Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Valleria Darkmoon
Convicts and Savages Shadow Cartel
336
|
Posted - 2014.10.15 09:08:00 -
[1] - Quote
With the incoming changes to jump drive travel I've heard a lot of people lamenting the loss of their suitcase carriers for moving their assets around. So what if we made carriers need fewer trips to complete a full delivery of rigged ships. Ideally Carriers should not compete with JFs under the new rules, but if we made ship maintenance bay expanders it would become quite a bit easier to move rigged assets since IIRC you need to package ships to transport them in a JF.
I would suggest they be fit to an available low slot with a maximum of 3 fitted per ship that would add 400,000 m (possibly 40%) to the ship maintenance bay or roughly double the bay size with 3 expanders fitted. The corp hangar and other bays would be unaffected.
In this way JFs would still be the best choice by far for moving large quantities of assets around quickly while carriers would be better for deployments where you need to move rigged assets and don't need to bring your entire hangar from home. Reality has an almost infinite capacity to resist oversimplification. |
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
119
|
Posted - 2014.10.15 10:44:00 -
[2] - Quote
-1 aids power projection and allows several possible exploits from cargo holds, into things which actually have a reason to be in a fight. That crazy bag FC with the silly things on the hull that shouldn't but just did. |
Tabyll Altol
Breaking.Bad Circle-Of-Two
27
|
Posted - 2014.10.15 11:16:00 -
[3] - Quote
Is a very common idea to expand the specific cargo holds.
But it-¦s no good idea.
-1 |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
2916
|
Posted - 2014.10.15 12:49:00 -
[4] - Quote
I too would like to carry assembled battleships in my Orca and bring packaged carriers into highsec with my freighter.
-1, not supported. Next time consider the unintended uses of your suggestion before suggesting it. |
Valleria Darkmoon
Convicts and Savages Shadow Cartel
337
|
Posted - 2014.10.15 19:03:00 -
[5] - Quote
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:I too would like to carry assembled battleships in my Orca and bring packaged carriers into highsec with my freighter.
-1, not supported. Next time consider the unintended uses of your suggestion before suggesting it. I don't see carrying battleships in an Orca as being a particularly large problem and I added the possible 40% increase in bay instead of a flat 400,000 m specifically with an Orca in mind so that Orcas wouldn't be able to carry several battleships. Orcas don't even have a jump drive so any addition this gives to power projection is very minimal at worst.
Packaged ships can not be placed into Ship Maintenance Bays nor does a Freighter have one to begin with so the objection of getting a Carrier into high sec by use of a Freighter due to this just doesn't hold up. Reality has an almost infinite capacity to resist oversimplification. |
PotatoOverdose
Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS.
2327
|
Posted - 2014.10.15 19:10:00 -
[6] - Quote
Nope. For all the reasons mentioned in the original post. |
Valleria Darkmoon
Convicts and Savages Shadow Cartel
337
|
Posted - 2014.10.15 19:32:00 -
[7] - Quote
James Baboli wrote:-1 aids power projection and allows several possible exploits from cargo holds, into things which actually have a reason to be in a fight. I am making this suggestion with the changes to power projection in mind. Subcaps are not nearly as big a concern from a power projection standpoint as capitals are so if you wanted to send a small team of Carriers carrying subcaps equipped to run disruption in enemy space it would take fewer caps to move the same number of subcaps. Any power projection gained by the increased bay is mitigated somewhat by the fact that you would not HAVE to use more carriers to move the same X number of subcaps in carriers since multiple trips is less feasible.
If someone wants to move in those sub caps it's going to happen so from a power projection standpoint would you rather they brought those subcaps + 10 carriers or those subcaps + 20 carriers?
The exploits from cargo I'm less clear on what you mean, the last part of your sentence is pretty vague. Reality has an almost infinite capacity to resist oversimplification. |
PotatoOverdose
Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS.
2331
|
Posted - 2014.10.15 20:09:00 -
[8] - Quote
Valleria Darkmoon wrote: Subcaps are not nearly as big a concern from a power projection standpoint as capitals are
Bullshit. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
Guardians of the Morrigan
138
|
Posted - 2014.10.15 21:08:00 -
[9] - Quote
Valleria Darkmoon wrote: Subcaps are not nearly as big a concern from a power projection standpoint as capitals are
Well at least i know this idea came from someone with no clue what they are talking about. the thought behind the idea was good it just would cause problems
|
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
123
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 09:17:00 -
[10] - Quote
One of the common tricks in some freighting circles is to fit expanders, undock and refit to their speed or tank fits, while retaining the amount of cargo stuffed into their hold, but without the problems of having the expanders on. Now apply said concept to a carrier, and have a couple set up as a off grid reshipping point. Boom, massive logistical advantage. That crazy bag FC with the silly things on the hull that shouldn't but just did. |
|
Vittoria Keen
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 12:36:00 -
[11] - Quote
Valleria Darkmoon wrote:With the incoming changes to jump drive travel I've heard a lot of people lamenting the loss of their suitcase carriers for moving their assets around. So what if we made carriers need fewer trips to complete a full delivery of rigged ships. Ideally Carriers should not compete with JFs under the new rules, but if we made ship maintenance bay expanders it would become quite a bit easier to move rigged assets since IIRC you need to package ships to transport them in a JF.
I would suggest they be fit to an available low slot with a maximum of 3 fitted per ship that would add 400,000 m (possibly 40%) to the ship maintenance bay or roughly double the bay size with 3 expanders fitted. The corp hangar and other bays would be unaffected.
In this way JFs would still be the best choice by far for moving large quantities of assets around quickly while carriers would be better for deployments where you need to move rigged assets and don't need to bring your entire hangar from home.
ships that are on a courier contract dont need to be repackaged to go in a freighter hold |
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |