Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 [70] 80 90 .. 94 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 29 post(s) |
Brib Vogt
DC-centre Destiny's Call
45
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 18:22:00 -
[2071] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Brib Vogt wrote:Querns wrote:Brib Vogt wrote: I can understand the bulkhead change but why stripping the cargo capacity from the start. And why giving them such limited fitting possibilities.
They have to reduce the cargo so that when people fit expanded cargoholds, the amount of cargo that freighters can carry does not explode out of control. It's the price you pay for customizability. but why adding another cargo penalty on tanky fits? Because they are trade-off.
But why is the maximum velocity modifier of -11% replaced with -10% cargo capacity. Thats my whole point
|
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1084
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 18:23:00 -
[2072] - Quote
Brib Vogt wrote:Tippia wrote: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. your numbers are correct. but "Use bulkheads for better results in any case." is still not true because you would end up in -30% cargo capacity for a freighter!
If you want the ebst tank, it will still be true unless you don't mind slapping billions worth of tanking module on your space truck. If you go with more decently priced armor tank mods, it will be again a trade-off between less tank than bulkheads for more cargo space.
The best tank will be bulkheads. The best compromise for what you want will depends on what you want. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22117
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 18:23:00 -
[2073] - 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. |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans
648
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 18:24:00 -
[2074] - Quote
marly cortez wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:addelee wrote: JF's are having their fuel usage increase by 50% in kronos.
This is not correct. The fuel change is currently scheduled for Crius. Makes no odd's when you bring it in, it is just plain wrong headed for the so many reasons already mentioned in this thread, and how far you missed the mark as to how risk averse JF pilots are for the most part. Anything that detracts from logistics in this manner, from increased fuel costs to decreased cargo capacity will not get you what you want in terms of Null Sec industry expansion, taking into account all the other changes your proposing and have already slipped into game no one if they take the time to look at it as an overall picture of Null Sec operations will see all of this as anything other than one massive nerf fest perpetrated and spun off as being good for the game when in reality it's simple an attempt by the PvP lobby to turn Null Sec into a facsimile of Empire stupidity. Were the thought came from that these things are used in fleets to provide defense I have no idea, again another one of those 'I thought it so it must be so', ideas, freighters rarely move in fleets defensive or otherwise, draws attention see...not good. suggest you study how it's done and ask why Null Sec Alliances do it that way, they are not in the business of allowing CCP or anyone for that matter to gank valuable ships and cargo no matter how much you might think it's fun to do. all the other tinsel rubbish tinkering with Jump freighters and freighters is just that simply because if it gets caught it's going to die, make it as agile and as fast as in inty if you like, the results will still be the same, once pinned it's done for. so why bother in the first place, nothing in these changes is good news and overall it smacks of change because you have nothing better to do. Tackle Sov, take on the PoS monster, PoCo's and PI click fests all items already long flagged as game detractors and stop tinkering with stuff that already works and works well "Other people are getting shiny toys. Why don't I get what I want?" I geuss that's what you're trying to say, but I really can't tell. |
Dersen Lowery
Laurentson INC StructureDamage
1135
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 18:24:00 -
[2075] - Quote
Arya Regnar wrote:You can forget about ganking anshars alltogether 670k+ ehp. They can still carry well over 100k m3 at that ehp.
That person has made the decision to fly a bomb shelter at the expense of pretty much every other consideration. For ~7 billion ISK, they should get a pretty good bomb shelter.
Put another way, I'm not sure that many jump freighter pilots are going to put up with the extra hassle of a mere 100km3 cargohold just to have a hilariously redundant tank. They're already used to taking measures to avoid getting caught, so they'll fit to the assumption that they're unlikely to get caught. Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables. |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
6443
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 18:24:00 -
[2076] - Quote
Brib Vogt wrote: But why is the maximum velocity modifier of -11% replaced with -10% cargo capacity. Thats my whole point
Because velocity isn't a real penalty on a freighter. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Psychotic Monk for CSM9. |
Cameron Zero
Red Federation
331
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 18:24:00 -
[2077] - Quote
WTB A nice, freighter-specific Damage Control module next! "I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. GǪ" |
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1084
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 18:26:00 -
[2078] - Quote
Brib Vogt wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:Brib Vogt wrote:Querns wrote:Brib Vogt wrote: I can understand the bulkhead change but why stripping the cargo capacity from the start. And why giving them such limited fitting possibilities.
They have to reduce the cargo so that when people fit expanded cargoholds, the amount of cargo that freighters can carry does not explode out of control. It's the price you pay for customizability. but why adding another cargo penalty on tanky fits? Because they are trade-off. But why is the maximum velocity modifier of -11% replaced with -10% cargo capacity. Thats my whole point
Most likely because velocity on a spacetruck is not a trade off. You only really care about reaching 75% so you can GTFO that grid you are on and go to the next one where you land. Nobody really try to speedtank a hauler so the stat cost for cargo was changed to something that also matter to a hauler instead of something they don't care about. |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans
648
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 18:28:00 -
[2079] - Quote
and we can see that we finally have our orca-freighter gap being filled by the surprise contenders of jump freighters. You want to haul super shiny mods in comfort and style? look no further than your nearest anshar. |
Valterra Craven
247
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 18:31:00 -
[2080] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Brib Vogt wrote: But why is the maximum velocity modifier of -11% replaced with -10% cargo capacity. Thats my whole point
Because velocity isn't a real penalty on a freighter.
That's not technically true. (but this would an extreme example) Lets say you want to afk your freighter with cargo from point a to b. Lets also say that you have a tool that will roughly calculate the amount of time it would take you to afk that distance. You could then set things up in such a way that you could be doing a lot of runs and that would significantly affect your time in the long wrong, especially if you used 3... I could see this mainly affecting people like Red Frog freight if they ran things this way (which they could given all the stipulations they put on you fro cargo value etc) |
|
Blaqe Fonceur
University of Caille Gallente Federation
7
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 18:32:00 -
[2081] - Quote
Latest update is looking decent, I am a little concerned for the shield based freighters not having access to resist modules like armor based ones.
About reinforced bulkheads, wouldn't removing the CPU cost of the module be a better option than giving a role bonus to freighters. That module is the only one of its kind that requires CPU. Others that perform similar roles, ie. Nanofiber internal structure, expanded cargohold and overdrive injector, do not use any CPU or grid for that matter. In my opinion, rather than giving a role bonus to freighters it would be preferable to remove CPU(and grid?)requirements from reinforced bulkheads, making them fit in with the other modules in their category. |
Arya Regnar
Darwins Right Hand
379
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 18:32:00 -
[2082] - Quote
Dersen Lowery wrote:Arya Regnar wrote:You can forget about ganking anshars alltogether 670k+ ehp. They can still carry well over 100k m3 at that ehp. That person has made the decision to fly a bomb shelter at the expense of pretty much every other consideration. For ~7 billion ISK, they should get a pretty good bomb shelter. They'll still die if caught, it'll just take a damnably long time to kill them. Put another way, I'm not sure that many jump freighter pilots are going to put up with the extra hassle of a mere 100km3 cargohold just to have a hilariously redundant tank. They're already used to taking measures to avoid getting caught, so they'll fit to the assumption that they're unlikely to get caught.
Being ungankable should require effort, alt in a daredevil with FN web on heat or something like that. You can have 674k ehp and be completely afk.
You think having 140k m3 cargo is a tradeoff? Most freighters/jfs aren't loaded.
EvE-Mail me if you need anything.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22118
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 18:35:00 -
[2083] - 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. |
Belinda HwaFang
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
11
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 18:36:00 -
[2084] - Quote
So I see that rigs on freighters and JF been removed, and stats have been updated, and now JF pilots only need a few million ISK to "fix" toward the prenerf levels but...
My head is starting to explode trying to understand all the numbers before, after rig change, and after CSM lobby change.
I'm thinking that while CSM was lobbying you, they had some spreadsheets? Or you have an internal spreadsheet with the hard numbers for each ship in the 3 schemes?
Could we see one of these spreadsheets, suitably sanitized for consumption by us mere mortals?
I'm finding it hard to understand how much the numbers have changed (other than noting the removal of the capital rig costs) without them.
Apologies in advance if I've missed the spreadsheet somewhere in this thread.
-- Fang |
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1087
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 18:37:00 -
[2085] - Quote
Arya Regnar wrote:Dersen Lowery wrote:Arya Regnar wrote:You can forget about ganking anshars alltogether 670k+ ehp. They can still carry well over 100k m3 at that ehp. That person has made the decision to fly a bomb shelter at the expense of pretty much every other consideration. For ~7 billion ISK, they should get a pretty good bomb shelter. They'll still die if caught, it'll just take a damnably long time to kill them. Put another way, I'm not sure that many jump freighter pilots are going to put up with the extra hassle of a mere 100km3 cargohold just to have a hilariously redundant tank. They're already used to taking measures to avoid getting caught, so they'll fit to the assumption that they're unlikely to get caught. Being ungankable should require effort, alt in a daredevil with FN web on heat or something like that. You can have 674k ehp and be completely afk. You think having 140k m3 cargo is a tradeoff? Most freighters/jfs aren't loaded.
Bring more firepower. It's not ungankable. |
Captain StringfellowHawk
Forsaken Reavers Rim Worlds Protectorate
140
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 18:37:00 -
[2086] - Quote
Cool... so I can push the armor tank on a Freighter... But the shield tankers get Shafted.... :P More Power to gallente ships! |
Axe Coldon
41
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 18:37:00 -
[2087] - Quote
addelee wrote:Oooooh; I've a nice conspiracy theory that's spawned out of this. I've just noticed the bonus '-10% jump fuel requirements' for JF's.
So essentially, the fuel changes effect all capital size ships and above except JF's. If you pick most large scale battles, they've involved these ships and if you also look at said battles, the servers cannot cope and either get hit with 95% TiDi or they just crash. Either way, not good press. Part of this was the drone problem and this has been fixed in the super cap nerf and drone 'rebalancing'.
But ship numbers are high as well and no one likes to lose titans and supers as they take so long to build due to nullsec bottlenecks and the sheer cost and time of them. So sub-caps turn up to defend their larger brothers/sisters.
If fuel prices are increased, in theory, less jump capable ships will be fielded as it costs that must more to go to war (wars are already expensive). If less caps are being fielded, less large scale war will happen and the less the servers will crash and the less bad press goes out.
Is that what we're attempting to achieve in all this?
Maybe but I can't imagine a 50% increase in fuel cost would deter anyone from bringing their fancy capital. Don't buy the car if you can't afford the gas. Same goes here.
Not all capital pilots get their fuel provided to them. Generally only when they have to refuel along the way because the total distance takes more fuel then they can hold. So I can't see an individual pilot not going to a battle just because he needs more isk for isotopes. He will just rat more (or however he makes isk) between battles.
And we all know the super alliances are filthy rich and won't care the fuel cost...in the cases where they provide the fuel. _________________________________________________________________________________________________ No trees were killed in the sending of this message. However, a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced. |
Warr Akini
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
120
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 18:37:00 -
[2088] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Brib Vogt wrote: But why is the maximum velocity modifier of -11% replaced with -10% cargo capacity. Thats my whole point
Because velocity isn't a real penalty on a freighter. That's not technically true. (but this would an extreme example) Lets say you want to afk your freighter with cargo from point a to b. Lets also say that you have a tool that will roughly calculate the amount of time it would take you to afk that distance. You could then set things up in such a way that you could be doing a lot of runs and that would significantly affect your time in the long wrong, especially if you used 3... I could see this mainly affecting people like Red Frog freight if they ran things this way (which they could given all the stipulations they put on you fro cargo value etc)
I think the point with cargo expanders affecting cargo versus velocity was that CCP preferred to make the reward versus tradeoff balanced and was less concerned with protecting autopiloters/AFKers (which CCP has said several times that active should trump passive wherever possible). |
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1087
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 18:39:00 -
[2089] - 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!
Or you can hull tank for better tank return on your low slots. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22118
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 18:39:00 -
[2090] - 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. |
|
Aureus Ahishatsu
Deadspace Knights
14
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 18:40:00 -
[2091] - Quote
Tippia wrote: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 base EM EHP 48,000 @-á50% = 48,000 / (1-0.5) = 96,000 base Ex EHP 48,000 @-á40% = 48,000 / (1-0.4) = 80,000 base Kn EHP 48,000 @-á20% = 48,000 / (1-0.2) = 60,000 base Th EHP An average of (284k / 4 =) 71k base EHP, +ù1.25 skill bonus = 88.75k EHP e: e: e: wtf, fiddly little tables. Brib Vogt wrote:But why is the maximum velocity modifier of -11% replaced with -10% cargo capacity. Thats my whole point. It'll be a -11% capacity, actually. And the reason is the same: because it's a trade-off, and because it mirrors the trade you're making with cargo expanders.
Goddamn.... anyone else wishing we got paid for this.... LOL
|
Valterra Craven
248
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 18:40:00 -
[2092] - Quote
Warr Akini wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Brib Vogt wrote: But why is the maximum velocity modifier of -11% replaced with -10% cargo capacity. Thats my whole point
Because velocity isn't a real penalty on a freighter. That's not technically true. (but this would an extreme example) Lets say you want to afk your freighter with cargo from point a to b. Lets also say that you have a tool that will roughly calculate the amount of time it would take you to afk that distance. You could then set things up in such a way that you could be doing a lot of runs and that would significantly affect your time in the long wrong, especially if you used 3... I could see this mainly affecting people like Red Frog freight if they ran things this way (which they could given all the stipulations they put on you fro cargo value etc) I think the point with cargo expanders affecting cargo versus velocity was that CCP preferred to make the reward versus tradeoff balanced and was less concerned with protecting autopiloters/AFKers (which CCP has said several times that active should trump passive wherever possible).
I know, was just playing devils advocate :) |
Walter Hart White
Heisenberg Minings
33
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 18:42:00 -
[2093] - Quote
My main issue now is that you can't shield tank freighter but you can armor tank... |
Vincintius Agrippa
F L O O D
43
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 18:45:00 -
[2094] - Quote
.[/quote]
whoa whoa whoa, u have absolutely no idea what ur talking about.
PvP players mine too. PvP players market trade too. PvP players mission too. PvP players use freighters too. PvP players manufacture too.
no, the game does not depend on carebears for anything. they are no back bone for anything. This is a PvP game. u should look up the definition of PvP and 'carebear'. (or here)
edit no'2 definition is better
Quote:As an insult, the term applies less to players who merely prefer PVE to PVP and more to individuals who question the basic legitimacy of PVP or who greatly overreact to their avatars' deaths'
Quote:The key perceived difference between 'carebears' and players who simply PvE is their attitude towards PvP encounters. [/quote]
.........And you guys like to pretend that all you do is pvp.
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.
Long story short, Carebearing supports eve. No matteer how you try to disguise it. End of discussion. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22118
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 18:46:00 -
[2095] - 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. |
Kalnoch
LazyBoyz Band of Recreational Flyers The East India Co.
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 18:46:00 -
[2096] - Quote
Really? You cite that JF only had one meaningful rig to use (cargohold) and so you give low slots, well they still really only have one meaningful module, that being cargohold since you decided to go and nerf the crap out of their cargo capacity. Requiring 3 T2 cargo expanders to get back to where you were? That is absolutely insane, way to NOT give me any more customization CCP. 2 cargohold expanders doesn't even get you to the base cargo capacity without ANY skills.
For example, 270,000 base cargo capacity for Nomad, pre patch, which is really 324,000 since you are required to have freighter 4 to fly the thing. Now post patch with same minimum skills you only get 158,400, and with 2 T2 expanders you only get to 257,499.
It should NOT take all 3 of my slots I am now given just to GET BACK to pre patch levels, that is not any sort of added customization ability, that is a nerf to make one of the most expensive ships in the game just that little bit more expensive. I get the trading some space for more speed or faster align time or whatever, but this is just stupid.
The freighter stuff looks just fine though, with 2 expanders you basically get back to where you were. |
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs
3650
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 18:46:00 -
[2097] - Quote
Math is hard....
Charon:
Average Shield EHP = 50000 * (0.25 / (1 - 0% EM) + 0.25 / (1 - 20% Th) + 0.25 / (1 - 40% Kin) + 0.25 / (1 - 50% EX)) = 73958.33
Average Armor EHP = 15000 * (0.25 / (1 - 50% EM) + 0.25 / (1 - 45% Th) + 0.25 / (1 - 25% Kin) + 0.25 / (1 - 10% EX)) = 23484.84
Average Hull EHP = 77500 * (0.25 / (1 - 0% EM) + 0.25 / (1 - 0% Th) + 0.25 / (1 - 0% Kin) + 0.25 / (1 - 0% EX)) = 50000
Total Average EHP = 147443.17 (pre-Kronos 146438.13) |
Dave Stark
5963
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 18:47:00 -
[2098] - Quote
Tippia wrote: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? because maths is hard. |
Dave Stark
5963
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 18:48:00 -
[2099] - Quote
Kalnoch wrote:Really? You cite that JF only had one meaningful rig to use (cargohold) and so you give low slots, well they still really only have one meaningful module, TIL, 670k ehp isn't meaningful. |
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
75
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 18:49:00 -
[2100] - 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? It's going to provide a clear advantage to the armor tank freighters when they can forgo cargo space in favor of tank modules when traveling through dangerous space and the shield tank freighters can not.
I was fine with them getting rig slots because it would allow all the freighters to still compete on an even field, but giving low slots and no mids really changes the balance. If you're going to start giving the freighters module slots then you need to actually give them all slots they can use effectively.
Shield tank freighters should get at least 1 mid slot and 1 less low slot, then adjust their cargo holds so that they have greater base cargo space and end up competitive with the armor freighters using 3 cargo expanders while using only 2.
Mid slots wouldn't help shield tanks because none have the CPU to fit anything that goes in there anyway. They would need not only mid slots, but also a role bonus to -100% CPU for Invuln Field or something.
Maybe that should be a thing. One mid slot for an invuln on Charons and Fens?
I would almost think just changing all freighters to armor is probably the easiest and cleanest option. Unless the shield roleplayers would then get upset that Charons and Fenrirs were not living up to lore. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 [70] 80 90 .. 94 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |