Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 .. 13 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 22 post(s) |
|
CCP FoxFour
C C P C C P Alliance
859
|
Posted - 2012.11.11 12:32:00 -
[331] - Quote
David Zahavi wrote:Aphatasis wrote:OK, here some thinkings:
Only the character flying the ship can remove the containers: - What if the container-size is bigger than the real cargo of the ship? 3k m-¦ container in the corp hangar of a supercarrier => u need a pos to remove it or move it to another carrier. Or can u just "jettison" the container right out of the corp hangar?
If u have a container with (let's say) 25k m-¦ in a titan to store things like your named turrets, bridge mod, dd mod and it's full, so have to put stuff in the public corp hangar where it can be stolen. But if u have fitted most/all the mod of the large sizes, then the container is nearly empty, but public there are only 75k m-¦ avaiable cause the empty container need the space.
Why not: Make 2 tabs, private and public area. so u don't need to bring containers to the supers.
And: Will the pilot be able to rename the container on their own? ATM u can't and have to bring container to a station to rename it.
Will ships in the ship maintainance bays dropp too if the carrier/supercarrier/titan/rorqual/orca get's destroyed? If not, y not?
Awesome thing on the removing of the fitting-service-limitation. Was one of the most useless things i ever encountered when i got my first carrier! This. So much this. Why isnt this getting a response? This container situation is a very limiting and tedious factor to be added into the game, and seems very sub-optimal. If you're going to implement something new, do it right the first time, and don't make the situation worse.
I will pass a link to this post along to the guys working on this. Content Designer | Team Five 0 @regnerBA |
|
Myxx
Prostitutes Are Always Wlling
627
|
Posted - 2012.11.12 05:07:00 -
[332] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Ok, so here's our current complete plan:
- Corp hangars *on ships* are now fleet hangars
- Volumes will all stay the same
- Divisions are gone, as is any other reliance on corp roles
- Ship fitting array is always available to everyone in your corp and/or your fleet
- Ship fitting arrays on ships and starbases no longer restrict the number of characters that can use them simulataneously
- Fleet hangars and ship maintenance arrays on ships both now have "allow fleet member use" and "allow corp member use" in the inventory UI
- We're adding five new non-compressive containers (from 250k m3 down to 1k m3)
- For containers in a fleet hangar, only the pilot will ever be allowed to open or remove the container; other characters will only be able to drop into the container (with a warning)
- Fleet hangars will now behave like normal cargo hold when it comes to ship scanners and loot drops (ie, will be scannable, and loot will drop from them)
We're hoping this will be the final set of adjustments, but obviously we're reading the feedback here :) -Greyscale Have you ever *flown* a carrier or another capital before? |
Rommiee
Mercury Inc.
501
|
Posted - 2012.11.12 12:54:00 -
[333] - Quote
Myxx wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:Ok, so here's our current complete plan:
load of rubbish...
We're hoping this will be the final set of adjustments, but obviously we're reading the feedback here :)
-Greyscale Have you ever *flown* a carrier or another capital before?
Anyone who has flown a Capital ship in combat would know this. It really is no-brainer. It is pretty clear that the Devs that are pushing this fiasco have never done that. If they had, they would not have entertained this idea, even for a second. Poncing around in a Super on SISI, really isnGÇÖt the same. Seriously.
ItGÇÖs another example of CCP GÇ£fixingGÇ¥ something, where the result is far more cumbersome, time consuming and annoying than before the said GÇ£fixGÇ¥.
Okay, so the code was messed up, if you are not prepared to put in the work to sort out new code without losing functionality then leave it alone. I know full well the complexities of Corp Management, and it does need looking at, but not at the expense of losing a function that is fundamental in Cap warfare
This really is the worst idea you have come up with since the Unified Inventory. Look how that worked out, it still isn't finished months later.
Please stop being such asshats and LISTEN to us about the divisions having to stay. Containers just do not give the same functionality.
If you can't do it, then leave it in its current state until you can.
|
Pierced Brosmen
Obstergo Exhale.
106
|
Posted - 2012.11.12 13:18:00 -
[334] - Quote
Rommiee wrote:If you can't do it, then leave it in its current state until you can. We said that about the unified inventory while it was in this stage before release and we know how that went... Don't expect this to be any different.
However, the affect this has for the orca pilots, it will be interesting to see how many expensive orca ganks that will follow the patch due to people being ignorant of what gets changed and how that may affect them. Ulitmately this might further boost the business for the few specialized freight corps in New Eden.
|
CaptainFalcon07
Caucasian Culture Club Transmission Lost
40
|
Posted - 2012.11.13 03:39:00 -
[335] - Quote
NO to Containers CCP.
We want Divisions, Not some containers to replace them.
This is a sloppy and lazy idea. |
Rommiee
Mercury Inc.
503
|
Posted - 2012.11.13 13:10:00 -
[336] - Quote
Pierced Brosmen wrote:Rommiee wrote:If you can't do it, then leave it in its current state until you can. We said that about the unified inventory while it was in this stage before release and we know how that went... Don't expect this to be any different.
Yeah, I know. I was one of the many people giving feedback on SiSi, all of which were subsequently ignored.
Nothing changes. So much for Hilmar's apology after the CQ disaster, promising that the new CCP would actually listen to the playerbase, and not just pretend to.
|
nikon56
UnSkilleD Inc. Reverberation Project
7
|
Posted - 2012.11.13 13:40:00 -
[337] - Quote
Rommiee wrote:Myxx wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:Ok, so here's our current complete plan:
load of rubbish...
We're hoping this will be the final set of adjustments, but obviously we're reading the feedback here :)
-Greyscale Have you ever *flown* a carrier or another capital before? Anyone who has flown a Capital ship in combat would know this. It really is no-brainer. It is pretty clear that the Devs that are pushing this fiasco have never done that. If they had, they would not have entertained this idea, even for a second. Poncing around in a Super on SISI, really isnGÇÖt the same. Seriously. ItGÇÖs another example of CCP GÇ£fixingGÇ¥ something, where the result is far more cumbersome, time consuming and annoying than before the said GÇ£fixGÇ¥. Okay, so the code was messed up, if you are not prepared to put in the work to sort out new code without losing functionality then leave it alone. I know full well the complexities of Corp Management, and it does need looking at, but not at the expense of losing a function that is fundamental in Cap warfare This really is the worst idea you have come up with since the Unified Inventory. Look how that worked out, it still isn't finished months later. Please stop being such asshats and LISTEN to us about the divisions having to stay. Containers just do not give the same functionality. If you can't do it, then leave it in its current state until you can. nothing more to add. CCP, go fly a carrier in combat, or listen to us.
this idea is BAD, bite the bullet, get rid of it.
or this will end up worse than the unified inventory (wich is still, many month later, a F***G pain in the butt to use)
roles need to be assigned to fleet hangar divisions. period. |
nikon56
UnSkilleD Inc. Reverberation Project
7
|
Posted - 2012.11.13 13:42:00 -
[338] - Quote
Pierced Brosmen wrote:Rommiee wrote:If you can't do it, then leave it in its current state until you can. We said that about the unified inventory while it was in this stage before release and we know how that went... Don't expect this to be any different. However, the affect this has for the orca pilots, it will be interesting to see how many expensive orca ganks that will follow the patch due to people being ignorant of what gets changed and how that may affect them. Ulitmately this might further boost the business for the few specialized freight corps in New Eden. to be honest, this part make sense, it was not logical that some hangar were not scannable or didn't dropped item |
nikon56
UnSkilleD Inc. Reverberation Project
7
|
Posted - 2012.11.13 13:43:00 -
[339] - Quote
Rommiee wrote:Pierced Brosmen wrote:Rommiee wrote:If you can't do it, then leave it in its current state until you can. We said that about the unified inventory while it was in this stage before release and we know how that went... Don't expect this to be any different. Yeah, I know. I was one of the many people giving feedback on SiSi, all of which were subsequently ignored. Nothing changes. So much for Hilmar's apology after the CQ disaster, promising that the new CCP would actually listen to the playerbase, and not just pretend to. and then came the nified inventory, that nobody wanted but CCP, and here, we are still locked using this bugged peace of crap |
Pierced Brosmen
Obstergo Exhale.
107
|
Posted - 2012.11.13 14:45:00 -
[340] - Quote
nikon56 wrote:Pierced Brosmen wrote:Rommiee wrote:If you can't do it, then leave it in its current state until you can. We said that about the unified inventory while it was in this stage before release and we know how that went... Don't expect this to be any different. However, the affect this has for the orca pilots, it will be interesting to see how many expensive orca ganks that will follow the patch due to people being ignorant of what gets changed and how that may affect them. Ulitmately this might further boost the business for the few specialized freight corps in New Eden. to be honest, this part make sense, it was not logical that some hangar were not scannable or didn't dropped item This is not about cargo being scannable... Hell I'm all for that. The complaint is about the loss of functionality when 7 hangar divisions (wouldn't have to be that many, really) is condensed down to one single open hangar. |
|
nikon56
UnSkilleD Inc. Reverberation Project
8
|
Posted - 2012.11.13 14:48:00 -
[341] - Quote
Pierced Brosmen wrote:nikon56 wrote:Pierced Brosmen wrote:Rommiee wrote:If you can't do it, then leave it in its current state until you can. We said that about the unified inventory while it was in this stage before release and we know how that went... Don't expect this to be any different. However, the affect this has for the orca pilots, it will be interesting to see how many expensive orca ganks that will follow the patch due to people being ignorant of what gets changed and how that may affect them. Ulitmately this might further boost the business for the few specialized freight corps in New Eden. to be honest, this part make sense, it was not logical that some hangar were not scannable or didn't dropped item This is not about cargo being scannable... Hell I'm all for that. The complaint is about the loss of functionality when 7 hangar divisions (wouldn't have to be that many, really) is condensed down to one single open hangar. absolutely, that's why i made the comment just above the one you quoted |
Maraner
The Executioners Capital Punishment.
222
|
Posted - 2012.11.13 20:39:00 -
[342] - Quote
I feel another unified inventory moment coming on.
Oh look... a feature that removes a current option from the game that has not been asked by the player base to be changed.
At the very least the fleet hanger REQUIRES a private / public tab.
I realise CCP wants to make the whole game accessible via a game pad controller interface.
The vast majority of the EVE player base never gets on the test servers and do not check out the test server feedback threads, this change is going to have a RAGE effect upon the player base that have to manage and access corp hangers on a cap on a routine basis. Super cap pilots are just going to love managing their **** with containers (oh and are these containers going to magically appear ready for use in the afore mentioned super cap hangers from day one of this change?)
How exactly are all of the supers out there going to get freight containers in their fleet hangers? Doesn't this require oh a freighter...to bring them out to a super - might not be an issue for the bigger alliances, generally however people tend to try and avoid low sec with their freighters.
Implement a private / public section on the fleet hanger, give us at least two divisions.
Oh and btw, forget the whole idea and leave it as it is. OR learn from the unified inventory debacle and finish what you are doing before you force it on the rest of us and Soundwave ends up having to post a thread that promises to fix what was not broken before an unwanted change is foisted on us. STOP IT. Put new stuff in the game and stop removing the functionality we have now.
Go stick your containers. |
David Zahavi
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
7
|
Posted - 2012.11.14 03:02:00 -
[343] - Quote
I realize you all are trying to clean up the code, and this is one step towards that.
I recognize that this must eventually change for you to be able to touch other code dealing with the terrible terrible mess that is Corp Management.
But this needs to be done right.
Forcing us to use containers in our ships that can't have variable sizes doesnt make any sense. Period.
The current corp hanger can differentiate between the different divisions and still distribute the overall capacity between them.
Why cant that same functionality be retained, with just 2 divisions, Private and Public, irrespective of corp roles. The Pilot of the ship can decide what people can take now, and what people can take later.
Now a bad example... Lets say some super caps, low on fuel b/c some awesome chances at good fights. Now a couple carriers come to rendezvous with extra fuel.
Maybe the fuel isnt for now, (before teh jumps) but for when the pilot is meeting up with other ships stranded without fuel or whatever nonsense they got themselves into. So you would want it private now... public later. So some stupid corp mate doesnt come ruin everything too soon. Currently we assume the roles part of the corp hangers will take care of this. The stupid newb cant touch stuff he doesnt have permissions to.
Why on earth wouldnt this be possible in a game that takes place in the FUTURE... especially when such functionality is available now.
Having to use BOXES inside your BOX makes no sense. With the proposed changes... if I want to fill up my fleet hanger with whatever, lets say fuel, for someone particular... its now PUBLIC and everyone can take it... OR I put it all in boxes, but then nobody else can take it.... unless I put it into their fleet hanger.... as long as theirs isnt also filled with boxes too.
This has so many potentials for tedious situations that don't happen now, why would you cause everything to become worse.
This feels like an outdated decision that will need to be fixed and it hasn't even been implemented yet.
Why bring the game to a pre 2012 state, especially since the year is almost over.
If you're going to fix it, thats fine. But do it right. Please for the love of everything great in New Eden, do it right.
|
AtomYcX
Shadowfire Enterprises Rura-Penthe
0
|
Posted - 2012.11.14 18:55:00 -
[344] - Quote
It's clear to anyone reading the thread that the thing that matters most to everyone is granularity of access control within hangars, the suggestions of using containers and such is quite frankly rediculous. You're planning to release something that you full well know the EVE players - your customers - not only do not want, but will be negatively affected by.
As has been said earlier in the thread, the separation of hangar access from corporation roles is a much needed move, nobody's arguing that fact. You really do need to consider taking the feedback on this thread seriously though - nobody wants what you're offering so far. We don't want to mess around with cans, we don't want on/off access for the entire hangar, we want to be able to control access like we can currently, but better.
Being a developer myself I understand the issues around having to deal with legacy code but in this case it sounds like most of the legacy code around hangars is being removed - why isn't this opportunity being taken to provide the players with a system that would actually make their lives easier? Is there a real and honest technical limitation that means you can't provide a better solution than "use cans", or are you just trying to rush a release?
I think I speak for pretty much everyone who's replied to this thread so far in saying that in an ideal world this is what the replacement for the current system would look like:
A "Configure Hangar/Bay" interface where divisions/folders/sub-hangars - whatever you want to call them - can be specified on a per-ship basis. While we're here, why not let the user create as many divisions as they want (within reason), the number shouldn't matter - the ship's overall hangar capacity would govern the total space available. Each division could then be configured independently, to allow fleet/corp/alliance give and take permission.
I obviously don't know anything about how EVE is coded, and forgive me if I'm missing something, but why couldn't it be implemented like this:
- Player accesses the public hangar on another players ship
- List of user configured divisions for the ship are pulled from the database, along with their access permissions. Something like this if it was in XML:
Dream World Hangar Permissions wrote: GǦDIVISIONSGǦ -á-á-áGǦDIVISIONGǦ -á-á-á-á-á-áGǦDIVISION_INDEXGǦ0GǦ/DIVISION_INDEXGǦ -á-á-á-á-á-áGǦDIVISION_NAMEGǦFleet ModsGǦ/DIVISION_NAMEGǦ -á-á-á-á-á-áGǦACCESS_PERMISSIONSGǦ Where 0 = No Access, 1 = Give Access, 2 = Take Access -á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-áGǦFLEETGǦ2GǦ/FLEETGǦ -á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-áGǦCORPORATIONGǦ2GǦ/CORPORATIONGǦ -á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-áGǦALLIANCEGǦ0GǦ/ALLIANCEGǦ -á-á-á-á-á-áGǦ/ACCESS_PERMISSIONSGǦ -á-á-áGǦ/DIVISIONGǦ -á-á-áGǦDIVISIONGǦ -á-á-á-á-á-áGǦDIVISION_INDEXGǦ1GǦ/DIVISION_INDEXGǦ -á-á-á-á-á-áGǦDIVISION_NAMEGǦSekret StuffGǦ/DIVISION_NAMEGǦ -á-á-á-á-á-áGǦACCESS_PERMISSIONSGǦ -á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-áGǦFLEETGǦ0GǦ/FLEETGǦ -á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-áGǦCORPORATIONGǦ0GǦ/CORPORATIONGǦ -á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-áGǦALLIANCEGǦ0GǦ/ALLIANCEGǦ -á-á-á-á-á-áGǦ/ACCESS_PERMISSIONSGǦ -á-á-áGǦ/DIVISIONGǦ GǦ/DIVISIONSGǦ
- For each user configured division, compare the access privileges to the player accessing the hangar's relationship to the ship owner (fleet/corp/alliance) and apply the relevant UI updates to each division - greying out divisions with no access, not displaying the contents of give only divisions etc.
Just my thoughts on how I'd approach the issue from a design point of view, surely something like this would be possible with a bit of time and effort. You seem to under estimate how much love you'd get from the player base for listening to them and providing a truely well thought out improvement to the current hangar system. Bonus points if you could implement something like the above on a per-hangar basis in POS's too - perhaps with a "Copy access configuration from (list of hangars in POS)" option too |
Salpun
Paramount Commerce
422
|
Posted - 2012.11.16 21:39:00 -
[345] - Quote
Any updates?
The containers are not on Buckingham so I am assuming you are taking a 4th or more crack at the code. Go Devs. |
Vin Hellsing
89
|
Posted - 2012.11.17 04:40:00 -
[346] - Quote
The fact that these ships are likely going to become more ripe targets than usual is hurting my appetite for purchasing my first Orca.
I don't think that's really the the result CCP wants.
And I certainly am getting sick of hearing about highsec ganking. If a freighter gets ganked, and loses 1.5 billion worth of cargo, and the party responsible for the loss isn't punished sufficiently for it, then there is a problem.
This is empire space. Not Wild Space.
Empire Space carries with it a particular connotation, suggesting that those who operate in HighSec should be comfortable in the knowledge that if they are victimized, that there would be an end-result enforced upon the aggressors involving punishment equivalent to the losses incurred by the victim.
However, this has never happened at all in EVE, and I am not the type that appreciates enabling highsec piracy. I want to be able to mine and haul in peace while I work on my homework, for ****'s sake. |
Black Romero
Aviation Professionals for EVE
2
|
Posted - 2012.11.17 07:39:00 -
[347] - Quote
Vin Hellsing wrote:The fact that these ships are likely going to become more ripe targets than usual is hurting my appetite for purchasing my first Orca.
I don't think that's really the the result CCP wants.
And I certainly am getting sick of hearing about highsec ganking. If a freighter gets ganked, and loses 1.5 billion worth of cargo, and the party responsible for the loss isn't punished sufficiently for it, then there is a problem.
This is empire space. Not Wild Space.
Empire Space carries with it a particular connotation, suggesting that those who operate in HighSec should be comfortable in the knowledge that if they are victimized, that there would be an end-result enforced upon the aggressors involving punishment equivalent to the losses incurred by the victim.
However, this has never happened at all in EVE, and I am not the type that appreciates enabling highsec piracy. I want to be able to mine and haul in peace while I work on my homework, for ****'s sake.
Well said.
For #%#$ sake - EVE is already too much like a second job. How many people actually PLAY this game anymore? Why can't hi-sec be hi-sec. Don't make it fricken WOW but don't have it be so tedious as to have to have a group to do ANYTHING in game. Crying out loud - that is all you dev's seem to want to do. Why can't hi-sec be more solo and low be for small gangs and 0.0 be for large groups. Reward with resources in that order. Hisec has little natural resources but safety...0.0 has the most but most risk thus the need for larger group play. The mining changes with hulk's emphacize this - make others that do the same. Have a container (expensive) that can't be scanned. Or a module with high skill reqs that is chance based like a hacking device that can. BALANCE.
Why the buff to gankers? Hi-sec should be hi-sec and for casual players. Not second life. |
Gabriel Braun
Astraea Rising Rebel Alliance of New Eden
0
|
Posted - 2012.11.17 15:13:00 -
[348] - Quote
Vin Hellsing wrote:
This is empire space. Not Wild Space.
Empire Space carries with it a particular connotation, suggesting that those who operate in HighSec should be comfortable in the knowledge that if they are victimized, that there would be an end-result enforced upon the aggressors involving punishment equivalent to the losses incurred by the victim.
However, this has never happened at all in EVE, and I am not the type that appreciates enabling highsec piracy. I want to be able to mine and haul in peace while I work on my homework, for ****'s sake.
Dude, really???
Empire space is protected by the police force who attend a crime scene when an incident is occuring. If you want to mine safely, (and i'm not taking the quafe here) then join an industrial alliance out in nullsec, preferably one you have researched and protect their tennants assets. In reality, I personally believe that concord/security reflects the police of the real world: The police respond to a crime, sometimes they arrive in time to thwart the criminal but sometimes they arrive too late for the victim. Luckly they have a high rate of success in bringing justice to the agressors. on the other hand, null-sec alliances are equivalent to national armed forces: If they can't stop an enemy incursion then everyone is equally humped :D
I'm not saying one is better than the other, just that they have different contexts.
Personally speaking though I really can't wait for the new bounty system to tie high, low and null together... Till the CBs QQ and it's nerfed back ;) |
Rengerel en Distel
Amarr Science and Industry
508
|
Posted - 2012.11.17 17:11:00 -
[349] - Quote
Vin Hellsing wrote: However, this has never happened at all in EVE, and I am not the type that appreciates enabling highsec piracy. I want to be able to mine and haul in peace while I work on my homework, for ****'s sake.
How about when you're playing a game, you play the game? If you want to do your homework, do your homework, then play the game. Asking for the game to be safe while you afk and do something else is truly idiotic.
|
David Zahavi
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
8
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 01:56:00 -
[350] - Quote
If there are modules to scan cargo, why can't there be mods that prevent scanning. Such technology certainly exists in real life, why not in the future.
If you're going to provide players with option A, there had better be a counter. Currently the only counter to the scanner is a corp hanger (so in HighSec - an Orca. If you are removing the counter, there needs to be a replacement option. Heck make it a low slot module so you can either go larger or safer or whatever.
The only down side is that this would probably end up being a nerf to freighters, which can't fit anything.
Or leave the corp hanger with its current lead sensor proof encasement. But do leave an option.
Why do the bad guys get all the options in EVE? Give good players some options too. |
|
Mund Richard
7
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 05:52:00 -
[351] - Quote
David Zahavi wrote:If there are modules to scan cargo, why can't there be mods that prevent scanning. Such technology certainly exists in real life, why not in the future.
If you're going to provide players with option A, there had better be a counter. Currently the only counter to the scanner is a corp hanger (so in HighSec - an Orca. If you are removing the counter, there needs to be a replacement option. Heck make it a low slot module so you can either go larger or safer or whatever.
The only down side is that this would probably end up being a nerf to freighters, which can't fit anything.
Or leave the corp hanger with its current lead sensor proof encasement. But do leave an option.
Why do the bad guys get all the options in EVE? Give good players some options too.
On the other hand, the current Orca has no counter, you can blow it up, and wonder what may have been inside. ... And THAT is the reason why I trained for it, and not a Freighter! Half the cost mattered not to me when loosing that much cargospace, but using almost exclusively the corp hangar made the carebear in me happy. (Plus I could fit an MWD sacrificing some tank, and gain an align time of 11sec). Now I can just go with a Freighter, and hope the sheer amount of stuff I transport makes them unable to guess if the total value is worth it or something? And ofc transport the really expensive stuff differently.
Working as intended I suppose? Not that I like it. Sarcasm can be like drugs. |
Powerman9001
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 16:37:00 -
[352] - Quote
Has CCP reverted to their pre-incursion mindset? Devs know best I guess. |
Sinzor Aumer
Atlas Research Group Aerodyne Collective
24
|
Posted - 2012.11.20 13:22:00 -
[353] - Quote
David Zahavi wrote:Why do the bad guys get all the options in EVE? Give good players some options too. You know there are T2 transport ships, dont you? |
Salpun
Paramount Commerce
423
|
Posted - 2012.11.20 13:25:00 -
[354] - Quote
Powerman9001 wrote:Has CCP reverted to their pre-incursion mindset? Devs know best I guess. When devs are quite they are changing things. I have hope for this release yet. |
Sinzor Aumer
Atlas Research Group Aerodyne Collective
24
|
Posted - 2012.11.20 13:35:00 -
[355] - Quote
David Zahavi wrote:Forcing us to use containers in our ships that can't have variable sizes doesnt make any sense. Period.
[lots of words]
This feels like an outdated decision that will need to be fixed and it hasn't even been implemented yet. Indeed! Replacing a bad code with even worth one - that's what is going on. |
CaptainFalcon07
Caucasian Culture Club Transmission Lost
43
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 03:07:00 -
[356] - Quote
We must make it loud and Clear.
NO CONTAINERS! DIVISIONS ONLY! |
Roll Sizzle Beef
Space Mutiny
1674
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 05:10:00 -
[357] - Quote
A no to corp hanger cargo containers. An all or nothing is too limiting. Losing way more than we gain. Hold off tell you can actually have something REAL to replace it with. These are fleet ships, not jet cans. |
James Amril-Kesh
RAZOR Alliance
1315
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 09:30:00 -
[358] - Quote
Mund Richard wrote:Now I can just go with a Freighter, and hope the sheer amount of stuff I transport makes them unable to guess if the total value is worth it or something? That doesn't work, FYI. Freighter gankers have browser tools that allow them to take a result from a cargo scan, enter it into a text field, and have it parse results from the scan combined with market data dumps to determine the total value of the cargo.
I don't believe, by the way, that the Orca should have had this expansive second cargohold (indeed bigger than its actual cargohold) that's entirely immune to cargo scans. I doubt that was really particularly intended, anyway.
Although I must agree with the outcry against containers to replace divisions. If necessary these changes should be delayed to work on a proper implementation, but removing functionality and replacing it with something significantly inferior is NOT the way to go about this. We went through this with the Unified Inventory, which is something you're still fixing 6 months later. |
Forlorn Wongraven
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
34
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 12:42:00 -
[359] - Quote
Repeating as very active capital and supercapital pilot: getting rid of divisions and "configure" is the best thing for me in this upcoming expansion. Ugleb > and TDR won't log in so long as their core members are demotivated for whichever reason is in flavour this week |
MisterAl tt1
Pretenders Inc W-Space
13
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 14:18:00 -
[360] - Quote
Repeating as active capital pilot: getting rid of divisions and "configure" is the second worst thing for me in this upcoming expansion.
The worst: scannable hangars. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 .. 13 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |