless what you said was all wrongGǪ which, I'll grant you, is highly probable.
Quote:And why am I comparing them to battleship mods, oh right, because GǪit's the only way for your claim to be true. Unfortunately, it also makes your claim nonsensical and irrelevant since it is based on an utterly invalid comparison. What's left is to compare it against the modules that doe the same thing (modify EHP by a percentage) and which are used for capshipsGǪ and what do you know? The bulkheads come dead last. So any claim that they're overpowered runs afoul on either being based on an invalid comparison or being ad odds with reality.
The reasons why capships don't have their own buffer modules aren't particularly relevant to the question of whether bulkheads are overpowered or not. The only thing that really matters is whether the other percentage-based modules that aid in tanking are spectacularly bad in comparison, and they're not. In fact, they're all much better. Thus, bulkheads simply can't be overpowered.
Quote:No, the original question was why should bulkheads be the one off exception to how every other tanking module works in the game? GǪwhich was answered. You then made the counter-claim that they were somehow overpowered, and you have been struggling and failing to support this claim ever since, which is what has created this back-and forth. All you've managed to do is demonstrate the exact opposite in at least two different ways.
Either way, the conclusion is the same: bulkheads are not overpowered GÇö they are, if anything, underpowered. It makes quite a lot of sense to remove their fitting costs. Doing so actually provides a solution to the key problem of giving freighters low slots, and it has pretty much zero bad side-effects. The only thing that comes close is that some miners will be able to tank a bit more, but if they are willing to give up their MLUs for that, all power to them. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22080
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 19:23:00 -
[137] - Quote
Retar Aveymone wrote:HIGH GRADE PIRATE IMPLANTS
no longer will my titan character have to be gimped in his training because he uses slaves
no longer will my freighter character be as gimped in his training because he uses nomads
:happysun: More accurately, regular implants become high-grade, with +1 to their attribute bonus; low-grade implants become mid-grade, also with +1 to their attribute bonus; and completely new low-grade implants are introduced that are only the same as the current ones in that they provide a total attribute bonus of +2.
So you're still gimped by 1 point. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22080
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 19:26:00 -
[138] - Quote
Derath Ellecon wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Derath Ellecon wrote:with 3 T1 trimarks I can only get an obelisk slightly higher on EHP than before. The only reason I find this to be an issue is that it seems in many other areas of rebalance, ships have been balanced to account for some of the power creep in recent years, while one ship most susceptible (a freighter with no offensive capabilities) is seeing too much of a reduction. try using hull rigs, since they provide more EHP. They aren't on the market yet on SiSi it seems. Nor could I find the new jump fuel rigs. Are the BPOs in? It would be a round-about way, but stillGǪ GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22080
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 19:34:00 -
[139] - Quote
Vincintius Agrippa wrote:As for fuel rigs: That like saying "This rig reduces the capacitor need need of entering warp, but decreases warp speed". I'd understand some loss of cargo space with THIS rig, but does it not defeat the purpose with reduced fuel capacity? WeeellGǪ it means you have to have a better infrastructure along the way or that you can operate from farther away if you have a few-jump route. If you can fill up between jumps, you can get more distance from the fuel.
Also, it depends on what the fuel reduction is. The capacity penalty looks to be the same -10% (i.e. -5GÇô6% after skills) as on most rigs. If the savings is larger than the capacity loss, you can travel farther on a single tank too.
Quote:New medium grade Pirate implants? Interesting. Again, the medium-grades aren't that interesting. They're the old low-grades renamed, but with a higher attribute bonus. The really new implants are the new low-grades. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22083
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 19:55:00 -
[140] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:I did ask, but you donGÇÖt answer point blank questions Incorrect. Again, just ask. I won't bite.
Quote:Oh? LetGÇÖs look at the example of 1 dcu and 1 bulkhead on the phoenix. IGÇÖve seen people put maybe one other mod in the bulkheadGÇÖs spot besides a PDU and that would be a 4th BCU (since really the first three are nearly mandatory given its roll) So what would be more important than a PDU or a BCU? Fair enough. I thought for a moment that they cost 44, not 40. The point is still the same: the bulkhead is a waste of a slot, and it's not skipped over for a lack of CPU GÇö it's skipped over because there are far better things to put in that slot. Pretty much anything, in fact, is a better use of the slot.
Quote:Oh really, because cap ships have a local cap sized hull repair mod? They have the same superior hull-tanking support module as every other ship in the game.
Quote:Then why is it that all other HP mods are fixed amounts and not percentage based? Because they are meant for specific ship sizes. Hull-tanking, not being a proper tanking mode to begin with, doesn't get that because it would just be pointless clutter. Instead, it just becomes a percentage mod like hardeners and DCUs. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22083
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 20:05:00 -
[141] - Quote
Aureus Ahishatsu wrote:bulk heads OP?? waaah?? OK just caught up your earlier convo. don't want to get too much into it except if they were so OP why is it that ships which have their greatest amount of hp in the hull(orca's) still will shield tank the majority of the time....... The only purpose bulkheads even serve atm is to just be a giant buffer. This brings me to the suggestion i made on the hull rigs forum about creating an ORE logi ship that gives a bonus to remote hull reps since their is NO TIME REASONABLE way to repair hulls outside of stations. Well, yes. His argument is basically GÇ£onoz, look at this large bonus! If we don't compare it to anything relevant it looks really big on its own! OMGZ OP!GÇ¥ Never mind that it's a pretty tiny bonus and that anything even remotely overpowered instantly shows up everywhere. Reality can be such a drag when you're making baseless assumptions after all.
Quote:So can we all agree just to tell CCP don't push this update and leave the freighters alone? Yes. Although I'm warming up to the lowslot ideaGǪ
Quote:Not necessarily. the only one to receive a cargo boost was the tyra or badger II. the rest had a cargo reduction or didn't move while all lost a mid slot Fair enough, but then, it was a rebalance and a reshuffling of roles, and not just an indy buff. Granted, I might be a bit over-neutral since I can fly anything and don't care which is better at what, but I felt there was more room for fitting for purpose after the change.
Quote:I understand that but it still doesn't change the fact a velocity bonus is pointless on this ship if it's supposed to be the gtfo ship. Maybe burning back to gate in low? IDK. It's a minmatar ship. If it doesn't go fast, the tape will peel off before it gets there. It's speed bonus or sucking vacuum! GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22083
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 20:14:00 -
[142] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Tippia wrote:Quote:So can we all agree just to tell CCP don't push this update and leave the freighters alone? Yes. Although I'm warming up to the lowslot ideaGǪ bad tippia. no. no low slots. WeeellGǪ it all hinges on the idea that they'll stay at 0+0 CPU and grid, and that the modules that can be used will be restricted that way. This creates a much smaller pool of modifications that can happen and much smaller counter-balancing nerfs. It might even be possible to almost retain a sensible middle-ground while still allowing for specific (non-excessive) boosts. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22086
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 20:46:00 -
[143] - Quote
Sniper Smith wrote:I'll be honest.. they can nerf my Freighter HP into the ground if they let me fit a DCUII to gain it back.. Here's why..
I'm actually awake when I move my freighter, so I can turn it on.. others aren't, so not my problem. Also, it lets me fit the ship for the need.. I don't need huge tank if I'm just moving a lot of m3 of crap.. On the other hand I might move something of value, and want 2x Bulkhead and a DCUII..
In any case the true tank REQUIRES you to be there. Awake and alert. Making afk hauling still viable, but at much more diminished returns or higher risk. Good point. I suppose the baseline would then be something along the lines of DCUII, Expander II, Bulkhead II. HmmGǪ the problem is that we get this:
GÇó Replacing expander (losing 22% cargo from baseline) with a bulkhead means you get 50% more hull EHP at max tank. GÇó Replacing it with an istab gives 20% faster align, only 25% more hull EHP GÇó Replacing it with a WCS gives 25% more hull EHP and you're now safe from a single long point. Yay. GÇó Ditching the bulkhead (-17% hull EHP and +12% cargo from baseline) for another expander gives you 44% more cargo. GÇó Ditching both the bulkhead and DCU for full cargo gives you 80% less hull EHP and 84% more cargo than baseline.
It's a bit swingy and the variance comes at a very low cost. We have a 130 percentage point difference between maximum and minimum tank and 106pp between max and min cargo. And we still have an absolute upper bound for cargo capacity of 1.3M m-¦, so the maximum baseline for cargo has to be 700k m-¦ (which in practice means that everyone + dog will fly around with just over 1MGǪ). If we go by the results of the OP, the maximum CCP wants to see is much less GÇö somewhere around 1.1M GÇö which would put the baseline at 590k (i.e. 848k with one extra expander). GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22086
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 20:53:00 -
[144] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Tippia wrote:GÇó Replacing it with a WCS gives 25% more hull EHP and you're now safe from a single long point. Yay. You do realize that stabs take fitting right? You do realise we're talking about a completely different scenario now, right? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22086
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 21:21:00 -
[145] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:You do realize I added an edit before you posted right? You do realise that it makes no difference, right? And you do realise that what I quoted was what was in your post at the time, right?
Again, you made a mistake. Live with it. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22087
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 21:26:00 -
[146] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:What was the mistake? You assumed that CPU and grid was in any way a problem because you failed to read and thus didn't notice that we're talking about a completely different scenario.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22088
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 21:41:00 -
[147] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:No Yes, it appears the problem is that I assumed you were working under your old proposal
In other words, you assumed that CPU and grid was in any way a problem because you failed to read and thus didn't notice that we're talking about a completely different scenario. I fixed your post, by the way.
So yes, you made a mistake. Live with it. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22089
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 22:00:00 -
[148] - Quote
Ramona Quimby wrote:Instead they're being nerfed to please Goons and Gankers.
Stop nerfing hi-sec and buffing null-sec. You realise, of course, that this change has every potential to create problems for goons and gankers; that they weren't part of the groups who advocated this change; and that this hits nullsec harder than it does highsec.
Mag's wrote:No not really. Tippia is his usual logical self. Whereas Valterra is, well, highly illogical and prone to large memory lapses as well as complete removal from reality in one instance. I think he might be referring to our appearance, except that Valterra is a beat-up old Civire who can't even dress herself properly and who lacks my fabulous ass. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22089
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 22:15:00 -
[149] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Ladies and gentlemen this is your nightly message to let you know that I've caught up to this point in the thread and that we still have not forgotten about you. There's a version two of the design currently posted for the CSM in their internal forums, they've responded largely positively so far. I'm going to let them think about it overnight and if all looks good we'll post the proposal for public feedback tomorrow. Thanks as always! \o/ Free puppies for everyone? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22091
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 22:42:00 -
[150] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Lyn Fel wrote:In before everyone freaks out about having spent billions on rigs they can't use. I'm waiting for full fittings and the nerfs that go with it. Attempt #2: Only highslots. 6 of them! GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22093
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 23:22:00 -
[151] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Man for someone that claims they don't bite you sure don't act like it. It's because you never honestly ask for information.
Quote:Also its not COMPLETELY [yadda yadda] You made a mistake. Live with it. Also, take the opportunity to learn to read posts rather than assume what will be in them and act on the strawman you just erected. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22100
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 12:42:00 -
[152] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:Well you should care, but you are too up your self to understand that if Eve keeps going this way then the only people left in Eve will be gankers, griefers, scammers, meta-gamers, power gamers and people who have invested too long in the game to let go of it, all those looking for immersive gameplay without being at the whim of the above will be in Elite Dangerous or Star Citizen (with their PvP bar set to no PvP...). In fact it might be fun for me just to keep this toon subbed and laugh at how irrelevant you all become as you troll each other..., now who would win in a troll battle between tibbia, Dave stark and Jenn aSide, the thought amuses me greatly... A couple of problems with that: first is that, without other players to bounce against, those games will never offer even a fraction of the immersion that EVE does. You kind of have to ask why people who don't want to engage with other players are in an MMO to begin withGǪ
The second is that the troll fights you're hoping for won't happen for a very simple reason: none of the people you mention troll. Hell, one of them doesn't even exist. Just because they ask piercing questions and post insightful comments doesn't mean they troll GÇö it just means that the person they respond to might not have thought things through fully and get frustrated when their idea falls apart under closer scrutiny. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22101
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 12:50:00 -
[153] - Quote
Aureus Ahishatsu wrote:I don't think anyone is really going to miss them so long as they are % based. on a freighter that only does 1.37 AU warp with 2 t2 Hyperspatial velocity optimizers you'll do a whopping 50% more so now you'll be doing a whole 2.055 AU warp! AWWW yeah now we're moving! lol Oh, I don't know. I'd say that if anything it makes more of a difference in practical term for slow ships. I mean, on a cruiser that skips past a system in 15 seconds, reducing that to 10 won't make much difference GÇö one sip of tea less. On a freighter that takes a minute and a half to cross a system, reducing that to a minute is a huge gain in terms of how much you can transport (it's the core business after all) in a given timeframe, not to mention how much less painful it is to make those long hauls.
The absolute speed change from that percentage might not be anything to write home about, but the absolute time saving can get pretty huge pretty fast. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22104
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 14:14:00 -
[154] - Quote
Aureus Ahishatsu wrote:Jesus you like to play devil advocate..... the only problem with that though is this rig would be less beneficial even from the time stand point you mentioned due to how much time these things spend in accel and more specifically deceleration. Ever watched that speed bar? i swear i have spent half a system in decel before lol . Sure, but the new warp speed mechanics help that a lot GÇö had this been a year ago, it would have made fsck-all difference unless you were jumping through 200 AU systems. These days, you'll see a (beneficial) difference in jumps one tenth that long. It might not be much at that point, but it's there.
Still, yes. For most distances, I'm guessing that a mix of warp speed and agility will give the fastest travel, but I wouldn't discount the benefit you can get out of warp speed alone. 33% off makes a significant difference in absolute terms for something as slug-like as a freighter. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22106
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 15:11:00 -
[155] - Quote
Myst Valkyria wrote:Is it me or do these align times seem off? And by off I mean really long. Almost two minutes to align in a Charon with no skills? That can't be right... No, it's about right. What you have to remember is that align times decrease pretty much linearly with agility bonuses, and by the time you get into freighters (and especially JFs), you've accumulated a lot of agility bonuses.
For freighters, you can pretty much cut them in half by default due to the skill prereqs and sensible training levels and how those skills also affect alignment; for JFs, you'll get just over one third. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22106
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 15:19:00 -
[156] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Arthur Aihaken wrote:1. With this change, are hyperspacial rigs still going to be stacking penalized going forward? 2. Instead of a special role bonus, why not just remove the CPU requirements for reinforced bulkheads? 3. What about the addition of a single rig slot in addition to the 3 low slots? I can answer number 2 for you straight away. The Orca. That's why. The Orca doesn't particularly care about the CPU requirement for bulkheads. Its only real fitting restriction is the grid required for an MWD.
Victoria Sin wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Pricetag is not a balancing factor, and you don't get immunity in EVE.
Yes, clearly it is. T2 is more expensive than T1. T3 is more expensive than T2. Your expensive Super has a lot of HP and ewar immunity, etc. etc. Wrong way around. Price is not a balacing factor GÇö it's a balancing product. What this means is that you can't counterbalance overp-erforming items by giving them a price tag. People will just eat the price and go with the bigger effect. Conversely, no matter how cheap, people won't use crap items.
So rather than trying to make price +ù performance = total package, you set a price on a separate sliding scale that exists in parallel with the sliding scale of performance. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22107
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 15:34:00 -
[157] - Quote
Holy hell, those base EHP valuesGǪ Yeah, gankers will really have to hope that people go hog wild with the expanders. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22108
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 16:14:00 -
[158] - Quote
Ok, new tables:
GÇó New alignment times depending on base and a more balanced fit (red = worse than Rubicon, Green = better than rubicon).
GÇó The full gamut of Tank vs. Cargo (red = worse than both base and Rubicon stats; yellow = better than Rubicon, worse than base; blue = better than base, worse than Rubicon; green = better than both). GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22110
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 16:22:00 -
[159] - Quote
Rowells wrote:anyone know what the align speed on a fenrir with 3 inertia stabilizers is? ~21 seconds at all V. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22111
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 16:27:00 -
[160] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:looking at that. EHP could be nerfed a bit. triple cargo expanded freighters dont seem to suffer very much in the way of EHP The thing is that they have almost universally gotten significant increases in non-hull tanking, on top of fairly small adjustments to account for bulkheads. And yes, some of those changes could (and should) probably be dialled back a bit. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22111
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 16:36:00 -
[161] - Quote
Ammzi wrote:Tippia wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote:looking at that. EHP could be nerfed a bit. triple cargo expanded freighters dont seem to suffer very much in the way of EHP The thing is that they have almost universally gotten significant increases in non-hull tanking, on top of fairly small adjustments to account for bulkheads. And yes, some of those changes could (and should) probably be dialled back a bit. The base ehp is so ridiculously higher in Kronos. I mean a vanilla kronos fenrir is gonna be able to tank more than a TQ obelisk. That's a bit worrying. I'm hoping that I've gotten some of the resists wrong, so I'm double-checking those right nowGǪ GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22114
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 16:41:00 -
[162] - Quote
Azami Nevinyrall wrote:Or I'll continue using my tanked Orca like I've been doing for the past 3 years...
I don't mind making extra trips if it means my product has a higher chance of actually making it to market and not in a killmail... Providence: 350k EHP + 383k m-¦ Ark: 577k EHP(!) + 118k m-¦
Any of these strike your fancy? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22114
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 16:43:00 -
[163] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Worried about your jump freighter? Send it along with a battlecruiser providing armor or shield resist boosts. No, I'm frankly worried about the exact opposite. The tank they can provide right out the gate right now is a bit sillyGǪ GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22114
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 16:45:00 -
[164] - Quote
Azami Nevinyrall wrote:Tippia wrote:Providence: 350k EHP + 383k m-¦ Ark: 577k EHP(!) + 118k m-¦ Any of these strike your fancy? Oh trust me, they do! Until I see *Final* numbers and on TQ, I'm not changing any skillque... Pff. What's this GÇ£being sensibleGÇ¥ stuff you're doing. Getoutahere! GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22116
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 18:02:00 -
[165] - Quote
Grenn Putubi wrote:Can someone justify to me how altering all the freighters' tanks to rely more heavily on armor or shield and then giving all the freighters low slots but no mids is fair? Largely because armour-tanking them still isn't particularly effective compared to hull tanking them.
Best-case scenario is that it buys you ~96k EHP, which should be compared to the ~171k you get if you go the hull route on the same ship. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22117
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 18:10:00 -
[166] - Quote
Aureus Ahishatsu wrote:How did you calculate your tanks? The base ehp seems rather high? Sum of base shield/armour/hull HP +ù skill bonuses +ù -+ of Gêæ 1/(1-resist)
Brib Vogt wrote:No it is not. Yes it is, unless you start slapping deadspace or officer resists on them.
3+ù 15% resist bonus = ~48% more EHP on armour 3+ù 25% HP bonus = ~95% more EHP on hull.
In just one case will armour EHP be more than hull EHP, and even then, the difference in EHP increase makes quick work of that tiny gap. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22117
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 18:17:00 -
[167] - Quote
Aureus Ahishatsu wrote:How are you calculating the sehp and aehp? those seem really off. Below was my ehp for each of the 4 damage types for the shield of the fenrir.
[GǪ]
edit: these were calculated with the following equation ehp = base+[base * (resist/100)] You've left out the 25% skill bonus. All my numbers are for all-V setups. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22117
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 18:23:00 -
[168] - Quote
Tau Cabalander wrote:Aureus Ahishatsu wrote:How are you calculating the sehp and aehp? those seem really off. Below was my ehp for each of the 4 damage types for the shield of the fenrir.
em 48000 therm 57600 kin 67200 exp 72000
edit: these were calculated with the following equation ehp = base+[base * (resist/100)] EHP = base / (1 - Resist Percent) That too. I just noticed the first mismatch without the skills.
48,000 @-á0% -á-á= 48,000 / (1-0.0) = 48,000 EM resist 48,000 @-á50% = 48,000 / (1-0.5) = 96,000 Ex resist 48,000 @-á40% = 48,000 / (1-0.4) = 80,000 Kn resist 48,000 @-á20% = 48,000 / (1-0.2) = 60,000 EM resist 284k / 4 = 71k EHP, +ù 1.25 skill = 88.75k. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22118
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 18:35:00 -
[169] - Quote
Aureus Ahishatsu wrote:ahh ok now i got it. You're doubling the effect of the resists. a 50% resist for example in your equation would give a 100% bonus to hp. WeeellGǪ since we're talking about stacking-penalised mods, the maths is like this:
EHP = HP / resonance; Resonance = 1-resist.
15% resist Gëí (1-0.15 =) 85% resonance
Add three of them together and we have a total resonance of:
(1 - 0.15) +ù (1 - 0.15+ù0.87) +ù (1 - 0.15+ù0.57) = 0.675884 resonance (or 32% resist, if you like).
So the new EHP = 1/0.675884 +ù old EHP, or 1.48+ù old EHP GÇö i.e. 3+ù 15% resists GåÆ 48% more EHP. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22118
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 18:39:00 -
[170] - Quote
Captain StringfellowHawk wrote:Cool... so I can push the armor tank on a Freighter... But the shield tankers get Shafted.... :P More Power to gallente ships! The Gallente ships don't come off that well if you try to armour-tank them, thoughGǪ GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22118
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 18:46:00 -
[171] - Quote
Walter Hart White wrote:My main issue now is that you can't shield tank freighter but you can armor tank... The question is, why would you want to do either? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22118
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 18:53:00 -
[172] - Quote
Vincintius Agrippa wrote:Pay closer attention to what I was trying to say, 1. This game isnt solely about pvp. Never has, Never should be. I doubt anyone would enjoy the game if it was full of nuthing but gankers, greifers, and blobs. Once again its SANDBOX, make of it as you will. 2. Non pvp'ers and non pvp activities ARE the backbone of this game. For, if no one is building and no one is mining, what do you fight in? Capsules? Likewise, Pvp is also a backbone because they buy a significant amount of the things being built. 3. Mining: Carebear activity Missioning: Carebear Activity, Market trading carebear activity. Regardless of where and how you choose to do so. Most of which Is done with alts I assume. 4. Neither you or your alts is mining, missioning, or trading 23hrs a day 7 days a week like carebears in highsec. Or, any more than a few hours a day. If your are its afk. If its afk your a carebear just like the guys in highsec. If you arent, your still a carebear because your mining all day. 5. Your isk alts don't count. 6. Mining in nullsec doesnt make you not a carebear. 7 Missioning in null sec does not make you not a carebear.
8. Major alliances don't count because all of that mining and missioning happens in their space. So all those alts are "secure" so to speak. A few problems with all that, though.
1. Everything in the game is subject to PvP. Everything is a competition against other players in one form or another. It must be full PvP exactly because it's a sandbox. Being a sandbox doesn't mean you get to do what you want; it means everyone gets to do what they want, which includes doing stuff to you that you don't want them to do. The only way for you to be able to do what you want is to force your will onto other players. It's your will (a player) versus someone else's will (a player) GÇö PvP. 2. You are confusing non-combat with non-pvp. Even the non-combat activities in EVE are PvP due to the competition and opposition you face from other players. 3. Just because an activity can be done by carebears doesn't mean it's a carebear activity. Carbear is a mindset, not an activity. All of the things you listed are PvP-based activities that carebears happen to like because they don't blow up so much when doing them. The people who control those activities, though, are PvPers through and through. They are out to beat you. 4GÇô7. The activity does not determine the carebear GÇö the mindset does.
Quote:Long story short, Carebearing supports eve. No matteer how you try to disguise it. End of discussion. No. Industry and combat supports EVE and come together in the engine that is the market. Neither can exist without the other. Carebears are utterly irrelevant to the equation since the activities can and will go on without them.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22120
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 19:23:00 -
[173] - Quote
Kenneth Feld wrote:Your numbers are wrong- you rounded cargo expanders to 28%, they should only be 27.5% Yup. I blame the DB I copied from. It's a whole 13k m-¦ difference at the top end.
Updated. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22121
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 19:43:00 -
[174] - Quote
Daenika wrote:Erm...
Since when to Bulkheads reduce cargo space? I thought that was just istabs. Bulkheads appear to only have 3 effect: increased hull HP, reduced top speed, (slight) increase to inertia.
Are they changing that? Or did you accidentally include the istab cargo reduction in your numbers? They're changing it:
GÇ£We are also going to swap the speed penalty on all reinforced bulkhead modules to an equal percentage cargo capacity penalty. The agility penalty will remain intact at this time.GÇ¥ GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22121
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 19:51:00 -
[175] - Quote
Oh, and for those thinking that armour-tanking is a good ideaGǪ
Providence: gives up 17.9% tank for 160k m-¦. Charon: gives up 6.3% tank for 171k m-¦. Obelisk: gives up 15.1% tank for 162k m-¦. Fenrir: gives up 9.8% tank for 160k m-¦. Ark: gives up 23.2% tank for 50k m-¦. Rhea: gives up 4.7% tank for 53k m-¦. Anshar: gives up 16.7% tank for 51k m-¦. Nomad: gives up 7.7% tank for 49k m-¦.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22122
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 20:09:00 -
[176] - Quote
Gevlon Goblin wrote:Many people mentioned that Armor freighters will be ahead of shield ones, but the situation is worse than what a raw EHP calculation would say. Shields have a 0% EM resist hole. In the OP resists were mentioned, but only Nomad gets EM resist. On the other hand the armor has no such resist hole. Any reasonable ganker would open with a few tornadoes with Faction EMP L to eat the shield and then the Taloses finish the armor and hull. And for any ship that is trying to armour tank, they'll just open up with Fusion M and hit the armour resist hole. And since the poor sod decided to fit a horrible tank rather than one that protects him, he'll explode very quickly.
Valterra Craven wrote:Based on this it would appear that EHP should likely be adjusted some... It dosn't make sense that the fenrir would get 10pp more tank than a Charon for only losing 9km3, Course the Obelisk looks really bad for some strange reason. Couldn't this be balanced to all of them be around 30% even? Nah. The lesson is simply that, just because you can fit something doesn't mean it's a good idea. The Obelisk looks really bad because it's a particularly bad idea to try to tank it with armour. Conclusion: don't try to armour tank. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22122
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 20:17:00 -
[177] - Quote
Aureus Ahishatsu wrote:So have you corrected the chart now for the calculations we talked earlier about? or are they still off? Which ones? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22122
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 20:24:00 -
[178] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:But why is fitting a small tank when you want to keep the same level of cargo not a good idea? Because you get better results with an expander/bulkhead combo. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22122
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 20:26:00 -
[179] - Quote
The only thing that was too high was the cargo, with half a percent per expander. It's been adjusted.
GǪor, wellGǪ all the numbers are a bit too high, but that's Fozzie's fault and not something I can fix in the tables. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22122
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 20:30:00 -
[180] - Quote
unidenify wrote:So, It is intended to not allow Damage Control on Freighter?
any reason why you feel that it is not allowing? Because it's too powerful and too cheap and generally impossible to balance against without making it a mandatory module. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22123
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 20:35:00 -
[181] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Yes, at significant costs to your ships capability. It would hardly be GÇ£better resultsGÇ¥ then, now would it? No, the costs are not significant. In fact, you'll end up with a better ship with a bulkhead/expander combo than if you try to armour tank the poor thing.
Remember, an expander cancels out a bulkhead but a bulkhead does not cancel out an expander. Put the two together and you get something that's better than you had before. That leaves you a third module to push on in whatever direction you're interested in. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22123
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 21:17:00 -
[182] - Quote
777 Tsuruomo wrote:Max armor resists on lets say a Anshar with some Deadspace resistance plating (2 adaptive, 1 explosive ~210 M) Yes, let's turn a ship that's normally targeted for its cargo into a loot pi+¦ata with its fittings aloneGǪ
Oh, wait. i forget. These are freighter pilots we're talking about. They're really going to do that, aren't they?
Ramona Quimby wrote:These modified changes are better, but STILL freighters needs more EHP, and maybe across the board warp/align speeds buffs (but feel free to nerf sub-warp speed to make ganking autopiloters even easier, they deserve to be prey). No, they really don't. In fact, it's fairly likely at this point that their EHP numbers will be dialled back to more sensible numbers.
Quote:Now, eat crow gankers, all you who were saying if freighters were given rigs then everyone would be sorry because it would be a nerf. GǪand guess what? It was, and they were. Did you miss the first 90 pages of this thread? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22124
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 21:29:00 -
[183] - Quote
vikari wrote:You are still nerfing the hell out of JFs....
over 5 seconds gained in alignment for every JF type, over 6 for most. You know with all 3 low slots being cargo expanders and that giving only 1-2% increase in cargo, you are forcing JFs to fit cargo expanders. It's to expensive to fly them, not too. So exactly how are we going to make up for the loss alignment time? Reduce the alignment time; reduce warp time; reduce fuel costs. Make up for lost cargo by making more runs faster and at much lower costs. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22129
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 09:55:00 -
[184] - Quote
Pensador wrote:Thank God. For years all of we were expecting that. Maybe this is the end of Ganking freighters in high sec Lmao no. It will be easier and more profitable than ever. And if it did end freigther ganking, then the whole thing would have to be rolled back since it has had rather disastrous effects. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
|
|
|