Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
189
|
Posted - 2015.01.11 01:52:39 -
[1] - Quote
Title was pretty specific
JF can jump the farthest
The original reason for this was loading itty5's with ammo and railguns for reprocessing and using the sma to exceed JF range and size
None of this matters now, everything has same jump range, except JF - which are supposed to haul compressed ore
Reprocessing of modules is at a point, where it just doesn't matter
This would make having normal items like drugs and LO in your cargo literally not aids
Thanks |
Eveli
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
17
|
Posted - 2015.01.11 01:54:09 -
[2] - Quote
+1 |
Tyrrax Thorrk
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
361
|
Posted - 2015.01.11 01:54:19 -
[3] - Quote
Please change this! It is SUPER ANNOYING having to remove everything except ammo from ships before placing in ship maint arrays. |
Destoya
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
361
|
Posted - 2015.01.11 01:54:30 -
[4] - Quote
Supported, or at least finally classify liquid ozone, boosters, and drones as ammo so you dont have to take them out every time you move a ship |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
888
|
Posted - 2015.01.11 01:55:09 -
[5] - Quote
Have to say its quite an irritation if you store/use ships from a carrier much, would not be sorry to see the restriction go. |
Helios Black
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
17
|
Posted - 2015.01.11 01:55:47 -
[6] - Quote
Please! |
Diabolus Darkdoom
Van Diemen's Demise Pandemic Legion
2
|
Posted - 2015.01.11 01:56:39 -
[7] - Quote
Yes please! |
Lugh Crow-Slave
436
|
Posted - 2015.01.11 02:05:36 -
[8] - Quote
Except JFs will be having their ranges nerffed back down once the rest of the null changes are done.
not to mention with the bowhead now this would make freighters useless
so no to the SM"B" restrictions being lifted
|
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors Snuffed Out
7062
|
Posted - 2015.01.11 03:11:36 -
[9] - Quote
This was already brought up in this thread: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5219310
I wrote:a Titan's ship maintenance bay can carry 12 Deep Space Transports for a potential cargospace of ~744 thousand cubic meters plus 100 thousand cubic meters in the fleet hanger (enough to make Freighters blush). Carriers would be able to hold 2 Deep Space transports for a combined cargospace of ~124 thousand plus the carriers' 10 thousand cubic meter fleet hanger (I would never have to use Black Frog ever again).
Change isn't bad, but it isn't always good. Sometimes, the oldest and most simple of things can be the most elegant and effective.
"How did you veterans start?"
|
Anhenka
The Cult of Personality DARKNESS.
871
|
Posted - 2015.01.11 03:13:23 -
[10] - Quote
Would still have problems with carriers hauling Miasmoses full of compressed ore. Could fit in the range of 200k m3 of compressed ore in a carrier. |
|
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
3099
|
Posted - 2015.01.11 05:29:22 -
[11] - Quote
would like to have it total volume based. If you put a hauler into a carrier, everything which is in the cargo of the hauler would be added to the volume of the hauler itself.
eve style bounties (done)
dust boarding parties
imagine there is war and everybody cloaks - join FW
|
Krops Vont
Hard Knocks Inc.
37
|
Posted - 2015.01.11 05:42:07 -
[12] - Quote
It would be a tad broken if the cargo within ship could not be scanned (not sure if this is already like it or not) & As Anhenka said, hauling more than you actually can. Make it add to M3
As with any human, we must map out everything for the sake of living. So what happens when you put the same aspect in a game with random events? They go nuts trying to figure out how to predict and map out everything.
|
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
191
|
Posted - 2015.01.11 10:21:21 -
[13] - Quote
OK, I am all for leaving out compressed ore - that really doesn't matter. If you want to take the time to move miamosa full of compressed ore instead of a rorqual, more power to you
but, EVERYTHING else should be a game changer any longer, modules can't be reprocess like before |
Amarisen Gream
The ArK's Hammer ArK Alliance
61
|
Posted - 2015.01.11 13:57:35 -
[14] - Quote
More things need to be allowed yes. but not everything in game. Mostly everything has been spoken above.
but it should be limited to Ammo Charges. Drones. Jump Fuel.
(might be a few other things)
xoxo
Amarisen Gream
|
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
191
|
Posted - 2015.01.11 14:09:10 -
[15] - Quote
Amarisen Gream wrote:More things need to be allowed yes. but not everything in game. Mostly everything has been spoken above.
but it should be limited to Ammo Charges. Drones. Jump Fuel.
(might be a few other things)
Problem is the 2 biggest items that screw people aren't on your list:
Liquid Ozone and Drugs
Really, the original intent was reprocessing nerf. That is no longer a threat, due to Crius, so it shouldn't mater what we pack in a ship. |
Aiyshimin
Shiva Furnace
301
|
Posted - 2015.01.11 14:10:37 -
[16] - Quote
Just exclude all industrial ships from this, so that you can keep depots and refits in combat ships inside SMAs, but not exploit this with haulers inside freighters.
|
Lokitoki81
SniggWaffe WAFFLES.
45
|
Posted - 2015.01.11 14:11:52 -
[17] - Quote
Ammo Charges. Drones. Jump Fuel. Liquid ozone Drugs
*drops mic*
Im outta here!
PEACE! |
Lugh Crow-Slave
439
|
Posted - 2015.01.11 14:18:53 -
[18] - Quote
Kenneth Feld wrote:
Really, the original intent was reprocessing nerf. That is no longer a threat, due to Crius, so it shouldn't mater what we pack in a ship.
where are you getting your information the reason for it had nothing to do with reprocessing but to do with how carriers were able to haul far more than intended and became a cheaper and all around better alternative to just about any-other hauler outside of HS. and this would still be the case |
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
191
|
Posted - 2015.01.11 14:29:22 -
[19] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Kenneth Feld wrote:
Really, the original intent was reprocessing nerf. That is no longer a threat, due to Crius, so it shouldn't mater what we pack in a ship.
where are you getting your information the reason for it had nothing to do with reprocessing but to do with how carriers were able to haul far more than intended and became a cheaper and all around better alternative to just about any-other hauler outside of HS. and this would still be the case
What people were hauling was XL ammo and 425 rails to far away places to REPROCESS to get minerals for building. Back then you got 100% return from reprocessing.
Fast forward to 2014 - reprocessing is nerfed to the ground and no one in their right mind would reprocess to get minerals, everyone uses compressed ore (Which can be left as the last item not able to go in a SMA)
Sure - could someone load up a titan with a bunch of industrials and go gate to gate or take 2 days to get to a station and try and sell the stuff - maybe. At this point, i would say that is content and not exploiting the cargo of the ship. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
440
|
Posted - 2015.01.11 14:46:21 -
[20] - Quote
Kenneth Feld wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Kenneth Feld wrote:
Really, the original intent was reprocessing nerf. That is no longer a threat, due to Crius, so it shouldn't mater what we pack in a ship.
where are you getting your information the reason for it had nothing to do with reprocessing but to do with how carriers were able to haul far more than intended and became a cheaper and all around better alternative to just about any-other hauler outside of HS. and this would still be the case What people were hauling was XL ammo and 425 rails to far away places to REPROCESS to get minerals for building. Back then you got 100% return from reprocessing. Fast forward to 2014 - reprocessing is nerfed to the ground and no one in their right mind would reprocess to get minerals, everyone uses compressed ore (Which can be left as the last item not able to go in a SMA) Sure - could someone load up a titan with a bunch of industrials and go gate to gate or take 2 days to get to a station and try and sell the stuff - maybe. At this point, i would say that is content and not exploiting the cargo of the ship.
It wasn't what they were moving but what they were moving it IN
and since jump freighters are going to get their range nerffed back down to the intended 5LY once the rest of the industry changes are done this would still be the case
|
|
FireFrenzy
Satan's Unicorns
156
|
Posted - 2015.01.11 14:57:14 -
[21] - Quote
I AM SO GAME FOR THIS...
Also hardners and logi refits... Basilisks and guardians should be orcaable with their spare cap links to go from 4/2 to 0/6... (not to mention maybe having some spare hardners for enemy fleet comps... |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
633
|
Posted - 2015.01.11 15:21:04 -
[22] - Quote
Hi, I'm not from PL and I support this too. Stupid drugs and ozone... can we get drugs into contracts while we're at it?!
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
|
Mario Putzo
Welping and Dunking.
1057
|
Posted - 2015.01.11 16:30:43 -
[23] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:Hi, I'm not from PL and I support this too. Stupid drugs and ozone... can we get drugs into contracts while we're at it?!
I can see it now.
Guys they got my JF! Who did? ******* Concord. How did they do that did you agress? No....Some cumstain left drugs in their ******* Merlin and they scanned me and killed me for running them through HS. ******* ****!
|
Aiyshimin
Shiva Furnace
305
|
Posted - 2015.01.11 16:41:23 -
[24] - Quote
Mario Putzo wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:Hi, I'm not from PL and I support this too. Stupid drugs and ozone... can we get drugs into contracts while we're at it?! I can see it now. Guys they got my JF! Who did? ******* Concord. How did they do that did you agress? No....Some cumstain left drugs in their ******* Merlin and they scanned me and killed me for running them through HS. ******* ****! They shouldn't shoot you though. Well my sec status went below the limit because Drugs gave me a sec status hit. I became criminal because of a Merlin.
1) your drug habit and security status have no connection, contraband confiscation results in a minor faction standings hit 2) CONCORD does not attack pilots with low security status 3) you're clueless
|
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
195
|
Posted - 2015.01.11 17:31:50 -
[25] - Quote
Mario Putzo wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:Hi, I'm not from PL and I support this too. Stupid drugs and ozone... can we get drugs into contracts while we're at it?! I can see it now. Guys they got my JF! Who did? ******* Concord. How did they do that did you agress? No....Some cumstain left drugs in their ******* Merlin and they scanned me and killed me for running them through HS. ******* ****! They shouldn't shoot you though. Well my sec status went below the limit because Drugs gave me a sec status hit. I became criminal because of a Merlin.
The ONLY way to get a Merlin in your JF with something in the cargo (Assembled ship) is by courier contract and drugs can't be contracted.
So, basically this is IMPOSSIBLE
Now, Orca, Bowhead yes, but JF NOPE
This is in addition to the other reason posted above |
Lugh Crow-Slave
447
|
Posted - 2015.01.11 17:39:02 -
[26] - Quote
Kenneth Feld wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:Hi, I'm not from PL and I support this too. Stupid drugs and ozone... can we get drugs into contracts while we're at it?! The ONLY way to get a Merlin in your JF with something in the cargo (Assembled ship) is by courier contract and drugs can't be contracted. So, basically this is IMPOSSIBLE Now, Orca, Bowhead yes, but JF NOPE This is in addition to the other reason posted above
Now i see how you could come up with this post |
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
195
|
Posted - 2015.01.11 17:43:45 -
[27] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Kenneth Feld wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:Hi, I'm not from PL and I support this too. Stupid drugs and ozone... can we get drugs into contracts while we're at it?! The ONLY way to get a Merlin in your JF with something in the cargo (Assembled ship) is by courier contract and drugs can't be contracted. So, basically this is IMPOSSIBLE Now, Orca, Bowhead yes, but JF NOPE This is in addition to the other reason posted above Now i see how you could come up with this post
I am not advocating drugs in contracts, therefore to me, it can't happen. If in fact CCP allows it in the future, sure, it may happen.
That being said, everything else is still wrong:
Concord won't blow you up for example |
Hairpins Blueprint
CBC Interstellar Fidelas Constans
96
|
Posted - 2015.01.11 18:07:35 -
[28] - Quote
Yes .... Do it PLZ! |
Mario Putzo
Welping and Dunking.
1057
|
Posted - 2015.01.11 18:15:22 -
[29] - Quote
Kenneth Feld wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Kenneth Feld wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:Hi, I'm not from PL and I support this too. Stupid drugs and ozone... can we get drugs into contracts while we're at it?! The ONLY way to get a Merlin in your JF with something in the cargo (Assembled ship) is by courier contract and drugs can't be contracted. So, basically this is IMPOSSIBLE Now, Orca, Bowhead yes, but JF NOPE This is in addition to the other reason posted above Now i see how you could come up with this post I am not advocating drugs in contracts, therefore to me, it can't happen. If in fact CCP allows it in the future, sure, it may happen. That being said, everything else is still wrong: Concord won't blow you up for example
I was responding to the post about contracted drugs, and don't care what you are advocating. So vOv. CONCORD/Navy will shoot you if your sec status drops below required standing for that space.
*Note I am aware CONCORD will only be the "navy" if you traverse CONCORD space, but fuzz is fuzz.
In regards to what you are advocating.
No.
Part of the changes were to make moving stuff riskier and to encourage production in places other than HS.
|
Lord Ashur
Wrecking Shots Black Legion.
3
|
Posted - 2015.01.11 22:46:48 -
[30] - Quote
I agree its about time the cargo restriction on ships in SMA needs to go |
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
451
|
Posted - 2015.01.11 23:02:02 -
[31] - Quote
Lord Ashur wrote:I agree its about time the cargo restriction on ships in SMA needs to go
Ship maintenance arrays I could see arguments for just not ship maintenance bays |
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
197
|
Posted - 2015.01.11 23:09:07 -
[32] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Lord Ashur wrote:I agree its about time the cargo restriction on ships in SMA needs to go Ship maintenance arrays I could see arguments for just not ship maintenance bays
Same thing
If you mean the things in a POS, they don't have the restrictions |
Lugh Crow-Slave
453
|
Posted - 2015.01.12 00:24:23 -
[33] - Quote
Kenneth Feld wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Lord Ashur wrote:I agree its about time the cargo restriction on ships in SMA needs to go Ship maintenance arrays I could see arguments for just not ship maintenance bays Same thing If you mean the things in a POS, they don't have the restrictions
no a sma is on a pos and yes they do have restrictions just not the same ones like i can't store a ship with an assembled POS module in it |
Basil Pupkin
Why So Platypus
96
|
Posted - 2015.01.12 02:32:04 -
[34] - Quote
Kenneth Feld wrote:Title was pretty specific
JF can jump the farthest
The original reason for this was loading itty5's with ammo and railguns for reprocessing and using the smb to exceed JF range and size
None of this matters now, everything has same jump range, except JF - which are supposed to haul compressed ore
Reprocessing of modules is at a point, where it just doesn't matter
This would make having normal items like drugs and LO in your cargo literally not aids
Thanks
I see nothing wrong with it. Removing ore from barges before stacking them into Orca was a pain for no good reason.
People who are worried about carriers carrying ore - don't. If you mine, you have Rorqual, period. If you don't, JF hauls almost twice as much, without the need to stuff it into multiple Miasmoses, almost twice as far, and at almost no fatigue.
People who are worried about titans carrying ore - don't. If you have a titan, you can just bridge a regular freighter, it's cheaper and hauls 33% more than a fully stuffed titan, without the need to stuff it.
Now think about it, if people start using carriers to haul things, that just means more exposed carriers. Now how is that a bad thing?
A crap ton equals 1000 crap loads in metric, and roughly 91 shit loads 12 bull shits and 1 puppy's unforeseen disaster in imperial.
|
Anhenka
The Cult of Personality DARKNESS.
871
|
Posted - 2015.01.12 03:07:34 -
[35] - Quote
Basil Pupkin wrote:
People who are worried about titans carrying ore - don't. If you have a titan, you can just bridge a regular freighter, it's cheaper and hauls 33% more than a fully stuffed titan, without the need to stuff it.
Now think about it, if people start using carriers to haul things, that just means more exposed carriers. Now how is that a bad thing?
Because CCP never intended carriers to be a multipurpose large volume hauler?
A carrier could hold 211k m3 of ore/ammo/minerals/gas/PI/whatever, has commonly held requirements for jumping, is highly tanky and capable of self defense, holds 2/3 as much as a JF, and costs 1/5th the cost of a JF, along with (I think) lower fuel costs per LY.
It would basically be JF lite, especially for ferrying things around nullsec. For example say there two pockets that are separated by 10 jumps physically, but only 2 LY. I can do a full round trip every hour hauling 200k+ of materials, say compressed ore, or ice. All without adding to my Jump Fatigue.
Even a full 5LY jump, 200k m3 of stuff every two hours for one minute of work and a single one bil isk ship.
CCP does not want the carrier in the large volume hauling role. And a few carriers are far easier to come by for short range shipping that titans or JF's or ordinary freighters+JB's. |
Basil Pupkin
Why So Platypus
96
|
Posted - 2015.01.12 03:33:43 -
[36] - Quote
Anhenka wrote: Because CCP never intended carriers to be a multipurpose large volume hauler?
A carrier could hold 211k m3 of ore/ammo/minerals/gas/PI/whatever, has commonly held requirements for jumping, is highly tanky and capable of self defense, holds 2/3 as much as a JF, and costs 1/5th the cost of a JF, along with (I think) lower fuel costs per LY.
It would basically be JF lite, especially for ferrying things around nullsec. For example say there two pockets that are separated by 10 jumps physically, but only 2 LY. I can do a full round trip every hour hauling 200k+ of materials, say compressed ore, or ice. All without adding to my Jump Fatigue.
Even a full 5LY jump, 200k m3 of stuff every two hours for one minute of work and a single one bil isk ship.
CCP does not want the carrier in the large volume hauling role. And a few carriers are far easier to come by for short range shipping that titans or JF's or ordinary freighters+JB's.
Could you please not speak for CCP and bring actual arguments without dragging speculated collective intentions of a group of people with different opinions into this?
Not really sure about fuel costs, but you still have to get those miasmoses loaded (which is easy in station but may be a tricky thing to do in space), can only use it once per hour or two, below capacity of a rorqual if you're mining, and less useful for general hauling outside of area with specialized industrials to stuff yourself with.
By the way, do you have ANY idea at all, how many miner-hours are required to produce 200k m3 of compressed ore? According to my latest spreadsheet, even on lowest ores like veldspar and spodumain, it takes more than 30, and if we're talking ABC, it's over one hundred (and over two hundred for A). And that is for max yield hulks, bless you if you have to mine in something else.
So, if you're mining, Rorqual, period.
And if you don't, you can either spend 2 hours to get 200k m3 down from 5 LY with a carrier, walking thru a hassle of stuffing industrials, OR you can use a jf and get it done in 10 LY with 300+k m3, in 10 minutes, without stuffing.
I don't really see an issue in it.
A crap ton equals 1000 crap loads in metric, and roughly 91 shit loads 12 bull shits and 1 puppy's unforeseen disaster in imperial.
|
Anhenka
The Cult of Personality DARKNESS.
871
|
Posted - 2015.01.12 04:09:46 -
[37] - Quote
Basil Pupkin wrote: Could you please not speak for CCP and bring actual arguments without dragging speculated collective intentions of a group of people with different opinions into this?
Not really sure about fuel costs, but you still have to get those miasmoses loaded (which is easy in station but may be a tricky thing to do in space), can only use it once per hour or two, below capacity of a rorqual if you're mining, and less useful for general hauling outside of area with specialized industrials to stuff yourself with.
By the way, do you have ANY idea at all, how many miner-hours are required to produce 200k m3 of compressed ore? According to my latest spreadsheet, even on lowest ores like veldspar and spodumain, it takes more than 30, and if we're talking ABC, it's over one hundred (and over two hundred for A). And that is for max yield hulks, bless you if you have to mine in something else.
So, if you're mining, Rorqual, period.
And if you don't, you can either spend 2 hours to get 200k m3 down from 5 LY with a carrier, walking thru a hassle of stuffing industrials, OR you can use a jf and get it done in 10 LY with 300+k m3, in 10 minutes, without stuffing.
I don't really see an issue in it.
It was stated several times by CCP during the implementation of the DST and specialized cargobay haulers that they would not be permitted to be loaded into carriers with non charge materials specifically because CCP did not want carriers with DST's or other haulers being capable of hauling massive amounts of cargo. That job is the job of the JF and to a lesser extent, the Rorqual.
I'm not putting words in CCP's mouth here. It's not just my opinion.
As for the 200k m3 of compressed ore bit, the amount of time required is to put it bluntly, completely irrelevant. Would a Rorqual or a JF be a better hauler than a carrier? Of course. And ofc the Rorq is the only one with boosting with. But carriers are far cheaper than a rorqual, hold half as much as one, are far sturdier than one, and most importantly, are far far more common than them. I have four carrier characters, three with carriers, and only one of each a JF/Rorqual pilot, but no JF/Rorqual.
Despite being less effective in a hauling role than a JF or Rorqual, a carrier still holds more than half of what the others do, while being far sturdier, far cheaper, and something far more people are skilled for than the primary ships.
I'm not in a huge corp, only 90 people, but we only have around 5 good JF pilots, 5 Rorqual pilots, and probably 40 carrier pilots. And of those JF's and Rorquals, we only have 3 of each that I know of. But at least 30 carriers. And since most of our corp holdings are consolidated in a fairly small area only a few LY across, being able to haul 200k M3 of materials in a carrier would instantly increase the availability for us to haul things five times over.
In a carrier with 200k m3, I can jump into a POS, refuel it, pick up a month worth of moon mining, jump to the next POS, do it again, jump to the next POS, do it again, and only then have to come home. And do it all in a ship worth 1/3 a rorqual or 1/6th a J, for the same use.
Just because you keep insisting that because the main ships do it better than a carrier could means that it's not an issue doesn't magically make it not an issue.
If CCP want carriers to be able to haul massive amounts of cargo, they will permit it, but up to this point, every action they have taken from prohibiting non charge items in ships inside a carrier SMA to increasing the size of assembled ships points to them having no desire whatsoever to permit carriers to do so.
|
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
198
|
Posted - 2015.01.12 04:15:40 -
[38] - Quote
Don;t forget fatigue
In a carrier or Titan fatigue is excruciating compared to a JF, that alone would keep me from packing stuff into ships
You can make several trips in a JF and have less fatigue than a single trip in a carrier |
Anhenka
The Cult of Personality DARKNESS.
871
|
Posted - 2015.01.12 04:22:53 -
[39] - Quote
Kenneth Feld wrote:Don;t forget fatigue
In a carrier or Titan fatigue is excruciating compared to a JF, that alone would keep me from packing stuff into ships
You can make several trips in a JF and have less fatigue than a single trip in a carrier
I'm not forgetting fatigue. Having to wait an hour between max range jumps would be a pain. But it would be a manageable pain, especially if your only operating in a small LY area.
A JF will always do it better, do it faster, do it with more style.
But a carrier would still get it done, especially if you have a suitcase alt you can burn up to a few days of fatigue on to make several rapid jumps along a circuit.
I'd expect it would stop people from using carriers to move things around in bulk just about as well as jump fatigue prevented people from taking 200 supercapitals a large chunk of the way across eve in a single op. Right PL? |
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
199
|
Posted - 2015.01.12 04:51:50 -
[40] - Quote
Anhenka wrote:Kenneth Feld wrote:Don;t forget fatigue
In a carrier or Titan fatigue is excruciating compared to a JF, that alone would keep me from packing stuff into ships
You can make several trips in a JF and have less fatigue than a single trip in a carrier I'm not forgetting fatigue. Having to wait an hour between max range jumps would be a pain. But it would be a manageable pain, especially if your only operating in a small LY area. A JF will always do it better, do it faster, do it with more style. But a carrier would still get it done, especially if you have a suitcase alt you can burn up to a few days of fatigue on to make several rapid jumps along a circuit. I'd expect it would stop people from using carriers to move things around in bulk just about as well as jump fatigue prevented people from taking 200 supercapitals a large chunk of the way across eve in a single op. Right PL?
You just made my point
"JF will do it better, faster and with more style"
That wasn't always the case, but now that the game has evolved, it is the case, so there is no need for extra restrictions on what can go in cargo holds |
|
Anhenka
The Cult of Personality DARKNESS.
872
|
Posted - 2015.01.12 05:08:11 -
[41] - Quote
Kenneth Feld wrote: You just made my point
"JF will do it better, faster and with more style"
That wasn't always the case, but now that the game has evolved, it is the case, so there is no need for extra restrictions on what can go in cargo holds
It's only an applicable point if CCP believes that carriers should perform in any way shape or form as a large cargo hauler.
It's not like CCP looked at the carriers and went "Oh lets give it a small Corp Hangar Array and a large SMA that can only carry ships and ammo because that's all anyone would use them for anyway" CCP knew damn well that if we could put anything in a ships cargohold we would immediately use them to haul all sorts of things besides ammo.
Allowing them to move large cargo via ship cargohlds would move them into a jump capable large cargo carrying capacity category that is the current domain of the JF and the Rorqual.
Saying that since they would not be as good as an extremely specialized JF there is no problem in allowing them to do so blithely ignores the fact that carriers are not even in the same category of use currently.
A carrier is a jump capable combat ship with a side capability of being able to carry assembled ships.
A JF is a non combat jump capable transport ship that cannot carry assembled ships.
Do you see a lot of overlap there? Because I don't. And allowing carriers to carry 2/3 of what a JF can, even with a shorter range and longer jump fatigue, severely overlaps with the current role of the JF. Removing the restrictions would not be a minor alteration, rather a massive addition to the purpose and role of the carrier. |
Tabyll Altol
Breaking.Bad Circle-Of-Two
68
|
Posted - 2015.01.12 10:07:31 -
[42] - Quote
Kenneth Feld wrote:Title was pretty specific
JF can jump the farthest
The original reason for this was loading itty5's with ammo and railguns for reprocessing and using the smb to exceed JF range and size
None of this matters now, everything has same jump range, except JF - which are supposed to haul compressed ore
Reprocessing of modules is at a point, where it just doesn't matter
This would make having normal items like drugs and LO in your cargo literally not aids
Thanks
When you can place everything in it why should it be called SMB and not Cargo bay ? Maybe you should use the ships which are designed for the task you wanna do.
Yeah i know just an crazy idea.
-1 |
Kat Ayclism
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
324
|
Posted - 2015.01.12 12:15:19 -
[43] - Quote
Tabyll Altol wrote:Kenneth Feld wrote:Title was pretty specific
JF can jump the farthest
The original reason for this was loading itty5's with ammo and railguns for reprocessing and using the smb to exceed JF range and size
None of this matters now, everything has same jump range, except JF - which are supposed to haul compressed ore
Reprocessing of modules is at a point, where it just doesn't matter
This would make having normal items like drugs and LO in your cargo literally not aids
Thanks When you can place everything in it why should it be called SMB and not Cargo bay ? Maybe you should use the ships which are designed for the task you wanna do. Yeah i know just an crazy idea. -1 Your reading comprehension is impeccable. |
Zeus Maximo
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
844
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 04:38:04 -
[44] - Quote
Please make this happen.
"It is not possible either to trick or escape the mind of Zeus."
U-MAD Membership Recruitment
PoH Corporation Recruitment
|
Sentenced 1989
156
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 11:37:33 -
[45] - Quote
Agreed, nothing more anyoing then not being able to place ship in SMB because it has spare web/scram refit or ozone/cyno refit.
Then you have to go thought each ship one by one, move it out to regular cargo and later put it back in the ship at destination. This gets especially complicated with multiple ships with similliar refits and modules.
The Incursion Guild
QA Combat Analyzer
Incursion Layout Builder
|
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
2208
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 14:29:41 -
[46] - Quote
Just adjust the volume of each industrial based on their max cargohold, so that you can't use the ship maintenance hangar for more than 10% of its space as cargo. For example: increase the Iteron Mark V, Bestower, Tayra, and Mammoth from 275,000m3 to 400,000m3. Then remove that stupid limitation.
T3 Strategic Shuttle | T3 Flexible Battleship
|
Anhenka
The Cult of Personality DARKNESS.
875
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 21:00:04 -
[47] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:Just adjust the volume of each industrial based on their max cargohold, so that you can't use the ship maintenance hangar for more than 10% of its space as cargo. For example: increase the Iteron Mark V, Bestower, Tayra, and Mammoth from 275,000m3 to 400,000m3. Then remove that stupid limitation.
Still adds up to 100k. |
Arya Regnar
Darwins Right Hand
646
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 21:17:07 -
[48] - Quote
Anhenka wrote:Would still have problems with carriers hauling Miasmoses full of compressed ore. Could fit in the range of 200k m3 of compressed ore in a carrier. And then jump 5 ly and think about what you just did. Realize it's stupid and use JF again.
EvE-Mail me if you need anything.
|
Anhenka
The Cult of Personality DARKNESS.
875
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 21:30:19 -
[49] - Quote
Arya Regnar wrote:Anhenka wrote:Would still have problems with carriers hauling Miasmoses full of compressed ore. Could fit in the range of 200k m3 of compressed ore in a carrier. And then jump 5 ly and think about what you just did. Realize it's stupid and use JF again.
Oh man, it's like they grow on trees. I'm so glad I can walk over to my JF tree, pluck off a newly ripe Nomad, and Nomad off into the distance with my cargo. Maybe I'll just leave the Nomad where I found it so that it sprouts a new JF tree, then come back and pick an Ark off my JF tree for my next trip.
A JF will do it better, faster, easier. Never contested that. But A: That's not an argument for allowing carriers to move bulk cargo in the first place and B: A JF costs 7 times what a carrier does.
We have a frigate capable of hauling 10k m3 ore. We also have lots of frigates capable of only holding a few hundred m3. Proposing that carriers be able to haul bulk cargo just because they wouldn't do it as well as a JF is like arguing that a Slicer should have a 5k m3 ore hold, and that it's not an issue because Prospect does it better.
Just plain ridiculous. |
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
206
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 21:38:43 -
[50] - Quote
Anhenka wrote:Arya Regnar wrote:Anhenka wrote:Would still have problems with carriers hauling Miasmoses full of compressed ore. Could fit in the range of 200k m3 of compressed ore in a carrier. And then jump 5 ly and think about what you just did. Realize it's stupid and use JF again. Oh man, it's like they grow on trees. I'm so glad I can walk over to my JF tree, pluck off a newly ripe Nomad, and Nomad off into the distance with my cargo. Maybe I'll just leave the Nomad where I found it so that it sprouts a new JF tree, then come back and pick an Ark off my JF tree for my next trip. A JF will do it better, faster, easier. Never contested that. But A: That's not an argument for allowing carriers to move bulk cargo in the first place and B: A JF costs 7 times what a carrier does. We have a frigate capable of hauling 10k m3 ore. We also have lots of frigates capable of only holding a few hundred m3. Proposing that carriers be able to haul bulk cargo just because they wouldn't do it as well as a JF is like arguing that a Slicer should have a 5k m3 ore hold, and that it's not an issue because Prospect does it better. Just plain ridiculous.
The point is PREVIOUSLY this wasn't the case, if you could put this stuff in carriers, then carriers did it faster, cheaper and used less fuel.
THEN PHEOBE HAPPENED
NOW
Carrier can't do it faster, can't do it cheaper and has MORE fatigue JF is better in all respects
SO.....remove the restrictions |
|
Anhenka
The Cult of Personality DARKNESS.
875
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 21:48:58 -
[51] - Quote
Kenneth Feld wrote: The point is PREVIOUSLY this wasn't the case, if you could put this stuff in carriers, then carriers did it faster, cheaper and used less fuel.
THEN PHEOBE HAPPENED
NOW
Carrier can't do it faster, can't do it cheaper and has MORE fatigue JF is better in all respects
SO.....remove the restrictions
Do you honestly think that Pre-Phoebe the only reason carriers were unable to carry bulk goods was because they would outperform JF's?
And not something as small and as insignificant as the part where they are combat oriented ships that were never, ever, in any way shape or form intended by CCP to be bulk haulers of non ship items?
Because that's what removing the restrictions is: A change specifically permitted to permit the carrier to haul 200K + m3 in a blk hauling role. |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Forged of Fire
794
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 22:09:40 -
[52] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:Just adjust the volume of each industrial based on their max cargohold, so that you can't use the ship maintenance hangar for more than 10% of its space as cargo. For example: increase the Iteron Mark V, Bestower, Tayra, and Mammoth from 275,000m3 to 400,000m3. Then remove that stupid limitation.
I'd suggest volumes more along the 500,000 m3 for these ships - with max expanders and Giant Secure Containers, I can get 55,385 m3 into a Bestower. If I can fit two into my carrier, I can haul about 120,000 m3 (counting fleet hangar), but I give up my ability to bring any other fitted ships.
Such a carrier would present some distinct advantages over a Jump Freighter:
1. It costs a lot less. 2. A carrier is also good for combat. 3. A carrier can haul fitted ships as well.
And some disadvantages:
1. The carrier cannot enter high sec, load up there, and jump out to a low/null sec cyno. At a minimum, I have to get the items from high sec into low/null to load the carrier. 2. I can haul 3x more in the Jump Freighter, before we even get into silliness with that many GSC's. 3. I can jump further and faster with the Jump Freighter.
And mind you, this is all talking about the second order effects of this change - the primary effect would be that I could transport ships in my carrier with the extra mods, mobile depots, liquid ozone, and all the other useful things without it being a complete pain.
Thoughts?
The Greatest Ship Ever. Credit to Shahfluffers.
|
Anhenka
The Cult of Personality DARKNESS.
875
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 22:20:36 -
[53] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote: Thoughts?
Prevent all industrials from being loaded into the SMA while holding any items whatsoever, and it would be fine.
I have no issue with things like LO and small loose mods being in the cargobay. I do have an issue with abusing the size of industrial bays to permit bulk hauling in a carrier.
Carrier has a 10K m3 corp hangar, and 875 m3 of personal cargo space. If you can manage to double the total space available by using ships loaded wth other mods, I'm against it. That means no 50k m3 extra space, no 100k, no 200k+. Just no.
Permit non charge items in the cargo bays, but preventing outright abuse by preventing all industrials from being loaded with anything aboard, even charges. (Sorry, no indies filled with dread ammo as carrier carriers). No items in any specialized holds, regardless of the type of hold or item.
|
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
206
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 22:25:59 -
[54] - Quote
Anhenka wrote:Kenneth Feld wrote: The point is PREVIOUSLY this wasn't the case, if you could put this stuff in carriers, then carriers did it faster, cheaper and used less fuel.
THEN PHEOBE HAPPENED
NOW
Carrier can't do it faster, can't do it cheaper and has MORE fatigue JF is better in all respects
SO.....remove the restrictions
Do you honestly think that Pre-Phoebe the only reason carriers were unable to carry bulk goods was because they would outperform JF's?And not something as small and as insignificant as the part where they are combat oriented ships that were never, ever, in any way shape or form intended by CCP to be bulk haulers of non ship items? Because that's what removing the restrictions is: A change specifically permitted to permit the carrier to haul 200K + m3 in a blk hauling role.
Yes, people would use carriers extra range to haul Railguns and XL ammo to reprocess and build SC and Titans prior to CCP banning that activity.
I know, I did it
They were not intended to be bulk hauler, so CCP nerfed it, good for them, but they went overboard to a certain extent
Now that the exploit is fixed with another method - jump range and fatigue
There is no reason to not let anything go in cargo
If you really think specialized bays would be exploited, fine, I don't even really care about industrial in general.
This is mainly about mobile depots, LO, drugs, extra tank modules, different subsystems for T3, etc
Stuff you have to take out when you put the ship in a SMB, ultimately it ends up in the fleet hangar and forgotten about or takes jeveassets to find again |
Anhenka
The Cult of Personality DARKNESS.
875
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 22:33:52 -
[55] - Quote
Kenneth Feld wrote: This is mainly about mobile depots, LO, drugs, extra tank modules, different subsystems for T3, etc
Then I guess you wouldn't mind if industrials, mining barges, and mining frigates all were specifically unable to carry anything while loaded into the SMA?
And yeah, I did the module compression route when it was available too. Have a ton of 425 rails, 800 auto, and citadel torp prints lying around from back then. It was a stupid process and I'm grad it was replaced by easily compressed ore. It was an abuse of the charge exception, and I'd rather not see it partially replaced by bulk hauler carriers. |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Forged of Fire
794
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 22:38:04 -
[56] - Quote
Anhenka wrote:FT Diomedes wrote: Thoughts?
Prevent all industrials from being loaded into the SMA while holding any items whatsoever, and it would be fine.
I'd be okay with this too...
The Greatest Ship Ever. Credit to Shahfluffers.
|
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
206
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 22:40:11 -
[57] - Quote
Anhenka wrote:Kenneth Feld wrote: This is mainly about mobile depots, LO, drugs, extra tank modules, different subsystems for T3, etc
Then I guess you wouldn't mind if industrials, mining barges, and mining frigates all were specifically unable to carry anything while loaded into the SMA? And yeah, I did the module compression route when it was available too. Have a ton of 425 rails, 800 auto, and citadel torp prints lying around from back then. It was a stupid process and I'm grad it was replaced by easily compressed ore. It was an abuse of the charge exception, and I'd rather not see it partially replaced by bulk hauler carriers.
You must have missed the part in my earlier reply when i specifically said I didn't care about specialized cargo holds or industrials in general
Anyone who moved via this method would be laughed at, especially on the KM....that would be my only reason for it being left in honestly |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
2209
|
Posted - 2015.01.14 01:22:21 -
[58] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:Reaver Glitterstim wrote:Just adjust the volume of each industrial based on their max cargohold, so that you can't use the ship maintenance hangar for more than 10% of its space as cargo. For example: increase the Iteron Mark V, Bestower, Tayra, and Mammoth from 275,000m3 to 400,000m3. Then remove that stupid limitation. I'd suggest volumes more along the 500,000 m3 for these ships - with max expanders and Giant Secure Containers, I can get 55,385 m3 into a Bestower. If I can fit two into my carrier, I can haul about 120,000 m3 (counting fleet hangar), but I give up my ability to bring any other fitted ships. Such a carrier would present some distinct advantages over a Jump Freighter: 1. It costs a lot less. 2. A carrier is also good for combat. 3. A carrier can haul fitted ships as well. And some disadvantages: 1. The carrier cannot enter high sec, load up there, and jump out to a low/null sec cyno. At a minimum, I have to get the items from high sec into low/null to load the carrier. 2. I can haul 3x more in the Jump Freighter, before we even get into silliness with that many GSC's. 3. I can jump further and faster with the Jump Freighter. And mind you, this is all talking about the second order effects of this change - the primary effect would be that I could transport ships in my carrier with the extra mods, mobile depots, liquid ozone, and all the other useful things without it being a complete pain. Thoughts? Perhaps 5% is more reasonable, so 800,000m3 for large t1 industrial. Don't bother calculating how much they hold with containers because JF can use containers also. But maybe people just need to learn to accept that an assembled industrial is a big ship. Everything else will fit just fine.
An alternate idea I had was to let the ship carry cargo up to its base cargohold size before cargo expansion. This will easily allow for bits of loot left in the hold, or some extra modules you want to take with the ship, and should even cover most cases in which someone forgets they had a full haul in their combat ship.
T3 Strategic Shuttle | T3 Flexible Battleship
|
Mario Putzo
Welping and Dunking.
1083
|
Posted - 2015.01.14 01:23:51 -
[59] - Quote
remove all SMBs from ships not named Bowhead. |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Forged of Fire
795
|
Posted - 2015.01.14 01:38:56 -
[60] - Quote
Mario Putzo wrote:remove all SMBs from ships not named Bowhead.
Well, that's one way to make moving around in 0.0 suck even more.
PS - do you by chance sell Bowheads?
The Greatest Ship Ever. Credit to Shahfluffers.
|
|
Anthar Thebess
830
|
Posted - 2015.01.14 09:28:12 -
[61] - Quote
Now every thing should be possible to have in ship cargo holds. Hauling in a capital ( not JF) sorry - 2j max per day usually - that is something that JF can do almost in 1 jump ... and it can jump again quite fast.
Using carriers to haul stuff ( in SMA haulers ) is not an issue any more.
Current restrictions are just annoying now. |
Anhenka
The Cult of Personality DARKNESS.
881
|
Posted - 2015.01.14 17:20:07 -
[62] - Quote
Anthar Thebess wrote:Now every thing should be possible to have in ship cargo holds. Hauling in a capital ( not JF) sorry - 2j max per day usually - that is something that JF can do almost in 1 jump ... and it can jump again quite fast.
Using carriers to haul stuff ( in SMA haulers ) is not an issue any more.
Current restrictions are just annoying now. Oh look it's the "Carriers would not be as good of bulk haulers as JF, and that makes them ok to turn into bulk haulers even though they were not bulk haulers before" argument yet again.
Tell me, what's your opinion of Slicers with 5k m3 ore ore holds? Prospects do it better, so why not?
|
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
158
|
Posted - 2015.01.14 19:41:28 -
[63] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Kenneth Feld wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Kenneth Feld wrote:
Really, the original intent was reprocessing nerf. That is no longer a threat, due to Crius, so it shouldn't mater what we pack in a ship.
where are you getting your information the reason for it had nothing to do with reprocessing but to do with how carriers were able to haul far more than intended and became a cheaper and all around better alternative to just about any-other hauler outside of HS. and this would still be the case What people were hauling was XL ammo and 425 rails to far away places to REPROCESS to get minerals for building. Back then you got 100% return from reprocessing. Fast forward to 2014 - reprocessing is nerfed to the ground and no one in their right mind would reprocess to get minerals, everyone uses compressed ore (Which can be left as the last item not able to go in a SMA) Sure - could someone load up a titan with a bunch of industrials and go gate to gate or take 2 days to get to a station and try and sell the stuff - maybe. At this point, i would say that is content and not exploiting the cargo of the ship. It wasn't what they were moving but what they were moving it IN and since jump freighters are going to get their range nerffed back down to the intended 5LY once the rest of the industry changes are done this would still be the case
Please stop repeating what CCP will do till they do it. It might be the 20th anniversary of eve before all the changes they want are in to nerf JF range and by then have forgotten about it.
|
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
1167
|
Posted - 2015.01.14 20:06:31 -
[64] - Quote
So, my read on the consensus of folks in this thread is:
1. Nobody really has a problem with lifting the restrictions on cargo in ships loaded into a SMB as long as said cargo is mainly incidentals in ships other than industrials. People like to keep spare mods in their ships and searching for them to remove is a pain, or move small quantities of cargo which shouldn't be an issue.
2. Some folks have a problem with Carriers using multiple loaded industrials to haul goods like compressed ore in place of jump freighters. Even though Carriers have shorter jump range and suffer far more from jump fatigue issues, they are far cheaper, more durable, and combat capable, which means that their role as a hauler should be inherently limited. (It should be noted that CCP originally placed these restrictions on SMBs specifically to avoid such a condition.)
Given these two things, it seems to me that the ideal solution (assuming you're going to advocate for a change at all, which I'm not convinced is necessary) would be to lift the SMB cargo restrictions and somehow restrict the number of industrials you can load into SMBs (increase their volume, flat-out ban their storage in SMBs, etc.).
Thoughts?
My Many Misadventures
Reading Comprehension: so important it deserves it's own skillbook.
I seek to create content, not become content.
|
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1479
|
Posted - 2015.01.14 20:37:42 -
[65] - Quote
Bronson Hughes wrote:So, my read on the consensus of folks in this thread is:
1. Nobody really has a problem with lifting the restrictions on cargo in ships loaded into a SMB as long as said cargo is mainly incidentals in ships other than industrials. People like to keep spare mods in their ships and searching for them to remove is a pain, or move small quantities of cargo which shouldn't be an issue.
2. Some folks have a problem with Carriers using multiple loaded industrials to haul goods like compressed ore in place of jump freighters. Even though Carriers have shorter jump range and suffer far more from jump fatigue issues, they are far cheaper, more durable, and combat capable, which means that their role as a hauler should be inherently limited. (It should be noted that CCP originally placed these restrictions on SMBs specifically to avoid such a condition.)
Given these two things, it seems to me that the ideal solution (assuming you're going to advocate for a change at all, which I'm not convinced is necessary) would be to lift the SMB cargo restrictions and somehow restrict the number of industrials you can load into SMBs (increase their volume, flat-out ban their storage in SMBs, etc.).
Thoughts?
All ship with the "hauler" trait keep the current limitation while others don't. We know the "hauler" trait exist since they all get the same reduction to jump fatigue generation. |
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
1168
|
Posted - 2015.01.14 20:48:39 -
[66] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:All ship with the "hauler" trait keep the current limitation while others don't. We know the "hauler" trait exist since they all get the same reduction to jump fatigue generation. That's one of those, "Why the bloody hell didn't I think of that?" solutions.
+1.
My Many Misadventures
Reading Comprehension: so important it deserves it's own skillbook.
I seek to create content, not become content.
|
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1481
|
Posted - 2015.01.14 20:58:11 -
[67] - Quote
Bronson Hughes wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:All ship with the "hauler" trait keep the current limitation while others don't. We know the "hauler" trait exist since they all get the same reduction to jump fatigue generation. That's one of those, "Why the bloody hell didn't I think of that?" solutions. +1.
Well they would still need to make addition for "can fit strip miner" to include the barge and exhumer but that flag exist too I guess so vOv. |
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
210
|
Posted - 2015.01.14 22:40:28 -
[68] - Quote
Bronson Hughes wrote:So, my read on the consensus of folks in this thread is:
1. Nobody really has a problem with lifting the restrictions on cargo in ships loaded into a SMB as long as said cargo is mainly incidentals in ships other than industrials. People like to keep spare mods in their ships and searching for them to remove is a pain, or move small quantities of cargo which shouldn't be an issue.
2. Some folks have a problem with Carriers using multiple loaded industrials to haul goods like compressed ore in place of jump freighters. Even though Carriers have shorter jump range and suffer far more from jump fatigue issues, they are far cheaper, more durable, and combat capable, which means that their role as a hauler should be inherently limited. (It should be noted that CCP originally placed these restrictions on SMBs specifically to avoid such a condition.)
Given these two things, it seems to me that the ideal solution (assuming you're going to advocate for a change at all, which I'm not convinced is necessary) would be to lift the SMB cargo restrictions and somehow restrict the number of industrials you can load into SMBs (increase their volume, flat-out ban their storage in SMBs, etc.).
Thoughts?
Let me start by saying, I don't care about industrials really one way or the other
Second, the range penalty and especially the fatigue penalty in my opinion would override any potential gain from jamming industrials full of cargo
I would advocate for no compressed ore, but if someone wants to try hard and fill their industrials with ammo or modules and jump it around, I personally think it would be an awesome lossmail and should be allowed for that reason only.
Either way, I don't much care about limiting indutrials, but just saying no compressed ore would be a far simpler solution to everything |
BlitZ Kotare
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
129
|
Posted - 2015.01.15 00:40:33 -
[69] - Quote
Kenneth Feld wrote: Either way, I don't much care about limiting indutrials, but just saying no compressed ore would be a far simpler solution to everything
To be completely honest I don't think we need even this much. Loading max skilled fully expanded haulers into a carrier full of compressed ore you're going to get less than 1/3 the capacity of a poorly skilled Jump Freigher. Granted a carrier is a more capable transport but it'll still die in a horrible fire as a hauler. If people are willing to take the chance let them, it'll make for more of those "player interacitons" CCP are always saying they want more of.
In any case, all I really want is for it to be a little less painful to pack and unpack things from my carriers. Logistics in EVE are already horribly painful and unfun, this one small quality of life change would at least alleviate an appreciable chunk of the unfun part. |
Anthar Thebess
830
|
Posted - 2015.01.15 07:25:02 -
[70] - Quote
Tbh.
Lifting this rule for any ship except for indy also make this game less annoying .
I don't think that hauling stuff in carrier or super SMA will be an issue. Mainly because : - wherever you go , you need ships - so you put them there first. - lack of fatigue reduction will block any serious stuff movement
The only ship that might cause some issue is rorqual , as it could carry more than JF.
|
|
Tarsas Phage
Freight Club
364
|
Posted - 2015.01.15 16:54:48 -
[71] - Quote
Bronson Hughes wrote: Given these two things, it seems to me that the ideal solution (assuming you're going to advocate for a change at all, which I'm not convinced is necessary) would be to lift the SMB cargo restrictions and somehow restrict the number of industrials you can load into SMBs (increase their volume, flat-out ban their storage in SMBs, etc.).
Thoughts?
Well, currently I use a T1 hauler to carry my spare ammo, bombs, cap boosters, and paste when I pack my carrier up for deployment. This would put an end to that.
I mean, I need the hauler (a Mammoth) anyway for other purposes wherever I go, so if I have to drag it along with me, I might as well toss my spare charges in it. As we all know, cap boosters especially can be hard currency if you're out in the boonies. |
Anhenka
The Cult of Personality DARKNESS.
890
|
Posted - 2015.01.15 17:03:53 -
[72] - Quote
Tarsas Phage wrote:Bronson Hughes wrote: Given these two things, it seems to me that the ideal solution (assuming you're going to advocate for a change at all, which I'm not convinced is necessary) would be to lift the SMB cargo restrictions and somehow restrict the number of industrials you can load into SMBs (increase their volume, flat-out ban their storage in SMBs, etc.).
Thoughts?
Well, currently I use a T1 hauler to carry my spare ammo, bombs, cap boosters, and paste when I pack my carrier up for deployment. This would put an end to that. I mean, I need the hauler (a Mammoth) anyway for other purposes wherever I go, so if I have to drag it along with me, I might as well toss my spare charges in it. As we all know, cap boosters especially can be hard currency if you're out in the boonies.
The charge exception is rater silly tbh. The intent of it is to allow your combat ships to carry their ammo/boosters/we ofc.
But then it gets abused by filling haulers full of ammo. Because for some reason, even though a miasmos can't carry rock while stored, and epithal can't carry PI, all the haulers can carry massive amounts of volatile explosive substances. Silly, no?
I'd say simply remove the ability for all haulers to carry anything at all while stored, but allow non haulers to carry everything.
Would also allow CCP to revert the size increases made to the industrial awhile back. |
Kat Ayclism
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
324
|
Posted - 2015.01.15 17:04:29 -
[73] - Quote
Anhenka wrote:Anthar Thebess wrote:Now every thing should be possible to have in ship cargo holds. Hauling in a capital ( not JF) sorry - 2j max per day usually - that is something that JF can do almost in 1 jump ... and it can jump again quite fast.
Using carriers to haul stuff ( in SMA haulers ) is not an issue any more.
Current restrictions are just annoying now. Oh look it's the "Carriers would not be as good of bulk haulers as JFs, and that makes them ok to turn into bulk haulers even though they were not bulk haulers before" argument yet again. Tell me, what's your opinion of Slicers with 5k m3 ore holds? Prospects do it better, so why not? Maybe Rifters with only half the remote rep bonus of a burst? Bursts with half the damp bonus of a Maulus? Removing the restrictions is not just removing some minor hassle, it's giving carriers a very large amount of usability that they didn't have before, that overlaps an existing ship class. It's not a minor tweak. "Not as good as a JF" is not an argument to add this capability. You're spectacularly deluded and you have to keep reducing yourself to absurdity to justify why these dumb restrictions are still a thing. All you do with such ridiculous things is make yourself look like a clown. None of those things is comparable to a ship that already hauls other ships, can't be made to haul other items with even a significant fraction of the efficiency of a JF, and would be a significant quality of life change for yknow people that actually use their ships. |
Anthar Thebess
830
|
Posted - 2015.01.15 17:14:33 -
[74] - Quote
Sorry but i don't see an issue. Will lifting restrictions will make people life easier - yes a bit. Will this change game - yes. Will this brake every thing? No, as the most limiting factor will be fatigue.
Try to move 300k m3 20 LY away.
Using carrier this takes hours just to not boost your fatigue. Using JF - almost instant 2jumps away.
People will not be using this to haul stuff every day , simply because if they try fatigue will "kill" their mobility after few quick jumps.
|
Anhenka
The Cult of Personality DARKNESS.
890
|
Posted - 2015.01.15 17:15:40 -
[75] - Quote
Seems to be two camps of people in here.
The one's who want to be able to fit things other than just charges in their combat ships while moving (+1 for this much) We can all agree that it would be nice not to have to unload all non charge mods from our ships while moving them by carrier.
And the ones who look at removing the restriction as a way to get the first point, and then also a cheap bulk hauler for when you are moving things short distances or already taking a carrier (or several) along somewhere.
I have yet to see anyone explain why the second part should be a part of the combat focused carrier class at all. Everyone is just waving their hands going "That would be cool, and so I want it" with a side order of "It's not as good at it as the ultra specialized JF (no **** Sherlock) just like every other thread in F&I where the poster feels entitled to exactly what he proposes.
In the simplest terms possible, a carrier is not currently a hauler for anything except fitted ships and charges.
Why should it change so that a carrier can haul 20 times more than it can currently, of any type of item it wants?
+1 to combat ships holding non charge items. -1 to industrials being abused as giant transit boxes. |
Anthar Thebess
830
|
Posted - 2015.01.15 17:29:36 -
[76] - Quote
It is not about hauling stuff, just about making this aspect less annoying. If you ant to haul stuff you need to use rorqual or JF.
Currently my fast hauler in nullsec -> BO , rigged for cargo and cargo holds. Guess why
|
Tex Raynor
Guardians of Asceticism Carebear Abortion Clinic
9
|
Posted - 2015.01.15 17:51:06 -
[77] - Quote
Since we are on the topic of cargo restrictions, here's my 2 cents.
SMB - As was suggested, removing all restrictions would be great for anyone using them. You could balance it out by either: 1. Having the cargo from stored ships affect the fleet hangar space available. For instance, a carrier has 10 000 m3, so if I try to put a hauler with 11 000 m3 used, I would get an error. If I then remove some items and they only take 9 000 m3, the fleet hangar will have 1 000 m3 left available. 2. Remove all restrictions, but have total cargo m3 (your ships and the ships it's hauling) affect jump fatigue. This means that ships with 90% jump fatigue reduction should be relatively unaffected, but the others would see a significant delay on their jump fatigues if they try to haul 10x more then they were designed to. emergent gameplay, risk vs reward.
SMA - Very similar, but please remove restrictions there as well. With the addition of mobile depots to the game and things such as refitting t3 subs in space, I feel it has become common place to carry spare mods in cargo bays. It is actually easier (and slightly more efficient) to carry cargo containers in your ships to separate fits and loot. In wh's though, I must always drop the cans (then not forget to grab them) whenever I store a ship. You can, however, store a ship with a fleet hangar full of those containers which is either a intended or a forgotten fluke. |
Alexis Nightwish
74
|
Posted - 2015.01.15 17:56:27 -
[78] - Quote
Bienator II wrote:would like to have it total volume based. If you put a hauler into a carrier, everything which is in the cargo of the hauler would be added to the volume of the hauler itself. Brilliantly simple and elegant solution. +1
While we're at it, can we have this done to SMAs/CHAs/etc.?
CCP only approaches a problem in one of two ways: nudge or cludge
|
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
212
|
Posted - 2015.01.15 18:42:48 -
[79] - Quote
Anhenka wrote:Tarsas Phage wrote:Bronson Hughes wrote: Given these two things, it seems to me that the ideal solution (assuming you're going to advocate for a change at all, which I'm not convinced is necessary) would be to lift the SMB cargo restrictions and somehow restrict the number of industrials you can load into SMBs (increase their volume, flat-out ban their storage in SMBs, etc.).
Thoughts?
Well, currently I use a T1 hauler to carry my spare ammo, bombs, cap boosters, and paste when I pack my carrier up for deployment. This would put an end to that. I mean, I need the hauler (a Mammoth) anyway for other purposes wherever I go, so if I have to drag it along with me, I might as well toss my spare charges in it. As we all know, cap boosters especially can be hard currency if you're out in the boonies. The charge exception is rater silly tbh. The intent of it is to allow your combat ships to carry their ammo/boosters/we ofc. But then it gets abused by filling haulers full of ammo. Because for some reason, even though a miasmos can't carry rock while stored, and epithal can't carry PI, all the haulers can carry massive amounts of volatile explosive substances. Silly, no? I'd say simply remove the ability for all haulers to carry anything at all while stored, but allow non haulers to carry everything. Would also allow CCP to revert the size increases made to the industrial awhile back.
NEWS FLASH: you can already fiil haulers with ammo
We are not talking ammo here, that is currently and always has been OK
We are talking, spare tank modules, mobile depot, Liquid Ozone (For lighting cynos) drugs, mobile tractor units etc
|
Rockstara
Blackwater USA Inc. Pandemic Legion
45
|
Posted - 2015.01.15 20:14:45 -
[80] - Quote
As a player in this game I would like to be able to drag my fit ships and drop them into my SMA. It is pretty straightforward. Some fit ships keep liquid ozone in the cargohold, some ships keep drugs even hi sec safe drugs like quafe, and some keep a moble depot and a few spare mods. I don't care if industrials don't enjoy this freedom. This is a little thing that would make the game less tedious.
It seems the arguments against this don't focus on solving this extremely annoying requirement in the game and instead focusing on how industrial ships could be packed with all manner of things. So my question to those making this agruments, if it was allowed for all non-hauler ships is that unbalanced? |
|
FireFrenzy
Satan's Unicorns
169
|
Posted - 2015.01.16 08:43:10 -
[81] - Quote
Okay i've been bowheading junk around for a while now and the more i do so the more i am convinced this needs to be a thing (atleast in part) because GODDAMN i hate having to unload my boosters every single time...
That or instead of living from a suitcase actually unpack in hotel rooms, which ofcourse always results in you leaving junk behind that you KNOW you had when you left... |
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
213
|
Posted - 2015.01.20 04:21:51 -
[82] - Quote
BTT for winter summit
/crosses fingers |
Anthar Thebess
831
|
Posted - 2015.01.20 07:47:31 -
[83] - Quote
Drugs are also screwed up in contracts. Why i cannot contract them to someone that will haul them 20jumps away ... all around the nullsec.
One simple flag: - CanBeContractedToHigsec
If it is FALSE , then you cannot create contract to higsec , this flag can be also added to final plastic wrap , so it cannot be double wrapped.
This contract will be also WHITE, with BIG RED CROSS so it can be easily noticed by players wanting to venture into the lair of higsec nonsense. |
Rockstede
30plus Greater Western Co-Prosperity Sphere
207
|
Posted - 2015.01.20 08:38:42 -
[84] - Quote
Anhenka wrote:Arya Regnar wrote:Anhenka wrote:Would still have problems with carriers hauling Miasmoses full of compressed ore. Could fit in the range of 200k m3 of compressed ore in a carrier. And then jump 5 ly and think about what you just did. Realize it's stupid and use JF again. Oh man, it's like they grow on trees. I'm so glad I can walk over to my JF tree, pluck off a newly ripe Nomad, and Nomad off into the distance with my cargo. Maybe I'll just leave the Nomad where I found it so that it sprouts a new JF tree, then come back and pick an Ark off my JF tree for my next trip. A JF will do it better, faster, easier. Never contested that. But A: That's not an argument for allowing carriers to move bulk cargo in the first place and B: A JF costs 7 times what a carrier does. We have a frigate capable of hauling 10k m3 ore. We also have lots of frigates capable of only holding a few hundred m3. Proposing that carriers be able to haul bulk cargo just because they wouldn't do it as well as a JF is like arguing that a Slicer should have a 5k m3 ore hold, and that it's not an issue because Prospect does it better. Just plain ridiculous.
Silly noob, obviously planting a Nomad produces a Nomad tree, you wouldn't get an Ark from it
|
Anthar Thebess
831
|
Posted - 2015.01.20 08:57:09 -
[85] - Quote
For me is not about hauling but about moving stuff in ships. Every time pull out every thing and put back ( and usually forget some stuff or put wrong). Nothing like a rail harpy full of T2 blaster ammo
This 10k ore in a frigate can be solved very easily - specialized commodity cargo MUST be empty , or fleet hangar of T2 transports.
This simple way we dropped carrier capability to haul to 1/3??
|
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
214
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 21:35:26 -
[86] - Quote
So far the only concern is compressed ore it seems
Well, the one guy talking about ammo, not realizing you can put ammo in cargo now I suppose
So, if we excluded compressed ore, seems everyone here agrees...... |
Anhenka
The Cult of Personality DARKNESS.
920
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 21:41:45 -
[87] - Quote
Kenneth Feld wrote:So far the only concern is compressed ore it seems
Well, the one guy talking about ammo, not realizing you can put ammo in cargo now I suppose
So, if we excluded compressed ore, seems everyone here agrees...... A: Compressed ore was just a convenient example. Regardless of the type of item that goes into the haulers, using haulers to massively amplify cargo carrying capacity is not working as intended.
B: Despite the fact the you can put ammo and other charges in haulers, it's a gauche byproduct of permitting ammo in ships, not a feature intended by itself. In an ideal situation, it would be removed as well.
As my earlier proposal goes:
Allow all non industrial ships to carry any type of item in the cargohold. Prevent all industrials from hauling anything at all, including ammo.
That would permit us to bring along whatever we wanted in our combat ships, without people abusing the carriers as budget grade bulk haulers.
Everyone's happy, except those who wanted 200k m3 carrier haulers. |
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
214
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 21:58:24 -
[88] - Quote
Anhenka wrote:Kenneth Feld wrote:So far the only concern is compressed ore it seems
Well, the one guy talking about ammo, not realizing you can put ammo in cargo now I suppose
So, if we excluded compressed ore, seems everyone here agrees...... A: Compressed ore was just a convenient example. Regardless of the type of item that goes into the haulers, using haulers to massively amplify cargo carrying capacity is not working as intended. B: Despite the fact the you can put ammo and other charges in haulers, it's a gauche byproduct of permitting ammo in ships, not a feature intended by itself. In an ideal situation, it would be removed as well. As my earlier proposal goes: Allow all non industrial ships to carry any type of item in the cargohold. Prevent all industrials from hauling anything at all, including ammo. That would permit us to bring along whatever we wanted in our combat ships, without people abusing the carriers as budget grade bulk haulers. Everyone's happy, except those who wanted 200k m3 carrier haulers.
At the risk of you actually answering....
How can you get 200K of anything into a carrier
DST are around 400K each now, so you can only fit 2 The gall indy ships are 250ish, so i guess you could fit 4, but then you only get the hold for a specfic product not anything. so, maybe 200K of PI or 200K of minerals,or ammo (Which you can already do BTW)
I just don't see how this breaks anything at all
I want to put 200K of 425 railguns in a carrier, please explain how I can do it |
Anhenka
The Cult of Personality DARKNESS.
920
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 22:20:44 -
[89] - Quote
Kenneth Feld wrote: At the risk of you actually answering....
How can you get 200K of anything into a carrier
DST are around 400K each now, so you can only fit 2 The gall indy ships are 250ish, so i guess you could fit 4, but then you only get the hold for a specfic product not anything. so, maybe 200K of PI or 200K of minerals,or ammo (Which you can already do BTW)
I just don't see how this breaks anything at all
I want to put 200K of 425 railguns in a carrier, please explain how I can do it
Let's just go ahead and use Ore as an example again, although the same method can apply to Ore, Ice, Minerals, PI, Gas, or Ammo
At 265K m3 for say a Miasmos, you can fit 3 of them in the ship maintenance bay of a carrier, with an individual carrying capacity of 65,407 M3. Let's round that to just 65.
With three in the ship maintenance array, you can carry a total of 195K with the three, with 205 K m3 of extra space left over, enough for another 12k From a Blockage Runner.
That makes a total of 207K m3 carried in the holds of specialized ships.
There are of course, a bit less less available if we are using no specialized ships.
A pair of Occators with an individual carrying capacity of 86.9 (lets call it 70) K m3 + one blockade runner @ 12k m3 amount to a measly 152k M3 of space for items that are not Ore, Ice, Gas, Minerals, PI, Ammo, or Charges, all of which could be more efficiently stored by a specialized hauler.
So 207Kish M3 for items than cannot fit in a specced bay, and a mere 152K m3 for items that cannot. So not quite 200K for ALL items, but for many items, and over 3/4 that amount for the rest. |
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
214
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 23:28:21 -
[90] - Quote
Anhenka wrote:Kenneth Feld wrote: At the risk of you actually answering....
How can you get 200K of anything into a carrier
DST are around 400K each now, so you can only fit 2 The gall indy ships are 250ish, so i guess you could fit 4, but then you only get the hold for a specfic product not anything. so, maybe 200K of PI or 200K of minerals,or ammo (Which you can already do BTW)
I just don't see how this breaks anything at all
I want to put 200K of 425 railguns in a carrier, please explain how I can do it
Let's just go ahead and use Ore as an example again, although the same method can apply to Ore, Ice, Minerals, PI, Gas, or Ammo At 265K m3 for say a Miasmos, you can fit 3 of them in the ship maintenance bay of a carrier, with an individual carrying capacity of 65,407 M3. Let's round that to just 65. With three in the ship maintenance array, you can carry a total of 195K with the three, with 205 K m3 of extra space left over, enough for another 12k From a Blockage Runner. That makes a total of 207K m3 carried in the holds of specialized ships. There are of course, a bit less less available if we are using no specialized ships. A pair of Occators with an individual carrying capacity of 86.9(62,500 corp+ 24.4k normal) (lets call it 90) K m3 + one blockade runner @ 12k m3 amount to a measly 192k M3 of space for items that are not Ore, Ice, Gas, Minerals, PI, Ammo, or Charges, all of which could be more efficiently stored by a specialized hauler. So 207Kish M3 for items than can fit in a specced bay, and a mere 192K m3 for items that cannot. So not quite 200K for ALL items, but for many items, and over 90% that amount for the rest. If we include the normal 10k Corp hangar array of the carrier, 200K m3 on all items becomes achievable.
So, if you bother to go thru all that trouble to move 5LY every hour using that method
I say give that person a friggin medal, you just made my point even more
Not an issue |
|
Anhenka
The Cult of Personality DARKNESS.
921
|
Posted - 2015.01.22 00:00:45 -
[91] - Quote
Kenneth Feld wrote: So, if you bother to go thru all that trouble to move 5LY every hour using that method
I say give that person a friggin medal, you just made my point even more
Not an issue
Glad to see the thread is backsliding to absolute statements without support. Handwaving and insisting there is an issue without actually addressing the issue. Filling up three ships is a matter of a minute or two on each end of the trip. Not exactly a huge barrier to use.
And in the spirit of not having to back up anything, I propose my opinion to mirror your opinion states as fact.
There is an issue. The idea is bad. |
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
214
|
Posted - 2015.01.22 01:39:16 -
[92] - Quote
Anhenka wrote:Kenneth Feld wrote: So, if you bother to go thru all that trouble to move 5LY every hour using that method
I say give that person a friggin medal, you just made my point even more
Not an issue
Glad to see the thread is backsliding to absolute statements without support. Handwaving and insisting there is no issue without actually addressing why or why not. Filling up three ships is a matter of a minute or two on each end of the trip. Not exactly a huge barrier to use. And in the spirit of not having to back up anything, I propose my opinion to mirror your opinion stated as fact. There is an issue. The idea is bad.
Bad was moving this much 12LY every 15 seconds
Moving 5LY every hour is borderline suicidal |
Anhenka
The Cult of Personality DARKNESS.
921
|
Posted - 2015.01.22 02:00:06 -
[93] - Quote
Kenneth Feld wrote:
Bad was moving this much 12LY every 15 seconds
Moving 5LY every hour is borderline suicidal
A: People run missions in highsec. I consider that suicidally boring, but apparently, a very large number of people disagree with me. B: Is that supposed to be a compelling reason there for introducing the ability to do so in the first place? That in the situation of long distance travel, you who already own a JF or have easy access to someone with one would rather use a JF cause it's easier?
C: I'm based in Delve. My staging system is 1-Smeb, off Sakht. I can go from Vehan (a convenient highsec border location in Aridria) to Sahkt next to my staging system with a 4 and a 4.24 LY jump, incurring roughly three and a half hours fatigue. I can jump to Vehan from Sakht, fill up, log off my spare carrier alt for a few hours, then be back in my staging system with very little hassle.
Even if I had to add say an additional 4.5 LY jump from out of nowhere (for a total of three jumps), I could do all three jumps in around 20 minutes, turn off the comp for the night, and be finished with jump fatigue by the time I got home from work the next day. You don't have to let jump fatigue burn down between each jump, especially on a suitcase alt you can shelve for a while. And if I have two carrier alts I don't need on standby with no jump fatigue (which I do have), I can do the whole trip in 35ish minutes or less.
But I'm totally sure that the pain and effort of logging off an account for the night or for a few hours will mean that people other than the uber-rich PL bourgeoisie will find the slight extra effort in using a carrier absolutely prohibitive.
And they they wont use and abuse the **** out of said system. Nope. No chance of that. |
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
214
|
Posted - 2015.01.22 02:35:16 -
[94] - Quote
Anhenka wrote:Kenneth Feld wrote:
Bad was moving this much 12LY every 15 seconds
Moving 5LY every hour is borderline suicidal
A: People run missions in highsec. I consider that suicidally boring, but apparently, a very large number of people disagree with me. B: Is that supposed to be a compelling reason there for introducing the ability to do so in the first place? That in the situation of long distance travel, you who already own a JF or have easy access to someone with one would rather use a JF cause it's easier? C: I'm based in Delve. My staging system is 1-Smeb, off Sakht. I can go from Vehan (a convenient highsec border location in Aridria) to Sahkt next to my staging system with a 4 and a 4.24 LY jump, incurring roughly three and a half hours fatigue. I can jump to Vehan from Sakht, fill up, log off my spare carrier alt for a few hours, then be back in my staging system with very little hassle. Even if I had to add say an additional 4.5 LY jump from out of nowhere (for a total of three jumps), I could do all three jumps in around 20 minutes, turn off the comp for the night, and be finished with jump fatigue by the time I got home from work the next day. You don't have to let jump fatigue burn down between each jump, especially on a suitcase alt you can shelve for a while. And if I have two carrier alts I don't need on standby with no jump fatigue (which I do have), I can do the whole trip in 35ish minutes or less. But I'm totally sure that the pain and effort of logging off an account for the night or for a few hours will mean that people other than the uber-rich PL bourgeoisie will find the slight extra effort in using a carrier absolutely prohibitive.
And they they wont use and abuse the **** out of said system. Nope. No chance of that.
If anyone in PL is that friggin try-hard we would DD him for being stupid when we have literally 20 JF making runs every night
|
Anhenka
The Cult of Personality DARKNESS.
921
|
Posted - 2015.01.22 02:45:21 -
[95] - Quote
Kenneth Feld wrote: If anyone in PL is that friggin try-hard we would DD him for being stupid when we have literally 20 JF making runs every night
This may be surprising, but the game does not revolve around PL. Nor are balancing decision made based solely on if PL has better ways to do it.
I never expected this to be overly useful for you. It would be used primarily by all the other non PL poors running around for whom a 1 bil isk carrier + spare carrier alt + spare time is far more easy to come by than 20 JF alts making daiy runs. |
Scuzzy Logic
Nightmare Machinery
145
|
Posted - 2015.01.22 06:12:16 -
[96] - Quote
+1
It annoys me greatly when people store their mining ships in my orca (mining ice in shattered holes ain't for the faint of heart) in a pinch and they have to waste a few seconds to store/jettison their mobile depots before swapping. |
Anthar Thebess
833
|
Posted - 2015.01.22 08:04:35 -
[97] - Quote
Like i stated before - exclude specialized holds ( ore/fleet hangar etc) and carrier carrying capabilities are reduced by 1/3. |
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
215
|
Posted - 2015.01.22 12:35:13 -
[98] - Quote
Anhenka wrote:Kenneth Feld wrote: If anyone in PL is that friggin try-hard we would DD him for being stupid when we have literally 20 JF making runs every night
This may be surprising, but the game does not revolve around PL. Nor are balancing decision made based solely on if PL has better ways to do it. I never expected this to be overly useful for you. It would be used primarily by all the other non PL poors running around for whom a 1 bil isk carrier + spare carrier alt + spare time is far more easy to come by than 20 JF alts making daiy runs.
Anhenka wrote: But I'm totally sure that the pain and effort of logging off an account for the night or for a few hours will mean that people other than the uber-rich PL bourgeoisie will find the slight extra effort in using a carrier absolutely prohibitive.
Oh, I thought you meant PL would be exploiting this in your italics on your last post.
That is what i mean though. The people who you should be worried about abusing it won't cause they have JF, the people that will try and game the system aren't the ones you care if they do it.
But, hey, in the end, the loss mails would be friggin hilarious |
Anthar Thebess
836
|
Posted - 2015.01.22 13:05:44 -
[99] - Quote
Kenneth Feld wrote: But, hey, in the end, the loss mails would be friggin hilarious
This is enough is reason we should go this way. |
Sentenced 1989
163
|
Posted - 2015.02.11 09:17:40 -
[100] - Quote
Lets get this up again.
The Incursion Guild
QA Combat Analyzer
Incursion Layout Builder
|
|
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
230
|
Posted - 2015.02.19 21:29:29 -
[101] - Quote
BTT
|
Forlorn Wongraven
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
153
|
Posted - 2015.05.20 17:26:27 -
[102] - Quote
BUMP.
ATXI winner, 3rd place ATXII - follow me on twitter: @ForlornW
|
Arya Regnar
Darwins Right Hand
719
|
Posted - 2015.05.20 17:40:25 -
[103] - Quote
Aiyshimin wrote:Just exclude all industrial ships from this, so that you can keep depots and refits in combat ships inside SMAs, but not exploit this with haulers inside freighters.
This seems balanced
EvE-Mail me if you need anything.
|
Xe'Cara'eos
A Big Enough Lever
276
|
Posted - 2015.05.21 18:40:20 -
[104] - Quote
Aiyshimin wrote:Just exclude all industrial ships from this, so that you can keep depots and refits in combat ships inside SMAs, but not exploit this with haulers inside freighters.
I think this is sensible, as the largest cargo you can get on a combat ship is marauder, and those are pretty pricey to be using as SMA cargo expanders..... it also removes the issue of people carrying hoarders full of charges
For posting an idea into F&I:
come up with idea, try and think how people could abuse this, try to fix your idea - loop the process until you can't see how it could be abused, then post to the forums to let us figure out how to abuse it.....
If your idea can be abused, it [u]WILL[/u] be.
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page] |