Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Kronos] Freighters and Jump Freighters Rebalance [Updated]

First post First post First post
Author
#1721 - 2014-05-21 14:00:18 UTC
Digger Pollard wrote:
Daichi Yamato wrote:
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


u mean the ppl that actually play this game?

if u want a non-PvP game like starcitizen then why did u join a PvP MMO in the first place? why are u in a game where ganking, greifing, scamming, meta-gaming and power gaming is not just ok, its applauded.


With such a poor, insignificant and one-dimensional combat pvp side, I doubt it's possible to call eve "PvP MMO".
So basically you want to remove everyone who's only pvping on market, which is a lot more engaging than inferior combat pvp. What did they tell about "nerf everyone's playstyle except mine"? Oh, I remember - "HTFU". If you can only do combat pvp and can't engage on market, you suck, period.


thats it, use the butthurt. i love how u call combat one dimensional and then centre ur argument around one part of the game.

dnt mind that ganking is market PvP too. just ignore that many freighter pilots are PvP'ers too.

just stay in that small world of urs. bolt the doors, nail the windows shut. close ur eyes, cover ur ears and dnt let the bad ppl in.

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs

#1722 - 2014-05-21 14:05:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Gregor Parud
Adrien Crosse wrote:
You're right - there is.

But a straight numbers nerf does nothing to address that - a straight numbers nerf just pisses people off.

Everyone who uses jump freighters now will keep on using them and just roll the additional cost down the chain to whoever may sit farther down, be that buyers for industrialists, customers for Black Frog or whoever else.

A nerf to jump freighters can only make sense if it comes coupled with deeper mechanics changes that offer viable, fun alternatives to using them, because escorted freighter runs aren't that, and depending on titan bridging for freighters isn't helping the "power projection bad" or "smaller groups in null good" mantras either.


"Fun" is mostly used when people actually mean "easy" to cover up that they mean exactly that, but you're right that it should be balanced elsewhere. The thing is that you're looking at it from the current situation, asses the changes and then go "yup, that's bad" but when the change happens it also changes the landscape and when null sec industry gets a proper boost (which it should) there simply is less need. The changes FORCE people to start doing industry locally, which is good because it helps with populating null, beyond the empty borefest it is atm.


What people need to learn and understand is the difference between short term and long term. Most GOOD design decisions are short term bad because they make everyone rage like a ************, frantically trying to cling to the status quo, while in the long run being the best choice for the game. This is one of those; the whole null sec, industry, jump drives thing is CAUSING the stagnant null gameplay (which is only enjoyed by grind/carebears). People have been asking CCP for years to change it (and for good reason) but to change it fundamentally and properly it's going to be a short term mess and there'll be a whole lot of things that will become more difficult (because they were part of the problem) but in the end it'll be worth it.



James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Oh I guess that settles it then, Gregor Parud the NPC alt created October of last year understands the necessity of nerfing jump drives and CCP should listen to his wisdom garnered from extensive experience on the subject.



Apparently yes, because on this subject you're quite biased it seems. Also, if people have to resort to calling out a character's age you just know they ran out of arguments.


Power projection as we currently have it is bad because it makes the game world smaller, while allowing large groups to adapt way too quickly. See the blue donut.
#1723 - 2014-05-21 14:07:49 UTC
Tippia wrote:
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 — 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.


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 .
#1724 - 2014-05-21 14:11:23 UTC
Aureus Ahishatsu wrote:
Tippia wrote:
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 — 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.


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 .


No he just applies basic logic and reasoning.
#1725 - 2014-05-21 14:14:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
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 — 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.
#1726 - 2014-05-21 14:18:31 UTC
Gregor Parud wrote:
Power projection as we currently have it is bad because it makes the game world smaller, while allowing large groups to adapt way too quickly. See the blue donut.


Yeah, you are right, sov holding corporations/alliances are way too safe and there is no conflict about sov. Just ask TEST, erm AAA, no, wait Solar , damn, IRC ,no, not those, EMP, **** it, any NPC corp member, they will confirm the blue donut.
Gallente Federation
#1727 - 2014-05-21 14:21:37 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Adrien Crosse wrote:

You're right - there is.

But a straight numbers nerf does nothing to address that - a straight numbers nerf just pisses people off.

Everyone who uses jump freighters now will keep on using them and just roll the additional cost down the chain to whoever may sit farther down, be that buyers for industrialists, customers for Black Frog or whoever else.

A nerf to jump freighters can only make sense if it comes coupled with deeper mechanics changes that offer viable, fun alternatives to using them, because escorted freighter runs aren't that, and depending on titan bridging for freighters isn't helping the "power projection bad" or "smaller groups in null good" mantras either.


I'll go ahead and ask this one again.

How do you make hauling fun?

Because the last few people have said things like "well make it so I can't get ganked", or "make freighters better than before", which is not an answer, just a wishlist you will never achieve.

So how do you make hauling fun? If you can't, then the answer is that it will never be fun. But whether it can or it can't, it MUST be balanced.


Thats a loaded question - just like "how do you make mining fun? (without making it tedious to those who do it as a profession)", and I can't answer it, as I'm not a game designer and haven't spent much time thinking about it because its fine to me as it is.

One thing that isn't particularly fun is being at the receiving end of a turkey shoot, with the only way to really avoid it is to plan ahead and do ones best to not have it happen in the first place.

A possible, albeit brainfarty and not well thought out, solution would be to make ganks more frequent and less costly to the ganker, but give haulers means to defend themselves and come out ahead if they're smart, lucky, somewhat skillful, or a combination of the three.

That wouldn't just make hauling more exciting than it is, but also promote ganking as a less niche profession that requires skill rather than numbers.

This idea, or any mechanics change of similar magnitude, is a monstrous thing to balance, but I think its whats necessary to affect the game in the way they want.

Numbers nerfs are in this case nothing but low hanging fruits that may be easy to implement, but ultimately aren't likely to change much in the long term.
#1728 - 2014-05-21 14:23:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Valterra Craven
Gregor Parud wrote:
The changes FORCE people to start doing industry locally, which is good because it helps with populating null, beyond the empty borefest it is atm.
.


I'm not going to lie, I haven't been to null since 2008. That was before JF's and I think slightly before jump bridges. I remember the freighter convoys we had, at least until BoB built its first couple of titans. But you know what wasn't any different? The amount of people in Null. Seriously I remember having to coordinate three different NPC stations worth of t2 comp production 24/7 and that was just for BNC.E. You know how many people real people it took to do that? Less than 15 (alts and such). People keep talking about force projection like its the reason that no one is in null or its the reason more industry doesn't happen in null. Cept the thing is, I was around when those things didn't exist and you know what? Nothing was different. Well that's a lie, one thing was different, people owned less space.

But I am being a bit disingenuous. The big difference between t2 comps and normal manufacturing is that it doesn't require actual effort to acquire the raw mats. I'm sure things would have been different had mats not magically appeared from our POSes every hour. Big difference between having to have actual people mine ore and ice...
C C P Alliance
#1729 - 2014-05-21 14:29:06 UTC
Hey everyone the Op has now been updated with a revised version of the design. As many of you were anticipating, we will be achieving the goal of customizability through low slots instead of rig slots. Big thanks to everyone who has provided reasoned feedback in the thread and special thanks to the CSM.

The most significant issues raised in the thread about the previous version of the design are:
  • The permanence of customizability that relies completely on rigs. As the only classes to have rig slots alone with no fitting slots, Freighters and Jump Freighters would have allowed customization towards a player's most common use cases, but would still lack the very important ability to adjust fittings in response to changing needs and environments.
  • The relative lack of interesting choices for Jump Freighter pilots. Due to the very unique situation of Jump Freighters, they did not receive very significant benefits from any rigs other than cargohold optimization. This is partially an issue with the lack of gameplay around JF use and their near complete safety when used optimally, but it also reflected a lack of good options.

To deal with the first issue, we are making the significant change of providing the goal of customizability through low slots rather than rig slots. Keeping this path balanced requires a few extra tricks but we believe that it will provide a more interesting set of gameplay choices for freighter pilots to make on an everyday basis.
All Freighters and Jump Freighters will receive 3 low slots, and not receive any rig slots. They will have very restrictive powergrid and cpu totals, and a special role bonus that allows the use of Reinforced Bulkhead modules.

In Kronos we are also adding a new set of low-slot warp speed enhancing modules that can be obtained through low-sec exploration. These modules will increase warp speed by a flat addition of 0.2, 0.25 or 0.3 au/s each. We expect that these will be popular modules for use on Freighters.

To help address the lack of interesting options for Jump Freighters, we are planning to introduce a set of jump fuel conservation modules in the Crius release in July. These modules will not be available in Kronos.

So we expect that most Freighter and Jump Freighter pilots will use their three low slots to mix and match the following modules to meet their needs:
  • Expanded Cargoholds
  • Reinforced Bulkheads
  • Hyperspatial Accelerators (warp speed modules)
  • Inertia Stabilizers
  • Overdrive Injector Systems
  • (For certain armor tanking fits) Adaptive Nano Platings
  • (For Jump Freighters) Capacitor Power Relays
  • (For Jump Freighters after the Crius release) Jump Fuel Conservation Modules


The base cargo capacity of Freighters is being decreased so that a set of three Tech Two Expanded Cargoholds adds 21-25% cargo above the previous maximum values. For Jump Freighters, three T2 Expanders will increase cargo capacity by 1-2%.
This means that Freighters can get significantly higher maximum capacity than before using modules, and we're increasing the volume of packaged capital ships (to 1.3 million m3) and unpackaged station containers (to 2 million m3) to compensate.

The base EHP of all Freighters and Jump Freighters is being increased (since Expanded Cargoholds affect freighter hp more than cargo rigs do) and more emphasis is being placed on armor and shield than before (although all Freighters still gain the majority of their hitpoints from hull).

Let us know what you think!

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie

Gallente Federation
#1730 - 2014-05-21 14:30:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Vetium
Wow ... I can see a high activity of freighter gankers here ... it seems they are highly emotionally connected to this topic.

Anyway ... I'm just here to voice my disapproval of this change (not that anybody cares, I know). I can't see any value added to the game, just costs of freighters will higher. That's it.

So, I will wait for modular t3 freighters. Bear

PS: hm, this update just came in, so my immediate thoughts are
- with regards to low slots: hurray for armor tanking freighters and boohoo for shield tanking freighters
- how about a Capital Ancillary Armor repairer then, that should make the life of gankers a little more difficult
Gallente Federation
#1731 - 2014-05-21 14:30:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Adrien Crosse
Gregor Parud wrote:
Adrien Crosse wrote:
You're right - there is.

But a straight numbers nerf does nothing to address that - a straight numbers nerf just pisses people off.

Everyone who uses jump freighters now will keep on using them and just roll the additional cost down the chain to whoever may sit farther down, be that buyers for industrialists, customers for Black Frog or whoever else.

A nerf to jump freighters can only make sense if it comes coupled with deeper mechanics changes that offer viable, fun alternatives to using them, because escorted freighter runs aren't that, and depending on titan bridging for freighters isn't helping the "power projection bad" or "smaller groups in null good" mantras either.


What people need to learn and understand is the difference between short term and long term. Most GOOD design decisions are short term bad because they make everyone rage like a ************, frantically trying to cling to the status quo, while in the long run being the best choice for the game. This is one of those; the whole null sec, industry, jump drives thing is CAUSING the stagnant null gameplay (which is only enjoyed by grind/carebears). People have been asking CCP for years to change it (and for good reason) but to change it fundamentally and properly it's going to be a short term mess and there'll be a whole lot of things that will become more difficult (because they were part of the problem) but in the end it'll be worth it.


Emphasis mine.

I agree with you, but I don't think opening a wound in terms of numbers nerfs and then leaving it there bleeding until some day perhaps one gets around to apply some band-aid and a long term fix that goes well with it isn't a particularly great course of action.

The problem with the change in its current form is that it doesn't force anyone to do anything locally. It just makes importing slightly more expensive.

Edit: Disregard post, need to think through the new changes - thanks Fozzie :)
C C P Alliance
#1732 - 2014-05-21 14:30:47 UTC
I want to take this opportunity to remind people that pre-patch market speculation is never guaranteed and CCP takes no responsibility for any isk lost from speculation.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie

#1733 - 2014-05-21 14:31:29 UTC
Adrien Crosse wrote:

Thats a loaded question - just like "how do you make mining fun? (without making it tedious to those who do it as a profession)", and I can't answer it, as I'm not a game designer and haven't spent much time thinking about it because its fine to me as it is.


It's not a loaded question at all. You specifically said you think there should be "deeper mechanics that offer viable, fun alternatives".

Which is completely asinine if you ask me. There is no "deeper mechanic" for hauling, it's "Get Stuff from point A to point B." That's it, the end. There's no room for "deeper mechanics".

Quote:

One thing that isn't particularly fun is being at the receiving end of a turkey shoot, with the only way to really avoid it is to plan ahead and do ones best to not have it happen in the first place.


Welcome to EVE.

As for the rest, you keep talking in generalities, which are less than worthless right now. I get it, numbers make you angry. But that's what it's come down to right now.

You can talk about "more skillful" all you want, but this is not a flight sim. You don't get to man your turrets to shoot down the ebil pirates.

All you are doing is talking in generalities that don't even apply to this game.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Victoria Sin
#1734 - 2014-05-21 14:31:49 UTC
I've been trying to understand the reasoning behind these changes and for the life of me I just can't. Someone above said this was asked for. Was it? By whom? Some thick twit on the CSM? Who? Why? Where's the logic here? Are you also boosting the material requirements for the rigs so they aren't so retardedly expensive? No? Ok.

Here's what I've got from the changes so far and I'm including all changes to industry for the upcoming patch too: CCP doesn't want me to play the game.

Ok, no problem.

#1735 - 2014-05-21 14:32:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Aureus Ahishatsu
Tippia wrote:
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 — 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.


I guess if you're jumping this thing non stop it will be nice. Mine is rather circumstantial. A jump freighter that takes only an hour and a half to make the distance that used to take 2 hours is irrelevant for me at least as i'm still gonna set that sh*t to autopilot then go see a movie lol.

edit: typed jump freighter, meant just a regular freighter.
Goonswarm Federation
#1736 - 2014-05-21 14:33:15 UTC
:masterstroke:

The 'do-nothing' member of the GoonSwarm Economic Warfare Cabal

The edge is REALLY hard to see at times but it DOES exist and in this case we were looking at a situation where a new feature created for all of our customers was being virtually curbstomped by five of them

#1737 - 2014-05-21 14:34:10 UTC
Sipphakta en Gravonere wrote:
Gregor Parud wrote:
Power projection as we currently have it is bad because it makes the game world smaller, while allowing large groups to adapt way too quickly. See the blue donut.


Yeah, you are right, sov holding corporations/alliances are way too safe and there is no conflict about sov. Just ask TEST, erm AAA, no, wait Solar , damn, IRC ,no, not those, EMP, **** it, any NPC corp member, they will confirm the blue donut.



Power projection is what creates massive coalitions resulting in boring, stagnant gameplay and empty space. Just because there's *some* stuff happening doesn't mean it's not a borefest. If you can't understand this then I don't know what to tell you.
#1738 - 2014-05-21 14:35:40 UTC
Lol wow, I get to say it again.

Called it.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

A Band Apart.
#1739 - 2014-05-21 14:37:00 UTC
I like it.





So any chance for Q-ships in the future? Twisted

2-3 highs, with 2 turret/launchers, (large or capital size) 6 mids/lows, racially spread, with about half the fitting of a BS or Dread depending on size gun. ( oh and when not targeted turrets blend in the hull, and ship has role bonus to ship scanners.)
#1740 - 2014-05-21 14:37:09 UTC
So all JF pilots will carry the fuel modules for the jump but otherwise be using alternate options while moving items around HighSec?

Turelus CEO Utassi Security

Forum Jump