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) |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans
728
|
Posted - 2014.06.05 16:23:00 -
[2731] - Quote
Angelus Arareb wrote: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. if your cargo is the same as before, you're doing something wrong.
New max is 1.2mil/m3 |
Valterra Craven
260
|
Posted - 2014.06.05 16:32:00 -
[2732] - Quote
Rowells wrote:Angelus Arareb wrote: 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. if your cargo is the same as before, you're doing something wrong. New max is 1.2mil/m3
You appeared to have missed the relevant part... |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans
728
|
Posted - 2014.06.05 17:04:00 -
[2733] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Rowells wrote:Angelus Arareb wrote: 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. if your cargo is the same as before, you're doing something wrong. New max is 1.2mil/m3 You appear to have missed the relevant part... You didn't read the whole thing did you? just the first few sentences, perhaps?
I corrected your snip for you to the part i was referring to.
he should still be around 1.1mil. thats about 200k more than rubicon.
e: hell, even with caldari freighter at 1, three expanders should give him more than pre-patch |
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1108
|
Posted - 2014.06.05 17:20:00 -
[2734] - Quote
Rowells wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Rowells wrote:Angelus Arareb wrote: 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. if your cargo is the same as before, you're doing something wrong. New max is 1.2mil/m3 You appear to have missed the relevant part... You didn't read the whole thing did you? just the first few sentences, perhaps? I corrected your snip for you to the part i was referring to. he should still be around 1.1mil. thats about 200k more than rubicon. e: hell, even with caldari freighter at 1, three expanders should give him more than pre-patch
Not sure since he\s obviously talking about the yet to be released T3 module. We don't know yet what the % cargo bonus on those is... |
Firzam Aakiwa
Circulus Exousias
0
|
Posted - 2014.06.05 18:07:00 -
[2735] - Quote
Lolly ==> look that guys http://eve.battleclinic.com/loadout/70443-Ark-Adriana.html 1 million EHP with his ARk without loosing Cargo bay capacity. This new patch give a great boost for some factionnal Jump freighter. |
Valterra Craven
260
|
Posted - 2014.06.05 19:43:00 -
[2736] - Quote
Rowells wrote: You didn't read the whole thing did you? just the first few sentences, perhaps?
I corrected your snip for you to the part i was referring to.
he should still be around 1.1mil. thats about 200k more than rubicon.
e: hell, even with caldari freighter at 1, three expanders should give him more than pre-patch
No, I read the whole thing, the new max has nothing to do with what he was saying. and adding 100k~ is more like what we were talking about for a huge penalty to EHP.
|
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans
728
|
Posted - 2014.06.05 20:37:00 -
[2737] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Rowells wrote: You didn't read the whole thing did you? just the first few sentences, perhaps?
I corrected your snip for you to the part i was referring to.
he should still be around 1.1mil. thats about 200k more than rubicon.
e: hell, even with caldari freighter at 1, three expanders should give him more than pre-patch
No, I read the whole thing, the new max has nothing to do with what he was saying. and adding 100k~ is more like what we were talking about for a huge penalty to EHP. thats not what he said. He said he was at similar levels of cargo with 3 cargo expanders, which is nothing but wrong. I never mentioned EHP and in that particular subject neither did he.
He said he gets similar to before fully fit, i show thats wrong, you come and make comments on subjects irrelavent to the specific matter i was referring to. |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
543
|
Posted - 2014.06.06 08:01:00 -
[2738] - Quote
I wouldn't call 168k m-¦ cargo space "without loosing[sic] Cargo bay capacity", if you compare it to the previous 344k m-¦. However, it's still pretty impressive HP values there, remains to be seen if this helps to deter ganks or just invites them for a try even more. |
Mag's
the united
17347
|
Posted - 2014.06.06 08:49:00 -
[2739] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:I wouldn't call 168k m-¦ cargo space "without loosing[sic] Cargo bay capacity", if you compare it to the previous 344k m-¦ (the numbers on this Battleclinic post seem a bit off, especially in the Cargo department when I compare it to the Ark in the Pilot Optimizer). However, it's still pretty impressive HP values there, remains to be seen if this helps to deter ganks or just invites them for a try even more. Indeed. Saying without losing capacity, is rather disingenuous.
I will say this though, don't be surprised at another balance pass in the future. In regards to EHP.
Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless. |
Lei Merdeau
Hidden Agenda Deep Space Engineering
15
|
Posted - 2014.06.06 11:00:00 -
[2740] - Quote
Mag's wrote: I will say this though, don't be surprised at another balance pass in the future. In regards to EHP.
and I think it will be much easier to do if they do something about the module penalties.
|
|
Vhelnik Cojoin
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
64
|
Posted - 2014.06.06 11:12:00 -
[2741] - Quote
In other news it was today revealed, that the explosions from Fail Fit Freighters are still lighting up the skies of HiSec, as James 315 and his merry men go about their daily business.
...and the gankers saw that the changes were good and all is well in New Eden.
Have you Communicated with your fellow capsuleers today? It is good for the EVE-oconomy and o-kay for you. |
Vhelnik Cojoin
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
64
|
Posted - 2014.06.06 11:22:00 -
[2742] - Quote
Given the low base cargo hold of the JFs, plus the cost of ship, fittings and clone, I'd say that is working as intended. Have you Communicated with your fellow capsuleers today? It is good for the EVE-oconomy and o-kay for you. |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
3384
|
Posted - 2014.06.06 11:44:00 -
[2743] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote:I wouldn't call 168k m-¦ cargo space "without loosing[sic] Cargo bay capacity", if you compare it to the previous 344k m-¦ (the numbers on this Battleclinic post seem a bit off, especially in the Cargo department when I compare it to the Ark in the Pilot Optimizer). However, it's still pretty impressive HP values there, remains to be seen if this helps to deter ganks or just invites them for a try even more. Indeed. Saying without losing capacity, is rather disingenuous. I will say this though, don't be surprised at another balance pass in the future. In regards to EHP.
Without loosing /further/ capacity is accurate.
Without losing (compared to pre Kronos) capacity isn't. Woo! CSM 9! http://fuzzwork.enterprises/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
Doris VanGit
The Rusty Muskets
0
|
Posted - 2014.06.06 14:29:00 -
[2744] - Quote
Ok time for my 2 pennies worth. Firstly i apologies if i repeat anything said by others, these forums send my eyes a little of balance. So i aint gonna read all the posts.
Its a nice touch, adding the module slots to such expensive ships. However, it would have been alot nicer to have the cpu available to fit a damage control or a warp core stab!
A damage control may help the surviverbility of say the Rhea, were its main defence is a shield and hull buff. However, no EM resists on these.
To my knowledge unless i have missed something, the are no low slot mods or skills to improve hull resists.
Therefore when the usual Goon, burn jita arises. They could loose twice as many ships to CCP instead
But on a side note that has nothing to do, with this thread. Why on a normal day in EVE, you cant enter Jita if numbers are too High. But burn Jita arises On every man and his dog are in there?
Like i say just my 2 pennies worth. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
11823
|
Posted - 2014.06.06 14:49:00 -
[2745] - Quote
Doris VanGit wrote:Ok time for my 2 pennies worth. Firstly i apologies if i repeat anything said by others, these forums send my eyes a little of balance. So i aint gonna read all the posts. Its a nice touch, adding the module slots to such expensive ships. However, it would have been alot nicer to have the cpu available to fit a damage control or a warp core stab! A damage control may help the surviverbility of say the Rhea, were its main defence is a shield and hull buff. However, no EM resists on these. To my knowledge unless i have missed something, the are no low slot mods or skills to improve hull resists. Therefore when the usual Goon, burn jita arises. They could loose twice as many ships to CCP instead But on a side note that has nothing to do, with this thread. Why on a normal day in EVE, you cant enter Jita if numbers are too High. But burn Jita arises On every man and his dog are in there? Like i say just my 2 pennies worth.
A suitcase is simply too powerful on a freighter, hence why CCP wisely chose to not allow it to be fitted. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1108
|
Posted - 2014.06.06 14:51:00 -
[2746] - Quote
Doris VanGit wrote:Ok time for my 2 pennies worth. Firstly i apologies if i repeat anything said by others, these forums send my eyes a little of balance. So i aint gonna read all the posts. Its a nice touch, adding the module slots to such expensive ships. However, it would have been alot nicer to have the cpu available to fit a damage control or a warp core stab! A damage control may help the surviverbility of say the Rhea, were its main defence is a shield and hull buff. However, no EM resists on these. To my knowledge unless i have missed something, the are no low slot mods or skills to improve hull resists. Therefore when the usual Goon, burn jita arises. They could loose twice as many ships to CCP instead But on a side note that has nothing to do, with this thread. Why on a normal day in EVE, you cant enter Jita if numbers are too High. But burn Jita arises On every man and his dog are in there? Like i say just my 2 pennies worth.
If they were to enable you to use a DCU, the unfitted EHP would fall completely and the DCU would then be a mandatory module for everybody. This add 0 options, in fact, it would remove options. Not sure about stabs as I don't see what is the balance tradeoff for fitting stabs...
As for burn Jita, people deserve to die there with how much publicity it has. |
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC
898
|
Posted - 2014.06.06 15:16:00 -
[2747] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Herr Wilkus wrote: Carebears crying nerf in this case is just sad and irrational.
Well actually its a fact.
And you conveniently ignore the substance of most of my own, and others' posts.
Where did Freighters and JF's get nerfed?
First, alignment wasn't touched at all, it can only be improved upon by gaining lowslots.
Cargo you say? Sure, the m^3 was significantly reduced when you fit for EHP.
But that isn't the important value when hauling in highsec. Ganking is the ONLY threat to a freighter pilot. And gankers don't care about how much "m^3" you are carrying. Bulky, low value cargo that requires Cargo Mods are not profitable to gank and not interesting. Gankers care about ISK value vs EHP.
95% of trade items that will stack up into '5-6 Billions ISK' fits quite neatly into the reduced cargobay of Freighters and Jump Freighters, but in turn, are shielded by twice as much EHP - doubling the size of the fleet required to destroy it.
This often reduces the profitability to zero - meaning very, very low risk of ganking.
Especially when you can fit for 1 Million EHP in highsec.
Ridiculous, and shows how little thought Fozzie put into this version.
|
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
545
|
Posted - 2014.06.06 16:14:00 -
[2748] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote: Ridiculous, and shows how little thought Fozzie put into this version.
It only shows how weak gankers seemingly have become.
Besides, CODE does seem to defy all your fears quite successfully in Aufay at the moment.
|
Valterra Craven
260
|
Posted - 2014.06.06 17:29:00 -
[2749] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:
And you conveniently ignore the substance of most of my own, and others' posts.
Where did Freighters and JF's get nerfed?
First, alignment wasn't touched at all, it can only be improved upon by gaining lowslots.
Cargo you say? Sure, the m^3 was significantly reduced when you fit for EHP.
But that isn't the important value when hauling in highsec. Ganking is the ONLY threat to a freighter pilot. And gankers don't care about how much "m^3" you are carrying. Bulky, low value cargo that requires Cargo Mods are not profitable to gank and not interesting. Gankers care about ISK value vs EHP.
95% of trade items that will stack up into '5-6 Billions ISK' fits quite neatly into the reduced cargobay of Freighters and Jump Freighters, but in turn, are shielded by twice as much EHP - doubling the size of the fleet required to destroy it.
This often reduces the profitability to zero - meaning very, very low risk of ganking.
Especially when you can fit for 1 Million EHP in highsec.
Ridiculous, and shows how little thought Fozzie put into this version.
The substance where you ignore the stark reality of how stupid the average Eve player is and what the average fit of mining barges etc is despite groups like Code existing? People are and will fit freighters just as foolishly. As the above posts show, things have not changed in the ganking department, nor will they.
Besides, bulkheads are nothing but a double nerf to ganking the way they are, and what's amazing is that gankers actually wanted this. They wanted cargo reductions to bulkheads despite knowing correctly that A. even with those reductions it still wouldn't be close to the m3 vs value thresholds and B that most eve players are stupid. What I'm trying to say is that you should have hoped that they were kept the same, because even though you could fit bulkheads it would have also allowed you to fit more cargo making the m3/ehp ratios stay the same.
|
Valterra Craven
260
|
Posted - 2014.06.06 17:43:00 -
[2750] - Quote
Rowells wrote: thats not what he said. He said he was at similar levels of cargo with 3 cargo expanders, which is nothing but wrong.
He said he gets similar to before fully fit, i show thats wrong, you come and make comments on subjects irrelavent to the specific matter i was referring to.
That's correct he said "similar". Given the changes, a 100k m3 change when talking about roughly 900k m3 is similar.
This was your correction:
Rowells wrote: if your cargo is the same as before, you're doing something wrong.
New max is 1.2mil/m3
Note that same !=similar. You corrected something incorrectly. Also, note that max doesn't enter into the equation at any end of the spectrum of his post. |
|
Sigras
Conglomo
777
|
Posted - 2014.06.06 21:40:00 -
[2751] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:And you conveniently ignore the substance of most of my own, and others' posts.
Where did Freighters and JF's get nerfed?
First, alignment wasn't touched at all, it can only be improved upon by gaining lowslots.
Cargo you say? Sure, the m^3 was significantly reduced when you fit for EHP.
But that isn't the important value when hauling in highsec. Ganking is the ONLY threat to a freighter pilot. And gankers don't care about how much "m^3" you are carrying. Bulky, low value cargo that requires Cargo Mods are not profitable to gank and not interesting. Gankers care about ISK value vs EHP.
95% of trade items that will stack up into '5-6 Billions ISK' fits quite neatly into the reduced cargobay of Freighters and Jump Freighters, but in turn, are shielded by twice as much EHP - doubling the size of the fleet required to destroy it.
This often reduces the profitability to zero - meaning very, very low risk of ganking.
Especially when you can fit for 1 Million EHP in highsec.
Ridiculous, and shows how little thought Fozzie put into this version. With Catalysts, it costs about 1,000 ISK per damage to suicide gank something.
A providence with a full high grade slave set, specifically fit to tank Kinetic/Thermal, and a damnation boosting has a 460,000 EHP tank against Kinetic/Thermal
This means that it will cost the gankers about 460,000,000 ISK to suicide gank him which means that the break even point is still under a billion ISK...
And you're complaining why?
EDIT: excuse me, I just thought of fitting deadspace armor resist mods in the lows... this gives it a 549,000 EHP resist to Kinetic Thermal meaning the break even point is now 1.1 billion, but given the number of 10-20 billion ISK lossmails ive seen, still not really killing your profit margins.
Just another fun fact, this means you're gank-profitable if you're half full of mexallon |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans
734
|
Posted - 2014.06.06 22:36:00 -
[2752] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Rowells wrote: thats not what he said. He said he was at similar levels of cargo with 3 cargo expanders, which is nothing but wrong.
He said he gets similar to before fully fit, i show thats wrong, you come and make comments on subjects irrelavent to the specific matter i was referring to.
That's correct he said "similar". Given the changes, a 100k m3 change when talking about roughly 900k m3 is similar. This was your correction: Rowells wrote: if your cargo is the same as before, you're doing something wrong.
New max is 1.2mil/m3
Note that same !=similar. You corrected something incorrectly. Also, note that max doesn't enter into the equation at any end of the spectrum of his post. Now I know for sure that you're not reading anything.
200k difference is not very similar considering it's 22% difference.
And his exact words were: " right about the same as it would have been without the patch."
Did he say similar there? Nope, he said right about the same. Which is still wrong. And yes Max was mentioned. He was comparing his old maximum capacity with the new maximum capacity. I used fully fit fully skilled Max as a reference point. So yes, is Max did Enter into the equation.
|
Sarrein Razor
RazorEnterprise
2
|
Posted - 2014.06.07 00:59:00 -
[2753] - Quote
Nice way to drive ppl off ccp. I dearly regret to have resubbed now.
Can someone explain to me how i can get the old performance of my Providence and Ark back?
If i fit expanders i lose sublight speed (which nerfs autopilot freighters flying). If i fit bulkheads i just about get what my Ark had prepatch on my Providence.
Not to mention that the Ark is now utterly worthless. A Rorqual will do almost everything the Ark can way better now in terms of hauling into dangerous territory and costs only a fraction of it and consumes less fuel while doing it and can fit a shitton more modules (i.e. cloak).
I demand to know who did this, where he lives and where i can buy pitches and torches close by. I think i want to visit him/her and *thank* him/her in the classic way of unhappy people.
Oh, and while you are at it, i also need the addess of the guy who ruined the navy apoc (it used to be golden) and the carthum ship line.
-> off into the forest to get some firewood, think i'll need it soon. |
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC
898
|
Posted - 2014.06.07 02:35:00 -
[2754] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote: What I'm trying to say is that you should have hoped that they were kept the same, because even though you could fit bulkheads it would have also allowed you to fit more cargo making the m3/ehp ratios stay the same.
Did you fail to understand my post? Or are you intentionally being obtuse?
m^3/EHP is not important to gankers. Because most freighters are relatively empty. (unless they are hauling ice or trit)
The only thing that matters is ISK in cargo/EHP. And potential EHP has doubled - or in the case of the Anshar, more than doubled.
Sure, some freighters will failfit. But there is a big difference between a miner fitting for yield (and neglecting tank), and a freighter pilot fitting cargohold expanders.
The miner benefits from fitting for yield.
On the other hand, fitting a freighter for m^3 is pointless when your freighter is 2/3 empty. And ganking is a very remote risk when you are hauling the kind of low-value/bulk items that could take up 1 Million or more M^3.
Why is this? Because the vast majority of items on the market (mods/rigs/mid-high end mins) are far too expensive to fill a 900K+ m^3 freighter before your ISK value goes well into gank-bait territory.
No, i have no doubt that CODE. and Miniluv will continue to do good work, but I see no reason for CCP to, with a single poorly thought out patch - double their ganking costs, and severely curtail the number of profitable targets out there.
And for people that insist on using Catalyst costs as a reasonable example of 'ganker costs' - you must think getting 65 Catalyst pilots together is a trivial thing. Because that is what it would take to kill a new Anshar in 0.5. Costs scale considerably in higher sec from there. And that new Ark-fit goes over 1 Million EHP? That would take about 85-90 Catalysts.
Sounds reasonable.
I can't tell if the carebears whining about their freighters are simply metagaming or just incredibly stupid. Get handed a massive buff and they keep screaming for more. Absolutely ridiculous.
|
Temenus Alexander
Alexander Enterprises
7
|
Posted - 2014.06.07 03:51:00 -
[2755] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:So we expect that most Freighter and Jump Freighter pilots will use their three low slots to mix and match the following modules to meet their needs: - Expanded Cargoholds
- Reinforced Bulkheads
- Hyperspatial Accelerators (warp speed modules)
- Inertia Stabilizers
- Overdrive Injector Systems
- (For certain armor tanking fits) Adaptive Nano Platings
- (For Jump Freighters) Capacitor Power Relays
- (For Jump Freighters after the Crius release) Jump Fuel Conservation Modules
Yeah... about those bulkheads. Kinda hard to do with no freaking (ok, 1.3 actual) cpu. |
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC
898
|
Posted - 2014.06.07 04:19:00 -
[2756] - Quote
Temenus Alexander wrote:
Yeah... about those bulkheads. Kinda hard to do with no freaking (ok, 1.3 actual) cpu.
L2Read.
|
Temenus Alexander
Alexander Enterprises
7
|
Posted - 2014.06.07 04:21:00 -
[2757] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:Temenus Alexander wrote:
Yeah... about those bulkheads. Kinda hard to do with no freaking (ok, 1.3 actual) cpu.
L2Read.
L2 "Eat At Joe's" |
Christopher Mabata
Dominion Tenebrarum New Eden's Misfits Alliance
11
|
Posted - 2014.06.07 04:33:00 -
[2758] - Quote
under Ships and Modules i designed a relatively expensive Providence fit that can get over half a million EHP ( yep 500,000 ), look for my post. it has the max amount of cargo possible without sacrificing tank. ( no expanders on it )
However the pod to fly it is expensive. I think it will be worth it for some pilots who carry alot of cargo or cargo of "Elevated Price"
Buyer be warned Christopher "The Mabata" CEO, Black Ops Admiral, And Head US TZ Diplo Dominion Tenebrarum / New Eden's Misfits Alliance / The Dark Corner Coalition |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
546
|
Posted - 2014.06.07 06:02:00 -
[2759] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:And for people that insist on using Catalyst costs as a reasonable example of 'ganker costs' - you must think getting 65 Catalyst pilots together is a trivial thing. Because that is what it would take to kill a new Anshar in 0.5. Costs scale considerably in higher sec from there. And that new Ark-fit goes over 1 Million EHP? That would take about 85-90 Catalysts. Sounds reasonable.
Absolutely. This Ark costs you ~8.8B + possible cargo of lets say, in your numbers, 4B, which makes 12.8B ISK value. 75 Catalyst, on the other hand, cost you between 700M to 900M, not even a 12th of the gank target. Sounds absolutely reasonable to me. |
Valterra Craven
260
|
Posted - 2014.06.07 06:20:00 -
[2760] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:Valterra Craven wrote: What I'm trying to say is that you should have hoped that they were kept the same, because even though you could fit bulkheads it would have also allowed you to fit more cargo making the m3/ehp ratios stay the same.
Did you fail to understand my post? Or are you intentionally being obtuse?
I understood your post completely. What I'm saying is that if the bulkheads penalties aren't a real penalty, ie I can't hit max m3 with them fitted before I hit the gank threshold, then gankers shouldn't have petitioned for this change to the penalty.
Think of it this way: The change allowed afkers to have more EHP without speed loss and if they aren't hitting max m3 then that was a win for them and a loss for you since they can now carry more value afk. If the penalty was kept the same, they still aren't hitting max m3 before the gank threshold, but now they move through space slower.
On the flip side, if the target isn't afk and they are willing to risk higher thresholds the new penalty limits them since they could have carried more cargo and thus had a better or higher potential value/ehp ratio.
As far as the jf's HP, given the fact that the cost to reach those HP values is pretty steep (at least 330mil for the high end ANP mods and another potential couple bil in implants) and the cost of the initial ship itself your argument doesn't seem to meet the balance threshold. Aka if a player is going to spend 10+bil on a ship to get its hp values high then requiring you to get more cats make sense (even though that's already not an efficient way to do things since the best way would be a mix of destroyers and bc's, but thats besides the point). Personally I think you are skewing the numbers a bit in your favor. I'm willing to bet if done correctly it would take less than 40 actual players. |
|
|
|
|
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 |