EVE Search - New Dev Blog: Regular or Unleaded

All Channels

EVE Information Portal

New Dev Blog: Regular or Unleaded

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 2 post(s)
Adunh Slavy Ammatar Trade Syndicate	Posted - 2009.08.20 17:22:00 - [31] Edited by: Adunh Slavy on 20/08/2009 17:22:24 Neat ideas CCP. Maybe industrials can some day do something industrial with this ... instead of being mere space trucks. Such as, I dunno ... ore compression from one bay to another, Dust troop transports, exotic dancer testing and training centers, breweries ...
Jackie Fisher Syrkos Technologies	Posted - 2009.08.20 17:32:00 - [32] Originally by: CCP Abathur DreadnAughts O not A
Salpad Carebears with Attitude	Posted - 2009.08.20 17:39:00 - [33] Originally by: Kyra Felann I'm also looking forward to seeing ammo magazines in ships. It would make much more sense than storing ammo in a cargo bay, plus it would allow lots of ammo without making a ship too good at carrying cargo. In particular, the various "attack" type ships, such as T2 Assault Frigates and Heavy Attack Cruisers, and faction cruiers (Navy Caracal, Navy Osprey) should get huge ammo bays, and get their general cargo holds much reduced in size.
Random Womble Minmatar Emo Rangers Electric Monkey Overlords	Posted - 2009.08.20 17:49:00 - [34] Edited by: Random Womble on 20/08/2009 17:50:16 Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha Quote: A cargo-fit Rorqual.... Well, since the patch was about to somewhat bring ships back to their intended role, cargo fitting a Rorq to make it a fuel tanker is kinda voiding the intention. Not really since the original intention with the rorqual was it would cyno to a system with barges in ship bay and POS + fuel in cargo bay/corp hanger. setup the POS then have the miners clone jump to the rorqual. miners would then mine ore which the rorqual would compress (big pain before this patch because you could only run 1 minutes worth of compression at a time due to cargo capacity limitations) and at the end of the op be it a night or a week the POS would be packed up and put back in the rorqual along with the compressed ore and it would then jump back home. Which is why i assume the rorqual still has its cargo bay because it was allways intended to be used to setup a POS and therefore to carry a semi decent ammount of POS fuel and some POS mods (guns, scrams, webs, corp hanger perhaps). my one query since i have not got on yet is can the rorqual put heavy water in its fuel bay for running its industrial core mod?
Salpad Carebears with Attitude	Posted - 2009.08.20 17:50:00 - [35] I have no experience flying capitals (except for Freighters), but it does sound as if fuel bay capacity for Carriers and so forth ought to be larger. One thing I cannot really wrap my head around is why any of the existing ships should get a mineral-specific bay in exchange for a redued general cargo bay-size. CCP could add a specialized mineral-hauling T2 ship, though. Yet another Industrial variant, with perhaps a 100k m3 minerals-only bay. That's 1M units of tritanium. Also, the new specific bays makes a renewed case for a salvaging ship, with bonus to tractor beam range and speed, bonus to fitting tractor beams and salvagers (reduced CPU or powergrid usage), a bonus to salvage change, and a specialized cargy bay that only hold salvage (or even better, a huge specialized cargo bay that can only hold modules, ammo and salvage). -- Salpad C.E.O., Carebears with Attitude (CBWA)
Cire XIII Caldari Ever Flow Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.08.20 17:57:00 - [36] "that Carriers are not intended to be are cargo ships and transports. While they can be still be pressed into this service on a limited basis, it is not their designed role. The same applies to Motherships." So what you're saying is that Carriers should not transport rigged/fitted ships around? I thought that this area of logistics was part of a carrier's intended role. What ships do you intend, or suggest, we use for this task? .
Clansworth	Posted - 2009.08.20 18:07:00 - [37] Originally by: Random Womble my one query since i have not got on yet is can the rorqual put heavy water in its fuel bay for running its industrial core mod? I think that's a pretty sure bet, as it would be odd for them to exclude a single ice product from the bay. Intel/Nomad
Kendrix Arathan Minmatar N00bs With Guns	Posted - 2009.08.20 18:13:00 - [38] Originally by: Fuujin Edited by: Fuujin on 20/08/2009 15:31:05 I fail to see why the carrier and mothership fuel bays are so small. By your own logic, these bays are limited to holding the "massive amount" of ice products needed to fuel their jump drives. Not only that, but they need to hold the REALLY massive amount of strontium needed to fuel their triage modules. The cargo hold itself I'm blase about. I wish it was larger, or that we could launch modules from the CHA, but I can deal. What I have a problem with, however, is the ship with the largest jump range being limited to 1-2 cycles of triage (each cycle is, with GOOD skills, 900m3--fully 30% of the fuel bay. With remedial skills, a single cycle is 1350 m3 of strontium, or 45% of the entire bay). The CHA is a poor substitute to the cargobay. In even low-lag situations it can be exceedingly finicky and very slow to open or respond. Sometimes it even gets "stuck" and requires a session change before it will display its contents. When you are relying on it for triage, this can totally change the course of a battle. I'm not asking for a larger cargohold. Just a larger specialized fuel tank thats useless for hauling. Especially for motherships, which can't dock and easily refuel. Ships intended to live out their existence totally outside stations need to have a great deal of "stamina" and self-sufficiency. I no math r hard, but I would like to point out to all the carrier jump fuel/triage whiners... that you actually have more total space to carry "fuel" then you did before... IE: (current cargo * 4) < (fuel bay + current cargo). So if the space you have now is so horribly inadequate,how the hell did you get by before? TL;DR YOU HAVE MORE SPACE FOR FUEL NOW Originally by: StevieSG Verone looks like data from star trek. that is all.
Jonathan Calvert Minmatar Empire Mining and Trade Matari Visionary Coalition	Posted - 2009.08.20 18:13:00 - [39] Ok, but why cant alliance members access the Orcas cargo, ore bay and corp bay if the orca pilot allows it? And while I like having 50k m3 more space, now I have to put ore in 3 places on the orca to haul it off or hold it for haulers.
Kweel Nakashyn Minmatar Star's Dust Industrie	Posted - 2009.08.20 18:27:00 - [40] 'Type', mmm, sounds like "guys" in old galentean Fetchez la vache ! moar(tm) < soon(tm) :(
Tairon Usaro The X-Trading Company RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2009.08.20 18:37:00 - [41] all it would have needed was a changed fuel comsuption rate for BlackOPs bridging but CCP decided to nerf capitals instead. Not needed, not wanted Dreads and Carriers fitted for cargo transportation is a phenomen of the past. I rarely see such kills on the KBs in our days, cause with jumpfreighters and rorquals there is absolutely no reason for gimping a dread or carrier. BTW: Increase Fuel bay for Carrier if you insist on these crappy bay concept. How do all these restrictions fit along with "sandbox" ?!? FAIL, CCP ! ________________________________________________ Some days i loose, some days the others win ...
Manfred Rickenbocker Professors On Steriods DEFI4NT	Posted - 2009.08.20 18:38:00 - [42] Awww... poor Machariel gets shafted... In any case, Its going to be very tricky with this bay. I hope it doesnt go the route of drone bays when they introduced bandwidth: Introduce bandwidth to reduce the size of the drones in flight, but yet still not increase the drone bay to allow for replacements. Similarly, why introduce a fuel bay if you arent going to give us the option to carry MORE fuel than we could before? All of these fuel bays need to be HUGE in order to make sense, and I dont know if Im seeing that.
Tommy Blue Arcana Imperii Ltd. Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.08.20 19:04:00 - [43] Originally by: Fuujin Edited by: Fuujin on 20/08/2009 15:31:05 Originally by: Cire XIII So what you're saying is that Carriers should not transport rigged/fitted ships around? Yes, clearly by the fact that none of the changes reduced a carries ability to carry unpacked ships and that they lowered the unpacked size of battleships just so carriers could carry more of them, they are saying exactly that... took your smart pills did you? You obviously failed to take your smart pills today, as you are clearly missing the part about how Cire is saying CCP is contradicting themselves in what they said and what they are implementing.
Salpad Carebears with Attitude	Posted - 2009.08.20 19:11:00 - [44] Same with the Orca. Adding a 50k m3 bay doesn't change all that much, since that is only about 30% of its total haulage capacity. To turn it into a real ore hauler, give it a 150k m3 ore bay or similar. That won't compete with the Rorqual, since the Rorqual can compress its ore. In fact since the Rorqual can compress ore, one could argue that the Orca should have a larger ore bay than the Rorqual has, but I think it would be reasonable to settle for an or bay 40% to 50% the size of the Rorqual's. -- Salpad C.E.O., Carebears with Attitude (CBWA)
Kile Kitmoore	Posted - 2009.08.20 19:12:00 - [45] Nice Devblog, thank you. The specialized cargo bays are really nice. Did have a couple of questions. 1. Are the plans to revisit the ship bonuses to either add or modify bonuses that effect these new cargo bays? 2. Now that you have them and want to add more will you start looking at some UI changes to manage these bays? Thanks!
Kendrix Arathan Minmatar N00bs With Guns	Posted - 2009.08.20 19:29:00 - [46] Edited by: Kendrix Arathan on 20/08/2009 19:30:42 * Originally by: StevieSG Verone looks like data from star trek. that is all.
Togakure Sniggerdly	Posted - 2009.08.20 19:33:00 - [47] BEHOLD: The Origins of the Honour Tank http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=588807 The Eve Tribune story: http://www.eve-tribune.com/index.php?no=2_36&page=7
Fuujin GoonFleet	Posted - 2009.08.20 19:43:00 - [48] Originally by: Kendrix Arathan I no math r hard, but I would like to point out to all the carrier jump fuel/triage whiners... that you actually have more total space to carry "fuel" then you did before... IE: (current cargo * 4) < (fuel bay + current cargo). So if the space you have now is so horribly inadequate,how the hell did you get by before? TL;DR YOU HAVE MORE SPACE FOR FUEL NOW took your smart pills did you? I find your level of intellectual honesty wanting. When the carrier was conceived and created, triage did not exist. The equivalent for dreadnoughts was not true--their cargobays were designed around the extremely bulky fuel required for their centerpiece siege modules. When triage was introduced, carriers were the mainstay of 0.0 alliance hauling. CCP, aghast at this use, decided to not increase the size of the cargobay to compensate for the carrier's new strontium fuel needs, as this would in turn result in them boosting the carrier-as-hauler phenomina. With the advent of ice-product-only fuel bays, this intentional oversight can now be remedied. A carrier's maximum single-jump range is just under 15 LY. Arguably, a carrier should be able to jump out to that, triage 2-3 cycles, then jump back. Much like a dreadnought can jump out, siege for 4-5x, and jump back. Assuming a modest level of jump fuel conservation, this means that you will need 2800-3000 m3 of isotopes just to make the round-trip jump. Your general cargohold now cannot even hold one cycle of strontium unless you have TLC 5. To satisfy the above common-sense requirement, the fuel bays would need a buff to at least 4500 m3, preferably 5000 m3---3000 for the jump fuel, the rest for two cycles of stront (1800 m3) and some liquid ozone for cynosural generation if needed. Motherships should go up to 8000 m3, since they cannot dock and refuel as easily (and are 10x the size of carriers, at least in build requirements). Carriers gain no hauling benefits from this change, and can operate far more effectively. Their CHA's can also then be dedicated to holding ammunition and modules for their support fleet, or alternative/additional repair modules for themselves (4000 m3 EACH). It makes no sense to give carriers a fuel tank, and then say that they are expected to use their corporate hangars as an extra fuel tank--just to be able to operate within a single jump's range.
Salpad Carebears with Attitude	Posted - 2009.08.20 20:14:00 - [49] Originally by: Fuujin With the advent of ice-product-only fuel bays, this intentional oversight can now be remedied. A carrier's maximum single-jump range is just under 15 LY. Arguably, a carrier should be able to jump out to that, triage 2-3 cycles, then jump back. Much like a dreadnought can jump out, siege for 4-5x, and jump back. Not knowing much about carriers or other capital ships, this sounds very reasonable. -- Salpad C.E.O., Carebears with Attitude (CBWA)
Random Womble Minmatar Emo Rangers Electric Monkey Overlords	Posted - 2009.08.20 20:42:00 - [50] Actually can a dev explain to me why the revelation which had ammo with a volume of only 1m3 per crystal which also unless faction never get used up needs 2175 m3 of cargo yet a nag which has 4 weapons which all use ammo that takes up a vast ammount of space only had an extra 725m3 cargobay? Not to mention Moros' puny extra 375m3 or equivalent to 1500 units of ammo which is not much. Bear in mind a rev with no faction ammos will only need 24 m3 cargo to hold enough of each type of crystal for all its guns. Now im not saying the Rev needs its cargohold much reduced giving some flexability for whatever is a good idea just more that the nag and moros and phoenix probably needs a little extra space .
Sertan Deras Gallente Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.08.20 20:48:00 - [51] Edited by: Sertan Deras on 20/08/2009 20:48:39 None of what they did with his fuel bay crap makes sense, so the lack of ammo space for the Moros and Nag probably won't either. That said, 1500 shots is actually quite a bit for dread. That's what, 5 or 6 siege cycles worth of ammo? (I fly a Rev, don't sue me for not knowing the ammo usage of some dreads). Since you don't need to hold any fuel in your cargo anymore, you should be able to pack way more than 1500 total shots in.
VonCruix	Posted - 2009.08.20 22:43:00 - [52] Originally by: Fuujin I find your level of intellectual honesty wanting. ... It makes no sense to give carriers a fuel tank, and then say that they are expected to use their corporate hangars as an extra fuel tank--just to be able to operate within a single jump's range. Why not? What else are you gonna carry into combat? Enough Ammo and Items to refit every sub cap in your fleet, by yourself? Think of it as further flexibility. If you don't Triage, you can carry a lot for others. If you do Triage, you can carry alot for yourself. How hard is that? I find your level of intellectual honesty wanting.
Soleil Fournier AWE Corporation Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2009.08.20 22:47:00 - [53] Edited by: Soleil Fournier on 20/08/2009 22:55:06 The fuel bay capacity for carriers and motherships are completely inadequate. Carriers/Moms were the only ships to receive a nerf in addition to their fuel bays. Aparently, 5k of cargo on a mom is too much but a 250,000 mc3 ore bay was added to the rorq -in addition- to a 10,000mc3 fuel bay, without any other reductions in other cargo capacity!! This ship is now on the point of infringing on both jump freighters and regular freighters in their role, yet the devs do not seem to mind this. There was no point to adding a fuel bay to the carriers/moms if it isn't enough to carry the necessary quantities of fuel + stront for triage mode. Moms should have a 15,000 mc3 fuel bay at minimum and carriers put at 10,000 mc3 in line with rorquals and jump freighters. I cannot loot, trade, or equip capital modules to my ship in space anymore due to the cargo nerf. Since I'm in a nyx, docking isn't an option. I would be willing to overlook this problem if the fuel bay I had was big enough to sustain any type of operation, which it's not. This was not an even trade off and needs to be fixed.
Memphis Baas	Posted - 2009.08.20 23:01:00 - [54] Edited by: Memphis Baas on 20/08/2009 23:02:17 If I may make a suggestion: in order to avoid confusion in the future, when/if you guys add many other kinds of bays to ships, please name the bays based on what they hold. If it's limited to ice isotopes, call it an "ice isotopes bay", not a "fuel" bay. "Fuel" has different meanings for different vehicles/ships.
Maren Maen	Posted - 2009.08.21 05:26:00 - [55] <<Black Ops battleships benefit from having some very cool capabilities but suffer from a lack of available space to utilize them fully.>> No, it has one very cool, but exceptionally niche, capability in an otherwise poor to mediocre ship. That's why I'd be willing to bet it's the least used ship in the game in terms of hours used/reference time period. I'd even put that wager up against titans that cost 100x more. Truth is, I doubt it's even a remotely contested distinction. Price isn't even the issue, the class simply sucks for 99% of what people would use them for. Bombing an enemy mining op is cool and newsworthy, but seriously, the ships have been out for over a year and that's the first such news story? Is this fact not speaking volumes in itself? But gee, thanks for the fuel bay. A year from now when we get another QEN with a snapshot of ship usage, I bet black ops will not have moved an inch if this is the extent of the black ops 'buff'.
Lusulpher Blackwater Syndicate Raining Doom	Posted - 2009.08.21 07:29:00 - [56] Edited by: Lusulpher on 21/08/2009 07:34:29 Originally by: Gnulpie "Since the beginning of EVE, one of the more frustrating issues when trying to balance ships has been that there was only one æspace' available for all of the stuff a player needed to carry along - the æCargo' Bay." But isn't that EXACTLY what a sandbox game is about? Give players the tools and look what they create. If put in to many restrictions like you are doing now for a while in Eve, then you lose the original sandbox concept. Why shouldn't I be allowed to use a dread as some sort of hauling ship if I want to? It doesn't make much sense since the jump freighters or the rorqual is much better, but still, if I want to do it, why not? What is it CCP's business there?? I can understand that you want fuel bays for fine tuning and so on. But you put in to many restrictions! My advice: Modules/rigs which can change the size of the different bays at the cost of the other bays. Example: Increase fuel bay, but it will end up in a smaller cargo bay (plus whatever else is necessary for balancing). Or increase cargo bay but reduce fuel bay and decrease agility. DON'T TAKE AWAY THE SANBOX CONCEPT BY INTRODUCING TO MANY RESTRICTIONS! I already hated it how you handled the rigs. Why shouldn't I be allowed to put a small rig onto a battleship? I can use small smartbombs, small guns, small afterburners on a battleship also! Of course small rig would give only little bonus, so it wouldn't make that much sense, but still! And why shouldn't I be allowed to put a medium rig on a small ship, if it fits? I can use bs-sized modules on a bc also. But nooo ... you are taking away the sandbox aspect! Same approach with the fuelbay now again. You restrict to much - sure that makes balancing easier, you do not need to think that much about possible unorthodoxal usages - it takes away from the unique feeling of Eve. Fuelbay or not, THINK OF THE SANDBOX! Valid concern(exact one I posted about earlier this week), but this one is kosher. 1-A dread hauler is much safer than a Jump Freighter in the same ambush. 2-It takes away from the Logistics need of training up a JF or Freighter, an alliance will simply whip out a tonne of Dreads instead of acquiring the roled ship, aka Less Skilling, More Reward. That is abuse/exploit in EVE. We are still free to do it, now, but with the proper penalty. Capitals need an upkeep cost so that quantity scales with Logistic ability of the alliance. Can't stress this enough. I own a(hotdropping, blobbing) carrier.(in b4 the trolls) What I'm wondering is How will this affect looting after a capital v capital fight, I remember it being a nightmare to get people to switch over to haulers and get the jumbo-sized loot...the new cargoholds big enough? Capitals are awful slow but haulers can jetcan stuff to them as spoils of war. Why don't the upper tier barges(Retriever+) don't come with 6,000m3+ Ore Hold + Cargohold? I can outmine/outtank/outdrone them in a minerApoc...they need a Hauler just like my non-rolespecific ship. This removes jetcan flipping potential for trained up Industrialists(solo Miner = Entrepreneur). And where are the M and L-sized Mining drones? And Drone Bay expansions on EVE ships now that Bandwidth is balancing out the Myrmidon(and leaving the Gallente very unspecial, I'm flying a Stabber for Pete's sake!)... 7
Nomakai Delateriel Amarr Ammatar Free Corps Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2009.08.21 07:46:00 - [57] Any chance of specialized industrials being developed to carry specific types of cargo (like Ore/minerals, fuel, ammo etc)? Or possibly a chance to rig an industrial for specialist carrying capacity? ______________________________________________ -My respect can not be won, only lost. It's given freely and only grudgingly withdrawn.
adriaans Amarr Ankaa.	Posted - 2009.08.21 07:51:00 - [58] Edited by: adriaans on 21/08/2009 07:52:11 Finally! :D (only think that the carrier (no idea about MS's) could need a bit bigger fuel bay...triage stront takes quite some m3...) ps. ammo bays for all ships sometime in future please! edit: HUGE ammo bays... i almost ALWAYS run out of ammo even on ships that don't carry cap boosters with the cargo hold maxed.... -sig- Support the introduction of Blaze crystals for Amarr! Originally by: UMEE if ure another fotm re-roller, then dont pvp. you'll fail. QFT!
Clansworth	Posted - 2009.08.21 11:02:00 - [59] Originally by: adriaans Edited by: adriaans on 21/08/2009 07:52:11 Finally! :D (only think that the carrier (no idea about MS's) could need a bit bigger fuel bay...triage stront takes quite some m3...) ps. ammo bays for all ships sometime in future please! edit: HUGE ammo bays... i almost ALWAYS run out of ammo even on ships that don't carry cap boosters with the cargo hold maxed.... I don't think the specialized bays should become the norm. I think they are for just that, specialized use. Ships that require special fuels get them, and a few specialized haulers. Ammo bays would be nice, but IMO, running out of ammo is a part of eve, and part of the need for friends in long standing engagements... I'd point out that a couple transport ships can provide a LOT of ammo resupply... Intel/Nomad
Xthril Ranger hirr Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2009.08.21 11:11:00 - [60] I havent logged in to check. But doesnt a cargobay less than 4000 kinda break the motherships , like in not beeing able to fit them... . you'll never jump alone

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: 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.