Welcome to Jester's Trek.
I'm your host, Jester. I've been an EVE Online player for about six years. One of my four mains is Ripard Teg, pictured at left. Sadly, I've succumbed to "bittervet" disease, but I'm wandering the New Eden landscape (and from time to time, the MMO landscape) in search of a cure.
You can follow along, if you want...

Sunday, May 18, 2014

Movin' on up

Bonus Quote of the Week goes to CCP Fozzie, who has released information about the changes to freighter and jump freighter stats. Those stats came with a quite dramatic reduction in base freighter and JF cargo capacity. Now, freighter capacity has always been a little bit absurd; it's pretty easy to get yourself into trouble, the amount you can fit into them. On the other hand, jump freighters have always been the one and only viable way to get large amounts of cargo into null-sec. And the smaller your null-sec alliance is, the more that you have to rely on them.

After all, as much as EVE devs sometimes pine for the bad old days of freighter escort ops, ain't nobody want to do that in today's EVE of the ever-present hot drop or black ops drop. The game that made those ops viable is long, long gone. These days, any freighter escort op of more than one jump would be a more than adequate target for a large super-cap hot-drop.

So the nerf was quite a shocker and it didn't take very long at all for people to figure out that with this dramatic reduction in jump freighter cargo capacity, the only real viable rigging choice was going to be cargo rigs of either the T1 or T2 variety. And to match current JF capacity, you'd need the T2s. These go for about 725 million a pop and are based on a pretty thin supply line dependent on a single type of salvage, Single-crystal Superalloy I-beams. Needless to say, the market for this material has gone a little nuts (I cheerfully admit I invested in it myself, once the changes were completely public):


Prices of this type of salvage have increased by a factor of more than ten and volumes have gone completely insane, thousands of them changing hands per day where a few hundred were more typical before. Using today's blueprints, each JF will consume about 260 units of this material, which means there are about 40 JFs worth on the Jita market just now. Spending the coin will result in between a 1% and a 4% increase in JF capacity according to this excellent spreadsheet I spotted on Reddit. The alternative is to go with T1 rigs which will result in a 4.5% to 7% loss in capacity, along with a very small reduction in tank and a 20% increase in align time.

The net result: rigs on JFs means that both align time and cargo capacity have been nerfed, and rigs will fix one or the other. If you, Solomon-like, try to use one rig for each you end up with about a 25% reduction in cargo and a 10% increase in align time. Not exactly a good compromise. So JF pilots are left with one choice: fit the cargo rigs and eat the align nerf and slight tank nerf.

To all of this, Fozzie said the following:
...yes, the fact that this is a small reduction in Jump Freighter power is completely intended.
OK, then! Been taking lessons from CCP Greyscale, have we? ;-) Fozzie's usually much more nuanced than this. This was demonstrated after the thread ballooned to a few dozen pages in 12 hours, and he added:
I'm seeing some good feedback about the unique role of Jump Freighters meaning that they don't get much benefit from rigs other than cargo rigs, and this is indeed a problem that limits player choice. I'm going to bring up a few ways to help solve that issue with the other designers early next week.
The response to this much more Fozzie-like addition was wags who instantly started clamoring for rigs that reduce fuel consumption or increase jump range, if CCP wanted to give them choices. ;-)

Anyway, to me the interesting bit to all of this is how it pretty much drives right into the meta-arguments about EVE class warfare and large null-sec blocs. First, we have jump fuel consumption for all jump-capable ships being greatly increased, then we have jump freighter capacity being nerfed. Therefore, those hiding behind every bush who see large null-sec blocs benefiting from these changes unfortunately have had a pretty lovely piece of evidence thrown at your feet. After all, big alliances are likely going to shrug, buy their logistics chain pilots the T2 rigs, and come out of this change with 4% increased capacity for those logistics chains. Then they'll shrug again and buy them the larger piles of isotopes needed with their rental income.

Meanwhile, small alliances and solo players will be stuck with either a cargo reduction or a 1.45 billion ISK bill. And they'll have to pay it while also being hit in the wallet with those very same isotope costs. Likely, they'll grumble and go T1. Which means that big alliances are seeing a buff, and only small alliances are seeing a nerf. Oh, and no points for guessing that the prices of topes are also going up...


EVE players bought a billion units of the four types of fuel the day Fozzie announced those changes. With a B. With another 300 million units or so selling per day since then. So if you haven't already stockpiled your strategic reserve for the future at the lower isotope costs, I'm afraid it's three weeks too late.

Now, in all fairness, CSM8 discussed the concept of freighter and JF rigs with CCP before our term ended and we were enthusiastic about the idea of customizable freighters and JFs. The idea of having players choose between a freighter with a large cargo hold, a freighter that aligned much quicker than average, or a freighter that might actually be able to tank some damage during ganks was highly appealing. But that was the concept, not the numbers. I'll be interested to see what CSM9 members say about their impressions of the numbers.

mynnna and Sugar Kyle have already weighed in. Their differing perspectives are enlightening to say the least and I encourage you to read them. About CSM8, I often said that members had different opinions and if those opinions disagreed strongly, sometimes we would argue them in front of the devs, who found such back-and-forth valuable. It's clear as crystal that something like that happened with this change. For those curious, my opinion aligns more or less with Sugar's.

Finally, all of this caused a wag on Reddit to joke...
If the measure of how well you're doing at EVE Online is the number of tears you can harvest in a given unit of time, then CCP Fozzie can now quit EVE. He's won. Game over, the highest score has been achieved.
And that brings me to the funniest bit of this of all. This mini-threadnaught is all about what is -- at the end of the day -- a 4.5% cargo capacity nerf and six additional seconds to align. It certainly drives home how much all of us value our :numbers:, don't you think?

59 comments:

  1. Thank you, Jester, for getting the blog back on a topic of *real* merit, worthy of heated discussion. Now, let's stay away from any more ESO update, shall we? At least, until after Kronos goes live, eh?

    Next, how about a look at that new (and, IMHO, still useless) DST, which Fozzie is proposing?

    Fozzie really was hot sh*t with the PVP ships, but is proving to be not quite so hot on the non-PVP ships, don't you think?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unfortunately for you, there are both ESO and KSP posts in the pipeline. Given that I'm on track for a 55- or 60-post month, I have no sympathy for you if you don't like those posts. Don't read 'em. ;-)

      As for DSTs, I've been staring and staring at those proposed changes, not quite believing them. It kinda reminds me of a time three or four years ago when CCP Soundwave joked CCP would throw a bunch of changes at the wall and see what stuck. I can't imagine a more random set of buffs.

      Delete
    2. KSP, I can live with. At least those are spaceships. ESO is admittedly painful.

      Delete
    3. It is pretty obvious that Fozzie has never spent much, if any, time in the game flying a DST, nor freighters/JFs.

      Hopefully, because of his lack of experience in this area of game play, he will be even more receptive to being guided by what the players are saying in the blogs/forums and less stubborn about sticking to his current plan.

      Another Greyscale/SonicLover, with the attitude that "I'm always right and the players are always wrong", we do not need.

      Delete
    4. KSP devs ran into a problem similar to Incarna, but they caught themselves before shipping v.24.

      They had a highly anticipated feature in testing, the contracts system (Incarna analogy: walking in stations) but some of the gameplay one might expect - budgeting your space program and spending the contract income, was scheduled for later (Incarna analogy: places to walk to, and stuff to do there.)

      Fortunately, KSP's problem is nowhere near the amount of work that would have been required to flesh out Avatar Gameplay in EVE, and so I have high hopes that this will be a ~relatively~ short delay, for the planned feature work to be brought forward. Its awesome that they have leveled with the player base about the situation.

      http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/content/279-0-24-Update-Update
      (Forums will be offline for a few days, for a site upgrade starting May 22)

      Delete
  2. Unfortunately, using those cargo rigs also comes with an armor penalty, which nerfs the tanks on non-Caldari freighters & JFs even more now since Fozzie also moved a chunk of HP from structure to armor.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anyway, to me the interesting bit to all of this is how it pretty much drives right into the meta-arguments about EVE class welfare for large null-sec blocs.

    There, fixed that for you.

    Power projection also includes logistics. But ever since CSM 5 breathed about nerfing jump bridges - we've seen the powers of Null defend their privileges; and overturn possible re-balance. How odd that Drones can be nerfed within six months - yet Sov has remained the broken end game for years. I'll just add JF to the list with Siphons and ESS as the protection racket is maintained by the influential.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I'm glad my spreadsheet is proving useful :)

    By the by, the isotope consumption change has been punted to July.

    ReplyDelete
  5. This is a knife in the side of freighter pilots. The CSM and CCP have put nosec transport out of the reach of most EVE players. The cost is simply going to be too high. The same goes for the logistics wings of corporations dedicated to noobs. Someone has to absorb transport costs, and the one group that will never include is noobs.

    The one great thing about freight corps was that made it EVE more egalitarian. These changes fuck that completely. Maybe you'll take some time to actually run those numbers on the basis not of ship stats, but actual cost to run freight. You're looking at costs to run the ship, not the cost to run the ship for others. Logistic transport is dependent on rewarding those who do the work and make the investment. To pay them, reward their risk, the time investment, the alt cyno accounts (plex, plex, plex at ever increasing costs), and run the ship is going to be an insane amount of ISK. The current cost to run a load to 37S in Stain is 265million. To Great Wildlands, 195million. Expenses will increase because of this. That will put Stain firmly in the realm of 300 to 350 million and GW at 250million. To put it another way, that's a third to a half of a PLEX.

    At the same time, the cost of JFs themselves has been creeping ever upward. Defenses will be going down. Align times are up, warp times are up. In every way imaginable, freighting has been fucked.

    You were supposed to look out for us. Some lobbyist.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Punch in the kidneys maybe, not a knife in the side.
      Keep on running the numbers, don't trust the masses.

      Delete
    2. And you're raging at the wrong person. CSM9 -> that way.

      As I said right in the post, the concept of this was shared with CSM8, not the numbers. Had I seen the numbers, I would have argued against them. That said, it seems clear that CSM9 members did argue against them and they were over-ruled, likely by Fozzie. That happens sometimes.

      Thus, the quote I quoted.

      Delete
  6. Actually, these "rigging freighters and JFs to allow them choices" is wrong. You CAN'T give freighter pilots choices, unless you call "fit small lasers to a Rokh" a "meaningful choice".

    They could just make a a 40% freighter EHP buff and a halved cargo space, that would save the rig costs to the players.

    Of course - just like we see battleships with small guns - we will see lot of idiots on the killboards with cargo rigs.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Maybe the point of the change is to reduce the amount of hauling?

    ReplyDelete
  8. .. these changes fit right in with CCPs new 'farm & fields' strategy.

    ReplyDelete
  9. This will only cement the need for null sec industry.
    It will also slow down the economy 6 seconds extra align time will make it easier to catch freighters going to low sec meaning jumpfreighters are now manatory in low and null sec.
    An other hit to low sec industry... .
    High sec hauling just got even more slower and boring then before.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Hello Jester,
    You cheerfully admit having invested in that type of salvage material the day it's been made public. Did you already know, as a former csm member, that this resource would be involved in that rebalance pass?
    More generally, do you guys, part of the csm, have a code of conduct to respect regarding speculation and nda-protected information?

    Thank you

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And what about all the CSM members' friends and alts that have been quietly buying up stock weeks or months before. If CCP can't nail the bulk of RMT, does anyone seriously think they track what people buy scattered across webs of friends and friends' alts.

      Delete
    2. CSM members are not allowed to profit by things that we learn that are NDA'ed until those changes are made public. Larkonis Trassler was famously removed from the CSM for breaking this rule a few years back. The finances and inventories of CSM members are periodically audited to make sure this isn't being done.

      However, there is no ethical code of conduct for CSM members whatsoever. CSM members can be as evil as any other EVE player and indeed can use their position to be even more evil. Mittens famously ran a supercap third party service scam during his time as CSM chair, for instance, and Darius III famously scammed for votes directly.

      To answer your coy little question, there is nothing at all preventing mynnna or anyone else from driving people toward hugely unprofitable investments (hinting that those investments would be made profitable by future changes to the game) and then laughing up his sleeve at any who fall for them. That said, there's no evidence that I've seen that he's ever followed such a strategy.

      Delete
    3. @ Jester.

      You say that CCP periodically audits the accounts of CSM members. Does that include alts? If it does, how does CCP know what alt accounts belong to a CSM member? And what about friends of the CSM member?

      I don't think anyone is naive enough to believe that mynnna does not relay back to the goon economic warfare team every change weeks before it is announced.

      Delete
    4. It includes alts and corps owned or directed by alts.

      Example: at one point during the CSM8 term, a dev made a reference to something that I had stored in a cargo can owned by my alt corp in a office hangar.

      CCP has VERY good tools to link the movement of ISK and assets around different characters.

      Delete
    5. So, member of CSM in position of leadership in alliance or corporation is free to plan and prepare for any changes in advance and make a move right after news of that change go public?

      Delete
    6. Sankey diagrams. Let it flow; to the eyes and the ears of The Verse.

      Delete
    7. Yes, once a change is made public, a CSM member can compete on the market along with everyone else.

      Delete
    8. "Yes, once a change is made public, a CSM member can compete on the market along with everyone else." - Jester

      And, ofc, there is nothing that prevents a CSM member from "getting ready" to take advantage of a yet-unannounced change, by moving ISK into the wallet or positioning alts n Jita and other hub systems.

      Delete
    9. Market is not that important when you have both COO and CFO on CSM like goons do now. Alliance can have advantage of preparation and first move without breaking the NDA. Plus, having more than one representative would allow, in theory, "burning" one to exploit some feature and retain a representative.

      I'd say CCP should have started thinking about getting rid of CSM in it's current form.

      Delete
  11. What use are tanking rigs on a freighter anyway? If it gets caught it is dead anyway.... .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, a hull-tanked freighter will have less capacity, thus making it a potentially less lucrative target, while at the same time increasing the expenditures necessary to bring it down.

      Delete
    2. What Marc said. A freighter with a much more significant tank would be less viable as a suicide-ganking target. Right now, you can generally carry about a billion ISK in a freighter safely because it costs two billion ISK in ships to kill one. Since the drop rate is 50%, a billion ISK in cargo is the break-even point for a gank.

      A larger tank would increase the cost of ships needed to make the kill.

      All bets are off during Burn Jita, of course. Goons only rarely care the value of what they kill at those times.

      Delete
    3. If it cost 2 billion in ships to gank one freighter, wouldn't the break-even point be 4 billion in cargo?

      Delete
    4. Blah, sorry. I posted that way too early in the morning to be thinking clearly. It costs 500 million in ships (usually Taloses) to gank a freighter, not two billion. Before posting, wake up entirely. ;-)

      Delete
  12. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. [deleted and reposted 'cause I kant' spel for crap...]

      Interesting... I'm no Industrialist, I just do PI for POS fuel and profit and as I live in Anoikis, I do have a lot of experience with both the Blockades and DSTs not so much the larger boats.

      As for the freighter and J-freighter changes... well, it looks to me like CCP is trying to mix things up. Once players find ways to make things they wish to protect 'safe' from other players, it looks like CCP is trying to make things 'unsafe'.

      Though I feel Ripard is right and the largest nullsec entities will just eat the cost and turn it into a nerf and the smaller ones will feel the pain a lot more. I am wondering how this will affect people like Red Frog Freight etc.

      The over all 'EVE class warfare and large null-sec blocs' issues really all stem from the simple fact that nullsec is too lucrative. The amounts of ISK they have available far exceed reason as far as I am concerned. Players in nullsec should have to work for a living, same as the rest of us. But I don't have a clue how to do that without just nerfing null ISK faucets... and CCP seems to be unable to consider that. I am beginning to truly wonder if they actually realize just how badly out of balance incomewise nullsec is compared to the rest of the playerbase?

      That said, from a wormholer's point of view, I am overall quite happy with the Blockade and DST changes... and look forward to putting them to good use.

      Delete
  13. I think the JF and Freighter changes need to be postponed. I think that this is to much of an overall nerf and doesn't allow flexabilty for players not aligned to giant bloc's.

    I think if they want to introduce more options with meaningful choices they would have to include fitting slots as well as rigs. Which of course would be a bigger and much harder to balance change but would give small groups a lot more options without having to spend billions to change fittings in sunk costs. Or just take the nerf. Sure some players can afford to buy 3 freighters and T2 rigs for their JF but not many. I would bet many Freighter pilots are still working off the cost of just bugying the Freighter or JF.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When I learned about rigs for freighters, I thought, literally:

      "the sensible, simple way to do that would be to add a single rig slot and let players try their luck with fitting it...

      ...but it's CCP, sure they will figure an overcomplicated way to fuck players actually using those ships"

      And here we are.

      Delete
  14. Ishtanchuk FazmaraiMay 19, 2014 at 5:55 AM

    CCP Seagull said:

    "both small groups and solo players are very important in the design work we are doing now and to our vision for the future of EVE."

    Freighter pilots just noticed it.

    ReplyDelete
  15. In affect the only choice is Armour or Shield rigs depending on the freighter you use and cargo rigs for the JF's. T2 for the major alliances and T1's for poor scrubs like me, who will at this point look at wormholes as they way to move stuff around with the new ships.

    But what is noticeable, that my style of play as an independent in NPC 0.0 is being squeezed all the time, I have now come to the don't care way of thinking, as my alternative to being forced to join the sov 0.0 crowd is actually Star Citizen, orginally I planned to keep my Eve accounts, but I am not so sure now...

    Dracvlad

    ReplyDelete
  16. CCP Fozzie has just made JFs and freighters even more expensive. I don't suppose CCP would consider making them cheaper to account for this. Cheaper hull costs would be a fair nerf to suicide ganking.

    ReplyDelete
  17. So Ripard states there typically back and forths on this type of change.
    In this case, the null sec cartel lobbyist is for the change, the low sec lobbyist is against it, and the supposed high sec lobbyist apparently has his thumb up his ass.

    And where does CCP come down in this? Big surprise, in favour of the null sec cartels. Every day it becomes more clear that the idiots deciding on the direction of Eve are sycophants of Any Rand and the null sec cartels, or terrified of them, or both.

    And a few more high sec players, this time freighter pilots, will watch their ISK / hour take another hit, and say "fuck it, I am outta here". And just wait for the subscription hit when the gank squads, who now need far less critical mass of pilots, gear up. In fact, this hits all of high sec as freight costs across the board just went, while risk also went way up.

    Just another pin in that balloon of bullshit about risk / reward the cartels and their lackeys use to justify their assault on high sec.

    (Don't talk to me about the cartels freight costs going up, as Ripard has already explained this is not even a rounding error for them.)

    ReplyDelete
  18. Does it not make the Freigther use all the same rigs too?

    Cargohold expander decrease armor with 3 fitted doesn't it make them a target even with only 1b of cargohold?

    ReplyDelete
  19. The problem with the freighter changes (not JF) is that the discussion is the same as you highlight here. You say there are 3 choices: tank, cargo, align, but forget the 4th option whose rig drawbacks are significantly lower, warp speed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. At least with freighters we've got four choices. With JFs it's really just one, unless you spend most of your freight time warping to gates.

      Delete
  20. The Frogs have already raised prices in response. They will likely do so again once the patch shakes out. I don't blame them, they're running a business. But this change, along with all the other changes over the past year, is just one more nail in the coffin of the casual player. The isk and time required is getting out of hand.

    I'd like to issue a challenge to Ripard and to the current CSM members: start a noob toon, stay away from your current alliances and all of your assets/isk, and then try to play EVE as a noob with no more than 8 to 15hrs a week. I'm absolutely certain you won't make it 2 months before giving up on the experiment. The old guard simply do not realize how much of a head start they have on the noobs of this current era.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've already stated on this blog that if forced to start over in this game, I wouldn't. Were I starting to play EVE today, I would just join Goons and not look back.

      Delete
    2. "I've already stated on this blog that if forced to start over in this game, I wouldn't." - Jester

      Unfortunately, that is exactly the situation which the industry changes is forcing on the casual industry players. They are certainly not going to move to null sec and start over.

      I'm rather surprised you didn't bring this point up with CCP, while you were in the CSM.

      Delete
    3. @ jester,

      I've got just over a year into this. one toon over 25 mil sp, and the other north of 20. reading that response... I am floored. If that is your honest opinion why isnt the foccus of the CSM year to year a very public push to change those things? How am I supposed to feel knowing I started playing partly from reading your blog about eve. That in this case is an actual question because right now i don't know what i feel, except slightly like I was punched in the gut.

      Teg

      Delete
    4. I DID bring this up to CCP. Lots of times. I've made the point about how terrible this game is for new players so many times I'm sick of talking about it. ;-)

      In particular, Anon1504, you might find the following post of interest:
      http://jestertrek.blogspot.com/2014/01/core-implosion.html

      Delete
  21. I don't see how these changes fit into the "risk vs reward" model.

    Flying a freighter was aready probably one of the least rewarding things you can do in the game, and certainly one of the most boring. I don't think it really needed the added risk.

    Wasn't it bad enough that CCP added the Tier 3 BCs that buffed freighter ganking to an all-time high (see Burn Jita, too), and made it so that you can't use AP any more, even in high-sec?

    Isn't it the same as kicking a man when he's down when CCP added the massive nerf to warp speed for these ships?

    And, now this new series of nerfs to an already painful-to-fly class of ships? Like a bullet to the head, if you ask me.

    I don't get it. Where's the added reward that comes with the added risk? Or does CCP just want to get rid of players who fly these ships?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "risk vs reward" was a lever invented by the goons to justify nerfs on hi-sec, basically it is all about tear extraction.

      when gun mining was at its height, insured suicide ganking and trit sold for less than two isk - not a single word was said about "risk vs reward". anybody that pointed out the poor returns mining ores was basically told to go run missions instead.

      in essence it is a theory crafted version of The Big Lie. plus with kronos and the future; it seems that Industrialists are the only ones being subjected to "risk vs reward".

      POCOs. either pay a tax to someone else (less reward) or own the POCO and risk recs. Materials management; now requires a POS to be competitive - because ore compression is being near essential. yet on the other hand industrial bumping is completely risk free and total reward game play. it is an abused mechanic. note that sentry drones when abused were fixed promptly. now we can see that this nerf to freighters is just another "reward". even isk says that fozzie will do a 180 on JF; because well RvR is a hi-sec thing.

      Delete
  22. Change for the sake of change. Instead of asking why people are upset about 4.5% change in cargo capacity and six seconds of align time, you should be asking why these changes are being made. I'd like to hear how a 4.5% change to cargo space is necessary and what metric is used to justify the change. Is the six seconds of align time that the jump freighters don't need right now somehow breaking the game? I would love to see the justification.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Adding more to my point.... Go over and read the thread about exhumers in the Features & Ideas forum. On page 33-34 it is revealed that after some play on the test server that you can't run all three lasers on the hulk and two invulnerability fields without capping out. These idiots came up with these changes and didn't even test if it would cap the ship out. I find this amazing. Maybe we could replace the CCP devs with a troop of monkey from the local zoo, they could sit around all day throwing their shit at each other and probably come up with ideas that are just as viable.

      Delete
    2. Why would you want to perma-run your tank on a exhumer? Maybe you plan to leave it unattended...? ¬¬

      Delete
    3. Absolutely correct, I plan on AFK mining in a hulk. I must confess, I am guilty.

      Why must you waste your great intellect here on blogspot when you could be out in the world solving the great mysteries of mankind. Go now!

      Delete
    4. It doesn't matter if you are mining AFK or not - you'll still prefer to perma-run your tank, as a defense against a surprise attack.

      You don't get much advanced warning when a ganking attack occurs, and no one can stay on "high alert" for hours - staring at local, watching for blinky reds. And, your active tank exhumer will die very fast, if the invuls are not running.

      Delete
  23. I *do* wish CCP would just come out and say what the long-term goals of the Freighter and JF changes are, because we can kind of see it: force nullsec alliances to import less stuff from highsec. They can seem to bring themselves to say it, though. Not sure why. vOv

    ReplyDelete
  24. You forgot to adress the Giant steaming pile that is hull HP rigs. OF COURSE they have to affect cargo after the tiny minority legion that is gankers whine.

    DPS rigs don't remove Tank
    Tank rigs don't remove DPS
    Cap rigs don't take away fitting
    Fitting rigs don't take away cap.

    So why do cargo rigs nerf tank and *hull* rigs remove tank? With large cargo ships the only things that should be hull tanking.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Not crazy about this particular change, to be honest, but largely because I don't understand what it adds to the game. For somebody who hauls for hire, the whole thing simply sounds like "Please go spend 200mil ISK to partially unbreak your ship. Have fun."

    Rigs are too expensive to swap on per contract basis, so they don't offer any meaningful day-to-day choices. It's set and forget. Rig for volume first and foremost to accommodate most contracts, then do whatever with the rest. I can't imagine +/- 3 Catalysts worth of tank or a few seconds of align making much difference either way.

    Lastly, that 4.5% decrease in cargo doesn't translate to a 4.5% increase in amount of work. If my cargo exceeds my cargo hold capacity by any amount, it's an extra trip. So double the number of jumps and the risk.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I used to run an ice refining business: I'd buy ice cheap in mining systems, freight it somewhere nearby I had standings, melt it down, and once I had a freighterload of isotopes, ship it up to whichever hub had the best prices that day. I used a Fenrir, because the time I had to do it all was limited, so I wanted to get as much done as possible. Unlike Andreas' work-to-hire, I'd happily leave the dregs for next time, so my hauling time scaled with my business volume, and for me, "cubic meters (to Jita) per hour" mattered more than "cubic meters in my hold".

    I'm really not sure yet which freighter I'd use if I restarted, though I intend to run the numbers (since it looks like competition might be dropping out!) but I'm hoping it's the Providence because it is pretty. That's possibly the only ship in EVE I want for aesthetic reasons that costs too much to just have one Because. :)

    ReplyDelete
  27. This may actually need an update - Fozzie announced they were going from rig-based customization to low-slot modules, and then politely trolled everyone who'd gone all-in speculating on capital rigs and components:

    https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4622068#post4622068

    I was reminded of the fall of the brokerage house of Duke and Duke:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8H2FIf1oH4

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.