EVE Search - Freighter Changes

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Freighter Changes

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Aurelius Valentius	Posted - 2009.08.10 18:36:00 - [1] Edited by: Aurelius Valentius on 10/08/2009 18:38:26 For a while now I have been flying my providence here and there, all in all I find it perfectly fine with a couple of exceptions that I think would improve the "garbage haulers" life in EVE and even give a boost to the Risk v. Reward issues with Freighters of late. 1. Low Slot for a DC - this seems obvious that all ships should have this option. 2. Low Slot(s) for a Warp Stab - not many would use this module for a ship, but the freighter seems the one it is ultimately suited for, but it can't be fitted, this seems totally counter. 3. Maybe some rig slots - just for customization of ships in the limited way rigs would help a freighter along. 4. RE-DO Containers - GFCs are pointless, and the rest are not even eligible to use - lets face it - containers are for organization, I don't think the extra space is even needed to make them useful (prob why they have that though to incent people to use them at all) I would rather just have secure/audit cans that I can use to put my various piles of cargo into, having a big huge mess is annoyingly ineffcient. With new cans we shippers could: 1. Name them for the destination - making sure we got all sold at the right spot... rather then facepalm when we realize we forgot something and it's now 3 jumps back. 2. Name them for the customer/client 3. Name them for the items 4. Name them just for giggles... or whatever... and stacked nicely we could find them... and the stuff in it... seach bar be damned... UPS doesn't work that way - they code the box, so we should have the option in EVE if we are going to be true haulers.
ServantOfMask Minmatar Foundation Sons of Tangra	Posted - 2009.08.10 20:34:00 - [2] Nice thought, although one had by 90ish% of all Freighter/ Jump Freighter pilots. Main reason we will never get low slots on Freighters is that, while a DCU would be awesome, it would allow the use of Cargo Expanders. Same goes for rig slots, agility rigs would be awesome but everyone would simply shoehorn as many cargo expansion rigs as possible. One of the reasons for the Volume limit on freighters is the packaged size of carriers / dreads being 1mil m3. As it stands you can get just under 1 mil m3 with one of the freighters at level V, preventing you from carrying caps into high sec. Any change that potentially increases cargo volume will destroy this balance and require ccp to nerf cargo hold space further to maintain the maxxed out cargo capacity of just under 1 mil. new freight cans ... meh whatever floats your boat. "Misina Arlath GIRL = Guy In Real Life MMORPG = Many Men Online Role Playing Girls."
Gin G Halls Of Valhalla	Posted - 2009.08.10 20:52:00 - [3] how about low slot for i-stab or three billion Please refrain from editing a moderator's warning. Zymurgist
Nika Dekaia	Posted - 2009.08.10 21:45:00 - [4] 1-2: Why exactly do frighters need a boost in the risk vs. reward department in favour of not beeing ganked, anyways? You need a couple of bil worth in your cargo to even be in danger of beeing ganked atm. If you want to carry more get yourself an escort. 3: CCP is thinking about implementing rigs to let frighters transport rigged ships (ev. other rigs as well). This is unfortunate in my oppinion, since moving rigged ships SHOULD be a PITA, but oh well... 4: seems legit
Aranis Nax Minmatar Seraphim Blades	Posted - 2009.08.10 22:55:00 - [5] Originally by: Nika Dekaia 3: CCP is thinking about implementing rigs to let frighters transport rigged ships (ev. other rigs as well). This is unfortunate in my oppinion, since moving rigged ships SHOULD be a PITA, but oh well... Why should it be a PITA? Untill rigs got introduced moving ships wasn't that big a deal, because you could repackage them and lose nothing performance wise in the process. Also why do you think they'd use rig mechanics to reconfigure cargo space? They have a nice alternative available in the subsystem mechanics of T3 ships.
steave435 Caldari Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2009.08.10 23:10:00 - [6] Quote: it would allow the use of Cargo Expanders. Well, can be solved by nerfing cargo and increasing speed so that with a full rack of those, you're back at the stats you have now, while allowing a bit of customization. Not saying I support the idea though, some inertia stabs on freighters would be awesome, as well as warp speed rigs, but it could be a bit OP tbh.
Nika Dekaia	Posted - 2009.08.10 23:26:00 - [7] Edited by: Nika Dekaia on 10/08/2009 23:36:53 Originally by: Aranis Nax Why should it be a PITA? Untill rigs got introduced moving ships wasn't that big a deal, because you could repackage them and lose nothing performance wise in the process. Because they were (due to the price and the loss when repackaging/tearing them out) a luxury good. They boosted the performance of your ship in a certain direction, but for a price. The price beeing: - can't be removed without cost to alter your fitting - will stay as is. This is not as much of a drawback, as you don't missfitt or want to alter the fitting that much most of the time - PITA to move - IMHO the much bigger drawback, for you will want to remove the rigs anytime you want to move several ships. This drawback will be removed if hauling them becomes easier. They will just degenerate to another fitting slot. You won't have to make a real CHOICE when fitting them. The introduction of small sized rigs will give enough flexibility, and a transport ship is not needed, but i guess that's just me. Originally by: Aranis Nax Also why do you think they'd use rig mechanics to reconfigure cargo space? They have a nice alternative available in the subsystem mechanics of T3 ships. A dev stated it somewhere. cba to look it up atm. T3 is cruisers - you can haul **** in cruisers, and they surely won't introduce T3 frighters/orcas/carriers. OK, I could be arsed and it might actually not be rigs but certainly not T3 submods: Linkage Edit: To give this all a piont: rigs should stay in some way expensive/something to think about to fit or not. T2 has become cheap enough - fitted rigs are what hurts most when losing a ship atm and it should stay so. If it doesn't hurt all that much, there's no need of a loss mechanic at all.
Aurelius Valentius	Posted - 2009.08.11 02:05:00 - [8] hmmm - well here is a simple idea: 1. just make anything that is currently 1M m3+ like a reg container in the freighter as it is now - "you cannot load this into your ship" - simple. 2. Cargo Expanders - sure... and move at 1m/hr, and as above just make it unfittable. 3. WS and DCU - just would be nice to give the Freighter just a bit of an edge to it... but then Blockade Runners I guess fill that role. 4. Really need the Containers redone though - that is just lame - there is no way to be a trule cargo ship and not use the various cans for organization in the hold... that just needs a serious looking at. 5. I could do with or without some rigs, just thought they might add some flavor to the ships so they aren't all generic... the slight differences would make for non-cookie cutter options and that in turn would make for a need to get some intel and always leave a wild-card in the pilots hand in a PvP situation - which could only be a good thing - atm, it's just mathmatics to GANK one, what was it 10x Dom = insta dead without thought.
ServantOfMask Minmatar Foundation Sons of Tangra	Posted - 2009.08.11 08:26:00 - [9] Edited by: ServantOfMask on 11/08/2009 08:27:25 Originally by: Aurelius Valentius 1. just make anything that is currently 1M m3+ like a reg container in the freighter as it is now - "you cannot load this into your ship" - simple. you cant do that due to the way courier contracts work if you simply add a "you cannot load this into your ship" or "just make it unfittable" you accomplish nothing but ** people off with the randomness off the restriction. Anyone who wanted to move any prohibited ship will simply issue a courier contract, that packages the ship into a generic item with the m3 volume of the ship inside. move the courier-packaged carrier to your favorite level 5 mission high-sec system, rip package open and profit. Face it: if freighters are going to get any changes it will be using the new bay system.. anything else would impact so many other game mechanics that the Dev's would be depleting all the booze in Iceland just recoding ** that used to work. "Misina Arlath GIRL = Guy In Real Life MMORPG = Many Men Online Role Playing Girls."
SokoleOko Minmatar WATAHA Sp zoo	Posted - 2009.08.11 13:11:00 - [10] Not quite - I'll bet that a packaged capital (carrier, dreadnought) is bigger than 120.000 m3 courier contract limit. Therefore - no moving of capital ships is allowed in this manner already! Few days back I've trained my freighter-alt and I'd love to see some customization of that ships. Allowing to rig freighter would be quite sufficient. Could be even one rig slot. Someone would use "Cargohold optimization", someone (like me) would push for better agility ("Low friction nozzle joints"). If you want to balance that, let make T2 rigs mandatory, as freighters are no cheap ships. WCS's would be pretty useless anyway, one DC would make freighter next to impossible to destroy - it has very fat structure, so adding 60% resists on it... would effectively double they EHP, meaning - no more suicide ganking freighters in hisec. That's bad, so - rigs only.

Zaiyo Modi Minmatar	Posted - 2009.08.11 14:37:00 - [11] Perhaps it could be an idea to get containers that has a built in note tool on each container.
Aurelius Valentius	Posted - 2009.08.11 22:39:00 - [12] Edited by: Aurelius Valentius on 11/08/2009 22:40:12 Valid points û good threadà though the OP is crazyà donÆt listen to him! Here is a thought about the whole containers thing û and the bay system would be fine with me or not as I donÆt see the problem being with the large empty space but how itÆs filled. The Cargo Container (Insurable): 1.Purchase Can 2.Assemble Can 3.Configure Can Password 4.Place Items in Can 5.Lock Items 6.Take out insurance on can and contents û just like a ship insurance would be done a.Insurance is only in effect if the can is destroyed, when it is next opened the insurance policy is no longer in effect as the can being opened indicates a successful completion of shipment - as the policy is only in effect on the sealed can for the duration of the sealed state This way the shipper and the contractor are covered, ISK is used much more that it would be now, or people could ship without insurance at risk if they feel there is no need.
sHERU	Posted - 2009.08.11 23:23:00 - [13] Originally by: Aurelius Valentius Edited by: Aurelius Valentius on 11/08/2009 22:40:12 Valid points û good threadà though the OP is crazyà donÆt listen to him! Here is a thought about the whole containers thing û and the bay system would be fine with me or not as I donÆt see the problem being with the large empty space but how itÆs filled. The Cargo Container (Insurable): 1.Purchase Can 2.Assemble Can 3.Configure Can Password 4.Place Items in Can 5.Lock Items 6.Take out insurance on can and contents û just like a ship insurance would be done a.Insurance is only in effect if the can is destroyed, when it is next opened the insurance policy is no longer in effect as the can being opened indicates a successful completion of shipment - as the policy is only in effect on the sealed can for the duration of the sealed state This way the shipper and the contractor are covered, ISK is used much more that it would be now, or people could ship without insurance at risk if they feel there is no need. Freighter gets ganked, can drops in space and is cleaned out by another hauler.... insurance is never payed out. Found a hole in your "solution", your telling me that from now on all can's should be auto destroyed when the eject in space?
Valentia Valens	Posted - 2009.08.12 00:27:00 - [14] Oh my... um... Nope, I thinkt that cans should randomize as they do - drop - and someone (anyone can come along and scoop them up)... and even hack it open or shoot the lock off... no prob... but if the can is openned by someone else or destroyed it would pay out the insurance to the maker (now that could lead to and issue of fraud... but then the good insurance agent would sniff out alts and other fraud and punish the law breakers of course... unless the criminals are very cleaver in which case that would be rewarded... just like real... commit the crime, do the time - unless you is smarter then the other guy...) Pirates should have a challenge to get that big pay-out beyond just a fire-power to time calculation and then scoop up while the Police orbit around paying no mind...
Mister Xerox	Posted - 2009.08.12 01:16:00 - [15] What they need are two different 'cargo container' types for freighters (the freighter must have one type or another to load any cargo at all). Each container has a base storage capacity equal to the ship's capacity + skills. Standard Container - Self explanatory. The ship's inner volume is for hauling 'goods'. Docking Container - The freighter's cargo capacity is doubled and given over to hauling of 'assembled' ships (just like car carriers of our day, which are built on the same exact hull designs as all other cargo vessels, but with different innards). Doubling the cargo capacity is necessary due to the extremely large volumes of 'assembled' ships. Assembled capitals are still far beyond this expanded limit. The only restrictions: a - No cargo (of any sort) can be carried in the 'docked' ships. Even the guns & drone bays must be emptied. b - as with cargo, ships cannot be accessed except at a POS or station. Possibly have different sizes of these containers so that freighter pilots can adjust how much cargo space they sacrifice to hauling ships.


Pages: [1] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.