Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 10 post(s) |
Vrenth
Gallente Lightning Industries
|
Posted - 2009.07.28 16:28:00 -
[1]
These capital ship fuel bays are nothing but a nerf if you decrease our cargo bay size. You realize that a carrier/mothership's utility is greatly decreased if they can't anchor/unanchor structures because they are too large to fit in their now laughable cargo. No capital ship should have a base cargo less than the carrier's current cargo on SiSi, it's an issue of taking away luxuries that have nothing to do with combat and have no need to be nerfed.
If you are going to decrease our cargo this much, I suggest making those fuel bays much, much larger to compensate.. or doubling the size of ship corporate hangers and allowing structures to anchor/unanchor from hangers. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the fuel bay addition, it is a long needed change.. but it should be an addition, not a substitution. Capital ships size is already pathetic enough, don't kill our cargo holds as well.
|
Deva Blackfire
D00M.
|
Posted - 2009.07.28 16:37:00 -
[2]
Actually... the harder is to move caps around the better.
|
Vrenth
Gallente Lightning Industries
|
Posted - 2009.07.28 16:43:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Vrenth on 28/07/2009 16:44:19
Originally by: Deva Blackfire Actually... the harder is to move caps around the better.
The current system will make it no harder to move them around... it will make it easier.
It will make it HARDER to do everything else they used to do related to cargo. They may as well take the word Carry out of Carrier. It can't even carry ships that well... so don't make that argument . The carrier/mothership should have 10,000/25,000m3 fuel bays used to refuel other ships in the fleet. That is what carriers do IRL.
|
Rusty Cargoguy
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.07.28 20:08:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Rusty Cargoguy on 28/07/2009 20:08:25
Originally by: Vrenth That is what carriers do IRL.
real life spaceships? not just internet spaceships now? awesomes!
|
Xarxii
|
Posted - 2009.07.28 20:48:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Rusty Cargoguy Edited by: Rusty Cargoguy on 28/07/2009 20:08:25
Originally by: Vrenth That is what carriers do IRL.
real life spaceships? not just internet spaceships now? awesomes!
This may come as a surprise to you, but CCP didn't invent the carrier.
|
Aramith
|
Posted - 2009.07.28 20:54:00 -
[6]
ccp may not have invented the carrier, but last i knew of navy logistics practices, the carrier does not refuel the rest of the fleet.
That is the job of the fleet oilers (tanker ships that more closely resemble the industrial ships of eve)
|
Xarxii
|
Posted - 2009.07.28 20:57:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Aramith ccp may not have invented the carrier, but last i knew of navy logistics practices, the carrier does not refuel the rest of the fleet.
That is the job of the fleet oilers (tanker ships that more closely resemble the industrial ships of eve)
Partly true, but if you want to get technical, most of the naval ships in modern days are nuclear powered, and require no specific "fuel".
|
Aramith
|
Posted - 2009.07.28 21:20:00 -
[8]
the carrier and the subs are nuclear powered but everything else runs off of diesel fuels of some grade or another.
those all need to be refueled, as well as all the aircraft that the carrier handles thus it does get refueled so it can keeps its planes in the air.
|
Bobbeh
Minmatar Navy of Xoc Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2009.07.29 08:37:00 -
[9]
It will weed out the use of caps for non combat oriented things.
Carriers are haulers, they are support escort for dreads, Repair machines, and local system refit and rearm stations.
The real and only nerf is for dreads who will no longer beable to use cans and therefor greatly reducing its stront cycle count from 6-7 cycles plus iso's plus ammo to 2-3 cycles plus not as much iso's and alot more ammo. As a dread pilot this is a scary scary thought, and i hope is dealt with by ccp.
|
Cors
It's A Trap
|
Posted - 2009.07.29 08:42:00 -
[10]
I've seen a few of these threads. And the one thing that almost every one of them misses is that carriers are NOT meant to be haulers. They are meant to move ships from your Outpost into combat, NOT to move them from empire to 0.0.
They're NOT meant to be used to move fuel for pos's, or ammo for ships. They are meant to be a small scale base in space, OR as a combat ship. NOT as a cargo hauler.
Neither are dreads meant to be cargo haulers. The dread has a SINGLE purpose.
To jump to the fight, and put maximum damage on target. Either another capital ship, or on a POS/station. It's NOT meant for hauling.
If you want to haul things, buy a jump freighter. They ARE meant to haul. Carriers and Dreads are for combat. NOT logistics.
|
|
JamesTalon
Caldari The Knights Templar
|
Posted - 2009.07.29 08:55:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Cors If you want to haul things, buy a jump freighter. They ARE meant to haul. Carriers and Dreads are for combat. NOT logistics.
To be honest, normally when I'm moving stuff with my carrier, my entire cargohold and a chunk of the corp hangar contains fuel, but losing the cargohold capacity and basically being forced to only store fuel in most of what was taken from it just rubs me the wrong way...
"Till shade is gone, till water is gone, into the Shadow with teeth bared, screaming defiance with the last breath, to spit in Sightblinder’s eye on the Last Day." - Robert Jordan |
Vrenth
Gallente Lightning Industries
|
Posted - 2009.07.29 16:15:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Cors
Carriers and Dreads are for combat. NOT logistics.
Gee, and here I was thinking that carriers were a dedicated logistics capital ship.... you know, hence the tactical logistics reconfiguration (triage) and all those bonuses to remote repairing. You'de almost think they were a combat support ship.. maybe they should continue to fill the roll of logistic by continuing to carry fuel for the dreadnoughts and themselves (hint hint, siege moduals isn't the only thing that uses strontium). Why do dreadnoughts have a larger fuel bay than carriers, it should be the same
|
Doomed Predator
The Graduates Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.07.29 18:23:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Vrenth Edited by: Vrenth on 28/07/2009 16:44:19
Originally by: Deva Blackfire Actually... the harder is to move caps around the better.
The current system will make it no harder to move them around... it will make it easier.
It will make it HARDER to do everything else they used to do related to cargo. They may as well take the word Carry out of Carrier. It can't even carry ships that well... so don't make that argument . The carrier/mothership should have 10,000/25,000m3 fuel bays used to refuel other ships in the fleet. That is what carriers do IRL.
They would have taken the word carry out of carrier if they removed fighters. Get a Rorqual or a jump freighter if you want to move your stuff. The 'Fendahlian Collective' strikes again |
ice sect
|
Posted - 2009.07.29 18:46:00 -
[14]
will someone post the current sisi stats relating to cargoholds/fuel bays please?
- dreads - titans - carriers - motherships - whatever other ships theyre trying to damage the use of
|
Lewyrus
Jugis Modo Utopia Southern Cross Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.07.29 18:52:00 -
[15]
Edited by: Lewyrus on 29/07/2009 18:54:15
Originally by: ice sect will someone post the current sisi stats relating to cargoholds/fuel bays please?
Fuel bays for isotopes, strontium and liquid ozone: Black Ops: 1000 m3 Carrier: 3000 m3 Dread: 7000 m3 Mothership: 5000 m3 Rorqual and Jump Freighter: 10k m3 Titan: 60k m3
Ammo bays: Revelation: 250 m3 Moros: 1750 m3 Phoenix: 2000 m3 Naglfar: 2250 m3 Titans have double these amount (for respective race).
Cargoholds: Carriers: 820-875 m3 Dreads: 1810-2560 m3 Motherships: 1337-1415 m3 Titans: 11k-16k m3 Rorqual and Jump Freighter are unchanged.
|
Vrenth
Gallente Lightning Industries
|
Posted - 2009.07.29 19:08:00 -
[16]
Edited by: Vrenth on 29/07/2009 19:08:33
Originally by: Doomed Predator
They would have taken the word carry out of carrier if they removed fighters. Get a Rorqual or a jump freighter if you want to move your stuff.
I'm not talking about moving my stuff. I'm talking about picking things up that are more 1000m3 that carriers have often been used for. Such as anchoring cans and pos structures. This is a side affect from giving us fuel bays and taking away our cargo that was overlooked. I don't want to have to carry an industrial everywhere I go. 3000m3 cargo is not huge, it didn't allow us to replace freighters, but it is nessesary.
|
Sertan Deras
Gallente Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.07.30 04:58:00 -
[17]
Capital ships can no longer carry capital mods in their cargo holds. This is brilliant forethought on CCP's part. No other ship in the game (that I am aware of) is prohibited from carrying it's own mods in it's cargo hold.
The Carrier fuel bay size is a total joke, it should be the same size as the Dreads. Carrier's didn't suddenly start using half the fuel, or half the stront, of a Dread. Even if you want to use the "Carriers don't go through as much stront", it shouldn't be half the size.
Out of random curiosity, can the Carrier fuel bay hold liquid ozone? If so, then that is another reason it should be much larger.
|
Etien Aldragoran
DarkStar 1 GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.07.30 05:40:00 -
[18]
Do the designers even play this game?
|
Fuujin
GoonFleet
|
Posted - 2009.07.30 06:03:00 -
[19]
With these changes to utterly nerf the carrier, a DREAD can now carry and deploy a small tower, while a carrier can't even deploy a medium gun.
So are carriers just supposed to be basilisks with a better tank? |
Vrenth
Gallente Lightning Industries
|
Posted - 2009.07.30 07:54:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Fuujin
With these changes to utterly nerf the carrier, a DREAD can now carry and deploy a small tower, while a carrier can't even deploy a medium gun.
So are carriers just supposed to be basilisks with a better tank?
Apparently. I don't want my carrier to be the jack of all trades that they used to be, they nerfed their hauling ability already, now apparently they need to nerf their ability to do ANYTHING pos related. Before they could, with cargo extenders, carry and set up light pos setups, now you would need rigs to even get close to the cargo required...
|
|
Tairon Usaro
The X-Trading Company RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.07.30 08:12:00 -
[21]
The whole concept of dedicated bays is
CRAP Unneed, unwanted and it wont fix the broken blackops concept ________________________________________________ Some days i loose, some days the others win ... |
Oarta
|
Posted - 2009.07.30 22:21:00 -
[22]
I like the change, though the size of the fuel bays may need a little adjustment. It allows for roles to be more defined for the ships in regards to what they need to carry. Dreads for siege, Carriers for ship transport and Rorquals/Jump Freighters for the back-end logistics.
|
Vrenth
Gallente Lightning Industries
|
Posted - 2009.07.31 01:48:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Oarta I like the change, though the size of the fuel bays may need a little adjustment. It allows for roles to be more defined for the ships in regards to what they need to carry. Dreads for siege, Carriers for ship transport and Rorquals/Jump Freighters for the back-end logistics.
If you jump a jump freighter full of fuel into a fleet battle, I'd laugh. Jump freighters have no role, besides having a jump drive and being able to go into empire. A rorqual can get upwards of 150k cargo with all things considered, with very good jump range. This will cost you far less than a jump freighter, and has a use.
|
kittypaws
|
Posted - 2009.07.31 07:01:00 -
[24]
lol CCP always seems to be able to make things more stupid!
Plese dont do this.. it's hard enuf to change your carrier fitting already!
|
Oarta
|
Posted - 2009.07.31 11:23:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Vrenth
Originally by: Oarta I like the change, though the size of the fuel bays may need a little adjustment. It allows for roles to be more defined for the ships in regards to what they need to carry. Dreads for siege, Carriers for ship transport and Rorquals/Jump Freighters for the back-end logistics.
If you jump a jump freighter full of fuel into a fleet battle, I'd laugh. Jump freighters have no role, besides having a jump drive and being able to go into empire. A rorqual can get upwards of 150k cargo with all things considered, with very good jump range. This will cost you far less than a jump freighter, and has a use.
When I stated back-end, I also was including the movement and transport of POS equipment. JF do the major movements to staging, Rorquals do the deployments to hostile.
|
Tappits
Priory Of The Lemon Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.07.31 13:13:00 -
[26]
Sounds like a good idea to me.
P.S WTS 2 carriers and a dread, pm me..... ---------------------------------------------- Pro BOB????? I fail At forums |
Tammarr
|
Posted - 2009.07.31 16:18:00 -
[27]
Edited by: Tammarr on 31/07/2009 16:18:45 Skeptic to reducing cargobays and making pathetic fuel bays. My redeemer sits at 3k cargospace, to bridge people. If its cargohold isnt changed, I can now hold 4k of fuels for people? But I have to lift it from cargo->fuelbay possibly totaly making things go to poo, the bridge isnt open long enough to start fiddling around with adding fuel to fuelbay. More and more of a twitchgame and I aint getting younger. Dreads able to siege 3 cycles or be able to jump? Gratz... I'am sure the brilliant tought here is: Duh, like, then they'll have to resupply more often, duh, making it more like rl, duuuuh get it, theyll bring haulers to refuel da dreads duuuh. No, No, No. Its already a tremendous worktask to get a sizeable capfleet to get going in the right direction. Change sov first, then we can talk about changes that make the trenchwarfare even more bitter and uninteresting.
|
Seishi Maru
The Black Dawn Gang
|
Posted - 2009.07.31 16:36:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Xarxii
Originally by: Aramith ccp may not have invented the carrier, but last i knew of navy logistics practices, the carrier does not refuel the rest of the fleet.
That is the job of the fleet oilers (tanker ships that more closely resemble the industrial ships of eve)
Partly true, but if you want to get technical, most of the naval ships in modern days are nuclear powered, and require no specific "fuel".
US and france carriers, UK, France, RUssia, US,India, China submarines (being ONLY US and freance fully nuclear sub fleet) and a single class of Russian Battlecruisers.
All the rest of naval vessesl in world are gas turbines or diesel engines.
|
Alexander Knott
Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.07.31 16:40:00 -
[29]
Why are we talking about what aircraft carriers in real life do in a forum about internet spaceships?
|
ChronoSphere
Sturmgrenadier Inc Executive Outcomes
|
Posted - 2009.07.31 16:58:00 -
[30]
I think this is kinda fail tbh, no one has had any problems really with how carriers work. They're multi-use versatile ships, and have been from day 1 - they can do pvp, they can do logistics, they can do cargo movement, they're just not the "best" ship for each role (Except logistics). They're a jack-of-all trades, master of none type deal.
This effectively nerfs carriers so that their only usage is gonna be moving rigged ships or repping towers, with occasional drone support. -------------- ~Admiral, Executive Officer Sturmgrenadier, Inc. Join Sturmgrenadier today! |
|
Trent Nichols
Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.07.31 17:12:00 -
[31]
To CCP: What does this solve? No really; what good comes from this?
The fuel bay sizes are no improvement and the cargo nerf - Did anyone ask for that? I certainly didn't want to be able to haul even less in my carrier.
Not everyone can afford the 5bil haulers you want us to use.
Colonies and Capitals |
Selest Cayal
Gallente Nex Exercitus Executive Outcomes
|
Posted - 2009.07.31 17:13:00 -
[32]
I think the separate fuel bays are a good move. IF the cargo bays are allowed to be as large as they are now. or at least close. a Capital Ship is suppose to be something Huge, that is why they are called CAPITAL.
Think the best way to change them is to add the fuel bay and ammo bay. but make them and the Cargo bays realistically sized. Fuel bays sizes relative to the jump length and Consumption. Ammo bays relative to the amount of ammo used in a give time frame. Dreads don't really need a large cargo bay in addition to a good sized fuel and ammo bay. Carriers and Mother ships actually need some cargo space to be worth. it. Dont even get me started on Mother Ships. They need a massive Overhaul.
|
scim atar
Phantom Squad Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.07.31 17:31:00 -
[33]
Overall not that bad BUT fuel bay is to small needs to be at least 50 % bigger than proposed for carriers so 30 k of topes can be hauled in it otherwise its just a pointless venture of having to move fuel from corp hanger all the time.Content of game should not be considered the addition of tedious pointless tasks
|
|
CCP Abathur
|
Posted - 2009.07.31 18:02:00 -
[34]
Ladies and Gentlemen, there is a reason it's called a 'test' server. The actual numbers are always subject to change.
A few clarifications:
Your jump drive can pull fuel from both cargo and fuel bays. They are not mutually exclusive and can work together.
Orcas & Rorquals now also have a dedicated 'Ore' bay.
We have the ability to create specialized 'bays' for nearly anything, so bear that in mind as you continue to offer constructive feedback.
|
|
Alexander Knott
Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.07.31 18:38:00 -
[35]
That's neat, but we still can't meaningfully expand our jump range through fitting choices nor can we any longer use GSCs to store fuel for long trips/sieges. If you want to eliminate that practice, we'll need more fuel storage than you're currently suggesting.
|
Alexander Knott
Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.07.31 18:49:00 -
[36]
Edited by: Alexander Knott on 31/07/2009 18:49:09 Constructive suggestion: If you're dead set against capitals having 3km3+ cargo holds, you could add 'fuel bay expanders' (low slot module that works like a cargo expander) and 'fuel containers' (LSC, HSC, GSCs that only can contain fuel). Or you could just make carrier fuel bays significantly larger.
|
Gramtar
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.07.31 19:02:00 -
[37]
I forgot a big reason I carry GSC's for fuel storage in my dread:
Ability to remove stront from cargo bay. In high lag, you sometimes can't turn off your siege module. Keeping extra cycles in cans shuts it down when you want to exit siege.
For this reason, I vastly prefer leaving Dreads as they are.
|
Wulfnor
Caldari Roving Guns Inc. RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.07.31 19:08:00 -
[38]
I am afraid until you actually increase the size of the carrier fuel bays on test most people will be focus on that. I think they are too low as well. I dont understand the rational for lower CV fuel bays than DN fuel bays. Perhaps if you explained that it would be less of an issue.
Also if the changes to the cargo bays are to remain then it might be best if you state that module changes for DNs are a function reserved for stations, CVs and MSs.
Other than two items I think fuel bays are a good change. And with luck taking away the POS role will clear the way for you to further define what you want to do with the CV and MS.
Might be nice to add ship storage bays to CVs, MSs and even rorquals that allow ships to be assembled from them to the SMB. Restrictions could be placed on these bays and it would boost the utility of this class of ship as ship replacement platforms.
|
Wulfnor
Caldari Roving Guns Inc. RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.07.31 19:15:00 -
[39]
It would also seem to me that you could create a variant of a ship that could now be specialized for wacky things like salvage ops by placing salvage in their own cargo bay. Just a thought although off topic.
|
Fuujin
GoonFleet
|
Posted - 2009.07.31 19:20:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Wulfnor I am afraid until you actually increase the size of the carrier fuel bays on test most people will be focus on that. I think they are too low as well. I dont understand the rational for lower CV fuel bays than DN fuel bays. Perhaps if you explained that it would be less of an issue.
Also if the changes to the cargo bays are to remain then it might be best if you state that module changes for DNs are a function reserved for stations, CVs and MSs.
Other than two items I think fuel bays are a good change. And with luck taking away the POS role will clear the way for you to further define what you want to do with the CV and MS.
Might be nice to add ship storage bays to CVs, MSs and even rorquals that allow ships to be assembled from them to the SMB. Restrictions could be placed on these bays and it would boost the utility of this class of ship as ship replacement platforms.
The packed ship storage bay sounds really damned cool, actually. Even if you need an external SMA to unpack it in (be nice if it was enabled by a triage/other module function though), it would still allow for a much greater logistics capability than the present '2-battleships-or-a-few-recons/dictors' |
|
Myntelle NicAtoch
|
Posted - 2009.07.31 20:01:00 -
[41]
Edited by: Myntelle NicAtoch on 31/07/2009 20:02:25 I am totally comfortable with the intent behind reducing the cargoholds of carriers and dreads and offloading their ice prodcuts, ammo and drones to the holds appropriate for them. The Rorqal as a fleet tender, and the Jump Freighter as a fleet oiler are good enough to circumvent any of the new perceived limitations in a fleet that can't dock, or pos up, for refits/refueling. I'd go further .. why does a Dreadnaught need such a VAST cargo bay >2k m3. Why do cargo expanders (don't start me on fuel free cloaking devices) from cruiser/battleship classes work on Capital ships at all. This wouldn't have been top of my list of changes to make to ships, but I can understand it merely being a data edit and balancing exercise once the new cargo bay technology was available to make it an easy "kill".
|
Mikal Drey
Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.07.31 20:28:00 -
[42]
Edited by: Mikal Drey on 31/07/2009 20:28:41 hey hey
Naglfar
Ammo Hold 2,250m¦ 9k EMP XL or 7500 Rift Torps
Fuel Bay 7,000m¦ 46,666 Hydrogen Topes
Cargohold 2,560m¦ 853 Stront
the cargobay is about the right size considering that there is enough room in the ammo bay and there is easily enough room for a nice mix of ammo/missiles we dont carry anything tbh and its not a mining ship ;) i would agree though that a ship should be able to carry its own modules and hot swapping setups or even simply refitting across a region shouldnt require additional haulling ships for mods.
the Fuel bay will need a tweek and consideration given to typical jump trips (in and out of empire etc and logistics moves) adding stront anywhere totaly gimps the fuel bay or the cargohold. my suggestions for that would be to add a stront bay big enough for a typical number of cycles or to dramatically reduce the m¦ of strontium. currently 3.0m¦ compared to topes (0.15m¦)
btw bays are awesome \o/
Shattered Crystal - 60 day GTC
|
Haffrage
Haff and Haff
|
Posted - 2009.07.31 20:32:00 -
[43]
Originally by: CCP Abathur Ladies and Gentlemen, there is a reason it's called a 'test' server. The actual numbers are always subject to change.
A few clarifications:
Your jump drive can pull fuel from both cargo and fuel bays. They are not mutually exclusive and can work together.
Orcas & Rorquals now also have a dedicated 'Ore' bay.
We have the ability to create specialized 'bays' for nearly anything, so bear that in mind as you continue to offer constructive feedback.
A small request - Could you put a button for each of a ship's various cargo bays on the fitting window? Right clicking to access a specific hold gets tedious with so many windows in this game, especially when on some ships it's part of the point of the ship.
I'm also curious, will bay-specific expanders be made available? Possibly outside of standard conventions, for instance a midslot ship maint bay expander for carriers would be nice. Moreso if there was just low enough fittings that one could be crammed onto an orca. Percent-based of course. Bay conversion modules would also be nice, but likely not feasible.
And then one last thing, if you plan to nerf the orca or rorqual's standard cargoholds to gain more ore cargo you'll have a frenzy of furious hauler alts at your feet. Orcas right now are the standard hangar-hauling ship for people who don't need 1m m3, but also more than 35k m3. Oh and make the ore hold able to carry refined minerals as well please :bear:
|
Mikal Drey
Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.07.31 20:35:00 -
[44]
Jump freighter(s)
tbvfh they just aint big enough. their current cargohold is shockingly small compared to its sub 1bil Tech 1 counterpart !
give us double the fuel bay size and double the cargobay size. also add a ship maintenance by to the jump freighter. its a 4bil+ ship that is supposed to be the ultimate hauller and i dont see how they made a TII freighter but made it smaller and less useful.
id give it a ship transport bay capable of hauling at least 3 rigged BS's and NO i dont think thats overpowered . . . .especially considering their price tag.
|
dastommy79
Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.07.31 20:53:00 -
[45]
Edited by: dastommy79 on 31/07/2009 20:56:31 hey CCP devs. Move to omist and try living there with your new setups before you put it in game. God damn idots......
also how are you suppose to loot a capital battle after the fight when you are the away team? Yes you dont want carriers to be the do all ship but you have to recognize that they are INFACT a capital ship and should have the capability of a ship that size. A cargo bay smaller than some conventional ships while the carrier can carry 2 battleships is pretty ridiculous. I like yelling at dumb people. Goodbye
Former SmashKill Coaliton Leader WTB Leviathan. Hit me up ingame
|
Matari Atraq
|
Posted - 2009.07.31 20:55:00 -
[46]
Jump freighter(s)
they are ridiculously large. their current cargohold is shockingly large compared to their nearest dedicated equivelant the Transport ship.
Also, stop this nonsense of being able to jump FROM hi-sec - give CONCORD a new module for their control bases in hi-sec systems - one that blocks ships from locking onto cynos. Hell, have them steal it from the wormhole aliens or something.
Also cloak with out fuel consumption? what's that all about?
|
|
CCP Abathur
|
Posted - 2009.07.31 21:56:00 -
[47]
Edited by: CCP Abathur on 31/07/2009 21:58:37
On Dreads: As has been pointed out by other posters in this thread, these are, and have always been intended to be, combat ships.
On Carriers: We will probably increase the fuel bay size a bit to better take into account Triage module fuel usage.
Originally by: Mikal Drey dramatically reduce the m¦ of strontium. currently 3.0m¦ compared to topes (0.15m¦)
Ummm... No.
Originally by: Haffrage A small request - Could you put a button for each of a ship's various cargo bays on the fitting window? Right clicking to access a specific hold gets tedious with so many windows in this game, especially when on some ships it's part of the point of the ship.
I believe the U.I. guys are already looking into that.
Originally by: Haffrage I'm also curious, will bay-specific expanders be made available?
There are no plans for that at this time.
Originally by: Haffrage And then one last thing, if you plan to nerf the orca or rorqual's standard cargoholds
There are no plans for that at this time.
Now on to this happy fellow...
Originally by: dastommy79 also how are you suppose to loot a capital battle after the fight when you are the away team?
All capital-sized modules are currently 4,000 m3, so unless you are adding cargo expanders to your carrier after the fight, then you are not going to be looting with your carriers now either.
Originally by: dastommy79 Yes you dont want carriers to be the do all ship but you have to recognize that they are INFACT a capital ship and should have the capability of a ship that size.
Like launching fighters, having capital repair capability, capital remote repair capability, capital hit points, the ability to transport dozens of fitted combat ships to an engagement, a 10,000 m3 corp hangar bay, the longest cap ship jump range and the Triage module?
All this and it can dock and be insured as well. I think Carriers get by just fine and are hardly suffering from lack of capability.
Originally by: dastommy79 A cargo bay smaller than some conventional ships while the carrier can carry 2 battleships is pretty ridiculous.
The Ship Maintenance Array and the cargo bay have nothing to do with each other in terms of design.
Originally by: dastommy79 I like yelling at dumb people. Goodbye
Thank you for your feedback.
|
|
Mioelnir
Minmatar Meltd0wn
|
Posted - 2009.07.31 23:02:00 -
[48]
Tbh the first thing I thought of while reading about all these fuel bays was "they forgot to make an extra cargo bay for scripts".
Sometimes, changes to EVE get used to little, for example the drone bandwith. There weren't 5 ships that profitted from the ability of extra flights of drones.
I think this is an instance of too much. How the available cargo is divided between fuel, ammo and strontium is as much a tactical decision for dread fleets as how their low slots are fitted or which rig choices are made. Giving just about anything a dread may carry around a separate cargo bay that cannot be modified does imho little except limit diversity.
|
dastommy79
Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.07.31 23:24:00 -
[49]
Originally by: CCP Abathur Edited by: CCP Abathur on 31/07/2009 21:58:37
On Dreads: As has been pointed out by other posters in this thread, these are, and have always been intended to be, combat ships.
On Carriers: We will probably increase the fuel bay size a bit to better take into account Triage module fuel usage.
Originally by: Mikal Drey dramatically reduce the m¦ of strontium. currently 3.0m¦ compared to topes (0.15m¦)
Ummm... No.
Originally by: Haffrage A small request - Could you put a button for each of a ship's various cargo bays on the fitting window? Right clicking to access a specific hold gets tedious with so many windows in this game, especially when on some ships it's part of the point of the ship.
I believe the U.I. guys are already looking into that.
Originally by: Haffrage I'm also curious, will bay-specific expanders be made available?
There are no plans for that at this time.
Originally by: Haffrage And then one last thing, if you plan to nerf the orca or rorqual's standard cargoholds
There are no plans for that at this time.
Now on to this happy fellow...
Originally by: dastommy79 also how are you suppose to loot a capital battle after the fight when you are the away team?
All capital-sized modules are currently 4,000 m3, so unless you are adding cargo expanders to your carrier after the fight, then you are not going to be looting with your carriers now either.
Originally by: dastommy79 Yes you dont want carriers to be the do all ship but you have to recognize that they are INFACT a capital ship and should have the capability of a ship that size.
Like launching fighters, having capital repair capability, capital remote repair capability, capital hit points, the ability to transport dozens of fitted combat ships to an engagement, a 10,000 m3 corp hangar bay, the longest cap ship jump range and the Triage module?
All this and it can dock and be insured as well. I think Carriers get by just fine and are hardly suffering from lack of capability.
Originally by: dastommy79 A cargo bay smaller than some conventional ships while the carrier can carry 2 battleships is pretty ridiculous.
The Ship Maintenance Array and the cargo bay have nothing to do with each other in terms of design.
Originally by: dastommy79 I like yelling at dumb people. Goodbye
Thank you for your feedback.
make love to me you sexy beast
Former SmashKill Coaliton Leader WTB Leviathan. Hit me up ingame
|
Farham
Titan Industries Technology Team Shadow of xXDEATHXx
|
Posted - 2009.07.31 23:49:00 -
[50]
Edited by: Farham on 31/07/2009 23:51:16
To whom it may concern, please stop patronizing my in game roleplay girlfriend Dastommy. Sure he may have a ***** but he is just as much a girl in the world of internet spaceship roleplay as my real life wife. Sure he er..she maybe quite re-tarded, I mean Carriers carrying stuff? What an idiot. But, in the end (no pun intended) she is all I have in game.
Thank you for your consideration Farham - King of fail quoting
Not hacking it in 0.0 since 2006
Farham is my name, and fail quoting is my game. |
|
dastommy79
Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.08.01 00:05:00 -
[51]
Originally by: CCP Abathur excuses
Alright mister smarty pants lets have a go at it. Look at your far reaching territory on the map. Ask yourself can a ship make it from a lowsec point to that system they may call home. If you can pack enough fuel into your fuel bay to make the trip, then you actually did your job for once. FIX IT!
Second Carriers need a large cargo hold to scoop pos modules and loot from battles. Why you might ask? Cause some idiot in your design team came up with the idea that you cant scoop stuff to your corp hangar. SO yes i have 10km3 sitting wasted in my ship cause i cant ACTUALLY put anything in it. FIX IT!
Also speaking of corp hangars, you ever been in a capital blob and tried to refit your ship? You cant cause some jerk doesn't have configure on and the negates your setting. FIX IT!
Also i haven't deployed fighters in a big fight in about a year cause some idiot decided to make doomsday devices and there is no "warp out" button for fighters. So basically you lose 130 mill cause some dev wanted to show off his epeen. FIX IT!
Fix these things and i wont think of you as an idiot. Untill then.....
Dont mess wit da bull cause you get da hornz
Former SmashKill Coaliton Leader WTB Leviathan. Hit me up ingame
|
Haffrage
Haff and Haff
|
Posted - 2009.08.01 00:09:00 -
[52]
Edited by: Haffrage on 01/08/2009 00:10:40
Originally by: CCP Abathur
Originally by: Haffrage A small request - Could you put a button for each of a ship's various cargo bays on the fitting window? Right clicking to access a specific hold gets tedious with so many windows in this game, especially when on some ships it's part of the point of the ship.
I believe the U.I. guys are already looking into that.
Originally by: Haffrage I'm also curious, will bay-specific expanders be made available?
There are no plans for that at this time.
Originally by: Haffrage And then one last thing, if you plan to nerf the orca or rorqual's standard cargoholds
There are no plans for that at this time.
I love it when a dev says exactly what I want to hear ♥♥♥
edit: The above angry poster is right. Will you be implementing a "Scoop to Corp Hangar" ability? It would be incredibly useful tbh.
|
dastommy79
Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.08.01 00:26:00 -
[53]
Also as a paying customer, that technically makes me your boss. Now do as i say or you wont get your cut of my 15bucks a month. YOU'RE WELCOME btw.
Former SmashKill Coaliton Leader WTB Leviathan. Hit me up ingame
|
Ticarus Hellbrandt
|
Posted - 2009.08.01 00:33:00 -
[54]
ccp changing bonus to boon every time
|
Oarta
|
Posted - 2009.08.01 01:40:00 -
[55]
Originally by: dastommy79
Alright mister smarty pants lets have a go at it. Look at your far reaching territory on the map. Ask yourself can a ship make it from a lowsec point to that system they may call home. If you can pack enough fuel into your fuel bay to make the trip, then you actually did your job for once. FIX IT!
If a warship cannot reach an end destination because it does not have enough fuel, then it needs to make the journey with industrial based capital ships to carry the supplies.
Originally by: dastommy79
Second Carriers need a large cargo hold to scoop pos modules and loot from battles. Why you might ask? Cause some idiot in your design team came up with the idea that you cant scoop stuff to your corp hangar. SO yes i have 10km3 sitting wasted in my ship cause i cant ACTUALLY put anything in it. FIX IT!
If your warship cannot scoop up POS modules because of their size, then bring in an industrial based ship designed for hauling cargo.
Originally by: dastommy79
Also speaking of corp hangars, you ever been in a capital blob and tried to refit your ship? You cant cause some jerk doesn't have configure on and the negates your setting. FIX IT!
If your associates do not have things set correctly, then educate them.
Originally by: dastommy79
Also i haven't deployed fighters in a big fight in about a year cause some idiot decided to make doomsday devices and there is no "warp out" button for fighters. So basically you lose 130 mill cause some dev wanted to show off his epeen. FIX IT!
I think the name of Doomsday would quantify it as being deadly. Even with the loss, the size of your drone bay would allow you to deploy replacements for those lost and continue the battle.
Originally by: dastommy79
Fix these things and i wont think of you as an idiot. Untill then.....
Dont mess wit da bull cause you get da hornz
All of the items you pointed out aren't really problems and have easy solutions. These issues which you claim need fixing all sound like the purpose it to make a Carrier able to fulfull all roles on its own.
|
|
CCP Abathur
|
Posted - 2009.08.01 01:49:00 -
[56]
Edited by: CCP Abathur on 01/08/2009 01:50:10
Originally by: dastommy79 Alright mister smarty pants lets have a go at it.
Is this your idea of foreplay?
Originally by: dastommy79 Look at your far reaching territory on the map. Ask yourself can a ship make it from a lowsec point to that system they may call home. If you can pack enough fuel into your fuel bay to make the trip, then you actually did your job for once. FIX IT!
"Fix it!" SNL 4tw.
Which lo-sec point to which 0.0 point? There are many. Your idea works just fine if one subscribes to the theory that every capital ship should always be able to make it to any destination from another on one tank of gas without seriously altering the ship's fitting.
That being said, if getting from one place to another is your only goal for a capital ship, with no GSC's or cargo expanders fit, the 90,000+ isotopes you can fit into a Carrier and 65,000+ isotopes you can fit into a Dread (under the current changes on SiSi) should get you most places.
Originally by: dastommy79 Second Carriers need a large cargo hold to scoop pos modules and loot from battles. Why you might ask? Cause some idiot in your design team came up with the idea that you cant scoop stuff to your corp hangar. SO yes i have 10km3 sitting wasted in my ship cause i cant ACTUALLY put anything in it. FIX IT!
This is something that we are considering, but there are a number of ships with large cargo holds currently capable of fulfilling this capacity.
Originally by: dastommy79 Also speaking of corp hangars, you ever been in a capital blob and tried to refit your ship? You cant cause some jerk doesn't have configure on and the negates your setting. FIX IT!
Fleet discipline problems?
Originally by: dastommy79 Also i haven't deployed fighters in a big fight in about a year cause some idiot decided to make doomsday devices and there is no "warp out" button for fighters. So basically you lose 130 mill cause some dev wanted to show off his epeen. FIX IT!
Waaaaaay off topic, but if you or anyone else wants to discuss doomsday devices or removing useless fighters from carriers, feel free to post your thoughts about that here.
EDIT - Damn, Oarta beat me to it.
|
|
galphi
Gallente Sileo In Pacis The Space P0lice
|
Posted - 2009.08.01 02:20:00 -
[57]
So, you clearly think carriers are currently still too powerful (flexible) with their cargo bay + corp hanger. This fuel bay thing isn't something to make them more useful, it's a nerf. Go on, just say it
|
dastommy79
Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.08.01 02:29:00 -
[58]
Originally by: CCP Abathur fancy quoting thing i cant do
1. Yes A/S/L? 2. Capitals usualy stage out of the closest lowsec system nearest a highsec system twords their space. So you need to look at the map, maybe interview some players that do logistics for alliances that live out in far 00 and well do your job ya know Maybe sit down and talk to people that actualy do this stuff on a daily basis and see what changes they need instead of people not in the know. You mention dreads. GSC serve a purpose in fleet warfare. Not only do they add a SLIGHT Increase in carrying capacity but they use them to split their stront stacks. As a ccp employee you must regulary be involved in epic fleet fights and understand the lag and how players combat that. Split the stacks so you dont go into an unnecesary siege cycle and seriously do something about the guns. FFS modual lag is horrible for a cap pilot. It takes like 5+ mins to turn something off. ALSO ITS A FUEL BAY. YOU USE IT TO PUT THE FUEL IN THAT YOU NEED TO TRAVEL. THERE SHOULD BE ADDIQUITE SPACE. There is no need to nerf what little left you have in cargo and corp hangars to stuff with fuel just to get to the destination. You and i both know that is just plain stupid. We NEED that spare space to move ammo, spare mods, stront and extra fuel for prolong campaigns and roadtrip. 3. "This is something that we are considering, but there are a number of ships with large cargo holds currently capable of fulfilling this capacity."
so i am gonna let you pick the guy that shows up for the fleet fight and let you tell him he has to fly a hauler instead of a combat ship into the fight. This is a big FIX IT not to mention i would like to maybe carry a pos mod or 2 in a system we are sieging. God forbid carrier pilots get to help out our logistics brosefs who sit in pos shields all day cause CCP made everything so god damn big that only they can carry it. Why punish members of your player base like that. ALSO why dont you take over my character and try fueling 7 large sov holding towers using a thanatos and a badger2 DEEP in 00. I MEAN COME ON! Its a video game not work. FIX IT FFS!!!!!! 4 fricking hours i spend every 21 days taking care of these things and i only play like 10hours a week.
4. Fleet discipline problems?
this one i am pretty F'n ****ed at. I speak english. Not everyone in my fleets do. We have americans, british, sweedes, spainards, porutuges, russians, germans, czechs, Aussies, french canadians, french and lots of other people who all speak different languages. Its very difficult to get everyone on the same page let alone the same place doing the same thing. I take your comment as an insult to my alliances capabilitys which we all know are pretty poor but then again i pay you so zip it. HERES A GREAT IDEA!!! Why dont we make it that you have to click OFF the access to corp hangar everytime you session change instead of clicking it on. That might help the situation abit and help deal with the problem of language barriers. Not to mention the fact that i am focused on shooting people and helping my friends and god forbid with all this stuff going on i got to open a window, search for it, then open a new tab and click a stupid box that should never have to be clicked in the first place. ITs not fleet disciplin, its faulty and flat out stupid game mechanics. FIX IT YET AGAIN
5. Make a command that says warp off and they warp off to a selected item like a planet or gate or something and then you can give the order to return when the dd is over. Seriously i am a alcoholic and not that bright but even i can think of that. I dont need to discuse it, i need you to implement it.
I can go a round 3 but i am starting to run out of beers. I need to get sponsered by labatt blue. also i am too lazy to spell check dis one.
Former SmashKill Coaliton Leader WTB Leviathan. Hit me up ingame
|
Farham
Titan Industries Technology Team Shadow of xXDEATHXx
|
Posted - 2009.08.01 02:42:00 -
[59]
GET AWAY FROM MY MAN, er WOMAN!
Just because you are DEV doesn't mean you can be creeping in on my strange, got it mister CCP?
I thought so.
Not hacking it in 0.0 since 2006
Farham is my name, and fail quoting is my game. |
dastommy79
Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.08.01 02:46:00 -
[60]
if you pay for my trip to fanfest i'll buy you a beer ccp dude. Fartham i can never leave you. lets snuggle and forget about this whole mess
Former SmashKill Coaliton Leader WTB Leviathan. Hit me up ingame
|
|
|
CCP Abathur
|
Posted - 2009.08.01 03:10:00 -
[61]
Edited by: CCP Abathur on 01/08/2009 03:16:29
Both of you got progressively more drunk as you replied to this thread, didn't you? I hope it hasn't scared other people away. I'll reply some more in the morning.
|
|
dastommy79
Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.08.01 03:20:00 -
[62]
Originally by: CCP Abathur Edited by: CCP Abathur on 01/08/2009 03:16:29
Both of you got progressively more drunk as you replied to this thread, didn't you? I hope it hasn't scared other people away. I'll reply some more in the morning.
its how we role dog. mad props for chillin wit us. Most devs just ban us cause we say things they dont want to hear.
Former SmashKill Coaliton Leader WTB Leviathan. Hit me up ingame
|
Batolemaeus
Caldari Money Liberation Services Corp
|
Posted - 2009.08.01 04:43:00 -
[63]
Originally by: CCP Abathur
Waaaaaay off topic, but if you or anyone else wants to discuss doomsday devices or removing useless fighters from carriers, feel free to post your thoughts about that here.
Actually, to get the greates fight-inhibitor currently in game nerfed properly, i'd rather direct people to this very awesome approach. ----------------------------------------------
Originally by: CCP Prism X In New Eden, EVE wins you.
|
Pringlescan
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.08.01 05:03:00 -
[64]
If you want to pull the whole "can bring dozens of fitted combat ships" card on the carrier you have to do something so people actually start using that. Speaking of which you could make it so that players can dock their ships into carriers and go along for the ride. I know you guys looked at that like 4 years ago but you have probably hired a bunch of talented programmers who might think up a different approach. As outlined in my features/ideas thread here you could get it up and running with mechanics that already in the game http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1118809&page=1
|
Farham
Titan Industries Technology Team Shadow of xXDEATHXx
|
Posted - 2009.08.01 05:43:00 -
[65]
"Both of you got progressively more drunk as you replied to this thread, didn't you?"
Yes. Am I bad person for that?
Not hacking it in 0.0 since 2006
Farham is my name, and fail quoting is my game. |
Jarnis McPieksu
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.08.01 10:12:00 -
[66]
The basic problem with the introduction of specialized holds is this;
Right now, a ship has X m3 of room for "stuff". This stuff can be anything. Fuel, cargo, stront, exotic dancers...
If you add a specialized fuel hold and simply cut that out of the main hold you remove flexibility. Certain percentage of that X now has to be fuel, nothing else. Okay, so you bump up the fuel hold size now that it is exclusively for fuel and not other stuff. The main hold size has still gone down, limiting what you can carry in extreme cases while staying in-system.
Add in more special holds for ammo, scripts, stront or those exotic dancers and all you continue to do is remove flexibility. As long as the generic cargo hold size must go down when you add specialized holds, it is a nerf to flexibility and depending on the ratio of lost main cargo space vs. gained specialized space, it may be a very poor tradeoff.
In many cases X m3 of generic cargo space is more valuable than X*2 m3 of cargo space split into small boxes, each with a specific label, especially if you want to move something that is, per unit, larger than the largest box you have!
What we'd really need is a reconfigurable cargo space. Each ship having X amount of "unfitted cargo space" which can then be fitted to be something else with appropriate multipliers. Let's make an example. A carrier.
Current:
3500 m3 of generic cargo space becomes... 14000m3 of space in the hull for cargo areas.
Then you have some module/fitting/adjustment thingy that allows you to allocate that.
Generic space has x4 multiplier - 1m3 of generic space eats up 4m3 of cargo area, can take anything. Ammo/scripts has x2 multiplier - 1m3 of ammo/script space eats up 2m3 of cargo area Fuel tanks have x1 multiplier - 1m3 of fuel tank eats up 1m3 of cargo area
So, you could have, for example, either...
- 3500m3 of generic space (probably not) - 2500m3 of generic space (10000m3 of hull), 4000m3 of fuel space (4000m3 of hull) - 2000m3 of generic space (8000m3 of hull), 4000m3 of fuel space (4000m3 of hull), 1000m3 of ammo space (2000m3 of hull) - 1000m3 of generic space (4000m3 of hull) and 10000m3 of fuel space (10000m3 of hull)
Multipliers and exact values all subject to change, of course. This is just an example to outline the idea, but the basic idea would be that you could keep the current config if you insist, or you could trade generic space for specialized holds with a fixed multiplier. At the same time, cargo expanders could either affect the hull space, so they would expand every type of hold the same way, or the could only apply to the generic holds.
There are many ways how you could do this in practice (UI perspective). You could have special slots in ships where you add in cargohold bits that you can then buy in different sizes (bit like buying GSCs today) or perhaps allow any repair/refit service to "move the bulkheads", so to speak, with a requirement that the holds are empty when you reallocate the space. Naturally there could be an ISK fee to discourage constant fiddling, but not so big that you can't rearrange your cargo space for each mission. The ability to rearrange the space could also be limited to several pre-determined configurations if you wish to retain full control how this feature can be used. "full generic space", "travel mode, lots of fuel", "combat mission mode" etc.
Could initially be done for caps but could also be expanded for all shiptypes. Basically you could trade generic hold space for specialized hold space and get more of that specialized hold space. One more way to customize our ships and optimize things, instead of getting hobbled with an inflexible system that is guaranteed to hurt the player in some specific case as long as the generic cargo space is getting reduced (and I bet it IS getting reduced).
Would require extra code? Most definitely, but it would give the best of both worlds - specialized bays without the nerf to generic hauling capacity.
|
Tairon Usaro
The X-Trading Company RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.08.01 12:23:00 -
[67]
very short feedback: CCP is trying to fix a thing that is not broken ....
long feedback: Before or at least at time of coming up with this type of change i expect a blog that elaborates the rational behind the proposed change. Otherwise our feedback is incomplete. As of now we dont know the task, we have no chance to properly evaluate the presented solution nor can we have an opinion if the task is even existent. To my eyes this change pretty much reminds my of the "Cloak MWD/AB Desaster". Some developer wanted to fix a small imbalance, i.e. falcons stealth jamming ships, and crashed the whole balance of the use of cloaking device in toto. i can only speculate but maybe you wanted to fix the crippeled usablity of blackops BS and came up with the solution of dedicated fuel bays for this. But by applying the solution to every capital you produced a whole bunch of issues.
I dont want to respond to the question whether a fuel or ammo bay is to big or to small. We dont need the deedicated fuel bays for capitals at all. Capital were perfectly balanced before so dont touch them.
________________________________________________ Some days i loose, some days the others win ... |
Malla Nkomi
The Salmon of Doubt
|
Posted - 2009.08.01 14:17:00 -
[68]
Edited by: Malla Nkomi on 01/08/2009 14:25:51
Originally by: CCP Abathur Your jump drive can pull fuel from both cargo and fuel bays. They are not mutually exclusive and can work together.
I don't see the need for this. Actually, I really don't like the idea at all, as it sounds like added complexity and will potentially create a more fragile design with unpredictable impact to later changes and designs. Sticking to the simplicity of an process that consumes resources taking those resources from its own type of cargo bay sounds much cleaner than having it go look in one or more other bays when it runs out.
Also, try to think of what happens when the systems involved are stressed to breaking point - eg 1000man fleet battles. Will this additional 'flexibility' be reliable under stress? Even now, ANY use of cargo bays or containers breaks down at the margins of performance. Heck, its hard enough just getting guns to fire again never mind have them go rummaging through multiple bays for their ammo.
Talking of which....
Cynos, Siege, Triage and Industrial. Why ten minute cycles? Compensate us for the restrictions to cargo by giving us more flexibility. I'm bored with the 'cycle time is 4 .. no one else press the siege/triage button .. wait till the next cycle' mechanic. Reduce these cycle times or even make their length skill/implant/booster influenced to **** with FCs heads.
|
Laendra
|
Posted - 2009.08.01 14:39:00 -
[69]
I'd like to see something like "Subsystems" added to Capital Ships....but with this go-around, all of the "Subsystems" would be allocated to Cargo
Options:
General Subsystem: 500m¦ capacity Fuel Subsystem: 3500m¦ capacity Ammo Subsystem: 1000m¦ capacity Corp Hangar Subsystem: 10,000m¦ capacity Ore Hangar Subsystem: 10,000m¦ capacity
Black Ops: 4 Subsystems (No Ore/Corp Hangar Subsystems) Carriers: 7 Subsystem slots (No Ore/Ammo Subsystems) Dreadnoughts: 7 Subsystems slots (No Ore/Corp Hangar Subsystems) Motherships: 7 Subsystems (No Ore/Ammo Subsystems, 2.5x Multiplier on Corp Hangar Subsystem capacity) Rorqual: 7 Subsystems (No Ammo Subsystems, 3x Multiplier on Corp Hangar Subsystem capacity, ?x Multiplier on Ore Hangar Subsystem Capacity) Jump Freighter: 7 Subsystems (No Ore/Ammo/Corp Hangar Subsystems, 10x Multiplier on General Subsystems) Titans: 8 Subsystems (No Ore/Ammo Subsystems, 10x Multiplier on General/Corp Hangar/Fuel Subsystems)
Or something similar to those number :)
This would allow for maximum flexibility based on current situations and demands. -------------------
|
Alexander Knott
Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.08.01 15:25:00 -
[70]
Originally by: CCP Abathur Edited by: CCP Abathur on 01/08/2009 03:16:29
Both of you got progressively more drunk as you replied to this thread, didn't you? I hope it hasn't scared other people away. I'll reply some more in the morning.
Naw, takes more that to scare us off. I think we're just waiting to see where you go next.
|
|
|
CCP Abathur
|
Posted - 2009.08.01 15:34:00 -
[71]
Originally by: Jarnis McPieksu The basic problem with the introduction of specialized holds is this; Right now, a ship has X m3 of room for "stuff". This stuff can be anything. Fuel, cargo, stront, exotic dancers...
If you add a specialized fuel hold and simply cut that out of the main hold you remove flexibility.
The 'flexibility' being removed is that you will no longer be able to use certain capital warships as 'haulers'. That being said, I already noted that the numbers on SiSi are not final and we are paying attention to this thread.
Originally by: Tairon Usaro Capital were perfectly balanced before so dont touch them.
I assure you that when the designs for ships such as Dreads went forward, the idea of them being 'awesome jump capable haulers' was not intended. The fact that players did just that prompted us to present other, more focused alternatives. Capital ships are subject to the same evolving balance reviews that we put other ship classes through.
Originally by: Malla Nkomi
Originally by: CCP Abathur Your jump drive can pull fuel from both cargo and fuel bays. They are not mutually exclusive and can work together.
try to think of what happens when the systems involved are stressed to breaking point - eg 1000man fleet battles. Will this additional 'flexibility' be reliable under stress?
Yes.
Originally by: Malla Nkomi Cynos, Siege, Triage and Industrial. Why ten minute cycles? Compensate us for the restrictions to cargo by giving us more flexibility. I'm bored with the 'cycle time is 4 .. no one else press the siege/triage button .. wait till the next cycle' mechanic. Reduce these cycle times or even make their length skill/implant/booster influenced to **** with FCs heads.
Cyno time can be reduced by flying specialized ships. Insofar as Siege / Triage modules go the ability to inflict or repair massive damage requires a sacrifice of some kind. There are existing discussions on this issue elsewhere, so I won't get into them in this thread.
Originally by: Laendra I want T3 capital ships.
Me too!
|
|
dastommy79
Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.08.01 15:43:00 -
[72]
hey mister dont ignore my last rant. It has tons of good ideas and i want some feedback on it. I am also sober and less nerd raging.
(i love my thanatos almost as much as i love farham and i am very protective of it. You wanna chat with a vet and get some real feedback from someone that uses the ship daily, hit me up ingame)
Former SmashKill Coaliton Leader WTB Leviathan. Hit me up ingame
|
Trent Nichols
Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.08.01 18:24:00 -
[73]
Abathur wrote:
Quote:
We have the ability to create specialized 'bays' for nearly anything.
Since when is needless complexity good design? Were you one of those that envisioned scripts by any chance?
Black ops needed fuel bays and now we have fuel bays. Thank you for improving black ops, now leave my carrier alone.
Quote: Ladies and Gentlemen, there is a reason it's called a 'test' server. The actual numbers are always subject to change.
They rarely do, not enough at least.
Quote: All capital-sized modules are currently 4,000 m3, so unless you are adding cargo expanders to your carrier after the fight, then you are not going to be looting with your carriers now either.
Refit services. Now If I could put a hauler in my bay and not have to worry about my carrier being stolen while I am out in it, that would help. Even then, there is that issue of not being able to dock a hauler with loot in it.
Quote: Like launching fighters, having capital repair capability, capital remote repair capability, capital hit points, the ability to transport dozens of fitted combat ships to an engagement, a 10,000 m3 corp hangar bay, the longest cap ship jump range and the Triage module?
Because assault frigs are great for fleet fights. Then there is the loosing 180m in fighters to a single DD. Do the devs still play this game?
Quote: I assure you that when the designs for ships such as Dreads went forward, the idea of them being 'awesome jump capable haulers' was not intended. The fact that players did just that prompted us to present other, more focused alternatives. Capital ships are subject to the same evolving balance reviews that we put other ship classes through.
Your designs do not always line up with the wishes of your customers. No one was asking for this change. I would also dispute that Dreads are "awesome haulers". The extra capability is appreciated though.
That brings me back to the question I asked a page ago. What good comes from this change? Are you trying to improve the game or just bent on implementing your original design?
Colonies and Capitals |
|
CCP Abathur
|
Posted - 2009.08.01 19:49:00 -
[74]
Edited by: CCP Abathur on 01/08/2009 19:50:24
Originally by: dastommy79 1. Yes A/S/L?
15/f/Milan
As to your following points, you're kind of all over the place but I'll attempt to respond without straying too far off the thread subject.
Originally by: dastommy79 GSC stuff
I'm well aware of the practice of using these in capital fights. However, the conditions you speak of (lag, etc...) will exist regardless of if you are moving stront from your GSC to the cargo hold or just combining a split stack into a full one. You don't need GSC's to split your stront stacks.
Originally by: dastommy79 There is no need to nerf what little left you have in cargo and corp hangars to stuff with fuel just to get to the destination.
The corp hangars are being left alone and you can still freely move things to and from them. Also, as I said in an earlier post, if just pure fuel storage is your issue, the current carrier stats on SiSi will allow you enough space for over 90,000 isotopes.
Originally by: dastommy79 We NEED that spare space to move ammo, spare mods, stront and extra fuel for prolong campaigns and roadtrip.
A solid logistics chain for prolonged campaigns has more tools today than have ever existed in the past. While Carriers do have a certain degree of self-sufficiency due to their corp hangars (as was intended), they do not have to be the primary logistics backbone of an alliance fleet.
Originally by: dastommy79 "This is something that we are considering, but there are a number of ships with large cargo holds currently capable of fulfilling this capacity."
so i am gonna let you pick the guy that shows up for the fleet fight and let you tell him he has to fly a hauler instead of a combat ship into the fight.
Or, after the epic victory where you slaughter the bad guys and the countless wrecks of their capital ships litter the field, a couple Rorquals jump in or half a dozen Transport ships start zooming around, scooping up everything for a fair and honorable distribution of the loot to your valiant forces.
Originally by: dastommy79 "Fleet discipline problems?"
Why dont we make it that you have to click OFF the access to corp hangar everytime you session change instead of clicking it on. That might help the situation abit and help deal with the problem of language barriers.
It's not about language barriers or anything of that nature. It's about security. I'm sure there are some people who would salivate at the idea of being in the middle of a friendly carrier fleet and helping themselves to whatever resides in the various corp hangars because people forgot to turn their access off.
Originally by: Trent Nichols
Originally by: Abathur Like launching fighters, having capital repair capability, capital remote repair capability, capital hit points, the ability to transport dozens of fitted combat ships to an engagement, a 10,000 m3 corp hangar bay, the longest cap ship jump range and the Triage module?
Because assault frigs are great for fleet fights.
1,000,000 m3 of space in a Carrier Ship Maintenance Array allows for a bit more in terms of fleet support than Assault Frigates.
Originally by: Trent Nichols Do the devs still play this game?
Quite a few of us do every day. It is both our passion and our hobby.
Originally by: Trent Nichols Are you trying to improve the game or just bent on implementing your original design?
Both, actually, which is why we are taking so much time in this thread. Personally, I find this kind of interaction to be quite productive and expect it to become more commonplace as new features are released for testing or spoken about in future dev blogs.
|
|
dastommy79
Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.08.01 20:11:00 -
[75]
ok mister. I get where you going and i think you are lookin at dis problem in the wrong way. Lets sit down and talk to me and other carrier pilots and get the opinion of the people THAT ACTUALY USE IT ON A DAILY BASIS.
I dont mean to insult you but you dont have actual knowledge of how this works. Your words may look great to you but anyone that actually is involved in large capital fights and such can tell you you dont know what your talking about. Who ever is in charge of these changes needs to do a 1 month tour in capital fleet fights before you are in the know to make such changes. Once you spend that time you will see why we all think your opinions are p. dumb. The people that use these ships know i am right and one day you will understand too if you played the game like the rest of us.
So why dont you, me and my friend Farham get together at my place. Bring a bottle of wine and some scented candels. We can chill by the fire and talk about the problems with carriers and other capitals, maybe give each other massages and see where it goes.
Former SmashKill Coaliton Leader WTB Leviathan. Hit me up ingame
|
Trent Nichols
Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.08.01 20:51:00 -
[76]
Though Id have rather seen answers to some of the other questions, like how this makes the game more fun, any Dev response is appreciated.
Quote:
1,000,000 m3 of space in a Carrier Ship Maintenance Array allows for a bit more in terms of fleet support than Assault Frigates.
Dozens of ships useful to a fleet? Unless we are talking shuttle chaff I would love to know what ships you refer to.
I can't fit 2 Megathrons in my Thanatos. I want one of your carriers.
Colonies and Capitals |
|
CCP Abathur
|
Posted - 2009.08.01 21:12:00 -
[77]
Originally by: Trent Nichols I can't fit 2 Megathrons in my Thanatos. I want one of your carriers.
Are you 100% sure about that?
|
|
dastommy79
Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.08.01 21:30:00 -
[78]
Originally by: CCP Abathur
Originally by: Trent Nichols I can't fit 2 Megathrons in my Thanatos. I want one of your carriers.
Are you 100% sure about that?
omg when did you change that?
Former SmashKill Coaliton Leader WTB Leviathan. Hit me up ingame
|
Nikuno
|
Posted - 2009.08.01 21:54:00 -
[79]
While it's great to have a Dev actively using this thread I'm not finding the interaction very encouraging. So far all CCP has said has been in support of the changes that have appeared. There is no exchange of opinions here, no give-and-take towards developing something that could satisfy players and developers. It's a truly arrogant way of doing things.
If you want our opinions, then show that sometimes they might mean something and stop rubbishing every concern that gets raised here.
|
Trent Nichols
Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.08.01 22:03:00 -
[80]
Originally by: CCP Abathur
Originally by: Trent Nichols I can't fit 2 Megathrons in my Thanatos. I want one of your carriers.
Are you 100% sure about that?
Touche. The cargo change still stinks but you get a cookie for fixing the Mega.
Colonies and Capitals |
|
Kruselloyne
Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.08.01 22:14:00 -
[81]
Originally by: CCP Abathur
I'm well aware of the practice of using these in capital fights. However, the conditions you speak of (lag, etc...) will exist regardless of if you are moving stront from your GSC to the cargo hold or just combining a split stack into a full one. You don't need GSC's to split your stront stacks.
Please tell me you're joking right? You've never obviously flown a Dread in your life. Stront stack splitting is a safety net. You keep most of your stront in a GSC, and drop enuf for one cycle into your hold when you want to enable seige mode. This keeps you from accidentally going through a second round of seige by not turning it off, OR because of module lag which is consistently a giant problem especially for dreads. It also keeps you from sneezing and turning ON seige when you didn't want to which while dumb, leads to needless headaches and in turn make the game less fun.
Let me bold this: These changes make the game less fun. More of a headache for logistics, more of a pain for dread/carrier pilots. Carriers are less useful and less needed and less FUN.
There is no need to make any of these changes other than some CCP person trying to make something more complex that is needless and thoughtless.
|
Ciryath Al'Darion
FinFleet
|
Posted - 2009.08.01 22:36:00 -
[82]
Edited by: Ciryath Al''Darion on 01/08/2009 22:41:33
Originally by: CCP Abathur
Or, after the epic victory where you slaughter the bad guys and the countless wrecks of their capital ships litter the field, a couple Rorquals jump in or half a dozen Transport ships start zooming around, scooping up everything for a fair and honorable distribution of the loot to your valiant forces.
- you cannot tractor hostile wrecks (enemy ships that died leave a hostile wreck)
- rorqual looting a battlefield after a messy battle without tractor beam does not work
- your balancing team will find out in a year that rorqual is a mining support ship and will be able to hold only ore (look how long it them to realize carriers need "balancing")
Your knowledge of game mechanics makes me worried.
|
Cassius Hawkeye
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.08.01 23:14:00 -
[83]
Interesting ideas in this thread, but i don't really see the issue with regards to carriers losing their cargohold capacity?
I mean how many ppl use their cargohold - what do you use it for? I use mine for fuel - normally 21k+ topes for travelling + a bit extra, so it's not like i'm losing a huge amount of space that id use for fuel anyway! Now i have a fuel bay to put my fuel in. (cool).
The carrier is already a pretty awesome ship
1) Triage carriers are awesome in pos warfare 2) Carriers are great when spider tanking in groups and providing support (see recent SOLAR fleet use vs NC) 3) Carriers can transport 2 bs's , or 12 hac's (or if you want a good decent number of ships) a fair distance with relative ease. 4) Carriers have 10k of cargo bay (or 12,700 if you use GSC's) 5) Carriers can put out 1k dps whilst repping, and tanking subcaps, and have multitudes of damage types.
JF's and Rorquals are already far superior cargo transporting ships than carriers. Ok they are a little more vulnerable. Big deal. I understand that to a singular pilot losing that bit of extra space maybe a big deal perhaps but it isn't much.
This change wouldnt stop people using carriers, nor 'ruin the game'. it's simply a logic tidy up on the concept of carriers (which were never really meant to be 'haulers with jump drives').
Just my impressions...stay cool :)
|
Belid Hagen
Shade. Cry Havoc.
|
Posted - 2009.08.01 23:20:00 -
[84]
Originally by: Ciryath Al'Darion Edited by: Ciryath Al''Darion on 01/08/2009 22:41:33
Originally by: CCP Abathur
Or, after the epic victory where you slaughter the bad guys and the countless wrecks of their capital ships litter the field, a couple Rorquals jump in or half a dozen Transport ships start zooming around, scooping up everything for a fair and honorable distribution of the loot to your valiant forces.
- you cannot tractor hostile wrecks (enemy ships that died leave a hostile wreck)
- rorqual looting a battlefield after a messy battle without tractor beam does not work
- your balancing team will find out in a year that rorqual is a mining support ship and will be able to hold only ore (look how long it them to realize carriers need "balancing")
Your knowledge of game mechanics makes me worried.
I seem to recall goons took no more than 15 minutes to clean up your 50 dread wrecks + the 100 or so support wrecks in 9CG back in april. 2 minutes after the last GBC dread died 2 rorquals jumped in and 4-8 eager beaver industrials got to work.
Just because YOU can't do it, doesn't mean it wont work.
|
Mynas Atoch
UK Corp Mostly Harmless
|
Posted - 2009.08.01 23:29:00 -
[85]
Originally by: Kruselloyne Please tell me you're joking right? You've never obviously flown a Dread in your life.
You may well be the stupidest member of RAWR ever to be permitted to post on a forum.
Originally by: Kruselloyne Stront stack splitting is a safety net. You keep most of your stront in a GSC, and drop enuf for one cycle into your hold when you want to enable seige mode.
GSCs in high lag conditions kill ships. If you need GSCs your Quartermaster has ****ed up and I'll laugh at him on jabber.
Originally by: Kruselloyne This keeps you from accidentally going through a second round of seige by not turning it off, OR because of module lag which is consistently a giant problem especially for dreads. It also keeps you from sneezing and turning ON seige when you didn't want to which while dumb, leads to needless headaches and in turn make the game less fun.
And wtf has gscs got to do with stack splitting?
Originally by: Kruselloyne Let me bold this: These changes make the game less fun. More of a headache for logistics, more of a pain for dread/carrier pilots. Carriers are less useful and less needed and less FUN.
no part of logistics is ever fun, and these changes do not influence fun level. Talk to your alliance Logistics staff to understand how irrelevant a carrier is to constellation support or expeditionary warfare. The Rorqal as fleet tender, and Jump Freighter as fleet oiler have filled that role for years.
Quote: There is no need to make any of these changes other than some CCP person trying to make something more complex that is needless and thoughtless.
Should have been done a long time ago. I'd have made Cargo Expanders not work on capital ships, but I'm a evil.
Also, cloaking devices legal in empire? What's that all about?
|
Vuk Lau
|
Posted - 2009.08.02 00:09:00 -
[86]
Originally by: Kruselloyne
Originally by: CCP Abathur
I'm well aware of the practice of using these in capital fights. However, the conditions you speak of (lag, etc...) will exist regardless of if you are moving stront from your GSC to the cargo hold or just combining a split stack into a full one. You don't need GSC's to split your stront stacks.
Please tell me you're joking right? You've never obviously flown a Dread in your life. Stront stack splitting is a safety net. You keep most of your stront in a GSC, and drop enuf for one cycle into your hold when you want to enable seige mode. This keeps you from accidentally going through a second round of seige by not turning it off, OR because of module lag which is consistently a giant problem especially for dreads. It also keeps you from sneezing and turning ON seige when you didn't want to which while dumb, leads to needless headaches and in turn make the game less fun.
Let me bold this: These changes make the game less fun. More of a headache for logistics, more of a pain for dread/carrier pilots. Carriers are less useful and less needed and less FUN.
There is no need to make any of these changes other than some CCP person trying to make something more complex that is needless and thoughtless.
Well he was flying dreads, but he spent much more time in logoffski motherships :D :wink:wink:
|
something somethingdark
|
Posted - 2009.08.02 00:10:00 -
[87]
my ammo bay doesnt even work >_<
also i suppose (well others not me in a rev but still) need to keep open 3 windows instead of 1-2(gsc :P) ammo fuel and cargohold
i love excel in space
|
ElvenLord
4S Corporation Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.08.02 01:18:00 -
[88]
Edited by: ElvenLord on 02/08/2009 01:20:39 all in all this looks like a nice "silent" nerf of capitals starting with fuel/stront amount dreads can carry atm to god knows what else.
And Abathur, option of turning your ship, no matter what type, into a hauler or what ever, should be an option for any player. If someone wants to use a dread as a hauler, by all means he should be able to do it, since doing it makes that dread vulnerable more then specialized hauler caps like rorqual we have now in game and he cant carry nearly the same amount of stuff (plus it makes a good laugh when killmail shows on killboard).
Also about that YES answer you gave on flexibility of new system under stress (1000 man fleet example), I really, really don't believe you, cause those kinda of promises came from CCP like millions of time but where never delivered (look at famous python script or what ever its names is and its beginnings starting with famous m-o and e-o battles to nice new features we still have).
And Mynas, I know your love and care for Seleene never stopped but pls get a clue. GSCs saved more ppl in lag then any of us want to admit during past few years, especially the splitting stront thing, not to mention more fuel/ammo/stront available. We do have a new problem with one siege cycle lasting hours, but heh, its a feature right? removing ability to put GSCs in cargo will just lower amount of things you can carry and will shorten capital battles in means of stront cycles available, but putting in special compartments will just make more fuss, limit some versatility dreads/carriers have (long distance low/no stront, short distances with more stront/ammo etc). It seems this game is turning into a "who has more haulers available" game instead pew pew game, or maybe it was intended to be like that?
then further out, lets talk about additional windows ... oh lets leave that for now, maybe they will fix the game first and multiple windows wont be a problem anymore, or rubber-banding lag, or guns getting stuck, or siedge/triage endless cycle or so many other things before they start "improving" (sounds better then braking) rest of the game.
Just to be clear, I had no problem with "nerfing" carriers the way it was done by not allowing ship to have anything other then ammo/charges in cargo, but I feel this will create more problems then good. You should really get back to the drawing board and start again, cause using same old not-working solutions isn't helping :D
/emote posting in a Seelene/MC thread, oh wait ...
|
Soleil Fournier
AWE Corporation Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2009.08.02 02:26:00 -
[89]
Edited by: Soleil Fournier on 02/08/2009 02:30:33 I'm assuming that this change is to add a bit of realism, maybe a small boost to overall fuel capacity? To take a IRL example now, capital ships (like a battleship) don't fill up their gas tanks, then make extra room in their food, ammo, or equipment storage for extra gas cans. They fill up their gas tanks, and then fill those other storage areas appropriately, and have enough juice to get where they're going. (9,600mi range on iowa-class battleships, for example, enough for traveling between continents)
I generally like to carry 75k isotopes in my nyx, more if I know I'll be going a long ways. Gives me enough to take a mid-range trip and back, with a little breathing room in case I have to make a couple extra jumps off course. Now, I have to balance that with requests to haul stront, pos mods, pos fuels, ammo, ship mods, and so forth that are vital to war efforts.
I agree that fuel bays shouldn't provide round trip travel for distances halfway across the map, but the current numbers (of what? 20k for carriers and 35k for moms?) are far too restrictive, *especially* when considering you're taking away a ginormous chunk of our cargo bay at the same time.
|
Darth Sith
Genbuku. Sons of Tangra
|
Posted - 2009.08.02 04:58:00 -
[90]
Edited by: Darth Sith on 02/08/2009 05:05:21 Ok, well after reading this though several times and some heated conversation with m8's on the subject, I would like to offer the following observations from someone who has used caps of ALL sizes since their inception:
1) Is this adding a level of complexity?
Well maybe but I think that the flexibility it brings to the table for future classes and balances may be worth it (if the coders can get it right :) ) Flame me but I think even more restriction may be needed to get the size of the deployed cap fleets under control .
2) is this a nerf?
I cannot find any evidence that this is a nerf. Originally I thought,,, wtf .. down to 2 cycles of stront in the cargo bay on the dreads ? but that is not the case. If you can pull from both fuel and caro bay you infact get a slight buff.
3) roquual is getting a major buff with 10K fuel + 250K ore bay (new) + 132K regular cargo .. and this is bad because ? :)
Anyways .. I never use GSC's, i split stront stacks.. and you have not been able to scoop capital loot to a carrier for eons... plus i don't remember the last time i moved a sub 100k/sec carrier to a capital wreck to loot it :)
I am keeping an open mid mind on this one :)
|
|
dastommy79
Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.08.02 05:45:00 -
[91]
Originally by: Darth Sith and you have not been able to scoop capital loot to a carrier for eons... plus i don't remember the last time i moved a sub 100k/sec carrier to a capital wreck to loot it :)
I am keeping an open mid mind on this one :)
you arnt an experienced carrier pilot.
sorryz
Former SmashKill Coaliton Leader WTB Leviathan. Hit me up ingame
|
Kayosoni
Caldari Destructive Influence
|
Posted - 2009.08.02 05:49:00 -
[92]
Edited by: Kayosoni on 02/08/2009 05:49:44 ah there is much dumbassery going on in this post...
Nerfing the regular cargo bays in capital ships is LONG OVERDUE and the first step in bringing capital ship rebalance (cause capitals are all screwed up in every way right now.) Those of you complaining about not being able to anchor and unanchor pos mods now.. ever heard of JFs? That's what they are for.
Also, giving black ops a fuel bay does not instantly make them good. They still suck ****.
---
|
Darth Sith
Genbuku. Sons of Tangra
|
Posted - 2009.08.02 06:17:00 -
[93]
Edited by: Darth Sith on 02/08/2009 06:18:56
Originally by: dastommy79
Originally by: Darth Sith and you have not been able to scoop capital loot to a carrier for eons... plus i don't remember the last time i moved a sub 100k/sec carrier to a capital wreck to loot it :)
I am keeping an open mid mind on this one :)
you arnt an experienced carrier pilot.
sorryz
So I guess the fact that I was one of the first carrier pilots in game, have ~100 mil skill points, have 5 carrier pilots among my accounts and have been in carrier capital fights in every region of eve mean nothing but your moronic rants in this thread make you a carrier flying mastermind?
Pull out a calculator and and work the numbers before you open your mouth noob :)
|
Trimutius III
Legio Octae Rebellion Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.08.02 07:35:00 -
[94]
Edited by: Trimutius III on 02/08/2009 07:37:08 Edited by: Trimutius III on 02/08/2009 07:35:55
Originally by: CCP Abathur
Originally by: Trent Nichols I can't fit 2 Megathrons in my Thanatos. I want one of your carriers.
Are you 100% sure about that?
Everybody who's is looking attributes of ships knows that u can't put just any 2 BS u like in a carrier. Because some of them have volume more then 500k, like Mega have volume 513k, and Thanatos can fit only 1 mill but not 1,026 mill somehow...
Plus i wanted to ask 1 question: Is this nerf of cargo in carriers an attempt to boost Rorqual, or this happened accidently? ------------------------------------------------- I am envoy from nowhere in nowhere. Nobody and nothing have sent me. And though it is impossible I exist ¬ Trimutius |
OwlManAtt
Gallente Yasashii Heavy Industries
|
Posted - 2009.08.02 10:36:00 -
[95]
Somebody said something about the Orca/Rorq being changed? They now have an ``ore bay''? Can somebody post the sizes of the cargo/corp/ship maintenance/ore holds from SiSi?
I hope the Orca's regular hold isn't getting gimped too badly. I was under the impression that, when the CSM asked about a mini-freighter, they got the Orca (which is arguably not what they wanted, as it's more towards the exhumer training path than the freighter...) instead. --- Owl |
Magarine
Caldari The Fallen Circle Die BierBrauer
|
Posted - 2009.08.02 10:59:00 -
[96]
hmm.. The Jumpfreighters need 3* fuel like the rorqual for the same distance. I think this should be considered in the ammount of the fuel-bays from JFs and the Rorqual..
|
Issea
|
Posted - 2009.08.02 11:46:00 -
[97]
Why not premake the ships as they dev's want them to be flown?
Why give players any ideas to fit rigs or add modules at all?
The "jump fuel nerf" is the latest of the "you have to fly the ships as we dev's want you to" nerf.
What happened to the sandbox - where you actually had freedom of fittings?
Are you trying to boost the jumpfreighter by this mega nerf, or what's the resoning behind it? As many allready HAVE said on this thread - why do the devs even have a thread here? If you are so set in stone to make the change, then do it - why even ask? Why ask for feedback, when you clearly have set your mind into this poor idea - why not make blueprint cargohold on shuttles, probe cargoholds on cov ops, boubble cargo holds on recons... the list goes on and on...
Here's an idea - why not make ONE cargo hold on the ships? that may actually give the players the freedom of playing the game as THEY feel is right?
|
Jojin
Gallente The 0ri
|
Posted - 2009.08.02 12:21:00 -
[98]
Originally by: OwlManAtt Somebody said something about the Orca/Rorq being changed? They now have an ``ore bay''? Can somebody post the sizes of the cargo/corp/ship maintenance/ore holds from SiSi?
I hope the Orca's regular hold isn't getting gimped too badly. I was under the impression that, when the CSM asked about a mini-freighter, they got the Orca (which is arguably not what they wanted, as it's more towards the exhumer training path than the freighter...) instead.
At the moment: Orca 30k Cargo 50k Ore 40k Corp 400k Ship Maint
Rorq 40k Cargo 250k Ore 30k Corp 1000k Ship Maint 10k Fuel
|
Pallidum Treponema
Body Count Inc. Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2009.08.02 13:27:00 -
[99]
Originally by: Trimutius III
Everybody who's is looking attributes of ships knows that u can't put just any 2 BS u like in a carrier. Because some of them have volume more then 500k, like Mega have volume 513k, and Thanatos can fit only 1 mill but not 1,026 mill somehow...
Mega: 486,000.0 m3 (50,000.0 m3 packaged)
Heck, even Hyperions fit: 495,000.0 m3 (50,000.0 m3 packaged)
BattleDB.com moderator
|
Pallidum Treponema
Body Count Inc. Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2009.08.02 14:21:00 -
[100]
Okay, I've done the numbers on the new cargobays, so let's do some theorycrafting.
Cargospace for a dread today goes from 7250 (Rev) to 10250 (Nag). With the extra cargospace added from 2xGSC, this goes up to 9050 (Rev) to 12050 (Nag).
With the new bays, GSCs can no longer be used. However, total cargo space will increase. The revelation will go from 7250 (9050) to 9060, while the Naglfar will go from 10250 (12050) to 11810. The Moros goes from 8500 (10300) to 10875.
Let's take a look at the moros.
A single cycle of siege (lv4 skills) takes 900m3 cargospace. Ammo needed for a full siege cycle takes up 54m3 worth of space.
This means that a Moros with 22k isotopes can fit 7 cycles worth of stront and ammo today. Drop to 15k isos, and you can do 8 cycles worth. Both of these examples assume a reserve of 2 cycles worth of ammo, such as long-range or faction types. Live scenarios may use a bigger reserve, but for the sake of argument, let's go with this.
A Moros with the new bays will get 575m3 more total cargospace than the old cargobay with 2x GSC. The total cargospace usable for fuel and stront is 7000+2125 = 9125 m3. This is 625m3 more cargospace than before, but 1175m3 LESS cargospace if GSCs are accounted for.
Assuming 15k isotopes, we have space for (9125-2250)/900 ~= 7.64. This means that we'll get one LESS cycle of stront total (The actual numbers allow for 18500 isos and still do 7 cycles).
At 22k isotopes, we now have INT((9125-2250)/900) = 6 cycles worth (6.47). That's one less than the 7 cycles carried today.
Why does this happen when we have more total space?
The ammo needed by a Moros for a full cycle of siege is 54m3. For 7 cycles, this is 387m3. The total of 10875 m3 cargospace does include an ammobay of 1750 m3 size. While I'm not at all complaining about that ammobay, it is a bit big.
For instance, 10 cycles worth of ammo takes up 540m3 cargospace. Add a bit of long-range and faction ammo for capital slugfests and you'll hit 1000 m3 worth of cargospace. For a 1750m3 ammo bay, that's 750m3 we don't actually NEED (although I for one am not complaining about getting it).
With the 750m3 that we don't need, we now get 10875-750 = 10125 m3 of cargospace, which is slightly less than the 10300 m3 that we used to have. Add the fact that we're likely not going to need more than 750m3 worth of ammo, even for 10 cycles, and that's about 500m3 worth of cargohold that we're missing out on.
I'm definitely not opposed to specialized bays (heck, a fully honortanked Revelation can carry over 83k worth of cargo, that's just ridiculously wrong), but if the powers that be could find in themselves to up the fuel bay to 7500 m3, that'd bring the total (usable) cargospace in-line with today's figures. Heck, reduce the ammo bays by a similar amount (200m3 for the rev), and you'll still have a small total boost compared to today.
PS: This change means that the Rev will get slightly more usable cargospace for fuel/stront and the phoenix/naglfar will get less. HOWEVER, this means that all dreads will now have about similar number of strontcycles and fuel, which makes things a LOT easier for FCs and logistics people. I approve. Just... 7500m3 fuel bays, plz? BattleDB.com moderator
|
|
dastommy79
Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.08.02 15:20:00 -
[101]
Originally by: Darth Sith Edited by: Darth Sith on 02/08/2009 06:18:56
Originally by: dastommy79
Originally by: Darth Sith and you have not been able to scoop capital loot to a carrier for eons... plus i don't remember the last time i moved a sub 100k/sec carrier to a capital wreck to loot it :)
I am keeping an open mid mind on this one :)
you arnt an experienced carrier pilot.
sorryz
So I guess the fact that I was one of the first carrier pilots in game, have ~100 mil skill points, have 5 carrier pilots among my accounts and have been in carrier capital fights in every region of eve mean nothing but your moronic rants in this thread make you a carrier flying mastermind?
Pull out a calculator and and work the numbers before you open your mouth noob :)
Hey just cause you have "skill points" and own the ship doesnt make you good at it. The tackle carrier is quite an effective weapon in a fleet fight. Useing a 100MWD you can almost double the ships speed and you can then lock down and tackle enemy carriers and dreads if all your dictors and support get chewed up. You can also refit with cargo expanders to scoop loot and there was a time when you could actualy help in logistics by moving pos mods, ammo, stront and such to help your gang.
To those saying moving things is only a JF pilots job i say no it isnt. First a JF is a t2 ship that costs around 4billion isk. It cant deploy anything unless its in a station or at an already setup pos.(unless they changed that but i doubt that). It is not a common ship and not one that every player can own. The ship is also a burdon for the owners because now they have to do 100% of the logistics work. If this is ccp's goal then they need to make the build cost alot smaller say 1-1.5 billion. This will allow more people to participate and release the stress of the few pilots that can afford the ship. Rorquals should also see a build price decrease to around 700-800mill.
So a carrier should have a: 10km3 Corp hangar 4km3 cargo hold (this can be drastically reduced if the ability to scoop and deploy from corp hangar can be introduced) 5-7km3 fuel bay (a pilot should be able to carry enough fuel IN THEIR FUEL BAY to make a run from the farthest 00 point to the closest lowsec system in a straight line. Its a fuel bay, make it do its job.
It is not cost effective to use a carrier as a hauler and with the suggestions i made it still wont be BUT it will be better suited to do its job.
This is a video game. We play this to have fun not do work. You should keep that in mind everytime you make a change to the game. Ask yourself will this make a pilots life easier or worse before you even think of implementing anything. Its your job that we all pay you to do. DO YOUR JOB AND FIX IT
Former SmashKill Coaliton Leader WTB Leviathan. Hit me up ingame
|
Pallidum Treponema
Body Count Inc. Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2009.08.02 16:50:00 -
[102]
Originally by: dastommy79
Hey just cause you have "skill points" and own the ship doesnt make you good at it.
Darth Sith is a noob c/d?
Originally by: dastommy79
The tackle carrier is quite an effective weapon in a fleet fight. Useing a 100MWD you can almost double the ships speed and you can then lock down and tackle enemy carriers and dreads if all your dictors and support get chewed up.
Because nanocarriers are going to win the battle when your support is gone, amrite? :)
Originally by: dastommy79
You can also refit with cargo expanders to scoop loot and there was a time when you could actualy help in logistics by moving pos mods, ammo, stront and such to help your gang.
THAT, I will concede. However, I doubt that a carrier was ever intended to be a POS monkey. A hauler is much better suited to the role, as is a Rorqual. In fact, it's generally accepted that the Rorqual is a FAR superior ship in that regard.
Originally by: dastommy79
If this is ccp's goal then they need to make the build cost alot smaller say 1-1.5 billion. This will allow more people to participate and release the stress of the few pilots that can afford the ship. Rorquals should also see a build price decrease to around 700-800mill.
To quote Abby, how about no? :)
Originally by: dastommy79
So a carrier should have a: 10km3 Corp hangar 4km3 cargo hold (this can be drastically reduced if the ability to scoop and deploy from corp hangar can be introduced) 5-7km3 fuel bay (a pilot should be able to carry enough fuel IN THEIR FUEL BAY to make a run from the farthest 00 point to the closest lowsec system in a straight line. Its a fuel bay, make it do its job.
So, you're proposing that not only should a carrier get a fuelbay, but *ALSO* get a BIGGER cargobay to boot? Yeah, that's gonna pass. ;)
As for the fuelbay... You're getting 3000m3 + 820m3 cargohold in the smallest carrier, right? The furthest 0.0 to lowsec route I could find quickly was 42ly (ZDYA-G to Porsharrah). According to the jump planner: "Total travel distance: 41.99ly. You will need 25,192 isotopes (3,779 m3) for this journey with your skills."
3780 m3 needed, and you have 3820. I don't see the problem. :) Heck, if you need to go further, you have 10k m3 worth of corporate hangar array to use as well.
Originally by: dastommy79
It is not cost effective to use a carrier as a hauler and with the suggestions i made it still wont be BUT it will be better suited to do its job.
What part of a carrier's job can you not do anymore? Besides acting as a hauler with a jumpdrive, that is.
Originally by: dastommy79
This is a video game. We play this to have fun not do work. You should keep that in mind everytime you make a change to the game. Ask yourself will this make a pilots life easier or worse before you even think of implementing anything. Its your job that we all pay you to do. DO YOUR JOB AND FIX IT
Devs make a lot of changes to the game that make it easier to play. Not every change must cater to dumbing the game down tho. Now, I'm applauding these changes as they'll still allow capitals to do their jobs (Carriers can still deploy fighters and remote rep, dreads can still siege etc). We may not be able to use our capitals as glorified jumphaulers anymore, but I can live with that.
One change that I think will occur if this goes live is a bigger emphasis on rorquals for 0.0 holding alliances. I find this awesome for several reasons. 1, the rorqual is an underestimated ship. 2, this is an opportunity to enlist more carebears into 0.0 warfare. Get some corp rorqs and send them out to work. 3, carebears will love you for getting corp rorqs. Just look at the ore bay boost for instance.
Do some research before you throw something out. Did you even bother to look up the fuelreqs for jumping from 0.0 to lowsec? Please do the numbers (like I did) before you suggest a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.
BattleDB.com moderator
|
Soleil Fournier
AWE Corporation Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2009.08.02 17:09:00 -
[103]
Originally by: CCP Abathur Edited by: CCP Abathur on 31/07/2009 21:58:37
Originally by: dastommy79 also how are you suppose to loot a capital battle after the fight when you are the away team?
All capital-sized modules are currently 4,000 m3, so unless you are adding cargo expanders to your carrier after the fight, then you are not going to be looting with your carriers now either.
Motherships can loot these items now though, and can't post change.
It's not out of the realm to carry cargo expanders in your corp hanger then refit after the fight. Especially if it was a capital fight and there's a lot of capital loot, you'd see this happen.
The solution, if you absolutely must nerf cargo bays (which I don't see why you have to! an additional 5k of fuel isn't a lot of extra room and won't upset any kind of balance) is to allow carriers to drag items from wrecks into their corp hangers.
|
Mynas Atoch
UK Corp Mostly Harmless
|
Posted - 2009.08.02 17:41:00 -
[104]
Edited by: Mynas Atoch on 02/08/2009 17:45:16
Originally by: Soleil Fournier Motherships can loot these items now though, 5000 mc3 cargo, and can't post change, 1300 mc3.
I don't see why it's more applicable for a rorqual, who's main job is crushing rocks, to pick up loot after a battle than a carrier who's main job is fighting. Realistically it's going to be salvage ships coming in to cleanup after the battle, but we don't have any of those...so the carrier is the next best option since it belongs on the battlefield.
Why not just carry a salvage destroyer/interdictor in your ship hangar like many mom/carrier pilots have been doing since 2007? Or even just salvage/cargo fittings for one of the spare dictors that are already there? Why do you need to be slowboating around in a carrier to clear a debris field?
|
Soleil Fournier
AWE Corporation Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2009.08.02 17:44:00 -
[105]
Was talking about a Capital-class Salvage ship. A salvage-destroyer in the cargobay cant fit a 4k mc3 capital mod either :P
|
Mynas Atoch
UK Corp Mostly Harmless
|
Posted - 2009.08.02 17:48:00 -
[106]
Originally by: Soleil Fournier Was talking about a Capital-class Salvage ship. A salvage-destroyer in the cargobay cant fit a 4k mc3 capital mod either :P
OK .. but you can use the cargo rigged blockade runner you keep in the Mothership/Carrier corp hangar for ninja deploying safe POS for that too.
All of these have trivial solutions with a bit of planning. I don't see why a carrier has to be the answer to everything. And obviously CCP agree.
|
Pallidum Treponema
Body Count Inc. Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2009.08.02 18:07:00 -
[107]
BAD MYNAS! Stop making sense when we're trying to nitpick about carrier changes!
That much said, I don't use haulers or salvage dessies in my holds, but I also don't expect to hang around the battlefield much in my carrier either. BattleDB.com moderator
|
Mynas Atoch
UK Corp Mostly Harmless
|
Posted - 2009.08.02 18:09:00 -
[108]
Originally by: Pallidum Treponema BAD MYNAS! Stop making sense when we're trying to nitpick about carrier changes!
That much said, I don't use haulers or salvage dessies in my holds, but I also don't expect to hang around the battlefield much in my carrier either.
Someone has to. This CCP guys doesn't know one end of a capital from the other. Rumour is he is on secondment from their vampire game and got confused when they asked for volunteers who knew what Nosferatu meant.
|
Myra2007
Shafrak Industries
|
Posted - 2009.08.02 18:43:00 -
[109]
Edited by: Myra2007 on 02/08/2009 18:45:00 1000m¦ fuel bay for a black ops well a bit of a letdown. How about 2000? Any kind of chance?
edit: well thinking about it its not that bad actually
--
Originally by: Professor Slocombe
I will only buy tickets if the prize is your stuff and you leave Eve. Forever. You irritating self obsessed cretin.
|
Pallidum Treponema
Body Count Inc. Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2009.08.02 18:52:00 -
[110]
Originally by: Myra2007 Edited by: Myra2007 on 02/08/2009 18:45:00 1000m¦ fuel bay for a black ops well a bit of a letdown. How about 2000? Any kind of chance?
edit: well thinking about it its not that bad actually
How much fuel does a Black Ops use for jumping/bridging? I've never flown one, but I imagine that if it's to be used in any reasonable way, it needs to have sufficient fuelbay to do the job. I'd love to see some figures. BattleDB.com moderator
|
|
dastommy79
Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.08.02 18:53:00 -
[111]
lol look. Why FORCE people to fly logistical ships to a fleet fight. You guys can talk all you want about the roles of ships but i seriously doubt either of you would constantly x up for cta to fly a jump frieghter or rorqual to a fight. Its not fun, its work. Also lol you should play around with your carriers more. The ability of them to tackle when your support gets butchered is a big asset in a capital fight. Atlas is a cap heavy alliance and we have used carriers dozens of times for that purpose. Get out and play with em more.
If you want to make carriers not the multi task capital ship, then boost their combat effectiveness and introduce a logistical capital that can tank and fight (not as good as a dread or carrier but close). The rorqual is a mining ship. Thats what it is desinged and used for. A simmilar ship that has the hauling capabilitys but also turret hardpoints for offensive capability is needed.
The carrier is nothing but a logistic ship atm so if you are gonna keep nerfing both its battlefield effectiveness and its logistical effectiveness than you might as well just remove the ship from the game. I didnt train for years for an offensive ship that can only remote rep effectivly.
And since we gotten off topic, the point i started is that a capital should have a large enough fuel bay to get from the farthest 00 system to its closest lowsec system. Dont touch the cargo holds and allow GSC to be in the stront bays.
Former SmashKill Coaliton Leader WTB Leviathan. Hit me up ingame
|
Kayosoni
Caldari Destructive Influence
|
Posted - 2009.08.02 19:02:00 -
[112]
1000 m3 fuel bay for black ops is still ineffective. You can carry what like 5000 isos in that? You use 250 per LY to jump a recon so if you bridge a recon 4 LY that uses 1000 fuel.
Completely worthless still. BO need 10k m3 bay.
---
|
Vrenth
Gallente Lightning Industries
|
Posted - 2009.08.02 19:31:00 -
[113]
Okay, as someone who has actually tested these changes and has had both positive and negative feedback to give about them, let me lay down some points pertaining to the various ships and their specialized bays... perhaps you can use my opinions to shape some changes, as nobody else is doing anything but posting drunken rage and getting off topic.
Blackops: Fuel Bay(1000m3): A little more is always nice, but with what it will be jumping, one blackops will be able to field and entire fleet squad of bombers/recons, which is plenty for one blackops.
Cargo: It was nerfed into line with other ships of it's class. Nothing wrong there.
Arguements: The blackops seems okay, but could use a little more fuel bay if you intended it to field more than 5-10 ships.
Carrier: Fuel Bay(3000m3): The fuel bay on the carrier/mothership is an absolute joke if it is intended to hold fuel to do the equivalent sized job as a dreadnought. The triage modal has the same fuel consumption, and for a ship intended to jump a longer distance, it's fuel bay remained the same size. The fuel bay should not be based off the size of the original cargo that was nerfed. It should be based off of fuel consumption. Others would argue that the carrier's fuel bay is small because of the 10,000m3 corporate hanger. This is absolute crap. The Corporate hanger array is designed to hold moduals and ammunition for the ships it is holding and it's fleet members, hence the ability to allow ships to refit in space. If you fill this up with fuel, you not only acknowledge that the current ship carrying system is so broken that nobody uses it, but your building the rest of your game mechanics around it.
Cargo bay(~700m3~850m3): This is also a joke, but if the fuel bay is made a bit larger, I can deal with it. We lose the ability to do anything pos related without taking a hauler with us, which is a nuisance, but we can live with it. This is a step forward and backwards in fleet warfare, as it forces us to use haulers for scooping POS structures and some loot. A scoop to corp hanger ability would fix this instantly. It is a step forward becuase it would force other classes of ships to join the frey, unfortunately with current blobs, it is impossible for most high-cargo class ships to be involved in a fleet battle without being decimated (rorqual, haulers, you name it). I don't mind so much having the ability to get 20km3 cargo removed as I do the things I could do with 3500 w/o extenders. Motherships need to keep their original cargo, hands down.
Arguments: Carriers need a 7000m3 fuel bay, and motherships need more cargo. The feature to scoop structures/containers to corp hangers would be fantastic. Everything else, I personally, can live with.
Dreadnaughts: Fuel Bays(7000m3): This fuel bay is adequate to hold isotopes and strontium, and other ships will no doubt have to be loaded with extra stront to keep the battle going for extended periods of time, but 7000 is fairly balanced with their consumption, ironically the "nerfing cargos into fuel bays" idea worked out here.. if only the case had beent he same for carriers. More fuel is always nice, but 7000 is a great start.
Cargo(~2000): Nice. I'm not sure why they need this with their ammo bay, but nice. I'm not sure why carrier's don't have the same cargo, but nice.
Ammo bay: I forgot to look at the exact number on my moros, but it was enough to hold a good ammount of ammo.. and carrier's can always bring more. Great addition. Put this on all ships now
Arguments: Dreadnoughts are looking pretty good. I think Chribba will be sad that the days of the Veldnought has come to an end, but the overall changes here look decent. More fuel would be good, but that is an issue of playtesting.
OVERALL THOUGHTS: I think that the overall changes are positive, but the method of implementing was not CCP's greatest work. The cargo bays did not need such drastic changes. After a few tweaks, I'll be happy
|
Vrenth
Gallente Lightning Industries
|
Posted - 2009.08.02 19:33:00 -
[114]
Edited by: Vrenth on 02/08/2009 19:34:44
Originally by: Kayosoni 1000 m3 fuel bay for black ops is still ineffective. You can carry what like 5000 isos in that? You use 250 per LY to jump a recon so if you bridge a recon 4 LY that uses 1000 fuel.
Completely worthless still. BO need 10k m3 bay.
To your post, blackops are not a solo ship, any of the ships it is with can carry fuel, especially the blockade runners that were changed to compliment blackops and even be used as a dedicated fuel/ammo transport for the gang. 10,000m3 fuel bay is more than a dread/mothership... so to that comment, your a fool.
Also, the consumption quantity listed is for the blackops jumping. Portal consumption is based on ship size, I believe a recon is like 80m3 or something silly like that.
|
Mynas Atoch
UK Corp Mostly Harmless
|
Posted - 2009.08.02 20:02:00 -
[115]
I don't see where this equivalence between SIEGE and TRIAGE is coming from.
An upper limit of six cycles of stront is acceptable on dread ops, so sizing the bay for six cycles with reasonable skills is fine.
Four carriers can rep a POS from out.of.reinforced.shield.level to restront.shield.level in one triage cycle. No one needs to be in triage for more than two cycles, as it is currently used. So two cycles of triage with reasonable skills is an acceptable limit. Also, triage currently takes place mainly at friendly POS, so providing extra stront from a fleet support Rorqal and hauler is pretty easy to do.
Now if the triage mode had a shorter cycle, things might get more intersting.
|
Barrus Inane
|
Posted - 2009.08.02 20:03:00 -
[116]
Okay, some of the intelligence level was giving me a headache, so I will only put in two bits.
First, I cannot see how NOT being able to fly around the whole of eve without support is a bad thing. My car cannot drive around the world, current military rl needs supply chains, eve should be no different. A massive alliance shouldn't be able to just up and cross the entire eve to get in on a feeding frenzy. That will help smaller alliance dynamics as a start. People shouldn't have to join goon just to get in on sov dynamics.
Also on the less fun idea, ever think that some people would prefer being a fleet supporter? I doubt it would be as hard as one thinks to find people who would like to specialize in being a "fueler" ship. I know I would (I refering to my main since this char is an obvious alt). Flying with my buddies in salvagers and fuelers, etc. Good role for miner mains who want to get in on more than 24/7 mining manufacturing.
As for lag, I would think this would reduce lag since it is in hard programming, the ability to apply data compression is a wonderful thing. I do agree their needs to be the offset, haven't looked up numbers, but if the loss of the space is equal to ore more than that of what a GSC would take, sounds like a bonus.
Lastly, not being able to tractor wrecks... wtf? ever hear of a can flip? you can tractor them... omg.... and salvagers, shoot, ninjas do it all the time, part 20 t1 speed frigs with salvage modules somewhere.
Sure, I see lots of people whining about loss of versatility, but any military vessel needs something special to resupply it. Carriers are big, just like naval carriers. But naval carriers still need a constant resupply, they hold crew, planes, and armaments, they do not transport full industrial crews for setting up advanced bases. Peeps just want an easy button. Try making it tactical, I bet once you get peeps who want to do courier support, you will find combat alot more fun as you will no longer need to worry about such things and making long voyages becomes more risky and imo more exciting at that risk of being cut off.
|
Antoine Lefevre
Genos Occidere
|
Posted - 2009.08.02 20:19:00 -
[117]
Also while you're at it remove jump bridges.
|
Pallidum Treponema
Body Count Inc. Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2009.08.02 20:30:00 -
[118]
Originally by: dastommy79 Also lol you should play around with your carriers more. The ability of them to tackle when your support gets butchered is a big asset in a capital fight. Atlas is a cap heavy alliance and we have used carriers dozens of times for that purpose. Get out and play with em more.
As everyone who knows me knows, I've never flown a capital in my life, nor do I know anything about capital warfare. Please evemail me up in game as I'd love to learn about nanocarriers and their role in fleet warfare.
Now that that's taken care of, I'd like to adress the carrier's fuelbay. 3000m3 might not sound like much, but do consider the fact that triage is a rarely used module, in the grander scheme of things. Sure, there are carriers that are built entirely around the concept of triage, but those carriers have managed just fine so far without getting an extra few hundred m3 worth of cargospace for free. Yes, that's right. Carriers will in fact get MORE room for fuel with these changes than before.
As for carrying modules in my corp hangar for the ships I'm carrying? I've always thought it'd be a better idea to have them fitted to the ships I'm carrying in the first place. You know, so that people can grab those ships and go on to fight right away. :)
I've never flown a carrier that DIDN'T use the corp hangar to hold extra fuel (both for myself and the inevitable dreadnought that forgets to fuel up), but that's okay because I've never flown a carrier in the first place.
BattleDB.com moderator
|
dastommy79
Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.08.02 20:40:00 -
[119]
Originally by: Pallidum Treponema
Originally by: dastommy79 Also lol you should play around with your carriers more. The ability of them to tackle when your support gets butchered is a big asset in a capital fight. Atlas is a cap heavy alliance and we have used carriers dozens of times for that purpose. Get out and play with em more.
As everyone who knows me knows, I've never flown a capital in my life, nor do I know anything about capital warfare. Please evemail me up in game as I'd love to learn about nanocarriers and their role in fleet warfare.
Now that that's taken care of, I'd like to adress the carrier's fuelbay. 3000m3 might not sound like much, but do consider the fact that triage is a rarely used module, in the grander scheme of things. Sure, there are carriers that are built entirely around the concept of triage, but those carriers have managed just fine so far without getting an extra few hundred m3 worth of cargospace for free. Yes, that's right. Carriers will in fact get MORE room for fuel with these changes than before.
As for carrying modules in my corp hangar for the ships I'm carrying? I've always thought it'd be a better idea to have them fitted to the ships I'm carrying in the first place. You know, so that people can grab those ships and go on to fight right away. :)
I've never flown a carrier that DIDN'T use the corp hangar to hold extra fuel (both for myself and the inevitable dreadnought that forgets to fuel up), but that's okay because I've never flown a carrier in the first place.
there are people that use ships differently than you and do it better. Just sayin yo
Former SmashKill Coaliton Leader WTB Leviathan. Hit me up ingame
|
Haffrage
Haff and Haff
|
Posted - 2009.08.02 20:53:00 -
[120]
Atlas member in "Wait, who the hell are they again?" non-shocker.
Seriously, stop overcompensating. Everybody I've seen in this thread with the slightest bit of carrier experience - and that's adding up to a fair list now - is for this change.
I've never flown carriers so personally I've no idea how awful/awesome this is. But I do know there's people here with opinions I respect saying it's a warranted change.
|
|
Haffrage
Haff and Haff
|
Posted - 2009.08.02 20:58:00 -
[121]
Also, cool dev guy that tells me stuff I like to hear, I think this is all making a great case for putting a in stront bays for all siege/triage-ing ships. And a Super Mega Heavy-Watercooler for rorquals I guess, so the dreads and carriers have something to stand around and talk about crap at.
|
Reno Shinra
|
Posted - 2009.08.02 21:09:00 -
[122]
Edited by: Reno Shinra on 02/08/2009 21:10:12 Its nerf after nerf in this game, eventually all ships will be all the same, CCP do this so its harder for ppl to accomplish tasks in the game,making the experience of eve take longer, ergo making us pay longer.
I think the cap nerf sux big time, i use my cap to haul with, it took me 6 months to save up for it a futher 6 months to get the skills with it, this new nerf 12 months of hard work down the pan. i think this is all of the big eve devs plan to make us keep playing and paying longer. Anyway thats my 2 cents worth, i think ill save up for a rhea and then insure it get it blown up and get half back for what i payed for it bonus for ccp win win win ching ching
|
Isaac Starstriker
Amarr Solaris Operations
|
Posted - 2009.08.02 21:20:00 -
[123]
Main complaints about nerfs it seems:
Carriers:
1) I can't solo-salvage up after a battle. a) Alright, so basically you don't trust your corp/alliance to bring in someone else with a cargo ship to actually salvage and hand out the loot equally. Also, why do you want to slow-boat to the many wrecks in a ship that screams kill me? This makes no sense.
2) I can't deploy a POS. Since when was this the carrier's role? And who actually does this? Last I checked, most alliances use Industrial ships to deploy POSes, not carriers/Motherships (lol).
3) I can't do solo hauling anymore. You still have the same corporate hanger space and can cargo expand it. So....yeah.
Dreads:
1) Can't haul.
What?! This is a freaking dread. Its like asking a battleship to haul.
Good lord, you guys cry a lot. Keep supplying them, you're giving everyone a lot of funny material.
If you really want change, why don't you give actual combat reasons why they should have bigger cargo bays. Your constant arguments about hauling really have no weight when ships like the Rorqual, Jumpfreighters and T2 Transport ships still exist in-game.
@CCP Dev, thanks for staying in the thread and dealing with these whiny people. I support these changes but there is one thing I've noticed:
Black Ops: I think 2K fuel bay should be what it gets. 1K seems just a little too small especially if you want more than 5 ppl in your fleet. But it is a step in the right direction.
--Isaac Isaac's Haul*Mart - Closed
|
Issea
|
Posted - 2009.08.02 21:24:00 -
[124]
Edited by: Issea on 02/08/2009 21:26:42 -nm-
|
Trimutius III
Legio Octae Rebellion Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.08.02 21:29:00 -
[125]
Edited by: Trimutius III on 02/08/2009 21:32:50
Originally by: Isaac Starstriker
3) I can't do solo hauling anymore. You still have the same corporate hanger space and can cargo expand it. So....yeah.
Generally i agree with you... Just a little clarification... U cannot cargo expand corp hangar, it's fixed 10k, and cargoexpanding small cargo bay will not give u many m3... But still 10k+ is good volume... And normal carriers don't use cargo expanders even when hauling, because sometimes it may lead to losing ur carrier without any chance of survival, and if u use up that low slots for tank u get some chance to survive... ------------------------------------------------- I am envoy from nowhere in nowhere. Nobody and nothing have sent me. And though it is impossible I exist ¬ Trimutius |
Isaac Starstriker
Amarr Solaris Operations
|
Posted - 2009.08.02 21:33:00 -
[126]
Originally by: Trimutius III
Originally by: Isaac Starstriker
3) I can't do solo hauling anymore. You still have the same corporate hanger space and can cargo expand it. So....yeah.
Generally i agree with you... Just a little clafication... U cannot cargo expand corp hangar, it's fixed 10k, and cargoexpanding small cargo bay will not give u many m3... But still 10k+ is good volume... And normal carriers don't use cargo expanders even when hauling, because sometimes it may lead to losing u carrier without any chance of survival, and if u use up that low slots for tank u get that chance to survive...
Yeah, I meant the cargo bay, not the corp hanger.
--Isaac Isaac's Haul*Mart - Closed
|
Kayosoni
Caldari Destructive Influence
|
Posted - 2009.08.02 22:11:00 -
[127]
Edited by: Kayosoni on 02/08/2009 22:11:43
Originally by: Vrenth
Also, the consumption quantity listed is for the blackops jumping. Portal consumption is based on ship size, I believe a recon is like 80m3 or something silly like that.
unless it got changed recently recons use 250-350 isos per lY for jumping. black ops indys also use like 3000 per jump.
---
|
HyperZerg
|
Posted - 2009.08.02 22:16:00 -
[128]
Interesting update but one Question that hasn't been answerd:
How to fit a Carrier/Mothership in Space without a Station? 4km¦ of Fitting doesn't get into 875m¦ Cargo :( Maybe a fitting bay ? ^^
|
Vrenth
Gallente Lightning Industries
|
Posted - 2009.08.02 22:44:00 -
[129]
Originally by: Mynas Atoch I don't see where this equivalence between SIEGE and TRIAGE is coming from.
An upper limit of six cycles of stront is acceptable on dread ops, so sizing the bay for six cycles with reasonable skills is fine.
Four carriers can rep a POS from out.of.reinforced.shield.level to restront.shield.level in one triage cycle. No one needs to be in triage for more than two cycles, as it is currently used. So two cycles of triage with reasonable skills is an acceptable limit. Also, triage currently takes place mainly at friendly POS, so providing extra stront from a fleet support Rorqal and hauler is pretty easy to do.
Now if the triage mode had a shorter cycle, things might get more intersting.
Yes, because Triage has NO combat uses at all... it was only made for repping POS.
Because you havn't seen a more creative use for it, doesn't mean others don't.
|
Mynas Atoch
UK Corp Mostly Harmless
|
Posted - 2009.08.02 23:02:00 -
[130]
Originally by: Vrenth
Originally by: Mynas Atoch Four carriers can rep a POS from out.of.reinforced.shield.level to restront.shield.level in one triage cycle. No one needs to be in triage for more than two cycles, as it is currently used. So two cycles of triage with reasonable skills is an acceptable limit. Also, triage currently takes place mainly at friendly POS, so providing extra stront from a fleet support Rorqal and hauler is pretty easy to do.
Now if the triage mode had a shorter cycle, things might get more intersting.
Yes, because Triage has NO combat uses at all... it was only made for repping POS.
Because you havn't seen a more creative use for it, doesn't mean others don't.
Apart from suicidal attempts to save supercaps, yeah .. no one uses them in combat at all. Now if they had a shorter cycle time than ten minutes, things might change.
|
|
Bozse
Reikoku
|
Posted - 2009.08.02 23:06:00 -
[131]
Quote: Apart from suicidal attempts to save supercaps, yeah .. no one uses them in combat at all. Now if they had a shorter cycle time than ten minutes, things might change.
Just becuse you think it's a stupid use isn't a valid reason to remove the ability by design, could agree on the cycle time though.
Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE is designed to be a dark and harsh world
|
dastommy79
Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.08.02 23:14:00 -
[132]
Originally by: Isaac Starstriker Edited by: Isaac Starstriker on 02/08/2009 21:33:43 Main complaints about nerfs it seems:
Carriers:
1) I can't solo-salvage up after a battle. a) Alright, so basically you don't trust your corp/alliance to bring in someone else with a cargo ship to actually salvage and hand out the loot equally. Also, why do you want to slow-boat to the many wrecks in a ship that screams kill me? This makes no sense.
2) I can't deploy a POS. Since when was this the carrier's role? And who actually does this? Last I checked, most alliances use Industrial ships to deploy POSes, not carriers/Motherships (lol).
3) I can't do solo hauling anymore. You still have the same corporate hanger space and can add cargo expanders to get your bay up if needed...which you don't.
Dreads:
1) Can't haul.
What?! This is a freaking dread. Its like asking a battleship to haul.
Good lord, you guys cry a lot. Keep supplying them, you're giving everyone a lot of funny material.
If you really want change, why don't you give actual combat reasons why they should have bigger cargo bays. Your constant arguments about hauling really have no weight when ships like the Rorqual, Jumpfreighters and T2 Transport ships still exist in-game.
@CCP Dev, thanks for staying in the thread and dealing with these whiny people. I support these changes but there is one thing I've noticed:
Black Ops: I think 2K fuel bay should be what it gets. 1K seems just a little too small especially if you want more than 5 ppl in your fleet. But it is a step in the right direction.
--Isaac
1. no one thinks they can solo salvage after a battle in carriers. The complaint if you can read is that we have a 10km3 corp hangar that we cant put stuff into in space. If my buddy dies next to me in a fight and i have that 10km3 open space, i would like to grab his siege mod and one of his guns or a repper for him for when i jump out. We don't want nor expect to solo salvage a field, we just want access to our storage capabilities in space. No one in their right mind will trade out of their combat ship to jump into a transport to loot mid fight. This would make sense if you understood the concept maybe.
2. Same argument as 1. We have the space but cant use it. No one wants to solo anything they just want full access to their ships attribute. It would be nice to help the poor sucker stuck in a rorqual instead of a combat ship do his job so he can switch out and have more fun. Thats why i propose a 4km3 cargo bay until ccp decides to give us full access to our corp hangars.
3. Carriers cant solo haul since the nerf years ago. They are impractical for keeping people supplied out in 00. Again your comments make you appear that you dont know what you are talking about. Also carriers need this corp hangar to allow themselves and other combat ships to refit and store mods they are using/will use/find.
Quote: Good lord, you guys cry a lot. Keep supplying them, you're giving everyone a lot of funny material.
Quote: @CCP Dev, thanks for staying in the thread and dealing with these whiny people.
We are not whiny, we are complaining about changes that looks like the devs haven't thought all the way through and fear they will implement these changes without actual experience with the ship. We might appear to be whining because quite frankly i think you are an idiot. Thanks for your misinformed input.
Former SmashKill Coaliton Leader WTB Leviathan. Hit me up ingame
|
Trimutius III
Legio Octae Rebellion Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.08.03 01:12:00 -
[133]
Originally by: dastommy79
3. Carriers cant solo haul since the nerf years ago. They are impractical for keeping people supplied out in 00. Again your comments make you appear that you dont know what you are talking about. Also carriers need this corp hangar to allow themselves and other combat ships to refit and store mods they are using/will use/find.
Not being able to scoop to corp hangar or jettison from corp hangar isn't good at all... But it's not that big loss IMO... But still should be fixed...
And nerf wasn't years ago, it was 5 December 2007, like 20 monthes ago... =) ------------------------------------------------- I am envoy from nowhere in nowhere. Nobody and nothing have sent me. And though it is impossible I exist ¬ Trimutius |
Tommy Blue
Arcana Imperii Ltd. Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.08.03 01:51:00 -
[134]
Originally by: Trimutius III And nerf wasn't years ago, it was 5 December 2007, like 20 monthes ago... =)
32 Actually.
I agree with dastycakes.
|
Thorongil Telcontar
Destructive Influence
|
Posted - 2009.08.03 03:45:00 -
[135]
nope its 20, 32 months would be december 2006
|
dastommy79
Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.08.03 03:49:00 -
[136]
lol fine, just 4 months short of 2 years ago. I also want to appologize if i came off a little smacky in this thread. Years of caod will do this to a person.
Former SmashKill Coaliton Leader WTB Leviathan. Hit me up ingame
|
Tommy Blue
Arcana Imperii Ltd. Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.08.03 03:52:00 -
[137]
Originally by: Thorongil Telcontar nope its 20, 32 months would be december 2006
Wow. Massive brain fart there. I thought that there were 24 months in a year
|
Lenid Kalkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2009.08.03 06:55:00 -
[138]
Will the code be smart enough to pull fuel from both bays at once to complete a jump or a siege cycle? For example, if a jump requires 5k topes and i have 4k in the fuel hangar and 1k in the cargo hold, will i be prompted to move stuff around, will the jump silently fail, or will the jump go through and pull some combination of fuel from the two hangars?
I still have doubts about CCP assurances that we'll never again need GSCs to force stront splits in lagged situations. But we'll see. Lag seems to be the one constant thing in large fleet fights (though kudos to ccp for scaling what a 'large' fleet fight has meant over time).
|
Tairon Usaro
The X-Trading Company RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.08.03 08:41:00 -
[139]
Edited by: Tairon Usaro on 03/08/2009 08:42:46 i appreciate how CCP Abathur is interacting with the people in this thread, but never the less, i would like to get a well thought dev blog elaborating the rational behind this nerf.
what does CCP think that needs a balance change?
Carrier spamming POS ? Dreads being abused as haulers ? Jumpfreighter carrying unlimited ammounts of their own fuel?
neither of these 3 questions i would score as a real issue
Rorquals being used as haulers ?
Well i do this myself, but i would understand, if this is considered an abuse. But wait a second, this is the only capital thats not getting a nerf hit .... acutally it gets 250.000 m3 for minerals in addition ....
So CCP please elaborate in blog what you want to achieve with this
________________________________________________ Some days i loose, some days the others win ... |
Trimutius III
Legio Octae Rebellion Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.08.03 08:57:00 -
[140]
Originally by: Tairon Usaro Edited by: Tairon Usaro on 03/08/2009 08:42:46 Rorquals being used as haulers ?
Well i do this myself, but i would understand, if this is considered an abuse. But wait a second, this is the only capital thats not getting a nerf hit .... acutally it gets 250.000 m3 for minerals in addition ....
Rorqual doesn't get that space for minerals... I tested that, u can put only ore inside Ore bay... But still when u are coming from mining Ops it's really useful... ------------------------------------------------- I am envoy from nowhere in nowhere. Nobody and nothing have sent me. And though it is impossible I exist ¬ Trimutius |
|
Sophia Catellani
|
Posted - 2009.08.03 10:45:00 -
[141]
i like the changes, in general its the right direction.
|
Bozse
Reikoku
|
Posted - 2009.08.03 12:04:00 -
[142]
Originally by: HyperZerg Interesting update but one Question that hasn't been answerd:
How to fit a Carrier/Mothership in Space without a Station? 4km¦ of Fitting doesn't get into 875m¦ Cargo :( Maybe a fitting bay ? ^^
This needs to be adressed aswell, last i remember before i sold my super-cap was that the mods had to be in cargo to be fitted to the ship.
Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE is designed to be a dark and harsh world
|
|
CCP Abathur
|
Posted - 2009.08.03 13:58:00 -
[143]
Thanks to everyone who is taking the time to reply here, especially those who like to throw numbers around. What would be even more helpful though is getting some more feedback on how these changes are actually working on SiSi and if there are any problems we need to look into. Moving on...
Originally by: dastommy79 The tackle carrier is quite an effective weapon in a fleet fight. Useing a 100MWD you can almost double the ships speed and you can then lock down and tackle enemy carriers and dreads if all your dictors and support get chewed up.
Everyone knows that Titans are currently the only capital ships you are supposed to fit an MWD on. (obvious troll is obvious...)
Originally by: Haffrage And a Super Mega Heavy-Watercooler for rorquals I guess, so the dreads and carriers have something to stand around and talk about crap at.
I have no idea what this means, but it's... interesting.
Originally by: Isaac Starstriker Black Ops: I think 2K fuel bay should be what it gets. 1K seems just a little too small especially if you want more than 5 ppl in your fleet. But it is a step in the right direction.
I can certainly look into this, but feedback on Black Ops already has its own dedicated thread and it could do with some dedicated feedback now that the bays are implemented.
Originally by: HyperZerg How to fit a Carrier/Mothership in Space without a Station? 4km¦ of Fitting doesn't get into 875m¦ Cargo :(
Carriers have never had 4k cargo and can still fit in space via the fitting screen by pulling modules from their corp hangars so long as they are within range of another a Starbase's Ship Maintenance Array or another ship with ship maintenance array capabilities.
Originally by: Lenid Kalkin Will the code be smart enough to pull fuel from both bays at once to complete a jump or a siege cycle?
The code is live on SiSi for you to test.
Originally by: dastommy79 I also want to appologize if i came off a little smacky in this thread. Years of caod will do this to a person.
Yes, that forum should have a warning of some kind on it.
Originally by: Tairon Usaro Rorqual doesn't get that space for minerals... I tested that, u can put only ore inside Ore bay... But still when u are coming from mining Ops it's really useful...
Mmmmmmm..... Compressed Ore.
One last bit on this fine Monday morning: even before this debate over 'bays', we were already looking into allowing people to scoop from space directly to their corp hangars. No promises right now, but we may eventually allow this.
|
|
Trimutius III
Legio Octae Rebellion Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.08.03 14:33:00 -
[144]
Edited by: Trimutius III on 03/08/2009 14:34:58
Originally by: CCP Abathur
Mmmmmmm..... Compressed Ore.
I was just maybe hair-spliting. I said no minerals and meant no minerals,... Compressed Ore is still Ore just have smaller volume... Compressed Ore isn't minerals, don't u think so? :)
P.S. You have messed up "Originally by" when quoted me... ------------------------------------------------- I am envoy from nowhere in nowhere. Nobody and nothing have sent me. And though it is impossible I exist ¬ Trimutius |
Oarta
|
Posted - 2009.08.03 17:13:00 -
[145]
Originally by: Trimutius III Edited by: Trimutius III on 03/08/2009 14:34:58
Originally by: CCP Abathur
Mmmmmmm..... Compressed Ore.
I was just maybe hair-spliting. I said no minerals and meant no minerals,... Compressed Ore is still Ore just have smaller volume... Compressed Ore isn't minerals, don't u think so? :)
P.S. You have messed up "Originally by" when quoted me...
For a Rorqual the ability to Store Ore rather than minerals is more efficient when you consider Compressed Ore can take up less room than the refined product. Also given its role and inability to process into minerals, I don't see why it would have mineral storage. When you get to that point of transport, pass it over to freighters.
|
Myra2007
Shafrak Industries
|
Posted - 2009.08.03 19:27:00 -
[146]
Edited by: Myra2007 on 03/08/2009 19:32:22
Originally by: Pallidum Treponema
How much fuel does a Black Ops use for jumping/bridging? I've never flown one, but I imagine that if it's to be used in any reasonable way, it needs to have sufficient fuelbay to do the job. I'd love to see some figures.
Well there is a thread explaining it in detail here.
Post nr.9 specifically.
But you have to keep in mind that some of the base values have changed. Basically the computations there assume a base consumption of 240 isotopes per lightyear (at jfc 4) which is no longer true due to a recent blackops buff. The base consumption amount used to be 400 but its 300 now which means 180/ly at jfc4. As long as you take that into account the computations should still apply.
Now what does that mean? To jump a blackops over the full distance (assuming maxed skills now) would cost 4.5 ly * 150 isotopes/ly = 675 isotopes ~ 101m¦.
Now often you want to use the portal to bridge gangmates first. Given that you can bridge a cargo expanded, cargo rigged blockade runner (worth about 10000m¦ fuel) it is only really important if you can bridge your whole gang + yourself once. You can use the hauler fuel if you want to go back etc. Well at least thats my understanding it may depend on how you use the ships...
To make a long story short (see that link) maxed skills will make you need 27 isotopes ~ 4m¦ per lightyear and 1m kg mass. Assuming a roundabout mass of 14m kg per recon and 2m kg per stealthbomber this would translate to
1700 isotopes ~ 255m¦ for a max distance recon jump 243 isotopes ~ 36m¦ for a max distance sb jump
A blockade runner should be comparable to a recon iirc. Don't forget that plates and mwd/ab do add mass and that caldari ships are fat.
So you could jump your blackops, the fuel hauler, 2 recons and about 6 sbs over 4.5ly in one go. Not bad at all for small gang combat.
Once you take into account that a blackops with portal generator has gimped fittings and should only be used as a bridge you can go ahead and cargo rig/expand it. It is my understanding from this thread that you can use fuel from both your cargo and fuelbay. So effectively that might double or triple the fuel you have and it starts to look peachy even for not so small gangs.
If you have several bops pilots its only getting better.
As for the numbers i am not sure if i have computed everything correctly, but it should give you an idea hopefully. If anyone knows better please share...
edit: to know what 4.5 ly are type in your home system, chose a blackops and set the skill to 5 and it'll show you all lowsec/nullsec systems in your range icsc jumprange tool --
Originally by: Professor Slocombe
I will only buy tickets if the prize is your stuff and you leave Eve. Forever. You irritating self obsessed cretin.
|
Alexander Knott
Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.08.03 19:33:00 -
[147]
Originally by: Oarta For a Rorqual the ability to Store Ore rather than minerals is more efficient when you consider Compressed Ore can take up less room than the refined product. Also given its role and inability to process into minerals, I don't see why it would have mineral storage. When you get to that point of transport, pass it over to freighters.
It's neither here nor there. Any industrial operation that wants to compress ore would have to do like 11 freighter trips to lowsec to get enough ore to fill up a Rorqual's ore bay with compressed ore (let alone the pain that would be repeatedly docking and undocking to compress the ore). There are other, less painful, methods to compress minerals that are far more space-efficient, even if they can't use the Rorqual's hold.
|
Vrenth
Gallente Lightning Industries
|
Posted - 2009.08.03 20:47:00 -
[148]
Originally by: CCP Abathur Edited by: CCP Abathur on 03/08/2009 14:19:15
Thanks to everyone who is taking the time to reply here, especially those who like to throw numbers around. What would be even more helpful though is getting some more feedback on how these changes are actually working on SiSi and if there are any problems we need to look into. Moving on...
I did post feedback about how things are working on SiSi and the problems that need to be looked into... and instead of discussing them with me your arguing with these stupid ninnies. I wonder if your actually listening, or if your just replying to this thread to get your fill of forum trolling.
|
Trimutius III
Legio Octae Rebellion Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.08.03 21:05:00 -
[149]
Just checked one thing with Orca.
Why not allowing store Gases in Ore Bay? They are also harvested and would be useful in W-space when u use ur Orca... ------------------------------------------------- I am envoy from nowhere in nowhere. Nobody and nothing have sent me. And though it is impossible I exist ¬ Trimutius |
|
CCP Abathur
|
Posted - 2009.08.03 21:25:00 -
[150]
Originally by: Vrenth
Originally by: CCP Abathur Edited by: CCP Abathur on 03/08/2009 14:19:15
Thanks to everyone who is taking the time to reply here, especially those who like to throw numbers around. What would be even more helpful though is getting some more feedback on how these changes are actually working on SiSi and if there are any problems we need to look into. Moving on...
I did post feedback about how things are working on SiSi and the problems that need to be looked into... and instead of discussing them with me your arguing with these stupid ninnies. I wonder if your actually listening, or if your just replying to this thread to get your fill of forum trolling.
We are asking for feedback on both the concept and the mechanics. Many people, including yourself, are offering your thoughts on if things are too big or too small; that's being read and considered. We would also like to know if anyone has run into any problems with the functionality of these features.
Originally by: Trimutius III Just checked one thing with Orca.
Why not allowing store Gases in Ore Bay? They are also harvested and would be useful in W-space when u use ur Orca...
We're already looking at the possibility of putting 'Gas Storage Bays' into certian ship types.
|
|
|
Valeo Galaem
New Eden Advanced Reconnaissance Unit Sentient World Observation and Response Directive
|
Posted - 2009.08.04 02:58:00 -
[151]
Edited by: Valeo Galaem on 04/08/2009 04:09:00 Now with 10 times more relevance! Originally by: CCP Abathur We're already looking at the possibility of putting 'Gas Storage Bays' into certian ship types.
Slightly OT but..
How about adding specialized bays to industrials down the road ?
This could also be applied to remedy some of the concerns in this thread: Starbase Structure Bays? Capital Equipment Bays? Then add Rigs that allow you to convert Bays with an overall size penalty. If the coding is as flexible as is to believed the possibilities are endless.
Thar be Pirates
You are not authorised to hack into CONCORD's mainframe Your Wallet has been emptied!
CONCORD Encryption Methods |
dastommy79
Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.08.04 04:08:00 -
[152]
personaly i think ore and gas should be able to share the same bay thingy. Would make more sense instead of making ships dedicated gas haulers. Also if you introduce the scoop to corp hangar thing, i will sex you up good mister.
Former SmashKill Coaliton Leader WTB Leviathan. Hit me up ingame
|
Tairon Usaro
The X-Trading Company RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.08.04 08:07:00 -
[153]
Feedback on concept: unneeded nerf
you could not blow up "fuel bay" or "ammo bay" in any way that counters this nerf and would make the change an improvement to gameplay. Even if the bays had like 30.000 m3, it would still be a nerf not an improvement. This shows how much capitals are impacted by this nerf. so once again, what is the issue will capital cargo ?
How many dreads are being abused for cargo transport (percent/permill/ppm of dreads in game) ? How many carrier are being abused for POS spam ? Is this an abuse at all ? How many jumpfreighters carried more fuel than cargo ?
to my eyes it is hillarious to publish a video like "butterfly effect" and intonate the Song of songs on "Sandbox" and on the other hand code nerfs like this crap.
maybe i dont see the whole picture, but this is due, once again, to the lack of information on the whole picture a.k.a a dev blog describing problem, solution and vision.
________________________________________________ Some days i loose, some days the others win ... |
Trimutius III
Legio Octae Rebellion Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.08.04 09:36:00 -
[154]
Rorqual has Ore Bay, but can't compress Ore located in it... Maybe you should allow choosing no only Cargo Bay but also Ore Bay when Compressing Ore? ------------------------------------------------- I am envoy from nowhere in nowhere. Nobody and nothing have sent me. And though it is impossible I exist ¬ Trimutius |
Rachel Silverside
Caldari The Dead Parrot Shoppe Inc. Balance of Judgment
|
Posted - 2009.08.04 12:41:00 -
[155]
will minmitar titans have a VW factory in them? -------------------- This sig was awesome but needs more EvE related content. - Zymurgist
Playing eve online is like getting punched in the balls/gut/face....... what? what are you waiting for? |
Msgerbs
Gallente Imperial Assualt Guild Raikiri Assasins
|
Posted - 2009.08.04 15:04:00 -
[156]
Originally by: Jarnis McPieksu The basic problem with the introduction of specialized holds is this;
Right now, a ship has X m3 of room for "stuff". This stuff can be anything. Fuel, cargo, stront, exotic dancers...
If you add a specialized fuel hold and simply cut that out of the main hold you remove flexibility. Certain percentage of that X now has to be fuel, nothing else. Okay, so you bump up the fuel hold size now that it is exclusively for fuel and not other stuff. The main hold size has still gone down, limiting what you can carry in extreme cases while staying in-system.
Add in more special holds for ammo, scripts, stront or those exotic dancers and all you continue to do is remove flexibility. As long as the generic cargo hold size must go down when you add specialized holds, it is a nerf to flexibility and depending on the ratio of lost main cargo space vs. gained specialized space, it may be a very poor tradeoff.
In many cases X m3 of generic cargo space is more valuable than X*2 m3 of cargo space split into small boxes, each with a specific label, especially if you want to move something that is, per unit, larger than the largest box you have!
What we'd really need is a reconfigurable cargo space. Each ship having X amount of "unfitted cargo space" which can then be fitted to be something else with appropriate multipliers. Let's make an example. A carrier.
Current:
3500 m3 of generic cargo space becomes... 14000m3 of space in the hull for cargo areas.
Then you have some module/fitting/adjustment thingy that allows you to allocate that.
Generic space has x4 multiplier - 1m3 of generic space eats up 4m3 of cargo area, can take anything. Ammo/scripts has x2 multiplier - 1m3 of ammo/script space eats up 2m3 of cargo area Fuel tanks have x1 multiplier - 1m3 of fuel tank eats up 1m3 of cargo area
So, you could have, for example, either...
- 3500m3 of generic space (probably not) - 2500m3 of generic space (10000m3 of hull), 4000m3 of fuel space (4000m3 of hull) - 2000m3 of generic space (8000m3 of hull), 4000m3 of fuel space (4000m3 of hull), 1000m3 of ammo space (2000m3 of hull) - 1000m3 of generic space (4000m3 of hull) and 10000m3 of fuel space (10000m3 of hull)
Multipliers and exact values all subject to change, of course. This is just an example to outline the idea, but the basic idea would be that you could keep the current config if you insist, or you could trade generic space for specialized holds with a fixed multiplier. At the same time, cargo expanders could either affect the hull space, so they would expand every type of hold the same way, or the could only apply to the generic holds.
There are many ways how you could do this in practice (UI perspective). You could have special slots in ships where you add in cargohold bits that you can then buy in different sizes (bit like buying GSCs today) or perhaps allow any repair/refit service to "move the bulkheads", so to speak, with a requirement that the holds are empty when you reallocate the space. Naturally there could be an ISK fee to discourage constant fiddling, but not so big that you can't rearrange your cargo space for each mission. The ability to rearrange the space could also be limited to several pre-determined configurations if you wish to retain full control how this feature can be used. "full generic space", "travel mode, lots of fuel", "combat mission mode" etc.
Could initially be done for caps but could also be expanded for all shiptypes. Basically you could trade generic hold space for specialized hold space and get more of that specialized hold space. One more way to customize our ships and optimize things, instead of getting hobbled with an inflexible system that is guaranteed to hurt the player in some specific case as long as the generic cargo space is getting reduced (and I bet it IS getting reduced).
This. More flexbility = better. Isn't that what eve is about? T3 ships, for example, are... FLEXBLE. That's good. Now keep that up "Isn't the Eiffel Tower an early prototype of a Minmatar Battleship?" --Illectroculus Defined |
olzi
Caldari Space Perverts and Forum Warriors United
|
Posted - 2009.08.04 18:19:00 -
[157]
I have to say, 1000 m3 wasn't exactly what I was expecting for the black ops fuel bay.
With level 4 skills, 1000 m3 worth of isotopes gives you a total jumprange of around 36 AU's, without anyone to bridge with you of course. Split that so that you can get back, and you end up with a 18 AU max. range, not exactly 'behind the lines' material.
Using a transporter ship is not very realistic either. I mean, really, 3 accounts and one additional t2 ship just to effectively move the hull around ?
I think a 2000 m3 bay would be much closer to something I can live with. I don't want my Widow to be a hangar ornament. CCP, don't fuxor this up!
|
Johnatan
Rage and Terror Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2009.08.04 22:02:00 -
[158]
Originally by: Pallidum Treponema Okay, I've done the numbers on the new cargobays, so let's do some theorycrafting.
Cargospace for a dread today goes from 7250 (Rev) to 10250 (Nag). With the extra cargospace added from 2xGSC, this goes up to 9050 (Rev) to 12050 (Nag).
With the new bays, GSCs can no longer be used. However, total cargo space will increase. The revelation will go from 7250 (9050) to 9060, while the Naglfar will go from 10250 (12050) to 11810. The Moros goes from 8500 (10300) to 10875.
Let's take a look at the moros.
A single cycle of siege (lv4 skills) takes 900m3 cargospace. Ammo needed for a full siege cycle takes up 54m3 worth of space.
This means that a Moros with 22k isotopes can fit 7 cycles worth of stront and ammo today. Drop to 15k isos, and you can do 8 cycles worth. Both of these examples assume a reserve of 2 cycles worth of ammo, such as long-range or faction types. Live scenarios may use a bigger reserve, but for the sake of argument, let's go with this.
A Moros with the new bays will get 575m3 more total cargospace than the old cargobay with 2x GSC. The total cargospace usable for fuel and stront is 7000+2125 = 9125 m3. This is 625m3 more cargospace than before, but 1175m3 LESS cargospace if GSCs are accounted for.
Assuming 15k isotopes, we have space for (9125-2250)/900 ~= 7.64. This means that we'll get one LESS cycle of stront total (The actual numbers allow for 18500 isos and still do 7 cycles).
At 22k isotopes, we now have INT((9125-2250)/900) = 6 cycles worth (6.47). That's one less than the 7 cycles carried today.
Why does this happen when we have more total space?
The ammo needed by a Moros for a full cycle of siege is 54m3. For 7 cycles, this is 387m3. The total of 10875 m3 cargospace does include an ammobay of 1750 m3 size. While I'm not at all complaining about that ammobay, it is a bit big.
For instance, 10 cycles worth of ammo takes up 540m3 cargospace. Add a bit of long-range and faction ammo for capital slugfests and you'll hit 1000 m3 worth of cargospace. For a 1750m3 ammo bay, that's 750m3 we don't actually NEED (although I for one am not complaining about getting it).
With the 750m3 that we don't need, we now get 10875-750 = 10125 m3 of cargospace, which is slightly less than the 10300 m3 that we used to have. Add the fact that we're likely not going to need more than 750m3 worth of ammo, even for 10 cycles, and that's about 500m3 worth of cargohold that we're missing out on.
I'm definitely not opposed to specialized bays (heck, a fully honortanked Revelation can carry over 83k worth of cargo, that's just ridiculously wrong), but if the powers that be could find in themselves to up the fuel bay to 7500 m3, that'd bring the total (usable) cargospace in-line with today's figures. Heck, reduce the ammo bays by a similar amount (200m3 for the rev), and you'll still have a small total boost compared to today.
PS: This change means that the Rev will get slightly more usable cargospace for fuel/stront and the phoenix/naglfar will get less. HOWEVER, this means that all dreads will now have about similar number of strontcycles and fuel, which makes things a LOT easier for FCs and logistics people. I approve. Just... 7500m3 fuel bays, plz?
THIS.
And ffs, CCP, stop commenting stupid posts. Better read and try to understand worth suggestions, like the one above AND COMMENT THEM. Don't show that you're worthless forum-warriors and nothing else. If you don't play this game (and no, you don't play) - at least listen to people who DOES still play it. ---- start cut here ---- Evil Thug`s alt. ----- end cut here ----- |
General Zamiel
Amarr Esto Perpetua Coalition Of Carebear Killers
|
Posted - 2009.08.05 04:58:00 -
[159]
Originally by: Tairon Usaro Feedback on concept: unneeded nerf
you could not blow up "fuel bay" or "ammo bay" in any way that counters this nerf and would make the change an improvement to gameplay. Even if the bays had like 30.000 m3, it would still be a nerf not an improvement. This shows how much capitals are impacted by this nerf. so once again, what is the issue will capital cargo ?
How many dreads are being abused for cargo transport (percent/permill/ppm of dreads in game) ? How many carrier are being abused for POS spam ? Is this an abuse at all ? How many jumpfreighters carried more fuel than cargo ?
to my eyes it is hillarious to publish a video like "butterfly effect" and intonate the Song of songs on "Sandbox" and on the other hand code nerfs like this crap.
maybe i dont see the whole picture, but this is due, once again, to the lack of information on the whole picture a.k.a a dev blog describing problem, solution and vision.
Yeah, I was going to comment in depth on what your problem was, but you pretty much summed it up in the bolded part. Plain and simple: you fail to understand what it means to objectively balance gameplay. All your points are based upon a biased viewpoint shared by a number of people who want carriers/dreads/capitals/whatever to be better for purely selfish reasons. Even if you try to rationalize your argument as being based in positive changes you won't be able to say your aim is for the betterment of the community as long as you keep going like this.
Memento Mori. |
Ghurthe
|
Posted - 2009.08.05 06:46:00 -
[160]
Oh my my, where to start.
The Carebear in me jumps with glee. 250km3 of dedicated ORE space on my rorqual. Lovely, Love it. Fuelbays on my Rorqual and no nerf to the cargo. Perfect. The ship is now my favorite, highly role specific and a bit flexible.
Not terribly fond of the lack of GSCs on my Moros but I can live. I've learned how to split stacks without it.
1000m/3 for a Black ops BS is plenty. Anyone who thinks 18 LY there and back isn't enough obviously doesn't know how to move themselves closer to enemy space. Awesome change, the Jump Portal is more useful the Jump capabilities improved, maybe not the best, but certainly a step towards what we want.
Now to the meat and potatoes of this. The big problem, the carrier. Presently, this is THE cheapest cap ship in the game with jump capabilities. If I recall right, then I remember the latest sov mechanics discussions mentioning that they were trying to rebalance sov towards the little guy a little more. In short make it so smaller groups might get some space. might be wrong, might be right. But if that's the case then wouldn't it be counter productive to remove one of the cheapest ships capable of putting down a POS in enemy space and still having some form of defenses on it?
Granted the Jump Freighter is THE POS spammer of choice, the issue is the 4 billion isk price tag. Rorquals are 1.5 billion and almost certainly going to spike to 2 bill with this patch. So the first jump capable ship in the roster of caps that can drop a POS is 2-3 times more expense than the carrier.
All this change does is reinforce the need for Massive Capital fleets, heavily entrenched cynojammed systems and a stagnation of the existing sov mechanics.
From a smaller scale perspective scooping to the Corp Hangar and deploying from the Corp Hangar would basically fix all these complaints, but it seems that this is a silly move to do this to carriers until the corp hangar solution gets sorted, unless the corp hangar solution is only a few months from launch.
However, all the other caps are significantly improved in this. Something I very much appreciate as I fly all of them. I look forward to hauling piles of compressed ore around and not worrying about how much space my fuel takes up and getting some use out of my black ops BS will be nice for a change. Breaking Stront stacks in such a manner that they don't resiege like 1/299 1/299 etc so that i must drag one unit to complete a stack will take some getting used to but overall i like this. I'll miss my carriers cargohold but c'est la vie.
|
|
Trimutius III
Legio Octae Rebellion Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.08.05 10:22:00 -
[161]
Originally by: Ghurthe Oh my my, where to start. Now to the meat and potatoes of this. The big problem, the carrier. Presently, this is THE cheapest cap ship in the game with jump capabilities. If I recall right, then I remember the latest sov mechanics discussions mentioning that they were trying to rebalance sov towards the little guy a little more. In short make it so smaller groups might get some space. might be wrong, might be right. But if that's the case then wouldn't it be counter productive to remove one of the cheapest ships capable of putting down a POS in enemy space and still having some form of defenses on it?
Granted the Jump Freighter is THE POS spammer of choice, the issue is the 4 billion isk price tag. Rorquals are 1.5 billion and almost certainly going to spike to 2 bill with this patch. So the first jump capable ship in the roster of caps that can drop a POS is 2-3 times more expense than the carrier.
It was said that maybe CCP will make it possible to launch POSes from corp hangar of carrier. And i doubt that price of rorqual will be much higher... It's based on price of minerals and not so strongly depends on capabilities of ship... ------------------------------------------------- I am envoy from nowhere in nowhere. Nobody and nothing have sent me. And though it is impossible I exist ¬ Trimutius |
Roemy Schneider
Vanishing Point.
|
Posted - 2009.08.05 10:40:00 -
[162]
Originally by: Johnatan
Originally by: Pallidum Treponema Okay, I've done the numbers on the new cargobays, so let's do some theorycrafting.
Cargospace for a dread today goes from 7250 (Rev) to 10250 (Nag). With the extra cargospace added from 2xGSC, this goes up to 9050 (Rev) to 12050 (Nag).
With the new bays, GSCs can no longer be used. However, total cargo space will increase. The revelation will go from 7250 (9050) to 9060, while the Naglfar will go from 10250 (12050) to 11810. The Moros goes from 8500 (10300) to 10875.
Let's take a look at the moros.
A single cycle of siege (lv4 skills) takes 900m3 cargospace. Ammo needed for a full siege cycle takes up 54m3 worth of space.
This means that a Moros with 22k isotopes can fit 7 cycles worth of stront and ammo today. Drop to 15k isos, and you can do 8 cycles worth. Both of these examples assume a reserve of 2 cycles worth of ammo, such as long-range or faction types. Live scenarios may use a bigger reserve, but for the sake of argument, let's go with this.
A Moros with the new bays will get 575m3 more total cargospace than the old cargobay with 2x GSC. The total cargospace usable for fuel and stront is 7000+2125 = 9125 m3. This is 625m3 more cargospace than before, but 1175m3 LESS cargospace if GSCs are accounted for.
Assuming 15k isotopes, we have space for (9125-2250)/900 ~= 7.64. This means that we'll get one LESS cycle of stront total (The actual numbers allow for 18500 isos and still do 7 cycles).
At 22k isotopes, we now have INT((9125-2250)/900) = 6 cycles worth (6.47). That's one less than the 7 cycles carried today.
Why does this happen when we have more total space?
The ammo needed by a Moros for a full cycle of siege is 54m3. For 7 cycles, this is 387m3. The total of 10875 m3 cargospace does include an ammobay of 1750 m3 size. While I'm not at all complaining about that ammobay, it is a bit big.
For instance, 10 cycles worth of ammo takes up 540m3 cargospace. Add a bit of long-range and faction ammo for capital slugfests and you'll hit 1000 m3 worth of cargospace. For a 1750m3 ammo bay, that's 750m3 we don't actually NEED (although I for one am not complaining about getting it).
With the 750m3 that we don't need, we now get 10875-750 = 10125 m3 of cargospace, which is slightly less than the 10300 m3 that we used to have. Add the fact that we're likely not going to need more than 750m3 worth of ammo, even for 10 cycles, and that's about 500m3 worth of cargohold that we're missing out on.
I'm definitely not opposed to specialized bays (heck, a fully honortanked Revelation can carry over 83k worth of cargo, that's just ridiculously wrong), but if the powers that be could find in themselves to up the fuel bay to 7500 m3, that'd bring the total (usable) cargospace in-line with today's figures. Heck, reduce the ammo bays by a similar amount (200m3 for the rev), and you'll still have a small total boost compared to today.
PS: This change means that the Rev will get slightly more usable cargospace for fuel/stront and the phoenix/naglfar will get less. HOWEVER, this means that all dreads will now have about similar number of strontcycles and fuel, which makes things a LOT easier for FCs and logistics people. I approve. Just... 7500m3 fuel bays, plz?
THIS.
And ffs, CCP, stop commenting stupid posts. Better read and try to understand worth suggestions, like the one above AND COMMENT THEM. Don't show that you're worthless forum-warriors and nothing else. If you don't play this game (and no, you don't play) - at least listen to people who DOES still play it.
all of those - no polygons affected - putting the gist back into logistics |
steave435
Caldari Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2009.08.05 11:35:00 -
[163]
You could just put an industrial in your ship maintenance bay and the pos mods in corp hangar and have whoever lit the cyno for you swap to the industrial, take the pos mods from your corp hangar and put them in his own cargo hold and then deploy it from there.
|
Ghurthe
|
Posted - 2009.08.05 14:13:00 -
[164]
Originally by: steave435 You could just put an industrial in your ship maintenance bay and the pos mods in corp hangar and have whoever lit the cyno for you swap to the industrial, take the pos mods from your corp hangar and put them in his own cargo hold and then deploy it from there.
That is, of course, assuming they can fly the indy. But, yeah overall good idea.
|
Real Poison
Minmatar Stormlord Battleforce Vanguard.
|
Posted - 2009.08.05 15:50:00 -
[165]
i checked out sisi today and after i saw my carriers cargobay i can only say this:
KEEP YOUR FUELBAY, LEAVE BLACK-OPS AS THEY ARE. AND ESPECIALLY OTHER SHIPS CARGOBAYS!!!
without 5-10k fuelbay you don't really make the black ops useful.
i never had the pleasure of just stuffing ships in maintance bay without complains about a stupid skillbook in a battleship's cargo. and now you want to remove the ability to handle a single GSC. ENOUGH OF IT!
|
Xianthar
STK Scientific The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2009.08.05 18:05:00 -
[166]
due to the addition of small and medium sized rigs i expect almost all ships to end up rigged now. Since the carrier is the most efficient transport mechanism for rigged ships it most certainly is the logistical backbone of a mobile alliance / fighting group.
Clearly the mothership/titan can move more ships but their lack of ability to dock means moving the ships from station to station is more tedious than doing a few jumps in a carrier. Also the fact that nearly everyone in a pvp focused alliance can fly a carrier means that when an alliance mobilizes the carrier does the brunt of the work.
A few jump freighters for fuel/towers/repackaged ships are needed of course but by far the largest m3 in terms of ships,fittings and ammo is moved via carriers. The changes to rigs will put an even larger strain on the carrier as it will have to haul more ships that previously could have been repackaged and tossed, en-mass in a JF.
The changes to the rorq basically remove its usefulness as a mid sized transport for towers/fuel. I know lots of guys that only own this ship for transport and have never compressed minerals with it. I expect the rorq market to crash tbh. Orca as well as its losing its mid sized armored transport role that was often its solo reason for purchase.
It would be cool to see something with like 50k-100k cargo hold and a jump drive that runs in the 1.5bil isk range to fill the gap you've created between carriers and the 4bil isk jump freighter in terms of transport for towers/fuel/etc since the concept of transporting repackaged ships is now unlikely unless its for resale.
Something to replace the orca for hauling would be cool also, since there is now again a massive gap in empire hauling from a 35k occator to a 850k freighter.
In summary:
- Rig changes will put a greater strain on carriers for mobile fighting
- Rorq/Orca Transport Nerf has again created a large gap between haulers. Deep Space Transport - Freighter in the sub cap realm, and Carrier - Jumpfreighter (4bil?!?!) in the cap realm
|
Manfred Rickenbocker
Professors On Steriods DEFI4NT
|
Posted - 2009.08.05 18:52:00 -
[167]
Can I stick drones in my ammo bay? Im getting sick and tired of losing them and not being able to replenish my bay quantity. fixitfixitfixit ------------------------ Peace through superior firepower: a guiding principle for uncertain times. |
Oarta
|
Posted - 2009.08.05 19:06:00 -
[168]
Originally by: Xianthar The changes to the rorq basically remove its usefulness as a mid sized transport for towers/fuel. I know lots of guys that only own this ship for transport and have never compressed minerals with it. I expect the rorq market to crash tbh. Orca as well as its losing its mid sized armored transport role that was often its solo reason for purchase.
It would be cool to see something with like 50k-100k cargo hold and a jump drive that runs in the 1.5bil isk range to fill the gap you've created between carriers and the 4bil isk jump freighter in terms of transport for towers/fuel/etc since the concept of transporting repackaged ships is now unlikely unless its for resale.
Something to replace the orca for hauling would be cool also, since there is now again a massive gap in empire hauling from a 35k occator to a 850k freighter.
In summary:
- Rorq/Orca Transport Nerf has again created a large gap between haulers. Deep Space Transport - Freighter in the sub cap realm, and Carrier - Jumpfreighter (4bil?!?!) in the cap realm
I am confused as to what server you are testing on. The Rorq and Orca have not had anything removed or decreased. They have only gained a Fuel and Ore bay, so I am not sure how you consider this a Nerf which makes them obsolete. Could you elaborate?
|
OwlManAtt
Gallente Yasashii Heavy Industries
|
Posted - 2009.08.05 21:41:00 -
[169]
Originally by: Oarta I am confused as to what server you are testing on. The Rorq and Orca have not had anything removed or decreased. They have only gained a Fuel and Ore bay, so I am not sure how you consider this a Nerf which makes them obsolete. Could you elaborate?
Indeed. The bay sizes that Jojin was kind enough to post for me match TQ exactly, with the exception of the additional ore bays. Their corp/cargo holds have not been reduced.
Keep in mind that the _base_ capacities were posted, unmodified by skills. --- Owl |
Trimutius III
Legio Octae Rebellion Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.08.05 22:40:00 -
[170]
Originally by: Oarta
I am confused as to what server you are testing on. The Rorq and Orca have not had anything removed or decreased. They have only gained a Fuel and Ore bay, so I am not sure how you consider this a Nerf which makes them obsolete. Could you elaborate?
As i see it Orca and Rorqual are Capital Industrials, they are designed to carry many things, and CCP just decided make it possible to carry even more things, but mostly Ore i should say... ------------------------------------------------- I am envoy from nowhere in nowhere. Nobody and nothing have sent me. And though it is impossible I exist ¬ Trimutius |
|
Xianthar
STK Scientific The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2009.08.06 00:46:00 -
[171]
oops, i was under the impression the ore bays were taking away from their other hauling capabilities as fuel bays on the carriers reduce cargo hold.
/me hides in corner
|
Ghurthe
|
Posted - 2009.08.06 01:20:00 -
[172]
I'd be OK with my carrier losing its cargo if my dread lost just as much if not more. It doesn't make any sense that a dread cargo fit can drop a large POS but a Carrier can't.
Sorry but this really bothers me, a dread doesn't need much more than stront ammo and fuel. A carrier needs more than just fuel.
|
Trimutius III
Legio Octae Rebellion Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.08.06 06:31:00 -
[173]
Another thing... CCP please answer why Amarr ships have so small ammo bay? Let me clarify my opinion. Ammo bay can carry projectile ammo, hybrid charges, missiles, frequency crystals, Cap Boosters (!!!), and even Nanite Paste and Scripts.
The main thing that it's looks like CCP thinking that Amarr are using Frequency Crystals to charge their lasers. But this is so wrong! They are using Capacitor to charge there laser. So maybe u should add some additional space in ammo bay for Ammars, just for them to put in there more units of Cap Booster 800. ------------------------------------------------- I am envoy from nowhere in nowhere. Nobody and nothing have sent me. And though it is impossible I exist ¬ Trimutius |
Garia666
Amarr T.H.U.G L.I.F.E Veritas Immortalis
|
Posted - 2009.08.06 08:53:00 -
[174]
sigh ever since the command ship nerf, everytime ccp changes something i get a bad feeling about it.. If i reed some reply`s here its getting me worried.. www.garia.net |
Vrenth
Gallente Lightning Industries
|
Posted - 2009.08.06 08:57:00 -
[175]
Originally by: Trimutius III Another thing... CCP please answer why Amarr ships have so small ammo bay? Let me clarify my opinion. Ammo bay can carry projectile ammo, hybrid charges, missiles, frequency crystals, Cap Boosters (!!!), and even Nanite Paste and Scripts.
The main thing that it's looks like CCP thinking that Amarr are using Frequency Crystals to charge their lasers. But this is so wrong! They are using Capacitor to charge there laser. So maybe u should add some additional space in ammo bay for Ammars, just for them to put in there more units of Cap Booster 800.
I thought only the dreadnought had an ammo bay. If so, then your ******ed, as nobody in their right mind would put a cap injector on a capital ship. If they did put ammo bays on other amarr ships, then they need to have at least half the ammo bay of the other races to put these other things in.
|
Trimutius III
Legio Octae Rebellion Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.08.06 09:18:00 -
[176]
Originally by: Vrenth
I thought only the dreadnought had an ammo bay. If so, then your ******ed, as nobody in their right mind would put a cap injector on a capital ship. If they did put ammo bays on other amarr ships, then they need to have at least half the ammo bay of the other races to put these other things in.
You are right... But still i need to say it way before this changes hit all other ships, cuz i don't want to whine "boost ammo bay for Amarrs" ------------------------------------------------- I am envoy from nowhere in nowhere. Nobody and nothing have sent me. And though it is impossible I exist ¬ Trimutius |
Rick Panda
|
Posted - 2009.08.06 11:21:00 -
[177]
Originally by: Trimutius III Another thing... CCP please answer why Amarr ships have so small ammo bay? Let me clarify my opinion. Ammo bay can carry projectile ammo, hybrid charges, missiles, frequency crystals, Cap Boosters (!!!), and even Nanite Paste and Scripts.
The main thing that it's looks like CCP thinking that Amarr are using Frequency Crystals to charge their lasers. But this is so wrong! They are using Capacitor to charge there laser. So maybe u should add some additional space in ammo bay for Ammars, just for them to put in there more units of Cap Booster 800.
And other quotes... No, no you dont want cap boosters in your capital ships... ever... oh god no! If they are relying on cap boosters, I have bad news for your Revelations. Amarr ships have a small ammo bay because they will carry a lot less ammo. Factional Close, Factional Long, t1 Close, t1 Long.
On to my opinion
The problem is that the Carrier used to be able to move so much, so very very much. We could once use it to move a lot of high end minerals from nullsec to lowsec, ship it out from there in a freighter and sell it for profit. Then we couldn't, it became the Jump Freighter job. More ISK and TIME sinkage. meh, EVE distracts me from the reality of my life so I'll go with it. lemme emo out :P However I dont see much difference in the usual application of the capital ships, using most of the cargo bay for fuel anyway, maybe some live stock, an exotic dancer or 20, some qaufe. Now we'll just have to make sure to fill the fuel bay with fuel, the cargo bay with fuel, and the ammo bay (where applicable) with ammo. As some other capsuleers have stated, there may even be a little too much room. If though, CCP Devs see this, I would suggest increasing the Carrier fuel bay. This would have two effects, longer range on the tank of fuel, or a healthier split of isotopes and strontium. I would however like to request a 100m3 of Passenger space, for VIPs, Mercenaries, Tourists and the always handy Princess. For no other reason than party time.
Without rigs, a carrier should be able to expand its cargo bay out to 4100m3 with an honor tank. This just means more POS work desired capsuleers with carriers still have that option without EVE changing how they play when they may be done with that characters training. You mean they should learn to adapt? BAH! If you made the Dominix a missile boat, you would disturb a great many players. Even the cruise missile to torpedo change on stealth bombers took a few pilots out of them for a couple weeks, but the buffs were good enough to train up torps.
I think the catching point on my mind is that the Rorqual has gotten a discernible boost to its capacity, as well as the Orca. Yet every other ship in this fuel bay concept has been roughly shifted from a diverse tool for innovative players who use these ships for various things, to a specific sized widget tool for a specific widget job. Which may be a problem considering the vague definition that seems to be plaguing Mother Ships.
The fuel bay idea has legs, it could certainly learn to stand on its own, but (and this is getting on to a more customer fun point) don't take stuff away from your customers. The more stuff we get that is obviously better, the more we enjoy the overall product. No one is whining about the Rorqual changes because they're a plus. Every complaint is about the other ships which are losing their versatility.
Versatility had been the greatest thing to carriers, but that keeps getting cut back. Soon they may just have a fuel bay, reppers, some fighters, and categorized ship bays for a BS, a BC/Industrial, 2 cruisers, and 4 frigate hulls... space size be damned. If you keep limiting how people play in a sandbox, they pee in it and go play on the swing.
|
Kalintos Tyl
Minmatar V O O D O O
|
Posted - 2009.08.06 13:03:00 -
[178]
whining that your carrier alt isnt hauling alt ? 60D GTC - shattared link |
Trimutius III
Legio Octae Rebellion Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.08.06 14:14:00 -
[179]
Originally by: Rick Panda
And other quotes... No, no you dont want cap boosters in your capital ships... ever... oh god no! If they are relying on cap boosters, I have bad news for your Revelations. Amarr ships have a small ammo bay because they will carry a lot less ammo. Factional Close, Factional Long, t1 Close, t1 Long.
I repeat once more... That i corrected... I want to tell CCP not to make such a small ammo bay for smaller ships (BS and so on) if they decide to intoduce ammo bays for all ships in game... ------------------------------------------------- I am envoy from nowhere in nowhere. Nobody and nothing have sent me. And though it is impossible I exist ¬ Trimutius |
SpankMeElmo
Interstellar eXodus BricK sQuAD.
|
Posted - 2009.08.06 18:47:00 -
[180]
Many of these protests would die down if you'd just increase the range of the JF. Please do that. For the children's sake, do it now.
|
|
Trimutius III
Legio Octae Rebellion Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.08.06 18:51:00 -
[181]
Edited by: Trimutius III on 06/08/2009 18:51:21
Originally by: SpankMeElmo Many of these protests would die down if you'd just increase the range of the JF. Please do that. For the children's sake, do it now.
LOL Range isn't big problem especially with Calibration 5 lvl... So i doubt that this will help to solve protests... Plus Freighter can't scoop and jetisson in space (if u don't count POS structures) ------------------------------------------------- I am envoy from nowhere in nowhere. Nobody and nothing have sent me. And though it is impossible I exist ¬ Trimutius |
Jacob Holland
Gallente Weyland-Vulcan Industries
|
Posted - 2009.08.07 12:10:00 -
[182]
The fuel bays when added to Black Ops battleships add flexibility to the set-up. Fuel bays if added to Capital ships would also add to the ship's flexibility û but not when the cargohold is reduced. Reducing the cargohold reduces flexibility drastically, and for no good reason to my mind.
The stated reason is to prevent warships from being used for other thingsà Now that's a precedent I'm concerned about setting. For one thing, who really cares if someone who hasn't yet gained the skills for (for example) Capital Lasers uses their Revelation to haul supplies for their alliance? Had this precedent been set a lot earlier we'd be without the concept of an Honour Tank and the game would be a little less for it. It is the flexibility of the fitting on a ship û and the effect that the right fitting or the wrong fitting can have on your chances û that is one of EVE's great strengths. The Ferox (prior to its buff) was most often fitted with heavy missiles, doing so ignored the hybrid range bonus of the ship but it was (for most of the pilots who flew it) more effective with missiles than with guns. The Dominix similarly, in a Nos/Neut fit, ignored its hybrid bonus but still represented a very effective fit. And PERVS' lowsec DDD could not have been achieved without a flexibility of fitting which ignored the way that the ships they used were "intended to be flown". If the precedent that "warships" must not be used for anything but warfare then are we going to start to see restrictions on what can be fitted in slots? Preventing cargo expanders from being fitted to a Revelation seems straightforward enough, but how about mining lasers on a Rokh? The tier 3 Battleships after all were designed to provide fleet vessels, warships. It was the stated reason that they all had 8 turrets despite the suggestions that a Damp boat to counter the Scorpion and a giant Arbitrator were what were missing from the line-ups. So do we see an end to Rokhs mining? What about the Salva'cane? Or the Salva'bond? These ships demonstrate the value of flexibility in fit and role. They demonstrate that there isn't really a right or wrong way to fit a ship, even a warship, when it comes to capsuleers. We are, after all, demigods; immortality and wallets as capacious as some GDPs give us a different perspective. The Minmatar Republic may be justifiably horrified at the number of their new mainstay battlecruisers which have had their structures weakened to a dangerous degree and which moulder in hangers throughout Empire space for use as glorified garbage trucks... But the Minmatar Republic have little control over how capsuleers act. Capsuleers see a value in the Hurricane which would be wasteful of materiel for the Republic Fleet, and because they aren't answering to tax payers, because they have their own supply network, because manpower rather than materiel is their limitation they use these vessels in ways which governments cannot. The big Alliances, like demigods among the capsuleers, might reasonably be expected to have different views as to the value of much larger vessels, out of the reach of the average pod pilot, to be willing to expend the fuel required by jump logistics to accomplish something which could be done in an Interceptor faster than it could be done in an Interceptor... If that thing is simply getting a pilot with roles to a tower before it runs out of fuel then the loss of cargo isn't going to effect it û but it's still against a perceived role for the ship.
The advent of the Jump Freighter meant that Jump Drive Logistics became more efficient û in the same way as the Rorqual had before it. But neither removed the need for Carrier logistics, nor did the advent of Carrier logistics eliminate the value of Dread logistics. <Continued below> --
Originally by: cordy
Respect to IAC .Your one of the few people who truly deserve to own and live in the space you are in.
|
Jacob Holland
Gallente Weyland-Vulcan Industries
|
Posted - 2009.08.07 12:11:00 -
[183]
A Carrier can provide resupply on the front lines. A Carrier can provide logistics for a small force without the need for specialist skills (and therefore reduces the perceived threshold to access to 0.0 space). At present a Carrier is a sensible option as a forward command centre û it can jump into a system and, by erecting a tower, establish a beachhead through which supplies can be jumped. A Jump Freighter can't do that. A Rorqual could but (particularly if the erroneous distinction between warships and civilian ships is maintained) it has no business on the front lines.
The Carrier class vessels have been described as the Swiss Army Knives of EVE but are they all that versatile? They're logistics platforms, they have moderate combat ability, they're capable of operating as a command link and they're capable of transporting a reasonable amount of cargo (or a large amount of ammunition). The Caldari Osprey is also a logistics platform, it has moderate combat ability, it's capable of transporting a reasonable amount of cargo and it's a mining vessel as well. Granted in a fight between a Carrier and an Osprey there is likely only one winner, but in a fight between 1 billion ISKs worth of Carrier and 1 billion ISKs worth of Ospreys the table's turn. So is the Carrier really the Swiss Army Knife? Or is it simply that the Osprey is also too versatile?
--
Originally by: cordy
Respect to IAC .Your one of the few people who truly deserve to own and live in the space you are in.
|
Trimutius III
Legio Octae Rebellion Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.08.07 13:36:00 -
[184]
Edited by: Trimutius III on 07/08/2009 13:38:23 Edited by: Trimutius III on 07/08/2009 13:38:00 Edited by: Trimutius III on 07/08/2009 13:37:44 Edited by: Trimutius III on 07/08/2009 13:36:37
Originally by: Jacob Holland The fuel bays when added to Black Ops battleships add flexibility to the set-up. Fuel bays if added to Capital ships would also add to the ship's flexibility û but not when the cargohold is reduced. Reducing the cargohold reduces flexibility drastically, and for no good reason to my mind.
Maybe people in CCP Team think that Carriers and Dreadnaughts are too flexible... If everybody say that this changes reduce there flexibility. Maybe the vision of carriers and dreadnaughts by CCP was a bit another then we have now on TQ... It just thought, i have nothing specific to say... I don't need all that cargo on my Thanatos anyway, at least i will live without it, no problem to me... (I use it for transporting matters, just can't imagine what could be so important that i need to transport fast and that want fit in ship maintanance or 10k m3 in corp hangar...) ------------------------------------------------- I am envoy from nowhere in nowhere. Nobody and nothing have sent me. And though it is impossible I exist ¬ Trimutius |
Mynas Atoch
UK Corp Mostly Harmless
|
Posted - 2009.08.07 17:30:00 -
[185]
Originally by: SpankMeElmo Many of these protests would die down if you'd just increase the range of the JF. Please do that. For the children's sake, do it now.
This, sir, is crazy talk. The Jump Freighter should have the WORST range of any capital ships to damp down the logistic ease of living in deep null sec (and I live in a station as far from empire as it gets).
|
Mynas Atoch
UK Corp Mostly Harmless
|
Posted - 2009.08.07 17:32:00 -
[186]
Edited by: Mynas Atoch on 07/08/2009 17:33:05
Originally by: Jacob Holland The Caldari Osprey is also a logistics platform, it has moderate combat ability, it's capable of transporting a reasonable amount of cargo and it's a mining vessel as well. Granted in a fight between a Carrier and an Osprey there is likely only one winner, but in a fight between 1 billion ISKs worth of Carrier and 1 billion ISKs worth of Ospreys the table's turn. So is the Carrier really the Swiss Army Knife? Or is it simply that the Osprey is also too versatile?
The problem here is that I'd take 50 T1 cruisers up against a carrier any day of the week .. if I could find 50 pilots willing to fly them when they can fly much more powerful ships with easy. The Osprey had its day and was made redundant by half of those 50 guys now having their own carrier and the isk generation to fund them now being trivial.
|
Jacob Holland
Gallente Weyland-Vulcan Industries
|
Posted - 2009.08.08 10:16:00 -
[187]
My point is that the Osprey is as versatile as the Carrier, only scale differs. The versatility of the Osprey doesn't seem to be an issue... So why is the carrier's? --
Originally by: cordy
Respect to IAC .Your one of the few people who truly deserve to own and live in the space you are in.
|
Trimutius III
Legio Octae Rebellion Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.08.08 13:29:00 -
[188]
Originally by: Jacob Holland My point is that the Osprey is as versatile as the Carrier, only scale differs. The versatility of the Osprey doesn't seem to be an issue... So why is the carrier's?
Osprey is good only for 2 things: Shield Transfering and Mining
Carrier is much more versetile: - It has maximum possible jump range - It is cheapest ship with jump drive - It has pretty much m3 for transporting matters - It has nice bonuses to drones - It has pretty good tank - It has nice bonuses to assisting modules (Shield Transfers, Remote Armor Reps)
And u say it's not more versetile then Osprey? You are so wrong, carrier is very versetile if u compare it with other capital ships (Only Rorqual can be compared with carrier in versetality, but Rorqual is not enough useful in PVP and is almost 3 times more expensive) And osprey can do only mining and shield transfering for all other matters u could find cheap enough other ships... Some other cruisers are more versetile then osprey, plus Industrials are cheaper then osprey. ------------------------------------------------- I am envoy from nowhere in nowhere. Nobody and nothing have sent me. And though it is impossible I exist ¬ Trimutius |
Yon89
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2009.08.08 16:09:00 -
[189]
I for one would like to see the MS cargo bay remain the same size, mainly because they need to be better than a carrier .
also fix the Corp hanger lag plz. ============= SIG SIG SIG |
Jacob Holland
Gallente Weyland-Vulcan Industries
|
Posted - 2009.08.09 12:18:00 -
[190]
Originally by: Trimutius III Osprey is good only for 2 things: Shield Transfering and Mining
Can the Osprey no longer fit a tank? can it no longer fit guns? Can it no longer load Drones? It's not as good with missiles as the Caracal, it doesn't tank as hard as the Moa can but that doesn't mean it's useless for combat. The very fact that people dismiss the Osprey as a combat ship makes it very potent in certain situations.
Originally by: Trimutius III Carrier is much more versetile: - It has maximum possible jump range
The Osprey has a comparable jump range to all other T1 cruisers. Besides the point.
Originally by: Trimutius III - It is cheapest ship with jump drive
the 0sprey is the cheapest Caldari Cruiser.
Originally by: Trimutius III - It has pretty much m3 for transporting matters
The Osprey has a substantial cargohold, it's not an Industrial sized cargohold but neither is the Carrier's equal to that of the Rorq or Jump Freighter.
Originally by: Trimutius III - It has nice bonuses to drones
IIRC the Osprey has the largest Dronebay of all Caldari T1 Cruisers. Being the only ship in the range able to use four lights is a pretty nice bonus.
Originally by: Trimutius III - It has pretty good tank
So does the Osprey, for a tier 1 cruiser anyway. A Carrier's tank is less than that of a Dread, less than that of a Mothership... it's more than that of a jump freighter but the Osprey's tank is better than a Badger's. Scale is the big difference. Hotdrop an Osprey onto a group of frigates and it's a potent proposition. Hotdrop a carrier into a group of Sieged dreads and it's dead...
Originally by: Trimutius III - It has nice bonuses to assisting modules (Shield Transfers, Remote Armor Reps)
So does the Osprey... It's what makes it valuable for POS repair.
Originally by: Trimutius III And u say it's not more versetile then Osprey? You are so wrong, carrier is very versetile if u compare it with other capital ships (Only Rorqual can be compared with carrier in versetality, but Rorqual is not enough useful in PVP and is almost 3 times more expensive) And osprey can do only mining and shield transfering for all other matters u could find cheap enough other ships... Some other cruisers are more versetile then osprey, plus Industrials are cheaper then osprey.
Mining barges are better at mining than an Osprey - but they're more expensive and not so good in PvP. I can't think of another cruiser which is as versatile as the Osprey, the Osprey after all having the edge over the other tier 1s due to its application to POS shields. As to the cost of more specialised vessels you may be able to find cheap enough other ships, but not if you only have enough for a tier 1 cruiser. If you have 10 million and want a combat cruiser then you don't buy an Osprey... but if you have 10 billion and you want a jump drive ship to move cargo you don't buy a carrier. If, on the other hand, you want a jump drive ship which can act as a forward command and logistics node then you don't buy anything other than a carrier. --
Originally by: cordy
Respect to IAC .Your one of the few people who truly deserve to own and live in the space you are in.
|
|
Caldreis
Caldari White Star II Ethereal Advancement Coalition
|
Posted - 2009.08.09 15:26:00 -
[191]
Originally by: CCP Abathur
Thanks to everyone who is taking the time to reply here, especially those who like to throw numbers around. What would be even more helpful though is getting some more feedback on how these changes are actually working on SiSi and if there are any problems we need to look into. Moving on...
We are asking for feedback on both the concept and the mechanics. Many people, including yourself, are offering your thoughts on if things are too big or too small; that's being read and considered. We would also like to know if anyone has run into any problems with the functionality of these features.
We're already looking at the possibility of putting 'Gas Storage Bays' into certian ship types.
Speaking of Orca while I absolutely freaking love the Ore bay. (Mineral in the ore bay would be awesomeness too at least at from wh space)
That said I would love to see the battleship courier problem in highsec to be solve somehow. For details. Go here: Long post about Orca
No one offered a real opposite reason to not do this simple method "so far". I would like ANY kind of feedback or even comment from devs.
"Yes sue me cause I am a carebear!"
|
Trimutius III
Legio Octae Rebellion Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.08.09 16:08:00 -
[192]
Edited by: Trimutius III on 09/08/2009 16:09:19
Originally by: Jacob Holland
Can the Osprey no longer fit a tank? can it no longer fit guns? Can it no longer load Drones? It's not as good with missiles as the Caracal, it doesn't tank as hard as the Moa can but that doesn't mean it's useless for combat. The very fact that people dismiss the Osprey as a combat ship makes it very potent in certain situations.
I should say Carrier isn't that bad in PVP...
Quote:
The Osprey has a comparable jump range to all other T1 cruisers. Besides the point.
Comparable, that's is it, not better...
Quote:
the 0sprey is the cheapest Caldari Cruiser.
It's more expensive than Badger. (Carrier is much more cheaper then Jump Freighter)
Quote:
The Osprey has a substantial cargohold, it's not an Industrial sized cargohold but neither is the Carrier's equal to that of the Rorq or Jump Freighter.
Yes but badger is cheaper then Osprey. And ROrqual and Jump Freighter, i think u get the point.
Quote:
IIRC the Osprey has the largest Dronebay of all Caldari T1 Cruisers. Being the only ship in the range able to use four lights is a pretty nice bonus.
Lol what? That's just a drone bay, i can say that maybe Carrier can carry not so many Fighter as Mothership, but mothershipis way to expensive and hard to get, plus carrier can carry many sentry drones.
Quote:
So does the Osprey, for a tier 1 cruiser anyway. A Carrier's tank is less than that of a Dread, less than that of a Mothership... it's more than that of a jump freighter but the Osprey's tank is better than a Badger's. Scale is the big difference. Hotdrop an Osprey onto a group of frigates and it's a potent proposition. Hotdrop a carrier into a group of Sieged dreads and it's dead...
If frigates aren't newbie Osprey is deader then dead... Though carrier against dreads isn't good enough i assume, but Carrier agaisnt BSes looks better then Osprey against frigates i assume so...
Quote:
Originally by: Trimutius III - It has nice bonuses to assisting modules (Shield Transfers, Remote Armor Reps)
So does the Osprey... It's what makes it valuable for POS repair.
But for osprey that is only valuable bonus. (mining isn't valuable in PVP anyway)
Quote:
Mining barges are better at mining than an Osprey - but they're more expensive and not so good in PvP. I can't think of another cruiser which is as versatile as the Osprey, the Osprey after all having the edge over the other tier 1s due to its application to POS shields. As to the cost of more specialised vessels you may be able to find cheap enough other ships, but not if you only have enough for a tier 1 cruiser. If you have 10 million and want a combat cruiser then you don't buy an Osprey... but if you have 10 billion and you want a jump drive ship to move cargo you don't buy a carrier. If, on the other hand, you want a jump drive ship which can act as a forward command and logistics node then you don't buy anything other than a carrier.
Nice but i will not buy an Osprey even when i need to repair POS shield, i have a Basilisk, and if i have enough money why should i buy Osprey... And if u are talking about mothership and carrier it's not that easy, first of all mothership can't dock, and this is pretty bad penalty, and basilisk don't have penalties against osprey, that are related to PVP. So that is it i will not buy osprey for any reason, even if i have not enough money i'll prefer condor or griffin then osprey (if we are talking about caldari ships). And carrier have it's role that could not be done by any other ship, so carrier is more versetile... And what are u talking about... That nerf of cargo capacity isn't that bad... U still get ur 10k m3 and have some space for transporting Ice Products that is usefull for POSes (u can transport Isotopes, Heavy Water, Liquid Ozone and even Stronthium in fuel bay) So this isn't that big nerf for that much whining... CCP aren't lowering versetility of carrier that much... ------------------------------------------------- I am envoy from nowhere in nowhere. Nobody and nothing have sent me. And though it is impossible I exist ¬ Trimutius |
Bael Gar
|
Posted - 2009.08.09 18:36:00 -
[193]
About Rorqual Ore Hold
Why we cant start compressing ore job directly from Ore Hold? Why we cant start compressing ore job from corporation hangar?
|
Jacob Holland
Gallente Weyland-Vulcan Industries
|
Posted - 2009.08.09 19:29:00 -
[194]
Originally by: Trimutius III I should say Carrier isn't that bad in PVP...
Nor is the Osprey - if scale is taken into account.
Quote:
Quote: The Osprey has a comparable jump range to all other T1 cruisers. Besides the point.
Comparable, that's is it, not better...
The longer jump range of a Carrier makes it more versatile than other cap ships, it increases the number of places from which you can stage... But it does not make it more versatile than the Osprey, nor does it make the versatility of the Osprey any less of an argument.
Quote: It's more expensive than Badger. (Carrier is much more cheaper then Jump Freighter)
It also tanks better, does more damage...etc. It's also significantly cheaper than a Bustard or Crane. A standard freighter is not incomparable in price with a carrier - and the Orca is significantly cheaper. There may not be cheaper options to the Carrier if you need the Jump Drive but there are no cheaper options if you need heavy missiles than the Osprey. Something has to be cheapest - and the fact that it's a t2 ship means that it isn't going to be the Jump Freighter.
Quote: Yes but badger is cheaper then Osprey. And ROrqual and Jump Freighter, i think u get the point.
No, no i don't. You stated that the Carrier have a reasonable amount of Cargo, I said that so did the Osprey. Yes the Badger can hold more, But the Badger II can hold more than the Carrier. Again scaling is the factor you're ignoring, the existence of a badger does not invalidate the Osprey's cargohold - which is substantial.
Quote:
Quote: IIRC the Osprey has the largest Dronebay of all Caldari T1 Cruisers. Being the only ship in the range able to use four lights is a pretty nice bonus.
Lol what? That's just a drone bay, i can say that maybe Carrier can carry not so many Fighter as Mothership, but mothershipis way to expensive and hard to get, plus carrier can carry many sentry drones.
The Carrier's drone and drone range bonus doesn't add to its versatility significantly, it is implicit in its function. The carrier's drone bonuses simply allow scaling to a capital level. The Osprey's Dronebay is also implicit in its function - the fact that it's the largest available in the Caldari cruiser line-up though effects its versatility.
Quote: If frigates aren't newbie Osprey is deader then dead... Though carrier against dreads isn't good enough i assume, but Carrier agaisnt BSes looks better then Osprey against frigates i assume so...
4 warrior 2s, Assault missile launchers and a monumental buffer? All things being equal the Frigates will take a hammering simply because the osprey has more DPS and more buffer than they do individually. The Osprey may go down - but so might a Carrier hotdrop if the BSs are set-up and sensible.
Quote: But for osprey that is only valuable bonus. (mining isn't valuable in PVP anyway)
Are we ignoring anything that's not directly applicable to PvP? If so then it becomes a question of DPS vs Tank and there are more than enough ships out there which can do that. Every ship in the game has the same level of versatility. the Jump Drive becomes unimportant, the Corp hanger and ship maint become unimportant... Versatility is not restricted to the narrow PvP you're describing.
Quote: Nice but i will not buy an Osprey even when i need to repair POS shield, i have a Basilisk, and if i have enough money why should i buy Osprey... And if u are talking about mothership and carrier it's not that easy, first of all mothership can't dock, and this is pretty bad penalty, and basilisk don't have penalties against osprey, that are related to PVP.
The Basilisk is a T2 ship and therefore more specialised than its T1 counterpart. How good is your Basilisk at Mining? How much DPS can it put out? If a T2 Carrier is ever created then I expect it to be less versatile than the current - That is the nature of T2... I would also expect it to be better at it speciality. --
Originally by: cordy
Respect to IAC .Your one of the few people who truly deserve to own and live in the space you are in.
|
Jacob Holland
Gallente Weyland-Vulcan Industries
|
Posted - 2009.08.09 19:57:00 -
[195]
Originally by: Trimutius III So that is it i will not buy osprey for any reason, even if i have not enough money i'll prefer condor or griffin then osprey (if we are talking about caldari ships).
Fair enough, that's your choice. Next time i see a Condor or a Griffin orbitting an Asteroid, mining away, i'll think of you. But people do buy Ospreys. Many of them are bought for specific reasons (like POS repair or mining) but a substantial portion are bought simply for their versatility; they save their pilot from having to buy a mining barge, train for it, buy a caracal, buy a hauler...etc.
Quote: And carrier have it's role that could not be done by any other ship, so carrier is more versetile... And what are u talking about... That nerf of cargo capacity isn't that bad... U still get ur 10k m3 and have some space for transporting Ice Products that is usefull for POSes (u can transport Isotopes, Heavy Water, Liquid Ozone and even Stronthium in fuel bay) So this isn't that big nerf for that much whining... CCP aren't lowering versetility of carrier that much...
Uniqueness doesn't equate to versatility. Stick 2 Capital modules in the Corp hanger (a triage module and a shield transfer for example), add a POS tower to provide your beachhead (assuming that Corp hangers become viable for pos launch)... Now consider how much space you have to carry POS structures. Regardless of the "compensation" of the fuel bay the reduction in Cargobay is a reduction in versatility. --
Originally by: cordy
Respect to IAC .Your one of the few people who truly deserve to own and live in the space you are in.
|
Trimutius III
Legio Octae Rebellion Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.08.09 22:01:00 -
[196]
Ok i'll answer only main spots, on other question we can argue for eternity.
Originally by: Jacob Holland
Next time i see a Condor or a Griffin orbitting an Asteroid, mining away, i'll think of you.
1) Bantam is better for mining 2) i was talking about PVP 3) i'll prefer hunting in 0.5 then mining in Osprey... (mining in a Hulk is another question, it's so relaxing)
Quote:
Uniqueness doesn't equate to versatility.
I agree... They just take away some versatility, but as soon as unique features of carrier are safe it's not that bad. CCP want encourage people to use other ships for some matters.
Quote:
Regardless of the "compensation" of the fuel bay the reduction in Cargobay is a reduction in versatility.
Of course it is, but it isn't really big reduction i should say. CCP say that Carrier wasn't made for Hauling big amounts of items, it was made for transporting some ships and fitting for them (and 1 mill m3 in ship bay + 10k m3 in corp hangar is more then enough for that role), so they want to nerf that possibility of hauling, if i understand it correctly... ------------------------------------------------- I am envoy from nowhere in nowhere. Nobody and nothing have sent me. And though it is impossible I exist ¬ Trimutius |
steave435
Caldari Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2009.08.09 22:12:00 -
[197]
Quote: Regardless of the "compensation" of the fuel bay the reduction in Cargobay is a reduction in versatility
The only reason carriers have that large cargo in the first place is to enable it to carry fuel.
The SMA can carry roughly the equivalent of 100k m3 of packeged ships, plus alot more counting the ammo that can be fitted in the cargo, and finally adding the corp hangar. The carrier will be fine even after this change.
Your entire osprey arguement is not even worth the effort of responding to.
|
Varrakk
Phantom Squad Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.08.10 11:52:00 -
[198]
The carrier cargo hold is too small. Its now unable to deploy small/medium towers and pos modules.
Allow us to deploy directly from Corp Hangar or size up the Cargo hold some
|
kyrv
|
Posted - 2009.08.10 17:39:00 -
[199]
Marauders should be complimented with an ammo bay as they afre t2 and a smaller form of hauler after all having to pvp things with it
|
Trimutius III
Legio Octae Rebellion Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.08.10 18:52:00 -
[200]
Originally by: Varrakk The carrier cargo hold is too small. Its now unable to deploy small/medium towers and pos modules.
Allow us to deploy directly from Corp Hangar or size up the Cargo hold some
If u read through this topic then u'll find out that CCP Abathur already said that possibly they will allow to deploy POS modules directly from Corp Hangar.
Originally by: kyrv Marauders should be complimented with an ammo bay as they afre t2 and a smaller form of hauler after all having to pvp things with it
Actually ammo bays were removed from all ships (and cargo of Dreadnaughts is slightly increased) ------------------------------------------------- I am envoy from nowhere in nowhere. Nobody and nothing have sent me. And though it is impossible I exist ¬ Trimutius |
|
Vrenth
Gallente Lightning Industries
|
Posted - 2009.08.10 21:29:00 -
[201]
Originally by: steave435
Quote: Regardless of the "compensation" of the fuel bay the reduction in Cargobay is a reduction in versatility
The only reason carriers have that large cargo in the first place is to enable it to carry fuel.
The SMA can carry roughly the equivalent of 100k m3 of packeged ships, plus alot more counting the ammo that can be fitted in the cargo, and finally adding the corp hangar. The carrier will be fine even after this change.
Your entire osprey arguement is not even worth the effort of responding to.
Wow, everything in that entire post says that you don't have a clue what your talking about.
1. Carriers have a large cargo for fuel? Why do we use much more than 3000m3 of fuel whenever we use fuel? Obviously, CCP intended our useless corp hangers as fuel bays to prevent us hauling with a 10,000m3 expandable cargobay.
2. SMA can fit 100k packaged wha-huh? The SMA can't fit anything packaged. It can fit 1,000,000m3 of assembled ships. That is 2 battleships.
3. The osprey arguement IS worth responding too, because the idiots are completely derailing the thread. 1 billion isk of ANY t1 fit t1 ship can kill any capital ship in existance (doomsday excluded), but you also can't pilot 100 ships with 1 person... it only takes one person to pilot a carrier, so shut the hell up about the Osprey.
|
|
CCP Abathur
|
Posted - 2009.08.10 23:34:00 -
[202]
Hello, all. Yes, ammo bays have been removed for now due to some technical glitches.
There will be a Dev blog covering 'bays' coming out hopefully by the weekend and we will continue the discussion on this new feature in the comments thread there.
|
|
steave435
Caldari Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2009.08.11 12:04:00 -
[203]
Quote: 1. Carriers have a large cargo for fuel? Why do we use much more than 3000m3 of fuel whenever we use fuel? Obviously, CCP intended our useless corp hangers as fuel bays to prevent us hauling with a 10,000m3 expandable cargobay. 2. SMA can fit 100k packaged wha-huh? The SMA can't fit anything packaged. It can fit 1,000,000m3 of assembled ships. That is 2 battleships.
1. Yes, that is what it is intended for. http://www.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=672
Quote: We are introducing a system that allows us to author specialized cargo holds on ships. We will start by adding fuel bays on black ops and possibly other ships. This means weære adding more space for your fuel, without the ships becoming horribly unbalanced haulers of death. The technology behind this opens up doors to making other types of bays, just for ammo, just for livestock or whatever. Those options will be explored in future expansions.
2. No, sma can not fit 100k of packaged ships. It can fit the equivalent of 100k packaged ships. Assembeled ships generally take roughly 10x as much space assembled as they do packaged, so if you have 100k m3 of packaged ships, you can assemble them all and most likely fit them all into the sma.
|
Trimutius III
Legio Octae Rebellion Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.08.11 12:26:00 -
[204]
Edited by: Trimutius III on 11/08/2009 12:31:03
Originally by: Vrenth
1. Carriers have a large cargo for fuel? Why do we use much more than 3000m3 of fuel whenever we use fuel? Obviously, CCP intended our useless corp hangers as fuel bays to prevent us hauling with a 10,000m3 expandable cargobay.
more then 3000 m3? For one way trip on my carrier (2 jumps from 0.0 to lowsec (that is next to highsec)) i use only 14000 isotopes (Compensation lvl 3) and that is 2100 m3, and on both ends of way i can take additional fuel (in 0.0 from corp hangar where fuel was delivered by Jump Freighter, in lowsec, well it's not that hard even during war i can easily take my Viator and travel to some trading hub, or taking my neutral alt (that have skills for indutrials)) So no problem i should say 3000 m3 is enough for 2-3 jumps...
Quote:
2. SMA can fit 100k packaged wha-huh? The SMA can't fit anything packaged. It can fit 1,000,000m3 of assembled ships. That is 2 battleships.
Do u know meaning of word equivalent? 2 BS if u repackage them will be 100k m3, but 2 assembled BS are only equivalent of 2 repackaged BS.
Quote:
3. The osprey arguement IS worth responding too, because the idiots are completely derailing the thread. 1 billion isk of ANY t1 fit t1 ship can kill any capital ship in existance (doomsday excluded), but you also can't pilot 100 ships with 1 person... it only takes one person to pilot a carrier, so shut the hell up about the Osprey.
I didn't get ur point... 1 billion isk t1 ship? Maybe u wanted to say that if u buy as many t1 ships that cost 1 bill in total... Yes carrier is expensive, and against several BSes it is nothing, against dozens of cruisers it's nothing, against horde of frigates it's nothing, but nobody said that carrier should be deathdealer, and nobody said that carrier should be hauler too (even if it used so atm), Carrier is cool support ship, it can bring some ships, it allows to refit in the middle of space and assist in battle a little bit, that is its main role, and this nerf doesn't affect this role, u don't need all that cargo for supporting (especially if consider that, when u supporting u need to fit tank instead of cargoholds) ------------------------------------------------- I am envoy from nowhere in nowhere. Nobody and nothing have sent me. And though it is impossible I exist ¬ Trimutius |
Mana Sanqua
|
Posted - 2009.08.11 12:27:00 -
[205]
Originally by: CCP Abathur Hello, all. Yes, ammo bays have been removed for now due to some technical glitches.
There will be a Dev blog covering 'bays' coming out hopefully by the weekend and we will continue the discussion on this new feature in the comments thread there.
Will this be the same sort of discussion as the War is a full time job thread?
http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1118589
Lots of concerns about the penalty for rank, the reward balancing (kill a titan solo, get a frigate...) and other concerns have been left undiscussed and still implemented on test server in spite of the feedback.
Sorry to derail thread, but it is bad to see that this dev blog is just being ignored due to what appears to be negative feedback.
|
Alex Harumichi
Gallente Gradient Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2009.08.11 14:19:00 -
[206]
Originally by: Mynas Atoch
Yes, because Triage has NO combat uses at all... it was only made for repping POS.
Because you havn't seen a more creative use for it, doesn't mean others don't.
Apart from suicidal attempts to save supercaps, yeah .. no one uses them in combat at all. Now if they had a shorter cycle time than ten minutes, things might change.
Keep on thinking that.
|
Alex Harumichi
Gallente Gradient Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2009.08.11 14:22:00 -
[207]
Edited by: Alex Harumichi on 11/08/2009 14:22:29
Originally by: steave435
The only reason carriers have that large cargo in the first place is to enable it to carry fuel.
Exactly. The carrier was never meant to be a hauler. It's a combat-capable logistics platform, the fact that it could also be used as a hauler was a side effect (which has now been fixed, in a pretty nice way).
And yes, I do fly a carrier, and like the upcoming changes.
|
Trimutius III
Legio Octae Rebellion Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.08.11 14:34:00 -
[208]
Edited by: Trimutius III on 11/08/2009 14:39:07 Triage mode is useful unless carriers are cap neutralized to null... (4 times better tank at double capacitor cost not that bad, even i u can't attack and move for 10 minutes) ------------------------------------------------- I am envoy from nowhere in nowhere. Nobody and nothing have sent me. And though it is impossible I exist ¬ Trimutius |
Ecky X
|
Posted - 2009.08.11 20:59:00 -
[209]
Originally by: Trimutius III Edited by: Trimutius III on 11/08/2009 16:30:01 Edited by: Trimutius III on 11/08/2009 14:39:07 Triage mode is useful unless carriers are cap neutralized to null... (4 times better tank at double capacitor cost not that bad, even if u can't attack and move for 10 minutes)
4 times better LOCAL tank, with the ability to be remote repaired or have cap transfered to you removed.
Situationally useful.
|
Trimutius III
Legio Octae Rebellion Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.08.11 21:12:00 -
[210]
Originally by: Ecky X
4 times better LOCAL tank, with the ability to be remote repaired or have cap transfered to you removed.
Situationally useful.
Better then overheating your armor rep in critical situation if u have fuel for triage (when there is nobody who can remote rep u atm but friends are to come soon) ------------------------------------------------- I am envoy from nowhere in nowhere. Nobody and nothing have sent me. And though it is impossible I exist ¬ Trimutius |
|
steave435
Caldari Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2009.08.12 02:55:00 -
[211]
Originally by: Trimutius III
Originally by: Ecky X
4 times better LOCAL tank, with the ability to be remote repaired or have cap transfered to you removed.
Situationally useful.
Better then overheating your armor rep in critical situation if u have fuel for triage (when there is nobody who can remote rep u atm but friends are to come soon)
In most scenarios, you'd be better off with an extra neut or smartbomb, but yes, they are indeed situationally useful. Triage carriers
|
Severice
Crushed Ambitions
|
Posted - 2009.08.12 04:18:00 -
[212]
Anyone who has been on Sisi lately has notice a change in capital ships. Most note able, the fuel bay. This, like the MB/s change have been touted as "We are going to limit you in X fashion, so we can give you more." Ie bigger drone bays so we could have backup flights on drones on ships like the thorax and the vexor and the myrmidon. What did the MB/s change do? It limited ships in a very specific way. What did it give us? A 25m3 increase to the myrmidon drone bay, and a 25m3 increase to the vexor. (pretty sure that was it.) That's pretty much it.
Now CCP has announced FUEL BAYS (WHOORA WHOOO Fanfare of the incompetent) With the concept of We will limit your cargo bay in X fasion so you can carry more fuel. Good right? yes i love the idea. Results: Thanny (old) 3,500 m3 cargo bay, modules to increase this 1 Cargo expander Rigs to increase this 1 Expanded cargoholds. Thanny NEW!!!! 875m3 cargo bay, Fuel bay 3,000. Rigs to increase fuel bay... none i can see, mods to increase fuel bay... non i can see.
So total fuel you can/could hold is down 500m3. So far i feel the cold sting of "limit in X to give you... nothing"
How do i use stront? i can't keep it in the cargo bay, do i put it in the fuel bay? How do i keep enough fuel in the cargobay to do a long jump and run triage? Do i have to move it there from the corp hanger? What does adding yet ANOTHER bay to the carrier ADD to the game? The simple answer is it cuts the utility of storage (Stront+fuel mix ect.) and it doesn't give us anything back. It gives 375m3 of "total" storage but it doesn't actually do anything you want. You can't store stront or fuel in it. You dont' need cap boosters, you dont' need ammo your a thanny. What do you put there? Nothing usefull unless you try to jam more stront and fuel in there and transfer it over to the fuel bay by hand. Which will only be a hinderance because you used to have 1 bay that did all that it was called the "cargo bay"
i find a disturbing trend in CCP's ship alteration philosphy and that is "Hey, we own these thips. You will fit them the way we want and expect you too. if you don't we'll just force you to." That is what fuel bays do. They force pilots to use a ship in a specific manner. I liked the idea when it was on par with 6k fuel bay 500m3 cargo bay, for if you can think of something. Gives you lots of fuel options.
Untill you increase the size of fuel bays, they DO NOT add anything to the game except for yet another CCP extravagance to eve that isn't necessary.
|
Pasha.
|
Posted - 2009.08.12 05:04:00 -
[213]
Originally by: Severice
Untill you increase the size of fuel bays, they DO NOT add anything to the game except for yet another CCP extravagance to eve that isn't necessary.
I agree. It's just complicating the game for the sake of complicating it. No benefit other than an occasional pilot can't move little bit of minerals or some modules in their dread.
|
Oarta
|
Posted - 2009.08.12 07:14:00 -
[214]
Originally by: Severice How do i use stront? i can't keep it in the cargo bay, do i put it in the fuel bay? How do i keep enough fuel in the cargobay to do a long jump and run triage? Do i have to move it there from the corp hanger? What does adding yet ANOTHER bay to the carrier ADD to the game? The simple answer is it cuts the utility of storage (Stront+fuel mix ect.) and it doesn't give us anything back. It gives 375m3 of "total" storage but it doesn't actually do anything you want. You can't store stront or fuel in it. You dont' need cap boosters, you dont' need ammo your a thanny. What do you put there? Nothing usefull unless you try to jam more stront and fuel in there and transfer it over to the fuel bay by hand. Which will only be a hinderance because you used to have 1 bay that did all that it was called the "cargo bay"
As it was stated previously in the thread, fuel can be pulled from the Fuel Bay and the Cargo Bay. So you do not have to move it back and forth from Cargo to Fuel.
|
Severice
Crushed Ambitions
|
Posted - 2009.08.12 07:48:00 -
[215]
Originally by: Oarta
Originally by: Severice How do i use stront? i can't keep it in the cargo bay, do i put it in the fuel bay? How do i keep enough fuel in the cargobay to do a long jump and run triage? Do i have to move it there from the corp hanger? What does adding yet ANOTHER bay to the carrier ADD to the game? The simple answer is it cuts the utility of storage (Stront+fuel mix ect.) and it doesn't give us anything back. It gives 375m3 of "total" storage but it doesn't actually do anything you want. You can't store stront or fuel in it. You dont' need cap boosters, you dont' need ammo your a thanny. What do you put there? Nothing usefull unless you try to jam more stront and fuel in there and transfer it over to the fuel bay by hand. Which will only be a hinderance because you used to have 1 bay that did all that it was called the "cargo bay"
As it was stated previously in the thread, fuel can be pulled from the Fuel Bay and the Cargo Bay. So you do not have to move it back and forth from Cargo to Fuel.
Fun. Lemme know when that makes it into the manual. And then tell me when the manual is going to arrive.
|
Mynas Atoch
UK Corp Mostly Harmless
|
Posted - 2009.08.12 08:21:00 -
[216]
Edited by: Mynas Atoch on 12/08/2009 08:22:28
Originally by: Severice
Originally by: Oarta
Originally by: Severice How do i use stront? i can't keep it in the cargo bay, do i put it in the fuel bay? How do i keep enough fuel in the cargobay to do a long jump and run triage? Do i have to move it there from the corp hanger? What does adding yet ANOTHER bay to the carrier ADD to the game? The simple answer is it cuts the utility of storage (Stront+fuel mix ect.) and it doesn't give us anything back. It gives 375m3 of "total" storage but it doesn't actually do anything you want. You can't store stront or fuel in it. You dont' need cap boosters, you dont' need ammo your a thanny. What do you put there? Nothing usefull unless you try to jam more stront and fuel in there and transfer it over to the fuel bay by hand. Which will only be a hinderance because you used to have 1 bay that did all that it was called the "cargo bay"
As it was stated previously in the thread, fuel can be pulled from the Fuel Bay and the Cargo Bay. So you do not have to move it back and forth from Cargo to Fuel.
Fun. Lemme know when that makes it into the manual. And then tell me when the manual is going to arrive.
Maybe giving some slight indication that you had read the thread you just vomited pixels all over would make those of us who have been discussing and testing these features for weeks a little less hostile to you.
Removing the ammo bay before release is making me even more nervous about the resilience of this functionality.
|
Alex Harumichi
Gallente Gradient Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2009.08.12 08:51:00 -
[217]
Originally by: Ecky X
Originally by: Trimutius III Edited by: Trimutius III on 11/08/2009 16:30:01 Edited by: Trimutius III on 11/08/2009 14:39:07 Triage mode is useful unless carriers are cap neutralized to null... (4 times better tank at double capacitor cost not that bad, even if u can't attack and move for 10 minutes)
4 times better LOCAL tank, with the ability to be remote repaired or have cap transfered to you removed.
Situationally useful.
You don't go into triage to help yourself, ffs. You go into it to help your fleet. You might not survive, but the rest of the fleet will be damn hard to kill.
Trige requires relevant skills, the Triage module, enough stront, and balls of steel.
|
steave435
Caldari Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2009.08.12 12:53:00 -
[218]
Quote: How do i use stront? i can't keep it in the cargo bay, do i put it in the fuel bay?
Yes, you do
Quote: How do i keep enough fuel in the cargobay to do a long jump and run triage?
You put it in the fuel bay. Very few people use cargo expanders anyway on combat ships in combat, so the combat efficiency has not been changed.
Quote: What does adding yet ANOTHER bay to the carrier ADD to the game? The simple answer is it cuts the utility of storage
Indeed, it cuts down utility that was never supposed to be there, but rather just a side effect of the fact that caps need to carry fuel, and therefore need a large cargo to do so. Now that a different soloution to that is available, it can be returned to the way it was meant to be.
Quote: Nothing usefull unless you try to jam more stront and fuel in there and transfer it over to the fuel bay by hand.
Fuel can be taken either from cargo bay or from fuel bay.
However, if you go make a thread is assembly hall or features and ideas forum about a new mod that can increase the size of fuel bays to make up for not being able to cargo expand your carrier to carry more fuel that way, I'll support it.
|
Seishi Maru
The Black Dawn Gang
|
Posted - 2009.08.12 14:05:00 -
[219]
I wished ccp would work more on fixing the stupid hangar bay bug. Its the third time in 2 months that I have to send a petition because I cannot access stuff in my own hangar bay (my carrier) after I jump (its there and usable befere jump.. after i Jump becomes invisible and cannot access it, but still uses space. That sided with fact that petitions take 2-3 weeks to respond makes me mad.
If you cannot make even the space the carriers have today work properly how in hell you want to make it 3 times more complicated?
|
Trimutius III
Legio Octae Rebellion Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.08.12 16:40:00 -
[220]
Edited by: Trimutius III on 12/08/2009 16:43:24 Edited by: Trimutius III on 12/08/2009 16:42:44 Edited by: Trimutius III on 12/08/2009 16:41:42 Edited by: Trimutius III on 12/08/2009 16:40:25
Originally by: Seishi Maru I wished ccp would work more on fixing the stupid hangar bay bug. Its the third time in 2 months that I have to send a petition because I cannot access stuff in my own hangar bay (my carrier) after I jump (its there and usable befere jump.. after i Jump becomes invisible and cannot access it, but still uses space. That sided with fact that petitions take 2-3 weeks to respond makes me mad.
If you cannot make even the space the carriers have today work properly how in hell you want to make it 3 times more complicated?
It easy to say why it takes so long to answer petition... YOU SHOULD NOT PETITION IT!!! YOU SHOULD BUG REPORT IT!!! Bug report could be made here: https://bugs.eve-online.com/newbugreport.asp You can see bug reporting in EVE insider. NEVER petition bugs, it is useless to use petition for that matters... (Petitions are needed when u lost something or stuck or something like that)
Though try to close your corp hangar before jump and reopen it after jump maybe it will help to solve problem until they fix bug ------------------------------------------------- I am envoy from nowhere in nowhere. Nobody and nothing have sent me. And though it is impossible I exist ¬ Trimutius |
|
Seishi Maru
The Black Dawn Gang
|
Posted - 2009.08.13 00:17:00 -
[221]
Originally by: Trimutius III Edited by: Trimutius III on 12/08/2009 16:43:24 Edited by: Trimutius III on 12/08/2009 16:42:44 Edited by: Trimutius III on 12/08/2009 16:41:42 Edited by: Trimutius III on 12/08/2009 16:40:25
Originally by: Seishi Maru I wished ccp would work more on fixing the stupid hangar bay bug. Its the third time in 2 months that I have to send a petition because I cannot access stuff in my own hangar bay (my carrier) after I jump (its there and usable befere jump.. after i Jump becomes invisible and cannot access it, but still uses space. That sided with fact that petitions take 2-3 weeks to respond makes me mad.
If you cannot make even the space the carriers have today work properly how in hell you want to make it 3 times more complicated?
It easy to say why it takes so long to answer petition... YOU SHOULD NOT PETITION IT!!! YOU SHOULD BUG REPORT IT!!! Bug report could be made here: https://bugs.eve-online.com/newbugreport.asp You can see bug reporting in EVE insider. NEVER petition bugs, it is useless to use petition for that matters... (Petitions are needed when u lost something or stuck or something like that)
Though try to close your corp hangar before jump and reopen it after jump maybe it will help to solve problem until they fix bug
I need to petition as well to get the stuff out of my hangars. I am stuck I can say since I am with a carrier stuck with hangar bay half full that I cannot take anything from it! Bug report will help me nothing by itself to get the stuff out of my own hangar after something is already stuck. I am with amount other things the fuel I need to get out from where I am stuck in my hangar bay of my carrier... This is a known bug, rare but known and reported long ago. A bug that has never been fixed and basically is keeping my character stuck for more than 1 week already.
|
8AIL
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.08.14 07:58:00 -
[222]
Edited by: 8AIL on 14/08/2009 07:58:42
Originally by: Aramith ccp may not have invented the carrier, but last i knew of navy logistics practices, the carrier does not refuel the rest of the fleet.
That is the job of the fleet oilers (tanker ships that more closely resemble the industrial ships of eve)
IRL an air craft carrier can fuel destroyers, cruisers and jets that are in its fleet. they hold about 2million gallons of JP5 which is jet fuel/diesel fuel, and gas turbine fuel for the smaller ships (small boys). i was stationed on a air craft carrier
|
Sertan Deras
Gallente Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.08.14 17:59:00 -
[223]
My only complaint is still that the carrier has half the fuel bay of the dread. It just shows an obvious disconnect from CCP's game designers. They play with this stuff in a closed, sanitized environment and obviously don't have much of a clue in to how we use these things in the real game.
There isn't even a good reason for it, other than "Carriers are cheaper, thus they must be smaller, haha, smaller fuel bay".
Personally, I think the whole thing is just another system CCP is adding because they can, not because it actually adds anything to the game. That said, we aren't going to change it now, CCP loves to add features to the game no one wants. At the very least, we can request it not be an unbalanced and stupid mess when it releases.
I hate to even ask, but I assume the Rorqual is gonna "get the treatment" and strip it's entire cargo bay?
|
Ganthrithor
Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.08.14 21:04:00 -
[224]
Edited by: Ganthrithor on 14/08/2009 21:04:49 Fuel bays are a terrible idea. ITT (as I understand it) CCP spends 6 months working out code to make their gimmicky blackops battleships actually useful and succeeds in breaking the only wonky fit (cargo expanders + rigs) which allowed Blops BS to bridge more than a couple of bombers at a time. Simultaneously they have wrecked carriers' combat support abilities by leaving them with far less fuel space than before and are leaving dreads without the option of doing a cargo-expanded fitting for personal logistics.
I notice they didn't f**k over the Rorqual with their proposed changes (the simply added a fuel/ore bay on top of the ship's existing cargohold), so obviously the message here is "hey-- all you guys who occasionally expanded your dreads to move your junk around? Yeah, you're going to need to go spend a few hundred mil on skillbooks, waste a month or two of training time, and then buy another capital ship which is even more expensive than your dread just so you can move some piles of rat loot or modules around a couple of times a year."
Still, I think my favorite part of this whole poorly thought out proposed change is that it STILL leaves blackops battleships a big steaming pile of useless, gimmicky s**t.
tl;dr give blackops BS a gigantic fuel bay (they need it), give the rorqual an additional ore bay, and leave everything else well-enough alone.
|
Grifft
Caldari Griefer-B-Gone Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2009.08.15 05:46:00 -
[225]
A few words for CCP to consider:
Boeing B-29 Superfortress;
The B-29 was one of the largest airplanes to see service during World War II. A very advanced bomber for this time period, it included features such as a pressurized cabin, an electronic fire control system, and remote controlled machine-gun turrets. Though it was designed as a high-altitude daytime bomber, in practice it actually flew more low-altitude nighttime incendiary bombing missions. It was the primary aircraft in the American firebombing campaign against the Empire of Japan in the final months of World War II, and carried the atomic bombs that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
At this point you may be thinking that I am typing on the wrong forums. What does the B-29 have anything to do with fuel bays on EVE capital ships? It was certainly an incredible combat aircraft with an impressive bombing record that directly steered the outcome of the second world war. Still, what does this have to do with EVE?
The KB-29 was a modified B-29 used by the USAF as their first mid-air refuelers. These refuelers enabled the first ever, non-stop circumnavigation of the globe.
Wow, can you possibly imagine that a highly effective combat aircraft could be used in a logistics capacity. ôNecessity is the mother of inventionö, there was a need and a solution. Boeing didnÆt tell the Air Force ôThe B-29 is a combat aircraft not a logistics aircraftö and then go back and change the design of the plane to prevent aerial refueling.
Please stop trying to tell us how to use our ships. Yes we know that carriers and dreads have a role on the battlefield. And many of them are employed in that manner everyday in the universe. But that does not have to be the only thing that they can do. If you want to put fuel bays in caps, fine, but leave the capacities and capabilities that we have come to use and rely on alone. If doing so would create an imbalance, then leave it as it is. No one asked for you to ôimproveö our capital ships. They just wanted a fix for those ill-conceived, worthless BlackOps BSs. We are quite capable of deciding how to use the ships that we spend so much of our time working towards.
BTW; If I swap out all the low slot fittings on my Nighthawk with cargo expanders I can haul almost 3k m3 of cargo while maintaining aa highly efective tank and a decent damage output to protect itself. Does this infringe on the industrial's roles? Did you never anticipate someone using a commandship like this? Should I expect you to swing the old nerfbat my direction in the next round?
|
VonCruix
|
Posted - 2009.08.15 06:10:00 -
[226]
Originally by: Grifft
...Please stop trying to tell us how to use our ships... ...No one asked for you to ôimproveö our capital ships... ...We are quite capable of deciding how to use the ships that we spend so much of our time working towards...
Heh, this isn't a "design your own toys" kind of game.
You make do with what the game designers give you, and they've always said that changes are possible, and in many cases, even likely.
If you are unable to adapt and work thru simple things such as this, how can you expect to suceed at life.
Learn to adapt and overcome, and buy a clue to who's game this is. It is not "yours".
|
Siigari Kitawa
Gallente The Aduro Protocol
|
Posted - 2009.08.15 11:37:00 -
[227]
I just read a bunch of this thread.
I'm not in a super mega ultra big alliance with hundreds of members and billions of liquid isk to throw at whatever I need and give it to a corpmate and say "fly this capital ship ok".
I'm the CEO of a small corporation with one carrier and one jump freighter. We just absorbed a mining corporation into our ranks and I had to make numerous jumps with Hulks, Myrmidons, Retrievers, Megathrons, Vexors, frigates.. the list goes on. And I had to move a ton of GSCs as well.
Now, you may be asking why am I posting? It's because I think this is a bad idea. First of all, logistics in my corporation are relegated to a few members with the appropriate skills and proper equipment. My carrier is a multipurpose task machine and I want it to stay that way. If I can slap an honor tank onto it and haul people's crap around then I'm going to get upset because CCP is forcing me to fly my ship only one way.
I won't even have a realistic use for the carrier anymore, as I rarely use it in combat because the sole purpose of the ship is to MOVE PEOPLE'S STUFF AROUND.
Our jump freighter who is not on at regular hours cannot help us when we need him all the time. Because of that, we use the carrier to move stuff around. Please keep the cargobay the same.
You're asking for advice, and I want to speak up for myself in saying don't remove my options.
Also, after reading some of the replies in this thread, I have never seen such an unprofessional dev in my life in the history of these forums. Even back in the day when there was good communication with others, there was no sarcasm to this extent. If you are going to answer questions the community is asking then please do so respectfully to the community which you are asking for advice.
|
steave435
Caldari Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2009.08.15 11:59:00 -
[228]
Quote: I won't even have a realistic use for the carrier anymore, as I rarely use it in combat because the sole purpose of the ship is to MOVE PEOPLE'S STUFF AROUND.
Ehm...no...a carrier is a large version of the cruiser T2 logistics ships. It should also has the ability to move peoples SHIPS (not their stuff in general, but their ships) around.
Quote: Our jump freighter who is not on at regular hours cannot help us when we need him all the time. Because of that, we use the carrier to move stuff around. Please keep the cargobay the same.
Get a few JF pilots, keep the ship in corp hangar.
Quote: Also, after reading some of the replies in this thread, I have never seen such an unprofessional dev in my life in the history of these forums. Even back in the day when there was good communication with others, there was no sarcasm to this extent. If you are going to answer questions the community is asking then please do so respectfully to the community which you are asking for advice.
Cry more
|
Jacob Holland
Gallente Weyland-Vulcan Industries
|
Posted - 2009.08.16 06:57:00 -
[229]
Originally by: steave435 Ehm...no...a carrier is a large version of the cruiser T2 logistics ships. It should also has the ability to move peoples SHIPS (not their stuff in general, but their ships) around.
Why not the stuff in general?
We are left with the fact that, if CCP continue to pursue the erroneous distinction between warships and non-warships, the Carrier actually requires the Cargo they've removed. One might suggest that a Rorqual be used but the Rorqual is not a "warship" and therefore has no business on the front lines. So what is available? Haulers? Non-warship... Orca? Non-warship...
The seperation of Warships and Non-warships would also see an end to some of the most important vessel types around:- The Salvacane, Salvabond, BattleBadger, MineRokh...etc. Unusual fits? Isn't that sort of the point of modular ships?
Honour tanked Revelations don't seem to me to be game-breaking, why should the choice to use the ship in that manner be removed? --
Originally by: cordy
Respect to IAC .Your one of the few people who truly deserve to own and live in the space you are in.
|
Trimutius III
Legio Octae Rebellion Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.08.16 08:21:00 -
[230]
Originally by: Jacob Holland
We are left with the fact that, if CCP continue to pursue the erroneous distinction between warships and non-warships, the Carrier actually requires the Cargo they've removed. One might suggest that a Rorqual be used but the Rorqual is not a "warship" and therefore has no business on the front lines. So what is available? Haulers? Non-warship... Orca? Non-warship...
Hmm if u use Carrier as warship, then u don't fit cargohold and this changes will not reduce it capabilities at battle, because u can put many different things in corp hangar... If they allow to jettison from corp hangar and scoop to corp hangar then everything is ok... ------------------------------------------------- I am envoy from nowhere in nowhere. Nobody and nothing have sent me. And though it is impossible I exist ¬ Trimutius |
|
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.08.16 09:44:00 -
[231]
Originally by: Sertan Deras My only complaint is still that the carrier has half the fuel bay of the dread. It just shows an obvious disconnect from CCP's game designers. They play with this stuff in a closed, sanitized environment and obviously don't have much of a clue in to how we use these things in the real game.
I doubt it is completely true, but seeing the cry about "Oh my God, the Dev are in alliance X, cheat, cheat!" I suppose they try to keep low profiles in the bigger alliances or even avoid them, so it is possible some Dev has only a partial view of how carriers are used.
Originally by: Sertan Deras
I hate to even ask, but I assume the Rorqual is gonna "get the treatment" and strip it's entire cargo bay?
Readin is better than assuming. As said several times in this thread the Orca get a ore bay without losing from the other bays and the Rorqual get a fuel and ore bay without losing from the other bays.
It can still change before August 20, but I doubt it.
|
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.08.16 09:57:00 -
[232]
Originally by: Grifft
The KB-29 was a modified B-29 used by the USAF as their first mid-air refuelers. These refuelers enabled the first ever, non-stop circumnavigation of the globe.
Wow, can you possibly imagine that a highly effective combat aircraft could be used in a logistics capacity. ôNecessity is the mother of inventionö, there was a need and a solution. Boeing didnÆt tell the Air Force ôThe B-29 is a combat aircraft not a logistics aircraftö and then go back and change the design of the plane to prevent aerial refueling.
That was a factory modification, equivalent, for example, to the difference between a Exquror (Gallente cargo cruiser) and a Exquror Navy Issue (Gallente faction cruiser meant for blaster use).
Not something that you do in 2 minutes on the field swapping some module.
So if you want to use RL example consider all the angles.
|
steave435
Caldari Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2009.08.16 11:48:00 -
[233]
Quote: Why not the stuff in general?
Because that's what JFs do. The carriers role is to take part in combat and bring spare fitted ships that people that get popped can grab and rejoin the fight.
Quote: We are left with the fact that, if CCP continue to pursue the erroneous distinction between warships and non-warships, the Carrier actually requires the Cargo they've removed.
Why?
Quote: One might suggest that a Rorqual be used but the Rorqual is not a "warship" and therefore has no business on the front lines. So what is available? Haulers? Non-warship... Orca? Non-warship...
No, but it definitely do have business behind the front lines, providing them with what is needed there.
Quote: The seperation of Warships and Non-warships would also see an end to some of the most important vessel types around:- The Salvacane, Salvabond, BattleBadger, MineRokh...etc.
Yes, those are all vital, and soo much would be lost if that was changed...However, if you can't see the difference between that and this, then you should just stop playing.
Quote: Unusual fits? Isn't that sort of the point of modular ships?
Yes, but not everything should be possible to do. For example, a standard brutix fit use a DC II, a plate and 3 mag stabs in the lows with MWD, tackle and 1x whatever in mids and then a full rack of blasters in the highs. However, some people use the fact that modular ships can fitted in unusual ways to instead shield tank it, allowing for more mag stabs -> more dps, but at the cost of tackle.
Quote: That was a factory modification, equivalent, for example, to the difference between a Exquror (Gallente cargo cruiser) and a Exquror Navy Issue (Gallente faction cruiser meant for blaster use).
This. If you want to make a suggestion for a ship designed to haul cargo rather then ships (or maybe a little bit of both), with similar jump stats to a carrier, but with no combat ability and with a lower cost and cargo then a JF, then that's one thing, and could be considered. That role should be a switch-to-similar-hull rather then switch fit thing though.
|
ian666
Minmatar Lamb Federation Navy
|
Posted - 2009.08.16 20:19:00 -
[234]
Any plans to add ammo bay without touching cargo holds to non capital ships like battleships in near future?
|
Laido
|
Posted - 2009.08.17 11:28:00 -
[235]
hmmm what can i say - 20k of isotopes in fuel bay of carrier...pain in the a..
|
Sertan Deras
Gallente Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.08.17 15:54:00 -
[236]
Originally by: Venkul Mul
Originally by: Sertan Deras My only complaint is still that the carrier has half the fuel bay of the dread. It just shows an obvious disconnect from CCP's game designers. They play with this stuff in a closed, sanitized environment and obviously don't have much of a clue in to how we use these things in the real game.
I doubt it is completely true, but seeing the cry about "Oh my God, the Dev are in alliance X, cheat, cheat!" I suppose they try to keep low profiles in the bigger alliances or even avoid them, so it is possible some Dev has only a partial view of how carriers are used.
I never said the dev's cheated (we won't go there), I simply said the game designers seem to have a serious disconnect in terms of how the game is played, vis-a-vis how they want it to be.
Look, giving carriers half the fuel bay of a dread is just a dumb, dumb, dumb idea. It's game designers trying to look smart and edgy, rather than realizing carriers need to carry as much fuel as a dread. There's just no logical purpose in it. As usual though, CCP has no desire to listen to their player base for once. The whole system is a terrible idea, but if they are going to shove it down our throats (they are), at least don't cluster **** it like they are about to.
Not that any of our feedback matters, it will go live with 3k carrier fuel bays because CCP rarely, if ever, changes things according to player feedback once they hit Sisi.
|
Sertan Deras
Gallente Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.08.17 15:55:00 -
[237]
Originally by: Laido hmmm what can i say - 20k of isotopes in fuel bay of carrier...pain in the a..
That's 20k topes if you don't carry any stront or liquid ozone, which any high-SP carrier pilot is going to carry. That's why it's so funny when people try and make the argument that carriers need less fuel than dreads, when at the very least they need the same amount in total m3 taken, and in some cases need more.
|
Sannye
|
Posted - 2009.08.17 17:12:00 -
[238]
I am just SO happy i never bought the carrier skill book on live server, only on test!
I'll never get me a carrier now on live, but i'll get an orca or a rorqual - until they get the shaft?
I simply REFUSE to get a jumpfreighter - getting a ship like that to move your own stuff around in EVE with, is simply stupid.
So i'll just get my cash in empire.... no need of hauling ore back and forth from 0.0 - cash from 0.0 isnt really that much better than running level 4's, so a big "thanks" to dev's - you made a 0.0 charecter go back to empire, just what we needed...
|
Sertan Deras
Gallente Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.08.17 18:26:00 -
[239]
The only thing saving the Rorquals cargo bay at this point is the fact that it's the only ship in the game that is setup to be used for front line offensive tower logistics. Given that it can fit a capital level shield tank and actually defend itself, while still packing in ~100k m3 (give or take depending on your fit) of tower parts and fuel.
So the Rorqual will probably get the treatment once one of two things happens:
a) 0.0 is re-worked and front line offensive tower logistics becomes obsolete b) A specialized tower logistics capital is created, giving CCP another excuse to force us to train months in skills and spend billions of ISK
|
Brolly
Caldari Caldari State Inc. Deathadder Coalition
|
Posted - 2009.08.18 01:17:00 -
[240]
Originally by: CCP Abathur
Originally by: Trimutius III Just checked one thing with Orca.
Why not allowing store Gases in Ore Bay? They are also harvested and would be useful in W-space when u use ur Orca...
We're already looking at the possibility of putting 'Gas Storage Bays' into certian ship types.
Any chance of a module akin to cargo hold optimization that would add a gas hold to a ship, that would be pretty useful instead of having it on specific ships.
On the subject of adding holds via modules, a salvage/scrap metal bay module would be nifty too.
|
|
Balcora babe
|
Posted - 2009.08.18 08:55:00 -
[241]
Edited by: Balcora babe on 18/08/2009 09:04:48 I find those bays useful. Both practically and they add a bit of realistic mode in to the game. Every vessel has it's fuel bay which is separate from it's general cargo bay. 90k isotopes for a support capital ship is more then enough. With that you can reach the deepest region in eve from empire and get back in to it. However it limits you from reaching one end of the galaxy from the another end without refueling 2-3 times which imo is a nice change. I also find the idea of turning the carriers in to combat ships more then in to haulers. It is ridiculous ppl supplying regions with combat ships such as carriers and dreads. Jf's do a fine job and have a good range for hauling. Seeing a carrier with 5-7 cargo expanders or a dread makes me puke. And if carriers weren't such a "flexible" ship everyone would get a dread firs then a carrier not the way around.
All in all i find the changes very good. I am a capital pilot with 7 accounts and i have all possible capitals in game. Some ppl even haul with titans and motherships which is ridiculous imo. All ships should have per one/two roles as they do and capitals shouldn't be excluded from this just because they are bigger ships.
What i want to know is when capitals will become more expensive and we won't see a whole alliance of 1000 people show up in 120 capitals and 20 support. Are capitals supposed to be the backbone of a fleet now or battleships ? :) Is this how one fleet is supposed to look like ? Get from the other end of the galaxy to the field within 20 minutes with a fleet! A fleet for me should consist of various ship types , now adays everyone aims for capital fleets. The more capital the better. Generally yes but imo they should be at least 2ce as hard to afford with the current isk making methods and loosing a dread fleet of 30-40 dreads should be a significant blow , not something you can replace for a 1-2 days in a big alliance. And don't get me wrong i am in a big alliance that does that. Everyone can get a capital for a week or two of hardcore missioning in empire let alone other isk making activities and those are supposed to be hard to get(not only because of the training time they take , which imo should be shorter but they should be way more expensive).
Just my thoughts on this.
On a side note :good step towards breaking the blobbing. U can't just go from end of the galaxy to the other , siege 5 towers , then go back "home" siege 5 more and on the next day rinse and repeat. If i were you i would be radical and set a certain amount of LY a capital can jump per hour or day and break the blobbing wars forever as then u would have to do planning before assaulting someone somewhere 3 days out for your capital fleet. Which will bring the game to 2005 where everyone was at war with the alliance next door and game was 10 times more fun because you wouldn't have to pos camp for days and fear lag , wait for a node to get reinforced , get spies in the entire universe if you want to be in line with the other blob. |
Trimutius III
Legio Octae Rebellion Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.08.18 09:36:00 -
[242]
Edited by: Trimutius III on 18/08/2009 09:36:10 Edited by: Trimutius III on 18/08/2009 09:35:54
Originally by: Balcora babe
What i want to know is when capitals will become more expensive and we won't see a whole alliance of 1000 people show up in 120 capitals and 20 support. Are capitals supposed to be the backbone of a fleet now or battleships ? :) Is this how one fleet is supposed to look like ? Get from the other end of the galaxy to the field within 20 minutes with a fleet! A fleet for me should consist of various ship types , now adays everyone aims for capital fleets. The more capital the better. Generally yes but imo they should be at least 2ce as hard to afford with the current isk making methods and loosing a dread fleet of 30-40 dreads should be a significant blow , not something you can replace for a 1-2 days in a big alliance. And don't get me wrong i am in a big alliance that does that.
I think winter expansion will give some answers... According to words of CCP Greyscale in EON... (about changes needed in claim system) ------------------------------------------------- I am envoy from nowhere in nowhere. Nobody and nothing have sent me. And though it is impossible I exist ¬ Trimutius |
Jacob Holland
Gallente Weyland-Vulcan Industries
|
Posted - 2009.08.18 12:39:00 -
[243]
Originally by: Balcora babe What i want to know is when capitals will become more expensive and we won't see a whole alliance of 1000 people show up in 120 capitals and 20 support. Are capitals supposed to be the backbone of a fleet now or battleships ? :)
Quote: Generally yes but imo they should be at least 2ce as hard to afford with the current isk making methods and loosing a dread fleet of 30-40 dreads should be a significant blow , not something you can replace for a 1-2 days in a big alliance. And don't get me wrong i am in a big alliance that does that.
The difficulty is that, not counting the actual manufacturing time, the big alliances will replace important ships quickly almost regardless of cost - look at how long it took BoB to replace their first Titan loss. Making Dreads the same cost as Titans wouldn't drastically increase the time it takes for larger alliances to replace them (though it might limit the number they would be able to replace) but it would close them off to smaller alliances.
Smaller groups occupying small areas of 0.0 is something CCP were looking for at one time - the problem with smaller groups is that they have fewer pilots on which to draw... And with fewer pilots they have less ability to call on Jump Freighters - loading their one Revelation with Cargo Expanders is their best option. As I've stated before, capsuleers have always had unusual views on the value of certain ship-types, views which ignore such arbitrary and eroneous classifications as "Warship" and "Non-Warship". The fact that the pride of the Amarr Navy sees service as a hauler is not unusual... And I don't believe it to be an issue. --
Originally by: cordy
Respect to IAC .Your one of the few people who truly deserve to own and live in the space you are in.
|
Ju Vark
|
Posted - 2009.08.18 15:31:00 -
[244]
This is just dictating how i fit and use my capitals.
How about you give it to me pre fitted so i dont have to bother with this bull**** anymore. Hang about. You can play the game for me as well. I will just give you my subscription for nothing. Thats what you want isnt it CCP.
There is an old saying.
"If it ain't broke. Don't Fix it".
Now CCP can you fix **** that is broken rather than braking **** that is working. Thats how proper companies work!!!!
|
Sertan Deras
Gallente Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.08.18 15:56:00 -
[245]
Notice how all the people blabbing about making caps more expensive, and lowering the numbers on the field, aren't in actual 0.0 alliances, and have no influence what-so-ever on nullsec politics? Funny how that works.
I know this is difficult for a lot of you empire mouth breathers to believe, but a lot of us like capital PvP, we like slug fest capital blob fights. They are fun, and mean something. Losing 100 BS means nothing, and has meant nothing for years. Losing 100 capitals can tip a war, thus making the PvP quite engaging. CCP is already trying to make capitals as tedious as possible to fly, I don't think they need any help in that direction.
The thought of making a dread cost as much as a titan is so dumb it hurts my brain.
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.08.18 16:55:00 -
[246]
I really don't think the devs play the game. A carrier can jump farther than a dread and triage but somehow it only requires half as much fuel. Why? Every time I use my carrier I triage for 3-5 cycles, no exceptions. It jumps farther so it has the capability to use more fuel per jump than a dread. Please fix this
|
Isaac Starstriker
Amarr Smegnet Incorporated Libertas Fidelitas
|
Posted - 2009.08.18 18:49:00 -
[247]
Guess what people? You still have the corporate hanger array.
Oh no, I said it.
--Isaac Isaac's Haul*Mart - Closed
|
EdFromLogistics
|
Posted - 2009.08.18 22:34:00 -
[248]
Sup I already carry alternate types of reps in my CHA. Hull and armor, both capital sized. Leaves very little room in your CHA
|
Sir Nimmo
Amarr Gun Metal Priests
|
Posted - 2009.08.18 22:42:00 -
[249]
Well, I have just given this all a look from a Rorqual pilot's perspective and I am quite liking it.
250km3 of space to store ore is very nice indeed. Would be nice if it was possible to run compression jobs directly from there, but hey, it's still quite nice indeed, makes moving all the ores and stuff a whole lot easier and more feasible to jump out into a quiet dead-end system and go for a mining op without a POS or station nearby.
Anyway, for what it's worth, I like it.
|
Alexander Knott
Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.08.20 20:48:00 -
[250]
Originally by: CCP Abathur On Carriers: We will probably increase the fuel bay size a bit to better take into account Triage module fuel usage.
I guess this didn't actually happen?
|
|
Fuujin
GoonFleet
|
Posted - 2009.08.20 21:25:00 -
[251]
Edited by: Fuujin on 20/08/2009 21:26:54 I'll just repeat what I posted on the dev blog thread.
A dread is able to jump to its max range, siege at least 4x, and jump back. A carrier should be able to jump to its max range, triage 2-3x, and jump back.
To go 15LY and back with a moderate level of Jump Fuel Conservation, you'll need 2800-3000 m3 of isotopes. That is the current fuel bay. The current cargo bay is insufficient to hold even one cycle of triage, unless you have maxed out the Tactical Logistics skill.
Therefore, the carrier would require at least a 5000 m3 fuel bay (if not a bit more to allow for lower skill levels). A mothership should get at least 1.5x that to account for its inability to dock--it has to be more self-sufficient.
I understand the fuel bay and the present cargo bays were designed around the pre-patch cargobays of the carrier, but to my understanding these cargobays were deliberately left at their smaller-than-dreadnought sizes when triage was introduced to discourage the use of carriers as haulers. This logic does not hold when talking about ice-product-only fuel bays, and their size can safely be increased to accomodate their role as emergency battle 'medics'.
Please reconsider (and boost!) the carrier fuel bay.
|
Molly Flanders
|
Posted - 2009.08.20 21:38:00 -
[252]
Edited by: Molly Flanders on 20/08/2009 21:38:05 Well I must say that I am totally disappointed by the patch.
Flexibility greatly reduced, all affected ships but black ops just got nerfed. And no race defferences either - now all capital ships are leveled fuel wise.
|
Talis Mahn
Free Galactic Enterprises Aranir Citizens
|
Posted - 2009.08.21 02:15:00 -
[253]
Well, I finally get on after the patch. Saw some good things in the patch notes about the Orca and the Rorqual. Nice changes. Very useful. Still can't put anything other than industrials and barges in the ship maintenance array. I can live with that. I use my rorqual to haul bulk anyway. Then I get to my Thanatos.....WTH??? (a lot harsher than this really). To say I was blindsided by this change is mild. And I thought I was keeping up with the dev blogs.
I am part of a small corp. I solo a lot. I have also used my carrier in combat. I also use it as a remote base of operations for my alt and my corpmates. Then i find that CCP in its wisdom gutted the cargo bay??
After slogging through this whole thread. What does everything CCP said translate to?
"Players are not using ships the way WE want them to!!!
(You think its bad now wait until I figure out a way to turn a freighter into a Q-ship!)
People use ships in this game they way they want to. You should embrace this. I see many carriers being used in fleet fights. So why are you punishing us who use our ships differently? Are you going to stop players from putting mining lasers on battleships just because they are battleships? (it works well for noobs) No, didn't think so.
You (CCP) say carriers are combat logistics ships. Logistics is also carrying stuff. This change just cut my total jump range while carrying anything really usefull to me. And my Rorqual has no business being anywhere near a fight. "Use a jump frieghter for haulling." Feh. I find them pretty useless. Not to mention too expensive for the cargo volume and can't even jump as far as a Roqual. I can haul about 60% of the same volume for less than half the cost in a Rorqual, and I can use it in mining ops! And it also can fit capital reps! (Use these only after the battle , kids!) \o/ I believe in multi role ships. My carrier is my other multi role ship. I could fight with it or haul my stuff when I move. And it is mine. Not my corps, or my alliances, mine. Now I have use the room I use for my fittings and other things I've accumulated for fuel. I happen to like the idea that while I'm hauling (Not enough room for everything since the first nerf) I can actually defend myself. A rorqual cannot.
Now I can't even do that. I have to use corp hanger space for fuel with cuts down my usefullness to my corp and my alliance, both of which are not the huge "we can lose a titan whenever we want" organizations. Sorry but 875m3 for cargo is useless to me. Gutting that was pointless.
I really like this game but it gets frustrating every time you nerf ships that I fly. Before this carriers already failed at being haulers. Yes they could haul, just not well.
I could go into the Black Ops exploit. (Sheesh! They're frigging pirates! Of course they are going to use the jump drive to get away! Duuuh!)
When will you be happy with carrier balance? When they blow up as soon as they undock?
Just seems like a lot of pain for no reason other than they use a ship differently than you expect. Hello! Humans!! Been doing that since we picked up sticks to use as clubs.
Sheesh I am not surrounded. I'm in a target rich environment. |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 :: [one page] |