Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 .. 11 :: [one page] |
|
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 |
|
cpu939
Eternal Darkness. SpaceMonkey's Alliance
23
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 11:07:00 -
[2] - Quote
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? |
|
CCP FoxFour
C C P C C P Alliance
1031
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 11:19:00 -
[3] - 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 -
[4] - 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 |
|
Vyktor Abyss
The Abyss Corporation
201
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 11:24:00 -
[5] - Quote
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
|
|
CCP Habakuk
C C P C C P Alliance
341
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 11:24:00 -
[6] - 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
|
|
SwissChris1
Stimulus Rote Kapelle
12
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 11:24:00 -
[7] - Quote
"Blockade Runners are being updated to be immune to cargo scanners, and as such will always show up as empty on scans"
Aww
Also, FIRST (page ) |
|
CCP Habakuk
C C P C C P Alliance
343
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 11:26:00 -
[8] - 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
|
|
Vyktor Abyss
The Abyss Corporation
202
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 11:28:00 -
[9] - 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.
Bloody police scumbags.... thanks. |
Squeaks
Seniors Clan Get Off My Lawn
1
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 11:30:00 -
[10] - Quote
I like this, seems like a good idea. However, as an option to making a ship immune to scans, how about a module that reduces the scanning chance? Stackable, so perhaps one module gave you a 50% chance to scans showing up empty, 3 modules would give you a 90% chance. Then it could be fitted to any ship, but with high CPU or PG usage, with some ships getting a signification bonus, something like cov ops cloaking devices.
The lore description could be modulates the shield to attempt to disrupt scans of the ship interior.
See, I've thought of everything for you. No charge. (obviously a plex or two in my hanger would be appreciated! :-) |
|
Horza Phlebas
Interstellar eXodus BricK sQuAD.
3
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 11:30:00 -
[11] - Quote
Wonder If Blockade runners price will rise, and Orca's fall... mhmmmm |
|
CCP FoxFour
C C P C C P Alliance
1033
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 11:30:00 -
[12] - 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 |
|
Galmas
United System's Commonwealth R.E.P.O.
15
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 11:31:00 -
[13] - Quote
Hey Guys,
in general i want to toss you a "nicely done" first of all.
While the loss of divisions in the carriers will be a bit of a pain.
If course the eve code needs to be maintainable but it would be just plain brilliant if we could get the corp hangar on ships work like the corp hangars at POS and just be able to select a division that is accessible by any fleet member, regardless of the corp he/she belongs to.
Regardless of that i think you did a very good job with these changes to the game mechanics, they will be much clearer (in case you add the scanner immunity to the blockade runners description ) from the point of view of someone who doesn't play since many years and doesn't follow all the blogs and whatnot. Very important to avoid a lot of frustrations for new or a bit more casual players.
Cheers Gal |
Hypercake Mix
Magical Rainbow Bakery
68
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 11:31:00 -
[14] - Quote
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? |
|
CCP FoxFour
C C P C C P Alliance
1033
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 11:35:00 -
[15] - 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 |
|
Valkyrie D'ark
Armed Resistance Movement
15
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 11:36:00 -
[16] - Quote
Wow..... amazing jaw dropping radical awesome changes. I approve and endorse every single one of those. While I also agree that corp hangar bays had their yses, they didnt makr much sense on personal ships. will we be able to achieve similar effect by say alliwing access to certain cans in fleet hangar and not others? That would basically put a cherry on top of this awesome pie. Also, will freighters be able to pickup goods from Orca fleet bays? }:)
Anyway, thank you. P.S. This would be the best expansion in years if not for the damn broken safety 'feature'. |
|
ISD Suvetar
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
1141
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 11:37:00 -
[17] - 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! |
|
Destination SkillQueue
Are We There Yet
3043
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 11:39:00 -
[18] - Quote
Quote: Blockade Runners are being updated to be immune to cargo scanners, and as such will always show up as empty on scans
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
Well God damn. |
|
CCP Habakuk
C C P C C P Alliance
344
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 11:40:00 -
[19] - 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
|
|
Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
1610
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 11:43:00 -
[20] - Quote
freighter supported mining fleets here we go!
lol TK is recruiting |
|
Grideris
Fleet Coordination Commission Fleet Coordination Coalition
302
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 11:43:00 -
[21] - Quote
I assume that the immunity to cargo scanning is not being extended to Deep Space Transports? (The other class of T2 industrial ships) http://www.dust514.org - the unofficial forum for everything DUST 514 http://www.dust514base.com - the blog site with everything else DUST 514 you need
|
Hypercake Mix
Magical Rainbow Bakery
69
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 11:44:00 -
[22] - Quote
CCP FoxFour wrote: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, I just can't stop! :P Ahh... nuts. I expected something like pieces from the ships in the SMB dropping. Those tiny shiny mods are just going to be fit onto cheap ships for transport then. Though, it was probably debated over already.
Edit: and you're winning @ forum whack-a-mole! |
|
Chribba
Otherworld Enterprises Otherworld Empire
5713
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 11:46:00 -
[23] - Quote
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?
|
|
Akrasjel Lanate
Naquatech Conglomerate
802
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 11:55:00 -
[24] - Quote
Four days |
|
CCP Habakuk
C C P C C P Alliance
347
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 11:59:00 -
[25] - 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
|
|
Borascus
Red Core Paradigm Shift Alliance
124
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 12:03:00 -
[26] - Quote
The POS Password changes make moving around in Null-sec easier, and look like a change that will be welcomed.
|
DexterShark
Li3's Electric Cucumber Li3 Federation
14
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 12:07:00 -
[27] - Quote
This kind of Dev Blog and the changes it contains is worth 458% more than some flashy new jesus feature.
It might not be all ~jazz hands~ and ~shiny~ but this kind of update and tweak to the game is priceless.
Also, humble Blockade Runner, I never thought I could love you more than I already do, until today. Unscannable cargohold? *SWOON*
o7 |
DeBingJos
Avalon Project Shadow Rock Alliance
462
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 12:10:00 -
[28] - Quote
DexterShark wrote:This kind of Dev Blog and the changes it contains is worth 458% more than some flashy new jesus feature.
It might not be all ~jazz hands~ and ~shiny~ but this kind of update and tweak to the game is priceless.
Also, humble Blockade Runner, I never thought I could love you more than I already do, until today. Unscannable cargohold? *SWOON*
o7
Don't get excited. If you see a blockade runner, you know it's worth ganking. Ungi ma+¦urinn ++ekkir reglurnar, en gamli ma+¦urinn ++ekkir undantekningarnar. The young man knows the rules, but the old man knows the exceptions. |
Crunac Arclight
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
1
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 12:11:00 -
[29] - Quote
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. |
Sobach
Fourth Circle Total Comfort
77
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 12:12:00 -
[30] - Quote
DeBingJos wrote:Don't get excited. If you see a blockade runner, you know it's worth ganking.
yea... won't be able to autopilot an empty BR after this - you'd just be equated to automatic loot pinata everywhere you go. |
|
Aethlyn
162
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 12:18:00 -
[31] - Quote
When first hearing about the Orca scannable/droppable changes, I've been disappointed. But with the added bonus for blockade runnners... Now loving my Prowler even more! :)
But regarding drops, some time ago I've suggested some kind of Extended Cargohold like module that lowers cargo capacity a bit while increasing the chance of loot to get destroyed. Any chance on getting something like this? Could lead to even more options and fitting ideas regarding "get the stuff out or at least don't let them grab it". Looking for more thoughts? Read http://aethlyn.blogspot.com/ or follow me on http://twitter.com/Aethlyn. |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
809
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 12:18:00 -
[32] - Quote
Sobach wrote:DeBingJos wrote:Don't get excited. If you see a blockade runner, you know it's worth ganking. yea... won't be able to autopilot an empty BR after this - you'd just be equated to automatic loot pinata everywhere you go.
Which is a bit of a shame.
They're handy for when you want to nip around, restocking ammo and so on. MWD nanoed prowler is nice. Aligns like it's on rails, and can go at 2km/s (for 40 seconds ) 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. |
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
255
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 12:25:00 -
[33] - Quote
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... |
Aethlyn
162
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 12:27:00 -
[34] - Quote
Sobach wrote:DeBingJos wrote:Don't get excited. If you see a blockade runner, you know it's worth ganking. yea... won't be able to autopilot an empty BR after this - you'd just be equated to automatic loot pinata everywhere you go. Fly an empty/tanked BR and have some kind of cloaked (or jumping shortly after) ships nearby to grab som tasty CONCORD kill mails and/or trick pirates with bounty into aggressing first? Sounds like it could add some more action. :)
PS: Why would you autopilot an industrial that has reduced cargohold for higher agility and the ability to cloak? Looking for more thoughts? Read http://aethlyn.blogspot.com/ or follow me on http://twitter.com/Aethlyn. |
Keko Khaan
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
23
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 12:42:00 -
[35] - Quote
Aethlyn wrote:Sobach wrote:[quote=DeBingJos]Don't get excited. If you see a blockade runner, you know it's worth ganking. PS: Why would you autopilot an industrial that has reduced cargohold for higher agility and the ability to cloak?
Maybe if hes too lazy to fly 30jumps with empty cargohold to pickup location.
|
Sentient Blade
Walk It Off
531
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 12:56:00 -
[36] - Quote
Nice changes.
The only thing I would point out is that the loss of corporate hangers is going to be somewhat of a pain. On the Orca yes, but even more so on capital ships where the size of the hanger is limited + cans are in short supply, it's going to make separating items up a bigger pain.
The best "technical" solution I could come up with would be selectable elastic containers:
Quote:* Buy an "Elastic Shipping Container" for something like 10m ISK (affordable for those flying orcas / capitals) that has an packaged size of say 100 m3.
* You assemble it, and it turns it into an "ElasticContainerer100" with an initial volume of 100 m3.
* You fill it with items you wish to separate, a particular kind of module lets say, but need a bit more room.
* You click on it, select "resize to ..." and select a bigger size, let's say you want to store a couple of frigates along side the modules, so you select 10,000 m3.
* The servers check the size of the parent container to see if the new 10,000 m3 would fit, minus the existing container, and if it does you flip the TypeID to a new "ElasticContainer10000" type, copy / replace it if necessary, and move all the items over.
* Shrink them back down after their job is done provided their content is not oversized.
This would:
Quote:* Allow fleet hangers to have password protected cargo areas that could share space
* Not have to deal with the problems associated with shrink wrap; just spam TypeIDs for non-market containers and swap between them.
* Allow Orca / Carrier pilots to keep a few of these elastic containers always to hand to be use to partition their ships where necessary without having to haul empty cans just in case for no reason other than the code that handled a cargo bay having "dividing walls" needed to die (understandable).
Caveats:
Quote:* You do not need to spam hidden containers for every 100 m3 for the entire range, 25, 100, 250, 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, 4000, 5000, 7500, 10000, 15000, 20,000 etc.
* Removing the existing container from the DB and creating a new one with the same children and attributes (except TypeID) would be perfectly acceptable. If this means people have to re-open the can so be it.
* Repackaging them would return them back to a particular size "Elastic Shipping Container" which could then be sold on the market.
So CCP, a better idea than just removing them completely, no? |
Salpad
Carebears with Attitude
133
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 13:04:00 -
[37] - Quote
DeBingJos wrote:Don't get excited. If you see a blockade runner, you know it's worth ganking.
It might well not be. Some hauls are one-waysies, so on the return trip the cargo is empty.
Also, I've used Blockade Runners for several years, for both myself and my alt, as quick AFK shopping trip ships. Often hauling only a few million ISK worth of stuff.
|
|
CCP FoxFour
C C P C C P Alliance
1038
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 13:06:00 -
[38] - 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 |
|
Salpad
Carebears with Attitude
133
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 13:07:00 -
[39] - Quote
Aethlyn wrote:PS: Why would you autopilot an industrial that has reduced cargohold for higher agility and the ability to cloak?
Because it gets from A to B a lot faster. It does the 15 km to stargate almost as fast as a shuttle, and travels FTL faster than a shuttle. Shuttle does 6 AU/s, Blockade Runner does 9 AU/s IIRC. And the Blockade Runner can carry a lot more than the Shuttle. So basically there's a fairly high probability that an AFK Blockade Runner will only cary something like 2-20 million ISK worth of stuff, having been used for an AFK shopping trip.
|
Salpad
Carebears with Attitude
133
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 13:09:00 -
[40] - 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. We are aware of how... unpopular the deep space transports are however.
Why not just do a quick fix, and change the Deep Space Transport bonus to something useful? + to active shield tank is a very, very poor defensive bonus to have. Change it to +5% shield resists per level, or +5% armour resist for the armour tanking versions.
I'm pretty sure I've never trained my Transports skill above 1, even though I fly Blockade Runners quite a lot, and Deep Space Transports every so often, and the reason for that is that the effect of the Transports skill sucks.
|
|
Melina Lin
Universal Frog
55
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 13:12:00 -
[41] - Quote
Quote:Blockade Runners are being updated to be immune to cargo scanners, and as such will always show up as empty on scans
What kind of weird change is this? Why nerf these ships so that you will never be able to auto pilot an empty one home? This game becomes more of a chore with every patch. :(
If you see this as a buff, it's not required. Properly flown and scouted a BR has almost 100% chance to reach its destination. |
Sinzor Aumer
Atlas Research Group Aerodyne Collective
25
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 13:15:00 -
[42] - Quote
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? |
Tanaka Aiko
ICE is Coming to EVE Goonswarm Federation
124
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 13:15:00 -
[43] - Quote
CCP FoxFour wrote: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, I just can't stop! :P Will gankers see the difference between ships stored on a SMB and on a cargo / fleet hangar ? cause if the results are not clear, except people to gank orcas thinking the fleet hangar is full of tengus while it's on the SMB and so not lootable :P |
Gilbaron
Free-Space-Ranger Ev0ke
437
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 13:19:00 -
[44] - Quote
so you just removed the single most important use of orcas, hauling for mining fleets
not cool |
Sinzor Aumer
Atlas Research Group Aerodyne Collective
25
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 13:22:00 -
[45] - Quote
Gilbaron wrote:so you just removed the single most important use of orcas, hauling for mining fleets
not cool Exactly. Double nerf for Orca. |
Sentient Blade
Walk It Off
531
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 13:22:00 -
[46] - Quote
A couple of modules would also be nice:
* Cargo Obfuscation Manifold - Passive module. 50% chance of masking cargo items per-scan.
* Cargo Destruction Manifold - Passive module. 50% reduced chance of cargo items being dropped. |
DeBingJos
Avalon Project Shadow Rock Alliance
464
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 13:27:00 -
[47] - Quote
Sinzor Aumer wrote:Gilbaron wrote:so you just removed the single most important use of orcas, hauling for mining fleets
not cool Exactly. Double nerf for Orca.
Orca's will still be used for the fleet bonus. the haulers are becoming a lot less usefull. This change will hurt new players the most, since they can't fly freighters and the normal haulers will not be used in mining ops anymore. An orco + freighter will be all the support you need for a mining fleet. Ungi ma+¦urinn ++ekkir reglurnar, en gamli ma+¦urinn ++ekkir undantekningarnar. The young man knows the rules, but the old man knows the exceptions. |
|
CCP FoxFour
C C P C C P Alliance
1038
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 13:32:00 -
[48] - 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 |
|
Awatar
Black Flag Operations The Kadeshi
2
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 13:33:00 -
[49] - Quote
Add corporationfilters, per default, if your planning on doing this.
1. Divisions is crucial for maintaining order in the carrier. 2. Divisions is crucial for maintaining order in the carrier.
If you add an filter that mimics the divisions you have in station to the capitals i can live with myself. |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
5618
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 13:34:00 -
[50] - 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. |
|
Carol Krabit
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
10
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 13:35:00 -
[51] - Quote
Nice changes. Also nice barrage of dev blogs. |
GeeShizzle MacCloud
240
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 13:36:00 -
[52] - Quote
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 |
Aethlyn
162
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 13:39:00 -
[53] - Quote
Salpad wrote:Aethlyn wrote:PS: Why would you autopilot an industrial that has reduced cargohold for higher agility and the ability to cloak? Because it gets from A to B a lot faster. It does the 15 km to stargate almost as fast as a shuttle, and travels FTL faster than a shuttle. Shuttle does 6 AU/s, Blockade Runner does 9 AU/s IIRC. And the Blockade Runner can carry a lot more than the Shuttle. Point taken, but unless you really need the cargo space, a covops frigate (13.5-20 au/s) would still be the better choice IMO.
Think I've never flown my Prowler AFK, even if it's just been for initiating warp myself (to warp at 0; before the direct "jump" command has been introduced) and letting the AP do the jumping. Hauling stuff AFK is always a risk (or flying AFK in general), so I wouldn't say this really affects the game in a negative way. I welcome any incentive to get people to play the game rather than AFKing it.
On a different perspective: How many BRs would fly empty and get ganked? If you just shoot down any and all BRs, this should lower your efficiency quite a bit. Also consider the added risk of the new crimewatch (for looting the wreck, etc.). Looking for more thoughts? Read http://aethlyn.blogspot.com/ or follow me on http://twitter.com/Aethlyn. |
Liu Ellens
Blame The Bunny The Dark Nation
49
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 13:40:00 -
[54] - Quote
Freighters cleared from their shackles... Blockade runners even more specialized...
[image]it's so .... beautiful[image] upro - an online browser application to support navigation in New Eden and beyond. |
Aethlyn
162
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 13:41:00 -
[55] - Quote
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 hate random Forum 404s... eating my posts... :/
Maybe if you use the Orca just as a giant jetcan without having Leadership/Mining Director trained. A freighter would be able to grab a lot more ore, while lacking Mining Links and tractor beams (but having lot more cargo space). But at the same time you'd still be even more brick-in-space than the Orca... anyway, people shouldn't fly the Orca without Mining Links anyway. :) Looking for more thoughts? Read http://aethlyn.blogspot.com/ or follow me on http://twitter.com/Aethlyn. |
|
CCP FoxFour
C C P C C P Alliance
1040
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 13:42:00 -
[56] - 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 |
|
Aethlyn
162
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 13:45:00 -
[57] - Quote
CCP FoxFour wrote: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. Size matters! Bigger size, bigger cargo, bigger align time, bigger mass, ignore the lower velocity and stuff. :)
I don't see anything bad there, especially considering the Blockade Runner sounds like a perfect class for getting stuff through a camp or past the eyes of the "bad guys". The Orca as a mining ship being used for covert transports never felt right. Looking for more thoughts? Read http://aethlyn.blogspot.com/ or follow me on http://twitter.com/Aethlyn. |
Gilbaron
Free-Space-Ranger Ev0ke
437
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 13:49:00 -
[58] - Quote
industrial ship ? WAY to small for mining fleets
another orca ? pretty small if you consider what a group of mining ships can mine in short time, also three different hangars to manage
freighter ? a providence has 735.000 m-¦ before skills, an orca 120.000 in three different hangars. thats 6 orca roundtrips ... |
|
CCP Arrow
C C P C C P Alliance
265
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 13:51:00 -
[59] - 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 |
|
Sinzor Aumer
Atlas Research Group Aerodyne Collective
25
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 13:54:00 -
[60] - Quote
CCP FoxFour wrote: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. The freighter can carry MUCH more which means it is now the only viable choise for fleet mining. Sure, it's still fine for "solo" mining with a couple of alts. But when you have a dozen of ppl stripping the belt or gravy site - hauling Orca is totally useless now. Just explain - why? What was the backgroud of that decision?
|
|
Warde Guildencrantz
TunDraGon
320
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 13:56:00 -
[61] - Quote
can you make the deadspace transports the unscannable ones instead of the blockade runners?
having a cloak makes it enough that they will never be scanned anyways.
Also, it makes the deadspace haulers even less useful if you buff the blockade runners everyone flies through dangerous space. |
GeeShizzle MacCloud
240
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 14:00:00 -
[62] - Quote
CCP FoxFour wrote: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.
i can partially understand the freighter is a bigger hauler and can now pick stuff up in space part, but surely the main advatage to a mining fleet in belts etc.. is its extended tractor beam range that can pull in jet canned ore from a distance meaning less moving around in big clunky ships? fairly certain i read the devblog properly and didnt see anything about freighters using capital tractor beams or anything like that. (i know the changes to mining barges means u dont jetcan mine any more but when ur hold is full, jet can it and ur orca pilot should pull it in and voila.)
|
Gilbaron
Free-Space-Ranger Ev0ke
438
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 14:05:00 -
[63] - Quote
Quote:i can partially understand the freighter is a bigger hauler and can now pick stuff up in space part, but surely the main advatage to a mining fleet in belts etc.. is its extended tractor beam range that can pull in jet canned ore from a distance meaning less moving around in big clunky ships? fairly certain i read the devblog properly and didnt see anything about freighters using capital tractor beams or anything like that.
now: one orca for tractor beams and bonuses, one freighter for hauling before: one orca for tractor beams and bonuses, X orcas for hauling |
Salpun
Paramount Commerce
428
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 14:07:00 -
[64] - Quote
While large corps use mining buddy small corps still use the divisions as an accounting device. In game contracts for ore delivered to a hanger would close this gap. |
Aethlyn
162
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 14:08:00 -
[65] - Quote
Sinzor Aumer wrote:The freighter can carry MUCH more which means it is now the only viable choise for fleet mining. Sure, it's still fine for "solo" mining with a couple of alts. But when you have a dozen of ppl stripping the belt or gravy site - hauling Orca is totally useless now. Just explain - why? What was the backgroud of that decision?
You are right, if you ignore align time, acceleration, gang links and tractor beams. I'm not sure you've ever mined with a full set (or at least 2) mining links. This boosts your output by more than 30% (also depending on whether there's a supporting mind link as well) and is very significant making the Orca far from useless. You could use a Battlecruiser for this, but you'll also lose the hull's bonus. Using a Freighter just to collect or haul the ore back to station sounds feasible, but especially if it's in the same system, the Orca is still better for this - not just for the added tractor beams: it can zip back to station, drop the ore and be back in the belt boosting in 2 or 3 minutes. The freighter might need this time just for one trip (without the way back). A standard T1 industrial can carry like 40-50k m-¦ per run, so if one keeps moving back/forth the Orca should never get full. If it does, add another hauler. Either use the Orca as the hauler or use it as a collector/buffer for the real haulers. Looking for more thoughts? Read http://aethlyn.blogspot.com/ or follow me on http://twitter.com/Aethlyn. |
Tess La'Coil
Lightbringer's Sanctuary RAZOR Alliance
30
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 14:12:00 -
[66] - Quote
Warde Guildencrantz wrote:can you make the deadspace transports the unscannable ones instead of the blockade runners?
having a cloak makes it enough that they will never be scanned anyways. I don't see your point, DST's have the benefit of a nice small tank and a +2 warp strength. On top of that they align like snails thus not changing anything in regards to ganking.
Do you really need more than 2.5km3 of cargospace for your superexpensive mods and Plexes?
I'm going to love to see the T2 CargoRigged and T2 Cargoexpanded Viator's getting popped on the killboard with Plex in their hold.
You can bring the align time of a Blockade Runner to (if I'm not mistaken) 1.25 seconds aligntime. On top of that being small and having a covert cloak will make anything a bit too large have a hard time locking before you warp off. Someone once said I was a muppet. If that's so, I'm quite sure the Swedish Chef is my brother.-á |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
5619
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 14:17:00 -
[67] - 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. |
Warde Guildencrantz
TunDraGon
320
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 14:19:00 -
[68] - Quote
Tess La'Coil wrote:Warde Guildencrantz wrote:can you make the deadspace transports the unscannable ones instead of the blockade runners?
having a cloak makes it enough that they will never be scanned anyways. I don't see your point, DST's have the benefit of a nice small tank and a +2 warp strength. On top of that they align like snails thus not changing anything in regards to ganking. Do you really need more than 2.5km3 of cargospace for your superexpensive mods and Plexes? I'm going to love to see the T2 CargoRigged and T2 Cargoexpanded Viator's getting popped on the killboard with Plex in their hold. You can bring the align time of a Blockade Runner to (if I'm not mistaken) 1.25 seconds aligntime. On top of that being small and having a covert cloak will make anything a bit too large have a hard time locking before you warp off.
All you need to do to not get ganked in a covert transport is instawarp from jita undock and then cloak the rest of the way.
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. |
Jouron
Hadon Shipping
41
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 14:20:00 -
[69] - 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.
Ugh... When will we get the smuggling changes!? |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
5619
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 14:22:00 -
[70] - 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. |
|
Singulis Pacifica
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
36
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 14:25:00 -
[71] - 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)
That would be awesome if it was the case: It's an expensive ship as far as industrials go, takes some time to learn to fly one, and it will give the Tech 2 industrials an additional purpose. I'd love to see it implemented
|
Raser Moonstrider
Woopatang Happy Endings
6
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 14:25:00 -
[72] - Quote
I was almost excited to see the large T2 industrial get something that made it worthwhile..... and then I realized that you gave the "unscannable" trait to the cloaked hauler...which has absolutely no need for it because it can cloak. |
|
CCP FoxFour
C C P C C P Alliance
1042
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 14:25:00 -
[73] - 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 |
|
DJ P0N-3
Table Flippendeavors
70
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 14:25:00 -
[74] - Quote
Farewell, simplified personal organization in w-space. You will be missed.
Unscannable blockade runners seems a wee bit redundant, but I suppose the unscannable ship would have to be good at running away because it's now a much more appetizing target. |
|
CCP FoxFour
C C P C C P Alliance
1042
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 14:26:00 -
[75] - 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 |
|
GKO
I-F-L I-F-L Intergalactic Space Holding
0
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 14:31:00 -
[76] - Quote
Tess La'Coil wrote:Warde Guildencrantz wrote:can you make the deadspace transports the unscannable ones instead of the blockade runners?
having a cloak makes it enough that they will never be scanned anyways. I don't see your point, DST's have the benefit of a nice small tank and a +2 warp strength. On top of that they align like snails thus not changing anything in regards to ganking. Do you really need more than 2.5km3 of cargospace for your superexpensive mods and Plexes? I'm going to love to see the T2 CargoRigged and T2 Cargoexpanded Viator's getting popped on the killboard with Plex in their hold. You can bring the align time of a Blockade Runner to (if I'm not mistaken) 1.25 seconds aligntime. On top of that being small and having a covert cloak will make anything a bit too large have a hard time locking before you warp off.
Yeah but why? Covert Ops Cloak = nobody can target you anyway. jita undock is the problem. Nobody would fit a cov ops frig/hauler for align time unless you dont need the slots.
The CCP intention is nice, but on the wrong ship. Raivi convo me ingame! |
Sinzor Aumer
Atlas Research Group Aerodyne Collective
25
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 14:32:00 -
[77] - Quote
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? |
GKO
I-F-L I-F-L Intergalactic Space Holding
0
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 14:36:00 -
[78] - Quote
CCP FoxFour wrote: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.
Dont be trolled by them, it is a nice change. Eve is complicated enough, I appreciate it. I would just suggest watching if your intended role for Orcas really will stay untouched by slowly aligning freighters. Otherwise I am really happy to see that change!
If you would make freighters more 0.0 friendly I would love you. I am on the freighter killing side though :) But now I can use my freighter to loot freighter wrecks, yeah! |
Sinzor Aumer
Atlas Research Group Aerodyne Collective
25
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 14:41:00 -
[79] - Quote
GKO wrote:But now I can use my freighter to loot freighter wrecks, yeah! You always could. |
Drone 16
Law Dogz
18
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 14:41:00 -
[80] - Quote
Melina Lin wrote:Quote:Blockade Runners are being updated to be immune to cargo scanners, and as such will always show up as empty on scans What kind of weird change is this? Why nerf these ships so that you will never be able to auto pilot an empty one home? This game becomes more of a chore with every patch. :(If you see this as a buff, it's not required. Properly flown and scouted a BR has almost 100% chance to reach its destination.
I totally agree. You just made blockade runners a ship that literally cannot be in space uncloaked. |
|
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
5620
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 14:42:00 -
[81] - 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. |
GKO
I-F-L I-F-L Intergalactic Space Holding
0
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 14:47:00 -
[82] - Quote
Sinzor Aumer wrote:GKO wrote:But now I can use my freighter to loot freighter wrecks, yeah! You always could.
I should have wrote the whole story, it was about dropping cans to haul it with my crane in open space. So I dont need to move that freighter. But using the freighter as my mobile storage in space. Cool people use carriers, I am special. Anyway, as I said: I am happy. Just give me more freighters in 0.0 :) |
Sarah Flynt
EvRes
0
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 14:51:00 -
[83] - Quote
Raser Moonstrider wrote:I was almost excited to see the large T2 industrial get something that made it worthwhile..... and then I realized that you gave the "unscannable" trait to the cloaked hauler...which has absolutely no need for it because it can cloak. 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. |
Don'tTaseMe Bro
University of Caille Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 14:58:00 -
[84] - Quote
Good luck trying to haul drugs now. At least make the orca fleet hangar immune to NPC scan. It is hard enough moving drugs to null as is, and you take away the one ship that coul |
ANGRY23
the united Negative Ten.
33
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 14:59:00 -
[85] - 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.
Only suicide gankers.
Blockade Runners are being updated to be immune to cargo scanners, and as such will always show up as empty on scans.
The cloaky version, right? Why does it need to be immune to cargo scanning? If there is a valid reason that doesnt involve pandering to the carebears once again i'd like to hear it. Why does a ship that can only really be locked on undocks if piloted correctly need to be immune to cargo scanning?
Its sad eve is being dumbed down.
Other stuff in the blog is good tho i just feel the above change is a small kick in nuts to suicide gankers, a pastime i dont really take part in often so i couldnt care less about it and i'll happily catch the bad blockade runner pilots on a gate. People will just volley them at random now and take the chance i would think.
Off Tpo |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
5620
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 15:01:00 -
[86] - 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. |
Louis deGuerre
The Dark Tribe Against ALL Authorities
558
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 15:06:00 -
[87] - Quote
Glad to see my Orca pilot can finally leave his one man corp FIRE FRIENDSHIP TORPEDOES ! Louis's epic skill guide v1.1 |
Bloodpetal
Sal's Waste Management and Pod Disposal The Mockers AO
1056
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 15:11:00 -
[88] - Quote
Dammit, WHY couldn't you implement the Freighter changes already?
I have some naughty things planned.... and if they could only... jettison.... their... STUFF!!
-.- Where I am. |
Prime FLux
The Rising Stars Initiative Mercenaries
37
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 15:11:00 -
[89] - Quote
Fixed sized Containers instead of float-sized divisions is not a acceptable solution. Give us at least a private/public division of fleet hangar or make the cargohold and fleethamgar share volyme. Refitting capital sized module in space will be a pain in the ass.
Most likely have you now killed one of more interesting additional tactical dimensions of capship fighting. Good work! *sight* |
Letrange
Chaosstorm Corporation
53
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 15:15:00 -
[90] - Quote
Quote: Blockade Runners are being updated to be immune to cargo scanners, and as such will always show up as empty on scans
Even though it'll paint a target on my Prowler, the grin I got on reading this was downright scary.... |
|
mkint
923
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 15:26:00 -
[91] - Quote
Orca changes make me not want to play eve. Not only do devs not seem to know how players use their stuff, (at least competent ones), they admit in dev blogs to not giving a flying f*ck. Maxim 34: If you're leaving scorch-marks, you need a bigger gun. |
Viscis Breeze
TriFlexure Void-Legion
8
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 15:27:00 -
[92] - Quote
"Blockade Runners are being updated to be immune to cargo scanners, and as such will always show up as empty on scans"
Surely this makes them less useful as they will just be instantly targeted and popped regardless of cargo. Quite disappointed with this. |
Vrykolakasis
Trinity Operations Aurora Irae
69
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 15:28:00 -
[93] - Quote
While I either like or am OK with most of these changes, I, for one, am strongly opposed to CCPs current platform of simplifying EVE. |
Letrange
Chaosstorm Corporation
53
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 15:30:00 -
[94] - 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. We are aware of how... unpopular the deep space transports are however. I used a DST for a very long time - basically until I got my Orca. It still sees the occasional use when I want a bit more gank-resistance and don't need the volume of the Orca, but honestly to revive it you'd almost need a Q-ship variant of it.... Not happening I know, can't make the gankers nervous can we...
|
Kimo Khan
7
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 15:31:00 -
[95] - Quote
SwissChris1 wrote:"Blockade Runners are being updated to be immune to cargo scanners, and as such will always show up as empty on scans" Aww Nice update to Freighters though Also, FIRST (page )
I see blessings and curses in both freighters and blockade runners.
Freighters used as haulers for mining ops. Good. Freighters being hunted more for being such good mining op haulers. Bad.
Blockade runners blocking scans. Good Everyone shooting at a blockade runner because it is probably hiding something. Bad.
Either way, life will be more interesting. I like both updates, for multiple reasons. |
Wiu Ming
Dead Guy Syndicate Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
28
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 15:35:00 -
[96] - Quote
100% pure win on this one - ty devs! |
Celgar Thurn
Department 10
65
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 15:36:00 -
[97] - Quote
".....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. |
Warde Guildencrantz
TunDraGon
321
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 15:41:00 -
[98] - Quote
Andski wrote: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.
thats what i am saying |
Singulis Pacifica
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
36
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 15:42:00 -
[99] - Quote
TLDR: Blockade Runners have no proper tank to deal with the increased risk of cargo-scan immunity. With this being said, it should be given to Deep Space Transports instead.
Andski wrote:You only ever see them in hisec, usually fully fit with expanders and cargo rigs, negating the purpose of the ship to begin with.
I'm specialized in one for high-sec cargo deliveries, but no chance in heck that these modules will ever end up on my DST. I fly with what cargo hold it gives me through skills and see that as its maximum.
Your analogy with the armored truck is a very good one though. A DST is essentially just that: an armored truck for higher valued cargo.
CCP FoxFour wrote: 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.
I can understand the main reason for it. The Blockade Runner is cloaky/secretive. As such, an immunity to cargo scans fits the role perfectly. However, practical implementation is that the Blockade Runner has no true need for this in its intended environment anyway. After all, A Blockade Runner excels in low-sec and null-sec environments. It always uses its cloaking ability to jump safely from system to system (unless you are deep in friendly territory, I suppose). As such, it does not need a cargo-scan immunity in the environment it is designed to operate in. The only practical implementation for this is for high-sec. However, the Blockade Runner lacks one thing: a proper tank. It's fast, agile, secretive, but not very sturdy. It's only a slight improvement compared to most Tech 1 Industrials.
That is why the Deep Space Transport would be a better option for this cargo-scan immunity. It's not because something needs to happen to make this ship more popular (no matter what you as CCP do, some ships will always be more popular than others), but the main reason for this is its ability to field a proper tank. High-sec cargo hauling is safe as long as you are aware of certain risks.
Cargo-scan immunity is an additional risk: some suicide-gankers are willing to take a risk in ganking a ship like this and with that being said, the pilot of said ship with cargo-scan immunity knows it has now become a potential target for these gankers. A Blockade Runner with a cargo-scan immunity has the potential to become the "lottery" for gankers. You win some, you lose some. "let's see what this one has in its cargo hold".
A Deep Space Transport with cargo-scan immunity can become the target for this "lottery" just as the Blockade Runner. Only, the Deep Space Transport has a trick up its sleeve: it can, if properly skilled and fitted, withstand a suicide-gank of several BC/BS ships. So the practical implementation should be to add it to the Deep Space Transports rather than the Blockade Runners as it puts additional risk on the Blockade Runner pilots (even though you mean well), where as the Deep Space Transports know how to deal with this risk: put more emphasis on it's intended use and be Andski wrote:an armored truck with tinted windows. |
Iosue
Black Sky Hipsters
100
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 15:47:00 -
[100] - Quote
Overall, good job in the improvements Devs.
While I like having separate divisions in my Corp hangar, IGÇÖm sure I can figure out a work around. The freighter change is nice, and I foresee a lot of miners using this as their hauler of choice.
I will second what others have said regarding the BR changes. ItGÇÖs nice, but not very useful. BR is so fast and agile, very few hi-sec gate camps stand a chance to take one down. And with the new change, itGÇÖs going to be much riskier to move the BR when its empty. Furthermore, my BR spends most of its time in low or null sec, where this change is pretty meaningless. The DST would be much better suited for this type of bonus; I would actually buy and fit one if this were to happen. Please give this some further consideration. |
|
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
813
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 15:47:00 -
[101] - Quote
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. .
Depends on the complexity they're talking about.
Complexity for players is fine.
Complexity for code is less so. You end up with very brittle code, which has a tendency to break when you touch it. See the POS code. Or the old crimewatch code. 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. |
DexterShark
Li3's Electric Cucumber Li3 Federation
15
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 15:48:00 -
[102] - Quote
Singulis Pacifica wrote:TLDR: Blockade Runners have no proper tank to deal with the increased risk of cargo-scan immunity. With this being said, it should be given to Deep Space Transports instead. Andski wrote:You only ever see them in hisec, usually fully fit with expanders and cargo rigs, negating the purpose of the ship to begin with. I'm specialized in one for high-sec cargo deliveries, but no chance in heck that these modules will ever end up on my DST. I fly with what cargo hold it gives me through skills and see that as its maximum. Your analogy with the armored truck is a very good one though. A DST is essentially just that: an armored truck for higher valued cargo. CCP FoxFour wrote: 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.
I can understand the main reason for it. The Blockade Runner is cloaky/secretive. As such, an immunity to cargo scans fits the role perfectly. However, practical implementation is that the Blockade Runner has no true need for this in its intended environment anyway. After all, A Blockade Runner excels in low-sec and null-sec environments. It always uses its cloaking ability to jump safely from system to system (unless you are deep in friendly territory, I suppose). As such, it does not need a cargo-scan immunity in the environment it is designed to operate in. The only practical implementation for this is for high-sec. However, the Blockade Runner lacks one thing: a proper tank. It's fast, agile, secretive, but not very sturdy. It's only a slight improvement compared to most Tech 1 Industrials. That is why the Deep Space Transport would be a better option for this cargo-scan immunity. It's not because something needs to happen to make this ship more popular (no matter what you as CCP do, some ships will always be more popular than others), but the main reason for this is its ability to field a proper tank. High-sec cargo hauling is safe as long as you are aware of certain risks. Cargo-scan immunity is an additional risk: some suicide-gankers are willing to take a risk in ganking a ship like this and with that being said, the pilot of said ship with cargo-scan immunity knows it has now become a potential target for these gankers. A Blockade Runner with a cargo-scan immunity has the potential to become the "lottery" for gankers. You win some, you lose some. "let's see what this one has in its cargo hold". A Deep Space Transport with cargo-scan immunity can become the target for this "lottery" just as the Blockade Runner. Only, the Deep Space Transport has a trick up its sleeve: it can, if properly skilled and fitted, withstand a suicide-gank of several BC/BS ships. So the practical implementation should be to add it to the Deep Space Transports rather than the Blockade Runners as it puts additional risk on the Blockade Runner pilots (even though you mean well), where as the Deep Space Transports know how to deal with this risk: put more emphasis on it's intended use and be Andski wrote:an armored truck with tinted windows.
QFT - All of it.
|
Wiu Ming
Dead Guy Syndicate Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
28
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 15:48:00 -
[103] - Quote
Viscis Breeze wrote:"Blockade Runners are being updated to be immune to cargo scanners, and as such will always show up as empty on scans"
Surely this makes them less useful as they will just be instantly targeted and popped regardless of cargo. Quite disappointed with this.
Do you even know what a Blockade Runner is? It's the cloaky version, not the +2 Deep Space Transport.
So why on earth would cloaky haulers get popped any more than they do now, just because you can't 'scan' them anymore? If you don't want to get popped, stop being so f**king lazy and manually pilot your ship. |
Aethlyn
163
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 15:49:00 -
[104] - Quote
I can understand both sides... having it on the BRs sounds more fitting background wise, but having it on the DSTs sounds more interesting mechanic wise (or considering what it adds to the ship)... hard decision. Looking for more thoughts? Read http://aethlyn.blogspot.com/ or follow me on http://twitter.com/Aethlyn. |
Callic Veratar
Power of the Phoenix
280
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 15:50:00 -
[105] - Quote
There are a lot of people complaining in here about reducing complexity.
There are two different types of complexity at work here. The first that the players are complaining about is the system complexity. This is directly tied to what the devs are talking about in code complexity.
From what is described, some of the code is so complex (and likely stupid) that impossible to introduce new complexity and nuance into a system without breaking another system. So, to upgrade ship-based corp hangars they may first have to remove the dumb complexity, but once that's done, it can be added to and enhanced in a smart way.
Some day we might get logical folders for cargo with access control so that we don't ever have to worry about dealing with cans again. |
Krell Kroenen
Miners In Possession Brothers of Apocrypha.
84
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 15:51:00 -
[106] - Quote
I find it slightly amusing how the dev blog plays down the loss of divisions, it's not the end of the world but it's still going to be a pita over all. |
Seetesh
Celestial Serenity Incorporated
4
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 15:51:00 -
[107] - Quote
Some very interesting changes in particular the blockade runner changes are very much welcomed. |
Viscis Breeze
TriFlexure Void-Legion
8
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 15:52:00 -
[108] - Quote
Singulis Pacifica wrote:TLDR: Blockade Runners have no proper tank to deal with the increased risk of cargo-scan immunity. With this being said, it should be given to Deep Space Transports instead. Andski wrote:You only ever see them in hisec, usually fully fit with expanders and cargo rigs, negating the purpose of the ship to begin with. I'm specialized in one for high-sec cargo deliveries, but no chance in heck that these modules will ever end up on my DST. I fly with what cargo hold it gives me through skills and see that as its maximum. Your analogy with the armored truck is a very good one though. A DST is essentially just that: an armored truck for higher valued cargo. CCP FoxFour wrote: 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.
I can understand the main reason for it. The Blockade Runner is cloaky/secretive. As such, an immunity to cargo scans fits the role perfectly. However, practical implementation is that the Blockade Runner has no true need for this in its intended environment anyway. After all, A Blockade Runner excels in low-sec and null-sec environments. It always uses its cloaking ability to jump safely from system to system (unless you are deep in friendly territory, I suppose). As such, it does not need a cargo-scan immunity in the environment it is designed to operate in. The only practical implementation for this is for high-sec. However, the Blockade Runner lacks one thing: a proper tank. It's fast, agile, secretive, but not very sturdy. It's only a slight improvement compared to most Tech 1 Industrials. That is why the Deep Space Transport would be a better option for this cargo-scan immunity. It's not because something needs to happen to make this ship more popular (no matter what you as CCP do, some ships will always be more popular than others), but the main reason for this is its ability to field a proper tank. High-sec cargo hauling is safe as long as you are aware of certain risks. Cargo-scan immunity is an additional risk: some suicide-gankers are willing to take a risk in ganking a ship like this and with that being said, the pilot of said ship with cargo-scan immunity knows it has now become a potential target for these gankers. A Blockade Runner with a cargo-scan immunity has the potential to become the "lottery" for gankers. You win some, you lose some. "let's see what this one has in its cargo hold". A Deep Space Transport with cargo-scan immunity can become the target for this "lottery" just as the Blockade Runner. Only, the Deep Space Transport has a trick up its sleeve: it can, if properly skilled and fitted, withstand a suicide-gank of several BC/BS ships. So the practical implementation should be to add it to the Deep Space Transports rather than the Blockade Runners as it puts additional risk on the Blockade Runner pilots (even though you mean well), where as the Deep Space Transports know how to deal with this risk: put more emphasis on it's intended use and be Andski wrote:an armored truck with tinted windows.
Well reasoned, I totally agree. |
Kimo Khan
7
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 15:53:00 -
[109] - 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
I suspect it is more the idea that a Freighter can now do this. The orca can now just sit in a POS to give benefit, but does not even need to be present since the freighter can do all the hauling. |
Aethlyn
163
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 15:53:00 -
[110] - Quote
Used my Orca a lot in the past for corp mining ops (3-4 players most often) and we never really used the divisions. We just used one division for ore, the other for ammo (mining crystals). Never felt the need to use more than 2, maximum 3. With the new system you can still do this, e.g. drop one cargo container per participating player, so it's easy to sort everyone's stuff, etc. Don't really see any reason to complain right now. Looking for more thoughts? Read http://aethlyn.blogspot.com/ or follow me on http://twitter.com/Aethlyn. |
|
Aethlyn
163
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 15:54:00 -
[111] - Quote
Kimo Khan wrote:I suspect it is more the idea that a Freighter can now do this. The orca can now just sit in a POS to give benefit, but does not even need to be present since the freighter can do all the hauling. The freighter is still horrible at collecting the jetcans from miners and miners can't transfer their ore on their own (if you're close enough and don't want to use jetcans). Looking for more thoughts? Read http://aethlyn.blogspot.com/ or follow me on http://twitter.com/Aethlyn. |
Viscis Breeze
TriFlexure Void-Legion
8
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 15:54:00 -
[112] - Quote
Wiu Ming wrote:Viscis Breeze wrote:"Blockade Runners are being updated to be immune to cargo scanners, and as such will always show up as empty on scans"
Surely this makes them less useful as they will just be instantly targeted and popped regardless of cargo. Quite disappointed with this. Do you even know what a Blockade Runner is? It's the cloaky version, not the +2 Deep Space Transport. So why on earth would cloaky haulers get popped any more than they do now, just because you can't 'scan' them anymore? If you don't want to get popped, stop being so f**king lazy and manually pilot your ship.
Because you have 3 situations:
- You have something valuable and therefore fly properly. - You are in lowsec, null, wh and therefore fly properly. - You have nothing and AP to jita.
The last case is where you get popped, because it is assumed you are carrying something (with the scan changes). |
Kimo Khan
7
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 15:57:00 -
[113] - Quote
Aethlyn wrote:Kimo Khan wrote:I suspect it is more the idea that a Freighter can now do this. The orca can now just sit in a POS to give benefit, but does not even need to be present since the freighter can do all the hauling. The freighter is still horrible at collecting the jetcans from miners and miners can't transfer their ore on their own (if you're close enough and don't want to use jetcans).
Oh I agree that actually using a Freighter as a mining op hauler is not a great idea. Can't tank it, cant fit it, can't use tractors. But my argument was that I suspect people are planning that and they can see it as a nerf to the Orca.
Orca's are still better at this than a freighter, but a freighter can haul more.
EDIT: Let me clarify. Using a Freighter to replace an Orca is not a great idea. Using a freight to haul for an orca supported op can be good in that the orca can stick around and collect everything for the freighter. The freighter just needs only 1 trip for the entire orca hold. Now you just need to figure out how to protect the freighter from gankers. |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
813
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 16:07:00 -
[114] - Quote
If you were going to do it, you have the freighter sitting atop the orca, and taking out as the ore gets dumped. Or tractored in and dumped by the orca pilot.
It's really a replacement for the hauling orca, rather than the boosting. shame it loses the additional gang links. 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. |
Udonor
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
30
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 16:09:00 -
[115] - Quote
IMHO technology should always work. all ships should always be scannable regardless of what "targets" want.
Do not get carried away with the abtritary ship roles theme. No magic ships please.
That said. The counter ECM technology for defeating scans could well exist.
But a good rule of thumb would e to treat anti-scan like warp stabs and cloaks.
That is devices that counter another technology (basically cargo oriented ECM in this case) should be available as rigs or modules before showing up as an integrated part of T2. And there should be a specific cost added to T2 ships based on modules or rig cost. Transports with built-in cargo invisiblity should cost an extra 20-100M or give up soem equal T2 feature liek +2 warp stabs. |
Lord Haur
Grim Determination Nulli Secunda
39
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 16:10:00 -
[116] - Quote
Fleet Hangars: Meh. OK sure, play the "fixing code" ball. Still loss of functionality. While it's nice that non-corp members will finally be able to remove stuff from fleet hangars, I sincerely hope there's still an option to allow corp/fleet members the ability to drop items into the hangar/bay WITHOUT allowing take access. In any case, congratulations on cementing fleet hangars on supercapitals as restricted-use cargobays, except when refuelling. Cans are a PITA and wasteful.
Seperating the access for fleet hangar/SMB is a good addition though. Shame it's limited to either no access, or TAKE ALL MY STUFF.
New Cans: v0v. While certainly availiable for use as a replacement for divisions, most won't bother, or use the existing compressive cans, either for the extra volume or for the extreme granularity. You don't want to be using a 1km3 can when you only want it to hold a few mods, for example to seperate your maxtank modules from the rest of the general detritus supercapitals need to carry.
Scannable bays: v0v. Only ship really affected is the Orca, which loses it's somewhat unintended role of hauling super-expensive cargo.
Unscannable Blockade Runners: Because this line of Transport Ships needed to be MORE awesome than they already are. Just means they'll be forced to run cloaked everywhere in highsec now, lest they get nuked because "unscannable ship = loot pinata".
Freighters: Part of the point was they had extreme cargobays, but had to be at a station/POS to load/unload. I do understand it was rather complicated before, though.
SMB/SMA usage restrictions: Awesome. Certainly makes in-combat refitting a lot easier in anything other than a capital blob.
Forcefield passwords: Decent change. Won't stop most people entering passwords every time just to be sure.
Locking settings on audit log containers: Awesome. Especially if it applies to station containers as well. |
Krell Kroenen
Miners In Possession Brothers of Apocrypha.
86
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 16:15:00 -
[117] - Quote
Aethlyn wrote:Used my Orca a lot in the past for corp mining ops (3-4 players most often) and we never really used the divisions. We just used one division for ore, the other for ammo (mining crystals). Never felt the need to use more than 2, maximum 3. With the new system you can still do this, e.g. drop one cargo container per participating player, so it's easy to sort everyone's stuff, etc. Don't really see any reason to complain right now.
Well think about it this way, divisions are dynamic in their size, cargo containers are not. So If i have some materials I want segregated I have use the set size of the container regardless of the amount I really wish to store and if I go over that size even if by 5m3 I am forced to use another container to keep it secure and separated. So I lose cargo space more often than not.
And that gives me reason to complain right now.
If they can make the containers adjust their volume dynamically then I would be content. |
Udonor
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
30
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 16:18:00 -
[118] - Quote
Cans would not be so bad a way to separate drop only access EXCEPT
#1 it would really be nice if you could change labels of cans on ships (and for freighters assemble cans)
#2 only pilot can access can contents while in ship if I understand correctly. Doesn't mesh well with new unlimited player general access.
Only one solution: As public service gankers need to blow these ships up before anyone gets confused and pilots expire of over work doling out from cans. |
Merouk Baas
25
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 16:19:00 -
[119] - Quote
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. |
Nicol Caius
Black Sky Hipsters
2
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 16:20:00 -
[120] - Quote
@Devs, please reconsider the unscannable bonus to the blockade runner. as others have said, its largely a determent to this ship class. my blockade runner will now be a target for just auto-piloting to jita empty. the best case scenario would be to give this bonus to the deep space transport. this would improve the usage of this ship class, isn't that way you guys are aiming for with all the other ship balancing changes? if this isn't possible, i suggest removing it altogether. i'd rather not have my expensive blockade runners being used as pinatas wherever i go to hi-sec. |
|
Viscis Breeze
TriFlexure Void-Legion
8
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 16:24:00 -
[121] - Quote
Nicol Caius wrote:@Devs, please reconsider the unscannable bonus to the blockade runner. as others have said, its largely a determent to this ship class. my blockade runner will now be a target for just auto-piloting to jita empty. the best case scenario would be to give this bonus to the deep space transport. this would improve the usage of this ship class, isn't that way you guys are aiming for with all the other ship balancing changes? if this isn't possible, i suggest removing it altogether. i'd rather not have my expensive blockade runners being used as pinatas wherever i go to hi-sec.
I would at least like the option to turn it off. |
|
CCP Habakuk
C C P C C P Alliance
351
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 16:24:00 -
[122] - 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
|
|
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
5621
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 16:27:00 -
[123] - 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. |
Kimo Khan
7
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 16:27:00 -
[124] - Quote
Viscis Breeze wrote:Nicol Caius wrote:@Devs, please reconsider the unscannable bonus to the blockade runner. as others have said, its largely a determent to this ship class. my blockade runner will now be a target for just auto-piloting to jita empty. the best case scenario would be to give this bonus to the deep space transport. this would improve the usage of this ship class, isn't that way you guys are aiming for with all the other ship balancing changes? if this isn't possible, i suggest removing it altogether. i'd rather not have my expensive blockade runners being used as pinatas wherever i go to hi-sec. I would at least like the option to turn it off.
Ok you turn it off with nothing in your cargo hold. Question: Is the cargo empty or blocked. How does the ganker know?
|
GKO
I-F-L I-F-L Intergalactic Space Holding
0
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 16:31:00 -
[125] - Quote
Viscis Breeze wrote:Nicol Caius wrote:@Devs, please reconsider the unscannable bonus to the blockade runner. as others have said, its largely a determent to this ship class. my blockade runner will now be a target for just auto-piloting to jita empty. the best case scenario would be to give this bonus to the deep space transport. this would improve the usage of this ship class, isn't that way you guys are aiming for with all the other ship balancing changes? if this isn't possible, i suggest removing it altogether. i'd rather not have my expensive blockade runners being used as pinatas wherever i go to hi-sec. I would at least like the option to turn it off.
Yeah, FoxFour can you do that? |
Arcosian
EntroPrelatial Industria EntroPraetorian Aegis
40
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 16:33:00 -
[126] - Quote
Throwing a quick fit together in EFT for a tanky occator you can get about 80k ehp with a 20sec align time. Only 6k cargohold though so unless you are AFK flying to Jita you would be better off using the cloaky haulers with 10k cargohold.
Orca can get around 200k ehp so unscannable really makes no sense on a DST with the cloaky haulers getting more cargohold and being unscannable already thanks to the cloak. |
Singulis Pacifica
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
39
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 16:34:00 -
[127] - 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.
Except that you forget the fact where cargo-scan immunity comes from: an Orca. This ship, although not as sturdy as a freighter, is already a tank on its own (granted that it needs to be fitted accordingly). So what CCP does now is remove this from a ship with a decent tank (can survive a multiple ship suice gank), to a ship without this tanking ability.
Removing it from an Orca to a Blockade Runner essentially makes it easier for suicide gankers. Removing it from an Orca to a Deep Space Transport makes it somewhat comparable to the current situation.
DST's align faster than Orca's, but can haul less. Their tanking ability should roughly be the same, but I'm no specialized Orca pilot, so I have to rely on the basic knowledge of the ship.
|
Viscis Breeze
TriFlexure Void-Legion
8
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 16:39:00 -
[128] - Quote
Kimo Khan wrote:Viscis Breeze wrote:Nicol Caius wrote:@Devs, please reconsider the unscannable bonus to the blockade runner. as others have said, its largely a determent to this ship class. my blockade runner will now be a target for just auto-piloting to jita empty. the best case scenario would be to give this bonus to the deep space transport. this would improve the usage of this ship class, isn't that way you guys are aiming for with all the other ship balancing changes? if this isn't possible, i suggest removing it altogether. i'd rather not have my expensive blockade runners being used as pinatas wherever i go to hi-sec. I would at least like the option to turn it off. Ok you turn it off with nothing in your cargo hold. Question: Is the cargo empty or blocked. How does the ganker know?
Fair point.
Maybe a work around saying that the "cargo hold cannot be penetrated with your scanners" or "the cargo hold is empty" |
No0I3sTyLeI2
Hedion University Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 16:41:00 -
[129] - Quote
Well done CCP! Thank you! Excellent work! But... will u reimb my orca SPs, maybe? |
Kimo Khan
8
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 16:43:00 -
[130] - Quote
Viscis Breeze wrote:Kimo Khan wrote:Viscis Breeze wrote:Nicol Caius wrote:@Devs, please reconsider the unscannable bonus to the blockade runner. as others have said, its largely a determent to this ship class. my blockade runner will now be a target for just auto-piloting to jita empty. the best case scenario would be to give this bonus to the deep space transport. this would improve the usage of this ship class, isn't that way you guys are aiming for with all the other ship balancing changes? if this isn't possible, i suggest removing it altogether. i'd rather not have my expensive blockade runners being used as pinatas wherever i go to hi-sec. I would at least like the option to turn it off. Ok you turn it off with nothing in your cargo hold. Question: Is the cargo empty or blocked. How does the ganker know? Fair point. Maybe a work around saying that the "cargo hold cannot be penetrated with your scanners" or "the cargo hold is empty"
I think a better idea would be unscannable containers. Only usable on T2 Transport ships. So both the Blockade Runner and Deep Space Transport can use them but only if they want. |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
10469
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 16:50:00 -
[131] - Quote
Very nice changes.
i was a bid sad to see my Orca lose its secure transport role when it was announce, even though it was a very sensible change. But now that I'm being compensated with another ship doing the same thing, it's all good. Surprise buffs GÇö best buffs. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan. |
Daedra Blue
Atomic Biohazard
25
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 16:59:00 -
[132] - Quote
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)
Simply add people to the groups and all is fine. |
Keko Khaan
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
25
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 17:00:00 -
[133] - 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. We are aware of how... unpopular the deep space transports are however.
Never even tought to buy deep space transport over mammoth.. Dont see the point of whole ship class. But if you would give it like 50k m3 while fitted i might be intrested to buy one of those... |
Crexa
Star Mandate
14
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 17:06:00 -
[134] - Quote
"...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. "...its breakfast time and i am very hungry. may i have some of your paint chips?" |
Prime FLux
The Rising Stars Initiative Mercenaries
38
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 17:08:00 -
[135] - Quote
Or why not make Cargohold / Fleethangar share the same cargospace volume. But dynamically distribute the volume between them.
That would allow us to keep our private stuff separated from those we want to share with fleet. |
Crexa
Star Mandate
14
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 17:14:00 -
[136] - 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. We are aware of how... unpopular the deep space transports are however.
Could we possibly see, would it be, maybe a jump capability?!!? "...its breakfast time and i am very hungry. may i have some of your paint chips?" |
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University Ivy League
1162
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 17:18:00 -
[137] - Quote
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
Will those ships show up as destroyed on the killmail? What about the contents and modules of those ships that also get destroyed? (Which is an important thing - if you're allowing players to pay out bounties to other players based on the destroyed value.) |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
5621
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 17:20:00 -
[138] - 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. |
The Slayer
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
32
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 17:23:00 -
[139] - Quote
Blockade Runner would have made a much more sensible choice for the unscannable bonus imo.
Also I am not sure I like where the changes to scanning and plastic wrapping is going, the following quote "We recognize the need for secure hauling in the current environment" is especially troubling. There are already several methods of secure hauling, you introducing more just means the idiots who don't know how to use them get away with their stupidity instead of learning about the harsh realities of a game like EVE. Please, no more hand holding. |
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University Ivy League
1162
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 17:24:00 -
[140] - Quote
SwissChris1 wrote:"Blockade Runners are being updated to be immune to cargo scanners, and as such will always show up as empty on scans"
My issue with that is that:
- Blockade runners were already pretty good with their cloaking ability, fast align times, and tissue-paper tank.
- DSTs are still basically useless, because of warp bubbles and infinity-point HICs.
What's probably going to happen in the real world is that people will pop uncloaked B/Rs on the off-chance that they're carrying something valuable. The orca didn't have that issue because of the effort required to pop an orca. B/Rs, with their tiny tank, don't have that protection.
Flying a B/R will now require that you make 100% use of the cloak, insta-undock bookmarks, etc.
DSTs might have been the better choice for an unscannable cargo hold. |
|
Crexa
Star Mandate
15
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 17:25:00 -
[141] - Quote
Aethlyn wrote:Sinzor Aumer wrote:The freighter can carry MUCH more which means it is now the only viable choise for fleet mining. Sure, it's still fine for "solo" mining with a couple of alts. But when you have a dozen of ppl stripping the belt or gravy site - hauling Orca is totally useless now. Just explain - why? What was the backgroud of that decision?
You are right, if you ignore align time, acceleration, gang links and tractor beams. I'm not sure you've ever mined with a full set (or at least 2) mining links. This boosts your output by more than 30% (also depending on whether there's a supporting mind link as well) and is very significant making the Orca far from useless. You could use a Battlecruiser for this, but you'll also lose the hull's bonus. Using a Freighter just to collect or haul the ore back to station sounds feasible, but especially if it's in the same system, the Orca is still better for this - not just for the added tractor beams: it can zip back to station, drop the ore and be back in the belt boosting in 2 or 3 minutes. The freighter might need this time just for one trip (without the way back). A standard T1 industrial can carry like 40-50k m-¦ per run, so if one keeps moving back/forth the Orca should never get full. If it does, add another hauler. Either use the Orca as the hauler or use it as a collector/buffer for the real haulers.
The point that is being made is; If all the orca is for, is mining boosts, (which is all my fleet of 12 use it for). Then what is the point of such a large cumbersome ship?
"...its breakfast time and i am very hungry. may i have some of your paint chips?" |
Daedalus II
The Oasis Group TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance
134
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 17:25:00 -
[142] - 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 agree with this. It was a perfect opportunity to give one of the less used ships their very own role, but instead you gave it to an already very secure hauler. |
Lors Dornick
Kallisti Industries Solar Assault Fleet
350
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 17:27:00 -
[143] - Quote
Sentient Blade wrote:The only thing I would point out is that the loss of corporate hangers is going to be somewhat of a pain. On the Orca yes, but even more so on capital ships where the size of the hanger is limited + cans are in short supply, it's going to make separating items up a bigger pain. The best "technical" solution I could come up with would be selectable elastic containers: Quote:* Buy an "Elastic Shipping Container" for something like 10m ISK (affordable for those flying orcas / capitals) that has an packaged size of say 100 m3.
* You assemble it, and it turns it into an "ElasticContainerer100" with an initial volume of 100 m3.
* You fill it with items you wish to separate, a particular kind of module lets say, but need a bit more room.
* You click on it, select "resize to ..." and select a bigger size, let's say you want to store a couple of frigates along side the modules, so you select 10,000 m3.
* The servers check the size of the parent container to see if the new 10,000 m3 would fit, minus the existing container, and if it does you flip the TypeID to a new "ElasticContainer10000" type, copy / replace it if necessary, and move all the items over.
* Use them in that size as long as necessary. Maybe expand / reduce their size again multiple during the course of an op; maybe one fleet member is storing significantly more than another.
* Shrink them back down after their job is done provided their content is not oversized. This would:Quote:* Allow fleet hangers to have password protected cargo areas that could share space
* Not have to deal with the problems associated with shrink wrap; just spam TypeIDs for non-market containers and swap between them.
* Allow Orca / Carrier pilots to keep a few of these elastic containers always to hand to be use to partition their ships where necessary without having to haul empty cans just in case for no reason other than the code that handled a cargo bay having "dividing walls" needed to die (understandable). Caveats:Quote:* You do not need to spam hidden containers for every 100 m3 for the entire range, 25, 100, 250, 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, 4000, 5000, 7500, 10000, 15000, 20,000 etc.
* Removing the existing container from the DB and creating a new one with the same children and attributes (except TypeID) would be perfectly acceptable. If this means people have to re-open the can so be it.
* Repackaging them would return them back to a particular size "Elastic Shipping Container" which could then be sold on the market.
So CCP, a better idea than just removing them completely, no?
No.
The main reason behind removing the divisions in ship mounted corporate hangars was to reduce code complexity that had grown over years to become almost unmanageable.
Most likely partly down to the bright idea to reuse stationary corporate hangars on ships (and add a serious amount of hardcoded special cases to make it work (somewhat)).
And adding any form of elastic containers (automagically or manual) would add another special case so the server and all involved clients would re-sync correctly .
Most likely cause Team Gridlock to light their torches and go looking for someone to burn at the stake.
I'm fully aware of the many uses of the divisions on the Orca, have used them extensively and are sad to see them them go.
But the workarounds are acceptable and it's a price I'm willing to pay for cleaned up, functional and stable code.
CCP Eterne: Silly player, ALL devs are evil.
|
Merouk Baas
27
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 17:29:00 -
[144] - Quote
Crexa wrote:The point that is being made is; If all the orca is for, is mining boosts, (which is all my fleet of 12 use it for). Then what is the point of such a large cumbersome ship?
That's the point of it.
It provides boosts, it tractors cans, and has some cargo hold for cases where you don't have a freighter available.
You may find it "useless" for you, but it's not useless for others. |
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University Ivy League
1162
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 17:30:00 -
[145] - Quote
Salpad wrote: Why not just do a quick fix, and change the Deep Space Transport bonus to something useful? + to active shield tank is a very, very poor defensive bonus to have. Change it to +5% shield resists per level, or +5% armour resist for the armour tanking versions.
I'm pretty sure I've never trained my Transports skill above 1, even though I fly Blockade Runners quite a lot, and Deep Space Transports every so often, and the reason for that is that the effect of the Transports skill sucks.
Making the DSTs immune to bubbles like the T3 ships can might be a good adjustment to them. |
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University Ivy League
1162
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 17:34:00 -
[146] - Quote
Kimo Khan wrote: I suspect it is more the idea that a Freighter can now do this. The orca can now just sit in a POS to give benefit, but does not even need to be present since the freighter can do all the hauling.
Or maybe CCP should bump up the ore volume on the Orca to something sizable like 500k m3, to give it back the premier role of being the mining fleet's logistic vessel. It's been sidelined already by the 35k m3 ore bay on the Mackinaw (which can also mine while it waits for enough ore to haul away.
(A 500k m3 ore bay on the Orca would also be a boon to w-space miners, making their logistics a bit easier.) |
Daedalus II
The Oasis Group TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance
134
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 17:37:00 -
[147] - Quote
Gilbaron wrote:Quote:i can partially understand the freighter is a bigger hauler and can now pick stuff up in space part, but surely the main advatage to a mining fleet in belts etc.. is its extended tractor beam range that can pull in jet canned ore from a distance meaning less moving around in big clunky ships? fairly certain i read the devblog properly and didnt see anything about freighters using capital tractor beams or anything like that.
now: one orca for tractor beams and bonuses, one freighter for hauling before: one orca for tractor beams and bonuses, X orcas for hauling Then what are you complaining about?? You just got X-1 more pilots to do actual mining! |
Alx Warlord
SUPERNOVA SOCIETY Tribal Conclave
202
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 17:38:00 -
[148] - Quote
This is a really welcome change, I think blokade runners should also evade NPC's scanner... it would be fair!!!
Also these changes makes simpler and remove from the messed up Corp management a important feature of the game...
Now I just hope that you guys Revam the POS system soon, as the CSM is asking!!! for more info, read the topic related to pos in my signature.
And about the Hi-Sec freighter minning.... good luck with that... it gets stuck on roids too often... Please read this! > New POS system ( Block Built - Starbasecraft) Please read this! >-á[Debate] - ISK SINK |
SportBilly
GHOSTS OF THE FIRST AND ONLY
51
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 17:45:00 -
[149] - Quote
Once again you seem to be messing about with the game.
An orca has a far better tank than a frighter and is very usefull for a small corp, by the very nature of being fitable, fleet mining, hauling various items about . i have used it to swap ships, refit ships and it has some ability to fight back.
A frighter is more expensive, slower, and has a lot lower tank and only usefull to haul large quantities about..
Please stop trying to make every thing the same in the game, your already doing it on this next upgrade by making all the ships have rolls and fits, let people learn. and use thier imagination. We dont want every thing the same , predictable fits etc.
Its not all bad I am looking forward to the game enhancing upgrades on Dec 4th. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
10469
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 17:50:00 -
[150] - Quote
SportBilly wrote:An orca has a far better tank than a frighter and is very usefull for a small corp, by the very nature of being fitable, fleet mining, hauling various items about . i have used it to swap ships, refit ships and it has some ability to fight back.
A frighter is more expensive, slower, and has a lot lower tank and only usefull to haul large quantities about.. GǪwhich makes them quite different in what they can and cannot do and not at all the same.
Quote:Please stop trying to make every thing the same in the game, GǪwhat what?!
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan. |
|
Tarvos Telesto
Blood Fanatics
95
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 17:54:00 -
[151] - Quote
Good changes in general, also yay!
"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"
Finaly people may use freighters on adsteroid belts as haulers, a bit dangerus to kamikaze who just wainting for some lolzzz., but nice to get this option, isk vs reward.
Good stuf CCP. EvE isn't game, its style of living. |
MadMuppet
A Better Corp Name
605
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 17:55:00 -
[152] - Quote
I just wish I could be on-line to take advantage of this in the market. November 6th, 2012 "With this in mind, it becomes quite obvious to focus on training the Destroyers and Battlecruisers skills before the change to get the maximum return effect. We highly recommend you start doing so now." --á CCP Ytterbium from:-áhttp://community.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&nbid=73530 |
Crexa
Star Mandate
15
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 17:59:00 -
[153] - Quote
SportBilly wrote:Once again you seem to be messing about with the game.
An orca has a far better tank than a frighter and is very usefull for a small corp, by the very nature of being fitable, fleet mining, hauling various items about . i have used it to swap ships, refit ships and it has some ability to fight back.
A frighter is more expensive, slower, and has a lot lower tank and only usefull to haul large quantities about..
Please stop trying to make every thing the same in the game, your already doing it on this next upgrade by making all the ships have rolls and fits, let people learn. and use thier imagination. We dont want every thing the same , predictable fits etc.
Its not all bad I am looking forward to the game enhancing upgrades on Dec 4th.
Basic premise of what you say is dead on. As I step back and look at all the propose changes I get the sinking feeling that its all about, and nothing but, reducing complexity. Very sad really.
As to the Orca, its just plain common sense to see where the changes take you. Already peeps have switched from the Hulk for mining to the Mack, why? Its like a "DUH" moment. The larger cargo hold stupid. What do you think will happen with freighters having 25 times the cargo space of the Mack and 5 times the cargo space of the Orca.
YOU WILL see asteroid belts FILLED with Freighters>>!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
While I likely will experiment with it too, as it will become the way of things. Is it really what CCP envisions? Actually now that I think about it. What is CCP's vision for industry in EvE? "...its breakfast time and i am very hungry. may i have some of your paint chips?" |
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
1695
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 18:08:00 -
[154] - 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. |
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
2051
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 18:15:00 -
[155] - Quote
CCP FoxFour wrote: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.
Today: station-less system => perfect for corp ops mining, orcas provide the logistics and buffs.
Tomorrow: no system is "safe", freighters (once again) trivialize logistics. You should nerf JFs and freigthers not buff them.
As for the Blockade Runners: I am happy I randomly made zillions of prowler BPCs already (for another usage) but I don't feel like they should have unscannable cargo. It's trivializing the game way too much.
Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
10743
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 18:28:00 -
[156] - Quote
I must say although it looks like a nice buff to the BR, scan immunity isn't needed or wanted on this ship. It's whole purpose is cloak hauling and it's cloak is not only it's tank, but also it's scan immunity.
As the DST is massively underused, it would seem to be far more sensible to have given that ship that bonus instead.
A really strange move tbh. I say this having had the same BR fully fit for cargo, since cloaks were allowed on them.
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. |
Verran Skarne
Shadowfire Enterprises
6
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 18:30:00 -
[157] - Quote
My thoughts as a high-sec industrialist and w-space miner:
1) The Orca
I see the Orca as really being a fleet backbone ship for mining fleets. I'm ok with changing the corp hangar to a fleet hangar but I'd like to see further changes to the ships to help make it more relevant in that role. Specifically:
- Increase the size of the ore bay. The current one really isn't very useful in any serious mining op. - Add additional high slots so that an orca pilot can run boosts and tractor beams at the same time. Right now you either have to set one up for boosting or set it up for collection - there's just not enough slots to do both efficiently.
I'm not really so concerned about losing the unscannable cargo hold although I know a lot of people who will be upset about this. But the problem there really is that suicide ganking has become ridiculously common, rather than that people can do it.
I will say that if the Orca isn't intended to be doing hauling outside of fleet ops, it should probably be a bit more agile than it currently is. My Obelisk aligns faster than my Orca does.
2) The Blockade Runner and the Deep Space Transport
As others have mentioned, having an unscannable hold doesn't really make any practical sense on a Blockade Runner which can already cloak, MWD, and align fast. The ship's already good at evading ganks - inviting bored gankers to take a free pass at it because of an unscannable hold just means that it will get targeted more, not less.
On the other hand, the DST could definitely use some love. I don't necessarily think an unscannable hold is the answer (again, I think the problem is that suicide ganking is too easy/common/not enough consequence). I wouldn't mind seeing better agility or a bigger cargo hold or something.
3) Hauling in general.
Large-scale industry requires a significant amount of hauling. Right now we have Industrials (small), Orcas (medium), and Freighters (XXL) in terms of hauling ships. It would be nice if we had something in between an Orca and a Freighter in terms of capacity to help fill in the gaps there and to provide an alternative to the Orca for hauling.
There also needs to be a better defense against suicide ganks, or at least a deterrant of some kind. To be clear, I'm not saying that suicide ganking of haulers shouldn't be possible, but it's simply far too common now with the advent of the (Tier 3) battlecruisers. I've heard different options presented in the past but here's the ones I like.
- Containers or ship modules that make it less likely items will be dropped as loot are one option. - Being able to take out short-term insurance on the ISK value of a ship's cargo would be good. (That's how shipping companies do it in the real world, after all). That would help someone recover from the loss of a 1.4b freighter and an 800m cargo when they get ganked. |
TheLostPenguin
Surreal Departure
39
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 18:33:00 -
[158] - Quote
I always understood that limited freighter interactions in space was to ensure there was some role for the smaller haulers left, other than simply those people that hadn't trained freighters yet or happened to be doing a smaller haul.
Yes rock hauling has evolved somewhat, with orcas taking over primarily as haulers in addition to obvious natural role as boosters, but in some ways this still allowed the 'lesser' pilots not fully skilled etc for boosting to be usefull with a orca, and indeed itty5 (or other indy, dependent on fleet size really) could still shift a respectable amount with its lower align times helping make up for lower capacity.
Now, we're left with the default situation for any mining fleet above a couple ships being orca+freighter, the lesser able orca pilot no longer has a way to be remotely as useful to fleets, unless you can boost perfectly there's no point bothering with an orca now, unless you want for it's still-usefull (thankfully) ability to taxi a bunch of smaller ships about.
Just as well nearly there on cald freighter 5 personally, gonna be nice to have option to sit there a load up a couple belts into that hold :P
Also...
Quote:...but we need to get the complexity of EVE under control and doing so is going to require functionality downgrades in certain areas. This is annoying but unavoidable.
In terms of how ass-handed your code is, sure. In terms of user features, NEVER. The only reasons for not replicating prior functionality with your new, not-re-purposed-14-times-from-what-it-was-originally-meant-to-do code boil down to either laziness, or a disregard for users leading to not allocating sufficient time to do so. As always when someone at CCP thinks "nobody really uses this, lets just scrap it", the reality is actually, lots of people DO use that feature and do get pissed that it was scrapped for no good design/balance reason, simply because cba to do it right.
Rather than add annoying spam of never-the-right-size freight cans, why not simply make them resizable? As they're already a group unto themselves its no addition of new exception webs, and would allow much easier replication of the lost hangar functionality than players screwing about with umpteen cans, or you later having to redo hangars again because you realised actually people did use and do want that feature. |
Bagrat Skalski
Poseidaon
66
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 18:38:00 -
[159] - Quote
Eeeeeh... I believe you can't always satisfy everyone. Inside mining barge, true story |
Gypsio III
Chemikals Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
448
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 18:43:00 -
[160] - Quote
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. |
|
Riffix
Synergistic Arbitrage
46
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 18:43:00 -
[161] - Quote
I really like these changes! Thanks CCP!
Lead, Follow, or Get the #@$!@ Out of the Way. |
Versuvius Marii
Browncoats of Persephone Ironworks Coalition
146
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 18:46:00 -
[162] - Quote
Add Alliance permissions to the Corp/Fleet hangar windows too please. A lot of smaller alliances in high and null would love this to be added as well. The Gaming MoD - retro to modern, console to MMO, I blog about it if it's a game and I'm interested in it. Yes, I play games other than Eve and I don't care if you think I'm wrong. |
Gogela
Freeport Exploration Loosely Affiliated Pirates Alliance
1439
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 18:47:00 -
[163] - Quote
Hmm... big changes there. I have 2 comments and 2 questions:
Lifting the restrictions on freighters will make possible a new form of grieving. For instance, a bitter player might load up a freighter full of assembled cargo containers and jettison them in front of Jita 4-4. 9000 containers showing up in undock is going to cause a lot of lag, and could facilitate ganking as undocking pilots won't be able to redock before they are dead. As someone who does not grief, I look forward to the change because it makes my freighters more useful to me. That said, I'm mindful of those who do...
Second, love that loot is dropping from everything now. Everything destroyed in space should have some chance of dropping loot.
Question 1: Why make all these new uncompressed containers? Now that the restrictions are gone on freighters, why not just create a compressed freighter can and eliminate the freighter group all together?
Question 2: Googled but get conflicting info... if you blow up a corp hanger array on a POS, is there some chance that everything in it will drop? I guess another way of asking it is "does everything in space now drop loot?"
|
Swidgen
Republic University Minmatar Republic
25
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 18:57:00 -
[164] - Quote
C'mon, who are you kidding? Everything is a QA nightmare for you to validate. Next week will prove that point yet again.
Good tweaks to the ship bays re. scanning and not dropping from SMBs. Freighters performing cargo ops in space.... hmmmmm, will have to wait and see about that one; the big red EXPLOIT sign in my head is blinking.
Divisions are necessary. You're making it so 90% of the problematic issues after 4 December will get drowned out by people complaining about the removal of divisions and continuing problems with the inventory UI. New containers don't begin to make up for the loss of division usefulness.
Given your lack of acumen with programming nested containers using Python, I suppose it'll have to do for a few years. I hope your design/programming teams document what they're doing so 5 years down the road a new bunch of devs doesn't say, "This old code is too complicated to understand. Let's get rid of it and re-invent the wheel again!". At least you're admitting it's a functional downgrade. Trying to sell people on the idea that it's "unavoidable", though, borders on evil. It was completely avoidable if you had done things right the first time and, gods forbid, actually had a QA team when the station and ship hangar code was first developed. |
DJ P0N-3
Table Flippendeavors
73
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 18:59:00 -
[165] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote: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.
Does this mean that someday you will be addressing the general anguish that is dealing with containers? The fleet hangar change wouldn't be so bad if containers weren't as awful as they are. |
Meleene Isenplox
Rudeltaktik
3
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 19:01:00 -
[166] - Quote
If you're going to remove the functionality of having only one hangar in ships, at least give us more flexibility with the cans. 5, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 100 K m3 would be much better. 50K m3 is too big for most cap uses and 10K m3 is too small. I want to carry 150-200K fuel in my super carrier, which is about 25-30K m3. |
Dunkler Imperator
N.F.H.P. SQUEE.
14
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 19:02:00 -
[167] - Quote
question
Does the blockade runner scanner immunity also work for NPC?
CCP has said they don't like the current mechanics for boosters(npc random scan everyship = bad) I would love this to work as moving my drugs to market is all random and very frustrating for us drug runners.
|
Karig'Ano Keikira
State War Academy Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 19:08:00 -
[168] - Quote
hm... so this makes it possible to throw ore into freighter? interesting change |
Schwein Hosen
DuckPus Fightclub
0
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 19:10:00 -
[169] - Quote
Nice changes, but this leaves one very big question unanswered: Do cargo scanners now work on offlined pos modules with corp hangars?
Currently, this functionality works like you are about to make blockade runners work (ie kind of buggy imo). You can activate a cargo scanner on an offline module (say a corp hangar, ship maintenance array, mobile lab), but it shows nothing on the scan. This leads the user to believe that it worked and there was nothing in it. However, there may actually be loot in these modules, and it may drop if you destroy them. Is anything different concerning this in Retribution? (plz say yes)
And secondly, something I just thought about while writing this, if you are making all other hangars in ships drop loot, shouldn't you also include the ship maintenance bay, and make it drop assembled ships... LIKE IT ALREADY DOES ON A POS SHIP MAINTENANCE ARRAY??
If there is one thing I love in EVE, it's getting loot. |
Deornoth Drake
Hooded Underworld Guys The Retirement Club
13
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 19:27:00 -
[170] - Quote
it would be interesting to have corporation/fleet access to the corp hangar as well, so miners could drop the stuff right in there. But for the easy of coding either open ALL ore hangars or none, don't put any logic in there.
about orca's being replaced by freighters. I see the orca as a mining director providing bonus and temporarily storing the ore and a freighter picking it up.
Anyway, nice changes and awesome idea to upgrade the blockade runners to block cargo scanners! |
|
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
5623
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 19:48:00 -
[171] - 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. |
Gilbaron
Free-Space-Ranger Ev0ke
440
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 19:48:00 -
[172] - Quote
the idea to make DSTs unscannable instead of BRs is a great one, would love to hear CCPs opinion on it :) |
CaptainFalcon07
Caucasian Culture Club Transmission Lost
49
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 20:05:00 -
[173] - Quote
Well its good to see divisions are around, but I question your reason why you gave the unscannable bonus to the BR, instead of the DST's.
The BR's can fly cloaked, the unscannable bonus is rather redundant, and considering that BR are pretty fragile, this is not going to help them much. A tornado can pretty much oneshot a BR so it won't help it at all.
The DST however is fairly lacking, the unscannable bonus would make much more sense for these ships, they are slow, the are supposed to be tanky. Giving DST the unscannable bonus will force gankers to do a guessing game and have to devote more than 1-2 tornados to do a simple gank.
Right now there is little reason to fly DST, giving them an unscannable bonus would help though. |
Sturmwolke
299
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 20:29:00 -
[174] - Quote
Blockade runners with cargo scan immunity, wtf? Have the CCP devs gone daft somewhere along the way?
The blockade runner's ALREADY a cloaky ship and in the MAJORITY of cases have no issues running low volume high value items. No one sane would autopilot a blockade runner, regardless whether the cargo can be scanned or not ... so in truth, it's a pointless change.
Now take a HARD LOOK at the Deep Space Transport class. Why wasn't this chosen?
|
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
5624
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 20:33:00 -
[175] - 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 -
[176] - 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. |
Gypsio III
Chemikals Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
449
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 20:35:00 -
[177] - Quote
Andski wrote: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.
it's a really bad way of making BRs foolproof. Making them unscannable makes it as risky to autopilot along in an untanked, empty blockade runner as it will to do it in one full of PLEX. This means that every time you autopilot in one essentially becomes a crapshoot of pure dumb luck whether you get ganked or not, regardless of what you actually have in cargo.
Speaking as someone who only APs a BR when it's empty, this is insane game design. |
CaptainFalcon07
Caucasian Culture Club Transmission Lost
49
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 20:42:00 -
[178] - Quote
Precisely agree with the poster above, it makes little sense, the Cloak/fast align time on a the BR is its unscannable ability.
The DST needs something to make it worth fly, it is worthless for nullsec, where there's bubbles and lowsec, where you have a bunch of people that will point you past your +2 stab bonus.
The BR is used for nullsec and lowsec, leaving the DST only choice to really go is highsec to withstand suicide ganks.
But current DST, aren't worth crap in highsec, due to overall how poor and redundant they are.
The unscannable bonus will make the BR a lolgank lottery target, regardless of you are carrying anything or not, due to how weak it is.
The DST with an unscannable bonus will not be something you can trivially lolgank and will definately give a guessing game to those who are considering about ganking it. |
Sizeof Void
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
296
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 20:44:00 -
[179] - Quote
CCP FoxFour wrote: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. Based on the feedback thus far on this thread, I suspect that the unscannable cargohold will end up being transferred to the DST next year, anyways, unless someone at CCP chooses to be stubborn for the sake of being stubborn.
Why not discuss this issue with Game of Drones today, and make the change once - to the DST now - rather than having to reverse the change later on the BR? |
Gogela
Freeport Exploration Loosely Affiliated Pirates Alliance
1441
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 21:01:00 -
[180] - Quote
I agree. The bonus should have gone to the DST and NOT the blockade runners... they are almost like shuttles to warp anyway. The DST is pretty worthless atm...
|
|
MadMuppet
A Better Corp Name
605
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 21:10:00 -
[181] - Quote
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.
I think the unscannable on the BR is cool, it adds a level a risk to using them... you almost HAVE to fly them cloaked now, no more half-drunk auto-piloting.
November 6th, 2012 "With this in mind, it becomes quite obvious to focus on training the Destroyers and Battlecruisers skills before the change to get the maximum return effect. We highly recommend you start doing so now." --á CCP Ytterbium from:-áhttp://community.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&nbid=73530 |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
16
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 21:11:00 -
[182] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Blockade Runners are being updated to be immune to cargo scanners, and as such will always show up as empty on scans This is a dumb change. Blockade runners aren't typically scanned anyway, and they insta-cloak after they jump.
A *MUCH* better ship to give this functionality to is a DST. They already get a lot of tank and warp strength. Giving them scan immunity (since they are decloaked haulers anyway) makes the most sense here, honestly. |
Gogela
Freeport Exploration Loosely Affiliated Pirates Alliance
1442
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 21:17:00 -
[183] - 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.
I think the unscannable on the BR is cool, it adds a level a risk to using them... you almost HAVE to fly them cloaked now, no more half-drunk auto-piloting.
Well... the DST has a couple of benefits... it can have a vast cargo hold relative to indys... ~33,000 m3 + if I recall. It can also field a pretty impressive tank. Lots of CPU and power and high resists. The problem is that, yah it's super slow. If the DST got the scanning denial bonus, though, it would make it a much more valuable ship, because nobody would know if it were full or empty and thus each engagement would have a higher risk of being for nothing. You need far more ships to kill a DST than you do a BR. A few destroyers can gank a BR. A DST can field BS class tanks. The BR doesn't benefit from not being scannable because it already warps so fast few can lock it. The BR is already the go-to for solo logistics. The DST isn't used by anyone much at all anymore. tl;dr; I think the BR needed a nerf if anything, not a buff. The DST is long overdue for a buff, but didn't get it.
|
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
5626
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 21:18:00 -
[184] - 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. |
mrpapageorgio
Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance
90
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 21:22:00 -
[185] - Quote
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. |
Marcus McTavish
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
50
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 21:25:00 -
[186] - Quote
I don't care about the whole scanning bypass that it was, I care about organization.
Can you bring back the tabs somehow.
Maybe by assigning things put in different tabs a sort of tag. Then when you select a tab, it just "searches" for stuff with that tab's tag? |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
5627
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 21:29:00 -
[187] - 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. |
Eija-Riitta Veitonen
Unicorn Enterprise
27
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 21:40:00 -
[188] - Quote
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 |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
5627
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 21:41:00 -
[189] - 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. |
Gogela
Freeport Exploration Loosely Affiliated Pirates Alliance
1443
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 21:54:00 -
[190] - Quote
Andski wrote: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 If you jettison shuttles they'll just be stacked in a jettison can. The'll have to jettison cans... and by the looks of it freight uncompressed cans. So about 900 cans in a go. Still... don't want to push through 900 cans at Jita 4-4 undock. A Deep Space Transport can do 300 small secure cans in a go though... so since that isn't happening maybe we'll be OK with the freighter thing.
|
|
Panhead4411
Rothschild's Sewage and Septic Sucking Services The Possum Lodge
253
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 22:12:00 -
[191] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote: The changes to container behavior in fleet hangars, the new containers, and existing inventory features such as filters, should allow most (but not all) of the current functionality to be replicable in the new system.
Bloody forums ate my post...awesome sauce...
Filters, no they are not the same, and not very easy to use in not full screen inventory windows.
Cargo cans? How many posts in the previous "fleet hanger feedback" thread said that was a good idea?
If current divisions need work to be better, guess what, thats your job, stop complaining about how much work something would be and do it, its what you are paid to do.
Please don't push less functionality just because you can, some of your customers keep remembering all those times you 'fixed' something by deleting it and replacing it with a very very inferior version that lacked even the basic semblance of functionality that the original had.
Thats the short and sweet version, please fix your forums to stop eating posts. (no, the 'draft' did not save)
http://blog.beyondreality.se/shift-click-does-nothing -á-á < Unified Inventory is NOT ready... |
Panhead4411
Rothschild's Sewage and Septic Sucking Services The Possum Lodge
253
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 22:12:00 -
[192] - Quote
---edit---(double post)
Fix your blasted forums will you? (instead of the fleet hanger) Took me 7 tries to actually post that... http://blog.beyondreality.se/shift-click-does-nothing -á-á < Unified Inventory is NOT ready... |
Derath Ellecon
Washburne Holdings Situation: Normal
468
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 22:31:00 -
[193] - Quote
Anyone who is happy about the BR change is smoking something. Blockade runners don't need an unscannable cargo hold. They are easy to kill when uncloaked, as they are paper thin. So all this means is every ganker will gladly risk some cheap ship to pop one if they can.
Scannable or not, a well piloted BR was equally safe. Now I won't even be able to safely AP my empty one back home.
Stupid.
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.
And the loss of divisions is highly annoying. As has been said, fixed sized containers is NOT a solution.
Maybe someday you guys can make the inventory UI have something like, i dunno, folders. You know like the graphical OS's I've been running on my computer for decades. Maybe these folders could even have security. |
Bessa Miros
A-Fission Industries
0
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 22:55:00 -
[194] - Quote
Gogela wrote:If the DST got the scanning denial bonus, though, it would make it a much more valuable ship, because nobody would know if it were full or empty and thus each engagement would have a higher risk of being for nothing. You need far more ships to kill a DST than you do a BR. A few destroyers can gank a BR. A DST can field BS class tanks. The BR doesn't benefit from not being scannable because it already warps so fast few can lock it. The BR is already the go-to for solo logistics. The DST isn't used by anyone much at all anymore. Agree - makes a good case.
The bigger slower t2 hauler (DST) is useless right now. Make it unscannable and you throw in a really cool variable to high-sec ganking - "is it empty, is it full of plex?" Risk for reward!
People won't just gank a DST, they'll have to get organized to do it with costly ships - unlike a BR on AutoPilot for home which can be popped by small throwaways. |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
5627
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 23:02:00 -
[195] - 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. |
LuckyQuarter
Lucky Galactic Expeditions
14
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 23:23:00 -
[196] - Quote
I'm fine with the orca and freighter changes. Orca will be fine due to its fitting flexibility and a super tanked orca is as safe as one can get in highsec. The freighter should have had these changes long ago.
As for blockade runners and deep space transports:
Blockade Runners are already _the transport ship_ for anything outside of highsec. I'm not sure there is any reason to buff them any further. The unscannable feature also isn't going to have any impact as a properly flown BR won't show up on overview for more than a second. No good viator pilot lets their ship stay still long enough to be scanned.
Deep Space Transports need some love. They are modestly usable in wormholes and highsec, given their +2 warp stab + tank.....makes grabbing PI from planets safer or hauling goods to highsec a little safer than in an iteron, but most pilots just wont fly them due to their high mass which results in massive delay in getting them into warp. If that mass is going to stay as is, than their cargo hold or tank should probably be increased...at least so that they are modestly better than an itty5. Either have max cargo hold be 50K or increase the max tank to at least half an orca's. |
Racial Purifier
BACKUPLEGION
0
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 23:35:00 -
[197] - Quote
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
Why wouldn't they drop ? Makes no sense.
Quote:Blockade Runners are being updated to be immune to cargo scanners, and as such will always show up as empty on scans
Idiotic unnecessery change - was already impossible to gank competent BR pilots, they don't deserve or need scan immunity. |
Barbara Nichole
Cryogenic Consultancy Black Sun Alliance
342
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 23:40:00 -
[198] - Quote
blockaide runners...... ? so can we all look forward to much larger cargo bays in the runners? the orca secure hauling may have been big (though the size to me is not the unnecessary part - the size is important for large mining ops) but the blockaide runner cargo size is unnecessarily tiny..
CCP, you are not going to make me hate you again for making my orca not work in my mining ops are you? [IMG]http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a208/DawnFrostbringer/consultsig.jpg[/IMG] |
Haifisch Zahne
Hraka Manufacture GmbH
97
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 23:46:00 -
[199] - Quote
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. |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
5630
|
Posted - 2012.12.01 00:20:00 -
[200] - 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. |
|
13 nonames
Jumpbridg
0
|
Posted - 2012.12.01 00:25:00 -
[201] - Quote
CCP Phantom wrote: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. I have just one question for ccp and there nim rod staff do you even play an indy or transport pilot.......... cause i have a hard time believing that you do cause as of late all i have seen is ganker friendly changes and sooner or later you will kill your game if you keep on this path. ps long time indy sick of losing stuff to ganker friendly changes. |
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
10746
|
Posted - 2012.12.01 00:44:00 -
[202] - Quote
13 nonames wrote:I have just one question for ccp and there nim rod staff do you even play an indy or transport pilot.......... cause i have a hard time believing that you do cause as of late all i have seen is ganker friendly changes and sooner or later you will kill your game if you keep on this path. ps long time indy sick of losing stuff to ganker friendly changes. What of late, would you say have been ganker friendly changes?
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. |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
5630
|
Posted - 2012.12.01 00:53:00 -
[203] - 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. |
Maul555
Nuts and Vindictive Remix Technologies
303
|
Posted - 2012.12.01 01:27:00 -
[204] - Quote
reserved |
Makari Aeron
The Shadow's Of Eve TSOE Consortium
46
|
Posted - 2012.12.01 01:43:00 -
[205] - Quote
CCP Arrow is a noob, he didn't change his ship name >_> CCP RedDawn: Ugly people are just playing life on HARD mode. Personally, I'm playing on an INFERNO difficulty...
|
Mika Takahoshi
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
2
|
Posted - 2012.12.01 01:57:00 -
[206] - Quote
Don't give any ship an unscannable hold. If the idea of an unscannable hold needs to be preserved, make a low slot module or a rig that prevents cargo scans. Any ship that wants it can have it, at the cost of a low/rig slot. Then let the players in the sandbox decide what best benefits from it... |
Buffalo Ryder
Space Vikings
1
|
Posted - 2012.12.01 02:22:00 -
[207] - Quote
I am slightly blindsided by hanger thing. I can only imagine how capital pilots feel about it but you cannot please everybody. I personally feel that the orca need it's ore bay enlarged to 75k m3 all the way to 100k m3. the scanner immunity change to BR is quite surprising. I can see the usefulness in it like undocking from Jita. but implementing a module for T2 haulers (BR or DST) would be a better idea. say 1 pg and 5000 cpu and add role bonus for that module to (BR or DST) similar to co-vert ops cloak. 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. |
Derath Ellecon
Washburne Holdings Situation: Normal
471
|
Posted - 2012.12.01 02:44:00 -
[208] - Quote
Maul555 wrote:
Also, unscannable blockade runners? Nice! Thanks for giving us a replacement to the unscannable orca..
This isn't a buff. Nor is it in any way a replacement to the orca unscannable CHA. Not even close. Why don't people see that. |
Averyia
Black Label Mafia Axiomatic Dominion
37
|
Posted - 2012.12.01 02:48:00 -
[209] - Quote
So by the next expansion will all divisions be replaced entirely with 'folders' or something, with access to each one being customiziable.
So a corp director could create a new folder in the station and only allow certain players access. This would be restricted to station hangers of course, but would be a great overhaul to the current system. Might as well redo corp/alliance roles and interface while you're at it. I'm seeing alliance wallets and roles in the future. Please CCP/ All warfare is based on deception and logistics. Battles and soldiers are secondary priorities. |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
5632
|
Posted - 2012.12.01 03:22:00 -
[210] - 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. |
|
Mr John Smith
State War Academy Caldari State
8
|
Posted - 2012.12.01 03:50:00 -
[211] - Quote
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. |
Buffalo Ryder
Space Vikings
1
|
Posted - 2012.12.01 04:34:00 -
[212] - Quote
Andski wrote: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.
i should have proofread my last sentence. what i meant to say to get rid of booster bonus and make a buffer bonus of 10% shield/armor hp per level. |
Molic Blackbird
Orion Faction Industries Orion Consortium
54
|
Posted - 2012.12.01 04:57:00 -
[213] - Quote
Why are these changes being announced just days before the patch is set to be released? The unscannable Blockade Runner change and the ability of Freighters to now jetison items into space seem to be not well thought out. As others have said, a blockade runner that can not be scanned is redundant. All it does is increase the chance of the ship being suicide ganked. Do the Devs behind this own Blockade runner BPOs or something? |
None ofthe Above
370
|
Posted - 2012.12.01 04:57:00 -
[214] - Quote
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. EVE is a sandbox; The only "end-game" content in EVE is the crap that makes you rage-quit.
|
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
5633
|
Posted - 2012.12.01 05:57:00 -
[215] - 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. |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
2088
|
Posted - 2012.12.01 06:05:00 -
[216] - Quote
lol if the 'unscannable' feature gets accidentally put on freighters as well.
But yeah, I think it would do better on the uncloaky T2 haulers.
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
Cloora
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
106
|
Posted - 2012.12.01 06:06:00 -
[217] - 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.
Oh what the hell? Blockade Runners get decent use as is since they are very speedy and very safe means of small volume transport. DSTs are UNDERused because
a) the +2 WCS does nothing against a HIC or bubble which are very common
b) They are REALLY slow (not freighter slow but still need a 10 sec align with MWD cycle)
c) they can't tank (EHP smaller then freighter and active tanks suck on them because of fittings)
d) they don't haul that much
So giving them unscannable cargos would HELP moving larger volumes in high sec without fear of scanning (still might get ganked for lulz but cant ever stop that)
Or give them lots of CPU and PG and more fitting slots and let them tank like a dual ASB Mael.
That would give them a unique role. Tankiest tanks of any haulers.
Right now they are crap... CEO and Major ShareholderAPEX ConglomerateMaker of Starsi softdrinks and Torped-Os! Cereal http://www.altaholics.blogspot.com
|
Antai Tenmou
Ex Cruoris Libertas Infinite Improbabilities
0
|
Posted - 2012.12.01 07:42:00 -
[218] - Quote
everything sounds grand, except I will miss hanger divisions terribly |
Georgiy Giggle
REFORD Division REFORD
63
|
Posted - 2012.12.01 07:54:00 -
[219] - Quote
Nice. Really useful. Got a question: can't you make some changes to corp hangar arrays? In my case 7 divisions is TOO LESS. I got many corp mates who need own division. Is it possible in future to make ability to give access only for unique container? For example, 1 division contain 7 containers. Each container has owner. Only owner (and ppl with proper roles such as ceo, director...) can view it and take items out of it.
Why now? It would be very useful. IMHO. Thanks. Not mastering proprieties, won't become firmly established. - Confucius |
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
10747
|
Posted - 2012.12.01 09:22:00 -
[220] - Quote
Andski wrote: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 Ahh yea, I forgot those. Thanks bud.
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. |
|
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
24
|
Posted - 2012.12.01 10:41:00 -
[221] - Quote
Derath Ellecon wrote:Maul555 wrote:
Also, unscannable blockade runners? Nice! Thanks for giving us a replacement to the unscannable orca..
This isn't a buff. Nor is it in any way a replacement to the orca unscannable CHA. Not even close. Why don't people see that. Orca's are't intended to be hauling ships. They're mining support vessels! CCP should just introduce an actual industrial that has a respectable and unscannable cargo hold.
It makes absolutely no sense for characters that are trained in freighters and industrials have to train mining+leadership skills for a ship that trumps most of the haulers in the game, period.
Either give the unscannable hold to DSTs, which have the best HP outside of freighters (which would certainly be OP with unscannable holds), or create a new ship altogether that accomplishes this. There's a huge hole for the ~100-150k m3 space in the industrial category anyhow.
|
Jacob Holland
Weyland-Vulcan Industries
76
|
Posted - 2012.12.01 11:05:00 -
[222] - Quote
Reposted from https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=177363&find=unread
Quote:While our stealthy haulers becoming more stealthy is cool... I do wonder how much of an explosion of tears there will be when it's implemented. The stealthy haulers are, after all, fragile, reliant on speed and agility and difficult to tank. These factors make them relatively cheap to gank (certainly compared to an Orca) - I suspect we'll see a lot of wrecks around Jita undock Blockade Runners in Empire are often used for high value cargo anyway and their high skill requirements and low payoff (hauler [5] only gives you freighters and T2 haulers) probably means that the majority of them operating exclusively in Empire have been bought specifically for that purpose... So in the absence of any indication that they're carrying anything there's a 50/50 chance that they're on their loaded run and a good chance that if they're loaded it'll be with something valuable - which might well be worth a destroyer or two. Busy gates or stations where cloaking is difficult, the sig increase or agility decrease which fitting a buffer tank which are counter to the low sig, high agility paradigm of the ship and the impracticality of fitting active modules (hardeners, DCs...etc) on a cloaking ship... All those datacores, all that ferrogel - and the crimewatch changes which would allow players to take down some of the ganking ships required for a freighter or Orca have almost no impact on a couple of desi's... |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
245
|
Posted - 2012.12.01 11:12:00 -
[223] - Quote
What happens when you jettison something from a freighter that a single unit is bigger than a jet can? like for instance a CSAA? |
Vilnius Zar
Ordo Ardish
287
|
Posted - 2012.12.01 11:44:00 -
[224] - Quote
yes, it's really useful to give the unscannable bonus to ships that, if done right, are cloaked 99% of the time...
How about giving it to the DST so that they actually have a role and use, rather than "I haven't trained for my Orca hauler yet". The whole concept of DST went out the window when we got jump haulers (both freighter as carrier) and jump bridges, they have no use, no role and thus no place. Might as well give them an edge of their own with the whole unscannable thing (and remove it from the BR because it's silly and useless there) Amat victoria curam. |
Daedalus II
The Oasis Group TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance
138
|
Posted - 2012.12.01 12:39:00 -
[225] - Quote
I think I've come to understand CCPs reasoning with the transport ships!
They don't try to balance them by giving the unused ship variant a bonus that would make it usable, they balance them by giving the more used but fragile ship a big ass crosshairs on them, making them as useless as the other useless variant, thereby making them both similarly useless :D |
Recoil Happens
Debatable Results
45
|
Posted - 2012.12.01 12:44:00 -
[226] - Quote
More ganking - yippee ka yay - I know that will please everyone.
I never had any trouble before you introduced the inventory buttoon. I'd be happy to see retribution do a little retrograde and get rid of that button and that whole block of code - just take us back to where we could tell where things are whithout so much clicking around.
Sure, I know, change things up as surprises all the time, its fun seeing the spiral in the learning curve take on a few more loops.v
I've copied everything so when I post and get a blank page, I'll be able to paste it in. That's a great feature we should keep. |
Claire Raynor
NovaGear
29
|
Posted - 2012.12.01 13:08:00 -
[227] - Quote
Gilbaron wrote:industrial ship ? WAY to small for mining fleets
another orca ? pretty small if you consider what a group of mining ships can mine in short time, also three different hangars to manage
freighter ? a providence has 735.000 m-¦ before skills, an orca 120.000 in three different hangars. thats 6 orca roundtrips ...
This is Sooooo - Awesome!!!!!! But please - be careful - we don't want Bots to mess up Ore Prices!!!! - But to be able to get my Fenrir out more than once a year!!! Mining Ops now will have an Orca a Big Fenrir thingy and loads of mining ships - Sweet :P
I'm happy!!!
Laters! |
Claire Raynor
NovaGear
29
|
Posted - 2012.12.01 13:21:00 -
[228] - Quote
I'm really really excited about being able to use my Freighter for more than just moving my base of operation when I get tired of an area. . . Like I really am. I mean - I love the thing. And it's got little windows and boosters and all sorts of stuff.
What are the chances that one day - now that we will use them as mining operation transports - that one day. . .We might get module slots?? :) Please?
Or is that a dumb idea? who knows? I don't |
feihcsiM
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
81
|
Posted - 2012.12.01 13:23:00 -
[229] - Quote
If you want to make the Deep Space Transports usable again, may I suggest they have the equivalent of an interdiction nullifier subsystem built in to them, making them immune to bubbles.
This would give them a reason to be used in 0.0 and combined with the +2 warp strength and some slight CPU/PG increases so they can mount a decent tank should make them a very viable choice
It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine. |
Tanith YarnDemon
Hypernet Inc. Umbrella Chemical Inc
35
|
Posted - 2012.12.01 14:08:00 -
[230] - Quote
Bit surprised over all the people cheering about the blockade runner nerf.
What's happened is that the role of tbe blockade runner is unchanged, however it's a massive liability for everything outside of that prime role. If you DO want to haul something pricey, you'd be actively cloaking and moving, hence immune to cargo scanners already.
However, you can no longer autopilot back from a delivery as they die to a sneeze and Schr+¦dinger will be there ganking it all night and day, just in case. If the bonus was given to deep space transports I could kinda sorta see it, as they(contrary to blockade runners) are not really used today and it would in fact augment them, rather than cripple. |
|
Derath Ellecon
Washburne Holdings Situation: Normal
472
|
Posted - 2012.12.01 15:07:00 -
[231] - Quote
Maximus Andendare wrote:Derath Ellecon wrote:Maul555 wrote:
Also, unscannable blockade runners? Nice! Thanks for giving us a replacement to the unscannable orca..
This isn't a buff. Nor is it in any way a replacement to the orca unscannable CHA. Not even close. Why don't people see that. Orca's are't intended to be hauling ships. They're mining support vessels! CCP should just introduce an actual industrial that has a respectable and unscannable cargo hold. It makes absolutely no sense for characters that are trained in freighters and industrials have to train mining+leadership skills for a ship that trumps most of the haulers in the game, period. Either give the unscannable hold to DSTs, which have the best HP outside of freighters (which would certainly be OP with unscannable holds), or create a new ship altogether that accomplishes this. There's a huge hole for the ~100-150k m3 space in the industrial category anyhow.
Yea but you missed the point.
The Orca wasn't "intended " to be a hauling ship. But it became a popular one due to.
1. Having enough EHP to not be easily ganked on a whim. 2. Having a CHA that was unscannable and ALSO VERY IMPORTANTLY 3. Having a CHA that never dropped.
These three things let people like me haul billions of sleeper loot safely to market. Heck I've even autopiloted tons 30+ jumps straight into Jita 4-4 with an orca.
Blockade runners will now.
1. Have the tank of a paper airplane 2. Have an unscannable cargo BUT 3. a cargo that drops
A bored gankers wet dream... |
DireNecessity
The M.P.I. Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
28
|
Posted - 2012.12.01 15:29:00 -
[232] - Quote
Fast, flimsy and sneaky, Blockade Runners also made sweet little AFK haulers. Soon to be double sneaky, that AFK hauling benefit is being tapped with the nerf bat.
::Sigh:: IGÇÖll adapt. I always do.
Surely the AFK nerf is intentional. (CCPGÇÖs aware of what they are doing, yes?)
Still I am puzzled. Why buff AFK mining with a suicide gank resistant mining vessel rebalance a few months back only to nerf AFK hauling now with a suicide gank inviting change? Perhaps CCP runs a zero sum business: If one set of AFKing customers receive some Luv, another set of AFKing customers must receive some Hate.
YouGÇÖre a twisted bunch CCP.
|
Timsinsal
Deshima Project
0
|
Posted - 2012.12.01 16:19:00 -
[233] - Quote
Hmmm well....
Still no way of transporting complete ships from A to B unless you use and Orca or contract (this should have been sorted years ago).
My Orca maintenance bay still can't fit a Noctis and an Exhumer (a skiff would be fine).
CCP... the next time you are doing work on cargo bays/ship corp hangers you really should give us the ability to transport at least three complete ships (with rigs) in one vessle.
|
Plagis
eXceed Inc. No Holes Barred
0
|
Posted - 2012.12.01 16:20:00 -
[234] - Quote
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 |
Misanth
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
789
|
Posted - 2012.12.01 16:22:00 -
[235] - Quote
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. AFK-cloaking in a system near you. |
Primal Neglect
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.12.01 16:34:00 -
[236] - Quote
http://eve-kill.net/?a=pilot_detail&plt_id=1294559 gl with no scanable transport ships.... -1 pirat on EVE :(
p.s. gz Carebears and RMT players... |
|
CCP Habakuk
C C P C C P Alliance
363
|
Posted - 2012.12.01 18:02:00 -
[237] - 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
|
|
CaptainFalcon07
Caucasian Culture Club Transmission Lost
52
|
Posted - 2012.12.01 18:45:00 -
[238] - Quote
CCP Habakuk wrote: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.
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. |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
24
|
Posted - 2012.12.01 19:43:00 -
[239] - Quote
Derath Ellecon wrote:3. Having a CHA that never dropped. I, sir, do concede this point.
Derath Ellecon wrote:Blockade runners will now.
1. Have the tank of a paper airplane 2. Have an unscannable cargo BUT 3. a cargo that drops
A bored gankers wet dream... If you had read my post on page 10, you'd have seen that I think adding an unscannable hold to a BR is a dumb change, and that functionality is better suited to a DST.
The point I was making that you quoted is that a mining support vessel eclipsing haulers in almost every category was certainly unbalanced and was due for a nerf. I'm not against having a tanky, unscannable, and even drop-immune vessel. That vessel should just be a hauler of some sort, not a mining support ship.
|
|
CCP Habakuk
C C P C C P Alliance
363
|
Posted - 2012.12.01 20:40:00 -
[240] - 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 -
[241] - 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... |
|
Haifisch Zahne
Hraka Manufacture GmbH
97
|
Posted - 2012.12.01 22:41:00 -
[242] - Quote
Tell that to the victims of Hurricane Sandy.
Just how, pray tell, did you expect to sell that 1 Scrap Metal loot to repay for your ship? hmmmm?
Andski wrote: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"
|
Mara Pahrdi
The Order of Anoyia
45
|
Posted - 2012.12.01 22:43:00 -
[243] - Quote
So my fleet hangars are doomed to become a mess, unless I become used to getting a headache with fixed size containers.
And I'm getting an unscannable cargo space on my cloaky haulers? Those, that are cloaked 99% of the time even in hisec? This is just ridiculous.
I'm fine with everything else. But this fleet hangar thing... leaves a bad taste for me and is throwing a shadow over most of the good changes in this expansion.
Sorry, CCP. I just don't like it. |
Mara Pahrdi
The Order of Anoyia
45
|
Posted - 2012.12.01 22:59:00 -
[244] - 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. How about none unscannable? |
AbsoluteHavoc
Hybrids of Steel
2
|
Posted - 2012.12.01 23:45:00 -
[245] - Quote
Bessa Miros wrote:Gogela wrote:If the DST got the scanning denial bonus, though, it would make it a much more valuable ship, because nobody would know if it were full or empty and thus each engagement would have a higher risk of being for nothing. You need far more ships to kill a DST than you do a BR. A few destroyers can gank a BR. A DST can field BS class tanks. The BR doesn't benefit from not being scannable because it already warps so fast few can lock it. The BR is already the go-to for solo logistics. The DST isn't used by anyone much at all anymore. Agree - makes a good case. The bigger slower t2 hauler (DST) is useless right now. Make it unscannable and you throw in a really cool variable to high-sec ganking - "is it empty, is it full of plex?" Risk for reward! People won't just gank a DST, they'll have to get organized to do it with costly ships - unlike a BR on AutoPilot for home which can be popped by small throwaways.
I too have to agree with this. Pls give the bonus to the DST s they have some tank/a decent cargo hold. The BRs are cloaked all the time anyway the changes would just make it impossible (read impractical) to auto pilot them. [or are u really going with such a weird nerf tactic for em?]
|
Mund Richard
8
|
Posted - 2012.12.02 00:29:00 -
[246] - Quote
+1 on cloaky ship not making much sense being scan-shielded.
Only situation where it becomes useful (that I can think of so fast) is Jita 4-4 undock. But one can get more creative to avoid that, and in any other situation... Sarcasm can be like drugs. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
2051
|
Posted - 2012.12.02 01:38:00 -
[247] - 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.
There's really nothing obscure at using an Orca. Yes there's some *labels* that are a bit misleading but hey, the learning curve is about:
1) Try the super-specific-obscure feature. 2) If it does not work then be at peace. The remaining 95% obvious, rich, useful features keep working.
Instead your current approach is: "if old code was complex it's because it was bad and we streamline it for the dumbs".
No, the old code was there to add a constellation of niche-yet-constantly used features. If the code is bad, then rewrite it like I have done for 2 decades, don't just dump the baby with the wash water.
The classic example of lack of clue on CCP side is when earlier this year you just removed a vital Orca feature completely (ability to share to fleet). The very fact it happens, means who was in charge had no idea WHY things are like they are.
Chances are, the old coders used the sphyncter as programming device but knew the context they were adding the features in. It'd be welcome to see actual refactoring not brutal features tearing down and removal.
As of today I still get issues with the "new and improved" inventory. Same trail of thought: not a refactor but a removal of functional features that had a reason to exist and dumb down the whole game in the process.
Also, this has to be a gem in consistency: tearing down existing features to streamline the code and remove exceptions...
... just in time to make Blockade Runners a new exception. An exception that is redundant (BRs are cloaky and quick aligning anyway) and can only cause discomfort and losses (since from now on, an uncloaked BR = BOOOM ganked with the premise it HAS to hold valuable stuff).
Plus, it's not really a change in line with EvE philosophy. The un-scannability should be optionally implemented by adding a dedicated module, not imbued with WoW magic into the hull. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Derath Ellecon
Washburne Holdings Situation: Normal
476
|
Posted - 2012.12.02 02:00:00 -
[248] - Quote
I'm still waiting on a DEV response as to why they felt it was a good idea to paint a bullseye on every blockade runner. I mean give it an unscannable cargohold. This seems to have been thrown in last minute and I haven't seen any major cries to add this to blockade runners.
It seems pretty conclusive from all of the threads on the subject that it is a universally bad idea, which almost nobody wants, or that we asked for. |
Sir Prometeus
Hole In The Space
0
|
Posted - 2012.12.02 02:48:00 -
[249] - Quote
next thing probably will be: a magic calculator that tells you exactly if you can kill a freighter, orca or whatever before concord arrives, the money you'll earn....etc
Making highsec camping even more profitable. Thank god I gave up at trying to understand why CCP hates traders so much. Now I'm living in a wormhole, much more peaceful than highsec these days. The only change that we are awaiting is a fix for the POSes, so our corp can grow without having to worry so much about thieves. One hangar division for each person is not a good solution in the long run. |
Bessa Miros
A-Fission Industries
4
|
Posted - 2012.12.02 03:43:00 -
[250] - Quote
I support all your changes (except the unscannable cloaky hauler - give it to the DST instead)
The Orca nerf is great - it should never have been used as a non-drop, unscannable hauler - I didn't even know you could do that! What kind of feature is unknown to most players? Moving that feature to the cloaky hauler is promoting killing them as the sleep walk through hi-sec, empty - which I think is what you secretly want to do. Makes no sense any other way.
I like the Cans for organizing aboard ships, but they are terrible in stations:
- let us see whats in Containers through Science and Industry window
- let us move things in and out of Containers when not in station - reason I don't use containers
- let contents of Containers be filtered like other hangar items
- make the cans assemble-able / re-nameable when in corporate hangars? (small thing)
Why not just use the Market system for Inventory? It works well now. Heck, use it for Contracts too. If all 3 (Market, Inv, Contracts) worked the same, new players would have an easier time. |
|
Panhead4411
Rothschild's Sewage and Septic Sucking Services The Possum Lodge
253
|
Posted - 2012.12.02 05:56:00 -
[251] - 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.
Please refer to the previous "fleet hanger feedback" thread...the issue with what he is talking about is the root problem here, there are alot of use-cases you have considered to be 'rare' and inconsequential...i'm pretty sure most Capitol pilots are not in favor of this change.
As many have said before, why can't you simply work to find a better way to code it to fix the troublesome code, work to fix it, and THEN, after a comparable thing is created to replace the current system, only after that do you actually remove the current functionality.
Why is it deemed absolutely necessary to cut this functionality 100% RIGHT NOW? Why can't this wait till it has a suitable replacement?
So far all the CCP responses have wreaked of the arrogance of the previously not so popular changes that CCP initially said that you didn't believe us that it was not good (or in some cases even functional). Then after you pushed the things that you were warned by your testing player base as a whole, that the feature should be delayed until a better version is created, you only responded after you lost subs out of the game while not really have a viable replacement. http://blog.beyondreality.se/shift-click-does-nothing -á-á < Unified Inventory is NOT ready... |
Conjaq
The Fiction Factory Tribal Band
6
|
Posted - 2012.12.02 10:53:00 -
[252] - 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.
That seems odd, does a CHA not only have 10k, M^3 effectively, making it not fit _any_ ships? |
non judgement
Without Fear Flying Burning Ships Alliance
843
|
Posted - 2012.12.02 11:12:00 -
[253] - Quote
Just a quick math question. Having a Charon full of trit and then jettison all the trit.
How many jetcans will that create? |
Tres Farmer
Gallente Federation Intelligence Service
89
|
Posted - 2012.12.02 11:41:00 -
[254] - Quote
still no Dev response on the BR/DST issue for unscannability? Really? |
Gypsio III
Chemikals Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
455
|
Posted - 2012.12.02 12:08:00 -
[255] - Quote
Tres Farmer wrote:still no Dev response on the BR/DST issue for unscannability? Really?
+1 for a response on whether the devs really intend to make it impossible for people to safely AP an empty blockade runner through highsec.
People APing with valuable cargos in fiimsy ships deserve to get ganked. But unscannable BRs will make it dangerous to AP anywhere, as people cannot scan you to find out that your ship is empty, while piloted BRs with valuable cargos are are already immune to cargo scans. |
Lynwich
Republic University Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.12.02 12:53:00 -
[256] - Quote
Quote: Blockade Runners are being updated to be immune to cargo scanners, and as such will always show up as empty on scans
When I see this, I have the wild dream of launching the author of this GÇ£wonderfulGÇ¥ idea in the nettles or in the poison ivy, and after that to do the same thing to the one who implemented it. This thing brings absolutely nothing to the game and become a major hassle for many GÇ£carebearGÇ¥ players like me.
Blockade Runners were really good (maybe a little too good, but I will not complain about it). They were ideally suited to move high value cargo with few risk due to their align time and cloaked-warp capacity. I use them a lot in low sec for this reason. By the same time BR were also ideal for small chore like moving low value / low volume cargo on great distance with autopilot because of their high speed/low align time. It made them perfectly suited to delivery/hangar cleansing, or simply moving stuff around.
But all of this is now gone. Immunity to scanning is totally useless for high value goods moving: you used cloaking and marked yourself as a potential high value target, or used autopilot and deserve to die if you were caught. In low sec and null sec no one use cargo scanner so one time again itGÇÖs useless. But this immunity mark you as a giant pi+¦ata so all the capacity to make small chore in a reasonable time (ie a time that donGÇÖt make your brain melt of boredom) disappear because gankers will burn you to have the chance of striking the GÇ£carebearsGÇ¥ (but in theses cases the appropriate term is more GÇ£idiotsGÇ¥) that will think that immunity to scan means immunity to gank.
So this change means that BR are now almost forbidden in high sec. But well as usual, itGÇÖs adapt or die, letGÇÖs go to EFT to see if we can find an industrial ship with a fitting that allow me logistic tasks without ragekitting because of boredom.
TL;DR: this idea is useless in my PoV and break my gameplay, and I clearly think itGÇÖs bullshit
PS: sorry for the bad English, itGÇÖs not my native language. Grammar **** are welcome to help me to improve it |
Daedalus II
The Oasis Group TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance
141
|
Posted - 2012.12.02 13:03:00 -
[257] - Quote
Tres Farmer wrote:still no Dev response on the BR/DST issue for unscannability? Really? They have responded to it: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2244682#post2244682 It wasn't a good response, but it was a response nevertheless.
I think the reasoning is strange, EVE has NEVER abandoned playability for reality. Submarine physics and warping thorugh planets should give an indication how much "reality" means in this game :p |
|
CCP Habakuk
C C P C C P Alliance
364
|
Posted - 2012.12.02 13:38:00 -
[258] - 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
|
|
Miregar Shakor
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
25
|
Posted - 2012.12.02 14:13:00 -
[259] - Quote
Viscis Breeze wrote:Kimo Khan wrote:Viscis Breeze wrote:Nicol Caius wrote:@Devs, please reconsider the unscannable bonus to the blockade runner. as others have said, its largely a determent to this ship class. my blockade runner will now be a target for just auto-piloting to jita empty. the best case scenario would be to give this bonus to the deep space transport. this would improve the usage of this ship class, isn't that way you guys are aiming for with all the other ship balancing changes? if this isn't possible, i suggest removing it altogether. i'd rather not have my expensive blockade runners being used as pinatas wherever i go to hi-sec. I would at least like the option to turn it off. Ok you turn it off with nothing in your cargo hold. Question: Is the cargo empty or blocked. How does the ganker know? Fair point. Maybe a work around saying that the "cargo hold cannot be penetrated with your scanners" or "the cargo hold is empty" Meh, you would just put a single piece of ammo or something like that in there and you'd be good to go. |
FnStrabo
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2012.12.02 15:20:00 -
[260] - 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.
So ... Just one more blow to the industrialists of eve. Leave us with the smaller of the two cargoholds, and no tank to speak of.
Thanks again, for your consideration.
NOT! |
|
FnStrabo
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2012.12.02 15:40:00 -
[261] - Quote
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...... |
FnStrabo
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2012.12.02 15:44:00 -
[262] - Quote
By the way.. I'm only posting in forums cause I'm trapped in a perpetual war due to broken war mechanics. A hotfix on that would have been nice instead of waiting for the next patch.
Thank you again, for your consideration. |
|
CCP Habakuk
C C P C C P Alliance
364
|
Posted - 2012.12.02 15:57:00 -
[263] - 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
|
|
Epiphany Achura
Federation Clone Services LTD.
2
|
Posted - 2012.12.02 16:11:00 -
[264] - Quote
Blockade Runners unscannable=annoyance and unnecessary tedium
|
sedex
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.12.02 16:58:00 -
[265] - Quote
Lots of good things, except for the blockade runner change, imho.
It doesn't add anything needed (except in -rare- case, I guess ?), and it will be annoying.
Most of my industrial chars can fly a prowler. They usually use it like a shuttle in high-sec, on autopilot when moving from places to places. They are slower than a shuttle, but with the advantage of carrying a probe launcher and probes if the character is needed in a wormhole, and being able to move a few thousands m^3 of valuables immediately and safely, in high or low-sec if and when needed (not on autopilot then, of course).
I never lost one. Empty ones were not an interesting target, full ones were not afk-piloted.
Now, this is over. Any afk/autopilot prowler will be a target. Probably empty, of course, but you never know, and killing it is (relatively) cheap.
So, I guess it is back to juggling jump clones and flying a shuttle/vigil/... between regions, leaving a few prowlers left and right, next to the fenrirs. A bit more planning needed, lots of time lost fetching the ships when needed and putting it back afterwards, nothing gained.
So, in my opinion, if you did this thinking it would help BR pilots, could you think again about it? I may be wrong, of course, and perhaps many BR user will like this change or find it useful. But so far, I haven't seen evidence of this on the forum.
Of course, it the immunity had been extended to custom, that would be another story ;)
Sedex |
Panhead4411
Rothschild's Sewage and Septic Sucking Services The Possum Lodge
254
|
Posted - 2012.12.02 17:54:00 -
[266] - Quote
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?
http://blog.beyondreality.se/shift-click-does-nothing -á-á < Unified Inventory is NOT ready... |
FnStrabo
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2012.12.02 18:23:00 -
[267] - Quote
CCP Habakuk wrote: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).
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. |
Liner Xiandra
Caldari State Reserve
23
|
Posted - 2012.12.02 18:32:00 -
[268] - Quote
sedex wrote: Of course, it the immunity had been extended to custom, that would be another story ;)
^ this.
|
Grey Stormshadow
Fistful of Finns Nulli Secunda
1460
|
Posted - 2012.12.02 18:50:00 -
[269] - Quote
My opinion is that it was horrible decision to push this feature to retribution as it clearly has not been properly crowd sourced and planned. the huge downsides were pretty much ignored and the smelly stuff will land on cap pilots and probably later to POS managers also.
So... as I wrote to test server thread:
Have you considered the fact that the pilot might not want to micro manage items in FH. While there was divisions people with roles could take stuff by themselves if roles were set.
To get to this same point now you have to drop all stuff to FH floor (not to containers) and tolerate the mess. Not that this wouldn't be bad enough by itself you can't limit which corp members have access either. It's to all or none. Same goes with fleet hangar.
Seriously you're downgrading the system from being "ok" to level of "total junk".
Get |
Fergus Runkle
Truth and Reconciliation Council
5
|
Posted - 2012.12.02 18:55:00 -
[270] - Quote
FnStrabo wrote:CCP Habakuk wrote: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). 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 an expansion. Not sure if can find my post about it as it was on the old forums. |
|
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! |
|
NewGit
Distinguished Gentleman's Boating Club Test Alliance Please Ignore
6
|
Posted - 2012.12.05 02:41:00 -
[301] - Quote
Wow - instead of "Retribution" you should call this expansion "Another gift to Gankers". And then change "Eve Online" to "We suck up to gankers online".
Let's see some recent changes. Unexplained, very lengthy delay in getting the right-click menu to open after undocking (yes, I've tested this on multiple computers, on different ISPs, even in different countries). A little "gift to gankers" by creating a delay that gives the gankers more time to lock up and scan you before you can do anything ? It seems all to often that by the time I can finally get the menu to open, I'm already outside of the docking ring. Pretty convenient for some people...........
When undocking the station is automatically zoomed in so close that when you can finally get the right-click menu to open, it is the "station information" one so you have to zoom (way) out to be able to open the menu that may have, oh I don't know, maybe your "insta-undock" BMs or something ? Poor gankers must have been whining about players undocking and insta-warping off before they could be locked/scanned.
Tier III Battle Cruisers - created (specifically it seems) to be the ultimate ganking machines.
Now you're changing the Orca hangars so they are scannable (because why, the poor gankers were whining about not knowing if they should try ganking more Orcas ?). Much easier (and cheaper) to ganker blockade runners than Orcas too ! The reasoning that the Orca's unscannable corp hangar was "essentially unfinished functionality" sounds like a load of BS being used to justify something that didn't need changing (except to please the gankers of course). I notice no mention was made regarding the corp hangars on ANY other ship (such as Rorquals and carriers of course, but then again, I guess the gankers in hisec don't see too many of those so they aren't a problem).
And then you note that you're "not making any changes to plastic wrap right now" but it will probably be reworked in the future ? In other words, when the gankers whine enough, you'll suddenly find that plastic wrap was "essentially unfinished functionality" as well and make it: a) impossible to double-wrap courier contracts, and/or b) make all plastic wraps scannable regardless of how embedded they are ?
What's on the "gifts to gankers" drawing board for the future, a right-click "show ship's detailed cargo" menu option so that gankers won't even have to lock/scan a ship to see if it's worth ganking ? I know ! How about a "Ship's Manifest" module that will instantly report the cargo of a ship when the pilot clicks "Undock" so gankers will be able to co-ordinate their ganks more efficiently. Maybe different modules could scan different classes of ships. You could make a new skill "Manifesting" where each level trained allows you to see an additional manifest. Rank 1 skill of course so the gankers won't whine too loudly about it. Then add a "Advanced Manifesting", "Master Manifesting" and "Executive Manifesting" with each level of progression enabling the pilot to instantly view even more manifests ! (Rank 2, 3 and 4 skills though I'm sure you'll still hear a lot of whining about them having to train anything, and about how it takes away from the limited time they have to train "throw-away" ganker alts on trial accounts and such.)
(To be fair, CCP did make it harder to gank Mackinaws, but that will no doubt change at some point in the future as well when someone decides that Macks are OP and it's too expensive to gank them anymore. I know ! How about a subtle little change that immobilizes the ship until it's mining lasers finish their current cycle ? Or change mining lasers so that when they are running, it reduces the ships resists and EHP ? I'm sure there are lots of ways being thought of about how to nerf mining ships in the future.)
I wonder, does ANYONE at CCP ever wonder at why they never seem to be able to get more than 50k users online at a time consistently ? They get their little spikes when new expansions come out, then things drop off again and go back to the usual 25-45k. I kinda wonder why after all this time we don't see 90-100k online all the time............ |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
28
|
Posted - 2012.12.05 03:29:00 -
[302] - Quote
Chris Wheeler wrote: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. Nothing is gonna happen to them. They already were pretty far behind just letting an Orca take the larger loads or already using a BR for the smaller stuff.
The obvious fix here was to give unscannable cargo to DSTs (if any ship should have had that feature implemented), and let the BRs continue to fly in anonymity behind their cloaks.
Again, the only thing the unscannable BR change makes is to penalize those afk BRs who were flying empty to and from their destinations. Now, they're the ultimate loot pi+¦atas--paper thin tanks on ships that could potentially be carrying a fortune. All it cost you to pop the pi+¦ata is the cost of a few thrashers. |
d'Arma Edd
Free Space Tech Banderlogs Alliance
5
|
Posted - 2012.12.05 12:36:00 -
[303] - Quote
Link to this blog in launcher is awesome:
Quote:Dev Blog: Corp Hangers on ships and You |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
831
|
Posted - 2012.12.05 13:27:00 -
[304] - Quote
You do know that you can't be locked until you /do/ something? (or 30 seconds pass).
So while a delay is annoying, it doesn't give someone wanting to gank you any benefit. (Not that I've noticed one. Might be related to the number of bookmarks you have?)
Oh, and if you're having trouble with the right click menu, you know you can do it from the people and places window? 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. |
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University Ivy League
1175
|
Posted - 2012.12.05 14:19:00 -
[305] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote: Oh, and if you're having trouble with the right click menu, you know you can do it from the people and places window?
As much as I dislike the B/R change (it should have been put on the DST).
In a busy station environment like Jita / Amarr or other trade hubs, you should always have your undock bookmark folder opened in a separate group window. (R-click on the folder in People & Places, "open in group window" or something.) Do this before undocking and have it sorted by # of jumps. Then you don't have to go fishing around in space for the right-click menu to warp to your undock bookmark.
(And as long as you do nothing except hit Ctrl-Space to stop your ship, you have a full 20? or 30? seconds of immunity to being targeted.) |
Keko Khaan
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
31
|
Posted - 2012.12.07 10:03:00 -
[306] - Quote
CCP Phantom wrote: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.
I havent used carrier since retribution went live. But i keep hearing that someone removed divisions from carriers corp hangar. And if its so that sux very much. And im very disapointed to hear that eve has taken HUGE step back and gone in worse direction with this weird change. Like wth im supposed to do with stuff in my carrier? i have loot and salvage, i have specified ship fittings, I have special expensive mods, i have ammo, i have cans and stuff, i have minerals, ozone and stuff, i even might have my corp mates stuff, also i have my alts stuff that cant be mixed to my stuff. No way im going to sort that stuff every single time i use my carrier.
So please fix this crap and give divisions back. Or should i buy 10 carriers to replace divisions? Niddy for alts stuff, archon for minerals, thanny for ship fittings etc u get the idea...
-1 for this change. And thats polite from me.. |
Saorlan
Fight Club Outfit
1
|
Posted - 2012.12.16 08:51:00 -
[307] - Quote
How long did these small changes take to code? Is this really 6 months worth of work here?
I think you guys need a rocket up your ass. This should take a few days and then you should be getting on with bringing Eve into the real world with physics, walking around stations, manual control of drones and small ships...
A change to the way hangers work is not worth 6 months contract to god knows how many people!
No one else seems to shout about this?!
Just WTF are you guys doing in the office? Playing Eve? |
Kusum Fawn
State War Academy Caldari State
231
|
Posted - 2012.12.16 15:12:00 -
[308] - Quote
Saorlan wrote:How long did these small changes take to code? Is this really 6 months worth of work here?
I think you guys need a rocket up your ass. This should take a few days and then you should be getting on with bringing Eve into the real world with physics, walking around stations, manual control of drones and small ships...
A change to the way hangers work is not worth 6 months contract to god knows how many people!
No one else seems to shout about this?!
Just WTF are you guys doing in the office? Playing Eve?
no its pretty obvious that they dont play eve. Its not possible to please all the people all the time, but it sure as hell is possible to Displease all the people, most of the time.
|
Vile EnEon
Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Squad.
18
|
Posted - 2012.12.16 21:04:00 -
[309] - Quote
Quote:DEV BLOG: Only the pilot will be able to open or remove containers in fleet hangars, although any pilot can drop items onto them to place them in the container This worked properly for the first few days of the release, using GSCs in the fleet hanger.
On or around 14-DEC-2012, Pilots can only drop items into the fleet hanger, but not into any type of container in the fleet hanger.
When the attempt is made you are greeted with:
Quote:NotifyThe Freight Container is not in space nearby and its not in your cargo hold. Because of this, you cannot do whatever it is you were trying.
orQuote:NotifyThe Secure Cargo Container is not in space nearby and its not in your cargo hold. Because of this, you cannot do whatever it is you were trying.
- Fleet and Corp use enabled for Fleet Hanger by Active pilot in space. - In Fleet and In Corp with Pilot - 1km from ship with fleet hanger which has a container in it. - Pilots do NOT have the ability to drop items into a container inside a fleet hanger.
--Vile
|
Fattymcbutterpants
Drama Llamas Dark Therapy
3
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 05:06:00 -
[310] - Quote
Have blockade runners become the scratch off ticket of Eve yet?
... pew pew.... Dammit.. Tangled Power Conduits |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 .. 11 :: [one page] |