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) |
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC
896
|
Posted - 2014.06.03 06:48:00 -
[2671] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:Totally unwanted? I am very sure that this is absolutely not totally unwanted.
I'm guessing english isn't your first language. Or you failed grammar school.
Forum tip: Read first, then think, then type. don't try to change up the order or we end up with posts like........yours.
|
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
543
|
Posted - 2014.06.03 06:50:00 -
[2672] - Quote
Oh dear, I misread your unwarranted. Shall I reformulated my post? I can assure you that nothing is going to change, except for the wording in the first line. |
Knoppaz
distress signals borealis
29
|
Posted - 2014.06.03 09:32:00 -
[2673] - Quote
Shane Merol wrote: ...
Two questions:
1) Was it intentional to give the armor freighters a massive edge in EHP potential by allowing them passive resistance/layering modules?
With the added advantage of extra EHP shifted to armor, slave implants, and t2 resist profile on JFs, this gives the armor freighters a rather unfair advantage in EHP over the shield variants, without any drawbacks. The minmatar freighters are especially at a disadvantage as the Fenrir/Nomad don't have the cargohold advantage the Charon/Rhea do, and have an even more pathetic pool of EHP.
...
Was about to ask the same. Strange decision to leave shield tankers (and especially Minmatar) in such a bad position compared to the rest..
__________________________________________________ Knoppaz /-ádistressSIGNALS http://distresssignals.tumblr.com
a capsuleer's way to insanity |
Rab See
Fool Mental Junket
73
|
Posted - 2014.06.03 14:27:00 -
[2674] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey everyone, just wanted to remind you all that we will be keeping a close eye on these changes as they hit TQ and we are of course committed to a balanced environment between defense and offense.
We don't believe that these changes skew the balance too far against suicide gankers, although they do provide some good options for smart players to manage their risk.
So, Faction ANPs on Slaved, Boosted Providence only from now on. No tanking options for the Charon or Fenrir. Simply gimped with bulkheads instead.
Wicked balancing. |
Valterra Craven
253
|
Posted - 2014.06.03 17:05:00 -
[2675] - Quote
So I just got on TQ and it appears the numbers were worse then we were lead to believe
Charon before with my skills (all lvl 5 except racial freighter)
165k HP 942km3 cargo
Charon after, with 2x t2 cargo expanders and 1x t2 ANP
150k HP 907k cargo
Charon after, with 2x t2 cargo expanders and 1x t2 Bulkhead
160k HP 807k cargo
So like I said all along, this was a nerf with no way to achieve the same freighter that you had before patch without massive sacrifices. |
Valterra Craven
253
|
Posted - 2014.06.03 17:07:00 -
[2676] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: We don't believe that these changes skew the balance too far against suicide gankers, although they do provide some good options for smart players to manage their risk.
How could they? These are massive HP nerfs in favor of gankers! |
cynomakinggirl
No Risk No ISK
9
|
Posted - 2014.06.03 17:34:00 -
[2677] - Quote
This is just a massive nerf, FU ccp.
To get the same amount of cargohold on my freighter I now must fit 3 expanded cargoholds, which will lower structure HP by -60%.
Considering that reinforced bulkheads will now give -11% cargo capacity each (https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=340217), it means that this is a super nerf. FU ccp.
FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU "The internet is a reliable source of information." - Abraham Lincoln |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans
722
|
Posted - 2014.06.03 18:48:00 -
[2678] - Quote
cynomakinggirl wrote:This is just a massive nerf, FU ccp.
To get the same amount of cargohold on my freighter I now must fit 3 expanded cargoholds, which will lower structure HP by -60%.
Considering that reinforced bulkheads will now give -11% cargo capacity each (https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=340217), it means that this is a super nerf. FU ccp.
FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU yes this is exactly how you give constructive feedback I'm sure theyre going to change it for you now |
Av Ra
Aliastra Gallente Federation
11
|
Posted - 2014.06.03 20:20:00 -
[2679] - Quote
Death to Freighters. Get sh*t on. |
Von Reichenbach
Maraque Enterprises Brothers of Tangra
11
|
Posted - 2014.06.03 20:21:00 -
[2680] - Quote
Ok, after some testing, the Charon was batted pretty badly. The Obby is my new GO-TO boat. Close to the same hold, higher EHP.
CCP, you might want to look at what you did to the shield boats... |
|
Ame Umida
Quovis The Bastion
14
|
Posted - 2014.06.03 21:46:00 -
[2681] - Quote
I endorse this -9 trillion %.
I say if you hate them that much just remove them from the game. |
Xiofromata Drakonius
Stellavasi Phantom Armada
3
|
Posted - 2014.06.03 22:25:00 -
[2682] - Quote
So CCP nerfted Freighters to get industry to nullsec.....News Flash CCP nobody is going to do industry in nullsec the risk is too high.
More Risk...more cost....less Risk less cost. Congratz CCP hauling just became more expensive to all! Will pass it on customers. |
Paranoid Loyd
567
|
Posted - 2014.06.03 22:33:00 -
[2683] - Quote
cynomakinggirl wrote:Tears
I find your corp name quite hilarious in regards to your post.
"PvE in EVE is a trap to turn you into PvP content, don't confuse it for actual gameplay." Lipbite |
NotaPost AltAtAll
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2014.06.03 22:42:00 -
[2684] - Quote
SUUUUPER FREIGHTER NEEEERFFF ACTIVATED!!!!
Sweet I guess CCP is trying to kill that section of their dwindling botting % of playerbase by making freighters into paper thin giant ISK loss death traps good move I guess =0
|
Yuri Fedorov
Serenity Profits
8
|
Posted - 2014.06.03 23:38:00 -
[2685] - Quote
The only modules worth fitting are 2x Istabs and 1x warp speed thingy, or 3x cargohold for all freighters. The negligibly increased tank won't change anything since they will just gank you anyway. |
Adaleen
Phoenix Productions Headshot Gaming
0
|
Posted - 2014.06.03 23:41:00 -
[2686] - Quote
I hardly flew a freighter before...I most definitely will not be now. Id rather move stuff in an orca multiple times, at least it gets better cargo per hp. |
Chris Winter
Zephyr Corp V.A.S.T.
437
|
Posted - 2014.06.04 01:58:00 -
[2687] - Quote
Yuri Fedorov wrote:The only modules worth fitting are 2x Istabs and 1x warp speed thingy, or 3x cargohold for all freighters. The negligibly increased tank won't change anything since they will just gank you anyway. The tank can actually be significantly increased on the Obelisk or Providence. The Charon and Fenrir are just boned. |
JP Boirelle
Shinn Enterprises
1
|
Posted - 2014.06.04 04:07:00 -
[2688] - Quote
I wonder how all these changes will effect Red Frog's business model.
I have a Charon and doubt I will use it anymore. Probably swap to one of the armor tanking Freighter/JFs |
ASadOldGit
School of Applied Knowledge
284
|
Posted - 2014.06.04 04:21:00 -
[2689] - Quote
I've noticed, over the last few pages, that the arguments (both good and bad) seem to swing between either the gankers or freighters being nerfed or buffed, depending on the scenario, but I haven't noticed any other factors being discussed with regards to balancing.
The previously-argued balancing techniques either result in an upwards spiral of power creep, as freighters and gankers alternately receive buffs, depending on who screams the loudest, or a repeating cycle of nerf / buff / nerf of one side of the argument.
To me, another significant factor is the time to recover.
It is much easier to just get another catalyst / talos (even for 20 people), than to go and get another freighter plus equivalent cargoload. Hell, the gankers probably even have a pre-fitted pile of them lying around, but there aren't many people that have a pile of freighters lying around. 10 million ISK is slightly easier to get a hold of than 10 billion.
I realise that cost is apparently not a balancing factor, but there must be something that could help reduce the sting of losing a freighter. After all, you do want the freighter pilot back in the game as soon as possible, right? Buying another freighter plus another load of cargo is good for the economy. (perhaps that's highsec thinking, though; maybe you want to disrupt an alliance's supply lines for longer?)
One thing I was thinking of was enhancing insurance in some way, perhaps adding the option of travel insurance that's charged per trip (or return trip, or per hour, or something).
The existing insurance scheme is not very effective over time, costing 1/3 of the cost of the freighter every 3 months (although a nice ISK sink). But, your cargo is not insured. Travel insurance means you'd have to take a gamble and decide if you want to pay extra for that trip, in return for a little extra peace of mind in the event of being ganked.
Perhaps you could have a public NPC-controlled pool, wherein everyone's premiums are paid into the pool, and anyone who is ganked is paid out of that pool. If not enough people buy into it, the pool dries up and no payout for you.
Are there any other ways to balance outside ship stats?
Meh. |
JP Boirelle
Shinn Enterprises
1
|
Posted - 2014.06.04 05:19:00 -
[2690] - Quote
CCP can you please point out what the shield tanking version of ANPs are please? My shield tanked Freighter would like the same benefit of the Obelisk and Providence. |
|
Rab See
Fool Mental Junket
73
|
Posted - 2014.06.04 09:40:00 -
[2691] - Quote
JP Boirelle wrote:CCP can you please point out what the shield tanking version of ANPs are please? My shield tanked Freighter would like the same benefit of the Obelisk and Providence.
3x Coreli ANP on Provi = 338k EHP 3x Bulkhead II on Provi = 347k EHP
3x Coreli ANP on Charon = 247k EHP 3x Bulkhead II on Charon = 303k EHP
Which would you pick? Now add slaves, and now add boosts.
Provi gets to 496k EHP - no Bulkheads - just ANP Charon gets to 343k - 3x Bulkheads best.
The armour tankers get Slaves, and get ANP, why would you use Bulkheads at all? So they suffer no penalties.
COME ON DEVS? Comment please.
|
cynomakinggirl
No Risk No ISK
11
|
Posted - 2014.06.04 09:47:00 -
[2692] - Quote
In an attempt to give players more options,
...they halved the available options, by making fenrir and charon useless. "The internet is a reliable source of information." - Abraham Lincoln |
cynomakinggirl
No Risk No ISK
11
|
Posted - 2014.06.04 09:57:00 -
[2693] - Quote
Rab See wrote:JP Boirelle wrote:CCP can you please point out what the shield tanking version of ANPs are please? My shield tanked Freighter would like the same benefit of the Obelisk and Providence. 3x Coreli ANP on Provi = 338k EHP 3x Bulkhead II on Provi = 347k EHP 3x Coreli ANP on Charon = 247k EHP 3x Bulkhead II on Charon = 303k EHP Which would you pick? Now add slaves, and now add boosts. Provi gets to 496k EHP - no Bulkheads - just ANP Charon gets to 343k - 3x Bulkheads best. The armour tankers get Slaves, and get ANP, why would you use Bulkheads at all? So they suffer no penalties. COME ON DEVS? Comment please.
Your calculations don't reflect real scenarios. Attackers use mostly catalysts, so 58% kinetic damage and 42% thermal.
If attackers use tornados, you can expect, against shield tankers, 75% EM, 8% kinetic, 17% explosive damage. If against armor tankers, tornados will deal 17% kinetic and 83% explosive.
An armor tanker can be tanked to counter explosive damage, while a shield tanker cannot do the same with EM, so the difference is even bigger. "The internet is a reliable source of information." - Abraham Lincoln |
XxRTEKxX
That Escalated Quickly Nerfed Alliance Go Away
128
|
Posted - 2014.06.04 09:58:00 -
[2694] - Quote
Freighters were better off untouched. At this point, I'm more in favor of reverting the changes and just leaving freighters alone. |
cynomakinggirl
No Risk No ISK
12
|
Posted - 2014.06.04 11:24:00 -
[2695] - Quote
XxRTEKxX wrote:Freighters were better off untouched. At this point, I'm more in favor of reverting the changes and just leaving freighters alone.
Full-tanked charon: 409,000 m3 cargo / 289,000 EHP vs EM Full-tanked obelisk: 550,000 m3 cargo / 314,000 EHP vs Kin (no slave set)
Low-tanked charon: 841,000 m3 cargo / 178,000 EHP vs EM Low-tanked obelisk: 894,000 m3 cargo / 202,000 EHP vs Explosive (no slave set)
Original charon: 981,000 m3 cargo / 180,000 EHP Original obelisk: 938,000 m3 cargo / 201,000 EHP
This is clearly a nerf. FU ccp "The internet is a reliable source of information." - Abraham Lincoln |
Angelus Arareb
Gates of Purgatory
0
|
Posted - 2014.06.04 11:56:00 -
[2696] - Quote
Three days ago I was finally able to climb into my brand new Charon. I LOVED it, after training for so long I was ecstatic to finally not ever having to use a bestower or itereon again to transport my stuff. Then Chronos came and I logged onto my freighter which I had trained up to level 3 and guess what, after a 15% increase to cargo capacity via training it now had the same cargo capacity as a Jump Freighter. I thought that's ok I'll just install 3 T3 cargo expanders. It was then I found that with the 3 installed it was right about the same as it would have been without the patch. So where is the benefit to this "upgrade" I lost a bunch of armor and was able to maintain the same cargo capacity.........Is this an attempt by CCP to make it easier for the next burn jita to be even easier for freighter kills? I feel like I just got ganked and all the time I spent training for this is now wasted b/c I am an even easier/bigger target. *Good job guys way to go!* -End Sarcasm- Whoever came up with the idea to slash cargo capacity to such an extreme degree needs to be slapped silly. I mean seriously, if you wanted to provide customization for freighters you could do so w/o such drastic effects, i.e. making freighters unable to use cargo expanders for one. There easy solution, problem solved. Come on CCP get it together and fix this, I just showed it's not hard to resolve. |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
3375
|
Posted - 2014.06.04 12:16:00 -
[2697] - Quote
Angelus Arareb wrote:Stuff
Really? 3 T2 expanders takes a Charon with rank 3 in Caldari freighter up to 1,108,361 m3, doesn't it? (rather than the 902k m3 it was)
http://xyjax.com/optimizer_kronos/ (no, I've not checked it in Eve, as I don't fly a charon. Works with my Fenrir though) Woo! CSM 9! http://fuzzwork.enterprises/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
H3llHound
Koshaku Tactical Narcotics Team
28
|
Posted - 2014.06.04 12:29:00 -
[2698] - Quote
Like every patchday suddenly the forums spring up with life with all those oblivious to the changes announced mutliple times over the last weeks. |
Rab See
Fool Mental Junket
73
|
Posted - 2014.06.04 12:41:00 -
[2699] - Quote
H3llHound wrote:Like every patchday suddenly the forums spring up with life with all those oblivious to the changes announced mutliple times over the last weeks.
Wow - you are so 'on the ball'. I see one post from someone who hadn't yet commented. Thats less than 'spring'.
As for myself, before the changes I noted how there would be imbalance on a staggering scale. Making a snap decision to get rid of rigs (good), and replace with lowslots (inadvertantly bad) is now the major issue.
Armour tanking freighters only from now on. Forget the Charon and Fenrir.
Slaves and ANP FTW. |
Lucy Riraille
Aliastra Gallente Federation
37
|
Posted - 2014.06.04 12:48:00 -
[2700] - Quote
With freighter losing almost half of their cargo space and the need to buy shitfuck expensive rig/lowslot modules,
would you please BALANCE these crappy babyfreighters so with half cargospace = half mineral consumption in production????
I can see no reason for paying 1.3 Billion ISK for a ship with a bit more cargo space then an orca... Any plany on crap nerfing the orca???
Again, another BAD job done... |
|
|
|
|
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 |