EVE Search - need for 400,000 m3 general hauler.

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

need for 400,000 m3 general hauler.

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 2611	Posted - 2015.09.07 11:50:09 - [61] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: -1 It seems you want to move your goods significantly faster when it's not possible to provide these bonuses without breaking the rest of the hauling range. T1s: ~10s align 3 AU/s DSTs: ~18s align 3.3 AU/s Orca: 38s align 2 AU/s Freighters: ~40s align 1.4 AU/s Since your proposal is so close to an Orca in terms of hauling capacity you're looking at trying to split hairs between the base align speed of an Orca versus a Freighter and possibly warping at an incredibly rapid 1.7AU/s. Do you really feel it's necessary for a brand new ship class to be developed for those marginal gains? Why not a ship with DST align, and with less tank/warp in exchange for more cargo? If you had bothered to read the OP, you might have realized that is what is being suggested, and there is a very large gap making plenty of room for it in the current lineup. You can't look at only agility because there is a lot more to hauling ships than just agility. I'd say you can't just look at cargo, but there is actually a huge gap there anyway which pretty much necessitates a new hull design. The gap is actually large enough to fit three new ship classes in it just to cover all of the missing sizes. One more is an absolute minimum. Pirate ship Nightmare, can you fathom Larger but with smaller spikes than Phantasm The Succubus looks meaner But the Revenant cleaner Seems as they get bigger, the smaller spikes they has'm
Tabyll Altol Breaking.Bad Circle-Of-Two 116	Posted - 2015.09.07 12:01:47 - [62] - Quote Maldiro Selkurk wrote: there is a huge gap in the hauler line up, a hauler with 400,000 m3 cargo capacity a would fill that gap. it would be nice if you could fit for hauling capacity vs tank with 400,000 m3 being the hauling fit and maybe 250,000 m3 being the tank fit. Distrubution of mass, velocity and hauling capacity for racial variants would mirror the freighter class. I see no real gap. -1
Eli Apol Definitely a nullsec alt 486	Posted - 2015.09.07 12:59:50 - [63] - Quote Maldiro Selkurk wrote: Eli Apol wrote: Sigh so you've not used a DST as a hauling ship? They can have almost 100 k m3 capacity if fitted for cargo - align quicker and can manage freighter level eHp in certain cases whilst warping as fast as a cruiser. They're a damn hauling ship, what else are you gonna use them for? Sigh. sigh...hopefully people start reading some of the previous posts or for that matter at least the OP. Tell me what fitting gets 400,000 m3 of cargo in your DST and you got a deal, else it does me and eve, zero good for solving the problem at hand. My current round trip is 18 jumps, so if use your suggestion i get to.... 1. be restricted to 100.000 m3 capacity. 2. It would take me a total of 72 jumps, IF IM LUCKY but if the inefficiencies of breaking my load apart force me to take another round trip or two, then my total jumps required would be bump up to respectively: 90 or an awe inspiring 108 total jumps. Well at least you're accepting that DST's are actually haulers now - so I've rebuffed one of your fallacies already - now we're discussing how to deal with a quite specific problem of your own devising... ...for which there's already an obvious solution: agility fit freighters. Now let's look at those for a minute, either we can shove on a full rack of inertia stabilizers for approximately the 25s align time that your new mini-freighter/massive-DST can achieve - OR - we can do a full rack of hyperspatial accelerators to get into the same ballpark as the 2.4AU/s warp speed you've proposed for this mini-freighter/massive-DST... BUT what you can't do with a freighter is buff both those stats using just the three lowslots provided. And if you follow this train of logic - buffing both would result in imbalance for the current hulls right? I mean who'd fly an agility fit freighter if you could have this new hull that nails both those categories and costs 20% of the price as you propose? It's almost like CCP put these things called lowslots and modules into the game to allow customisation of the ship hulls for different circumstances and uses. but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
Mike Voidstar Voidstar Free Flight Foundation 854	Posted - 2015.09.07 16:53:13 - [64] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: 40k -> 100k -> 150k -> 320k+ seems more than a fair progression to me already. It would be, if we were discussing a line up of T1 ships, instead of a bunch of relatively very expensive T2 Ships and capital ships.
Maldiro Selkurk CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS X 489	Posted - 2015.09.07 16:58:19 - [65] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: Well at least you're accepting that DST's are actually haulers now - so I've rebuffed one of your fallacies already - now we're discussing how to deal with a quite specific problem of your own devising... Speaking of fallicies, making claims a person never said then attackimg that statement instead of any actual claim the person did make is a classic fallacy. So please find the quote where i claim specifically that a DST is not a hauler. I said they are not dedicated haulers because they are a combination of both being tough and being haulers, which makes them not 'dedicated' haulers, as the dedicated haulers like the sigil, bestower and the like only serve one master and that is hauling, not being tough AND hauling. The irony of claiming I commited a fallacy and didnt while in the same sentence you commit a fallacious attack would be funny perhaps if it werent so telling about your grasp of what a fallacy actually is but it is obvious you are clueless on the subject so perhaps you might want to look up the definition of the term fallacy before you slaughter its use anymore. eli Apol wrote: ...for which there's already an obvious solution: agility fit freighters Now let's look at those for a minute, either we can shove on a full rack of inertia stabilizers for approximately the 25s align time that your new mini-freighter/massive-DST can achieve - OR - we can do a full rack of hyperspatial accelerators to get into the same ballpark as the 2.4AU/s warp speed you've proposed for this mini-freighter/massive-DST... BUT what you can't do with a freighter is buff both those stats using just the three lowslots provided. And if you follow this train of logic - buffing both would result in imbalance for the current hulls right? I mean who'd fly an agility fit freighter if you could have this new hull that nails both those categories and costs 20% of the price as you propose? It's almost like CCP put these things called lowslots and modules into the game to allow customisation of the ship hulls for different circumstances and uses. Well, i now understand why you keep making references to fallacies, its because you love committing them so much! Please find were i proposed specifically that the new hauler would cost 20 percent the cost of a freighter. It would cost substantially less, this I have said, its actual price i have never said specifically what it would be. So, you again make the same fallacy you just got done making which is attributing a comment to me I never said and fallaciously attacking that statement. So again i commited no fallacy but again you did, you really need to have someone explain to you what a fallacy actually is before you return to stringing anymore of them together like this in such close succession. Apples to apples or oranges to oranges there is NO ship no matter how you rig or mod it that would out perform the new class in any scenario it is designed to fit. What you can, and have done, is compare apples (speed fit freighter for instance) to oranges (non-speed fit new class hauler) and come to bogus conclusions. If you fit both the new ship class and a freighter for speed get a load this new class is designed to carry efficiently, the freighter will....wait for it...wait for it....beat the freighter EVERY TIME!! Again compare apples (capacity fit DST) to apples (capacity fit new hauler) and again the new hauler always wins at hauling loads it is supposed to be focused on like 400,000 m3 hauls for the very simple(?) reason that the capacity fit DST cannot haul 400,000 m3 at all ! And because im sure youre going to rehash the speed argument ill just rehash the counter argument, preemptively. If you again compare apples (Speed fit DST) to apples (speed fit new hauler), the new hauler can still carry probably like 270,000 m3 of cargo meaning that for the range of capacity this ship is intended to fill you will make 3 trips to do what the new hauler does in one. As i stated my round trip run is 18 jumps and no fit you can put onto a DST would make it efficient enough to do 54 jumps in the time the new hauler completed 18 jumps. Eli apol wrote: In terms of gaps - a max fit cargo Orca comes in about 150k m3 of general storage (with huge specific storage capacities beyond that). So the gap we're looking at is 150k (max skill cargo fit Orca) - 320k m3 (minimum skill bulkheaded freighter)...do you still feel we need something to fill that relatively small gap? 40k -> 100k -> 150k -> 320k+ seems more than a fair progression to me already. Again, apples to apples and oranges to oranges, not the freighter class, the Orca. the DST or ANY OTHER SHIP THAT HAS EVER EXISTED IN EVE, can beat the new hauler at what it is designed to do. Reread my previous posts for the arguments as to why this is true because im tired of rehashing the same statements. Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
Eli Apol Definitely a nullsec alt 487	Posted - 2015.09.07 16:59:13 - [66] - Quote Mike Voidstar wrote: Eli Apol wrote: 40k -> 100k -> 150k -> 320k+ seems more than a fair progression to me already. It would be, if we were discussing a line up of T1 ships, instead of a bunch of relatively very expensive T2 Ships and capital ships. So now we want cheap and disposable balance wrecking ships as well? Yep this thread is going places. e: adding quoting but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
Eli Apol Definitely a nullsec alt 487	Posted - 2015.09.07 17:00:39 - [67] - Quote Maldiro Selkurk wrote: Again, apples to apples and oranges to oranges, not the freighter class, the Orca. the DST or ANY OTHER SHIP THAT HAS EVER EXISTED IN EVE, can beat the new hauler at what it is designed to do. Reread my previous posts for the arguments as to why this is true because im tired of rehashing the same statements. I specifically said your new ship would BREAK the balance by being completely OP and better than the current lineups...which is exactly what your saying it will do as well....thanks logic. e: removing too much quoting e2: Anyways, have fun with your thread, I-1'd and can't be bothered to read the same boring reasons for you suggesting it over and over either. HF. but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
Maldiro Selkurk CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS X 489	Posted - 2015.09.07 17:01:50 - [68] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: So now we want cheap and disposable balance wrecking ships as well? Yep this thread is going places. You sure do love fallacious arguments. Sadly, it seems your love for fallacious arguments doesnt seem to be going anywhere. Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
Eli Apol Definitely a nullsec alt 487	Posted - 2015.09.07 17:06:52 - [69] - Quote Maldiro Selkurk wrote: Eli Apol wrote: So now we want cheap and disposable balance wrecking ships as well? Yep this thread is going places. You sure do love fallacious arguments. Sadly, it seems your love for fallacious arguments doesnt seem to be going anywhere. Well since I was adding some quotes to show who I was responding to I'm still here for one last post. You should really try an agility fit freighter - or better yet, use warp mods and then have a webbing alt so you insta-align. It does exactly what you're requesting a new (redundant) ship for. but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
Mike Voidstar Voidstar Free Flight Foundation 855	Posted - 2015.09.07 17:19:32 - [70] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: Mike Voidstar wrote: Eli Apol wrote: 40k -> 100k -> 150k -> 320k+ seems more than a fair progression to me already. It would be, if we were discussing a line up of T1 ships, instead of a bunch of relatively very expensive T2 Ships and capital ships. So now we want cheap and disposable balance wrecking ships as well? Yep this thread is going places. e: adding quoting How does a flying box wreck the balance of anything? Because it might be slightly more challenging to get your Yar! on?" The new ships would have balanced tank levels to go with their smaller size. They would have similar levels of profitability to gank, just on a smaller scale. The game may be based on PvP, but not every single pixel need be a combat ship. As I said, we go from frigate to titan in 9 T1 steps, with multiple tiers of T2 mixed in there. We can afford some attention for things that don't polish your personal Epeen once in a while.

Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 2611	Posted - 2015.09.07 22:23:43 - [71] - Quote Tabyll Altol wrote: I see no real gap. -1 Bestower: ~40,000m3 maximum ^ \| \| GAP \| \| V Fenrir: ~500,000m3 minimum There's the gap. What do you propose already exists that fills in the gap? Don't say DST, it's a huge price and skill jump for a smaller gain in cargohold space because it's super tanky. Don't say Orca, it's a multi-role ship with a price and agility barely better than a freighter, with an even higher skill cost. There's nothing left. Nothing fits. Nothing fills the gap. Pirate ship Nightmare, can you fathom Larger but with smaller spikes than Phantasm The Succubus looks meaner But the Revenant cleaner Seems as they get bigger, the smaller spikes they has'm
Maldiro Selkurk CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS X 489	Posted - 2015.09.08 00:46:11 - [72] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: Maldiro Selkurk wrote: Eli Apol wrote: So now we want cheap and disposable balance wrecking ships as well? Yep this thread is going places. You sure do love fallacious arguments. Sadly, it seems your love for fallacious arguments doesnt seem to be going anywhere. Well since I was adding some quotes to show who I was responding to I'm still here for one last post. You should really try an agility fit freighter - or better yet, use warp mods and then have a webbing alt so you insta-align. It does exactly what you're requesting a new (redundant) ship for. since isnt returning this response is for other possible readers........ Would you want to have to have an alt or a second player with you while you did everything you do in a ship. Ammo supply ship hovering around your combat ship, want to use a jump gate, nope you gotta have a warp gate alt to shove you through the gate in his warp gate ship, want to use a MJD, sorry your MJD enable ship pilot buddy wont be on for three more hours, want to fire your guns. sorry you have a zero cap ship and need a cap transfer for every shot you take even when your running L1s in a frigate, in short, EVE becomes world of side-kicks since you cannot do the most basic of things without a co-pilot. Absurd and so is get an insta-warp buddy whenever you want to freighter 400,000 m3 load because nobody made a 400,000 m3 dedicated hauler. Btw, there hasnt been a single, 'alternative', option to a 400,000 m3 dedicated hauler that has been suggested that i didnt already know about and try, they all scream, 'EVE needs a dedicated 400.000 m3 hauler to do this because X option isnt good enough', no matter what ship you use or how you set up that ship. Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
Maldiro Selkurk CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS X 489	Posted - 2015.09.08 00:49:31 - [73] - Quote Reaver Glitterstim wrote: Tabyll Altol wrote: I see no real gap. -1 Bestower: ~40,000m3 maximum ^ \| \| GAP \| \| V Fenrir: ~500,000m3 minimum There's the gap. What do you propose already exists that fills in the gap? Don't say DST, it's a huge price and skill jump for a smaller gain in cargohold space because it's super tanky. Don't say Orca, it's a multi-role ship with a price and agility barely better than a freighter, with an even higher skill cost. There's nothing left. Nothing fits. Nothing fills the gap. God i wish i was as succinct as you are, well done ! Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
Eli Apol Definitely a nullsec alt 487	Posted - 2015.09.08 03:54:59 - [74] - Quote Right... I've thought about this and I disagree hugely with how you guys are arguing this - but I've perhaps changed my tune which is why I'm returning. Firstly I don't see why anyone in this thread considers the DST purely as 'the tanky one' - I use mine almost always fit for maximum cargo with pretty much zero tank (20k ehp) because it can use the MWD/cloak trick - which on T1 haulers requires fitting PG modules to use thus lowering their overall cargo even further - whilst managing more than double of what a T1 hauler can carry. DSTs are fantastic haulers just on this alone. The integral warp stability, ability to MJD and potential to brick tank them just makes them more valuable. Secondly pedant-alert a fenrir @ minnie freighter 1 with 3x bulkheads only has 321,995 m3...not the 500k suggested as it's 'minimum' - basing your proposal around this initially might have made me more welcoming of the proposal as asking for something to fill 100-300 seems more reasonable to me than the thread title. And thirdly, the main reason I've changed my tune. I started spreadsheeting some numbers based upon those points above that were mulling in my head - and maybe it's not such an unreasonable idea. My basis being an ORE battleship-sized freighter/hauler: 2 H / 3 M / 2 L, 3 rigs as it's T1 still. Base cargo 100,000 m3 +5% per ORE freighter level (336,481 m3 with max skills and using all rigs and lows) 25s align +5% agility per ORE freighter level (20s max skills, 12s with T2 rigs and lows) 2 AU/s (standard BS warp speed, upto 4.5 if you use all the rigs and shiny lows) Something like 150k EHP if fitted for max tank, like Orcas and Bowheads a large part of it would be structure HP and a DC2 Maybe 30k EHP just from a couple of invulns (MJD/MWD + cargo/agility fit) Enough PG/CPU to fit an MWD, MJD (or LSE) in the mids with 2x invulns, DC2 + bulkheads for max tank along with probe launcher and cloak in high slots ~200m manufacturing cost after the market settles, roughly the same as T1 BS So a 125k m3 hauler with either a 12s align OR a battleship's buffer tank OR a frigate's warp speed... ...or a 330k m3 hauler with 20s align AND a cruiser's tank AND a battleship's warp speed... ...or something in between the lot. Looking at that I'm not sure if I would be tempted or not which is kind of why I've persuaded myself that maybe this isn't too bad an idea but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
Mike Voidstar Voidstar Free Flight Foundation 858	Posted - 2015.09.08 04:27:11 - [75] - Quote I am not sure on the numbers and I do my posting at work on my phone...which is why I rarely answer specifics. In general, the haulers go from 3.5k-ish to 100 times that in one jump. I don't count Blockade Runners or DST for the same reason I don't stick Assault frigates in the same direct line to destroyers. T2 ships are specialized branches, not mainline ships, and they cost a significant premium for their specialization. So the gap is easiest expressed as multiples of the base industrial capacity. Jumping to 10x base capacity gives you in general a new hull that starts around where the base hulls max. Somewhere around 45x does this again for the gap on the new hulls and freighters. For my part, this is almost entirely about cost. I tend to drift from one area to the next, and keep a lot of stuff in a Iteron 5 for fitting and ammo. It's often overfull. Drones and missiles can take up plenty of space, and it supplies all sizes of combat ship. Often I just sell off and buy new ships wherever I go. I don't need a freighter, and it would get ganked if I used it since I would shrinkwrap mauraders to bounce around in there if I had one, yet the Iteron is too small. For my purposes the premium for a DST is also not worth it. There is a gap, and it's huge. Filling it would not be a bad thing.
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 2612	Posted - 2015.09.08 04:41:21 - [76] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: Secondly pedant-alert a fenrir @ minnie freighter 1 with 3x bulkheads only has 321,995 m3...not the 500k suggested as it's 'minimum' You're right, I missed that bulkheads reduce cargo. It should also be noted that overdrive injectors reduce cargo, though it's only a bit relevant as people probably don't fit overdrive injectors to freighters very often, but they do fit and I'm sure someone somewhere uses them. (probably for autopiloting) Eli Apol wrote: So a 125k m3 hauler with either a 12s align OR a battleship's buffer tank OR a frigate's warp speed... I'd change the text to "a small industrial's warp speed...", because 4.5 AU/s is indeed how fast the Sigil, Badger, Nereus, and Wreathe warp. It's slightly more accurate and slightly more relevant. I really like your given stats. I'm cool with a light freighter having almost no fitting capacity, but I think there really is room to give it more than large freighters and it shouldn't increase the hull cost much just for a light fitting, a slot layout sort of like the Orca and maybe even as much powergrid. I like to think people could active tank these--not that it's particularly a good idea--but I think giving people more bad/marginal options is always a good way to increase the variety in fittings. Pirate ship Nightmare, can you fathom Larger but with smaller spikes than Phantasm The Succubus looks meaner But the Revenant cleaner Seems as they get bigger, the smaller spikes they has'm
Media freak His Majesty's Privateers Warden. 2	Posted - 2015.09.08 05:50:47 - [77] - Quote This sounds like it should be a T2 battlecruiser or battleship. The T2 being it specializing into hauling instead of combat. With the price reflecting appox what the other T2 of that class are going for. Or its another T2 line of freighter where instead of the jump ability it has less tank, and cargo than a normal freighter but more agility
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 2612	Posted - 2015.09.08 05:57:13 - [78] - Quote Media freak wrote: The T2 being it specializing into hauling instead of combat. That doesn't make a lick of sense. There are T1 haulers in the game. Pirate ship Nightmare, can you fathom Larger but with smaller spikes than Phantasm The Succubus looks meaner But the Revenant cleaner Seems as they get bigger, the smaller spikes they has'm
Mike Whiite Geuzen Inc 394	Posted - 2015.09.08 07:04:28 - [79] - Quote cargo hold size is only interesting when it's dependable. should be measured in isk a M3 . as for the need of new haulers, I think there is a place for the EVE version of an (Oostindie vaarder or Spiegelschip) these where more or less warships that sacrificed a cannon deck for cargo hold, though instead of making a new ship, this could also be established by making a large high slot module that takes the place of a turret or Launcher hard point. and by making the stacking penalty for these modules reverse, so that by offering 1 hard point you gain a little extra cargo space less than a extended cargo bay or instance, though by 3 of these modules it will be more interesting than a extended cargo bays, for instance. and with that give a slight boost to the fleet hanger of the DTS.
Anthar Thebess 1291	Posted - 2015.09.08 07:15:21 - [80] - Quote ShahFluffers wrote: Sooooooooo... You want "baby"Freighter that... - hauls more than an Orca, but less than a Freighter - aligns faster than a Freighter loaded with Inertial Stabilizers (for reference, an I-Stab Freighter takes about 20 to 25 seconds to align... a triple-plated battleship takes about 12 to 15 seconds) NOTE: without using the MWD-pulse trick, Orcas have the same align times as "naked" Freighters (about 35 seconds with max skills). As long as you are not proposing that this mini-freighter also be able to field a tank equal to a tanked Orca (200k+) while having the proposed max cargo capacity... the quicker align time is really my only gripe. Hell... even Deep Space Transports have long align times... about 12 to 15 seconds. edit: looking at the numbers... - if an I-Stab Freighter (with a cargo capacity of ~500-600k) takes about 20 to 25 seconds to align... - a MWD Orca (with a capacity of about 90 to 140k) takes about 35 seconds to align (10 seconds with the MWD trick)... - and a DST (with a capacity of ~62k) takes about 12 to 15 seconds to align (10 seconds with the MWD trick)... - where does this new mini-freighter fit in? There are only small differences in align times relative to the massive differences in hauling capacities. And in warp the Orca is just as slow as a Freighter (2 AU/sec compared to 1.4) while the DST moves at cruiser speed (3.3 AU/sec). I guess I am not seeing why you need a new ship. Freighters kinda already do what you are asking. And to counter your point of "if you are not carrying max capacity, you are being inefficient"... this would only be true if you are using actual fuel (and thus you need to carry max capacity to make the most money). In EVE "time" is the only thing of actual value... and an I-stab freighter wastes only a relatively small amount more time than the "smaller options" that currently exist while having VASTLY more cargo space. As long as this will have less than 60k EHP im fine. Balance can come in many ways Capital Remote AID Rebalance Way to solve important nullsec issue. CSM members do your work.

Celthric Kanerian Ascendance Of New Eden Workers Trade Federation 438	Posted - 2015.09.08 09:25:14 - [81] - Quote Bowhead full of haulers? Joking. I'd say either you go large (Freighters) or you go home.
Maldiro Selkurk CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS X 492	Posted - 2015.09.08 16:29:19 - [82] - Quote Mike Whiite wrote: cargo hold size is only interesting when it's dependable. should be measured in isk a M3 . as for the need of new haulers, I think there is a place for the EVE version of an (Oostindie vaarder or Spiegelschip) these where more or less warships that sacrificed a cannon deck for cargo hold, though instead of making a new ship, this could also be established by making a large high slot module that takes the place of a turret or Launcher hard point. and by making the stacking penalty for these modules reverse, so that by offering 1 hard point you gain a little extra cargo space less than a extended cargo bay or instance, though by 3 of these modules it will be more interesting than a extended cargo bays, for instance. and with that give a slight boost to the fleet hanger of the DTS. No, that is just another complicated way to end up with a sub-par result. I have no way of knowing this for sure but based on my own programming experience im guessing that creating and balancing a basic hauling ship, as per the request, would be one of the easiest new ship coding and balancing tasks that you can do in EVE. Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
Maldiro Selkurk CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS X 492	Posted - 2015.09.08 16:34:09 - [83] - Quote Celthric Kanerian wrote: Bowhead full of haulers? Joking. I'd say either you go large (Freighters) or you go home. read previous posts ive made covering this argument. Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
Serendipity Lost Repo Industries 1358	Posted - 2015.09.08 17:06:53 - [84] - Quote Maldiro Selkurk wrote: Celthric Kanerian wrote: Bowhead full of haulers? Joking. I'd say either you go large (Freighters) or you go home. read previous posts ive made covering this argument. read previous posts a lot of folks have made covering 'NO'. (touche' mon pussycat)
Maldiro Selkurk CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS X 492	Posted - 2015.09.08 18:54:51 - [85] - Quote Serendipity Lost wrote: Maldiro Selkurk wrote: Celthric Kanerian wrote: Bowhead full of haulers? Joking. I'd say either you go large (Freighters) or you go home. read previous posts ive made covering this argument. read previous posts a lot of folks have made covering 'NO'. (touche' mon pussycat) OMG you totally got me......GOOD ONE ! You are a clever one no doubt. I wont be messing around with you again, no way, I know 190+ IQs when i see them. You should log off and go tell your family, friends and twitter followers how clever you were, feel free to link your post at my expense and with my full blessing ! I want to make sure you receive full 'credit' for this genius level commentary, i wouldn't have it any other way ! Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
Media freak His Majesty's Privateers Warden. 2	Posted - 2015.09.08 20:35:23 - [86] - Quote Reaver Glitterstim wrote: Media freak wrote: The T2 being it specializing into hauling instead of combat. That doesn't make a lick of sense. There are T1 haulers in the game. and these would be battle cruisers or battleships that are specialized in hauling thus why T2. It makes as much sense as discounting the DST and the orca as haulers cause of the cost and training time.
Mike Voidstar Voidstar Free Flight Foundation 861	Posted - 2015.09.08 21:40:52 - [87] - Quote Hauling stuff isn't some hyper specialized ship function. It's one of the most basic things a ship does. It's worth its own T1 line-up. Why should moving loads bigger than a bread box always require billion+ ISK ships? Seriously, where's the balance problem in an unarmed flying box? There are more playstyles in EVE than pirates and they could use a little dev time too. If anything this puts more targets in space. Is 'no' just a Pavlovian response now-post an idea, get a flurry of 'no' on reflex? A full line of cargo moving options is almost a QOL issue. It's not some huge balance nightmare if freight can suddenly be moved in sub freighter amounts in ships that don't cost a billion ISK.
Media freak His Majesty's Privateers Warden. 2	Posted - 2015.09.08 22:04:41 - [88] - Quote Mike Voidstar wrote: Hauling stuff isn't some hyper specialized ship function. It's one of the most basic things a ship does. It's worth its own T1 line-up. Why should moving loads bigger than a bread box always require billion+ ISK ships? Seriously, where's the balance problem in an unarmed flying box? There are more playstyles in EVE than pirates and they could use a little dev time too. If anything this puts more targets in space. Is 'no' just a Pavlovian response now-post an idea, get a flurry of 'no' on reflex? A full line of cargo moving options is almost a QOL issue. It's not some huge balance nightmare if freight can suddenly be moved in sub freighter amounts in ships that don't cost a billion ISK. CCP has always and still claims that cost should not be included when talking about balancing things. 400 000 m^3 is freighter territory. and thus if ccp did have a ship that could move that amount you can be sure that it would no better than a freighter for that load size.
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 2612	Posted - 2015.09.08 22:21:30 - [89] - Quote Media freak wrote: 400 000 m^3 is freighter territory. and thus if ccp did have a ship that could move that amount you can be sure that it would no better than a freighter for that load size. What's wrong with that? A smaller freighter can still be a freighter. Nobody is suggesting giving this ship all of the benefits of one ship and none of the drawbacks. The post was very specific as have been our responses since then: the proposed ship is smack dab BETWEEN large industrials and freighters. The specific attributes are up for discussion, but the basic idea isn't unbalanced for it can't be, for the very description of it is an exact match with what balance is. None of you have offered a single shred of reasoning for why this is a bad idea, and every argument against it has been a strawman misrepresentation of the idea. What you oppose is your view of what the suggestion is, not what the suggestion really is. Pirate ship Nightmare, can you fathom Larger but with smaller spikes than Phantasm The Succubus looks meaner But the Revenant cleaner Seems as they get bigger, the smaller spikes they has'm
ISD Decoy ISD Community Communications Liaisons 1164	Posted - 2015.09.09 03:32:20 - [90] - Quote Quote: 4. Personal attacks are prohibited. Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another forum user. Posts of this nature are not conductive to the community spirit that CCP promotes. As such, this kind of behavior will not be tolerated. 5. Trolling is prohibited. Trolling is a defined as a post that is deliberately designed for the purpose of angering and insulting other players in an attempt to incite retaliation or an emotional response. Posts of this nature are disruptive, often abusive, and do not contribute to the sense of community that CCP promote. I have removed a trolling personal attack. There is no need for this nonsense on our boards. If you can't stick to the topic at hand, and can't be civil, please don't post. ISD Decoy Captain Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department



Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.