| Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page] |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
|
CCP Fallout
   |
Posted - 2009.08.20 14:46:00 -
[1]
Apocrypha 1.5 brings a number of changes to New Eden. Of great import to some of you high-flying capsuleers are the changes to cargo holds and fuel bays. Read all about it in CCP Abathur newest dev blog.
Fallout
Associate Community Manager
CCP Hf, EVE Online
Contact us |
|
Mashie Saldana
BFG Tech
|
Posted - 2009.08.20 15:08:00 -
[2]
Oh dear, carrier pilots will be upset again.
|
Elefant
Caldari
Skunkwerx Manufacturing
|
Posted - 2009.08.20 15:17:00 -
[3]
This is a great change, especially the fact that we can now use carriers to move an unpackaged battleship - means when you get to your destination we can drop off the carrier and go kill stuff 
|
Lord Haur
Amarr
StarHunt
|
Posted - 2009.08.20 15:19:00 -
[4]
You always could carry an unpackaged battleship.
Just some (Megathron comes to mind) were 513k m3 so you could only fit one at a time. Now you can carry two.
|
Sade Onyx
|
Posted - 2009.08.20 15:21:00 -
[5]
 Originally by: Mashie Saldana
Oh dear, carrier pilots will be upset again.
Or maybe they will be pleased that they will no longer be constantly roped into doing courier missions for the corp / alliance, and actually get to see more combat xD
Well the pilot might not be, but the ship itself will be happier xD
|
Black Bird1000
|
Posted - 2009.08.20 15:24:00 -
[6]
Well, I personally don't have a problem with the changes, but, how should small alliances / corps which can't afford a jumpfreighter fuel their POSes / do logistics?
Freighterruns through 0.0 are not really funny...
I'm a little bit afraid that this change will give large alliances even more advantages over small ones.
|
Batolemaeus
Caldari
Money Liberation Services Corp
|
Posted - 2009.08.20 15:27:00 -
[7]
Quote:
Ore Bays are storage space for... ore.
orely? 
----------------------------------------------
Originally by: CCP Prism X
In New Eden, EVE wins you.
|
Fuujin
GoonFleet
|
Posted - 2009.08.20 15:29:00 -
[8]
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.
|
Jainia Soltella
|
Posted - 2009.08.20 15:36:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Black Bird1000
Well, I personally don't have a problem with the changes, but, how should small alliances / corps which can't afford a jumpfreighter fuel their POSes / do logistics?
Freighterruns through 0.0 are not really funny...
I'm a little bit afraid that this change will give large alliances even more advantages over small ones.
Stealth blob-whine detected.
A cargo-fit Rorqual can easily haul enough fuel for a large POS or several small/medium towers.
If your corp/alliance or at least one member can't afford 1.6B they aren't going to be able to afford to fuel the towers for very long anyway.
|
Miyamoto Isoruku
Caldari
Noir.
Noir. Mercenary Group
|
Posted - 2009.08.20 15:39:00 -
[10]
Bomb bays for stealth bombers would be awesome. It doesn't have to be big--just give em enough space to carry 3-5 bombs.
|
Lord Haur
Amarr
StarHunt
|
Posted - 2009.08.20 15:46:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Fuujin
Not only that, but they need to hold the REALLY massive amount of strontium needed to fuel their triage modules.
Strontium Clathrates is an Ice Product 
|
Gnulpie
Minmatar
Miner Tech
|
Posted - 2009.08.20 15:50:00 -
[12]
"Since the beginning of EVE, one of the more frustrating issues when trying to balance ships has been that there was only one ‘space' available for all of the stuff a player needed to carry along - the ‘Cargo' 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!
|
Lord Haur
Amarr
StarHunt
|
Posted - 2009.08.20 15:53:00 -
[13]
Edited by: Lord Haur on 20/08/2009 15:55:00
Originally by: Gnulpie
"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!
Small/Med/Large rigs all have the same bonuses and penalties. All that's changed is that rigging anything battlecruiser and smaller became cheaper.
|
Fuujin
GoonFleet
|
Posted - 2009.08.20 16:01:00 -
[14]
Edited by: Fuujin on 20/08/2009 16:04:08
Originally by: Lord Haur
Edited by: Lord Haur on 20/08/2009 15:47:48
Originally by: Fuujin
Not only that, but they need to hold the REALLY massive amount of strontium needed to fuel their triage modules.
Strontium Clathrates is an Ice Product
Edit: Also, you now have MORE space than before for fuel + stront, so non-issue is non-issue.
I was focusing more on the huge volume of space required by that particular ice product which does not fuel the jump drive, not that it was of a separate class of material.
And from the logic put forth by the devblog--if it is consistent, anyway--the cargospace of capital ships was a grudging concession to the volumes of ice product required, and they were horrified to discover that some parties were using said space to haul general cargo. Now that they are 'freed from the shackles of general cargo,' they can safely expand the size of the fuelbay to a functional level where you can use 3-4 triage cycles and still have a respectable round-trip jump range.
|
Destination SkillQueue
Are We There Yet
|
Posted - 2009.08.20 16:03:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Lord Haur
Edited by: Lord Haur on 20/08/2009 15:55:00
Originally by: Gnulpie
"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!
Small/Med/Large rigs all have the same bonuses and penalties. All that's changed is that rigging anything battlecruiser and smaller became cheaper.
I don't see the issue either with rigs at least. The only change was lower cost of rigging smaller ships. To me that only makes logical sense. If you want the option to fit crappy or more powerful rigs at reduced/increased penalties, just ask for it. Nothing in this round of changes rules that out.
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Minmatar
Dark-Rising
|
Posted - 2009.08.20 16:15:00 -
[16]
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.
-
Auditing and consulting
Before asking for investors, please read
http://tinyurl.com/n5ys4h and
http://tinyurl.com/lrg4oz
|
Rukh Eila
|
Posted - 2009.08.20 16:17:00 -
[17]
Anybody know whether the 75% reduction in Carrier cargo size effects just the cargo hold or does it also effect the corp hanger?
|
Nekopyat
|
Posted - 2009.08.20 16:21:00 -
[18]
If people are re-purposing combat centric ships like the dreads into non-combat roles, what that SHOULD be telling you is that the lineup of industrial ships is inadequate.
If a ship can be abused into filling a role BETTER then the specialized ships that are designed to fill that role, that is an indication that something is wrong with those specialized ships (or that there is not enough variety in them). Nerfing the flexable combat ship is not the answer. Giving better options is.
Which is exactly what the shipbuilders in new eden would probably do. Oh, there is a demand for ships that can do XYZ! we should make some of those and earn piles of cash! They could even start by just taking dread hulls and hollowing them out.
|
Fuujin
GoonFleet
|
Posted - 2009.08.20 16:24:00 -
[19]
Edited by: Fuujin on 20/08/2009 16:27:26
Originally by: Rukh Eila
Anybody know whether the 75% reduction in Carrier cargo size effects just the cargo hold or does it also effect the corp hanger?
The corp hangar is unaffected by the size reduction. Whether you can actually use it at any given time is another question.
Edit: To be post above, the Rorqual is an excellent ship that combines a modest tank with hauling capabilities nicely tiered between a DST and a Jump Freighter. So the niche that was filled by dreads and carriers was finally addressed by CCP (years later). At this point, people using dreads to haul are just using a ship of convenience; anyone who trains to dreadnought specifically to haul is really doing something wrong.
|
Femaref
Armageddon Day
|
Posted - 2009.08.20 16:33:00 -
[20]
just cargo
|
Daftny Litchinova
RIC ACADEMY OF MINING AND ASTROGEOLOGY
|
Posted - 2009.08.20 16:36:00 -
[21]
Ammo bay is a great idea, and in the same type of idea, I would like to see a 'stack' for turrets and missile launchers - you could put different ammo type stacked in advance (maybe one or 2), the weapon won't reload for 10 seconds because you change ammo type before they ran out of the actual ammo used...after all we are in a high tech far future eh?! this delay every time you change ammo type just doesn't make sense imo. just like having to reactivate weapons when they have reloaded...it doesn't feel like sci-fi high tech stuff!
Ho and can I get more details about that ore bay for the orca? is it a replacement? how it affect the rest of the cargo bay?
overall great stuff
*If you like my sig and want one, PM with a brief description of what you would like! |
Fuujin
GoonFleet
|
Posted - 2009.08.20 16:45:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Daftny Litchinova
Ho and can I get more details about that ore bay for the orca? is it a replacement? how it affect the rest of the cargo bay?
overall great stuff
The orca and rorqual got a bit of a "buff"--their general cargoholds are not reduced, while the ore bay was added (and the rorq got a 'free' fuel bay as well).
|
Clansworth
|
Posted - 2009.08.20 16:52:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Fuujin
Originally by: Daftny Litchinova
Ho and can I get more details about that ore bay for the orca? is it a replacement? how it affect the rest of the cargo bay?
overall great stuff
The orca and rorqual got a bit of a "buff"--their general cargoholds are not reduced, while the ore bay was added (and the rorq got a 'free' fuel bay as well).
Which, when you consider the Rorq's ore bay can hold the compressed ore, you're looking at some SERIOUS increase in usefulness.. almost enough to bring the rorq out of the POS shields... A question I have is, can the compression lines pull from/to the ore bay? I'm guessing not, but THAT would seriously be a big improvement, and decrease a lot of the redundant dragging.
Intel/Nomad |
something somethingdark
|
Posted - 2009.08.20 16:56:00 -
[24]
lol carriers
in essence you dont want me to use the triage module or welll anything else but
1) bring rigged ships from A to B
2) participate in cap fights as the dps that doesnt lag
3) rep poses ... but not with triage
brilliant!
|
Fuujin
GoonFleet
|
Posted - 2009.08.20 16:58:00 -
[25]
Edited by: Fuujin on 20/08/2009 17:00:02
Originally by: Clansworth
Which, when you consider the Rorq's ore bay can hold the compressed ore, you're looking at some SERIOUS increase in usefulness.. almost enough to bring the rorq out of the POS shields... A question I have is, can the compression lines pull from/to the ore bay? I'm guessing not, but THAT would seriously be a big improvement, and decrease a lot of the redundant dragging.
Testing on singularity showed that it could not; if that has been 'fixed' is another question. Probably not though.
It is a decent enough buff for the rorq, at that.
Originally by: something somethingdark
lol carriers
in essence you dont want me to use the triage module or welll anything else but
1) bring rigged ships from A to B
2) participate in cap fights as the dps that doesnt lag
3) rep poses ... but not with triage
brilliant!
Apparently, if it can't be done in a single triage cycle it's not worth doing.
|
Clansworth
|
Posted - 2009.08.20 17:01:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Fuujin
Edited by: Fuujin on 20/08/2009 17:00:02
Originally by: Clansworth
Which, when you consider the Rorq's ore bay can hold the compressed ore, you're looking at some SERIOUS increase in usefulness.. almost enough to bring the rorq out of the POS shields... A question I have is, can the compression lines pull from/to the ore bay? I'm guessing not, but THAT would seriously be a big improvement, and decrease a lot of the redundant dragging.
Testing on singularity showed that it could not; if that has been 'fixed' is another question. Probably not though.
It is a decent enough buff for the rorq, at that.
Originally by: something somethingdark
lol carriers
in essence you dont want me to use the triage module or welll anything else but
1) bring rigged ships from A to B
2) participate in cap fights as the dps that doesnt lag
3) rep poses ... but not with triage
brilliant!
Apparently, if it can't be done in a single triage cycle it's not worth doing.
i figured not.. I'm hoping that the future S&I improvements expand input ant output selection options, to allow pulling to.from alternate POS modules, and from specialized bays, such as on the rorq...
Intel/Nomad |
Kyra Felann
Gallente
Noctis Fleet Technologies
|
Posted - 2009.08.20 17:11:00 -
[27]
I like these changes.
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.
|
Darkdood
|
Posted - 2009.08.20 17:11:00 -
[28]
Edited by: Darkdood on 20/08/2009 17:16:47
I 100% agree with all of the fuel bays cargo changes etc it all makes sense ACCEPT... why carriers get only 3k for fuel? and moms get 5k? This makes absolutely no sense to me given that in a fight if a carrier jumps with the dreads triage modes to rep/support ships and then jumps back home it used EXACTLY the same fuel as the dread. Assuming same skill lvl's. So why don't all three have 8k fuel bays?
If your answer is that the carrier and moms have corp hangars then I have two words for you...
EPIC FAIL!
|
Sertan Deras
Gallente
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.08.20 17:13:00 -
[29]
So let me get this straight. You upped the Dread fuel bay to 8k (not really gonna complain, but it was fine at 6k)...and you left Carriers at 3k.
Seriously, do you guys play this game? At all? News flash for you: Carriers use the same amount of fuel per LY as Dreads but can actually jump farther (using more fuel), also have a module that uses stront, and very often fit a cyno that uses liquid ozone. What's this add up to? The fact that Carriers need just as much fuel.
Don't give me the "Haha, you have a CHA" line either, because that's now the only place a Carrier can actually put capital mods. Oh yes CCP, you're lovely little change here made it so capitals can't actually carry their own mods. Ingenious game design. Yes, lets have capital mods be 80 times the size of other mods in the game (news flash, my ship isn't 80 times the size of a battleship), then make it so the ships that use them can't carry them. Brilliant.
Oh noes, players were using their 2bn ISK, 10 months of training ships to haul their personal stuff around, we can't have that, now can we? You guys make it sound as if you could run an industrial empire using a Dread as your hauler (you couldn't). This is just another one of CCP's famous "Oh geez, the players thought up an alternate use for a hull, better change that post haste" patches.
|
Kyra Felann
Gallente
Noctis Fleet Technologies
|
Posted - 2009.08.20 17:16:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Gnulpie
But isn't that EXACTLY what a sandbox game is about?
Your definition of "sandbox" is different from mine if you think the ability to effectively use a hammer as a screwdriver is a good thing.
The sandbox is what you do with ships, not how you fit them. Many MMOs have great flexibility in how you develop your character's skills and stats--does that make them a sandbox also?
I think you misunderstand what makes Eve a sandbox.
|
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
|
Clansworth
|
Posted - 2009.08.21 11:17:00 -
[61]
Originally by: Xthril Ranger
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...
Can a mothership fit itself anyways? I was under the impression that all ships needed another source of fitting.. whether it's a SMA, Orca, or other cap ship... either way, you aren't going anywhere by yourself if you plan on changing fittings...
Intel/Nomad |
Xthril Ranger
hirr
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.08.21 11:43:00 -
[62]
Originally by: Clansworth
Originally by: Xthril Ranger
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...
Can a mothership fit itself anyways? I was under the impression that all ships needed another source of fitting.. whether it's a SMA, Orca, or other cap ship... either way, you aren't going anywhere by yourself if you plan on changing fittings...
A mothership can not fit itself. I was thinking of there actually beeing some kind of way of fitting it. I thought you had to have the component in cargo and those capital modules are 4000 m^3.
.
you'll never jump alone
|
Saint VII
Minmatar
Tribal Liberation Force
|
Posted - 2009.08.21 12:13:00 -
[63]
Well written and fun to read. :)
No great scoundrel is ever uninteresting. |
Sarah Moonshine
The Maverick Navy
Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.08.21 15:43:00 -
[64]
While it troubles me that the cargohold for all combat capitals is taking such a heavy cut, I'm even more worried about the size of fuel bays for both carriers and moms. While they admitedly don't use as much stront as dreads (triage is pretty situational, where sieging is a matter of "choice"), such a small bay force carriers to carry way too much fuel in hangar bays, further compromising their logistics capabilities.
--
|
Alz Shado
Ever Flow
Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.08.21 16:15:00 -
[65]
That's nice. Now how about that minifreighter we've been begging for?
á
-----------------------------------------
"Kill a man one is a murderer; kill a million, a conqueror; kill them all, a God." -- Jean Rostand |
Valarkin
|
Posted - 2009.08.21 16:28:00 -
[66]
So much for the sandbox concept. You really need to stop using it in your marketing materials.
|
Dav Varan
|
Posted - 2009.08.21 17:36:00 -
[67]
Originally by: Valarkin
So much for the sandbox concept. You really need to stop using it in your marketing materials.
It is a sandbox , its just that Ccp has the biggest spades.
|
Caldreis
Caldari
White Star II
Ethereal Advancement Coalition
|
Posted - 2009.08.21 18:04:00 -
[68]
While the reduced unpackaged volume help those in nullsec with battleship hauling. It does nothing to help those in highsec at all. What happened to changing or add to Orca for hauling battleship? The freighter and orca are both used in highsec yet I saw no change for them in 1.5 apocrypha patch.
Originally by: Rifter is equiped with the following rigs
4. Transport of Rigged Ships
This is something that can be a pain for many of you. There are ways around it such as using courier missions if the ship is small enough with a freighter or an Orca's ship maintenance bay for smaller ships. We will be looking into numerous ways to help alleviate the issue of transporting rigged ships.
|
Aramith
|
Posted - 2009.08.21 18:33:00 -
[69]
Originally by: Valarkin
So much for the sandbox concept. You really need to stop using it in your marketing materials.
eve is still a sandbox...you can play eve however you want. that does not mean that every ship has to be able to do everything. there would only be one ship in eve and it would have 8 high slots, 8 mid slots, 8 low slots, 3 rig slots, and insane cpu and powergrid output.
You just have to realize that you have to use the right tool for the right job. I can fit guns on my tech 1 industrial ship (they all have 1 turret hard point), but does that mean i should be able to run lvl 3 or 4 combat missions in it? NO, and that fact does not prevent eve from being a sandbox.
|
Melos Tellemey
|
Posted - 2009.08.21 19:50:00 -
[70]
Edited by: Melos Tellemey on 21/08/2009 19:50:39
Up the fuel bay sizes on carriers to be equal with dreads. otherwise. im good.
|
Mynas Atoch
UK Corp
Mostly Harmless
|
Posted - 2009.08.21 21:42:00 -
[71]
Edited by: Mynas Atoch on 21/08/2009 21:45:29
Hmm. Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Next step is surely to replace the existing cargo expander and cargo rig bonuses with a module and rig that has fixed or diminishing returns so you can balance and scale hauling size too.
![]() |
Franga
NQX Innovations
|
Posted - 2009.08.21 22:55:00 -
[72]
I like it. Don't care about changes to capital ships, tbh, but the idea of 'specialised bays' being added to many and varied ships is something I'm on board with.
_____________________________
Please resize sig to a file size no greater than 24000 bytes - Mitnal |
Kayosoni
Caldari
Destructive Influence
|
Posted - 2009.08.21 23:02:00 -
[73]
Quote:
Dreadnaughts
A very long time ago, a corp mate sent me a screenshot of something he had done with his Moros:
All in all it seemed rather horrible and a complete perversion of a ship whose sole purpose was to do more OMGWTFBBQ damage than any other ship in the game.
This is a joke right? Considering dreads don't do ANY damage to any other ships except themselves, I find you must be an idiot and/or delusional.
---
|
RahSun
Ars ex Discordia
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.08.22 01:13:00 -
[74]
So when should we expect salvagecanes & salvaging destroyers to see a similar nerf from repurposing them into glorified loot haulers/hoovers? or will CCP give them a salvage/loot bay and state that they now have an additional purpose?
The argument that fitting cargo expanders on a moros somehow ruins the game to give it an added functionality-while penalizing another part of the ship's function falls flat.
|
Mynas Atoch
UK Corp
Mostly Harmless
|
Posted - 2009.08.22 05:34:00 -
[75]
Originally by: Kayosoni
Considering dreads don't do ANY damage to any other ships except themselves, I find you must be an idiot and/or delusional.
So no supercap, capital, battleship or other has ever been pwnd by dreads? I know most former bobbits have quit eve, but your member muct be very short.
![]() |
Mynas Atoch
UK Corp
Mostly Harmless
|
Posted - 2009.08.22 07:31:00 -
[76]
Originally by: RahSun
So when should we expect salvagecanes & salvaging destroyers to see a similar nerf from repurposing them into glorified loot haulers/hoovers? or will CCP give them a salvage/loot bay and state that they now have an additional purpose?
If ORE (or one of the other factions) release a dedicated salvage ship, I'd fly it.
![]() |
Mynas Atoch
UK Corp
Mostly Harmless
|
Posted - 2009.08.22 07:36:00 -
[77]
Edited by: Mynas Atoch on 22/08/2009 07:37:12
Originally by: Sarah Moonshine
While it troubles me that the cargohold for all combat capitals is taking such a heavy cut, I'm even more worried about the size of fuel bays for both carriers and moms. While they admitedly don't use as much stront as dreads (triage is pretty situational, where sieging is a matter of "choice"), such a small bay force carriers to carry way too much fuel in hangar bays, further compromising their logistics capabilities.
I think that's the point - stripping out unintended (or excess) roles from ships to create space for new classes AND the ability to scale and balance them.
![]() |
Jason Edwards
Internet Tough Guy
|
Posted - 2009.08.23 13:38:00 -
[78]
So my thanatos went from 3,500m3 cargo. Which could be used by anything... to 875m3 + 3000m3 of ice only.
Ya 300m3 boost? I think not. You could have a giant can in your cargo. Which meant 3900m3 + 500m3. Not to mention the possibility of expanders.
So really... this was a cargo nerf based solely on the amount of cargo space there is. Add in the fact that 3500m3 could have been used by anything. Now 3000m3 can only be used by ice products.
Total nerf that was entirely unwarranted.
------------------------
To make a megathron from scratch, you must first invent the eve universe.
------------------------
Life sucks and then you get podded. |
Infinion
Caldari
Endless Destruction
|
Posted - 2009.08.23 23:55:00 -
[79]
a fuel bay should have been added to the cargohold carriers had before. Now that their cargoholds are battleship sized, you need to dock in a station to refit; and this poses a huge problem for those whose carriers are in wormhole space unable to switch out capital modules
|
Shigawahhhhh
Caldari
Metalworks
Majesta Empire
|
Posted - 2009.08.24 05:31:00 -
[80]
Edited by: Shigawahhhhh on 24/08/2009 05:33:23
I know its not really the place to make the suggestion but since everyone keeps trying to make mini jump freighters out of other ships...how about CCP actually make one? I'd say about 50km3 space and able to cyno jump. for around the 1b mark worth of stuff. Roughly 4b for the ability to jump lots of stuff is a bit much to come out for some of us.
To the above if your gonna take a carrier into wormhole space you already needed something to fit from. So either take something else with the modules in or put them in your corp bit that still has 10,000m3 space.
|
|
CCP Abathur
|
Posted - 2009.08.24 05:36:00 -
[81]
Originally by: Infinion
a fuel bay should have been added to the cargohold carriers had before. Now that their cargoholds are battleship sized, you need to dock in a station to refit; and this poses a huge problem for those whose carriers are in wormhole space unable to switch out capital modules
As has been previously noted, you can fit normal modules from either your cargo bay or your corp hangar array. You can also fit capital modules from your corp hangar array. The old sized cargo bay on carriers could not fit capital sized modules without also fitting low slot cargo expanders or cargo rigs.
As for being in wormhole space, no ship has ever been able to 'fit itself', so I suggest you look into a starbase with a ship maintenance array or ask another friendly carrier to pull up alongside. 
|
|
captnjack
Ars ex Discordia
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.08.24 18:42:00 -
[82]
Please CCP, give us the ability to take from a GSC in a carrier's CHA while in space.
Before this patch, you could move the GSC from from the CHA to your cargo, then either eject the GSC or move the contents to your CHA. Now, with the small cargohold volumes, you are effectively stuck with the GSC in your CHA until you can dock up.
|
Haniblecter Teg
F.R.E.E. Explorer
Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2009.08.25 15:01:00 -
[83]
To be sure, you're reducing the CARGOHOLD, and not the CORPORATION HANGAR on carriers.
Cuase reducing the latter would be asinine. I wouldnt be able to switch out cap modules on the fly. That would suck for fun tactical play.
-----------------
Friends Forever |
Haniblecter Teg
F.R.E.E. Explorer
Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2009.08.25 15:22:00 -
[84]
Originally by: CCP Abathur
Originally by: Infinion
a fuel bay should have been added to the cargohold carriers had before. Now that their cargoholds are battleship sized, you need to dock in a station to refit; and this poses a huge problem for those whose carriers are in wormhole space unable to switch out capital modules
As has been previously noted, you can fit normal modules from either your cargo bay or your corp hangar array. You can also fit capital modules from your corp hangar array. The old sized cargo bay on carriers could not fit capital sized modules without also fitting low slot cargo expanders or cargo rigs.
As for being in wormhole space, no ship has ever been able to 'fit itself', so I suggest you look into a starbase with a ship maintenance array or ask another friendly carrier to pull up alongside.
Not sure why you didn't just come out and say, CORP HANGAR IS GOING TO BE UNCHANGED, instead of going on about how people use the corp hangar and not cargohold to fit out their carriers.
But whatever, got my answer.
-----------------
Friends Forever |
Haniblecter Teg
F.R.E.E. Explorer
Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2009.08.25 15:22:00 -
[85]
Originally by: captnjack
Please CCP, give us the ability to take from a GSC in a carrier's CHA while in space.
Before this patch, you could move the GSC from from the CHA to your cargo, then either eject the GSC or move the contents to your CHA. Now, with the small cargohold volumes, you are effectively stuck with the GSC in your CHA until you can dock up.
A GSC never fit in teh cargohold.
-----------------
Friends Forever |
Herring
Caldari
Alcatraz Inc.
Tactical Narcotics Team
|
Posted - 2009.08.26 02:55:00 -
[86]
Originally by: CCP Abathur
Originally by: Infinion
a fuel bay should have been added to the cargohold carriers had before. Now that their cargoholds are battleship sized, you need to dock in a station to refit; and this poses a huge problem for those whose carriers are in wormhole space unable to switch out capital modules
As has been previously noted, you can fit normal modules from either your cargo bay or your corp hangar array. You can also fit capital modules from your corp hangar array. The old sized cargo bay on carriers could not fit capital sized modules without also fitting low slot cargo expanders or cargo rigs.
As for being in wormhole space, no ship has ever been able to 'fit itself', so I suggest you look into a starbase with a ship maintenance array or ask another friendly carrier to pull up alongside.
You cannot, however, fit anything from a GSC in your CHA now. Cans separating items were a workaround to the loading issues for the CHA when you had a significant number of items there. Any chance you can fix that loading issue?
And why boost the fuel bays on dreads so much and not carriers?
2/10 for not making sense.
|
Narffy
Imperial Coalition
The Council.
|
Posted - 2009.08.27 23:28:00 -
[87]
Will you give Freighters / Jump Freighters ship bays so they can carry rigged battlecruisers and battleships around? Sucks having a cargo ship that can't carry your cargo simply because your cargo has rigs. It would also be nice if these 4+ bil isk ships had more module slots than shuttles.
|
slinkor
|
Posted - 2009.09.02 05:27:00 -
[88]
I have to take the sandbox view here. If someone comes up with an unintended way of using their ship and it works they deserve congratulations, not more restrictions. When I started playing EVE there were a few impossibilities (mining with a kestrel comes to mind) but for the most part you just had to figure out how to do what you wanted. T3 ships are prized for, that's right, versatility. The ability to make it do a variety of tasks well. Think about it.
All said, I have to give this 2 thumbs down.
|
HeliosGal
|
Posted - 2009.09.02 12:03:00 -
[89]
well the gas bays sound interesting ( specced t3 dessies perhaps that can store more gas) allowing for longer mining.
What else do we have specialised bays for livestock, npc trade goods other items ?
|
Salomei
|
Posted - 2009.09.11 08:00:00 -
[90]
Edited by: Salomei on 11/09/2009 08:01:42
As far as "realistic" explanations go, it seems the restrictions go the wrong way. As described, I could put fuel in the fuel and the cargo bay, but no mundane cargo in the fuel bay. Why? If anything, I would expect the fuel to need a special environment to remain stable (or for some other scifi-ish reason), but would also expect that packed mods and such could be crammed anywhere there's empty space... like an empty fuel bay. Ore: maybe I can't "compress" the cargo, but I'd think that an ore bay could fit large amounts of non-ore. What's stopping me, really? Bomb bay (hypothetical, was mentioned above): makes sense that bombs need to be stored somewhere special to be active, but why couldn't I put cargo in there if I don't have bombs at the time?
I can understand it being bad to dump a ship hull into a half-tank of fuel. Maybe there are mechanical loaders that would forget the ship isn't fuel and tear it to bits or something. But if I'm not carrying fuel at all I should be able to "shut off" any specialized systems for the fuel bay and cram it full of long-limb roe if I feel like it.
Basically, it comes down to: if the specialized bay is, in game terms, a large and empty space, why can't I put cargo in there if I have none of that "special" type?
---
And to whoever said that "sandbox" isn't the same as hammer=screwdriver, you're absolutely right. But I should be able to try using a hammer as a crappy screwdriver substitute if I don't have a proper screwdriver, or can't use one. Nothing in RL says that screwdriver-screw interaction is sacred and that using a driver to, say, pry something open is contrary to immutable physical laws. If it works, it works.
The problem EVE apparently has (as has been mentioned) is that the hammer's aren't much better than screwdrivers for bashing stuff. Make indys more useful for what people have been using carriers for, and you've solved your problem. No special bays needed.
|
Camdim
Caldari
Blood and Steel Enterprises
|
Posted - 2009.09.12 07:36:00 -
[91]
Can we get an eta on the next step in this process? Fuel rods.
There has been talk about it how hard can it be to set them up and simplify both the fueling for ships and POS?
|
Apollo Sci
|
Posted - 2009.09.17 06:17:00 -
[92]
Doesn't anyone care about how this will effect Dreadmining?
Poor, poor veldspar.
|
Zebramind
Caldari
The Violet Hour
|
Posted - 2009.10.01 11:01:00 -
[93]
tl;dr : Don't, CCP. Oh, you did!
@CCP Fallout, all the talk about butterflies, emergence and the "sandbox" is somewhat empty, right?
I have no particular use for, say, carriers, and I am not on about the actual changes. I just note that you are in the process of removing a degree of freedom from the game, i.e. the player's option to fit some ship outside its intended role and play differently. And as far as I can tell that goes contrary to the CCP hype, in general.
So why is CCP so anal about "roles" anyway? Basically, you could have just implemented the friggin fuel bays and that was that. I'll answer... since that makes it a lot easier to make my point... you are out to grow your customer base by differentiating the various game "roles" to inhibit someone from filling more than one role effectively, given some skills and investment. News at 11 maybe, I know. So why don't you just say so? "Hi little ones, welcome to our sandbox. We control your game. Now, you can only have either a bucket or a shovel, so if you need to fill your bucket go find someone with a shovel. And you can invite a friend... isn't that awesome! and cool!"
That is basically the proposition. Why all the crap, then, to try to justify these changes in a gameplay context? Fact is "awesome" and "cool" fill dev blogs these days all the while actual EVE awesomeness suffers as you try to optimize business.
I am well medicated today and recognize that I sound all wound up (which I am) but imo it is, in fact, a big deal to begin inhibiting people to a fixed set of roles, in order to force collaboration, because it messes with some fundamental anarchistic quality, essential for its staying power, that EVE has. Let people mine in their MS if they want without imposing artificial restrictions - the thing is huge, of course it can be set up to mine or haul or whatever, tbh. If you remove or over-limit the lattitude for diversification in gameplay you will eventually loose the texture and emergence that you are trying to pitch as the central EVE narrative.
Making roles orthogonal with respect to skills and in-game investment maximizes out-of-game revenue per player - no doubt. Unless they get bored, of course. Which, I believe, would be bad business. And it sucks somewhat to be fed the bull**** spin on it. Nothing wrong with optimizing business but be straight about it (and do it properly).
So, your dread friend ( yup) had been creative and done something outside of the box to gain an advantage. Which is what EVE is really about. Right?
And now my real question: How do you like my use of emoticons? (be honest)
/Zebra
|
Majama
Minmatar
Astral Light of Nature
|
Posted - 2009.10.02 11:14:00 -
[94]
I think we need ammo bays for all ships, now amarrian ship have advantafe in their clear and fast clearing after missions cargo bay. Especially minmatar and caldari ships need ammo bay. Ammar dont need nad gallente optional need (no need in drone ships). After every mission we lost some time to load new portions ammo and must do property selection when throw out cargo in space. I will waiting for ammo bay.
use the force |
Camdim
Caldari
Blood and Steel Enterprises
|
Posted - 2009.10.05 15:45:00 -
[95]
Some things that should be worked on.
Add specialized cargo expansion modules. By putting these in the low slots you can then take an make a more specialized cargo vessel without having to add a ton of new ships.
For example:
Ship holding cargo expansion: Allows for more space for ships to be held that are fitted.
Fuel cargo expansions: Allows for more space to hold fuel.
Ore cargo expansions: Changes your general cargo hold to hold only ore but expands that space at the same time for more ore. Can also be used on ships with ore cargo bays to increase their capacity.
Ammo cargo expansions: Changes over your general cargo hold to holding ammo only but increases that space as well. When ammo bays are in then these would need to be split into two kinds one for expanding ammo bays and one for doing the expansion for general cargo bays.
Fuel rods saying this again as it needs to happen and should be simple enough to do. You need 8 blue prints for these one for each racial fuel type for ships and one for each racial fuel type for POS. You have the requirements for building these already in the required fuel for each to do one jump. How can this be so hard to do?
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page] |