Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 .. 11 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 24 post(s) |
Mr John Smith
State War Academy Caldari State
8
|
Posted - 2012.12.01 03:50:00 -
[211] - Quote
You really have given the unscannable bonus to the wrong ship. If a BR get's scanned they haven't been flown right. DST's have the potential buffer to dissuade random lolganks, BR's do not. If any ship should get the unscannable bonus it should be the DST not the BR who can already cloak and warp with relative impunity. As it stands all this change serves to do is paint a big bulls eye on the backside of every BR undocking from jita or flying through highsec. |
Buffalo Ryder
Space Vikings
1
|
Posted - 2012.12.01 04:34:00 -
[212] - Quote
Andski wrote:Buffalo Ryder wrote:On a second note if DST could get a boost to their cargo hold say 100-200% more and change the shield/armor boost amount to 10% shield or armor per level would be a good way to make them more useful. Doubling or tripling their cargoholds simply means that they'd outclass T1 industrials, which isn't the intent of transports since they are supposed to be specialized in specific hauling roles as opposed to being "entirely better industrials". Increasing the local rep bonuses on the hulls would not do anything for their utility - if you're in a situation where you need to run a local rep on an industrial, you're already dead.
i should have proofread my last sentence. what i meant to say to get rid of booster bonus and make a buffer bonus of 10% shield/armor hp per level. |
Molic Blackbird
Orion Faction Industries Orion Consortium
54
|
Posted - 2012.12.01 04:57:00 -
[213] - Quote
Why are these changes being announced just days before the patch is set to be released? The unscannable Blockade Runner change and the ability of Freighters to now jetison items into space seem to be not well thought out. As others have said, a blockade runner that can not be scanned is redundant. All it does is increase the chance of the ship being suicide ganked. Do the Devs behind this own Blockade runner BPOs or something? |
None ofthe Above
370
|
Posted - 2012.12.01 04:57:00 -
[214] - Quote
Mr John Smith wrote:You really have given the unscannable bonus to the wrong ship. If a BR get's scanned they haven't been flown right. DST's have the potential buffer to dissuade random lolganks, BR's do not. If any ship should get the unscannable bonus it should be the DST not the BR who can already cloak and warp with relative impunity. As it stands all this change serves to do is paint a big bulls eye on the backside of every BR undocking from jita or flying through highsec.
How about both unscannable?
I do agree otherwise. EVE is a sandbox; The only "end-game" content in EVE is the crap that makes you rage-quit.
|
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
5633
|
Posted - 2012.12.01 05:57:00 -
[215] - Quote
None ofthe Above wrote:Mr John Smith wrote:You really have given the unscannable bonus to the wrong ship. If a BR get's scanned they haven't been flown right. DST's have the potential buffer to dissuade random lolganks, BR's do not. If any ship should get the unscannable bonus it should be the DST not the BR who can already cloak and warp with relative impunity. As it stands all this change serves to do is paint a big bulls eye on the backside of every BR undocking from jita or flying through highsec. How about both unscannable? I do agree otherwise.
blockade runners have no reason to be made unscannable ~*a-áproud belligerent undesirable*~
TheMittani.com: The premier source for news, commentary and discussion of EVE Online and other games of interest. |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
2088
|
Posted - 2012.12.01 06:05:00 -
[216] - Quote
lol if the 'unscannable' feature gets accidentally put on freighters as well.
But yeah, I think it would do better on the uncloaky T2 haulers.
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
Cloora
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
106
|
Posted - 2012.12.01 06:06:00 -
[217] - Quote
CCP Habakuk wrote:Grideris wrote:I assume that the immunity to cargo scanning is not being extended to Deep Space Transports? (The other class of T2 industrial ships) Correct.
Oh what the hell? Blockade Runners get decent use as is since they are very speedy and very safe means of small volume transport. DSTs are UNDERused because
a) the +2 WCS does nothing against a HIC or bubble which are very common
b) They are REALLY slow (not freighter slow but still need a 10 sec align with MWD cycle)
c) they can't tank (EHP smaller then freighter and active tanks suck on them because of fittings)
d) they don't haul that much
So giving them unscannable cargos would HELP moving larger volumes in high sec without fear of scanning (still might get ganked for lulz but cant ever stop that)
Or give them lots of CPU and PG and more fitting slots and let them tank like a dual ASB Mael.
That would give them a unique role. Tankiest tanks of any haulers.
Right now they are crap... CEO and Major ShareholderAPEX ConglomerateMaker of Starsi softdrinks and Torped-Os! Cereal http://www.altaholics.blogspot.com
|
Antai Tenmou
Ex Cruoris Libertas Infinite Improbabilities
0
|
Posted - 2012.12.01 07:42:00 -
[218] - Quote
everything sounds grand, except I will miss hanger divisions terribly |
Georgiy Giggle
REFORD Division REFORD
63
|
Posted - 2012.12.01 07:54:00 -
[219] - Quote
Nice. Really useful. Got a question: can't you make some changes to corp hangar arrays? In my case 7 divisions is TOO LESS. I got many corp mates who need own division. Is it possible in future to make ability to give access only for unique container? For example, 1 division contain 7 containers. Each container has owner. Only owner (and ppl with proper roles such as ceo, director...) can view it and take items out of it.
Why now? It would be very useful. IMHO. Thanks. Not mastering proprieties, won't become firmly established. - Confucius |
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
10747
|
Posted - 2012.12.01 09:22:00 -
[220] - Quote
Andski wrote:Mag's wrote:What of late, would you say have been ganker friendly changes? He must be talking about the boomerang nerf, the removal of insurance payout for CONCORD losses, the barge HP buff, the upcoming Crimewatch changes, the upcoming bounty changes and the upcoming kill right sales. All of those are very ganker friendly, you see Ahh yea, I forgot those. Thanks bud.
CCP Zulu..... Forcing players to dock at the captain's quarters is a form of what we actually wanted to get through, which is making Incarna a seamless part of the EVE Online experience. |
|
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
24
|
Posted - 2012.12.01 10:41:00 -
[221] - Quote
Derath Ellecon wrote:Maul555 wrote:
Also, unscannable blockade runners? Nice! Thanks for giving us a replacement to the unscannable orca..
This isn't a buff. Nor is it in any way a replacement to the orca unscannable CHA. Not even close. Why don't people see that. Orca's are't intended to be hauling ships. They're mining support vessels! CCP should just introduce an actual industrial that has a respectable and unscannable cargo hold.
It makes absolutely no sense for characters that are trained in freighters and industrials have to train mining+leadership skills for a ship that trumps most of the haulers in the game, period.
Either give the unscannable hold to DSTs, which have the best HP outside of freighters (which would certainly be OP with unscannable holds), or create a new ship altogether that accomplishes this. There's a huge hole for the ~100-150k m3 space in the industrial category anyhow.
|
Jacob Holland
Weyland-Vulcan Industries
76
|
Posted - 2012.12.01 11:05:00 -
[222] - Quote
Reposted from https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=177363&find=unread
Quote:While our stealthy haulers becoming more stealthy is cool... I do wonder how much of an explosion of tears there will be when it's implemented. The stealthy haulers are, after all, fragile, reliant on speed and agility and difficult to tank. These factors make them relatively cheap to gank (certainly compared to an Orca) - I suspect we'll see a lot of wrecks around Jita undock Blockade Runners in Empire are often used for high value cargo anyway and their high skill requirements and low payoff (hauler [5] only gives you freighters and T2 haulers) probably means that the majority of them operating exclusively in Empire have been bought specifically for that purpose... So in the absence of any indication that they're carrying anything there's a 50/50 chance that they're on their loaded run and a good chance that if they're loaded it'll be with something valuable - which might well be worth a destroyer or two. Busy gates or stations where cloaking is difficult, the sig increase or agility decrease which fitting a buffer tank which are counter to the low sig, high agility paradigm of the ship and the impracticality of fitting active modules (hardeners, DCs...etc) on a cloaking ship... All those datacores, all that ferrogel - and the crimewatch changes which would allow players to take down some of the ganking ships required for a freighter or Orca have almost no impact on a couple of desi's... |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
245
|
Posted - 2012.12.01 11:12:00 -
[223] - Quote
What happens when you jettison something from a freighter that a single unit is bigger than a jet can? like for instance a CSAA? |
Vilnius Zar
Ordo Ardish
287
|
Posted - 2012.12.01 11:44:00 -
[224] - Quote
yes, it's really useful to give the unscannable bonus to ships that, if done right, are cloaked 99% of the time...
How about giving it to the DST so that they actually have a role and use, rather than "I haven't trained for my Orca hauler yet". The whole concept of DST went out the window when we got jump haulers (both freighter as carrier) and jump bridges, they have no use, no role and thus no place. Might as well give them an edge of their own with the whole unscannable thing (and remove it from the BR because it's silly and useless there) Amat victoria curam. |
Daedalus II
The Oasis Group TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance
138
|
Posted - 2012.12.01 12:39:00 -
[225] - Quote
I think I've come to understand CCPs reasoning with the transport ships!
They don't try to balance them by giving the unused ship variant a bonus that would make it usable, they balance them by giving the more used but fragile ship a big ass crosshairs on them, making them as useless as the other useless variant, thereby making them both similarly useless :D |
Recoil Happens
Debatable Results
45
|
Posted - 2012.12.01 12:44:00 -
[226] - Quote
More ganking - yippee ka yay - I know that will please everyone.
I never had any trouble before you introduced the inventory buttoon. I'd be happy to see retribution do a little retrograde and get rid of that button and that whole block of code - just take us back to where we could tell where things are whithout so much clicking around.
Sure, I know, change things up as surprises all the time, its fun seeing the spiral in the learning curve take on a few more loops.v
I've copied everything so when I post and get a blank page, I'll be able to paste it in. That's a great feature we should keep. |
Claire Raynor
NovaGear
29
|
Posted - 2012.12.01 13:08:00 -
[227] - Quote
Gilbaron wrote:industrial ship ? WAY to small for mining fleets
another orca ? pretty small if you consider what a group of mining ships can mine in short time, also three different hangars to manage
freighter ? a providence has 735.000 m-¦ before skills, an orca 120.000 in three different hangars. thats 6 orca roundtrips ...
This is Sooooo - Awesome!!!!!! But please - be careful - we don't want Bots to mess up Ore Prices!!!! - But to be able to get my Fenrir out more than once a year!!! Mining Ops now will have an Orca a Big Fenrir thingy and loads of mining ships - Sweet :P
I'm happy!!!
Laters! |
Claire Raynor
NovaGear
29
|
Posted - 2012.12.01 13:21:00 -
[228] - Quote
I'm really really excited about being able to use my Freighter for more than just moving my base of operation when I get tired of an area. . . Like I really am. I mean - I love the thing. And it's got little windows and boosters and all sorts of stuff.
What are the chances that one day - now that we will use them as mining operation transports - that one day. . .We might get module slots?? :) Please?
Or is that a dumb idea? who knows? I don't |
feihcsiM
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
81
|
Posted - 2012.12.01 13:23:00 -
[229] - Quote
If you want to make the Deep Space Transports usable again, may I suggest they have the equivalent of an interdiction nullifier subsystem built in to them, making them immune to bubbles.
This would give them a reason to be used in 0.0 and combined with the +2 warp strength and some slight CPU/PG increases so they can mount a decent tank should make them a very viable choice
It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine. |
Tanith YarnDemon
Hypernet Inc. Umbrella Chemical Inc
35
|
Posted - 2012.12.01 14:08:00 -
[230] - Quote
Bit surprised over all the people cheering about the blockade runner nerf.
What's happened is that the role of tbe blockade runner is unchanged, however it's a massive liability for everything outside of that prime role. If you DO want to haul something pricey, you'd be actively cloaking and moving, hence immune to cargo scanners already.
However, you can no longer autopilot back from a delivery as they die to a sneeze and Schr+¦dinger will be there ganking it all night and day, just in case. If the bonus was given to deep space transports I could kinda sorta see it, as they(contrary to blockade runners) are not really used today and it would in fact augment them, rather than cripple. |
|
Derath Ellecon
Washburne Holdings Situation: Normal
472
|
Posted - 2012.12.01 15:07:00 -
[231] - Quote
Maximus Andendare wrote:Derath Ellecon wrote:Maul555 wrote:
Also, unscannable blockade runners? Nice! Thanks for giving us a replacement to the unscannable orca..
This isn't a buff. Nor is it in any way a replacement to the orca unscannable CHA. Not even close. Why don't people see that. Orca's are't intended to be hauling ships. They're mining support vessels! CCP should just introduce an actual industrial that has a respectable and unscannable cargo hold. It makes absolutely no sense for characters that are trained in freighters and industrials have to train mining+leadership skills for a ship that trumps most of the haulers in the game, period. Either give the unscannable hold to DSTs, which have the best HP outside of freighters (which would certainly be OP with unscannable holds), or create a new ship altogether that accomplishes this. There's a huge hole for the ~100-150k m3 space in the industrial category anyhow.
Yea but you missed the point.
The Orca wasn't "intended " to be a hauling ship. But it became a popular one due to.
1. Having enough EHP to not be easily ganked on a whim. 2. Having a CHA that was unscannable and ALSO VERY IMPORTANTLY 3. Having a CHA that never dropped.
These three things let people like me haul billions of sleeper loot safely to market. Heck I've even autopiloted tons 30+ jumps straight into Jita 4-4 with an orca.
Blockade runners will now.
1. Have the tank of a paper airplane 2. Have an unscannable cargo BUT 3. a cargo that drops
A bored gankers wet dream... |
DireNecessity
The M.P.I. Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
28
|
Posted - 2012.12.01 15:29:00 -
[232] - Quote
Fast, flimsy and sneaky, Blockade Runners also made sweet little AFK haulers. Soon to be double sneaky, that AFK hauling benefit is being tapped with the nerf bat.
::Sigh:: IGÇÖll adapt. I always do.
Surely the AFK nerf is intentional. (CCPGÇÖs aware of what they are doing, yes?)
Still I am puzzled. Why buff AFK mining with a suicide gank resistant mining vessel rebalance a few months back only to nerf AFK hauling now with a suicide gank inviting change? Perhaps CCP runs a zero sum business: If one set of AFKing customers receive some Luv, another set of AFKing customers must receive some Hate.
YouGÇÖre a twisted bunch CCP.
|
Timsinsal
Deshima Project
0
|
Posted - 2012.12.01 16:19:00 -
[233] - Quote
Hmmm well....
Still no way of transporting complete ships from A to B unless you use and Orca or contract (this should have been sorted years ago).
My Orca maintenance bay still can't fit a Noctis and an Exhumer (a skiff would be fine).
CCP... the next time you are doing work on cargo bays/ship corp hangers you really should give us the ability to transport at least three complete ships (with rigs) in one vessle.
|
Plagis
eXceed Inc. No Holes Barred
0
|
Posted - 2012.12.01 16:20:00 -
[234] - Quote
PLEASE ALLOW T'3 SUBS TO BE SWITCHED OUT WHILE AT POS FOR US Worm Hole PEOPLE PLEASE THAT IS A SMALL FIX PLZ CCP! It really suck to have to travel to a station to that switch on t3 subsH.
Just a small request |
Misanth
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
789
|
Posted - 2012.12.01 16:22:00 -
[235] - Quote
Overly simplified, and overly complicated compensations to make up for the crap you do (as in, adding new containers to compensate for the lost divisions).
Let's see what I use my corp hangars for today:
* 1) In this 20man corp we have made the corp divions "personal". As in, when we use supercaps, capitals or orcas to move stuff, we know that division X belong to player X. And we name the divions after that person. This is really convenient for maintaining personal stuff, while moving, because we also give that particular person that particular divison access.
- 1) In this new system, we can't do that at all. Either we have no access at all, or we all have access to everything. I guess it's ok in the sense that this means we take more risks and have to trust eachother more, no problem. But - how do we separate eachothers items, without having to carry a gazillion of cans? To compensate for the divisions, now we have to bring cans for each person instead, for their fittings/loot/etc! Ok, let's pretend this is a good compensation offer, but, suddenly it strike you - how do you know what size of this container you'd use? Because an ammo or loot can will grow/shrink, while a module can won't. So everyone will have to take up alot more space of this particular ship to cover their bases, with alot bigger cans than they probably will need.. because they "might" need it.
* 2) Our alt trading/hauling/market corps has been using Orcas with divions set up to match our main corp. They do this to separate stuff they are hauling.
- 2) For them, the new cans might compensate, as they have a "fixed" storage size. But it will be a damn blob of cans instead in stations. For example, one of the alt corps arranges some of the buying/selling for a few people of us in Jita. That corp currently uses the corp divisions and wallet to separate who's assets/funds belongs to who. You could easily use multiple people in this 'business alt corp' to share the divisions/wallet access and all have access to everything. But with this new system, we'll have to keep moving stuff in and out of cans in corp headquarters (where there still is divisions), to keep things separated. Otherwise a single account will keep everything in his cans. And every person moving stuff, will end up having a big chunk of cans moving between Jita/other locations. Instead of making his inventory clean in whatever-system he is, like it is today (usually 5-10 station hangars + using divisions to separate), you now end up with 5-10 station hangars + all various sizes of cargo containers you use on the move + you need more corp offices for more divisons. It'll cost more, it will clutter up inventory more, it will make it less transparent and easy to manage over multiple accounts, etc.
3) Let's not get started over how bad it is freighters can now use cans, but I'm just gonna ignore that point and pretend someone had an aneurysm. It will be fun seeing the freighters sitting in ice belts everywhere tho.
So, is there nothing positive coming out?
The intentions above is positive, but it makes EVE alot more complicated and worse to manage for sure. But there are some positive changes. It was silly Orcas was not scannable, so it's good to see that gone. It was also weird they dropped no loot. It's also interesting to see the Blockade Runner getting the scan immunity, means people will have to take a chance on them, I doubt less of them will die, rather probably more of them. This is positive and an interesting change. Having more containers is not bad either, by itself, it's just bad it's handed out as a compensation for removing a much superior system (divisions). The changes CCP bring to make passwords and fleet settings store, is good as well.
But this:
Quote:Why are you removing divisions? They're useful!
Yes, they are. However, we're currently of the opinion that they're not *necessary*, we don't feel that they're adding a lot of value in the most common use cases, and as such we're treating them as a case of unnecessary complexity.
That's just plain wrong. "not a lot of value" is completely off. They add something unique, that is really really good and valuable, and you remove it without replacing it with anything nearly as useful.
"Unecessary complexity" is also quite damn off, you're replacing something that is very simple, very useful, with something that is alot more complicated (using cans rather than divisions), which doesn't really add anything (bar them having more variation in size). The new system is more complicated, will take alot more inventory space, will have to be calculated carefullly about sizes on cans, will not alow separate members having separate access, harder to use across-multiple-accounts in shared corps, etc.
TL;DR, it's an unecessary change, and your reasons to do that is plain wrong. You're just trying to find arguments to push through changes you 'want' to have, but your arguments are plain invalid (or you have no experience of using the divisions, that'd explain why you don't see how useful they are). I suggest you shouldn't touch game changes for mechanics you don't understand, and stick to those you figured out how they work (non-scannable orca not even dropping loot etc). But don't try to take us for fools and post bullcrap like the reasons for the division removal, that is simply not truth/completely off. AFK-cloaking in a system near you. |
Primal Neglect
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.12.01 16:34:00 -
[236] - Quote
http://eve-kill.net/?a=pilot_detail&plt_id=1294559 gl with no scanable transport ships.... -1 pirat on EVE :(
p.s. gz Carebears and RMT players... |
|
CCP Habakuk
C C P C C P Alliance
363
|
Posted - 2012.12.01 18:02:00 -
[237] - Quote
Eija-Riitta Veitonen wrote:Quote:* Freighters will have most of their special-case restrictions removed: they will now be able to perform cargo operations in space, including moving items into and out of containers, moving things to and from containers in space, and jettisoning items inb4 someone jettisons a full freighter of shuttles on Jita 4-4 and nukes the node
From the patch notes: "It is no longer possible to jettison unassembled ships from the cargo hold."
Sigras wrote:What happens when you jettison something from a freighter that a single unit is bigger than a jet can? like for instance a CSAA?
The CSAA remains in your cargo hold. CCP Habakuk | EVE Quality Assurance | Team Gridlock Writing bug reports | Mass tests
|
|
CaptainFalcon07
Caucasian Culture Club Transmission Lost
52
|
Posted - 2012.12.01 18:45:00 -
[238] - Quote
CCP Habakuk wrote:Eija-Riitta Veitonen wrote:Quote:* Freighters will have most of their special-case restrictions removed: they will now be able to perform cargo operations in space, including moving items into and out of containers, moving things to and from containers in space, and jettisoning items inb4 someone jettisons a full freighter of shuttles on Jita 4-4 and nukes the node From the patch notes: "It is no longer possible to jettison unassembled ships from the cargo hold." Sigras wrote:What happens when you jettison something from a freighter that a single unit is bigger than a jet can? like for instance a CSAA? The CSAA remains in your cargo hold.
I see an issue with this. For instance let say I'm transporting ships in a hauler to a place where there are no stations and only pos. How am I supposed to assemble the ships and put them to use with the sma if I can no longer jet them. You can't assemble ships in a cha and you can't put packaged ships in an small. So there's a problem right there. |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
24
|
Posted - 2012.12.01 19:43:00 -
[239] - Quote
Derath Ellecon wrote:3. Having a CHA that never dropped. I, sir, do concede this point.
Derath Ellecon wrote:Blockade runners will now.
1. Have the tank of a paper airplane 2. Have an unscannable cargo BUT 3. a cargo that drops
A bored gankers wet dream... If you had read my post on page 10, you'd have seen that I think adding an unscannable hold to a BR is a dumb change, and that functionality is better suited to a DST.
The point I was making that you quoted is that a mining support vessel eclipsing haulers in almost every category was certainly unbalanced and was due for a nerf. I'm not against having a tanky, unscannable, and even drop-immune vessel. That vessel should just be a hauler of some sort, not a mining support ship.
|
|
CCP Habakuk
C C P C C P Alliance
363
|
Posted - 2012.12.01 20:40:00 -
[240] - Quote
CaptainFalcon07 wrote:CCP Habakuk wrote:... From the patch notes: "It is no longer possible to jettison unassembled ships from the cargo hold." ... I see an issue with this. For instance let say I'm transporting ships in a hauler to a place where there are no stations and only pos. How am I supposed to assemble the ships and put them to use with the sma if I can no longer jet them. You can't assemble ships in a cha and you can't put packaged ships in an small. So there's a problem right there.
You can assemble ships in a CHA, if it is close to a SMA or a carrier / orca - but you need to have enough space for the assembled ship. Then you can move the assembled ship to the SMA. CCP Habakuk | EVE Quality Assurance | Team Gridlock Writing bug reports | Mass tests
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 .. 11 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |