|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 24 post(s) |
|
CCP Phantom
C C P C C P Alliance
2443
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 10:47:00 -
[1] - Quote
With our new expansion EVE Online: Retribution we will change corp hangars on ships and convert them into fleet hangers which will provide an improved usability. Additionally the behavior of cargo holds and fleet hangers will be more consistent and also we will clarify the role of ship and cargo scanners. Fleet hangar access rights will be stored per ship server side.
Read all the details about these exciting changes in CCP Greyscale's latest dev blog here.
We welcome you to provide feedback in this thread, please keep it constructive and polite. CCP Phantom - German Community Coordinator |
|
|
CCP FoxFour
C C P C C P Alliance
1031
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 11:19:00 -
[2] - Quote
YAY for removing as many restrictions on freighters as possible.
Also, no limit on the number of users for a ship fitting array? So much win! :D
Oh, I also didn't realize this is when we were announcing the POS password change or the container unlock/lock configuration. Those two changes trump all. Saving settings on the server = awesome-sauce. Content Designer | Team Five 0 @regnerBA |
|
|
CCP FoxFour
C C P C C P Alliance
1031
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 11:23:00 -
[3] - Quote
cpu939 wrote:1st, i like the changes orca ganking will be great and the freighter changes will make that even better
will pilots still be able to store ships with out being in fleet if in the same corp?
Since Greyscale is not here right now I shall answer that: Yes. If you look at this image here you will notice two icons to the right of both the fleet hanger and ship maintenance bay. The first is for fleet and the second for corporation. Content Designer | Team Five 0 @regnerBA |
|
|
CCP Habakuk
C C P C C P Alliance
341
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 11:24:00 -
[4] - Quote
cpu939 wrote:... will pilots still be able to store ships with out being in fleet if in the same corp? Sure, just enable the corp access to the ship maintenance bay of the carrier / orca.
edit: ...and CCP FoxFour was faster with answering CCP Habakuk | EVE Quality Assurance | Team Gridlock Writing bug reports | Mass tests
|
|
|
CCP Habakuk
C C P C C P Alliance
343
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 11:26:00 -
[5] - Quote
Vyktor Abyss wrote:Look at me getting 4th(ish)!
Does this mean Blockade runners can haul contrband past NPCs in high sec too without being scanned and ticked off by the faction police?
Nice stuff from what I read, Ta
NPC customs officers are NOT affected by these scanning changes. CCP Habakuk | EVE Quality Assurance | Team Gridlock Writing bug reports | Mass tests
|
|
|
CCP FoxFour
C C P C C P Alliance
1033
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 11:30:00 -
[6] - Quote
CCP Habakuk wrote:cpu939 wrote:... will pilots still be able to store ships with out being in fleet if in the same corp? Sure, just enable the corp access to the ship maintenance bay of the carrier / orca. edit: ...and CCP FoxFour was faster with answering
:P
I will leave this thread in your capable hands good sir. :D Content Designer | Team Five 0 @regnerBA |
|
|
CCP FoxFour
C C P C C P Alliance
1033
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 11:35:00 -
[7] - Quote
Hypercake Mix wrote:Quote:Ship maintenance bays are somewhat special: they will be scannable (ie, ships but not their modules or cargo can show up in results), but they won't be dropping assembled ships as loot The wording on this is a little bit vague. What exactly will be dropping from SMBs if not assembled ships?
Since assembled ships are the only thing that can go into them, nothing will be. What drops from them is not changing as nothing drops on TQ right now from Ship Maintenance Bays. The change is that you will now be able to scan them and see what assembled ships are in the SMB.
Hope that helps!
Also, sorry Habakuk, just can't stop! :P Content Designer | Team Five 0 @regnerBA |
|
|
ISD Suvetar
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
1141
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 11:37:00 -
[8] - Quote
I'm very excited for these changes!
Will the change to Freighters allow us to ... I mean bad people ... to ransom freighters to jettison specific loot now ? ISD Suvetar,-áCaptain Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department We are hiring! |
|
|
CCP Habakuk
C C P C C P Alliance
344
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 11:40:00 -
[9] - Quote
CCP FoxFour wrote:Also, sorry Habakuk, I just can't stop! :P Hehe, we were both working on these changes For clarification: The code changes and testing were done by Team Gridlock, but design and authoring was done by Team Five 0.
ISD Suvetar wrote:I'm very excited for these changes! Will the change to Freighters allow us to ... I mean bad people ... to ransom freighters to jettison specific loot now ? I have not thought about this - but this sounds like a realistic and very interesting idea. CCP Habakuk | EVE Quality Assurance | Team Gridlock Writing bug reports | Mass tests
|
|
|
CCP Habakuk
C C P C C P Alliance
347
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 11:59:00 -
[10] - Quote
Grideris wrote:I assume that the immunity to cargo scanning is not being extended to Deep Space Transports? (The other class of T2 industrial ships) Correct.
Chribba wrote:On one hand it will make things easier to see what's in the hangar... on the other hand... the API will need recoding for locations? As far as I understood you will need to get the new flag ID, which should be included in the DB dump. Disclaimer: My knowledge about the API is not as profound. CCP Habakuk | EVE Quality Assurance | Team Gridlock Writing bug reports | Mass tests
|
|
|
|
CCP FoxFour
C C P C C P Alliance
1038
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 13:06:00 -
[11] - Quote
Crunac Arclight wrote:Nice changes, but why make the Blockade Runner's cargo unscannable?
It is already quite agile and cloaky enough to avoid trouble. It would make more sense to give this buff to the God-forsaken Deep Space Transports of which I have seen none to date.
We did consider this and discussed it a fair bit. It was however determined that it fit the role of the blockade runner far more. We are aware of how... unpopular the deep space transports are however. Content Designer | Team Five 0 @regnerBA |
|
|
CCP FoxFour
C C P C C P Alliance
1038
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 13:32:00 -
[12] - Quote
Gilbaron wrote:so you just removed the single most important use of orcas, hauling for mining fleets
not cool
How did we remove that? Content Designer | Team Five 0 @regnerBA |
|
|
CCP FoxFour
C C P C C P Alliance
1040
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 13:42:00 -
[13] - Quote
GeeShizzle MacCloud wrote:CCP FoxFour wrote:Gilbaron wrote:so you just removed the single most important use of orcas, hauling for mining fleets
not cool How did we remove that? i think a lot of people are scratching their heads as to how this guy got to that conclusion... maybe he thinks his orca will be ganked all the time with the amount of trit he's carrying/hauling for a mining fleet. ohh if only he knew how gankers operate! LOL
The best I can come up with is that he thinks the Orca will be rendered obsolete by using freighters to pick up ore from Orca's? That is the best i can come up with and I think that is just crazy. Why would you use a freighter to do that instead of another Orca or industrial ship. Sure the freighter can carry more, but its align, warp, movement, and bump factor all make it a far worse choice. Content Designer | Team Five 0 @regnerBA |
|
|
CCP Arrow
C C P C C P Alliance
265
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 13:51:00 -
[14] - Quote
Pinky Denmark wrote:I love this change - But plz don't ever, never do anything like this to my super organized and arranged corp hangars in stations which I put a lot of work into...
No worries, the corp hangars will have their 7 divisions like before CCP Arrow-á-á|-á Senior Game Designer-á|-á @CCP_Arrow |
|
|
CCP FoxFour
C C P C C P Alliance
1042
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 14:25:00 -
[15] - Quote
Sinzor Aumer 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 Why?
I am not sure if you are asking because you think this is a bad thing or if you are just curious; either way here is your answer:
There are a lot of exceptions in our code for freighters. By removing those exceptions we clean up our code and make it more maintainable.
From a user perspective we don't ever tell you about any of these exceptions until you try and do it and it is a really bad user experience. You can jettison things from any ship... unless it is a freighter. You can scoop loot in any ship... unless it is a freighter. All of these changes are really arbitrary and not explained to our users in any way.
On top of that when we looked at what the restrictions were and why they had been put in place we no longer deemed them as necessary. Content Designer | Team Five 0 @regnerBA |
|
|
CCP FoxFour
C C P C C P Alliance
1042
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 14:26:00 -
[16] - Quote
Keep in mind guys that team Game of Drones has been going on a balancing rampage of ships lately, I think something like 59 re-balanced or new ships with Retribution, when they get to the industrial ships they very well may change which ships have what bonuses. Content Designer | Team Five 0 @regnerBA |
|
|
CCP Habakuk
C C P C C P Alliance
351
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 16:24:00 -
[17] - Quote
Udonor wrote:... #1 it would really be nice if you could change labels of cans on ships (and for freighters assemble cans) ...
It is now possible to rename cans in your ship. Thanks to the CSM for bitching about this, we would have missed it, as it was already possible for dev characters. CCP Habakuk | EVE Quality Assurance | Team Gridlock Writing bug reports | Mass tests
|
|
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
1695
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 18:08:00 -
[18] - Quote
Sinzor Aumer wrote:CCP FoxFour wrote:On top of that when we looked at what the restrictions were and why they had been put in place we no longer deemed them as necessary. In fact that is what I wanted to figure out - what have changed since those restrictions are implemented? Why are they obsolete in your CCP opinion?
Not actually a whole lot. Mainly the introduction of the Orca, which makes the freighter largely irrelevant as mining support in our opinion.
The reason we're happy doing this now but weren't back when freighters launched is that they've had plenty of time to bed in and establish their boundaries. In a game with an economy as vibrant as EVE's, going from ~25k max hauling space to ~1,000k max hauling space is a pretty risky move, so it's a smart play to restrict that capability as much as possible. Now that we know exactly the impact of freighters, and given that we've already opened up some of their functionality (being able to interact with starbases, for example), we can be more confident that removing the constraints is not likely to cause major problems.
The reason we're doing it *now* is that we wanted to make some new non-compressive (ie, same volume internally as externally) containers, but we didn't want to create an entirely new group for them if we could avoid it, but we also didn't want them to sit in a group with compressive containers. We already have a group of non-compressive containers called "Freight Container", which includes the current General Freight Container and nothing else, so it made sense to put them in there, but that group is heavily involved in the freighter special-casing. The cleanest, simplest, least complexity-adding solution was therefore to put the new containers in the Freight Container group and then lift the freighter-specific restrictions as on review we didn't feel they justified their complexity any more. (This is I think a relatively uncontroversial example of less complexity = better, and also a nice example of the kind of rabbit hole you sometimes end up falling down with this sort of thing )
Crexa wrote: "...but we need to get the complexity of EVE under control and doing so is going to require functionality downgrades in certain areas."
This scares the living Be-jesus out of me!!!!!!!!!!! Why? Because complexity is the hallmark of EvE Online. PLEASE! Keep in mind that streamlining for the sake of reducing complexity is not always a good thing.
Don't worry, it scares the bejesus out of us too The trend over the last few years though has been steadily increasing complexity year-on-year, which makes it harder and harder for us to replace lost customers. We've got to get this under control to keep EVE healthy. It's not something we do lightly, but we've got to find *safe* places where we can make incisions. |
|
|
CCP Habakuk
C C P C C P Alliance
363
|
Posted - 2012.12.01 18:02:00 -
[19] - 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
From the patch notes: "It is no longer possible to jettison unassembled ships from the cargo hold."
Sigras wrote:What happens when you jettison something from a freighter that a single unit is bigger than a jet can? like for instance a CSAA?
The CSAA remains in your cargo hold. CCP Habakuk | EVE Quality Assurance | Team Gridlock Writing bug reports | Mass tests
|
|
|
CCP Habakuk
C C P C C P Alliance
363
|
Posted - 2012.12.01 20:40:00 -
[20] - Quote
CaptainFalcon07 wrote:CCP Habakuk wrote:... From the patch notes: "It is no longer possible to jettison unassembled ships from the cargo hold." ... I see an issue with this. For instance let say I'm transporting ships in a hauler to a place where there are no stations and only pos. How am I supposed to assemble the ships and put them to use with the sma if I can no longer jet them. You can't assemble ships in a cha and you can't put packaged ships in an small. So there's a problem right there.
You can assemble ships in a CHA, if it is close to a SMA or a carrier / orca - but you need to have enough space for the assembled ship. Then you can move the assembled ship to the SMA. CCP Habakuk | EVE Quality Assurance | Team Gridlock Writing bug reports | Mass tests
|
|
|
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
1700
|
Posted - 2012.12.01 21:31:00 -
[21] - Quote
Misanth wrote:Overly simplified, and overly complicated compensations to make up for the crap you do (as in, adding new containers to compensate for the lost divisions). Let's see what I use my corp hangars for today: * 1) In this 20man corp we have made the corp divions "personal". As in, when we use supercaps, capitals or orcas to move stuff, we know that division X belong to player X. And we name the divions after that person. This is really convenient for maintaining personal stuff, while moving, because we also give that particular person that particular divison access. - 1) In this new system, we can't do that at all. Either we have no access at all, or we all have access to everything. I guess it's ok in the sense that this means we take more risks and have to trust eachother more, no problem. But - how do we separate eachothers items, without having to carry a gazillion of cans? To compensate for the divisions, now we have to bring cans for each person instead, for their fittings/loot/etc! Ok, let's pretend this is a good compensation offer, but, suddenly it strike you - how do you know what size of this container you'd use? Because an ammo or loot can will grow/shrink, while a module can won't. So everyone will have to take up alot more space of this particular ship to cover their bases, with alot bigger cans than they probably will need.. because they "might" need it. * 2) Our alt trading/hauling/market corps has been using Orcas with divions set up to match our main corp. They do this to separate stuff they are hauling. - 2) For them, the new cans might compensate, as they have a "fixed" storage size. But it will be a damn blob of cans instead in stations. For example, one of the alt corps arranges some of the buying/selling for a few people of us in Jita. That corp currently uses the corp divisions and wallet to separate who's assets/funds belongs to who. You could easily use multiple people in this 'business alt corp' to share the divisions/wallet access and all have access to everything. But with this new system, we'll have to keep moving stuff in and out of cans in corp headquarters (where there still is divisions), to keep things separated. Otherwise a single account will keep everything in his cans. And every person moving stuff, will end up having a big chunk of cans moving between Jita/other locations. Instead of making his inventory clean in whatever-system he is, like it is today (usually 5-10 station hangars + using divisions to separate), you now end up with 5-10 station hangars + all various sizes of cargo containers you use on the move + you need more corp offices for more divisons. It'll cost more, it will clutter up inventory more, it will make it less transparent and easy to manage over multiple accounts, etc. 3) Let's not get started over how bad it is freighters can now use cans, but I'm just gonna ignore that point and pretend someone had an aneurysm. It will be fun seeing the freighters sitting in ice belts everywhere tho. So, is there nothing positive coming out?The intentions above is positive, but it makes EVE alot more complicated and worse to manage for sure. But there are some positive changes. It was silly Orcas was not scannable, so it's good to see that gone. It was also weird they dropped no loot. It's also interesting to see the Blockade Runner getting the scan immunity, means people will have to take a chance on them, I doubt less of them will die, rather probably more of them. This is positive and an interesting change. Having more containers is not bad either, by itself, it's just bad it's handed out as a compensation for removing a much superior system (divisions). The changes CCP bring to make passwords and fleet settings store, is good as well. But this: Quote:Why are you removing divisions? They're useful!
Yes, they are. However, we're currently of the opinion that they're not *necessary*, we don't feel that they're adding a lot of value in the most common use cases, and as such we're treating them as a case of unnecessary complexity. That's just plain wrong. "not a lot of value" is completely off. They add something unique, that is really really good and valuable, and you remove it without replacing it with anything nearly as useful. "Unecessary complexity" is also quite damn off, you're replacing something that is very simple, very useful, with something that is alot more complicated (using cans rather than divisions), which doesn't really add anything (bar them having more variation in size). The new system is more complicated, will take alot more inventory space, will have to be calculated carefullly about sizes on cans, will not alow separate members having separate access, harder to use across-multiple-accounts in shared corps, etc. TL;DR, it's an unecessary change, and your reasons to do that is plain wrong. You're just trying to find arguments to push through changes you 'want' to have, but your arguments are plain invalid (or you have no experience of using the divisions, that'd explain why you don't see how useful they are). I suggest you shouldn't touch game changes for mechanics you don't understand, and stick to those you figured out how they work (non-scannable orca not even dropping loot etc). But don't try to take us for fools and post bullcrap like the reasons for the division removal, that is simply not truth/completely off.
Foreword: this is exactly the sort of unusual use case that we knew was going to be impacted by this change. All I can say is "yeah, sorry". For every feature in the game, no matter how obscure, there are some people who've figured out how to make it work for them, and removing it will hurt for those people. If we're going to address the overall complexity of the game, though, we unfortunately need to take an axe to some of these options. The hard bit is working out which ones can be removed and which ones can't.
Actual question I have: if I understand your use case correctly, you're mainly concerned about moving other people's stuff around. What changes would need to be made to courier contracts to make them usable in your situation?
(Disclaimer: I'm not aware of any immediate plans to change courier contracts, I'm just trying to understand the situation better.)
Plagis wrote:PLEASE ALLOW T'3 SUBS TO BE SWITCHED OUT WHILE AT POS FOR US Worm Hole PEOPLE PLEASE THAT IS A SMALL FIX PLZ CCP! It really suck to have to travel to a station to that switch on t3 subsH.
Just a small request
If it was a small fix we'd have done it al... |
|
|
CCP Habakuk
C C P C C P Alliance
364
|
Posted - 2012.12.02 13:38:00 -
[22] - Quote
Conjaq wrote:CCP Habakuk wrote:CaptainFalcon07 wrote:CCP Habakuk wrote:... From the patch notes: "It is no longer possible to jettison unassembled ships from the cargo hold." ... I see an issue with this. For instance let say I'm transporting ships in a hauler to a place where there are no stations and only pos. How am I supposed to assemble the ships and put them to use with the sma if I can no longer jet them. You can't assemble ships in a cha and you can't put packaged ships in an small. So there's a problem right there. You can assemble ships in a CHA, if it is close to a SMA or a carrier / orca - but you need to have enough space for the assembled ship. Then you can move the assembled ship to the SMA. That seems odd, does a CHA not only have 10k, M^3 effectively, making it not fit _any_ ships?
I am referring to the corporate hangar array at a POS here - it has 1.4M m3, enough space to assemble battleships.
non judgement wrote:Just a quick math question. Having a Charon full of trit and then jettison all the trit.
How many jetcans will that create? Currently it will create 10 jet cans full of tritanium, the rest will stay in the freighter. (I personally think that 10 jet cans is still too high, as you can only jettison one can every few minutes with most other ships. But for now this limit should be good enough.) CCP Habakuk | EVE Quality Assurance | Team Gridlock Writing bug reports | Mass tests
|
|
|
CCP Habakuk
C C P C C P Alliance
364
|
Posted - 2012.12.02 15:57:00 -
[23] - Quote
FnStrabo wrote:All of this is just great and dandy. When are you actually going to address the elephant in the room for corporation management? ROLES.
How about fixing the broken can mechanics also. Lovely that you have to give a role to remove anything from a can in a corporate hanger, but the same role actually allows for the WHOLE can to be removed.
That would be a nice fix.
Ohhh the humanity......
It is 100% clear that the corp roles need a complete overhaul, but this will be a major project (much larger than the changes in this DevBlog). Regarding can mechanics: I am pretty sure, that you are able to access correctly configured containers, if you don't have the role to remove containers. Sure - it is a bit too complicated, but it should work (this did not change with Retribution). CCP Habakuk | EVE Quality Assurance | Team Gridlock Writing bug reports | Mass tests
|
|
|
CCP Habakuk
C C P C C P Alliance
365
|
Posted - 2012.12.02 20:19:00 -
[24] - Quote
Fergus Runkle wrote:FnStrabo wrote: No, actually it cannot be done. You can give them access to view what is in the container, but they would not be able to take anything out of the container. Only by giving the role "take" can you allow them to pull from the container. Unfortunately this same role allows them to TAKE the CONTAINER.
So although you may have passwords on the container, and to unlock item, along with audit logs... it's all for bunk since they can just take the stupid container.
Audit logs on the corporate hanger divisions would at least allow us to get Retribution.
This man is correct, the only role that allows people to take from cans also allows them to take the entire can. NOTE THIS WAS NOT ALWAYS SO. A number of years ago it used to work correctly (ie you could set a role to take from the can but not take the whole can). Then it was changed in the Revalations II expansion. See these One Two three
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? CCP Habakuk | EVE Quality Assurance | Team Gridlock Writing bug reports | Mass tests
|
|
|
|
|