|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 24 post(s) |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
5618
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 13:34:00 -
[1] - Quote
If your blockade runner gets locked by a scanning ship in the first place, you've already screwed up. Idiot-proofing them for hisec is just silly. ~*a-áproud belligerent undesirable*~
TheMittani.com: The premier source for news, commentary and discussion of EVE Online and other games of interest. |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
5619
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 14:17:00 -
[2] - Quote
Don't worry, I'm sure they'll soon change autopilot so that it activates covops cloaks automatically. We can't require people to pay attention when they're hauling their life's worth now can we? ~*a-áproud belligerent undesirable*~
TheMittani.com: The premier source for news, commentary and discussion of EVE Online and other games of interest. |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
5619
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 14:22:00 -
[3] - Quote
Warde Guildencrantz wrote:Don't get me wrong I love killing transport ships, thing is I just think having that feature on the covert transports that never get scanned because they are cloaked is sort of stupid. It's not like people can easily do something about scanning something good in them in the first place.
Of course, nobody scans blockade runners since they generally don't stay cloaked. But the intent is clearly to avoid punishing players who don't want to actually play the game. ~*a-áproud belligerent undesirable*~
TheMittani.com: The premier source for news, commentary and discussion of EVE Online and other games of interest. |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
5620
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 14:42:00 -
[4] - Quote
Nobody flies deep space transports because the warp strength bonus is useless in bubbleland, lowsec camps generally have hictors and they have a severe lack of powergrid which prevents them from fitting a plate and prop mod. You only ever see them in hisec, usually fully fit with expanders and cargo rigs, negating the purpose of the ship to begin with.
Making them unscannable would be a huge plus rather than making blockade runners foolproof. Imagine it as an armored truck with tinted windows. ~*a-áproud belligerent undesirable*~
TheMittani.com: The premier source for news, commentary and discussion of EVE Online and other games of interest. |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
5620
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 15:01:00 -
[5] - Quote
Sarah Flynt wrote:It even makes things worse. I'm sure this change was made with the best intentions, but now I even have to worry about my ship if I'm flying empty (not necessarily AFK).
Please give that bonus to deep space transports which can at least have a proper tank or a big cargo hold, depending on how you fit it. This way it's a good replacement for the unscannable corp hangar of the Orca and everybody is happy.
Seriously, deep space transports offer plenty of flexibility: you can fit them with a solid 100k+ EHP tank, you can fit them to have a lot of cargo space at the expense of tank, or you can compromise. However, the armor rep bonus is useless since a medium rep precludes fitting an MWD which is far more useful since you can one-cycle it to enter warp quickly, and you're dead the moment an armor rep is useful in any case. Making them unscannable and making them a viable choice for hauling is better than making BRs idiot-proof. ~*a-áproud belligerent undesirable*~
TheMittani.com: The premier source for news, commentary and discussion of EVE Online and other games of interest. |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
5621
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 16:27:00 -
[6] - Quote
Merouk Baas wrote:RE: Deep Space Transports having scan immunity, I think they just didn't want to give the immunity to the tanky ship. All the suicide gankers will start complaining that their profession has been nerfed if they make this change. Because not only do they have to attack a tanky ship now, but now they won't even know what the payout will be. And that's completely unfair to suicide gankers.
So you guys can logically argue it all you want, the decision wasn't made based on the arguments you're arguing.
Orcas have had scan immunity for years and they're far tankier than DSTs. ~*a-áproud belligerent undesirable*~
TheMittani.com: The premier source for news, commentary and discussion of EVE Online and other games of interest. |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
5621
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 17:20:00 -
[7] - Quote
One thing I've noticed from testing on Buckingham is that while one can drag modules from the cargohold to an empty module slot without opening the fitting window, it can't be done if the item is in the fleet hangar. Is there a possibility that this will be addressed? Having to open the fitting window when swapping capital-sized mods is tedious. ~*a-áproud belligerent undesirable*~
TheMittani.com: The premier source for news, commentary and discussion of EVE Online and other games of interest. |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
5623
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 19:48:00 -
[8] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:Adding +1 to the fact that Blockade Runners are already unscannable because of their covops cloak, and that making them unscannable just means that AFKing them about empty becomes far riskier than beforehand. It's the sort of idea that sounds great at first, but five minutes' thought later sees you headbutting the table in despair at its stupidity.
If you insist on making BRs unscannable, make this the function of a BR-only module, and make sure that there's a difference between the scan results returned from an empty BR and those returned from a scan-proofed BR.
But ultimately, this effect is neither needed nor useful, either as a bonus or a module.
I think it's a foregone conclusion that CCP is deadset on making blockade runners foolproof. Then when they're constantly getting ganked by opportunists, they'll hold down the 9 key until they're satisfied with the HP numbers like they did with barges. ~*a-áproud belligerent undesirable*~
TheMittani.com: The premier source for news, commentary and discussion of EVE Online and other games of interest. |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
5624
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 20:33:00 -
[9] - Quote
Gilbaron wrote:the idea to make DSTs unscannable instead of BRs is a great one, would love to hear CCPs opinion on it :)
CCP FoxFour already stated that it "fits" the BR's role more. I can't imagine what they consider the BR's role to be, but you shouldn't even be getting locked in a blockade runner, and if you're sticking around long enough for a scanner to cycle, you're doing something completely wrong.
Let's consider the differences between blockade runners and DSTs.
A BR is fast, aligns quickly and has a high warp speed. It jumps through a gate, clicks warp and cloaks. If you get locked, you're not cloaking. If you get pointed, you're done for. Even with a tank fit, you're trivial to gank. Opportunistic ganking on blockade runners will be hilariously easy. On TQ, properly flown blockade runners have absolutely no trouble running high-value, low-volume cargo through highsec. The "properly flown" part is near-trivial: undock, warp to an insta-undock, cloak in warp and travel the rest of your route.
A DST is slow, it aligns like a pig and its warp speed is lower than its T1 counterparts. It can, however, fit a tank comparable to a HIC, and it requires 2 scrams to tackle. On TQ, they generally go unused mainly because blockade runners have slightly less cargo capacity but have the advantage of being /much/ faster and much more maneuverable.
BRs being unscannable is just silly - as it is, they align like bombers and, as previous posters have pointed out, they are nearly uncatchable if properly flown. Unscannable Orcas worked because they required a lot of DPS/alpha to suicide gank and the cargo wouldn't drop anyway. Now, blockade runners will simply be targeted for "lolganks" when they are unable to cloak because of gate NPCs or whatever and the cost of a failed gank (i.e. nothing drops, the ship had nothing in cargo, w/e) will simply not be high enough to make their invulnerability to scans discourage other players from ganking them. On the other hand, unscannable DSTs would have a high enough cost to gank that unless the gankers have prior knowledge of what the guy is carrying (through metagaming, for example) or can reasonably expect it to be carrying valuable cargo, they won't make such casual gank targets. ~*a-áproud belligerent undesirable*~
TheMittani.com: The premier source for news, commentary and discussion of EVE Online and other games of interest. |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
5624
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 20:35:00 -
[10] - Quote
Oh and the extra risk that comes from getting a suspect flag for looting wrecks is a non-issue unless you're looting freighter wrecks, so that's not even worth bringing into the discussion. ~*a-áproud belligerent undesirable*~
TheMittani.com: The premier source for news, commentary and discussion of EVE Online and other games of interest. |
|
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
5626
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 21:18:00 -
[11] - Quote
MadMuppet wrote:The only problem I see with the DST getting the unscannable hold is that they are too slow to get away from anything. If there is any reason to suspect them they are going to die from anything other than a solo player. The DST does need some love though, it is just too slow to be worth using.
As I pointed out, tanked DSTs aren't targets for casual ganks. Your tank is at a level where the invulnerability to scans simply precludes lolganks. Sure, you'll have those who decide to autopilot expanded and cargo rigged DSTs full of PLEX but such stupidity will always happen. ~*a-áproud belligerent undesirable*~
TheMittani.com: The premier source for news, commentary and discussion of EVE Online and other games of interest. |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
5627
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 21:29:00 -
[12] - Quote
mrpapageorgio wrote:As a supercap pilot I absolutely hate the corp hangar changes. Cans are a terrible half-assed solution to you guys removing division functionality I depended on. You have just ensured that I will never allow anyone access to my fleet hangar. If you actually flew supercapitals on regular basis (test server doesn't count) you'd know how awful this change is. Cans are no substitute for divisions, now matter how much you say they are.
I'm really glad you guys are just charging ahead with this instead of listening to the feedback provided in the test server thread. I see you guys learned a lot and have really changed your ways since the abortion that unified inventory was. Instead of taking the time to actually fix this the correct way, you've decided to just do whatever the hell you want again and leave your players to deal with the mess.
as someone with two supercarriers i enjoy the fleet hangar changes ~*a-áproud belligerent undesirable*~
TheMittani.com: The premier source for news, commentary and discussion of EVE Online and other games of interest. |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
5627
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 21:41:00 -
[13] - Quote
Eija-Riitta Veitonen wrote:Quote:* Freighters will have most of their special-case restrictions removed: they will now be able to perform cargo operations in space, including moving items into and out of containers, moving things to and from containers in space, and jettisoning items inb4 someone jettisons a full freighter of shuttles on Jita 4-4 and nukes the node
fairly sure that'd get you banned p quickly ~*a-áproud belligerent undesirable*~
TheMittani.com: The premier source for news, commentary and discussion of EVE Online and other games of interest. |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
5627
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 23:02:00 -
[14] - Quote
Derath Ellecon wrote:And thank GOD they didn't give it to DST's All unscannable means for anything below the orca is mystery loot pinata. And thats just because an orca has enough EHP to need a gank team.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/16196592/Impel%20-%20New%20Setup%201.jpg
"look ma, no ridiculous implants" ~*a-áproud belligerent undesirable*~
TheMittani.com: The premier source for news, commentary and discussion of EVE Online and other games of interest. |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
5630
|
Posted - 2012.12.01 00:20:00 -
[15] - Quote
Haifisch Zahne wrote:All part of two trends at CCP towards Eve: 1) dumb down the game, and 2) increase the ISK sink due to combat loss, etc.
combat losses are not an "isk sink" ~*a-áproud belligerent undesirable*~
TheMittani.com: The premier source for news, commentary and discussion of EVE Online and other games of interest. |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
5630
|
Posted - 2012.12.01 00:53:00 -
[16] - Quote
Mag's wrote:What of late, would you say have been ganker friendly changes?
He must be talking about the boomerang nerf, the removal of insurance payout for CONCORD losses, the barge HP buff, the upcoming Crimewatch changes, the upcoming bounty changes and the upcoming kill right sales. All of those are very ganker friendly, you see ~*a-áproud belligerent undesirable*~
TheMittani.com: The premier source for news, commentary and discussion of EVE Online and other games of interest. |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
5632
|
Posted - 2012.12.01 03:22:00 -
[17] - Quote
Buffalo Ryder wrote:On a second note if DST could get a boost to their cargo hold say 100-200% more and change the shield/armor boost amount to 10% shield or armor per level would be a good way to make them more useful.
Doubling or tripling their cargoholds simply means that they'd outclass T1 industrials, which isn't the intent of transports since they are supposed to be specialized in specific hauling roles as opposed to being "entirely better industrials". Increasing the local rep bonuses on the hulls would not do anything for their utility - if you're in a situation where you need to run a local rep on an industrial, you're already dead. ~*a-áproud belligerent undesirable*~
TheMittani.com: The premier source for news, commentary and discussion of EVE Online and other games of interest. |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
5633
|
Posted - 2012.12.01 05:57:00 -
[18] - Quote
None ofthe Above wrote:Mr John Smith wrote:You really have given the unscannable bonus to the wrong ship. If a BR get's scanned they haven't been flown right. DST's have the potential buffer to dissuade random lolganks, BR's do not. If any ship should get the unscannable bonus it should be the DST not the BR who can already cloak and warp with relative impunity. As it stands all this change serves to do is paint a big bulls eye on the backside of every BR undocking from jita or flying through highsec. How about both unscannable? I do agree otherwise.
blockade runners have no reason to be made unscannable ~*a-áproud belligerent undesirable*~
TheMittani.com: The premier source for news, commentary and discussion of EVE Online and other games of interest. |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
5666
|
Posted - 2012.12.03 00:49:00 -
[19] - Quote
CCP Habakuk wrote:So, regarding history: yes, this was broken for quite some time, but as far as I can tell it is working since the Trinity expansion (5 years ago). Regarding details: I just jumped onto test servers (Buckingham and Multiplicity, which is running the same version as TQ) to make sure, that I am not imagining things: What is still not working (and which is by design as far as I can tell): It is NOT possible to take items out of containers, if you are not allowed to take items from the hangar floor. What is possible: - If you have the "Hangar Query" and "Hangar Take" roles, you can take (unlocked) items out of containers, if the container is not password locked.
- Unlocking items also needs the "Config Equipment" role in addition to the password (but there is a small bug in the TQ version and you are not told, that you need the "config equipment" role).
- For taking a container you need the roles "Hangar Query", "Hangar Take" and "Container Take".
Have I missed any details? Have I misread your post and you are complaining about something different?
On that note, why is the Accountant role required to contract cans out of deliveries hangars, but not to take them if you're in the same station? This requirement is completely undocumented and it really doesn't make any sense that "contract a can from a deliveries hangar" is on the same level as "turn off sovereignty bill autopay." ~*a-áproud belligerent undesirable*~
TheMittani.com: The premier source for news, commentary and discussion of EVE Online and other games of interest. |
|
|
|