| Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Kralin Ignatov
Mentis Fidelis
Avarice.
   |
Posted - 2009.05.08 09:38:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Kralin Ignatov on 08/05/2009 09:41:05
Edited by: Kralin Ignatov on 08/05/2009 09:39:16
For current fleets to move around numerous amounts of rigged and unrigged ships in today's eve is highly annoying.
A simple way to fix this would be to buff carriers... but that is unlikely as far as i see.
What i purpose is a modified version of a Jump Freighter.
This ship would not have any fitting slots, would warp & jump just as far as a JF, warp just as fast, and would even have the same hull as a Jf.
What would be unique about this ship is that all it can hold is ships, unpackaged only, in a special hold, called a ship bay, with a 15k general purpose cargo gold for modules and fuel. Its ship bay capacity would be about 2.5 million M3, amd would only allow unpacked ships. capitals would not be allowed. Also, since this ship would not be as versatile as a normal JF, it would have it's cost reduced to about 1.5b - 2b.
The ship would require a new skill, Capital Transport Ships, which would have the exact same prereq's as the Jump Frieghter skill, and would cost equally as much.
Unlike a carrier, it would not have a ship maintenance bay, and would therefore not allow fittings to be changed near it. Also, it would not contain a corp hanger array inside either.
This ship would enable nomadic use of fleets, without an overpowered ability to move entire fleets in one jump.
It would also shift the emphasis of carriers to not be used as logistic vehicles, and instead the battle-centric ships that they are. With that in mind, however, it would still make carriers necessary for a good logistic team, and a viable option for those who cannot fly or afford a Capital Transport Ship.
It would also still give JF's and frieghters superiority for carrying conventional supplies, and packaged ships.
Overall, I believe this ship will enable logistic pilots the ability to move what is needed in a timely fashion, and a lot less fuel.
|
De'Veldrin
Minmatar
Special Projects Executive
|
Posted - 2009.05.08 11:41:00 -
[2]
Edited by: De''Veldrin on 08/05/2009 11:41:27
You might consider looking at this thread:
Proposal to move rigged ships in cargo
--Vel
Experience is what you get right after you need it. |
Santiago Fahahrri
Galactic Geographic
|
Posted - 2009.05.08 12:37:00 -
[3]
I like the idea of a specialized ship for transporting assembled smaller ships. I do not think it should have a jump drive. There are way too many jumping ships already. We need the risk of good old fashioned frieghter runs back.
~ Santiago Fahahrri
Galactic Geographic |
Drake Draconis
Minmatar
Shadow Cadre
People for Organised Peace
|
Posted - 2009.05.08 15:01:00 -
[4]
No.
It would be better to allow the transportation of unpackaged ships in a Freighter.
With.. or without jump drive.
unpackaged ships take up alot of space as it is.
We don't need a new ship to do that when we have on already.
=========================
CEO of Shadow Cadre
http://www.shadowcadre.com
=========================
Dependable, Honorable, Intelligent, No-nonsense
Vote Herschel Yamamoto for CSM! |
Isaac Starstriker
Amarr
Solaris Operations
|
Posted - 2009.05.08 16:48:00 -
[5]
Umm, last I checked a carrier does the same thing easily...or for high-sec Orca.
No reason for change.
--Isaac
Isaac's Haul*Mart - Closed
|
Tesseract d'Urberville
Tadakastu-Obata Corporation
The Honda Accord
|
Posted - 2009.05.08 17:03:00 -
[6]
Edited by: Tesseract d''Urberville on 08/05/2009 17:04:07
I'm of mixed opinions about rigged ships in cargo holds. They shouldn't be packagable. But I think a specialized ship that can haul rigged ships makes better sense.
Here's an extension of your idea: instead of a freighter with an internal "ship bay," how about a tugboat? It hauls other ships on its exterior, dragging them in a line behind it. Instead of calculating its hauling capacity in volume, it has a limit on the number of ships it can haul and the combined mass of ships it can haul. The tug's speed and maneuverability change depending on how much mass it is towing.
The ships being towed must be vacant (so no hauling afk pilots this way). Vacant ships can be placed in tow in stations only. The tug and all the ships it is hauling are each individually visible and targetable in space. If the tug is destroyed while hauling other ships, the other ships are left intact and adrift by the wreck.
Kralin, what do you think?
---------------------------------
Thomas Hardy is going to eat your brains. |
Kralin Ignatov
Mentis Fidelis
Avarice.
|
Posted - 2009.05.08 17:58:00 -
[7]
 Originally by: Isaac Starstriker
Umm, last I checked a carrier does the same thing easily...or for high-sec Orca.
No reason for change.
--Isaac
The carrier can acomplish this task, yes, but not easily. For small to medium sized alliances that only have a few carriers at their disposal, but a numerous amount of battleships and support ships, attempting to relocate can take many jump and hundreds of millions in jump fuel as at most they can only hold 2 battleships at a time.
|
Kralin Ignatov
Mentis Fidelis
Avarice.
|
Posted - 2009.05.08 18:01:00 -
[8]
Edited by: Kralin Ignatov on 08/05/2009 18:08:08
Originally by: De'Veldrin
Edited by: De''Veldrin on 08/05/2009 11:41:27
You might consider looking at this thread:
Proposal to move rigged ships in cargo
I have read and i swear i posted and supported it..
anyways, i agree with that topic, but this is not a duplicate thread, i am simply offering an alternative
Originally by: Tesseract d'Urberville
Edited by: Tesseract d''Urberville on 08/05/2009 17:04:07
I'm of mixed opinions about rigged ships in cargo holds. They shouldn't be packagable. But I think a specialized ship that can haul rigged ships makes better sense.
Here's an extension of your idea: instead of a freighter with an internal "ship bay," how about a tugboat? It hauls other ships on its exterior, dragging them in a line behind it. Instead of calculating its hauling capacity in volume, it has a limit on the number of ships it can haul and the combined mass of ships it can haul. The tug's speed and maneuverability change depending on how much mass it is towing.
The ships being towed must be vacant (so no hauling afk pilots this way). Vacant ships can be placed in tow in stations only. The tug and all the ships it is hauling are each individually visible and targetable in space. If the tug is destroyed while hauling other ships, the other ships are left intact and adrift by the wreck.
Kralin, what do you think?
An interesting idea. While i like it in theory, i can also see it as a vast change to current hauling methods, and thus could be confusing. Also, if the UI for this was anything less the awesome, i feel it could become quite frustrating in operation.
|
Isaac Starstriker
Amarr
Solaris Operations
|
Posted - 2009.05.09 00:50:00 -
[9]
Edited by: Isaac Starstriker on 09/05/2009 00:50:20
Originally by: Kralin Ignatov
Originally by: Isaac Starstriker
Umm, last I checked a carrier does the same thing easily...or for high-sec Orca.
No reason for change.
--Isaac
The carrier can acomplish this task, yes, but not easily. For small to medium sized alliances that only have a few carriers at their disposal, but a numerous amount of battleships and support ships, attempting to relocate can take many jump and hundreds of millions in jump fuel as at most they can only hold 2 battleships at a time.
So why don't you just move your battleships with pilots and in fleets? I still fail to see why we should make it easier and safer to move logistical stuff. If you don't have the technology, then fleet up and move it down altogether. Our corp has worked just fine with this method, I'm pretty sure your alliance can do the same.
--Isaac
Isaac's Haul*Mart - Closed
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |