Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 21 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 5 post(s) |
HydroSan
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 07:18:00 -
[1]
Edited by: HydroSan on 26/10/2007 07:18:54 Edited by: HydroSan on 26/10/2007 07:18:18 You cannot store a ship that contains cargo inside a Ship Maintenance Bay. Please remove all cargo from the ship and try again.
Kablammo.
|
HydroSan
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 07:20:00 -
[2]
yeah just use this thread
i'm laughing pretty hard right now i honestly dont know what to say hahahahaha holy god
|
Porks
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 07:21:00 -
[3]
MY CARRIER BACKBONE OH JESUS
|
Gor Kraon
Minmatar Red Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 07:21:00 -
[4]
So you can carry a small gang of frigates/cruisers but they can't have ammo/charges/drones in them? Whats the point of a carrier being able to carry ships then?
If you want to nerf carriers carrying industrials, just make them friggin huge so they don't fit in a carrier.
|
Porks
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 07:23:00 -
[5]
so will we be getting free skills for t2 freighters and free t2 freighters because this is probably the worst decision since the fornication of your parents
|
DaMaster Architect
SOTI Inc. Bipolar Stability
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 07:35:00 -
[6]
What the hell? What am I supposed to think of this? First that other cruel nerf and now.. this?? Why??
|
Firane
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 07:38:00 -
[7]
Wat
-----
|
Ce Domina
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 07:41:00 -
[8]
Uh I really like your game CCP but why do you insist on making us focus on the boring parts? This just makes fueling POS's/logistics more of a pain than it already is. What does that add to the game?
I know the idea is that then everyone can use jump freighters but those take a long time to train for and are going to cost 3-4 times what a carrier does minimum, not to mention the shortened jump range to make it take twice as long. This also has the comical side effect of making SMAs at POS's sort of worthless. Now everyone will need to anchor a GSC to store their ammo? What does that add to my gaming experience?
I don't expect any of these questions to be answered because it seems you're intent on nerfing nullsec as much as you can, and this is a great step towards making it unappealing. Between the mind-numbing logistics and the nerf to the highends that's probably coming when you get rid of trit pricecaps you're really making an effort to make everyone live in empire.
Oh wait I forgot we'll have superveld in 0.0 so all we need to do is mine that then compress it using a rorqual so we can jump it to empire in our jump freighters and then refine and sell it there! So mining profitably in 0.0, which used to take a retriever (if that) and a fast frigate to run the mega/zyd now requires 7-8 billion in investments plus months of training!
Seriously I like this game but please let us focus on the fun parts. Nerfing the carrier's logistics ability really only serves to make the game less appealing, by making the parts that everyone hates take longer and be more expensive to do.
|
Porks
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 07:43:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Ce Domina Uh I really like your game CCP but why do you insist on making us focus on the boring parts? This just makes fueling POS's/logistics more of a pain than it already is. What does that add to the game?
I know the idea is that then everyone can use jump freighters but those take a long time to train for and are going to cost 3-4 times what a carrier does minimum, not to mention the shortened jump range to make it take twice as long. This also has the comical side effect of making SMAs at POS's sort of worthless. Now everyone will need to anchor a GSC to store their ammo? What does that add to my gaming experience?
I don't expect any of these questions to be answered because it seems you're intent on nerfing nullsec as much as you can, and this is a great step towards making it unappealing. Between the mind-numbing logistics and the nerf to the highends that's probably coming when you get rid of trit pricecaps you're really making an effort to make everyone live in empire.
Oh wait I forgot we'll have superveld in 0.0 so all we need to do is mine that then compress it using a rorqual so we can jump it to empire in our jump freighters and then refine and sell it there! So mining profitably in 0.0, which used to take a retriever (if that) and a fast frigate to run the mega/zyd now requires 7-8 billion in investments plus months of training!
Seriously I like this game but please let us focus on the fun parts. Nerfing the carrier's logistics ability really only serves to make the game less appealing, by making the parts that everyone hates take longer and be more expensive to do.
Seriously, when CCP introduced jump bridge arrays and cyno arrays, it was awesome. I actually thought they cared about making a tedious part of the game a lot easier and quicker.
Now they've gone the other way and shot themselves in the head.
|
Carino Cantati
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 07:49:00 -
[10]
this is so ridiculous I it's funny
after the announcement of the fighters nerf and the subsequent fallout and eventual CCP retraction, you'd think they'd be smart enough to avoid cutting the logistics capabilities of the carrier in half
|
|
Shaddam V
Amarr Project EVE Research
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 07:51:00 -
[11]
The carrier/mommy moratorium dev blog said to ignore the changes on sisi that were accidental -- one might hope this is what they meant and not the drone changes that were implemented as they had originally had planned?
God I hope. I don't fly carriers yet - plan to get a rorqual for logistics since I am like 60 days from freighter V, but if this is permanent might have to consider going to the Ark sooner. I can't see this being permanent, though. As stated, pos refitting becomes useless. The whole idea of getting your carrier to get ships to the front line is kind of mute if you have to have a mining op in enemy territory for the ammo and having to have someone haul mods out to you.
|
Strana Mechty
Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 07:51:00 -
[12]
Edited by: Strana Mechty on 26/10/2007 07:51:41 Melting my carrier to make T1 Frigs.
(No seriously, this is stupid. Maybe if the Carrier was a tad more Combat worthy I wouldn't mind so much. But making it so we can't even move **** properly turns carriers in PoS hugging fighter *****es. God I hope it's a mistake.)
|
Damned Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 07:51:00 -
[13]
Edited by: Damned Force on 26/10/2007 07:56:46 As i read before CCP told us, no drastic change on Carriers, just discussion and just modules, and even thats not in rev3.
Let's wait on the TQ deploy, but i think:
CCP LIES TO THE COMMUNITY AGAIN!!! GO TO HELL WITH THE SILENT NERFS!!!
PS: is idiotic again. U warp the carrier with backup ships into the battlefield to do at least some support to gang too. Someones ship is blowed up. He fly in pod to the carrier and take the ship, than need to search in the corp hangar for ammo, and boosters, etc in a laggy battle. Thats would never work in the practice
|
Darklin Eldaris
Prophets Of a Damned Universe
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 07:52:00 -
[14]
I support this nerf, and yes I fly a carrier, and yes I have fueled/will fuel POS's with it.
It makes perfect sense though, even though it seems not so fun.
A carrier is not a freighter, its not meant for bringing materials back and forth from place to place, and this has become one of the primary uses for carriers in eve. Yeah it can be argued that this sucks for everyone who trained up to use carriers for specifically this, but in all honesty its been broken for awhile and needed to be fixed. Carriers are fleet support ships.
I mean think about it honestly, the military doesn't load up a freight ship then load that into a carrier then drive it across the ocean. They load up the freight ship and drive it, because that's what it does, it moves freight.
Look on the bright side tho guys, its better than only having 5 fighters. ALOT better.
|
Porks
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 07:54:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Darklin Eldaris I support this nerf, and yes I fly a carrier, and yes I have fueled/will fuel POS's with it.
It makes perfect sense though, even though it seems not so fun.
A carrier is not a freighter, its not meant for bringing materials back and forth from place to place, and this has become one of the primary uses for carriers in eve. Yeah it can be argued that this sucks for everyone who trained up to use carriers for specifically this, but in all honesty its been broken for awhile and needed to be fixed. Carriers are fleet support ships.
I mean think about it honestly, the military doesn't load up a freight ship then load that into a carrier then drive it across the ocean. They load up the freight ship and drive it, because that's what it does, it moves freight.
Look on the bright side tho guys, its better than only having 5 fighters. ALOT better.
Yeah, I'm looking forward to the 120 day skill grind to be able to fly that freight ship.
|
Vladimir Tinakin
Caldari Hadean Drive Yards Archaean Cooperative
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 08:03:00 -
[16]
Wow.
This is certainly one way to force people to use a titan jump portal.
If the jump freighter is Tech 2, there will be VERY VERY FEW of them. Certainly not enough to supply 0.0 with any good ability. And those people who own one will have to spend their entire eve life jumping back and forth.
If this goes through, logistics would be smashed utterly. You think 0.0 gatecamps are bad now, and prohibitive for newer alliances from heading out? Wait til you have to do things like the bad old days of industrial/freighter convoys and multi-hour ops watching a 0.6 AU/s target warp.
The reprocessing nerf was going to kill compression and freighterloads of minerals from being transported well enough. This was entirely un-necessary.
The carrier is a frontline logistics tool. POS's and POS fuel, thanks to sovereignty requirements, are frontline logistics needs. A paper-thin industrial (and transports aren't any better) is NOT a viable frontline deployment tool.
Basically, if this nerf goes through and the carrier doesn't get a 50k+ m3 corp hangar array, you're going to get a wave of response that will dwarf the initial carrier nerf. Screw with the offensive ability and get an irritated response; screw with the logistics part and get an angry torch wielding mob headed to iceland. ----------------------------------------------- Adm Vladimir Tinakin CFO Hadean Drive Yards |
Krontos
Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 08:07:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Darklin Eldaris I support this nerf, and yes I fly a carrier, and yes I have fueled/will fuel POS's with it.
It makes perfect sense though, even though it seems not so fun.
A carrier is not a freighter, its not meant for bringing materials back and forth from place to place, and this has become one of the primary uses for carriers in eve. Yeah it can be argued that this sucks for everyone who trained up to use carriers for specifically this, but in all honesty its been broken for awhile and needed to be fixed. Carriers are fleet support ships.
I mean think about it honestly, the military doesn't load up a freight ship then load that into a carrier then drive it across the ocean. They load up the freight ship and drive it, because that's what it does, it moves freight.
Look on the bright side tho guys, its better than only having 5 fighters. ALOT better.
This is a bit of a false dichotomy. It's not no hauling ability or 5 fighters or something. Though between the two I'll happily take 5 fighters. I think I fuel more POS's than you do.
Comparing this the real world military is a bit strange, as this is a game, and frankly I don't feel any compelling need for realism. I want the game to be as fun as possible. This means it needs to be balanced, yes, and frankly I understand CCP's reason for reviewing carriers abilities. They are very versatile ships in a game that is mostly about specialization.
The problem with removing this is that its not solving an existing problem. I can't remember the last time I thought "Wow its so cheesy that our enemies can move POS fuel in carriers! Damn those things are overpowered!". I remember thinking that nano-phoons were a bit ridiculous. This isn't really addressing a balance issue per se, but it does make playing EVE much more tedious for any spaceholding alliance.
Yes the jump freighter is neat! I really approve of it being added! I see it has something to make life much easier for hardcore logistics guys, so that they can focus more on having fun with the game, but requiring it for logistics work seems over the top. It's going to cost twice what a dreadnaught does (at least, factor in you have to invent from freighter BPCs), and require a hefty skillpoint investment that does nothing else for you. (unless you REALLY like freightering things)
So let's see we've got a timesink in more ways than one, and something that just serves to make the game less fun for every logstics guy in all of nullsec. Sure maybe they shouldn't have gotten into it if they're not masochists who enjoy toiling endlessly to feed their towers but someone has to do it. That's the way game works currently.
I understand balance tweaks, but I don't see how this aspect of carriers is overpowered. Moving stuff around is boring but necessary, I don't see any reason to make it harder for anyone.
|
Tonkin
D00M. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 08:07:00 -
[18]
u noticed they are not doing a dev blog over it, they are doing all the changes behind peeps backs
|
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 08:08:00 -
[19]
As I read it the reasons behind this changes on the test server are very simple:
a lot of people have lamented that EVE is becoming capitals on line and CCP don't like it.
So they are:
a) nerfing the capitals so that they will need a support fleet;
b) nerfing the capacity of building capitals (making harder to move bulky minerals).
They are experimenting with the changes on the test server, then they will implement some of them.
|
clone 1
Laughing Leprechauns Corporation
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 08:14:00 -
[20]
So when you board your replacement ship from your support carrier, you must also open the corp hanger after boarding and drag some ammo/charges into your hold?
Always Moaning About Race Retardations |
|
Kcel Chim
Caldari Arcane Technologies The Five
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 08:17:00 -
[21]
Edited by: Kcel Chim on 26/10/2007 08:19:27 its prolly on sisi for the devs to test their new philosophy to modify the carrier to a "role" relevant job.
Just that they have, as with scripts, not layed out all parts yet.
Imagine a lowslot module called "capital cargo expander", "capital maintance hangar extension" and "capital corphangar expander". Each of those modules would require a lowslot and boost their respective ressource for lets assume "100%" while requiring "50000 powergrid and 0 cpu". (the numbers are fluent it could be 1000% even) With a possible limitation (like with mwds) that only one of a kind but hence 3 as a max (one to each area) can be fit per ship. You would see carriers with a similar or even greater hauling ability but sacrifing slots for it and hence not beeing able to pvp. The changes you mentioned above would make perfect sence in such a context, otherwise ppl would only fit hangar arrays and overload it with indies bypassing the idea to increase cargo or corphangar size because its less effective.
Sounds possible but unless those modules get released or some other devblog about it, DONT panic.
|
Verite Rendition
Caldari AUS Corporation CORE.
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 08:18:00 -
[22]
I'm too tired to rant, but this space is reserved for one later. I will say now however that carriers have been the backbone of 0.0 logistics for 2 years now, there better be a damn good reason for this (and in the mean time, perhaps I should plan on training up for a Revelation). ---- AUS Corp Lead Megalomanic EVE Automated Influence Map: Keeping Down The Clone Business Since 2007AD |
Ztrain
Evolution Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 08:20:00 -
[23]
Okay we've established CCP are a bunch of morons but they can't possibly be this stupid with them touting the carrier as a logistical hauler.
Are you sure your doing it right? You know that if somethings in the cargo space on a ship the carrier needs to be the one to scoop the ship out of space. A player can't put a ship with cargo in to the carrier?
Z
Originally by: CCP Zulupark That's the rough idea, yes. We still have in no way started thinking about what modules to introduce, what they would do or anything of the likes, but the idea is that.
|
Tonkin
D00M. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 08:25:00 -
[24]
they need to get the help channel open again so i can rant.
they are bunch of f**cking idiots, damn u can get a list of the things they have done to us now
help allainces cheat
make half of the eve community angry due changing ships wasting skill points and REAL LIFE F**KIN MONEY!!!!!!!!!
THIS BETTER BE TEMPORY
|
Porks
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 08:27:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Ztrain Okay we've established CCP are a bunch of morons but they can't possibly be this stupid with them touting the carrier as a logistical hauler.
Are you sure your doing it right? You know that if somethings in the cargo space on a ship the carrier needs to be the one to scoop the ship out of space. A player can't put a ship with cargo in to the carrier?
Z
It was done in a station
|
Zastrow
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 08:27:00 -
[26]
So. I spent the last month training Jump Drive Operation 5, and am currently training Jump Drive Calibration for my carrier which sits patiently waiting in my hangar. Thanks CCP for my expensive dominix.
|
Ztrain
Evolution Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 08:28:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Porks
Originally by: Ztrain Okay we've established CCP are a bunch of morons but they can't possibly be this stupid with them touting the carrier as a logistical hauler.
Are you sure your doing it right? You know that if somethings in the cargo space on a ship the carrier needs to be the one to scoop the ship out of space. A player can't put a ship with cargo in to the carrier?
Z
It was done in a station
Ohhh **** okay well just when you think they can't get any dumber....... Ohh well for some reason I'm not surprised.
Z
Originally by: CCP Zulupark That's the rough idea, yes. We still have in no way started thinking about what modules to introduce, what they would do or anything of the likes, but the idea is that.
|
Rexthor Hammerfists
Eternity INC. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 08:41:00 -
[28]
This change would be one of the more annyoing ones, why not just change something with industrials so that u cannot put stuff into em anymore and transport em but leave "regular" ships alone? -
|
Tonkin
D00M. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 08:42:00 -
[29]
i got a idea
GET RID OF CARRIERS!!!
might aswell cos thats what i'll be doing with mine with these sh1ty nerfs
|
Grayton
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 08:51:00 -
[30]
Oh, and if I'm wrong, and this is just part one of the carrier redesigning and part 2 is introducing a carrier-only mod that enables ships in the SMA to have cargo, then I will apologize to CCP, but if that is not the case, I just hope they enjoy the gigantic backlash they're going to get from this.
And when members of all alliances, even those fighting each other, agree it's a stupid idea, it should probably be listened to.
|
|
Lara Roxx
Gallente Valkyries of Valhalla
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 08:53:00 -
[31]
i like this change, it'll stop all the carriers being used for the wrong reason, ( i have a carrier ), any way the guy saying where is the ammo + drones going to go..... guess what you have a corp hanger in that carrier too! so this might get carriers to replace peoples in an assault when they lose it.
btw fighter / drone change is not on test anymore, SHB has been boosted to 1,000,000m^3 battle ships size has been halfed
____________________________ |________Sig in a Box_________| |
SkyLander
Minmatar Dragon's Rage Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 08:55:00 -
[32]
Saying "that's what the corp hangar is for" is rather useless, you do know how long it takes to open up that corp hangar when it is half to almost full right? __________________________________________________
|
Broska
coracao ardente Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 09:03:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Grayton stuff
Good god almighty, I'm doing somthing I thought i'd never do. Not only am I agreeing with a goon but I have the urge to buy this man a pint.
|
Benn Helmsman
Caldari Dark Prophecy Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 09:05:00 -
[34]
Edited by: Benn Helmsman on 26/10/2007 09:06:31 Use a jump freighter, stop crying your ubercarriers cant do everything on their own.
|
Damned Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 09:07:00 -
[35]
Originally by: Benn Helmsman Use a jump freighter, stop crying your ubercarriers cant do anything on their own.
U IDIOT!!!!! AND U GIVE ME BACK THE TIME AND MONEY SPENT ON CARRIER TRAINING???
|
Krontos
Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 09:18:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Benn Helmsman Edited by: Benn Helmsman on 26/10/2007 09:06:31 Use a jump freighter, stop crying your ubercarriers cant do everything on their own.
Oh ok. So all I need to do is pony up 6 times the cost of a carrier and train for several months! Wow I feel better about everything!
Realistically, when was the last time you were thinking "Damn! I can't believe that guy can fit an expanded mammoth in his ship maintenence array! I'd have won that fight if carriers could only carry frigates and cruisers!"? How does this change staying in negatively impact your gaming experience? Because I can go off quite a bit about how it negatively impacts mine.
This isn't the "leave carriers exactly how they are" petition and don't act like it is. If CCP wants to review the carrier's combat/support abilities then fine, but this change would add countless hours of work for many people. Lets look at myself:
Just because I can only carry 28k instead of 70k doesn't mean my towers will stop crying for food! I still need to jump the fuel! Only now it takes three times as long and costs three times as much. This also means I get to spend 3 times as much time hauling isotopes around to keep my carrier running! Joy of joys!
I guess I should get a jump freighter! Well ok I have an alt who's only 3 months away, so I'll get *****ing on that right away! In the meantime I need to get the 3-6 bil (lets be charitable) that this puppy will cost. I know you probably effortlessly make 100+ million isk an hour, but I'm usually below 50 because I'm uncreative and usually stick to ratting.
So that means I need to spend at least 60-120 hours making isk so I can afford the hull! Yay! This improves my gameplay experience vastly!
And that's just me, I'm not even a hardcore logistics guy. You'll see this same song repeated endlessly. I know it's amusing since you aren't part of a spaceholding group (or if you are you don't touch logistics with a 10 foot space-pole), but this negatively impacts players gameplay experience FOR NO REASON.
Unless you have a really compelling argument on what such a nerf would add to the game. I'm all ears.
|
Miss Xerox
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 09:21:00 -
[37]
Originally by: HydroSan
You cannot store a ship that contains cargo inside a Ship Maintenance Bay. Please remove all cargo from the ship and try again.
Kablammo.
Seriously... this will be a reason to quit if nothing else was. Eos nerf (needed), Curse rendered essentially useless, pilgrim always was, other unneeded crappy changes.
So, how are people able to get on sisi and discover these things? All I ever get is 'status: unknown'... WTF?
|
Rexthor Hammerfists
Eternity INC. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 09:22:00 -
[38]
Edited by: Rexthor Hammerfists on 26/10/2007 09:22:26 imo carriers not being able to haul haulers with stuff in em is a good change, i used it myself alot and surely will miss it tho but the good thing about it tho will be more travelling with normal ships thus more chances of fights and kills.
also and more important it will be harder for one alliance to hold large amounts of space as fuelling with carriers and transporting poses makes it way too easy.
it also makes titans more important.
but you can get all that with making industrails so big that they dont fit into carriers, or dont allow em in carriers and rorquals etc.
just dont have ppl having to unload the ammo of a simple frig plz. -
|
Zombie Network
GoonFleet
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 09:26:00 -
[39]
Edited by: Zombie Network on 26/10/2007 09:25:51
Originally by: Benn Helmsman Edited by: Benn Helmsman on 26/10/2007 09:06:31 Use a jump freighter, stop crying your ubercarriers cant do everything on their own.
Last I heard, jump freighters were not on TQ and are not due to be included in any upcoming expansion or patch in the next 6 months.
|
Carniflex
Caldari Fallout Research Fallout Project
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 09:28:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Gor Kraon So you can carry a small gang of frigates/cruisers but they can't have ammo/charges/drones in them? Whats the point of a carrier being able to carry ships then?
If you want to nerf carriers carrying industrials, just make them friggin huge so they don't fit in a carrier.
Corp hangar array. It's enough to keep ammo/drones. It's is however quite serious nerf to 'logistic' uses of carriers like tower fueling and getting loot out from 0.0. I tought tho that they were going to wait with nerfing carriers until they have something proper prepared to balance stuff out. Assuming it's going live in TQ.
|
|
Stellar Vix
State War Academy
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 09:30:00 -
[41]
I support this nerf as a means and way to have people encourage getting miners and industrialists and making more risks in 0.0 and STOP THE CAPTIOL-ONLINE game thats slowly been building.
SWA PVP |
Leon 026
Caldari Veto. Veto Corp
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 09:39:00 -
[42]
Edited by: Leon 026 on 26/10/2007 09:44:53
With all the complaining, one would think that carrier pilots wanted their capitals to be all out combat ships. So which is it?
What CCP was attempting to do by making the carrier more support-reliant was a step in the right direction. This new 'fix' will make the carrier more combat-focused that so many are whining about, and hopefully the changes in 3 months time will take place - it'll put the carrier just about where it needs to be now.
For the record, my alt CAN and WILL fly the carrier. -------
Leon 026 Once I was fallen, now I have wings |
kill0rbunny
Jagdkommando Phoenix Allianz
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 09:39:00 -
[43]
You will still be shot in the next bubble, noob corp guys.
Besides that, If this nerf comes, at least I don't have to question myself whether to train for dread or carrier first.
I pew therefore I am.
|
Damned Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 09:41:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Stellar Vix I support this nerf as a means and way to have people encourage getting miners and industrialists and making more risks in 0.0 and STOP THE CAPTIOL-ONLINE game thats slowly been building.
I have a carrier and have a dread and in 99% of my time i fly ships under BS size so shut up with such f***ing answers. Go back to the hole and die!
|
Vort X
EON Order Te-Ka
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 09:54:00 -
[45]
Edited by: Vort X on 26/10/2007 09:55:33 Holy sh*t! Just remove the fecking carriers entirely from the game that will be much simpler then removing all it's useful features, ffs! You don't have anything to do at the ccp office? Screwing something that works just great.. awesome.
|
Helison
Gallente Times of Ancar Pure.
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 09:58:00 -
[46]
OMG, CCP really loves to nerf at the moment. CCP: Please revert this nerf as soon as possible, as you are crippling carriers and rorquals massivly with this. And at the moment it is still not possible to use jump freighters as substitute.
|
G3ghj
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 10:01:00 -
[47]
I thought the DevBlog was pretty clear. They dont want the carrier to be a allround versatile ship. They tried to cut into its fighting capabilities and the answer was a whinage which i never saw before in any other game or forum. Consens: No dont do that, my carrier is a fightingmachine and i like it the way it is.
So if you want a fighting machine, you will get it. No more logistics for you.
But see it that way: Everybody hates POS-warfare. I they cut the possibilty to transport fuel into 0.0, POSes will get offlined and everybody can only run 2 or 3 and not 20 or 30. YAY for this hidden 0.0-warfare buff. And allways remeber: You can still launch your drones.
I really like how everybody whines and screams because his pimpmobile, which is the only shipclass in EVE which can do nearly everything without refitting, gets BALANCED (not nerfed).
And before someone comes again with "my SP and ISK should mean something": I cant rule rupture in 1on1 with my logistics cruiser. Think about it.
PS: I hope this stays or they find another way to take the carrier its sheer endless versatility.
|
Carniflex
Caldari Fallout Research Fallout Project
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 10:06:00 -
[48]
It will not remove POS'es from 0.0 - they are unavoidable part of holding territory in 0.0. It will shaft smaller corps tho who don't own dreadnaughts bcos next best thing after that nerfed carrier will be honour tanked revelations dreadnaught. Or they will use that same carrier more times to move same amount of fuel. While better established corps can just soak up the added costs it can and will close oxygen on smaller or less organized corps in 0.0.
|
Damned Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 10:09:00 -
[49]
This nerf is good for Corps alliances who have Titans, and extremely bad for all small corps, alliances, making almost unable to hold the space in 0.0.
My problem is still not that they nerf it. They want do so, should be. Just give me back the isk i spent for the skillbooks and the skillpoints what i invested, so i would be able to put somewhere else, because thats not what for i trained!
|
Saladin
Minmatar Eternity INC. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 10:30:00 -
[50]
Edited by: Saladin on 26/10/2007 10:35:36 Here they go again, making fundamental changes with no regard to the time people have invested! I would go along with this if they allowed me to take back the SP I had invested and put it elsewhere! I spent weeks training up for the impel so I could load the carrier more efficiently! Thats time I could have spent on JDC 5. Now I will not be able to load the carrier nor do I have JDC 5!
When they told us we couldn't use giant secures we accepted it because they claimed it was causing a bug. Tell me CCP, are you going to reimburse me for 4 wasted cargo rigs?
|
|
Dalekplunger Slick
Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 10:36:00 -
[51]
Hahahahaha
I bet the guy at CCP who publishes these updates to SiSi is a chronic maniacal laugher and gets a real kick out of saying "Let them chew on THAT for a while!" |
Lord Maldoror
Fairlight Corp FOUNDATI0N
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 10:41:00 -
[52]
Moving fighters to Ship Bay
Why not just increase the volume of fighters to 25,000m3 and move them to the ship bay? This means when hauling you can't carry a full offensive setup. You'd still be able to field normal drones (drone bay should drop to 4,000m3) for some defence - but a hauling carrier would be easy to kill if you pin it down.
So you get the best of both worlds; small corps are still able to use carrier logistics in 0.0 but at the expense of much of their dps when performing this task.
It's also a more 'natural' change than hauling modules and other such things.
|
Damned Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 10:41:00 -
[53]
Originally by: Dalekplunger Slick Hahahahaha
I bet the guy at CCP who publishes these updates to SiSi is a chronic maniacal laugher and gets a real kick out of saying "Let them chew on THAT for a while!"
And he should die soon and horrible
|
Damned Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 10:43:00 -
[54]
Originally by: Lord Maldoror
Moving fighters to Ship Bay
Why not just increase the volume of fighters to 25,000m3 and move them to the ship bay? This means when hauling you can't carry a full offensive setup. You'd still be able to field normal drones (drone bay should drop to 4,000m3) for some defence - but a hauling carrier would be easy to kill if you pin it down.
So you get the best of both worlds; small corps are still able to use carrier logistics in 0.0 but at the expense of much of their dps when performing this task.
It's also a more 'natural' change than hauling modules and other such things.
Just 2 quick reasons: 1. if u transport backup ships on the fron u would be defendless 2. because 25000 m3 fighters need to transport somehow to the ship, what cant be done without a rigged hauler
|
SpaceBenfish
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 10:45:00 -
[55]
"Sorry guys you can't do that because carriers are not logistics ships"
"Sorry guys you can't do that because carriers are not combat ships they're logistics ships"
"Sorry guys you can't do that because carriers are not logistics ships they're combat ships."
Fanfest t-shirt idea: "I trained for 9 months and all I got was this stupid large sparkly betamax machine [picture of a carrier]
|
Future Thing
Ninja Warriors of the Round Table
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 11:00:00 -
[56]
What a joke. Terrible idea :S
|
Nuwa
Eternity INC. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 11:04:00 -
[57]
No offense Leon , but more support reliant .... people must be getting mom and carriers confused ... carriers will get toasted solo period ( and that is now ) ... best to say carrier is jack of all trades but a master of none ( once the nerf goes live with the reduced cargo capacity and fighter nerf .. sell your carrier and get logistics ship atleast it's cheaper and faster lock time )
Best thing I did this year was sell my capital char for isk ...
Originally by: Leon 026 Edited by: Leon 026 on 26/10/2007 09:44:53
With all the complaining, one would think that carrier pilots wanted their capitals to be all out combat ships. So which is it?
What CCP was attempting to do by making the carrier more support-reliant was a step in the right direction. This new 'fix' will make the carrier more combat-focused that so many are whining about, and hopefully the changes in 3 months time will take place - it'll put the carrier just about where it needs to be now.
For the record, my alt CAN and WILL fly the carrier.
|
Kira's Shadow
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 11:11:00 -
[58]
Edited by: Kira''s Shadow on 26/10/2007 11:12:47
Originally by: Rexthor Hammerfists Edited by: Rexthor Hammerfists on 26/10/2007 09:22:26 imo carriers not being able to haul haulers with stuff in em is a good change, i used it myself alot and surely will miss it tho but the good thing about it tho will be more travelling with normal ships thus more chances of fights and kills.
also and more important it will be harder for one alliance to hold large amounts of space as fuelling with carriers and transporting poses makes it way too easy.
it also makes titans more important..
/tifoil hat mode on
So Bob unveil another Titan, and leave three regions full of outposts (like 40-50+ outposts?) in a surprising move, and less than 48 hours after this huge nerf to logistics is found in Sisi... Do I see a pattern?
/tinfoil hat mode off
This nerf is so extremely bad it's barely believable. Can't CCP at least wait until jump freighters start to be a common occurence? They won't even be more than a concept in Trinity, by the look of it!
|
Karunel
Princeps Corp
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 11:15:00 -
[59]
Those changes should've been thought about when they first introduced carriers. Doing them after 2 years is just ****ing a lot of people.
Foresight loses again. :-/ ____
Originally by: elbenito The problem with large fleet engagements is that the hamsters stop to watch.
|
Kerfira
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 11:17:00 -
[60]
Again, this shows that CCP really DOESN'T know how carriers are used in the game! Jeez, just as their first boneheaded change was shot down in flames, they go ahead and point that shotgun at their own feet again!!!
Ok, so fine if you prevent industrials in the ship bay, but FFS don't prevent smaller ships from being stored there with ammo in their holds. All your (sorry to say) bull**** talk in your latest blog about carriers is exposed as it is... No matter the outcry from the first one, you're still hellbent on getting carriers effectively removed from the game!
Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
|
|
Azuse
The Brotherhood Of The Blade Pure.
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 11:55:00 -
[61]
Originally by: SpaceBenfish "Sorry guys you can't do that because carriers are not logistics ships"
"Sorry guys you can't do that because carriers are not combat ships they're logistics ships"
"Sorry guys you can't do that because carriers are not logistics ships they're combat ships."
You told the community cans were a bug, you never took steps to rectify, nor were you ever seen to be taking any, this so from our point of view you lied to your customers but more importantly while your ******* around with these ships decide what they do. You say ships are only ment to do one thing, you give carriers bonuses for two task and then you **** it all up publicly, so you implement testing of other ideas but again, you fail to inform the customers and get the same back lash as you did last time. Why was this put on sis and not on your internal server?
Anyone having used the corp hanger in a carrier knows how bad and how slow it is when there are only 10 people in their system. Now after the can gimping last year you're gimping the ships too, so i can understand the haulers (so it isn't actually a logistics ship after all?) but tell me if I'm wrong, putting an assembled, a fitted, combat ship in a carrier but being told it can't actually carry it's own ammunitions in inconstant? So the community is allowed to fit modules but not ammo, smart, real smart. If we can't carry ammo (or anything in the hold) the ability to carry a fully assembled ship is worthless isn't it? Really you want to control what goes in allow unpackaged ship in the ship hanger but reduce it's size PROPORTIONALLY. Ask yourselves what the point is in needing a ship assembled if that additional space is simply wasted.
I don't enjoy fueling towers, or hauling fuel and as i said before i pay for games that amuse me not for the pleaser of having a second job. It comes down to a similar situation as fighters, you make a customers life harder and eventually he's just going to stop paying to be frustrated and bored. And if this does go live expect to see hoarding of resources, pos fuels, on TQ like you never seen before, any change you make to capita class vessels will have a fundamental impact ont he economy.
Where this starts and ends really, is your handling of the situation over the past two years. You introduced carriers two years ago, ship that were supposed to provide front line support and logistics which general got stat at posses. Over time subtle changes moved them away from towers, the hp really got them out on the front lines and triage has become the "panic button" in the lagged systems. Your problem is you have over two years let them grow and have now reached a point where you've decided that they aren't really supposed to be both combat and logistics ships (have you been lying to us for two years?) but are trying to solve your problem through culling rather than pruning. What do i mean? Well look at it this way:
If a gardener was going to spend two years growing a tree he spends each month of those two years pruning and adjusting that tree to his design. He doesn't not leave it for the first year then make a madrid of changes but he most certainly does not then leave it alone for the second year only to return, decide he does not like what it has become and simply hack off all the parts that have grow he doesn't like, usually the tree would die if this happened
Of course carriers won't die if you introduced these changes, they would still be used for what ever task they are best suited but what task is that? Are they for combat or logistics since their bonuses reflect both roles? If i were in your position i would put my money on combat, very few people pay for the thrill of a hulling simulation but that isn't really the issue is it? No, your problem is much simpler. After taking money for two years from your customers it appears your decision makers, your company no longer know what these ships are supposed to do.
[con.] --------------------------
|
Azuse
The Brotherhood Of The Blade Pure.
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 11:55:00 -
[62]
[con.]
Any, all, backlash over this has been about the same problem at heart. Our sp are tied to the ships we have trained and ccp has decided to change them. There is fortunately a solution however i personally amn't fond of it however for you it is a much easier choice, implement your changes and loose a portion of your player base (customers/income) or allow the transfer of sp. As much as i hate to mention or draw any compassions to other mmos there is a particular other which has one saving grace alone and that is, when the devs make changes to fundamental core mechanics, giving the player the option to move those sp they have paid and worked for to a different field which will suit them better.
Personally i'm not to fond of the idea but it has spawned several threads over the past 5 days and (grudgingly) has some merit. You've spent the past 5 days reinforcing your view that EvE is all about the choice we make, well now it's ccps turn.
Az --------------------------
|
Raneru
Darwin With Attitude oooh Shiny
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 12:04:00 -
[63]
This is a little annoying as i'll have to contract seperate ships and cargo cans of stuff to my friendly neighborhood carrier pilot. I'll live though..
|
Pilgrippa
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 12:07:00 -
[64]
I wholeheartedly support this nerf. Maybe now pos spamming will require more than 1 guy.
|
Damned Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 12:08:00 -
[65]
No The answer is much simpler and much worts that they don't know for what is this ship...
U trained a year for a carrier, bought skillbooks, invest ISK, Time and money to use it the way it was designed. After 2 years CCP decided we want to hold our customers even longer and they should training new ships, but what to training? Oh yes the new Jump Freighter. Hmm, but not everyone would train for and is too expensive too, so we FORCE the customers do what we want!
Thats all is just about money!!! U payed for something and CCP takes now away to force u to pay for other one.
|
Damned Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 12:10:00 -
[66]
Originally by: Pilgrippa I wholeheartedly support this nerf. Maybe now pos spamming will require more than 1 guy.
I like to see that just looser pirate corps support this change or noobs who never flight a carrier.
|
HotSeat
Black Omega Security Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 12:20:00 -
[67]
WTF CCP ... please tell me this was a mistake or bug.
This will crash the T2 / Moon mins / POS market.
How the hell do you think people get fuel too there POS and return mins? Your customer base is going too freak when no one can build all these new T2 ships.
Oh wait, you want people with jump bridges and Titans too control market
Sov 4 is nothing compared to the Power of the Grief !! |
Rooker
Lysian Enterprises
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 12:23:00 -
[68]
I think it can be boiled down basically to this -
CCP: You will use this ship exactly as we say you will use it, not for anything different and go **** up a rope if you don't like that.
I don't know the reason behind the long parade of nerfs over the last several months. All I can say is that CCP needs to pull their collective head out and stop changing the rules at random. If you repeatedly pull the rug out from under people, eventually they're just going to go stand somewhere else. Ask Sony how well that worked out for them.
-- This Space For Rent |
Lazuran
Gallente Time And ISK Sink Corporation
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 12:34:00 -
[69]
funny, so carriers with fitted ships in the bay must put the ammo for those ships somewhere else... impressive foresight.
"...been designed for one purpose and one purpose only. Imagine a handful of repair drones pouring from the carebear's mouth. Now imagine they have um, nothing." -Unknown Hel redesigner (2007) |
Kerfira
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 12:54:00 -
[70]
Edited by: Kerfira on 26/10/2007 12:54:31 CCP!
Please take a step back from the nerf-bat, and provide us with this:
1. Outline your vision for how it's supposed to be to live in 0.0. 2. Outline your vision for how it's supposed to be to live in low-sec. 3. Outline your vision for how it's supposed to be to live in high-sec. 4. Outline your vision for how battles are supposed to be. 5. Get a discussion with the community how to achieve this. 6. Modify your vision with the good points raised in the discussion. 7. Outline your plan for how you want to get to that point. 8. Discuss this with the community. 9. Adjust your plan with the good points raised in the discussion. 10. Implement!
All these individual random-looking nerfs/changes that you continuously spring on people doesn't go down well, since we don't know what your vision is! It makes your changes seem random and makes it look like you have no clue to how people actually play the game and uses its features.
Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
|
|
Benn Helmsman
Caldari Dark Prophecy Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 13:06:00 -
[71]
Originally by: Lazuran funny, so carriers with fitted ships in the bay must put the ammo for those ships somewhere else... impressive foresight.
1)Which kind of combat ships would you put in the carrier? 2)What is the corp hangar array in a carrier for?
|
Cadiz
Caldari No Quarter. Vae Victis.
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 13:07:00 -
[72]
Edited by: Cadiz on 26/10/2007 13:09:58 ffs, if they REALLY don't want us using carriers for hauling, they could just make it so you can't put industrials & mining barges in the SMA. They were able to do a similar thing (except in reverse) with the Rorqual, so the capability is obviously there. This just makes it immensely frustrating to carry combat-ready ships in the SMA. As others have mentioned, putting more than a few dozen item stacks in a carrier's corp hangar array results in massive lagouts for everybody who tries to open them...not to mention your total client lockup when stuff gets added/removed en masse. Thanks, CCP, for deciding the carrier needs to do a full state update (just like logging in or boarding a new ship!) every time somebody pulls a single mod out of you.
Of course it doesn't change the fact that I was partially placated re: the fighter nerfage by the fact that the carrier SMAs were getting doubled in size. After all, as much as I like to blow stuff up in my carrier, I initially trained into one for the long-range hauling capability; yay for corp logistics. Now I find even that rug torn out from under me as well.
Oh well. Time to bite the bullet and go lay down another uncomfortably large sack of isk on a Rorqual and the skills to use it, I suppose. I imagine the vehement indignation will kick in a few hours down the line; right now I'm probably in too much shock for this to really sink in. ------ Director, No Quarter "There is no problem that cannot be solved by the judicious application of violence." |
Pilgrippa
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 13:13:00 -
[73]
Originally by: Damned Force
Originally by: Pilgrippa I wholeheartedly support this nerf. Maybe now pos spamming will require more than 1 guy.
I like to see that just looser pirate corps support this change or noobs who never flight a carrier.
Hey I fly a carrier! I am part of a loser pirate corp, so you got me there. Maybe I should have posted with an alt ;)
Yes, the reason I like this nerf is it will force people to expose their valuable assets. I don't think pos were meant to be so easily maintainable. Now it'll be easier to starve em out!
|
Benn Helmsman
Caldari Dark Prophecy Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 13:14:00 -
[74]
Edited by: Benn Helmsman on 26/10/2007 13:14:35
Originally by: Cadiz Edited by: Cadiz on 26/10/2007 13:09:58 ffs, if they REALLY don't want us using carriers for hauling, they could just make it so you can't put industrials & mining barges in the SMA. They were able to do a similar thing (except in reverse) with the Rorqual, so the capability is obviously there. This just makes it immensely frustrating to carry combat-ready ships in the SMA. As others have mentioned, putting more than a few dozen item stacks in a carrier's corp hangar array results in massive lagouts for everybody who tries to open them...not to mention your total client lockup when stuff gets added/removed en masse. Thanks, CCP, for deciding the carrier needs to do a full state update (just like logging in or boarding a new ship!) every time somebody pulls a single mod out of you.
Of course it doesn't change the fact that I was partially placated re: the fighter nerfage by the fact that the carrier SMAs were getting doubled in size. After all, as much as I like to blow stuff up in my carrier, I initially trained into one for the long-range hauling capability; yay for corp logistics. Now I find even that rug torn out from under me as well.
Oh well. Time to bite the bullet and go lay down another uncomfortably large sack of isk on a Rorqual and the skills to use it, I suppose. I imagine the vehement indignation will kick in a few hours down the line; right now I'm probably in too much shock for this to really sink in.
I never tried it, so i need a short info to comment that: Can you put Secure cans with stuff inside in the corp hangar array of a carrier?
|
Cadiz
Caldari No Quarter. Vae Victis.
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 13:16:00 -
[75]
Edited by: Cadiz on 26/10/2007 13:16:35
Originally by: Benn Helmsman I never tried it, so i need a short info to comment that: Can you put Secure cans with stuff inside in the corp hangar array of a carrier?
For now, yes, but you need to move them to your cargo hold (NOT the hangar array) if you want to take stuff out of them. Watch them nerf that out as well when they realize they missed a few spots. ------ Director, No Quarter "There is no problem that cannot be solved by the judicious application of violence." |
Benn Helmsman
Caldari Dark Prophecy Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 13:19:00 -
[76]
Originally by: Cadiz Edited by: Cadiz on 26/10/2007 13:16:35
Originally by: Benn Helmsman I never tried it, so i need a short info to comment that: Can you put Secure cans with stuff inside in the corp hangar array of a carrier?
For now, yes, but you need to move them to your cargo hold (NOT the hangar array) if you want to take stuff out of them. Watch them nerf that out as well when they realize they missed a few spots.
Well uberly easy solution: Lets say you have 10 ships inside you maintenance bay, to be prepared, just put 10 named (after the ship it belongs to obviously) secured cans in the corp hangar array. You take out the ship, take 1 can and you are ready to fight... sry but if that is to hard you should try to work with ships from a carrier.
|
Damned Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 13:20:00 -
[77]
Edited by: Damned Force on 26/10/2007 13:20:47
Originally by: Pilgrippa
Originally by: Damned Force
Originally by: Pilgrippa I wholeheartedly support this nerf. Maybe now pos spamming will require more than 1 guy.
I like to see that just looser pirate corps support this change or noobs who never flight a carrier.
Hey I fly a carrier! I am part of a loser pirate corp, so you got me there. Maybe I should have posted with an alt ;)
Yes, the reason I like this nerf is it will force people to expose their valuable assets. I don't think pos were meant to be so easily maintainable. Now it'll be easier to starve em out!
There is nothing easy in the pos maintanence. Is hard and boring work to position cynoships, open cyno, sitting duck...... It take time to get into the bubble.... There are many places where u could attack the carrier or the cynoship, sure thats need more work than sitting by a bubble and just F1-F8 on everything jumping trough
|
Matrixcvd
Shadows of the Dead Aftermath Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 13:23:00 -
[78]
CCP Who is your daddy, and what does he do? You have lost your marbles and these changes or potential changes are screwing with the minimization of the boring aspects of this game. if you think this will limit the roles of the large alliances in this game YOU ARE WRONG AGAIN! This will only further consolidate power and form even larger alliances to prevent the loss thru derliction of system sov.... utter crap
|
Varrakk
Chosen Path
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 13:24:00 -
[79]
Seriously, does the CCP-staff actually play this game anymore? Atleast the way we(as in its customers) play it. Here we have another idiot nerf with epic side effects.
Individual players: Not everyone has a carrier. Getting replacements and supplies for the average player is very time consuming, and will most often get you killed going to or from your sorley needed supplies. Carrier people, as MMO's intended to be. Help those, by getting them their equipment.
And before you say, use the corp hangar. Sorry lads, but its often filled with fuel. Some distances too far, for the pathetic cargoholds in a carrier to hold it all. Then theres cyno jammers, and we need to drag with us 2-3k ozone as well.
For the alliances: Keeping POS's fueled beyond 1region worth of space, is going to be a full time JOB for multiple players. This is a game, a simulation of chores. Fuel a POS can be "fun" 2 or 3 times, after that it becomes a tedious chore. Multiply this with 100-2000 depending on alliance sizes.
Jump freighters you say? 1) No fittings, cap recharging for jumps is yet another unwanted time sink. 2) Slow, cyno in from outside a POS shield. Then slowboat over to the tower, 30km+ at 80-120m/s (granted your cap is full by the time you get there) 3) Insane prices! 6-8billions pricetag. 4) Defenceless, in addition to wasting peoples time needlessly. You now need people to defend this thing, while you do your mindlessly boring job.
Good ****ing work!
|
Cadiz
Caldari No Quarter. Vae Victis.
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 13:25:00 -
[80]
Originally by: Benn Helmsman Well uberly easy solution: Lets say you have 10 ships inside you maintenance bay, to be prepared, just put 10 named (after the ship it belongs to obviously) secured cans in the corp hangar array. You take out the ship, take 1 can and you are ready to fight... sry but if that is to hard you should try to work with ships from a carrier.
Unfortunately, that entire idea severely cuts into the spare fuel capacity of a carrier...not to mention it is a hassle that requires people to go around with unused space in their carriers simply so they have room to move their fuel out of the cargo hold and into the hangar array.
The far more elegant solution here is simply DON'T LET US PUT INDYS & BARGES IN THE SMA. Seriously, they do it for combat ships on the Rorq, so we know this is possible to code. I thought CCP had learned their goddamned lesson from POS SMAs already? ------ Director, No Quarter "There is no problem that cannot be solved by the judicious application of violence." |
|
Pytria Le'Danness
Placid Reborn
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 13:26:00 -
[81]
Originally by: Kira's Shadow
/tifoil hat mode on
So Bob unveil another Titan, and leave three regions full of outposts (like 40-50+ outposts?) in a surprising move, and less than 48 hours after this huge nerf to logistics is found in Sisi... Do I see a pattern?
/tinfoil hat mode off
And that IMO is the biggest problem with what t20 did - every move that is being made by CCP will now be viewed through the "And how will BoB benefit from this?" glasses. I have to admit that something like that was the first thing that went through my mind too when I read about the carrier nerfs. "Oh, they have fulfilled their purpose for our friends, now let's dull them down a bit."
Can I borrow your tinfoil hat please?
Corporation RP channel: "PlacidReborn" |
Necronomicon
Caldari KIA Corp KIA Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 13:26:00 -
[82]
Remember guys, this will only nerf entities who do not have a titan, so it does not matter.
Carlsberg dont make Eve Pilots, but if they did, i wouldnt be one of them.
|
Darpz
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 13:52:00 -
[83]
this is more game breaking than the compression nerf
this is more game breaking than the carrier fighter nerf
do you guys even play this game?
|
Papion
Huff and Puff
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 14:02:00 -
[84]
i support this change and you can keep the ammo in your corperate hangar in your carrier
|
Delichon
Caldari
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 14:02:00 -
[85]
Ok, I am a noob, I don't fly (and never intend to, for the love of God) a carrier. But I will try to express my thoughts nonetheless. Everything below is my humbleoppinion and does not represent the opinions of anybody but myself.
Now we see, that carriers are getting a) reduced concentrated damage potential in fight, b) reduced ability to move freight. Next, I'd guess, we will see a nerf of logistic ability of a carrier.
Why does CCP do it?
Damage pontential. From the look of things I think Battleships are as far as CCP is willing to go in terms of DPS produced by 1 source. Dreads are mostly for POS and Capital warfare, Titans have DD(but it's different) Carriers are getting nerfed. I think I can actually understand the intentions behind it. If a mean DPS machine would become available and would produce a concentrated damage of, say, 3000 DPS, than BS will become extinct from the 0.0 warfare. Even high SP cap will not help - as with the carriers setting a high SP cap just postpones the problem. Just imagine - a "WTFOMGBBQ" ship class is introduced, it can dish out 3000 DPS to BS-sized targets, costs XX bil and takes 1 year to train. In a year we see 40-man blobs of "WTFOMGBBQ" ships attacking one another and no battleships (because nobody is willing to take the chances and endanger the gang - and when you are not willing to take the chances, you blob with the best you've got) Newbs whine that in order to be noticed in 0.0 warfare they have to train to "WTFOMGBBQ" ships.
So the only possible path for CCP is to produce something that produces a lot of DPS, but that these DPS are not concentrated. This way a 40 man blob of dispearce damage dealers does not provide a same result as above, because it would take a lot of FC skill to consentrate this disperced DPS on the enemy.
This is IMHO the purpose of the fighter nerf.
Freight.
Now on to the freight. I see comments that reducing freight capabilities of carriers will triple the amount of work a person should do to maintain POS. I doubt that CCP failed to realise that. I think the amount of work to maintain POS was meant to be a) high b) to require a special character. When carriers decreased the amount of work below the level CCP liked it to be and allowed to use fighter charactes for that, CCP most likely thought "well, there aren't that many carriers, they don't influence the game this much"
Well, now there are that many carriers and they do influence the game much. So since I assume the amount of time that is currently spent on maintaining POS was meant to be either higher and it was meant to be decreased by using a specialized character, CCP nerfed (not yet, but will likely do in the nearest future) the carriers freight capability.
I do think it is absurd to think of CCP as of people, who are incapable of thinking a step ahead and anticipating the conequences of their actions. They are still human though and they are doomed to make mistakes at times. But this time I think the whole issue makes anough sense to conclude that CCP does not "make random mindless nerfs" but are truly bringing the game in order with their vision of the game.
Best regards, Deli
|
Kay Han
Caldari Friendship 7 Corporation STYX.
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 14:06:00 -
[86]
skills needed to fly a carrier > massive amount of isk time invested to train the skills > 3/4 year and still training
getting nerfed by ccp > priceless
TBFH What kind of dope are you guys smoking? i really think you should change it. nerfing fighters.. ok. iŠm not happy with it. but ok. This nerf now. makes carriers total useless.
How about removing the ship mant array? just make them Bigger logistics... that would be cool
i really hope that all the stuff happening currently are jokes even if we donŠt have 1st of april yet.
Originally by: CCP Atropos Personally I think Amarr ships should consume slaves in a similar way that other ships consume ammunition.
|
Cadiz
Caldari No Quarter. Vae Victis.
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 14:12:00 -
[87]
Edited by: Cadiz on 26/10/2007 14:14:58
Originally by: Delichon Freight.
Now on to the freight. I see comments that reducing freight capabilities of carriers will triple the amount of work a person should do to maintain POS. I doubt that CCP failed to realise that. I think the amount of work to maintain POS was meant to be a) high b) to require a special character. When carriers decreased the amount of work below the level CCP liked it to be and allowed to use fighter charactes for that, CCP most likely thought "well, there aren't that many carriers, they don't influence the game this much"
Well, now there are that many carriers and they do influence the game much. So since I assume the amount of time that is currently spent on maintaining POS was meant to be either higher and it was meant to be decreased by using a specialized character, CCP nerfed (not yet, but will likely do in the nearest future) the carriers freight capability.
I do think it is absurd to think of CCP as of people, who are incapable of thinking a step ahead and anticipating the conequences of their actions. They are still human though and they are doomed to make mistakes at times. But this time I think the whole issue makes anough sense to conclude that CCP does not "make random mindless nerfs" but are truly bringing the game in order with their vision of the game.
Best regards, Deli
If CCP wants people to spend more time on fueling POSes, then they need to redo the goddamn sov mechanics so you don't need dozens of POSes to do anything worthwhile. Logistics is not fun. Logistics is never fun. It's exceptionally tedious stuff, and 99 out of 100 people who do it (who are themselves a tiny fraction of the population) do it not out of enjoyment, but because of necessity.
Basically, the logistics guys are the backbone on which the entire 0.0 playing field - EVE's shining crown jewel of epic player warfare & politics - is built. Without their labours, there is nothing. This is not overstatement, this is simple, absolute fact. By kidneypunching the whole damned lot of them and slapping them in the face with a brutally high cost of entry (hi2u jump freighter), all they're doing is making people throw their hands up in their and say "screw it, screw you, I'm going back to low-sec and am going to gank mission runners all day". After all, the logistics people like to go out and shoot stuff/mine/whatever in their spare time, too. Increasing the time investment required to keep 0.0 logistics up & operational just decreases the amount of time people can spend actually doing whatever it is they enjoy in EVE, which is a profoundly boneheaded move.
Stealth low-sec buff in disguise, maybe?
People who say 0.0 logistics should be more difficult are either masochists who believe one's worth is defined by how willing you are to have your balls stomped on for hours on end, or are people who have never done it. ------ Director, No Quarter "There is no problem that cannot be solved by the judicious application of violence." |
Porks
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 14:17:00 -
[88]
Originally by: Cadiz People who say 0.0 logistics should be more difficult are either masochists who believe one's worth is defined by how willing you are to have your balls stomped on for hours on end, or are people who have never done it.
Truest statement ever posted.
And yes, the rorqual has been smacked by the same nerfbat.
|
Arenis Xemdal
Amarr
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 14:32:00 -
[89]
Oh god finally, FINALLY.
With this move, carriers will go from being the most horribly overpowered ship in EVE, to a gloriously balanced beacon of eternal enlightenment. I love you CCP. I LOVE YOU AND IT HURTS TO ADMIT IT GRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH :(
|
Audri Fisher
Caldari VentureCorp Imperial Republic Of the North
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 14:33:00 -
[90]
this is a stealth boost to amarr.
|
|
Zeros Omega
Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 14:38:00 -
[91]
I like titans. --- History is written on the sands of Arrakis. A chapter has ended, swept away by the whirlwind. One door has closed, but another has opened. And on the other side... our future... |
Elmicker
Black Sea Industries Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 14:44:00 -
[92]
Edited by: Elmicker on 26/10/2007 14:45:01 jesus... what the **** are you thinking?!
Right.
The nerf, on paper, makes sense. +1.
The nerf, in game, IS IDIOTIC. -100.
First wtfmajor huge flaw: A carrier is meant to carry combat-ready ships. How, exactly, is it meant to do this when the ships it is carrying cannot hold any ammo or cap charges?
Second flaw: You're removing the ONLY current viable logistics tool and providing no viable alternative. Jump freighters will be costing half as much as a mothership, and regardless, will probably take a couple of months to get built and trained for. How are we meant to do corp/alliance level logistics in the mean time?
Third flaw: You've also nerfed capital module sizes. You want to force carriers to refit to perform multiple roles. How exactly are they meant to refit when they can't actually carry more than 2 capital modules?
|
Cadiz
Caldari No Quarter. Vae Victis.
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 14:46:00 -
[93]
Originally by: Elmicker How are we meant to do corp/alliance level logistics in the mean time?
so, i herd u liek 3-hour freighter ops...
Actually, by the sound of it, the Rorqual is getting a cargo hold boost or something. So maybe if all of your logistics guys petition CCP, they can get their Racial Carrier skills swapped over to Capital Industrial Ships. ------ Director, No Quarter "There is no problem that cannot be solved by the judicious application of violence." |
Sandra Sun
Caldari The Collective
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 15:01:00 -
[94]
This is a terrible idea.
THIS
IS
A
TERRIBLE
IDEA.
Idea? Terrible this is.
Is this idea terrible?
IS: THIS TERRIBLE IDEA.
|
Kublai Khan
Caldari TAOSP Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 15:01:00 -
[95]
As Rexthor said, this is a good nerf to carriers. They just have to balance the T2 freighters so they arent way too expensive and cant carry too much. If you want to carry loads, bring a T1 freighter. I also agree that they way to do this is to increase the size of haulers and not screw with the carrier shipbay.
Also, if you all read the other thread they talked about wanting to specializing fighters for a certain role. Not do everything at once. So most likely you'll still end up being able to haul fuel with it, eventhough ****ty (hoped this would reduce the POS spammage around EVE), you just have to fit a cargo bay module to your ship.
As they said: Just wait and see till they get everything implemented
|
Serilla
The Collective Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 15:04:00 -
[96]
Originally by: Sandra Sun This is a terrible idea.
THIS
IS
A
TERRIBLE
IDEA.
Idea? Terrible this is.
Is this idea terrible?
IS: THIS TERRIBLE IDEA.
^^ this __________________
|
Aegices
Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 15:06:00 -
[97]
Originally by: Kublai Khan As Rexthor said, this is a good nerf to carriers. They just have to balance the T2 freighters so they arent way too expensive and cant carry too much.
You do realize that T2 freighters are TECH 2, right? That is, they need to be invented. Have fun coping with your logistics until you got some built :)
Also, more people need to read Grayton's post on page 1.
|
Porks
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 15:06:00 -
[98]
Originally by: Aegices
Originally by: Kublai Khan As Rexthor said, this is a good nerf to carriers. They just have to balance the T2 freighters so they arent way too expensive and cant carry too much.
You do realize that T2 freighters are TECH 2, right? That is, they need to be invented. Have fun coping with your logistics until you got some built :)
Also, more people need to read Grayton's post on page 1.
Well they're only going to cost like 8 billion dude I'm gonna pop out and grab like 6 of them
|
Arenis Xemdal
Amarr
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 15:07:00 -
[99]
Oh dear, you know a change is good when people threaten to quit EVE. Oh dear my pants are being ruined. OH DEAR
|
Pilgrippa
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 15:12:00 -
[100]
What's ridiculous is the amount of pos there are. Making them harder to maintain = far fewer pos = good.
|
|
Snot Gargle
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 15:13:00 -
[101]
Originally by: Arenis Xemdal Oh dear, you know a change is good when people threaten to quit EVE. Oh dear my pants are being ruined. OH DEAR
Thanks for your helpful and positive contribution. Going on how your main is banned from posting here, not surprising though, eh digi?
|
Kublai Khan
Caldari TAOSP Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 15:13:00 -
[102]
Well, if you fit a cargobay or two three in your high, maybe you can carry the fuel in your hangar instead of in the industrials in your ship bay. You just cant instantly jump to a battlefield and be useful. And if it's abit less total capacity, so its abit more work to keep all those POSes up and running, it might end up reducing the total amount of POS spammage. I'm all for that.
Carriers should be combat logistic ships, not fuelers.
|
Elmicker
Black Sea Industries Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 15:13:00 -
[103]
Originally by: Pilgrippa What's ridiculous is the amount of pos there are. Making them harder to maintain = far fewer pos = good.
You think this will reduce the number of poses?
|
Porks
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 15:14:00 -
[104]
Originally by: Pilgrippa What's ridiculous is the amount of pos there are. Making them harder to maintain = far fewer pos = good.
Yeah brb offlining a bunch of towers so each station system only has 2 online pos's and can be taken by pos spam
|
Cyberus
Caldari Wreckless Abandon Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 15:21:00 -
[105]
I can be agree with that change on carriers if we get something for it back in form of:
a)tier2 jump frigthers in place of tech2 b)they will come at same time on TQ as the change on carriers so we at least could field those in 1 week after the change.
P.S. I have fealing that CCP HQ was infected by some strange cosmic virus probebly coming from Jovians space. Thats causing all unexpected and most rarely/stupedly new ideas in form of visions how EVE should be by eployes of CCP. Hopefully Jove will discover soon they leak from biochemical labs and bring new medications to Iceland before the patch hit the TQ.
|
Pilgrippa
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 15:26:00 -
[106]
Originally by: Elmicker
Originally by: Pilgrippa What's ridiculous is the amount of pos there are. Making them harder to maintain = far fewer pos = good.
You think this will reduce the number of poses?
Absolutely.
I don't think anyone disagrees that it makes logistics harder. I think that's the point.
|
Jelana Travit
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 15:30:00 -
[107]
Originally by: Grayton Ok, as one of the main logistics directors for the largest alliance...
This is a good post. Agree with everything, especially the extremely convoluted and boring logistics requirements of POS / 0.0 EVE.
|
mamolian
M. Corp M. PIRE
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 15:33:00 -
[108]
Not really sure what to say about this change, other than your upsetting a large portion of your active player base along with 10,000 carrier pilots with this change. Guess I'm far too biased to see the wisdom in these changes.. for you see I've invested something close to 3 bill isk in a character to fly carriers/capitals, along with the ship cost and fittings. Not to mention tying up 6 months + training time on a character.. so I've also invested 90 Euros keeping that account active during this time. I'm sorry CCP.. but this really is making me angry.
What was once a game so epic.. It was worthy of song.. is fast becoming the most boring pile of **** I've ever spent my money on..
-------------------------------
|
Standard Deviation
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 15:38:00 -
[109]
Originally by: Pilgrippa What's ridiculous is the amount of pos there are. Making them harder to maintain = far fewer pos = good.
right answer
jump logistics is part of the pos problem
|
zero2espect
Amarr Exanimo Inc Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 15:45:00 -
[110]
welcome to the world of amarr. ccp nerfing you with a smile and saying, "but it's good for you".
i'm over this game
//sometimes less is more...zero
|
|
Xanetia Ravenfrost
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 15:48:00 -
[111]
I'm hoping that modules will be introduced to offset this outright nerf of current carriers. I don't mind not having offensive capability if I'm doing a logistics job. However, leaving the only choices for 0.0 logistics either a 40-jump freighter convoy or an 8 billion isk Jump Freighter that won't show up at all until 2 months after Rev3 is shortsighted.
The last time a company made sweeping, unannounced changes to a class role in a game was Star Wars Galaxies, and we all know how well that turned out (offering bounties to blow up abandoned player houses).
|
corporal hicks
Gallente Imperium Technologies Firmus Ixion
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 15:50:00 -
[112]
woot so now instead of having 30+ fitted frigs ready to go in my ship bay as replacments for people I now need to have x ammount of ammo of all different types in my corp hangers so my friends can open my corp hanger in space and lag the hell out of a system, now multiply that by 5-10 carriers at the one spot outside a pos and see how much lag they generate.
CCP's Offical answer to lag is to create even more lag. Way to go, maybe we should all keep our bookmarks in our corp hangers also so we can really screw the server.
" Stay Frosty "
|
Zequi
Caldari Princeps Corp YouWhat
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 15:53:00 -
[113]
STOP NERF CARRIER CCP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Your signature exceeds the maximum allowed dimensions of 400x120 pixels and filesize of 24000 bytes -Rauth Kivaro ([email protected]) |
Arokan Manturi
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 15:56:00 -
[114]
I like it.
|
Alski
Gallente Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 16:14:00 -
[115]
At the risk of coming off as rather arrogant, I have to say this:
If you don’t do pos refuelling and/or alliance level logistics, then your opinion is worthless.
Why? Because if you don’t do it then you have zero idea what it actually involves, you have no concept of just how much time and effort is spent on it, you have no clue as to how boring it is, or how much like a second job it feels like.
In-fact I would go so far as to say that if you don’t do pos/alliance logistics, and your in a 0.0 alliance AND stating here that this is a good change, then tbfh you need to grow up and stop being so god damn selfish.
There are a large number of people, who are conversely a small minority in this game, like myself, who work tirelessly to do all the slow, boring, tedious, monotonous, laborious and never-ending task of bringing in pos fuel and other such crap for the benefit of every other person in there alliance, we likely do it more or less every day, or at least several times a week, we give up our precious playtime to do a JOB that no-one else wants to do, that very few are qualified to do (because you need a carrier to do it) and we almost never complain about it… because its just the way the game is and we’ve all just fallen into the trap of accepting it.
As far as I’m concerned, anyone rejoicing over this change is ignorant, selfish and quite frankly scum not worthy of being in a 0.0 alliance in the first place.
If this change does go through, I’m almost going to be amused at the drama that will follow, all the people who think this change is a good thing are going to be VERY UNamused when the following happens:
-Weekley mandatory freighter ops to bring in fuel -Daily transport/hauler escorts to get pos fuel out in the field -Alliances losing space because they no-longer have any means of sustaining there pos’s. -Alliances losing outposts because there freighters can’t get through enemy space/fleets/entry points
Why? Because people Do Not do these things, its like getting blood from a stone.
If you read the above list and through any of it was exaggeration or hyperbole, you seriously need to get a clue, as you obviously have zero idea how much effort it already is to sustain a large amount of space even with using carriers as transports, Ask yourself this: if this change is good, and carrier hauling is overpowered/unnecessary, why are CCP introducing jumpfreighters? Hmmm?
If this change gos through, you can forget the whining from carrier pilots, it will be absolutely NOTHING compared to all the people who currently have no idea just how much time and effort 0.0 logistics already takes, when they are all suddenly being called to do 3-6 hour freighter ops on a regular basis, and if they decide – as many probably will – that escorting a bunch of slowass freighters around for 20,30,60+(!) jumps is too damn boreing for them, then lets see how much they whine if there alliance falls because of it.
-
(combat) Patch belonging to CCP hits your drones, wrecking their liberty and freedom. |
Goca
KAOS.
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 16:23:00 -
[116]
I have a feeling these people who claim to be "developers", who claim to care about this game, who claim to know wtf is going on, should perhaps READ posts like this and fix this goddamn game before doing any further nerfing or changing..
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=587827
Seriously do you guys running this game have any clue about this game?
Fix the ******* game, then worry about the nerfbat.. cripes.
It's seriously like they gathered up some preschoolers and said "hey wanna be developers"..
btw ffs leave the goddamn carriers alone.. they are just fine as they are..
|
Vladimir Tinakin
Caldari Hadean Drive Yards Archaean Cooperative
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 16:23:00 -
[117]
Originally by: Kublai Khan Well, if you fit a cargobay or two three in your high, maybe you can carry the fuel in your hangar instead of in the industrials in your ship bay.
The fact remains that there is no real acceptable alternative for logistics, unless you have titans or really love the idea of escorting freighters for six hours at a stretch.
If this nerf were to be balanced with a greatly expanded cargobay or Corporate Hangar array (to the tune of 35-50K m3), be it "natively" or via fitted modules, then I'd grind my teeth but accept it.
Anything short of that, is a ludicrous and downright abusive change to their customers that have to do logistics...and even those that don't do the logistics, since they rely on those that do.
Welcome back to 2005.
----------------------------------------------- Adm Vladimir Tinakin CFO Hadean Drive Yards |
Montaire
Genbuku. Daisho Syndicate
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 16:26:00 -
[118]
They also gave the Rorqual an INSANE boost.
150k m3 in the Rorq's cargo hold.
Let logistics live with the Capital Industrial Ships.
|
ColwirthGG
Gallente Hunters Agency Firmus Ixion
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 16:42:00 -
[119]
ship maint. Array was meant for ships, not cargo. Thats why they have a corp hanger. I support this and the other change to fighters.
|
Syberbolt8
Gallente soni Corp Imperium Sonorumance
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 16:42:00 -
[120]
Originally by: Standard Deviation
Originally by: Pilgrippa What's ridiculous is the amount of pos there are. Making them harder to maintain = far fewer pos = good.
right answer
jump logistics is part of the pos problem
Your joking right? This will only mean that now instead of every alliance big or small being able to own a system through pos spam, now only large alliances with titains will be able to. This wont hurt pos spamming on the large alliance scale, this will make it almost impossible for a small alliance to hold and secure space, This only promotes alliances with titains to start taking over more space because of the lack of smaller alliances ability to effectively move fuel without the carriers as is.
T2 frighters huh? you kidding right, only 8 bil isk huh, thats not a small number to most smaller alliances either, and the skill sink in it is huge, with poor jump range even at JDC lvl 5 its not going to be good jump range. Mean while large Alliance X jumps in a titain, opens a jump portal and BAM 3 normal cheap in comparsion t1 freighters jump in with fuel pos parts, and refuel a whole system of pos's and takes all the mins to highse, around the same time small alliance x has to make 30 jumps from highsec to lowsec with 3 freighters, and a huge gang to defend it, if they can even get a huge gang togather, and if they can't then they are taking a huge risk with the 3 all I can do is hual stuff around ships. Have you ever been 10 jumps moving at .7 au/s, or 20, how about 30, your talking about 6 to 8 hrs depending on the range in those systems, just to get them there, now then you have to fly back, thats stupid.
Then again you say t2 freighters, OK so even if they small alliance can afford one and they get a pilot for it. its not even comming out with this patch. so what till then, all the small alliances are in huge risk of loseing what little space they have. not a good idea. If you want to remove ships from having cargo in them in the sma, then the corp hanger bay, and the cargo hold need to be made much bigger. I myself wouldnt mind hualing stuff in my own cargo hold, and CHA instaed of holding and indy ship full of stuff. and small ships should be allow to hold ammo and such, otherwise may as well anchor the carrier in space put up a pos sheild and us it like a mobile pos. ------------------------------------ Soni-Corp Co-CEO
Start a fire for a man, he stays warm for a day. Catch a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life |
|
Veng3ance
Prophets Of a Damned Universe
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 16:45:00 -
[121]
CCP while you are making these changes keep 1 thing in mind.
Not every player in EVE is part of Goonswarm or BOB. No we do not all have titans. No we do not have 8 billion isk lying around to spend on jump frieghters. And (off subject) we do not all blob with 40 carriers in a big circle jerk.
|
Standard Deviation
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 16:48:00 -
[122]
Originally by: Syberbolt8
Originally by: Standard Deviation
Originally by: Pilgrippa What's ridiculous is the amount of pos there are. Making them harder to maintain = far fewer pos = good.
right answer
jump logistics is part of the pos problem
Your joking right? This will only mean that now instead of every alliance big or small being able to own a system through pos spam, now only large alliances with titains will be able to. This wont hurt pos spamming on the large alliance scale, this will make it almost impossible for a small alliance to hold and secure space, This only promotes alliances with titains to start taking over more space because of the lack of smaller alliances ability to effectively move fuel without the carriers as is.
T2 frighters huh? you kidding right, only 8 bil isk huh, thats not a small number to most smaller alliances either, and the skill sink in it is huge, with poor jump range even at JDC lvl 5 its not going to be good jump range. Mean while large Alliance X jumps in a titain, opens a jump portal and BAM 3 normal cheap in comparsion t1 freighters jump in with fuel pos parts, and refuel a whole system of pos's and takes all the mins to highse, around the same time small alliance x has to make 30 jumps from highsec to lowsec with 3 freighters, and a huge gang to defend it, if they can even get a huge gang togather, and if they can't then they are taking a huge risk with the 3 all I can do is hual stuff around ships. Have you ever been 10 jumps moving at .7 au/s, or 20, how about 30, your talking about 6 to 8 hrs depending on the range in those systems, just to get them there, now then you have to fly back, thats stupid.
Then again you say t2 freighters, OK so even if they small alliance can afford one and they get a pilot for it. its not even comming out with this patch. so what till then, all the small alliances are in huge risk of loseing what little space they have. not a good idea. If you want to remove ships from having cargo in them in the sma, then the corp hanger bay, and the cargo hold need to be made much bigger. I myself wouldnt mind hualing stuff in my own cargo hold, and CHA instaed of holding and indy ship full of stuff. and small ships should be allow to hold ammo and such, otherwise may as well anchor the carrier in space put up a pos sheild and us it like a mobile pos.
The problem is POS mechanics and POS tied to sov. Part of that problem is jump logistics, making maintaining pos easier.
I would like to see them change POS mechanics, to make it less of a job and less time consuming, its stupid now.
|
EwokPoacher
Nubs. D-L
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 16:56:00 -
[123]
The only positive thing I see coming from this is people saying screw conquerable space and moving back to **** holes like Syndicate or low-sec.
I do not support this at all, I just like killing people in low-sec :)
stealth boost to low-sec!
|
Syberbolt8
Gallente soni Corp Imperium Sonorumance
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 16:57:00 -
[124]
Originally by: Standard Deviation
Originally by: Syberbolt8
Originally by: Standard Deviation
Originally by: Pilgrippa What's ridiculous is the amount of pos there are. Making them harder to maintain = far fewer pos = good.
right answer
jump logistics is part of the pos problem
Your joking right? This will only mean that now instead of every alliance big or small being able to own a system through pos spam, now only large alliances with titains will be able to. This wont hurt pos spamming on the large alliance scale, this will make it almost impossible for a small alliance to hold and secure space, This only promotes alliances with titains to start taking over more space because of the lack of smaller alliances ability to effectively move fuel without the carriers as is.
T2 frighters huh? you kidding right, only 8 bil isk huh, thats not a small number to most smaller alliances either, and the skill sink in it is huge, with poor jump range even at JDC lvl 5 its not going to be good jump range. Mean while large Alliance X jumps in a titain, opens a jump portal and BAM 3 normal cheap in comparsion t1 freighters jump in with fuel pos parts, and refuel a whole system of pos's and takes all the mins to highse, around the same time small alliance x has to make 30 jumps from highsec to lowsec with 3 freighters, and a huge gang to defend it, if they can even get a huge gang togather, and if they can't then they are taking a huge risk with the 3 all I can do is hual stuff around ships. Have you ever been 10 jumps moving at .7 au/s, or 20, how about 30, your talking about 6 to 8 hrs depending on the range in those systems, just to get them there, now then you have to fly back, thats stupid.
Then again you say t2 freighters, OK so even if they small alliance can afford one and they get a pilot for it. its not even comming out with this patch. so what till then, all the small alliances are in huge risk of loseing what little space they have. not a good idea. If you want to remove ships from having cargo in them in the sma, then the corp hanger bay, and the cargo hold need to be made much bigger. I myself wouldnt mind hualing stuff in my own cargo hold, and CHA instaed of holding and indy ship full of stuff. and small ships should be allow to hold ammo and such, otherwise may as well anchor the carrier in space put up a pos sheild and us it like a mobile pos.
The problem is POS mechanics and POS tied to sov. Part of that problem is jump logistics, making maintaining pos easier.
I would like to see them change POS mechanics, to make it less of a job and less time consuming, its stupid now.
While a change in the pos mechanics would be nice, this fourm is about the carriers ability to hold between 40k m3 and 70k m3 for pos fuel, and or about being able to fit ships with ammo in them, Yes there are ways around it, but seeing as there will be no change to the pos mechanics anytime soon, and the t2 costs way to much to make own fly lose freighter this is the only option that works well atm. ------------------------------------ Soni-Corp Co-CEO
Start a fire for a man, he stays warm for a day. Catch a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life |
Elmicker
Black Sea Industries Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 17:03:00 -
[125]
Originally by: Pilgrippa Absolutely.
I don't think anyone disagrees that it makes logistics harder. I think that's the point.
Then you're stupider than i thought.
Harder logistics does not mean fewer poses. It just means harder logistics. Those responsible for big pos wars and pos spams already have jump nets or titans available to do their logistics for them on easy-mode.
This only damages small-medium sized alliances and corps who don't have massive pos nets available. Hell, even when jump freighters are available, probably in about 3 months, they're going to cost half a mothership. Only the alliances who probably dont need them will actually be able to afford them. Everyone's just going to have to switch to the next best thing; expanded Revelations, which are ridiculously boring.
|
Xanetia Ravenfrost
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 17:12:00 -
[126]
In addition to the points listed above, this change to capital ships pretty much goes against the Need for Speed initiative.
Let's make a necessarily annoying game mechanic even more annoying because we are bringing out a new ship!
|
Syberbolt8
Gallente soni Corp Imperium Sonorumance
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 17:18:00 -
[127]
Originally by: Xanetia Ravenfrost In addition to the points listed above, this change to capital ships pretty much goes against the Need for Speed initiative.
Let's make a necessarily annoying game mechanic even more annoying because we are bringing out a new ship!
QTF ------------------------------------ Soni-Corp Co-CEO
Start a fire for a man, he stays warm for a day. Catch a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life |
Cyberus
Caldari Wreckless Abandon Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 17:25:00 -
[128]
Edited by: Cyberus on 26/10/2007 17:25:44 Edited by: Cyberus on 26/10/2007 17:25:25 WTF!!!!!!!111 CCP ITS ****ING 50 DKP MINUS
|
Kagura Nikon
Minmatar MASS HOMICIDE Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 17:28:00 -
[129]
Originally by: Ce Domina Uh I really like your game CCP but why do you insist on making us focus on the boring parts? This just makes fueling POS's/logistics more of a pain than it already is. What does that add to the game?
I know the idea is that then everyone can use jump freighters but those take a long time to train for and are going to cost 3-4 times what a carrier does minimum, not to mention the shortened jump range to make it take twice as long. This also has the comical side effect of making SMAs at POS's sort of worthless. Now everyone will need to anchor a GSC to store their ammo? What does that add to my gaming experience?
I don't expect any of these questions to be answered because it seems you're intent on nerfing nullsec as much as you can, and this is a great step towards making it unappealing. Between the mind-numbing logistics and the nerf to the highends that's probably coming when you get rid of trit pricecaps you're really making an effort to make everyone live in empire.
Oh wait I forgot we'll have superveld in 0.0 so all we need to do is mine that then compress it using a rorqual so we can jump it to empire in our jump freighters and then refine and sell it there! So mining profitably in 0.0, which used to take a retriever (if that) and a fast frigate to run the mega/zyd now requires 7-8 billion in investments plus months of training!
Seriously I like this game but please let us focus on the fun parts. Nerfing the carrier's logistics ability really only serves to make the game less appealing, by making the parts that everyone hates take longer and be more expensive to do.
I think they want alliances to have LESS pos and LESS territory.
In fact at long run this sould be "bennerical" on sense that will nerf e huge imperial alliances over large extensions..
If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough |
Kagura Nikon
Minmatar MASS HOMICIDE Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 17:35:00 -
[130]
Also guys you can use rorqual as jump second grade freighter as of now. So calm down.
If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough |
|
Montaire
Genbuku. Daisho Syndicate
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 17:40:00 -
[131]
What part of "Use the Rorqual" is hard for people to understand ?
These things are now BETTER than a carrier for logistics. DOUBLE the size. 150k in the main cargo hold.
|
Vladimir Tinakin
Caldari Hadean Drive Yards Archaean Cooperative
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 17:41:00 -
[132]
Edited by: Vladimir Tinakin on 26/10/2007 17:42:52
Originally by: Kagura Nikon
I think they want alliances to have LESS pos and LESS territory.
In fact at long run this sould be "bennerical" on sense that will nerf e huge imperial alliances over large extensions..
Nope, the effect will be opposite that.
Only huge alliances will be able to perform the logistics necessary for POS chains. Once they have sov, they just need to build sufficient POS jump bridges and they can use T1 freighters to bring in all the fuel they need.
And huge alliances also (generally) have access to build titans, which with its Jump Portal Generator means that T1 freighters will be jumped all over the place to POS spam. In short, the only ones who cannot effectively compete will be those alliances too small to build a pos chain leading to empire, or to afford a titan bridge.
This reinforces large alliances, because smaller alliances will be unable to effectively challenge territory. Not that they really can now, but they don't even have a chance with this nerf.
If jump freighters were TIER two, then that would be another story. The BPs would be accessible to everyone, they wouldn't require ludicrous amounts of expensive T2 components, and pricing on them would be normalized. As it stands, I stand by my estimate that they'll run 5-8 billion and be rarer than polite monkeys due to low invention attempt rates (month long BPC copy times) and even lower invention success rates (one in ten if you're lucky).
Edit: IF the rorqual keeps that hold and its not a typo, that would be an OK solution too. Hell, it would be several times better than the jump freighters in that case, so I wouldn't count on the rorqual keeping that cargo bay size.
----------------------------------------------- Adm Vladimir Tinakin CFO Hadean Drive Yards |
Syberbolt8
Gallente soni Corp Imperium Sonorumance
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 17:41:00 -
[133]
Edited by: Syberbolt8 on 26/10/2007 17:42:10
Originally by: Kagura Nikon
Originally by: Ce Domina Uh I really like your game CCP but why do you insist on making us focus on the boring parts? This just makes fueling POS's/logistics more of a pain than it already is. What does that add to the game?
I know the idea is that then everyone can use jump freighters but those take a long time to train for and are going to cost 3-4 times what a carrier does minimum, not to mention the shortened jump range to make it take twice as long. This also has the comical side effect of making SMAs at POS's sort of worthless. Now everyone will need to anchor a GSC to store their ammo? What does that add to my gaming experience?
I don't expect any of these questions to be answered because it seems you're intent on nerfing nullsec as much as you can, and this is a great step towards making it unappealing. Between the mind-numbing logistics and the nerf to the highends that's probably coming when you get rid of trit pricecaps you're really making an effort to make everyone live in empire.
Oh wait I forgot we'll have superveld in 0.0 so all we need to do is mine that then compress it using a rorqual so we can jump it to empire in our jump freighters and then refine and sell it there! So mining profitably in 0.0, which used to take a retriever (if that) and a fast frigate to run the mega/zyd now requires 7-8 billion in investments plus months of training!
Seriously I like this game but please let us focus on the fun parts. Nerfing the carrier's logistics ability really only serves to make the game less appealing, by making the parts that everyone hates take longer and be more expensive to do.
I think they want alliances to have LESS pos and LESS territory.
In fact at long run this sould be "bennerical" on sense that will nerf e huge imperial alliances over large extensions..
This wont hurt large alliances at all, believe it or not, the time it takes with multiple cyno ships and cap recharging ships along a path that a titian wants to take is very little, same for any cap ship, carriers get a very nice range boost to that effect, however again this will only serve large alliances as they have to manpower to do this, med and small alliances don't. For the large alliances its as simple as get large gang togather, have cyno and caprep ships jump to systems needed to make a path from point a to point b freighters start with the titian, titian jumps, opens portal, mean while caprep ships rep the titian's cap for the next jump, and portal. freighters jump in and repeat. takes alot of people todo, but for a large alliance this would be easy, then use the pos jump bridge network that any large alliance would be stupid not to setup, to fuel the area then go back the same way you came.
Small alliances can't do this. This wont hurt the big guys, it will just give them more power. and maybe give them reason to crush the small alliances that own space between there jump network so they can complete the link. either way the little guy loses ------------------------------------ Soni-Corp Co-CEO
Start a fire for a man, he stays warm for a day. Catch a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life |
HydroSan
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 18:03:00 -
[134]
Hey if a developer could confirm/disconfirm or take any of the things said by Grayton (who is one of the kingpin logistics guys in the the second largest 0.0 alliance in the game) into consideration then that would be great. Please don't leave us in the dark like you did for the GSC-in-SMA nerf.
|
Wil Smithx
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 18:04:00 -
[135]
**RABBLE!!!**
we must make another 100 page long thread of protest against ccp making billions of isk worths of investment and years of training worthless
|
Shaddam V
Amarr Project EVE Research
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 18:10:00 -
[136]
People keep saying use a rorqual. Am I missing something - rorquals have ship maintence arrays too. Yes they have nice cargo holds, but the real power for the hauling is in the SMA there. Does this change affect all SMA (like in rorquals, poses and carriers) or just in carriers?
|
Wil Smithx
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 18:12:00 -
[137]
Originally by: Shaddam V People keep saying use a rorqual. Am I missing something - rorquals have ship maintence arrays too. Yes they have nice cargo holds, but the real power for the hauling is in the SMA there. Does this change affect all SMA (like in rorquals, poses and carriers) or just in carriers?
this is more than likely all ships
|
Jehuty Vanricadia
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 18:12:00 -
[138]
Originally by: Grayton rabble rabble rabble
SPOT ******* ON. They have no clue about the logistics of this stuff, its yet another ballsy move by a completely clueless game design team.
Can someone confirm if the fighter assignment previous bull**** is still on the server? Its possible that this is intended to be rolled back but hasnt been done yet as per the dev blog.
|
Syberbolt8
Gallente soni Corp Imperium Sonorumance
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 18:18:00 -
[139]
Originally by: Wil Smithx
Originally by: Shaddam V People keep saying use a rorqual. Am I missing something - rorquals have ship maintence arrays too. Yes they have nice cargo holds, but the real power for the hauling is in the SMA there. Does this change affect all SMA (like in rorquals, poses and carriers) or just in carriers?
this is more than likely all ships
Don't remember who said it, but its been said this effects all SMAs not just carriers and moms ------------------------------------ Soni-Corp Co-CEO
Start a fire for a man, he stays warm for a day. Catch a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life |
Dungar Loghoth
Caldari Black Omega Security Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 18:37:00 -
[140]
Originally by: Tonkin u noticed they are not doing a dev blog over it, they are doing all the changes behind peeps backs
If this change does actually go through, this is what I'd be most upset about. After the backlash of the last carrier nerf, I guess instead of being forward about it and looking for honest feedback they just don't care anymore because they *know* carriers are overpowered, despite the vast majority of people disagreeing with them.
|
|
Bund
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 18:38:00 -
[141]
Edited by: Bund on 26/10/2007 18:39:30
Originally by: Montaire What part of "Use the Rorqual" is hard for people to understand ?
These things are now BETTER than a carrier for logistics. DOUBLE the size. 150k in the main cargo hold.
Uh huh. Check this out. compressed asteroid shipping container
10 isk says the only thing you'll be able to put inside haulers inside Rorquals or inside the main cargo area are these cans, and the only thing these cans will be able to hold is compressed ore.
CCP is ******* things up intentionally, so that the ONLY option for moving more than 20k m3 of stuff is to use an 8 billion isk ship with a ****ty jump range.
|
Lianlan Lou
Caldari ISK Farmer and Sweatshop INC.
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 18:44:00 -
[142]
Originally by: Audri Fisher this is a stealth boost to amarr.
Fianlly, just what we all wanted. signature goes here |
NoghriViR
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 18:50:00 -
[143]
The only way the devs are ever going to understand how this game is played is if they actually lived in conq. space. Open up jove and I bet the devs wouldn't last a week.
|
Benvie
Benvie Enterprises
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 18:57:00 -
[144]
What they should really do is push this change off 2-3 months and tell everyone it's coming. That way people start shifting over to jump freighters before being totally cut off from using carrier. It will take months of training probably and months of ramping up invention/production.
Also on that note, I really hope that the process for creating jump freighters isn't going to be what everyone thinks it is. A month to copy a single BPC with a maximum 25% chance for success just really isn't going to work. At all.
|
Damned Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 19:08:00 -
[145]
Originally by: NoghriViR The only way the devs are ever going to understand how this game is played is if they actually lived in conq. space. Open up jove and I bet the devs wouldn't last a week.
YEAH, open Jove space. u can keep your uber ships just dont use cheats. we would see how long u can stand there!!!
|
Montaire
Genbuku. Daisho Syndicate
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 19:12:00 -
[146]
Originally by: Bund Edited by: Bund on 26/10/2007 18:39:30
Originally by: Montaire What part of "Use the Rorqual" is hard for people to understand ?
These things are now BETTER than a carrier for logistics. DOUBLE the size. 150k in the main cargo hold.
Uh huh. Check this out. compressed asteroid shipping container
Rorqual cargo hold is 150k and I can put anything I want in it. So far, seems pretty awesome.
10 isk says the only thing you'll be able to put inside haulers inside Rorquals or inside the main cargo area are these cans, and the only thing these cans will be able to hold is compressed ore.
CCP is ******* things up intentionally, so that the ONLY option for moving more than 20k m3 of stuff is to use an 8 billion isk ship with a ****ty jump range.
|
Redback911
Malevolent Intentions
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 19:44:00 -
[147]
Couldn't POSes just be run on a rent basis out of the corp wallet? Surely that would INSTANTLY make the game more fun for a lot of people
|
Swanny231
KAOS.
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 19:45:00 -
[148]
Oh good god, CCP wth are you trying to achieve ? the total removal of the carrier, FFS just stop it already, atleast allow it to have combat ships in its bay with ammo, and allow us to expand the Corp hangar with a mod , so if we choose to use it for logistics then we take away from it's DPS, this nerf will only hurt the small guy's out there its just gettn harder for them to live in 0.0 specially deep 0.0, 47 jumps in a freighter and back will take 10 hrs , wth kinda fun will that be for 40+ Pod Pilots
I am starting to really thing I am wasting my fun time with this game, the only thing keeping me here is the guys I have being playing this game with for 3 years, but the fact that I am wasting my isk and time invested, training for this ship, it's making me sick,If this goes through, Thank you CCP for messing up a good thing.
------------
|
Elmicker
Black Sea Industries Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 19:58:00 -
[149]
Originally by: Montaire I've not seen those cargo containers seeded, but I've seen items like them floating around the DB for a while. I doubt they will restrict the Rorq's cargo this way.
The Capital Industrial Ship should be better than a carrier at hauling. Much like an Itteron 5 is better at hauling than a Raven
This has nothing to do with hauling capabilities. IT's the fact that suddenly, without warning, a fortnight before a major expansion, CCP have said "Oh, you can't use this anymore. Bye!". Rorquals are now (finally) better haulers than carriers, as are the new jump freighters. CCP should leave carriers alone and allow rorquals and JFreighters to take over the logistics role naturally and then think about adjusting the mechanics of the ship maintenance bays, instead of forcing it on us and grinding just about all 0.0 logistics to an immediate halt.
Ideally, they shouldnt even need to adjust the ship maintenance bays - ships SHOULD be able to have cargo in their bays, otherwise the entire role of transporting assembled, combat-ready ships to a combat zome is useless. You end up having to waste fuel space for the ammos of the ships inside and you have to waste time doling out that ammo every time someone needs a ship. CCP need to stop plain outright nerfing things and instead need to move towards encouragement and buffs of alternatives.
|
Bein Glorious
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 20:09:00 -
[150]
I won't make any assumptions either way on "logistics 'nerfs'", but I think it'd be a good idea for CCP to release a new dev blog soon on the changes to logistics, mineral compression, and POS maintenance. Everyone is curious to know what planned changes are on the table even if they're still a work in progress, they would like to know what's the reasoning behind it and the overall goal, and they would like to know what preparations they will have to make to adapt in time.
I prefer to remain more-or-less neutral when it comes to compression and logistics "nerfs", though I must admit that I tend to lean towards the view that it could be good for the game in the long term. From what little I have seen in the "crystal ball" on Singularity, it is clear that CCP is very responsibly taking some steps to both soften the blow and accommodate different playstyles while "nerfing" logistics.
My only concern is whether or not the players will be ready and able to switch gears by release day. I am sure many players would appreciate some information on the scope of the changes so that they can plan accordingly, myself included. |
|
Fenderson
Finite Horizon Synchr0nicity
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 20:40:00 -
[151]
two words: JUMP FREIGHTER
|
Jehuty Vanricadia
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 20:42:00 -
[152]
Originally by: Fenderson two words: JUMP FREIGHTER
Wow. Thanks for your input.
Requires freighter 5, and has no defence capabilities.
|
Ungdall
Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 20:43:00 -
[153]
Bein, you traitorous****got, nerfing logistics in any way that does not include a viable alternative (such as the prompt introduction of a ship designed for logistics, NOT THE RORQUAL)is a terrible idea for the game as a whole. We are hit, BoB is hit, RISE would have been hit. Everyone if affected by this in a very negative way.
Oh, and the lack of any information on from them to us is a god awful way to run a game, since so far they've given no indication that they know how to run a game without having to be forced to understand by the player base. You wouldn't join a corp with an aloof directorate, so why would you support a game as such?
Also, I'd like to see the adding of more heavily specialized ships, in the course of a natural evolution of technology, in a time as advanced as EVE is set in, you would see far more ships designed to do one thing, and that one thing very well. All purpose ships would be limited to smaller things designed as handymen 2.0.
|
Ambrosious Martin
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 20:54:00 -
[154]
Originally by: Sandra Sun This is a terrible idea.
THIS
IS
A
TERRIBLE
IDEA.
Idea? Terrible this is.
Is this idea terrible?
IS: THIS TERRIBLE IDEA.
Thats hilarious...how many more ways can you say that CCP has lost total sight of what there customers care about...
I am not and will never be a carrier pilot, infact as soon as I saw this thread I changed my alts training away from navigation 5.. I would like to say sorry to all those ingame that have spent a calculated almost $200US currency or more to train to use one of these useless(after the intended nerf) ships.
Ok lets not forget the fact that CCP is and will always be one thing, a business that cares solely about one thing, PROFIT! Hence the reason why you can't train more than one character at a time, on the same account. Forcing people to buy 2 accounts. That's even why they offer deals for a reduced cost of your second account, or in some cases like mine, your 4th account. Add to that if they keep changing things, it forces you to continue training for something new. MORE PROFIT! They(CCP) have grown far to large, and have IMO, been invaded by people not trully invested in the world, and creation, of the initial 7 guys that programmed the game.
Now on to why I think this is a r*tarded change. 1. Lets look at the word Carrier-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier 2. The carrier is meant to do one thing, and one thing only, carry stuff. Wheather that be a combat ship fit to undock at a moments notice to reengage in battle, Or to jump the 67 jumps it takes me to get my new fittings for the BS I just lost defending the small piece of space me and a few other corps(non-allainced)call home. 3. I dont know why everyone has there horse blinders on, but the only thing they haul isn't POS fuel. I love POS warefare and just spent the better of 3 months training a char to Starbase Ops 5 so I can smoke the next dread that drops its ass into seige mode infront of my POS(which will be a fully fit Domination death star.) But for real I can transport the amount of fuel needed for 2 weeks worth of reinforced mode verilly easily. Not a carriers only use. 4. I was training a char to use the Nidhoggur becuase its the only carrier that serves a true LOGISTICS purpose(I.E the mobile hospital) which in my opinion is the most underplayed role in EVE-ONLINE, any other MMO out there, thats the staple character on which a gang, or group, or party, is formed. If CCP screws that role up then they deserve to file bankruptcy, which is what I see happening after everyone says F*$% CCP and go to WoW. I dread that day honestelly. 5. The lie about the can bug. wasnt a bug at all plenty of corps have been doing it for so long its not funny if it bugged the game it would have been dealt with long ago.
Ok on another note, I would like to voice my opinion here and tell CCP, WHO THE HELL DO YOU THINK YOU BLOODY SCREWBALLS ARE? BIG BROTHER? KEEP YOUR F*#$&^% HANDS OFF THE CONTROLS. This is supposed to be a persistant and ever growing, changing galaxy, controlled by the players. Thats why the only thing you seed in game, is SKILLS AND BPO's. Let the players decide how they choose to use a ship. If I choose to use a frigate to move all my modules back and forth so be it. Or if I decide to use a titan to haul my stuff, then so be it. I spent the time to train for it, and the cash from my real life to play. Its not for you to decide what the outcome of the purpose of the ships are for. All you need to be doing is coding the pretties and making sure the server is running properlly, take my money to play, and drink your beer. PUT THE NERF BAT DOWN. What makes you feel like you can just implement changes without even consulting the customers that give you your job. I say the idiot that had this massive lathargic F$%^UP should be fired. Or go public so I can buy your stock then get a real saying in how you run. I love the idea of opening up Jove Space
|
Bein Glorious
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 20:55:00 -
[155]
Originally by: Ungdall nerfing logistics in any way that does not include a viable alternative (such as the prompt introduction of a ship designed for logistics, NOT THE RORQUAL)is a terrible idea for the game as a whole.
So did you miss the part where I speculated they could be releasing a viable alternative that we just don't know about? And where I said it'd be nice if we had some information so people wouldn't flip out and say stupid, hyperreactionary things (much like your posting)?
That aside, I'm not sure if the jump freighter is going to be released in Trinity, since there's no information on it and its not among the ships they said were planned for introduction in Oveur's dev blog. |
Ungdall
Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 21:00:00 -
[156]
Originally by: Bein Glorious
Originally by: Ungdall nerfing logistics in any way that does not include a viable alternative (such as the prompt introduction of a ship designed for logistics, NOT THE RORQUAL)is a terrible idea for the game as a whole.
So did you miss the part where I speculated they could be releasing a viable alternative that we just don't know about? And where I said it'd be nice if we had some information so people wouldn't flip out and say stupid, hyperreactionary things (much like your posting)?
That aside, I'm not sure if the jump freighter is going to be released in Trinity, since there's no information on it and its not among the ships they said were planned for introduction in Oveur's dev blog.
welp, I did miss that part, sorry daddy Bein, I didn't mean no nothin' by it, I just got all riled up and couldn't contain my self. I's real sorry. Fwends?
|
Bein Glorious
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 21:01:00 -
[157]
go back to space gbs |
Syberbolt8
Gallente soni Corp Imperium Sonorumance
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 21:04:00 -
[158]
Ok guys since the cap indy ship is expected to take over this role, and jump freighters then there is no need to change carriers, Seeing as how the other 2 ships will do a much better jobs people will move into these ships them selfs, and the current logistics will survive till theses ships are around enmasses ------------------------------------ Soni-Corp Co-CEO
Start a fire for a man, he stays warm for a day. Catch a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life |
Phrixus Zephyr
D00M. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 21:09:00 -
[159]
Jesus Christ...
I thought this question was always stupid, but it feels like it could use an outing.
"Do CCP even play this game anymore?"
Originally by: consider telos ..then we had a fight and he was so dead and then I like became champion of eve and then ccp gave me a medal and a t-shirt and asked me to go out with him on a date to mcD' |
FungusAmongus
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 21:19:00 -
[160]
Also, more people need to read Grayton's post on page 1.
and If you don't do logistics on an alliance based level, your opinion in this matter is truly worthless because you have know idea
|
|
SpaceBenfish
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 21:25:00 -
[161]
Originally by: Phrixus Zephyr "Do CCP even play this game anymore?"
Trust me if they spent 1 month fueling an alliance pos network we would know it. Shuttles would hold 750K m3 and fuel would be NPC seeded.
It sucks to get nerdrage over stupid stuff but 9-10 constant months of training and a lot of money later and we are getting stealth changes w/o any explanation. All they would have to do is show the slightest amount of respect for their longest lasting player base and they would avoid the rage. Instead it looks like we all get to hold our breath and pray that they don't SWG us in two weeks time.
|
Trent Nichols
Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 22:00:00 -
[162]
I really don't know what to say.
I didn't think they could come up with anything worse than the NOS nerf but they did (yes I know it needed fixing but not like THAT)
Shortly after after that, they came up with the T1 module size change which I think trumps the nos nerf in terms of sheer stupidity.
Then they came up with the 5 fighter thing which was clearly the worst ship change I have seen since I began playing Eve...
and they have topped it within a week. Even if I can get over the carrier nerfs, what is next? It seems they are nerfing my Myrmidon and Ishkur as well, again they needed tweaking.. TWEAKING not a giant swing of the nerf bat!
|
RyanS
Amarr Dragon's Rage Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 22:47:00 -
[163]
Sigh.... WTH.....
|
Nevada Tan
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 22:53:00 -
[164]
Edited by: Nevada Tan on 26/10/2007 22:53:10 Edited by: Nevada Tan on 26/10/2007 22:52:49 I like the way that this thread has pretty much every 0.0 alliance going "No, wait - what the heck? " and the low-sec pirates and smaller corps going "Yay! "
I thought CCP was trying to encourage people into 0.0, not drive them out of it?
♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ I have done a bad thing. |
Banlish
Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 23:06:00 -
[165]
Oh. My. Freaking. God.
!!!STOP IT!!!!
We like fighting, we like small scale COMBAT, we like seeing pilots 1v1 for a GOOD fight.
We DO NOT LIKE:
Fueling dozens of towers endlessly Having to bring in ammo and such with an assortment of ships when the lag is so bad we CAN'T even see them anyway Having to train a skill path that will take 45 to 60 days JUST for freighter 5. Having to spend another 8 to 11 billion ISK for a freighter that is extremely limited in use.
My god, what the heck.
People that are good at logistics and/or can tolerate it are few and far between, now you want them to spend an additional 3 months or more to get a ship that is being forced down our throats?
Ease it in, but what's the point of carriers anymore?
It can't fight, it can't haul, it can't lock onto it's allies without a minute and a half, it can't heal anyone since lag still isn't being fixed.
But hey!
We don't want people moving gear or items around without a rorqual or jump freighter. Nope, carriers should just become space junk now since everything they've EVER been good at is trying to be nerfed into next week.
STOP NERFING THE GAME.
FIX THE LAG WE ARE ALL begging you to fix day after day.
BoB, Goons, RA, FiX, MC, IAC, MM, TRI, RAZOR, SMASH, YouWhat, ALL of them, day after day, hour after hour ask for LAG FIXES. NOTHING ELSE.
How much more clear can we be?
|
Pinpisa Jormao
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 23:14:00 -
[166]
Edited by: Pinpisa Jormao on 26/10/2007 23:16:31 Edited by: Pinpisa Jormao on 26/10/2007 23:15:25
Originally by: Ambrosious Martin
Thats hilarious...
1. Lets look at the word Carrier-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier
The carrier is meant to do one thing, and one thing only, carry stuff.
...
This is supposed to be a persistant and ever growing, changing galaxy, controlled by the players. Thats why the only thing you seed in game, is SKILLS AND BPO's. Let the players decide how they choose to use a ship.
Amen. And I'd like to go further with this. If players find ingenious ways to take advantage of stuff like pretty much everything every nerf has ever addressed, these should not be nerfed. Instead expect these new ways to become the standard and take steps to make the game work with these things you did not anticipate initially without nerfing them. Eg. Gank-a-geddon - make other BS ships as good. Have you measured how much lag it would remove from fleet combat to get rid of all the stacking penalty calculations added because of that? I'd say thats without a doubt accounts for half of the lag when lot of ships are shooting. It's only the easy way out to nerf and wholly unrealistic. Much more appropriate and realistic way is to introduce (research,discover) new things that beat the previous best thing. It's not a game of balance, it's a game of paper, rock, scissors - only a game designer of unrealistic piece of sht games hoping to collect paycheck ad infinitum would argue for balancing things to the perfection.
If your game design(er) can't handle players discovering good things to take advantage of themselves it's just a sandbox for the game designer where no one else is allowed to be creative and imho that type of games should die. It sickens me that money can be converted to ISK but using your creativity and sharing it to others (good ship setups that pwn) are immediately taken out. You should support that kind of thing and add new items to create even more overpowered configurations to be discovered by the players, not to just go pick the next best thing after the previous best was nerfed.
End to balancing by nerfs. Ship dies too fast by Gankageddon or Curse? Too bad. Time for the Caldari State (or whichever) to find a way to better their ships by creating mods that only fit to their ships and not Amarr ships. Not by nerfing the only Amarr ships worth training for.
|
Brixer
Dai Dai Hai
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 23:25:00 -
[167]
Running around with fuel to keep critical POSes online will happen whatever CCP do. BUT, more and more people will be forced to join this activity to keep their grounds. Quite a few will say 'screw this', and join a low-sec pirate alliance camping chokepoints for giggles. Fueling POSes *sucks*. Mostly for smaller alliances that can't jump 3 freighters with a Titan jump-bridge. As people say.. WE ARE NOT PAYING CCP TO HAVE A SECOND JOB!.
I say CCP make all parts needed for POSes *tiny*.. Like 0.01 a piece. Let us put fuel for 6 months in the POS if we want and forget it. If anyone want to take the system they would shoot the POS anyway.. no matter the number of 'mechanical parts' in it.. It's down to stront what happens next.
Maybe keep the isotopes and stront sizes for obvious reasons.. But the rest of the things needed.. Swing the bat at them, and keep hamering them until they're 0.01 M^3
|
Kerfira
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 23:43:00 -
[168]
Edited by: Kerfira on 26/10/2007 23:43:43
Originally by: Banlish FIX THE LAG WE ARE ALL begging you to fix day after day.
BoB, Goons, RA, FiX, MC, IAC, MM, TRI, RAZOR, SMASH, YouWhat, ALL of them, day after day, hour after hour ask for LAG FIXES. NOTHING ELSE.
Reason 1 this is not being done: Lag can not be fixed without addressing blobbing. Addressing blobbing would mean changing POS warfare drastically. Some devs who think they're smart thought out the POS system. Said devs will take it personally if someone suggests its not good. Said devs will not accept changes because it'll prove they're not smart.
Reason 2 this is not being done: Lag can not be fixed without addressing blobbing. Addressing blobbing would make some people exploiting blobs mad. CCP chickens out....
Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
|
Theladder
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 00:28:00 -
[169]
They are doing a good job on reducing the lag, many good players are leaving cuz those crappy incoming nerfs, so far as I know 2 players that have been playing eve for more than 4 years are quitting... Keep it up ccp, reduce your customer base in order to increase the server performance...
|
Phrixus Zephyr
D00M. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 00:48:00 -
[170]
Originally by: Banlish STOP NERFING THE GAME.
FIX THE LAG WE ARE ALL begging you to fix day after day.
BoB, Goons, RA, FiX, MC, IAC, MM, TRI, RAZOR, SMASH, YouWhat, ALL of them, day after day, hour after hour ask for LAG FIXES. NOTHING ELSE.
How much more clear can we be?
Before you derail I'd hasten to point out that the Eve cluster is one of, if not THE most advanced gaming cluster on the planet. How exactly do you propose they pull a lag fix out of their ass when they're pioneering the tech?
"I demand you invent the lightbulb right now, because candles suck"?
Originally by: consider telos ..then we had a fight and he was so dead and then I like became champion of eve and then ccp gave me a medal and a t-shirt and asked me to go out with him on a date to mcD' |
|
Futher Bezluden
Minmatar ORIGIN SYSTEMS Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 01:11:00 -
[171]
Edited by: Futher Bezluden on 27/10/2007 01:12:35 WTF is CCP thinking?
Carriers/Motherships are combat capitals that by design only have fighters and drones for offense and defense, they have no "Weapons" other than smartbombs/Neuts.
CCP knows they are combat vessels, so they want to screw the number of fighters under direct control and the number of drones. CCP wants jump freighters in so they nerf the ability for the carrier to be the logistics workhorse it has been for ages.
So it's going to be a 2-3 month gap between when carriers lose all their "logistics" ability to help 0.0 alliances and when jump freighters get invented? CCP, you just ****** every 0.0 alliance and did so without lube to all the DEEP 0.0 alliances far from empire. 2-3 months of not being able to fuel pos's because there are no jump freighters?
Give every carrier pilot a free jump freighter. WTF are you thinking CCP? How far you can push your players until they do quit?
How many idiots did CCP hire from WOW and put on the REV III team? THUKKER -Be Paranoid
Skeet Skeet L33t |
Dangerously Cheesey
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 01:53:00 -
[172]
Originally by: Fenderson two words: JUMP FREIGHTER
Indications from test server so far point to this ship not being an immediate option. If it really is tech two as it appears, it will take months for people to crank the first ones out and be ready skill wise for them. That could leave a very painful void to be filled while people wait for invention and production. Hopefully there is more information that we are not aware of yet and hopefully CCP is still paying careful attention to suggestions people are offering.
|
Montaire
Genbuku. Daisho Syndicate
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 02:37:00 -
[173]
Put ammo in the Corp Hangar Array, use a Rorqual for hauling. You know how the Itteron is an Industrial Ship. Crazy enough they have a Capitol Industrial Ship.
Originally by: Swanny231 Oh good god, CCP wth are you trying to achieve ? the total removal of the carrier, FFS just stop it already, atleast allow it to have combat ships in its bay with ammo, and allow us to expand the Corp hangar with a mod , so if we choose to use it for logistics then we take away from it's DPS, this nerf will only hurt the small guy's out there its just gettn harder for them to live in 0.0 specially deep 0.0, 47 jumps in a freighter and back will take 10 hrs , wth kinda fun will that be for 40+ Pod Pilots
I am starting to really thing I am wasting my fun time with this game, the only thing keeping me here is the guys I have being playing this game with for 3 years, but the fact that I am wasting my isk and time invested, training for this ship, it's making me sick,If this goes through, Thank you CCP for messing up a good thing.
|
Mister Xerox
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 02:45:00 -
[174]
Originally by: Phrixus Zephyr Jesus Christ...
I thought this question was always stupid, but it feels like it could use an outing.
"Do CCP even play this game anymore?"
Apparently not... all of their alts got kicked out of whatever megalliance they were in because of all the tinfoil hattery.
|
Icarus Starkiller
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 02:50:00 -
[175]
Edited by: Icarus Starkiller on 27/10/2007 02:51:16
Originally by: Theladder They are doing a good job on reducing the lag, many good players are leaving cuz those crappy incoming nerfs, so far as I know 2 players that have been playing eve for more than 4 years are quitting... Keep it up ccp, reduce your customer base in order to increase the server performance...
Want to cut down on server load and lag? Make NPC corps war-declarable. Voila, half your userbase quits because they can't farm & macro with complete impunity. Situation fixed, no need to kill carriers.
Oh... six pages and no Dev/GM commentary at all. They're afraid to show their faces in this flame war. There's no asbestos suit that can withstand the heat. -
Life is pain...anyone who says differently is selling something. |
Elmicker
Black Sea Industries Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 02:52:00 -
[176]
Originally by: Montaire Put ammo in the Corp Hangar Array,
This being the same corp hangar array the most carriers have to use for fuel?
Quote: use a Rorqual for hauling. You know how the Itteron is an Industrial Ship. Crazy enough they have a Capitol Industrial Ship.
/me sighs.
"Industrials" are so called because they werent meant to be a 100% hauler class. Comparing two classes based purely on their names is ******* moronic. A rorqual is a gang mining ship, not a hauler. Using that as a hauler is no different from using a carrier or a dreadnought.
|
Nye Jaran
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 03:05:00 -
[177]
Talk about screwing the proverbial pooch.
So, when do these ridiculous nerfs end? When the ship has no drones, no ability to fit a tank, and can only carry unfitted frigs and you'll have to jump in a T2 freighter to grab your mods?
|
Bellum Eternus
Gallente Blood Corsair's
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 03:15:00 -
[178]
LOL. I'm giving up complaining about stuff. It doesn't matter. It's pointless. You have to have ships stripped of ammo/charges in guns etc. in order to put them on board in the ships hangar. Such a HUGE pain in the ass.
CCP doesn't listen to the players, and particularly not about issues that it's already made a decision about. If it's on test, it happens 99% of the time. Remember WTZ? "Oh, it's only on the test server..." Riiight... Bellum Eternus [Vid] L E G E N D A R Y [Vid] L E G E N D A R Y I I |
Almarin Enchura
Serenity Inc
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 03:18:00 -
[179]
What happened to seeing how new additions to the game affected things before making major changes? Or letting us have time to COMPENSATE for it? Unlike you, we can't spawn T2 Freighters and the skills overnight.
|
Freya Selene
Infinitus Odium The Church.
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 03:25:00 -
[180]
Edited by: Freya Selene on 27/10/2007 03:25:19 CCP needs to leave carrier alone.
With introduction of jumpable freighters, witch take quiet some time to invent, trail they will take over the logistical part from the carriers at one point. Couse its bether, bigger and less trouble.
However if they remove the ability from carriers instandly the first few months the game will be killed. Alliances will die just becouse they cant re-supply themselfs. The whole 0.0 game will be affected.
|
|
Gorfob
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 05:02:00 -
[181]
Take away the freighter V requirement for the love of all that is holy. Don't make a game become work. Please make it IV and not tech II. Please.
-dbp |
Syberbolt8
Gallente soni Corp Imperium Sonorumance
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 06:03:00 -
[182]
Originally by: Gorfob Take away the freighter V requirement for the love of all that is holy. Don't make a game become work. Please make it IV and not tech II. Please.
QTF
Would be nice to see a CCP or DEV reply in this, at least an ISD member with an opinion. ------------------------------------ Soni-Corp Co-CEO
Start a fire for a man, he stays warm for a day. Catch a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life |
Ungdall
Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 06:42:00 -
[183]
There is nothing so god awful annoying about CCP as their infernal silence on every matter that inevitably spawns from the trickle down way in which they reveal information. In dev blogs, if you don't want us to know about it, or discuss it yet, stay silent until such times as you are ready to discuss it with us.
Remember, EVE is just as much our game as it is yours. When these discussions do inevitably begin, have a person who is involved with the changes, not just someone payed to talk to us, begin the thread. Don't wait for the players to act, take the initiative, site us down, and talk. No one wants to be instructed from behind a wall. You can't even call it a two-way mirror, because as of now, there is little evidence you are actually watching what is going on.
You may have your visions for what EVE should be, but how well does it mesh with what the players want it to be?
|
Tadehiro
Kudzu Collective Knights Of the Southerncross
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 06:54:00 -
[184]
Because I've gotta troll at least once on these forums...
JUST BUY A TITAN YOU NUBS!!!
There, I'm done. :)
|
Alski
Gallente Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 07:29:00 -
[185]
Originally by: Banlish Oh. My. Freaking. God.
!!!STOP IT!!!!
We like fighting, we like small scale COMBAT, we like seeing pilots 1v1 for a GOOD fight.
We DO NOT LIKE:
Fueling dozens of towers endlessly Having to bring in ammo and such with an assortment of ships when the lag is so bad we CAN'T even see them anyway Having to train a skill path that will take 45 to 60 days JUST for freighter 5. Having to spend another 8 to 11 billion ISK for a freighter that is extremely limited in use.
My god, what the heck.
People that are good at logistics and/or can tolerate it are few and far between, now you want them to spend an additional 3 months or more to get a ship that is being forced down our throats?
Ease it in, but what's the point of carriers anymore?
It can't fight, it can't haul, it can't lock onto it's allies without a minute and a half, it can't heal anyone since lag still isn't being fixed.
But hey!
We don't want people moving gear or items around without a rorqual or jump freighter. Nope, carriers should just become space junk now since everything they've EVER been good at is trying to be nerfed into next week.
STOP NERFING THE GAME.
FIX THE LAG WE ARE ALL begging you to fix day after day.
BoB, Goons, RA, FiX, MC, IAC, MM, TRI, RAZOR, SMASH, YouWhat, ALL of them, day after day, hour after hour ask for LAG FIXES. NOTHING ELSE.
How much more clear can we be?
I just wanna say that when my CEO posts on the forums you KNOW its bad!
(waves to Banlish) -
(combat) Patch belonging to CCP hits your drones, wrecking their liberty and freedom. |
Alski
Gallente Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 07:42:00 -
[186]
Also, we NEED a dev responce to this, its no use us trying to guess what is going through the devs minds, IF this is going to be the way it is and there is nothing we can do or say to change there minds then IT IS ABSOLUTELEY IMPERATIVE THAT WE GET CONFORMATION NOW so we can form a contingency plan, I *Could* be flying a rorquel within 25 days, and IF that’s going to be the only solution to jumpdrive-logistics outside of the stupidly high requirements and cost of jump-freighters then TELL US NOW so I / we can start skilling it ASAP. -
(combat) Patch belonging to CCP hits your drones, wrecking their liberty and freedom. |
Torrus Blatella
Caldari The Arrow Project Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 08:58:00 -
[187]
Please, no. Making POS fueling and logistics even more of a pain in the ass is not a good idea. I wanna shoot people, not spend hours upon hours hauling fuel.
|
Rutger Torranus
Amarr Nostromo Shipping
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 08:59:00 -
[188]
This improves gameplay how? Spending more time hauling is somehow EXCITING?!
|
Luthien Dawn
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 09:09:00 -
[189]
Originally by: HydroSan Edited by: HydroSan on 26/10/2007 07:18:54 Edited by: HydroSan on 26/10/2007 07:18:18 You cannot store a ship that contains cargo inside a Ship Maintenance Bay. Please remove all cargo from the ship and try again.
Kablammo.
Should have been fixed ages ago. Now with the implementation of T2 freighters its time for it.
Easy to understand, isnt it.
Or do ppl actually think that Carriers should be the wtfpwn in logistics as well as wtfpwn on the battlefields?
Good work CCP, this will help the game and the majority of the players like it. The ppl that post here on the forum is NOT the majority.
Start training Freighters lvl 5 now and POS fueling wont be a pain the month after the change.
|
Friznit
5punkorp EternalRising
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 09:56:00 -
[190]
So wait, you're saying I have to fork out freighter 5 and 5bill build cost for a ship that can doing absolutely nothing other than haul crap around 0.0? What a complete waist of time.
And contrary to popular belief, the cargo nerf effects the Rorqual too, which is a carebear ship and what many of us were lead to believe was the original jump hauling alternative to carriers.
I've scraped the bottom of the barrel to get a POS in 0.0, then a carrier to fuel it since large bubbles, interdictors and blob enabling jump portals made conventional hauling impossible. Then I sold this to get a rorqual. How the hell am I supposed to afford a 6bill freighter?
The thing that makes Eve great is that players can adapt the tool at their disposal to suit their purposes. When the devs start forcing you to play in a certain way it just becomes like another WoW clone.
|
|
Viqer Fell
Minmatar Trinity Nova KIA Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 11:52:00 -
[191]
Stealth changes suck major ass when they are introduced following a massive outcry to recently introduced changes that got dropped due to said outcry.
Had they announced it, this change may have been slightly palatable but when it takes a player to spot the change concerning such a currently sensitive issue as Carrier nerfs at the moment then something is wrong.
Click here to visit our site
|
infinityshok
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 11:55:00 -
[192]
Devs: Stop this. Im sick of this carrier rapage kick the devs are on. I have entirely too many resources tied up in this class of ship to sit idly by while they are eliminated as a viable, playable class of ship.
A carrier has a maintenance bay for the express purpose of hauling ships. A dev has already mentioned they 'want' carriers on the front line to haul ships for combat. No ship is going to be hauled into combat when they cant have charges fitted into their weapons nor their cargo bays. In addition, fix this absurd feature where ships cant carry ammo while in a carrier. Its fairly acceptable that the maint-bay carried ship can keep ammo in their cargo bay to reload from but without this ability a carrier is useless in its name-sake role. There is absolutely no logical or purposeful reason to do this. None.
The carrier is a vital ship in the transport of material. The t2 freighter is a piece of rectal spewage. I dont want one and dont want to fly one. Fix THAT ship if there is such a hard on to mess with ship stats. Fix the damned lag in Jita so at the very least it is possible to log in to the system on a weekened. And get off carriers.
A direct plea to the devs: stop this idiocity now. Tweaking carriers is fine but the de facto elimination of them from the game is not. I am not making any threats about how Im going to cancel all of my accounts, however their continued subscription renewal IS on the line. I am also not going to brag about how many accounts I have however there are quite a few.
|
Zooxsss
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 12:17:00 -
[193]
nullTHE DEV WILL NOT POST TO SOME FRUITCAKE POST LIKE THIS!!!! PEOPLE SHOULD KNOW THIS IS A WASTE OF ENERGY AND IT WILL NEVER HAPPEND
WHOEVER STARTED THIS POST IS A FRUITCAKE !!!!!
|
shupaco yaloo
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 12:30:00 -
[194]
Originally by: DaMaster Architect What the hell? What am I supposed to think of this? First that other cruel nerf and now.. this?? Why??
ever heard of the jump freighters that will come into effect soon?
|
shupaco yaloo
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 12:31:00 -
[195]
Originally by: Freya Selene Edited by: Freya Selene on 27/10/2007 03:25:19 CCP needs to leave carrier alone.
With introduction of jumpable freighters, witch take quiet some time to invent, trail they will take over the logistical part from the carriers at one point. Couse its bether, bigger and less trouble.
However if they remove the ability from carriers instandly the first few months the game will be killed. Alliances will die just becouse they cant re-supply themselfs. The whole 0.0 game will be affected.
mining veldspar in 0.0 who woulda thunk it
|
infinityshok
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 12:40:00 -
[196]
Originally by: shupaco yaloo
Originally by: DaMaster Architect What the hell? What am I supposed to think of this? First that other cruel nerf and now.. this?? Why??
ever heard of the jump freighters that will come into effect soon?
The t2 freighter is a piece of fermented rectal spewery. The skills and cost are overly prohibitive making the cost/benefit ratio nil compared to the current carrier. Look at the production requirements to build one. Ergo, a useless ship. As useless as the carrier the devs are proposing.
|
Schani Kratnorr
Internal Revenue Service
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 13:03:00 -
[197]
Edited by: Schani Kratnorr on 27/10/2007 13:03:22 I just want to avoid having to move ammo from carrier corp hangars to the ship I just boarded. I have rarely used industrials as "cargo expanders", but I find the feature useful when I do.
I really dont see why CCP would break one thing (ammo in cargo of "normal" ships), out of a desire to nerf the volume-per-jump of carriers & motherships.
At a fundemental level. VOLUME dictates SO much in EVE, so I can understand CCP would want to "tweak" things. But with cap ships being out well over a year, it's a bit too late to start changing things a fundemental level IMO.
By it's own admission, CCP claims there are 10.000 carriers in game. Perhaps we should get together and organize a 10.000-man march on hub systems in order to let CCP know how we feel? (dont bring the carriers, all you need is an alt with a ship and a hand-painted sign to wave around).
|
Montaire
Genbuku. Daisho Syndicate
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 13:16:00 -
[198]
I want to hire a choir of angels's to sing over and over :
Use a Rorqual for 0.0 hauling! It has 150k m3 in cargo hold (at least on SiSi it does) and that is double what a carrier can hold.
Carriers are combat ships, Rorquals are industrial ships. A Raven is a combat ship. An Itteron Mk V is an industrial ship. Do you take the raven, or the Itteron to haul large amounts ?
Use a Capital Industrial Ship!
Hossanah ?
Originally by: Torrus Blatella Please, no. Making POS fueling and logistics even more of a pain in the ass is not a good idea. I wanna shoot people, not spend hours upon hours hauling fuel.
|
Malashek Vatrii
Kaminjosvig
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 13:21:00 -
[199]
Can I laugh because I don't fly caps? * * * *
|
Druadan
Gallente Aristotle Enterprises Ethereal Dawn
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 13:41:00 -
[200]
Edited by: Druadan on 27/10/2007 13:42:08 This is a ridiculous change. Was it not enough to remove our ability to use GSCs in the ship's hold, so that we had to waste our time making lists of what stuff was going where?
In the other carrier nerf thread, it was said that you were aiming for a nerf in three months that would allow us to specialise, so we could, for example, enhance our combat status and disenhance our logistics (hauling), lolgistics (repping), etc. abilities. Now you have decided that one of the things the carrier has been able to do since day one, that many people trained for the carrier to do, should just be removed. ''No, sorry, get that 2.5bil ship instead''. Absolutely ridiculous, totally braindead change.
The carrier is already at a disadvantage compared to the Rorqual (not to mention the new jump-capable freighters) because it can't carry nearly as much, and then there's the fact that this renders our combat-resupply use of the carrier completely useless. How do we supply ships to the frontline if we can't supply them with their guns loaded, spare ammunition in the hold, and anything other charges we need in the hold? Honestly, did you even think about what this change means? In some respects it is even dumber than the repugnant fighters change.
I was really pleased when that fighters change got retracted in favour of a genuinely interesting prospect of introducing carrier specialisation choices. ''Yay'', I exclaimed, ''my faith is restored! I don't have to quit the game!'' And now I'm back to quitting. Not because my favourite ship is getting nerfed, but because I'm not comfortable putting money into the pockets of people who are content with destroying this game with changes that only introduce boredom and tedium.
|
|
mamolian
M. Corp M. PIRE
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 13:55:00 -
[201]
Originally by: Montaire What part of "Use the Rorqual" is hard for people to understand ?
These things are now BETTER than a carrier for logistics. DOUBLE the size. 150k in the main cargo hold.
Excuse me for being blunt.. but are you ******* ********?
I've already given up 6+ months to use a carrier "halfarsed" Ive still another year worth of training to make it proficient.. Why the hell awould I invest MORE time/ingame isk.. and MORE skill training and MORE real life money (cost of account) investing in a ship I do not want.. just to have the ability to carry pos fuel around.. Not to mention the fact.. that there's no guarantee the "current" benefits of a Rorqual will still be Balanced in CCP's eyes by the time the ships up and running and useful..
-------------------------------
|
Friznit
5punkorp EternalRising
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 13:56:00 -
[202]
Originally by: Montaire I want to hire a choir of angels's to sing over and over :
Use a Rorqual for 0.0 hauling! It has 150k m3 in cargo hold (at least on SiSi it does) and that is double what a carrier can hold.
Carriers are combat ships, Rorquals are industrial ships. A Raven is a combat ship. An Itteron Mk V is an industrial ship. Do you take the raven, or the Itteron to haul large amounts ?
Use a Capital Industrial Ship!
Hossanah ?
Wrong. On SiSi the Rorqual has a 40km3 cargo bay (double what is currently on TQ). It also suffers from the same ship array cargo nerf as other caps so is unable to come close to the max capacity of 150km3 that it currently enjoys on TQ. Taking into consideration jump fuel, it would be significantly worse than current carrier hauling capacities. The devs want to force us all to sink billions into jump freighters.
Freighter BPC copy time is approx ~1 month. T2 Ship invention success rates average about 20% max T2 freighter build cost is ~6bill You need to train freighter 5 to fly it
I'd expect sale price to be in the region of minimum 12-15bill for a ship that does...oh, not alot. Now tell me why I won't fit cargo rigs to a revelation and use that instead. Spot the irony here?
|
Odda
Gallente Tyrell Corp INTERDICTION
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 14:00:00 -
[203]
stupid? o yes it is
|
Niddix
Minmatar Raptus Regaliter
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 14:01:00 -
[204]
I say nerf the test server.
I find it hilarious the amount of time spent *****ing about changes that are occurring on a server thats sole purpose is there for the devs to test changes.
Perhaps CCP just needs to close the test server down except for the times they want player input. Which based on most of the threads I see about changes is never.
|
Druadan
Gallente Aristotle Enterprises Ethereal Dawn
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 14:09:00 -
[205]
Originally by: Niddix I say nerf the test server.
I find it hilarious the amount of time spent *****ing about changes that are occurring on a server thats sole purpose is there for the devs to test changes.
Perhaps CCP just needs to close the test server down except for the times they want player input. Which based on most of the threads I see about changes is never.
The *public* test server, not the only test server. Historically, changes that are put to the public test server get implemented.
|
Talons
Two Brothers Mining Corp. Friend or Enemy
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 14:13:00 -
[206]
Edited by: Talons on 27/10/2007 14:14:04 The proposed carrier changes are STUPID from the player's point of view.
Your training time of 6 to 8 months to get the ship flying and usable and then CCP takes it away in a simple software update? They are in this for REAL MONEY... Yours!
You are in it for FUN!
A Carrier should be able to field however many Fighters the pilot can control (up to 15) just like it does now. It should also be able to have 'cargo' inside ships inside the Maintenance bay. You go into combat with Interceptors that have no ammo charges in them and then what? May as well make the Maintenance bay a cargo area.
Continually nerfing the very ship that does a lot of things is a BAD decision. CCP says rekitting is NOT required, but that is BULL****! In order to use my Carrier for logistics, I do rekit it to get the most space for the buck. For Combat too, I rekit for specific roles. They should get their heads out of the rectum before doing things like this.
I trained for 6 months to fly the Carrier. Then they nerf it and nerf it and nerf it. It will be self-destructed if I cannot use it any longer for its main Logistics role.
Now, on to the REAL problems (and complaints by those with no fortitude) of Carriers and Motherships.
The 'overpowering' of them. They are NOT overpowered. They are there becuase they provide a serious role for the serious Alliances who do Serious battles, BoB, Goons, etc.
It is the people in Low-Security using the MOMs and Carriers to gank people at the gates and stations that are causing this issue. That is WHY they are even looking at Carriers and Moms.
You want to remove the problem? Do two things. 1) No MOMs inside space that is higher than 0.0. You get a MOM, you're married. Can't dock anyway. Same with a TITAN. 2) Do not allow Cyno Fields within 100km of the Gate in Empire (low-sec) space. Problem solved.
Notice that Cyno bombinig in 0.0 is still allowed here, by either MOMs or Carriers, which they should be allowed to do in order to defend one's space. But, no one owns low-sec space, so there is no need to permit a cyno near a gate.
And GIVE US BACK OUR GSCs or at least the COURIER MISSIONS! Transporting stuff for people in little pieces makes things a disaster for the pilot. Containerizing someone's stuff makes the ship a viable 0.0 transport for one's alliance.
I fly a Thanatos. I fly a Moros. I can fly a MOM too.
If the Carrier was not well thought out in the first place, then REMOVE them from the game. Because that is where this is heading anyway. Either you will have a ship that is capable of filling the multiple roles of its past or you will just pop it for the insurance and not use it anyway.
Or cancel your account because you have been bled dry enough by CCP.
STOP NERFING MY SKILL POINTS!
Talons CEO Offices: Allebin, Droselory, Iivinen, C9N, VNGJ |
Montaire
Genbuku. Daisho Syndicate
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 14:38:00 -
[207]
Its about 140k with rigs and expanders. Thats not counting GSC's.
I know its a different training, but the training path for different ships should be different. A logistical ship should probably have different req's than a combat vessel.
Perhaps we disagree, but I feel that the Carrier is primarily a Combat or Combat Support ship. While the Rorqual is a Capital Industrial ship.
I view these ships as having different roles in the game, and different training path's to them. Perhaps we just disagree.
Originally by: Friznit
Originally by: Montaire I want to hire a choir of angels's to sing over and over :
Use a Rorqual for 0.0 hauling! It has 150k m3 in cargo hold (at least on SiSi it does) and that is double what a carrier can hold.
Carriers are combat ships, Rorquals are industrial ships. A Raven is a combat ship. An Itteron Mk V is an industrial ship. Do you take the raven, or the Itteron to haul large amounts ?
Use a Capital Industrial Ship!
Hossanah ?
Wrong. On SiSi the Rorqual has a 40km3 cargo bay (double what is currently on TQ). It also suffers from the same ship array cargo nerf as other caps so is unable to come close to the max capacity of 150km3 that it currently enjoys on TQ. Taking into consideration jump fuel, it would be significantly worse than current carrier hauling capacities. The devs want to force us all to sink billions into jump freighters.
Freighter BPC copy time is approx ~1 month. T2 Ship invention success rates average about 20% max T2 freighter build cost is ~6bill You need to train freighter 5 to fly it
I'd expect sale price to be in the region of minimum 12-15bill for a ship that does...oh, not alot. Now tell me why I won't fit cargo rigs to a revelation and use that instead. Spot the irony here?
|
Druadan
Gallente Aristotle Enterprises Ethereal Dawn
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 14:54:00 -
[208]
Originally by: Montaire Perhaps we disagree, but I feel that the Carrier is primarily a Combat or Combat Support ship. While the Rorqual is a Capital Industrial ship.
I view these ships as having different roles in the game, and different training path's to them. Perhaps we just disagree.
Granted, but we didn't train the carrier just to do combat. When we trained for the carrier, it was decent at fleet-level combat (by no means excells at it, however), and could carry stuff. The Rorqual did not exist, and neither did jump-freighters. So CCP saying "we're introducing new ships that are better at hauling via cyno, so now you absolutely cannot use your carrier for this purpose, understand? we forbid it is, quite frankly, insulting. Nonsensical changes being imposed on us so that CCP can force us to use shiptype X for purpose X is totally against the spirit of EVE. Why not ban badgers from being able to use sensor dampeners? It wasn't designed for baiting pirates in, so why should it be allowed?
If you want people to stop using carriers for hauling goods, make other ships better than the carrier for hauling via cyno. The Rorqual needs the same jump range as the Carrier. The jump freighter doesn't; it just needs significantly more space than a carrier/Rorqual can provide.
I cannot believe that these changes of late have come from the same CCP that, when I started playing EVE, was an employment goal of mine for when I finish my degree. That CCP was fun, imaginative, and had their hearts in the game. This CCP is cold, illogical, and unyielding in their willingness to introduce tedium and regulation over fun and real fixes to real problems.
|
Al Franken
The Liberal Media
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 15:14:00 -
[209]
Originally by: Grayton
Seriously, does CCP even have any idea about the dedication and time it takes to run an alliance level logistics program? Do they even understand how slow and mind numbing it is? It's easy to say "oh, this isn't hard at all!" to 10, 20, even 30 POSes that need fueling and an already in place infrastructure of bridges. But to have to run a 100+ POS network spanning multiple regions and hundreds of light years without always having the easy to use bridge infrastructure in place?
they do. This is in line with CCP's belief that there should not be large mega alliances owning multiple regions. They've said quite a few times that their goal is to allow constellation size alliances to exist, in which case this move is largely understandable.
|
Alski
Gallente Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 15:36:00 -
[210]
Originally by: Al Franken
Originally by: Grayton
Seriously, does CCP even have any idea about the dedication and time it takes to run an alliance level logistics program? Do they even understand how slow and mind numbing it is? It's easy to say "oh, this isn't hard at all!" to 10, 20, even 30 POSes that need fueling and an already in place infrastructure of bridges. But to have to run a 100+ POS network spanning multiple regions and hundreds of light years without always having the easy to use bridge infrastructure in place?
they do. This is in line with CCP's belief that there should not be large mega alliances owning multiple regions. They've said quite a few times that their goal is to allow constellation size alliances to exist, in which case this move is largely understandable.
No, this move is not largely understandable, because they are giving us tools to make it just as possible as it is now, ie: the massively expanded cargo bay of the rorquel, and the jump-freighters, the problem is that they are not implementing these changes in the right order, if they want rorquels and jump-freighters to replace the role of carrier logistics then they need to:
A) Implicitly state that carrier logistics are going to be “removed” from the game in the future, not just by making changes on sisi, not by a random reply that is short on details in a thread, but by an official dev-blog.
B) Implement the replacement for it; ie jump-freighters and the expanded rorquel, and give us PLENTY OF TIME to train to fly them, build them and adapt to the changes
C) Then, and ONLY then should the nurfage of carrier logistics take place.
Failure to make these changes in this specific order only makes the lives of the people in charge of alliance level logistics extremely difficult and the task itself even more complicated and time consuming. -
(combat) Patch belonging to CCP hits your drones, wrecking their liberty and freedom. |
|
Tonto Auri
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 15:49:00 -
[211]
Originally by: Gor Kraon If you want to nerf carriers carrying industrials, just make them friggin huge so they don't fit in a carrier.
This one. Or Amarr lasers PWN all. -- Thanks CCP for cu<end of sig> |
Montaire
Genbuku. Daisho Syndicate
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 15:51:00 -
[212]
Originally by: Druadan If you want people to stop using carriers for hauling goods, make other ships better than the carrier for hauling via cyno. The Rorqual needs the same jump range as the Carrier. The jump freighter doesn't; it just needs significantly more space than a carrier/Rorqual can provide.
I think this is exactly it. They dont want to have to measure every ship they make by the carrier.
If everything has to be "better" than the carrier, it equiates to power escalation writ large, and thats bad for any game.
|
Li via
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 16:09:00 -
[213]
Just drop it already.... CCP. These nerf discussions are not getting you anywhere but tickign off the playerbase... get the hint... STOP.
|
Druadan
Gallente Aristotle Enterprises Ethereal Dawn
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 16:19:00 -
[214]
Originally by: Montaire
Originally by: Druadan If you want people to stop using carriers for hauling goods, make other ships better than the carrier for hauling via cyno. The Rorqual needs the same jump range as the Carrier. The jump freighter doesn't; it just needs significantly more space than a carrier/Rorqual can provide.
I think this is exactly it. They dont want to have to measure every ship they make by the carrier.
If everything has to be "better" than the carrier, it equiates to power escalation writ large, and thats bad for any game.
*sigh*
Putting words in my mouth to marginalise my opinion. Sneaky.
Every ship is measured against its existing counterparts. There is no escaping that. You can abstract that further and say that every solution is measured against existing solutions. So, you see, not every ship will be measured against the carrier, and saying so is ignorant. It is aspects of ships that are measured against aspects of other ships that share that aspect. Introduce an EWAR ship, and it is measured against existing EWAR ships. Not doing this comparison is just blind introduction of new ships, with no thought to purpose and improvement.
|
Ztrain
Evolution Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 16:29:00 -
[215]
Well if this is the case and now CCP has once again proven that they are uable to actually design to their stated goals. CCP has in other threads posted that they want carriers to be logistic ships. But now they do this nurf if it really is a nurf and not a bug. That's fairly said.
Most of the alliances in the game are far better at achieving their stated goals then the developers. This is their lively hood and people from other countries then Iceland are better at achieving entertainment goals in a game then CCP devs are at making their game development goals. That's kinda sad actually on many levels.
Z
Originally by: CCP Zulupark That's the rough idea, yes. We still have in no way started thinking about what modules to introduce, what they would do or anything of the likes, but the idea is that.
|
Arria Periclee
Gallente Aristotle Enterprises Ethereal Dawn
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 17:08:00 -
[216]
Edited by: Arria Periclee on 27/10/2007 17:12:21 It's pure nonsense. Why would a loaded ship be any different than an empty ship anyway? Weight? Carriers look like they can carry their huge loads, don't they?
But anyway, along with the other carrier nerf that raised voices (and a lot of players finding it nonsensical, but haven't worded it here yet), it just looks like a drastic and stupid solution to a minor issue. Even with the current state of affairs, carriers still won't be better than those new freighters that have been announced. I know devs play EVE also, but does that clear them from listening to the playerbase's view on the issue? To me it's clearly a case of "nice try, now try thinking again and find a better nerf". And I'm not even a carrier pilot to boot, but silly decisions like that are making me consider cancelling my subscription like it did for many before me.
Think twice, CCP, we love EVE Online for its intelligence, don't make us hate it because it suddenly became stupid.
|
Jinmie
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 17:23:00 -
[217]
Was CCPs target for this year to get a worse reputation than SOE when it came to MMOs?
|
Montaire
Genbuku. Daisho Syndicate
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 18:02:00 -
[218]
Was not my intent to be deceptive.
I guess in the end I see the carrier filling a different role than you do.
If CCP were to disagree with me as they obviously disagree with you, I suppose I'd be doing the same thing you are doing; trying to get CCP to change their mind.
I think Rorquals should be better at hauling and 0.0 logistics than a carrier.
Originally by: Druadan Putting words in my mouth to marginalise my opinion. Sneaky.
Every ship is measured against its existing counterparts. There is no escaping that. You can abstract that further and say that every solution is measured against existing solutions. So, you see, not every ship will be measured against the carrier, and saying so is ignorant. It is aspects of ships that are measured against aspects of other ships that share that aspect. Introduce an EWAR ship, and it is measured against existing EWAR ships. Not doing this comparison is just blind introduction of new ships, with no thought to purpose and improvement.
|
Baun
4S Corporation Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 18:09:00 -
[219]
Edited by: Baun on 27/10/2007 18:09:00 CCP, you are putting this in game before you introduce modular role refitting for carriers?
Are you completely ******* insane? You do NOT randomly eliminate a ship's abilities as a precursor to a larger overall change. You make the changes all at once to see how they fit together.
Learn to balance your game and stop screwing your customers.
Account remains canceled.
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
Gnulpie
Minmatar Miner Tech
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 18:16:00 -
[220]
WTF
I hope that this change won't reflect any serious thought of CCP to nerf carriers.
You say: use t2 freighters.
Yeah, sure. And how many carrier pilots can fly the t2 freighters? And where should all the t2 freighters come from? Inventions? That's a joke, 4 weeks for a single freighter copy - so 4 weeks for a single invention try. With best skills 15% success maybe and that makes then 26 weeks to invent ONE freighter in average.
You say: CCP will introduce new modules to expand cargohold/corp hangar drastically.
But why do they need to completely wipe out the usability of the carrier as hauler? They said the carrier will still be a jack of all trades, but as I see it will be a jack of all crap. Completely useless!
|
|
Montaire
Genbuku. Daisho Syndicate
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 18:23:00 -
[221]
Originally by: Gnulpie But why do they need to completely wipe out the usability of the carrier as hauler? They said the carrier will still be a jack of all trades, but as I see it will be a jack of all crap. Completely useless!
For the same reason that a Raven is a lousy hauler. The Raven is a combat ship, so is the carrier.
Contrary to overwhelmingly popular feelings the Capital Industrial skill is different than the Carrier Skill. They have different training times and pre-req's. You need different skills to fly a Heavy Assault Cruiser than you need to fly a Blockade Runner or Deep Space Transport.
Similar thing going on here.
|
md5oogle
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 18:28:00 -
[222]
Im not able to fly a carrier as of yet, however my corp can, and alliance can.
I am also against this new nerf, and I think its time for CCP to start listening to the people that provide them the funds to keep this game going. If this is how my eve experience is going to be, with everything being nerfed and playing turning into a "job".
When i get done work for the day, i dont feel like escorting freigters all week just to fuel pos when there are many better things to do. Agree with making those ships too big to fit in the hold, but not allowing any other ships to carry modules/cargo is stupid. My moto is, if the hole is big enough, stick it in and **** the rest.
CCP, if your going to nerf **** like this at random, my subscription service will be severly brief.
|
Gnulpie
Minmatar Miner Tech
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 18:37:00 -
[223]
Originally by: Montaire
For the same reason that a Raven is a lousy hauler. The Raven is a combat ship, so is the carrier.
Wrong!
CCP said and still says everywhere that they want the carrier as a multi-purpose ship and NOT as a pure combat ship. They WANT it to be a hauler, and a logistics and a combat support ship - they want it as a ship that fills many roles. And they DON'T WANT it to be a pure combat ship.
I get the feeling that they got that fixed idea 'nerf carrier' no matter what. So the first nerf was cancelled because of massive protests. Now they try it with a different approach.
Why can't they understand? There is nothing wrong with the carrier!! LEAVE IT ALONE!
Leave it alone and maybe add modules. But don't remove stuff out of the blue for invalid reasons.
|
Ungdall
Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 18:44:00 -
[224]
CCP just needs to release tier 2 and 3 carriers that are specialized to perform different tasks that go with the carriers assorted duties. Make one for fighters, one for logistics and one for I don't know.
|
Montaire
Genbuku. Daisho Syndicate
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 19:02:00 -
[225]
That would certianly be interesting. Link ?
Originally by: Gnulpie
Originally by: Montaire
For the same reason that a Raven is a lousy hauler. The Raven is a combat ship, so is the carrier.
Wrong!
CCP said and still says everywhere that they want the carrier as a multi-purpose ship and NOT as a pure combat ship. They WANT it to be a hauler, and a logistics and a combat support ship - they want it as a ship that fills many roles. And they DON'T WANT it to be a pure combat ship.
I get the feeling that they got that fixed idea 'nerf carrier' no matter what. So the first nerf was cancelled because of massive protests. Now they try it with a different approach.
Why can't they understand? There is nothing wrong with the carrier!! LEAVE IT ALONE!
Leave it alone and maybe add modules. But don't remove stuff out of the blue for invalid reasons.
|
judes23
The Silent Rage
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 19:15:00 -
[226]
oh gosh lol i thought carriers where suppose to keep the traveling with ships (with there assets in them) around lol
*claps at CCP for thinking another way to ruin the carriers* -----------------------------------
save them, save your future |
judes23
The Silent Rage
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 19:18:00 -
[227]
oh i bet it was zulupark's idea 2, just to **** us off even more *laughs* -----------------------------------
save them, save your future |
Brungar
Caldari Adeptus Illuminati Aegis Authentica Ethereal Dawn
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 19:21:00 -
[228]
Damn, just when I thought I'd seen it all.
I trained carrier for 2 reasons:
(a) help the alliance with the logistics of living in 0.0 space (b) to engage in 0.0 pvp
Now, in the past week, CCP has reveals plans that show:
(a) is not the intended use, as they limit the amount transported to a fraction of what it used to be (don't forget that it's already been nerfed pretty badly with respect to contract, before!). I'm guessing this is because the carrier really is supposed to be used in combat, neh?
(b) apparantly is also not the purpose of the carrier. The only practical use of the carrier after the proposed changes would be to sit at a POS and assign fighters.
I did not spend a year of training (in effect investing 190 US $!) to end up as a bit of static POS scenery. Why is it suddenly necessary to sneak in change after change to carriers? WTF is the agenda here? It'dbe bearable if I got the impression CCP has any clue what they are doing. But they obviously have never tried supporting a network of POSes. Nor have they gained much experience fighting with carriers, or we would not be hearing about them "killing battleships in 0.5 seconds". Did some noob marketeer manage to grab the helm of future "development", or what else is going on here?
I'm having a really hard time thinking up any new long term (skill) plans, as in all likelyhood whatever road I decide upon next, even though it may look cool now, will probably get nerfed to oblivion real soon.
As for people claiming that current ships need to be nerfed to make the next generation of ships "cool", that just sounds too dodgy. If the new content doesn't offer new value of it own, please stuff it somewhere where the sun don't shine, and leave the old content alone.
And yes, I'm aware I'm ranting here, but I'm well and truly fed up. "War is a continuation of commerce by other means" - Unknown Caldari philosopher
|
Damned Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 20:06:00 -
[229]
If they implement such drastical changes and force us to use another ship for the same thing, after 6+ months training and invested bilions, i hope they would burn in hell and the game would go down very quick so they dont have they jobs anyomre.. So take my "best" wishes, because the worst i even dont want to public
|
POMPO
Gallente Immortal Serial Killers
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 20:24:00 -
[230]
Have we really spent all this friggin time training just for CCP to turn around and **** on us?
Enough is enough CCP...sort it out or lose my two accounts aswell.
PS No you cant have my stuff Im selling it on ebay ..i..
|
|
Ur235
The Illuminati. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 20:31:00 -
[231]
Edited by: Ur235 on 27/10/2007 20:31:44 Seriously if you want to stop people using haulers to ferry fuel and what not, then just make all haulers the size of a bs or something.
How the hell am i meant to eject ships to players who have lost there ships in battle, when there is no friggin ammo in there cargo??? WTF!!
Great mate you have got me a ship but no ammo w00t?
|
Curx
Ardent Industrial Hydra Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 20:32:00 -
[232]
Why Should a carrier do more dps then a Battleship?
Why Should a Carrier be able to load up with supplies?
Why should a Carrier be more Powerful then an Ibis?
- Curx |
infinityshok
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 20:33:00 -
[233]
Originally by: Montaire I want to hire a choir of angels's to sing over and over :
Use a Rorqual for 0.0 hauling! It has 150k m3 in cargo hold (at least on SiSi it does) and that is double what a carrier can hold.
Carriers are combat ships, Rorquals are industrial ships. A Raven is a combat ship. An Itteron Mk V is an industrial ship. Do you take the raven, or the Itteron to haul large amounts ?
Use a Capital Industrial Ship!
Hossanah ?
Originally by: Torrus Blatella Please, no. Making POS fueling and logistics even more of a pain in the ass is not a good idea. I wanna shoot people, not spend hours upon hours hauling fuel.
While youre hiring put a clue on your list.
Haul some expensive gear thru empire in an iteron and see how quickly a suicide ganker turns your southernmost orifice into a flaming kill mail.
Carriers were introduced as being capable of hauling other ships for combat use. A ship with no charges loaded in either its high slots or cargo bay is not a useful ship.
The cost of the Rorqual both in skills and actual ship amount is ridiculous considering the amount already sunk into the carrier. The other ridiculous factor is Rorquals will wind up being nerfed when some dementia-infested dev gets the deluded notion to nerf them after he has nerfed carriers into oblivion.
|
Valea
Wrath Of Khaine
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 20:52:00 -
[234]
Oh no, now I can't jump as much stuff. Because I definitely got my carrier for hauling. ---
|
Ur235
The Illuminati. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 20:59:00 -
[235]
Edited by: Ur235 on 27/10/2007 21:02:23
Originally by: Valea Oh no, now I can't jump as much stuff. Because I definitely got my carrier for hauling.
I couldnt care less about using haulers in carrier for logistics,
It effects the use of the carrier as a base though, if one of my mates loses a ship in battle i can eject a new one for them to get into and keep em in the battle
But hey wait a minuite O SH!T no ammo wtf am I gonna do now? I guess ill just fly 15 jumps back load some ammo up fly back and arrive at a battle half an hour later when its over.
W00T?
|
Futher Bezluden
Minmatar ORIGIN SYSTEMS Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 21:22:00 -
[236]
CCP.
Carriers are the logistics hub of a fleet. Look up a carrier sometime while cruising pRon sites. They are floating cities. They have supplies for months, manufacturing and repair centers, and airpower that makes nations crap themselves whenever one is moved from one theatre to another.
Completely gimping the way a carrier's ship maintenance array works completely breaks how eve works. So you don't want iteron 5's stuffed in them, fine. Seed T1 Jump Freighters 2-3 months before you throw this horrendous idea into EVE. Jump Freighter is just a freighter with less cargo space for capital jump drives. After Fleet battles, someone always goes to the carrier to get a hauler to start scooping loot. How the hell is that going to happen when you don't allow cargo inside ships to go into the ship array?
Really thinking this through, aren't ya? THUKKER -Be Paranoid
Skeet Skeet L33t |
Ambrosious Martin
Dominus Imperium
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 22:34:00 -
[237]
Edited by: Ambrosious Martin on 27/10/2007 22:36:26
Originally by: Al Franken
Originally by: Grayton
Seriously, does CCP even have any idea about the dedication and time it takes to run an alliance level logistics program? Do they even understand how slow and mind numbing it is? It's easy to say "oh, this isn't hard at all!" to 10, 20, even 30 POSes that need fueling and an already in place infrastructure of bridges. But to have to run a 100+ POS network spanning multiple regions and hundreds of light years without always having the easy to use bridge infrastructure in place?
they do. This is in line with CCP's belief that there should not be large mega alliances owning multiple regions. They've said quite a few times that their goal is to allow constellation size alliances to exist, in which case this move is largely understandable.
If this is such an understandable idea, so that small alliances or maybe even corps that control 0.0 constelations can survive. Then explain to me why it is my 8 man corp that lives 50+ jumps from empire is freaking out over the fact that we have over 5bill in assets that we have to get hauled out now so we can actually get them out.. becuase this change with detrimentally effect the life we live in 0.0
Its obvious to me that you must be one of the empire loving station huggin hippies that I hate so much, which made me move to 0.0. Now we cant move our stuff back and forth. you think one of us wants to start training the next 6 months worth of skills, just so you can get your jollies by thinking this is a nessacary nerf. this game isnt all about the big 10 major alliances. Its about us all who pay for it.. If this nerf is aimed at the POS junkies then solve the problem and make the Tower able to handle 1 years worth of fuel, besides the Stront which is only used under attack anyhow. CCP needs to severlly rethink the way its going about effecting the world we live in. I play this game so I dont have to deal with 12 year olds screaming in the microphone, and so I can excerscise my brain. its amazing to me to see the amount of work players take out there real lives for this game doing things wholly out of enjoyment( I.E Evemon, EFT, all the math geeks that figure out our DMG and HP calculators) we enjoy this game CCP.. and your IMO seriouselly starting to **** US(the community) off.. your CEO and CFO must have sold there holdings already cuz there prolly the only smart ones there able to see that your tanking your own business and messing with disaster. RANT ENDED
And another note.. if they didnt want large mega alliances holding multiple regions than why are there the skills ingame that allow you to control allainces up to 10,000+ people? and where do you think all those people are supposed to be? Empire.. sorry chum but I think your wrong on this one
|
Raketefrau
Caldari Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 23:14:00 -
[238]
**** you, CCP.
Seriously, **** you in your stupid ******* non-lubed *******s.
It must be tough, waking up every morning and having to come up with new ways to completely **** off the people who've spent years playing your game, paying you a monthly fee to do so.
Why not just tell us flat-out that you're going to completely remove the ability to use the carrier as a hauler?
Why keep up with this stupid ******* sneaky ****?
It just ****es us off more and more every time you do it.
Be up front with us, stop trying to sneak this **** in the back door, and oh, maybe, just possibly, listen to your ******* customers for once.
This is first-class bull****.
|
honour
Gallente Raddick Explorations
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 23:21:00 -
[239]
Not happy with carrier nerfs. but ccp will do as they wish.. wether i like it or not
So they dont want you to use a carrier for logistics, Then they need to REPLACE it with something BETTER.
if they do it then people will use it because its easier, safer, quicker, and they will WANT to have it. if you make logistics easier WE have more fun and small corps/alliance can do 0.0
so what about this
jump freighter ,carries 500k can jump as far as a carrier or further. can carry packaged ships. make them cheep if everyone can have them it levels the playing field for all.
this makes logistics a no brainer for everyone.
we can do all the ****e stuff quick and get on with the fun. Even the pirates and gankers will like it cos we will be out flying normal ships(and probably diying). has slots and rigs but cannot fit drones guns or missles or offensive weapons. not sure on how many slots/rigs, ideas anyone?
cannot launch towers in space,can only unload towers at station or outpost(but can carry them)(makes tower spamming hard)
after all this is designed for 0.0 an inherently unsafe place, designers of said ships may be stupid but not that stupid.
needs to be tech 1 , cos carriers are and they HAVE jump drives. A freighter is in essence a carrier with the guts ripped out. skill lev freighter 3. plus jump drive skill etc
At some point there will be tech 2 jump freighters which will require freighter 5. possibly jump calibration 5 and another skill/module for even more range.
(lets face it the eve universe will expand and more systems will come online the ability to bypass known space will be required for newer corps to get out there)
shoot this down by all means but no one will use a carrier for hauling when there is better.
and thats better by capacity and better by range. after all carrier with jump calibration 5 is 14.46 ly not like dreads.(an extra jump when you dont have too, i dont think soooo)
hey maybe 2 ships one with better range and one with better cargo.
luv honour
|
Raketefrau
Caldari Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 23:24:00 -
[240]
Edited by: Raketefrau on 27/10/2007 23:26:32
Originally by: Darklin Eldaris
I mean think about it honestly, the military doesn't load up a freight ship then load that into a carrier then drive it across the ocean. They load up the freight ship and drive it, because that's what it does, it moves freight.
They load containers onto carriers. Massive containers full of supplies. We use indy ships instead because CCP is so dead set on making freight containers worthless.
Quote:
Look on the bright side tho guys, its better than only having 5 fighters. ALOT better.
Hey yeah guys, check it out! They're stopped ******* us in the ass, now they're just ******* us in the ear!
As for jump freighters, if the plan is to make them the haulers of fuel for 0.0, wouldn't it make sense to put those in the game and give us some time to skill up to them BEFORE removing everyone's 0.0 logistics ships?
|
|
itsan egro
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 23:56:00 -
[241]
Originally by: Jehuty Vanricadia WE DONT HAVE DEVS ANYMORE NO MORE DEVS IN BOB THEY WOULD NEVER MAKE STUPID DECISIONS IF THEY WERE STILL WITH US IN BOB
fixed that for you
|
Aaron Mirrorsaver
R.E.C.O.N.
|
Posted - 2007.10.28 00:16:00 -
[242]
and ccp effectively cuts 30k players from their player base in one vile move. With all the grinding and time sink in eve now, add more. more more!
R.E.C.O.N. is recruiting
|
Frenche
|
Posted - 2007.10.28 01:03:00 -
[243]
I have read many of these topics regarding nerfing and think this:
This nerf like others may be ridiculous and ill conceived in terms of current game mechanics flawing the fundamental choices you made, however CCP is a business.
EVE like any other online game relies on your addiction to levelling your character, and attaining you necessary career paths. Attaining the next ship skill or piece of equipment is fundamental to keeping you subscribing to the game. You are held by the time you have already invested.
Whatever the change is, it is irrelevant, and done not to either ruin or enhance your fun but to ensure as many career paths as possible are avaliable to hold you in game for as long as possible. The game is a sandbox where you make the decision of how to play. The EULA states they can change or shut down the game at any time.
CCP is a business so wants you to have to train 3.5 - 4 months for a different ship and wants you to spend 000's man hours doing pointless tasks, time is money.
Sorry for the off topic rant just my perspective.
|
Goca
KAOS. Rule of Three
|
Posted - 2007.10.28 01:29:00 -
[244]
Originally by: Jehuty Vanricadia Those who whined about ccp staff playing the game in major alliances; I think its safe to say they dont anymore.
I'd have to say it appears they don't play the same game the rest of us do at all..
Even funnier is when they state that they don't read the posts where helpful suggestions are not made.. LOL! I think there have been many helpful suggestions made here, the best and most prevalent made has been "remove head from ass"..
|
Javeir
Shadows of the Dead Aftermath Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.28 03:20:00 -
[245]
CCP, stop nerfing things that don't need to be nerfed, and start fixing the massive amounts of lag and bugs in your game.
Forget about carriers, leave them the way they are, and stop being completely ******** in this random nerfbat attacks.
Don't ******* break eve like you seem to be doing now.
|
Shaddam V
Amarr 9th Wonders
|
Posted - 2007.10.28 03:20:00 -
[246]
I just logged into sisi and was able to dock a ship with with ammo in the cargo hold into a POS SMA. I can't test the bays in ships, but this might have been a change that we were told to ignore in the dev blog.
|
Javeir
Shadows of the Dead Aftermath Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.28 03:28:00 -
[247]
We're not talking about SMA's. We're talking about carrier & roquoral ship maint bays.
|
Breathing
Mork Incorporated
|
Posted - 2007.10.28 03:52:00 -
[248]
PLEASE dont let this come out on Tranquility.
Removing cargo cans from ships is one thing, but making them empty ALL their cargo is a bridge too far.... Seriously.
And not just from a cargo capacity point of view, but also just as rediculously it will introduce EVEN MORE NEEDLESS ANOYING TIMECONSUMING MICRO-MANAGEMENT of peoples ships cargos (ammo, cap boosts, spare fits etc). Its tedious enough as it is.
If this is all because people are using haulers in the ship bays to expand cargo then PLEASE just do something about the haulers. Having to empty the ammo from a collection of 20 inties / dicors and cruisers, and then redistribute it all at the other end is
NOT WHAT I PLAY EVE FOR.
|
Danatank
STK Scientific Black-Out
|
Posted - 2007.10.28 04:18:00 -
[249]
I'm mainly ****ed because I did specifically start this account and train it up to carrier to be a logistics ship, and now it'll be useless for that. Definitely cancelling at least this account if it goes though, there'll be no more use for it.
|
infinityshok
|
Posted - 2007.10.28 04:28:00 -
[250]
Originally by: Raketefrau Edited by: Raketefrau on 27/10/2007 23:19:09 **** you, CCP.
Seriously, **** you in your stupid ******* non-lubed *******s.
It must be tough, waking up every morning and having to come up with new ways to completely **** off the people who've spent years playing your game, paying you a monthly fee to do so.
Why not just tell us flat-out that you're going to completely remove the ability to use the carrier as a hauler?
Why keep up with this stupid ******* sneaky ****?
It just ****es us off more and more every time you do it.
Be up front with us, stop trying to sneak this **** in the back door, and oh, maybe, just possibly, listen to your ******* customers for once.
This is first-class bull****.
EDIT:
And anyone who thinks that this is just to stop the mega-alliances:
a) You have no idea what it's like to keep towers up for even a single corp in deep 0.0. Do you honestly think that jumping carriers isn't necessary to get fuel for all your towers? With 6-8 carrier pilots per corp, it's still tough to keep moving enough fuel out to our constellation.
b) The mega-alliances have Titans with jump bridges. They just jump-bridge their freighters around when they need to. This will just give them an even bigger edge over the rest of us.
c) We trained carriers because they are great logistics ships, because it's the only way to move fuel efficiently out here. Do you understand that, CCP? We put over a year into the ability to fly a single ship to move large quantities of materials around.
Over a year. And now you seem dead set on taking that away from us. An entire ******* year of training.
Do you honestly not understand why everyone is so ****ed off, or do you just not ******* care?
I totally ******* agree with the **** of this ******* and **** but ***** all ***** *****. The ***** and **** ****** ***** for themselves.
What ***** **** of ***** ***** was *****. ***** **** ** and ***** ******** ****** to ******. Thank you.
|
|
Stellar Vix
State War Academy
|
Posted - 2007.10.28 04:47:00 -
[251]
I do belive ccp does know about how carriers work, and they dont like the way they do work. Which is why i support this nerf, tbh I wouldnt mind losing a job and get to enjoy flying around with fighters against as they where orignially intended, two years ago we didnt have titans, we didnt have a war over being fought over 8 regions with several hundred capitol ships involved, before the attack on the bob capitol yard the previous record for most dreads ever killed was 8 in a single battle, that record got beaten by 50+ dreadnaughts lost.
In two years capitol ships have gone the way devs didnt expect them, I have meet corps with 100% carrier pilots and it wouldn't surprise me if that they didnt nerf the carrier that it could be a requirement for some corps as well in the future. But tech 2 freighters will be here in less than a year with thier jump drives. Which leaves the question of titan functionality other than its DDD that is 100% ineffective aginst the bolbs they where designed against.
The only thing that seems to be fine and dandy are the dreads fullfilling the role they are supposed to fulfill kill other capitol ships and POS.
Carriers however are probably being used more as freighter than thier combat fighter spewing support role. I would love to see far less logisitics and far more fleet center orintated ships.
Titans are supposed to be mobile stations, there isnt much station to them, clone vat and 20 cruiser ships, with no internal repair facility, no half assed refinery, no minature mobile lab. If they reroll the titans to be mroe station like and not the uselss hunks of metal they are now before the jump freighters make it to tranq Id be happy.
But seriously do you carrier pilots really enjoy hauling all of those ships around? I dont and really if your empire is too big to support maybe you should consider downsizing and make a more managable allaince because you took a bite bigger than you can chew with.
SWA PVP |
velocity7
|
Posted - 2007.10.28 05:06:00 -
[252]
You guys do realize that jump freighters are being introduced to replace this aspect of carriers?
|
infinityshok
|
Posted - 2007.10.28 05:07:00 -
[253]
Originally by: Stellar Vix I do belive ccp does know about how carriers work, and they dont like the way they do work. Which is why i support this nerf, tbh I wouldnt mind losing a job and get to enjoy flying around with fighters against as they where orignially intended, two years ago we didnt have titans, we didnt have a war over being fought over 8 regions with several hundred capitol ships involved, before the attack on the bob capitol yard the previous record for most dreads ever killed was 8 in a single battle, that record got beaten by 50+ dreadnaughts lost.
In two years capitol ships have gone the way devs didnt expect them, I have meet corps with 100% carrier pilots and it wouldn't surprise me if that they didnt nerf the carrier that it could be a requirement for some corps as well in the future. But tech 2 freighters will be here in less than a year with thier jump drives. Which leaves the question of titan functionality other than its DDD that is 100% ineffective aginst the bolbs they where designed against.
The only thing that seems to be fine and dandy are the dreads fullfilling the role they are supposed to fulfill kill other capitol ships and POS.
Carriers however are probably being used more as freighter than thier combat fighter spewing support role. I would love to see far less logisitics and far more fleet center orintated ships.
Titans are supposed to be mobile stations, there isnt much station to them, clone vat and 20 cruiser ships, with no internal repair facility, no half assed refinery, no minature mobile lab. If they reroll the titans to be mroe station like and not the uselss hunks of metal they are now before the jump freighters make it to tranq Id be happy.
But seriously do you carrier pilots really enjoy hauling all of those ships around? I dont and really if your empire is too big to support maybe you should consider downsizing and make a more managable allaince because you took a bite bigger than you can chew with.
CCP has been advertising titans since '03...I still have the instruction manual describing their features. How long did it take them to actually show up?
You have clearly stated you have no clue about anything related to anything. Please follow the example of CCP and nerf yourself immediately. The most effective method would be a swandive into a woodchipper. Post the video.
|
Verite Rendition
Caldari AUS Corporation CORE.
|
Posted - 2007.10.28 05:51:00 -
[254]
Originally by: velocity7 You guys do realize that jump freighters are being introduced to replace this aspect of carriers?
Sure, there will be a handful of them available a couple of months after the change goes live, where you can pay 10-15bil for one and train up a boatload of new skills to level 5 to fly the thing. The jump freighter is not the solution, it's probably not even going to make it in to Rev 3. ---- AUS Corp Lead Megalomanic EVE Automated Influence Map: Keeping Down The Clone Business Since 2007AD |
Brungar
Caldari Adeptus Illuminati Aegis Authentica Ethereal Dawn
|
Posted - 2007.10.28 07:15:00 -
[255]
Originally by: Verite Rendition
Originally by: velocity7 You guys do realize that jump freighters are being introduced to replace this aspect of carriers?
Sure, there will be a handful of them available a couple of months after the change goes live, where you can pay 10-15bil for one and train up a boatload of new skills to level 5 to fly the thing. The jump freighter is not the solution, it's probably not even going to make it in to Rev 3.
And that's exactly it. It's looking suspiciously much like I'll have to train and invest loads to be able to do what I currently (after lots of training and investment) already can do. I find this incredibly demotivating, and I'm sure I'm not the only one at that. If I am going to invest loads in something, I want it to enable something cool that I could not already do.
"War is a continuation of commerce by other means" - Unknown Caldari philosopher
|
Lasati
|
Posted - 2007.10.28 07:56:00 -
[256]
Edited by: Lasati on 28/10/2007 08:02:47 Edited by: Lasati on 28/10/2007 08:00:57
Originally by: Alski
If this change does go through, IÆm almost going to be amused at the drama that will follow, all the people who think this change is a good thing are going to be VERY UNamused when the following happens:
-Weekley mandatory freighter ops to bring in fuel -Daily transport/hauler escorts to get pos fuel out in the field -Alliances losing space because they no-longer have any means of sustaining there posÆs. -Alliances losing outposts because there freighters canÆt get through enemy space/fleets/entry points
So this is just my opinion. But why are these bullet points a bad thing? I think you're right that running fuel shouldn't fall on the shoulders of a couple of guys. That is selfish.
Now when I think about "authenticity" of building a space empire, I think about battles happening over supply lines, alliances losing territory because they can't get fuel through enemy space, etc. For those who say it already is about this -- I have never heard a CTA for attacking a fuel runner.
I don't think about building a space empire as sticking freighters in the belly of a carrier, and having a couple of guys whose job it is to do this & they support everyone else.
I think there should be escort duties for guarding fuel runners... and it should matter because fuel running is distributed across the corp. And if your corp / alliance can't field guys for daily / weekly escort, they shouldn't own a POS.
|
Kayl Breinhar
Gallente GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.28 08:14:00 -
[257]
Edited by: Kayl Breinhar on 28/10/2007 08:14:39
Originally by: velocity7 You guys do realize that jump freighters are being introduced to replace this aspect of carriers?
And hopefully you realize that no one can train and complete Freighter V before this nerf goes live. That's at least a 20-30 day period where 0.0 logistics are paralyzed.
This change needed to be broadcast far in advance, not just dumped in our laps.
|
Ungdall
Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.28 08:31:00 -
[258]
Originally by: velocity7 You guys do realize that jump freighters are being introduced to replace this aspect of carriers?
It's cute when you post without reading a thread. So cute, it makes one tempted to wear your hands like gloves.
|
Alski
Gallente Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.28 09:52:00 -
[259]
Originally by: Lasati Edited by: Lasati on 28/10/2007 08:02:47 Edited by: Lasati on 28/10/2007 08:00:57
Originally by: Alski
If this change does go through, I’m almost going to be amused at the drama that will follow, all the people who think this change is a good thing are going to be VERY UNamused when the following happens:
-Weekley mandatory freighter ops to bring in fuel -Daily transport/hauler escorts to get pos fuel out in the field -Alliances losing space because they no-longer have any means of sustaining there pos’s. -Alliances losing outposts because there freighters can’t get through enemy space/fleets/entry points
So this is just my opinion. But why are these bullet points a bad thing? I think you're right that running fuel shouldn't fall on the shoulders of a couple of guys. That is selfish.
Now when I think about "authenticity" of building a space empire, I think about battles happening over supply lines, alliances losing territory because they can't get fuel through enemy space, etc. For those who say it already is about this -- I have never heard a CTA for attacking a fuel runner.
I don't think about building a space empire as sticking freighters in the belly of a carrier, and having a couple of guys whose job it is to do this & they support everyone else.
I think there should be escort duties for guarding fuel runners... and it should matter because fuel running is distributed across the corp. And if your corp / alliance can't field guys for daily / weekly escort, they shouldn't own a POS.
What you think is irrelevant.
Sorry if that comes off as a bit harsh, but it’s a simple fact that freighters are SO INCREADABLEY SLOW and 0.0 space is SO LARGE that it takes anything from THREE TO SIX HOURS to make a freighter run from empire to 0.0, I guess my alliance is lucky since we are “only” about 30 jumps in from empire, many alliances are double that, back when I lived in what is now deep RA space, it was more like SEVENTY jumps.
Now… try to imagine doing a five or six hour, 60 jump freighter run, and then being told “thanks guys, oh and btw please show up next week, we’ve got to do ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY JUMPS BECAUSE THE DAMN FREIGHTER NEEDS TO GO BACK TO EMPIRE AND THEN BACK IN TO 0.0 AGAIN!!!”
Do you understand yet? Do you not realise that people WILL NOT DO THIS?
- *signature removed - please email us to find out why (include a link) - Jacques([email protected]) (combat) Patch belonging to CCP hits your drones, wrecking their liberty and freedom. |
Jiks
Caldari Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.10.28 10:41:00 -
[260]
CCP,
Is it too much to ask for a simple statement whether you intend to do this or not?
Thanks.
If this is implemented now it will,again, make fleet fights worse as we can't load ammo in the ships and even worse destroy alliance logistics.
You are planning jump freighters that will gradually replace the current carrier role but will not be available imediately or ever to the smaller alliances. Why there is need to break something that works with no workable alternative in sight I really cannot imagine.
Unfortunately imagining your motives is all I can do as, again, there has been no mention of this in a Dev blog.
Jiks
|
|
Lady Beauvoir
Slutty Witches
|
Posted - 2007.10.28 11:38:00 -
[261]
I'm rather curious: I don't understand what they are hoping to accomplish with this change?
I mean, I can still fit a Moros to carry 70808m^3 (T2 expanders and T1 rigs, Revelation will carry loads more and SISI rorqual will carry 150000m^3 without expanders or rigs), whereas my old carrier carried less. I can still use the Moros to carry modules and such but use the carrier to move assembled ships, since the size of the SMB was increased. Jump hauling will stay, and jump freighters probably won't be used, the jump hauling just takes more jumps and a more expensive ship than before. It just takes skilling for a new ship, and buying of said ship, but in principle, nothing will change. Some groups will probably hiccup for a week when they need to purchase their ships, but that's it.
Why was the SMB size increased, I wonder?
"Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connaet point." -Blaise Pascal, PensTes, 4, 277 |
Jaleera Kaisin
Amarr Eve Defence Force Praesidium Libertatis
|
Posted - 2007.10.28 11:48:00 -
[262]
Sigh . . . . .
Only things I use my carrier for is repositioning ships in a ready combat state (You know - fueled and ammoed up and ready to roll), and moving my stuff (modules etc in time of emergency)
Damn thing is too fragile for small scale combat, to expensive to move lots of items already, has little offensive capability and now has the main existing useful feature taken away.
This nerf takes away my ONLY reason for me using a carrier.
It also takes away my ability to relocate to 0.0 without making an insane number of jumps losing valuable items on the way.
Words really escape me . . . but I'll try.
so far in the last few months I've had to redeploy everything I own in 0.0 space a number of times due to alliance moves, corp changes and war, having had EVERYTHING i own locked in hostile stations twice in the last 2 years now I resolved that I'd rather quit the game than start all over yet again, This move by CCP will stop people from effectively being able to evacuate their gear in an emergency.
Are you deliberately TRYING to send us all back to empire.
I for one am just sick and tired of the nerfs, stealth nerfs and changes that CCP seem to be making at random that have a HUGE impact on players.
I have 4 accounts and use them regularly . . . . .after reading this thread and seeing the last few threads on carrier nerfs (and CCP's replies). I'm just gonna walk away for a bit and not play again until I see what changes go through to production. The future in this game just looks too depressing to bother right now.
If this one happens - effectively confining me to Empire or losing everything I own in case of emergency then I'm out of here.
Very disappointed in CCP over their sudden frenzied attack on carriers. Are they hoping that waves of repeated nerf threats will make us accept some because we get confused with what is happeneing?
And yes you can have my stuff if this change goes live.
|
Montaire
Genbuku. Daisho Syndicate
|
Posted - 2007.10.28 14:15:00 -
[263]
Rorqual - with expanders and its corp hangar array your at about 150k m3. Double what a carrier can do now.
C'mon people! You know that Iteron V, its an Industrial Ship. The Rorqual is a Capital Industrial Ship. You will note the Rorqual does not require Battleship 5 ? It requires Barge V, and Industry V.
Why cant we have a decent role for the carrier in combat, and a decent role for the Rorqual in industry.
Also, note that pre-positioning ships is EASIER now with the carrier, since you dont have ot know what ammo types your pilots can use. Just put the ammo in your corp hangar array and pilots can fill up on their way out. If they are not in your corp, just jettison it for them.
Originally by: Verite Rendition
Originally by: velocity7 You guys do realize that jump freighters are being introduced to replace this aspect of carriers?
Sure, there will be a handful of them available a couple of months after the change goes live, where you can pay 10-15bil for one and train up a boatload of new skills to level 5 to fly the thing. The jump freighter is not the solution, it's probably not even going to make it in to Rev 3.
|
infinityshok
|
Posted - 2007.10.28 15:09:00 -
[264]
Originally by: Montaire
Rorqual - with expanders and its corp hangar array your at about 150k m3. Double what a carrier can do now.
C'mon people! You know that Iteron V, its an Industrial Ship. The Rorqual is a Capital Industrial Ship. You will note the Rorqual does not require Battleship 5 ? It requires Barge V, and Industry V.
Why cant we have a decent role for the carrier in combat, and a decent role for the Rorqual in industry.
Also, note that pre-positioning ships is EASIER now with the carrier, since you dont have ot know what ammo types your pilots can use. Just put the ammo in your corp hangar array and pilots can fill up on their way out. If they are not in your corp, just jettison it for them.
Originally by: Verite Rendition
Originally by: velocity7 You guys do realize that jump freighters are being introduced to replace this aspect of carriers?
Sure, there will be a handful of them available a couple of months after the change goes live, where you can pay 10-15bil for one and train up a boatload of new skills to level 5 to fly the thing. The jump freighter is not the solution, it's probably not even going to make it in to Rev 3.
Im not expending the time and resources to fly another ship so it can be wasted after CCCP decides to nerf it at some point in the future. 450mil isk for another skill...training mining barge V...all to fly an overfed iteron. No. Certainly not after spending the massive time and resources I already have to fly a ship I already do.
That last comment about not knowing what ammo types to load and all...on that train of thought it would be easier to simply not bring any ammo and not have to worry about it in the first place. Ammo is over rated anyway.
|
infinityshok
|
Posted - 2007.10.28 15:16:00 -
[265]
Originally by: Kayl Breinhar Edited by: Kayl Breinhar on 28/10/2007 08:14:39
Originally by: velocity7 You guys do realize that jump freighters are being introduced to replace this aspect of carriers?
And hopefully you realize that no one can train and complete Freighter V before this nerf goes live. That's at least a 20-30 day period where 0.0 logistics are paralyzed.
This change needed to be broadcast far in advance, not just dumped in our laps.
velocity7...you do realize that the current production requirements will make the jump freighter all but unattainable.
kayl...this change needs to be flushed down the toilet, its creators sent to a remote Siberian janitorial camp to spend the rest of their days using floor mops as girlfriends, and any threads concerning it permanently deleted so no future chest slapping, window licking, slobering short bus bandits get the idea to bring it up again.
|
Alais Wiccanfae
Gallente Templars of Space Freelancer Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.28 15:16:00 -
[266]
Originally by: Montaire
C'mon people! You know that Iteron V, its an Industrial Ship. The Rorqual is a Capital Industrial Ship. You will note the Rorqual does not require Battleship 5 ? It requires Barge V, and Industry V.
Why cant we have a decent role for the carrier in combat, and a decent role for the Rorqual in industry.
The rorquals got a great role in industry, gang mining and then hauling minerals from aforementioned mining op - any further hauling roles are coincidental, much like a carrier(which I will repeat is called a CARRIER, not a ship carrier or drone carrier, just a carrier).
A carriers role in combat - Fleet op: sit at a pos, give out 200/300m worth of hardware to other pilots to enjoy and dole out cap/shields/armour/ships to said pilots - funfunfun Alternatively enter the battle in the hopes of having some fun, get damped, tackled and then drilled by snipers whilst being too lagged out to do **** about it.
Gang combat: Get pinned by 1 or 2 tacklers whilst your support who are controlling your fighters seeing as your damped to hell and back die off, one by one, because funny enough, a damped carrier can't rep friendlies. Then nervously wait(assuming your tank holds) to see if your tacklers friends show up before yours do - note the carrier at this point has provided an island to fight around and hasn't actually contributed one whit.
Like 70% of other carrier pilots I got mine for the logistical side of things combat action is just part of the package. If I wanted to be combatcentric I would have trained for a dreadnaught.
For the people who like to make r/l references, a carrier in todays warfare makes almost every other ship about it redundant, it can launch cruise missiles, ECM planes and Radar specialised planes, submarine hunting planes, anti air planes - so if we're going to talk about how r/l carriers don't haul ships with cargo in them, are we going to mention how they are solopwnmobiles? this is EVE<-----not----->Earth
If this goes through it will be the nail in the coffin for my 3 accounts.
/me waits patiently for Age of Reckoning
|
Jack Toad
Federal Space Academy Red Army Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.28 15:25:00 -
[267]
WE. DEMAND. OFFICIAL. ANSWER. period.
PS: Went to write the list of 20 Russian unique bad words describing the upcoming change
|
Zachri
Minmatar IVC Consortium INVICTUS.
|
Posted - 2007.10.28 15:58:00 -
[268]
So, as Level 3 has been blocking Sisi for me since a while now, what are the current exact build requirements and processes for the T2 Jump Freighters, and the exact M3 changes to carriers, Rorquals and that new mini Rorqual called Orca?
|
Trent Nichols
Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.28 18:12:00 -
[269]
Edited by: Trent Nichols on 28/10/2007 18:11:46 Yes CCP, this silence is both cowardly and disrespectful.
I understand that the jump carrier is coming and I have seen the buffs to the Rorq but neither of those makes nerfing the carrier in any way sensible. If you don't want the carrier to be the premier logistics ship just make these two other capital ships better at logistics and watch carriers slowly fall to the wayside.
Stupid stupid stupid CCP! Do you like ****ing off your customers!?
|
Vanye Inovske
Two Brothers Mining Corp. Friend or Enemy
|
Posted - 2007.10.28 19:43:00 -
[270]
Originally by: Zachri So, as Level 3 has been blocking Sisi for me since a while now, what are the current exact build requirements and processes for the T2 Jump Freighters, and the exact M3 changes to carriers, Rorquals and that new mini Rorqual called Orca?
Jump Freighters exist only as an entry on the Variations tab of regular freighters. You can get the showinfo on jump freighters that way, but they're clearly not finished (for ex all races use Nitrogen Isotopes for jump fuel). So far as I can tell there's no way to see blueprints, so any guesses at build requirements are just guesses. However, if it follows the trend of other T2 ships we'd be looking at say 3-4x the build cost of a T1 freighter at ME 0, which moves up to at least 5x T1 since all invented bpcs will be at ME -7 (80% wastage) because you'd be insane to install a freighter invention job with anything besides the best chance decryptor. Tack on invention costs and a healthy premium for the extreme rarity due to the long copy times and we're probably looking at 5B-ish build costs and 10B-ish open market prices. That's just a guess, though. I'm still hoping that they'll come to their senses and make them Tier 2 freighters with seeded bpos and a pricetag in the 1.5B range, and require a more reasonable Freighter IV + jump skills.
Carrier cargo and corp hangar sizes are unchanged. Ship maintenance bays have been doubled to 1M m3.
Rorqual cargo has been doubled to 40k m3, and ship maintenance bay has been bumped up from 800k m3 to 1M m3. Corp hangar size is unchanged. Rigged and expanded you get 125k m3 or so of space which has the advantage of being contiguous. Plus, you could presumably fill it with GSCs for even more space.
The Orca is just an idea at this point, and won't be in the patch. Though frankly, given the mostly unfinished state of jump freighter I'm not sure they'll make it into the patch either.
If the no cargo in the maintenance bay thing goes ahead, and my guess is that it will, the Rorqual is the only near-term option for deep space logistics this side of jump portalling T1 freighters. The unfortunate aspect of all this is that it nerfs carrying combat vessels in carriers as well, and that is presumably the whole point of that maintenance bay. If CCP is deadset on nerfing the hauler carrier (and I believe that they are) they really ought to disallow the fitting of expanders on ships in the carrier bay rather than this silliness of disallowing cargo entirely.
|
|
PauZotoh Zhaan
Teylas Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.10.28 20:00:00 -
[271]
Whats the point of carriers/mothership with this nerf and comming nerf for launching drones/fighters?
Carrier wont be able to haul stuff (carrier - carry stuff?) Wont be able to do lvl5+ missions Carriers wont be able to do anything besides sitting at POS launching fighters Is this your secret way to lower lag coused by fighters, ppl stop using ships which are useless - no lag from fighters. IS this you way for having fun? Becouse I dont get it. Some "nerfing" is needed, some I can live with it but not the capital ships nerfing. My subscription for 4 accounts ends in about 3 monhts, and when I read those changes Im thinking should I pay. And no you cant have my stuff, I would prefer to self destruct ships I have including mothership.
|
Draxon Vahldorr
|
Posted - 2007.10.28 20:27:00 -
[272]
STOP TRYING TO GET RID OF ANYONE WHO HAS PLAYED THIS GAME FOR MORE THAN A FEW MONTHS!
|
Fruchten
Caldari Dirty Deeds Corp. Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2007.10.28 21:09:00 -
[273]
If these idiotic changes go through, Ill be docking my carrier and be ****ed at the knowledge that I have spend billions of isk and months of training to fly a ship not worth having anymore. Hell we might as well not train anyting ever again and all fly t1 ships, because what will CCP decide to ruin next.
|
FungusAmongus
|
Posted - 2007.10.28 21:25:00 -
[274]
Why won't they respond?
|
infinityshok
|
Posted - 2007.10.28 21:53:00 -
[275]
Originally by: FungusAmongus Why won't they respond?
Standard procedure for any business when the only thing that they can say would **** people off further. Lawyers recommend the same thing to their clients.
|
Eloryan Persago
The Greater Goon GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.28 22:08:00 -
[276]
Originally by: FungusAmongus Why won't they respond?
Why would they, this is the equivalent of your wife asking "does my bum look big in this?" just ride it out and hope she forgot she asked the question.
|
Druadan
Gallente Aristotle Enterprises Ethereal Dawn
|
Posted - 2007.10.28 22:45:00 -
[277]
Come on you cowardly devs, show yourselves.
Screw you, Jacques. |
Michuh
M. Corp M. PIRE
|
Posted - 2007.10.28 23:08:00 -
[278]
CCP compare carrier mechanics to the real world stockmarket.. These changes are making investors nervous.. your proposed changes to carriers and motherships have pretty much destroyed my future goals in this game.. And recently I've spent more time grumbling in chat with my friends, and spinning my ship in station, than actually playing the game.
I'm seriously reconsidering the value of my subscription to this game, on my 3 accounts.
|
infinityshok
|
Posted - 2007.10.29 00:26:00 -
[279]
Originally by: Michuh CCP compare carrier mechanics to the real world stockmarket.. These changes are making investors nervous.. your proposed changes to carriers and motherships have pretty much destroyed my future goals in this game.. And recently I've spent more time grumbling in chat with my friends, and spinning my ship in station, than actually playing the game.
I'm seriously reconsidering the value of my subscription to this game, on my 3 accounts.
They dont care. There was a blog at some point where the dev said he didnt care about losing subscribers. And Ive been experiencing the same thing....sitting in a station watching cars drive around, staring into windows hoping for a cheap thrill, and spanking to the 'pleasure hub' ads for an encore.
|
Alski
Gallente Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.29 00:30:00 -
[280]
Originally by: Michuh your proposed changes to carriers and motherships have pretty much destroyed my future goals in this game.. And recently I've spent more time grumbling in chat with my friends, and spinning my ship in station, than actually playing the game.
I have to confess i've been much the same for the last week, granted i've also got some nasty frikkin winter cold which is makeing me grumpy anyway... but yeah, i've got a dedicated char that does nothing but fly a carrier which is prepearing himself to get a nice hard kick in the nuts, and my main is current skilling for gallente CS's... and got slaped with the Eos nurf, and also loves flying the Ishkur... which also got nurfed... ugh
Haveing a realllllly bad week here -
(combat) Patch belonging to CCP hits your drones, wrecking their liberty and freedom.
|
|
Verite Rendition
Caldari AUS Corporation CORE.
|
Posted - 2007.10.29 00:45:00 -
[281]
Originally by: Montaire
Rorqual - with expanders and its corp hangar array your at about 150k m3. Double what a carrier can do now.
C'mon people! You know that Iteron V, its an Industrial Ship. The Rorqual is a Capital Industrial Ship. You will note the Rorqual does not require Battleship 5 ? It requires Barge V, and Industry V.
Why cant we have a decent role for the carrier in combat, and a decent role for the Rorqual in industry.
Also, note that pre-positioning ships is EASIER now with the carrier, since you dont have ot know what ammo types your pilots can use. Just put the ammo in your corp hangar array and pilots can fill up on their way out. If they are not in your corp, just jettison it for them.
Originally by: Verite Rendition
Originally by: velocity7 You guys do realize that jump freighters are being introduced to replace this aspect of carriers?
Sure, there will be a handful of them available a couple of months after the change goes live, where you can pay 10-15bil for one and train up a boatload of new skills to level 5 to fly the thing. The jump freighter is not the solution, it's probably not even going to make it in to Rev 3.
Monty, normally you're a very astute fellow, but this time you're as blind as shortsighted as a kid playing with glowing nuclear waste. The Rorq makes everything about hauling harder, from the shorter jump range, to the higher price, to the fact that it's a flying deathtrap. People have already invested years of time and money in to carrier logistics. This change will force everyone to build brand new more complex routes, and as an added side bonus Oxygen Isotope prices will go through the roof due to demand.
This is a very bad change. ---- AUS Corp Lead Megalomanic EVE Automated Influence Map: Keeping Down The Clone Business Since 2007AD |
Raketefrau
Caldari Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.29 01:21:00 -
[282]
Originally by: Verite Rendition This change will force everyone to build brand new more complex routes, and as an added side bonus Oxygen Isotope prices will go through the roof due to demand.
This is a very bad change.
Hooray, more towers to fuel.
Thanks, CCP. Really, my RL job isn't enough work, so I appreciate you making my favorite game feel more and more like I have a second job.
signature removed - please email us to find out why (include a link to the image URL) - Jacques([email protected]) |
Alski
Gallente Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.29 02:32:00 -
[283]
Originally by: Raketefrau
Originally by: Verite Rendition This change will force everyone to build brand new more complex routes, and as an added side bonus Oxygen Isotope prices will go through the roof due to demand.
This is a very bad change.
Hooray, more towers to fuel.
Thanks, CCP. Really, my RL job isn't enough work, so I appreciate you making my favorite game feel more and more like I have a second job.
I feel your pain mate, allthough tbh pos logistics allready ARE a second job i don't have to tell you that this is why we're at ~290 odd posts in this thread now, if it gets any harder... ugh, don't even want to think about it. -
(combat) Patch belonging to CCP hits your drones, wrecking their liberty and freedom.
|
Ket Halpak
Cold-Fury Southern Cross Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.29 03:25:00 -
[284]
I dont understand this change at all. The logistics of 0.0 corps is dependant on carriers. There is just no other viable alternative to get assets around 0.0 space.
If the current change of no cargo in a maintanence bay remains, then it will cripple the logistical capabilities of the majority of 0.0 space holders.
Why CCP are you doing this to us?
|
hankey
Minmatar The xDEATHx Squadron Legion of xXDEATHXx
|
Posted - 2007.10.29 06:18:00 -
[285]
Dammit... i don't wanna to train and buy (spend a few bill) for jumping freighter.... Simply to be able to haul fuel for POSes
|
hankey
Minmatar The xDEATHx Squadron Legion of xXDEATHXx
|
Posted - 2007.10.29 06:20:00 -
[286]
Ket is right
|
Perry
Amarr The X-Trading Company Mostly Harmless
|
Posted - 2007.10.29 09:29:00 -
[287]
Just make Industrials 2 Million mŠ unpacked. Dont remove the ability to put Combat ships with ammunition and cap boosters into the hangar of carriers!! can you image every one having to board a ship AND PICK UP AMMO/STUFF IT AT THE CARRIER? Most dumb change ever. ________________ Rev 3 Patchnotes: Amarr Oompf! -Apocalypse is no longer the worst Battleship! Paladin is. -Redeemer costs 1b isk and cant cloak! -Devoter brings more fail to Amarr Cruisers |
Doxs Roxs
White Wolves Defence league The OSS
|
Posted - 2007.10.29 09:47:00 -
[288]
Im a carrier pilot, I didnt mind the nerf to the number of directly controlled fighters becouse you could atleast bring friends to support you and get those fighters on the field anyway.
However, if this makes it to the TQ I will be quite ****ed, but I will probably be ****ed for a different reason then most others.
I think its illogical and its a huge nerf to the carriers combat logistic capabilities! I can bring spare ships to support my fleet, but non of em can carry ammo so now people have to open the corp hangar in the middle of a fight to pick up some ammo?!?
Please for the love of god, nerf the carriers in a logical way instead of bending game mechanics into some sort of illogical soup that just confuses people.
Im still dissapointed that pilots cant pilot their ships while docking in the carrier so that they can tag along on the jump...
They should have made the carrier a logistical ship from the beginning. Fighters should not have been introduced in their current shape or form, instead the carrier should be able to carry wast amounts of player controlled fighters.
Pilots would dock in the carrier with their pod and then remote control fighters. They would still pilot them like any normal ship, but when they get killed they would be able to just undock another fighter. (pod is still docked in carrier, so pilots cannot get podded till the carrier pops)
Meanwhile the carrier pilot itself would be more focused on logistics and should only be able to field the normal number of 5 drones under his control. Remote repairs etc would be his primary focus, since the carrier no longer wields tons of damage I think it could be given a huge boost to its targetting range and its scan resolution so that it can quickly target those that are damaged and need repairs.
This would mean that 10+ people would be required for the carrier to be used to full effect!
Some say it would be a huge nerf, personally I think it would be great fun for both the carrier pilot and the people piloting its fighters.
Fighters would also have to be made cheaper and the carrier given the ability to carry up towards 40-50 fighters so that each player would have 4-5 spare fighters. I also think different fighters should be introduced, giving some webs, scrams, painters etc. further raising their utility.
Fighters could also be replaced with frigates/ceptors in this concept, however it would introduce fitting problems and skill requirements.
Then again, thats just my wishes... :)
Regards /Doxs After 9 months of being a "!" face, I now discover that Im butt ugly instead... |
djenghis jan
Amarr Debiloff's Vanguard
|
Posted - 2007.10.29 11:03:00 -
[289]
The fun thing will be that no one will train for a jump freighter because it will put pressure on you to specialize in utter boring duties. Who ever gets paid for their time doing pos refuel?
I vote for a remote fuel array that allows to refuel using a single pos :-)
|
Jaleera Kaisin
Amarr Eve Defence Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.29 11:38:00 -
[290]
Originally by: velocity7 You guys do realize that jump freighters are being introduced to replace this aspect of carriers?
Jump frieghters WON'T allow you to transport assembled combat capable ships, you'll only be able to transport packagesd vessels, a MAJOR difference.
Carriers support function in battle (dropping new ships to pilots who just lost one) will be rendered useless by this move as the ships will have no ammo/scan probes/cap rechargers etc etc making the ship maint array virtually useless in any tactical sense.
Also major headache in micro managment for large scale removal or forced moves in 0.0 space.
I don't haul POS fuel but . . .
The other weekend I had to move 40 ships, because we had to leave our chunk of 0.0 it took me all weekend with around 150 million in jump fuel costs. Each of those ships was fully loaded with ammo/charges etc and spare fittings (to change Blasters for Rails on a HAC for instance, or difference between ratting and Fleet fittings for BC), as well as that I transported 4 full industrials full of modules. This was all done because we were moving out of our home station and HAD to move all of our gear. Under the new system this would be either impossible or extremely difficult, time consuming and tedious.
Under teh new system I would be able to move ships but would have to first remove all cargo, ammo and new fittings - find somewhere to put them and then reassmble at the other end adding HOURS of additional micro management and (if using carrier) - something in the region of 20 extra jumps - costing an enormous aamount more in fuel.
CCP's solution of attemping to force me to spend MORE time skilling up a jump freighter and spend billions more buying one, just so that I can have a whole new level of micro managment at the other end is very, very poor thinking.
|
|
Cosmic Flame
Gallente Federal Navy Academy
|
Posted - 2007.10.29 11:46:00 -
[291]
Dear CCP Devs:
STOP SMOKING POT AND LEAVE THE GOD DAMNED CARRIERS ALONE!!!!!
Thank you
|
Druadan
Gallente Aristotle Enterprises Ethereal Dawn
|
Posted - 2007.10.29 19:48:00 -
[292]
Bump.
Screw you, Jacques. |
Stellar Vix
State War Academy
|
Posted - 2007.10.29 20:06:00 -
[293]
Originally by: infinityshok
CCP has been advertising titans since '03...I still have the instruction manual describing their features. How long did it take them to actually show up?
You have clearly stated you have no clue about anything related to anything. Please follow the example of CCP and nerf yourself immediately. The most effective method would be a swandive into a woodchipper. Post the video.
Go back to hauling stuff you carebear, seriously. You take a look a year ago and you take a look now, and you can see the immerse sharp increase of capitols everywhere, back then they where a rare site and something to be reckoned with. Now adays everyone brings 100s of ships to coutner a 20 man gang, pvp has changed, Im not sure what corner of the universe your sitting in but times have changed and its bad for the economy, player/allaince goals.
In the end I can see this nerf getting rid of the super empires that have spawned in 0.0 and imo they shouldnt add in jump freighters either, but its going to happen anyways.
Carriers are combat/support ships, but !%$%@$@# like yourself keep abusing them for things they arent intended to do.
If i had a choice on how to redo the carrier I would turn its ship bay into a real one, where you get so many slots for combat ships to dock, repair refit and launch combat specific ships along with fighter support. Then toughen their engineering and tank in triage mode and make the repair ability more useful.(like 4 frigates and 2 crusiers for carriers and 8 frigates and 4 cruisers for motherships)
Anywyas RSD nerf is also comming mabey you guys can stop whining about that too considering they are about 50% weaker and then some than they where before. Also if you idiots assigned your fighters the RSD wouldnt screw yoru ability to defend yourself, just yoru ability to keep everyone else alive.
But basically ccp stated they want to reinvent the carrier, if they want to make the carrier a new role and make it purposful again other than the overglorified jump freighter its being overused and abused for today.
But im willing to gamble Ive killed more people in pvp than some older carrier pilots ever did in thier civillian capitol ships.
SWA PVP |
BECKARD
Shadows of the Dead Aftermath Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.29 21:33:00 -
[294]
Yeah, CCP GG, you win, we lose, we should all quit and play hellokitty-online.com.
Spinning my ship in station and *****ing about CCP seems to be all I do in eve, pewpew isn't even fun hardly cause I spend too much time *****ing about some recent Fuhkd up thing CCP has done to further ruin and deny us pvp events or some stupid ass dev blog entry, wtf is wrong with this company? its been run to the ground recently by fools with blingfolds on and clubbing anything that gets in range of their nerfbats. <insert 1337 sig here, #ERROR/> |
Synyn
|
Posted - 2007.10.29 21:41:00 -
[295]
CCP YOU COWARDS ADMIT YOU ARE WRONG AND APOLOGTIZE NOW!!!! OR SUFFER OUR WRATH!!!
Oh and we'll keep the 1M M3 ship maitenance bay for you being dumbasses!
|
Kayl Breinhar
Gallente GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.29 21:44:00 -
[296]
Originally by: Synyn CCP YOU COWARDS ADMIT YOU ARE WRONG AND APOLOGTIZE NOW!!!! OR SUFFER OUR WRATH!!!
Oh and we'll keep the 1M M3 ship maitenance bay for you being dumbasses!
Wow, this is a unique and constructive way to convince them.
|
Ynos Fukse
|
Posted - 2007.10.29 21:50:00 -
[297]
Let's terminate the characters lol.
|
Jiks
Caldari Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.10.29 22:10:00 -
[298]
Seriously CCP,
Are you going to implement this or not? A simple yes/no would be great.
Obviously, I hope the answer is no for the reasons stated already.
Jiks
|
infinityshok
|
Posted - 2007.10.30 00:59:00 -
[299]
Originally by: Stellar Vix
Originally by: infinityshok
CCP has been advertising titans since '03...I still have the instruction manual describing their features. How long did it take them to actually show up?
You have clearly stated you have no clue about anything related to anything. Please follow the example of CCP and nerf yourself immediately. The most effective method would be a swandive into a woodchipper. Post the video.
Go back to hauling stuff you carebear, seriously. You take a look a year ago and you take a look now, and you can see the immerse sharp increase of capitols everywhere, back then they where a rare site and something to be reckoned with. Now adays everyone brings 100s of ships to coutner a 20 man gang, pvp has changed, Im not sure what corner of the universe your sitting in but times have changed and its bad for the economy, player/allaince goals.
In the end I can see this nerf getting rid of the super empires that have spawned in 0.0 and imo they shouldnt add in jump freighters either, but its going to happen anyways.
Carriers are combat/support ships, but !%$%@$@# like yourself keep abusing them for things they arent intended to do.
If i had a choice on how to redo the carrier I would turn its ship bay into a real one, where you get so many slots for combat ships to dock, repair refit and launch combat specific ships along with fighter support. Then toughen their engineering and tank in triage mode and make the repair ability more useful.(like 4 frigates and 2 crusiers for carriers and 8 frigates and 4 cruisers for motherships)
Anywyas RSD nerf is also comming mabey you guys can stop whining about that too considering they are about 50% weaker and then some than they where before. Also if you idiots assigned your fighters the RSD wouldnt screw yoru ability to defend yourself, just yoru ability to keep everyone else alive.
But basically ccp stated they want to reinvent the carrier, if they want to make the carrier a new role and make it purposful again other than the overglorified jump freighter its being overused and abused for today.
But im willing to gamble Ive killed more people in pvp than some older carrier pilots ever did in thier civillian capitol ships.
I stand by my original assessment of your clue-possessing skills. Your only valid use in life at this point is to provide for the entertainment of the eve community as a whole by removing yourself from the gene pool in the manner Ive already mentioned. Stop reading this and get going. Go on...
There is nothing in your post that has any validity other than being used as the perfect example of how NOT to have a constructive discussion.
Im hoping you take my advice on removing your defective heredity from the gene pool but in the event you dont please keep the following in mind in the inevitable event you decide to share with us more of your nonsensical rantings:
- this thread is about carrier rapage. not about any other module or nerf which you also have no clue about. - no one cares about your imaginary over inflated PVP kills
|
PC5
Bermuda Syndrome
|
Posted - 2007.10.30 01:20:00 -
[300]
Edited by: PC5 on 30/10/2007 01:23:02 2007 - capital nerfs online :0 Maybe next year will be better :/
I have an idea! Lets nerf server/game bugs ok? For most players yes but not for CCP :(
|
|
Ungdall
Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.30 03:38:00 -
[301]
Hey CCP, if you rally want to change something, try this: the only time you will get a message about your insurance is when you open the insurance tab in a station. Unless you do that, you have no way to know if your ship is still insured. Fix dat, bitte.
|
Gerry Ryan
|
Posted - 2007.10.30 05:15:00 -
[302]
Originally by: Ungdall Hey CCP, if you rally want to change something, try this: the only time you will get a message about your insurance is when you open the insurance tab in a station. Unless you do that, you have no way to know if your ship is still insured. Fix dat, bitte.
You can show info on the ship and there's an insurance tab last time I checked ?
|
baffy
Coalition of Nations Free Trade Zone.
|
Posted - 2007.10.30 05:46:00 -
[303]
can i have my 4 months worth of training back please
|
Stellar Vix
State War Academy
|
Posted - 2007.10.30 06:18:00 -
[304]
Quote: I stand by my original assessment of your clue-possessing skills. Your only valid use in life at this point is to provide for the entertainment of the eve community as a whole by removing yourself from the gene pool in the manner Ive already mentioned. Stop reading this and get going. Go on...
There is nothing in your post that has any validity other than being used as the perfect example of how NOT to have a constructive discussion.
Im hoping you take my advice on removing your defective heredity from the gene pool but in the event you dont please keep the following in mind in the inevitable event you decide to share with us more of your nonsensical rantings:
- this thread is about carrier rapage. not about any other module or nerf which you also have no clue about. - no one cares about your imaginary over inflated PVP kills
I know its about carriers and thier misuse you carebear. I was constructive I was making suggestions and ideas that could generate a favorable outcome and orignally I wasnt out to trool anything either.
I mean did you know there is another ship class known as the corvette in the data base thats very likely to never see trinity due to they way carriers and motherships dont work now on tranq? supposed to be a player controllable fighter with fighter assingment bonuses.
They arent removing your guys abilities to move and field ships, just the ability to abuse them to fuel massive empires and war machines that have been cranking out thosands of capitol ships within the last month, its sad to see that allainces and pilots are losing such ships faster than frigates and almost just as the same additude with them of losing an ibis, "oh i can get another one at the station" and dont call bs on that most of GS and friends made those statements numerous times.
Im not here for your entertainment, if anything I am here for your torment. <^-^>
Also I'm not genetically defective spending days on end whining about a stupid little game, Im just here for design aspects as I tinker around with the idea of being a developer for game systems myself one day.
SWA PVP |
Ungdall
Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.30 11:36:00 -
[305]
Originally by: Gerry Ryan
Originally by: Ungdall Hey CCP, if you rally want to change something, try this: the only time you will get a message about your insurance is when you open the insurance tab in a station. Unless you do that, you have no way to know if your ship is still insured. Fix dat, bitte.
You can show info on the ship and there's an insurance tab last time I checked ?
Correct, but when your insurance runs out you are supposed to receive an evemail telling you so. However, you only get that mail when you open the insurance tab, so you'll magically have multiple ships lose insurance all at once.
|
Varrakk
Chosen Path
|
Posted - 2007.10.30 11:45:00 -
[306]
How about nerfing something that is unbalanced, like nanoships/mwd? Just a wild idea I got..
|
aaron 619
Gallente DAB RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.30 12:45:00 -
[307]
One by one they try to fix something that isn't broken.
I can't wait to see how long the petition to halt the code for this is.
If a jump freighter is going to be T 1 and 2 bills, this won't be so bad...just one month tell I can fly one, yah....
I really want to see how this plays out....
beginning of the end for eve, maybe. I'm going to miss this game if it is.
If I can do it, so can you! If you choose not to, your fault, not mine! Stop Spamming the T1 Nerf Torp CCP. Invent a T2 boost Torp and use it! Balance is Important, EVE still being fun, Priceles |
infinityshok
|
Posted - 2007.10.30 12:48:00 -
[308]
Originally by: Stellar Vix
Quote: I stand by my original assessment of your clue-possessing skills. Your only valid use in life at this point is to provide for the entertainment of the eve community as a whole by removing yourself from the gene pool in the manner Ive already mentioned. Stop reading this and get going. Go on...
There is nothing in your post that has any validity other than being used as the perfect example of how NOT to have a constructive discussion.
Im hoping you take my advice on removing your defective heredity from the gene pool but in the event you dont please keep the following in mind in the inevitable event you decide to share with us more of your nonsensical rantings:
- this thread is about carrier rapage. not about any other module or nerf which you also have no clue about. - no one cares about your imaginary over inflated PVP kills
I know its about carriers and thier misuse you carebear. I was constructive I was making suggestions and ideas that could generate a favorable outcome and orignally I wasnt out to trool anything either.
I mean did you know there is another ship class known as the corvette in the data base thats very likely to never see trinity due to they way carriers and motherships dont work now on tranq? supposed to be a player controllable fighter with fighter assingment bonuses.
They arent removing your guys abilities to move and field ships, just the ability to abuse them to fuel massive empires and war machines that have been cranking out thosands of capitol ships within the last month, its sad to see that allainces and pilots are losing such ships faster than frigates and almost just as the same additude with them of losing an ibis, "oh i can get another one at the station" and dont call bs on that most of GS and friends made those statements numerous times.
Carriers are not being 'misused.' Every ship in this game has positive and negative attributes programmed to them by the developers. These attributes are being properly used by anyone and everyone who decides to put in the time and effort to use them. Short of hacking the code or finding a bug/exploit, nothing can be misused.
WTF are you talking about...every ship in the game is being produced in as massive of a quantity as they can be sold. With that clueless train of thought every ship in the game would be eliminated until all that is left would be shuttles. Before you make these posts with your misinformed statistics you need to come down off whatever illegal narcotic you are on. Carriers are not being lost at anywhere near the rate of frigates and for the cost in both time and isk that carriers entail, they sure as hell better be effective ships.
Carriers and dreads are the only effective means of hauling the required material to 0.0 space. Freighters are not acceptable. The new t2 freighters, with their current requirements, are not acceptable.
You have made it plainly clear you dont like the way 0.0 is being run which leaves you with the only option of taking your sorry noob self back to jita and mining some veld. Good luck with that and dont hurt yourself.
Originally by: Stellar Vix
Quote: Im not here for your entertainment, if anything I am here for your torment. <^-^>
You flatter yourself. The only thing you get from me is pity you sad pathetic deluded little troll.
Originally by: Stellar Vix
Quote: Also I'm not genetically defective spending days on end whining about a stupid little game
Once again...your blaring knack for stating the obvious is apparent. Or lack of.
Originally by: Stellar Vix
Quote: Im just here for design aspects as I tinker around with the idea of being a developer for game systems myself one day.
Fortunately that will never happen.
Your CEO needs to change your in-game title to 'clueless.' Wait...youre in a NOOB corp. And not even old enough to fly a carrier. That in itself disqualifies you from ever posting on the forums again. Noob.
|
Artorius Pearson
Caldari 3B Legio IX Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.30 13:53:00 -
[309]
Originally by: Gor Kraon So you can carry a small gang of frigates/cruisers but they can't have ammo/charges/drones in them? Whats the point of a carrier being able to carry ships then?
If you want to nerf carriers carrying industrials, just make them friggin huge so they don't fit in a carrier.
SIGNED
|
HydroSan
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.30 17:00:00 -
[310]
CCP, are you going to comment on this at all? Even a nod that you acknowledge dissent?
|
|
|
CCP Gangleri
|
Posted - 2007.10.30 17:15:00 -
[311]
Carrier != Hauler
Ships will be allowed to carry ammo in their cargo hold even while inside a ship maintenance bay. As it stands now carriers have a ship maintenance bay of 1m on Sisi. Nothing on Sisi is ever final. Please provide constructive feedback with minimal misinformation and speculation where possible.
I reiterate:
Carrier != Hauler
|
|
Riley Craven
Caldari Copacetic Corporation
|
Posted - 2007.10.30 17:23:00 -
[312]
Originally by: CCP Gangleri Carrier != Hauler
Ships will be allowed to carry ammo in their cargo hold even while inside a ship maintenance bay. As it stands now carriers have a ship maintenance bay of 1m on Sisi. Nothing on Sisi is ever final. Please provide constructive feedback with minimal misinformation and speculation where possible.
I reiterate:
Carrier != Hauler
You seem to have forgotten one simple fact.... Carriers have ship bay, carriers have a corp bay, carriers have a cargo bay...
Therefore Carrier = Hauler
In fact this statement also works Any Ship with a cargo bay = hauler
Just in case you arent clear...
Main Entry: haul+er Pronunciation: \ˈhȯ-lər\ Function: noun Date: 1674 : one that hauls:
Poor logic skills ftl....
|
Ford Cruller
|
Posted - 2007.10.30 17:26:00 -
[313]
Edited by: Ford Cruller on 30/10/2007 17:27:26
Originally by: CCP Gangleri Carrier != Hauler
It's super that you think that, really, but could you please elaborate on how you do intend for us to haul? As it stands we are seeing our 2+ billion investment turned into a jump driving Iteron Mark 4 with absolutely no compensation for our wasted time and money.
P.S. A dreadnought can hold more than a pimped out Iteron Mark 5, do they need to be nerfed too?
|
HydroSan
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.30 17:37:00 -
[314]
Originally by: CCP Gangleri Carrier != Hauler
Ships will be allowed to carry ammo in their cargo hold even while inside a ship maintenance bay. As it stands now carriers have a ship maintenance bay of 1m on Sisi. Nothing on Sisi is ever final. Please provide constructive feedback with minimal misinformation and speculation where possible.
I reiterate:
Carrier != Hauler
Yes, we understood "Carrier != Hauler" when the GSC nerf came in. You guys made that very clear.
But as it stands, nobody will be able to use the Jump Freighter in time for this. You're leaving a lot of alliances (those without Titans) high and dry by rolling out this cargo nerf at the exact same time as releasing the substitute. How are alliances supposed to cope with POS logistics in the time gap left between the transition of Carriers to Jump Freighters?
If you want people to feel better about the changes (and if you really must implement them), hold off the carrier nerf and allow people to train up for and produce the jump freighters. Also, seriously consider making the jump freighters teir two and not tech two. This will be the major brick wall of people getting into them, because inventing them is going to be an absolute pain and will further lengthen the transition period of carrier -> jump freighters.
As with any change to logistics, people are not so much angry at the change, but angry that there is no mature substitute to take its place. These changes could be held over to Trinity 1.1, when people are finally getting their hands on the new freighters and getting their skills up to par. And you can bet people are going to be training as hard as they can for them.
|
Grayton
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.30 19:03:00 -
[315]
Originally by: CCP Gangleri Carrier != Hauler
Ships will be allowed to carry ammo in their cargo hold even while inside a ship maintenance bay. As it stands now carriers have a ship maintenance bay of 1m on Sisi. Nothing on Sisi is ever final. Please provide constructive feedback with minimal misinformation and speculation where possible.
I reiterate:
Carrier != Hauler
What kind of utterly worthless reply is this? You urge us to only "provide constructive feedback with minimal misinformation and speculation where possible" yet you fail to respond in any larger capacity about all of the valid points that people have raised. Oh who cares about the fact there will be a months-long gap between when rev3 comes outs and when people will finally be able to use jump freighters, carriers aren't meant to be haulers so not providing a viable alternative immediately at the same time as release is completely ok! Because as we all know logistics should be horrifically tedious and anything that makes it easier and is immediately available is just wrong and against the grand plan!
And let's just further ignore the fact that carriers have been in the game for something like two years now, and until the GSC nerf it was never, EVER implied that using carriers in a hauling capacity was somehow against what they were intended, and hundreds if not thousands of people trained into them for this reason because they were never told it wasn't how it was intended, and used them for this purpose for years. Noooo, instead since it doesn't fit into CCP's "grand design" for the carrier it must be nerfed to hell and back, because as we all know anything CCP decides on as the set path for this game is absolutely, positively right and should never be questioned.
I am going to find it so hilarious when for those months people are using expanded dreads to do the hauling work.
The only thing I can infer from this post is that maybe we should wait for more finalized stats on sisi. I always find it hilarious though that CCP releases what are essentially game breaking changes for some people, then releases an alternative weeks later onto sisi that had been "planned all along" after all of the public outcry. Maybe, just maybe, if you've got an alternative like a lowslot mod or some such, you should release it at the same time as you release the gigantic nerf so that you don't get the gigantic public outcry. Until then, saying bs like "nothing on sis is ever final" and "minimal misinformation and speculation where possible" is worthless because you rarely actually tell us anything and just implement changes without any documentation or reason behind it. The fact that it can take days, even weeks of constant outcry should be indicative of the fact that maybe, just maybe, to prevent "minimal misinformation and speculation where possible you should DOCUMENT THE CHANGES YOU MAKE WHEN YOU MAKE THEM EVEN IF IT'S ON THE TEST SERVER. You can't just say "Nothing on Sisi is ever final" and expect us to sit down and take it when a vast, vast majority of the big changes you put into Sisi pre-patch are actually final and do go into the live game.
Oh, and since you guys love to argue semantics it seems, last time I checked, the carriers weren't doing the hauling. It was the haulers inside the carriers doing the hauling.
|
Alexandra Frigaro
Celestial Horizon Corp. Valainaloce
|
Posted - 2007.10.30 19:13:00 -
[316]
Originally by: HydroSan As with any change to logistics, people are not so much angry at the change, but angry that there is no mature substitute to take its place. These changes could be held over to Trinity 1.1, when people are finally getting their hands on the new freighters and getting their skills up to par. And you can bet people are going to be training as hard as they can for them.
HeŠs totaly right. IŠm using my carrier to haul crap around, but dont want to train my combat caracter to freighter 5 to use the jump freighter. My industrial/miner caracter needs 73 days of skilltraining to use the frieghter with decent jump skills. ItŠs the time in between that is the issue. Just a idea, why no have a cargo module for the regular carrier to convert drone space to cargo space? It would fit the new idea to have specialized carriers. What otehr drawbacks that module could have i leave upto you.
|
Lady Beauvoir
Slutty Witches
|
Posted - 2007.10.30 19:14:00 -
[317]
Edited by: Lady Beauvoir on 30/10/2007 19:14:51
Originally by: CCP Gangleri Carrier != Hauler
Ships will be allowed to carry ammo in their cargo hold even while inside a ship maintenance bay. As it stands now carriers have a ship maintenance bay of 1m on Sisi. Nothing on Sisi is ever final. Please provide constructive feedback with minimal misinformation and speculation where possible.
I reiterate:
Carrier != Hauler
Could you explain your plan for the ships inside the SMB? What can they hold inside? Ammo? Cap booster charges? Scan probes? Obviously those, right? The new scripts too (I assume they use the ammo code)?
How about bubbles? I assume you can't fit modules inside them and put the ships into SBM, so does that rule out the bubbles? Replacement racial ECM modules?
Oh, and if I could add some constructive feedback, could you either increase the size of the corp hangar bay (so the carrier could carry few more of the capital sized mods and some replacement fuel) or decrease the size of the capital sized modules on SiSi?
Since you seem to want to keep the carrier's role as something else as a hauler, are you perhaps considering doing something to dreads and their hauling capacity? I'd like to know what kind of alternatives for jump hauling we might have in the near future while jump freighters are being invented. Skills take awful lot of time to train and pilots won't last long in the battlefield without replacement ships and modules.
"Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connaet point." -Blaise Pascal, PensTes, 4, 277 |
HatfulOfHollow
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.30 19:19:00 -
[318]
Edited by: HatfulOfHollow on 30/10/2007 19:19:37
Originally by: Grayton
Originally by: CCP Gangleri Carrier != Hauler
Ships will be allowed to carry ammo in their cargo hold even while inside a ship maintenance bay. As it stands now carriers have a ship maintenance bay of 1m on Sisi. Nothing on Sisi is ever final. Please provide constructive feedback with minimal misinformation and speculation where possible.
I reiterate:
Carrier != Hauler
What kind of utterly worthless reply is this? You urge us to only "provide constructive feedback with minimal misinformation and speculation where possible" yet you fail to respond in any larger capacity about all of the valid points that people have raised. Oh who cares about the fact there will be a months-long gap between when rev3 comes outs and when people will finally be able to use jump freighters, carriers aren't meant to be haulers so not providing a viable alternative immediately at the same time as release is completely ok! Because as we all know logistics should be horrifically tedious and anything that makes it easier and is immediately available is just wrong and against the grand plan!
And let's just further ignore the fact that carriers have been in the game for something like two years now, and until the GSC nerf it was never, EVER implied that using carriers in a hauling capacity was somehow against what they were intended, and hundreds if not thousands of people trained into them for this reason because they were never told it wasn't how it was intended, and used them for this purpose for years. Noooo, instead since it doesn't fit into CCP's "grand design" for the carrier it must be nerfed to hell and back, because as we all know anything CCP decides on as the set path for this game is absolutely, positively right and should never be questioned.
I am going to find it so hilarious when for those months people are using expanded dreads to do the hauling work.
The only thing I can infer from this post is that maybe we should wait for more finalized stats on sisi. I always find it hilarious though that CCP releases what are essentially game breaking changes for some people, then releases an alternative weeks later onto sisi that had been "planned all along" after all of the public outcry. Maybe, just maybe, if you've got an alternative like a lowslot mod or some such, you should release it at the same time as you release the gigantic nerf so that you don't get the gigantic public outcry. Until then, saying bs like "nothing on sis is ever final" and "minimal misinformation and speculation where possible" is worthless because you rarely actually tell us anything and just implement changes without any documentation or reason behind it. The fact that it can take days, even weeks of constant outcry should be indicative of the fact that maybe, just maybe, to prevent "minimal misinformation and speculation where possible you should DOCUMENT THE CHANGES YOU MAKE WHEN YOU MAKE THEM EVEN IF IT'S ON THE TEST SERVER. You can't just say "Nothing on Sisi is ever final" and expect us to sit down and take it when a vast, vast majority of the big changes you put into Sisi pre-patch are actually final and do go into the live game.
Oh, and since you guys love to argue semantics it seems, last time I checked, the carriers weren't doing the hauling. It was the haulers inside the carriers doing the hauling.
CCP hates people who do 0.0 logistics.
|
Ford Cruller
|
Posted - 2007.10.30 19:22:00 -
[319]
Originally by: Grayton
Originally by: CCP Gangleri Carrier != Hauler
Ships will be allowed to carry ammo in their cargo hold even while inside a ship maintenance bay. As it stands now carriers have a ship maintenance bay of 1m on Sisi. Nothing on Sisi is ever final. Please provide constructive feedback with minimal misinformation and speculation where possible.
I reiterate:
Carrier != Hauler
What kind of utterly worthless reply is this? You urge us to only "provide constructive feedback with minimal misinformation and speculation where possible" yet you fail to respond in any larger capacity about all of the valid points that people have raised. Oh who cares about the fact there will be a months-long gap between when rev3 comes outs and when people will finally be able to use jump freighters, carriers aren't meant to be haulers so not providing a viable alternative immediately at the same time as release is completely ok! Because as we all know logistics should be horrifically tedious and anything that makes it easier and is immediately available is just wrong and against the grand plan!
And let's just further ignore the fact that carriers have been in the game for something like two years now, and until the GSC nerf it was never, EVER implied that using carriers in a hauling capacity was somehow against what they were intended, and hundreds if not thousands of people trained into them for this reason because they were never told it wasn't how it was intended, and used them for this purpose for years. Noooo, instead since it doesn't fit into CCP's "grand design" for the carrier it must be nerfed to hell and back, because as we all know anything CCP decides on as the set path for this game is absolutely, positively right and should never be questioned.
I am going to find it so hilarious when for those months people are using expanded dreads to do the hauling work.
The only thing I can infer from this post is that maybe we should wait for more finalized stats on sisi. I always find it hilarious though that CCP releases what are essentially game breaking changes for some people, then releases an alternative weeks later onto sisi that had been "planned all along" after all of the public outcry. Maybe, just maybe, if you've got an alternative like a lowslot mod or some such, you should release it at the same time as you release the gigantic nerf so that you don't get the gigantic public outcry. Until then, saying bs like "nothing on sis is ever final" and "minimal misinformation and speculation where possible" is worthless because you rarely actually tell us anything and just implement changes without any documentation or reason behind it. The fact that it can take days, even weeks of constant outcry should be indicative of the fact that maybe, just maybe, to prevent "minimal misinformation and speculation where possible you should DOCUMENT THE CHANGES YOU MAKE WHEN YOU MAKE THEM EVEN IF IT'S ON THE TEST SERVER. You can't just say "Nothing on Sisi is ever final" and expect us to sit down and take it when a vast, vast majority of the big changes you put into Sisi pre-patch are actually final and do go into the live game.
Oh, and since you guys love to argue semantics it seems, last time I checked, the carriers weren't doing the hauling. It was the haulers inside the carriers doing the hauling.
If you won't listen to me, or anyone else, at least listen to Grayton, he is a logistics director for Goonswarm and obviously knows a lot more about logistics than anyone at CCP.
|
Carsidava
Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.30 19:54:00 -
[320]
Originally by: CCP Gangleri Carrier != Hauler
Ships will be allowed to carry ammo in their cargo hold even while inside a ship maintenance bay. As it stands now carriers have a ship maintenance bay of 1m on Sisi. Nothing on Sisi is ever final. Please provide constructive feedback with minimal misinformation and speculation where possible.
I reiterate:
Carrier != Hauler
Why not?
What are the first two syllables in "carrier"? Carry. They carry things. What sort of rationalization beyond "Carrier != Hauler" do you have for not allowing carriers to carry things?
Seriously, CCP doesn't actually want people to live in 0.0, do they? You're making the logistics of living in 0.0 a living hell. Are we supposed to live in Empire and go fight in 0.0? |
|
Indigo Johnson
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2007.10.30 19:58:00 -
[321]
Originally by: CCP Gangleri Carrier != Hauler
Ships will be allowed to carry ammo in their cargo hold even while inside a ship maintenance bay. As it stands now carriers have a ship maintenance bay of 1m on Sisi. Nothing on Sisi is ever final. Please provide constructive feedback with minimal misinformation and speculation where possible.
I reiterate:
Carrier != Hauler
Problem is, at the moment, Carrier != Offensive drone attack unit (due to it "carrying" drones/fighters), Carrier != Frontline vehicle if you have to assign drones to get the most out of it and Carrier != Logistic ship if all it can carry in the holds of ships is ammo.
What is the asnwer to Carrier =
|
SkyLander
Minmatar Dragon's Rage Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2007.10.30 20:12:00 -
[322]
Edited by: SkyLander on 30/10/2007 20:14:14 Then what the hell is the carrier supposed to be?
First you want to pretty much destroy it's ability to defend it self and force it to rely on other people or alts, supposedly bringing it in line with its "support" role. Which it was pretty much doing before you tried to force it on everyone.
Now you want to nerf its "support" role by removing the ability for it to actually haul things in the bay that was designed to frigging haul things. So what is it?
You are just dead set to change the carrier in some way? That all the logic put forth by the people in the 57 page thread and the people in this 11 or 12 page thread now is just out right ignored? I mean this just seems so mind boggling wrong, that you nuke all 0.0 logistics with no suitable replacement, a lot is now dependent on the fact that the carrier can move resources around in 0.0 space. Besides the fact that dreadnoughts can haul MORE than the damn carrier. It's just that the carrier can jump farther.
Leave the carrier alone, really. Even though you guys seem so ignorant to everyone else out there and just want to ******* change something just to change something. Then when people call you on this cluster you make dev blogs and posts that make you guys seem even more ignorant to the ship and game you guys designed. __________________________________________________
|
infinityshok
|
Posted - 2007.10.30 20:20:00 -
[323]
Originally by: CCP Gangleri Carrier != Hauler
Ships will be allowed to carry ammo in their cargo hold even while inside a ship maintenance bay. As it stands now carriers have a ship maintenance bay of 1m on Sisi. Nothing on Sisi is ever final. Please provide constructive feedback with minimal misinformation and speculation where possible.
I reiterate:
Carrier != Hauler
Note: '!=' means 'not the same as.' Supposedly it is some sort of programming jargon. Im sure there are many readers of this thread that arent into programming. Im not and had to ask wtf '!=' was. Dev: speak english
Considering you are the only one to respond to this issue I applaud you for that. You want feedback, we want feedback. The only info we have to go on at this point is minimal and utter & complete bull-****. The only feedback you are going to get is going to be based on speculation and misinformation BECAUSE THAT IS ALL WE HAVE. Your marginally cryptic minimalistic response is borderline useless.
If 'carrier != hauler' is the course the devs are taking it is time to provide a means to haul the massive amounts of material required to make 0.0 a viable alternative to living in empire. Both transporting to empire and from empire. Based on the current stats of the jump freighter that is not the answer. The cost and skills required are excessive to the point of being useless.
CCP is the one that chose to make POS warfare the way it is. To support these time sinks there needs to be a more effective method of feeding them. Setting them up, taking them down, and maintaining them is NOT an enjoyable part of this game. CCP is the one that chose to encourage 0.0 migration. The players are the ones that have attempted to use the most effective means at their disposal to make 0.0 livable. No, flying transport ships and freighters thru dozens of jump gates is not the answer. Before you devs decide to bring a feature online, keep in mind this is a game that people are paying for to get enjoyment and pleasure out of, not tedium and monotony. POSs are the epitome of tedium and monotony.
Unless you can come up with a viable, valid reason that carriers should not be used in the current role they are used in now, leave them the hell alone. There is no alternative ship that can carry the capacity, which is minimal as it is, with the range it does.
This thread is evidence enough the paying players are more than satisfied using carriers in the role they currently have. I reiterate: PAYING. The players dont care what the intentions of the devs are. With this degree of response the only option is to leave carriers the hell alone. Any other course makes is plainly apparent the devs have no consideration what the PAYING players want.
I reiterate: leave carriers the hell alone. There is nothing wrong with them.
|
Hyakuchan
Earth Federation Space Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.30 21:10:00 -
[324]
Edited by: Hyakuchan on 30/10/2007 21:15:11
Originally by: infinityshok Carriers and dreads are the only effective means of hauling the required material to 0.0 space. Freighters are not acceptable. The new t2 freighters, with their current requirements, are not acceptable.
Clearly carriers will not be acceptable either now. So apparently you'll be forced to re-evaluate your judgment of freighters.
Which I believe is the whole point of why CCP is doing this in the first place.
Quote: Any other course makes is plainly apparent the devs have no consideration what the PAYING players want.
I pay. I want them to change it so carriers aren't haulers.
Clearly you need to step back and come up with a more persuasive argument that goes beyond "Because I say so."
|
Ungdall
Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.30 21:18:00 -
[325]
guys guys guys! I've figured out how CCP makes decisions concerning major, massive and very important game mechanic changes:
1.brainstorm (light showers) 2.begin changes 3.whoops, turns out they didn't think more than one jump ahead 4.not profit
|
infinityshok
|
Posted - 2007.10.30 21:32:00 -
[326]
Originally by: Hyakuchan Edited by: Hyakuchan on 30/10/2007 21:15:11
Originally by: infinityshok Carriers and dreads are the only effective means of hauling the required material to 0.0 space. Freighters are not acceptable. The new t2 freighters, with their current requirements, are not acceptable.
Clearly carriers will not be acceptable either now. So apparently you'll be forced to re-evaluate your judgment of freighters.
Which I believe is the whole point of why CCP is doing this in the first place.
Quote: Any other course makes is plainly apparent the devs have no consideration what the PAYING players want.
I pay. I want them to change it so carriers aren't haulers.
Clearly you need to step back and come up with a more persuasive argument that goes beyond "Because I say so."
Welcome to approximately page 70-something of players that agree with my train of thought and disagree with yours.
|
Jiks
Caldari Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.10.30 21:40:00 -
[327]
@ Hyakuchan,
Fair enough, you don't want carriers to carry stuff. Can I ask why and who would benefit from this idea?
Speaking as a regular on the old ASCN convoy runs I really don't think normal space freighter runs are remotely viable these days, not to mention horribly boring and time consuming. Why should players of a game be forced to return to say 7 hours of escorting freighters each week or more? Not much fun even it goes smoothly but bearing in mind nothing on that scale can be kept secret ... plus there are many more counters to frighter runs now than there were 18 months ago it prolly wouldnt go smoothly would it?
Thats before lag, waiting for escorts be be bullied into staying up half the night, waiting for bugged freighters to slow down from 13 M km/s ... etc. In short HORRIBLE and not something many want to pay to do for "fun."
I'm interested to know your logic since it seems closer to CCP's thn the rest of us have been able to get^^
Jiks
|
Ockk
|
Posted - 2007.10.30 21:42:00 -
[328]
Meh, I'm training one of my characters to fly a carrier.. when it gets there, if this nerf is in place, I'm just going to cancel my accounts.
This is getting pretty ridiculous. They make flying these ships so hard to get to, and expensive. They know what the incentives are, after years of seeing them in the game.
If they allow an arbitrary and pointless decision like this to go through, I think it will demonstrate to me their complete inability to make rational decisions. In that case, I might as well save my money and time and find another game.
|
JitaScienceAlt1
|
Posted - 2007.10.30 21:44:00 -
[329]
Edited by: JitaScienceAlt1 on 30/10/2007 21:43:49
Originally by: Phrixus Zephyr
Originally by: Banlish STOP NERFING THE GAME.
FIX THE LAG WE ARE ALL begging you to fix day after day.
BoB, Goons, RA, FiX, MC, IAC, MM, TRI, RAZOR, SMASH, YouWhat, ALL of them, day after day, hour after hour ask for LAG FIXES. NOTHING ELSE.
How much more clear can we be?
Before you derail I'd hasten to point out that the Eve cluster is one of, if not THE most advanced gaming cluster on the planet. How exactly do you propose they pull a lag fix out of their ass when they're pioneering the tech?
"I demand you invent the lightbulb right now, because candles suck"?
D20, as in roll one. Id immagine if you took out all the complex maths of radial velocity and whatnot and instead made them modifiers to dice rolls, it would solve a lot of lag issues.
This carrier nerf is also stupid.
|
infinityshok
|
Posted - 2007.10.30 21:54:00 -
[330]
Originally by: Jiks @ Hyakuchan,
I'm interested to know your logic since it seems closer to CCP's thn the rest of us have been able to get^^
Jiks
His only intention was to become a fly in the ointment, so to speak. He had nothing useful to add. The character isnt even old enough to fly a carrier.
|
|
Ket Halpak
Cold-Fury Southern Cross Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.30 22:46:00 -
[331]
Originally by: CCP Gangleri Carrier != Hauler
Ships will be allowed to carry ammo in their cargo hold even while inside a ship maintenance bay. As it stands now carriers have a ship maintenance bay of 1m on Sisi. Nothing on Sisi is ever final. Please provide constructive feedback with minimal misinformation and speculation where possible.
I reiterate:
Carrier != Hauler
While carriers do not equal haulers, they are the current mainstay of 0.0 logistics due to their large jump range, so provide a faster and safer alternative to moving a freighter from empire to 0.0 space.
Can I ask what CCP intend the player base to use for 0.0 logistics if they do go ahead with this nerf?
With the introduction of Jump Freighters, I belive that they will eventually become the mainstay of 0.0 logistics due to their much larger hauling capability. I expect their will be a decline in the use of carriers as haulers, but there will not be an immediate jump as it appears CCP are expecting due to the long skill training times and the fact that these freighters will need to be constructed first.
I have tried to keep speculation down as much as possible, but it is not possible in this thread to remove speculation completely as people can only speculate on what we are going to have to do for 0.0 logistics should this change make it to the live server.
I believe this change to carriers will be have a large negative feedback on the game as a whole and will completely decimate 0.0 logistics, so I ask again, Why are you doing this to us CCP? Carrier != Hauler just is not a good enough response.
What people in this thread want is a detailed post that fully explains the reasoning behind this nerf and to feel like we are being listened to. The latter is the most important part CCP, right now the players responding in this thread would like to atleast belive you are listing to us rather than sticking you fingers in your ears going "LALALALALA Incoming NERF" as that is what it feels like to me right now.
If someone at CCP read through my post to the end of it, then thankyou.
|
Raevenor
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.30 23:58:00 -
[332]
You know CCP, the CAOD forum has every alliance trolling and taking shots at each other in game, in this very one nerf in this very thread every single 0.0 space holding alliance is telling you this is a very, very BAD idea.
We don't like BoB or MC and the like but guess what, we all agree this is a terrible idea that will only create more work and suffering for anyone holding 0.0 space. Logistics is a terrible thing to do and the guys who have to actually go fuel these towers consistently are saints, the backbone of successful 0.0 alliance in Eve. You are killing the game with this change, it doesn't matter what 0.0 alliance you are, its a painful painful process that creates more headaches and makes people not want to play the game. Don't fix something that isn't broken as far as logistics go.
People who actually think this is a good idea are;
A> People who don't play the game B> Are renter pets who don't have a clue C> ********
Blunt as it is, its absolutely true.
|
Elmicker
Black Sea Industries Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.10.31 00:11:00 -
[333]
Originally by: CCP Gangleri Carrier != Hauler
Congratulationg gangleri, you can have a cookie!!
We now have jump freighters.
If you've done your job properly, jump freighters == haulers.
Again, if you've done your job properly Proper balanced hauler > half-arsed job in a carrier.
Now. Let's compare this to a sub capital situation.
For hauling a hauler is superior to an expanded battleship.
Does this mean i'm banned from using a battleship as a hauler in a pinch? No, it doesn't.
Don't force things, CCP. You just **** things up in the short term. Instead let things naturally take over.
As it is now, you're screwing every 0.0 resident for the next 4 months until jump freighters come into play. This forces them to resort to an even more innapropriate mechanic - expanded dreadnoughts.
|
Verite Rendition
Caldari AUS Corporation CORE.
|
Posted - 2007.10.31 00:16:00 -
[334]
The thing that disappoints me the most about this is that CCP is going about it so covertly. For the carrier offensive changes, they made a very public blog post about the change and made it clear they were looking for feedback. For the carrier logistics nerf, they didn't publish anything and it's only due to the actions of a player that this even got noticed. The only dev comment has been a very standoffish post indicating that the decision has already been made and that our input isn't welcomed.
What's up with the Jeckll/Hyde handling of this? Is it because logistics has to get nerfed since the community complained too much about the offensive nerf? Or did someone skip out on their duties and not write up a blog post like they should have?
We have precious little time to prepare for this if Rev 3 is still going to make a November release. We need to know exactly what's going on and why, so that if CCP is going to go through with all of this, we can be prepared to keep 0.0 logistics from coming to a grinding halt. And this needs to be made public via a blog post, it's not fair to most of the players in the game that they're going to get nerfed like this without more than a couple days' warning.
Do the right thing CCP. ---- AUS Corp Lead Megalomanic EVE Automated Influence Map
|
Vire Amarr
Kernel of War Tau Ceti Federation
|
Posted - 2007.10.31 01:51:00 -
[335]
Just a kestion you dummy from CCP how long do you think it will take to Get tŠ freigthers ?
you have to invent them then build them and before builde a t1 freighter to be able to prod the tŠ !!!!!
And thats if you are lucky enought to allready have prerequiered skill and that you only need to buy the new skill !!!
if not for many people it mean about 6/8 month if skilling and in this time an other nerf will occure.
Carrier drone nerf is ok even if it will not reduice lag but OK ! But logistik Nerf is BAD BAD BAD BADBAD BADBAD BADBAD BADBAD BADBAD BADBAD BADBAD BADBAD BADBAD BADBAD BADBAD BADBAD BADBAD BADBAD BADBAD BADBAD BADBAD BADBAD BADBAD BADBAD BADBAD BADBAD BADBAD BADBAD BADBAD BADBAD BADBAD BADBAD BADBAD BADBAD BADBAD BADBAD BADBAD BADBAD BADBAD BADBAD BADBAD BADBAD BADBAD BADBAD BADBAD BADBAD BADBAD BADBAD BADBAD BADBAD BADBAD BADBAD BADBAD BADBAD BAD
How are we supposed to refuel pos during the time that the new freighter get produced ? By freakin operation of god maybe !!! Oh No by the super rorqual !!!
You Say carrier are for fleet support and thats why you nerf it and what you do is create a rorqual that is a mobil factory that will do logistik !!!
NEXT NERF IS FOR RORQUAL !!!!!
You are focusing on aspect taht already take about 50% of energy of corp to focus on refuel escort jump ... know it will be 75+%
More Over you totally F*** up the market of Capital builders that invested 20 B to get production runing for carrier and that already had problem because of rise of mineral prices know well not only margin is low but more over if you nerf logistik capability it will be impossible to sell carrier class ship because they become useless.
So people who payed 800m for skill and 800m for ships can stick it up theres and say ok that ccp they are god and dont care about their player !!!
God damnt we paye your salary, we make your campagny runing and more important we are not kid like in other game we are adult and we are very likely to understand what you are heading to !
Always remeber that we are not usual mmoprg player we are most of us over 25+ year old in active life and not stupid WOW customers that are slaves of sony corp because they are kid and they don't know what to do.
The very stupid thing is that most carrier pilot have at least 2 account when it's not more and i dont talk about builder and so on !!
Don't Do this because you will loose a lot cause remerber :
Daily average connection is 25000 account so arround maybe 18000 real personnes and we already have more then 2000 signature in the petition agaisnt this nerf !
CCP you are not god and i'm shure that a 2000/3000 player resignation would be a real loose of account of 2 time maybe tree time more so from 3000 to 9000 account "active" of course so a drop from 25000 to 18000 average so a very big drop.
Please be resonable and move back on your nerf Co-CEO Kernel Of War Immensea Outpost Manager Kernel Of War >> Faites face a votre avenir |
Vire Amarr
Kernel of War Tau Ceti Federation
|
Posted - 2007.10.31 03:29:00 -
[336]
Want to Sell Brainless Thinkers >> Call 1800-CCP
For sale
42 M Sp Amarr >> MS/CARRIER/DREAD/HAS/... Comes with Carrier /25 HAS / Obelisk .... 42 M Sp gallente >> MS/CARRIER/DREAD/CS/... Comes with 10 CS 16 M SP Minmattar >> HAS/DICTOR/Carrier ready ... Comes with 15 HAS / 10 sabre (10 M SP Minmattar >> CAPITAL PRODER)X 4 (6M SP Caldari >> Freighter pilot +ship)* 2
Give Of Full Set BPO PARTS and All Carrier, Dread ,Freighter BPO.
this is a joke not true >>> (Make me an offer ISK (Priceless indeed))
But this is what might happend for many account and they are really price less by the time I spend to build them UP !!!
So many people are in the same case Start from 0 learn skil to manage to fly ship and what you do ccp is to ruine the all thing
You can do minor changes to ship to balance power for exemple why not.
BUT DO NOT CHANGE THE USE OF IT OR TOTALLY RUINE IT.
YOU MAD CARRIER THAT WAY YOU CREATED HEAVY FUEL FOR POS , U CREATED POSSPAMMING YOU CANNOT CANNOT CANNOT COME BACK ON THAT BECAUSE YOU THINK THAT CARRIER ARE NOT SUPPOSE TO BE SUED THIS WAY !!
It is exactlly as if USAIR : BRITAIR or AIRFRANCE said , i'm sorry but we can't provise service please go to new york by Ship take a ferry It's a big mistake airplane were ment to be for Cargo Only !!!!
What would the reaction be ???
Maybe over 1B personnes beating the s***t out of USAIR BRITAIR AIRFRANCE CEO AND BURN THEM TO DUST !!
Well you are doing the some thing
Co-CEO Kernel Of War Vire Amarr Capital Inc Kernel Of War >> Faites face a votre avenir |
HydroSan
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.31 03:39:00 -
[337]
Edited by: HydroSan on 31/10/2007 03:46:15 I like many people trained up carriers so I could do my own personal logistics and maybe make some cash for people who don't have capitals and need things moved. I trained up and bought all those skillbooks with the intention of doing that because, hey, thats what carriers do.
You're essentially telling people "well you wasted all the time training up for those ships/saving up for those skillbooks" and forcing them to blow another 4-8b to do the same exact thing. How is this enriching to the game? How does forcing people who train for yet another ship which requires yet another 120-day grind to do some basic personal logistics going to make people have fun?
What's the big deal with carriers having a bit of cargo space to hold fuel, ammo, or supplies? If you want to phase out carriers as "logistics platforms", make it so the alternatives are more viable or appealing for the hardcore logistics folks. But if you remove the basic cargo capabilities of carriers, you hurt a lot of alliances whose members trained up for them with the intention of doing logistics.
I understand if it doesn't fit in with the vision of EVE you're attempting to create, but the ships have been in the game for two years and many people have used them exclusively for moving things. Do you guys at CCP believe logistics is fun or rewarding? These changes only make a long, drawn out and frustrating process all the more tedious. Forcing people to grind up for a new ship just so they can duplicate the capabilities of exactly what they had before is pushing the 'vision' too far and just making the game difficult for small-timers who don't have an alt anywhere near Freighter V, or anywhere near the ballparked cost of these new T2 freighters, which will cost about 4-8b when they first come out.
edit: I didn't mean this as a whine. I can understand if you don't want carriers to be "used as haulers." But seriously consider creating a module of some sort with (excessively) high fitting requirements for carriers that enables them to haul things, but not as well as the T2 freighters. Then the people who trained up carriers aren't entirely screwed as far as personal logistics go, and T2 freighters are still "the way to go" if you're someone like Grayton (who has posted in this thread, and should be listened to) who moves large amounts of stuff and nothing else.
Please consider holding off the changes until something like this is implemented or the new freighters are made viable for most people.
|
Hyakuchan
Earth Federation Space Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.31 03:50:00 -
[338]
Edited by: Hyakuchan on 31/10/2007 03:56:49
Originally by: Jiks @ Hyakuchan,
Fair enough, you don't want carriers to carry stuff. Can I ask why and who would benefit from this idea?
Speaking as a regular on the old ASCN convoy runs I really don't think normal space freighter runs are remotely viable these days, not to mention horribly boring and time consuming. Why should players of a game be forced to return to say 7 hours of escorting freighters each week or more? Not much fun even it goes smoothly but bearing in mind nothing on that scale can be kept secret ... plus there are many more counters to frighter runs now than there were 18 months ago it prolly wouldnt go smoothly would it?
Thats before lag, waiting for escorts be be bullied into staying up half the night, waiting for bugged freighters to slow down from 13 M km/s ... etc. In short HORRIBLE and not something many want to pay to do for "fun."
I'm interested to know your logic since it seems closer to CCP's thn the rest of us have been able to get^^
Jiks
A fair enough question.
I think they want to force alliances to protect their haulers in a concerted effort. Quite frankly, about half the alliances that exist today do not have the teamwork skills and leadership to survive a world where carriers can't haul.
CCP, I believe, aims to force players to form convoys and work in teams, by making it unfeasible for people to not do so. Essentially, they want people to do exactly what you object to. At least as I see it.
To put it another way...
CCP doesn't seem to approve of how easy it is to found an alliance today. They seem to want to force players to actually cooperate and take ownership of the operation of an alliance, by having to protect shipments and operations rather then simply operating solo for weeks and weeks and occasionally banding together for a warblob.
By making it harder and harder to maintain a POS frontier, they'll reduce the size of the alliance empires by making it difficult to maintain operations. BoB and RSF will suffocate under the flabby folds of their overextended POS lines, which were only possible because they could be maintained by an armada of carrier-haulers.
|
HydroSan
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.31 03:54:00 -
[339]
Originally by: Hyakuchan A fair enough question.
I believe CCP feels that the current POS war is too entrenched and that the only way they can fix it is to make it economically unfeasible for a single alliance to control more then a single region, and troublesome to control more then a constellation or two. By nerfing the everloving **** out of haulers until people are forced to conceed turf simply because it's too hard to maintain a foothold.
Further, I think they want to force alliances to protect their haulers in a concerted effort. Quite frankly, about half the alliances that exist today do not have the teamwork skills and leadership to survive a world where carriers can't haul.
CPP, I believe, aims to call those paper-tigers out and force them to either learn how to play as a group, or die and go back to solo carebearing in empire.
They want to force players to form convoys and work in teams, by making it unfeasible for people to not do so. Essentially, they want people to do exactly what you object to. At least as I see it.
I don't think you understand just how much effort goes into maintaining a true 0.0 alliance of any kind of size. Forcing people to run freighter ops or protect haulers does not enrich the game and taking the game back to the "stone age" will only make the game die a slow, agonizing death as veterans leave in droves.
And, thankfully, T2 freighters (e.g: jump haulers) entirely disprove your entire post and I conclude that you are a ****ty troll good day sir
|
Pirokobo
Caldari Anaheim Electronics
|
Posted - 2007.10.31 03:58:00 -
[340]
Edited by: Pirokobo on 31/10/2007 04:05:17
Quote: thankfully, T2 freighters (e.g: jump haulers)
Then why the **** are people complaining about carrier-haulers being nerfed?
Clearly the answer is that people aren't satified with a ship that can simply jump and haul. They want a ship that can jump and haul AND fight... and CCP doesn't seem to want that.
It's not the hauling part that's the problem. It's the hauling and not needing people to cover your *** while you do it because you've got a personal flotilla of fighters at your disposal that's the problem.
|
|
pi squad
|
Posted - 2007.10.31 04:06:00 -
[341]
Originally by: Pirokobo Edited by: Pirokobo on 31/10/2007 04:04:49
Quote: thankfully, T2 freighters (e.g: jump haulers) entirely disprove your entire post
Then why the **** are people complaining about carrier-haulers being nerfed?
It's been said a thousand times, you idiot, jump freighters will not be in the game for at least 3 months and in the meantime there will be a huge shortage of logistics manpower.
|
Hyakuchan
Earth Federation Space Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.31 04:10:00 -
[342]
Edited by: Hyakuchan on 31/10/2007 04:13:41
Originally by: pi squad It's been said a thousand times, you idiot, jump freighters will not be in the game for at least 3 months and in the meantime there will be a huge shortage of logistics manpower.
So?
It'll be an interesting three months.
You're looking at this like it's a problem. Get out your sword and start sharpening it you ****ing coward. Go conquer someone. Play EVE like the last round of RISK when you go and conquer half the map because nobody has any defenses.
I'd have thought Goon would be loving the prospect of three months without effectively supplied POSes on either side, after all the complaining about the last POS war.
|
HydroSan
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.31 04:19:00 -
[343]
Originally by: Hyakuchan
I'd have thought Goon would be loving the prospect of three months without effectively supplied POSes on either side, after all the complaining about the last POS war.
Yes because BoB don't have multiple Titans that can jump around normal run of the mill freighters around in giant 30+ freighter convoys from POS to POS.
But please, continue to talk about things you have no knowledge of.
|
Hyakuchan
Earth Federation Space Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.31 04:26:00 -
[344]
Originally by: HydroSan Yes because BoB don't have multiple Titans that can jump around normal run of the mill freighters around in giant 30+ freighter convoys from POS to POS.
Titans were intended for what they're used for. If you're envious, try ****ing building a few.
|
Vire Amarr
Kernel of War Tau Ceti Federation
|
Posted - 2007.10.31 04:26:00 -
[345]
Originally by: HydroSan
Originally by: Hyakuchan
I'd have thought Goon would be loving the prospect of three months without effectively supplied POSes on either side, after all the complaining about the last POS war.
Yes because BoB don't have multiple Titans that can jump around normal run of the mill freighters around in giant 30+ freighter convoys from POS to POS.
But please, continue to talk about things you have no knowledge of.
Love you goonies ^^
So true and by the way (my be out topic but must say)
It's it funny that BoB bought a 4 titan 3/4 day before carrier nerf on logistik appears on SISI and seems to be a new issue for all of us for REV III !!!
Look like BoB have hell good manager that can see in close future !!
Know i can easily understand why spend 160B for a new titan that they could have built ^^ Very clever !!! And Manager should try on nationnal lottery because must have divination gift !!
In a month logistique will be Hell on earth for people with no titan Co-CEO Kernel Of War Vire Amarr Capital Inc Kernel Of War >> Faites face a votre avenir |
Kayl Breinhar
Gallente GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.31 04:34:00 -
[346]
As other people have stated, you're designing a nerf where the ships designed to replace carriers and motherships in the logistics role will not be ready for a minimum of 20-30 days until the first invention attempts can be made on them.
Precious time was wasted at the outset because people assumed the ships would be Tier 2 and not Tech 2 from the first SiSi dumps. Additionally, people with freighter BPOs lose money on them when they're not in production, so they're usually always in production. Producers aren't going to cancel an active job so they can start rattling off copies. Even for the vast minority of BPO holders who had inactive BPOs at the time to stick into copy slots, the first 1-run BPCs won't be done until at least two weeks after the patch is introduced.
Then, assuming *unheard of* successes in invention, you then have to wait for however long it takes to build a T2 freighter (no one's shown a picture with that info yet). This is compounded by the fact that the production of a T1 ship will be needed to use in the T2 construction - there's another week tacked on to the time - even zero-day producers will not be able to roll their first T2 freighter out until at least +3 or +4 weeks after the patch, and that's assuming a massive stroke of luck with the fickle mistress called invention.
While quite a few people are flat out saying you can't do this, let me be the one to say, respectfully, that you can't do this yet. It's your game, but you're working against the clock here. You're forcing far too big a change on the population with far too little adjustment time.
PLEASE consider at the very least postponing this change until at least the 3.2 release so these ships you intend on being the linchpin of 0.0 logistics can actually disseminate to the alliances and corporations which will come to rely on them in the absence of carriers to do one of the most tedious and *thankless* jobs in this game.
|
Shan Juan
Amarr KrayZ Dams Inc. R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.10.31 04:37:00 -
[347]
This change is total bull****. If the role of hauler was not intended for carriers, then why the hell did it take over 1 year for you to do something about it. Why was the ship even introduced with the goddamn capability. I've not even seen a mention of this glaring imbalance before.
You guys pretty much just annihilated the usefullness of carriers for many people. This is a huge change to the ship class, which from my perspective is gonna make the game that much more annoying. At the very least an SP refund should be offered for such a substantial change. I'd be kidding myself if I actually believed it'd happen though. Meh!
|
Bund
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.31 04:53:00 -
[348]
Originally by: CCP Gangleri Carrier != Hauler
Ships will be allowed to carry ammo in their cargo hold even while inside a ship maintenance bay. As it stands now carriers have a ship maintenance bay of 1m on Sisi. Nothing on Sisi is ever final. Please provide constructive feedback with minimal misinformation and speculation where possible.
I reiterate:
Carrier != Hauler
Your comment makes it abundantly clear that you have never done any meaningful logistics work in 0.0. Please ask one of your coworkers who is familiar with the game to help you out here, before you screw things up permanently for your paying customers.
|
Perpello
Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.31 04:57:00 -
[349]
Originally by: CCP Gangleri Carrier != Hauler
Ships will be allowed to carry ammo in their cargo hold even while inside a ship maintenance bay. As it stands now carriers have a ship maintenance bay of 1m on Sisi. Nothing on Sisi is ever final. Please provide constructive feedback with minimal misinformation and speculation where possible.
I reiterate:
Carrier != Hauler
Carrier ship maintance bay 1,000,000m3 = why do we want this anyway?
I've noticed that battleship unpackaged volume on the test server has reduced. With the new size of the carrier ship maintenance bay, carriers will be able to haul two battleships. How does the ability of a carrier to haul more ships up to two battleships agree with carrier != hauler. It is design hypocrisy.
I hope this is just a bad patch of ideas at CCP - it's certainly going very wrong for you at the moment. I was looking forward to Revelations III but not any more.
I reiterate:
EVE Online Subscription != worth paying until the nonsense ideas stop.
Until then, my accounts are staying in a state of not renewing. signature removed - please email us to find out why (include a link to the image URL) - Jacques([email protected]) |
Pinpisa Jormao
|
Posted - 2007.10.31 05:04:00 -
[350]
Edited by: Pinpisa Jormao on 31/10/2007 05:06:29
Originally by: HydroSan
I don't think you understand just how much effort goes into maintaining a true 0.0 alliance of any kind of size. Forcing people to run freighter ops or protect haulers does not enrich the game and taking the game back to the "stone age" will only make the game die a slow, agonizing death as veterans leave in droves.
It's stupid that couple extremely dedicated guys can handle multi-region alliance logistics.
What needs to be done is make the game much faster paced and easier to use. Take the jump abilities out, speed up travel by regular ways, have autopilot warp to 0km, force people to do predictable escort duties that are easily interfered in war. Make it impossible to do logistics safely but also make the fuel cheaper and make it last much longer in towers.
That's how I see future for this game. Increase risk, make things a lot cheaper and easier and speed up everything - warps 10x faster than now for every ship etc, freighters for 100 M. Fuel for 1/10 current price..
Now given it's CCP we are talking about they'll make it so that single person with Expensive Ship will handle all logistics alone and no risk of getting hurt if he does everything right.
|
|
Vire Amarr
Kernel of War Tau Ceti Federation
|
Posted - 2007.10.31 05:10:00 -
[351]
Edited by: Vire Amarr on 31/10/2007 05:14:29
Originally by: Pinpisa Jormao Edited by: Pinpisa Jormao on 31/10/2007 05:06:29
Originally by: HydroSan
I don't think you understand just how much effort goes into maintaining a true 0.0 alliance of any kind of size. Forcing people to run freighter ops or protect haulers does not enrich the game and taking the game back to the "stone age" will only make the game die a slow, agonizing death as veterans leave in droves.
It's stupid that couple extremely dedicated guys can handle multi-region alliance logistics.
What needs to be done is make the game much faster paced and easier to use. Take the jump abilities out, speed up travel by regular ways, have autopilot warp to 0km, force people to do predictable escort duties that are easily interfered in war. Make it impossible to do logistics safely but also make the fuel cheaper and make it last much longer in towers.
That's how I see future for this game. Increase risk, make things a lot cheaper and easier and speed up everything - warps 10x faster than now for every ship etc, freighters for 100 M. Fuel for 1/10 current price..
Now given it's CCP we are talking about they'll make it so that single person with Expensive Ship will handle all logistics alone and no risk of getting hurt if he does everything right.
Yes genius !!
And what about people that spare money during month to get skill and ship and finnaly discover taht they spar time and money and sp traning for nothing !!
By the way if an alliances needed up to 70 people to handle logistik do you really think that evemap would look the same ?? Many alliances running region are often around 150 to 250 personnes , so the right thing would be to use 35% of people for only longistik when they are very good and logistik loving people that want to care of it and do great job being 20 only ?
What is wrong with you ? War is Logistik to support war not war to support logistiks !!! For gods sak
Co-CEO Kernel Of War Vire Amarr Capital Inc Kernel Of War >> Faites face a votre avenir
|
HydroSan
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.31 05:10:00 -
[352]
Edited by: HydroSan on 31/10/2007 05:12:33
Originally by: Pinpisa Jormao It's stupid that couple extremely dedicated guys can handle multi-region alliance logistics.
If by a "couple" you mean a "couple dozen" and by "extremely dedicated" you mean "doing nothing but logistics on two or more accounts" then you'd be spot on.
|
Pinpisa Jormao
|
Posted - 2007.10.31 05:14:00 -
[353]
Originally by: HydroSan Edited by: HydroSan on 31/10/2007 05:12:33
Originally by: Pinpisa Jormao It's stupid that couple extremely dedicated guys can handle multi-region alliance logistics.
If by a "couple" you mean a "couple dozen" and by "extremely dedicated" you mean "doing nothing but logistics on two or more accounts" then you'd be spot on.
That's another thing. Get rid of the need for multiple accounts and make it instant alt-tab type switch between characters. In essence, trash the codebase.
|
Pinpisa Jormao
|
Posted - 2007.10.31 05:29:00 -
[354]
Originally by: Vire Amarr
War is Logistik to support war not war to support logistiks !!! For gods sak
?? It should be possible to cripple the corp/alliance easily by targeting the logistics guys, they're what keeps the towers fueled. With all the current mechanisms in place the wars are won by propaganda and such in the forums and decided long before any battle takes places. The fights in game are totally irrelevant and even people who enjoy fleet fights wonder why did we just fight anyway? It was just a skirmish with no purpose, the real fate of the alliance is in hands of couple people and the forum efforts.
The reason this game is fun has nothing to do with the game and that's an area where improvements can be made without taking anything out. Make it possible to effect outcome of wars by preventing fueling of towers and so on.
|
Vire Amarr
Kernel of War Tau Ceti Federation
|
Posted - 2007.10.31 05:35:00 -
[355]
Originally by: Pinpisa Jormao
Originally by: Vire Amarr
War is Logistik to support war not war to support logistiks !!! For gods sak
?? It should be possible to cripple the corp/alliance easily by targeting the logistics guys, they're what keeps the towers fueled. With all the current mechanisms in place the wars are won by propaganda and such in the forums and decided long before any battle takes places. The fights in game are totally irrelevant and even people who enjoy fleet fights wonder why did we just fight anyway? It was just a skirmish with no purpose, the real fate of the alliance is in hands of couple people and the forum efforts.
The reason this game is fun has nothing to do with the game and that's an area where improvements can be made without taking anything out. Make it possible to effect outcome of wars by preventing fueling of towers and so on.
No War is in the center always sometime there is no fight it true. Logistik is a big issue to get war possible but it's not possible to deploye pos in hotile sys without powerfull back up.
Logistik is what make war possible and it is also true that most of the time a small team manage to prepare for fighter to succes/not.
Co-CEO Kernel Of War Vire Amarr Capital Inc Kernel Of War >> Faites face a votre avenir
|
infinityshok
|
Posted - 2007.10.31 05:54:00 -
[356]
With as many pages in the multiple threads concerning this topic I would think the devs would have somewhat more of a response than that last nonsensical reply. Every ship in the game is a potential hauler with the addition of a few cargo expanders. Hell, shuttles are used to haul. Before carriers were introduced dreads were the 0.0 haulers and there was no mention from the devs that this caused the extreme feminine itching and burning sensation that carriers seem to. Looking at the overall picture none of it makes any sense short of the devs suddenly deciding carriers need to be removed from the game.
How is the carrier maint bay going to determine whether ammo loaded is for the ships use or to reload POS guns or sell in the market? Is that liquid ozone for using a jump bridge or to refuel a POS? What about ships being stored whos pilots want to store additional modules in their cargohold to allow them to adjust their fittings as the combat situation changes? During a front line engagement stront, ammo, etc is needed...what if a hauler pilot carrying these items decides he wants to swap into a combat ship in the carrier? What does he do with his hauler? FFS...with this abortion of an idea more problems are being created than solved. With an increase in the maint bay comes the reason to use a carrier as a ship hauler.
Dont open up the 'xxxxx != xxxxx' can of worms because that can be applied to almost every ship in the game.
battleship != miner high slots are going to be removed from BSs to prevent mining lasers from being fitted covops != hauler hauler != combat ship battle badgers removed from the game
Amarr ships arent shield tankers but no one is changing things around where shield tanking modules cant be fitted. The entire point of ships having fitting slots is to permit their customization and personalization to meed the needs of the player. If the whole '!=' thing is going to be the new watchword all ships are going to wind up being cookie-cutter identical with no slots and no way for players to immerse themselves in their own ships.
Stop breaking something that isnt broken. Fix something that is...Jita for one.
|
Vire Amarr
Kernel of War Tau Ceti Federation
|
Posted - 2007.10.31 05:56:00 -
[357]
Edited by: Vire Amarr on 31/10/2007 06:02:24
Originally by: Pinpisa Jormao Edited by: Pinpisa Jormao on 31/10/2007 05:46:44 I'd like a lot of freighters running around with mid size escorts and lot of mid size freighter gank groups in 0.0 trying to stop them.
It's something alliances need to do so there's no chance to hide at POS or dock, you either do the escorts or you lose the space.
Important thing is the ships need to be faster and gang need to be fully autopiloted so you can do other things while on the long trip. The value of 0.0 space should also be increased by removing belt, exploration and other crap and adding complexes that drop 10 billion loot and require 100 size gang to run.
That would be nice but impossible for one reason : ISK
A 7 h escort with 100 players and 30B of asset is ok no fun but some time needed I agre.
But allways escort would cost to much i explain.
isk average earning/hours in 0.0 space : 20m/h
7 h go and back trip with freighter and 100 personnes : 700*20 = 14B juste to move stuff
When it cost 60 time less by carrier or MS
Jump brige cost is good with about 20 personnes for lowsec and 0.0 entry during 2 or 3h go&back trip = 60*20= 1.2B isk
See Why carrier are important ^^
14B is virtual you will say indeed not because it's money that people dont make on npc/mining/mission/other during the time they are escorting
So indeed carreir as also doing logistik is totally necessary cause using jump brdge is ok for one or 2 time a month but not for daily supply of ship ammo .... comming from empire
edit : it's the same with CTA looking for only ship destrcution is not enought you also need to look at average participation. if you "use" 600 personnes for 12 h it cost = 144B isk for exemple ^^ Co-CEO Kernel Of War Vire Amarr Capital Inc Kernel Of War >> Faites face a votre avenir
|
Vanye Inovske
Two Brothers Mining Corp. Friend or Enemy
|
Posted - 2007.10.31 06:01:00 -
[358]
Originally by: Pinpisa Jormao Edited by: Pinpisa Jormao on 31/10/2007 05:51:31 I'd like a lot of freighters running around with mid size escorts and lot of mid size freighter gank groups in 0.0 trying to stop them.
And I'd like a pony. Seriously, when 0.0 alliances last relied on freighter ops for their logistics capital ships were still a rarity. With a decent number of scouts you could know whether there were any serious threats within 2-3 jumps of your freighters - barring login traps, of course. Today all it takes is a single unknown ship in system and you could suddenly have a mothership, 6 dreads, and a dozen carriers in your lap. What's your mid-size escort going to do about that? Die, is what. Since the POS fuel absolutely, positively must get through, nobody in their right mind will use vulnerable freighter convoys to do it. They'll use jump bridges, or expanded dreads, or Rorquals.
You can't have freighters wandering around for you to gank. You just can't. Because people aren't going to risk them that way. Sorry.
|
Pinpisa Jormao
|
Posted - 2007.10.31 06:05:00 -
[359]
Originally by: infinityshok I would think the devs would have somewhat more of a response than that last nonsensical reply.
QFT. Do they have a vision where the game is going or are they just nerfing based on some whines here and there? Big changes mean many other things must change to accommodate. And I don't mean adding a long skill or new ship here and there like this stupid jump freighter wtf?
The titan jump bridge was neat idea and they could add that capability at much more affordable and more vulnerable pricepoint: 5 billion and the jump bridge mod only activates next to a stargate, drawing power from the gate.
|
infinityshok
|
Posted - 2007.10.31 06:05:00 -
[360]
Originally by: Pinpisa Jormao Edited by: Pinpisa Jormao on 31/10/2007 05:51:31 To make my forum posts I draw letters on my forehead in magic marker then bang it against the wall. The random text that results is what I copy into my forum posts.
Considering you are posting with a NPC corp char at the age it is, and not with a main character, you know that everything you are posting is utter and complete rectal spewage. That being the case, stop.
Not one single suggestion youve made is viable in any way, matter, shape, or form. Your talents would be served better if you applied to a political office.
|
|
Lady Beauvoir
Slutty Witches
|
Posted - 2007.10.31 06:07:00 -
[361]
Originally by: Hyakuchan Edited by: Hyakuchan on 31/10/2007 04:00:58
Originally by: Jiks @ Hyakuchan,
Fair enough, you don't want carriers to carry stuff. Can I ask why and who would benefit from this idea?
Speaking as a regular on the old ASCN convoy runs I really don't think normal space freighter runs are remotely viable these days, not to mention horribly boring and time consuming. Why should players of a game be forced to return to say 7 hours of escorting freighters each week or more? Not much fun even it goes smoothly but bearing in mind nothing on that scale can be kept secret ... plus there are many more counters to frighter runs now than there were 18 months ago it prolly wouldnt go smoothly would it?
Thats before lag, waiting for escorts be be bullied into staying up half the night, waiting for bugged freighters to slow down from 13 M km/s ... etc. In short HORRIBLE and not something many want to pay to do for "fun."
I'm interested to know your logic since it seems closer to CCP's thn the rest of us have been able to get^^
Jiks
A fair enough question.
I think they want to force alliances to protect their haulers in a concerted effort. Quite frankly, about half the alliances that exist today do not have the teamwork skills and leadership to survive a world where carriers can't haul.
CCP, I believe, aims to force players to form convoys and work in teams, by making it unfeasible for people to not do so. Essentially, they want people to do exactly what you object to. At least as I see it.
To put it another way...
CCP doesn't seem to approve of how easy it is to found an alliance today. They seem to want to force players to actually cooperate and take ownership of the operation of an alliance, by having to protect shipments and operations rather then simply operating solo for weeks and weeks and occasionally banding together for a warblob.
By making it harder and harder to maintain a POS frontier, they'll reduce the size of the alliance empires by making it difficult to maintain operations. BoB and RSF will suffocate under the flabby folds of their overextended POS lines, which were only possible because they could be maintained by an armada of unescorted carrier-haulers.
You make an interesting point; but it may be too late to change the course of the game this drastically. Nevertheless, even if this change goes through, nothing will change. Established alliances will simply use their existing jump highways and change to expanded dreads/rorquals for hauling. Then, the only thing the change did actually affect was the sales of dreadnoughts/rorquals, depending on their final stats on Sisi. Would you say that this actually managed to do what you would have hoped?
The unfortunate fact is that as long as there are jump capable ships with decent cargoholds, jump hauling will continue. In order to stop it CCP would have to divide cargo holds of dreads into small regular cargo bay, ammo bay (only charges) and fuel bay (only isotopes/strontium). Rorqual would need to lose the regular bay and have an ore bay from which the compression processes would start. If this is CCP's goal, it would be nice to have a detailed blog about it where we would be presented with viable alternatives. But unless there is a drastic change like this, jump hauling with nondedicated ships will continue, and in that light the carrier change seems rather odd - unless they wish to promote the carrier to be used as a ship transporter, moving unpackaged ships between two systems.
Personally, I'm hoping for developer comments in order to plan for the time after rev 3. Any alternatives I might need to replace my carrier as a hauler require both ISK and training time, the sooner I know what is going to change the sooner I can start planning ahead to keep my operations running.
"Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connaet point." -Blaise Pascal, PensTes, 4, 277 |
Pinpisa Jormao
|
Posted - 2007.10.31 06:09:00 -
[362]
Originally by: Vanye Inovske You can't have freighters wandering around for you to gank. You just can't. Because people aren't going to risk them that way. Sorry.
Yes they will if moving fuel was only practical with a freighter and it would be also made much cheaper (increase availability) and the freighter moved much faster cutting the travel time. Fix the autopilot so that people will actually use (rely on) it again.
|
pi squad
|
Posted - 2007.10.31 06:12:00 -
[363]
Originally by: Pinpisa Jormao
Originally by: Vanye Inovske You can't have freighters wandering around for you to gank. You just can't. Because people aren't going to risk them that way. Sorry.
Yes they will if moving fuel was only practical with a freighter and it would be also made much cheaper (increase availability) and the freighter moved much faster cutting the travel time. Fix the autopilot so that people will actually use (rely on) it again.
no, they will just quit. nobody will give over eight hours of their life to fly a freighter with a 110% chance of getting ganked through 0.0
|
infinityshok
|
Posted - 2007.10.31 06:13:00 -
[364]
Originally by: Pinpisa Jormao
Originally by: Vanye Inovske You can't have freighters wandering around for you to gank. You just can't. Because people aren't going to risk them that way. Sorry.
Yes they will if moving fuel was only practical with a freighter and it would be also made much cheaper (increase availability) and the freighter moved much faster cutting the travel time. Fix the autopilot so that people will actually use (rely on) it again.
The only ones that use autopilot in 0.0 are those that want to lose their ships. Similar to how youve lost your mind.
|
Pinpisa Jormao
|
Posted - 2007.10.31 06:59:00 -
[365]
Owning carriers and freighters in 0.0 I know what pita moving things is. Add in the cost/insurance/risk/expensive cargo factors and you certainly want to play safe.
Random ideas: Instead of new freighter ship that takes forever to train, how about a rig installable in freighter that modifies the attributes and adds the jump capability? This could use the existing navigation skills carrier pilots have and wouldn't need to cost that much.
|
Damned Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.31 07:27:00 -
[366]
Originally by: CCP Gangleri Carrier != Hauler
Ships will be allowed to carry ammo in their cargo hold even while inside a ship maintenance bay. As it stands now carriers have a ship maintenance bay of 1m on Sisi. Nothing on Sisi is ever final. Please provide constructive feedback with minimal misinformation and speculation where possible.
I reiterate:
Carrier != Hauler
Whant about the amarr dread? dread = hauler?
|
Lielu Lee
|
Posted - 2007.10.31 08:36:00 -
[367]
Now everyone will fly dread, fit it with cargo expanders and use it to haul stuff around...
|
Kyra Azor
|
Posted - 2007.10.31 09:15:00 -
[368]
Originally by: CCP Gangleri Carrier != Hauler
Ships will be allowed to carry ammo in their cargo hold even while inside a ship maintenance bay. As it stands now carriers have a ship maintenance bay of 1m on Sisi. Nothing on Sisi is ever final. Please provide constructive feedback with minimal misinformation and speculation where possible. I reiterate:
Carrier != Hauler
Train some social skills please. Being dev does not give you the right to post like this. Your post is arrogant and insulting. Please explain us with numbers. What is the maximum hauling capacity of a carrier in TQ now? What will it be if the changes go through? What is the maximum hauling capacity of a dread? What will be the hauling capacity of a T2 freighter? How much you estimate it will cost in ISK and training time? What do you expect to happen while the T2 freighters will not be available in necessary numbers because of production difficulty and lack of skills?
|
Vire Amarr
Kernel of War Tau Ceti Federation
|
Posted - 2007.10.31 10:12:00 -
[369]
Edited by: Vire Amarr on 31/10/2007 10:16:14 Bravo Bravo Bravo, it seem that tere is not only hamster in the server of ccp follow my thoughts ...
CCP as i previously said this i more than enought we are not your f*** slaves eve is a game and know logistik will become slavery !!
Moreover You say isk selling is bad .... and what the F*** a freighter costing 8 to 11B isk that has not other interrest ? People have spent 120 day skilling carrier and know , carrier become crap and really no use ingame. Moreover, people have to train for 5/6 month to be able to pilote the new crappy **** !!
You are totally nuts not matter what you say this is bullS**t !
You say carrier is combat ship not more so let nerf it and in the mean time you introduce earlyer the rorqual a mining ship.
What how say know is use the rorqual for logistik issue.
BUT GODDAMNED , IS a MINING/COMPRESSION SHIP !!! Not a logistique ship.Other point jump range is far to small to do go work in Log.
The situation is that you, didn't manage to do right when carrier when out but that was fin with you becasue you didn't have think about pos fuel and a specifik for that and you said OSEF let's let them use tha carrier as a logisitk ship. Know that people have trained it, you take a rabit out of your hate and HYPOCRYTICLY say carrier was never design to be used this wait.
You really think we are idiot ? You just foolling around with us not more.
Direct impact if you do this change will be loosing many customers and more dramatic : Invite more ISK FARMER for resel.
Because i assume that the new freighter will be so few that they will in fisrt time be around 15 to 20 B because there will be to few and to many people needing it.
So it will automatically increase isk buying for real money, Maybe it what you want , might be in your interest !!
If you really want to nerf carrier logistik capabilitT, Give us a REAL LOGISTIQUE SHIP not a freakin XX Bsik freighter, i dont know maybe some kind of ship with same range as carrier no drones but room for fuel and stuff (i'm shure that u can do a ship that can ahave bones to reduce fuel size )!!
Like 35km3 only but far jumping that would be able to deploye pos and refuel. with bonus of this style :
-90% size fuel. -90% pos and elements. - 90% moonmining matereial size.
but not possibility of moving mineral !!
like this the old freighter will be needed or the new one can be used to. But at least there will be no problem
Carrier will be only fighter > ccp is happy. Rorqual will be only miner > everybody is happy Freighter tier I et II for mineral and stuff > ccp is happy Let's call the new ship the "tanker" will be refuelling and pos management preatty much like oil platform in real life > Everybody is happy
Ship are more specialised and everybody is ok
That sound more logical that what you are doing !!
Co-CEO Kernel Of War Vire Amarr Capital Inc Kernel Of War >> Faites face a votre avenir
|
Stellar Vix
State War Academy
|
Posted - 2007.10.31 11:09:00 -
[370]
May I would like to take the time to remind you that none of these nerfs are likely final, also may I also like to remind you that these nerfs are not going into the next patch as per dev interation of the initial carrier fugly blog. May I also remind you that they are no where near done tinkering with the tech 2 or tier 2 freighter. May I also remind you when they get done redoing the carrier its probably going to be 100% different from what you guys all have been used to. 1,000,000m3 ship bay for prefitted ships would be viable if they add in the long rumored ammo bay or magazine which shares the same space of the cargo holds but its only used for sorting and ammo only. But its rumored and I havent heard any devs commenting on it in a very long while.
Anyways few months back before all of this, I didnt like the idea that when I would get to a carrier finally that it was nothing more than an overglorified carebear ship, now that ccp stated they want to reroll the carrier I'm quite happy, maybe one day I can support and help new pilots field in low sec space and give them some sort of safe haven to rep up replace lost ships and repair and get more ammo.
I hope they make carriers tougher hp wise, i hope they make them flexifits being able to fullfill alot of roles but fitting for them and being high proficient in those roles once fitted to be superior to what they do today. Serioulsy
Revamped triage mode - needs better engineering at least.
Flight Operations mode - where carriers are boosted in fighter deployment and assigment and would be like the dreadnughts seige mode where it turns into a airbase of death would be very nice
Allowing players to dock with the ship, get fixed and repaired and refit, and jumping along with it would make it great for assaults and other field operations and with its new ship maint' bay it would be a great option for fleets to move their forces rapidly without having to deploy a titan to do so.
Three grades of fighters would also be nice one at the cost, damage, hp, stats slightly more than a heavy drone but with warp drives to an anti capitol ship one but ccp said they are introducing more fighters and other deployable pilot craft such as light bombers and light interceptors then there are the hybrid drones comming possibly fighters as well for it, and factional fighters are still out there on the design tabel as well. Plenty of things to choose your poison with.
A similar function should be given the the roquel to carry piloted ships then drop them off at said system as well to deploy entire mining operations with barges that dock up with it.
but somone else brought up a good point in the thread 2 years ago we didnt have entire carrier battlegroups dropping on top of a freighter escort group.
Also last message to you. I wont reply to your emo replies anymore it lacks content that is anything remotly meaningful matter of factly none of your posts in anythread so far is. Not sure what elitist behavior you grew up with but I have plans to rewrite some rules and do things that are nonconformist in eve, sure yell at me call me an idiot for losing a chimera armor tanking or something but hell, I'm having fun enjoying the game for what it is a sandbox with landmines while you're still hauling fuel between bubbles of magically invincible protection. Go out and die sometimes its fun :) and if i ever do kill you one day in a swa pvp op I do dare hope you don't curl up in a corner and cry like a baby just that one 3.5yr old megathron Razor pilot we instapopped and I seriously do hope you stay and fight us, morus brought it razor brought it, outbreak brought it and all those other numerous smaller corps took our operations seriously enough to bring a fair number of them to fight us and we time after time earned thier respect which is obviously something you lack entirely.
Summary Carrier = A fleet ship used to project force abroad maitaining operational needs of interest.
SWA PVP |
|
Jack Toad
Federal Space Academy Red Army Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.31 11:32:00 -
[371]
Edited by: Jack Toad on 31/10/2007 11:35:03 Edited by: Jack Toad on 31/10/2007 11:34:27
Originally by: Stellar Vix May I would like to take the time to remind you that none of these nerfs are likely final, also may I also like to remind you that these nerfs are not going into the next patch as per dev interation of the initial carrier fugly blog. May I also remind you that they are no where near done tinkering with the tech 2 or tier 2 freighter. May I also remind you when they get done redoing the carrier its probably going to be 100% different from what you guys all have been used to. 1,000,000m3 ship bay for prefitted ships would be viable if they add in the long rumored ammo bay or magazine which shares the same space of the cargo holds but its only used for sorting and ammo only. But its rumored and I havent heard any devs commenting on it in a very long while.
Agreed. But the devs silence around the stated changes on SISI reminds me the noGSC nerf. And all recent posts were about that silence. I don't like the way CCP doing balancing. There is no way to fallback. This is bad. Devs stated that they will implement a couple of modules for carriers to let us choose the role for our own ship. Where is the one which let me use my carrier for hauling? It's ok for me if I loose all my drone bay, for example.
The reason for all the whining is the only thing that all we'll get is this nerf. Without alternatives as was promised by devs when they were responsive. This way of balancing sucks.
Originally by: Stellar Vix
Anyways few months back before all of this, I didnt like the idea that when I would get to a carrier finally that it was nothing more than an overglorified carebear ship, now that ccp stated they want to reroll the carrier I'm quite happy, maybe one day I can support and help new pilots field in low sec space and give them some sort of safe haven to rep up replace lost ships and repair and get more ammo.
+10000 for reroll. But the complete one, when we get things nerfed and the modules at the same patch!
|
Elg'caress Estanesse
|
Posted - 2007.10.31 12:11:00 -
[372]
Edited by: Elg''caress Estanesse on 31/10/2007 12:11:56
Originally by: Pinpisa Jormao That's how I see future for this game. Increase risk, make things a lot cheaper and easier and speed up everything - warps 10x faster than now for every ship etc, freighters for 100 M. Fuel for 1/10 current price..
Sarcasm mode on
Yeah the way to go. Make EvE easy, fast and simple as other MMOs, like WoW. It has a bright future. Or wait...something comes in my mind...SWG? Anyone?
|
Hyakuchan
Earth Federation Space Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.31 13:07:00 -
[373]
Originally by: Vire Amarr
By the way if an alliances needed up to 70 people to handle logistik do you really think that evemap would look the same ?? Many alliances running region are often around 150 to 250 personnes , so the right thing would be to use 35% of people for only longistik when they are very good and logistik loving people that want to care of it and do great job being 20 only ?
What is wrong with you ? War is Logistik to support war not war to support logistiks !!! For gods sak
You're fallaciously linking the notion that simply because your alliance has only a small number of runners, that it is right that you can get by with only a small number of runners.
There was a comment about how the EVE-map would look if this went ahead.
Yes. The political landscape would change. Some alliances would lose territory from being unable to hold it due to inability to adapt their supply systems. Others would gain territory.
What people have failed to make a case on is why this should not be the case. Why is CCP obligated to maintain the status quo so that you can do the same?
They aren't. They aren't obligated to do anything for you. It says that in the fine print that comes with the game. They aren't obligated to do anything for your alliance and they aren't obligated to keep the map looking like it does.
If they decide to push a nerf that forces one or many alliances to give up and dissolve, then that's what they do.
You're TCF. What is it you french people say? C'est La Vie?
|
Druadan
Gallente Aristotle Enterprises Ethereal Dawn
|
Posted - 2007.10.31 15:38:00 -
[374]
Edited by: Druadan on 31/10/2007 15:40:05
Originally by: CCP Gangleri Carrier != Hauler
Ships will be allowed to carry ammo in their cargo hold even while inside a ship maintenance bay. As it stands now carriers have a ship maintenance bay of 1m on Sisi. Nothing on Sisi is ever final. Please provide constructive feedback with minimal misinformation and speculation where possible.
I reiterate:
Carrier != Hauler
When you say they'll be able to carry ''ammo'' in their cargohold, it sounds to me like you're saying the ships won't be able to carry things that aren't ammunition. No spare modules for the ship to refit with at the carrier? A ship in the ship maintenance bay is in the same state it is when it's in space. That's the whole point of the ship maintenance bay.
Carriers are most definitely haulers, by the way, as one of their roles is logistics. They are multi-role ships: combat, logistics, and lolgistics (remote reps). Disabling ships because you don't want them to be used that way is extremely un-eve. You might as well disable mining turrets from being fitted to a Rokh, or disable EWAR and turrets from being fitted to a Badger. Provide the players with better tools and they will use them. So the Rorqual, give that the jump range and jump fuel usage of a carrier, and logistics folk will use this capital industrial ship as a capital industrial ship. Don't just take the carrier out of the picture because you introduced an inadequate replacement that you're loath to change.
Note: the jump freighter is not a better tool, as it requires a ridiculous investment that will be so price-hiked by the few people who actually try to invent it that we'll be paying 15-20bil for them (based on third-hand data of a production cost of 5bil) once they actually get to market. Remember when the Tier-2 battlecruisers came out? The first people to build them were charging 150mil+ for them, and they sold because there were people wealthy enough to not mind paying 150mil to get their hands on the newest toy. That was a market that anyone could quickly get into. These things are going to need invention, and that's going to mean a few people will be able to hike the prices ridiculously high.
-Dru
Screw you, Jacques. |
Dangerously Cheesey
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.31 16:12:00 -
[375]
Edited by: Dangerously Cheesey on 31/10/2007 16:13:52
Originally by: Hyakuchan
You're fallaciously linking the notion that simply because your alliance has only a small number of runners, that it is right that you can get by with only a small number of runners.
There was a comment about how the EVE-map would look if this went ahead.
Yes. The political landscape would change. Some alliances would lose territory from being unable to hold it due to inability to adapt their supply systems. Others would gain territory.
What people have failed to make a case on is why this should not be the case. Why is CCP obligated to maintain the status quo so that you can do the same?
They aren't. They aren't obligated to do anything for you. It says that in the fine print that comes with the game. They aren't obligated to do anything for your alliance and they aren't obligated to keep the map looking like it does.
If they decide to push a nerf that forces one or many alliances to give up and dissolve, then that's what they do.
You're TCF. What is it you french people say? C'est La Vie?
I think the three main complaints from large 0.0 alliance people right now are 1)Confusion over the true role of the carriers, 2)Concern that the ship that CCP has created to fill this gap will take weeks if not months to actually be produced because its tech 2 instead of tier 2 and 3)Concern that CCP does not understand the effort, time and coordination required to play the POS warfare game.
The first complaint is fairly simple - there are lots of carrier pilots out there and they are doing lots of different roles but CCP cannot seem to make up their minds as to what kind of ship the carrier is supposed to be. Is it a combat ship? Is it a support ship? There have been seemingly contradictory nerfs and buffs to both of these roles. The "carriers != haulers" bit is a perfect example. Its fine if he wants to say that, but the reality is that carriers are haulers and have been used that way since they came out. Now all of a sudden they are still "support ships" but they can only haul some things and not others. These changes are disconcerting because for the average pilot reading these blogs, posts and patch notes, there seems to be no clear vision for what carriers are designed to do.
The second complaint is also pretty simple - If you are going to force us to use a different ship for the same vital role, then that ship needs to be quickly and readily available and it quite simply will not be. Other players have laid out the training time and blueprint copy/invention/production time frames in this thread so I'm not going to. Suffice to say that it will be several weeks before the first ship could even conceivably be produced and several months before these expensive, slow to produce but extremely vital ships will be available in any numbers. In a way, this ties into the first complaint in that there seems to be no obvious plan attached to CCP's changes. I don't think most of the logistics people in here are unwilling to buy a new ship to do the same role but they simply won't be able to for many weeks. That kind of lack of planing is rather scary.
The third concern is that CCP simply doesn't understand how much un-fun effort it takes to keep up a pos network that even a medium sized alliance would need. Once again, other people in this thread have done a better job than I could. Its hard, boring work that I'm positive ends up feeling like a part or even full time job for some people. Making this exponentially difficult for a few months just because CCP can't time the order of the carrier nerf and jump freighter release must feel like a slap in the face.
I rather like Vire Amarr's idea of a true logistics ship. Jump drive, a moderate cargo capacity, with perhaps bonuses to POS tasks like online/offline speeds - all kinds of cool things like a module for the compression of isotopes could be included.
|
Hutchins
Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.31 16:28:00 -
[376]
Originally by: Hyakuchan
You're fallaciously linking the notion that simply because your alliance has only a small number of runners, that it is right that you can get by with only a small number of runners.
He's saying that keeping POSes fed is an annoying but neccessary fact of life in 0.0. Apparently you are in agreement with CCP in that the boring and tedious mechanics of that are just not boring and tedious enough.
Quote:
There was a comment about how the EVE-map would look if this went ahead.
Yes. The political landscape would change. Some alliances would lose territory from being unable to hold it due to inability to adapt their supply systems. Others would gain territory.
No, it really wouldn't, short of the megablob coalitions slowly gobbling up even more territory. You *might* see an initial contraction of borders as people figure a way around this heavy-handed idiocy, but the big alliances have titans and jump bridge networks, they'll weather the storm much better than a constellation level alliance. Plus CCP's "Solution" to the 0.0 hauling problem looks like it's going to have an astronomical cost of entry, close to that of a mothership. Who do you think is going to be able to better absorb that cost? (Hint, it's not those small constellation level alliances that CCP keeps saying they want to see.)
Quote:
What people have failed to make a case on is why this should not be the case. Why is CCP obligated to maintain the status quo so that you can do the same?
Strawman. CCP is not obligated to maintain the status quo. What they ARE obligated to do is leave it the hell alone. Alliances should rise and fall due to player action, not because of software patches. This is shaping up to be the latter.
Quote:
They aren't. They aren't obligated to do anything for you. It says that in the fine print that comes with the game. They aren't obligated to do anything for your alliance and they aren't obligated to keep the map looking like it does.
If they decide to push a nerf that forces one or many alliances to give up and dissolve, then that's what they do.
No, they are. They're obligated to provide me with a quality experience if they want my gaming dollar, or I take it elsewhere. People are saying 'I can't fuel my POS, how will my alliance survive', but there is an implicit 'How do you expect us to survive in deep 0.0 with mechanics like this?' behind that. If established alliances crumble under the weight of this nerf, how do you expect newcomers to even establish themselves, let alone do anything worthwhile?
The opinions of this humble zergling are not neccessarily those of the Goonfleet Overmind. |
Karina Bellac
|
Posted - 2007.10.31 16:35:00 -
[377]
I love this change. Really I do. Let alliances build up a presence that requires a certain level of logistics to support, and then pull that logistics from under their feet.
And then put in a replacement that leaves the alliances screwed for a few months whilst they train up for the replacement AND try to get some made/purchased.
Go CCP. Next time, you can appear unbiased by letting all alliances know in advance equally. |
pi squad
|
Posted - 2007.10.31 16:43:00 -
[378]
Originally by: Stellar Vix May I would like to take the time to remind you that none of these nerfs are likely final, also may I also like to remind you that these nerfs are not going into the next patch as per dev interation of the initial carrier fugly blog.
i am surprised at how many people failed to read the devblog and think this. let me quote the relevant bits, with emphasis added:
Originally by: devblog
It's not the number of roles they can perform, it's that they can do them all without drawbacks such as the lack of need to refit for the occasion. This means that we wonæt change Carriers or Motherships damage abilities in our next expansion.
Originally by: devblog
This means that we wonæt change Carriers or Motherships damage abilities in our next expansion.
Originally by: devblog
damage abilities
|
Hyakuchan
Earth Federation Space Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.31 16:45:00 -
[379]
Edited by: Hyakuchan on 31/10/2007 16:47:02 Firstly, that was a very civil and constructive reply. Thanks.
Originally by: Dangerously Cheesey The first complaint is fairly simple - there are lots of carrier pilots out there and they are doing lots of different roles but CCP cannot seem to make up their minds as to what kind of ship the carrier is supposed to be.
No argument there. However, my beef with some of the posters in this thread is that, well, it's CCP's game. If CCP decides to impose a change upon carriers, it's their right to do so.
Carrier pilots should not have a false sense of entitlement to use carriers in a specific way simply because they were able to in the past.
Quote: The second complaint is also pretty simple - If you are going to force us to use a different ship for the same vital role, then that ship needs to be quickly and readily available and it quite simply will not be.
This is a valid point and the implications it raises are true. The absence of a carrier-hauler replacement will potentially have a serious impact on the political and economic topography of TQ.
What has not been proven is why CCP should care. The common argument is that people will quit in the face of such dramatic upheavals of the game. It is a fact of MMO public relations that threats of mass-exodus are never heeded until the exodus actually occurs, so this argument can be ignored.
So a new reason is needed. WHY is it in CCP's best interest to NOT **** over the existing alliances by posting a nerf to force adoption of a ship class that won't be immediately available to fill the void?
I haven't seen an alliance answer that question. Other then the threat of exodus, WHY should CCP care if they **** over one or many alliances?
Quote: The third concern is that CCP simply doesn't understand how much un-fun effort it takes to keep up a pos network that even a medium sized alliance would need.
A somewhat irrelevant point.
Someone will do it. If not you then someone else. If you don't do the work to maintain your POS frontier, someone else will move in and take it from you.
The alliances that be see everything through the tint of "how does this impact ME", putting their own alliance's survival into the picture.
Originally by: Hutchins No, they are. They're obligated to provide me with a quality experience if they want my gaming dollar
Actually they aren't. It says so in the terms of service.
|
Sovereign533
Caldari The Collective Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2007.10.31 16:48:00 -
[380]
Originally by: Pinpisa Jormao
Originally by: Vire Amarr
War is Logistik to support war not war to support logistiks !!! For gods sak
?? It should be possible to cripple the corp/alliance easily by targeting the logistics guys, they're what keeps the towers fueled. With all the current mechanisms in place the wars are won by propaganda and such in the forums and decided long before any battle takes places. The fights in game are totally irrelevant and even people who enjoy fleet fights wonder why did we just fight anyway? It was just a skirmish with no purpose, the real fate of the alliance is in hands of couple people and the forum efforts.
The reason this game is fun has nothing to do with the game and that's an area where improvements can be made without taking anything out. Make it possible to effect outcome of wars by preventing fueling of towers and so on.
oh god, i can't stand this anymore... do you hear yourself talk?
EVERY battle is won or lose BEFORE IT EVEN TAKES PLACE!!! EVERY war needs logistics. we all need supplies. and to be honest, not many ppl want to do this. i am one of the few ppl in my alliance, if not the only one in eve, that actually likes trying to solve the logistics nightmare that comes with a war. i also go to the frontlines, but not that often. because i need to make sure that the ppl at the front have what they need to conquer.
and at the moment, i use my Archon to do that. combined with an Impel and Prorator they are resonably good. if i need to restock on fuel, i do a freighter run. i'm almost done with Amarr Carrier lvl 5. so YES, i AM ****ed. because now i need to retrain for a Revelation.
plz, go stand in my shoes for 2 weeks. most ppl can't hold out.
and to the ppl telling me i shouldn't do it on my own. well, i can't anyway. i can't manage a double digid number of pos's on my own. i actually need to force other members to help me. uhm, correction, i need to force other officers.
|
|
Hyakuchan
Earth Federation Space Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.31 16:51:00 -
[381]
Edited by: Hyakuchan on 31/10/2007 16:53:41
Originally by: Hutchins No, they are. They're obligated to provide me with a quality experience if they want my gaming dollar
Actually they aren't. It says so in the EULA under section 11-B, and 12.
Quote: B. Rights to Certain Content You have no interest in the value of your time spent playing the Game, for example, by the building up of the experience level of your character and the items your character accumulates during your time playing the Game. Your Account, and all attributes of your Account, including all corporations, actions, groups, titles and characters, and all objects, currency and items acquired, developed or delivered by or to characters as a result of play through your Accounts, are the sole and exclusive property of CCP, including any and all copyrights and intellectual property rights in or to any and all of the same, all of which are hereby expressly reserved.
Quote: There is no warranty against interference with your enjoyment of the Game.
|
Fulber
|
Posted - 2007.10.31 16:53:00 -
[382]
Originally by: Hyakuchan
Originally by: Hutchins No, they are. They're obligated to provide me with a quality experience if they want my gaming dollar
Actually they aren't. It says so in the EULA under section 11-B.
Quote: B. Rights to Certain Content You have no interest in the value of your time spent playing the Game, for example, by the building up of the experience level of your character and the items your character accumulates during your time playing the Game. Your Account, and all attributes of your Account, including all corporations, actions, groups, titles and characters, and all objects, currency and items acquired, developed or delivered by or to characters as a result of play through your Accounts, are the sole and exclusive property of CCP, including any and all copyrights and intellectual property rights in or to any and all of the same, all of which are hereby expressly reserved.
Eh? You don't get it, do you? CCP are obligated to provide an enjoyable gaming experience, otherwise people won't continue to pay them.
Quote EULA *******s all you like, but nothing says people must continue subscribing if the game turns into a boring job for them. |
Hyakuchan
Earth Federation Space Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.31 16:55:00 -
[383]
Edited by: Hyakuchan on 31/10/2007 16:57:31
Originally by: Fulber Eh? You don't get it, do you? CCP are obligated to provide an enjoyable gaming experience, otherwise people won't continue to pay them.
As I have already said several replies ago, the exodus threat does not work until you actually quit.
This has been the case since EQ and UO. You have to quit to make CCP care. No MMO publisher has ever taken the threat of a mass exodus seriously until it begins.
What the EULA says, by and large, is "F*** you, we'll do what we want. You'll either pay for it or you won't. We don't really care."
|
Hutchins
Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.31 17:01:00 -
[384]
Originally by: Fulber
Originally by: Hyakuchan
Originally by: Hutchins No, they are. They're obligated to provide me with a quality experience if they want my gaming dollar
Actually they aren't. It says so in the EULA under section 11-B.
Quote: B. Rights to Certain Content You have no interest in the value of your time spent playing the Game, for example, by the building up of the experience level of your character and the items your character accumulates during your time playing the Game. Your Account, and all attributes of your Account, including all corporations, actions, groups, titles and characters, and all objects, currency and items acquired, developed or delivered by or to characters as a result of play through your Accounts, are the sole and exclusive property of CCP, including any and all copyrights and intellectual property rights in or to any and all of the same, all of which are hereby expressly reserved.
Eh? You don't get it, do you? CCP are obligated to provide an enjoyable gaming experience, otherwise people won't continue to pay them.
Quote EULA *******s all you like, but nothing says people must continue subscribing if the game turns into a boring job for them.
Pretty much this. I'm well aware of the minutiae of the EULA. That section is just in there to basically prevent someone from suing CCP over a situation like this. It has nothing to do with my point, which is that if CCP makes the game boring and stupid, which this will go a long way towards doing, people will stop playing.
CCP is no more obligated to make eve the way I want it than I am to give them money for it. However, if they want myself and a lot of other people to continue giving them money, it might be a good idea if they were to take what we want in EVE into consideration (I can't believe I really just did the 'threaten account cancellation' play. It was a neccesary evil to make my point though.). When you make a design change and 5,000 users suddeny start shouting 'OMGWTFBBQ this is stupid!', it's a bad design and PR decision to reply with what amounts to 'Stupid users you weren't using it right in the first place'. |
Hyakuchan
Earth Federation Space Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.31 17:12:00 -
[385]
Edited by: Hyakuchan on 31/10/2007 17:13:30
Originally by: Hutchins CCP is no more obligated to make eve the way I want it than I am to give them money for it. However, if they want myself and a lot of other people to continue giving them money, it might be a good idea if they were to take what we want in EVE into consideration
See there's the thing...
In the MMO world, the boycott bluff always gets called because the marketing/pr team KNOWS that most of it is just talk. The ones who take it seriously enough will quit, but so long as the net change in subscriptions remains positive, it doesn't matter.
MMO publishers don't take threats seriously until subscription growth bottoms out or turns negative.
|
Hutchins
Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.31 17:36:00 -
[386]
Originally by: Hyakuchan Edited by: Hyakuchan on 31/10/2007 17:13:30
Originally by: Hutchins CCP is no more obligated to make eve the way I want it than I am to give them money for it. However, if they want myself and a lot of other people to continue giving them money, it might be a good idea if they were to take what we want in EVE into consideration
See there's the thing...
In the MMO world, the boycott bluff always gets called because the marketing/pr team KNOWS that most of it is just talk. The ones who take it seriously enough will quit, but so long as the net change in subscriptions remains positive, it doesn't matter.
MMO publishers don't take threats seriously until subscription growth bottoms out or turns negative.
My point is that this nerf is dumb from every perspective. From a pure mechanics standpoint, well, we've got a couple hundred pages of RABBLE RABBLE over that. PR and Design I already covered. When we get no communication other than 'You weren't using it right in the first place' it's bad PR, and when end users are mucking up the designers grand vision, it's bad design.
And yes, the 'I'll quit over this nerf' bluff always gets called. But eventually you reach a point where the 'I'll quit over this nerf' bluff becomes the 'I'm quitting because this game sucks' statement. Will the bottom fall out of the subscription numbers when Rev3 goes live because of righteous nerdrage over the carrier nerf? Astronomically unlikely. Will this result in a net-loss in subscription numbers because 0.0 and it's attendant end-game content stagnates? I think that's certainly quite possible. And to forestall the inevitable 'well they can just change it back if subs drop off', how about they just listen to us now and save all involved several months of rabble,threadnoughts,canceled accounts,kicked puppies, etc. ? |
Emolayshun
|
Posted - 2007.10.31 17:57:00 -
[387]
Edited by: Emolayshun on 31/10/2007 17:56:52
|
Dangerously Cheesey
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.31 18:11:00 -
[388]
Originally by: Hyakuchan Edited by: Hyakuchan on 31/10/2007 16:50:23
No argument there. However, my beef with some of the posters in this thread is that, well, it's CCP's game. If CCP decides to impose a change upon carriers, it's their right to do so. Carrier pilots should not have a false sense of entitlement to use carriers in a specific way simply because they were able to in the past.
This is a valid point and the implications it raises are true. The absence of a carrier-hauler replacement will potentially have a serious impact on the political and economic topography of TQ.
What has not been proven is why CCP should care. The common argument is that people will quit in the face of such dramatic upheavals of the game. It is a fact of MMO public relations that threats of mass-exodus are never heeded until the exodus actually occurs, so this argument can be ignored.
So a new reason is needed. WHY is it in CCP's best interest to NOT **** over the existing alliances by posting a nerf to force adoption of a ship class that won't be immediately available to fill the void?
I haven't seen an alliance answer that question. Other then the threat of exodus, WHY should CCP care if they **** over one or many alliances?
Someone will do it. If not you then someone else. If you don't do the work to maintain your POS frontier, someone else will move in and take it from you.
The alliances that be see everything through the tint of "how does this impact ME", putting their own alliance's survival into the picture.
I think you have to look past the "wtf why cant I do X with my carrier anymore NERF!!" people. The truth once again is that CCP either does not know what they want carriers to be or is not communicating that to the players. We know, thanks to some recent posts/dev blogs that they don't want the carrier to be a one stop, do it all really well ship. Fine. But what do they want the carrier to be then? I think most reasonable cap ship pilots wouldn't mind the nerfs and buffs so much if they didn't seem so random and ill conceived. People get frustrated when they don't understand the reasons behind a change and right now, CCP is providing very little in the way of information on the carriers true intended purpose(s).
Will lots of people quit the game over this next patch? Of course not. Will it make the game needlessly less enjoyable for some people? Yes it will. Once again, its related to what seems to be a lack of clear goals and planning on CCP's part. Replacing nerfed carriers with jump drive freighters for pos logistics is fine - doing them both at the same time and creating a gap where neither of the ships is usable (because the nerf happens the day of the patch and the first tech 2 jump freighter takes 2 months to roll out) is *not* fine.
Your right that people will continue to live in 0.0 space and if X alliance is no longer willing to play the increasingly annoying pos warefare game, then someone else will. That, however, does not mean its a positive change. At the end of the day, CCP runs a business - why annoy your customers if you don't have to?
|
Stellar Vix
State War Academy
|
Posted - 2007.10.31 18:15:00 -
[389]
If all the carrier pilots quit then 0.0 would definetly be rerolled and people like bob and goonswarm will have to adapt or die, way to go darwin!
Imo they should reduce the fuel types needed to run a POS, so that a pos can be maitnained using local resources instead of stuff from empire. That way you wont need to make massive jumps from point A to B and it would END this stupid discussion and use for carrier to haul fuels for pos, because seriously they are trying to prevent the exproation of minerals from empire to 0.0 instead and encourage more mining in the lower secotors, increasing the capitol modules and tech 1 modules sizes and reducing rat loot to never drop tech 1 stuff again are all aimed at reducing the effective ability to make minerals from empire stay in empire.
IF CCP was SMART THEY WOULD RELEASE THE TECH 2 FREIGHTER MONTHS BEFORE DEPLOYING THE CARRIER REROLL. Considering we are most likely not going to see any of this happen by end of the year.
They are adding more roids exclusive to 0.0 they should also add more ice belts. This way the roquel can see more deployments the employment of miners increase and the lack of ease of outsourcing work reduced. Who knows probably hurt the isk sellers in empire majorly as well.
This is ultimately aimed at slowing down capitol ship construction and many other types of construction.
Also opening up 0.0 allows for more people to move out there, there are plenty of people that would rather try thier own ideas into 0.0 and not join some other person's cause, especially during now when appox 75% of all regions in the 0.0 areas are at war with something else right now and the last 25% is overcrowded as is.
SWA PVP |
infinityshok
|
Posted - 2007.10.31 19:56:00 -
[390]
Originally by: Hyakuchan Edited by: Hyakuchan on 31/10/2007 16:53:41
Originally by: Hutchins No, they are. They're obligated to provide me with a quality experience if they want my gaming dollar
Actually they aren't. It says so in the EULA under section 11-B, and 12.
Quote: B. Rights to Certain Content You have no interest in the value of your time spent playing the Game, for example, by the building up of the experience level of your character and the items your character accumulates during your time playing the Game. Your Account, and all attributes of your Account, including all corporations, actions, groups, titles and characters, and all objects, currency and items acquired, developed or delivered by or to characters as a result of play through your Accounts, are the sole and exclusive property of CCP, including any and all copyrights and intellectual property rights in or to any and all of the same, all of which are hereby expressly reserved.
Quote: There is no warranty against interference with your enjoyment of the Game.
Your useless-trivia skills are leet. I feel certain there is a prize awaiting you for that at some geek convention.
As a friendly reminder you forgot the one thing that trumps the entire EULA:
Sub paragraph FU: In the event the paying player gets a wild hair up his southernmost orifice due to a totally effed up gaming experience said player reserves the right to nerf his credit card.
|
|
BOldMan
Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.31 20:40:00 -
[391]
Carriers are now exactly what their name/class said. Future nerfs are making their name/class a joke. And not a good one.
|
Hyakuchan
Earth Federation Space Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.31 20:47:00 -
[392]
Edited by: Hyakuchan on 31/10/2007 20:47:53
Originally by: infinityshok Your useless-trivia skills are leet. I feel certain there is a prize awaiting you for that at some geek convention.
Actually, I give that prize out. The award is a dictionary with "obscene gestures of the world" pop-up pages.
|
infinityshok
|
Posted - 2007.10.31 20:57:00 -
[393]
Originally by: Hyakuchan Edited by: Hyakuchan on 31/10/2007 20:50:45
Originally by: infinityshok Your useless-trivia skills are leet. I feel certain there is a prize awaiting you for that at some geek convention.
Actually, I give that prize out. The award is a pop-up book entitled "Obscene Gestures of the Klingon Empire."
And you should be proud. Youre a chick magnet I bet.
|
ElCoCo
KIA Corp KIA Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.31 21:10:00 -
[394]
Honestly, can you devs please stop devising ways to make your game less fun?
This is a universal change, not some buff/nerf to a single race ship and so on.
If 99% of the ppl involved don't like it, then it's almost safe to say it's bad
No realy, I understand your need for ummm.... balance? Why oh why must you add even more tediousness on day to day activites
|
Stellar Vix
State War Academy
|
Posted - 2007.10.31 21:23:00 -
[395]
I say let them get done balancing it before we star yelling hollering and screaming like a bunch of babies, anyways anyone selling a chimera for cheap?
SWA PVP |
Seonae
STK Scientific
|
Posted - 2007.10.31 22:28:00 -
[396]
Originally by: CCP Gangleri Carrier != Hauler
Ships will be allowed to carry ammo in their cargo hold even while inside a ship maintenance bay. As it stands now carriers have a ship maintenance bay of 1m on Sisi. Nothing on Sisi is ever final. Please provide constructive feedback with minimal misinformation and speculation where possible.
I reiterate:
Carrier != Hauler
It took me a while as I had to break out the CCP Decoder ring, but I've finally translated this:
'Get a Titan and jump bridge freighters, otherwise you do not belong in 0.0'
seriously.. thats what it says
|
Manim Sarecs
|
Posted - 2007.11.01 00:03:00 -
[397]
Originally by: CCP Gangleri Carrier != Hauler
Ships will be allowed to carry ammo in their cargo hold even while inside a ship maintenance bay. As it stands now carriers have a ship maintenance bay of 1m on Sisi. Nothing on Sisi is ever final. Please provide constructive feedback with minimal misinformation and speculation where possible.
I reiterate:
Carrier != Hauler
There are many valid and constructive points made in this thread. There are also people who's brains are apparently exploding, leaving bloody, panicked gray matter all over it.
In other words, we're doing exactly what you ask of us: replying to a change made on sisi with the passionate fervor inherent in a group of dedicated gamers. Don't get mad at us and summarily dismiss us for loving your game, for showing you how much our time here means to us, for trying to tell you what parts of the game we enjoy the most and want to see enhanced and which parts we hate and want to see pruned or streamlined. You have the cheapest market research on the planet, and we know you use it, we know you listen, we've seen it. Just let us know a little bit, just a hint of your vision.
Read the entirety of what's been posted before responding. We know it's time-consuming and tedious to read people mostly repeating each other over and over again, trying to cull sparks of ingenuity. We do it all the time. It's worth it to me, and I just play the game. |
Kitome Nakatashi
|
Posted - 2007.11.01 00:20:00 -
[398]
I trained for and bought a Thanatos specifically to support mining and pos operations in 0.0. I have decent combat skills, but I've never used nor plan to use my carrier in battle.
There was no Rorqual. There was no possibility of a jump freighter. I put in the training time and bought the ship to do a job. No you are taking that ability away from the carrier. And somehow I doubt you'll trade me a Rorqual for it.. With thousands of people trying to sell carriers and buy Capital Industrials, it's going to be a reasonably long time before I make the switch.
How is this a good thing for the player base? How is this good for the game?
The carrier has been a hauler since it's release. You want to give me a toggle to set between combat mode, logistics mode (laughable) and hauler mode - fine. But leave me the ability to do my job until Rorqs are commonplace.
-Kitome Nakatashi, another disappointed logistics player
p.s. The t2 freighter isn't coming in the upcoming patch, so really doesn't need discussion on this topic.
|
Verite Rendition
Caldari AUS Corporation CORE.
|
Posted - 2007.11.01 01:11:00 -
[399]
Hey, I just realized that the Fanfest starts today. Would someone please, please, please bring up the issue at the roundtables, and keep bringing it up until we get a straight answer from CCP? ---- AUS Corp Lead Megalomanic EVE Automated Influence Map
|
Stellar Vix
State War Academy
|
Posted - 2007.11.01 02:24:00 -
[400]
Wouldnt surprise me if they came out "this is how we are reinventing carriers complete with several modes of operation and they will all be uber in the roles they are specialized in." And the new stats and abilities would make alot of you drool you may forget you would have to use your carrier for hauling fuel anymore.
But seriously lets get some petition going of lets get the role replacement ships in fist.
SWA PVP |
|
I SoStoned
|
Posted - 2007.11.01 03:44:00 -
[401]
Originally by: CCP Gangleri Carrier != Hauler
Eve != My Second Job online.
These changes make it just that. Make these jump freighters affordable & accessable before you f*ck up carrier logistics and you might salvage something.
Currently R3 makes me seriously reconsider my subscriptions.
|
Malachon Draco
eXceed Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.11.01 12:16:00 -
[402]
Originally by: Hyakuchan Edited by: Hyakuchan on 31/10/2007 17:13:30
Originally by: Hutchins CCP is no more obligated to make eve the way I want it than I am to give them money for it. However, if they want myself and a lot of other people to continue giving them money, it might be a good idea if they were to take what we want in EVE into consideration
See there's the thing...
In the MMO world, the boycott bluff always gets called because the marketing/pr team KNOWS that most of it is just talk. The ones who take it seriously enough will quit, but so long as the net change in subscriptions remains positive, it doesn't matter.
MMO publishers don't take threats seriously until subscription growth bottoms out or turns negative.
Yes, and no. Mostly it is just talk. But ask SOE what they were thinking when they introduced their 'Combat Upgrade' and the 'NGE' and what it did to their subscriber numbers in SWG. They had the golden licence with Star Wars Galaxies and they blew it because in the end, when the subscribers really had enough, they quit in huge numbers.
------------------------------------------------
|
Jezzebell
Minmatar Black Knight Buccaneers Daisho Syndicate
|
Posted - 2007.11.01 12:25:00 -
[403]
CCP, I REALLY hope you reconsider this nerf. You are taking away a very important aspect of the carrier, to launch battle-ready ships without having the hassle with fitting and so on... _______________________________
"Hey, watch this!"
|
Gun Babe
|
Posted - 2007.11.01 13:29:00 -
[404]
This isn't a pure nerf, the size/Volume of a lot of ship classes has been reduced a lot. The result is that you can now fit 2 assembled BS and have some room left in a standard carrier. In fact even the industrials have lower volume and you can fit more than 2 itty V's into the bay (can actually open them and put stuff in them too but without any pilot bonuses).
You can store a ship with charges in the ships bay (ammo/cap boosters, didn't try warp disrupt and other probes but I hope). I'm not saying I'm for this changes, its a real pain in the a$$ but its got ups and downs. Carriers are better for BF logistics now (can carry a lot more combat ships, can do uber repping etc.) they just are a bit bleh for industrial logistics.. c'est la vie I used to use my carrier for that too.
All this said, with one thing and the other, the cargo hold on all carriers is a lil bit too small now because carriers need stront (and a lot need cap boosters too), would be nice to see it increased a bit to level things out.
|
Verite Rendition
Caldari F.R.E.E. Explorer Atrum Tempestas Foedus
|
Posted - 2007.11.01 21:41:00 -
[405]
Back to the top. ---- AUS Corp Lead Megalomanic EVE Automated Influence Map
|
Amy Wang
|
Posted - 2007.11.02 00:31:00 -
[406]
How about allowing ships to have the following items in cargo just not anything else?
a) ammo & crystals b) drones c) cap charges
that way you could at least store combat rdy ships in a carrier for grabs as its intended to
sure you could always grab that ammo etc from the corp hangar but we all know how well that works in a laggy enviroment
|
Nevada Tan
|
Posted - 2007.11.02 00:46:00 -
[407]
Originally by: Seonae
Originally by: CCP Gangleri Carrier != Hauler
Ships will be allowed to carry ammo in their cargo hold even while inside a ship maintenance bay. As it stands now carriers have a ship maintenance bay of 1m on Sisi. Nothing on Sisi is ever final. Please provide constructive feedback with minimal misinformation and speculation where possible.
I reiterate:
Carrier != Hauler
It took me a while as I had to break out the CCP Decoder ring, but I've finally translated this:
'Get a Titan and jump bridge freighters, otherwise you do not belong in 0.0'
seriously.. thats what it says
So what does it say today, with the "freighters can't jump bridge any more" nerf?
♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ I have done a bad thing. |
Kilostream
Caldari Roving Guns Inc. RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.11.02 01:02:00 -
[408]
Edited by: Kilostream on 02/11/2007 01:03:09 I think there's nothing I can say here that Grayton has not already said, both more eloquently and more authoritatively than I could manage.
CCP this is an ill-conceived idea.....
I agree wholeheartedly with the player-held notion that you are failing, utterly, to appreciate how much of a grind erecting and maintaining pos infrastructure ALREADY is - we are not getting an easy ride, and getting the freighters and carriers nerfed back-to-back like this could be a mortal blow for eve as a whole, once the 0.0 allainces stop bothering and your longest playing, biggest paying, most loyal customers begin to desert you in their droves.
|
Gnulpie
Minmatar Miner Tech
|
Posted - 2007.11.02 01:33:00 -
[409]
Originally by: CCP Gangleri Carrier != Hauler
Ships will be allowed to carry ammo in their cargo hold even while inside a ship maintenance bay. [...]
I reiterate:
Carrier != Hauler
And who are you???
I hear that there are 10.000 carriers in Eve, so assume that we have 5000+ carrier pilots.
These 5000 people are paying YOUR monthly paycheck CCP Gangleri.
You want constructive posts? Maybe STARTS YOURSELF TO BE CONSTRUCTIVE!
Explain what is wrong with carriers right at the moment, explain why they must not haul things. Explain the logic that carriers can haul ships, that they even can haul ships which have ammo in their cargo, but they cannot haul ships that have anything else there. Explain how you make Eve MORE FUN for the players with these changes!
If you do this first, then there is room to be constructive.
I'm really fed up with such arrogant statements like 'carriers != haulers' and crap like this and no explanations at all.
PEOPLE DON'T WANT THIS!!
|
Raevenor
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.11.02 01:59:00 -
[410]
Originally by: Gnulpie
Originally by: CCP Gangleri Carrier != Hauler
Ships will be allowed to carry ammo in their cargo hold even while inside a ship maintenance bay. [...]
I reiterate:
Carrier != Hauler
And who are you???
I hear that there are 10.000 carriers in Eve, so assume that we have 5000+ carrier pilots.
These 5000 people are paying YOUR monthly paycheck CCP Gangleri.
You want constructive posts? Maybe STARTS YOURSELF TO BE CONSTRUCTIVE!
Explain what is wrong with carriers right at the moment, explain why they must not haul things. Explain the logic that carriers can haul ships, that they even can haul ships which have ammo in their cargo, but they cannot haul ships that have anything else there. Explain how you make Eve MORE FUN for the players with these changes!
If you do this first, then there is room to be constructive.
I'm really fed up with such arrogant statements like 'carriers != haulers' and crap like this and no explanations at all.
PEOPLE DON'T WANT THIS!!
This is a good post. Secondly Goonswarm loves Grayton and Stampert our wonderful logistic directors who pretty much work their 2nd job in Eve just keeping everything a-okay. Grayton wrote a very elegant and wonderful post on why this is a bad idea.
CCP has not given very good reasons or some sort of detailed thought-out explanation why this is being even done or considered.
Its pretty hilarious to see people who actually agree with this change have absolutely no idea whats its like operating in 0.0 or haven't done logistics themselves, they just don't have a god damn clue and thus are in a nutshell: ********.
I really have to say the same about CCP's lead testers and development folks can say 'This is needed, **** people who have invested years into their capital characters and ships, we are going do this our way without input from the community'. This is what CCP are currently saying to us.
One CCP Fellow already posted why, in the most snide manner possible without explaining a damn thing which is pathetic given the fact this effects any 0.0 alliance the player base that actually uses carriers extensively for various roles. Since carriers were out they were fine, they are workhorses and combat ships, people didn't see a problem with it for years until CCP suddenly deciding it so.
Instead of focusing on game-breaking issues and more important things like trying to actually fix fighter lag in your god damn python code and improving the game fixing bugs that have been around since release you are essentially fixing things that aren't broken. This is stupidity. I hope you get chewed out at Fanfest for this stupidity.
You really are turning this into SWG. Players strongly give input on why things are a bad idea, X idea gets implemented, people yell at devs, devs ignore players and continue doing what they think is right. Next thing you know any kind of constructive comments or criticism is grounds for forum bans cause you know that worked great for the SWG dev team. This change is the first step towards breaking the game like it has never been broken before, tread very lightly.
|
|
Tonto Auri
|
Posted - 2007.11.02 02:07:00 -
[411]
Originally by: CCP Gangleri Carrier != Hauler
Ships will be allowed to carry ammo in their cargo hold even while inside a ship maintenance bay. As it stands now carriers have a ship maintenance bay of 1m on Sisi. Nothing on Sisi is ever final. Please provide constructive feedback with minimal misinformation and speculation where possible.
I reiterate:
Carrier != Hauler
Pick and open a dictionary before stating such silliness, please.
If You have trouble with carrier ship maintenance array, just make industrial ships assembled size bigger. As big as You wish. 600,000, 700,000 m3... It will not make any problem for majority of players, just affect carrier pilots. But STOP making such silly changes. And study "Why restrictive solution are bad" article before trying to "balance" something such way again. Any limits should be expected rather than imposed.
Example: You can't put 2,000,000 m3 in 1,000,000 m3 cargobay - expected limitation. You can't put it in cargo because it is loaded with stuff - imposed restriction. You can put item in cargo without any changes to itself (no repackaging etc.), but You should by the strange rule make some strange manipulations - offload cargo from it. -- Thanks CCP for cu<end of sig> |
Awox
Advanced Logistics
|
Posted - 2007.11.02 02:39:00 -
[412]
Originally by: Ford Cruller
Originally by: Grayton
Originally by: CCP Gangleri Carrier != Hauler
Ships will be allowed to carry ammo in their cargo hold even while inside a ship maintenance bay. As it stands now carriers have a ship maintenance bay of 1m on Sisi. Nothing on Sisi is ever final. Please provide constructive feedback with minimal misinformation and speculation where possible.
I reiterate:
Carrier != Hauler
irrelevant dude snipped
If you won't listen to me, or anyone else, at least listen to Grayton, he is a logistics director for Goonswarm and obviously knows a lot more about logistics than anyone at CCP.
Yeah, because a whole lot of knowledge and skill goes into moving capitals through a cyno network. OH LORD. I am the only real logistics master in GoonSwarm and you know it.
|
Lyla Lei
|
Posted - 2007.11.02 02:42:00 -
[413]
Originally by: CCP Gangleri Carrier != Hauler
Ships will be allowed to carry ammo in their cargo hold even while inside a ship maintenance bay. As it stands now carriers have a ship maintenance bay of 1m on Sisi. Nothing on Sisi is ever final. Please provide constructive feedback with minimal misinformation and speculation where possible.
I reiterate:
Carrier != Hauler
Relax guys, maybe the devs fixed the corp hangar so it doesn't take 5 minutes to load a hangar division with one module in it in a system with 2 people... oh wait, this is CCP we are talking about here.
Yeah, this is pretty stupid. CCP hiring straight out of special needs facilities?
|
Gloomy Gus
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.11.02 02:46:00 -
[414]
Originally by: Xanetia Ravenfrost I don't mind not having offensive capability if I'm doing a logistics job. However, leaving the only choices for 0.0 logistics either a 40-jump freighter convoy or an 8 billion isk Jump Freighter that won't show up at all until 2 months after Rev3 is shortsighted.
I thought this was a particularly well-worded post and I want it printed again on this page so I'm quoting it.
Also all of Grayton's post on page 1.
Semper Fi,
|
Brka
Vendetta Underground Rule of Three
|
Posted - 2007.11.02 03:25:00 -
[415]
Devs are not listening. Will be interesting I guess seeing that Devs do not equal businessmen and don't understand listening to your player base. Crossroads of the game is coming.
Again listen to your people DO NOT do this.
|
Dangerously Cheesey
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.11.02 03:53:00 -
[416]
Originally by: Grayton Ok, as one of the main logistics directors for the largest alliance (numbers wise) in the game, and an owner of a carrier for over a year and now recently a mothership, I think I have a unique perspective when it comes to carriers and logistics.
There is a fundamental difference between PVP and logistics in this game. People PVP because they want to have fun. People do logistics (and by logistics, I mean alliance-level POS fueling and everything it entails) because it HAS to be done in order for the alliance to survive. It is not fun. It is boring, tedious, time consuming work that is completely pointless but that CCP feels is for some reason absolutely necessary for alliances that wish to have space to go through.
It also seems like CCP has this idea in their mind of the "right" way that this boring, tedious, time consuming, pointless task should be going about being completed, and nerf everything that doesn't fall in line to their idea but is still used to do it anyway (case in point: GSCs in indys in carriers). They seemed to be obsessed with this idea of making running POSes as utterly, utterly stupid and boring as possible. We've already got the 6 hour setup times per POS, and the hours spent just getting fuel collected in empire; why not make it even harder to get that fuel moved and get each of those POSes fueled so that even more time can be wasted on trivial tasks? I guess spending hours upon hours upon hours doing tedious jumping of fuel wasn't boring enough for CCP, so they decided to add even more hours on of tedious gate jumping through up to 40 jumps just to fuel. And that's leaving out the additional time needed to be able to get protection so you don't get ganked.
Seriously, does CCP even have any idea about the dedication and time it takes to run an alliance level logistics program? Do they even understand how slow and mind numbing it is? It's easy to say "oh, this isn't hard at all!" to 10, 20, even 30 POSes that need fueling and an already in place infrastructure of bridges. But to have to run a 100+ POS network spanning multiple regions and hundreds of light years without always having the easy to use bridge infrastructure in place? To have to deal with constant, stupid 30 second waits on EVERYTHING that has to be done? To have to sit there and anchor 15 guns and 10 mods on a tower one by one wasting over 7 hours of your life just to get it up and running? If they had ANY idea what it was like to have to do all this on such a large scale, I don't think they could EVER put in changes like this. But they don't. They have no idea what it's like for certain players in their game to have to manage such huge pointless responsibilities because of their game mechanics that they insist on changing with stuff like this to make it even worse.
This, of course, isn't even mentioning the gigantic affects this will have on smaller corps. Say good bye to trying to get any foothold in 0.0. I doubt many smaller corps have the numbers to escort freighters or indys through potentially super-hostile space.
Now, I'm sure some of you are saying, "well duh Grayton, the t2 jump freighters will fix everything!" Ignoring the fact that making these new freighters tech 2 instead of tier 2 is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard and opens a big, huge, gigantic door CCP should not be opening considering the current state of the game (T2 capital ships, that is), do you realize how rare T2 freighters will be? For those that try and make them, there's the ever present threat of losing their BPCs trying to invent them and getting nothing back. The month long copy time. The cost in minerals to make one. These things are going to be stupidly rare, and stupidly expensive. Then there's the minimum 3.5 month training time (freighter V, jdc IV). That's a HUGE gap of time where no one will be able to fly them and no one will be able to use carriers any more for the job.
I just hope CCP realizes what they're getting into.
|
Zylatis
Umbra Congregatio
|
Posted - 2007.11.02 07:50:00 -
[417]
Jesus stop nerfing stuff, you guys got a quota to fill or something?
|
AngelusK
Minmatar FireStar Inc
|
Posted - 2007.11.02 12:48:00 -
[418]
Originally by: CCP Gangleri Carrier != Hauler
Ships will be allowed to carry ammo in their cargo hold even while inside a ship maintenance bay. As it stands now carriers have a ship maintenance bay of 1m on Sisi. Nothing on Sisi is ever final. Please provide constructive feedback with minimal misinformation and speculation where possible.
I reiterate:
Carrier != Hauler
Well, let's see...
Carrier != Hauler, with this nerf. Carrier != PvP ship, with the fighter nerf.
What's left then? ...ah!
Ladies & gentlemen, I give you...
The Capital PvE-Only Plex Gang-Tank!! (ta-daa!)
...at least until CCP eventually nerf the cap rep mod.
|
mamolian
M. Corp M. PIRE
|
Posted - 2007.11.02 13:14:00 -
[419]
Edited by: mamolian on 02/11/2007 13:19:06 Mr Dev,
I play a game, where 5 - 50 people run the infrastructure required to hold space in 0.0 inevitably those people burn out, even with the best of intentions, the bigger the number you make responsible for that infrastructure, you run the risk to allow in spies, and other nasty people who are there simply to destroy that infrastructure from the inside.. The other 500 - 5000 people in the average alliance couldn't be bothered.. either too lazy, to incompetent.. ran POS in the past and think NEVER A*******GAIN!!11oneone etc.. So then you go back to those 5 - 50 people.. the directors.. the CEO's the POS maintenance crew.. who make 0.0 space ownership possible.
These people are also playing this wonderful game.. But with current mechanics.. and time investments to make this all possible.. Eve is a 2nd Job..
Carrier mechanics as they are on Tranquility, combined with current Tranquility mineral compression mechanics make logistics just about bareable your proposed changes will make things difficult beyond belief.. For not only alliance sovereignty logistics.. but Personal logistics of your average capital player with a carrier, who relies on this ship in its current form to move their ships.. and their modules etc between sysems.
Tech 2 freighters.. A ship with no module slots.. with no rig slots.. hence slow.. not only to align and warp.. but between jumps.. Inventable.. Expensive.. Far outside the reach of your average player (nevermind most small alliances), and will not meet the demands of alliance logistics nor will it meet the demands for minerals in 0.0. if you remove carriers ability to haul industrials packed with items. Tier 2.. would be a slight improvement.. but not by much
You want constructive feedback? Leave the carrier alone. Please. PS: what sparked this bollox to begin with? One of the carebear devs get ganked by a carrier or something on their main?
-------------------------------
|
Wet shorts
|
Posted - 2007.11.02 14:20:00 -
[420]
hi era of indastrials swarm a hate u CCP
|
|
Tharrn
Amarr Epitoth Fleetyards Vigilia Valeria
|
Posted - 2007.11.02 14:35:00 -
[421]
Well, we'll adapt as always. T2 Jumpfreighters look too freaking expensive right now, so a Rorqual it'll have to be. 137k cargo still beats Carriers by a fair margin.
Does it require specialized industrial people in 0.0 operations? Certainly. Is that bad? Personally I don't think so.
Amarr Mineral Index
|
Natalie Jax
Indecision Industries
|
Posted - 2007.11.02 14:40:00 -
[422]
I'd be a bit happier if there was any shred of metagaming logic to this move. But only a bit.
I can load up a ship with ammunition, stuff designed to explode, and park it in the carrier. But putting a cargohold full of soil is .... bad?
It's a ship within a ship ... it has to be hollow, or filled with explosives in order to be carried.
What?
|
Ammath
Amarr Exanimo Inc Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.11.02 14:54:00 -
[423]
What is brilliant is dropping this with only a week or two warning, before seeding jumpable freighters for a month, and making it so freights cant use jump-bridges as well...
All this is doing is ****ing over the 0.0 players who have large infrastructures. As part of a phased rollout first getting jumpable freights in for a few months so they are priced reasonable and are aquired, then nerfing frieghts on jump-bridges, then making so you cant carry industrial ships (only) in carriers would be a roadmap..
This isnt a roadmap, this is jumping off a cliff.
Use some common sense.
|
Ash Donai
|
Posted - 2007.11.02 15:04:00 -
[424]
What needs to be done is that those who trained capital ship skills need to receive a refund on their SP and the ability to instantly reallocate those SP toward other skills.
The cap ship SP were trained under a certain set of expectation as to their usefulness, with that usefulness now removed, there is very little reason to still be a carrier pilot, hence since a year of skilltraining was stolen from me, you better believe that I want it back.
If this double-nerf goes live, I will be filing petition after petition to receive an SP refund. I suggest you do the same.
|
BECKARD
Shadows of the Dead Aftermath Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.11.02 15:26:00 -
[425]
ok, everyone stfu, this **** is not important, what is important is the ******* login screeen, the devs commented 7 times in about as many seconds to this thread:
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=627522
So **** nerfing, the caps, mod nerfs, **** your whine, **** your *****ing, **** all of the eve community, whats important is:
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=627522
login screens, I mean how the **** could we be so stupid to ***** about nerfing and cap ship changes and fundamental game decisions when there is a ******* CRISIS OUT THERE THAT THE DEV TEAM MUST FOCUS ON!~!!!!!!QQQQS!@@#$JWDFASDF!~!~!~~~~~~~!!@@!!@@!@!!!!
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=627522
get with the program ppl, lets fix the stuff thats really broken, the login screen, god save the login screen!
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=627522 <insert 1337 sig here, #ERROR/> |
SkyLander
Minmatar Dragon's Rage Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2007.11.02 17:44:00 -
[426]
Originally by: Grayton Ok, as one of the main logistics directors for the largest alliance (numbers wise) in the game, and an owner of a carrier for over a year and now recently a mothership, I think I have a unique perspective when it comes to carriers and logistics.
There is a fundamental difference between PVP and logistics in this game. People PVP because they want to have fun. People do logistics (and by logistics, I mean alliance-level POS fueling and everything it entails) because it HAS to be done in order for the alliance to survive. It is not fun. It is boring, tedious, time consuming work that is completely pointless but that CCP feels is for some reason absolutely necessary for alliances that wish to have space to go through.
It also seems like CCP has this idea in their mind of the "right" way that this boring, tedious, time consuming, pointless task should be going about being completed, and nerf everything that doesn't fall in line to their idea but is still used to do it anyway (case in point: GSCs in indys in carriers). They seemed to be obsessed with this idea of making running POSes as utterly, utterly stupid and boring as possible. We've already got the 6 hour setup times per POS, and the hours spent just getting fuel collected in empire; why not make it even harder to get that fuel moved and get each of those POSes fueled so that even more time can be wasted on trivial tasks? I guess spending hours upon hours upon hours doing tedious jumping of fuel wasn't boring enough for CCP, so they decided to add even more hours on of tedious gate jumping through up to 40 jumps just to fuel. And that's leaving out the additional time needed to be able to get protection so you don't get ganked.
Seriously, does CCP even have any idea about the dedication and time it takes to run an alliance level logistics program? Do they even understand how slow and mind numbing it is? It's easy to say "oh, this isn't hard at all!" to 10, 20, even 30 POSes that need fueling and an already in place infrastructure of bridges. But to have to run a 100+ POS network spanning multiple regions and hundreds of light years without always having the easy to use bridge infrastructure in place? To have to deal with constant, stupid 30 second waits on EVERYTHING that has to be done? To have to sit there and anchor 15 guns and 10 mods on a tower one by one wasting over 7 hours of your life just to get it up and running? If they had ANY idea what it was like to have to do all this on such a large scale, I don't think they could EVER put in changes like this. But they don't. They have no idea what it's like for certain players in their game to have to manage such huge pointless responsibilities because of their game mechanics that they insist on changing with stuff like this to make it even worse.
This, of course, isn't even mentioning the gigantic affects this will have on smaller corps. Say good bye to trying to get any foothold in 0.0. I doubt many smaller corps have the numbers to escort freighters or indys through potentially super-hostile space.
Now, I'm sure some of you are saying, "well duh Grayton, the t2 jump freighters will fix everything!" Ignoring the fact that making these new freighters tech 2 instead of tier 2 is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard and opens a big, huge, gigantic door CCP should not be opening considering the current state of the game (T2 capital ships, that is), do you realize how rare T2 freighters will be? For those that try and make them, there's the ever present threat of losing their BPCs trying to invent them and getting nothing back. The month long copy time. The cost in minerals to make one. These things are going to be stupidly rare, and stupidly expensive. Then there's the minimum 3.5 month training time (freighter V, jdc IV). That's a HUGE gap of time where no one will be able to fly them and no one will be able to use carriers any more for the job.
I just hope CCP realizes what they're getting into.
__________________________________________________
|
Rhaegor Stormborn
Pestilent Industries Amalgamated The Volition Cult
|
Posted - 2007.11.02 17:53:00 -
[427]
Excellent changes.
Rhaegor Stormborn Fleet Admiral - Pestilent Industries Amalgamated [PIA] Recruitment Thread |
Emperor D'Hoffryn
No Quarter. Vae Victis.
|
Posted - 2007.11.02 18:00:00 -
[428]
Originally by: mamolian Edited by: mamolian on 02/11/2007 13:19:06 Mr Dev,
I play a game, where 5 - 50 people run the infrastructure required to hold space in 0.0 inevitably those people burn out, even with the best of intentions, the bigger the number you make responsible for that infrastructure, you run the risk to allow in spies, and other nasty people who are there simply to destroy that infrastructure from the inside.. The other 500 - 5000 people in the average alliance couldn't be bothered.. either too lazy, to incompetent.. ran POS in the past and think NEVER A*******GAIN!!11oneone etc.. So then you go back to those 5 - 50 people.. the directors.. the CEO's the POS maintenance crew.. who make 0.0 space ownership possible.
These people are also playing this wonderful game.. But with current mechanics.. and time investments to make this all possible.. Eve is a 2nd Job..
Carrier mechanics as they are on Tranquility, combined with current Tranquility mineral compression mechanics make logistics just about bareable your proposed changes will make things difficult beyond belief.. For not only alliance sovereignty logistics.. but Personal logistics of your average capital player with a carrier, who relies on this ship in its current form to move their ships.. and their modules etc between sysems.
Tech 2 freighters.. A ship with no module slots.. with no rig slots.. hence slow.. not only to align and warp.. but between jumps.. Inventable.. Expensive.. Far outside the reach of your average player (nevermind most small alliances), and will not meet the demands of alliance logistics nor will it meet the demands for minerals in 0.0. if you remove carriers ability to haul industrials packed with items. Tier 2.. would be a slight improvement.. but not by much
You want constructive feedback? Leave the carrier alone. Please. PS: what sparked this bollox to begin with? One of the carebear devs get ganked by a carrier or something on their main?
PUT UP LESS POS!!!
I just honestly cant understand. Everyone fricking whinges about how POS assaults are boring as hell, and how they have to do 20 of them to take a system, but wow, they will want their 1 person to fuel their 20 POSes.
Put up less POSes. Attempt to claim but not really use less space. 99.5% of all problems in this game are addressed in at least a partial fashion.
YOU DO NOT need to step up the hours involved to keep the towers up. If you can organize something to get more people involved to keep it the same amount of time per person as before, than congrats, welcome to EVE, where teamwork is key.
Originally by: Snuggly It's just so great to have an actual reason to not die, incentive is fantastic!
|
Rita Death
|
Posted - 2007.11.02 18:53:00 -
[429]
Originally by: Emperor D'Hoffryn
Originally by: mamolian Edited by: mamolian on 02/11/2007 13:19:06
Put up less POSes. Attempt to claim but not really use less space. 99.5% of all problems in this game are addressed in at least a partial fashion.
YOU DO NOT need to step up the hours involved to keep the towers up. If you can organize something to get more people involved to keep it the same amount of time per person as before, than congrats, welcome to EVE, where teamwork is key.
so you can pos spam me and put traitors in my alliance and deactivate all my towers when we have to give 50 more pople access to our posses
|
infinityshok
|
Posted - 2007.11.03 04:50:00 -
[430]
Originally by: Emperor D'Hoffryn
Originally by: mamolian Edited by: mamolian on 02/11/2007 13:19:06 Mr Dev,
I play a game, where 5 - 50 people run the infrastructure required to hold space in 0.0 inevitably those people burn out, even with the best of intentions, the bigger the number you make responsible for that infrastructure, you run the risk to allow in spies, and other nasty people who are there simply to destroy that infrastructure from the inside.. The other 500 - 5000 people in the average alliance couldn't be bothered.. either too lazy, to incompetent.. ran POS in the past and think NEVER A*******GAIN!!11oneone etc.. So then you go back to those 5 - 50 people.. the directors.. the CEO's the POS maintenance crew.. who make 0.0 space ownership possible.
These people are also playing this wonderful game.. But with current mechanics.. and time investments to make this all possible.. Eve is a 2nd Job..
Carrier mechanics as they are on Tranquility, combined with current Tranquility mineral compression mechanics make logistics just about bareable your proposed changes will make things difficult beyond belief.. For not only alliance sovereignty logistics.. but Personal logistics of your average capital player with a carrier, who relies on this ship in its current form to move their ships.. and their modules etc between sysems.
Tech 2 freighters.. A ship with no module slots.. with no rig slots.. hence slow.. not only to align and warp.. but between jumps.. Inventable.. Expensive.. Far outside the reach of your average player (nevermind most small alliances), and will not meet the demands of alliance logistics nor will it meet the demands for minerals in 0.0. if you remove carriers ability to haul industrials packed with items. Tier 2.. would be a slight improvement.. but not by much
You want constructive feedback? Leave the carrier alone. Please. PS: what sparked this bollox to begin with? One of the carebear devs get ganked by a carrier or something on their main?
PUT UP LESS POS!!!
I just honestly cant understand. Everyone fricking whinges about how POS assaults are boring as hell, and how they have to do 20 of them to take a system, but wow, they will want their 1 person to fuel their 20 POSes.
Put up less POSes. Attempt to claim but not really use less space. 99.5% of all problems in this game are addressed in at least a partial fashion.
YOU DO NOT need to step up the hours involved to keep the towers up. If you can organize something to get more people involved to keep it the same amount of time per person as before, than congrats, welcome to EVE, where teamwork is key.
You said all that needs to be said when you said 'I do not understand.' Everything after that was a waste of both your time and everyone elses who read the useless agglomeration of letters you added to your post.
Learn about the care and feeding of POSs and the current situation regarding POS warfare then make another attempt at something that marginally resembles something....which this post does not.
|
|
Varrakk
Chosen Path
|
Posted - 2007.11.03 09:08:00 -
[431]
This is the most ******** nerf I've seen in a long time. If they dont want Carriers to be haulers, then dont allow industrals in a Carrier, same as a Rorqual cant haul combat ships.
Not being able to carry ships with cargo in them, is insane and borderlining stupidity.
|
Vanessa Vale
|
Posted - 2007.11.03 17:29:00 -
[432]
Edited by: Vanessa Vale on 03/11/2007 17:31:14 You are getting your warnings now. True, it's not an official "we we'll do X" but its a strong warning nonetheless.
And nobody is forcing anyone to fuel 1000 POSes. If you find it too boring then stop doing it. Or keep doing it until you are really really really fed up with it and then just say "screw this" and accept the new reality as it is.
Its nice to see CCP attempt to address the game balance at once instead of just a tinsy bit here and there every six months.
So quit your whining.
|
infinityshok
|
Posted - 2007.11.03 18:18:00 -
[433]
Originally by: Vanessa Vale Edited by: Vanessa Vale on 03/11/2007 17:31:14 You are getting your warnings now. True, it's not an official "we we'll do X" but its a strong warning nonetheless.
And nobody is forcing anyone to fuel 1000 POSes. If you find it too boring then stop doing it. Or keep doing it until you are really really really fed up with it and then just say "screw this" and accept the new reality as it is.
Its nice to see CCP attempt to address the game balance at once instead of just a tinsy bit here and there every six months.
So quit your whining.
Go back to the rookie forum and make posts about how to undock & find asteroid belts and keep your idiotic noob opinions to yourself.
|
Adamus TorK
Amarr HUN Corp. HUN Reloaded
|
Posted - 2007.11.03 18:51:00 -
[434]
Originally by: Vanessa Vale Blah blah blah... I never flown a Carrier... blah blah blah, you are all carebears! Blah blah blah, I have to write something so I'll be leet on forums... blah blah blah
May I ask, IF you EVER considered whats will come to T2 prices if POS Logistics Fail? Nope? Well, I dont really care, cuz I have the money, but will you have it? ---------------------------------
|
Ruciza
|
Posted - 2007.11.03 19:04:00 -
[435]
Edited by: Ruciza on 03/11/2007 19:06:15 Use t1. It's not that bad.
Quote: And nobody is forcing anyone to fuel 1000 POSes. If you find it too boring then stop doing it. Or keep doing it until you are really really really fed up with it and then just say "screw this" and accept the new reality as it is.
You forget these are eve players, they are not privy to reality.
|
Damned Force
|
Posted - 2007.11.04 10:47:00 -
[436]
Is very simple. BoB is not able to defend his space anymore with force, so CCP implement changes which making impossible to hold the space for other alliances because logistic!!!!!
|
ZaKma
Seraphin Technologies Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.11.04 10:54:00 -
[437]
Originally by: CCP Gangleri Carrier != Hauler
Ships will be allowed to carry ammo in their cargo hold even while inside a ship maintenance bay. As it stands now carriers have a ship maintenance bay of 1m on Sisi. Nothing on Sisi is ever final. Please provide constructive feedback with minimal misinformation and speculation where possible.
I reiterate:
Carrier != Hauler
They need to be able to carry modules as well. Many of my ships carry 2 fittings in their cargo for different situations. Also Liquid Ozone for cyno ships (although I guess that can be abused so you won't put it in). And please don't forget that Cap Boosters are under ammo too!
|
Shirei
Minmatar Cutting Edge Incorporated
|
Posted - 2007.11.04 11:00:00 -
[438]
Originally by: Emperor D'Hoffryn PUT UP LESS POS!!!
That would be all fine and dandy, if CCP wouldn't force people to put up more and more POS with the sov changes in Rev 2.
It's a bit silly, with one hand, they pretty much force you put up more POS (unless you want to lose out on all new sov features), with the other hand they make it harder to run them.. yay.
|
honour
Gallente Raddick Explorations
|
Posted - 2007.11.04 12:03:00 -
[439]
the freighter through jump portal resupply method. as i hear NERFed. increased the mass of freighter so you cannot use jump portals.
so did you like your alliance cos its definatly screwed now.
well done ccp ,ruin it for everyone
|
Demarcus
Killjoy.
|
Posted - 2007.11.04 14:56:00 -
[440]
It is times like this where it truly does seem like their is a team of dedicated people some where at CCP that sit around just looking for ways to f*ck this game up. ------------------------------------- You are all worthless, and weak.
|
|
RahSun
|
Posted - 2007.11.04 16:10:00 -
[441]
If you don't want carriers to be used as haulers, then why not just stop us from putting haulers in the Ship Maintenance Bay? Judging from the Rorqual, the code is already available to handle such a distinction.
I still feel that this whole change goes against the "sandbox" concept of letting us design our own uses for the ships that we fly. However, if this is going to be shoved down our throats, lets have a little sugar with our medicine. Let us haul whatever we want in the ships that are left-even GSC's. I would still like to know why you feel that this and other changes to carriers are needed? I've spent billions of isk on these ships, months training to use them for the benefit of myself and my corp, and to get told how I should use it now, seems a bit heavy handed. Some more explanation pls?
|
Ivor Gunn
No One Expects The Spanish Inquisition
|
Posted - 2007.11.04 16:32:00 -
[442]
Originally by: CCP Gangleri Ships will be allowed to carry ammo in their cargo hold even while inside a ship maintenance bay.
So why not modules? One of the primary functions of a carrier is the ability to allow ships to refit. This is gonna be pretty useless if you can't jump in fits with the ships without taking up space otherwise used for fuel.
|
Verite Rendition
Caldari F.R.E.E. Explorer Atrum Tempestas Foedus
|
Posted - 2007.11.05 06:53:00 -
[443]
Edited by: Verite Rendition on 05/11/2007 06:53:19 It would seem "bump" is a banned word of some kind. ---- FREE Explorer Lead Megalomanic EVE Automated Influence Map |
JohnStar
Caldari Wreckless Abandon Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.11.05 08:27:00 -
[444]
rorqual i think ill trade my carrier for 1 in......****ty range tho but its a minor thingy..
|
Malachon Draco
eXceed Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.11.05 10:21:00 -
[445]
Originally by: Emperor D'Hoffryn
Originally by: mamolian Edited by: mamolian on 02/11/2007 13:19:06 Mr Dev,
I play a game, where 5 - 50 people run the infrastructure required to hold space in 0.0 inevitably those people burn out, even with the best of intentions, the bigger the number you make responsible for that infrastructure, you run the risk to allow in spies, and other nasty people who are there simply to destroy that infrastructure from the inside.. The other 500 - 5000 people in the average alliance couldn't be bothered.. either too lazy, to incompetent.. ran POS in the past and think NEVER A*******GAIN!!11oneone etc.. So then you go back to those 5 - 50 people.. the directors.. the CEO's the POS maintenance crew.. who make 0.0 space ownership possible.
These people are also playing this wonderful game.. But with current mechanics.. and time investments to make this all possible.. Eve is a 2nd Job..
Carrier mechanics as they are on Tranquility, combined with current Tranquility mineral compression mechanics make logistics just about bareable your proposed changes will make things difficult beyond belief.. For not only alliance sovereignty logistics.. but Personal logistics of your average capital player with a carrier, who relies on this ship in its current form to move their ships.. and their modules etc between sysems.
Tech 2 freighters.. A ship with no module slots.. with no rig slots.. hence slow.. not only to align and warp.. but between jumps.. Inventable.. Expensive.. Far outside the reach of your average player (nevermind most small alliances), and will not meet the demands of alliance logistics nor will it meet the demands for minerals in 0.0. if you remove carriers ability to haul industrials packed with items. Tier 2.. would be a slight improvement.. but not by much
You want constructive feedback? Leave the carrier alone. Please. PS: what sparked this bollox to begin with? One of the carebear devs get ganked by a carrier or something on their main?
PUT UP LESS POS!!!
I just honestly cant understand. Everyone fricking whinges about how POS assaults are boring as hell, and how they have to do 20 of them to take a system, but wow, they will want their 1 person to fuel their 20 POSes.
Put up less POSes. Attempt to claim but not really use less space. 99.5% of all problems in this game are addressed in at least a partial fashion.
YOU DO NOT need to step up the hours involved to keep the towers up. If you can organize something to get more people involved to keep it the same amount of time per person as before, than congrats, welcome to EVE, where teamwork is key.
Aside from the vulnerability to POS spamming if you put up less POS, people/alliances built there empires based on the assumption of carrierlogistics and later freighter jumping logistics being available. If you have 20 stations as an alliance, you need a couple of hundred POS at the very least to protect them. And before any nerf, the logistical tools existed to make it possible. What do you tell those alliances? Sorry, you're just gonna have to abandon 15 of those stations you just conquered? ------------------------------------------------
|
Ma Zhiqiang
Minmatar Huang Yinglong Namtz'aar k'in
|
Posted - 2007.11.05 12:52:00 -
[446]
Maybe haulers should have an overhaul as well, and also make them bigger to not being able to fit in a carrier ship maintenance array?
I think these nerfs have good intentions - to improve the roles of what the ships are supposed to be used for. But I also understand a lot of people are upset that their way of playing the game will be ruined.
Adapt.
|
Hyakuchan
Earth Federation Space Force
|
Posted - 2007.11.05 13:45:00 -
[447]
Edited by: Hyakuchan on 05/11/2007 13:52:33
Originally by: Malachon Draco Aside from the vulnerability to POS spamming if you put up less POS, people/alliances built there empires based on the assumption of carrierlogistics and later freighter jumping logistics being available. If you have 20 stations as an alliance, you need a couple of hundred POS at the very least to protect them. And before any nerf, the logistical tools existed to make it possible. What do you tell those alliances? Sorry, you're just gonna have to abandon 15 of those stations you just conquered?
I think the real reason for concern here is that, really, only one of the BIG alliances today has the logistical discipline and numbers and Titans necessary to survive as it is today, and that's BoB.
Goon, Red, IAC, AAA, and all the rest stand to lose territory because in the new model they would be grossly overextended.
|
Kerfira
|
Posted - 2007.11.05 15:44:00 -
[448]
Originally by: Hyakuchan
Originally by: Malachon Draco Aside from the vulnerability to POS spamming if you put up less POS, people/alliances built there empires based on the assumption of carrierlogistics and later freighter jumping logistics being available. If you have 20 stations as an alliance, you need a couple of hundred POS at the very least to protect them. And before any nerf, the logistical tools existed to make it possible. What do you tell those alliances? Sorry, you're just gonna have to abandon 15 of those stations you just conquered?
I think the real reason for concern here is that, really, only one of the BIG alliances today has the logistical discipline and numbers and Titans necessary to survive as it is today, and that's BoB.
Goon, Red, IAC, AAA, and all the rest stand to lose territory because in the new model they would be grossly overextended.
It SHOULD be impossible for any alliance to hold a large amount of space (with large being defined as more than maybe 2-5% of total 0.0 space). The only way to make that happen though, is to increase the logistics needed to do so.
The other part of the equation is that today, 0.0 is NOT being used as intended (ie. for player run empires), but only being used as a battleground with resources being transported from highsec empire.
The range of nerfs proposed (mineral compression, carrier cargo and freighter mass increase) are all well in line with this. Its true that for large alliances ('large' in systems controlled, not player numbers) this'll involve some pain and crying, but overall it'll be good for the game.
Just 1-2 years ago, a hauler spawn was something that caused an alliance to more or less drop all they were doing to go get those minerals. It inspired a lot of team spirit, and you also had to do mining ops etc. to keep your alliance going. This was great for alliances as communities, but it all got shot down with freighters/carriers/jumpbridges entering the game, and now 0.0 is barren except for PvP and a bit of ratting.
If the aim of these nerfs is to make player empires in 0.0 smaller, and make same empires be forced to also concentrate on the industrial part of the game, then (after the screaming dies down), the 0.0 game could well emerge a lot better.
On the different nerfs: 1. Mineral compression. Made of pure WIN. No disadvantages (seen in a game perspective). Of cause people currently depending on 0.0 in easy mode will whine, but... omelets and eggs.... 2. Carrier hauling nerf. Good all around, but ffs make it possible to carry combat ships with ammo/etc. in the ship bay. 3. Freighter nerf. I don't think it goes far enough. Freighters should be at least halved in carrying capacity, or should NOT be able to use jump bridges. Just increasing the cost of jumping will have absolutely NO effect!
Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
|
LUH 3471
|
Posted - 2007.11.05 15:58:00 -
[449]
Edited by: LUH 3471 on 05/11/2007 16:06:12
i think ccp made the game to complex they clearly lost themselfs in their own creation to a certain extend
anyway ccp fix pos warfre instead kiling our carriers making evryone unhappy especially the little corps and alliances depend on carrier logistic capabillities wake up ! u really are hurting your credibillity hard wiht all this intelligent balancing it is a shame good thing there is somthin done at all we appreciate it buuut maybe think over changes twice or so before releasing them on sisi and there neeeds to be better communication why not make something like a playercouncil
kthx bye
|
Malachon Draco
eXceed Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.11.05 16:24:00 -
[450]
Originally by: Kerfira
Originally by: Hyakuchan
I think the real reason for concern here is that, really, only one of the BIG alliances today has the logistical discipline and numbers and Titans necessary to survive as it is today, and that's BoB.
Goon, Red, IAC, AAA, and all the rest stand to lose territory because in the new model they would be grossly overextended.
It SHOULD be impossible for any alliance to hold a large amount of space (with large being defined as more than maybe 2-5% of total 0.0 space). The only way to make that happen though, is to increase the logistics needed to do so.
The other part of the equation is that today, 0.0 is NOT being used as intended (ie. for player run empires), but only being used as a battleground with resources being transported from highsec empire.
The range of nerfs proposed (mineral compression, carrier cargo and freighter mass increase) are all well in line with this. Its true that for large alliances ('large' in systems controlled, not player numbers) this'll involve some pain and crying, but overall it'll be good for the game.
Just 1-2 years ago, a hauler spawn was something that caused an alliance to more or less drop all they were doing to go get those minerals. It inspired a lot of team spirit, and you also had to do mining ops etc. to keep your alliance going. This was great for alliances as communities, but it all got shot down with freighters/carriers/jumpbridges entering the game, and now 0.0 is barren except for PvP and a bit of ratting.
If the aim of these nerfs is to make player empires in 0.0 smaller, and make same empires be forced to also concentrate on the industrial part of the game, then (after the screaming dies down), the 0.0 game could well emerge a lot better.
On the different nerfs: 1. Mineral compression. Made of pure WIN. No disadvantages (seen in a game perspective). Of cause people currently depending on 0.0 in easy mode will whine, but... omelets and eggs.... 2. Carrier hauling nerf. Good all around, but ffs make it possible to carry combat ships with ammo/etc. in the ship bay. 3. Freighter nerf. I don't think it goes far enough. Freighters should be at least halved in carrying capacity, or should NOT be able to use jump bridges. Just increasing the cost of jumping will have absolutely NO effect!
Three problems.
1. Longterm, nothing changes. T2 jumpfreighters will make it all the same as it is today in 6-9 months time. So why the temporary nerf?
2. People built empires with a lot of hard work based on expectations. Introducing such a change without even a single word of explanation BEFOREHAND would be an insult to all the people who toiled away at building their empires. If you want to do something like this, explain beforehand and talk about it so people can prepare and adapt. Don't introduce the change without any warning on the testserver.
3. Risk vs Reward. Personally, I make my isk in Empire these days. A billion or so a month, zero effort. Any older corp does the same. Few T2 BPOs, production alts in empire and the isk rolls in. I understand that CCP would want to see it differently, but without a gigantic nerf to Empire, the big question is why would anyone bother with sovereignty aside from a single constellation to build supercaps? There is no point in making isk in 0.0 because the isk in Empire is good enough to fight big wars with. ------------------------------------------------
|
|
Jones Maloy
Minmatar Unified Naval Command
|
Posted - 2007.11.05 18:56:00 -
[451]
*ahem*
add the cargo bay volume to the ships total volume. indy will take up X space, where X = the ship's volume + cargo bay volume. same for containers. no more packing 2000m3 of cargo into a 50m3 container. same should go for ships. (i haven't played in a few years so things might have changed)
the above will:
allow carriers to store ships with ammo and moduals in and on them. prevent carriers from carrying too much cargo by nesting ships.
fixes the problem without changing anything else. that is the ideal solution.
feedback appreciated, because nothing will get done without talking about it. --- WCS Nerf yes i'm still angry |
Ulstan
Caldari
|
Posted - 2007.11.05 21:59:00 -
[452]
The jump freighters should be tier 2, rather than tech 2.
Quote: The reprocessing nerf was going to kill compression and freighterloads of minerals from being transported well enough. This was entirely un-necessary.
I keep hearing about this but haven't seen details on it - any helpful links explaining more what is happening?
|
Hecknar
Madhatters Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.11.05 23:50:00 -
[453]
Well, it's quite simple...
for exapmple they increased the volume of a t1 ice harvester from 5 to 100m3 which is a reduce with the factor 20 im compression ratio.
This has been done with all heavilyused and nice items. They simply aren't worth haulin anymore.
Hecky
|
Devious Syn
|
Posted - 2007.11.06 01:31:00 -
[454]
I just dont understand why CCP is so hell bent on strangling every bit of fun out of this game....
If eve wasnt a full time job before... lookout now.
All this does is make people with job even less likely to play this game. Which is funny since its people with jobs that can afford to pay for the game, go figure
|
Kerfira
|
Posted - 2007.11.06 11:14:00 -
[455]
Edited by: Kerfira on 06/11/2007 11:16:23
Originally by: Malachon Draco
Originally by: Kerfira My stuff..
Three problems.
1. Longterm, nothing changes. T2 jumpfreighters will make it all the same as it is today in 6-9 months time. So why the temporary nerf?
Consider the following disadvantages: 1. Jump freighters will be EXPENSIVE (as current predictions go...) 2. They require a lot of commitment to skill training... 3. They carry only 1/4 (?) of the cargo of a T1 freighter. 4. They have 2/3 the range of a carrier. 5. They use 2.7 times the fuel of a carrier
All this in combination will mean there'll NOT be as many of them as there are freighters, and it'll mean a LOT more work/cost to transport the same cargo! My personal opinion is though, that they shouldn't be put in the game either
Originally by: Malachon Draco 2. People built empires with a lot of hard work based on expectations. Introducing such a change without even a single word of explanation BEFOREHAND would be an insult to all the people who toiled away at building their empires. If you want to do something like this, explain beforehand and talk about it so people can prepare and adapt. Don't introduce the change without any warning on the testserver.
I do agree that CCP should outline their vision for how 0.0 should work. OTOH, something clearly needs to be done....
It's simply not feasible for the game to have no 0.0 space left for new alliances wanting to try claiming space.... Today it's way too easy to claim space that you're not using anyway. 1-2 regions (MAYBE 3 if they're WELL organiced) max. per alliance is the highest that should be possible.
Originally by: Malachon Draco 3. Risk vs Reward. Personally, I make my isk in Empire these days. A billion or so a month, zero effort. Any older corp does the same. Few T2 BPOs, production alts in empire and the isk rolls in. I understand that CCP would want to see it differently, but without a gigantic nerf to Empire, the big question is why would anyone bother with sovereignty aside from a single constellation to build supercaps? There is no point in making isk in 0.0 because the isk in Empire is good enough to fight big wars with.
ISK in empire is too good. While I don't have any T2 BPO's, I still make plenty of ISK (mostly by mission running and trading) to support my 0.0 lifestyle without having to make ISK there. It's safer and easier.
Even so, I do think that a nerf is needed to empire money making, but the next-best thing is to nerf the transfer of stuff from empire to 0.0. If people can't easily transport minerals/ships/etc. from empire, then alliances in 0.0 would have to focus more on resource generation, meaning they'd have to bring in miners/traders/builders. If transport of minerals was restricted (heavily), then prices in 0.0 on minerals/etc. could be quite different from empire (a TRUE player-driven economy).
Why does anyone bother today with sov aside from a single constellation? Because they can! That'll not change.
Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
|
IamBen
Caldari Celestial Apocalypse Insurgency
|
Posted - 2007.11.06 11:38:00 -
[456]
at least allow ammo.
|
Tehyarec
Erasers inc. Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.11.06 13:22:00 -
[457]
I don't fly carriers yet, could in a few weeks. However, given the investment and these nerfs, it's really putting me off from doing so. I bought and trained the Capital Ships and Fighters skills just before hearing about the changes - had been inactive for over six months before. Someone want to give me my money back? Don't have hundreds of millions to throw away.
As for this particular change, at the end of the day it makes no sense because it defies logic. Using "carrier != hauler" as an excuse for something completely illogical doesn't fly in my books, even when the game's aim isn't realism.
I mean, you put an assembled, intact, fully operational ship inside the carrier's ship bay. Said ship of course has a cargo hold. So why the hell can't the ship have whatever in its cargo? It just doesn't make sense. So what if it means you can transport ships with lots of cargo in them that way, it doesn't hurt anyone that you can, and it makes no sense not being able to do just that.
If anything, the carrier should be able to house ships with pilots in them to bring them through a jump and deploy them at the destination ready to go.
Besides, carrier not a hauler? Carriers carry things, even the name says so ;) And how is it not a hauler when it can carry a lot more than an Iteron 1, which is "a hauler"?
I generally don't whine much about changes. But seeing as I already started investing into the capital line of ships with a carrier in mind, and seeing as these changes make no sense, I do this time. Nerfing the Eos is bad enough (I don't mind the Ishkur change, I normally use 5 light drones anyway), but needlessly nerfing something that takes ages to train for and costs fortunes is just rude. Even worse for them mothership pilots.
|
Damned Force
|
Posted - 2007.11.06 13:35:00 -
[458]
Give us a module which unable deploy fighters, make remote rep and remote energy transfer -100% range and amount and make ship bay -100% but give 500-1000% to corp hangar.
And thats even if the module is offline. With this move u don't crap the training time of peoples fully and the ships would not be able to fight fitted for hauling
|
Buyerr
|
Posted - 2007.11.06 13:46:00 -
[459]
realistically we could just make it so you look at the seize of the ship, starts to calculate the mass and how much space it would realistically have inside it and how much of that space would just be wasted space because of the designs of the ships and well now you would be able to MAYBE! fit 3-4 bs's inside that bay with the same done to there cargo.
and industrials?! ehhh.. poor things would have room for almost NOTHING!...
so you want realism or balance?!
decide and make some arguments ffs
|
Kerfira
|
Posted - 2007.11.06 13:50:00 -
[460]
Edited by: Kerfira on 06/11/2007 13:51:01
Originally by: Tehyarec So what if it means you can transport ships with lots of cargo in them that way, it doesn't hurt anyone that you can, and it makes no sense not being able to do just that.
It DOES hurt someone, in fact ALL of us!
It makes some things, that're supposed to be hard, not hard, meaning the GAME suffers. It helps large alliances (along with freighters and jump bridges) claim large chunks of space they're not actively using, thus depriving small alliances a chance to get a foothold in 0.0.
Players always wants the easy way out, but in general a hard game will be more enjoyable than an easy one, mainly because accomplishing something in a hard game gives you a much greater sense of achievement....
Look back at when outposts had to be constructed using haulers. Doing so was something that required your entire alliance to work together to first get the minerals and stuff needed, then transport it to the egg, and finally defend that egg if someone found it. When that outpost was up, EVERYONE who'd worked for it felt they'd accomplished something, and so did everyone else. These days, outposts are put up by just a few people in caps just before DT....
So yes, the carrier cargo nerf is fully justified (as long as they find a way for us to still have ammo in our combat ships stored)...
Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
|
|
Malachon Draco
eXceed Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.11.06 14:49:00 -
[461]
Edited by: Malachon Draco on 06/11/2007 14:49:31
Originally by: Kerfira Consider the following disadvantages: 1. Jump freighters will be EXPENSIVE (as current predictions go...) 2. They require a lot of commitment to skill training... 3. They carry only 1/4 (?) of the cargo of a T1 freighter. 4. They have 2/3 the range of a carrier. 5. They use 2.7 times the fuel of a carrier
For alliances, none of this matters. I don't think you realize how much isk is generated these days. Jumpfreighters will be a necessity, and therefore they will be built. In large numbers. Only possible exception is if the Rorqual turns out to be a good replacement, latest testing suggests a Rorqual will be able to carry 137k m3 in goods in its cargohold.
And the jumprange is the same as a dread, which means their mobility is still reasonable.
Quote:
All this in combination will mean there'll NOT be as many of them as there are freighters, and it'll mean a LOT more work/cost to transport the same cargo! My personal opinion is though, that they shouldn't be put in the game either
Individual pilots will be nerfed in terms of transport capacity, but I strongly believe that for the better corps/alliances nothing changes. Hell, my corp doesn't even control 0.0 space atm and we have a Rorqual already, logistics will not change fundamentally. It just gets harder for a while. Longterm it might get easier even. From what I understand its possible to use normal stargates with these ships. So what we would have is a freighter that could potentially load up in highsec and jump to 0.0 from highsec instead of having to go to lowsec.
Quote:
I do agree that CCP should outline their vision for how 0.0 should work. OTOH, something clearly needs to be done....
It's simply not feasible for the game to have no 0.0 space left for new alliances wanting to try claiming space.... Today it's way too easy to claim space that you're not using anyway. 1-2 regions (MAYBE 3 if they're WELL organiced) max. per alliance is the highest that should be possible.
I don't see the change here. If longterm 0.0 alliances had difficulty maintaining big POS networks, how is it going to be easier for new alliances? The bar to really establish yourself in 0.0 is only getting higher. Previously, all you needed for logistics was a 1bn isk carrier and a pilot to get started. Now you will need a 3-5bn isk jumpfreighter that is not even available to help defend. It will make 0.0 more barren as people will only settle the really profitable parts. But the rest in between will be a wasteland even more.
Quote:
ISK in empire is too good. While I don't have any T2 BPO's, I still make plenty of ISK (mostly by mission running and trading) to support my 0.0 lifestyle without having to make ISK there. It's safer and easier.
Even so, I do think that a nerf is needed to empire money making, but the next-best thing is to nerf the transfer of stuff from empire to 0.0. If people can't easily transport minerals/ships/etc. from empire, then alliances in 0.0 would have to focus more on resource generation, meaning they'd have to bring in miners/traders/builders. If transport of minerals was restricted (heavily), then prices in 0.0 on minerals/etc. could be quite different from empire (a TRUE player-driven economy).
Why does anyone bother today with sov aside from a single constellation? Because they can! That'll not change.
People spread out because it was cost-efficient. But as time progresses, and CCP fails to nerf empire, all that 0.0 space is becoming is an epeen contest. Have some space because you can, not because you need it. It won't make 0.0 more attractive, all it will do is make empire more overcrowded. ------------------------------------------------
|
Tonto Auri
|
Posted - 2007.11.06 15:02:00 -
[462]
Well, if CCP want to nerf hauling carriers, why not just deny to place industrial ships in Carrier maintenance bay? We already have that capital-sized joke, Rorqual, to carry industrials/barges. Let carriers carry only combat ships. That way, problem somewhat solved and not required such silly restrictions. -- Thanks CCP for cu<end of sig> |
Kerfira
|
Posted - 2007.11.06 15:09:00 -
[463]
Originally by: Malachon Draco I don't see the change here. If longterm 0.0 alliances had difficulty maintaining big POS networks, how is it going to be easier for new alliances? The bar to really establish yourself in 0.0 is only getting higher. Previously, all you needed for logistics was a 1bn isk carrier and a pilot to get started. Now you will need a 3-5bn isk jumpfreighter that is not even available to help defend. It will make 0.0 more barren as people will only settle the really profitable parts. But the rest in between will be a wasteland even more.
High-lighted and red'ed the important part. Nobody (large or small) SHOULD be able to run a big POS network! However, IF an alliance has ice in its claimed area (need more ice fields for that), they don't NEED frequent empire hauling trips (as long as they put up POS of the right racial type) as minerals and fuel would be present in their area. Carrier fuel (of the other 3 types) is about the only thing they'd really need to import.
Since 0.0 basically IS a wasteland these days (with regard to everything but PvP), it can't really make matters worse! Now, I don't KNOW if what CCP are currently trying to do will work, but I hope and believe it'll at least contribute.
What they really SHOULD do however, is remake the whole sovereignty system to be mostly independent from POS. I think you made a post about that a while ago, and a lot of your ideas in there mirrored my own. Unless they do that (and I doubt it since they've invested heavily in the POS part), my personal choices would be: 1. Nerf Carrier/Rorqual/Dread hauling! 2. Prohibit freighters from using jump bridges (Titan & POS)! 3. Do not implement jump freighters at all! 4. Nerf mineral compression! 5. Nerf money-making in empire! As you say, the amount of money in the game is so great that just increasing costs will not matter. They have to increase the effort involved!
Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
|
Malachon Draco
eXceed Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.11.06 15:23:00 -
[464]
Originally by: Kerfira
Originally by: Malachon Draco I don't see the change here. If longterm 0.0 alliances had difficulty maintaining big POS networks, how is it going to be easier for new alliances? The bar to really establish yourself in 0.0 is only getting higher. Previously, all you needed for logistics was a 1bn isk carrier and a pilot to get started. Now you will need a 3-5bn isk jumpfreighter that is not even available to help defend. It will make 0.0 more barren as people will only settle the really profitable parts. But the rest in between will be a wasteland even more.
High-lighted and red'ed the important part. Nobody (large or small) SHOULD be able to run a big POS network! However, IF an alliance has ice in its claimed area (need more ice fields for that), they don't NEED frequent empire hauling trips (as long as they put up POS of the right racial type) as minerals and fuel would be present in their area. Carrier fuel (of the other 3 types) is about the only thing they'd really need to import.
Since 0.0 basically IS a wasteland these days (with regard to everything but PvP), it can't really make matters worse! Now, I don't KNOW if what CCP are currently trying to do will work, but I hope and believe it'll at least contribute.
What they really SHOULD do however, is remake the whole sovereignty system to be mostly independent from POS. I think you made a post about that a while ago, and a lot of your ideas in there mirrored my own. Unless they do that (and I doubt it since they've invested heavily in the POS part), my personal choices would be: 1. Nerf Carrier/Rorqual/Dread hauling! 2. Prohibit freighters from using jump bridges (Titan & POS)! 3. Do not implement jump freighters at all! 4. Nerf mineral compression! 5. Nerf money-making in empire! As you say, the amount of money in the game is so great that just increasing costs will not matter. They have to increase the effort involved!
Ok, now you have a more comprehensive idea that I generally could agree with. But IMO just taking out 1 element of it (nerfing logistics) will only make it worse. ------------------------------------------------
|
Kerfira
|
Posted - 2007.11.06 15:36:00 -
[465]
Edited by: Kerfira on 06/11/2007 15:36:37
Originally by: Malachon Draco
Originally by: Kerfira My stuff...
Ok, now you have a more comprehensive idea that I generally could agree with. But IMO just taking out 1 element of it (nerfing logistics) will only make it worse.
I think they're actually TRYING to do an incremental nerf here to avoid completely upsetting current 0.0 inhabitants! I hope it'll work, and is willing to give it the benefits of doubt, but increased costs (increasing freighter mass stuff) is unlikely to work. The compression and carrier hauling nerfs are likely to contribute more.... The only thing that'll work is making the effort of claiming a big area too much!
As for high-sec ISK earnings..... I run L4 missions in a well-fitted CNR (Gist booster etc.) with a close to maxed missile character (not this one, so don't bother running locator agents...), and then salvage in a rigged cormorant. I make ~50m/hour consistently (LP/bounties/rewards/loot/salvage)! While this is nice for me personally, and certainly keeps me with 0.0 ship to loose at little effort, its simply too much money to be made for too little risk and effort! This, and other empire money, needs to be nerfed, or new SIGNIFICANT ISK sinks needs to be introduced.
Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
|
Mechanikus
Battlestars GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.11.06 16:04:00 -
[466]
I thought this game was supposed to be by gamers for gamers?? Obviously this is a change that no one wants, not a single person wants this. A carrier is a logistics ship. It takes months and months of training just to fly the blasted thing not to mention the billion isk in skills and the billions to buy and fit one.
Terrible change, I feel I have wasted months of training time for ship that isn't going to be able to do what it has done for over a year now. Its the only reason I trained for it, for logistics capabilities.
If this is a serious change and takes effect, well there are several new games coming out and Age of Conan is looking better and better as March approaches.
|
Kerfira
|
Posted - 2007.11.06 16:18:00 -
[467]
Originally by: Mechanikus I thought this game was supposed to be by gamers for gamers?? Obviously this is a change that no one wants, not a single person wants this. A carrier is a logistics ship. It takes months and months of training just to fly the blasted thing not to mention the billion isk in skills and the billions to buy and fit one.
Ehhh, No.... A carrier is a COMBAT ship, meant to lay hurt to your enemy!
Ships hauling stuff are called industrials, transports or freighters...
Oh, and quite a few people actually like this change, because we can see that it's beneficial for the GAME, though of.c. a lot of people are too egotistical to see that....
PS: ...and I hate how CCP has confused the issue by naming the 'Logistics' type ships like they have. The current 'Logistics' ship type should be renamed 'Combat Support' (or whatever...) so the logistics term is used for hauling stuff from A to B...
Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
|
Malachon Draco
eXceed Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.11.06 16:22:00 -
[468]
Originally by: Kerfira Edited by: Kerfira on 06/11/2007 15:36:37
Originally by: Malachon Draco
Originally by: Kerfira My stuff...
Ok, now you have a more comprehensive idea that I generally could agree with. But IMO just taking out 1 element of it (nerfing logistics) will only make it worse.
I think they're actually TRYING to do an incremental nerf here to avoid completely upsetting current 0.0 inhabitants! I hope it'll work, and is willing to give it the benefits of doubt, but increased costs (increasing freighter mass stuff) is unlikely to work. The compression and carrier hauling nerfs are likely to contribute more.... The only thing that'll work is making the effort of claiming a big area too much!
As for high-sec ISK earnings..... I run L4 missions in a well-fitted CNR (Gist booster etc.) with a close to maxed missile character (not this one, so don't bother running locator agents...), and then salvage in a rigged cormorant. I make ~50m/hour consistently (LP/bounties/rewards/loot/salvage)! While this is nice for me personally, and certainly keeps me with 0.0 ship to loose at little effort, its simply too much money to be made for too little risk and effort! This, and other empire money, needs to be nerfed, or new SIGNIFICANT ISK sinks needs to be introduced.
Well, they failed so far.
------------------------------------------------
|
Acacia Everto
Wings of Redemption Black Flag Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.11.06 16:53:00 -
[469]
Originally by: Stellar Vix
Originally by: infinityshok
CCP has been advertising titans since '03...I still have the instruction manual describing their features. How long did it take them to actually show up?
You have clearly stated you have no clue about anything related to anything. Please follow the example of CCP and nerf yourself immediately. The most effective method would be a swandive into a woodchipper. Post the video.
Go back to hauling stuff you carebear, seriously. You take a look a year ago and you take a look now, and you can see the immerse sharp increase of capitols everywhere, back then they where a rare site and something to be reckoned with. Now adays everyone brings 100s of ships to coutner a 20 man gang, pvp has changed, Im not sure what corner of the universe your sitting in but times have changed and its bad for the economy, player/allaince goals.
In the end I can see this nerf getting rid of the super empires that have spawned in 0.0 and imo they shouldnt add in jump freighters either, but its going to happen anyways.
Carriers are combat/support ships, but !%$%@$@# like yourself keep abusing them for things they arent intended to do.
If i had a choice on how to redo the carrier I would turn its ship bay into a real one, where you get so many slots for combat ships to dock, repair refit and launch combat specific ships along with fighter support. Then toughen their engineering and tank in triage mode and make the repair ability more useful.(like 4 frigates and 2 crusiers for carriers and 8 frigates and 4 cruisers for motherships)
Anywyas RSD nerf is also comming mabey you guys can stop whining about that too considering they are about 50% weaker and then some than they where before. Also if you idiots assigned your fighters the RSD wouldnt screw yoru ability to defend yourself, just yoru ability to keep everyone else alive.
But basically ccp stated they want to reinvent the carrier, if they want to make the carrier a new role and make it purposful again other than the overglorified jump freighter its being overused and abused for today.
But im willing to gamble Ive killed more people in pvp than some older carrier pilots ever did in thier civillian capitol ships.
Just so you know Vix, your statements are idiotic. Stop hugging highsec. You also have no idea of how assigning fighters actually works, or how the damage lost by assigning fighters impacts battle. Go back to Glory.
Anyways, I'm glad ships can at least haul some cargo and ammo. It'd be annoying to pull out the cargo from every ship stored in there.
|
transport monkey
|
Posted - 2007.11.06 16:56:00 -
[470]
its a boost to amar...
cause armar need crystals which barley need to be reloaded so they don't need ammunition in there hold and get pop before the crystal pops in a fleet battle anyway....
sorry couldn't resist,
but so far this is a joke if this get on the live server...
|
|
Kilostream
Caldari Roving Guns Inc. RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.11.06 18:48:00 -
[471]
I keep seeing people mentioning the t2 freighters as an overpriced 8 billion alternative.....
I'm no expert on invention, but my calculations put a T2 freighter waaaay over 8 billion....
for a decent chance to invent, you want 10 goes at it.
10 x 1 run freighter bpc @ 250m = 2.5b 10 x freighters to put in @ 1bn = 10b 1 x freighters worth of minerals to build once you get your bpc = 1bn
Before we even get into decoders and stuff I am seeing an outlay of 13.5bn, and since it's 1 run bpc's being put in, I'm guessing the bpc's that would come out would not be more than 1 run?
Even if I made a mistake and they will only be a mere 8bn, these things are gonna be rare as rocking-horse sh*t and certainly not a viable alternative.
CCP
Do.
Not.
Do.
This.
|
Harkonin
|
Posted - 2007.11.06 19:03:00 -
[472]
I have nothing more to say that keep your twisted minds in other things than in nerfing carriers. What u have to do is enhance the game in speed and things to do, not destroy the hard earned stuff that many people has achieved.
Do not touch carriers.
|
Vutamar
Empirius Enigmus Navy
|
Posted - 2007.11.06 19:28:00 -
[473]
I didnt believe the whole cargo nerf. I found someone talking about it in a different thread. I log in test server and was like wtf. CCP gotta be kidding and just sitting around laughing at our reactions. So how many months will all 0.0 alliances be waiting for supplies till jump freighters are used.
How i see it the noobs have gotten there way all the older characters are now getting shafted.
DO NOT NERF CARRIERS, if anything BOOST THEM so atleast there fielded more, but with this its just one more ship to sit in the hangar.
|
Xalorn
Battlestars GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.11.06 19:48:00 -
[474]
Originally by: Vire Amarr If you really want to nerf carrier logistik capabilitT, Give us a REAL LOGISTIQUE SHIP not a freakin XX Bsik freighter
This is the root of the problem, CCP. You nerf the carrying capacity of the freighter, while providing no reasonable alternative.
The jump freighters should be Tier-2, not Tech-2. We already pay a tradeoff in expensive jump fuel and a much smaller carryign capacity. This is a reasonable trade enough, you dont' need to make it Tech 2.
Give us a real logistics ship capable of moving massive amounts of fuel, components, moon minerals, and minerals for export/import to/from market hubs, and you will avert disaster.
Don't nerf carrier transport without providing a reasonable alternative. Jump freighters, as they are currently portrayed, are not reasonable. 1 month copy times & insane prices are not at all reasonable. There's no sense in this other than to make the players already doing the crappiest alliance tasks even more miserable.
|
Arkady Sadik
Gradient Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2007.11.06 20:58:00 -
[475]
Edited by: Arkady Sadik on 06/11/2007 21:41:25 I just tried to store a mammoth with a shield hardening array in the cargo hold in a POS ship maint array. Message:
20:19:45 Notify You cannot store your Shield Hardening Array while there are assembled containers in its cargo hold (because of graviton harmonics).
I guess that's a bug :-D
On the nerf itself - I do understand that carriers shouldn't be used as logistics ships, but nerfing the ability to store a ship with ammo/cap boosters/scripts in the bay (which is, a combat-ready ship) is quite annoying. Having to get the ammo and the other charges from the corp hangar array doesn't sound like a good solution, either.
For this problem, I see two possible solutions:
- Only allow items from the "ammunition & charges" group in cargo bays when storing vessles in ship maint. bays. This would cover most common cases.
- Don't allow Industrials, Transport ships or barges in the carrier's ship maintanence bay, kinda like the Rorqual idea of only allowing those ships. With this change, for maximum capacity, you can put 51 Probes for a total of 33,162.75 m3 into the 1m m3 ship maintenance bay on SiSi. Or 8 Exequrors for a total of 14,923 m3. Neither number seems to be too excessive to me.
Any other ideas? (No, "leave it as it is kkthxbai" doesn't need to be repeated, it's been noted a few times before in this thread and others)
|
DrAtomic
Atomic Heroes Phalanx Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.11.06 22:22:00 -
[476]
Carriers and their role
When I first read about carriers coming to the game and nothing was known about them yet I kind of envisioned them being carriers as in the US Army 2007 kinda way. I thought of them as flying stations, you'd dock up in your ship, be able to do repairs, change fittings, reload and restock ammo all whilst being flown by the carrier pilot to the engagement destination.
I've read all 17 pages and all blogs on the subject yet strangely enough I somehow feel I was alone in this way of seeing the carriers, that could well be becuase over the time of 2 years we all learned what to expect from them and how to use them. But given all the so called 'Thou shall not haul in thou carrier' and nerfing the carrier from left to right, back and forth and then some it looks like CCP is in total dissarray over what carriers should be.
Reread my first paragrahp and add that thought to the current nerfing bonanza they are having. Go carrier in the carrier sense! Let us dock up in it and be flown into action where we can undock from them, let the carrier be the logistics support ship in combat with shield and armor reps (fix locking time), let it be weaponless. With that remove it's hauling ability.
Haulers
Why are carriers being used to haul in the first place? Simple answer really, haulers are not up to hauling in 0.0 (empire is doubtfull as well with the hauler ganking but that's a different discussion). Well, blockade runners are; yet they can't hold enough to fuel a pos for a week. T2 transporsters are slow, clumsy and certain death before arrival even when flown in escorts.
If I'd be a hauler shipyard I'd design and build a ship that would be have massive cargo space and massive survivability. I'd design it so it could survive a gank, i'd design it so it could last long enough for the escort to take away the threat, i'd design it in such a way that haulers would never be called primary because it would mean loosing ships first and with that possibly the fight you were trying to win. I'd design it to be called target last, after you've killed the escorts. From a game design point of view there should be a drawback in the form of slow warp speed and slow aligning *slow warp to allow assaulters to catch up with the run away if it did ran".
Jump freighter
Then I'd start thinking about adding in a Jump freighter and if it would really be needed. Or maybe a tier 2 freighter suited for 0.0, half the cargo space, 0.0 survivability and tripple it's manouverability.
If I'd decide to put in a Jump capable freighter it would surely not go for a cost of around 12-15 billion but more at a maximum of around 1 billion, it would also be the furthest jumping capital of them all afterall it's supposedly designed to haul lot's of freight into deep deep 0.0, I would not allow it in empire (requiring jump out and jump arrival escorts), i'd give it 12 warpcore points or something like that to prevent it from being jacked by an unprepared passerby but allow it to be bubbled and plating worth of a capitial ship costing 5 tier 3 battleships, with a cargohold about 1 quarter the size of a tier 1 freighter (heh those jumpdrives and warpcore protection take room).
Level 10 skill at level 5 requirement
Which requires perception... I'd think how much that would encourage people to cancel their account, set the training and be back after three months or if it'd encourage people to continue playing and eagerly check how much progress they made on their freighter 5 skill today becuase the would be jumping to see it finish in order to fly it.
Effort
Effort wasted... I'm thinking about effort wasted typing this all up... Effort wasted as CCP has most likely long abandoned this thread.. Efort wasted on all that programming carrier nerfs from left to right and then some... -----------------------------------------------
Originally by: CCP Sharkbait we are screwed.
My Top 10 List |
Turin
Caldari Eternity INC. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.11.06 22:40:00 -
[477]
Originally by: Arenis Xemdal Oh god finally, FINALLY.
With this move, carriers will go from being the most horribly overpowered ship in EVE, to a gloriously balanced beacon of eternal enlightenment. I love you CCP. I LOVE YOU AND IT HURTS TO ADMIT IT GRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH :(
I hate you and I hope your mother stomps on your newborn puppies.
_________________________________
|
Mortimus
Gallente Ordos Humanitas Knights Of the Southerncross
|
Posted - 2007.11.06 23:04:00 -
[478]
At least now you can store ships with charges in them, so combat vessels can go in there ready to fight.
And the cargo space has been increased to 1M m3 from 500k
Also looks like they've reduced the volume of BS - hyperion is only 513k m3 on Sisi and is 1.14M m3 on TQ Thorax is the same volume, but battlecruisers are bigger
Still can fit more ships than on TQ, but they can only have charges...
The other thing? you can fit 3 iteron V's in your ship maint. bay on sisi - that's a total cargo space of 115,299.3 M3 in those ships - that could possibly be why they want no cargos in carriers anymore :)
|
Malachon Draco
eXceed Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.11.06 23:37:00 -
[479]
Originally by: Kilostream I keep seeing people mentioning the t2 freighters as an overpriced 8 billion alternative.....
I'm no expert on invention, but my calculations put a T2 freighter waaaay over 8 billion....
for a decent chance to invent, you want 10 goes at it.
10 x 1 run freighter bpc @ 250m = 2.5b 10 x freighters to put in @ 1bn = 10b 1 x freighters worth of minerals to build once you get your bpc = 1bn
Before we even get into decoders and stuff I am seeing an outlay of 13.5bn, and since it's 1 run bpc's being put in, I'm guessing the bpc's that would come out would not be more than 1 run?
Even if I made a mistake and they will only be a mere 8bn, these things are gonna be rare as rocking-horse sh*t and certainly not a viable alternative.
CCP
Do.
Not.
Do.
This.
There is no point in adding a T1 Freighter in the invention attempt, its metalevel 1. And with decryptors, surely you can get more than 1 run BPCs, don't all these decryptors work the same, regardless of what ship you are trying to invent. So they will be damn expensive ships, but not 13bn expensive. My guess is production cost will be 3bn, add another 500m to 1bn for the invention attempts (per run), for a total cost of about 4bn max.
------------------------------------------------
|
Turin
Caldari Eternity INC. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.11.06 23:39:00 -
[480]
Originally by: Montaire
Rorqual - with expanders and its corp hangar array your at about 150k m3. Double what a carrier can do now.
C'mon people! You know that Iteron V, its an Industrial Ship. The Rorqual is a Capital Industrial Ship. You will note the Rorqual does not require Battleship 5 ? It requires Barge V, and Industry V.
Why cant we have a decent role for the carrier in combat, and a decent role for the Rorqual in industry.
Also, note that pre-positioning ships is EASIER now with the carrier, since you dont have ot know what ammo types your pilots can use. Just put the ammo in your corp hangar array and pilots can fill up on their way out. If they are not in your corp, just jettison it for them.
Originally by: Verite Rendition
Originally by: velocity7 You guys do realize that jump freighters are being introduced to replace this aspect of carriers?
Sure, there will be a handful of them available a couple of months after the change goes live, where you can pay 10-15bil for one and train up a boatload of new skills to level 5 to fly the thing. The jump freighter is not the solution, it's probably not even going to make it in to Rev 3.
In theory that works. Let me play out how it works in real combat though.
Pilot1: I ejected my ship from the SMA bay, but i dont see it yet.
2 minutes pass
Pilot1: Finally. Ship is in space. Boarding ship now.
2 minutes pass
Pilot1: Finally, im in my ship! Now I need Ammo! Ill just get it from the corp hanger array!
FleetCommander: All ships warp to me now!
Pilot1: wait! Wait! I need at least 6 more minutes to open the hanger array, transfer ammo to my hanger, and then load my guns!!!!
2 minutes pass.
pilot1: Ammo! wee!!! hurry hurry! I now have ammo! Dragging to my hanger now!
2 minutes pass ammo is finally in hanger
pilot1: Okay, im loading my guns now!!!!
FleetCommander: Dont bother. the fight was over 6 minutes ago, and we all died. Thanks for nothing!
Pilot1: sorry. :( Nothing I could do about it.
2 minutes later - Guns have ammo and I am now ready for combat! wheres the fight?
_________________________________
|
|
Turin
Caldari Eternity INC. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.11.06 23:50:00 -
[481]
Originally by: Pinpisa Jormao Edited by: Pinpisa Jormao on 31/10/2007 05:51:31 I'd like a lot of freighters running around with mid size escorts and lot of mid size freighter gank groups in 0.0 trying to stop them.
It's something alliances need to do so there's no chance to hide at POS or dock, you either do the escorts or you lose the space.
Important thing is the ships need to be faster and gang need to be fully autopiloted so you can do other things while on the long trip. The value of 0.0 space should also be increased by removing belt, exploration and other crap that you can do solo and adding complexes that drop 10 billion loot and require 100 size gang to run (hostiles should be able to interfere with the plexing easily). Did I say exploration, ratting and mining sucks.
The last escort run i made took 5 and a half hours. That was going straight to the closest empire system. picking up the POS fuels, that were already pre arranged to be there, and turning around and going home. There was no screwing around. There were no detours. It just simply took that long. If that seems fun to you, I would liketo sell you a patch of grass to watch grow.
Freighter runs are NOT fun, and forcing people to rely on them is garbage.
_________________________________
|
Tobias Creed
Minmatar Draconian Toymaker Corp
|
Posted - 2007.11.07 02:26:00 -
[482]
Originally by: Turin
Originally by: Pinpisa Jormao Edited by: Pinpisa Jormao on 31/10/2007 05:51:31 I'd like a lot of freighters running around with mid size escorts and lot of mid size freighter gank groups in 0.0 trying to stop them.
It's something alliances need to do so there's no chance to hide at POS or dock, you either do the escorts or you lose the space.
Important thing is the ships need to be faster and gang need to be fully autopiloted so you can do other things while on the long trip. The value of 0.0 space should also be increased by removing belt, exploration and other crap that you can do solo and adding complexes that drop 10 billion loot and require 100 size gang to run (hostiles should be able to interfere with the plexing easily). Did I say exploration, ratting and mining sucks.
The last escort run i made took 5 and a half hours. That was going straight to the closest empire system. picking up the POS fuels, that were already pre arranged to be there, and turning around and going home. There was no screwing around. There were no detours. It just simply took that long. If that seems fun to you, I would liketo sell you a patch of grass to watch grow.
Freighter runs are NOT fun, and forcing people to rely on them is garbage.
You know what I call a freighter run? an opportunity for objective based PVP. I suppose I'm the only one to see the edge-of-your-seat-oh-god-is-there-a-ganksquad-on-the-other-end -of-that-gate paranoia as fun? Or a decisive battle to break through a blockade, bringing vital fuel to the stations? maybe if they made freighters faster, so the trip took only 2 hours or so, it would be more palatable.
|
Senjei Falcone
Gallente Knights of the Wild
|
Posted - 2007.11.07 02:53:00 -
[483]
Just an FYI, on the current build of SiSi, you are correct, you can't have cargo in a ship in the ship maintenance bay of a carrier... however, if you just have ammo in the cargo hold of the ship you may put it in a carrier's ship maintenance bay...
Verified 2 minutes ago... so it may be new.
--------------------------------
|
Vicious Phoenix
|
Posted - 2007.11.07 03:55:00 -
[484]
Originally by: Senjei Falcone Just an FYI, on the current build of SiSi, you are correct, you can't have cargo in a ship in the ship maintenance bay of a carrier... however, if you just have ammo in the cargo hold of the ship you may put it in a carrier's ship maintenance bay...
Verified 2 minutes ago... so it may be new.
Can you check cap booster charges and scripts? Even if they do that I still don't like it. What about carrying alternate modules to refit via the carrier's facilities? I think that they should make you unable to carry industrials and perhaps barges but leave the rest of the functionality intact. It's bad enough they nerfed cans in ships in carriers, now they want to nerf ship's cargo as well?
We need to still be able to have an alliance mate hand you a combat ship with some mods/skills in it's bay to be taken to 0.0.
CFW (Certified Forum Warrior) I kill people ingame too.
Originally by: CCP Tuxford I prefer dew over pepsi. I prefer beer over most things. Damn now I want beer.
|
Senjei Falcone
Gallente Knights of the Wild
|
Posted - 2007.11.07 04:23:00 -
[485]
Cap booster loaded fine... I tried a simple Drone Link Augmentor and it wouldn't let me load... so alternate mods are probably out... at least with this quick test.
I would imagine that having the time to think about what to have for a refit would be enough time to go in to the corp hangar and grab what you need... *shrug* I won't hazard a better guess on that one.
--------------------------------
|
Vicious Phoenix
|
Posted - 2007.11.07 04:25:00 -
[486]
Well it's at least semi-acceptable if they do that. I'm still displeased they won't be able to haul cargo as well but if they double the ship maint bay then I'm OK with I I suppose.
/me finally realizes it was worth it to train for Freighters and Carriers. Jump Freighter here I come.
CFW (Certified Forum Warrior) I kill people ingame too.
Originally by: CCP Tuxford I prefer dew over pepsi. I prefer beer over most things. Damn now I want beer.
|
Rhy'statii Ivec
Odessa Operations
|
Posted - 2007.11.07 05:24:00 -
[487]
I donÆt even know where to begin about this nerf..
I understand CCPÆs desire to make carriers refit for specific roles; the idea of fitting mods to improve either combat or logistics capacity but not at the same time was good. I can understand that they want carriers moved away from fueling POSÆs (remove industrials from the SMA?).
What really gets me is that they are not offering any reasonable solutions to an already horribly boring and time consuming job. Is there anyone out there who actually enjoys collecting fuel and bringing it to POSÆs? Jump Freighters, while a solution, are not very plausible as described in previous posts due to invention and construction times as well as cost. All this change will do is increase the number of jumps I have to make in order to get fuel to our POSÆs. It will not decrease the number as some people have said it would.
My corp worked hard to help fund two carriers to make the transporting of ships, loot, mods and fuel easier and safer from 0.0 to empire and back. The estimated cost of Jump Freighters is beyond our means, not to mention a huge time sink for our one freighter pilots.
While I can live with many of the recent combat nerfs (this is coming from a Gallente specced character), this nerf truly bothers me. Why? Now I will have even less time to enjoy the fun parts of EVE (who doesnÆt get their jollies from pvp? ).
|
Delphi Disra
Gallente An Eye For An Eye Rule of Three
|
Posted - 2007.11.07 06:02:00 -
[488]
How can they just screw every single 0.0 alliance in eve like that? Wow....
CCP Dev1: Hey turns out we didnt get to **** off all the carrier pilots as fast as we wanted... CCP Dev2: Hrmmm ya... thats unfortunate... they made more of an outcry than we expected... CCP Dev1: So if we cant **** off the cap pilots how about we just kill their alliances instead? CCP Dev2: Thats genious!!! We can pass it off as every carrier pilot actually hating hauling and hurting them while making it look like we are doing them a favour! CCP Dev3: Hey umn... i know you guys really want to hit the vets and stuff... but even the noobs are complaining about lag... maybee we can devote 3 minutes to this issue? CCP Dev2: DOWN MONKEY!!! SILENCE!!!! CCP Dev1: Your Fired!
* CCP Dev3 is thrown out of iceland...
|
Ket Halpak
Cold-Fury Southern Cross Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.11.07 06:44:00 -
[489]
Just a thought.
if i were flying my mamoth around fully expanded, I could get about 17k in it with my skills. If i were to remove a cargo expander and try to undock, I would get a warning message along the lines of "Somehow your ship has become overloaded please fix this problem".
Well my thought is for a balance between nerf and no nerf, is to allow only the BASE (unexpanded) cargo amount in a hauler. So say a mamoth has 5600m3 before skills + expanders, that would be all that would be allowed in its cargo bay before being loaded into a carrier. As there is no one flying the hauler when its loaded into a carrier, it would make sense that skills and mods dont affect it.
I think this would solve the problem of spare mods in ships and carriers being used as haulers.
|
Delphi Disra
Gallente An Eye For An Eye Rule of Three
|
Posted - 2007.11.07 06:52:00 -
[490]
^^
Is a horrible idea... no alliance in the game is prepared for this. It will kill most of 0.0
What ccp need to do is make it so that the carrier gets to refit Mode 1: Fight mode... cant haul worth crap or give rep to friends, but can tank and fight like a beast... think 25 drones...
Mode2: Medic, cant fight worth crap but can tank like a beast and rep freindlys really really fast, ie instant lock time and unjammable.
Mode3: hauling mode cant fight or rep but can haul and tank like a beast....
If ccp were'nt lazy they would introduce a system kinda like that instead of trying to fix things with a nerf bat.
|
|
Kerfira
|
Posted - 2007.11.07 11:03:00 -
[491]
Originally by: Turin
Originally by: Pinpisa Jormao I'd like a lot of freighters running around with mid size escorts and lot of mid size freighter gank groups in 0.0 trying to stop them.
It's something alliances need to do so there's no chance to hide at POS or dock, you either do the escorts or you lose the space.
Important thing is the ships need to be faster and gang need to be fully autopiloted so you can do other things while on the long trip. The value of 0.0 space should also be increased by removing belt, exploration and other crap that you can do solo and adding complexes that drop 10 billion loot and require 100 size gang to run (hostiles should be able to interfere with the plexing easily). Did I say exploration, ratting and mining sucks.
The last escort run i made took 5 and a half hours. That was going straight to the closest empire system. picking up the POS fuels, that were already pre arranged to be there, and turning around and going home. There was no screwing around. There were no detours. It just simply took that long. If that seems fun to you, I would liketo sell you a patch of grass to watch grow.
Freighter runs are NOT fun, and forcing people to rely on them is garbage.
Maybe... JUST maybe.... CCP intends you to mine the ICE that's conveniently present in your area to fuel your POS (and yes, you can just set up the correct racial POS type) instead of importing macro-mined fuel from empire!
Having everything in 0.0 dependent on imports from high-sec doesn't do any good for the colonisation of 0.0. It might not be your cup of tea, but 0.0 with a healthy mix of inhabitants (miners/producers/traders/PvP'ers/etc) is a far more interesting place than the current "PvP'er only" 0.0.
The only problem is cap fuel which would still require transport, but thats a problem that CCP could solve if they wanted....
Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
|
Hoshi
Blackguard Brigade Aftermath Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.11.07 11:17:00 -
[492]
Originally by: Kerfira
Maybe... JUST maybe.... CCP intends you to mine the ICE that's conveniently present in your area to fuel your POS (and yes, you can just set up the correct racial POS type) instead of importing macro-mined fuel from empire!
Having everything in 0.0 dependent on imports from high-sec doesn't do any good for the colonisation of 0.0. It might not be your cup of tea, but 0.0 with a healthy mix of inhabitants (miners/producers/traders/PvP'ers/etc) is a far more interesting place than the current "PvP'er only" 0.0.
The only problem is cap fuel which would still require transport, but thats a problem that CCP could solve if they wanted....
Have you ever checked what kind of fuel a POS needs? Didn't think so because a large part of it are trade goods that can ONLY be bought from npc sell orders in empire. There is no way at all to get it anywhere else.
It's there as an isk sink according to CCP. ---------------------------------------- A Guide to Scan Probing in Revelations |
Alski
Gallente Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.11.07 11:23:00 -
[493]
Originally by: Kerfira
Maybe... JUST maybe.... CCP intends you to mine the ICE that's conveniently present in your area to fuel your POS (and yes, you can just set up the correct racial POS type) instead of importing macro-mined fuel from empire!
1. Ice does not supply all the NPC trade goods needed to fuel a pos.
2. Ice mining is slow, unprofitible, boreing, not enjoyed by vets or anyone more than a year into the game, and is something that not everyone can do.
3. Yeah we'll mine ice up in the drone regions - oh wait! we don't have any ice in the drone regions yeah the entire drone region cluster gets 5 whole ice belts, and all of them are gallente ice, and CCP in there infinate wizdom made minmatar towers the best for defence, and thus the only choice for outpost defence.
Even sugesting one of the following is bad enouth, you get extra points for haveing BOTH!:
4. Anyone who puts up ONLY Amarr towers for example, to defend there Outpost(s) deserves to lose the outpost. YOU DO NOT CHOOSE POS TYPES BASED ON AVALIBLE ICE.
5. Mentioning macroing to prop up your incorrect ideas. -
(combat) Patch belonging to CCP hits your drones, wrecking their liberty and freedom.
|
Kerfira
|
Posted - 2007.11.07 11:38:00 -
[494]
Edited by: Kerfira on 07/11/2007 11:43:04
Originally by: Alski
Originally by: Kerfira
Maybe... JUST maybe.... CCP intends you to mine the ICE that's conveniently present in your area to fuel your POS (and yes, you can just set up the correct racial POS type) instead of importing macro-mined fuel from empire!
1. Ice does not supply all the NPC trade goods needed to fuel a pos.
2. Ice mining is slow, unprofitible, boreing, not enjoyed by vets or anyone more than a year into the game, and is something that not everyone can do.
3. Yeah we'll mine ice up in the drone regions - oh wait! we don't have any ice in the drone regions yeah the entire drone region cluster gets 5 whole ice belts, and all of them are gallente ice, and CCP in there infinate wizdom made minmatar towers the best for defence, and thus the only choice for outpost defence.
Even sugesting one of the following is bad enouth, you get extra points for haveing BOTH!:
4. Anyone who puts up ONLY Amarr towers for example, to defend there Outpost(s) deserves to lose the outpost. YOU DO NOT CHOOSE POS TYPES BASED ON AVALIBLE ICE.
5. Mentioning macroing to prop up your incorrect ideas.
All of these are problems that could be solved..... 1. Make those items available in NPC stations in 0.0 (maybe even some types of outposts).... Release BPO's for them... Drop BPC's from rats for them.... etc.etc. Lots of way to solve it... 2. So? Employ people to do it.... stop POS spamming... or just accept it as one of the costs of living in 0.0. Oh, and stop whining... 3. Easy to solve... Put a few more ice fields in... 4. Each region has advantages and disadvantages. This would just be one of the disadvantages... Or they could just put all 4 ice types in the ice fields.... 5. Doesn't make it less true... or less bad for the game...
Stop seeing problems. See solutions! (did I mention you should stop whining too?)
So you want 0.0 to be PvP only, with nothing distracting you from that? Sorry, but that's not the intended vision that has been put forth since the start of the game. The intended vision is 0.0 empires that are largely self-sufficient and independent from high-sec, with a place for all types of players. That's WAY better for the GAME!
Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
|
Babel
Utopian Research I.E.L. Hedonistic Imperative
|
Posted - 2007.11.07 11:38:00 -
[495]
Edited by: Babel on 07/11/2007 11:40:09 Carriers as fuel/ship runners etc have enabled smaller corps/entitys to gain a foothold in 0.0. If that role is to be removed and grafted onto Jump Freighters then cost will most likely become prohibitive to a large number of people and 0.0 may very well devolve back to how things were before the introduction of Carriers - empty aside from the big blocs ...... :( Without a reasonably affordable alternative to Carrier supply, this seems like a step backwards for 0.0, I'm hoping such an alternative can be made :) .... and I don't just mean POS fuel, the POS CT and modules too have to get out there in the first place ...
URIEL Recruiting
|
Kerfira
|
Posted - 2007.11.07 11:42:00 -
[496]
Edited by: Kerfira on 07/11/2007 11:45:30
Originally by: Babel Carriers as fuel/ship runners etc have enabled smaller corps/entitys to gain a foothold in 0.0. If that role is to be removed and grafted onto Jump Freighters then cost will most likely become prohibitive to a large number of people and 0.0 may very well devolve back to how things were before the introduction of Carriers - empty aside from the big blocs ...... :( Without a reasonably affordable alternative to Carrier supply, this seems like a step backwards for 0.0, I'm hoping such an alternative can be made :) .... and I don't just mean POS fuel, the POS CT and modules too have to get out there in the first place ...
You're forgetting that people handled well enough BEFORE there were carriers, freighters and jump bridges..... You're also forgetting that carriers, freighters and jump bridges have enabled large alliances to claim huge amounts of 0.0 (most of which they don't use) that are thus no longer available for said small corps/alliances..
Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
|
Alski
Gallente Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.11.07 11:47:00 -
[497]
Edited by: Alski on 07/11/2007 11:47:25
Originally by: Kerfira
You're forgetting that people handled well enough BEFORE there were carriers, freighters and jump bridges.....
And back then you dident need to POS spam to anywhere near the extent you do now to hold your space or your outposts preciseley because there were no capital ships, now that caps are so common, and alliances so much larger, you need a lot more POSs to defend your space, and that means more fuel, more losgtics.
Also now that 0.0 space is a lot less empty, your chances of getting in fuel the old fassioned way is reduced.
Are we even playing the same game? or are you just bored and trolling? -
(combat) Patch belonging to CCP hits your drones, wrecking their liberty and freedom.
|
Kerfira
|
Posted - 2007.11.07 11:55:00 -
[498]
Originally by: Alski
Originally by: Kerfira
You're forgetting that people handled well enough BEFORE there were carriers, freighters and jump bridges.....
And back then you dident need to POS spam to anywhere near the extent you do now to hold your space or your outposts preciseley because there were no capital ships, now that caps are so common, and alliances so much larger, you need a lot more POSs to defend your space, and that means more fuel, more logistics.
Also now that 0.0 space is a lot less empty, your chances of getting in fuel the old fassioned way is reduced.
Are we even playing the same game? or are you just bored and trolling?
You're forgetting that your enemy needs FUEL for those capitals. The requirement for your logistics might be increased, but so will a potential attackers....
And yes, we do play the same game, and 0.0 is NOT developing as intended from the start. 0.0 is a barren battlefield, devoid of anything but PvP. This is NOT as has been portrayed from the start of EVE, and is NOT good for the game...
I'm bored. I'm not trolling! I seriously believe that CCP are doing these nerfs to 0.0 logistics with good reason. They may not accomplish exactly what they intend, but 0.0 mechanics today is beyond ****** up so it cant make things worse!
Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
|
Alski
Gallente Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.11.07 12:00:00 -
[499]
Originally by: Kerfira Edited by: Kerfira on 07/11/2007 11:43:04
Originally by: Alski
Originally by: Kerfira
Maybe... JUST maybe.... CCP intends you to mine the ICE that's conveniently present in your area to fuel your POS (and yes, you can just set up the correct racial POS type) instead of importing macro-mined fuel from empire!
1. Ice does not supply all the NPC trade goods needed to fuel a pos.
2. Ice mining is slow, unprofitible, boreing, not enjoyed by vets or anyone more than a year into the game, and is something that not everyone can do.
3. Yeah we'll mine ice up in the drone regions - oh wait! we don't have any ice in the drone regions yeah the entire drone region cluster gets 5 whole ice belts, and all of them are gallente ice, and CCP in there infinate wizdom made minmatar towers the best for defence, and thus the only choice for outpost defence.
Even sugesting one of the following is bad enouth, you get extra points for haveing BOTH!:
4. Anyone who puts up ONLY Amarr towers for example, to defend there Outpost(s) deserves to lose the outpost. YOU DO NOT CHOOSE POS TYPES BASED ON AVALIBLE ICE.
5. Mentioning macroing to prop up your incorrect ideas.
All of these are problems that could be solved..... 1. Make those items available in NPC stations in 0.0 (maybe even some types of outposts).... Release BPO's for them... Drop BPC's from rats for them.... etc.etc. Lots of way to solve it... 2. So? Employ people to do it.... stop POS spamming... or just accept it as one of the costs of living in 0.0. Oh, and stop whining... 3. Easy to solve... Put a few more ice fields in... 4. Each region has advantages and disadvantages. This would just be one of the disadvantages... Or they could just put all 4 ice types in the ice fields.... 5. Doesn't make it less true... or less bad for the game...
Stop seeing problems. See solutions! (did I mention you should stop whining too?)
None of these things have been mentioned by the devs have they? no. None of these things are changeing / comeing in for Trinity are they? no. None of these things would come in anytime soon after Trinity will they? no.
Originally by: Kerfira
So you want 0.0 to be PvP only, with nothing distracting you from that? blah blah blah blah blah
No. I don't.
What i want is to be able to play the game.
The kinda thing that might prevent me from playing the game, would be being forced to make weekley 3-6 hour freighter runs from day one of Trinity, to whatever day CCP decides to fix POSs, POS logistics, POS race imballance, Ice mining, Drone region ice belts, etc etc etc...
...OR when the alliance builds its first jump-freighter, which at projected costs of about 8bn isk, would only be about the same as half an outpost, mmm that sounds like a great deal.
-
(combat) Patch belonging to CCP hits your drones, wrecking their liberty and freedom.
|
Kerfira
|
Posted - 2007.11.07 12:04:00 -
[500]
Edited by: Kerfira on 07/11/2007 12:06:24
Originally by: Alski Stuff...
People are always afraid of change..... Doesn't mean the end result will not be good for the game....
As for some things not being mentioned as being in Trinity.... That's why we need to point them out in threads like this. Pointing out the holes in their suggestion so they can plug them helps the game... Clinging on to status-quo doesn't....
Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
|
|
Alski
Gallente Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.11.07 12:13:00 -
[501]
Originally by: Kerfira
You're forgetting that your enemy needs FUEL for those capitals. The requirement for your logistics might be increased, but so will a potential attackers....
Not really, POSs use much more fuel than capitals do, on average 5-6 days worth of pos fuel is 10,000m3, whereas on 10,000m3 worth of isotopes i can jump my carrier from drone regions to empire and back again about 4 times, or i can fuel 3 other carriers for the same distance, its far less of an issue.
Originally by: Kerfira
And yes, we do play the same game, and 0.0 is NOT developing as intended from the start. 0.0 is a barren battlefield, devoid of anything but PvP. This is NOT as has been portrayed from the start of EVE, and is NOT good for the game...
It doesent seem at all barren to me, there are plenty of industrialists in most player claimed 0.0 (ie: non-NPC regions) in fact if you look at most of the alliances that have fallen, most of them had too many industrialists *cough*ASCN*cough*
I'm bored. I'm not trolling! I seriously believe that CCP are doing these nerfs to 0.0 logistics with good reason. They may not accomplish exactly what they intend, but 0.0 mechanics today is beyond ****** up so it cant make things worse!
0.0 Logistics is ****** up, yes, can't disagree on that, but the REASON its ****** up is because the entire POS and sovrignity system is rubbish, CCP seems to intend for us to have to put in both ISK and effot in the form of physical labor or time spent, so that ISK alone is not a factor.
What they do not seem to realise, and this carrier change Illustrates it - is that it is ALLREADY a HUGE amount of work, it takes TOO MUCH time and effot allready, and most stupidley - this whole exercise completeley invalidates itself because they are giveing us a replacement for carrier logistics in the form of the rorquel and the jump-freighters.
All this change does it make the intervening weeks or months for people to train for rorquels and jump-freighters a painfull drag of boreing, tedious freighter hauling.
This change surves no usefull purpose! -
(combat) Patch belonging to CCP hits your drones, wrecking their liberty and freedom.
|
Kerfira
|
Posted - 2007.11.07 13:25:00 -
[502]
Originally by: Alski 0.0 Logistics is ****** up, yes, can't disagree on that, but the REASON its ****** up is because the entire POS and sovrignity system is rubbish, CCP seems to intend for us to have to put in both ISK and effot in the form of physical labor or time spent, so that ISK alone is not a factor.
Red'ed the part where I completely and utterly (and a bit more) totally agree with you. The POS should be taken OUT of the sov calculation and sov calculated on who used (ie. did all types of stuff, like mining, ratting, exploring, researching, fighting, creating industrial infrastructure, etc...) in a system/constellation/region....
Originally by: Alski What they do not seem to realise, and this carrier change Illustrates it - is that it is ALLREADY a HUGE amount of work, it takes TOO MUCH time and effot allready, and most stupidley - this whole exercise completeley invalidates itself because they are giveing us a replacement for carrier logistics in the form of the rorquel and the jump-freighters.
All this change does it make the intervening weeks or months for people to train for rorquels and jump-freighters a painfull drag of boreing, tedious freighter hauling.
I'm personally not seeing the points of the jump-freighter and its almost-equal rival, the Rorqual.... Jump-freighters should not be put in the game, and Rorqual should ONLY be able to haul ore....
Originally by: Alski This change surves no usefull purpose!
I'm not going that far, but the jump-freighters does mess up the picture..... I can see what CCP tries to accomplish (or at least what I think is what they try to accomplish), and I agree fully on that purpose. Their main failure is not to outline to the players how they envision 0.0 life should be, and then enlist the players in helping poke and plug the holes in it.....
Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
|
KillmAll187
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2007.11.07 13:39:00 -
[503]
Edited by: KillmAll187 on 07/11/2007 13:39:52
Originally by: Kerfira Blathering
Okay, Mr. been in University of Caille since '05.
Post with yer main.
KTHX
|
Kerfira
|
Posted - 2007.11.07 13:55:00 -
[504]
Edited by: Kerfira on 07/11/2007 14:01:00
Originally by: KillmAll187
Originally by: Kerfira
Blathering Providing arguments why the nerfs are good...
Okay, Mr. been in University of Caille since '05.
Post with yer main.
KTHX
And for everyone interested in EVE forum culture, the above is the normal response from a person who: 1. Disagrees with what you're saying 2. ...But don't have any good arguments against it
FYI: This is my normal and long-time forum posting char. Using it allows me to post stuff like this without having ******s EVE-mail spam me, and not having my corp/alliance tickers interfere with my arguments. It allows my arguments (which in this case would be unpopular in my own alliance) to be considered on a neutral basis. I'm arguing for things that I feel are good for the GAME, not what's good for my alliance.
Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
|
Kaylana Syi
Stimulus
|
Posted - 2007.11.07 14:53:00 -
[505]
Originally by: Arkady Sadik
On the nerf itself - I do understand that carriers shouldn't be used as logistics ships, but nerfing the ability to store a ship with ammo/cap boosters/scripts in the bay (which is, a combat-ready ship) is quite annoying. Having to get the ammo and the other charges from the corp hangar array doesn't sound like a good solution, either.
Wait, wait, wait. You say the corp hangar in space should't work like the corp hangar in a station? I wonder what exactly the purpose of the corp hangar on a carrier is for if not for storing things that came or is going into the cargo of another ship. If the carrier is indeed being used as a strike and deployment ship then is it so hard to carry ammo and cap charges for the strike team?
Team Minmatar
|
Alski
Gallente Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.11.07 14:57:00 -
[506]
Re-reading what I wrote before, about CCP being unaware of just how much of a pain in the ass POS logistics are, I think I might have been wrong, and you (Kerfira) came up with an interesting question…
Originally by: Kerfira
I'm not going that far, but the jump-freighters does mess up the picture..... I can see what CCP tries to accomplish (or at least what I think is what they try to accomplish), and I agree fully on that purpose.
See I’m not sure that CCP actually knows what its trying to accomplish!
With one hand CCP is giving us expanded rorquels and jump-freighters which will, (after a lot of hard work, isk hoarding, skill training, cynonet rebuilding) give us 0.0 logistics that is actually EASYER than it is today, imo this can only be good, as I do plenty of 0.0 logistics and I feel quite qualified in saying : it aint fun.
But with the other hand they are taking away carriers ability to be effective logistics ships, a task for which most alliances are heavily dependent on, and forcing us to do things the old fashioned way for some unpredictable length of time (probably months if the jump-freighter production times and costs are even close to accurate)
From this two things we can deduce is that 1. CCP is aware of how hard, boring and time consuming 0.0 logistics are and want to change it to make it easier, and 2. Don’t actually have an issue with jump-drive logistics at all, they just have an issue with CARRIERS being the ship that’s used for it.
The amusing thing is that this won’t actually stop Carriers being used for this purpose, now the S.O.P will be to just jump around say 2 rorquels with 3-5 carriers for protection, and I’ll bet iskies that the 10km3 corp bays on the carriers get filled with cargo just as they are now, afterall if you have to use carriers to defend the helpless rorquels, you might as well fill them up too.
Originally by: Kerfira
Their main failure is not to outline to the players how they envision 0.0 life should be, and then enlist the players in helping poke and plug the holes in it.....
Totally, 100% /signed, agreed, QFT, whatever.
-
(combat) Patch belonging to CCP hits your drones, wrecking their liberty and freedom.
|
Arkady Sadik
Gradient Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2007.11.07 15:11:00 -
[507]
Originally by: Kaylana Syi
Originally by: Arkady Sadik
On the nerf itself - I do understand that carriers shouldn't be used as logistics ships, but nerfing the ability to store a ship with ammo/cap boosters/scripts in the bay (which is, a combat-ready ship) is quite annoying. Having to get the ammo and the other charges from the corp hangar array doesn't sound like a good solution, either.
Wait, wait, wait. You say the corp hangar in space should't work like the corp hangar in a station? I wonder what exactly the purpose of the corp hangar on a carrier is for if not for storing things that came or is going into the cargo of another ship.
All I said is that I want to store a Hurricane in the ship hangar bay with enough rounds of Barrage/Hail/EMP/Fusion/PP/800s in the hold so I can just jump in it and have a combat-ready ship. What "doesn't sound like a good solution" is jumping into the Hurricane in the ship maint array, having an empty cargo, and then opening the corp hangar to grab enough rounds of each ammo type, the cap boosters, and possibly scripts to be combat-ready.
Of course, replacement ammunition beyond what you need to be combat-ready should still be in the corp hangar array.
|
Kerfira
|
Posted - 2007.11.07 15:16:00 -
[508]
Originally by: Alski Re-reading what I wrote before, about CCP being unaware of just how much of a pain in the ass POS logistics are, I think I might have been wrong, and you (Kerfira) came up with an interesting questionà
Originally by: Kerfira
I'm not going that far, but the jump-freighters does mess up the picture..... I can see what CCP tries to accomplish (or at least what I think is what they try to accomplish), and I agree fully on that purpose.
See IÆm not sure that CCP actually knows what its trying to accomplish!
From what I've read and deduced, I think this is what they're trying to do: 1. Resources that are present in 0.0 should be harvested in 0.0, not imported from empire. This mainly goes for low-end minerals and fuel isotopes. 2. 0.0 empires should shrink (dramatically) in size. 3. Current PvP-centric alliances must bite the bullet and invite other player types to live in 0.0.
Most of the nerfs is placed well in this picture, except that the implementation of the jump-freighter and the Rorqual messes it up a bit. Alliances will also need access to all 4 ice types in 0.0, which means more ice fields, and the ice fields containing all 4 types of fuel. There'll also be a need for some access to the other POS fuel components (possibly by making the available in NPC stations and some/all types of outposts)...
I think this scenario makes for a more interesting and lively 0.0 than what we see today.
Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
|
Verite Rendition
Caldari F.R.E.E. Explorer Atrum Tempestas Foedus
|
Posted - 2007.11.09 08:01:00 -
[509]
Bump, because we still need a real answer from a dev. ---- FREE Explorer Lead Megalomanic EVE Automated Influence Map |
Lobster Man
Murder-Death-Kill
|
Posted - 2007.11.09 18:35:00 -
[510]
say it ain't so... :(
|
|
Raketefrau
Caldari Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.11.10 01:52:00 -
[511]
Edited by: Raketefrau on 10/11/2007 01:53:05 Thank you, CCP, for continuing to ignore the very real concerns of your customers.
Amusing how my anti-carrier-nerf sig got "modded," yet they still work for others. signature removed - please email us to find out why (include a link to the image URL) - Jacques([email protected]) |
Alski
Gallente Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.11.10 06:13:00 -
[512]
There were quite a few awnsers to the carrier question, and a *lot* of awnsers to other Trinity stuff in this thread: http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=631272&page=2
Perhaps not entireley the awnsers we were looking for but well worth the read.
-
(combat) Patch belonging to CCP hits your drones, wrecking their liberty and freedom.
|
ER0X
Eternity INC. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.11.18 15:15:00 -
[513]
Originally by: Kerfira
Originally by: Alski Re-reading what I wrote before, about CCP being unaware of just how much of a pain in the ass POS logistics are, I think I might have been wrong, and you (Kerfira) came up with an interesting questionà
Originally by: Kerfira
I'm not going that far, but the jump-freighters does mess up the picture..... I can see what CCP tries to accomplish (or at least what I think is what they try to accomplish), and I agree fully on that purpose.
See IÆm not sure that CCP actually knows what its trying to accomplish!
From what I've read and deduced, I think this is what they're trying to do: 1. Resources that are present in 0.0 should be harvested in 0.0, not imported from empire. This mainly goes for low-end minerals and fuel isotopes. 2. 0.0 empires should shrink (dramatically) in size. 3. Current PvP-centric alliances must bite the bullet and invite other player types to live in 0.0.
Most of the nerfs is placed well in this picture, except that the implementation of the jump-freighter and the Rorqual messes it up a bit. Alliances will also need access to all 4 ice types in 0.0, which means more ice fields, and the ice fields containing all 4 types of fuel. There'll also be a need for some access to the other POS fuel components (possibly by making the available in NPC stations and some/all types of outposts)...
I think this scenario makes for a more interesting and lively 0.0 than what we see today.
I would agree with your guess work on point 1 that this may well be an intended goal of CCP.
However IÆm surprised that you included points 2 and 3 which if you havenÆt noticed are in actual fact contradictory.
In what way would the invitation to swell the ranks of established Alliances/Corps with æother typesÆ of players be conducive to æshrinking dramaticallyÆ the size of these already established Alliances/Corps?
The interesting thing about this observation is that the same types of contradictory observations are being made by many of the community with many of the changes presented to us in Blog and on SiSi.
|
Arkady Sadik
Gradient Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2007.11.18 18:49:00 -
[514]
Originally by: ER0X In what way would the invitation to swell the ranks of established Alliances/Corps with æother typesÆ of players be conducive to æshrinking dramaticallyÆ the size of these already established Alliances/Corps?
The "number of members" size is not the same as the "number of systems controlled" size.
That is, the points there would mean a 0.0 alliance should utilize all the resources in their territory before it needs to grow: One person per 4 belts in a system ratting and one miner per belt mining in the least before conquering another system. Right now, the alliances have vast expanses of space with empty systems that are still "controlled." My guess is that that is intended to change.
|
bobtheminer
Damned Legion
|
Posted - 2007.11.18 19:40:00 -
[515]
Edited by: bobtheminer on 18/11/2007 19:43:36 their is 1 problem with space though, vast tracks of it are useless though, the entire pureblind region bar about 2 systems has shocking sec status and ore no better than empire, similar problems with most space, yes their are really good systems but like agents every 1 gravitates towards them, and while some ppl would argue 0.0 is safer than empire/lowsec considerable effort goes into living out their,
im woundering if it would be such a bad thing even just to increase the number of belts in 0.0 systems, just to make the "real estate" clamed better able to fullfill an alliances needs
id argue a possible better general sec status for 0.0 would be called for but i dare say that would be very hard to balance and possibaly make 0.0 too profitable
|
Agif
Templar Republic R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.11.18 19:45:00 -
[516]
WTF!
I mean WTF!
Did i mention WTF?
Seriously WTF!
Ok u get the point how stupid is CCP. Not only have they nerfed so many parts of the game over the last year and pised so many ppl off in the process and knowing damn well they are annoying the crp out of the eve community they continue to make the most insane nerfs.
I know i know forum whiners unite and all that crp but serious if trinity is just a new gfx and plenty o nerfs then i really cant wait for my Crysis game to arrive in the post so i can finally abandon playing this downhill game as ive spent most of my time training for a ship which had purposes fitting to what "WE" needed then we find out its getting revoked and at compensation for this is more training to compensate for our loss.
IF IT AINT BROKEN DONT FKING FIX IT!!!!!
The sooner you realize this CCP u will have half the braincell you need to keep your paying customers happy and the other half is making new blinky gfx to keep ppl happy and bring in more money for your company.
Well my whine and 2C
Regards
Muff
|
Agif
Templar Republic R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.11.18 20:39:00 -
[517]
Edited by: Agif on 18/11/2007 20:41:22
Originally by: CCP Gangleri Carrier != Hauler
Ships will be allowed to carry ammo in their cargo hold even while inside a ship maintenance bay. As it stands now carriers have a ship maintenance bay of 1m on Sisi. Nothing on Sisi is ever final. Please provide constructive feedback with minimal misinformation and speculation where possible.
I reiterate:
Carrier != Hauler
Ah now i see where the narrow mindedness of eve is spawn from. You give the most biased answer to our questions and try to make a witty comment and mb even consider you as a troll to this thread for it.
Can we get someone from CCP who will actually comment on this thread with some intelligence other than STFO?
So if you truly speak for the company and say the nerf is because the carrier is being used as a hauler, well your no further from the truth but is this nerf justified with the T2 Freighter thats coming?
The answer is simple - NO! NO! NO!
The fact that it is more profitable to use a t2 freighter in logistics to 0.0 star bases is completely true so why do you need to nerf it? I mean if its more cost affective then most will cross train and others will choose not to but hey thats the word we were as the players wanting to have the right to "CHOOSE"
I say CCP sell to another company who will listen to there player base like blizzard or Microsoft as you no longer take our views into consideration...
Ever consider holding voting polls/surveys..... No you just act on a few whiners and ignore the majority as usual.
Sorry for double post but the more i read this thread the more it fraks me off.
|
Lanscaper
|
Posted - 2007.11.24 02:43:00 -
[518]
Well, i just haven't got the time to read all this topic from the beginning (it's fu**ing HUGE :P), but i don't see any player who agrees to this carrier nerf... I mean, do CCP want to make all Alliance's hauling ops in 0.0 to collapse?
Maybe i'm repeating something already said thousands of times in this topic, but perseverance is good to make the difference when so many ppl agree to the same matter.
1. If CCP introduces the carrier nerf in the same time in which introduces the jump freighters, there will be a huge mess everywhere in eve... So many players have skilled carrier to provide resources in their 0.0 systems, at least it would be "reasonable" to postpone the carrier nerf to let players skill for the jump freighters.
2. Jump freighters don't have the same jump range of carriers, which means: if your ally is in a region in which the empire's nearest system is out of jump freighter's range, the hauler will have to make a waypoint system in the middle of the route, which will probably be an hostile system, so just use some imagination...
This means that even if the carrier nerf is postponed, using the jump freighters will surely complicate 0.0 hauling a lot!
I simply don't get the point. Everything just went fine until now, why this nerf? I can just "understand" a nerf like the one on the nosferatu, some players cried for their blown ships caused by a nos fitted ship... So in that case i imagine that many players were happy for this (not me, i wanted to shut down their ships :P). In the case of the carrier nerf, NO-ONE will be happy for it. It only gives us a HUGE problem to deal with, and no-one will take advantages for that but those full-invention-skilled-and-rich players who will surely SPECULATE a lot when they begin to produce jump freighters (i just can't imagine the prices for the first months!!!).
Now, speaking of real money... CCP earns money from players, so they should have to listen to them and make the game balanced and satisfying. This nerf goes completely against this simple fact.
|
Raketefrau
Caldari Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.11.24 02:56:00 -
[519]
The comment that "jump bridges are making logistics too easy" is the stupidest thing I've ever read.
This is a game. It's supposed to be fun. It's not supposed to be a fulltime job to keep towers in deep 0.0 fueled.
As it is, there are people in every alliance who log in, see the DED fuel messages (of which we still get two copies every single time for over SIX ******* MONTHS NOW), and their hearts sink because they're not going to get to cruise around and enjoy themselves because they've got to spend their online time hauling fuel.
CCP, most of us already have jobs. We play Eve to get away from them.
Nerfing logistics is just insanely cruel to your customers.
signature removed - please email us to find out why (include a link to the image URL) - Jacques([email protected]) <--- I've emailed 3 times now. No answer. |
TOPSTER
Celestial Apocalypse Insurgency
|
Posted - 2007.11.25 14:01:00 -
[520]
what ****es me off most about this carrier nerf is not that the nerf is so bad but that i would have NEVER have trained for a carrier (which mostly sucks in a combat role) if i would have known they were nerfing their logistics capacity. Thanks for ******* my wallet and training time over CCP.
_______________ MK2 |
|
infinityshok
|
Posted - 2007.11.25 23:06:00 -
[521]
Originally by: Raketefrau The comment that "jump bridges are making logistics too easy" is the stupidest thing I've ever read.
This is a game. It's supposed to be fun. It's not supposed to be a fulltime job to keep towers in deep 0.0 fueled.
As it is, there are people in every alliance who log in, see the DED fuel messages (of which we still get two copies every single time for over SIX ******* MONTHS NOW), and their hearts sink because they're not going to get to cruise around and enjoy themselves because they've got to spend their online time hauling fuel.
CCP, most of us already have jobs. We play Eve to get away from them.
Nerfing logistics is just insanely cruel to your customers.
This seems to be the general consensus of the eve community as a whole unless I missed a few posts from those who actually enjoy the masochistic tedium that is the care & feeding of POSs.
So how about it devs...take this abortion of an idea and scrap it. No one wants it. Dreads will be used once again as the preferred 0.0 logistics ship. How dreads are considered more appropriate than carriers as a logistic platform is yet another theory that is beyond my comprehension.
|
Darth Sylar
|
Posted - 2007.11.26 12:09:00 -
[522]
Now, not wishing to tempt fate, but are they going to nerf Dreadnoughts too?
You take away the carriers ability to carry one fully laden decent industrial plus other ship(s) and all that will happen is the Dreadnoght will step up as the most sensible alternative, kitted out with cargo expanders, and if anyone is insane enough, cargo rigs. The Revelation Dread could get near 100km3 cargo capacity with cans in the hold. The possible nerf I've heard here is to make specific cargo holds for Stront, Isotope, Ammo, Charges etc (madness!)
I speak as a small Alliance member who needs jump capable logistics vessels for POS, and although the new Jump Freighter sounds lovely, it will be way out of our reach for quite some time.
Are CCP going to nerf every ship that we use not as they intended? The mining barge or hauler able to fit warp scramblers to bait pirates with? The interceptor or covert ops as a fast courier ship for expensive BPOs and other small goods? The Battlecruiser as an all around combat vehicle capable of taking on Capital Ships, POS, BS and Frigs (or was that intended?), a Hulk for ice mining (surely that's a Mackinaws job! Mr Union rep!), etc etc
We have trained long and hard for our Carriers with the aim of using them as Logistics ships (what is a bleeding carrier if not a logistics ship? it has no primary weapon for god's sake!), and they cost us a small fortune. We are not combat oriented, so they will become v expensive white elephants for us if they insist on nerfing them!
|
Raketefrau
Caldari Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.11.27 00:41:00 -
[523]
The one thing I'm sick of hearing from all my alliance mates is, "Man, I wish I could spend more time fueling POSes."
Really CCP, why would you take what is easily THE most tedious part of your game, and force us to do more of it?
Making jump freighters isn't going to lessen that load any - because of the reduced jump range, we're going to need MORE towers for the cynonets.
Let us carry some piles of fuel in our carriers.
Why you gotta **** on our party?
signature removed - please email us to find out why (include a link to the image URL) - Jacques([email protected]) <--- I've emailed 3 times now. No answer. |
Vrenth
Gallente 23rd Armor Hydra Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.11.27 01:31:00 -
[524]
This thread is made of fail and lulz...
|
infinityshok
|
Posted - 2007.11.27 05:54:00 -
[525]
Originally by: Vrenth This thread is made of fail and lulz...
Of which you would be the expert on since your entire existence is based upon it.
|
Druadan
Gallente Aristotle Enterprises Ethereal Dawn
|
Posted - 2007.11.28 22:13:00 -
[526]
Well, it was all for ****. Like the last carrier logistics nerf, it got in regardless.
Patchnotes
|
Kerfira
|
Posted - 2007.11.29 10:15:00 -
[527]
Originally by: Druadan Well, it was all for ****. Like the last carrier logistics nerf, it got in regardless.
Patchnotes
Actually no. This thread DID make them correct the one thing that was wrong with this change.
Originally by: Pathnotes It will no longer be possible to use the cargohold of a ship stored in a ship maintenance array for additional storage. Only charges will be storable.
As long as charges are storable, this is a good change for the game.
Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
|
Kerfira
|
Posted - 2007.11.29 10:19:00 -
[528]
Originally by: Darth Sylar ...what is a bleeding carrier if not a logistics ship? it has no primary weapon for god's sake!
Try walking up the the captain of the USS Nimitz and tell him his ship is a logistics ship. My guess is you'll get a fist in the face...
A carrier is a COMBAT ship! Not a bloody hauler!
Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
|
Kerfira
|
Posted - 2007.11.29 10:39:00 -
[529]
Originally by: ER0X
Originally by: Kerfira My post
I would agree with your guess work on point 1 that this may well be an intended goal of CCP.
However IÆm surprised that you included points 2 and 3 which if you havenÆt noticed are in actual fact contradictory.
In what way would the invitation to swell the ranks of established Alliances/Corps with æother typesÆ of players be conducive to æshrinking dramaticallyÆ the size of these already established Alliances/Corps?
The interesting thing about this observation is that the same types of contradictory observations are being made by many of the community with many of the changes presented to us in Blog and on SiSi.
Sorry for not answering before, but I've been busy RL.
I don't really see them as contradictory. The density in people per system would go up, and I don't think anyone (CCP, me, anyone...) minds alliances/corps claiming territory that they're using! The thing that needs nerfing is them claiming territory they AREN'T using, since that space could be used by corp/alliances that were willing to do so, but can't because <big alliance> is claiming it.
This'll help a bit, and the compression nerf will help some more. I don't think it's enough, but every little bit helps.
Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
|
Minmatar Citizen 4521577
|
Posted - 2007.11.29 15:34:00 -
[530]
Originally by: Kerfira
Originally by: Darth Sylar ...what is a bleeding carrier if not a logistics ship? it has no primary weapon for god's sake!
Try walking up the the captain of the USS Nimitz and tell him his ship is a logistics ship. My guess is you'll get a fist in the face...
A carrier is a COMBAT ship! Not a bloody hauler!
Uh. Carriers haul stuff, like fuel, you know? IRL.
|
|
Trent Nichols
Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.11.29 16:13:00 -
[531]
Edited by: Trent Nichols on 29/11/2007 16:13:38 It looks like they really are going live with this crap. I would really love to hear from CCP about why they are so dead set on making a change that makes their game less fun. Is it really just because hauling was not the "intended role" of the carrier as they have said before?
Listen to this and dozens of other posts Devs! Your logistics game is a grind and NOT FUN. This change makes it even more of a grind and LESS FUN. I read a Dev post where he said carriers make logistics too easy. I'm fine with logistics being more difficult; challenge is fun. I'm not fine with logistics being more tedious which is not fun.
Allow jump freighters and other logistics solutions to mature before you nerf carriers or better yet, just make them better solutions and watch carriers slowly cease to be used as haulers.
Trinity: The best content release ever, completely overshadowed by the worst nerfs ever. |
mamolian
Madhatters Inc. Enuma Elish.
|
Posted - 2007.11.29 19:19:00 -
[532]
Surprised this is going live to be honest.. this change with Carriers and Motherships is really after destroying my will to play.. and certainly altered my skill training plans for the next year.
I'm a grown man now unfortunately I can't get away with whining Guess its a case of work around it or quit.
-------------------------------
|
HydroSan
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.11.29 20:26:00 -
[533]
Originally by: Kerfira Sorry for not answering before, but I've been busy RL.
I don't really see them as contradictory. The density in people per system would go up, and I don't think anyone (CCP, me, anyone...) minds alliances/corps claiming territory that they're using! The thing that needs nerfing is them claiming territory they AREN'T using, since that space could be used by corp/alliances that were willing to do so, but can't because <big alliance> is claiming it.
This'll help a bit, and the compression nerf will help some more. I don't think it's enough, but every little bit helps.
Too bad that the Jump Freighters shoot a hole in this entire argument. All it will do is allow the super-rich alliances to keep logistics at the status quo they're at right now and make it difficult to near-impossible for any smaller alliance to claim space unless they get help from the bigger alliances. Bigger alliances will still have POS fuel, trit and manageable logistics two months after Trinity when they get their hands on Jump Freighters: the smaller alliances (e.g: drone regions) will probably not be able to afford it.
The nerf to carrier logistics ranges from a pain in the ass to a mild annoyance to bigger alliances, and a death sentence to smaller alliances. Your whole "NERF THE BIG ALLIANCES" speech was inspiring, though, but unfortunately you're entirely off the mark!
|
infinityshok
|
Posted - 2007.11.29 21:06:00 -
[534]
Originally by: Kerfira
Originally by: Darth Sylar ...what is a bleeding carrier if not a logistics ship? it has no primary weapon for god's sake!
Try walking up the the captain of the USS Nimitz and tell him his ship is a logistics ship. My guess is you'll get a fist in the face...
A carrier is a COMBAT ship! Not a bloody hauler!
Come up with an analogy that has some vague relevance. When was the last time you saw an aircraft carrier warping around outer space in a far off galaxy.
|
|
CCP Gangleri
|
Posted - 2007.11.29 21:17:00 -
[535]
Originally by: infinityshok
Originally by: Kerfira
Originally by: Darth Sylar ...what is a bleeding carrier if not a logistics ship? it has no primary weapon for god's sake!
Try walking up the the captain of the USS Nimitz and tell him his ship is a logistics ship. My guess is you'll get a fist in the face...
A carrier is a COMBAT ship! Not a bloody hauler!
Come up with an analogy that has some vague relevance. When was the last time you saw an aircraft carrier warping around outer space in a far off galaxy.
The reason for people bringing this analogy to the table is that so many posters use the logic:
carrier=carries stuff=hauler
Which is just not true, carriers are combat ships that carry mostly what they need to support their own combat ability. This should also hold true for carriers in eve, they are combat ships that were always meant to be used for combat logistics as opposed to POS fueling logistics. In my previous post on page 18 I explained how logistics for large scale POS networks are being moved over to ships that are less geared toward combat tasks. They will need combat support, and carriers will still be very useful in that role.
|
|
Trent Nichols
Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.11.29 21:44:00 -
[536]
Edited by: Trent Nichols on 29/11/2007 21:45:48
Originally by: CCP Gangleri Carriers now have the ability to transport up to two battleships fully combat ready, that includes ammo, in their massively upgraded ship maintenance bays. They lost the ability to be fully combat ready haulers instead. Where is the nerf?
I get the feeling the majority of the people posting here do not check their facts, I am still seeing people on page 18 claim that ammo will not be allowed in ships stored in the ship maintenance bays. Jump freighters will not take that long for people to train for and on top of that there is already a jump capable industrial ship on TQ that has a rather nice cargohold (please check these facts on Singularity before commenting on them) so all in all the changes being made are:
a) Combat ships are being made more combat related b) Industrial ships are being made more important in the logistics of running a large POS network
It is true that many alliances now count on carriers for logistics work, it is not true that the coming patch will completely cripple alliances that run large logistics networks.
The nerf is in that you are are making logistics more of a grind without giving replacements a chance to mature. On top of this, the expanded ship bays are hardly a replacement for the loss of cargo capacity.
Rorquals are still so rare at this point that the construction of one is news. There are hardly enough in place to replace carriers.
While its true that the skill requirements for Jump freighters are now reasonable, the build requirements are not so they will be useful only to the largest alliances for months. Also, I see your claim that the patch will not cripple logistics networks and you may be right. With enough griding, spending many hours running freighters and industrial ships alliances should be able to make up for the loss of carriers. Id love to hear you explain how this is a good thing.
The only reason for this nerf I can come up with is some irrational attachment the Devs have to making carriers pure combat ships. Let them become obsolete as haulers, a nerf isnt needed.
Trinity: The best content release ever, completely overshadowed by the worst nerfs ever. |
bobtheminer
Seven. Enuma Elish.
|
Posted - 2007.11.29 21:45:00 -
[537]
have the gal bs's been looked at or is it intentional that u can only move 1 gal bs at a time as the mega certainly and i belive the hyp are over 500k each, where as other races bs's are under 500k each
|
Cassius Yaoma
Demonic Retribution Pure.
|
Posted - 2007.11.29 22:32:00 -
[538]
Yes, carriers are haulers. But not in the industrial sense. They haul war supplies/ships/persons into battle. They also repair ships and provide intel. IMO, this change is a step in the right direction, but still not perfect.
The thing that differs between carriers in game and carrier irl is that you cannot dock at a carrier and it take you where you need to go, and then you undock. I would LOVE to see this change. Have carriers be able to be able to haul fuel, ammo, guns, extra ships. And let people be able to dock at moms to be cyno'd to whereever.
As far as the fighter "nerf". I don't see a problem with it. You can still put out just as many fighters, you just need people there with you.
|
|
CCP Gangleri
|
Posted - 2007.11.29 22:35:00 -
[539]
There is no fighter nerf, that was simply a suggested solution to the fact that carriers were in essence combat ready haulers. Instead we are removing the hauling ability from them and adding more combat logistics power.
|
|
Natalie Jax
Battlestars
|
Posted - 2007.11.29 22:57:00 -
[540]
I'm still a bit baffled by the fact that you are allowing ships in the maintenance arrays to carry ammunition but nothing else. So for some reason a ship containing explosives is A-OK but a ship containing soil is not? Wait, what? Usually y'all are consistent with metagaming logic, this one is just way off the mark.
BTW, kudo's to Gangleri for posting CCP's opinions on the matter, too often of late all we get are generalities and vauge promises that "we know what we're doing just trust us" without any insight into the logic behind things. Even if I disagree with the reason for something I much prefer knowing it.
|
|
Fraps
Setenta Corp Combined Planetary Union
|
Posted - 2007.11.29 23:17:00 -
[541]
Originally by: CCP Gangleri Carriers now have the ability to transport up to two battleships fully combat ready, that includes ammo, in their massively upgraded ship maintenance bays. They lost the ability to be fully combat ready haulers instead. Where is the nerf?
I get the feeling the majority of the people posting here do not check their facts, I am still seeing people on page 18 claim that ammo will not be allowed in ships stored in the ship maintenance bays. Jump freighters will not take that long for people to train for and on top of that there is already a jump capable industrial ship on TQ that has a rather nice cargohold (please check these facts on Singularity before commenting on them) so all in all the changes being made are:
a) Combat ships are being made more combat related b) Industrial ships are being made more important in the logistics of running a large POS network
It is true that many alliances now count on carriers for logistics work, it is not true that the coming patch will completely cripple alliances that run large logistics networks.
Do you know off the top of your head how many players are t2 freighter ready? do you know the amount of time it will take to become t2 freighter ready? Should we all just stock up on fuel before the patch so that we will have enough to last until we get some t2 freighter pilots. LetÆs not even think about cost to build/buy them.
This change will cripple smaller alliances, you are now forcing them to take a group of haulers through hostile space (in some cases) in order to fuel their distant outpost systems. While on the surface that may seem like a grand way to encourage team play but letÆs look a reality.
I have ten haulers/3 freighters worth of supplies to get out to my outpost 30 jumps from empire. To get there I need to go through 20 or so jumps of hostile space. in order to ensure the safety of these supplies I need to form an alliance op. that pretty much means a Saturday/Sunday op when the server is at its peak population. Otherwise know as ZOMG LAGG time
So now I have my 80 man fleet to escort my supplies together, yaaaa for the big blob. However hostile forces have spies in the empire to 0.0 gateway systems. They know we are coming. So now they form up a 100 man gang to nail the freighters.
LetÆs suppose we make it half way then our scout spots the 100 man gang sitting on the gat ein the next system. We send our 80 man gang ahead believing we can break the gate camp. Blob warfare ensues and lag wins the day. Because of the mechanics of the game more than half of our fleet is decimated but the hostiles leave the gate and we decide to seize the opportunity to get through. We jump in the freighters. Hostile dictor un-cloaks and bubbles the gang. Hostile group warps back in. blob warfare ensues, lag again wins the day and our freighters and haulers die.
Because we now lack the fuel for our POS's they go offline we lose sov. And get ganked in our weak state. So now we are out billions in ships and POS fuel, Billions more POS equipment and the station. Every one is ****ed and we all disband and join other, larger alliances that can support 0.0 space, since they are the ones with jump bridges, titans, and when they eventually come out they will have the first jump freighters. Wow you really are trying to break up the large alliance holding space thing, as well as encourage small gang warfare. Oh and you are murdering casual players like myself. You guys are well on your way to pulling an SWG move.
thanks
Originally by: Rohann /emote pokes woody and moons him
I R NEKID SEE!?!?!?!?! |
HydroSan
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.11.30 02:11:00 -
[542]
Edited by: HydroSan on 30/11/2007 02:12:19 Again, CCP: we are not angry at the change, but the lack of notice, the lack of a mature substitute, and the lack of knowledge the devs seem to have of just how massive a change like this is to EVERY alliance in the game. This will hurt smaller alliances living in NPC 0.0 who rely on carriers to jump their faction/mission running loot out, or the people in the drone regions who practically depend on mineral/alloy exportation for survival. How are they supposed to cope without any substitutes in place? The T2 freighters will cost at least 5b when they come off the assembly line and only the biggest will be able to get their hands on them.
If you had held off any carrier changes, made it clear a carrier nerf was in the future, introduced Jump Freighters and gotten people producing them, and then introduced the carrier nerf with advanced notice in Trinity 1.1... people wouldn't be as mad as they are right now. In fact, people might actually be able to cope with it.
This combined with the Trit nerfs will make life extremely difficult in 0.0. And while I have your attention: what about that "superveld" you guys were talking about? Or blast mining? How are people supposed to get Trit in 0.0 for production? You've nerfed logistics in more than one way and haven't brought in mature substitutes to take their place.
|
Kerfira
|
Posted - 2007.11.30 11:08:00 -
[543]
Originally by: HydroSan
Originally by: Kerfira Sorry for not answering before, but I've been busy RL.
I don't really see them as contradictory. The density in people per system would go up, and I don't think anyone (CCP, me, anyone...) minds alliances/corps claiming territory that they're using! The thing that needs nerfing is them claiming territory they AREN'T using, since that space could be used by corp/alliances that were willing to do so, but can't because <big alliance> is claiming it.
This'll help a bit, and the compression nerf will help some more. I don't think it's enough, but every little bit helps.
Too bad that the Jump Freighters shoot a hole in this entire argument. All it will do is allow the super-rich alliances to keep logistics at the status quo they're at right now and make it difficult to near-impossible for any smaller alliance to claim space unless they get help from the bigger alliances. Bigger alliances will still have POS fuel, trit and manageable logistics two months after Trinity when they get their hands on Jump Freighters: the smaller alliances (e.g: drone regions) will probably not be able to afford it.
The nerf to carrier logistics ranges from a pain in the ass to a mild annoyance to bigger alliances, and a death sentence to smaller alliances. Your whole "NERF THE BIG ALLIANCES" speech was inspiring, though, but unfortunately you're entirely off the mark!
For what it's worth, I think the Jump Freighter should never have been put in. As you say, its a tool that'll benefit only big alliances. For that matter, both dreads and the Rorqual should also have their hauling capabilities nerfed, and freighters should not be able to use jump bridges (static or titan).
Resources used in 0.0 need to be generated there if 0.0 is to have any chance of attracting other player types than PvP'ers.
However, jump freighters will not be as prevalent as carriers in game. Their high cost and training time should suffice to ensure that, not to mention their lesser range and higher fuel consumption. The freighters will also be significantly easier to kill, even at a hostile pos, and being so expensive they almost require an escort. This too will limit their usability. Even so, I still intensely dislike the concept of them.
In addition, the compression nerf will help (not eliminate) the trit problem.
Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
|
Plutoinum
German Cyberdome Corp Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.11.30 11:12:00 -
[544]
Edited by: Plutoinum on 30/11/2007 11:14:04 Hmm, still alternatives. Besides the rorqual, jump freighters and probably hauling some stuff with dreads, I didn't read anything that you can't jump a freighter through a black ops jump portal. Don't know about the range though and lack the skill for that portal generator to try it out.
P.S.: I agree with the change anyway, since I think carrier hauling made logistics easy, which is maybe a reason for deploying so many pos.
|
|
CCP Gangleri
|
Posted - 2007.11.30 11:31:00 -
[545]
Black ops portals are only usable by covert ops ships, Recon, Covert ops and Black ops can use them. No other ship type can use them.
|
|
Virtuozzo
IRON Tech Imperial Republic Of the North
|
Posted - 2007.11.30 13:19:00 -
[546]
Originally by: CCP Gangleri
It is true that many alliances now count on carriers for logistics work, it is not true that the coming patch will completely cripple alliances that run large logistics networks.
I don't know which game you play :P Sorry, just had to say that.
It is true that most alliances now count on carriers for logistics because there is no better tool for factors of manhours and fun factors.
It is true as well that the coming patch will cripple many alliances without vested infrastructures which are very costly and take a long long time to set up and which still because of changes do not in any means compensate for the loss of shipping capacity because of the carrier changes.
You are missing some key elements Gangleri: - cost factors. Do not confuse large vested alliances with smaller or medium ones where cost is tied to capacity. Jump freighters are relatively affordable, but you will have to be bloody rich to afford them to a level where they can take over the current carrier capacity (not to mention, burst sniping jump freighters when they jump to a pos is ridiculously easy).
- work factors. EVE is a game, not a job. The current carrier mechanics allow for a distributed workload, leaving time for fun. Switching to jump freighters, makes it a limited specialty for a long time to come (training & funding), not to mention that jump bridge networks suffer from a work factor as well as a cost factor (particularly with the mass changes for standard freighters).
This element of gameplay should never have been subject to the question "how can we prevent eve online from becoming capital online". This element should never have been tied together with the element of intended use. This element should never have been dumped on people without proper information management beforehand and laying out alternatives in advance giving people a chance to prepare. We're no longer flapping around on a level of "oh battleship blew up, wish you a speedy recovery". We're dealing with elements which take thousands of manhours of player activity to set up, fund, and implement.
You are 100% correct that carriers ended up in a role which was not originally intended. The problem is that the players had no other alternative because of game mechanics and the absence of competing solutions. Do not blame the players for using the elements in game the way they are put in game, regardless of intent. When you leave gaps hanging for such a long time, it is way too easy to spot trends and act on them early, rather then late. You are now offering alternatives, of a limited type, which require a substantial amount of time for people to retrain for (freighter pilot going for jump drive calibration 5 from warp drive operation 4 for instance to make use of existing dread based jump networks) while in the mean time there is a huge gap in capacity, while with the new "solutions" facing the issue that they require even more manhours to handle.
Why are staff acting surprised that people are still angry. Granted, there's idiots who don't check facts among the players, and some people loose sight because of the complexity or emo, but come on, look at the trends you created and then let spin out of control and then at the gaps in information control and alternatives for retraining, manhours and fun.
|
Virtuozzo
IRON Tech Imperial Republic Of the North
|
Posted - 2007.11.30 13:21:00 -
[547]
Originally by: CCP Gangleri There is no fighter nerf, that was simply a suggested solution to the fact that carriers were in essence combat ready haulers. Instead we are removing the hauling ability from them and adding more combat logistics power.
Does it surprise you that subscribers no longer believe staff and just go for the worst case scenarios? Look at the amount of bad communications. I will not be surprised if in time (suddenly) there will be a new bandwidth model for carriers and motherships limiting the amount of fighters for deployment and control factors. Why? Because of how these forums are used for subtle checks on responses and ideas.
|
Kerfira
|
Posted - 2007.11.30 13:28:00 -
[548]
Edited by: Kerfira on 30/11/2007 13:29:26
Originally by: Virtuozzo You are missing some key elements Gangleri: - cost factors. Do not confuse large vested alliances with smaller or medium ones where cost is tied to capacity. Jump freighters are relatively affordable, but you will have to be bloody rich to afford them to a level where they can take over the current carrier capacity (not to mention, burst sniping jump freighters when they jump to a pos is ridiculously easy).
- work factors. EVE is a game, not a job. The current carrier mechanics allow for a distributed workload, leaving time for fun. Switching to jump freighters, makes it a limited specialty for a long time to come (training & funding), not to mention that jump bridge networks suffer from a work factor as well as a cost factor (particularly with the mass changes for standard freighters).
....And I think you are missing out on the obvious solution to this, and probably what is CCP's intention.
- Alliances/corp must reduce the area they control!
Having single alliances, no matter whether they're several 1000's of members, control a vast number of regions they're not even using is quite frankly ridiculous, and deprives other players who might want to use it of the ability to do so. Increasing the workload/cost of keeping that territory is the ONLY way of reducing it! Ideally, an alliance should be able to control the territory they actively use, and no more.
Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
|
bobtheminer
Seven. Enuma Elish.
|
Posted - 2007.11.30 13:39:00 -
[549]
not all space is good and usable though, which to a point is why alot of alliances claim alot of space because to get those 2 good systems in that constelation and those other 2 over their u end up being classed as caliming that entire constelation, theirs very few const's in eve i dare say that have mass's of high belt low sec status systems u get 1-2 good systems then the rest are average or if your really unlucky junk systems that have 2-6 belts and a sec status of -0.01, if ccp wants to decrease the size of space alliances create they need to make smaller area's able to sustain enough ppl for it to be viable
|
Virtuozzo
IRON Tech Imperial Republic Of the North
|
Posted - 2007.11.30 13:41:00 -
[550]
Originally by: Kerfira
....And I think you are missing out on the obvious solution to this, and probably what is CCP's intention.
- Alliances/corp must reduce the area they control!
Having single alliances, no matter whether they're several 1000's of members, control a vast number of regions they're not even using is quite frankly ridiculous, and deprives other players who might want to use it of the ability to do so. Increasing the workload/cost of keeping that territory is the ONLY way of reducing it! Ideally, an alliance should be able to control the territory they actively use, and no more.
No, I'm not missing that. It's something I would utterly love. Small pockets of (rude) "civilisation" lashing out to each other over vast distances. Juicy.
The problem with this reasoning is that there is a treshold involved. The current changes are ridiculously easy to adapt to and shake off for exactly those larger and complex organisations which hold claim to insane amounts of space. Because of the amount of pilots finding capacity of rorqual able pilots is easy, same for jump freighters, and funding those elements is **** easy - it is after all a volume based economy. Not to mention that the largest of such organisations completely bypass the issue with other means of logistics which small to medium alliances just do not have, let alone can afford.
If CCP's focus truly is to cut space up again, combined with not letting eve online become capital online, then reinforcing the large vested organisations in their capabilities is a bad thing. Not providing even a crossover timeframe for small/medium organisations is also a bad thing.
It is not that these changes are being implemented. It is the timing, the manner and the methodology. None of which shows any support for the lovely target of cutting space up again. In contrast it hits small/medium organisations even harder. Keep in mind that no matter how small, medium or big you are, you all have the same sovereignty requirements.
A station in a system with 80 moons these days? I'd really love to see a small/medium organisation manage coping with keeping sovereignty there .... especially with these changes.
I agree with you, the notion of those huge areas of "claimed" space, it is kinda silly. And I would love to see more good old real 0.0 again like before the days of station ping pong, but human nature does not change, nor do these changes help to break up the large claims. Instead they reinforce the large claims, because they already have the manpower for manhours, the means for the infrastructure, the means for distributed nearly invulnerable income, and the pre trained older pilots always ready to hop into the next "solution" because of the skillpoints.
No, these changes do not help, if reducing the claims is the target, or even a "desired side effect".
|
|
Barimen
|
Posted - 2007.11.30 13:50:00 -
[551]
Originally by: Benn Helmsman Edited by: Benn Helmsman on 26/10/2007 09:06:31 Use a jump freighter, stop crying your ubercarriers cant do everything on their own.
This kind of reminds me of a story about the french revolution, when Marie Antoinette was told "The people is angry and starving because they have no bread" she was rumoured to have said, "But then why dont they eat cookies instead?"
Not sure if that one was true, scholars seems to indicate it was not.
Does not matter though, we have a new quote to source that makes Marie look like a Mensa member.
Thank you.
|
Kerfira
|
Posted - 2007.11.30 13:57:00 -
[552]
Originally by: Virtuozzo Post...
I do see your point, I just happen not to agree fully
While you rightly say that large alliances might be able to compensate quickly, there's a difference between having the formal ability (ie. players with the possibility of training the required skills), and the actual ability to do so (ie. get those players to do so). It's one thing to spend training time for a carrier which is a bad-ass pwn-ship in itself that can accidentally act as a hauler, quite something different for a PvP player to train for an industrial ship.
In addition, the ships that'll replace the carriers now used are 2-3 times more expensive at least, and has 2/3 (?) of the range.
All in all, I think this will have at least some limiting effect on current alliances (even the bigger ones), but as I've said before, I think jump freighters should never have been put in the game, and that Rorqual and expanded dreads needs a nerfbat in the groin. Add to that the inability of freighters to use jump bridges, and we may just have the beginning of real full-featured empires in 0.0. The only other thing missing in that picture is all fuel types available in all of 0.0, and more ice belts in general (and possibly a removal of true-sec so 75% of 0.0 isn't useless).
Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
|
Virtuozzo
IRON Tech Imperial Republic Of the North
|
Posted - 2007.11.30 14:12:00 -
[553]
Originally by: Kerfira
Originally by: Virtuozzo Post...
I do see your point, I just happen not to agree fully
While you rightly say that large alliances might be able to compensate quickly, there's a difference between having the formal ability (ie. players with the possibility of training the required skills), and the actual ability to do so (ie. get those players to do so). It's one thing to spend training time for a carrier which is a bad-ass pwn-ship in itself that can accidentally act as a hauler, quite something different for a PvP player to train for an industrial ship.
In addition, the ships that'll replace the carriers now used are 2-3 times more expensive at least, and has 2/3 (?) of the range.
All in all, I think this will have at least some limiting effect on current alliances (even the bigger ones), but as I've said before, I think jump freighters should never have been put in the game, and that Rorqual and expanded dreads needs a nerfbat in the groin. Add to that the inability of freighters to use jump bridges, and we may just have the beginning of real full-featured empires in 0.0. The only other thing missing in that picture is all fuel types available in all of 0.0, and more ice belts in general (and possibly a removal of true-sec so 75% of 0.0 isn't useless).
The large vested organisations holding vast amounts of space, have a lot of luxuries. Some who are at that point enjoy the benefits of coordinated training because people help the team all along the way to even more territory. Others simply enforce it (train this, or you die). Both mechanisms (and there's a few others) work with ease.
You might be missing that for such organisations it is not "something else" for a pvp player to train an "industry" alt to fly a carrier. It is part of the whole pvp focus. After all, it is about territory. Anything required for that goes into the pvp element. Almost sick yes :P But true. It is just as simple, because of the large team focus and the available means, to buy an extra alt here or there exactly for those purposes. On that level, ISK ain't an issue, even for a coordinated approach of buying a good team of dedicated pilots each an extra pre skilled alt. It's common practice, sadly.
No, because it will mean more work for small/medium organisations who have less comfort zones and comfort capability (margins), it helps the larger alliances. On top of that, for any large organisation which focuses on territory, the cost is pocket money, the manhours are a laugh.
I agree that the whole racial ice issue is boobies up for 0.0, but I doubt any CCP is so far as to jump on that topic..
Jump freighters. Too easy to kill, even when they have remote repair support. A good sniper gang can kill it at a pos before any carriers can lock it and have the repair cycles kick in :P Rorquals, will be perverted for shipping, just like dreadnoughts, and AGAIN we will arrive at the same issue of "not intended role".
I can picture an idea suddenly being posted by CCP on seperate fuel bays for dreadnoughts and rorquals, with only some types of items being allowed in the cargo bay ....
|
Shevar
Minmatar A.W.M Ka-Tet
|
Posted - 2007.11.30 14:20:00 -
[554]
Originally by: CCP Gangleri
Originally by: infinityshok
Originally by: Kerfira
Originally by: Darth Sylar ...what is a bleeding carrier if not a logistics ship? it has no primary weapon for god's sake!
Try walking up the the captain of the USS Nimitz and tell him his ship is a logistics ship. My guess is you'll get a fist in the face...
A carrier is a COMBAT ship! Not a bloody hauler!
Come up with an analogy that has some vague relevance. When was the last time you saw an aircraft carrier warping around outer space in a far off galaxy.
The reason for people bringing this analogy to the table is that so many posters use the logic:
carrier=carries stuff=hauler
Which is just not true, carriers are combat ships that carry mostly what they need to support their own combat ability. This should also hold true for carriers in eve, they are combat ships that were always meant to be used for combat logistics as opposed to POS fueling logistics. In my previous post on page 18 I explained how logistics for large scale POS networks are being moved over to ships that are less geared toward combat tasks. They will need combat support, and carriers will still be very useful in that role.
Euhm I'm sorry but a jump capable freighter that can't even fit cap recharge modules won't be fun to jump around (or can they jump around without cap?).
So basicly CCP wants to fully segregate combat and logistics? So that combat specced characters can't help significantly with any form of logistics? What kind of ploy is that? To force more people into having multiple accounts?
Logistics is looked upon as a drag, nearly a dayjob like thing that needs to be done to keep an alliance running in .0. Instead of making it more tedious you should be working on making it easier in my opinion. Unless offcourse you want to increase the population in highsec and futher lower the ammount of population in .0. But I doubt that that is what CCP wants to accomplish.
Also why nerf something without having introduced the replacement prior to nerfing it? I thought the outcry of the mineral compression nerf would have learned you to avoid such a mistake (do note ore compression is in no way a replacement for mineral compression, so when you decide to "change" that again expect another huge outcry).
--- -The only real drug problem is scoring real good drugs |
|
CCP Gangleri
|
Posted - 2007.11.30 14:54:00 -
[555]
Edited by: CCP Gangleri on 30/11/2007 14:56:42 Dreads and Rorquals fitted for cargo expansion are reducing their combat effectiveness for hauling power. That was not the case with the carriers as they were. This is the heart of the matter, massive hauling potential without any loss of combat ability is simply out of the question.
As for the larger alliances vs. smaller and medium sized alliances. That is and always will be unbalanced, did you expect it to be easy for a tiny band of brave carrier pilots to run a massive POS network in deep 0.0 next to a huge hostile alliance? Oh you did? Well, thats not the way it should be.
Jump freighters will and should require backup to be most effective, 0.0 logistics will no longer be one carrier pilot and his cyno alt.
edit: typos and other stuff
|
|
Shevar
Minmatar A.W.M Ka-Tet
|
Posted - 2007.11.30 15:05:00 -
[556]
Originally by: CCP Gangleri
Jump freighters will and should require backup to be most effective, 0.0 logistics will no longer be one carrier pilot and his cyno alt.
So this change is only aimed at making logistics more tedious/boring and more time consuming? --- -The only real drug problem is scoring real good drugs |
Mondo Shiva
|
Posted - 2007.11.30 15:09:00 -
[557]
Well this is the biggest isk sink that will hit TQ.
- T2 freighters - sky rocket prices for characters with proper t2 freighter skills.
- Dropping the price of carrier characters.
- Entire business with selling characters have recieved wrecking dmg with is good couse lot of people sold carriers chars for 5-15 bil.
- Large allainces will be forced for several months either run more often logistic trips or make their space smaller.
- Lot of smaller alliances or corps trying to get to 0.0 individualy with their own poses. Most of post otold its not possible i think it is. Smaller corporaations can easily manage 2-3 poses. And if they are combat oriented they can gang up with others.
Most damage was done to large sovereignity holding alliances like goons or red alliance for example and make space for smaller entities. Interesting is that Bob withdraw month ago so they dont need to care. |
Kerfira
|
Posted - 2007.11.30 15:17:00 -
[558]
Edited by: Kerfira on 30/11/2007 15:17:34
Originally by: Mondo Shiva Well this is the biggest isk sink that will hit TQ.
None of your points are ISK sinks!
ISK leaving your wallet and going to another players wallet is not an ISK sink. ISK leaving the game (as in buying NPC goods) is an ISK sink.
Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
|
Vanessa Vale
|
Posted - 2007.11.30 15:58:00 -
[559]
Originally by: Shevar
Originally by: CCP Gangleri
Jump freighters will and should require backup to be most effective, 0.0 logistics will no longer be one carrier pilot and his cyno alt.
So this change is only aimed at making logistics more tedious/boring and more time consuming?
So is grinding isks for new ships (which is probably now more time consuming with the module volume nerf) *shrug* Nothing special with this. You do what you can tolerate and what you cannot you don't.
|
Hatch
Minmatar Cloak and Daggers Knights Of Syndicate
|
Posted - 2007.11.30 16:02:00 -
[560]
so with the two thirds of the cargo bay now taken away, how much fuel does the thing need to get around and how much will you be able to carry when you have not room because of fuel constraints.
|
|
bobtheminer
Seven. Enuma Elish.
|
Posted - 2007.11.30 16:17:00 -
[561]
Gangleri since your commenting in this thread could u comment on the bs point i brought up earlyer or point a dev who can comment this way?
|
Lord DeFault
Minmatar Dark-Rising Veritas Immortalis
|
Posted - 2007.11.30 16:35:00 -
[562]
Edited by: Lord DeFault on 30/11/2007 16:36:40 I agree with CCP about carryÆs being to useful. However...
the effect you are having on small corps is horrible. Warp to 0 Made EVE a small place. No havens for a small corp to set up in 0.0.(good thing bad effect)
Small Corps alliances cannot afford silly t2 freighters. Imagine the man power needed at both ends to use it. How should they haul now? ThereÆs some stuff in eve you just donÆt move in a hauler in 0.0...
Corps cannot claim sov. Even limited Sov levels. So they have to Join some terrible alliance, Filled with nitwits and divisions.. or fork up another BILLION.
They should be able to claim limited number of systems and sov levels.
EVE tools allow alert all the big boys instantly. meaning you get smite before it's ready. Normally by a fight collation. And simply blobbed out before you defensive structures are ready.
Afew Carriers, A targetitble sum for a new 100man corp. can fuel and supply add limited combat support at 20mill apop. Now.. What will they do after this? Field carriers at the gate vs. much bigger alliances? You mad? Lol
Capital industrial ship appears to be a good idea, However itÆs use with moon mins and other such industrial items is shrouded in mystery. And itÆs 3 odd bill Just to move the basics. And does nothing else. You would need 3/4 of these? lol
For the Republic
|
Swedish Bob
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.11.30 16:38:00 -
[563]
Originally by: CCP Gangleri In my previous post on page 18 I explained how logistics for large scale POS networks are being moved over to ships that are less geared toward combat tasks. They will need combat support, and carriers will still be very useful in that role.
What nobody has explained is why you need this to happen right this second. You have basically walked in busted up all the logistics guys toys and then told them to sort it out yourself. There is no reason that this nerf needs to happen before the market has created a viable alternative. I think you guys are being pig headed about this and unwilling to make adjustments where it would ease the transition. Or you just have not planned this out well enough.
|
Dakisha
Mining Bytes Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.11.30 16:47:00 -
[564]
There is wanting to make changes to the way you see something as being broken, then there is not giving them the tools to do it another way.
Introducing the hauling nerf at the same time as introducing a new tool that will take weeks/months to become commonplace is not constructive - nor is it giving them the tools needed.
How much harm would it really have been to have left this change off for 4-8 weeks? What was so urgent that it was needed right here, right now?
All you've done is hurt smaller alliances who can't afford the enormous premium that the jump freighters will cost for the first couple of months.
|
Trent Nichols
Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.11.30 17:01:00 -
[565]
Originally by: CCP Gangleri
As for the larger alliances vs. smaller and medium sized alliances. That is and always will be unbalanced, did you expect it to be easy for a tiny band of brave carrier pilots to run a massive POS network in deep 0.0 next to a huge hostile alliance? Oh you did? Well, thats not the way it should be.
A tiny group of carrier pilots maintaining POS networks? Is that really how the Dev's think they are being used? I guess if by tiny you are referring to alliances with under 1000 members, that is accurate. I thought Devs had an interest in curbing blob warfare.
Originally by: Swedish Bob What nobody has explained is why you need this to happen right this second. You have basically walked in busted up all the logistics guys toys and then told them to sort it out yourself. There is no reason that this nerf needs to happen before the market has created a viable alternative. I think you guys are being pig headed about this and unwilling to make adjustments where it would ease the transition. Or you just have not planned this out well enough.
I brought up the same thing a few posts ago and I'm sure Ive seen other variations in other threads. If JFs were implemented properly, carriers would simply be replaced. The Devs tend to dodge the tougher questions.
Trinity: The best content release ever, completely overshadowed by the worst nerfs ever. |
Remember When
|
Posted - 2007.11.30 18:19:00 -
[566]
Developer vision does not equal game realities. I think you game design guys are missing the obvious. Every day we have to do logistics in 0.0. Your vision for jump freighters will take some time to be in effect. Thus until every has these nice new PLAYER BUILT jump tools, all of us in 0.0 TODAY will have much more logistic work. Months of work is not entertainment. You have lost your perspective because you think time is free. Time is the most valuable commodity a player has......log in not log in.... is a fundamental decision each subscriber goes through each day. Your failing to see that is the core of the player base complaint. Your perspective is oh that will not take long to get Jump freighters going.....what is a few months? You play a few months as a logistic pilot then come and talk to us. This is one of the most upsetting content changes you have pulled on me. BEcause I HATE logistic work.
I am a Beta Player. OMG When does Conan or Warhammer come out? Let me check.......
|
Virtuozzo
IRON Tech Imperial Republic Of the North
|
Posted - 2007.11.30 18:21:00 -
[567]
Originally by: CCP Gangleri
Dreads and Rorquals fitted for cargo expansion are reducing their combat effectiveness for hauling power. That was not the case with the carriers as they were. This is the heart of the matter, massive hauling potential without any loss of combat ability is simply out of the question.
This is only partially correct. The syndrome described as the afk carrier hauling alt with cargo expanders and cargo rigs was (of the 3 "solutions" mentioned) the easiest one to kill. Logistics on a solo level in deep space tend to go very badly :-) Logistics in deep space is and will always be subject to coordination, the "heart of the matter" as described is an urban myth. If you want to insist, then you will have to provide the data and split it over the solo and the team based implementation.
What has been done is a simple arbitrary decision. Nothing wrong with that, we all know who's game this is. But think on a commercial level, and give people the chance to adapt on all levels, as this is not a case anymore of losing a battleship and that's it. You have tapped right into the fun factor vs work factor ratio for this game. A bit of eyecandy will not distract people from how much they have to work in a game in order to play it. Besides that, if staff really want to get to the heart of the matter, generalisations without exposure are a very bad thing. After all, everybody here knows how stupidly easy it is to kill the oh so described and loathed "afk carrier alt" at either a pos, or in low sec. Couple of HAC's and you're set there.
No. The heart of the matter is that you let something spiral out of control. Knowingly. And with so little time and focus available to spend in equal fashion on ALL the various elements of complexity, arbitrary calls were made. Mostly influenced by "we cannot let this become "Capital Online".
Wake up I'd say. As long as 0.0 means POS, you will have nearly each and every pilot making a living there go for dreadnoughts, carriers, even motherships and titans. These are not the methods to break the blob, for that you have to change human nature.
Originally by: CCP Gangleri
As for the larger alliances vs. smaller and medium sized alliances.
That is a topic which speaks for itself. This is not about balance. EVE is about the absence of balance, and the cold and dark niches to crawl into or break open.
Originally by: CCP Gangleri
That is and always will be unbalanced, did you expect it to be easy for a tiny band of brave carrier pilots to run a massive POS network in deep 0.0 next to a huge hostile alliance? Oh you did? Well, thats not the way it should be.
Careful with controlling the tone of comments. Don't take this the wrong way, but some of the folks frequenting these forums are folks who don't consider comments varying from stuff between the lines to sillyness like the infamous "5000 other systems" screwup.
Originally by: CCP Gangleri
Jump freighters will and should require backup to be most effective, 0.0 logistics will no longer be one carrier pilot and his cyno alt.
EVERYTHING requires backup in 0.0. And in general. This is a multiplayer game where teamwork enables wonders and prevents crap from happening. Repeating this as an argument is getting kinda old. People play this game for - among others - this reason. And 0.0 quickly teaches you to work together.
Seriously, I am very curious for the real argumentation. Because the ones utilised thusfar carry no data, no reference, are restricted to the very exceptions which make things easy to kill and thus address, and do not answer the core questions of how it all got this far in the first place.
You knew the trend. You knew the issue. You let it slide. And now you switch it over out of the blue forcing the issue, and still are surprised people get emo :P This is exactly the same for the whole POS debate. You know the trend, you know the issue, you let it slide.
|
Hyper Traxx
|
Posted - 2007.11.30 20:39:00 -
[568]
Originally by: CCP Gangleri Edited by: CCP Gangleri on 30/11/2007 14:56:42 Dreads and Rorquals fitted for cargo expansion are reducing their combat effectiveness for hauling power. That was not the case with the carriers as they were. This is the heart of the matter, massive hauling potential without any loss of combat ability is simply out of the question.
So this makes carriers for *only* combat and combat related logistics, with no way to refit them for pure hauling. ...yet dreads (arguably a pure combat ship) *can* be refitted for pure hauling. How on earth this makes sense to CCP is beyond me.
Originally by: CCP Gangleri Edited by: CCP Gangleri on 30/11/2007 14:56:42 0.0 logistics will no longer be one carrier pilot and his cyno alt.
Right. It will now be replaced by one dread pilot and his cyno alt.
A solo carrier is just as vulnerable as a solo dread. Trying to even suggest that dreads or rorquals could be some form of stopgap for hauling shows just how out of touch CCP is with their community.
|
Padraig Oriley
Caldari Republic of Texas Combined Planetary Union
|
Posted - 2007.12.01 02:30:00 -
[569]
CCP Devs,
You are making a mistake that many game designers make. Nerfing something that got out of hand without thought to how it affects the smaller alliances.
Larger pre-nerf alliances developed the use of carriers as logistic ships. They then proceeded to develop their deep space systems. After the nerf the large alliances can use their Titans and jump bridge systems as a patch until they get more Rourquals and the new Jump Freighters online.
The newer smaller alliances that have not had the time to develop their space will be the ones most hurt as most have none or few Rourquals and will not see a Jump Freighter for the next 6 months. So in essence, you are making a break between the elite large alliances and the smaller ones.
You would be much smarter to let nature take its course, if the Jump Freighters are that much better they will replace carriers as logistics ships naturally if they truly are more cost effective and time saving.
Basically what I am saying is you need to leave a progression for the smaller alliances to move to 0.0 instead of, "Deep space alliances require X number of Titans X, number of Moms, X number of Carriers and X number of Jump Freighters" before they even think of moving to 0.0.
Leave the carriers as a mid point between the 2 extremes. Making it so you have to refit between combat fits and logistics fits but nerfing it just leaves a lot of people out in the cold.
|
Icelan
|
Posted - 2007.12.01 02:40:00 -
[570]
Nerfing the Carriers ability to haul is arguably the worst decision CCP has made since I started playing. You guys are worrying about the unintended consequence that Carriers have filled a niche that you did not anticipate and do not espceially want. But what you DON'T realize is that the niche being filled is one of WORK vs. ENTERTAINMENT. If my choices are reduced to "join BoB like alliances" to access 0.0 or stay in Empire (as suggested by one of your dev replies) then our group will be playing a lot less Eve.. or possibly none at all. We play Eve to get away from work. I don't want a second job. Why do you want to promote BLOB warfare? Why do you want to penalize smaller Alliances? Do you truly believe this promotes Eve Entertainment value? Guys, no single issue I know of has ever had so many peeps talking about leaving Eve. Hot is not an adequate description.
|
|
Druadan
Gallente Aristotle Enterprises Ethereal Dawn
|
Posted - 2007.12.01 04:02:00 -
[571]
Edited by: Druadan on 01/12/2007 04:05:04 For 20 pages the playerbase has explained why this change is ridiculous. They've given valid alternatives, and attempted to engage this assault on their fun time with reasoned debate. And what are they greeted with? Placative promises of being listened to, so you can just forget the whole thing and implement it anyway, and the most insultingly glib dev since Eris Discordia came into the 5-Fighters thread and told us all that those against the 5-Fighters nerf were biased, whereas those in favour were not. Ganglieri you refuse to think about anything that may disprove the few points you think you have, and are quite possibly the worst choice of representative for CCP to send into this thread after we've been continuously screwed over these past few months.
I use the third person when I refer to the playerbase because as of this patch, I'm no longer part of it. You've shown complete contempt for this game, for the valid input of your playerbase, and are instead rabidly nerfing things for misguided reasons. I see no reason to keep putting money in your pockets to reward you for indicating that the path you intend to take this game is one of tedious choreworking and changes based on misguided perceptions of the game. As if the grind for ISK wasn't bad enough for 0.0 players, and the removal of physical resources to fight over so the only reason for 0.0 aggression is to **** in other people's cornflakes. 0.0 is now an area of space you pay to grind in for no additional reward, and the charge is giving up all your playtime to logistics. We're also tired of you constantly introducing things that don't work as intended, and fixing them not the following week, or the following month, but 6 or 12 months down the line, at each point of which you introduce something else that doesn't work. Your testing and Quality Assurance is a joke.
In the immutable words of the Office Space soundtrack, ''take this job and shove it''.
-Dru
P.S.: My stuff is already allocated, so all you comedy kings need not ask for it.
|
infinityshok
|
Posted - 2007.12.01 06:41:00 -
[572]
Originally by: CCP Gangleri Edited by: CCP Gangleri on 30/11/2007 14:56:42 Dreads and Rorquals fitted for cargo expansion are reducing their combat effectiveness for hauling power. That was not the case with the carriers as they were. This is the heart of the matter, massive hauling potential without any loss of combat ability is simply out of the question.
As for the larger alliances vs. smaller and medium sized alliances. That is and always will be unbalanced, did you expect it to be easy for a tiny band of brave carrier pilots to run a massive POS network in deep 0.0 next to a huge hostile alliance? Oh you did? Well, thats not the way it should be.
Jump freighters will and should require backup to be most effective, 0.0 logistics will no longer be one carrier pilot and his cyno alt.
edit: typos and other stuff
First, I applaud you for finally responding to this hot potato of an issue.
Carriers that haul cargo ships in their maintenance bays reduce their combat effectiveness by prohibiting combat ships from being carried in place of the haulers.
The ability to carry, at maximum capacity, a hauler and a hulk is NOT a massive hauling potential. It is a barely effective and marginally cost effective one at that. The big picture is being missed. The analogy of youre not seeing the forest through the trees applies here. In an effort to eliminate a carriers 'massive' hauling ability other features are being broken. The alleged purpose of the carriers maintenance bay is to carry combat ships. Every combat ship I have ever had in a maint bay has had modules, charges, loot, mined ore, etc stored within the hold. Modules being stored in the cargo to permit swapping out fittings is now essentially useless. And no, storing every tom **** and harrys modules in the cargo/corp hanger whos ships are in the maint bay is not feasible. A hauler/mining ship combo is now equally useless since ore is no longer able to be in the hold.
For hauling the t2 freighters are a half-measure to say the least. Their prices are going to be so outlandish that dreads and rorquals are going to be the preferred jump hauler. At least the skills were made more reasonable.
Now that the t2 capital can of worms has been opened what is next? T2 carriers with no maintenance bays and able to deploy two fighters? t2 dreads with half the slots of the t1 variant and 100 times the price? I cant wait to see the blistering abortion that is going to be t2 titans.
|
Goca
KAOS. Rule of Three
|
Posted - 2007.12.01 09:38:00 -
[573]
Originally by: CCP Gangleri Edited by: CCP Gangleri on 30/11/2007 14:56:42 Dreads and Rorquals fitted for cargo expansion are reducing their combat effectiveness for hauling power. That was not the case with the carriers as they were. This is the heart of the matter, massive hauling potential without any loss of combat ability is simply out of the question.
As for the larger alliances vs. smaller and medium sized alliances. That is and always will be unbalanced, did you expect it to be easy for a tiny band of brave carrier pilots to run a massive POS network in deep 0.0 next to a huge hostile alliance? Oh you did? Well, thats not the way it should be.
Jump freighters will and should require backup to be most effective, 0.0 logistics will no longer be one carrier pilot and his cyno alt.
edit: typos and other stuff
The more that CCP staff post here, the more I am led to believe they do NOT play the same game as the rest of the playerbase..
0.0 logistics is one carrier pilot and his alt? LOL damn man, play this ******* game a bit, then comment or please go away..
This is supposed to be a game, not work.. It's supposed to be fun, not boring tedious ****, I do enough of that in RL.
As has been posted here a massive amount of times, by a massive amount of people, this nerf helps only the very large space controlling alliances, if you cannot see this, if you are so bull headed that you cannot seem to grasp the reality of this, then there is no hope.
|
Kerfira
|
Posted - 2007.12.01 22:19:00 -
[574]
Originally by: Hyper Traxx So this makes carriers for *only* combat and combat related logistics, with no way to refit them for pure hauling. ...yet dreads (arguably a pure combat ship) *can* be refitted for pure hauling.
You can fit a carrier for pure hauling (Thanatos, 6 low's, 3 rigs). It'll reduce its defensive capabilities a lot, but will enable it to carry: 23.000+ m3 in cargo bay 10.000 m3 in corp hangar 3x IT5's filled with ammo & other charges (150.000+ m3) 175.000 m3 other assembled ships (fitted and ammo'ed) 100.000 m3 drones/fighters
In total, apart from space for fuel, it'll carry 33.000 m3 of general supplies, 250.000 m3 (!!!) of combat supplies (ammo and drones), and 9-10 fitted interceptors. Even if combat fitted, the only reduction will be 19.000 m3 of general supplies, and the 100.000 m3 drones.
The carriers are thus VERY well suited for supporting combat (and has in fact been significantly buffed in this aspect), but can no longer be used for easy POS refueling.
Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
|
HydroSan
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.12.02 01:17:00 -
[575]
Originally by: Kerfira easy POS refueling.
hahahahahahahahahahah
|
Raketefrau
Caldari Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.12.02 05:06:00 -
[576]
Edited by: Raketefrau on 02/12/2007 05:08:16 I am truly appalled to see that the Devs have not even once acknowledged the fact that they're screwing 0.0 pos logistics programs with the carrier hauler cargo nerf, supposedly in the name of giving us jump freighters, which:
a) Won't be available, or anywhere near affordable, for a very, very long time, or
b)will require more towers anyway, because of the shorter jump range
Welcome to POS Fueling Online. I hope you like your games to feel like a job.
The only way these jump freighters are going to be available is if there is a SERIOUS buff to ship invention.
I mean come on -- do you know how long it takes to make a single freighter BPC? And then you get a 20-30% success rate on invention on them?
Time to put the *****pipe down, boys.
signature removed - please email us to find out why (include a link to the image URL) - Jacques([email protected]) <--- I've emailed 3 times now. No answer. |
b0ing
Caldari INTERGALACTIC PLANETARY - PLANETARY INTERGALACTIC Free Trade Zone.
|
Posted - 2007.12.02 05:59:00 -
[577]
Perhaps this will either inspire people to quit trying to claim so much space, or it will bring back the freighter escort days to some extent.
Anyways, I'd like to see some hard numbers on exactly what the difference will be before and after the hauling nerf. I feel carriers are still quite useful for hauling stuff.
Stock up now before the patch if it's such a big issue and get a jump freighter asap. If you are a small alliance then you shouldn't have as many POSes to feed. If you are large, you should have the ability to field more hauling ships and get your hands on a few jump freighters / run a few t1 freighter convoys in complete safety (just scout far ahead and behind, and have a decent pvp fleet guarding. Make a single 15 freighter escort trip and that will keep you fueled for a good long time, no?
PS: I can fly a Minmitar carrier. I don't have any fighter skills, capital repair shills, or capital remote transfer skills. My carrier has cargo expander rigs and modules on it. I use it only for hauling. And I'm fine with the nerf.
|
Aprudend Gist
|
Posted - 2007.12.02 05:59:00 -
[578]
Originally by: CCP Gangleri Edited by: CCP Gangleri on 30/11/2007 14:56:42 Dreads and Rorquals fitted for cargo expansion are reducing their combat effectiveness for hauling power. That was not the case with the carriers as they were. This is the heart of the matter, massive hauling potential without any loss of combat ability is simply out of the question.
As for the larger alliances vs. smaller and medium sized alliances. That is and always will be unbalanced, did you expect it to be easy for a tiny band of brave carrier pilots to run a massive POS network in deep 0.0 next to a huge hostile alliance? Oh you did? Well, thats not the way it should be.
Jump freighters will and should require backup to be most effective, 0.0 logistics will no longer be one carrier pilot and his cyno alt.
edit: typos and other stuff
You and your ******* deves are pieces of **** for a change so late into this game with almost no time to adapt for it.
|
b0ing
Caldari INTERGALACTIC PLANETARY - PLANETARY INTERGALACTIC Free Trade Zone.
|
Posted - 2007.12.02 06:04:00 -
[579]
Originally by: Raketefrau
I mean come on -- do you know how long it takes to make a single freighter BPC?
Perhaps I am lacking information as to exactly how building these things will work, but aren't there already tons of freighter blueprint copies in existence right now? And wouldn't people have begun furiously making more copies the moment T2 freighters were announced? That means on day 1 of the patch people will have these copies in their hands, ready to do whatever it is they do, which I'm sure also takes time, but it's not like they will have to wait X days for a normal blueprint copy before they can even begin the production/invention process.
|
Rann Antares
Gallente omen. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.12.02 08:40:00 -
[580]
I'm lighting my torch and shouldering my pitchfork. Way to **** off your community, CCP. At least offer an option of allowing the carrier to have a decent cargo/logistics fit in lieu of slots or drone bay. You can't just take away the tools we've been using for the last two years, vital for 0.0 existence.
This is not a good change. |
|
Kerfira
|
Posted - 2007.12.02 09:54:00 -
[581]
Originally by: b0ing Anyways, I'd like to see some hard numbers on exactly what the difference will be before and after the hauling nerf. I feel carriers are still quite useful for hauling stuff.
Read my post #581 above for the hauling characteristics of the redone carrier (if you fit for hauling that is). They're not bad at all.
They give up maybe 50+k m3 of storage for any items (incl. fuel), but replace that with 150+k m3 of storage for combat supplies. Numbers may not be entirely accurate, but pretty close (can now carry 3 IT5's instead of 1, but only carrying ammo).
Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
|
wapacz
Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.12.02 18:56:00 -
[582]
Originally by: Kerfira
Originally by: b0ing Anyways, I'd like to see some hard numbers on exactly what the difference will be before and after the hauling nerf. I feel carriers are still quite useful for hauling stuff.
Read my post #581 above for the hauling characteristics of the redone carrier (if you fit for hauling that is). They're not bad at all.
They give up maybe 50+k m3 of storage for any items (incl. fuel), but replace that with 150+k m3 of storage for combat supplies. Numbers may not be entirely accurate, but pretty close (can now carry 3 IT5's instead of 1, but only carrying ammo).
The problem combat supplies means ammo. Not drones. Not LO for cynos. Not stront for dreads. Not modules for refits. To me those are combat supplies.
As I have said in other threads carrying refits is going to be a real pain with this set up. Every one has there slightly different fit based on skills. A lot of stuff being t2 that poeple well want back. Such I have to keep track of so much of other peoples crap.
Really much better fix for this make is to make frigate be able to pack 125 m3 max. cruisers about 250, battle ships 500 and then haulers and barges say 1000. This drastically cuts back how much a carrier can haul. While making it so the carrier doesn't have a 10 page cargo manifest of peoples refits. Also covers the fact that only your corp can use your cha.
|
Virtuozzo
IRON Tech Imperial Republic Of the North
|
Posted - 2007.12.03 16:47:00 -
[583]
Originally by: b0ing Perhaps this will either inspire people to quit trying to claim so much space, or it will bring back the freighter escort days to some extent.
Insert human nature. Increased requirements for manhours and thus manpower and funding will push organisations for more space for more passive and active income :P
As for freighter convoys, well, it gets back to the same syndrome of making the game a job :P EVE has had the days of 30+ freighter convoys, and besides it being extremely vulnerable and hard work, people hated it with a vengeance. Not because of risk/reward analogies, but simply because it meant precious gametime being pushed into days of work.
With a still increasing required input for resources, changes to the m3 sizes of loot reducing passive resources income in deep space over time, not to mention people already gearing up to still (in the vision of CCP) "abuse" carriers and motherships for mineral compression (but this time through ships, drones and charges), the whole effort as made a case for is in vain.
Even the underlying argument of "EVE Online cannot turn into Capital Online" is a moot argument, as it reinforces the trend to push everyone for capital ships. For different methods sure, but the outcome is the same still.
The only ones affected are the small/medium organisations who lack the manpower to compensate for freeform logistics tools like titans. They will reinforce the "capital" trend even more by pushing even harder for capital skills en masse. It's human nature.
So all the arguments that were thrown around, from "easy hauling" to "not intended use" to "economic dynamic changes" to "breaking up the blob" to "reducing the load from fighter swarms" to "capital online" to "breaking up the vast claims" not just break, but instead get reinforce the perceived problems even more. With one exception, a substantial amount of older subscribers leaving the game, providing a vacuum which will suck in a dedicated focus even harder then before.
Don't get me wrong. EVE isn't hello kitty online, and never will be. But the rationales used are faulty in these topics as posed by CCP. The methodology is even more terrible, the common theme among subscribers is "a slap in the face". EVE should not be like the rat race of real life. People will overcompensate, why? Because humans are motivated only by pleasure or by pain. Both make them go nuts and overboard. Only the pleasure factor provides a degree of control as humans are very often similar to sheep once their bellies are full - they become fat and complacent, and that is what opens up the gate for the wolves :P Not pushing people to drown even further in "unintended ut slightly different usages" :P
|
Kerfira
|
Posted - 2007.12.03 20:06:00 -
[584]
Originally by: wapacz
Originally by: Kerfira
Originally by: b0ing Anyways, I'd like to see some hard numbers on exactly what the difference will be before and after the hauling nerf. I feel carriers are still quite useful for hauling stuff.
Read my post #581 above for the hauling characteristics of the redone carrier (if you fit for hauling that is). They're not bad at all.
They give up maybe 50+k m3 of storage for any items (incl. fuel), but replace that with 150+k m3 of storage for combat supplies. Numbers may not be entirely accurate, but pretty close (can now carry 3 IT5's instead of 1, but only carrying ammo).
The problem combat supplies means ammo. Not drones.
A carrier fitted for hauling has 100.000 m3 space for drones/fighters.
Originally by: wapacz Not LO for cynos. Not stront for dreads.
That's perfectly fine. Capital operations and sieges of systems should need a sound logistical backbone for doing so, not just carriers jumping into enemy space. Restricting especially the movement of Stront but also fuel means that the 'borders' in 0.0 will actually mean something. It'll be more difficult and dangerous to siege a system in the enemys interior. CCP wants a more stable 0.0, and this contributes a bit to that.
Originally by: wapacz Not modules for refits.
10.000 m3 of corp hangar + 23.000 m3 of expanded cargo space (- space for your fuel) will carry a good deal of modules.
Originally by: wapacz <snip>... Really much better fix for this make is to make frigate be able to pack 125 m3 max. cruisers about 250, battle ships 500 and then haulers and barges say 1000. This drastically cuts back how much a carrier can haul. While making it so the carrier doesn't have a 10 page cargo manifest of peoples refits. Also covers the fact that only your corp can use your cha.
Doesn't change the overall figures much, so would be acceptable to me at least. You still would have problems with refits though as some modules are increasing in size.
Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
|
wapacz
Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.12.04 00:35:00 -
[585]
Guess the difference here is how we see carrier. I see them as a front line supply ship. Where in the future the jump freighter sets up back behind lines and gives stuff to the carrier to bring to the front lines. New ships, modules, ammo, fuel, for the dreads and so on. To do this well, they need a little more room than they with this nerf, say 5k more m3 as 5k of my cha is full with fuel, in the form of an emergency gsc and a little bit extra for stupid mistakes of jumping to the wrong beacon/ person. luckily I haven't done that one yet.
The whole reason with the carrier being the go between is becuase the freighter have no combat capability but large hauling capacity. The carriers have decent combat capabilities but only say an indy or two in hauling capacity. This way it would take say 12 to 15 carrier runs to empty a jump freighter.
A neat idea if we are not allowed to carry module refits. Would be what I would call individual lockers that have 500 m3 of space for whatever in them. These lockers could be fit to the carrier or mothership. Say 20 for the carrier and 40 for a ms. Any ways these lockers would be accessible in space with a password set by the locker owner. When people are done with the lockers the carrier can remove them with what ever is in them. Now to to contract the locker make it set up so that if I push a contract to owner button that it automatically contracts it to the owner. (Yeah its not really needed but it makes life easier)
|
Kerfira
|
Posted - 2007.12.04 08:33:00 -
[586]
Originally by: wapacz Guess the difference here is how we see carrier. I see them as a front line supply ship.
Could be.... I see them as a front line combat ship, with the ability to carry replacements ships and a limited amount of combat supplies.
Having one ship being able to do multiple roles is not good for variety in the game. Game balance wise, I see this change as a good thing as it'll force an end to the carrier being the best (and too good at that) long-range hauler in the game. If this change hadn't been put in, the jump freighter would still have been number 2, simply because of the increased cost and the range. Carriers need the range for their combat performance, but it was too great a range for a hauler.
Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
|
Johnatan
VVS Corporition Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2007.12.04 10:12:00 -
[587]
Just one question. I have cyno-ready ships in my..carrier. As i understand, i canŠt carry Liquid Ozone anymore in cargo of my ships? That annoys.
Why wouldnŠt you just prevent industrial ships with something in cargo in Ship Maint. Bay? Why prevent ALL ships carrying anything??
I have a megathron with railguns fitted and blasters in its cargo, to refit if itŠs necessary. So i have to carry all this in my carrier cargo now?
---- start cut here ---- Evil Thug`s alt. ----- end cut here ----- |
toshirou
Tau Ceti Global Production
|
Posted - 2007.12.04 11:51:00 -
[588]
this nerf will affect every person who flys t2 ships as well as every carrier pilot !
when alliance's start offlining pos's they cant refuel the reaction's they are making will come to a stand still which will mean the t2 componant market will slow and prices will rise which then has a knock on effect with t2 ships as componant prices rise making ships to expensive to use again
bet you cant wait to fly the new t2 ships? what if they cost 50% more than you expecting? or 100% are you getting a warm fuzzy feeling inside yet
dont get me wrong i think cutting down the hauling aspect of the carrier is a good idea but wouldnt it be better to get the jump frieghters in game for several months befor you nerf the carrier to give people time to adjust and to raise capital to buy these ships
|
Agif
Templar Republic R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.12.04 12:11:00 -
[589]
Originally by: CCP Gangleri Carriers now have the ability to transport up to two battleships fully combat ready, that includes ammo, in their massively upgraded ship maintenance bays. They lost the ability to be fully combat ready haulers instead. Where is the nerf?
I get the feeling the majority of the people posting here do not check their facts, I am still seeing people on page 18 claim that ammo will not be allowed in ships stored in the ship maintenance bays. Jump freighters will not take that long for people to train for and on top of that there is already a jump capable industrial ship on TQ that has a rather nice cargohold (please check these facts on Singularity before commenting on them) so all in all the changes being made are:
a) Combat ships are being made more combat related b) Industrial ships are being made more important in the logistics of running a large POS network
It is true that many alliances now count on carriers for logistics work, it is not true that the coming patch will completely cripple alliances that run large logistics networks.
You truely are an idiot!
Originally by: CCP Gangleri There is no fighter nerf, that was simply a suggested solution to the fact that carriers were in essence combat ready haulers. Instead we are removing the hauling ability from them and adding more combat logistics power.
Yes this was revoked because you realized how stupid and pathetic your nerfs are becoming.
Originally by: CCP Gangleri Edited by: CCP Gangleri on 30/11/2007 14:56:42 Dreads and Rorquals fitted for cargo expansion are reducing their combat effectiveness for hauling power. That was not the case with the carriers as they were. This is the heart of the matter, massive hauling potential without any loss of combat ability is simply out of the question.
As for the larger alliances vs. smaller and medium sized alliances. That is and always will be unbalanced, did you expect it to be easy for a tiny band of brave carrier pilots to run a massive POS network in deep 0.0 next to a huge hostile alliance? Oh you did? Well, thats not the way it should be.
Jump freighters will and should require backup to be most effective, 0.0 logistics will no longer be one carrier pilot and his cyno alt.
edit: typos and other stuff
Ok have you played the game at all ? as you said this which made me think you have no idea what your talking about :-
Quote: As for the larger alliances vs. smaller and medium sized alliances. That is and always will be unbalanced, did you expect it to be easy for a tiny band of brave carrier pilots to run a massive POS network in deep 0.0 next to a huge hostile alliance?
Erm this is what happens if you played the game then you would know. TBH i dont think you are qualified to make decisions or even think you have the right to question us as we seem/do know more about this game than you.
Small/medium/Large alliances without the aid of a titan used/uses carriers to fuel POS's.
Now how many freighters are going to become readily available? Not many and those that do go to the highest bidder. Thus you support large alliances again... So how many ppl are now going to struggle keeping up with fueling POS's as you like to control the fuel market and not let the players have a hand in it.
So CCP yet makes the game less enjoyable... Eve is not a job and it certainly does not seem to be the job for you.
Petition to sack ur sorry ass? Id bet alot of ppl in here would vote.
|
Vanessa Vale
|
Posted - 2007.12.04 13:37:00 -
[590]
Originally by: Kerfira
Originally by: Hyper Traxx So this makes carriers for *only* combat and combat related logistics, with no way to refit them for pure hauling. ...yet dreads (arguably a pure combat ship) *can* be refitted for pure hauling.
You can fit a carrier for pure hauling (Thanatos, 6 low's, 3 rigs). It'll reduce its defensive capabilities a lot, but will enable it to carry: 23.000+ m3 in cargo bay 10.000 m3 in corp hangar 3x IT5's filled with ammo & other charges (150.000+ m3) 175.000 m3 other assembled ships (fitted and ammo'ed) 100.000 m3 drones/fighters
In total, apart from space for fuel, it'll carry 33.000 m3 of general supplies, 250.000 m3 (!!!) of combat supplies (ammo and drones), and 9-10 fitted interceptors. Even if combat fitted, the only reduction will be 19.000 m3 of general supplies, and the 100.000 m3 drones.
The carriers are thus VERY well suited for supporting combat (and has in fact been significantly buffed in this aspect), but can no longer be used for easy POS refueling.
Neither it can be used to carry recons with liquid ozone, nor black ops ships with ozone or isotopes, nor ships with a repper in the bay or some other situational module. Nor it can pick up the ships after they have been deployed if they have picked any loot from the engagement or salvaged.
Frankly, that does sound kind of broken for a ship that's supposed to carry other combat ships, even in the name of stopping regular haulage.
|
|
Agif
Templar Republic R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.12.06 05:44:00 -
[591]
I applaud ccp for their stupidity.
Just made me sell 7 carriers. WTF do i need them for now and lets face it supplying ammo and ships to front lines. LMFAO ok t2 freighter can carry more than a carrier now so why use a carrier to do that...
Carrier = fighter bomber and Pos Repper
CCP = STUPID
|
Goca
KAOS. Rule of Three
|
Posted - 2007.12.06 05:54:00 -
[592]
Originally by: Agif I applaud ccp for their stupidity.
Just made me sell 7 carriers. WTF do i need them for now and lets face it supplying ammo and ships to front lines. LMFAO ok t2 freighter can carry more than a carrier now so why use a carrier to do that...
Carrier = fighter bomber and Pos Repper
CCP = STUPID
/signed excellent job ******* up the game for alot of people boys..
|
Luna Nilaya
Ultrapolite Socialites GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.12.06 06:00:00 -
[593]
20 pages of tears :D I love the new size of ship maintenance bay.
|
Johnatan
VVS Corporition Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2007.12.07 21:34:00 -
[594]
4000m3 for each capital sized module. :))) Try now to carry your own fit on carrier. Wanna repshields on pos? Bring freighter with modules for ya to fit! :) Ah, you can't carry any useful ship with you in carrier because ANY MODULE in cargo will make you cry? Well, take that modules to your corp hangar, make mess, cry more, because there you have 2 drone control units and you can't store any liquid ozone or spare modules inside your corp hangar!!
Unique way carriers may be used now - create lots of lags with their fighters, just in case. Cause anyway they are useless now. CCP you still have to nerf fighters, so all skills and ISKs wasted by people on carriers will be lost for nothing.
---- start cut here ---- Evil Thug`s alt. ----- end cut here ----- |
Kitome Nakatashi
|
Posted - 2007.12.07 21:52:00 -
[595]
Please give Carriers a role bonus that reduces the size of capital modules by 75%. I really am unhappy that I cannot carry reasonable alternate fittings.
Heck, it's hard enough carrying alternate fittings in an Itty V :-)
-Kitome |
Goca
KAOS. Rule of Three
|
Posted - 2007.12.08 00:43:00 -
[596]
Originally by: Johnatan 4000m3 for each capital sized module. :))) Try now to carry your own fit on carrier. Wanna repshields on pos? Bring freighter with modules for ya to fit! :) Ah, you can't carry any useful ship with you in carrier because ANY MODULE in cargo will make you cry? Well, take that modules to your corp hangar, make mess, cry more, because there you have 2 drone control units and you can't store any liquid ozone or spare modules inside your corp hangar!!
Unique way carriers may be used now - create lots of lags with their fighters, just in case. Cause anyway they are useless now. CCP you still have to nerf fighters, so all skills and ISKs wasted by people on carriers will be lost for nothing.
LOL, yeah the "powers" that be REALLY thought through this one.. Glad they listened to the pages and pages of people saying this nerf is stupid.. Ahh well what do we know, we just /or just used to play this stupid game..
|
matarkhan
ConHugeCo
|
Posted - 2007.12.08 01:38:00 -
[597]
This whole debate has turned into:
Players: What're you thinking?
Devs: Silence or arrogance.
People complain about a lack of constructive criticism... How many dozens of pages of thousands of lines of constructive ideas have we had over the past 2 months?
And how much of it has CCP listened to? Not a single bit.
Keep flipping off your customers, CCP. Oh, and crashing their computers, and their POS networks, and their logistics wings...
This whole "update" and "enhancement" has turned into a steaming pile of ****.
Why? Because a) your QA testing remains horrific, and b) your developers' arrogance knows no bounds.
|
Nazdarovie
Minmatar Species 5618 R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.12.08 05:08:00 -
[598]
CCP = Clown Comedy Productions
|
joahn
|
Posted - 2007.12.08 05:37:00 -
[599]
Edited by: joahn on 08/12/2007 05:40:35
Originally by: CCP Gangleri Carriers now have the ability to transport up to two battleships fully combat ready, that includes ammo, in their massively upgraded ship maintenance bays. They lost the ability to be fully combat ready haulers instead. Where is the nerf?
I get the feeling the majority of the people posting here do not check their facts, I am still seeing people on page 18 claim that ammo will not be allowed in ships stored in the ship maintenance bays. Jump freighters will not take that long for people to train for and on top of that there is already a jump capable industrial ship on TQ that has a rather nice cargohold (please check these facts on Singularity before commenting on them) so all in all the changes being made are:
a) Combat ships are being made more combat related b) Industrial ships are being made more important in the logistics of running a large POS network
It is true that many alliances now count on carriers for logistics work, it is not true that the coming patch will completely cripple alliances that run large logistics networks.
on your last sentance your wrong it did cripple a ton of alliances. at least until they can get jump freighters on line and in production. sp what kinda compinsation do you have fo reveryone in those alliances? Are you going to help them get the fuel up to there space? Are you going to elp them go to each pos and assist in fueling? No, what your going to do is ignor the customers and do what you want becuase I;m willing to bet even that you do have a character in game for your own personal use, you probally never fly carriers and never fuel poses.
|
Happatai
|
Posted - 2007.12.08 06:09:00 -
[600]
I fear CCP is going the way of the "lol we make an mmo, we make money...customer support wat is that?"
I give it another week of bs and no response before people (myself included) just say to hell with it and cancel their subscriptions.
|
|
infinityshok
|
Posted - 2007.12.08 07:16:00 -
[601]
Originally by: Happatai I fear CCP is going the way of the "lol we make an mmo, we make money...customer support wat is that?"
I give it another week of bs and no response before people (myself included) just say to hell with it and cancel their subscriptions.
Im not bragging about how many accounts I have...had...but Im sure cccp has the ability to check. See how many active ones I have now? A bit of a steep drop, eh? Kudos on the most effed up expansion to ever to be witnessed by humanity.
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 21 :: [one page] |