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 [?]

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)
Kuseka Adama Gallente WOLFPACK DELTA	Posted - 2007.06.14 01:05:00 - [211] Originally by: CCP Oneiromancer Ships that have assembled containers in their cargo hold cannot be placed in ship maintenance bays/arrays, either in space or at a station. This is also valid for courier packages. And may I point out that "carrier" does NOT refer to the ship's capacity of hauling? Yes, this is going out into Revelations 2. And I don't see any major nerf anywhere. You can still use carriers for transport, you make it sound like that was their designed intended use and we're nerfing that. People have been asking for the ability to store loaded ships at ship maintenance bays and arrays and a change was made to allow that. 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. To your first statement: Give me a freighter capable of jumping then. Because there is no way in heck i would take a billion dollar ship with three times its value in cargo even 5 jumps into low sec with out a friggin massive escort. I understand the need to prevent exploits. Good ideas and a smart thing to do. HOWEVER the points stated in this thread (sorting peoples stuff) And the general nature of zero sec make the carrier the OBVIOUS option for large scale low sec movements. Unless you can afford a titan that is and use its jump bridge. I can tell you right now most smaller alliances and even larger corps dont have this capability. This nerf brings a significant amount of damage to supply lines making them far more frail and open to strikes. Granted life in zero sec has risks but i find it absurd to force people to transport massive amounts of units in easy to kill transports especially with the time and manpower needed to make a run of that nature profitable. It takes two people to organize a carrier run into empire cyno dropper and carrier pilot everything else is the shipping order. And all and all not that much time. It takes 40 people pvp armed and voice chatted and ganged to escort a freighter safely into high sec and even then its not safe these days. And its likely a good portion of those people would not be able to enter .5 areas or above. The time+costs required to organize these people given the current multinational nature of corps and alliances make the runs unprofitable. With very little profit for those invovled and a massive grind. Carriers do have massive combat potential yes. But there is not really a safer ship to transport large scale shipments with. Please reconsider this nerf and what it will do to alliance and corp shipping lines. This will make things very difficult on those without the capacity to use titans and freighters. While i can understand the intent i can not accept the end result as anything but unfavorable. I would however make this counter proposal: Make the unpackaged and useable device in question take up the 3900 cargo space it currently represents. This would preserve at least one of the major problems with this nerf (Being able to transport multiple player's cargo safely) While this would be a decrease in cargo capacity it would i think make taking the nerf a bit easier.
Lucy Skylancer	Posted - 2007.06.14 01:06:00 - [212] Edited by: Lucy Skylancer on 14/06/2007 01:11:31 Originally by: Max Teranous It don't see how making people who haul with carriers make 30% more trips is NOT a nerf TBH. And the "intended use" line is pretty weak, this is a sandbox game where we utilise the tools we are given in all sorts of ways, and not just the most obvious and specific reasons originally considered. I think in 0.0 more goods are moved with carriers than with freighters. One strategy to fight another alliance was to cut off the supply lines. That isn't possible anymore, since we have carriers. It changes a lot. Alliances are able to fuel a lot more poses now, no matter, if routes are hostile or not. So they can also claim a lot more territory with poses, because they don't need to do freighter/industrial runs. I think this is a bad thing. But since Titans can jump everything around anyway inclusively freighters, it's maybe unavoidable to give no-titan alliances a chance to compete in 0.0 logistics by doing that stuff with carriers.
invaderzim Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2007.06.14 02:25:00 - [213] A carrier is a hybrid ship of sorts. It IS a "logistics ship" in the true sense of the catagory as it has logistics related bonuses similar to those of the logisitcs cruisers regarding shield transport, energy transfer and rem repair. It is not a pure combat vessel, but a support franken-ship. This IS a nerf in that it takes away an advantage that was previously there. It will make things more difficult for logistics who are already an underappreciated and overworked group. People dont want another job when they get off work, but many have one in logisitics. As others have said, this will make it more difficult for smaller groups to establish sov which is perhaps what CCP wants. Maybe this is CCP hoping to discourage this role in order to make the way for another role specific ship? ----------------- "Oh, he's very popular Ed. The sportos, the motorheads, geeks, **s, bloods, waistoids, dweebies, **heads - they all adore him. They think he's a righteous dude."
Jascal RONA Deepspace	Posted - 2007.06.14 02:54:00 - [214] Originally by: CCP Oneiromancer Yes, this is going out into Revelations 2. And I don't see any major nerf anywhere. You can still use carriers for transport, you make it sound like that was their designed intended use and we're nerfing that. People have been asking for the ability to store loaded ships at ship maintenance bays and arrays and a change was made to allow that. 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. What is being nerfed here is an in game solution to a shortcoming with game design. Players obviously want some means of reducing the mindnumbing repetition that comes with small capacity freight movement. This nerf would make sense, IF the jump capable hauler was introduced to handle the demanded feature of reasonable hauling capacity. POS maintenance is doing a good job of killing accounts, make the hauling into deep space another grind and add to the fun that POS maintenance has given us. Just because it isnt a 'designed game feature' does not mean it isnt a good mistake to have made. Leave it alone, or drive the game further into tedium by leaving no soultion to this player determined need. -Old and in the way . . Shine up the Mod's bullet before you let them carry it in their shirt pocket :)
Capt MalcolmReynolds Eth3real 3asy Company	Posted - 2007.06.14 03:03:00 - [215] Make a freighter fit into a carrier hold 0_o - Capt In a carrier near you.
Damned Force	Posted - 2007.06.14 05:43:00 - [216] WANT AN ANSWER!!!!!!!!!
Splagada Minmatar Tides of Silence Hydra Alliance	Posted - 2007.06.14 06:45:00 - [217] but you can "cargorig" the haulers, so it makes no change compared to pre-rig era... ------
Damned Force	Posted - 2007.06.14 06:52:00 - [218] Originally by: Splagada but you can "cargorig" the haulers, so it makes no change compared to pre-rig era... 1st. u tried to organize 40k m3 stuff of 10-15 peoples without containers? 2nd. in pre rig time was no drone region, where u can make profit if u transport large ammount of alloys. In other regions u have bounties, so the mods are just additional, but in drone regions your main income are alloys, where 1m3 = max 29k ISK from the most valuable one. Can u even imagine how much hauling that means?
Heikki Gallente Wreckless Abandon Triumvirate.	Posted - 2007.06.14 06:53:00 - [219] IMHO instaneous logistics is bad for game, whether its done through capital jumping or titan portals. CCP could very easily implement button that allows you to transfer any assets to any stations. Which would greatly reduce the lag as bonus. I just think it is better for the game if you really have to travel through places, risking interaction with other players. Even if that implies reduced scale of logistics and higher costs compared to the current situation. Although removing GSC loading sounds like a step towards that ideal, it might just make things worse. That is, it still allows similar logistics, but just makes them more tedious (requiring more organizing). So 'yay' for nerfing carrier logistcs, 'nay' for making it merely tedious. -Lasse using a carrier regularly for hauling
triman247 Clan Shadow Wolf Sylph Alliance	Posted - 2007.06.14 06:53:00 - [220] The biggest deal to me personally is hauling peoples stuff. If it is not in a can, it is impossible to tell whose stuff is whose and now... look, no one gets stuff into 0.0 any more. Yay... I used to live in stain 30something jumps into 0.0 through 25 jumps of hostiles. you just not only made it EASIER for me to get my stuff to 0.0, you made it SAFER too! good work CCP you outdid yourselves again. My suggestions to not **** people off. 1) Make cans the same size inside as out. 2) Make some carrier allowed cans that are the same size in as out. 3) Make the ability to divide the corp hanger even more so you can label it for people so it would be the same thing as using a can... without the can. 4) Fix things that need fixing. I am pretty sure the people are not petitioning/complaining about there being too much room in a carrier or bull like that. I mean honestly, can anyone reading this see people "THIS CARRIER PILOT IS GETTING A FEW THOUSAND EXTRA M3 OF SPACE IN THEIR CARRIER AND I DONT LIKE THAT!!!" Please Please think before you act... triman triman247

Splagada Minmatar Tides of Silence Hydra Alliance	Posted - 2007.06.14 07:03:00 - [221] Originally by: Damned Force Originally by: Splagada but you can "cargorig" the haulers, so it makes no change compared to pre-rig era... 1st. u tried to organize 40k m3 stuff of 10-15 peoples without containers? 2nd. in pre rig time was no drone region, where u can make profit if u transport large ammount of alloys. In other regions u have bounties, so the mods are just additional, but in drone regions your main income are alloys, where 1m3 = max 29k ISK from the most valuable one. Can u even imagine how much hauling that means? organization, right, it's the painful part. but volume, i'm sorry but it has no change compared to pre-rig. actually you have more cargo my iteron 5 holds 38400 without anything in cargo pre rig era it was 25000something, that was around 33 iirc with GSCs ------
Damned Force	Posted - 2007.06.14 07:14:00 - [222] Originally by: Splagada Originally by: Damned Force Originally by: Splagada but you can "cargorig" the haulers, so it makes no change compared to pre-rig era... 1st. u tried to organize 40k m3 stuff of 10-15 peoples without containers? 2nd. in pre rig time was no drone region, where u can make profit if u transport large ammount of alloys. In other regions u have bounties, so the mods are just additional, but in drone regions your main income are alloys, where 1m3 = max 29k ISK from the most valuable one. Can u even imagine how much hauling that means? organization, right, it's the painful part. but volume, i'm sorry but it has no change compared to pre-rig. actually you have more cargo my iteron 5 holds 38400 without anything in cargo pre rig era it was 25000something, that was around 33 iirc with GSCs i know there u can haul more now, but if u readed the second part of my post, the rigs was introduced together with drone regions, where u need haul much more than in other regions to make profit, and i think for this morework is this a bit compensation. still not perfect, but better
Omak Topal Gallente KDM Corp Firmus Ixion	Posted - 2007.06.14 08:31:00 - [223] Edited by: Omak Topal on 14/06/2007 08:30:50 i wonder, no i hope theres a dicussion going on within ccp between several developers about what has been said in this threat. ------ they removed the link to my sig, because it was to big in byte size. like only 50 to 100 bytes to much :(
Paco Paco	Posted - 2007.06.14 08:55:00 - [224] To all the people calling for a new box the same size inside and out as a soution to this, it won't work. The problem isn't the extra space, it's the box itself. Based on the dev's comments it sounds like the game was coded with a limit to how far down a box can be nested. In this case anything that you can put stuff in would be a box/container as far as the code is concerned. A mintenance array, a cargo hold, a GSC. A GSC in a hauler in a carrier would be nested 3 layers down. I have no idea if a carrier's maintenance array is coded as being in the cargohold meaning it is inheirently already nested one layer down but if it is that could be part of the trouble. Similarly, partitioning of cargoholds would likely be impossible too. The partition would likely get coded as a container resulting in another layer. Heaven help you if you put a GSC into one of those partitons.
Omak Topal Gallente KDM Corp Firmus Ixion	Posted - 2007.06.14 09:07:00 - [225] Originally by: Paco Paco Based on the dev's comments it sounds like the game was coded with a limit to how far down a box can be nested. coding can be changed to allow GSC's 3 layers down in carriers only. ------ they removed the link to my sig, because it was to big in byte size. like only 50 to 100 bytes to much :(
Agent Stone Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Volition Cult	Posted - 2007.06.14 10:36:00 - [226] I expect CCP will make a post eventually tbh... I hope... Originally by: Damned Force My main char trained last 4-5 months for carrier to help my corp in deep 0.0 region, in drone region. We dont have so easy as other regions, because we nned to sell the alloys for the reward and for the money. So because thos major nerf was the training almost not worth. In this time i could train something funny, like command ships or other ships which makes fun. WANT REFUNDATION!!!! Money, Isk, Time!!! Refunding of Money, Isk, and Time... I can see your point here... This may be unpopular way of thinking about it, but to lay out a point. A point only, not suggestion! When I played World of Warcraft a couple of years ago, when Blizzard made changes to a Druid Class, they refunded everyone thier Talent Points, so people could put points into there Character again, considering the changes made. Which as everyone will admit, is a fair enough offer. The below is never going to happen. But still... In an ideal world, you might expect it to be reasonable to offer Carrier Pilots the option to petition CCP to reallocate there skill points elsewhere due to CCP changing Carrier's so much. For example, I have been training Carrier related skills for about 9 months. The issue is that most of the skills I have trained are only useful for a Carrier. And the Carrier they plan on having in Rev2 is very different from the Carrier I trained for 9 months ago. That said ofcourse, if I was given the offer, I would not take it as I still love my Thanatos, even if it has less helpful support roles than in the past. (Plus, I personnely don't like the idea of refunding SP in Eve) Changing ships is fine for balancing, but the issue is that with the Carrier, customers have spend 6 months plus training for them, and making Isk for them, so ofcourse your going to get 8 page long threads of people complaining. Which is why this thread is full of 6 Month Plus Paying Customers, asking CCP to be honest, and explain the changes. Most people simply want a decent responce from the devs, so we can understand and agree with you. Originally by: Moncton Well, I am going to bump this thread every day so the devs can't help but see this thread at the top of their forums. I recommend others do the same so this issue doesn't die. <3
Tonto Auri Center for Advanced Studies	Posted - 2007.06.14 10:41:00 - [227] Originally by: Paco Paco Based on the dev's comments it sounds like the game was coded with a limit to how far down a box can be nested. No, that words only mean that You cannot place hauler with cans inside Carrier. Nothing about nesting containers. And, please, explain "nesting" for Iteron (about 300,000m3 size) hauling 80,000m3 of stuff? You all, arguing this "idea" as "great to reality" forgot that it is a game. Not reality. You can't eat bytes and images, You need to do something outside EVE to feed yourself at least. Not need to make EVE other work after one in RL. -- .
Paco Paco	Posted - 2007.06.14 12:15:00 - [228] Originally by: Omak Topal Originally by: Paco Paco Based on the dev's comments it sounds like the game was coded with a limit to how far down a box can be nested. coding can be changed to allow GSC's 3 layers down in carriers only. Knew I forgot one of my points. Why not change the code to allow containers in ships in the maintenance bays? Probably the afforementioned exploit. Originally by: Tonto Auri Originally by: Paco Paco Based on the dev's comments it sounds like the game was coded with a limit to how far down a box can be nested. No, that words only mean that You cannot place hauler with cans inside Carrier. Nothing about nesting containers. And, please, explain "nesting" for Iteron (about 300,000m3 size) hauling 80,000m3 of stuff? You all, arguing this "idea" as "great to reality" forgot that it is a game. Not reality. You can't eat bytes and images, You need to do something outside EVE to feed yourself at least. Not need to make EVE other work after one in RL. Once again its not about size its about location. To get to the items in the can you'd have to open the carrier, then open the hauler, them open the box. The problem arises when the system has to determine where the items in the box are located. One option would be to have each item just record the next level up. In the above case the items in the box would just record that they are in the box. The box would record that it's in the hauler and the hauler would record that its in the carrier. The carrier would also have to have a record of where it it isn, in space, in station, etc. This system, while simple, can lead to abuses. Originally by: Jotan Veer 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. As this story illustrates, the problem is that such a system would allow for a loop to be made. The system locks up trying to figure out where items are located. This is likely the exploit that CCP is trying to avoid. Another solution would be to set a certain number of fields for an item's location. In the case of an item in a box in a hauler in a carrier it would go something like Location->Box->Hauler->Carrier. Limiting the number of fields per item would make it easier to detect and prevent resource gobbling loops. This "solution" hasn't been a problem until a new "feature" was announced. Originally by: CCP Oneiromancer People have been asking for the ability to store loaded ships at ship maintenance bays and arrays and a change was made to allow that. 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. Lets say you were to place a carrier with the hauler/box/item setup into a maintenance array. The item's location would now be Location->Box->Hauler->Carrier->maintenence array. Originally by: CCP Oneiromancer The code does not support a container within a container within a container. It sounds like the item location code wasn't built with enough fields to accomadate an item located in so deeply nested. The only defence is that adding an additional field to every item in the database would require alot of time on patchday and that the additional field would be unused on the vast majority of items.
Damned Force	Posted - 2007.06.14 12:50:00 - [229] No prob if this containers thing is so big programming and patching, then do what lot of us sad here. incrase the corp hangar or the ship bay, or both
Targeteer	Posted - 2007.06.14 15:35:00 - [230] I asked in Jita local about the carrier nerf. This is the response I received from CCP: CCP Oveur > Yes and no on the carriers, they are getting the balancing all ships get I hope it gets balanced properly (aka un-nerfed).

Damned Force	Posted - 2007.06.14 15:40:00 - [231] Originally by: Targeteer I asked in Jita local about the carrier nerf. This is the response I received from CCP: CCP Oveur > Yes and no on the carriers, they are getting the balancing all ships get I hope it gets balanced properly (aka un-nerfed). ll ship get ballanced? The nerfed carrier? the nerfed drake without even avarge dps? the overpovered myrm and domi? The moros with 250% drone damage and hitpoint? The caldari capitals which have half cpu what would be needed? etc etc.... im very courious, but i need to say i dont thrust them
Ander Gallente Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2007.06.14 15:53:00 - [232] If you steal our gcs - give us our 30k m3 in corp hangar. Increase storage space in our ship maintenance bay. Put carriers properly in line with other capital ships . A mothership should be possible to be taken down with a few carriers. Just as frigs can bring down a battleship. As it is now, to take down a MS you need to dry them with nosferatus and have a pretty big fleet of support just to keep them in place. EVE Online - Pirates
Omak Topal Gallente KDM Corp Firmus Ixion	Posted - 2007.06.14 17:26:00 - [233] Edited by: Omak Topal on 14/06/2007 17:25:33 bigger corp hanger and increased ship bay for a 2nd iteron would be nice :D ------ they removed the link to my sig, because it was to big in byte size. like only 50 to 100 bytes to much :(
Axhind Caldari Ex Coelis	Posted - 2007.06.14 17:46:00 - [234] Originally by: Damned Force Originally by: Targeteer I asked in Jita local about the carrier nerf. This is the response I received from CCP: CCP Oveur > Yes and no on the carriers, they are getting the balancing all ships get I hope it gets balanced properly (aka un-nerfed). ll ship get ballanced? The nerfed carrier? the nerfed drake without even avarge dps? the overpovered myrm and domi? The moros with 250% drone damage and hitpoint? The caldari capitals which have half cpu what would be needed? etc etc.... im very courious, but i need to say i dont thrust them I wouldn't be surprised if they increase the corp hangar for everyone except caldari. As their ships are only for PvE (any PvP use gets nerfed to hell and back) you don't need a corp hangar... I'm kinda getting sick of getting everything I've trained for 1 year nerfed to hell :(
Aramendel Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.06.14 18:11:00 - [235] Originally by: Targeteer I asked in Jita local about the carrier nerf. This is the response I received from CCP: CCP Oveur > Yes and no on the carriers, they are getting the balancing all ships get I hope it gets balanced properly (aka un-nerfed). This could also be interpretated as him saying that they were too strong for logistics and that the Can changes were the balance measure.
Elmicker The Phoenix Rising Vigilance Infinitas	Posted - 2007.06.14 19:25:00 - [236] Originally by: Aramendel This could also be interpretated as him saying that they were too strong for logistics and that the Can changes were the balance measure. I hope not. Originally by: CCP Oneiromancer ...People have been asking for the ability to store loaded ships at ship maintenance bays and arrays and a change was made to allow that... Because that'd just change "unintended effect" to "undocumented feature."
Mephistophilus	Posted - 2007.06.14 20:57:00 - [237] how about having a can that can only be used in carriers if the "carrier can" can hold 10k m3 then have the can take up 10k m3 space in the carrier no extra space is given and we can still keep everyones stuff separate
Agent Stone Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Volition Cult	Posted - 2007.06.14 21:47:00 - [238] Under the ships heading here: http://myeve.eve-online.com/updates/patchnotes.asp?patchlogID=132&sid=121037192 "You can no longer be able to store ships in ship maintenance bays when there are assembled containers inside them." If its any consolidation... CCP actually fixed something useful though... Under Drones: "Fighters and Drones will now use their MWD to return to the ship correctly." Other notes say that fighters generally respond better, so its not all bad.
Treylis Gallente GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.06.15 02:14:00 - [239] Originally by: Agent Stone If its any consolidation... CCP actually fixed something useful though... Under Drones: "Fighters and Drones will now use their MWD to return to the ship correctly." Other notes say that fighters generally respond better, so its not all bad. I never understood why scoop range wasn't simply bumped up a small amount, it wouldn't really be unbalancing (500m or so) and it would have been a much simpler fix.
Wraithborn Gallente Shadows of the Dead Aftermath Alliance	Posted - 2007.06.15 03:15:00 - [240] Why is it that things that work get nuked and things that dont stay? you have any idea how much of a mess this will make of the already bad .0 logistics, well i guess you dont care. since you dont play the game afterall.



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

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.