|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 29 post(s) |
Aureus Ahishatsu
Deadspace Knights
11
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 14:59:00 -
[1] - Quote
T1 rigs are easily enough to bring normal freighters above their current cargo values.[/quote]
CCP Fozzie wrote:Tippia wrote:SeeGǪ there was a reason why I was against rigs on freighters from the very startGǪ T2 capital rigs and a significant reduction in survivability requried and/or speed to get them back to where they were. Gee thanks. T1 rigs are easily enough to bring normal freighters above their current cargo values.
Yes, but now it will take two t2 cargo rigs required to even get to the current freighter capacities. TBH this is a pretty hefty kick in the balls to anyone with a freighter pilot. allow me to explain
I'll use a fenrir for this example since I own one and did the calculations. Because most people won't switch ammo when ganking a freighter, I took each of the 4 damage types and calculated roughly what the total EHP would be if you were using only that damage type. Below are the results. Note: these do not take the individual skill or implants into account.
Current Fenrir
Type Shield Armor Total (100,000 hp added for hull which has no resist so same for all types) em 5625 34,000 139,625 therm 6750 28,687 135,437 kinetic 7875 26,562 134,437 exp 8437 23,375 131,812
New Fenrir Type Shield Armor Total (82,500 hp added for hull which has no resist so same for all types) em 10000 44,800 137,300 therm 12000 37,800 132,300 kinetic 14000 35,000 131500 exp 15000 30,800 128,300
So as you can see the ship just received a few thousand EHP nerf to begin with. And lost 200,000m3 of space to go along with it hassah! looks like all that armor is gonna take up some of that precious storage space. This nerf gets amplified though once you start putting on any of the rigs that one would expect to be on a freighter such as astro rigs which all reduce armor. the result drops the EHP down to barely over 120K. I would expect that for someone going for max cargo with 3 cargo rigs but with calibration t2 ones won't be possible and now a pilot will be required to fit either 3 t1 rigs or 2 t2 rigs JUST to get to the current capacities of freighters.
Lets assume the best and your freighter pilot is capable of If using just the t2 rigs. You use 2 t2 cargo rigs to get JUST ABOVE what the current fenrir capacity is. We'll throw in a t2 trimark rig then to compensate for the armor loss of the first two rigs but now you're slower. So now you have a freighter that can barely hold more than the current one. has less of a tank and travels slower..... I honestly was expected there to be a slight nerf to the cargo and tank to compensate for the fact you can boost these now but this is a little much I think. I would rather have the freighters have more base cargo with a 50% reduction in the effectiveness of cargo rigs.
And before someone points out yes you could instead swap the trimark for a t2 hull hp rig to come out which would push the freighter slightly over it's current EHP however the hull rigs have already stated they would reduce cargo as a penalty so you would essentially have counter boosting rigs at that point.
|
Aureus Ahishatsu
Deadspace Knights
12
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 13:23:00 -
[2] - Quote
Dracvlad
Very well put. I'm curious when CCP is going to realize that you can only force so much PVP action on industrialist and increased mineral costs before they just say screw this and throw in the towel. I already gave a break down how this is clearly a nerf to freighters (despite what others may say) in my earlier article.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4613601#post4613601
If anything I had hoped than this change would justify the freighter capacities as you could fill the damn thing and put enough tank to justify what was inside. Sadly the freighter went the way of the of the "other" t1 industrial ship post change. (mammouth, bestower, itty V, tyra) which are rarely used other than nitch roles now because they increased their bay size but gave them zero tank. |
Aureus Ahishatsu
Deadspace Knights
12
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 13:55:00 -
[3] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Aureus Ahishatsu wrote:Very well put. I'm curious when CCP is going to realize that you can only force so much PVP action on industrialist and increased mineral costs before they just say screw this and throw in the towel. I already gave a break down how this is clearly a nerf to freighters (despite what others may say) in my earlier article. I can't remember seeing anyone saying it isn't a nerf. And anyway, industrialists don't care about mineral costs GÇö all those costs are transferred over to the customer anyway. Quote:Sadly the freighter went the way of the of the "other" t1 industrial ship post change. (mammouth, bestower, itty V, tyra) which are rarely used other than nitch roles now because they increased their bay size but gave them zero tank. The increase in bay size means you can tank them harder than before without a loss in relative capacity. You, as a industrial pilot, choose to give them zero tank.
Ok so i''m going to be nice about this but clearly you didn't read my post earlier so don't say it was not a nerf unless you can counter what i already posted.
As for the second statement yes they DID nerf the tank of the 2nd t1 industrial ships all around which you can go read here https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3263705. As you can see everyone one of these ships had a mid slot removed which is far more valuable than a small 200 (yes hundred not thousand) shield hp increase. |
Aureus Ahishatsu
Deadspace Knights
12
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 14:52:00 -
[4] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Aureus Ahishatsu wrote:Ok so i''m going to be nice about this but clearly you didn't read my post earlier so don't say it was not a nerf unless you can counter what i already posted. You knowGǪ if you're going to respond to a post, it helps if you actually read the post first. Otherwise, you risk ending up GÇö as you have done now, and as you did in your previous post GÇö with some pretty silly fallacies. I would suggest that you read my post and try again.
Touche I thought you were arguing at first that it was not a nerf which i quickly changed but not before you quoted it.
Tippia wrote:Quote:As for the second statement yes they DID nerf the tank of the 2nd t1 industrial ships all around which you can go read here https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3263705. As you can see everyone one of these ships had a mid slot removed which is far more valuable than a small 200 (yes hundred not thousand) shield hp increase. 404 Page not found. But I'll blame the forum's autolinking for that one. If you read through that thread, you'll notice a few things: most of them get some minor tank buff. Most of them get more slots that can be used for tanking, and as mentioned: by giving them more base cargo, you can tank them harder. CCP did not give them GÇ£zero tankGÇ¥. In fact, they made it a lot easier to tank them well. Only you, the pilot, can give them zero tank that through your fitting decisions. You can also decide to not do that but instead make them more sturdy. The only real exception was the Itty V, which was a bit out of line with how good it was in relation to the other old tier-2 haulers.
They removed the possibility of tanking them any way other than shield by removing the majority of all other hp. but then removed mid slots which are necessary to try and fit resists. I'll relinking but the forum gods may crap on this link as well. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3263705
The mammoth for example was capable of getting nearly 15k ehp completely passive. Now you are lucky if you can even get 7k. Not that 15k was much but 7 k is a completely joke. Anyhow that is for another forum and i will return back to the freighter talk now. |
Aureus Ahishatsu
Deadspace Knights
13
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 18:23:00 -
[5] - Quote
Tippia wrote:
My point is that what they did was to give you some additional capital (cargo space and lowslots) that you can trade for increased abilities elsewhere, or perhaps more accurately, not spend modules on improving.
They're not giving freighters lows are they? If they are i missed that. That would change a lot. My point was just that with the rigs which are incredibly expensive do not make the ship very versatile. I would be all for that cause then you are right you could simply fit expanders, plating etc. whatever was necessary for the given task but i'm not going to be destroying rigs left and right for the various tasks.
Tippia wrote: If they give the ship a 30% cargo increase, then that's one expander you don't have to fit. It's much the same as how range bonuses for guns can be turned into damage bonuses: you can now use shorter-ranged ammo to exchange that range for more damage in situations where you'd normally be stuck with some mediocre mid-range/snore-damage ammo.
I understand exactly what you are saying here. However the freighters like the t1 large indies had BOTH nerfed. there was no increase in hold. in fact there was a decrease with all of the increase they are describing requiring one to fit rigs/modules making it impossible to meet even what they were currently at.
Tippia wrote: Ok, so the Mammoth was able to get 15k EHP passively. It can still get it actively, and more. Moreover, the Mammoth was changed to be a fast transport, and they certainly did that. Not being around is the best tank there is. Agility is once again something you can trade against other stats. Slap some additional bulk on that thing and laugh as your align times end up the same as they always were.
Except for the fact the ship bonuses top speed NOT agility which encourages afk travel. If anything they should have had them bonus agility like the other indies or give them a significant tank increase. The speed bonus with the light tank is rather confusing as what benefit do you have to that bonus if now it requires active piloting to even meet the tank it had before? |
Aureus Ahishatsu
Deadspace Knights
13
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 19:50:00 -
[6] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Aureus Ahishatsu wrote:They're not giving freighters lows are they? If they are i missed that. That would change a lot. My point was just that with the rigs which are incredibly expensive do not make the ship very versatile. I would be all for that cause then you are right you could simply fit expanders, plating etc. whatever was necessary for the given task but i'm not going to be destroying rigs left and right for the various tasks. No, they're not, but Mynnna had a proposal for that idea that spun out into some other small changes that could be made to avoid the bigger pitfalls (such as the massive argument above about how supposedly overpowered bulkheads are ).
bulk heads OP?? waaah?? OK just caught up your earlier convo. don't want to get too much into it except if they were so OP why is it that ships which have their greatest amount of hp in the hull(orca's) still will shield tank the majority of the time....... The only purpose bulkheads even serve atm is to just be a giant buffer. This brings me to the suggestion i made on the hull rigs forum about creating an ORE logi ship that gives a bonus to remote hull reps since their is NO TIME REASONABLE way to repair hulls outside of stations.
Tippia wrote:Yes, that is kind of the point of the whole change. It's not meant to be a buff; it's just meant to give freighters options. The price of those options is an overall worse ship. That's why I always argued against fitting options: I wanted to keep my excellent-at-everything (jump) freighter.
So can we all agree just to tell CCP don't push this update and leave the freighters alone?
Tippia wrote:As for the indies, some of them had their cargo increased, some did not GÇö it all depended on how bad they were compared to each other before. The top performers came down a bit; the bottom performer came up a lot. I'm guessing that your perception there is somewhat born out of your ship being in a fairly good spot to begin with.
Not necessarily. the only one to receive a cargo boost was the tyra or badger II. the rest had a cargo reduction or didn't move while all lost a mid slot
Tippia wrote: It got an agility increase. Remember, agility is better the lower it is GÇö for the Mammoth, they changed it from 1.0 to 0.91. Since agility translates directly into align time, that's 9% faster aligning right there. Sure, and istab gives you twice as much, but stillGǪ it's half a slot that can be used for something else.
I understand that but it still doesn't change the fact a velocity bonus is pointless on this ship if it's supposed to be the gtfo ship. Maybe burning back to gate in low? IDK. |
Aureus Ahishatsu
Deadspace Knights
13
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 12:45:00 -
[7] - Quote
Sniper Smith wrote:I like the lowslot idea.
Other than the fact that it's cheaper, it's also more versatile, and allows you to change your freighter for the task.. re-rigging really isn't an option with Capital Rigs :p
I mean I need to move a LOT of crap.. Cargo.. On the way back I'm not moving much, but it's worth a fair bit.. Tank.. Gotta get it done faster ? Agility..
I won't miss the loss of warpspeed rigs as an option.. though I think adding a warpspeed low-slot item, would open up a lot of gameplay options.. if the penalty was right..
I don't think anyone is really going to miss them so long as they are % based. on a freighter that only does 1.37 AU warp with 2 t2 Hyperspatial velocity optimizers you'll do a whopping 50% more so now you'll be doing a whole 2.055 AU warp! AWWW yeah now we're moving! lol |
Aureus Ahishatsu
Deadspace Knights
13
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 13:06:00 -
[8] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Ramona Quimby wrote:Instead they're being nerfed to please Goons and Gankers.
Stop nerfing hi-sec and buffing null-sec. You realise, of course, that this change has every potential to create problems for goons and gankers; that they weren't part of the groups who advocated this change; and that this hits nullsec harder than it does highsec. Mag's wrote:No not really. Tippia is his usual logical self. Whereas Valterra is, well, highly illogical and prone to large memory lapses as well as complete removal from reality in one instance. I think he might be referring to our appearance, except that Valterra is a beat-up old Civire who can't even dress herself properly and who lacks my fabulous ass.
I think you are going to need a judge for said comparison. Alright alright i'll take one for the team and do it... lol |
Aureus Ahishatsu
Deadspace Knights
13
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 14:07:00 -
[9] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Aureus Ahishatsu wrote:I don't think anyone is really going to miss them so long as they are % based. on a freighter that only does 1.37 AU warp with 2 t2 Hyperspatial velocity optimizers you'll do a whopping 50% more so now you'll be doing a whole 2.055 AU warp! AWWW yeah now we're moving! lol Oh, I don't know. I'd say that if anything it makes more of a difference in practical term for slow ships. I mean, on a cruiser that skips past a system in 15 seconds, reducing that to 10 won't make much difference GÇö one sip of tea less. On a freighter that takes a minute and a half to cross a system, reducing that to a minute is a huge gain in terms of how much you can transport (it's the core business after all) in a given timeframe, not to mention how much less painful it is to make those long hauls. The absolute speed change from that percentage might not be anything to write home about, but the absolute time saving can get pretty huge pretty fast.
Jesus you like to play devil advocate..... the only problem with that though is this rig would be less beneficial even from the time stand point you mentioned due to how much time these things spend in accel and more specifically deceleration. Ever watched that speed bar? i swear i have spent half a system in decel before lol . |
Aureus Ahishatsu
Deadspace Knights
13
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 14:32:00 -
[10] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Aureus Ahishatsu wrote:Jesus you like to play devil advocate..... the only problem with that though is this rig would be less beneficial even from the time stand point you mentioned due to how much time these things spend in accel and more specifically deceleration. Ever watched that speed bar? i swear i have spent half a system in decel before lol . Sure, but the new warp speed mechanics help that a lot GÇö had this been a year ago, it would have made fsck-all difference unless you were jumping through 200 AU systems. These days, you'll see a (beneficial) difference in jumps one tenth that long. It might not be much at that point, but it's there. Still, yes. For most distances, I'm guessing that a mix of warp speed and agility will give the fastest travel, but I wouldn't discount the benefit you can get out of warp speed alone. 33% off makes a significant difference in absolute terms for something as slug-like as a freighter.
I guess if you're jumping this thing non stop it will be nice. Mine is rather circumstantial. A jump freighter that takes only an hour and a half to make the distance that used to take 2 hours is irrelevant for me at least as i'm still gonna set that sh*t to autopilot then go see a movie lol. |
|
Aureus Ahishatsu
Deadspace Knights
13
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 14:59:00 -
[11] - Quote
Xander Phoena wrote:Hopefully the swap from rigs to low slots will keep some of the doubters happy. The flexibility this provides should make for a far more interesting time for those of you wondering how to fit your freighters as opposed to simply putting in T2 rigs and never changing it.
CSM9 (particularly but not exclusively the likes of Mynnna, Corbexx, Steve Ronuken and Sugar Kyle) have worked real hard with Fozzie on getting these numbers right. Looking forward to hearing your feedback.
Have not done the calculations yet but preliminary looks pretty good. This is much better for the flexibility CCP was looking for. |
Aureus Ahishatsu
Deadspace Knights
13
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 15:03:00 -
[12] - Quote
Tippia wrote:So if I'm reading these numbers correctly, you've mainly moved some HP and cargo around compared to before, and reduced the JF agility nerf, is that about right? Things like the resist changes and skill bonuses are still the same as far as I can tell, and it would be nice if I didn't have to spot check every item in my spreadsheet.
Ahh good you're already on this? Sweet i'm just gonna sit back and let you work out the excel charts then... Ping me when you're done and i'll take a gander lol. |
Aureus Ahishatsu
Deadspace Knights
13
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 15:48:00 -
[13] - Quote
So after doing some more excel fun.... It looks pretty good. with 2 t2 expanded cargoholds and a t2 bulkhead you can get pretty sufficient cargo with a decent tank. My only real concern is what has been stated before with the slight imbalance given to the two armored ships vs shield tanks. I wouldn't expect them to be equal but given the set up i just listed for example the fenrir and charon are sitting in the 124 - 135 ehp while the providence is somewhere in the 165-180 ehp and the still tanky obelisk is in the 170 - 185 range. 40k ehp seems like a rather large gap especially when you consider this gap is only amplified after skills are taken into consideration.
Again let me reiterate before Tippia comes in throwing her DA card, not looking for them to be equal but at the current set up i see the price in provies and especially obe's going up. i mean have you seen the ehp of the new obe with 3 bulkheads??? 200 + ehp before even taking skills into account holy hell! |
Aureus Ahishatsu
Deadspace Knights
13
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 17:50:00 -
[14] - Quote
Silvetica Dian wrote:Marcus Iunius Brutus wrote:Single-crystal Superalloy I-beam price crash in 3... 2... 1... People with buy orders at 1M ISK that are at work now probably cry. They were at over 1.4 mill in amarr until i sold mine into them....... none over a mill in amarr any more. i logged out a of a pith penal to log my market alt to sell them and then back to pith penal. got to it just in time.
Already happening lol dodixie is seeing a drop even with the small market for them there. |
Aureus Ahishatsu
Deadspace Knights
13
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 17:54:00 -
[15] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:Hiryu Jin wrote:so instead of a kick in the balls, we're supposed to be happy with a punch to face? Yes.
You certainly displayed elegance in your answer to his question didn't you.... |
Aureus Ahishatsu
Deadspace Knights
13
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 18:06:00 -
[16] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Ok, new tables: GÇó New alignment times depending on base and a more balanced fit (red = worse than Rubicon, Green = better than rubicon). GÇó The full gamut of Tank vs. Cargo (red = worse than both base and Rubicon stats; yellow = better than Rubicon, worse than base; blue = better than base, worse than Rubicon; green = better than both). I haven't really done any other combos because the other sensible modules (CPR, istab, hacc) either have no effect at all or no effect that freighter pilots care about. tl;dr: the only ones who have anything to complain about anything anymore are gankersGǪ
How did you calculate your tanks? The base ehp seems rather high? |
Aureus Ahishatsu
Deadspace Knights
13
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 18:13:00 -
[17] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Azami Nevinyrall wrote:Tippia wrote:Providence: 350k EHP + 383k m-¦ Ark: 577k EHP(!) + 118k m-¦ Any of these strike your fancy? Oh trust me, they do! Until I see *Final* numbers and on TQ, I'm not changing any skillque... Pff. What's this GÇ£being sensibleGÇ¥ stuff you're doing. Getoutahere! On a more serious note, these are the base tank stats I'm calculating from. Can anyone check to see if I've missed something because it doesn't seem like itGǪ These are the base stats from the OP, and the effective EHP for each tier includes skills at V (so +25% from Mechanics, Hull Upgrades, and Shield Mgt, and +50% for the JFs).
How are you calculating the sehp and aehp? those seem really off. Below was my ehp for each of the 4 damage types for the shield of the fenrir.
em 48000 therm 57600 kin 67200 exp 72000 |
Aureus Ahishatsu
Deadspace Knights
13
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 18:18:00 -
[18] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Aureus Ahishatsu wrote:How did you calculate your tanks? The base ehp seems rather high? Sum of base shield/armour/hull HP +ù skill bonuses +ù -+ of Gêæ 1/(1-resist) Brib Vogt wrote:No it is not. Yes it is, unless you start slapping deadspace or officer resists on them. 3+ù 15% resist bonus = ~48% more EHP on armour 3+ù 25% HP bonus = ~95% more EHP on hull. In just one case will armour EHP be more than hull EHP, and even then, the difference in EHP increase makes quick work of that tiny gap.
ahh ok now i got it. You're doubling the effect of the resists. a 50% resist for example in your equation would give a 100% bonus to hp.
|
Aureus Ahishatsu
Deadspace Knights
14
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 18:40:00 -
[19] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Tau Cabalander wrote:Aureus Ahishatsu wrote:How are you calculating the sehp and aehp? those seem really off. Below was my ehp for each of the 4 damage types for the shield of the fenrir.
em 48000 therm 57600 kin 67200 exp 72000
edit: these were calculated with the following equation ehp = base+[base * (resist/100)] EHP = base / (1 - Resist Percent) That too. I just noticed the first mismatch without the skills. 48,000 @-á0% -á-á= 48,000 / (1-0.0) = 48,000 base EM EHP 48,000 @-á50% = 48,000 / (1-0.5) = 96,000 base Ex EHP 48,000 @-á40% = 48,000 / (1-0.4) = 80,000 base Kn EHP 48,000 @-á20% = 48,000 / (1-0.2) = 60,000 base Th EHP An average of (284k / 4 =) 71k base EHP, +ù1.25 skill bonus = 88.75k EHP e: e: e: wtf, fiddly little tables. Brib Vogt wrote:But why is the maximum velocity modifier of -11% replaced with -10% cargo capacity. Thats my whole point. It'll be a -11% capacity, actually. And the reason is the same: because it's a trade-off, and because it mirrors the trade you're making with cargo expanders.
Goddamn.... anyone else wishing we got paid for this.... LOL
|
Aureus Ahishatsu
Deadspace Knights
14
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 20:14:00 -
[20] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Oh, and for those thinking that armour-tanking is a good ideaGǪ
Providence: gives up 33.1pp tank for 160k m-¦. Charon: gives up 35.6pp tank for 171k m-¦. Obelisk: gives up 38.8pp tank for 162k m-¦. Fenrir: gives up 26.0pp tank for 160k m-¦. Ark: gives up 18.4pp tank for 50k m-¦. Rhea: gives up 36.7pp tank for 53k m-¦. Anshar: gives up 36.6pp tank for 51k m-¦. Nomad: gives up 27.9pp tank for 49k m-¦.
To clarify: if the providence armour tanks, it gets a 33.1 percentage points lower tank increase (18.2% rather than 51.3%) than if it had chosen to hull tank, but doesn't lose the 30% cargo space that a full hull tank costs.
So have you corrected the chart now for the calculations we talked earlier about? or are they still off? |
|
Aureus Ahishatsu
Deadspace Knights
14
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 20:23:00 -
[21] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Gevlon Goblin wrote:Many people mentioned that Armor freighters will be ahead of shield ones, but the situation is worse than what a raw EHP calculation would say. Shields have a 0% EM resist hole. In the OP resists were mentioned, but only Nomad gets EM resist. On the other hand the armor has no such resist hole. Any reasonable ganker would open with a few tornadoes with Faction EMP L to eat the shield and then the Taloses finish the armor and hull. And for any ship that is trying to armour tank, they'll just open up with Fusion M and hit the armour resist hole. And since the poor sod decided to fit a horrible tank rather than one that protects him, he'll explode very quickly. Valterra Craven wrote:Based on this it would appear that EHP should likely be adjusted some... It dosn't make sense that the fenrir would get 10pp more tank than a Charon for only losing 9km3, Course the Obelisk looks really bad for some strange reason. Couldn't this be balanced to all of them be around 30% even? Nah. The lesson is simply that, just because you can fit something doesn't mean it's a good idea. The Obelisk looks really bad because it's a particularly bad idea to try to tank it with armour. Conclusion: don't try to armour tank.
Either that or a crap ton of quake. the kinetic resist ain't exactly good either. with the given resist does better overall than t1 fusion but not as much as RF fusion. |
Aureus Ahishatsu
Deadspace Knights
14
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 20:25:00 -
[22] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Aureus Ahishatsu wrote:So have you corrected the chart now for the calculations we talked earlier about? or are they still off? Which ones?
This chart you originally posted which i thought we agreed was too high?
http://eve.beyondreality.se/pics/Kronos/FreighterCargoTank.png
|
Aureus Ahishatsu
Deadspace Knights
14
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 20:28:00 -
[23] - Quote
Holy hell this forum is ridiculous at how fast it's going. We're over 109 pages and it's only been up 5 days LOL. |
Aureus Ahishatsu
Deadspace Knights
14
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 13:43:00 -
[24] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:Rowells wrote:plex hauling here I come Erm GǪ wouldn't you be better off hauling PLEX in a blockade runner, since you have the cloak and an incredibly short align time and high warp speed?
not to mention they can't scan you so they have no way of knowing that you have plex in your hold... |
Aureus Ahishatsu
Deadspace Knights
14
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 14:52:00 -
[25] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:baltec1 wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:Mara Rinn wrote:Rowells wrote:plex hauling here I come Erm GǪ wouldn't you be better off hauling PLEX in a blockade runner, since you have the cloak and an incredibly short align time and high warp speed? If you have a brain, what you really want to use to carry PLEX is a shuttle to get to the target location then redeem your PLEX once you are in the right station. You should carry as many as possible too. I must of worded that poorly. I meant you don't put the PLEX in the game until you are in the right station. Is there a mecanic I'm missing where there is a need to move PLEX around?
Spies. If you are paying or plexing a spy account ejecting the plex from your cargo and him picking it up is the only way that you can plex him without a record of the transfer. |
Aureus Ahishatsu
Deadspace Knights
15
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 15:02:00 -
[26] - Quote
Walter Hart White wrote:Aureus Ahishatsu wrote:
Spies. If you are paying or plexing a spy account ejecting the plex from your cargo and him picking it up is the only way that you can plex him without a record of the transfer.
Or buy GTC on forums?
You pay money for eve?! |
|
|
|