EVE Search - No GSC in hauler cargoholds in carriers

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Test Server Feedback

No GSC in hauler cargoholds in carriers

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 4 post(s)
Wink Caldari Asgard Protectorate	Posted - 2007.06.10 08:06:00 - [1] Have I missed something? It appears that were not going to be unable to put GSC in the cargo hold of industrials in our ship maintenance array of carriers I guess. Unless I missed something, we have been able to do this for some time now. Kinda funny how it's called a "carrier" and we can barely "carry" anything in it.
Wink Caldari Asgard Protectorate	Posted - 2007.06.10 08:49:00 - [2] I'm going to log back on and test this out, again. I will let you know once I try several different ways.
Wink Caldari Asgard Protectorate	Posted - 2007.06.10 09:17:00 - [3] My first test is in an itty V with rigs. I put cargo cans in the itty V then I got into my carrier and attempted to put the iteron into the carrier and this is the message I got: 2007.06.10 09:11:30 Notify You cannot store your Secure Cargo Container while there are assembled containers in its cargo hold (because of graviton harmonics). cans were empty but assembled. This is not a message I am used to seeing. This is a change in my book.
Wink Caldari Asgard Protectorate	Posted - 2007.06.10 10:16:00 - [4] Well, I tried different ways and this is a definite change in the way that haulers can be used in carriers. I don't quite understand it really since it is called a carrier and it barely carries anything. Anyways, if we could get some confirmation that this will be on TQ, it would be much appreciated.
Wink Caldari Asgard Protectorate	Posted - 2007.06.11 05:51:00 - [5] Edited by: Wink on 11/06/2007 05:50:15 The problem for me isn't so much the carrying capacity, it's about organization. We already have to use those giant behemoth freight containers which limit organization in freighters. Now we can't use cans labeled for the person that needs to move items in a carrier. and I do understand what the word "carrier" means. What I am wondering is if YOU know what the word carrier means.
Wink Caldari Asgard Protectorate	Posted - 2007.06.11 16:21:00 - [6] Originally by: Max Teranous Edited by: Max Teranous on 11/06/2007 15:48:11 Hmmm, I'm going to go back to a dread to haul. You can fit 21 GSC's in a Revelation with T2 expanders & T1 cargo rigs. That's 88k m3 in total. A carrier post-nerf can carry around 77k m3, and only use 7 or 8 GSC's to seperate cargos. How's that for using a ship for purpose Edit with more numbers. Well, you just F'd up. I'm sure that will get a nerf now, if it hasn't already. /me goes to test it on the test server. On an unrelated note, will BOB/RA/Insert Other Titan Owning Alliance Name, be offering their services of jump bridging our **** around? Just a Q
Wink Caldari Asgard Protectorate	Posted - 2007.06.11 16:40:00 - [7] Edited by: Wink on 11/06/2007 16:39:15 We shouldn't have to go to these extremes to move some crap around 0.0. "Going back to dreads to haul"? MC dude, that dread could be put to better use killing some baddies but yet you are forced to gimp it and use it for some carebear crap. Might as well call that dread "Tiny Tim", big heart but nonetheless a gimped setup. Edit* No offense to our less than mobile fellow pilots o7
Wink Caldari Asgard Protectorate	Posted - 2007.06.11 17:34:00 - [8] Yea, I think I will be petitioning to have my skills changed over to a dread, reimbursed on the carrier that I had built as well as the rigs so that I can be more useful than an Iteron V. What the hell is going on?
Wink Caldari Asgard Protectorate	Posted - 2007.06.11 20:29:00 - [9] Insta bookmarks affected me totally. My alt was a char named bookmark babe. I made billions from bookmarks, originals and approved reselling. CCP took that away citing "improved server whichamacallits". Anyone see any improvements? Didn't think so. Now, exploration has us making craploads of bookmarks. Now they will "Nerf" carriers which is a big wtfnotagainaffectingmyincomandhaulingforfriends!!! Come on CCP. there are plenty of other bugs that you could be fixing like the one where I haven't gotten a nice t2 blueprint. I think that is a MAJOR nerf imo. Please fix that instead cause that would help make my life easier. Oh and if you follow through on this GSC nerf, you better have one of the following for me: 1. aforementioned T2 BP offer 2. Something to enable movement of loads of stuff via a jumpable ship (like the carrier). 3. refer to #1.
Wink Caldari Asgard Protectorate	Posted - 2007.06.12 17:57:00 - [10] I am very proud of this thread. Me likey very much. On another note, I will be testing dreadnoughts and if the ability to carry more is with the dread, I will be petitioning, continuously until my skills/ships/rigs are switched because I spent way too much FING TIME to have this crap happen. Organization people, organization.

Wink Caldari Asgard Protectorate	Posted - 2007.06.15 17:50:00 - [11] Edited by: Wink on 15/06/2007 17:49:27 I found out what the real reason is. Seems that when you take a *** into space and you ****** theres a huge ****** with moving them. So, to maximize your advantage you would *** then ****** or alternatively you could just **** ** and **** of course you use a little more space but without the ** it would average out anyways. I guess that would create an unfair advantage and CCP is correct in making this change. Now, if I could only find out what the *'s were hiding I would actually understand this change. Organization please. Just give us some organization.
Wink Caldari Asgard Protectorate	Posted - 2007.06.17 00:31:00 - [12] Originally by: Axhind Ah but we don't have a certain alliance members complaing so no go for fixing it. Just look at POS bowling isue. Got solved real fast when others started doing it too. Might as well give up and just learn to take it. People from both "sides" have been posting in here besides people telling me personally of their displeasure with the ability or I should say inability to organize with these changes. Now, please keep your caod comments out of mah thred!!
Wink Caldari Asgard Protectorate	Posted - 2007.06.17 20:48:00 - [13] Edited by: Wink on 17/06/2007 20:47:24 Hi. Any word yet CCP on the questions raised in this thread?
Wink Caldari Asgard Protectorate	Posted - 2007.06.19 08:44:00 - [14] Edited by: Wink on 19/06/2007 08:43:00 Originally by: Spike 68 Edited by: Spike 68 on 19/06/2007 06:15:46 this thread is one of the best I've seen in a while. go cry somewhere else with all this care bear nonsense. The term carrier in eve comes from the slang "carrier" as in aircraft carrier. They are not meant to safely jump large amounts of cargo, the name originates from its ability to carry fighters, something nothing bar carriers can do (moms are carriers ) its a shame so many carriers out there will never see combat. for teh love of ebil killing machines stop hauling trit and gank something or better yet use the carrier on standby to jump into reinforce the gang which is escorting the freighter, a ship which is built for hauling freight. Organization? I think that half the people posted about space (m3) and half about organization. Oh and, the aircraft carrier thing, I think they have different rooms in order to organize. They also can carry containers (unless the Navy banned the use of containers in aforementioned aircraft carriers ) as I am pretty sure they dont tell their carrier pilot/captain or whoever loads the thing, "ok, you know all those planes'n'bombs'n'****?, yea toss it all in one room and lock the door. What, roll around? Bombs go off, no no, don't worry about that stuff, we cant use any organizational containers in here, their banned" As far as using the carrier in more of a front line or support role, yea, I'm all for that but let's not limit what people use their assets for just because we don't use it for that and for the love of God, please, everyone stop throwing around that "carebear" term. You want to haul some crap for a corp mate and you get labeled a carebear cause you weren't shooting the entire time, sheesh Yes I used three (3) rolly eye emotes, so sue me <---4th
Wink Caldari Asgard Protectorate	Posted - 2007.06.23 08:23:00 - [15] bump : ) Yeah, I'm getting the overall feeling that the Rev II patch isn't as good as it's tech I counterpart
Wink Caldari Asgard Protectorate	Posted - 2007.06.27 23:32:00 - [16] If you want to make listing the items a little easier heres a tip. 1. Open an evemail and drag'n drop your avatar to the "To" box. 2. Select all the items using shift + click that belongs to "Player X" at once and drag them onto the evemail. A box will pop up and you should use the first choice "Text Only". The box will repeat itself for each item you have selected until it runs through all of them. 3. Once this is done, send that mail to yourself and you have a record of the items that belongs to whomever. Now, why this sucks? Because we shouldn't have to do this in order to move stuff. It is a definite drag (no pun intended) having to use this technique because it still takes loads of time to reorganize the items at your destination. Besides that, now people are using dreads to haul?? I'm sure that's exactly what that ship was intended for
Wink Caldari Asgard Protectorate	Posted - 2007.07.02 21:21:00 - [17] Edited by: Wink on 02/07/2007 21:20:02 Originally by: Omak Topal Originally by: Miyamoto Uroki Edit: Jumpbrigdes might acutally reduce the issue of increased times for logistics.. jump bridges are not allowed in empire space correct? As long as you can get sov from that NPC faction, you can setup the jump bridge array. Now, if you figure out how to take sov from an NPC faction, please lemme know
Wink Caldari Asgard Protectorate	Posted - 2007.07.06 20:30:00 - [18] Edited by: Wink on 06/07/2007 20:30:40 Originally by: Karlemgne Originally by: Wink Have I missed something? It appears that were not going to be unable to put GSC in the cargo hold of industrials in our ship maintenance array of carriers I guess. Unless I missed something, we have been able to do this for some time now. Kinda funny how it's called a "carrier" and we can barely "carry" anything in it. Just FYI, its called a Carrier because it "Carries" fighter drones, by design. Just like a modern Aircraft Carrier carrier planes, not cargo, or oil, or passengers, etc, etc, etc... For that kind of thing you have "Freighters" and "Transport Ships." -Karlemgne You know what, you are so right. My bad. Should have never posted this thread since your statement is 100% accurate. Tell me though, where do they store the "bombs" for the "planes" on a carrier? What about the fuel? What about the service techs for the planes? Do they have to have someone bring all that crap over in a little dingy from the "freighter" that is accompanying the fleet in the ocean? Please use a more sensible argument next time. Oh btw, I think that in RL there are no "plank generator harmonics" that will splode if you bring a suitcase onto ship that is on a carrier.
Wink Caldari Asgard Protectorate	Posted - 2007.07.06 20:44:00 - [19] Besides all this other crap, what ccp needs to do is provide some type of capital transport ship if they want carriers to be used in PVP. Titans are not a transport ship even though they have the capability and you limit what smaller corps/alliance can do if you limit major transport capabilities to Titans. The issues that I personally take with this change is the "organizational" impact. The time sink of re-organizing items that you have moved for people when you reach your destination is something that I think was not considered. The fact that people will use a dreadnought now to transport items due to cargo carrying capacity is ridiculous.
Wink Caldari Asgard Protectorate	Posted - 2007.07.06 22:16:00 - [20] #1 you are in the minority in this thread anyways. #2 the main point that people (including myself) have brought out is "ORGANIZATION" not carrying capacity. What's funny is that some of the same people that would argue against this are the same ones that would ask a carrier pilot to move their tish via carrier to some bum*uck 0.0 place "safely". It's so funny.

Wink Caldari Asgard Protectorate	Posted - 2007.07.07 22:14:00 - [21] Edited by: Wink on 07/07/2007 22:17:28 This change was a twofold nerf. 1. it removed our ability to carry the amount of cargo we were carrying. Fair enough. 2. Removed the ability to place a cargo container in an industrial and then into a carrier. This is the problem really because now it takes a tremendous amount of time to organize the items and redistribute them to pilots that we move items for when all we need is a way to organize in the carrier so that we can be of benefit. Besides all this. The "exploit" has not been removed from the game. You can still fill a industrial and gain space outside of a carrier. This in and of itself is ridiculous because they should have made this a standard across the board change to be honest OR Simply make the cargo containers the same size all around. Hey, what an idea! And to the point of my joking about the carrier and not being able to carry items. The point there was a joke about the word carrier and their nerfing of the "carrying capacity". I found it kinda ironic in the sense of the word carrier. Notice, I did not cay Aircraft Carrier so now you can stop trying to argue semantics and get to the real issue at hand. Wouldnt they be called spacecraft carriers anyways?
Wink Caldari Asgard Protectorate	Posted - 2007.07.09 03:36:00 - [22] Edited by: Wink on 09/07/2007 03:38:28 Originally by: Karlemgne stuff Karlemgne.... Do I have your attention yet? Okay. Say it with me now, O r g a n i z a t i o n. There we go. Now, as to the carrier being used after the hurricane, yes it happened. That matters not though. The thing that was changed was the ability to place containers into an industrial and then into a carrier. You are arguing and protecting your side of the matter valiantly and for this you may be rewarded someday in someway by someone that gives a care. You do not however understand the point of this thread and you are looking a little foolish for not reading the arguments that have been made "already" on the position that you are trying to argue for. Just as you say this is a game not the real world, you should take that comment into consideration because this change was nothing more than stupid for the following reasons: 1. No alternative was given for organization and neither was a "you people have brains so heres an honest, non treat you stupid" answer as to the reason for the change. 2. No answers are given in this thread for the ridiculous time sink added into moving anything for someone else via a carrier. 3. The "exploit" that you so valiantly mention was in need of eradication was, in fact not eradicated. Yep, it's still there. It's just that you can't use them in a carrier now but it can be used in a regular industrial though like for mining or moving things through space. So, you can still get an Iteron V, put cargo rigs on it and fill it with containers and still use this ship in this fashion, just not in a carrier. 4. you and people like you will sit and say "see, CCP agrees with me so I must be right along with them" but see, they make mistakes too and to this they have admitted, even recently as pointed out in this thread that a dev said he "screwed up" with a change he made. This, in my and obviously others opinions, was a mistake to change in the fashion that it was and then was a mistake to give us a brush off type answer. You know, theres a thread where people complained for months that the drone regions were messed up. They got answers that "its supposed to be like that" and even people sounding a lot like you with the whole "ccp said this and so did I and we are both right, case closed". You know what, CCP finally got around and said that there are bugs in that area and they are working on them to this day. So pahlease, use a better argument than "teacher said so and so do I". Now a more reasonable change Karlemgne, would have been to change containers to have the same amount of space inside as out or, for a more "realistic" approach, make the cans have less space inside than outside. See, now someone is arguing that they need to nerf cans? Wha?? Wow, even Karlemgne wouldn't be that extreme! Yeah, because it's stupid that cans can create space where there was none. So now, to summarize. 1. This thread has highlighted the point that you want to be able to call people a carebear, kinda obvious. Stick to C&P though please. 2. We want better organization ability with our carriers and yes, it would be nice to have added space but the space is adequate, we just want the ability to use organizational tools in our carriers and to use our carriers to the full. 3. Dreads are not haulers. 4. the butler did it. :)
Wink Caldari Asgard Protectorate	Posted - 2007.07.13 22:18:00 - [23] Originally by: Riley Craven um, wtf I started this thread with a question and have followed the posts through here to highlight a problem that was created with a change by CCP. For one, I don't condone attacks on CCP and two, I don't condone direct attacks on a poster that is making some seemingly logical arguments. Another thing is bringing up rl politics in this thread. I hope that a mod will moderate your post and not (NOT) close this thread as I personally feel it serves as an outlet and exchange of ideas on a subject that we all find important. I also hope that you will tone down your replies in the future in this thread and keep them on topic and away from controversial and personal attack driven responses.
Wink Caldari Asgard Protectorate	Posted - 2007.07.14 05:10:00 - [24] Originally by: Riley Craven My main input in this thread is to decry yet another senseless change made by the stupid desk jockies at CCP. Originally by: Riley Craven What I WILL complain about is the stupid a-hole that spilt it in the first place. Originally by: Riley Craven You and CCP both remind me of President Bush, ignorning good advice to fight senseless battles. Unless I am wrong, those seem like insults to me, and directed at CCP. Either check yourself or, if you can't, don't post in this thread. You insult the other posters as well as CCP with comments like these. Thanks.

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.