| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Jada Maroo
Mysterium Astrometrics
765
   |
Posted - 2012.07.02 18:38:00 -
[1] - Quote
I know this has been a long requested change, but somehow it's slipped through the cracks with all the other ease-of-use adjustments to Eve.
Isn't it about time we get rid of the packaging requirement, or at least make a swiftly right-clickable "Shipping Package" state for ships going for a ride in a freighter? And no, I don't want to have a half-assed method of allowing us to contract with ourselves. That just takes what could be one step and turns it into 10. And yes, I'd rather just have a new (maybe ORE) freighter made for ships or something so we get a new ship out of the deal.
But I will settle for a shipping state button that then just lets us drag and drop into cargo hold like anything else.
I dare you to respond, CCP!  |
Surfin's PlunderBunny
Blue Republic
RvB - BLUE Republic
1637
|
Posted - 2012.07.02 18:42:00 -
[2] - Quote
tl;dr: Let us transport rigged ships |
Xercodo
Disturbed Friends Of Diazepam
Dark Matter Coalition
1174
|
Posted - 2012.07.02 18:44:00 -
[3] - Quote
Make a new T2 freighter variant D:
I proposed this a long time ago too
http://community.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1222545
The Drake is a Lie |
Luba Cibre
Global Song Setup
158
|
Posted - 2012.07.02 18:51:00 -
[4] - Quote
Get a carrier, problem solved. |
Morganta
Peripheral Madness
The Midget Mafia
1700
|
Posted - 2012.07.02 18:52:00 -
[5] - Quote
Luba Cibre wrote:Get a carrier, problem solved.
pretty much this
"You were the chosen one Anakin, you were supposed to bring order to the galaxy, not destroy it!" -Obi Wan (Ben) Kenobi
-á |
Akirei Scytale
Test Alliance Please Ignore
1719
|
Posted - 2012.07.02 18:55:00 -
[6] - Quote
Jada Maroo wrote: I'd rather just have a new (maybe ORE) freighter made for ships or something so we get a new ship out of the deal.
There are already 4 ships that do this.
TEST Alliance BEST Alliance |
Xercodo
Disturbed Friends Of Diazepam
Dark Matter Coalition
1174
|
Posted - 2012.07.02 18:57:00 -
[7] - Quote
Luba Cibre wrote:Get a carrier, problem solved.
HIGH SEC Battleship movement D:
The Drake is a Lie |
Sentient Blade
Walk It Off
LEGIO ASTARTES ARCANUM
429
|
Posted - 2012.07.02 18:59:00 -
[8] - Quote
I'd buy a highsec ship carrier / freighter even if it doesn't have any offensive capability. |
Xercodo
Disturbed Friends Of Diazepam
Dark Matter Coalition
1174
|
Posted - 2012.07.02 19:01:00 -
[9] - Quote
I'd also like to propose a new ship transport contract that the new freighter would be able to carry (since a normal freighter can't carry more then a single BS sized courier and cause a SMA can't hold courier packages).
The Drake is a Lie |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
2148
|
Posted - 2012.07.02 19:04:00 -
[10] - Quote
In essense, a ferry.
To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors.
If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Merovee
Gorthaur Legion
Of Mordor
20
|
Posted - 2012.07.02 19:13:00 -
[11] - Quote
No
Move them in low-sec by carrier. Alliances shouldn't have the freedom of moving ships in hi-sec,but should be forced to move them in low and null. Leave hi-sec to the bears! |
Speaker4 theDead
Phantom Squad Industry
Nulli Tertius
7
|
Posted - 2012.07.02 19:13:00 -
[12] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:In essense, a fairy.
Don't we have enough of them in the game already? 
|
Xercodo
Disturbed Friends Of Diazepam
Dark Matter Coalition
1174
|
Posted - 2012.07.02 19:29:00 -
[13] - Quote
Merovee wrote:No
Move them in low-sec by carrier. Alliances shouldn't have the freedom of moving ships in hi-sec,but should be forced to move them in low and null. Leave hi-sec to the bears!
b-b-but, the bears are the ones asking for this D:
The Drake is a Lie |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
2148
|
Posted - 2012.07.02 19:39:00 -
[14] - Quote
As nice as this would be, I can also see the value in not having this... it encourages industry outside of the acknowledged market hubs.
Ease of logistics is a bit of a problem at the moment.
To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors.
If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Denidil
Larimer Highlands Heavy Industries
291
|
Posted - 2012.07.02 19:41:00 -
[15] - Quote
Xercodo wrote:Luba Cibre wrote:Get a carrier, problem solved. HIGH SEC Battleship movement D:
i think a "light carrier" idea would be great, weak tank (for a cap), not allowed into lvl 4 missions or below, not allowed into incursions, can use gates, can carry 2-4 fully equipped rigged battleships in it's ship maint bay. faster than a normal carrier, slower than a battleship.
I like all these gankbear tears, now maybe you'll have to go prove your "l33t pvp" skills against something that shoots back like the rest of us do. |
Jada Maroo
Mysterium Astrometrics
766
|
Posted - 2012.07.02 19:47:00 -
[16] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:As nice as this would be, I can also see the value in not having this... it encourages industry outside of the acknowledged market hubs.
As it is now, you can freely freight unrigged/packaged ships and those use a lot less space. So it won't have an effect on the market.
But just from a sense-making perspective - what the hell is stopping me from putting my own rigged ship in a wrapper and freighting it? I can do it for someone else, I can do it with my own alts, but I can't do it for myself? |
arcca jeth
Dark Alliance
Dark Empire Alliance
88
|
Posted - 2012.07.02 19:55:00 -
[17] - Quote
I think the Orca might be your solution besides, do you really want a target painted on your forehead that says "transporting BIG ships!"
and if in low or 0.0 you have your obvious solutions. |
stoicfaux
1209
|
Posted - 2012.07.02 20:02:00 -
[18] - Quote
Or, you know, go with the really simple solution of removing the "rigs are destroyed when removed" feature.
You can tell me what is and isn't Truth when you pry the tinfoil from my cold, lifeless head.
|
Victoria Sin
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
45
|
Posted - 2012.07.02 20:02:00 -
[19] - Quote
arcca jeth wrote:I think the Orca might be your solution besides, do you really want a target painted on your forehead that says "transporting BIG ships!"
and if in low or 0.0 you have your obvious solutions.
Orca can carry 2 Hulks. It's ship bay is pathetically small. |
Pipa Porto
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
227
|
Posted - 2012.07.02 21:00:00 -
[20] - Quote
Maybe just allow the Freighter to put packaged ships in its hold. Can't poop them out in space per usual, the only new thing that allows is transporting fitted ships to POSes in a Freighter.
-RubyPorto
IB4TS |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
2148
|
Posted - 2012.07.02 22:09:00 -
[21] - Quote
Jada Maroo wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:As nice as this would be, I can also see the value in not having this... it encourages industry outside of the acknowledged market hubs.
As it is now, you can freely freight unrigged/packaged ships and those use a lot less space. So it won't have an effect on the market. But just from a sense-making perspective - what the hell is stopping me from putting my own rigged ship in a wrapper and freighting it? I can do it for someone else, I can do it with my own alts, but I can't do it for myself?
I probably didn't explain the point well.
Right now it is very convenient to build ships in the major hubs where resources are plentiful on the market and cheap.
It is also very handy to outfit those ships in said market hubs, where modules and rigs are plentiful.
What is NOT as handy is moving those fitted ships (although it is certainly doable).
This provides some minor incentive to build and outfit those ships closer to the area where they will be used, especially fully equipped BS which are consumed in null like candy.
While removing that slight bit of difficulty won't affect things much either way, this is heading in the wrong direction. Transporting ships, equipment, and personel long distances in EVE needs to be more difficult than it currently is, not less. Projection of force and ease of logistics is creating far more deeply rooted issues in EVE than most people realize.
That being said, I can certainly understand why you would want this. Truthfully, from a personal point of view, I do as well... but from the viewpoint of looking at what impact it would have on the overall health of the game I see it as a small step in the wrong direction.
Every encouragement reasonably possible to build finished product closer to where it is going to be used should be considered.
To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors.
If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Sentamon
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
8
|
Posted - 2012.07.02 23:02:00 -
[22] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:As nice as this would be, I can also see the value in not having this... it encourages industry outside of the acknowledged market hubs.
Ease of logistics is a bit of a problem at the moment.
Yup, people pile into a small number of zones way too much already. |
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
Comic Mischief
786
|
Posted - 2012.07.02 23:24:00 -
[23] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:Jada Maroo wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:As nice as this would be, I can also see the value in not having this... it encourages industry outside of the acknowledged market hubs.
As it is now, you can freely freight unrigged/packaged ships and those use a lot less space. So it won't have an effect on the market. But just from a sense-making perspective - what the hell is stopping me from putting my own rigged ship in a wrapper and freighting it? I can do it for someone else, I can do it with my own alts, but I can't do it for myself? I probably didn't explain the point well. Right now it is very convenient to build ships in the major hubs where resources are plentiful on the market and cheap. It is also very handy to outfit those ships in said market hubs, where modules and rigs are plentiful. What is NOT as handy is moving those fitted ships (although it is certainly doable). ....
That can be done now. Move the ship, rigs and modules packaged, assemble at the destination.
The trouble here is when you need to move your home base. You got ships you can package (easy, drop in the freighter) modules and stuff ( again, just drop in the freighter), and then you got all your rigged ships......
What to do to move them? Several ways:
Fly them one by one
Rip out the rigs, package. (If you got the BPOs its even smaller to reprocess them to minerals and rebuild them at the other end)
Contract them to an alt, have the alt make a courier contract, move the ships, have the alt contract them back.
Its this last method, used by many, that is a clumsy workaround to something that should have a in-game mechanic. Some way of just placing an assembled ship in the cargo of a freighter without a bunch of contracts. Still full size, still hard to move many at once, just the removal of a pile of mouse clicks.
Example: Right click on ship, select "Apply shrink wrap". You get a shipping box just like when you do a courier contract. The box is the same volume as the assembled ship. But it can be placed in the hold of another ship. When it comes to how many rigged ships you can place in a freighter there would be no advantage. Its just to save a large number of mouse clicks.
http://vincentoneve.wordpress.com/ |
GSXRSquid
The Scope
Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.07.02 23:42:00 -
[24] - Quote
CCP likes it when we waste time doing things. they take great care to make it so. If they didn;t we might actually get something done.
|
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
2148
|
Posted - 2012.07.03 00:03:00 -
[25] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:Jada Maroo wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:As nice as this would be, I can also see the value in not having this... it encourages industry outside of the acknowledged market hubs.
As it is now, you can freely freight unrigged/packaged ships and those use a lot less space. So it won't have an effect on the market. But just from a sense-making perspective - what the hell is stopping me from putting my own rigged ship in a wrapper and freighting it? I can do it for someone else, I can do it with my own alts, but I can't do it for myself? I probably didn't explain the point well. Right now it is very convenient to build ships in the major hubs where resources are plentiful on the market and cheap. It is also very handy to outfit those ships in said market hubs, where modules and rigs are plentiful. What is NOT as handy is moving those fitted ships (although it is certainly doable). .... That can be done now. Move the ship, rigs and modules packaged, assemble at the destination. The trouble here is when you need to move your home base. You got ships you can package (easy, drop in the freighter) modules and stuff ( again, just drop in the freighter), and then you got all your rigged ships...... What to do to move them? Several ways: Fly them one by one Rip out the rigs, package. (If you got the BPOs its even smaller to reprocess them to minerals and rebuild them at the other end) Contract them to an alt, have the alt make a courier contract, move the ships, have the alt contract them back. Its this last method, used by many, that is a clumsy workaround to something that should have a in-game mechanic. Some way of just placing an assembled ship in the cargo of a freighter without a bunch of contracts. Still full size, still hard to move many at once, just the removal of a pile of mouse clicks. Example: Right click on ship, select "Apply shrink wrap". You get a shipping box just like when you do a courier contract. The box is the same volume as the assembled ship. But it can be placed in the hold of another ship. When it comes to how many rigged ships you can place in a freighter there would be no advantage. Its just to save a large number of mouse clicks.
Hello Vincent, as usual a well thought out post.
However, as I said before, I know that it is certainly doable now... I have done all of the steps you outlined above many times.
Here's the thing, it shouldn't be any easier or simpler to relocate one's home base than it is now... in fact, it really needs to be more difficult than it is now.
Currently it is simplicity itself to move huge volumes of material (including handily pre fit ships) vast distances in EVE. Whether that be from it's area of production/fitting to where it will be used, to relocating your home base in case of invasion (or just because the nebulae is greener on the other side of the fence).
This is a problem. Where you base, where you build, and logistics between the two should be important decisions that have consequences if badly thought out. As it is freighters, jump freighters, jump bridges, and jump portals all contribute to the issue. Anything that makes moving an outfitted ship across the EVE universe easier is something to be avoided from a game design perspective, and compounds the very problems that are fairly universally complained about by high sec dweller and null sec resident alike.
The same problem also affects movement of active fleets (capital and otherwise), but that is for another thread.
To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors.
If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Bootleg Jack
Potters Field
165
|
Posted - 2012.07.03 00:13:00 -
[26] - Quote
As long as ships in this state could only be loaded and unloaded in a station I don't really see it as a huge issue.
Maybe make it take several hours to "prep" the ship and several more hours to "unpack" the ship.
The idea being allow shipping of complete ships without creating some kind of free carrier.
I'm an American, English is my second language... |
Markus Reese
Incertae Sedis
Cascade Imminent
214
|
Posted - 2012.07.03 00:15:00 -
[27] - Quote
I agree on what the other people say, simple solution, eve needs a new freighter class ship specifically for ship maint bay only. T1 normal, T2 jump. |
Saile Litestrider
Clann Fian
22
|
Posted - 2012.07.03 00:25:00 -
[28] - Quote
I've had a couple thoughts along this subject.
First, I'd like to see an orca variant that's focused more toward combat ops. The orca's currently shoehorned into that role pretty frequently, but requires a lot of mining-focused training, and has a lot of options that don't really fit the role. We could see a variant orca with a larger ship bay, no mining bonuses or ore hold, some large scale logistics-focused bonuses (remote rep? warp/align speed? cloak movement speed ala black ops? fleet boosting? lots of choices here), and a training path that, while no shorter, is more in-line with a combat and/or logistics pilot. I'm sure some people would scoff at the idea, but the niche of a mini-carrier is obviously desired, given how the orca is used for this, so why not fill the niche properly? This line of logic has been used several times in the past.
Second, and perhaps more on-topic, I have to think: why are rigs different from modules? From my understanding they were originally intended to be an equal tradeoff that made a ship fit its pilot's personal preferences more, but that's definitely not achieved. They're essentially used like modules, if you need more tank, tank rigs, if you need more capacitor, cap rigs, and so on. So then, what would happen if we removed the "destroyed on removal" property entirely? Obviously the rig market would crash, this could be at least partially offset by making them harder to produce. Would anything else really change, apart from the removal of a lot of ship-transporting and fitting headaches? |
Constable Chang
7
|
Posted - 2012.07.03 00:33:00 -
[29] - Quote
Victoria Sin wrote:arcca jeth wrote:I think the Orca might be your solution besides, do you really want a target painted on your forehead that says "transporting BIG ships!"
and if in low or 0.0 you have your obvious solutions. Orca can carry 2 Hulks. It's ship bay is pathetically small.
Orca ship bay only has to be increased in size a very small amount to be able to carry a battleship. I had imagined that the reason they set the size of the ship bay where they did is precisely this.
|
Constable Chang
7
|
Posted - 2012.07.03 00:36:00 -
[30] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:
While removing that slight bit of difficulty won't affect things much either way, this is heading in the wrong direction. Transporting ships, equipment, and personel long distances in EVE needs to be more difficult than it currently is, not less. Projection of force and ease of logistics is creating far more deeply rooted issues in EVE than most people realize.
That being said, I can certainly understand why you would want this. Truthfully, from a personal point of view, I do as well... but from the viewpoint of looking at what impact it would have on the overall health of the game I see it as a small step in the wrong direction.
Every encouragement reasonably possible to build finished product closer to where it is going to be used should be considered.
Make ammo a more take up a more 'realistic' volume. Logistics problem solved. Or rather made much more interesting...
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |