Pages: 1 2 3 [4] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
kryptteacher
|
Posted - 2008.08.02 20:26:00 -
[91]
Originally by: 0mega
Originally by: Ranerro I agree the restriction is a nuisance, but it fixed a real problem, so the new fix should not bring back the old problem. Disallowing haulers in the bay is one option for solving both problems at the same time.
Originally by: xttz Devs, if it really bothers you then just change it to not being able to store a ship with more than 1000m3 in its cargo bay.
approved
|
Tirk Umpat
Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.08.02 20:27:00 -
[92]
|
ceyriot
Entropians on Vacation
|
Posted - 2008.08.02 22:22:00 -
[93]
Originally by: Tirk Umpat
Faction Store - Killboard |
ManOfTeflon
|
Posted - 2008.08.03 03:07:00 -
[94]
Originally by: Luckyduck
Originally by: Phillipe d'Rothschild
Originally by: Luckyduck Edited by: Luckyduck on 02/08/2008 07:46:34 No, it's ment to add diversity of ships. Carrier gaining this effect again would limit the amount of use of rouqals and jump freighters b/c people w/carriers would solo haul every thing rather than actually train for freighters or ask for help. Why waste time and money on a virtually undefendable ship to move that valuable cargo when you can run a carrier and defend better.
As long as it's cheaper to haul mass quantities of stuff via Jump Freighter/Rorqual, they will still see use. My carrier alt trained up jump freighters for this very reason. Carrier got hit hard with the nerf, as it pulled much of the intended ship hauling functionality out of the carrier and also eliminated much of the ISK making potential you got from having one in deep 0.0 space. If you're going to rat in 0.0 and are smart you don't use a carrier. CCP intended JF's for large alliances, so what are the smaller alliances supposed to utilize?
With the added ship cargo and the jump distance bonus, a carrier would easily replace a rouqal with this change. If they say hey, ok, sure, but no haulers, then i'd support it.
Not if they haul significantly less per trip which - guess what - they would. Nice try, though.
|
Ranerro
Point-Zero R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2008.08.03 03:16:00 -
[95]
Originally by: ManOfTeflon Not if they haul significantly less per trip which - guess what - they would. Nice try, though.
Wrong. Without some restriction, a carrier could hold about 120,000 m3. When they were nerfed, the SMB was increased in size, so in fact without limiting the role of haulers in the SMB, they could now be very effective at moving cargo without some other way of preventing that.
|
ManOfTeflon
|
Posted - 2008.08.03 04:40:00 -
[96]
Edited by: ManOfTeflon on 03/08/2008 04:48:30 Edited by: ManOfTeflon on 03/08/2008 04:47:48 Edited by: ManOfTeflon on 03/08/2008 04:40:17
Originally by: Ranerro Edited by: Ranerro on 03/08/2008 03:17:15 Edited by: Ranerro on 03/08/2008 03:16:48
Originally by: ManOfTeflon Not if they haul significantly less per trip which - guess what - they would. Nice try, though.
Wrong. Without some restriction, a carrier could hold about 120,000 m3 (3 itty5's, expanded and rigged to 35,000 m3 each or whatever it is). When they were nerfed, the SMB was increased in size, so in fact without limiting the role of haulers in the SMB, they could now be very effective at moving cargo without some other way of preventing that.
Now, you do realise that a Rorqual has an identical SMB plus the ability to hold an additional 126,000m^3 of cargo, right? Jump freighters go further, holding three times as much as a logistics carrier even without restrictions. Carriers are still vastly less efficient.
EDIT: The "other way" of preventing carrier logistics was the compression nerf, which was committed at about the same time as the original SMB nerf. You really do need a vast carrying capacity to efficiently move minerals and other goods today, and carriers simply aren't a viable option because of the significantly increased fuel cost that multiple trips necessitates. |
Zorda
|
Posted - 2008.08.05 03:08:00 -
[97]
support
|
Orb Lati
ANZAC ALLIANCE Southern Cross Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.08.05 04:18:00 -
[98]
I would support this suggestion but with 1 condition.
CCP would have to find away of coding modules so that if a pilots not in the ship then they don't change the base stats of a ship. I would even support a ham fisted off-lining all modules when placed in a carrier if only the restrictions were lifted.
That way we could through what ever you want into ship cargo holds but not have the old issue of having 4-5 expanded/rigged haulers in a carrier moving obscene amount of gear/fuel/resources.
Of coarse you would have to provide warnings indicated cargo exceeding limit when you try to move a ship to a carrier maintenace bay.
"We worship Strength because it is through strength that all other values are made possible" |
Daveydweeb
Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.08.05 05:18:00 -
[99]
Originally by: Orb Lati Of coarse you would have to provide warnings indicated cargo exceeding limit when you try to move a ship to a carrier maintenace bay.
This is the only change you're suggesting. The problem is that CCP's been pretty lazy about the other half of what you said: modules will often offline en masse when a ship's placed into an SMA (mostly on my bloody Falcon X( ), and neither the player's skills nor any fitted modules will affect a ship's cargo space when in an SMA. |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |