I’m not. I just chimed in when people seemed to underestimate gankers.
But we’re talking about the type of players who have found ways to delay concord, avoid concord entirely, gank freighters with a single player…
It’s impressive how much the game has changed to keep these folks in check.
That’s how you plan when you haul.
buff this
Nerf that
How about people stop being stupid by carrying many billions in an anti-tanked ship?
Gankers adapted to every nerfs, haulers cried at every buff because they still died like a pack of rats… the issue here is not the ganker killing, it’s the hauler thinking he should be invincible…
I think it should affect the economy and arguably there should be much more suicide ganking for this reason. I too have no numbers supporting this, but the more stuff gets blown up the more the stuff is worth, right?
o/
^^^^^
Right!
And the more dangerous it is to haul stuff, the more money you make hauling.
Well no… it doesn’t become “more dangerous” just you become “less stupid” instead.
I’m talking generally. But i should have said ‘difficult’ and ‘risky’.
I’m going to tell you right now op. Even if freighters had MJDs, it would not solve the problem of being bumped. If you MJD away from the mach, can you align in the time it takes my mach to move 100km? If you MJD away, can you align in time before my second machariel warps in? No. You more than likely can’t.
Seems like people forget they keep on going in the direction they were going before they mjd’ed 
Here’s what should be done: release a full line of capital modules for all module types that capitals use. Make capitals get only half the bonuses from sub-cap modules. No more officer-spamming on supercaps. You’re in Pandemic Legion and this will make you want to sell your supercarrier? Too bad.
Now add a stacking penalty to cargo expanders and fix cargoholds to match, so that the max cargohold with expanders is roughly the same as before, but the minimum is a lot higher now. Do this for ALL ships, not just industrials. Cruisers should now have a larger cargohold than destroyers, and battleships should actually be able to hold more than just ammo. Might actually want to take them on fleets now just because you can loot on the way. Somebody will use battleships as haulers? That’s actually great, but I don’t believe it.
Now–and here’s the good part–freighters get a full loadout of slots. Reduce their hit points a bit maybe, and give them enough CPU for these slots, and a few thousand MW of powergrid. They “count” as capital ships so they can fit stuff like capital cargo expanders or capital shield hardeners or capital bulkheads or that wonderful capital damage control. It’ll quickly tax their powergrid, though, because those things will cost like a thousand MW each. Can’t get a big cargohold with subcap expanders on your tanked freighter? Too bad, so sad.
Positive effects of this change:
Negative effects of this change:
Negative effects that won’t happen:
All the freighter fittings and EHP in the world won’t save you from a single determined Machariel pilot…
So then there’s no problem with giving these things, yes?
Also, in regards to increasing activity/defense options for industrialists, I propose a full line of combat/industrial hybrid ships, less good at hauling or mining or whatever they do, but also okay in combat. Stuff like the Procurer. I picture haulers with launcher hardpoints, mining cruisers with combat bonuses, maybe a mining battleship with a lot of combat flexibility. Thing is, I don’t think most industrialists would use these ships. I’d use them for sure, but I don’t think most would. Most industrialists are the kind of folk who will take their damage control off to fit one more MLU on their Mackinaw, or forego warp stabs on their Epithal just to squeeze in more inertial stabilizers to make it go faster.
But maybe I’m wrong. One way to find out. I say if carebears want to claim they have teeth, give them teeth slots. No get out of jail free cards. Guns are your defense, and I say you shall have them if you want them.
Again, you can’t legally aggress a bumping Mach in high sec. Whether I outright gank a mining ship, or bump them 100km out of the belt, the end goal is still achieved. They aren’t getting a damn thing mined. And if they are stupid enough to attack, then Concord nukes their barge, battleship, etc… and they come right back to the forum to whine. Again…
They already have the ability to mine in battleships, they just refuse to do it because it can’t be AFK’d…
We’re talking about high-sec!? Do you mean to tell me someone is complaining that freighters need a MJD for safety in high-sec!?
See, a mining cruiser would solve this whole thing with your Machariel, because its high agility makes it hard to bump out, while it’s still big enough to have both mining rate and capacity. Heck, even a Procurer can probably stay in mining range–I speculate–but a cruiser definitely can. So when someone in a Hulk or something whines that they can’t possibly mine with you around, you can just remind them that they don’t have to fly a Hulk. Everyone wins.
No mining ship can stay in range when the player is AFK, and 99% of them are…
Then there’s no problem. So you support my suggestions, yes?
let command destroyers jump freighters off 100km then to counter the freighter mjd… if they dont already
Orbiters can but those wouldn’t be very safe when a gank comes.
Can you show us?
Now I know that was just an example, but there must be a basis for claiming that Freighters need all this fitting capability.
So where’s the evidence of a problem that needs this broad a change?
I was picturing that with the change I suggested, Impels would get used more and for that reason would be more likely to be ganked, yet there would be people who whine on the forums that it’s now impossible to gank Impels just because they can finally tank and haul as well as the Bustard always could.
The problem is as detailed in my section about the positive benefits. The problem we have today is not having these positive benefits.