Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 .. 16 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 4 post(s) |
Jotan Veer
HUN Corp. HUN Reloaded
|
Posted - 2007.06.11 13:38:00 -
[61]
You know, you could just double the size of the carriers' corp hangars in a show of good faith and thus stop the whining.
|
hydraSlav
Synergy Evolved Sparta Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.06.11 13:44:00 -
[62]
Originally by: Borgholio
Originally by: Mercostol Its easy, increase the corporate hangar to a decent size, like 30k m3
Good idea. If CCP has no issues with people using carriers as a deep-space freighter, then increasing the corp hangar array would be a good way to do this.
Yes, that's a good idea. CCP wants to "fix a loophole/exploit" by preventing containers inside ships inside carriers... fine. Give us decent space in the corp hangar of the carrier then.
== Above comments are my personal views Oveur >Local shouldn't be a tactical tool, it's for chat
|
Cpt Pugwash
Rubra Libertas Militia
|
Posted - 2007.06.11 13:46:00 -
[63]
Originally by: hydraSlav
Originally by: Borgholio
Originally by: Mercostol Its easy, increase the corporate hangar to a decent size, like 30k m3
Good idea. If CCP has no issues with people using carriers as a deep-space freighter, then increasing the corp hangar array would be a good way to do this.
Yes, that's a good idea. CCP wants to "fix a loophole/exploit" by preventing containers inside ships inside carriers... fine. Give us decent space in the corp hangar of the carrier then.
Or don't and stop carriers from being supper haulers and make them the combat ships they were always intended to be
Movies: Make Mine a Bob Light
|
Jacque Custeau
Knights of the Minmatar Republic
|
Posted - 2007.06.11 13:56:00 -
[64]
Originally by: Borgholio
Yeah, it's a WARship. You don't see Aircraft carriers taking the place of freighters and oil tankers, do ya? :)
Actually they do in many cases. Carriers operate on nuclear power so their huge fuel bunkers are used to hold fuel for the rest of the combat group.
Carriers take too long to lock someone in combat to repair them in a timely fashion. Fighters are too slow when returning to the carrier and often get blown up on the way back. Remote assigning of fighters is going away in Rev 2.0. And now this GSC nerf.
At some point you just have to give the _|_ to the dev team. ------------------- 09:F9:11:02:9D:74:E3:5B:D8:41:56:C5:63:56:88:C0 |
SamuraiJack
Caldari Celestial Horizon Corp. Valainaloce
|
Posted - 2007.06.11 14:06:00 -
[65]
Laughable
change the damn water in the bong CCP.
So... my carrier can no longer haul. I can no longer sit at a pos and assign fighters.
Would you like me to paint a target on my ass and just selfdestruct?
Guess u dont want the 0.0 regions expanded or the greatness of eve to be furthered... Just CS in space eh?
total joke.
SJ. CLS CEO, Valainloce Executor and Standings Director =-
|
hydraSlav
Synergy Evolved Sparta Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.06.11 14:11:00 -
[66]
Originally by: Cpt Pugwash
Or don't and stop carriers from being supper haulers and make them the combat ships they were always intended to be
Right, so what you are saying is that Titans were intended to jump-bridge freighters safely from 0.0?
Cause that's what it boils down to now. The few with Titans gets hassle-free logistics, while those without are even further away from obtaining one cause CCP/BoB decided to nerf logistics for "the middle class"
== Above comments are my personal views Oveur >Local shouldn't be a tactical tool, it's for chat
|
Elmicker
The Phoenix Rising Vigilance Infinitas
|
Posted - 2007.06.11 14:12:00 -
[67]
Absolutely absurd change.
"Oh, here's a bug that supports the entire 0.0 economy, lets fix it after it being in place for over a year, and totally wtfnerf carriers' logistics!! Genius!"
Obviously thought along the same lines of
"The titan needs to be the ultimate combat ship, any ideas?" "Ultrapowered, remote-detonated, risk-free, dirt-cheap smartbomb that will wipe out an entire grid once an hour?" "Give that man a promotion!!"
If any other ingame mechanic was nerfed by 30%, there'd be an absolute uproar. If you insist that it was a bug that needed fixing; give carriers 50k of corp hangar to compensate, so they can actually do their job.
|
Darpz
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2007.06.11 14:22:00 -
[68]
this is the stupidest design change ever. I can't see why you would do this after so long. its not so much the cargo capcity nerf (that hurts bigtime still) than it is the complete pain in the ass its going to be to load a carrier for transport. This is a BAD change GSC are one of those "loophole gamemechanics" that has made this game work for so long. put it along side Min Compression and Instas (you fixed instas but you gave us a proper mechanic instead)
|
Berand
Shadow Of The Light R i s e
|
Posted - 2007.06.11 14:24:00 -
[69]
Originally by: CCP Oneiromancer The code does not support a container within a container within a container. Placing GSC's inside industrials inside carrier ship maintenance bays was using a loophole, which was fixed. This was both a programming and a game design decision.
Clearly the code does support GSCs inside of transports inside of carriers, because that's the way everyone does it.
Who exactly was clamoring for fixing this "loophole"? What's the goal behind this change? Is it to remove that role from carriers, to make way for a ship that is designed to do the jump-transport role? If so, could you just say that so the logistics people in every 0.0 alliance in the game can stop shaking uncontrollably?
Saying that it wasn't intended to work that way is ludicrous in a game like Eve. The game encourages people to use the tools at their disposal creatively. I remember way back when that same argument was used to justify why people could steal from jettison cans while the owners couldn't retaliate in anyway, and it didn't make any more sense then.
If there's nothing coming to make up for this logistics nerf, then I think we all want to know, WHY is it necessary? Doing logistics for a large alliance is already a painful grind, what possible reason could there be to make it worse?
Personally I think it would be a fine compromise to just increase the cargo bay for the carriers a matching percentage. No nested containers, no logistics nerf, and things can still be sorted in GSCs. everyone is happy.
Berand
|
Darpz
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2007.06.11 14:25:00 -
[70]
and I could see you introducing this nerf after something like an ore capital that has a large cargo bay to give us something to fall back on but this is just going to make anyones life in 0.0 without a titan absurdly hard
|
|
Rawthorm
Gallente The Establishment Establishment
|
Posted - 2007.06.11 14:27:00 -
[71]
As a very mobile corporation we need to deploy can bases in key locations for logistical use. As such the whole capacity thing does not bother me, but rather now we'll have a hell of a time getting cans out to our locations. Would be diferent if a packed can took barely any space and you could assemble it inside the corp hanger, but atm u can't do that.
|
hillesumas
Trader's Academy Daikoku Trade Syndicate
|
Posted - 2007.06.11 14:32:00 -
[72]
Dear fellow carrier pilots and devs,
I will try to put a constructive post here.
If i understand the logic of the change, it goes like that:
Oops, little bug there, you can have carrier with hauler with cans in them which theorically should not be possible... So, let fix this issue. Shouldn't be a pb since in the first place this should not have happened. So we are basically removing something that was not supposed to be there.
Pb to this logic... Sometime on the same carrier you go against this kind of logic to make things easier to manage. For isntance, you've removed the rules about corporate hanguars on carrier so the carrier pilot can basically access all the bays without having the proper roles and access in the corporation.
Other pb, more crucial. Yes, it was not meant to be like that but you are reducing by 30% one of the use of a carrier as a 0.0 and low sec logistic vessel. The carrier was not planned to be a logistic vessel but it become one since it is the only thing available to do it properly. You could argue that freighter and transport ships could be used but in the real world, transports are too small and slow and freighters are far too slow and very easily destroyed.
Solution:
As stated by previous posters, you can increase the corporate hanguar bay so we can store more things into it and with the various tabs you can separate various people belongings.
Alternatively, give us a proper industrial jump enabled logistic ship that can do the same or a better job than the carrier because what this thread does show is that there is an urgent need for a jump enabled logistic ship.
Why it is urgent?
- You always complain about the lack of peoples in low sec and 0.0. The risk vs reward issue is an important one. But also, the logistic nightmarre is alos an issue. Basically you have to spend quite a lot of time to go to empire to get your gears so overall if you compound the profit per hour and add the time wasted to do logisitc you end up having not a very good proposition.
- Secondly, with the new sovereignty stuff, it will mean more POS and thus even more logisitic to occurr. So the demand for having fast and reliable logistic will increase while you will just cut 30% capacity in overall logistic.
Finally, It will also lead to make life in 0.0 and low sec about 30% more expensive since the amount of fuel used to do the jump remain the same but the volume carried is drastically reduced.
So fix the carrier sure but please also fix the logistic issue too.
Thanks
|
The Economist
|
Posted - 2007.06.11 14:37:00 -
[73]
Originally by: hydraSlav
Right, so what you are saying is that Titans were intended to jump-bridge freighters safely from 0.0?
Cause that's what it boils down to now. The few with Titans gets hassle-free logistics, while those without are even further away from obtaining one cause CCP/BoB decided to nerf logistics for "the middle class"
You're ingnoring a few salient points:
1: The cost in fuel per bridge. 2: The short distance a titan can jump compared to any other capital, meaning lots of jumps are necessary. 3: The fact that anyone with a bit of perseverence could easily setup a trap at any of those jump points. 4: You can jump bridge pretty much everything else, so why not them?
Basically; it's not cheap, it's not hassle-free, and it's not 100% safe.
Hence I feel I should offer you perhaps a little camembert to go with that whine.
(I'd also wager that those who's world falls apart because of this change to gsc's in haulers in carriers, would make a pig's breakfast of trying to manage logistics on the titan/freighter scale efficiently anyway)
|
Berand
Shadow Of The Light R i s e
|
Posted - 2007.06.11 14:56:00 -
[74]
Originally by: The Economist
(I'd also wager that those who's world falls apart because of this change to gsc's in haulers in carriers, would make a pig's breakfast of trying to manage logistics on the titan/freighter scale efficiently anyway)
I don't think logistics people are saying their worlds will fall apart. I think they're saying their worlds, which are already a lot of work, will be made that much more tedious for no gain and no reason beyond "that's the way it's supposed to be". Which, keeping in mind that this is a game, really really sucks.
Berand
|
Cpt Pugwash
Rubra Libertas Militia
|
Posted - 2007.06.11 15:05:00 -
[75]
Originally by: hydraSlav
Originally by: Cpt Pugwash
Carriers are combat ships and should not be allowed to perform a logistics role by scooping Industrials.
You want to live in deep 0.0 you should have to organise logistic convoys. Use your numerical advantage to escort vulnerable transport ships
Industrial ships should not be allowed inside carriers (they are to fragile) and freighters/Industrials should not be able to use a jumpbridge. This would force a lot more industrials into space and give alliances a way to wage war that did not involve huge blobs shooting POS.
You could effectively lay seige to an enemy and starve him out without ever engaging a single pos.
This is a long overdue nerf and does not go nearly far enough
Right, so what you are saying is that Titans were intended to jump-bridge freighters safely from 0.0?
Cause that's what it boils down to now. The few with Titans gets hassle-free logistics, while those without are even further away from obtaining one cause CCP/BoB decided to nerf logistics for "the middle class"
Read the whole post.
Now Read the highlighted part of the quote again.
Having done that are their any questions?
Movies: Make Mine a Bob Light
|
HUA XIAZI
Dragon's Rage Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2007.06.11 15:20:00 -
[76]
By putting poses from where your empire office location is to your home system? Even small poses :P? 1 titan with 12 freighters will be able to transport basically everything in 1 go, doesnt it? How can they harm you when your cyno alts / titans / freighters are inside a pos shield :P? The amount of time you can safe is uncountable... and the fuel cost meant nothing to bob I believe ;) 12 freighters in 1 go :P ... quite time/money efficient tho
Originally by: The Economist
Originally by: hydraSlav
Right, so what you are saying is that Titans were intended to jump-bridge freighters safely from 0.0?
Cause that's what it boils down to now. The few with Titans gets hassle-free logistics, while those without are even further away from obtaining one cause CCP/BoB decided to nerf logistics for "the middle class"
You're ingnoring a few salient points:
1: The cost in fuel per bridge. 2: The short distance a titan can jump compared to any other capital, meaning lots of jumps are necessary. 3: The fact that anyone with a bit of perseverence could easily setup a trap at any of those jump points. 4: You can jump bridge pretty much everything else, so why not them?
Basically; it's not cheap, it's not hassle-free, and it's not 100% safe.
Hence I feel I should offer you perhaps a little camembert to go with that whine.
(I'd also wager that those who's world falls apart because of this change to gsc's in haulers in carriers, would make a pig's breakfast of trying to manage logistics on the titan/freighter scale efficiently anyway)
___ {o,o} |)__) -"-"- O RLY? >=(^^;) |
Moncton
|
Posted - 2007.06.11 15:20:00 -
[77]
Please CCP, expand the carrier cargohold by at least 20%.
This "fix" is a massive blow to logistics. I trained an alt for carriers specifically to do logistics, not pew pew, but logistics.
Why? Logistics is a critical component in 0.0 space. It is also the most boring component; that's why very few people want the job. I always looked at carriers as a multi-tasking tool (logistics, warship, "healer"), so that's why I spent the time to train for this capital ship. Personally, I love the logistics part of war. Supply lines are always critical and logistics are always in demand.
BUT, increasing our workload by +20% is a severe blow to logistics carrier pilots. I don't care if carriers were intended for pew pew. Many people in the game looked at carriers as a good support tool. Since logistics players didn't have much choice in ships to haul fuel and ships, the carrier was the only choice.
Again, I beg you CCP, please increase the carrier cargohold by at least 20%. I don't want to leave the game on logistics burnout.
|
Darpz
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2007.06.11 15:24:00 -
[78]
Originally by: Cpt Pugwash
Originally by: hydraSlav
Originally by: Cpt Pugwash
Carriers are combat ships and should not be allowed to perform a logistics role by scooping Industrials.
You want to live in deep 0.0 you should have to organise logistic convoys. Use your numerical advantage to escort vulnerable transport ships
Industrial ships should not be allowed inside carriers (they are to fragile) and freighters/Industrials should not be able to use a jumpbridge. This would force a lot more industrials into space and give alliances a way to wage war that did not involve huge blobs shooting POS.
You could effectively lay seige to an enemy and starve him out without ever engaging a single pos.
This is a long overdue nerf and does not go nearly far enough
Right, so what you are saying is that Titans were intended to jump-bridge freighters safely from 0.0?
Cause that's what it boils down to now. The few with Titans gets hassle-free logistics, while those without are even further away from obtaining one cause CCP/BoB decided to nerf logistics for "the middle class"
Read the whole post.
Now Read the highlighted part of the quote again.
Having done that are their any questions?
while I fully support the idea that you want more juicy industrial targets Pug ultimatly it would mean less targets instead of more targets since the logistics involved for any corp to live out in 0.0 without any jumpable logitics would be beyonh 75% of the current alliances. We got buy before because all these alliances didn't ahve 20+ Large POS to maintain just to keep there space now the sheer magnitude of the amount of matts needed to just keep POS running would break an alliances. Add to the fact that the only thing keeping the drone regions somewhat habitable is the link to empire lowends via carriers with compressed mins.
while I do support the nerfing of jump bridging capitals. we need a jumpable cargo ship. While I don't play the space holding logistics game anymore and play the game of anoying them instead the reliance on a carrier to make this game work is alot bigger than you relise.
if this change goes thru give us something to compensate.
Couple ideas: - increase Corp array to 30k m3 (still going to make hauling a pain since only 30k is sortable but it will be workable atleast) - give us a can that converts Ship Maintanence array space at a 1:10 ratio. 3000m3 can that take 30000 ship space and is placed directly in the ship maintance array
|
Shizah
Cutting Edge Incorporated
|
Posted - 2007.06.11 15:33:00 -
[79]
Ofcourse this is a major nerf, and everyone uses the containers, and this will really mess up a carrier pilots ability to separate loads -- to say nothing of a 30% reduction in cargo space. But hey, I have all the confidence in the world that ccp will come up with several new skills to train and new mods (or new cans) to buy and in a few months we will be right back to where we are today.
|
Max Teranous
Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.06.11 15:42:00 -
[80]
Edited by: Max Teranous on 11/06/2007 15:44:19 Hmmm, may have to go back to a dread to haul. You can fit 21 GSC's in a Revelation with T2 expanders & T1 cargo rigs. That's 88k m3 in total.
How's that for using a ship for purpose
Max
--------------------
|
|
General Brusilov
Magellanic Itg GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.06.11 15:48:00 -
[81]
Jesus CCP, why not halve the jump distance while you're at it.
|
Darpz
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2007.06.11 15:51:00 -
[82]
Originally by: Max Teranous Edited by: Max Teranous on 11/06/2007 15:48:11
Hmmm, I'm going to go back to a dread to haul. You can fit 21 GSC's in a Revelation with T2 expanders & T1 cargo rigs. That's 88k m3 in total. A carrier post-nerf can carry around 77k m3, and only use 7 or 8 GSC's to seperate cargos.
How's that for using a ship for purpose
Edit with more numbers.
yup thats exactly what I thought when I read this nerf. only downside is the lack of range but its not as big of an issue as lack of cans int he carrier
|
Shamoke
|
Posted - 2007.06.11 16:03:00 -
[83]
No cans in a ship in the ship maint bay, fine. No courier missions in a ship in the ship maint bay, fine.
All I want is two things: confirm you understand the need for specialized jump capable haulers to handle the massive logistical burdens placed on 0.0 corps and alliances, and confirm you don't want to kill off a chunk of the player base if you don't have to.
Assuming both parts are a "yes," can we please have a phased approach to deal with the pain you are about to cause?
Since you are going to implement the change regardless of how many people with multiple accounts doing 0.0 Logistics operations will quit EVE, can we please have a phased approach to deal with the pain you are about to cause?
Phase 1: Implement the change. Increase all carrier cargo bays by 20,000 to 30,000 m3 to compensate for the lost carrying capacity and sorting capacity caused by locking down capabilities in the ship maint hangar.
Phase 2: Release skills and BPOs for a new class of jump-capable ships. It would be nice to have both Transport and Freighter sized ships in this class, but Transport at the minimum. Jump capable haulers, being specifically created for jump hauling (I'm really surprised the Empires have don't have these already!), should have a decent range at least as far as a carrier. After all, these are single purpose ships and would be designed with their purpose in mind. [Note: keep in mind that the jump capable hauler must also carry it's fuel for jumping when you decide the cargo capacity of the ships!!!]
Phase 3: After releasing the skills and BPOs, set a date to remove the increased cargo capacity from carriers implemented in phase 1. This date should be set after considering how long the EVE community will need to train the new skills, start producing the new ships from BPOs, and have a viable number of these new ships in circulation to effectively take over the logistical jump hauling role carriers currently fill. This does not mean, "Hey, the database says the first new jump hauler has been built - flip the switch!" In theory you would take the players into consideration, give them time to get ready, and include the switch in the next release after the amount of time the community needs to prepare.
Phase 4: Date/release comes, switch flipped. Jump hauling players and the 0.0 alliances they support are ready for the change and are already using the new jump haulers to perform 0.0 logistics. Carriers, devoid of their temporarily increased cargo space, are now either used as second string haulers by alliances, or are converted to be the fleet combat support vessels you always intended them to be.
We all simply want compromise, that's all. Give us the intended means to do what needs to be done to support player alliances in 0.0. Please don't just push us all off a cliff and see how many are still alive when we hit the ground.
|
Vospri Yon
Fusion Enterprises Ltd Mostly Harmless
|
Posted - 2007.06.11 16:03:00 -
[84]
/signed
Madness; removing a tool from a player base (even if it was not attended) after a year of them using it without giving them another solution is madness.
|
Nostic
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2007.06.11 16:09:00 -
[85]
Originally by: The Economist
You're ingnoring a few salient points:
1: The cost in fuel per bridge. 2: The short distance a titan can jump compared to any other capital, meaning lots of jumps are necessary. 3: The fact that anyone with a bit of perseverence could easily setup a trap at any of those jump points. 4: You can jump bridge pretty much everything else, so why not them?
Basically; it's not cheap, it's not hassle-free, and it's not 100% safe.
1) The cost to jump bridge freighters is actually less than the cost of jumping carriers per m3.
2) Lots of jumps are necessary, but I've seen BoB move up to 16 freighters at a time. It's by far less time per m3 moved.
3) Maybe in lowsec you could set a trap, but after that they're going be entirely safe behind POS shields.
4) It's nothing short of gamebreaking.
|
Chucky
Confederation of Red Moon Red Moon Federation
|
Posted - 2007.06.11 16:15:00 -
[86]
You got to be joking? so instead of 15-20 GSC/SSC cans with peoples names on them we got to make a fricking list of 200,000 items we are moving? Didn't we have the same problem with freighters?
Someone needs to be hung by there balls and beat like a pinata!
... you will see more and more marketing which in turn will bring you more players to torture. |
Treylis
Gallente GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.06.11 16:21:00 -
[87]
Originally by: Berand I don't think logistics people are saying their worlds will fall apart. I think they're saying their worlds, which are already a lot of work, will be made that much more tedious for no gain and no reason beyond "that's the way it's supposed to be". Which, keeping in mind that this is a game, really really sucks.
I agree precisely.
|
Wink
Caldari Asgard Protectorate
|
Posted - 2007.06.11 16:21:00 -
[88]
Originally by: Max Teranous Edited by: Max Teranous on 11/06/2007 15:48:11
Hmmm, I'm going to go back to a dread to haul. You can fit 21 GSC's in a Revelation with T2 expanders & T1 cargo rigs. That's 88k m3 in total. A carrier post-nerf can carry around 77k m3, and only use 7 or 8 GSC's to seperate cargos.
How's that for using a ship for purpose
Edit with more numbers.
Well, you just F'd up. I'm sure that will get a nerf now, if it hasn't already. /me goes to test it on the test server.
On an unrelated note, will BOB/RA/Insert Other Titan Owning Alliance Name, be offering their services of jump bridging our **** around? Just a Q
|
scabbsssjr
Gallente M'8'S Frontal Impact
|
Posted - 2007.06.11 16:23:00 -
[89]
Originally by: CCP Oneiromancer Yes, this is going out into Revelations 2. And I don't see any major nerf anywhere. You can still use carriers for transport, you make it sound like that was their designed intended use and we're nerfing that. People have been asking for the ability to store loaded ships at ship maintenance bays and arrays and a change was made to allow that. Assembled containers and courier packages are the only restricted items that cannot be in an assembled ship inside a ship maintenance bay/array, in order to prevent exploits.
HI,
Welcome to eve, I assume you have never logged in? Let alone done logisitcs in 0.0?
Lets cover a few things. You can change code to make your enitre 0.0 player base happy. I mean you attempting a committee to make the player base happy so why not a code change?
BTW guys get off the jump portal and show your anger at this guy. I think all of eve has found one guy we can call primary every day. ---------------------------
Originally by: Ductoris At this rate I'm going to ask for a BOB sub-forum.
|
Moncton
|
Posted - 2007.06.11 16:34:00 -
[90]
Edited by: Moncton on 11/06/2007 16:33:27
Originally by: Max Teranous
Hmmm, I'm going to go back to a dread to haul. You can fit 21 GSC's in a Revelation with T2 expanders & T1 cargo rigs. That's 88k m3 in total. A carrier post-nerf can carry around 77k m3, and only use 7 or 8 GSC's to seperate cargos.
How's that for using a ship for purpose
Edit with more numbers.
Hmm. I get 97,500+ m3. Maybe my math is wrong.
8x Expanded Cargohold II's with 3x T1 Cargohold Optimization rigs and Revelation cargo space = 25 GSC's
Detailed math: (1.275)^8 x (1.15)^3 x 7,250 m3 = 77,003 m3
25 GSC's @ 3,900 m3 each = 97,500 m3
I should have trained for Amarr.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 .. 16 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |