Use the bowhead.

Use the bowhead.

Raphael, you leave an impression that I have a problem with gankability of my ships. I don't. I have a problem with having to metagame in order to move an assembled ship.

Bowhead has is disavantages, like small cargo bay. Sometimes I need to transfer some normal cargo in addition to my ships, and a freighter or DST is more suitable. But then I have to go through the pointless process of giving my ship(s) to my alt, creating a courier contract, completing it and giving the ships back to my main. I don't see how the whole process would become more "safe" if it could be completed without those steps, only less tedious.

I don't see the point of assembled ships not being able to be put inside (ordinary) cargo bays when this obstacle can be removed by contracting your ship to your alt. Furthermore, having to place a ship inside a courier package is a pointless, annoying and time-consuming step that adds nothing of value to the gameplay. Therefore I think that ships should be able to be placed inside cargo bays, assuming same rules are followed as when placing them inside ship maintenance bays or courier contracts.

Metagaming

By that definition, using a courier package to bypass the restriction that prevents assembled ships from being placed inside cargo bays is metagaming. I fail to see the point of restrictions if they can be bypassed. Similarly, you can bypass the restriction of being unable to see market orders from another region by visiting Eve-Central, so I see no reason why market oders from entire New Eden couldn't be presented to us ingame (although that would likely require much more dev work than letting us put assembled ships in standard cargo bays). Those would be quality of life improvements, and the list could go on.

Well, it seems to me you just want things to be dumbed down so not as much work is required to complete your desired tasks.

Would you like autopilot to zero and for you tank modules to turn themselves on when you get targeted? Or maybe we should get rid of jump clone fatigue (we already did away with standing requirements)? Maybe if you buy something in your region that is cheaper in another region you can get a price match?

Seriously, there is a tool for the job you want. Use the tool don't be one.

Should we continue?

You can start by explaining to the class why the options that already exist to do exactly what you want aren't good enough.

Use a bowhead.

Hell, if you're moving small ****, use a DST.

Or eat the rig cost. They're cheap anyway.

Obviously you never use stuff like ingame autopilot route since that dumbs down the game. Instead you pick random system to jump into in hopes you will eventually reach your destination since that is the only proper hardcore way to move around. You also never use multibuy since that's another dumbing down of the game, as it removes all fun from fitting your ships. You even delete your boot.ini from time to time since it brings you back the memories of when EVE was MMO that only tough elitist boys played!

See, I can play the strawman game too. Should we continue?

They are good, I'm not disputing that. I'm debating the logic of the game not letting me put an assembled ship inside a cargo bay when I can avoid this obstacle by placing them inside a courier package.

...when I can avoid this obstacle by placing them inside a courier package.

They are good, I'm not disputing that. I'm debating the logic of the game not letting me put an assembled ship inside a cargo bay when I can avoid this obstacle by placing them inside a courier package.

So if you couldn't place the assembled ship inside a cargo bay inside a courier package you would be happy ?

Be careful what you wish for

If the game explicity tells me I'm not allowed to do something, and yet I found I way to do it, that's called an exploit. Yet CCP tolerates this exploit for some reason. If CCP doesn't consider it to be an exploit, then they shoudn't restrict us from doing that without having to create a courier contract. If it is - that's okay too. All I'm asking from CCP is to be consistent, instead of creating restrictions that can be bypassed in a way that doesn't makes anyone's game experience better.

Raphael, you leave an impression that I have a problem with gankability of my ships. I don't. I have a problem with having to metagame in order to move an assembled ship.

I second what the OP is going on about. If the game developers did not explicitly intend for something to be a certain way, it is by definition an exploit and should be removed.

If it isn't then it calls into question the competency and fairness of the developers. Either you do not allow any exploits, or you have to allow all of them.

stuff

You bring on some good points. However, if we would, for example, not allow freighters to enter warp faster with webs (clearly an exploit in my opinion since neither freighters should be able to instantly enter warp neither is a stasis webifier designed to be used on friends), it would be a huge nerf to freighter pilots and an even bigger boon to freighter gankers. However, who would benefit or lose if you could place an assembled ship inside a freighter or DST without the need to place them inside a courier package? Nobody. And bumping is broken and is on the way to be fixed.

Also there is a thin line between an exploit an emergent gameplay. A lot of people said that stuff like bumping ships out of POS shields and hobojamming are clever and creative uses of game mechanics.

I second what the OP is going on about. If the game developers did not explicitly intend for something to be a certain way, it is by definition an exploit and should be removed.

If it isn't then it calls into question the competency and fairness of the developers. Either you do not allow any exploits, or you have to allow all of them.

However, who would benefit or lose if you could place an assembled ship inside a freighter or DST without the need to place them inside a courier package? Nobody.

As for the "plastic wrap" trick for transporting assembled/fitted ships in freighters; that is a workaround from the intended mechanics.

Going back to the first page to get this as a starting point for my thoughts.

As Shah points out it is so trivial and easy to get around this supposed restriction is it really worth defending?

Does the restriction really limit anyone in the game?
OK there are those with a single character and only one account and there are some who have never heard of the bubble wrap work around but really are there enough of them in the game that it really matters?

It would limit the usefulness of the bowhead as our friend ShahFluffers states, my response is that the cost to purchase a bowhead is more of a factor in limiting their use than the OP idea could ever be. Besides that the limited cargo space of the other less costly options along with the advantages of the bowhead's ship maintenance bay ensure there will always be a reason to use one for those with the ISK to buy it, and the same holds true for the Orca.

In the end there is only one thing that we should be discussing here and yet no one has even mentioned it.
If a ship is not bubble wrapped then it could simply be ejected from the hold, a pilot could board it and fly away.
I am not saying this is bad, or that it is good, I am simply saying that when we look at what really happens in the game this is the only valid point to be discussed with regards to carrying assembled ships in a normal cargo hold without them being bubble wrapped.

No, that is not the only valid point. The fact is some cargo holds only carry certain types of items - ore holds, planetary commodities holds, ammo holds, ships, drone bays, etc. There are tools/ships available for moving ships as assembled ships (one being the courier contract) - use them. Every ship and every cargo hold is not for everything.

I know you have been in the game a long time in fact longer than I have based on this character, yet it is clear that you still have at least one thing left to learn.

"Ore" holds like those in the Miasmos and the Orca are designed to carry "ore" only.
"Planetary commodities" holds like the one in the Epithal are designed to carry, well you guessed it planetary commodities.
Yet virtually every ship in the game has a non-specialized space that allows us to carry virtually anything we want to put into them and in a rather crazy twist in the reality of the game of EvE these general storage / hauling spaces are called "cargo" holds". CCP wisely gave all of these different storage / hauling spaces a unique name so we would have clue what we can use them for, and to avoid mass confusion of the type you exhibit in this quoted post.

No one wants or has asked to carry assembled ships in an "ore" bay or any other specialty bay they are in fact asking to carry them in the general storage space known as a "cargo" hold so my point still stands.
Since we can already carry assembled ships in our "cargo" holds the only real question to debate here is whether it is good or bad to allow them to be carried without being bubble wrapped first.

Another thought, well a question really do you understand how something in this game gets "bubble" wrapped? Or is that another aspect of EvE that you still need to learn.

So a guy wants to do exactly the same thing everyone's been doing since like forever, and all of a sudden he gets accused for wanting to dumb down the game, with connotations of being a carebear?

Wewlad.

Granted it's not top-priority but using an alt for wrapping up cargo really adds no gameplay. For anyone. At all. Worst case the pilot has only one account and needs to relog to accept the item transfer and set up the courier contract. Easiest way to get rid of that step without touching any existing mechanics, is to allow players to set up a contract to be completed by themselves. All you'd have to do is not count success/failure If contractor equals customer. (kinda the same thing as right-click "Wrap into Package", but using the existing interface to do it)

Is it so hard to do this without moaning as if he were a dirty bear asking for nothing short of gamebreaking favouritism? Jebus.