Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 .. 69 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 11 post(s) |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
971
|
Posted - 2014.11.10 16:34:07 -
[181] - Quote
Slevin-Kelevra wrote:Querns wrote:Christopher AET wrote:With Phoebe jump changes and the reduction in fatigue these could become very popular for nullsec deploying alliances moving their subcaps to a staging point. If you set up a titan chain ahead of time you can regain a (modest) portion of former force projection. Of course the risks are high, a bowhead moving fleet whelp would be absolutely hilarious.
+1 We debunked this in an earlier thread with travel industrials. Attempting to set up a single chain like this required 16 accounts, two trillion isk in initial outlay, 16 accounts, and a recurring cost of 13B a month just to cover subscription costs. Why do this when you can use jump freighters to move packaged ships and interceptors to get places? Working on the premise that large alliances/ coalitions don't already have the ships and accounts needed, which they do. The ships in question are far more useful when amongst their peers, not sitting in lowsec doing nothing but cannoning nerds all over the place. Fatigue only exacerbates this by preventing the titan in question from joining its entourage at a moment's notice.
In order for this contrived vignette to work, you need dedicated pilots, ships, and accounts for the purpose. There's just no point to doing this when you can have a modest jump freighter fleet for several orders of magnitude less outlay and maintenance cost.
If jump freighters get kneecapped, perhaps we can revisit this ludicrous scenario.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Emma Muutaras
State War Academy Caldari State
66
|
Posted - 2014.11.10 16:35:16 -
[182] - Quote
i think the first link is spot on thats all these ships will really be used for as they currently stand targets that will get ganked non stop |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans
1638
|
Posted - 2014.11.10 16:37:07 -
[183] - Quote
Slevin-Kelevra wrote:CCP Rise wrote:Will probably give you guys updated numbers for HP and bonus change tomorrow, did want to address the jump fatigue generation thing which seems to be coming up a little bit at least.
Every 'hauler' in the game got this reduction because the fatigue change wasn't meant to hit logistics, this ship simply fits under that umbrella. It is not meant as any kind of special treatment or specific incentive to use it outside of high-sec. It's fine if that happens but I just wanted to point out that it's a role based bonus and that's all. however unlike haulers this carries fitted ships, making it more like a carrier than a hauler, just saying. except the vast difference between the two. So, not more like a carrier, but more like a hauler. |
Warde Guildencrantz
TunDraGon Cynosural Field Theory.
1082
|
Posted - 2014.11.10 16:38:46 -
[184] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote: And you're right about afk travel vs active travel, switching to agility to support align time sounds good to me.
This sounds like a better bonus to me, maybe in low-value ships velocity bonuses are valuable for autopiloting, but a warp speed bonus or align time bonus for larger ships are much more useful at the moment due to freighter ganks causing pilots to actively navigate instead of with autopilot. (I would be more attracted to a warp speed bonus because having 2 seconds faster align time isn't going to save a ship from getting ganked 90% of the time, but having reasonably less time travelling overall via warp speed improvements could.)
TunDraGon Director ~ Low sec piracy since 2003 ~
Youtube ~ Join Us
My ship fits
|
Goddess Amarr
DucKtape Unlimited SpaceMonkey's Alliance
2
|
Posted - 2014.11.10 16:39:03 -
[185] - Quote
I'm actually really excited since I can't use my carrier to move ships without taking 50 years to do it I now have a replacement not as fast as a carrier used to be but who cares it looks really cool!! Ty CCP! |
Rashar Arji
Lazerhawks
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.10 16:39:29 -
[186] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote: Ore Freighter Bonus: 5% bonus to max velocity per level 5% bonus to ship maintenance array capacity per level
CCP Rise wrote: Capacity (cargo / ship maintenance array): 4000 / 1300000 (goes up to 1.6 something with ore freighter 5)
Is it supposed to be Ship Maintenance Array or Bay? Since as far as I know SMA's do drop ships whereas SMBs don't. |
Dave Stark
7129
|
Posted - 2014.11.10 16:40:10 -
[187] - Quote
i must say, even for eve, i am shocked by all the entitled "it needs more ehp" crying.
it equals an orca, give or take. it already has a solid amount of HP.
"but mah marauder", yeah take precautions if you're going to haul expensive things... just like you would with any other expensive cargo in any other industrial ship. |
Jack Strom
Concentrated Evil The Marmite Collective
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.10 16:42:45 -
[188] - Quote
VOU METER TIRO NA CARA DESTES VERMES AI.
;,.;
Jack Strom |
Coelomate
Dutch East Querious Company Phoebe Freeport Republic
3
|
Posted - 2014.11.10 16:43:13 -
[189] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:I have in-game fitting window showing around 350k EHP with a DCU II, 2x reinforced bulkheads II, 3x Transverse bulkhead I
This is in the same range as tank-oriented freighters - I'm sure people using the hauler would want as much as possible but this range should be reasonable, yes?
I worry that the EHP is too low for the capacity. For a ship to be worth moving intact instead of selling or shipping packaged, it needs to be valuable. 1 or 2 pirate / tech 2 battleships inside make this a compelling gank target with current HP values.
And even a low risk of such a gank will discourage smart players from actually using it.
The alternative to the bowhead is redfrog or individual shipping/flying. Why would you train into and purchase this ship if it's too risky to use for your valuable ships and redfrog (or buying/selling) can handle transporting your cheap ships for next to nothing? |
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
328
|
Posted - 2014.11.10 16:46:35 -
[190] - Quote
Slevin-Kelevra wrote:Working on the premise that large alliances/ coalitions don't already have the ships and accounts needed, which they do.
We'd still be taking two trillion isk of supercaps and making them useless except for this dumb chain and spending 13b on characters used exclusively for this dumb chain. That is still an absurd amount to do something worse than existing methods. |
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
483
|
Posted - 2014.11.10 16:46:51 -
[191] - Quote
Why not simply make them unscannable instead of a major EHP hike?
Also echoing sentiments that people aren't going to mess about hauling T1 BS just to save the T1 rig cost, FAR better of manually flying them, which leads us to the shinier stuff being the only thing "worth" hauling, yet simultaneously...not worth the risk of hauling.
And @CCP_Rise: Just because it is a transport and you dont want to hurt null logisitics - remember this ship doesnt exist. Therefore there is no "harm" done removing the "industrial" bonuses to fatigue. You cannot lose what you never had in the first place. Plenty of precedent on this in removing MMJD from ABC, for example. |
Kaj'Schak
Liga Freier Terraner Northern Coalition.
4
|
Posted - 2014.11.10 16:48:16 -
[192] - Quote
with just 1.6m-¦ it is useless. If you need to relocate your corp or alliance, you need and escort fleet for a freighter that carries most of the things. A base shipbay like a titan(5.000.000m-¦)+bonuses. Also a hell of a tank so if you get tackled during a relocation op in 0.0 the attacker first has to kill the enemy fleet then the big thing. Maybe make it give the fleet some awekward high bonuses to the ship itself gets 95% resits while recieving fleet bonuses. Because we need a defense fleet for 4-5 of them, likely carriers to carry more stuff, and our stuff moved at once for some hours. If it doesn't get a major advantage in shipbay over a carrier, why should one use that at all.
We as corp have some dozen fleet battleships in our corporation hangar, we can hardly ever relocate them to anywhere again until at least this thing is out. Still moving things will be even more time-destroying then before.
Time which I BTW don't have so all my 4 accs are now unsubbed .)
(NO ONE CAN HAZ MY STUFF, BECAUSE IT IS OUT OF YOUR REACH ANYWAY 8) ) |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans
1638
|
Posted - 2014.11.10 16:51:42 -
[193] - Quote
just remember, with highsec ganking being very focused on specific ships and fits, you can tank specifically for those damage types to increase survivability. If you notice gankers changing ships, switch tank. Gankers using split doctrines? back to omni tank, but with higher survivability due to less effective damage.
Not a guarantee (nothing ever is) but definitely an option. |
LordTazou
Premier Industries Inc. Outlanders United
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.10 16:54:24 -
[194] - Quote
I would sure as hell use it. Would make moving my ships around easier... |
Sven Viko VIkolander
Friends and Feminists
296
|
Posted - 2014.11.10 16:59:53 -
[195] - Quote
The EHP and the SMA capacity are fine I would say.
With respect to the EHP, this ship will get ganked in Uedama no matter what the EHP turns out to be. However, avoiding systems like Uedama (or anywhere else CODE. is operating), very few players/groups are going to have the incentive to gank a tank-fitted Bowhead unless you have a stupid amount of isk in the cargo. I say this after having done extensive research on what the safest hauler is--do some research on whether tank-fitted Orcas are ever ganked on a site like zbillboard, for instance. And, if you do have a stupid amount of isk in the cargo (you are moving incursion BSes for instances) then you should have an alt or friend webbing the Bowhead into warp. IF the ship is given more EHP, I would say make it around 10m/s slower for every 100k EHP added when tank fit, otherwise everyone will use this ship to afk haul.
With respect to the SMA capacity, if much more space is added the ship it starts to make subcap deployment too easy, especially given that the price of the Bowhead is going to be less than freighters. |
chumbucket
Interstellar Renegades Advent of Fate
25
|
Posted - 2014.11.10 17:06:15 -
[196] - Quote
oh lookie another macherial magnet they will just be bumped into eternity and nailed with wave after wave of catalysts ccp needs to fix broken crap before adding more junk............ seriously tho ganking frieghters is a joke ccp needs to fix it its becoming an exploit once your bumped once these not jack all you can do and its way to cheap to do it it needs to be back up to 20+bs to do it like it used to be its an exploit now fix your broken junk first! |
Marcel Devereux
Aideron Robotics
394
|
Posted - 2014.11.10 17:06:43 -
[197] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Will probably give you guys updated numbers for HP and bonus change tomorrow, did want to address the jump fatigue generation thing which seems to be coming up a little bit at least.
Every 'hauler' in the game got this reduction because the fatigue change wasn't meant to hit logistics, this ship simply fits under that umbrella. It is not meant as any kind of special treatment or specific incentive to use it outside of high-sec. It's fine if that happens but I just wanted to point out that it's a role based bonus and that's all.
So no jump drives? Why are you guys focusing only on high-sec? While carriers can be used to move stuff in low-sec, why not open this up to everyone to use. If someone wants to specialize in hauling prefitted ships, why not let them? Give them a jump drive and let us use these ships in low/null. |
Dave Stark
7130
|
Posted - 2014.11.10 17:08:27 -
[198] - Quote
Marcel Devereux wrote:So no jump drives? Why are you guys focusing only on high-sec? While carriers can be used to move stuff in low-sec, why not open this up to everyone to use. If someone wants to specialize in hauling prefitted ships, why not let them? Give them a jump drive and let us use these ships in low/null.
there are no less than 4 ships that already fill that criteria. |
Bertucio
Chandra Labs
5
|
Posted - 2014.11.10 17:14:55 -
[199] - Quote
Sven Viko VIkolander wrote:The EHP and the SMA capacity are fine I would say.
With respect to the EHP, this ship will get ganked in Uedama no matter what the EHP turns out to be.
No one is saying make the ship absolutely gank proof. Just that a billion ISK investment shouldn't be easily gankable. Even in Uedama.
Quote: However, avoiding systems like Uedama (or anywhere else CODE. is operating), very few players/groups are going to have the incentive to gank a tank-fitted Bowhead unless you have a stupid amount of isk in the cargo.
Right - avoid systems like Uedama. Good luck. And yes, there are players out there that do fit tank to avoid the usual yahoo gankers with their cheap dessies who don't have to spend a billion ISK to do their ganking. So you tell me - who's paying a bigger price?
Quote: I say this after having done extensive research on what the safest hauler is--do some research on whether tank-fitted Orcas are ever ganked on a site like zbillboard, for instance. And, if you do have a stupid amount of isk in the cargo (you are moving incursion BSes for instances) then you should have an alt or friend webbing the Bowhead into warp.
You mean have a scout for your tugboat in hi-sec? So anyone that wants to move her missioning/incursion ships around will not only have to spend a billion ISK for a tugboat, but also have a scout in hi-sec? What's the point then? The entire game should bow down to cheap dessy gankers because it ain't fun otherwise?
Quote: IF the ship is given more EHP, I would say make it around 10m/s slower for every 100k EHP added when tank fit, otherwise everyone will use this ship to afk haul.
If people want to afk haul then let them. It takes a hell of a lot longer in game time to do so. There is already a cost. And in addition, even IF the EHP is boosted as most people are suggesting here on the thread, any large group can gank almost any freighter if they're determined to do so. You don't have to use just dessies to do it. The point here is to beef it up to do so the cost/benefit to gank is more in line to the guy hauling all his ships (their cost, and also the time the player put into building the ships that are being tugged) should be equal to what is being used to gank. Yeah - an AFK freighter should be a little more worried about possible gank - and should have to buff a lot more, but also it will be a lot slower getting his stuff around.
Quote: With respect to the SMA capacity, if much more space is added the ship it starts to make subcap deployment too easy, especially given that the price of the Bowhead is going to be less than freighters.
The price of the Bowhead should be at least at freighter level if not more, given it's very useful role and utility that it will have. The whole point of the Bowhead is to make subcap deployment easier. Not necessarily fast, and not necessarily cheap though. But also - the Bowhead should be so weak that it can carry almost nothing and it is easily gankable by a bunch of cheap dessies. |
Masao Kurata
Z List
126
|
Posted - 2014.11.10 17:18:58 -
[200] - Quote
For people begging for buffs to an unreleased ships, here are some facts about the ship as originally specified. The maths to reach them is below if you're interested or doubt me:
- Properly fitted (see below for fitting) this has 429k EHP.
- Base all 5 alignment time is 29.2s
- One MWD cycle is enough to enter warp
- This ship when properly fitted is both more tanky than a freighter and more agile.
- I don't care what the stats are with failfits and nor should you.
There is absolutely no need to buff this, people are just imagining gankers under their beds. Flown sensibly this will be reasonably safe.
MATHS BELOW
TANK:
First the fitting:
After 25% fitting skills we have 1687.5 MW and 268.75 tf to play with.
Damage Control II [1 MW, 30 tf] Reinforced Bulkheads II [1 MW, 40 tf] Reinforced Bulkheads II [1 MW, 40 tf]
Prototype 100MN Microwarpdrive I [1250 MW, 75 tf] Thermic Dissipation Field II [1 MW, 44 tf] Limited Kinetic Deflection Field I [1 MW, 36 tf]
Capital Transverse Bulkhead II [75 calibration] Capital Transverse Bulkhead II [75 calibration] Capital Transverse Bulkhead II [75 calibration]
Total fitting parameters: 1255/1687 MW, 265/268 tf, 225/400 calibration
Now some readers are probably already recoiling in horror at T2 capital rigs, but let's take a brief detour to talk about the cost of those.
Although their current market price is over 200M/unit, there is no demand for them now. That will change with this ship. The actual material cost when inventing without a decryptor is http://evepraisal.com/e/3921936 74.6M. I have rough estimates for the amount of time per successful invention but let's just say that the final price is 100M each.
The cost of the fit therefore is around 300M, very reasonable considering that the hull should cost around as much as a freighter and it's meant to haul valuable cargo.
NOTE: I am also going to assume you are NOT AN IDIOT and have trained thermodynamics. The hardeners will be overheated for this calculation. Shield resistances after overheated hardeners are 12.5% EM 76.2% thermal 79% kinetic 56.25% explosive. Armor resistances I'll assume follow the gallente profile of 50/35/35/10, which after damage control is 57.5/44.75/44.75/23.5. 1 point of void damage (50% thermal, 50% kinetic) does 0.224 HP of damage to shields or 0.5525 HP of damage to armor.
Back to EHP calculation vs void:
HULL: 348091 = 36500 * 1.25 {mechanics} * 1.25^3 {rigs} * 1.25^2 {bulkhead modules} * 2.5 {60% resists from DCU2} SHIELDS: 55803 = 10000 * 1.25 {shield management} / 0.224 ARMOR: 24887 = 11000 * 1.25 {hull upgrades} / 0.5525
TOTAL: 428782 EHP vs void, more than any freighter.
WARPING:
The base inertia modifier is 0.065, which is reduced by spaceship command (*0.9), advanced spaceship command (*0.75) and evasive maneuvering (*0.75). This ship has is a fairly significant SP and ISK investment, not having these skills maxed is your own damn fault.
The inertia modifier after skills is 0.0329.
https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Acceleration
Plugging the inertia modifier and mass in we get 29.19s = 0.0329 * 640 * -ln 0.25, a very reasonable alignment time, but it gets better with a 100MN MWD.
I forget the reference for this formula but propulsion modules follow this:
Actual max velocity bonus = stated max velocity bonus taking acceleration control into account * thrust / (ship mass + module mass)
For the tug:
100MN MWD velocity multiplier: 2.3587 = 1 + 6.25 * 150MN / (640M kg + 50M kg) Fraction of MWD velocity required to enter warp after cycle ends: 0.75 / 2.3587 = 0.318
Going back to the acceleration time formula (using the mass including mass addition) we have time to reach 0.75 * normal velocity while under 100MN MWD:
8.69s = 0.0329 * 690 * -ln (1 - 0.318)
8.69s is significantly less than one MWD cycle so you will be able to enter warp after a single cycle with this, much like the orca. You don't even need to overheat. |
|
Max Kolonko
WATAHA. Unseen Wolves
486
|
Posted - 2014.11.10 17:19:21 -
[201] - Quote
Arden Elenduil wrote:Max Kolonko wrote:
Max speed have no correlation with align time. You can put all overdrives in the world into the ship and align time will stay the same. Same goes for webbing - it reduces not by fixed amount but by percentage, so it does not matter what is your max speed at all.
Actually, webbing into warp does work, quite well even. It's simply that you let a ship build up a certain amount of speed (doesn't need much), slap a double web on it and that reduces the max velocity in such a way, that the ship is already at the required 3 quarters of max speed threshold of slipping into warp by virtue of having that tiny little period of unwebbed acceleration(try it out if you don't believe me).
exactly - it works because you are suddenly changing the max speed to be much closer to current speed. Not because max speed have anything to do with how long it takes to enter warp.
Read and support:
Don't mess with OUR WH's
What is Your stance on WH stuff?
|
Masao Kurata
Z List
126
|
Posted - 2014.11.10 17:19:46 -
[202] - Quote
Now, this post is for CCP: we need to talk about something. Ship maintenance bay drop mechanics. The lack thereof.
You fixed ship maintenance arrays, as in the anchorable starbase structures, but orcas, carriers, supers, titans... none of those have any mechanic to drop assembled ships. Unless you fix that, nor will the Bowhead, and there will be absolutely zero financial motivation for anyone to ever kill one.
Fix this, now. You absolutely cannot release this ship in a state where it will never drop any of its valuable cargo. I don't care if it's hacky, it just has to work. Spawn two wrecks if you have to, a normal one and an SMA wreck, just do something that lets us loot / launch / board the assembled ships. This has been irksome for a long time but with the introduction of this new ship it is a critical issue.
IN ADDITION neither cargo scanners nor ship scanners see either the fittings or cargo (charge category) of assembled ships in the ship maintenance bay of the scanned ship, so there is absolutely no way to tell whether you are carrying a bunch of merlins or a bunch of merlins fitted with officer modules. This is an exploit that we don't often talk about, but let's talk about it now: you can UNDETECTABLY haul officer modules RIGHT NOW in an orca and there is ZERO financial motivation for anyone to gank you EVEN if they knew what you were hauling because there is no mechanic for the ships to drop.
The release after Rhea is not acceptable, these issues need to be fixed in Rhea or the release of this ship has to be delayed. |
Klyith
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
154
|
Posted - 2014.11.10 17:20:29 -
[203] - Quote
Entity wrote: This only strengthen my point regarding the slots. There is no point in slots if there's only the illusion of choice in what to use them for.
Sure there's choice in what to use slots for. For example, you could choose to align-fit and carry 3 ordinary T1 battleships and a few cruisers. Even with way less tank than an all-bulkhead fit, that cargo isn't worth a gank attempt.
Just because the people who want this ship the most want to carry around 3 pimp-fit pirate battleships, does not mean that the thing should be built to give them their every desire on a platter. It's not like you can't run incursions in a plain T1 BS if you wanted to. |
John McCreedy
Eve Defence Force Cult of War
148
|
Posted - 2014.11.10 17:24:21 -
[204] - Quote
Why does everything with this current crop of developers have to be over complicated? Why does someone who wants to be able to move a ship in a ship because you idiots nerfed Jump Drives, now have to train additional skills? Why not simply have the same skill prerequisite as a Freighter since it is most likely going to be existing Freighter/Jump Freighter pilots moving the bloody stuff? Stop trying to be clever for the sake of being clever and adopt the KISS principle for a change. |
Jacob Katruun
Vehement Insanity Forward Unto Glory
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.10 17:24:31 -
[205] - Quote
Awesome!
As an incursion runner, this will be amazing
It's a pain to be that guy who wants a DPS ship, a snipe ship, a t3, and a logi and get all your ships there without abusing your alts.
This will be incredibly useful, if not indispensable.
I, for one, am getting one as soon as it's available.
-Jacob Katruun |
Dave Stark
7130
|
Posted - 2014.11.10 17:25:20 -
[206] - Quote
Klyith wrote:Entity wrote: This only strengthen my point regarding the slots. There is no point in slots if there's only the illusion of choice in what to use them for.
Sure there's choice in what to use slots for. For example, you could choose to align-fit and carry 3 ordinary T1 battleships and a few cruisers. Even with way less tank than an all-bulkhead fit, that cargo isn't worth a gank attempt. Just because the people who want this ship the most want to carry around 3 pimp-fit pirate battleships, does not mean that the thing should be built to give them their every desire on a platter. It's not like you can't run incursions in a plain T1 BS if you wanted to.
this, so much.
it shouldn't be designed to be unprofitable to gank with 3 marauders/pirate battleships inside it.
unprofitable to gank with 3 unfit megathrons? sure, but not 3 unfit vindicators. |
Kassasis Dakkstromri
Yumping Amok Circle-Of-Two
267
|
Posted - 2014.11.10 17:25:25 -
[207] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Will probably give you guys updated numbers for HP and bonus change tomorrow, did want to address the jump fatigue generation thing which seems to be coming up a little bit at least.
Every 'hauler' in the game got this reduction because the fatigue change wasn't meant to hit logistics, this ship simply fits under that umbrella. It is not meant as any kind of special treatment or specific incentive to use it outside of high-sec. It's fine if that happens but I just wanted to point out that it's a role based bonus and that's all.
SO not true CCP Rise - it was only after tons of screaming and 404 pages that CCP Greyscale backed off a bit and gave in about JF's and logistics.
Anyway that aside - very excited to see this ship enter game and the opportunities and content it will generate!
.... so where's that image of the ship you were looking for?
CCP you are bad at EVE... Stop potential silliness ~ Solo Wulf
|
Max Kolonko
WATAHA. Unseen Wolves
486
|
Posted - 2014.11.10 17:25:31 -
[208] - Quote
Makari Aeron wrote:CCP Rise wrote:Will probably give you guys updated numbers for HP and bonus change tomorrow, did want to address the jump fatigue generation thing which seems to be coming up a little bit at least.
Every 'hauler' in the game got this reduction because the fatigue change wasn't meant to hit logistics, this ship simply fits under that umbrella. It is not meant as any kind of special treatment or specific incentive to use it outside of high-sec. It's fine if that happens but I just wanted to point out that it's a role based bonus and that's all. You say it's not incentived for use out of hisec, but it is far larger than a Carrier in terms of ship hauling. I can see it being used in nullsec. Lowsec, not so much.
It will cost almost as much as carrier, have less ehp than carrier, have very little defense capabilities (3 med slot allow for some jamming, maybe target breakers, but not much more) and in exchange you ONLY get 50% more ships in SMA (60% with level 5), yeahhhh, nooooo. Ofc the fatigue bonus makes it usable for rapidly moving tons of ships, but thats something You can already do in freighter (all you had to do is move than as courier contract) and you had 1,1mil m3 in freighter already so I dont see much diffrence to be honest and much incentive to use this one.
Read and support:
Don't mess with OUR WH's
What is Your stance on WH stuff?
|
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
4150
|
Posted - 2014.11.10 17:26:53 -
[209] - Quote
John McCreedy wrote:Why does everything with this current crop of developers have to be over complicated? Why does someone who wants to be able to move a ship in a ship because you idiots nerfed Jump Drives, now have to train additional skills? Why not simply have the same skill prerequisite as a Freighter since it is most likely going to be existing Freighter/Jump Freighter pilots moving the bloody stuff? Stop trying to be clever for the sake of being clever and adopt the KISS principle for a change.
Which freighter?
You know, they do have different racial skills.
(Their prerequisites are the same, other than the Ore industrial. Which is just a few hours.)
Woo! CSM 9!
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
|
Cr Turist
Burning Napalm Northern Coalition.
31
|
Posted - 2014.11.10 17:29:57 -
[210] - Quote
I am very happy to see Rise taking feed back from the players! Awesome!!! As for the ship giving it more EHP is something that should be looked at. i would also look at letting it fit 3battle ships and say a battle cruiser. that way people can fit 3 battleships ( thinking of incursion runners that have 3 main battle ship concepts) and still have room for a hauler and maybe a frig. face it if someone buys this they will A. never use but for that blue moon. or B live in the thing going system to system chasing sansha or hauling ships for corp or alliances. and in the end its not gonna be OP no matter what you do. i think taking the mass down for all the wormhole bro's is a amazing thought those guys suffer enough as it is, and even more so when T3's get kicked in the jewels, might as well give them some kind of comfort.
P.S its off topic but since it seems your reading this. Fix the ishtar. :) |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 .. 69 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |