Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 .. 11 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 24 post(s) |
Aineko Macx
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
224
|
Posted - 2012.12.02 19:02:00 -
[271] - Quote
I approve of roaming gangs catching mining support freighters in belts |
|
CCP Habakuk
C C P C C P Alliance
365
|
Posted - 2012.12.02 20:19:00 -
[272] - 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
|
|
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
10751
|
Posted - 2012.12.02 21:09:00 -
[273] - 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? It's a good job your new hanger changes and new cargo containers made thing less complicated. After all, you need to get the complexity of EVE under control.
CCP Zulu..... Forcing players to dock at the captain's quarters is a form of what we actually wanted to get through, which is making Incarna a seamless part of the EVE Online experience. |
h4kun4
Heeresversuchsanstalt Paradox Trust
8
|
Posted - 2012.12.02 22:44:00 -
[274] - Quote
Like: All the new stuff you made
Dislike: Making only blckade runners unscannable and letting deep space be scannable
Why should a ship which is instantly cloaked after jump and is as fast in warp as a frig be unscannable?
I see sth coming...Cloaky Hauler gank Roulette.....and the price wil drop as a waterfall...
Or am i understanding sth wrong like...you may also call the deep space as blockade runners? |
Vereesa
Gallivanting Travel Company Rebel Alliance of New Eden
2
|
Posted - 2012.12.02 23:09:00 -
[275] - Quote
Well, that's a pretty huge shakeup of how cargo works. Aaaand almost all of them directly benefit suicide gankers. Welp, gotta hope a pair of logistics ships can put enough of a buffer up to stop your average ganking attempt. Covert ops transports change makes sense. |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
25
|
Posted - 2012.12.02 23:36:00 -
[276] - Quote
Vereesa wrote:Well, that's a pretty huge shakeup of how cargo works. Aaaand almost all of them directly benefit suicide gankers. Welp, gotta hope a pair of logistics ships can put enough of a buffer up to stop your average ganking attempt. Covert ops transports change makes sense, if only to balance out the making everything visible everywhere else. I agree with other people in this thread that it's just going to make them public enemy number one since they're made of glass and they're the only thin pinyata you might find something really shiny in. So goodbye hauler shuttle days. It makes NO sense. BRs aren't scanned anyway. They insta cloak after jumping and warp and jump anonymously. All the unscannable hold is gonna do is vastly increase the amount of BRs that are lost while afk flying empty to a hub or home. They're made of glass anyway. A few thrashers could take one down. Talk about a loot pinata!
DSTs (Impel, Occator, Bustard, Mastadon) makes MUCH, MUCH more sense to give this feature to. It provides a beefy enough tank to give it random-suicide-gankers a pause, and if its gonna be suicide ganked, it'll take a dedicated group (unlike a few thrashers messing around).
|
Maul555
Nuts and Vindictive Remix Technologies
303
|
Posted - 2012.12.03 00:05:00 -
[277] - Quote
Panhead4411 wrote:CCP Habakuk wrote:
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).
So, by the way you've done recent 'overhauls' to things that might have needed them....sounds like your game plan should be to just remove all corp roles, then while everyone on TQ suffers, slowly over the course of 3-6 months work on building a replacement. Again, why do you have to just up and delete the versatility, organization, and controlled security the divisions in capitol corp hangers had, while not producing something that maintains the functionality. Cargo cans are not the answer, nor is 'just use filters'. Why can't you work to create a GOOD replacement while still using the current division systems...you have for this long already, whats another 6 months?
What would be really neatorific would be the ability to customize the number of divisions and their labels, and have that setting stay with just that ship, even after it passes hands. |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
5666
|
Posted - 2012.12.03 00:49:00 -
[278] - 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. |
Lord Haur
Grim Determination Nulli Secunda
40
|
Posted - 2012.12.03 01:06:00 -
[279] - Quote
On the topic of corp roles: Why can't Station Managers set i-hub timers? They can set station timers, dump upgrades in i-hubs, even offline/unanchor the things if they have config starbase equipment as well, but setting the timer? Director only. Makes no sense. |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
821
|
Posted - 2012.12.03 02:03:00 -
[280] - Quote
Andski wrote: 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."
I figure it's a side effect of the ball of mud problem they have with a lot of the bigger bits of code (Like crimewatch was) FuzzWork Enterprises http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Blueprint calculator, invention chance calculator, isk/m3 Ore chart-á and other 'useful' utilities.As well as mysql and CSV/XLS conversions of the Static Data Extract. |
|
usrevenge
Enlightened Industries Test Alliance Please Ignore
42
|
Posted - 2012.12.03 02:37:00 -
[281] - Quote
CCP Habakuk wrote: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. .
this is stupid, already DST are near useless because ->
in null, bubbles rule, stabs do nothing in lowsec you probably die to a gatecamp anyway, the stab bonus is decent but nothing special in highsec your tank isn't really going to save you, anything camp that can kill a freighter will annihilate you, plus, stabs don't mean anything here either
the scan immunity would be nice on DST. if fit for tanking, the tank is probably enough that most solo campers would probably not risk it, some would, some wouldn't. it would also give DST a good role as a highsec transport
already, the blockade runners are better, because they warp cloak jump, they shouldn't be visible long enough to lock. right now for the most part the blockade runner is better for all sec spaces because of the cloak. in lowsec a stabbed blockade runner probably won't die if flown right, in highsec they shouldn't die unless you lag after jumping. DST for a long time have been mostly useless the you BUFF it's competition. |
Reiisha
Evolution The Retirement Club
146
|
Posted - 2012.12.03 10:43:00 -
[282] - Quote
Skippermonkey wrote:freighter supported mining fleets here we go!
lol
Exactly what i was thinking... Super-strip mining 0-o |
Fergus Runkle
Truth and Reconciliation Council
5
|
Posted - 2012.12.03 10:48:00 -
[283] - Quote
Another +1 here for the please do not make Blockade runners un-scannable
This change looks to be a poorly thought out quick fix to the loss of the un-scannable Orca Corp Hangar Array. As many have said you are simply painting a target on every Blockade Runner in space, no matter if it has cargo or not.
I'm more than happy for you to revoke this change and for us to do without any un-scannable ships until you can come up with a better solution.
How about a rig that makes a percentage of your cargo bay un-scannable ?
Or pirate faction smuggling ships (although I guess they would come with a target painted on their ass)
|
Rytell Tybat
Kallocain Pharmaceuticals
27
|
Posted - 2012.12.03 11:26:00 -
[284] - Quote
Wondering if blockade runners being un-scanable also includes concord/customs scans? (I'm assuming no). Can I transport contraband in my blockade runner without some form of government meddling?
On a side note, why isn't being un-scannable a rational game mechanic involving mods, rigs and skills? Seriously, how does a dark gritty space game not have this? Just making it a default quality of any ship is just plain lazy. |
Vegare
Stranger Things Nulli Legio
60
|
Posted - 2012.12.03 11:34:00 -
[285] - Quote
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.
Speaking about unnecessary complexity... |
Jesspa
BlackWing Cartel
16
|
Posted - 2012.12.03 11:52:00 -
[286] - Quote
Mostly these changes are very welcome, but I can almost hear the gankers rubbing their hands at the prospect of Orca's being totally scannable and dropping more loot... *sigh* |
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
262
|
Posted - 2012.12.03 11:56:00 -
[287] - Quote
Hangar Query and Container take roles should work...
If not it is the other way around but I'm pretty sure. Thats how my corp secure audit warehouses are setup. Did all the roles myself and tested it not that long ago.
It's all about a system and it's not easy to work out - But it's still possible... Only problem is that roles cannot be used to give people access to only part of containers in a corp hangar. And passwords is a clusterfuck to remember and control.
Pinky |
CaptainFalcon07
Caucasian Culture Club Transmission Lost
54
|
Posted - 2012.12.03 23:03:00 -
[288] - Quote
While Its too late for the expansion, why don't you give us the option to repackage stuff in the CHA of poses. |
Fronkfurter McSheebleton
Squirrel Horde Habitat Against Humanity
125
|
Posted - 2012.12.03 23:15:00 -
[289] - Quote
Jesspa wrote:Mostly these changes are very welcome, but I can almost hear the gankers rubbing their hands at the prospect of Orca's being totally scannable and dropping more loot... *sigh* Not just that...there's also fact that they can now park a freighter nearby to scoop the loot.
I'm not terribly bothered by this though...the cargo isn't "totally" scannable, in that you can always stick your shiny mods onto ships into the SMA for hauling. Most of the more common shinies (hardeners, tackle, & weapon upgrades) will fit onto a frigate. Triple rep Myrms are like what you'd get if you strapped a beehive to Robocop. |
Haifisch Zahne
Hraka Manufacture GmbH
97
|
Posted - 2012.12.04 00:27:00 -
[290] - Quote
Yes, (no), yes, yes. (I'll still grumble about the players of legend.) But, otherwise, 110% god's truth.
CCP is dumbing-down the game. Make no mistake.
Furthermore, if CCP had fixed the Roles & Permissions interface, it would have won a Trifecta on all accounts:
1) A relatively major "new" feature. Yes, it would really be a re-working of an old feature, but it *could* have been of such "major" import as to classify as one;
2) It would simultaneously have had application to POS's, Orca and other capital ship specialized bays.
3) Not thinking of a third, but Trifecta sounded better than Bifecta.
But, alas, CCP took the easy way out, dumb-down the game (again). So, we get, "oh, the code was too complex, so we ripped the guts out and left a devoid hole to throw stuff in".
It *could* have been a cool, rather major feature. A cool new feature is something needed to quell those of us who see CCP's rut for what it is. And, would have had rather wide application to various areas of Eve.
So, the lives of many is made miserable because CCP is afraid of its shadow and frankly lazy.
Now, if it could build on this code, much as CCP has down with the Inventory, and restore its previous glory with a slick new UI, perhaps we can pat CCP on the back... someday.
Celgar Thurn wrote:".....we need to get the complexity of EVE under control......." Erm. No we don't. EVE Online is a complex game for adults and mature people to play. If people want something simple to play they should choose WoW. Ugh. I swore then. . Some people grumble that older pilots that have been playing for years have an advantage. But you can always specialise if you are a new player and will be able to catch up in career choice you make within New Eden. Nuff said. PS I will mourn the passing of corp hanger divisions within the Orca. PPS. Would be nice if instead of making changes we do not need or want that you could do some work on the Corporation 'Roles & Permissions interface and its interaction with all possible activities on Player Owned Stations (POS). Now there is an element of EVE Online that is in dire need of some serious TLC.
|
|
Haifisch Zahne
Hraka Manufacture GmbH
97
|
Posted - 2012.12.04 00:54:00 -
[291] - Quote
Except you forget one thing: CCP is working to attract 13 year old players, and this is *actually* hard for some to undertand.
Daedra Blue wrote:CCP Arrow wrote: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 Which i personally think it sucks. I understood why it was like this at first it would have been ridiculous to display many hangers like TAB the way it used to be in the old UI but with the new UI you can now make the Division system the way it was suppose to be. A fixed number of 7 is such a poor excuse of having a bad UI to display a custom number of divisions. You can now make the corp hanger everywhere customizable in 2 parts. This is the time to mimic windows permissions and also a great time to start making some decent changes to the mess corporation rights/permissions management is. Rights specific for hangars. - View -Yes\No - Take -Yes\No - Put - Yes\No (yeah having by default the right to dump trash into your hangers isn't great and it is a stupid idea.) Create divisions: As many as you require. Division type: Global (In all corporate hangars) : Local (Just in that particular container) *Global divisions will show up in all containers to witch local divisions will add on a per container basis. EX: Global Division - "Public" POS Hangar Local Division - "Unrefined Ore" Station Hangar @ StationName Local Division "Unrefined Ore" Station Hangar @ StationName Local Division "Refined Ore" Right groups. Ex: Group - "Ore Miners" - Add division to group -> (Corp Divisions Explorer / with search and grouping by (location/type/etc.) ) To - POS Hangar Local Division - "Unrefined Ore" - View(Yes)\Take(Yes)\Put(Yes) Group - "Ore Transporters" To - POS Hangar Local Division - "Unrefined Ore" - View(Yes)\Take(Yes)\Put(Yes) Station Hangar @ StationName Local Division "Unrefined Ore" - View(Yes)\Take(Yes)\Put(Yes) Group - "Ore Refiners" Station Hangar @ StationName Local Division "Unrefined Ore" - View(Yes)\Take(Yes)\Put(Yes) Station Hangar @ StationName Local Division "Refined Ore" - View(Yes)\Take(Yes)\Put(Yes) With this you can even give a proper actually usefulness to the AUDIT tab in the Corporation panel by being able to show rights to places for a certain rights group and/or player in the corp. Simply add people to the groups and all is fine.
|
Haifisch Zahne
Hraka Manufacture GmbH
97
|
Posted - 2012.12.04 01:18:00 -
[292] - Quote
Just a sugestion: perhaps you wouldn't lose your die-hard "customers" (like the lack of feeling this term implies) if you actually:
1) Didn't announce changes (like these to Orca bays) days before they get rolled-out, so there is absolutely no chance we can provide input;
2) When you give us a chance to provide input, you don't ignore us completely, like you did with Inventory. And, then, to add insult to injury, later say that you are implementing some hot-dog user testing system when we already did have such an opportunity, and it was ignored;
3) Roll-out half-baked and dumbed-down feature changes;
4) Stop all development of exciting new features;
Lastly, many of the few features/changes are intended to drive PLEX sales up by making it harder to earn ISK in game and create increased chances of loss. So, many of the changes of late are simply intended to drive up income, and not "player requested".
CCP Greyscale wrote: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.
|
Rimase
Soothsayers
34
|
Posted - 2012.12.04 10:07:00 -
[293] - Quote
I'm totally ok with the changes.
Bring back "Trauma" missiles, too! (Why CCP no improve Shareholding?): https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=71032#post71032 |
Rimase
Soothsayers
34
|
Posted - 2012.12.04 10:11:00 -
[294] - Quote
usrevenge wrote:Blockade Runners they shouldn't be visible long enough to lock.. QFT.
CCP, fix!?!
(Why CCP no improve Shareholding?): https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=71032#post71032 |
Misanth
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
791
|
Posted - 2012.12.04 11:28:00 -
[295] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote: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.)
Well. Thanks for replying, but once again: you're not "addressing the overall complexity". You're making the game more complex, with this change (as with crimewatch for that matter). If you would have been honest and just said "we don't like this code .. because" then I'd reluctantly accept that, even if it **** me off. Now I'm just even more annoyed that you try to sweep it under the rug with a poor excuse that is simple wrong. It's getting more complex, so don't say it's not, because it is.
So, to reply to your questions: Well moving stuff around, is one aspect. The other is actually to maintain and sort peoples assets using the hangars. I mentioned supers- and capitals. We have Titan- and Mothership pilots among our ranks, as a small army of Orca pilots, and several of those ships never dock. They're perfect as logistic platforms (titan with bridge + 100k corp hangar, motherships with 50k). When you operate in hostile nullsec it's great if you can use say hangar 1 to keep "everyone's shared ammo", and then maybe 2-5 for group/player 2-3-4-5's loot, and then probably hangars with specific modules/other reasons.
I think the problem when you look at EVE is that you always either think "2000k fleet, own sov null" or "highsec carebear". There is no instances between. No opening for WH. No consideration of small scale operations. Alt corps. Etc. That is something you guys really need to address - at least if you care about this games heritage. So yes, hauling is one aspect, but actual "holding"/storage, is another. Say I keep an alt-corps storage Orca in my mains POS for ex. I can't just swap over all the loot from that Orca to the POS, it's two separate corps. But I need to pilot in the Orca with a main corp pilot so it doesn't belong to the "wrong" corp. This has a use in WH's, among other places.
So, to answer your second question: I have absolutely no clue how courier contracts would fix anything at all. You can't courier contract stuff to separate and take/drop from different "hangar"-like contracts in a Mothership I parked in hostile null. How about a better solution: let ships have a single hangar as default, then players can create as many/few they need, and give those hangars a rightclick menu where we can set access to a named player, no matter from what corp etc. Like how we give players access to a locked chat channel. Same mechanic. I want player A to join chat channel, so I "allow" him by searching his name and adding him to the list. Exactly same mechanics would be great for supers as well as Orca and other capitals. That'd benefit highsec miners too actually, since they could just give keep out of corp alts have access to whatever-specific hangar the pilot choses.
The only thing remotely "complex" about the old system was to set up the roles for access, which would not be an issue to any experienced player (or something that took me about 30sec to learn from the corp system, when I set up my very first corp, it's not hard). It might've been a nuissance if you had a large corp (probably in a big alliance); but again, you should get it out of your game-creating heads that everyone plays this way. Hint: we don't. And you used to cater us small scale players back the first four-five years of EVE's history, it would be nice if you could give us some love again.
Thanks. AFK-cloaking in a system near you. |
Mika Takahoshi
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2012.12.04 12:02:00 -
[296] - Quote
CCP FoxFour wrote: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.
In what way would this fit the role of the blockade runner more, or even at all? Who would look at a cloaked ship and think to add protection against cargo scans when it already has that due to the cloak? How can it fit the role of this ship more when this is maybe the only class of cargo ships in the game where it provides no benefit at all? It seems it would fit the role of ANY other cargo ship more than this one.
|
Cernnunos Gunn
Pagan Knights Of The Ancient Order
0
|
Posted - 2012.12.04 13:49:00 -
[297] - Quote
CCP Habakuk wrote: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.
So if you are shooting for less complexity as per the dev post claim, all scanning should be effected by these changes. It looks like in your quest to make things less complicated - you used a complex method to do so So obviously there is some other motivation involved here other than making things less complex.......
Overall I like the changes and think that ganking will be even more fun since many more Orcas will be targets now! |
Faulx
Brother Fox Corp
83
|
Posted - 2012.12.04 15:31:00 -
[298] - Quote
If you're trying to allow "safe" cargo transfers I think you'll find the Blockade Runners to be a lot more vulnerable than you may believe (particularly when docking). A gank while docking typically doesn't involve scanning of any sort. An orca would have enough effective HPs to avoid this fate, so, in many ways, blockade runners can never replace them. |
Chris Wheeler
Massively Motivated
12
|
Posted - 2012.12.04 16:03:00 -
[299] - 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)
I wonder what is going to happen to the desirability of DSTs are going to be now, with blockade runners becoming so much more awesome. |
Chris Wheeler
Massively Motivated
12
|
Posted - 2012.12.04 16:08:00 -
[300] - 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.
I fly one, but not for much longer! |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 .. 11 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |