Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 .. 16 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 4 post(s) |
zykerx
Pegasus Mining and Securities R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.06.11 19:51:00 -
[121]
------Hmm. I get 97,500+ m3. Maybe my math is wrong.
8x Expanded Cargohold II's with 3x T1 Cargohold Optimization rigs and Revelation cargo space = 25 GSC's
Detailed math: (1.275)^8 x (1.15)^3 x 7,250 m3 = 77,003 m3
25 GSC's @ 3,900 m3 each = 97,500 m3-----
jeez diddnt know it could get that high tbh, and thats with t1 cargo rigs, so with t2 thats even higher
but + point of carrier was that ya still would have full tank fitted, if that dreads get cought o.0 .
"MY COMMENTS IN NO WAY REFLECT MY CORP OR ALLIANCE"
|
Firestorm11
Caldari Lynx Frontier Inc. Sparta Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.06.11 20:04:00 -
[122]
Originally by: Verite Rendition
Originally by: Moncton Edited by: Moncton on 11/06/2007 16:33:27
Originally by: Max Teranous
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.
Hmm. I get 97,500+ m3. Maybe my math is wrong.
8x Expanded Cargohold II's with 3x T1 Cargohold Optimization rigs and Revelation cargo space = 25 GSC's
Detailed math: (1.275)^8 x (1.15)^3 x 7,250 m3 = 77,003 m3
25 GSC's @ 3,900 m3 each = 97,500 m3
I should have trained for Amarr.
Don't give them any ideas, they'll nerf that too.
Carriers are the backbone of 0.0, I agree with everyone else that this is just going to make life more miserable for us. I have enough trouble keeping the logistical machine going already, is CCP actively trying to give me gray hairs?
No, they just don't care about their paying customers anymore. They just about made life miserable for the majority of 0.0 alliances. They only care about a certain portion of players and we all know who they are.
Originally by: CCP Oneiromancer Assembled containers and courier packages are the only restricted items that cannot be in an assembled ship inside a ship maintenance bay/array, in order to prevent exploits.
Are you serious? How is this an exploit? How is putting my loaded suitcase of clothes into my car and then parking my car on a ferry, any different than putting a hauler loaded with cans in a carrier? For Gods sake, be realistic.
|
Wink
Caldari Asgard Protectorate
|
Posted - 2007.06.11 20:29:00 -
[123]
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.
|
Brungar
Caldari Adeptus Illuminati Aegis Authentica Ethereal Dawn
|
Posted - 2007.06.11 20:41:00 -
[124]
Great stuff.
(1) I thought CCP was so very fond of the sandbox model? Well, in this, using the contract system, a true industry has arisen supplying the 0.0 needs. Especially in the drone regions where resources other than high end minerals are very sparse indeed. So you make a sandbox, and then kick over the castles? Great stuff.
(2) Great timing - I'm nearly done on a year's training to get to carriers. This really knocks the wind out of that achievement. Yeah. Nice.
(3) No GSC container is one thing, due to the inherent compression. But what is the problem with contracts, as they have 0 compression???? Hardly an exploit?
(4) Nice stealth nerf, by the way, if noone had picked up on it.
Not impressed. "War is a continuation of commerce by other means" - Unknown Caldari philosopher
|
Farrellus Cameron
Sturmgrenadier Inc R i s e
|
Posted - 2007.06.11 20:59:00 -
[125]
This is complete and utter bull. The devs are arbitrarily reducing the amount a carrier can carry to deter hauling items. It won't deter hauling items and they know it. It is simply increasing the cost to operate in 0.0, which is already difficult enough as it is, and making it more tedious to sort through the items carriers will be hauling. The devs are just adding a grind-factor to carrier hauling, nothing more.
The carrier is not used as a freighter because it can't even hold 1/10th of what a carrier can. You can't even haul a single battleship in a carrier. Reducing 60k to 40k is completely pointless and arbitrary.
Not a nerf? Just because CCP didn't conceive of this as a use for carriers doesn't mean it is not a nerf. The whole point of EVE is that the PLAYERS develop the tools to fit their needs. Suddenly the devs are acting like this hasn't been the whole point of EVE since its inception so that they can justify their acts more? Can you all smell what you are shoveling?
If you are going to do this you need to make a more viable 0.0 transport then a freighter. May be a mini-freighter. Freighters are just a ridiculous method for hauling goods through 0.0 and are wholly impracticable. ----------------------------------------------------
|
Borgholio
Minmatar Quantum Industries Prime Orbital Systems
|
Posted - 2007.06.11 21:10:00 -
[126]
Originally by: Farrellus Cameron Freighters are just a ridiculous method for hauling goods through 0.0 and are wholly impracticable.
Speaking as someone who has been on a few freighter ops, let me tell you...they are NOT fun. Talk about stress... The only other alternatives are using a swarm of T1 / T2 haulers or using carriers. With that being said, is it any surprise that people use carriers?
Now for those who think that using a titan's jump bridge to move freighters is a practical idea...I hope you're joking. Shelling out the cash for the materials and going through the effort to hide / defend the shipyard to build a titan solely for doing supply runs? Give me a break. ----------------------------------- You will be assimilated...bunghole! |
Sathamarid
|
Posted - 2007.06.11 21:10:00 -
[127]
For the record, I think CCP is just being lazy here. Ships contain "stuff". Some of that stuff is a container, which in turn contains "stuff". Carriers can contain "ships" therefore, carriers contain ships contain stuff which may contain other stuff. I don't see the problem here, I think they just didn't think through what they were doing when they introduced containers that could fit inside ships. They did make it stop at containers inside containers, which makes sense in a weird sci fi sort of way (planck generator or somesuch). Fine, don't cross the streams.
I remember playing Ultima IV and being able to put a bag with a bag inside and another bag inside of that inside of a chest. It's not freakin rocket science if you can handle it on a 286 in 1990.
If you're gonna mess with containers inside of ships, at least give us a way to organize the stuff in a different way.
Will this also affect courier boxes?
|
Cpt Pugwash
Rubra Libertas Militia
|
Posted - 2007.06.11 21:18:00 -
[128]
Originally by: Farrellus Cameron This is complete and utter bull. The devs are arbitrarily reducing the amount a carrier can carry to deter hauling items. It won't deter hauling items and they know it. It is simply increasing the cost to operate in 0.0, which is already difficult enough as it is, and making it more tedious to sort through the items carriers will be hauling. The devs are just adding a grind-factor to carrier hauling, nothing more.
In your ill informed, rather one sided, narrow minded opinion
Originally by: Farrellus Cameron The carrier is not used as a freighter because it can't even hold 1/10th of what a carrier can. You can't even haul a single battleship in a carrier. Reducing 60k to 40k is completely pointless and arbitrary.
No the carrier is being used as an oversized, supersafe industrial.
Originally by: Farrellus Cameron Not a nerf? Just because CCP didn't conceive of this as a use for carriers doesn't mean it is not a nerf. The whole point of EVE is that the PLAYERS develop the tools to fit their needs. Suddenly the devs are acting like this hasn't been the whole point of EVE since its inception so that they can justify their acts more? Can you all smell what you are shoveling?
And for the last 12 months you have been using these oversized supersafe industrials, what about the players who have missed out on their main source of income attacking haulers?
Instead of getting on your high horse because this particular round of balancing doesn't suit you maybe produce some constructive arguements that might make CCP change their mind.
Originally by: Farrellus Cameron If you are going to do this you need to make a more viable 0.0 transport then a freighter. May be a mini-freighter. Freighters are just a ridiculous method for hauling goods through 0.0 and are wholly impracticable.
I don't think they have to do anything of the sort.
Freighters are a great way to haul huge amounts of goods. You just have to organise proper protection. Maybe even work as a team rather than fire up 2-3 cyno alts.
Eve needs a change away from mass blob wars and this is a step in the right direction.
Should mineral be harder to move in and out of the drone regions then the market will move to compensate. Omg what will we do with an 30% increase in the price of Zydrine
The people in 0.0 will adapt they always have.
Movies: Make Mine a Bob Light
|
Borgholio
Minmatar Quantum Industries Prime Orbital Systems
|
Posted - 2007.06.11 21:19:00 -
[129]
Originally by: Sathamarid
Will this also affect courier boxes?
Yep. We will no longer be able to put courier packages in a carrier's ship hangar bay. ----------------------------------- You will be assimilated...bunghole! |
Jotan Veer
HUN Corp. HUN Reloaded
|
Posted - 2007.06.11 21:20:00 -
[130]
Originally by: Sathamarid
I remember playing Ultima IV and being able to put a bag with a bag inside and another bag inside of that inside of a chest. It's not freakin rocket science if you can handle it on a 286 in 1990.
When CCP introduced the station containers one of my corp mates could effectively kill a node any time he wanted by putting a station container inside a station container, inside a station container, inside a station container AND THEN putting the first container into the last container effectively closing the chain and thus crashing the node.
After doing it a few times he mentioned the issue to the GMs and then CCP came up with the current hack of preventing the storage of containers inside containers.
|
|
Druadan
Gallente Aristotle Enterprises Ethereal Dawn
|
Posted - 2007.06.11 21:25:00 -
[131]
Originally by: Grayton Let's see if I can make a reply without any profanity; this may be a bit hard.
Man, you know, as one of my corp's logistics guys, if there's one thing I absolutely LOVE CCP doing, it's making my job even more tedious and boring!
Seriously, are you trying to make people burn out and quit from the game faster? Because it really seems like you are. After all, by slashing the capacity a carrier can, you know, carry, you're making it so that we get to experience even more fun of sitting around and waiting for every little thing in this game due to even more jumps we have to make. Not to mention introducing not one, but TWO more 30 second waits we get to experience by having to get into each industrial to load it. I mean really, if there's one thing this game needs, it's more completely meaningless, pointless 30 second waits that are just there to slow this game down even more.
The ONLY way this will be acceptable in my eyes is if the fancy ore capital ship is some sort of jump drive capable freighter, otherwise all a nerf like this is, is f'ing over the people in this game that already spend 80% of the time they're in the game bored off their ass dealing with horrifically tedious actions because that's what is required to do anything even remotely logistically related in this game.
And to counter some of the arguments I'm sure CCP has: "But Grayton, you can just jump bridge freighters via poses instead of having to carrier jump in Rev 2.0!" Oh yeah, definitely, if we want to setup anywhere from 9 to 14 poses on a route that traverses almost three times the space it takes to get directly from empire to our home territory due to the fact you need system sov to do so. "But Grayton, you can just double click industrials to move things to/from their cargohold!" This would be all nice and good if doing so would actually properly show the expanded space of the industrial instead of just the unexpanded space. "But Grayton, you shouldn't be able to do it anyway!" Why not? what is so insanely wrong about putting GSCs in industrials that are packed into a ship maintenance array? How does this not make sense? Seriously, I just honestly do not see any actual reason for why putting a ship with a can into a ship bay is some horrible sin against the gods of Eve balancing. "Graviton harmonics" is a BS line to pull. This isn't a can-inside-a-can issue- we can't infinitely create space by packing ships into the ship bay. And "in order to prevent exploits"? Last time I checked people have been loading gscs into haulers in carriers for over a year and there haven't been any exploits in regards to it. So what is the logical reason for this change?
I could say more but I'm afraid I'd launch into a more generalized rant over all of the inherent problems with every way logistics is handled in this game, and that's not really fitting to the thread. I just hope CCP comes to the senses and stops continuing to introduce further tedium-enforcing game mechanics to drive even more people away.
Pay attention CCP, to this post I have quoted for your reading pleasure. This quoted post is a prime example of what it looks like to employ sense, and as a result be 100% spot-*******-on the money.
Originally by: CCP Oneiromancer The code does not support a container within a container within a container. Placing GSC's inside industrials inside carrier ship maintenance bays was using a loophole, which was fixed. This was both a programming and a game design decision.
Don't talk bull****. __________________________________________________
"A witty saying proves nothing" - Voltaire |
G Dabak
Magellanic Itg GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.06.11 21:43:00 -
[132]
Edited by: G Dabak on 11/06/2007 21:42:31
Originally by: Druadan
Originally by: CCP Oneiromancer The code does not support a container within a container within a container. Placing GSC's inside industrials inside carrier ship maintenance bays was using a loophole, which was fixed. This was both a programming and a game design decision.
Don't talk bull****. You claim this is a minor nerf, then why make the change if it is minor? No one was creating infinite storage. So we all lose carrier effectiveness while BoB jump-bridges their frieghters around... was this change directed at making Titans a better investment now that their owners stand a slim chance of losing one in a fight? You guys must have Bull**** Spinning trained to Level
No, it's not bull****, it's a perfectly good reason to change it. But like I said they need to face that running 0.0 infrastructure is a lot of work and that you can't take something like this away without giving something back in return.
Really, they should make it a lot easier regardless of this. I don't even do alliance logistics, but after running a large POS for a while and mentally multiplying that work times the number of deathstars needed to hold a region, I cringe for the guys who do the work in every corp and alliance every time I think about it.
|
MastaRob
|
Posted - 2007.06.11 21:51:00 -
[133]
Originally by: CCP Oneiromancer The code does not support a container within a container within a container. Placing GSC's inside industrials inside carrier ship maintenance bays was using a loophole, which was fixed. This was both a programming and a game design decision.
Then please unfix this?
I did logistics for a while and had to take a break from eve to get over it, I know other guys in similar positions. Doing logistics is draining and stressul enough already (did you intend that when you wrote the code?), I see no possible benefits from this Nerf. Carriers will still be used in logistics, it just makes things that bit more tedious.
...and I am sure the player base wouldnt mind waiting while you altered the code sufficiently to allow this within the games mechanics?
|
Shamoke
|
Posted - 2007.06.11 22:20:00 -
[134]
Originally by: Moncton
Originally by: Serendipity007
Originally by: Shamoke No cans in a ship in the ship maint bay, fine. No courier missions in a ship in the ship maint bay, fine.
WTF!?! How do you expect us to keep track of who's stuff is what? I can see no GSC's in a industrial, but no Courier packages?
I make 90% of my ISK by transporting other people's stuff by carrier, and keeping them separate by using GSC's. Now you are going to make it where it is IMPOSSIBLE to keep things separate in a hauler that goes into a carrier ship bay?
Its simply not worth the hassle to pack 500 items into an industrial, then take 3 hours to sort them at the destination.
Either Courier packages need to be able to fit into industrials, or the Corp bay of a carrier needs major boosting.
That's a really good point. We need GSC's to sort out the different components, especially if it's from multiple players.
CCP, please stop this unwanted nerf.
You guys missed the point. A carrier's cargo hold can have containers in it as it doesn't violate the coding, so increased space there will still allow sorting using cans. A jump capable hauler, being a ship by itself with a large cargo hold and not being put in a carrier ship array, could also use containers to sort stuff just as any other ship can currently.
If the problem is the code considers any ship in any kind of array (POS or ship) no longer a ship but a container, then we need more space in normal cargo holds. This means increasing the cargo holds of the current primary 0.0 logistics ship - the carrier - or giving us a new class of jump capable ship that is "intended" to be the mass transport for 0.0.
IMO, weekly fleet freighter ops having to be conducted by every non-titan owning alliance - in order to survive in 0.0, the land where CCP wants players to go - is just going to result in lots of bored players being forced by CCP to not enjoy their game.
|
Jotan Veer
HUN Corp. HUN Reloaded
|
Posted - 2007.06.11 22:27:00 -
[135]
Quote:
You guys missed the point. A carrier's cargo hold can have containers in it as it doesn't violate the coding, so increased space there will still allow sorting using cans.
The thing is, you need the cargo hold for jump fuel. If the distance is considerable (like empire <---> Paragon Soul region for example) then you need the corp hangar for fuel as well. That leaves you with the ship maint. bay (ships only) and the drone bay (drones only) for hauling purposes.
So yea, if CCP increased the corp hangar size or the cargo size (it would make sense since now carriers will need space for strontium in their cargo for the triage mode) then the issue wouldn't be such a big issue anymore.
|
Doctor Otto
|
Posted - 2007.06.11 22:32:00 -
[136]
If carriers were not meant to "carry", why did the United States send a "carrier" to the south pacific after the tsunami in 2005? I don't think it was to start bombing the victims. The carrier brought, *gasp* "ships and supplies", and, hold on to your seats, other "ships FILLED with supplies" that were part of the carrier battle group.
The logic of this is lost here. 1) A hauler can fit into the carrier, fully assembled, even multiple haulers. 2) Cargo containers can fit into an assembled hauler. 3) Whats the problem again and why does it need to be changed?
I don't know, but this looks like someone trying to justify their job at CCP. THERE ARE OTHER THINGS YOU COULD BE FOCUSING ON!
|
Qberticus
|
Posted - 2007.06.11 22:39:00 -
[137]
I have one comment to this change, when's darkfall coming out?
This change sucks, the justification for it sucks, it's just completely unacceptable. So much so that it's prompted me to actually post on this forum for the first time. This change is more of a show stopper for me then making cloakers able to be probed.
|
Borgholio
Minmatar Quantum Industries Prime Orbital Systems
|
Posted - 2007.06.11 22:49:00 -
[138]
Originally by: Doctor Otto If carriers were not meant to "carry", why did the United States send a "carrier" to the south pacific after the tsunami in 2005? I don't think it was to start bombing the victims. The carrier brought, *gasp* "ships and supplies", and, hold on to your seats, other "ships FILLED with supplies" that were part of the carrier battle group.
That was actually only a stopgap measure. Had you bothered to keep up with the news beyond that point, you would have seen that cargo ships / aircraft brought the lion's share of the relief supplies.
A more accurate example would be to look at the world's ocean economy today. Imagine if you removed all supertankers / freighters, and forced US Navy warships to do all the hauling work. I don't think they'd be able to keep up with demand. In EVE, it's the same thing. Freighters are practically useless in 0.0 due to the risk involved in moving them long distances. Carriers are the only realistic option for most alliances, and nerfing them is a bad thing for that very reason.
Now I'm not going to get into personal attacks here, but based on your statements, it appears that you have no real experience trying to supply even a medium-sized 0.0 alliance. I have. I've done freighter runs. I've done gangs of industrials. Based on my own first-hand knowledge of the subject, I can tell you that neither freighters nor industrials can cut it as the primary means of 0.0 trade. I'm fully supportive of risk vs reward, but seeing what can happen to a freighter even with a decent support gang...the risk is just too great. ----------------------------------- You will be assimilated...bunghole! |
Laendra
|
Posted - 2007.06.11 22:50:00 -
[139]
Simple fix for every GSC related loophole. Get RID of the planck generator altogether. Make a GSC hold 3000m¦ while it's volume remains 3000m¦, or allow us to shrink wrap groups of items into one package and label them. Then there is no exploit, no loophole and everyone that is complaining about moving **** in nice neat packages can move their **** around like before (better, actually, if we could shrink wrap). Make all containers repackageable to a small % of their packaged size, much like ships...then they can be moved without so much need for loopholes/exploits. Problem solved. Oh, and make it so that a ship that has skill bonuses to cargohold size, retains the bonus from the last person to make it active. I mean, if they aren't actually flying out in space, what is the big friggin' deal? ------------------- Brainstorm ideas to make EVE better:->http://eve.stormingbrains.org/index.php
|
Rylet VanDorn
Pastafarians Novus Ordos Seclorum
|
Posted - 2007.06.11 22:50:00 -
[140]
Edited by: Rylet VanDorn on 11/06/2007 22:52:55 Yet another ridiculous change.
Can we get a firm date on when Rev 2 is going in the game? I want to pull up my corp's POS, take it back up to empire, and cancel my subscriptions so that everything is saved in the off chance whoever came up with this nerf performs a rectal-cranial extraction.
Maybe your devs forgot, but unlike them, not all of us have access to jump bridging titans.
If you guys insist on making this change, can you possibly come out with a "Ship Maintenance Cargo Container" that can be used to store cargo in ship maintenance arrays/bays?
Think of it like the engineers re-fitting a section of the bay/array to hold cargo, with reduced capacity. Something like 50000m3 size = 5000m3 cargo space.
That way those of us using our ship maint bays to transport could effectively turn our 500km3 bays into 50m3 sectionable cargo space?
|
|
Jotan Veer
HUN Corp. HUN Reloaded
|
Posted - 2007.06.11 23:06:00 -
[141]
Originally by: Borgholio
That was actually only a stopgap measure. Had you bothered to keep up with the news beyond that point, you would have seen that cargo ships / aircraft brought the lion's share of the relief supplies.
A more accurate example would be to look at the world's ocean economy today. Imagine if you removed all supertankers / freighters, and forced US Navy warships to do all the hauling work. I don't think they'd be able to keep up with demand. In EVE, it's the same thing. Freighters are practically useless in 0.0 due to the risk involved in moving them long distances. Carriers are the only realistic option for most alliances, and nerfing them is a bad thing for that very reason.
0.0 is one big warzone. No one in their right mind would sail a cargo ship into a warzone either.
However RL parallels fail here considering that there isn't a military force in the world that would consider the possible loss of several warships an acceptable exchange for the sinking of a supply vessel.
|
Riley Craven
Caldari Copacetic Corporation
|
Posted - 2007.06.11 23:10:00 -
[142]
Originally by: Cpt Pugwash
In your ill informed, rather one sided, narrow minded opinion
No the carrier is being used as an oversized, supersafe industrial.
And for the last 12 months you have been using these oversized supersafe industrials, what about the players who have missed out on their main source of income attacking haulers?
Instead of getting on your high horse because this particular round of balancing doesn't suit you maybe produce some constructive arguements that might make CCP change their mind.
Originally by: Farrellus Cameron If you are going to do this you need to make a more viable 0.0 transport then a freighter. May be a mini-freighter. Freighters are just a ridiculous method for hauling goods through 0.0 and are wholly impracticable.
I don't think they have to do anything of the sort.
Freighters are a great way to haul huge amounts of goods. You just have to organise proper protection. Maybe even work as a team rather than fire up 2-3 cyno alts.
Eve needs a change away from mass blob wars and this is a step in the right direction.
Should mineral be harder to move in and out of the drone regions then the market will move to compensate. Omg what will we do with an 30% increase in the price of Zydrine
The people in 0.0 will adapt they always have.
Ah Mister Pugwash, We meet again.
I will try to offer you a well reasoned counter post, but something tells me I will fail.
You say that the previous poster is ill-informed... I have to ask have you invested the time and money it takes to fly a carrier? Are you aware of the logistics involved it takes to actually move a carrier? Do you know how much it costs in terms of fuel/time to move a carrier? Are you intrictly aware of all the inner workings of a carrier?
If you answer no to anyone of those questions, I would politely ask you to refrain from posting further in this thread.
First consideration... I dont think carriers really came into there own with hauling until rigs came out. This drastically increased the hauling ability that one could see from carriers. So I think your 12 month arguement is rather silly in that regard.
Now for the rest of this, as a carrier pilot I am on the fence about this change. On one hand GSC only have limited uses in carrier transport... let me elaborate: They work as great dividers for small objects such as loot and materials, and also getting extra haulage. They dont work so great for large objects such as pos parts or other things that have large volumes.
Of course the above statement means they are great for hauling around compressed mins and/or pos fuel. But in reality you need to take into consideration several other factors.
Is it easier/better to haul around small and med drones for compressed mins than it is for for mods (/me waves to Samauri Jack from ASCN)? If the answer is yes then the nerf wont have any affect on your arguement for minerals...
How many poses am I supporting? If you are talking one.. MAYBE two then hauling pos fuel this way could be cost affective... asumming you are talking about a couple small pos that is... If you are talking about legions of pos like BoB has then you cant get away with it unless you use freighters... (consider that you need at least 12 freighters worth of fuel to run 150 pos every 6 weeks and that one corp alone in BoB has a good bit more than that)
How far do I need to go? At some point the distance issue becomes a large factor. With fuel prices soaring it could cost you 50mil in fuel alone for a there and back trip... not exactly the most cost affective...
cont...
|
Riley Craven
Caldari Copacetic Corporation
|
Posted - 2007.06.11 23:11:00 -
[143]
Edited by: Riley Craven on 11/06/2007 23:14:11 Then factor in time. Unless you have the carrier fitted as a cap generator at each jump you have to wait to rebuild cap (this is assuming places like drone regions and deep 0.0 where npc stations to dock at are few) Then you have to factor in cyno pilots... Even if you did have 5 cyno alts that you could place it takes time to get there not to mention the safety issues of the 10 min wait time and having enough fuel to create cynos to be worth it... etc etc.
Now lets look at haulers... with the recent nerfs to "speed" setups haulers have lost ALOT of their safety net in agility and speed. This is especially true for the already bastard class of transports.
And of course you mentioned freighters.... Realistically its bad practice to organize big protection ops for them... because for one it makes you a target... most people in 0.0 tend to notice big slow moving gangs. No, the proper method is to have scouts spread out over large areas... knowledge is power in this case.
What am I getting at? There has to be some equation to risk vs reward and time vs gain here. You are arguing that you want to kill more haulers when realistically all it takes is one ceptor pilot to make the kill... so if youÆre talking a carrier, 1 bill for skills, 1 bill for ship 1bill for mods/fittings then there should be SOME increased benefit or usefulness for the expanded resources. At most a carrier can fit two haulers and not even 2 ITTY five's either.
I agree with your reasoning that Eve needs to move away from blob warfare (which you actually suggested with your freighter protection method) but I donÆt see how this change is going to affect that. At best this nerf is groundlessà at worse, a nightmare.
The real problem is that this change wont hurt the big guys, (i.e. BoB) but it will def make it harder for the little guys trying to get established in 0.0 that dont have the numbers to put together a 12 man freighter op. CCP has made a point this patch to try and make it easier for the little guys to put up a fight (especially in regards to pos battles) so you will have to forgive me if I cant see the logic in a change like this.
I think a lot of people would be a lot less miffed if ccp would give people the tools they have been asking for ages for. Freighter cans were a nice step in that direction but there needs to be more divisions that regular haulers and other ships can use as well.
Obviously the code did support containers within containers if it needed to be ôfixedö not tooà
|
Borgholio
Minmatar Quantum Industries Prime Orbital Systems
|
Posted - 2007.06.11 23:14:00 -
[144]
Originally by: Jotan Veer
However RL parallels fail here considering that there isn't a military force in the world that would consider the possible loss of several warships an acceptable exchange for the sinking of a supply vessel.
Very true. It's that difference that mandates a different kind of ship for 0.0 logistics. Real world convoy tactics just don't work in EVE. ----------------------------------- You will be assimilated...bunghole! |
Riley Craven
Caldari Copacetic Corporation
|
Posted - 2007.06.11 23:17:00 -
[145]
Originally by: Borgholio
Originally by: Jotan Veer
However RL parallels fail here considering that there isn't a military force in the world that would consider the possible loss of several warships an acceptable exchange for the sinking of a supply vessel.
Very true. It's that difference that mandates a different kind of ship for 0.0 logistics. Real world convoy tactics just don't work in EVE.
Well like in eve you have to remember that it depends... if that transport was carrying severl nukes that would take out the enemy nation... then something tells me a few warships would be a small price to pay...
|
Jotan Veer
HUN Corp. HUN Reloaded
|
Posted - 2007.06.11 23:23:00 -
[146]
Originally by: Riley Craven
Originally by: Borgholio
Originally by: Jotan Veer
However RL parallels fail here considering that there isn't a military force in the world that would consider the possible loss of several warships an acceptable exchange for the sinking of a supply vessel.
Very true. It's that difference that mandates a different kind of ship for 0.0 logistics. Real world convoy tactics just don't work in EVE.
Well like in eve you have to remember that it depends... if that transport was carrying severl nukes that would take out the enemy nation... then something tells me a few warships would be a small price to pay...
Don't be silly. Majority of 0.0 logistics is about fuel and low end minerals. NOT titan components and outpost eggs.
If the only reason to break out the freighters was outpost and supercapital construction then you wouldn't hear people talking about quitting the game due to logistics burnout.
|
Cpt Pugwash
Rubra Libertas Militia
|
Posted - 2007.06.12 00:10:00 -
[147]
Originally by: Riley Craven
Ah Mister Pugwash, We meet again.
I will try to offer you a well reasoned counter post, but something tells me I will fail.
You say that the previous poster is ill-informed... I have to ask have you invested the time and money it takes to fly a carrier? Are you aware of the logistics involved it takes to actually move a carrier? Do you know how much it costs in terms of fuel/time to move a carrier? Are you intrictly aware of all the inner workings of a carrier?
no, yes, I am a little out of date on fuel costs but it is not prohibitably expensive, are you?
Originally by: Riley Craven If you answer no to anyone of those questions, I would politely ask you to refrain from posting further in this thread.
I would like to ask Kylie Minogue on a date but I think we would both get the same answer.
Originally by: Riley Craven First consideration... I dont think carriers really came into there own with hauling until rigs came out. This drastically increased the hauling ability that one could see from carriers. So I think your 12 month arguement is rather silly in that regard.
You are a little out of touch with carrier hauling, we used Carrier haulers in RFM. I left RFM 5th Feb 2006 well over a year ago. We were not alone in this by any means.
Whilst Sciff sploiting was always banned in corps I have been in, how long was that going on for?
Originally by: Riley Craven Then factor in time. Unless you have the carrier fitted as a cap generator at each jump you have to wait to rebuild cap (this is assuming places like drone regions and deep 0.0 where npc stations to dock at are few) Then you have to factor in cyno pilots... Even if you did have 5 cyno alts that you could place it takes time to get there not to mention the safety issues of the 10 min wait time and having enough fuel to create cynos to be worth it... etc etc.
Yes it takes time to regen cap, but this is nothing compared to the time it takes to jump an industrial through 0.0
And their are ways to ensure 100% cap recharge periods done properly their is no danger.
Originally by: Riley Craven Now lets look at haulers... with the recent nerfs to "speed" setups haulers have lost ALOT of their safety net in agility and speed. This is especially true for the already bastard class of transports.
A good Hauler + good Scout will not be caught.
Originally by: Riley Craven And of course you mentioned freighters.... Realistically its bad practice to organize big protection ops for them... because for one it makes you a target... most people in 0.0 tend to notice big slow moving gangs. No, the proper method is to have scouts spread out over large areas... knowledge is power in this case.
Who said freighter convoys have to be huge Blobs? How you organise your convoy is up to you. Just don't ask an ex member of Tribal Souls to do it Bad Convoy Example
Originally by: Riley Craven What am I getting at? There has to be some equation to risk vs reward and time vs gain here. You are arguing that you want to kill more haulers when realistically all it takes is one ceptor pilot to make the kill...
If 1 ceptor pilot can kill your hauler you are doing it wrong.
Originally by: Riley Craven so if youÆre talking a carrier, 1 bill for skills, 1 bill for ship 1bill for mods/fittings then there should be SOME increased benefit or usefulness for the expanded resources. At most a carrier can fit two haulers and not even 2 ITTY five's either.
I am talking using Carriers for fighting and haulers for hauling.
I trained Minmatar Battleship 5 I don't expect it to help me haul.
People should try to look beyond their own selfish considerations when a balance comes up and try to look at the big picture.
Even if you cannot see the benefits try to reason it out as Riley has done rather than rant and rave as others have done in this thread.
Movies: Make Mine a Bob Light
|
Kairi Elan
FATAL REVELATIONS FATAL Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.06.12 00:11:00 -
[148]
In response to all the "Now I can't sort stuff" comments in this thread... Erm... Use a frigate? There are frigates for each race that have 2-3 low slots and a cargo capacity skill bonus.
For Example: A Probe with Frigate 5, 2x Expanded Cargohold II, and 3x Cargohold Optimization I holds about 1000m3 of stuff.
You can NAME it, fill it with all your stuff and CONTRACT it to the carrier pilot. This makes life hard how? Every pilot should have the skills to fit something like this out as his/her module hauler to and from 0.0
People also seem to be focusing entirely on the negative part of this too. Hello? Storing ships in ship maintenance arrays WITH their cargo? Some of you haven't lived out of a POS recently enough I see.
|
Tonto Auri
Center for Advanced Studies
|
Posted - 2007.06.12 00:11:00 -
[149]
Well, ok, I see one point of view, wich CCP can't see. One major problem with haulers it is not their ability to carry GSC, but that case of incremental bonus from expanders, skills and rigs, without any drawbacks related to carriers.
But it may be solved without nerfing. Just add one attribute to expanders: Let it increase ship size as cargohold capacity. May be not that dramatically, but at half of cargo size? For Bestower with full set of T2 expanders it will be
260*1.1375^4 = 435290.28m3
Still fit in a small carrier, but takes about whole space in it. And no boring issues with "omgwtf why i cant dock if size permits". All clearly understandable and no stupid overwhelming rules. -- . |
Tonto Auri
Center for Advanced Studies
|
Posted - 2007.06.12 00:15:00 -
[150]
Edited by: Tonto Auri on 12/06/2007 00:15:48
Originally by: Kairi Elan In response to all the "Now I can't sort stuff" comments in this thread... Erm... Use a frigate? There are frigates for each race that have 2-3 low slots and a cargo capacity skill bonus.
For Example: A Probe with Frigate 5, 2x Expanded Cargohold II, and 3x Cargohold Optimization I holds about 1000m3 of stuff.
You can NAME it, fill it with all your stuff and CONTRACT it to the carrier pilot. This makes life hard how? Every pilot should have the skills to fit something like this out as his/her module hauler to and from 0.0
People also seem to be focusing entirely on the negative part of this too. Hello? Storing ships in ship maintenance arrays WITH their cargo? Some of you haven't lived out of a POS recently enough I see.
Do You know how real carriers doing? You land on ramp, rules to elevator and placed to parking. Without any interaction with Your cargo.
P.S. Keep in mind that any additional checking like this is a separate lag generator! And CCP adds more and more lags with these rules. -- . |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 .. 16 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |