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)
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.
Antiope Cataclysm Enterprises Kraftwerk.	Posted - 2007.06.10 08:16:00 - [2] Edited by: Antiope on 10/06/2007 08:16:36 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. If I'm not mistaken it's the same way it currently works on TQ, you can't store a ship with cargo, but the carrier / MS can scoop it with cargo in it, the other way to override it is to fill ships in a station and drag em to your ship maintance could you clarifie this phrase as it confuses me "It appears that were not going to be unable to"
Jotan Veer HUN Corp. HUN Reloaded	Posted - 2007.06.10 08:26:00 - [3] 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. Carriers have ship maint BAYS. POSes have arrays. Thus I'm guessing your confusion comes from the dev post which talks about being able to store ships with stuff in their cargo holds in POS ship mant. arrays (can't do it on TQ atm) with the exception of containers. As the previous poster pointed it out, you can't store ships with containers in their holds in carriers in space either. You can however work around this rule by either stuffing the hauler into the carrier at a station or scooping the ship after the pilot ejected from it.
Wink Caldari Asgard Protectorate	Posted - 2007.06.10 08:49:00 - [4] 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 - [5] 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 - [6] 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.

CCP Oneiromancer	Posted - 2007.06.10 12:33:00 - [7] 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?

Aramendel Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.06.10 13:49:00 - [8] Yes, you can still fill haulers up to the brink, you just cannot use cans in them. The total carry capacity will be a bit reduced, but not by an huge amount. However, it will make one thing very annoying: hauling stuff for multiple people. Currently you can just put your stuff into cans, name them and the pilot knows who owns what. After that change you have to send him a mail with every single item you give him to transport. If you do that change please give us the ability to "partition" our cargohold into different parts!
Rigsta Gallente Raddick Explorations Executive Outcomes	Posted - 2007.06.10 13:50:00 - [9] Sure you can point it out, but the nice long jump range and the ability to carry a couple of loaded indies + their own cargo space means they're used for that purpose quite a bit. Why haul 20,000m3 of loot through a 0.0 pipe when you can log an alt in empire low-sec and jump there directly? Originally by: Jim McGregor I felt the disturbance... it was like a million voices suddenly stopped whining for a second. Unfortunantly it then continued.
Zigg Omelo eXceed Inc. INVICTUS.	Posted - 2007.06.10 14:52:00 - [10] Is this change going into rev 2? If so , then major nerf incomming.


CCP Oneiromancer	Posted - 2007.06.10 14:58:00 - [11] 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.

Zigg Omelo eXceed Inc. INVICTUS.	Posted - 2007.06.10 15:19:00 - [12] Edited by: Zigg Omelo on 10/06/2007 15:20:19 Edited by: Zigg Omelo on 10/06/2007 15:18:55 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. If exploits are involved, then i am all for it. But for practical reasons i have never used a indy filled with GSC in a carrier. its just not practical with all those containers. the thing that we miss is the way for carrier pilots to sort out many different ppl stuff they are carrying out to ppl in remote areas. I mean a maxed itty 5 is 38k with rigs and EC II what you loose for maxx efficiency is 12k m3 from gsc. This is a terrible thing for carrier pilots already getting fed up transporting ppls stuff all over, and the major thing here is the TIME it takes to organize and manage the different shipments for corpmates. And i think that all carrier pilots with me would want some type of compartment for use that doesnt exploit the game mechanics like GSC suddenly do.
zykerx Pegasus Mining and Securities R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.06.10 15:20:00 - [13] Edited by: zykerx on 10/06/2007 15:20:49 Edited by: zykerx on 10/06/2007 15:20:23 what exploit can there be with cans o.0 tomuch m3 stored in a hanger ? i understand why people hate this as people use haulers with gsc to haul stuff with carriers wich ya were able to loadup without jumping in and out of the hauler al the time. so saved alot of time thats eve, gottta adapt to changes so carriers are not intended to be uber haulers ? crap i gona sell mine then hehe . "MY COMMENTS IN NO WAY REFLECT MY CORP OR ALLIANCE"
Aelena Thraant Shadows of the Dead Aftermath Alliance	Posted - 2007.06.10 15:54:00 - [14] Why not change the giant secure cans to use 3900 of cargo space or make them hold 3000 units. A simple DB change and boom fixed... This is going to hurt carrier pilots more then anyone else.... Unless we get cans that can be fit in haulers to keep things orginized.
Tsanse Kinske WeMeanYouKnowHarm	Posted - 2007.06.10 16:05:00 - [15] Originally by: CCP Oneiromancer And may I point out that "carrier" does NOT refer to the ship's capacity of hauling? Zing! Apparently this will come as news to a lot of people. * * * In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move. -Douglas Adams, writing about EVE
Jotan Veer HUN Corp. HUN Reloaded	Posted - 2007.06.10 16:37:00 - [16] Oh well. I guess if it is for exploit prevention I can live with it. as for this: Quote: And may I point out that "carrier" does NOT refer to the ship's capacity of hauling? Saying 'it isn't intended' won't make it go away
Caletha Reborn	Posted - 2007.06.10 17:08:00 - [17] Originally by: CCP Oneiromancer And I don't see any major nerf anywhere. Well considering you can currently put a hauler into a carrier with giant secure containers, and you cant anymore after revelations 2. How does that not classify as a major nerf? Granted it was perhaps never an 'intended feature', I'm pretty sure everyone used it. And in my case going from 60.000m3 (roughly) to 48.000m3 (roughly) space in haulers in my carrier is a rather major nerf. (Itty 5 with 3x cargo rigs + Viator with 2 cargo rigs, 15 giant secure cans) I dont really care anymore as we left the drone regions and as such the need to carry a lot has been removed. But say its not a major nerf as a 20% reduction in carrying capacity of a hauler/gsc combination 'carrier' is a rather big nerf (20% to be exact xD).
Hippo117 Caldari Wings of Redemption Black Flag Alliance	Posted - 2007.06.10 17:29:00 - [18] I propose jet-cans no longer hold ore so as to deal a similar blow to the industrious persons as well. -------------- Obligulatory 'opinion does not nescessarily represent those of my corp/alliance' stuff here.
Avalira Caldari Confederation of Independent Corporations	Posted - 2007.06.10 17:40:00 - [19] 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. Does this mean we'll be able to transport unpacked ships in freighters? This is especially needed now that we have rigs and no way to transport multiple rigged ships. If no, then could you be so kind as to give us a reason?
B Glorious Imperial Academy	Posted - 2007.06.10 18:29:00 - [20] 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. I have mixed feelings about not allowing GSCs in carrier ship bays, though I'm mostly happy with it, but what about titans jump bridging freighters? If you take away the ability to do this with a carrier but still allow titans to jump bridge freighters (and also other cap ships, but that's somewhat of a separate issue), then seriously, what the hell?

Tunajuice Convergent Firmus Ixion	Posted - 2007.06.10 18:36:00 - [21] Apparently carriers are not meant to haul or do dps. They sit there in logistics mode remote repping POSes. Hum something is wrong with the whole place for carrier. Dreads are capital DPS, freighter are capital haulers... carriers = ?? capital logistic cruisers that happen to be able to fit 5000 drones?
Arushia Nova Labs Empire Research	Posted - 2007.06.10 21:26:00 - [22] Originally by: Aramendel Yes, you can still fill haulers up to the brink, you just cannot use cans in them. The total carry capacity will be a bit reduced, but not by an huge amount. However, it will make one thing very annoying: hauling stuff for multiple people. Currently you can just put your stuff into cans, name them and the pilot knows who owns what. After that change you have to send him a mail with every single item you give him to transport. If you do that change please give us the ability to "partition" our cargohold into different parts! Can you not still put named GSCs in the carrier's cargohold and corp hangar? Tired of Waiting? Use Empire Research
Borgholio Minmatar Quantum Industries Prime Orbital Systems	Posted - 2007.06.10 22:36:00 - [23] 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? Please tell me you're coming out with something along the lines of a jumpdrive-enabled freighter? It's already hard enough moving large quantities of goods in and out of 0.0 without reducing the amount of cargo a carrier can haul. ----------------------------------- You will be assimilated...bunghole!
Max Teranous Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2007.06.10 23:35:00 - [24] 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. Max --------------------
Thrawnfl	Posted - 2007.06.10 23:37:00 - [25] I think CCP went the way of the DoDo when it came to carriers, maybe someday they'll figure out what a carrier is actually suppose to do. Making it a giant Logistic ship makes me want my money back for the training. When I trained for a carrier, it was suppose to be for combat... being a carrier aka having tons of fighters and bombers on it to attack other ships... yet being able to repair and rearm those fighters, But I guess carrier means Giant Healer to CCP.
Borgholio Minmatar Quantum Industries Prime Orbital Systems	Posted - 2007.06.10 23:48:00 - [26] Originally by: Thrawnfl I think CCP went the way of the DoDo when it came to carriers, maybe someday they'll figure out what a carrier is actually suppose to do. Making it a giant Logistic ship makes me want my money back for the training. When I trained for a carrier, it was suppose to be for combat... being a carrier aka having tons of fighters and bombers on it to attack other ships... yet being able to repair and rearm those fighters, But I guess carrier means Giant Healer to CCP. Yeah, it's a WARship. You don't see Aircraft carriers taking the place of freighters and oil tankers, do ya? :) ----------------------------------- You will be assimilated...bunghole!
Astrocarm Prime Orbital Systems	Posted - 2007.06.11 00:03:00 - [27] Can CCP not just add carrier containers like freighters have. No extra space granted, just make it easier to account for the different goods you maybe required to move for various players withn your corporation or allaince.
Aramendel Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.06.11 01:08:00 - [28] Originally by: Arushia Originally by: Aramendel ..If you do that change please give us the ability to "partition" our cargohold into different parts! Can you not still put named GSCs in the carrier's cargohold and corp hangar? Thats a bit missing the point. Even with the max capacity reduction due to no GSCs the cargohold and corp hangar are maaaaybe 20% of what the carrier can transport with docked indies. And that is ignoring that he will need that for fuel, too. If you haul stuff for your corp members that is not really enough unless you have one carrier for every 3-4 members.
Doomba Minge Confederation of Red Miners Red Moon Federation	Posted - 2007.06.11 01:15:00 - [29] well you lose +- 10 000m3 space not useing GSC in haulers and of course then all the gear your transport isnt sorted into seperate GSC ;-( totaly crap
Jeff Anderson Advanced Security And Asset Protection	Posted - 2007.06.11 01:40:00 - [30] Just so i understand what the issue is here ... Currently on tranq you can store for example an Iteron V full of GSC's in the Carriers Ship Maintainance Bay, but not in a pos's Ship Maintainance Array. All ships in the maintainance array have to be empty. But Rev 2 changes this by not allowing GSC's in the cargo hold of ships stored in the ship maintainance bay of a carrier but you can now store items in the hold of a ship in a ship maintainance array? When you say "No GSC's" does this include the other containers, whether secure or not, of other sizes? I specifically trained iteron V on my caldari charactor so i could get GSC's full of stuff jumped about and from what I'm reading I've wasted my time? Will there be a GSC BPO because the only way we've gotten GCS's into 0.0 beofre is mass jumped them using industrials in carrier, now 0.0 GSC prices with sky rocket if we can't jump them like this any more.

Tonto Auri Center for Advanced Studies	Posted - 2007.06.11 03:44:00 - [31] 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. That all sonds like EVE have bad design in core and it whole full of exploits. I still surprising why I can't REALLY DOCK to POS/Carrier, and now You said that I can't place something in my cargobay. I'd agree with one of previous authors that we'll wait when You forbid to place ore into jetcan. -- .
Mercostol Gallente Nova Lusitania Red Moon Federation	Posted - 2007.06.11 04:02:00 - [32] Its easy, increase the corporate hangar to a decent size, like 30k m3
Borgholio Minmatar Quantum Industries Prime Orbital Systems	Posted - 2007.06.11 04:45:00 - [33] Originally by: Mercostol Its easy, increase the corporate hangar to a decent size, like 30k m3 Good idea. If CCP has no issues with people using carriers as a deep-space freighter, then increasing the corp hangar array would be a good way to do this. ----------------------------------- You will be assimilated...bunghole!
Yuki Nagato GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.06.11 05:04:00 - [34] Originally by: Borgholio Please tell me you're coming out with something along the lines of a jumpdrive-enabled freighter? It's already hard enough moving large quantities of goods in and out of 0.0 without reducing the amount of cargo a carrier can haul. Build a Titan and you can jump bridge as many freighters as you want from lowsec to your home systems completely without risk. BoB do it every day all day.
Methylene Dioxy	Posted - 2007.06.11 05:32:00 - [35] This is a terrible idea. Why not make ship maint. arrays only take ships with no GSCs in their cargo but not for carriers? Also, people don't use ship maint. arrays because you can't access ships inside them after the POS has gone into reinforced.
Wink Caldari Asgard Protectorate	Posted - 2007.06.11 05:51:00 - [36] 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.
Borgholio Minmatar Quantum Industries Prime Orbital Systems	Posted - 2007.06.11 06:30:00 - [37] Originally by: Yuki Nagato Build a Titan and you can jump bridge as many freighters as you want from lowsec to your home systems completely without risk. BoB do it every day all day. Excellent idea! Let me make a quick run to Jita and sell my mission loot... ----------------------------------- You will be assimilated...bunghole!
FatKao GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.06.11 06:47:00 - [38] Thanks for this CCP. I'm gladd you're out fixing the "bugs" that really trouble the playerbase. Now that I don't have to worry about that pesky "Carriers making living in 0.0 almost fun" part of the game I can go back to my horrible logistics grind!
Grayton GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.06.11 07:10:00 - [39] 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.
Borgholio Minmatar Quantum Industries Prime Orbital Systems	Posted - 2007.06.11 07:20:00 - [40] Originally by: Grayton Well thought out rant. :-P In a nutshell, us corp / alliance logistics fellas need some love here. Carriers are currently the only really efficient method of moving gear to and from 0.0 space. This nerf only makes it harder to supply 0.0 operations. CCP, you have said you want to get more people out into 0.0. But how do you expect to accomplish this if you only make it harder for these people to move cargo back and forth? Come on guys, use your heads for once. ----------------------------------- You will be assimilated...bunghole!

Jerppu Minmatar Brotherhood of Polar Equation Mordus Angels	Posted - 2007.06.11 07:29:00 - [41] Edited by: Jerppu on 11/06/2007 07:28:20 Originally by: Borgholio In a nutshell, us corp / alliance logistics fellas need some love here. Carriers are currently the only really efficient method of moving gear to and from 0.0 space. This nerf only makes it harder to supply 0.0 operations. CCP, you have said you want to get more people out into 0.0. But how do you expect to accomplish this if you only make it harder for these people to move cargo back and forth? Come on guys, use your heads for once. /signed! Eve-directory : Eve Directory Forum Topic
Ktadaemon Confederation of Red Moon Red Moon Federation	Posted - 2007.06.11 07:56:00 - [42] Originally by: CCP Oneiromancer I don't see any major nerf anywhere. maybe you should open your eyes then, come on how stupid do you think your customers are? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nerf_%28computer_gaming%29 "A nerf is a change to the rules of a computer game that weakens a certain object or ability." i.e Carrier carrying ability will be greatly reduced and seperating individuals items will become a nightmarish grind, yep i'd say that classifies as weakening the ability of a carrier = NERF oh its to stop exploits? No sorry thats far too easy an excuse rolled out far too often to hide lazy programming.
Borgholio Minmatar Quantum Industries Prime Orbital Systems	Posted - 2007.06.11 09:01:00 - [43] Originally by: Ktadaemon Originally by: CCP Oneiromancer I don't see any major nerf anywhere. maybe you should open your eyes then, come on how stupid do you think your customers are? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nerf_%28computer_gaming%29 "A nerf is a change to the rules of a computer game that weakens a certain object or ability." i.e Carrier carrying ability will be greatly reduced and seperating individuals items will become a nightmarish grind, yep i'd say that classifies as weakening the ability of a carrier = NERF oh its to stop exploits? No sorry thats far too easy an excuse rolled out far too often to hide lazy programming. Oneiromancer is right, it's not a MAJOR nerf...but it's a nerf nonetheless. It's a nerf that will do nothing except make people's lives a little bit more inconvenient. ----------------------------------- You will be assimilated...bunghole!
clone 1 Caldari The Short Bus Squad The SUdden Death Squad	Posted - 2007.06.11 09:39:00 - [44] 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. So this nerf to carriers, is an indirect result to an exploit preventative measure in a change to ship maintenance bays, because they use a similar codebase? Did we not learn our lesson from Covert OPs Cloaks and cyno generators then? Always Moaning About Race Retardations
G Dabak Magellanic Itg GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.06.11 10:16:00 - [45] Originally by: clone 1 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. So this nerf to carriers, is an indirect result to an exploit preventative measure in a change to ship maintenance bays, because they use a similar codebase? Did we not learn our lesson from Covert OPs Cloaks and cyno generators then? It sounds like they just unified the code for the two and took the path of least resistance. Maybe not. In any case it's fine if they did, but at some point CCP needs to recognize the horrifying grind of POS logistics and throw the players a bone.
Treylis Gallente GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.06.11 10:29:00 - [46] 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. I'm sorry to be frank, but this statement says to me that you have either spent no or very little time handling logistics-related matters in this game. This is a nightmarishly bad change and I would highly suggest that you research the matter further before making it.
Dalaxi Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.06.11 11:57:00 - [47] Oh CCP. You know, I'd be impressed if a Dev reads this thread and posts with some feedback to the feedback. Oh yeah, guns outside the POS force field are a great idea too. And the new changes to hamper bowling. That's three things now that just don't make any sense at all - I mean sure, they make just a little sense, but the negative side effects created are mind boggling.
Space Hog NEW DAWN CO Fuzzy Nut Attack Squirrels	Posted - 2007.06.11 11:59:00 - [48] I frankly don't understand why CCP feels the need to make this change. I personally don't view it as an exploit. If they are going to take this away then why not consider increasing the Corp Hanger array to 30k M3? Or while you are at it fix the Graphic GLITCH on the Chimera. I say the CORP Hanger should be increased to offset this change. Caution Visit Nuts

CCP Oneiromancer	Posted - 2007.06.11 12:04:00 - [49] 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.

hilaw	Posted - 2007.06.11 12:21:00 - [50] 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. So it took you a year to fix the bug that was so horrifically convenient for players it had to go

Jeff Anderson Advanced Security And Asset Protection	Posted - 2007.06.11 12:25:00 - [51] The Dev made it sound like they found a problem and fixed it but in doing so they removed the ability to do what carrier pilots have been doing for ages, carrying haulers full of GSC's to the far reaches of the eve universe where A) no GSC's were opnely available, B) It was more economical to use GCS in in hauler to jump pos fuel around. So in fixing a problem, CCP has made GSC prices in 0.0 higher (already 1-2mil isk each in some areas) and pos fuel has now become more expensive as well as you cannot jump as much in 1 go. Sig: Miners supply the ore that the Industrialists use to build the ships you PVP/E with so please think of them as your ship blows up from the enhanced PVP/E in EVE. We know CCP hasn't.
Juggernot	Posted - 2007.06.11 12:27:00 - [52] After reading all posts here, there are two things that are apparent. 1st it is CCP's sand box they make the rules, this is a done deal and it is gonna happen, no I don't like it but I can't do anything about it <<insert list of why this hurts carriers>> read above for details 2nd there is obviously a need for a jump capable trasport ship, almost every post above echos this need. If that isn't the gamers speaking I don't know what is. If it is ccps vision for the game to have specific roles for ships dread = pos killer/dps, carrer = ?healer? etc. . then there are a few ships missing. Medium hauler and jump transport ship are two missing for a industrailist perspective. I realize eve is a combat game or so i understand, but every big alliance/corp HAS to have an indusral side which means hauling and adding to the tedium of that is like raking you nails across a chalk-board. I haven't seen anything official so i am guessing here, but is it CCP's plan for low sec transport to require a 'blob' of ppl to move stuff? I thought blobs were bad. but to move a freighter through low sec how else would you do it? Or do we use indusrials with 38k m3 cpacity. What is the answer? POS jump arrays? require sov. so unless you in a uber-corp you can't and are screwed. Most ppl aren't in those kind of corps. THIS is the problem that most above have been saying, SO, ccp how do we fix it?
Dalaxi Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.06.11 12:27:00 - [53] 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. Oh come on. A ship maint bay is hardly a container, and removing the ability for an industrial to carry GSC's when in space it normally can is just laughable. If you want to follow through with this, you'd make it so that you couldn't put cans in cargo bays, and you couldn't load ships of any sort into a ship maint bay, because they're a container inside a container.
Trak Cranker Feral Tendency Ratel Alliance	Posted - 2007.06.11 12:33:00 - [54] 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. Programming decision, fine. However it does not change the fact that the change is going to be another fire under the carrier pilots buring out on Eve doing logistics. I can count on more than one hand, the number of players I know that has stepped away from the game after having run 0.0 logistics for a substantial period. Even if we disregard the loss of m3, the loss of the ability to compartmentalise the cargo is going to create so much extra work its unbelieveable. So game design decision, not so fine. Changes like these are exactly why I want CCPs developers to actually play the game. All aspects of it. Go find one of your fellow employees that does extensive carrier logistics for his corp/alliance - and ask him what he thinks of that change. I, sadly, cannot be there to protect you when you do - but please do it anyway.
B Glorious Imperial Academy	Posted - 2007.06.11 12:38:00 - [55] 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. So, is jump bridging freighters going to get addressed at all?
Rinaldo Titano Caldari Domus Fatalis FREGE Alliance	Posted - 2007.06.11 12:52:00 - [56] 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. No it would be a loophole if u cloud pu a carrier into a carriers hangar. If u think this was a bug, and carrier should be able working as transporters, than incrase the corp hangar or the ship bay up to 1m m3. http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/9741/rinaldo2ir8.jpg
Eleana Tomelac Gallente	Posted - 2007.06.11 12:58:00 - [57] A 20% increase in ship maintenance bays and corp hangars would help much to compensate this! -- Pocket drone carriers (tm) enthousiast ! Happy owner of a Vexor Navy Issue and few ishkurs. The Vexor Navy Issue is much more fun than the Myrmidon !
clone 1 Caldari The Short Bus Squad The SUdden Death Squad	Posted - 2007.06.11 13:05:00 - [58] Is mineral compression a loophole? Is it game design? I am getting confused as the goal posts keep shifting. Why was this bug not listed in the Known Issues list? Let us call a spade a spade, and say that this change was due to ship maintenance bays, and the corresponding change 'nerf' to carriers is not worth bothering about. Always Moaning About Race Retardations
Lord DarkStar Gallente Mobile Alcohol Processing Units	Posted - 2007.06.11 13:18:00 - [59] As ccp says,carriers were not ever ment to be transports and haulers,they were ment to be combat ships,this i agree on. What i dont agree on is nerfing logistic operations for any corp in 0.0. Why is it a nerf you say? we can still haul industrials in the carrier hanger you say? Well,sure we can,but when you fit 3 or 4 differnt peoples items into 1 industrial ... how are you going to seperate it all when you get it where its going? I swear it will take over 30 mins to get 1 industrial straightend out. Now i myself am not a carrier pilot nor do i do logistics for my corp other then hauling POS fuel, but i have had carrier runs done and i do know how they work and its gona be a major problem for them. On a second note i also believe that from what has bin posted here that ccp is trying to nerf the carriers ability to run logistics because as stated above its a combat ship not a hauler,and they will be giving us a jump capable frieghter in return. It probly wont be able to jump half the distance of a carrier but thats another issue. We of the Unicorn clan are the best horsemen in the land,our horses are our lives and brothers,we fight as one,we live as one,we die as one.
Cpt Pugwash Rubra Libertas Militia	Posted - 2007.06.11 13:35:00 - [60] Carriers are combat ships and should not be allowed to perform a logistics role by scooping Industrials. You want to live in deep 0.0 you should have to organise logistic convoys. Use your numerical advantage to escort vulnerable transport ships Industrial ships should not be allowed inside carriers (they are to fragile) and freighters/Industrials should not be able to use a jumpbridge. This would force a lot more industrials into space and give alliances a way to wage war that did not involve huge blobs shooting POS. You could effectively lay seige to an enemy and starve him out without ever engaging a single pos. This is a long overdue nerf and does not go nearly far enough Movies: Make Mine a Bob Light

Jotan Veer HUN Corp. HUN Reloaded	Posted - 2007.06.11 13:38:00 - [61] You know, you could just double the size of the carriers' corp hangars in a show of good faith and thus stop the whining.
hydraSlav Synergy Evolved Sparta Alliance	Posted - 2007.06.11 13:44:00 - [62] Originally by: Borgholio Originally by: Mercostol Its easy, increase the corporate hangar to a decent size, like 30k m3 Good idea. If CCP has no issues with people using carriers as a deep-space freighter, then increasing the corp hangar array would be a good way to do this. Yes, that's a good idea. CCP wants to "fix a loophole/exploit" by preventing containers inside ships inside carriers... fine. Give us decent space in the corp hangar of the carrier then. == Above comments are my personal views Oveur >Local shouldn't be a tactical tool, it's for chat
Cpt Pugwash Rubra Libertas Militia	Posted - 2007.06.11 13:46:00 - [63] Originally by: hydraSlav Originally by: Borgholio Originally by: Mercostol Its easy, increase the corporate hangar to a decent size, like 30k m3 Good idea. If CCP has no issues with people using carriers as a deep-space freighter, then increasing the corp hangar array would be a good way to do this. Yes, that's a good idea. CCP wants to "fix a loophole/exploit" by preventing containers inside ships inside carriers... fine. Give us decent space in the corp hangar of the carrier then. Or don't and stop carriers from being supper haulers and make them the combat ships they were always intended to be Movies: Make Mine a Bob Light
Jacque Custeau Knights of the Minmatar Republic	Posted - 2007.06.11 13:56:00 - [64] Originally by: Borgholio Yeah, it's a WARship. You don't see Aircraft carriers taking the place of freighters and oil tankers, do ya? :) Actually they do in many cases. Carriers operate on nuclear power so their huge fuel bunkers are used to hold fuel for the rest of the combat group. Carriers take too long to lock someone in combat to repair them in a timely fashion. Fighters are too slow when returning to the carrier and often get blown up on the way back. Remote assigning of fighters is going away in Rev 2.0. And now this GSC nerf. At some point you just have to give the _\|_ to the dev team. ------------------- 09:F9:11:02:9D:74:E3:5B:D8:41:56:C5:63:56:88:C0
SamuraiJack Caldari Celestial Horizon Corp. Valainaloce	Posted - 2007.06.11 14:06:00 - [65] Laughable change the damn water in the bong CCP. So... my carrier can no longer haul. I can no longer sit at a pos and assign fighters. Would you like me to paint a target on my ass and just selfdestruct? Guess u dont want the 0.0 regions expanded or the greatness of eve to be furthered... Just CS in space eh? total joke. SJ. CLS CEO, Valainloce Executor and Standings Director =-
hydraSlav Synergy Evolved Sparta Alliance	Posted - 2007.06.11 14:11:00 - [66] Originally by: Cpt Pugwash Or don't and stop carriers from being supper haulers and make them the combat ships they were always intended to be Right, so what you are saying is that Titans were intended to jump-bridge freighters safely from 0.0? Cause that's what it boils down to now. The few with Titans gets hassle-free logistics, while those without are even further away from obtaining one cause CCP/BoB decided to nerf logistics for "the middle class" == Above comments are my personal views Oveur >Local shouldn't be a tactical tool, it's for chat
Elmicker The Phoenix Rising Vigilance Infinitas	Posted - 2007.06.11 14:12:00 - [67] Absolutely absurd change. "Oh, here's a bug that supports the entire 0.0 economy, lets fix it after it being in place for over a year, and totally wtfnerf carriers' logistics!! Genius!" Obviously thought along the same lines of "The titan needs to be the ultimate combat ship, any ideas?" "Ultrapowered, remote-detonated, risk-free, dirt-cheap smartbomb that will wipe out an entire grid once an hour?" "Give that man a promotion!!" If any other ingame mechanic was nerfed by 30%, there'd be an absolute uproar. If you insist that it was a bug that needed fixing; give carriers 50k of corp hangar to compensate, so they can actually do their job.
Darpz Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2007.06.11 14:22:00 - [68] this is the stupidest design change ever. I can't see why you would do this after so long. its not so much the cargo capcity nerf (that hurts bigtime still) than it is the complete pain in the ass its going to be to load a carrier for transport. This is a BAD change GSC are one of those "loophole gamemechanics" that has made this game work for so long. put it along side Min Compression and Instas (you fixed instas but you gave us a proper mechanic instead)
Berand Shadow Of The Light R i s e	Posted - 2007.06.11 14:24:00 - [69] 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. Clearly the code does support GSCs inside of transports inside of carriers, because that's the way everyone does it. Who exactly was clamoring for fixing this "loophole"? What's the goal behind this change? Is it to remove that role from carriers, to make way for a ship that is designed to do the jump-transport role? If so, could you just say that so the logistics people in every 0.0 alliance in the game can stop shaking uncontrollably? Saying that it wasn't intended to work that way is ludicrous in a game like Eve. The game encourages people to use the tools at their disposal creatively. I remember way back when that same argument was used to justify why people could steal from jettison cans while the owners couldn't retaliate in anyway, and it didn't make any more sense then. If there's nothing coming to make up for this logistics nerf, then I think we all want to know, WHY is it necessary? Doing logistics for a large alliance is already a painful grind, what possible reason could there be to make it worse? Personally I think it would be a fine compromise to just increase the cargo bay for the carriers a matching percentage. No nested containers, no logistics nerf, and things can still be sorted in GSCs. everyone is happy. Berand
Darpz Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2007.06.11 14:25:00 - [70] and I could see you introducing this nerf after something like an ore capital that has a large cargo bay to give us something to fall back on but this is just going to make anyones life in 0.0 without a titan absurdly hard

Rawthorm Gallente The Establishment Establishment	Posted - 2007.06.11 14:27:00 - [71] As a very mobile corporation we need to deploy can bases in key locations for logistical use. As such the whole capacity thing does not bother me, but rather now we'll have a hell of a time getting cans out to our locations. Would be diferent if a packed can took barely any space and you could assemble it inside the corp hanger, but atm u can't do that.
hillesumas Trader's Academy Daikoku Trade Syndicate	Posted - 2007.06.11 14:32:00 - [72] Dear fellow carrier pilots and devs, I will try to put a constructive post here. If i understand the logic of the change, it goes like that: Oops, little bug there, you can have carrier with hauler with cans in them which theorically should not be possible... So, let fix this issue. Shouldn't be a pb since in the first place this should not have happened. So we are basically removing something that was not supposed to be there. Pb to this logic... Sometime on the same carrier you go against this kind of logic to make things easier to manage. For isntance, you've removed the rules about corporate hanguars on carrier so the carrier pilot can basically access all the bays without having the proper roles and access in the corporation. Other pb, more crucial. Yes, it was not meant to be like that but you are reducing by 30% one of the use of a carrier as a 0.0 and low sec logistic vessel. The carrier was not planned to be a logistic vessel but it become one since it is the only thing available to do it properly. You could argue that freighter and transport ships could be used but in the real world, transports are too small and slow and freighters are far too slow and very easily destroyed. Solution: As stated by previous posters, you can increase the corporate hanguar bay so we can store more things into it and with the various tabs you can separate various people belongings. Alternatively, give us a proper industrial jump enabled logistic ship that can do the same or a better job than the carrier because what this thread does show is that there is an urgent need for a jump enabled logistic ship. Why it is urgent? - You always complain about the lack of peoples in low sec and 0.0. The risk vs reward issue is an important one. But also, the logistic nightmarre is alos an issue. Basically you have to spend quite a lot of time to go to empire to get your gears so overall if you compound the profit per hour and add the time wasted to do logisitc you end up having not a very good proposition. - Secondly, with the new sovereignty stuff, it will mean more POS and thus even more logisitic to occurr. So the demand for having fast and reliable logistic will increase while you will just cut 30% capacity in overall logistic. Finally, It will also lead to make life in 0.0 and low sec about 30% more expensive since the amount of fuel used to do the jump remain the same but the volume carried is drastically reduced. So fix the carrier sure but please also fix the logistic issue too. Thanks
The Economist	Posted - 2007.06.11 14:37:00 - [73] Originally by: hydraSlav Right, so what you are saying is that Titans were intended to jump-bridge freighters safely from 0.0? Cause that's what it boils down to now. The few with Titans gets hassle-free logistics, while those without are even further away from obtaining one cause CCP/BoB decided to nerf logistics for "the middle class" You're ingnoring a few salient points: 1: The cost in fuel per bridge. 2: The short distance a titan can jump compared to any other capital, meaning lots of jumps are necessary. 3: The fact that anyone with a bit of perseverence could easily setup a trap at any of those jump points. 4: You can jump bridge pretty much everything else, so why not them? Basically; it's not cheap, it's not hassle-free, and it's not 100% safe. Hence I feel I should offer you perhaps a little camembert to go with that whine. (I'd also wager that those who's world falls apart because of this change to gsc's in haulers in carriers, would make a pig's breakfast of trying to manage logistics on the titan/freighter scale efficiently anyway)
Berand Shadow Of The Light R i s e	Posted - 2007.06.11 14:56:00 - [74] Originally by: The Economist (I'd also wager that those who's world falls apart because of this change to gsc's in haulers in carriers, would make a pig's breakfast of trying to manage logistics on the titan/freighter scale efficiently anyway) I don't think logistics people are saying their worlds will fall apart. I think they're saying their worlds, which are already a lot of work, will be made that much more tedious for no gain and no reason beyond "that's the way it's supposed to be". Which, keeping in mind that this is a game, really really sucks. Berand
Cpt Pugwash Rubra Libertas Militia	Posted - 2007.06.11 15:05:00 - [75] Originally by: hydraSlav Originally by: Cpt Pugwash Carriers are combat ships and should not be allowed to perform a logistics role by scooping Industrials. You want to live in deep 0.0 you should have to organise logistic convoys. Use your numerical advantage to escort vulnerable transport ships Industrial ships should not be allowed inside carriers (they are to fragile) and freighters/Industrials should not be able to use a jumpbridge. This would force a lot more industrials into space and give alliances a way to wage war that did not involve huge blobs shooting POS. You could effectively lay seige to an enemy and starve him out without ever engaging a single pos. This is a long overdue nerf and does not go nearly far enough Right, so what you are saying is that Titans were intended to jump-bridge freighters safely from 0.0? Cause that's what it boils down to now. The few with Titans gets hassle-free logistics, while those without are even further away from obtaining one cause CCP/BoB decided to nerf logistics for "the middle class" Read the whole post. Now Read the highlighted part of the quote again. Having done that are their any questions? Movies: Make Mine a Bob Light
HUA XIAZI Dragon's Rage Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2007.06.11 15:20:00 - [76] By putting poses from where your empire office location is to your home system? Even small poses :P? 1 titan with 12 freighters will be able to transport basically everything in 1 go, doesnt it? How can they harm you when your cyno alts / titans / freighters are inside a pos shield :P? The amount of time you can safe is uncountable... and the fuel cost meant nothing to bob I believe ;) 12 freighters in 1 go :P ... quite time/money efficient tho Originally by: The Economist Originally by: hydraSlav Right, so what you are saying is that Titans were intended to jump-bridge freighters safely from 0.0? Cause that's what it boils down to now. The few with Titans gets hassle-free logistics, while those without are even further away from obtaining one cause CCP/BoB decided to nerf logistics for "the middle class" You're ingnoring a few salient points: 1: The cost in fuel per bridge. 2: The short distance a titan can jump compared to any other capital, meaning lots of jumps are necessary. 3: The fact that anyone with a bit of perseverence could easily setup a trap at any of those jump points. 4: You can jump bridge pretty much everything else, so why not them? Basically; it's not cheap, it's not hassle-free, and it's not 100% safe. Hence I feel I should offer you perhaps a little camembert to go with that whine. (I'd also wager that those who's world falls apart because of this change to gsc's in haulers in carriers, would make a pig's breakfast of trying to manage logistics on the titan/freighter scale efficiently anyway) ___ {o,o} \|)__) -"-"- O RLY? >=(^^;)
Moncton	Posted - 2007.06.11 15:20:00 - [77] Please CCP, expand the carrier cargohold by at least 20%. This "fix" is a massive blow to logistics. I trained an alt for carriers specifically to do logistics, not pew pew, but logistics. Why? Logistics is a critical component in 0.0 space. It is also the most boring component; that's why very few people want the job. I always looked at carriers as a multi-tasking tool (logistics, warship, "healer"), so that's why I spent the time to train for this capital ship. Personally, I love the logistics part of war. Supply lines are always critical and logistics are always in demand. BUT, increasing our workload by +20% is a severe blow to logistics carrier pilots. I don't care if carriers were intended for pew pew. Many people in the game looked at carriers as a good support tool. Since logistics players didn't have much choice in ships to haul fuel and ships, the carrier was the only choice. Again, I beg you CCP, please increase the carrier cargohold by at least 20%. I don't want to leave the game on logistics burnout.
Darpz Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2007.06.11 15:24:00 - [78] Originally by: Cpt Pugwash Originally by: hydraSlav Originally by: Cpt Pugwash Carriers are combat ships and should not be allowed to perform a logistics role by scooping Industrials. You want to live in deep 0.0 you should have to organise logistic convoys. Use your numerical advantage to escort vulnerable transport ships Industrial ships should not be allowed inside carriers (they are to fragile) and freighters/Industrials should not be able to use a jumpbridge. This would force a lot more industrials into space and give alliances a way to wage war that did not involve huge blobs shooting POS. You could effectively lay seige to an enemy and starve him out without ever engaging a single pos. This is a long overdue nerf and does not go nearly far enough Right, so what you are saying is that Titans were intended to jump-bridge freighters safely from 0.0? Cause that's what it boils down to now. The few with Titans gets hassle-free logistics, while those without are even further away from obtaining one cause CCP/BoB decided to nerf logistics for "the middle class" Read the whole post. Now Read the highlighted part of the quote again. Having done that are their any questions? while I fully support the idea that you want more juicy industrial targets Pug ultimatly it would mean less targets instead of more targets since the logistics involved for any corp to live out in 0.0 without any jumpable logitics would be beyonh 75% of the current alliances. We got buy before because all these alliances didn't ahve 20+ Large POS to maintain just to keep there space now the sheer magnitude of the amount of matts needed to just keep POS running would break an alliances. Add to the fact that the only thing keeping the drone regions somewhat habitable is the link to empire lowends via carriers with compressed mins. while I do support the nerfing of jump bridging capitals. we need a jumpable cargo ship. While I don't play the space holding logistics game anymore and play the game of anoying them instead the reliance on a carrier to make this game work is alot bigger than you relise. if this change goes thru give us something to compensate. Couple ideas: - increase Corp array to 30k m3 (still going to make hauling a pain since only 30k is sortable but it will be workable atleast) - give us a can that converts Ship Maintanence array space at a 1:10 ratio. 3000m3 can that take 30000 ship space and is placed directly in the ship maintance array
Shizah Cutting Edge Incorporated	Posted - 2007.06.11 15:33:00 - [79] Ofcourse this is a major nerf, and everyone uses the containers, and this will really mess up a carrier pilots ability to separate loads -- to say nothing of a 30% reduction in cargo space. But hey, I have all the confidence in the world that ccp will come up with several new skills to train and new mods (or new cans) to buy and in a few months we will be right back to where we are today.
Max Teranous Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2007.06.11 15:42:00 - [80] Edited by: Max Teranous on 11/06/2007 15:44:19 Hmmm, may have 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. How's that for using a ship for purpose Max --------------------

General Brusilov Magellanic Itg GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.06.11 15:48:00 - [81] Jesus CCP, why not halve the jump distance while you're at it.
Darpz Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2007.06.11 15:51:00 - [82] 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. yup thats exactly what I thought when I read this nerf. only downside is the lack of range but its not as big of an issue as lack of cans int he carrier
Shamoke	Posted - 2007.06.11 16:03:00 - [83] No cans in a ship in the ship maint bay, fine. No courier missions in a ship in the ship maint bay, fine. All I want is two things: confirm you understand the need for specialized jump capable haulers to handle the massive logistical burdens placed on 0.0 corps and alliances, and confirm you don't want to kill off a chunk of the player base if you don't have to. Assuming both parts are a "yes," can we please have a phased approach to deal with the pain you are about to cause? Since you are going to implement the change regardless of how many people with multiple accounts doing 0.0 Logistics operations will quit EVE, can we please have a phased approach to deal with the pain you are about to cause? Phase 1: Implement the change. Increase all carrier cargo bays by 20,000 to 30,000 m3 to compensate for the lost carrying capacity and sorting capacity caused by locking down capabilities in the ship maint hangar. Phase 2: Release skills and BPOs for a new class of jump-capable ships. It would be nice to have both Transport and Freighter sized ships in this class, but Transport at the minimum. Jump capable haulers, being specifically created for jump hauling (I'm really surprised the Empires have don't have these already!), should have a decent range at least as far as a carrier. After all, these are single purpose ships and would be designed with their purpose in mind. [Note: keep in mind that the jump capable hauler must also carry it's fuel for jumping when you decide the cargo capacity of the ships!!!] Phase 3: After releasing the skills and BPOs, set a date to remove the increased cargo capacity from carriers implemented in phase 1. This date should be set after considering how long the EVE community will need to train the new skills, start producing the new ships from BPOs, and have a viable number of these new ships in circulation to effectively take over the logistical jump hauling role carriers currently fill. This does not mean, "Hey, the database says the first new jump hauler has been built - flip the switch!" In theory you would take the players into consideration, give them time to get ready, and include the switch in the next release after the amount of time the community needs to prepare. Phase 4: Date/release comes, switch flipped. Jump hauling players and the 0.0 alliances they support are ready for the change and are already using the new jump haulers to perform 0.0 logistics. Carriers, devoid of their temporarily increased cargo space, are now either used as second string haulers by alliances, or are converted to be the fleet combat support vessels you always intended them to be. We all simply want compromise, that's all. Give us the intended means to do what needs to be done to support player alliances in 0.0. Please don't just push us all off a cliff and see how many are still alive when we hit the ground.
Vospri Yon Fusion Enterprises Ltd Mostly Harmless	Posted - 2007.06.11 16:03:00 - [84] /signed Madness; removing a tool from a player base (even if it was not attended) after a year of them using it without giving them another solution is madness.
Nostic Republic Military School	Posted - 2007.06.11 16:09:00 - [85] Originally by: The Economist You're ingnoring a few salient points: 1: The cost in fuel per bridge. 2: The short distance a titan can jump compared to any other capital, meaning lots of jumps are necessary. 3: The fact that anyone with a bit of perseverence could easily setup a trap at any of those jump points. 4: You can jump bridge pretty much everything else, so why not them? Basically; it's not cheap, it's not hassle-free, and it's not 100% safe. 1) The cost to jump bridge freighters is actually less than the cost of jumping carriers per m3. 2) Lots of jumps are necessary, but I've seen BoB move up to 16 freighters at a time. It's by far less time per m3 moved. 3) Maybe in lowsec you could set a trap, but after that they're going be entirely safe behind POS shields. 4) It's nothing short of gamebreaking.
Chucky Confederation of Red Moon Red Moon Federation	Posted - 2007.06.11 16:15:00 - [86] You got to be joking? so instead of 15-20 GSC/SSC cans with peoples names on them we got to make a fricking list of 200,000 items we are moving? Didn't we have the same problem with freighters? Someone needs to be hung by there balls and beat like a pinata! ... you will see more and more marketing which in turn will bring you more players to torture.
Treylis Gallente GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.06.11 16:21:00 - [87] Originally by: Berand I don't think logistics people are saying their worlds will fall apart. I think they're saying their worlds, which are already a lot of work, will be made that much more tedious for no gain and no reason beyond "that's the way it's supposed to be". Which, keeping in mind that this is a game, really really sucks. I agree precisely.
Wink Caldari Asgard Protectorate	Posted - 2007.06.11 16:21:00 - [88] 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
scabbsssjr Gallente M'8'S Frontal Impact	Posted - 2007.06.11 16:23:00 - [89] 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. HI, Welcome to eve, I assume you have never logged in? Let alone done logisitcs in 0.0? Lets cover a few things. You can change code to make your enitre 0.0 player base happy. I mean you attempting a committee to make the player base happy so why not a code change? BTW guys get off the jump portal and show your anger at this guy. I think all of eve has found one guy we can call primary every day. --------------------------- Originally by: Ductoris At this rate I'm going to ask for a BOB sub-forum.
Moncton	Posted - 2007.06.11 16:34:00 - [90] 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.

zykerx Pegasus Mining and Securities R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.06.11 16:38:00 - [91] carriers arent intended as haulers, we all know that, but it is a effective hauler nontheless the + point of gsc cans was that ya diddnt had to jump into those haulers all the time to empty or load them, yust open hold and then the cans to laod them wich was pretty nice, but mayby also the exploit ? its a pain that it is gooing to be removed, but hell gotta adapt and moveon time for the HAULER-DREADNOUGHTS hehehe and dont say that dreads are not haulers as wasnt it, ccp provides the tools, the players do the rest what would be nice if we can open the cargohold and get the full cargohold and not only the basic cargohold that ore capital ship ccp talked about would be nice, if its able to haul a bigload atleast . "MY COMMENTS IN NO WAY REFLECT MY CORP OR ALLIANCE"
zykerx Pegasus Mining and Securities R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.06.11 16:40:00 - [92] Edited by: zykerx on 11/06/2007 16:42:23 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. 3 cargorigs and 8 expanders on a dread is abit much :O or ya much never use it for sieges and dont care about atleast 1 armor rep . "MY COMMENTS IN NO WAY REFLECT MY CORP OR ALLIANCE"
Wink Caldari Asgard Protectorate	Posted - 2007.06.11 16:40:00 - [93] 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
Alakazam Bob The Builder Breidablik	Posted - 2007.06.11 16:43:00 - [94] Originally by: Wink 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 Cribba uses a dread for mining in safe space We should be allowed to use our ships for other things as well as fighting. I use my alt to pvp on market and this change sounds silly. Maybe somone in CCP could clarify why they feel they need to correct this...
Jaleera Kaisin Amarr Eve Defence Force Praesidium Libertatis	Posted - 2007.06.11 16:47:00 - [95] Well all I can say is thank frack I didn't go ahead and waste my hard earned ISK finally buying the Carrier skill and Cap ship skill and getting a carrier. Thanks for the announcement CCP, you just saved me a couple of billion ISK which would have been wasted on a ship which couldn't do what I needed it to do. Ogganisation is key to logistics . . .and you just took away the ability to organise properly for what has become the key tactical logistics vessel in any alliances tool box. This is a retrograde step any way you look at it. By all means change the GSC capacity to 3000 m3 so that they can't be "Overstacked" but don't pretend it's not a nerf. There is **** all reason to get in a carrier now really with all the changes made recently. Think I'll just pootle along in my logistics cruiser in empire and not bother moving stuff around.
Moncton	Posted - 2007.06.11 17:02:00 - [96] Originally by: zykerx Edited by: zykerx on 11/06/2007 16:42:23 3 cargorigs and 8 expanders on a dread is abit much :O or ya much never use it for sieges and dont care about atleast 1 armor rep Exactly. I am looking for pure logistics. I hate the thought of using a dread for logistics, but CCP wants to hurt logistics with this carrier nerf. Also this 5km anti-POS Bowling "fix" is such a kick to the nuts for logistics people. I truly believe CCP doesn't understand how insane these "fixes" hurt the game. Why didn't they just change the design so players who have permission to use a POS (corp POS, password set) can warp right inside while enemies be kept out?
Berious Havoc Inc	Posted - 2007.06.11 17:05:00 - [97] Well I sure feel like a chump wasting all that SP and isk on carriers after one nerf followed by another.
Borgholio Minmatar Quantum Industries Prime Orbital Systems	Posted - 2007.06.11 17:07:00 - [98] 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. Why now after all this time? What's the big emergency to fix this loophole at this exact moment? And are you going to introduce an alternative method to keep 0.0 residents supplied or are you going to continue to ignore that plea? ----------------------------------- You will be assimilated...bunghole!
Baccala	Posted - 2007.06.11 17:21:00 - [99] Edited by: Baccala on 11/06/2007 17:21:28 whatever
Interval The Triad Alliance	Posted - 2007.06.11 17:24:00 - [100] Edited by: Interval on 11/06/2007 17:23:21 Originally by: Berious Well I sure feel like a chump wasting all that SP and isk on carriers after one nerf followed by another. Ditto

Dramaticus GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.06.11 17:28:00 - [101] Originally by: Borgholio 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. Why now after all this time? What's the big emergency to fix this loophole at this exact moment? And are you going to introduce an alternative method to keep 0.0 residents supplied or are you going to continue to ignore that plea? Jump bridging freighters! Your signature was inappropriate, email [email protected] to find out why (don't forget to include a link to it) -Sahwoolo
Wink Caldari Asgard Protectorate	Posted - 2007.06.11 17:34:00 - [102] 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?
Serendipity007 Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.06.11 17:34:00 - [103] 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. ___________________________________________________ "I'm an engineer, not a miracle worker!" - Scotty, Star Trek: TOS
Cpt Pugwash Rubra Libertas Militia	Posted - 2007.06.11 17:38:00 - [104] Try to look at the bigger picture and not just how this affects you. 30% reduction isn't enough but it is a start. Make logistics harder we will see less POS. Less POS means less wasted days in huge blobs staring at bubbles as dreads knock down POS shields. It gives a small more determined group the chance to beat a larger, largely inactive, group by blockading them. There will be more opertunities for fights on smaller scale as Escorts protect their convoy from raiders. Raiders pick on stragglers, and convoys setup those same raiders with straggling battle Badgers. There is so much more to Eve than the alliance Blob comfort zone, CCP want to encourage smaller gang warefare and this is a step in the right direction. Movies: Make Mine a Bob Light
Popsikle Shadows of the Dead Aftermath Alliance	Posted - 2007.06.11 17:41:00 - [105] As a player form beta, with 4 accounts, I think this is the first time I can actually say this, and mean it. ** you CCP. There is no ***** sense in this nerf. __________________________________________
Interval The Triad Alliance	Posted - 2007.06.11 17:44:00 - [106] Harder logistics != less POS. You can't make that leap because there were POS logistics before carriers. It took a while for alliances to start using carriers for logistics and the good old fashioned Freighter escorts were happening weekly. Carriers helped alleviate boredom of escorting freighters, but you want to bring that back it seems. It wasn't a game mechanic most enjoyed.
Max Teranous Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2007.06.11 18:07:00 - [107] 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. Bah, i was at work and used a 1.25 mod, not 1.275. You're right. Max --------------------
SamuraiJack Caldari Celestial Horizon Corp. Valainaloce	Posted - 2007.06.11 18:18:00 - [108] Cyvok used to dread haul. Guess we'll do the same again. Us poor ppl dont get titans and toys /tounge firmly in cheek /me waits for bob scouts to hunt for CLS cap arrays. I'll give u a clue. They are in Motsu. SJ. CLS CEO, Valainloce Executor and Standings Director =-
Moncton	Posted - 2007.06.11 18:33:00 - [109] 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.
SamuraiJack Caldari Celestial Horizon Corp. Valainaloce	Posted - 2007.06.11 18:34:00 - [110] Apparently we're screwed cos its in Rev2 now and finalised. GG CCP... numpties. SJ. CLS CEO, Valainloce Executor and Standings Director =-

Hrin Minmatar Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys	Posted - 2007.06.11 18:39:00 - [111] This addition should be delayed and not part of Rev 2. Nothing in a GAME should be as tedious as POS maintenance. If you're going to take 30% of the cargo capacity with one hand, you need to give something with the other.
B Glorious Imperial Academy	Posted - 2007.06.11 19:08:00 - [112] In some ways, I can see the bright side of this, as it makes the farthest reaches of space have real meaning. But on the other hand, here's what I think: - There really should be a way to partition off a cargohold to transport things more easily. - If carriers have their hauling capability diminished, then you sure as hell shouldn't let titans jump bridge freighters, because what the **. - If you end up 5km outside of a POS bubble no matter who's it is, there better be some major nerfs to titans and motherships on the way. Nobody who does logistics is going to be happy at all when he warps to a POS in need and gets doomsdayed or fighterbombed while slowboating the 5km to the shield in an iteron III with no way to stop it. If you guys haven't been thinking about this yet, seriously, I'm totally speechless.
Cadiz Caldari No Quarter. Vae Victis.	Posted - 2007.06.11 19:10:00 - [113] Edited by: Cadiz on 11/06/2007 19:10:13 Wow, and my alt was just finishing her final run to a Thanatos, too. Trained not so I can be l33t pwnz0rage with fighters, but primarily to assist corp logistics. Nice to see I'll be a good 20% - 30% less efficient and unable to sort stuff for people now, now that I'll be unable to say "just give me a can with your name on it" and instead will have to ask "please give me a detailed list of everything you want me to take up". Ships in EVE are used for things other than their intended purposes all the damned time. You've got tank-mining battleships. You've got ewar-fitted industrial ships used as bait ships. You've got combat frigates used as cyno ships. You've got Caldari sniper boats fitted with blasters. You've got Amarr vessels fitted with Minmatar projectiles. Hell, you've got the Veldnaught. There isn't a problem with this; it just goes to show how blessedly freeform EVE is. And it just so happens that carriers are used as logistics ships - hell, probably more than they're used as combat vessels. That's fine, because they fill a niche in 0.0 logistics: namely one that lets the supply guys do their thing without having a nervous breakdown every second week. Well, here's hoping that ORE capital ship ends up being a suitable logistics vessel... ------ Director, No Quarter "There is no problem that cannot be solved by the judicious application of violence."
John McFly Ganja Labs Hydra Alliance	Posted - 2007.06.11 19:10:00 - [114] Originally by: SamuraiJack Laughable change the damn water in the bong CCP. So... my carrier can no longer haul. I can no longer sit at a pos and assign fighters. Would you like me to paint a target on my ass and just selfdestruct? Guess u dont want the 0.0 regions expanded or the greatness of eve to be furthered... Just CS in space eh? total joke. I'm a member of Ganja Labs, and I agree the bong water needs to be changed.
Agent Stone Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Volition Cult	Posted - 2007.06.11 19:16:00 - [115] Edited by: Agent Stone on 11/06/2007 19:20:50
Jotan Veer HUN Corp. HUN Reloaded	Posted - 2007.06.11 19:17:00 - [116] Originally by: Cadiz Well, here's hoping that ORE capital ship ends up being a suitable logistics vessel... Don't hold your breath, I'm pretty sure that the 'proper' way to do logistics in CCP's eyes is 10 hour round trips with 10+ freighters for 0.0 alliances. RL twitch and nervous break-down included for free.
Agent Stone Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Volition Cult	Posted - 2007.06.11 19:22:00 - [117] Right... Another Carrier Nerf? CCP don't put this into Rev2! I guess I should train for dreads now, and fit one for Hauling then because that makes sence... Not being able to deploy fighters inside a POS Shield... Having to Train Logistics V for Triage Module... And Dreads being able to haul better than Carriers, and be able to divide hauling goods, while a Carrier can't. CCP as you plan on Nerfing the Carrier so much, and changing them so much, can I have my skill points used to fly carriers refunded, and put into flying dreads please?
SamuraiJack Caldari Celestial Horizon Corp. Valainaloce	Posted - 2007.06.11 19:22:00 - [118] easy. make ccp use pos's. No more pvp until they realise just what a pain in the ass it is. SJ. CLS CEO, Valainloce Executor and Standings Director =-
Verite Rendition Caldari AUS Corporation CORE.	Posted - 2007.06.11 19:31:00 - [119] 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? ---- AUS Corp Lead Megalomanic
Dr Fighter	Posted - 2007.06.11 19:47:00 - [120] This issue seems a bit like the insta jump bookmarks, this nerf will affect almost every 0.0 allience without a titan and freighters. CCP really should expand the cargo capacity to compensate, or ship mant space. I expect the drone regions will be hit hardest by this so i hope the rev 2.0 "buff" will be kind in other ways to them aleast, and to the other 0.0 carrier pilots lets hope theres a way not to loose so much per haul for us.

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. -- .

Garek COLSUP Tau Ceti Federation	Posted - 2007.06.12 06:53:00 - [151] Hey guys, just bridge your freighters, as we all have Titans and Motherships.... Enjoy the game but I'm getting fed up of all these nerfs and bad excuses. Not poining fingers, but some nerfs always come in good timing for some other people... 1) syscap blocked @ 700 without warning.. wonder why they did it on that day just that day.... 2) nerfing carriers when only 3-4 alliances have Titans wonder why they only nerf it now after a year... 3) posbowling, this is not a bug or an exploit right now and oh we cannot reimburse you weren't in your ship and our logs does not show your ship was destroyed... (how can i make a petition about a destroyed ship then, with my detroyed ship name) 2 weeks after... Posblownling is an exploit because more and more people were using it... wonder why Anyway, you guys do great work but sometimes you should use your head about what you do and what you say. Nerfing this is a big big nerf for Midsized alliances and big alliances. Even smaller corps will suffer from this. Not only for the space but surely from the organizational point. I do buy stuff for corp and alliance members in jita bring it down and put it in my carrier in containers. So I don't need 5 hours to sort it all up again when I arrive. Alliance memebrs Contract containers these were just to be dragged into my indu and into teh carrier, now... get it out see that it is repackaged... etc etc Guys this is a CARRIER it is supposed to CARRY things, lots of this as much as you can things... It is not a supper logistics to repair Poses. We don't have all the opportunity to jumpportal freighters form the one side to the otherside of the universe. Oh yes forget we are unimportant... It is better for their DB to remove GSC from cargo. And it won't hurt the good poeple who have titans... Just my 2 nickle thoughts. Best regards Garek ---------------------------------------------- Nothing...
Jacobus Flint	Posted - 2007.06.12 07:22:00 - [152] Well, this must be the final nail in the Drone Regions' coffin then. Firstly there are no 'Plexes, no Exploration, no bounty and a HUGE drop in mineral market prices. Now you guys are going to make it so much harder to haul back the alloy we do get that it's going to push any alliance with only a few carriers to breaking point. Don't get me wrong, we WILL adapt, because our hand is forced. Also on the point of a carrier being to carry things. I can understand that carriers are mean to carry fighters. However, seeing as the ship has the longest of the jump ranges, it was clearly designed, at least in a secondary capacity, as a large, safer, hauler. Maiming carrier efficiency is nothing to do with exploits as separte areas of code can be written in to make carriers different entities with different characteristics to a Ship Maintainance Array. IMHO, it's just sloppy to have the two treated the same. Maybe it would be nice if things were fixed so that carriers didn't have to be used as giant haulers all the time. But that belongs in a "Fix the Drone Regions" thread, so I won't bother with it here. Flint
Damned Force	Posted - 2007.06.12 07:47:00 - [153] This nerf make no sence at all. If u can put a GSC in the haulers, and haulers can be put into carriers, than no logical mind can say why cant put that together. But if that so, and we accept this, than give 750k or 1m bay to carriers, or at least double the corp hangar. This nerf is just good for BoB and some really big alliances with Titans. Seems that BoB lobby worked good again. This is a damn good game, and some changes are good, but this last ones are mostly jokes. Carrier nerf, Triage module, Command ship regen nerf, ... And as the post before me sad this is a major nerf for drone region. U made a region with lot of bugs. Was the asteroid bug, than im 100% sure u dont saw before the huge pricedrop of alloys too(in a such game would good to have some economic analyzers), the exploration sites are crappy. The only income is from alloys, and now u make even less worth them with incrasing transport cost. The drone region is much worst than the others alredy, why nerf this again. Other regions get money atm of kill. U dont need haul the stuff after every view kills. The drones are now the same worth or less than other race BS's, but there are additional modules and Commanders and Officers. Tnx for the last changes, but maybe sometime u could read player feadbacks and adopt some idees too, not just think out some idiotic changes. Thrust me from such big ammount of players are much which have more brain than u(not me, but lot of them), why dont adopt some idees from them?
Agent Stone Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Volition Cult	Posted - 2007.06.12 10:01:00 - [154] Edited by: Agent Stone on 12/06/2007 10:03:03 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? Hmm, appologies, but it seems the definition I have for Carrier, varies to that of CCP. Source: http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=define%3A+Carrier&btnG=Search&meta= 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. Ok, possibly its not a nerf, but it does make things harder for players and less fun. Personally, I already send a lot of time in Eve, dealing with Logistics and not actually playing Eve. So this just means I have to spead a little more time working in Eve. I think thats why such a change will upset people. As it creates more work... People don't play a game to work by the way, they play for fun. 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. So your saying that this was a bug, known issue, or exploit that has been in eve for the past year? Should it not have been listed on your Known Issues page? http://myeve.eve-online.com/updates/knownissues.asp
Hube Gallente White Nova Industries Gods of Night and Day	Posted - 2007.06.12 11:11:00 - [155] Just on the point of Carriers.. If CCP want to folow in the true fashion of what a naval carrier is then maybe they should look at the modern carriers we have had over the last 30 years. The USS Kennedy is classified as a CV-67 attack aircraft carrier, an all-purpose, multimission vessel. Now that definition of the USS Kennedy is straight off the internet. Carriers in real life are all-purpose and so on. If the Carrier in eve is to be anything like the real life version then it needs a dramatic change in it's in-game abilities. I think the main problem is CCP don't offer a jump capable hauler/freighter, but no-one like moving a Freighter through 40-70 jumps. It's a very time involved exercise with great risk. I understand there has to be some risk involved in EVE but if it involves being at risk for several hours then I am sure most people will opt out and use a carrier instead. As it is with the carrier, you are already paying for the minimal hauling ability that you currently have in the way of racial isotopes. Now I am in no way saying that GSC's were or were not meant to be used in this fashion, but CCP has stated before that they wish to increase traffic in 0.0 and one of the biggest problems as most people know is the empty markets. I see 2 problems here. Carriers are very limited in what they can do. They hardly fit the description of a modern day carrier at all. The 2nd problem is that there is a huge void between the current Freighter (very time consuming) and the present jump drive capable carrier we have now. I think CCP needs some type of Merchant ship that is smaller in m3 than a Freighter but jump drive capable. It could even be as fragile as the freighter we have now but with the same recharge time as a carrier to allow some type of risk/attack in 0.0. Maybe even stop it from jumping inside POS shields? I'm sure there can be a compromise to make such a vessel, and then the carrier can be beefed up and placed more on the front line. Citadel cruise missiles perhaps? Anythings possible which is why we love this game...
Mainreh Rhonaki Jazz Associates R i s e	Posted - 2007.06.12 11:43:00 - [156] Edited by: Mainreh Rhonaki on 12/06/2007 11:43:22 NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! Sorting, trading, contracting, packaging, canning is already more than half the time of a logistics carrier run. Now you want to add even more time to that tedious burden? Disallowing cans in haulers in carriers serves no practical purpose whatsoever. Its impact on gameplay can hardly be considered an improvement for anyone. Cans are primarily an organizational tool for the carrier. A typical logistics carrier run will transport stuff for _at least_ half a dozen ppl. My personal record is 11, but I doubt that is anywhere near a global record. Each of these ppl will typically want at least a full fitting sent, often several. The book keeping needed to do such a haul will be monstrous if you cannot bundle stuff. Have the relevant designers and devs missed the dozens of threads pleading for container BPs so stuff can be sorted in outpost hangars? What purpose did those pleas have if not to get some tools to create order in the materialistic chaos that is Eve. Cans fill the same purpose for carriers. The practical upshot of this change is that carriers will still operate as logistics vessels, but that you need to do tons more bookkeeping as a part of the operation. For a medium sized alliance living in the outer parts of null-sec the carrier is the only relevant method of getting replacement equipment out. Reducing the total amount transferred by some 10-15% will not affect this state of affairs. Carrier haulage is _necessary_ for many null-sec alliances. The poor pilots that provide this service will have to continue doing it, because the alternative will be to move closer to empire space where industrial and freighter transport is feasible alternatives. They will just have a lot less fun. CCP: 1) Revert this change. 2) Provide a clear description of the percieved problem.
Nesa Antares Fleet Yards SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2007.06.12 11:51:00 - [157] Forget cans, basically means that now the maximum courier mission I can jump for a corp-mate is 10,000m3... down from 38,000m3 :( So much for being able to just get people to make me a courier mission :( What we really need is a jump capable freighter, 200,000m3 + and greater jump range than carriers. :o Because it would make it really interesting to have them able to jump further than their escorts ;)
Michael McNeil	Posted - 2007.06.12 12:19:00 - [158] being realife military, i agree that carriers are now multi role ships. any military that keeps its ships used for just one thing will become stagnet and die, if they do not have the economic and man power to keep the multiple ship fleets running. this will only serve to hurt smaller corps who can not get a 20-40 man fleet together to protect 1-3 freighters on the long trips (some case's 50 jumps one way) so either ccp must come out with a smaller freighter with jump drive, or allow the carriers to jump supplies in.
Mainreh Rhonaki Jazz Associates R i s e	Posted - 2007.06.12 13:03:00 - [159] Originally by: Nesa Forget cans, basically means that now the maximum courier mission I can jump for a corp-mate is 10,000m3... down from 38,000m3 :( So much for being able to just get people to make me a courier mission :( You had to go find a way to make me even more depressed. Half my corp hangar is usually fuel and ozone. So for me, it's down to about 4k m3 :(
DeadWeight Minmatar Botox Bandits	Posted - 2007.06.12 13:08:00 - [160] Originally by: Damned Force This nerf is just good for BoB and some really big alliances with Titans. Seems that BoB lobby worked good again. This is a damn good game, and some changes are good, but this last ones are mostly jokes. Carrier nerf, Triage module, Command ship regen nerf, ... If Arkanon ever wanted proof of misconduct, its here. Enough already. Stop nerfing us again and again. None of us have 4 titans we can set up a jump bridge network with. And your upcoming jumpbridge array does not count since it needs Sov and won't work in Low sec or Curse/Venal/Stain/Syndicate/Fountain. Of course it will work in delve because for some strange reason, the NPC's there only have sov over their station systems and not over the whole region, unlike every other npc pirate region in EvE.

Elmicker The Phoenix Rising Vigilance Infinitas	Posted - 2007.06.12 14:41:00 - [161] Originally by: DeadWeight unlike every other npc pirate region in EvE. Delve isn't an NPC pirate region. Its a region, with NPC pirates. Anyway, its already been said this wasnt intended as a nerf, just the by-product of a code tidying session that is ******* over every 0.0 alliance going, and is probably not going to be fixed, as the devs don't see it as a nerf.
MaJPayne Killerz Minmatar Shadow Of The Light R i s e	Posted - 2007.06.12 15:29:00 - [162] CCP doesn't seem to be listening to its customers either. My logistics carrier pilot is ****ed!!! Now i'm gonna have to break out the whip to get him to jump anything. Let me be clear. This IS a NERF. It is affecting logistic operations. Anyone who has been in the military knows that when you affect logistics you also affect strategy, and tactics in any given theatre of operations.
Antibac The Phoenix Rising Vigilance Infinitas	Posted - 2007.06.12 15:38:00 - [163] I don't usually indulge in whining, but this change is one I'd like to add my voice of concern to. The major problem with this nerf for me is not so much the 30% reduction in cargo space (although that is unwelcome); It's not even that you have to get in and out of a hauler to fill it (although that's also unwelcome due to Scotty's interference); It's that I have to have a character trained to fly an Iteron V available when I'm loading the carrier, in order to fill it up properly. I have an Iteron V sitting in my ship maintainance bay, ready to be filled with goods. Previously, I could fill an Iteron V with GSCs, and then load directly into them myself. That's no longer possible. I am a carrier pilot and I can only fly an Iteron IV at the moment. An Iteron V with 5 cargo expander IIs and 3 expanded cargohold optimisation rigs can hold 38.4K m3 (ignoring GSCs). An Iteron IV with 3 cargo expander IIs and 3 expanded cargohold optimisation rigs can hold 19.8K m3 (with my skills, again ignoring GSCs). That's roughly HALF the space available. So there are two solutions for me, if I don't want to accept a halving of the effectiveness of my carrier as a logistics tool. Either I can spend 20 days training Gallente Industrial 5, which is not exactly on my skillplan right now, or I have to have a character that can use an Iteron 5 clonejump down to empire to help me fill my carrier, which takes them out of commission for 24 hours. Neither are particularly attractive. Maybe IÆm whining and I should just take one for the team and train up Iteron V, but from the look of this thread, there are very few people who think this change is remotely a good idea. Hauling other peopleÆs possessions about is already a boring job. This change is just going to make it more inconvenient and more boring. The only people in this thread that think itÆs a good idea seem to be those that have no idea how long it can already take to get your alliance and corp matesÆ possessions in one place in a lowsec system, record everything, arrange cynos, jump down to empire, fill up, jump back to 0.0 again, then try to reunite everyone with their stuff. Never mind hauling POS fuel about...
Hube Gallente White Nova Industries Gods of Night and Day	Posted - 2007.06.12 16:03:00 - [164] Just to show you how uneconomical this is going to make hauling in a carrier in the future, I already pay 24 million ISK for fuel to do a 4 jump return trip for very little cargo being moved. The carrier is becoming a less desirable ship in this game. The public has spoken and they have already told you that this change is bad. If you are goin to do this then increase the corporate hangar arrays, add an option for each level of Carrier that gives you 5-10% array size increase per skill level as well as the other bonuses.
Moncton	Posted - 2007.06.12 16:28:00 - [165] I completely forgot about the fuel requirements. Normally a carrier would be profitable and useful due to the fuel/cargo ratio. Now it is not economically feasible anymore. Now I am certain that nobody in CCP understands carrier logistics. Unless this is the plan and some certain alliance taking advantage of their big toys to take over all of 0.0 space. :tinfoilhat:
Michael McNeil	Posted - 2007.06.12 16:35:00 - [166] again i must agree with hube. (not because were the same corp) but because hes right. secondly this game has a DRASTICLY lack of logistics... in a war you never talk tatics you talk logistics... (case in point any military attacking russia between 800AD and 1947AD.) this game needs a ship that can carry ATLEST 100k to 500k cargo as the feul requierments for pos's increase do to new mods with them. and the need for more pos's you will need more feul which results in the need for more cargo space. either allow for a larger cargo bay for carriers, or give us a jumpable freighter.
Borgholio Minmatar Quantum Industries Prime Orbital Systems	Posted - 2007.06.12 16:56:00 - [167] 1. Take an existing freighter 2. Add a jump drive 3. Cut cargo space in half (for balance purposes). For RP purposes, you can say that the jump drive takes up so much room that it reduces available cargo space. And that's it, no extra work needs to be done by CCP. They can use the existing freighter skins, and the freighter stats will be identical (aside from the cargo room). Give it a new name (Deepspace Freighter), give it appropriate skills (Freighter 3, Jump Drive Operation 1), and viola. There's no reason why CCP couldn't release a jump-capable freighter in time for Rev 2. ----------------------------------- You will be assimilated...bunghole!
Riley Craven Caldari Copacetic Corporation	Posted - 2007.06.12 17:40:00 - [168] Originally by: Cpt Pugwash I am a little out of date on fuel costs but it is not prohibitably expensive, are you? 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? 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. A good Hauler + good Scout will not be caught. 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 If 1 ceptor pilot can kill your hauler you are doing it wrong. 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. Wow, I am surprised you thought my post was reasoned... yay :) Anyway... as far as fuel cost are concerned. Before the big ice changes that made it harder for macro people to mine ice, isotopes averaged around 200 p/u (of course like all things in eve this is heavily dependant on location) The average cost these days for fuel has doubled and then some. You would be lucky to find fuel at 400 p/u. So yes I would say it is prohibitively expensive now depending on the distances involved and the frencqueny of the trip needed. As for as being out of touch with carrier hauling, I am well aware that carriers have been long able to haul goods since way in 06. My point was that up until rigs came out that I dont think they did as great a job as they do now of hauling. While I have to agree the skiff sploiting was bad, I am not sure how you are factoring that into this debate. In reality everyone knew that was a sploit and that it was a matter of time before it got fixed. CCP on that issue got it right. I will agree that it takes less time for your cap to regen than it does for a hauler to get moved.. but you also have to factor in getting cyno's into place and making sure they stay protected while the field is up and that they have the ability to generate more than one cyno (i.e) fuel space. My point is that in this case the logistics costs of the increased ability to move things faster through 0.0 is balanced and doesnt need to be fixed. Agreed, a hauler + scout will never be caught... but again given the cost of invenstment vs a hauler and a carrier, the carrier should have some increased benefits. One last note.. I am sure you trained alot of skills that you can use in ways that they werent intended for... I.E. using a destroyer as a pure salvage ship. Eve is based off the sandbox arguement and CCP trying to limit the playing field in this regard seems a bit silly.
Wink Caldari Asgard Protectorate	Posted - 2007.06.12 17:57:00 - [169] 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.
Wesley Baird Ever Flow FREGE Alliance	Posted - 2007.06.12 19:49:00 - [170] Worst change CCP has made...

Grayton GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.06.12 20:05:00 - [171] I'd like to think that the fact this thread has an overwhelming majority of people from all sorts of varying alliances- even those fighting one another- agreeing that this is a bad change as something that will influence CCP's decision making process, but looking at past history, it will probably not matter. Oh well, I just hope that CCP does make the right decision in regards to this whole thing.
Kaylana Syi The Nest	Posted - 2007.06.12 20:28:00 - [172] 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? Can you make it so that ships cannot hold cargo in their bays and be put into ship maintenance bays/arrays. You are only going to reduce a carrier's capacity by about 17k which is not that much since you can still hold like... 60k. Freighters are for hauling large purposes. Industrials with rigs and expanders are for more mundane work. Being able to jump 2 industrials ( mammoth and hoarder w. max skills, rigs, expander IIs ) and 12.7k m3 ( 3 GSC in corp hangar ) is kinda ********. It severly devalues infrastructue, teamwork and gives power gamers the ability to setup instant beachheads with no risk. 0.0 trading is also pretty much risk free as well. Team Minmatar
Lord DarkStar Gallente Mobile Alcohol Processing Units	Posted - 2007.06.12 20:37:00 - [173] Hey didnt you know that eve is a pvp game? there is no room for industrialists in this game ... but ya i was gona be training for carrier mostly for logistics for my corp as well ... but i desided to wait awhile and see what this ore ship they are talking about does when it comes out. I hope beyond hope that it is a jump capable logistics ship capable of carrying more then a carrier can currently with the same or bigger jump range,even if fuel requirements were a little bit more i dont care just something that will do the job effectively. Although i can see it being prenerfed when it comes out to half the range of a dread or soemthing bad like that but we shall see. Also i hear ccp said something about ore capital ship(s) aka possibly more then 1 so that could be interesting,also in a dev blog they stated something that a miner would want in their backyard,what better then something that can jump the ore out? We of the Unicorn clan are the best horsemen in the land,our horses are our lives and brothers,we fight as one,we live as one,we die as one.
Lord DarkStar Gallente Mobile Alcohol Processing Units	Posted - 2007.06.12 20:37:00 - [174] Hey didnt you know that eve is a pvp game? there is no room for industrialists in this game ... but ya i was gona be training for carrier mostly for logistics for my corp as well ... but i desided to wait awhile and see what this ore ship they are talking about does when it comes out. I hope beyond hope that it is a jump capable logistics ship capable of carrying more then a carrier can currently with the same or bigger jump range,even if fuel requirements were a little bit more i dont care just something that will do the job effectively. Although i can see it being prenerfed when it comes out to half the range of a dread or soemthing bad like that but we shall see. Also i hear ccp said something about ore capital ship(s) aka possibly more then 1 so that could be interesting,also in a dev blog they stated something that a miner would want in their backyard,what better then something that can jump the ore out? We of the Unicorn clan are the best horsemen in the land,our horses are our lives and brothers,we fight as one,we live as one,we die as one.
Druadan Gallente Aristotle Enterprises Ethereal Dawn	Posted - 2007.06.12 21:40:00 - [175] Originally by: Kaylana Syi 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? Can you make it so that ships cannot hold cargo in their bays and be put into ship maintenance bays/arrays. You are only going to reduce a carrier's capacity by about 17k which is not that much since you can still hold like... 60k. Freighters are for hauling large purposes. Industrials with rigs and expanders are for more mundane work. Being able to jump 2 industrials ( mammoth and hoarder w. max skills, rigs, expander IIs ) and 12.7k m3 ( 3 GSC in corp hangar ) is kinda *******. It severly devalues infrastructue, teamwork and gives power gamers the ability to setup instant beachheads with no risk. 0.0 trading is also pretty much risk free as well. Dealing in such absolutes guarantees you two things: inaccuracy, and remarks about only Siths dealing in absolutes. __________________________________________________ "A witty saying proves nothing" - Voltaire*
SamuraiJack Caldari Celestial Horizon Corp. Valainaloce	Posted - 2007.06.12 22:15:00 - [176] Originally by: Riley Craven 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... ...urm hi? /me slightly confused. Re-reads post... decide coffee is needed. depends on the module vs drones. TBH i'm am no industrialist. I mearly let myself be used as a courier for certain CLS activities. Passive targeters, mwds (bs sized) and medium drones i vaguely recall being good for this. It depends on what minerals you want and for what reason. At one point i think drone mods were damn good for it but were nerfed? Anyway. /me waves back (its of CLS corp. ASCN is dead. Valainaloce is our new allaince.) "Infamy Infamy... they've all got it in for me." SJ. CLS CEO, Valainloce Executor and Standings Director =-
Jotan Veer HUN Corp. HUN Reloaded	Posted - 2007.06.12 22:37:00 - [177] Yea SJ, there was someone in ASCN who advocated the 'let's use the carrier drone bay for mineral haulage' idea. Not sure who was it. It is a great idea if you have a bunch of researched T1 drone BPOs, a character (or two) with good mass production skills who constantly builds them and a freighter in empire. Otherwise, large rails, 100mn MWDs or armor hardeners are better.
Gort Rampage Eternal Ka-Tet	Posted - 2007.06.12 23:56:00 - [178] I understand your desire to rationalize your codebase, CCP, and perhaps your desire to fix things up a bit in your own minds, as well. Unfortunately, both the method employed (which could be described by some as a "near stealth" nerf) as well as the particular direction that the playing field will be tilted by this change, once again seems like providing a uniquely beneficial game environment for certain groups of players. You really haven't done yourselves or the game any good here, in my personal opinion. Despite the comments of a couple of apologists, the effect is just too clearly one-sided to be seen as either well thought out, well executed, or in good faith. If you do indeed have devs playing the game for the good of the game, then I suggest that they undertake the logistical support of a small to mid-size deep space corporation for a significant period of time and let us know how the fun factor in that is working for them. Regards, Gort -- When in doubt, empty the magazine.
LeeL0o	Posted - 2007.06.13 02:25:00 - [179] Well with now ship maintance arrays able to take loaded Ships. would it be abel to put a Can->Industrial->Carrier>shipmaintance array? so the ultimative Container in Container in Container in Container!! I really think until Rev. 2.0 release there should be enought tiem to rethink about that GSC stuff and how to handel it. The lesser overall capacity IS a lot if you need to mive Millions of m¦ a Month but you simply need to jump more. Wich will lead to a higher demand in fuel for Carriers, wich is good for ice mining i guess. But to have not the ability to sort stuff inside carriers is simply the most scary thing ever heared. I first can't believed it as i heared that one, its simply sounded like a very bad April j0ke. As mutch comfort we will get with all the wallet and extra share and other nice feature extensions in Rev 2 but ... no longer GSC .. I remember a lot of pates that are called: - the tracking Speed introduction - The big missile nerf. - The New capital ship class nut rev 2.0 will go into Eve History as the "no longer GSC Patch" thats for sure
Ava Luvlidai Antipodean inc. Sparta Alliance	Posted - 2007.06.13 04:10:00 - [180] Forgive me for this very unthought out idea, but I thought I'd throw it out there anyway: Why not have a new 'jump' module that can only fit on freighters, requires jump fuel, and needs Jump Drive Operation to use? I understand freighters don't have slots, but it'd be interesting to see and would open up 0.0 logistics in a biiiig way.

CONCORD SWAT	Posted - 2007.06.13 05:18:00 - [181] So, let's recap: CCP adds capital-class ships called "Carriers" which are designed to be logistics ships CCP's idea of logistics is where you're able to repair and rearm friendlies within range The playerbase realizes that these carriers are also very capable for moving things about in relative safety (__NOT__ a problem in and of itself!), which is the *REAL* definition of logistics A large amount of time passes by, in which a significant portion of the playerbase has trained up to use these carriers specifically for the purpose of logistics (both CCP's idea and the REAL definition) During the above time, some seemingly unrelated events trigger suspicions of misconduct on CCP's side. Some events are proven true and dealt with while most others are apparently proven false CCP adds a change to the method in which items are transported using carriers CCP doesn't mention this change anywhere A carrier pilot finds this change and complains CCP tries to leverage the change as a fix to a problem which there have been absolutely no significant complaints, and wasn't even on the "known issues" list, even though CCP characterizes it as such In the meantime, the single alliance which would benefic most from this change says absolutely nothing on the issue, as if they were (at the very least) told not to reply to the issue or as if they (at the worst) already the specifics of the change and had planned for it Mmhmm. Maybe you do want what's best for the playerbase, CCP. I'll believe it when you stop making changes that have the least affects to the portion of the playerbase that has the most to benefit from the changes. If this is truly a fix to a long-standing problem, then you need to explain exactly what that long-standing problem is, or rather... was. You need to explain why that problem wasn't on the known issues list. You should tell us why you suddenly decided to fix this long-standing issue when no one has been complaining about it. You need to determine exactly why many carrier pilots are bitching. Misconduct or not, you definitely need to determine why one specific alliance has made no mention at all about the issue, and I do think you know to which alliance I am referring.
Jerppu Minmatar Brotherhood of Polar Equation Mordus Angels	Posted - 2007.06.13 08:18:00 - [182] Originally by: CONCORD SWAT So, let's recap: If this is truly a fix to a long-standing problem, then you need to explain exactly what that long-standing problem is, or rather... was. You need to explain why that problem wasn't on the known issues list. You should tell us why you suddenly decided to fix this long-standing issue when no one has been complaining about it. You need to determine exactly why many carrier pilots are bitching. Misconduct or not, you definitely need to determine why one specific alliance has made no mention at all about the issue, and I do think you know to which alliance I am referring. Please CCP, do explain and concider the alternative fixes to carriers that has been pointed in this thread. If you "have to fix" GSC stuff, then do fix small corp hangars and ship maintenance bays by adding 250k m3 to ship maintenance bay and 30k m3 to corp hangar. Otherwise lot of us has spent almost a year valuable time and isk for nothing. Eve-directory : Eve Directory Forum Topic
Agent Stone Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Volition Cult	Posted - 2007.06.13 08:32:00 - [183] Originally by: Jerppu Please CCP, do explain and concider the alternative fixes to carriers that has been pointed in this thread. If you "have to fix" GSC stuff, then do fix small corp hangars and ship maintenance bays by adding 250k m3 to ship maintenance bay and 30k m3 to corp hangar. Otherwise lot of us has spent almost a year valuable time and isk for nothing. /signed
Deacon Ix Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Volition Cult	Posted - 2007.06.13 09:50:00 - [184] Logistics are the backbone of the game, Pls don't hide behind 'a carrier is not intended to carry goods' if it was intended as a Fighter Carrier call it a Fighter Carrier. 'Carrier in RL is an abriviated form for Aircraft Carrier (hence the apostrophy) even then they are used to transport fuel/supplys for the fleet. I agree that the carrier in game need to be more combat orientated - pls can you buff the fighters to make it a worth while ship to have And where is this Capital industrial? the stick and carrot method is all well and good but I for one am seeing far to much stick and no carrot. This game is going down hill. Glad I have an alt that is on its way to a Revalation - can't use capital reppers/weapons or a siege module but it will be able to haul - with GSCs too I do belive - and I don't see 'Hauler' or 'carrier' anywhere in the ship name/description The person who said 'violence never solves anything' has obviously never thrown a Rubix cube at a wall
Dr FairosMakani PBA Corporation	Posted - 2007.06.13 10:29:00 - [185] I'm not happy about this, all it does is make the Drone regions more difficult to live in... The logistics are bad enough as it already is! :( Rabble rabble rabble!
Tonto Auri Center for Advanced Studies	Posted - 2007.06.13 11:10:00 - [186] Originally by: Tonto Auri 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. I mean - "half of cargo capacity bonus", of course. Sorry for misspelling. -- .
easylad Smoking Hillbillys	Posted - 2007.06.13 11:38:00 - [187] Originally by: Dr FairosMakani I'm not happy about this, all it does is make the Drone regions more difficult to live in... The logistics are bad enough as it already is! :( Rabble rabble rabble! /signed Rabble rabble rabble
James Duar Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys	Posted - 2007.06.13 11:46:00 - [188] Simple solution: give freighters a short range jump drive and just acknowledge that no one ever wants to move something that expensive with that much stuff manually through 0.0 even more then 2-3 jumps.
Jeff Anderson Advanced Security And Asset Protection	Posted - 2007.06.13 12:06:00 - [189] Originally by: Deacon Ix And where is this Capital industrial? It was dumped from Rev II early on in favor of PVP/E stuff. Sig: Miners supply the ore that the Industrialists use to build the ships you PVP/E with so please think of them as your ship blows up from the enhanced PVP/E in EVE. We know CCP hasn't.
Ktadaemon Confederation of Red Moon Red Moon Federation	Posted - 2007.06.13 12:07:00 - [190] 3 dev replies in the first 2 pages and then nothing since? If you stick your fingers in your ears, close your eyes and sing lalalalalala at the top of your voice do you hope that we, your customers will just go away? This nerf is unreasonable, unfair and unnecessary. remove it from Rev2 now.

Eleana Tomelac Gallente	Posted - 2007.06.13 13:13:00 - [191] Edited by: Eleana Tomelac on 13/06/2007 13:12:58 Originally by: Ktadaemon 3 dev replies in the first 2 pages and then nothing since? This nerf is unreasonable, unfair and unnecessary. remove it from Rev2 now. I'll try to point why the issue has not been explained yet : 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. You see the word exploit? If this is explained right now, it's revealing how to make an exploit BEFORE the patch goes to TQ. I would be stupid, either people would try to use it or people would just look at it, anyway, it would end in tons of people banned... But, I hope we get the explanation when the rev 2 patch goes on TQ. Oh, and it's not a nerf by design, it's a bug/exploit fix. -- Pocket drone carriers (tm) enthousiast ! Happy owner of a Vexor Navy Issue and few ishkurs. The Vexor Navy Issue is much more fun than the Myrmidon !
Deacon Ix Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Volition Cult	Posted - 2007.06.13 13:26:00 - [192] Originally by: Jeff Anderson Originally by: Deacon Ix And where is this Capital industrial? It was dumped from Rev II early on in favor of PVP/E stuff. as always love the sig quote The person who said 'violence never solves anything' has obviously never thrown a Rubix cube at a wall
Berand Shadow Of The Light R i s e	Posted - 2007.06.13 14:12:00 - [193] Edited by: Berand on 13/06/2007 14:12:39 Edited by: Berand on 13/06/2007 14:11:41 I've gotta say, I think this is a horrible change to make, unless there's some compensation in another area, such as increasing carrier cargo holds or adding a jump-drive capable logistics ship. I've already posted in this thread to that extent. But seriously guys, the tin-foil-hattery is ridiculous. FFS, CCP could start offering free orange juice in Jita 4-4, and people would cry that they're doing it because Blacklight f**ing loves* citrus fruits. You completely trivialize the point here by making a conspiracy case out of this. It'll be just as inconvenient for BoB as it will for the rest of us, if CCP goes through with it. But even if you don't believe that, just stick to the actual important argument anyway, namely that adding even more tedium to 0.0 logistics in exchange for no gain at all sucks. It'll be better for all of us. Thanks Berand
clone 1 Caldari The Short Bus Squad The SUdden Death Squad	Posted - 2007.06.13 14:21:00 - [194] Oveur said once, that the day people don't care and don't post on the forums is a sad day for CCP. Well, with the 'great' discussion going on with respect to Amarr Boost in the EVE Information Portal, and the 2 replies we got here I formally don't care anymore. Do what you want CCP Dev Team, I dont care anymore. Always Moaning About Race Retardations
Moncton	Posted - 2007.06.13 15:44:00 - [195] Originally by: clone 1 Oveur said once, that the day people don't care and don't post on the forums is a sad day for CCP. Well, with the 'great' discussion going on with respect to Amarr Boost in the EVE Information Portal, and the 2 replies we got here I formally don't care anymore. Do what you want CCP Dev Team, I dont care anymore. 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.
Tonto Auri Center for Advanced Studies	Posted - 2007.06.13 17:26:00 - [196] Edited by: Tonto Auri on 13/06/2007 17:28:56 Originally by: Eleana Tomelac Edited by: Eleana Tomelac on 13/06/2007 13:12:58 Originally by: Ktadaemon 3 dev replies in the first 2 pages and then nothing since? This nerf is unreasonable, unfair and unnecessary. remove it from Rev2 now. I'll try to point why the issue has not been explained yet : 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. You see the word exploit? If this is explained right now, it's revealing how to make an exploit BEFORE the patch goes to TQ. I would be stupid, either people would try to use it or people would just look at it, anyway, it would end in tons of people banned... But, I hope we get the explanation when the rev 2 patch goes on TQ. Oh, and it's not a nerf by design, it's a bug/exploit fix. It is nerf by meaning. And there are only one exploit, but that exploit is a core of EVE calculations. In normal game You'll never get hauler with 3k base cargo hauling 12635.20k. Normal formula is not 3 000(1.275^5)(1+0.055) = 12 635.20 but 3 000(1+0.2755+0.055) = 7 875.00 See the difference? All calculations done by base cargo capacity. But as that "feature" is core of EVE, there (in haulers hauling stuff) is no exploit at all, it just words to make people silent. -- .
Damned Force	Posted - 2007.06.13 17:42:00 - [197] 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!!!
Lars Erlkonig Caldari GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.06.13 18:03:00 - [198] I humbly ask CCP to reconsider this "nerf." Smaller alliances/corps lacking Titans and Sov claims needed for jump bridges from empire to their home turf have a manifest need for the extra hauling capacity.
Axhind Caldari Ex Coelis	Posted - 2007.06.13 18:27:00 - [199] 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!!! Same here. I'm just a month or two away from it (depending if it's only for logistics or for fighting too). Feels real fun to have spent last 4-5 months training skills and grinding ****ty ISK in order to finally get a nerfed carrier and be told to use a Titan or jump POS. If we had all that we would be jumping freighters and nobody would complain about Carrier nerf. PS: anyone selling a titan for about 800mil? (Some of us are not as reach as old alliances).
Yuki Nagato GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.06.13 18:43:00 - [200] Bumping. Are CCP going to respond to any of this stuff? The logistics of this game are a chore enough already, making it worse will just lead to burnout.

Druadan Gallente Aristotle Enterprises Ethereal Dawn	Posted - 2007.06.13 19:00:00 - [201] Originally by: Axhind 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!!! Same here. I'm just a month or two away from it (depending if it's only for logistics or for fighting too). Feels real fun to have spent last 4-5 months training skills and grinding **ty ISK in order to finally get a nerfed carrier and be told to use a Titan or jump POS. If we had all that we would be jumping freighters and nobody would complain about Carrier nerf. PS: anyone selling a titan for about 800mil? (Some of us are not as reach as old alliances). You can add me to that list. Almost into my carrier and it's going to get nerfed. Very very *** fed up of CCP forcing tedium upon us. The bull** excuse they are giving for this nerf is just laughable, and I would be laughing my arse off at it if it weren't for a certain group of male siblings, operating out of Delve, laughing at the rest of 0.0 because they're not going to be affected by this ridiculous nerf. Fed up of this game getting less and less fun with each patch, and wanting to lay down my subscription more and more and play something else. __________________________________________________ "A witty saying proves nothing" - Voltaire
Elmicker The Phoenix Rising Vigilance Infinitas	Posted - 2007.06.13 19:27:00 - [202] Still awaiting a reasonable response for this. Hell, maybe we should just tell goons that this is all BoB's fault, and get them to do another threadnaught. It seems to be the only way to get a response these days.
Linkel Minmatar PBA Corporation The Volition Cult	Posted - 2007.06.13 19:54:00 - [203] Not impressed CCP, your reasons are flawed if any and why do you guys continue to make the Drone Regions so flawed? Your signature exceeds the maximum allowed filesize of 24000 bytes -Sahwoolo Etoophie ([email protected])
Michael McNeil	Posted - 2007.06.13 20:01:00 - [204] I do not believe that ccp will respawn any farther to this, 1) if they do not lesson to us, its because they wont change and feel that they have answered the questions and we just dont like what htye have said. 2)if they do lesson to us, they may not have a scripted respawns to our demands. either way, from what ive seen of the world in general the past few years, no one really lessons to thows whom they must answer to, unless you beat them with the obedeance stick... given this is a game, the only way to use this stick would be to quit the game. unfortently many of those whom have made this threat either 1) do not quit, or 2) quit for a month or two just long enough to not lose the charactor. then they return their by ccp knows that their threat is meaningless. As for goons thread attack someone mentented, that is not a legal means of getting attention and rightfuly requiers in my view your banishment from the game and servers, (personly i feel this should apply to all of your accounts traced to your IP should be banned as well, not only the account which was used.)
Damned Force	Posted - 2007.06.13 20:18:00 - [205] Originally by: Michael McNeil I do not believe that ccp will respawn any farther to this, 1) if they do not lesson to us, its because they wont change and feel that they have answered the questions and we just dont like what htye have said. 2)if they do lesson to us, they may not have a scripted respawns to our demands. either way, from what ive seen of the world in general the past few years, no one really lessons to thows whom they must answer to, unless you beat them with the obedeance stick... given this is a game, the only way to use this stick would be to quit the game. unfortently many of those whom have made this threat either 1) do not quit, or 2) quit for a month or two just long enough to not lose the charactor. then they return their by ccp knows that their threat is meaningless. As for goons thread attack someone mentented, that is not a legal means of getting attention and rightfuly requiers in my view your banishment from the game and servers, (personly i feel this should apply to all of your accounts traced to your IP should be banned as well, not only the account which was used.) U right. But the no answer just show us that they dont have any good reasn for this change and they simply need time to think out something. THEY FEAR US. But such ignorance with the costumers... its shame they able to do this. If we would have such customer support we could close in a week. SHAME!!!!!!
Popsikle Shadows of the Dead Aftermath Alliance	Posted - 2007.06.13 23:52:00 - [206] Originally by: Elmicker Still awaiting a reasonable response for this. Hell, maybe we should just tell goons that this is all BoB's fault, and get them to do another threadnaught. It seems to be the only way to get a response these days. No threatnaughts please, but BUMP to the top I will! __________________________________________
Ithakus Gallente Red Horizon Inc Red Horizon	Posted - 2007.06.14 00:04:00 - [207] If CCP would simply say "We may have acted too quickly. We will look into this further." it will help to calm some nerves. As a carrier pilot who has hauled a lot of stuff for our corp and alliance, it's a nightmare thinking of transporting everyone's things without cans. I think that using a carrier for moving supplies in and out of 0.0 from empire is a great use for the ship. The thing that makes me scratch my head is how the hell do GSC's hold 3900m3? It's only a 3000m3 container! If they could only apply the magic that allows 3900m3 worth of stuff to fit into 3000m3 of space to lag, it'd be wonderful.
sableye principle of motion Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.06.14 00:11:00 - [208] 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. hmm my ship maintence bay is'nt a container its closerto my ship bay in station if anything. Join The Fight With Promo Today
Mobius Amarr The Avalon Foundation	Posted - 2007.06.14 00:27:00 - [209] so no gsc's in haulers inside carriers ok then bump our corporate hangars to 30,000m3 so we can atleast get some lost space back in return
Kage Toshimado 54th Knights Templar O X I D E	Posted - 2007.06.14 00:42:00 - [210] This certainly puts a raincloud over my parade. I don't like this one bit either! Don't do this, I really don't have the time or energy to waste sorting out all the items I am to haul back and forth from the Drone Regions. Either give the Drones bounties or find a way for us to be able to seperate corp mates goods please.

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.

Tryptic Photon Gallente Asgard Protectorate	Posted - 2007.06.15 03:52:00 - [241] Things that make the game LESS FUN for the people who play it, should fall to the bottom of the list of Game Designer Priorities. I think I'll change Windows and eliminate folders altogether. This will make it more fun to manage your files.
Havok Pierce Gallente Black Lance NBSI Alliance	Posted - 2007.06.15 04:30:00 - [242] CCP, please give us FOLDERS to sort our stuff out in. You can make it like BM folders. Or let pilots have different tabs, like corps do. Call me anal-retentive, but there's something wrong about using station containers for organization when doing so breaks the ability to remotely manage research/manufacture AND the asset search. Carrier pilots use their ships for logisics and friends. Using cargo containers was a cheap and effective method of keeping those assets separate. Please replicate that functionality if it's going to be a casualty of an exploit-close.
Tonto Auri Center for Advanced Studies	Posted - 2007.06.15 08:31:00 - [243] Originally by: Wraithborn 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. You wrong, they play EVE. But because they play with BoBs, they not have any problem hauluing stuff with titans. -- .
Damned Force	Posted - 2007.06.15 08:42:00 - [244] Originally by: Tonto Auri Originally by: Wraithborn 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. You wrong, they play EVE. But because they play with BoBs, they not have any problem hauluing stuff with titans. Agreed At least seems so
Mainreh Rhonaki Jazz Associates R i s e	Posted - 2007.06.15 10:27:00 - [245] I'm really disappointed that this thread has not received an official follow-up. It has to be one of the more unanimous threads posted in this forum, yet there has not been an response to it after Oneiromancer's original replies. This original response displayed a limited understanding of the way carriers are used by small and medium-sized alliances. Indeed, claiming that "And may I point out that 'carrier' does NOT refer to the ship's capacity of hauling?" is just stupid. The carrier is clearly a logistics vessel. Logistics is about _efficiently_ transporting resources. The change in question reduces the efficiency within its declared role. I understand that disallowing cans inside a hauler inside a carrier is a fix for an exploit. I know at least one exploit that will be fixed by this. Either: a) it may be that fixing this or some other exploit is important enough that this _major nerf_* should be accepted as a side-effect. or, b) the change in question is considered to be a desired result. It is not too late for damage control in this issue. I accept a "After revelations release, plz." Just declaring a) or b) (as listed above) would be a major improvement. For me, the developer misconduct issue is a fairly minor one. However, when a significant subset of your community protests a change and there is no reply whatsoever to that protest, Your Silence perfectly strikes Trust, wrecking for major damage. * see: http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=534527&page=6#157 for detailed explanation of how this is a nerf.
Omak Topal Gallente KDM Corp Firmus Ixion	Posted - 2007.06.15 12:53:00 - [246] well the patchnotes have been posted. the nerf is going to happen. we did our best, but this threat failed :( ------ they removed the link to my sig, because it was to big in byte size. like only 50 to 100 bytes to much :(
Jerppu Minmatar Brotherhood of Polar Equation Mordus Angels	Posted - 2007.06.15 15:13:00 - [247] back to page one Eve-directory : Eve Directory Forum Topic
Popsikle Shadows of the Dead Aftermath Alliance	Posted - 2007.06.15 16:46:00 - [248] To the top.. CCP or someone please give us some valid reasons. __________________________________________
Death Mate	Posted - 2007.06.15 16:52:00 - [249] EXPLOITS. This is your valid reason.
baffy Atlas Incorporated Hydra Alliance	Posted - 2007.06.15 17:01:00 - [250] dont do it ccp!

John Blackthorn Foundation R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.06.15 17:15:00 - [251] I've always used gsc not because of the m3 bonus you get for using them but because you can sort things out that need to be transported. Ie fules for differnt pos's, loot that belong to differnt people etc etc.
Popsikle Shadows of the Dead Aftermath Alliance	Posted - 2007.06.15 17:16:00 - [252] Edited by: Popsikle on 15/06/2007 17:15:17 Originally by: Death Mate EXPLOITS. This is your valid reason. No, its not. Fix the exploit, dont nerf the carrier. Even if it means no GSC's, give us a means to sort ****. __________________________________________
Alski Gallente Di-Tron Heavy Industries	Posted - 2007.06.15 17:25:00 - [253] Originally by: Popsikle Edited by: Popsikle on 15/06/2007 17:15:17 Originally by: Death Mate EXPLOITS. This is your valid reason. No, its not. Fix the exploit, dont nerf the carrier. Even if it means no GSC's, give us a means to sort ****. It wasent done because of an exploit, i asked Oveur yesterday (he's been hanging around in jita local recentley) and he said this change is to fix a bug, dident get any more details than that but i presume it might be something to do with the new corp asset tracking(?) -
Wink Caldari Asgard Protectorate	Posted - 2007.06.15 17:50:00 - [254] 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.
Gustav Blackknight Exuro Mortis	Posted - 2007.06.15 18:04:00 - [255] Why can't courrier packages atleast be used?! When your moving a lot of items for multiple people courier missions allow you to put it in one package with out gaining any space from the use of gscs.
Popsikle Shadows of the Dead Aftermath Alliance	Posted - 2007.06.15 20:08:00 - [256] Originally by: Gustav Blackknight Why can't courrier packages atleast be used?! When your moving a lot of items for multiple people courier missions allow you to put it in one package with out gaining any space from the use of gscs. Because it benefits those of us that like to do other things versus straight pvp, duh. __________________________________________
Borgholio Minmatar Quantum Industries Prime Orbital Systems	Posted - 2007.06.16 00:08:00 - [257] Bump. To the devs - you have responded to just about every question except the biggest one. "What are we supposed to do now that carrier hauling has been nerfed?" ----------------------------------- You will be assimilated...bunghole!
Andrus Delai Trinity Inc	Posted - 2007.06.16 04:06:00 - [258] Devs, Please at least temporarily increase the cargo capacity of Carriers to account for the drop in their transport ability. Carriers are a logistics vessel in EVE. What else explains Triage Mode and its prereq of Logistics 5? Please give us Heavy Industrials. Please give us jump capable Capital Industrials. Please seed BPOs for all containers.
Iron Jaw The Forsakened Companions	Posted - 2007.06.16 06:53:00 - [259] Originally by: Astrocarm Can CCP not just add carrier containers like freighters have. No extra space granted, just make it easier to account for the different goods you maybe required to move for various players withn your corporation or allaince. Great idea, hopfuly ccp will do it.
Yuki Nagato GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.06.16 21:55:00 - [260] Edited by: Yuki Nagato on 16/06/2007 21:56:39 Is CCP going to respond to this topic at all? Even just a "we're looking into it" would be cool, as long as we get some recognition that CCP understands our gripes with it. This will seriously hurt logistics - something that's already a major pain in the neck in this game. I don't think many people are expecting you guys to reverse the change - keep GSCs off limits if you want. But at the very least give us some kind of container, even if it's just a regular container that can hold stuff with no cargo bonus (e.g: 3000 m3 -> 3900 m3 for GSCs) so we can sort out fuel and modules. Without some way to sort things logistics in 0.0 becomes a harder and longer process for anyone not in a Titan or Mothership. This is supposed to be a game, and as it is now, logistics is already like a job. This change will make this 'job' even harder and more draining on the people who do it. Throw us a bone here, CCP.

Axhind Caldari Ex Coelis	Posted - 2007.06.17 00:24:00 - [261] 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.
Wink Caldari Asgard Protectorate	Posted - 2007.06.17 00:31:00 - [262] 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!!
Axhind Caldari Ex Coelis	Posted - 2007.06.17 00:49:00 - [263] Originally by: Wink 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!! Not the magic alliance peeps. Anyway I did post better before but the amount of ignoring from CCP shows that it's utterly pointless.
Jerppu Minmatar Brotherhood of Polar Equation Mordus Angels	Posted - 2007.06.17 10:42:00 - [264] Back to page one. CCP? Eve-directory : Eve Directory Forum Topic
Wink Caldari Asgard Protectorate	Posted - 2007.06.17 20:48:00 - [265] Edited by: Wink on 17/06/2007 20:47:24 Hi. Any word yet CCP on the questions raised in this thread?
Popsikle Shadows of the Dead Aftermath Alliance	Posted - 2007.06.17 23:42:00 - [266] Originally by: Wink Edited by: Wink on 17/06/2007 20:47:24 Hi. Any word yet CCP on the questions raised in this thread? no ;( __________________________________________
Yuki Nagato GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.06.18 02:29:00 - [267] I propose that people continue to bump this thread until there is a response from CCP to our complaints and suggestions. Don't let this issue fade from sight. Bump.
Damned Force	Posted - 2007.06.18 06:00:00 - [268] bump
Tuahn GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.06.18 08:32:00 - [269] Sorry guys, this is all my fault, I got into a carrier for the first time two days ago, so they had to nerf it immediately! (Bump, please CCP, at least reply.)
Yuki Nagato GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.06.18 19:13:00 - [270] Not on first page, bump.

Pinpisa Jormao	Posted - 2007.06.18 21:43:00 - [271] Edited by: Pinpisa Jormao on 18/06/2007 21:43:39 Give Carriers high/med slot modules that convert the space reserved for the weapons systems and drones into cargo expansion.
Salia Deluri	Posted - 2007.06.18 22:04:00 - [272] I just spent two days moving stuff for the alliance. Devs can we get something to sort stuff with? I'll eat the extra space but come on give us something. At what point does it become a big enough issue for you to at least respond?
Santa Anna	Posted - 2007.06.18 22:04:00 - [273] Cargo expanders should expand every partition of a carrier's cargo bay -- the hangar, the maint bay, and the cargo hold. That'd solve everything along with being a pretty logical approach. (What are the hangar and maint bays if glorified cargo holds?)
Popsikle Shadows of the Dead Aftermath Alliance	Posted - 2007.06.18 23:36:00 - [274] Originally by: Salia Deluri I just spent two days moving stuff for the alliance. Devs can we get something to sort stuff with? I'll eat the extra space but come on give us something. At what point does it become a big enough issue for you to at least respond? Exactly! __________________________________________
Druadan Gallente Aristotle Enterprises Ethereal Dawn	Posted - 2007.06.19 00:46:00 - [275] Originally by: Salia Deluri I just spent two days moving stuff for the alliance. Devs can we get something to sort stuff with? I'll eat the extra space but come on give us something. At what point does it become a big enough issue for you to at least respond? Quoted for great justice. "A witty saying proves nothing" - Voltaire
Velvet69 eXceed Inc. INVICTUS.	Posted - 2007.06.19 01:47:00 - [276] This feature has been know about for months, but it hasnÆt been addressed until the alliance known as æBand of BrothersÆ had got their multiple Titans working the logistics needed for their means. This change affects many, bar the few privileged with such means of moving items in 00 space. CCP, if you really want the player base to believe you are unbiased to the afore mentioned alliance, donÆt implement this change. Your replies to this thread so far can be described as weak. One of the earlier posts in this thread used the analogy of packing a suit case, putting it in a car and then driving the car onto a ferry for it to be moved. DonÆt use such a weak excuse of it being a coding mistake. Grow up CCP and listen to your player base and do not bow to the whims of a 40 yr old manager of some heating company in Sweden no one cares about. IXC Velvet69 Proud Member of 'The House of Prawn'
Damned Force	Posted - 2007.06.19 05:26:00 - [277] Dont be fool guys. I know u all noticed alredy that on this thread would not be any response, would not be any change. Simple because CPP can say what they want, they changes showing that they work to help BoB!!!!
Spike 68 0utbreak	Posted - 2007.06.19 06:14:00 - [278] 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. This had better be pretty freakin' important...
Yuki Nagato GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.06.19 06:22:00 - [279] Originally by: Velvet69 :words: Can you shut up please? This change affects everyone, including BoB pets. So stop with this crap.
Wink Caldari Asgard Protectorate	Posted - 2007.06.19 08:44:00 - [280] 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

Francesca Dell'Agio	Posted - 2007.06.19 10:12:00 - [281] You can explain until you see blue in the face on how this kicks people in the face :P But nothing will change until the folks who gave the "ok" on this "fix" see the actual problem. As long as those are out of touch it ain't gonna happen. So please don't ***** down on the code or QA folks. Here's the crux of the matter: folks were given a tool for advanced logistics, and right when they have an even bigger need for that tool for increased logistics as forthcoming from the changes of the Revelations 2 patch, that tool got nerfed, while in the background there's the larger issue of competition challenges. The jump portal as available on a titan is a perfectly valid method, and imo it should stay, even with kicking freighters through. But taking away the balance for folks who do not have, will not have, cannot have that very method is not just an imbalance, it is a kick in the teeth. I think there's been enough of that really. Now, if someone at the top of the foodchain :P suddenly gets a wakeup call and realises the true impact of this, please do not fall prey to the usual trap of "yeah we'll fix something along the way so stand by for something new with another patch in the future". Re enable the method as it is needed now, pronto, and then design an alternative solution for a future patch.
Druadan Gallente Aristotle Enterprises Ethereal Dawn	Posted - 2007.06.19 12:31:00 - [282] Edited by: Druadan on 19/06/2007 12:30:03 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. Allow me to assist you with your epic levels of wrong... http://www.froogle.com/products?q=a+clue "A witty saying proves nothing" - Voltaire
Jerppu Minmatar Brotherhood of Polar Equation Mordus Angels	Posted - 2007.06.19 17:36:00 - [283] Oh no, not on page two. Back to page one... Eve-directory : Eve Directory Forum Topic
Steph Wing Gallente The Graduates Brutally Clever Empire	Posted - 2007.06.19 19:46:00 - [284] So let me get this straight: A percieved "exploit" that has been in the code for over a year is getting fixed, and by the way, "Carrier" does not mean "it carries stuff". The result? Instead of carriers jump-hauling cargo, we'll now have Dreads filling that role. I guess "Dreadnaught" does mean "it carries stuff", eh CCP? About TGRAD
Mundem Pashdale Serenity Prime Praesidium Libertatis	Posted - 2007.06.19 20:09:00 - [285] Edited by: Mundem Pashdale on 19/06/2007 20:10:43 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? One supposes then that the carrier is to turned into a logistics ship? The Triage module makes for a mean fleet tank when done correctly, and fighters still have a place in combat if used carefully. However, the use of carriers for hauling to 0.0 and the use of dreads makes sence. As the ships in my bay are NOT compressed, what reasoning is there for the cans to not be alowed? I assume it is in a desire to make the carrier more of a combat vessel rather then the duel role it currently holds, allowing many smaller groups to survive in 0.0 as the have no access to freighters. Does this mean we can expect a new, smaller jump drive capable hauler? Or does this mean more blobby frighter escourt opps as in the past? Whilst I am all for being reliant only on 0.0 with minimal empire access, I do not have a full set of T2 BPO's or BPC's thorugh invention at this time. Only very big organizations approach this. I cannot see the harm this was doing; it allowed a better seeding in 0.0 markets through organizations such as ISS. I hope it might be withdrawn, but I doubt it. My life got harder again leaving less time for fun and more for hauling. Thank you, CCP. I trust that you have a good reason for this though EDIT: I am NOT a care bear. I have a combat carrier alt who is trained and fitted for COMBAT but occasionaly when I need new ships or mods does a jump to empire to allow me to keep fighting. I do feel sorry for those who invested in the carrier for hauling. In response to arguments that 'carrier' does not mean it carries stuff... I can refit it with expanded cargo holds. I could, if I wanted, gut the USS Nimitz and turn it into a bulk carrier. It would not be the BEST bulk carrier but I could still do it.
Drakar Verge Black Star Trading	Posted - 2007.06.19 20:49:00 - [286] CCP needs to respond This thread isnt going anywhere
Trev Kachanov STK Scientific	Posted - 2007.06.19 21:14:00 - [287] This is so so so ***, When i move corp members items w/ my carrier they put their name on the GSC fill it and i pick it up and move it to the next location. What this nerf does is forces me to track and record every single module/unit i receive from my corpmates for moving. Don't trip
Steph Wing Gallente The Graduates Brutally Clever Empire	Posted - 2007.06.19 21:18:00 - [288] Originally by: Trev Kachanov This is so so so ***, When i move corp members items w/ my carrier they put their name on the GSC fill it and i pick it up and move it to the next location. What this nerf does is forces me to track and record every single module/unit i receive from my corpmates for moving. I suppose one could put the onus on one's corpmates to compile a list of the equipment they'd like hauled and simply hand it to the carrier pilot. I know, it's far from an acceptable solution, and I too would like this nerf to be undone, but let's face it: CCP doesn't care, so we're going to have to find ways around. About TGRAD
Velvet69 eXceed Inc. INVICTUS.	Posted - 2007.06.19 21:33:00 - [289] Originally by: Yuki Nagato Originally by: Velvet69 :words: Can you shut up please? This change affects everyone, including BoB pets. So stop with this crap. This space is reserved untill RevII is deployed and I can find out just how old Yuki's toon is. (Better hope its older than mine and you have plenty of 00 experience Yuki) IXC Velvet69 Proud Member of 'The House of Prawn'
SamuraiJack Caldari Celestial Horizon Corp. Valainaloce	Posted - 2007.06.19 21:52:00 - [290] /me points out... Exodus... ment to drive ppl to 0.0... it drove them to empire. /me points out logistics IS 0.0 or you die. /me points out the overabundace of PVP related patches and little love for the backbone of eve. The logistics/industrialists/builders. /me points out that CS in space is sisi... We want the full story of eve... not some tinpoint pew pew 10cent game. We're waiting CCP... SJ. CLS CEO, Valainloce Executor and Standings Director =-

Wiccy84 The Arrow Project Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2007.06.19 22:12:00 - [291] Edited by: Wiccy84 on 19/06/2007 22:12:40 If CCP is soooooo worried about virtual space being created then why is the GSC still apart of gameplay mechanics? Or is what CCP really trying to say is that "some virtual space ok, but other virtual space isnt?" Fix this and choose one way or the other. Give us one of the following: -cargo holds of ships the ability to create tabs -courier wrap items without creating a specific courier mission and -have organizational cans that dont compress space. This would greatly help with organinzing while no virtual space would be added on. either way xSIGNED
Popsikle Minmatar Shadows of the Dead Aftermath Alliance	Posted - 2007.06.20 04:00:00 - [292] Originally by: Velvet69 Originally by: Yuki Nagato Originally by: Velvet69 :words: Can you shut up please? This change affects everyone, including BoB pets. So stop with this crap. This space is reserved untill RevII is deployed and I can find out just how old Yuki's toon is. (Better hope its older than mine and you have plenty of 00 experience Yuki) "BoB pets" has nothing to do with getting this fixed. Lets stay on topic ;) __________________________________________ <t20> i want to be in a manager potition at Hooters
Damned Force	Posted - 2007.06.20 09:20:00 - [293] up and go
Jai Cee Quam Singulari Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.06.20 11:35:00 - [294] The organisational aspect and complete lack of logic is what really bothers me about this. So a can is in a cargohold and thats stored completely uncompressed in a carriers bay but suddenly thats not allowed? Theres no logical reason apart from CCPs code can't handle it which is a poor reason to nerf a ship that was not overpowered in any way. Allow cans or courier contracts in carriers again or at least give them a cargo capacity boost to compensate otherwise can I have 180 days of skill training back.
Rinaldo Titano Caldari Domus Fatalis FREGE Alliance	Posted - 2007.06.20 12:04:00 - [295] I want my SP's back to, and assign to other skills which i would train before if i knowed this NERF! http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/9741/rinaldo2ir8.jpg
Jerppu Minmatar Brotherhood of Polar Equation Mordus Angels	Posted - 2007.06.20 17:03:00 - [296] UP Still no CCP reply Eve-directory : Eve Directory Forum Topic
Borgholio Minmatar Quantum Industries Prime Orbital Systems	Posted - 2007.06.21 01:25:00 - [297] Bumpage. Back to page one for you! CCP, can you please give us any word on if you're going to give us logistics guys a little bit of loving? ----------------------------------- You will be assimilated...bunghole!
Icome4u Caldari Dark and Light inc. D-L	Posted - 2007.06.21 01:54:00 - [298] Originally by: Salia Deluri I just spent two days moving stuff for the alliance. Devs can we get something to sort stuff with? I'll eat the extra space but come on give us something. At what point does it become a big enough issue for you to at least respond? It takes 6-8 month of whining on 3-5 threads with 15-20 pages each. Aka... the Chimera size bug threads ______ Originally by: Vyger If I lose connection while walking around a station will my avatar run off in a random direction and go hide in a corner?
Jack Toad	Posted - 2007.06.21 04:24:00 - [299] Originally by: Icome4u Originally by: Salia Deluri I just spent two days moving stuff for the alliance. Devs can we get something to sort stuff with? I'll eat the extra space but come on give us something. At what point does it become a big enough issue for you to at least respond? It takes 6-8 month of whining on 3-5 threads with 15-20 pages each. Aka... the Chimera size bug threads And it took more than 12 months to change the poor Niddy... /Signed
car111o	Posted - 2007.06.21 04:56:00 - [300] The new change is a joke. Thanks CCP you have made the game even more boring. Now my carrier runs involve a new 10 minute penalty of me reading off of a piece of paper and then verify with the contract whos stuff is who. Wow it was really needed that you banned all planks instead of just GSCs. Apparently you haven't heard of if statements, I am pretty sure they have them in python? Oh you didn't expose that information on the module. Well god forbid you reflect off of it. Let me ask you, why exactly did you ban all planks from carriers? Why? Is it really because people pre expanded their haulers? I think the bob conspiracy thing is BS. After all I could imagine that TWD is super happy about this change. CCP, next time you make a change like this, at least give us a ship half as good as the carrier was, to replace that role. As for me I will just laugh as the price of zyd hits 10k.

Selnix Gallente Master Miners Aftermath Alliance	Posted - 2007.06.21 08:01:00 - [301] Since the promise of some mythical ORE capitol has not yet become reality, any chance there could be two? One to do whatever super sekrit stuff you guys had planned for such an epic vessel, and another as a jump drive enabled cargo vessel. Perhaps have it require Transports V where a carrier requires BS V with a Capitol Ships skill requirement of IV. Replace the ship maintenance array with a larger cargohold, 150k to 250km3 depending on skills, generous tho it may be for general cargo hauling, it would still not usurp the role of the carriers and motherships at bringing vessels onto the field of battle and would still be sufficiently small enough to prohibit the transport of packaged battleships. Let it be mostly lacking in offensive capabilities but not be so easy a target that the Freightnaughts are more feasible. Sure it would mean extra training for current carrier pilots to be able to use it, but it would add another dimension to the game and would slightly improve the logistics involved for low-sec and 0.0 corporations and alliances. Just my 2 isk on the subject.
Jerppu Minmatar Brotherhood of Polar Equation Mordus Angels	Posted - 2007.06.21 15:04:00 - [302] UP !! Eve-directory : Eve Directory Forum Topic
Ignition SemperFi The Arrow Project Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2007.06.22 02:49:00 - [303] Edited by: Ignition SemperFi on 22/06/2007 02:48:38 /SIGNED but hell you could probably break like 20 forum rules in this post and chances are it wont get touched.... no one from CCP reads this thread ARROW CAP SHIPS FOR SALE We Promise you wont be disappointed!
Borgholio Minmatar Quantum Industries Prime Orbital Systems	Posted - 2007.06.22 16:56:00 - [304] Bump! ----------------------------------- You will be assimilated...bunghole!
JonB	Posted - 2007.06.22 18:53:00 - [305] Ok no GSC's, not happy with it but lets have an alternative. Maybe a can that doesn't give a 900m3 bonus but real size. Surely that was the whole issue with the exploit or coding issue wasn't it ? Or maybe allow some sort of wrapping service in stations and corporate hangars. Pilot select the items and then right clicks with a wrap option. Then able to rename as appropriate. Can you still use the little 120m3 cans ? Might be handy for moving blueprints and small numbers or mods.
Rusty PwnStar Rampage Eternal Ka-Tet	Posted - 2007.06.22 20:33:00 - [306] As if the whole Logistics situation wasn't so time consuming and tedious as it was, I could have understood this change. But the Devs seem to have a MASSIVE lack of knowledge, of the time you have to spend on logistics already in this game. This is not a game any more, just a time sink.
Wink Caldari Asgard Protectorate	Posted - 2007.06.23 08:23:00 - [307] bump : ) Yeah, I'm getting the overall feeling that the Rev II patch isn't as good as it's tech I counterpart
Fearless Kill	Posted - 2007.06.23 20:30:00 - [308] back to the first page and signed!!!
Eyes Burn 54th Knights Templar O X I D E	Posted - 2007.06.23 21:23:00 - [309] Not going away. Signed and bumped. DO SOMETHING CCP! Ignoring the problem doesn't help. We're going to keep this up.
Octavian Stratus Caldari Perkone	Posted - 2007.06.24 03:04:00 - [310] Now it seems that you cannot put a POS array unachored from space, (and not repackaged), place it into an industrial, and then put that industrial into your ship maintenance bay. The game treates the un-packaged array as a GSC. WTF??

V'elan GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.06.24 03:56:00 - [311] Edited by: V''elan on 24/06/2007 03:55:09 Here's a fix that allows organization + cargo space: Create new ship type that can be purchased from all stations and comes in different sizes. Practically a new container that's technically a ship. Now you can fill the ship maint bay area with these containers of different sizes without need for cargo expanders as the "ship" containers would be more efficient in space usage than using expanded hauler.
Agent Stone Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Volition Cult	Posted - 2007.06.24 12:10:00 - [312] Originally by: Octavian Stratus Now it seems that you cannot put a POS array unachored from space, (and not repackaged), place it into an industrial, and then put that industrial into your ship maintenance bay. The game treates the un-packaged array as a GSC. WTF?? I have this problem too... I have a old Corporate Hanger Array in a POS. I need to move it from 0.0 to Empire. However as its been used, so its now unpackaged. You can not repackage it at a POS either... So I can not load it into the Carrier via a Iteron. I presume this is a bug. I have petitioned CCP asking them to repackage all POS Arrays in the Hanger, in a hope that I can then load POS Arrays into the Carrier so I can move them. Failing that, I will have to petition CCP to move the POS Arrays for me then at this rate...
Omak Topal Gallente KDM Corp Firmus Ixion	Posted - 2007.06.24 15:11:00 - [313] Originally by: Agent Stone Originally by: Octavian Stratus Now it seems that you cannot put a POS array unachored from space, (and not repackaged), place it into an industrial, and then put that industrial into your ship maintenance bay. The game treates the un-packaged array as a GSC. WTF?? I have this problem too... I have a old Corporate Hanger Array in a POS. I need to move it from 0.0 to Empire. However as its been used, so its now unpackaged. You can not repackage it at a POS either... So I can not load it into the Carrier via a Iteron. I presume this is a bug. I have petitioned CCP asking them to repackage all POS Arrays in the Hanger, in a hope that I can then load POS Arrays into the Carrier so I can move them. Failing that, I will have to petition CCP to move the POS Arrays for me then at this rate... so how did the petition go, any respone yet? --------[sig]--------- I didn't do it, i swear!
Ignition SemperFi The Arrow Project Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2007.06.24 21:37:00 - [314] Do you think they care about bugs... honestly some days it seems like they care more about nerfing then they do about fixing what is honestly broke! FIX THIS - pos unpackaged stuff. HOW IN THE HELL IS THIS AN EXPLOIT!!!! and still the issue about organization needs to be addressed. GSC were the acceptable norm. but because CCP thinks virtual space is a no no. FIX THE VIRTUAL SPACE. make a freakinig 1m3 for 1m3 secure can ratio, from 100m3 to 3000m3 CCP, oh where are you looking.... your blind eyes need opened! ARROW CAP SHIPS FOR SALE We Promise you wont be disappointed!
Kern Walzky Caldari Tenacious Danes Ka-Tet	Posted - 2007.06.24 23:07:00 - [315] Signed... this cant be true... its total S* ! CCP..why do you waste time on this fix...use you F**** time on the Drone Regions !!!! We have been nerfed...bugged, broken for over 6 months now..and we still are... This game is becomming more and more sad Kern Walzky "Freedom is part of life"
Druadan Gallente Aristotle Enterprises Ethereal Dawn	Posted - 2007.06.24 23:30:00 - [316] Badda-bing, badda-bump. "A witty saying proves nothing" - Voltaire
Jerppu Minmatar Brotherhood of Polar Equation Mordus Angels	Posted - 2007.06.25 17:24:00 - [317] back to page one!! Eve-directory : Eve Directory Forum Topic
Ander Gallente Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2007.06.25 17:47:00 - [318] It looks to me after reading 11 pages on this thread that almost nobody wants the GSC change... EVE Online - Pirates ORANGE OF RAINBOW
Rylet VanDorn Pastafarians Novus Ordos Seclorum	Posted - 2007.06.25 20:01:00 - [319] Originally by: Ander It looks to me after reading 11 pages on this thread that almost nobody wants the GSC change... Inversely, it also appears that after 11 pages on the thread, no one at CCP cares what the players of their game do/do not want.
Wiccy84 The Arrow Project Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2007.06.25 23:46:00 - [320] In the end i guess CCP just cares about $$$, but the line where i cancel my payments is just getting closer and closer either way.... back to the TOP. C.areless C.oding for P.layers

Steph Wing Gallente The Graduates Brutally Clever Empire	Posted - 2007.06.26 08:26:00 - [321] ...and Steph Wing is brought one step closer to leaving EVE for PotBS. About TGRAD
Agent Stone Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Volition Cult	Posted - 2007.06.26 09:33:00 - [322] Originally by: Omak Topal Originally by: Agent Stone Originally by: Octavian Stratus Now it seems that you cannot put a POS array unachored from space, (and not repackaged), place it into an industrial, and then put that industrial into your ship maintenance bay. The game treates the un-packaged array as a GSC. WTF?? I have this problem too... I have a old Corporate Hanger Array in a POS. I need to move it from 0.0 to Empire. However as its been used, so its now unpackaged. You can not repackage it at a POS either... So I can not load it into the Carrier via a Iteron. I presume this is a bug. I have petitioned CCP asking them to repackage all POS Arrays in the Hanger, in a hope that I can then load POS Arrays into the Carrier so I can move them. Failing that, I will have to petition CCP to move the POS Arrays for me then at this rate... so how did the petition go, any respone yet? Not yet...
Omak Topal Gallente KDM Corp Firmus Ixion	Posted - 2007.06.26 15:51:00 - [323] i guess ccp doesn't want any emplyee to respond to this thread because, any response from them, not to our liking, will result in a mass witch hunt. or so they must think. --------[sig]--------- I didn't do it, i swear!
Ignition SemperFi The Arrow Project Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2007.06.26 22:44:00 - [324] as much as i want to run around with a tinfoil hat.... i will just pretend to give ccp the benefit of the doubt and maybe think they have forgotten this thread exsists. SO BUMP BACK TO THE TOP!!!!!!!! ARROW CAP SHIPS FOR SALE We Promise you wont be disappointed!
Agent Stone Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Volition Cult	Posted - 2007.06.27 09:32:00 - [325] So to clarify what I feel CCP need to address: CCP say its not a Nerf, but a fix. Which may well be true perhaps? The fix does cause the effect of a Nerf, and no counter “buff” is given… 1) Splitting of assets to haul is no longer possible. At present, Carriers are used on a corporate level… They support logistics operations for many members of that corporation. Carrier pilots may get cans from members of the corporation, to be hauled to 0.0 destinations, like “Stone’s Ammo”, “Mining Mods”, and “Tim’s BPC’s”, etc. Before the patch it was simple. Members contract cans over, and you drag drop, and haul. Now its, open, log on spreadsheet, screenshot, drag, drop, haul, read spreadsheet, then pass the correct contents on. Then, if there is a mistake, trying to find one item that’s gone astray… Well, it’s a pain to fix. Creates more work, and stress for players. Life is more difficult for Carrier Pilots. 2) Drone Regions Effect This patch reduces Carrier hauling ability by 30%. Maybe this is a fix, and we have been enjoying 30% extra as a bonus for a year? But for the Drone Regions it takes effect more than anywhere else. Drone Alloys at present get shipped from 0.0 Space to Empire space. The only way to do this is by Carrier. Why? Because if your members rat, get drone alloys, and then ship it to empire any other way, there is a risk of the Industrial Ship being killed, and the player getting nothing for there ratting. To put it in the perspective, for other ratters around the eve universe to understand. Its like a player spending 2 days ratting in 0.0 space, and then to have the 100mil Isk they have in there wallet taken back out. Randomly. That is why Carriers are used for Logistics. That is why a 30% reduction in space effects those regions more than others. As it costs more Isk to get Isk for Ratters. Perhaps if Carriers are not meant for hauling, CCP should change bounty’s in all 0.0 to have a chance that the player does not get the bounty, so its balanced with the Drone Regions, where players can lose the Drone Alloys via Industrial Ship hauling? Creates 30% more work and stress for Carrier Pilots in Drone Regions. 3) POS Array Repackage Issue So a small alliance, new alliance, old alliance, or corporation are making the move to 0.0. CCP want us out in 0.0, and the players feel they are ready for it. They load a Carrier up with a POS, and jump it to the system, deploy it, and enjoy 0.0 life… However, then they decide to move, either to a new 0.0 system, or back to empire or whatever. They unanchor the POS, and pop it back in the Carrier. Wait, you can’t do that any more. If you do not have docking access to any nearby Outposts, you’re screwed. The reason you can’t put the POS Arrays in your Carrier is due to them being unpackages as they have been deployed. And the only way to repackage them, is to fly them to a Outpost, repackage there, fly them back, and then you can scoop the Iteron with the arrays. This added with issues such as the dreaded “empty corp hanger you can’t unachor as its got things in when it has not”, and “guns you can’t offline because they are too far from the POS” is adding to the stress. Creates more work, and stress for players. Life is more difficult for Carrier Pilots. 4) CCP’s Response (Or Lack Of) CCP need to admit that even if this was simply a code fix of an exploit, its still a Nerf. Not only is it a Nerf to the Carrier, but its causing much stress and additional work in game for your players. All players want is some reply to this thread, and instead there is page after page of “Bump”. Most carrier pilots have been playing eve for more than a year. So that means that from a business point of view, carrier pilots are good regular paying customers that give CCP income. So what do you do for good customers? Ignore them? Causes more frustration to players. /me ends rant.
Dyanmo PBA Corporation The Volition Cult	Posted - 2007.06.27 14:58:00 - [326] /Signed
Winter Star PBA Corporation The Volition Cult	Posted - 2007.06.27 17:36:00 - [327] Throws poo at the drone region
MastaRob	Posted - 2007.06.27 17:51:00 - [328] Good rant /signed this is TOTAL S**T Fix this now!!! (please)
Wink Caldari Asgard Protectorate	Posted - 2007.06.27 23:32:00 - [329] 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
Omak Topal Gallente KDM Corp Firmus Ixion	Posted - 2007.06.28 05:56:00 - [330] Originally by: Wink Besides that, now people are using dreads to haul?? I'm sure that's exactly what that ship was intended for yeah lol --------[sig]--------- I didn't do it, i swear!

Deacon Ix Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Volition Cult	Posted - 2007.06.28 07:53:00 - [331] Originally by: Wink 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 Now I might be wrong here but in the past copying and pasting 'stuff' has been blamed as the cause of lag in the game... Combine this with a tequnique haulers are now useing to discuise items in Containers since the scanner 'fix' and I see a lot more lag being created by 'fixes' of these so called exploits. oh yeah... Hauling dreads 4TW The person who said 'violence never solves anything' has obviously never thrown a Rubix cube at a wall
Agent Stone Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Volition Cult	Posted - 2007.06.28 09:16:00 - [332] Originally by: Wink 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 Thank you for that tip, Wink. Quite handy to know. /me hugs Wink Bets on CCP spotting this tip is making life easier for Carrier Pilots, and then Nerfing it with the excuse that evemailing yourself is an exploit or something. And saying its a “fix” instead?
GonzoWCS The Shadow Order	Posted - 2007.06.28 23:28:00 - [333] Signed, Bumped!
HydroSan GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.06.29 17:32:00 - [334] bump
EagleHawk RockClimber Band of Builders Inc. Firmus Ixion	Posted - 2007.06.29 17:39:00 - [335] Edited by: EagleHawk RockClimber on 29/06/2007 17:42:00 I have not read all 12 pages of this thread but I did get to the Part where the DEV's say they did not really NERF carriers. I will show you how that is wrong a wrong assesment. I have a Thanatos that carries an Occator(11 gs cans with 2 cargo rigs) and a Viator (3 gs cans with 2 cargo rigs)with 14 GS cans. Folks the Math is easy. This is 12600 Cubic Meters less than I was able to carry before. I am actually Mad as heck about this nerf and it IS a NERF... IF we are able to load fully fitted ships with ammo and gear on them, then there is NO valid reason that GS cans (assembled ones) can't be used as well. OH HANG ON here.. You say that carriers primary mission is not a giant hauler... You are correct. WHO said anything about it being a primary mission. Real world Carriers carry Aircraft of all types ready to go but they also carry huge ammounts of Ship containers. The reality is that a Carrier is a multipurpose ship.. To remove this ability from us is a really low blow. Generally I do not mind when CCP mixes things up in the game but this is an uncalled for nerf. FUEL is expensive. The more JUMPS I must make to move supplies the less cost effective it is. JUMP bridges will offer us alternatives. I would venture to say that they will be attacked as fast as they are found just like Capital ship yards in 0.0...
Mag's MASS	Posted - 2007.06.30 07:53:00 - [336] Edited by: Mag''s on 30/06/2007 07:53:24 As this is a very unpopular nerf, and tbh uncalled for. Any chance for a response from CCP?
Darekish Caldari Ascent of Ages Dark Matter Coalition	Posted - 2007.06.30 09:20:00 - [337] This change is a MASSIVE Nerf to 0.0 logistics that hurts Drone region dwellers hardest. Logistics isn't fun you have made it a NIGHTMARE as now its impossible to split up members stuff inside haulers - how would you as Dev's feel about manually listing 5000+ items owned by 10 or more corp members then having to divide it all up on delivery it takes AGES this is time i am sure EVERY carrier pilot in Eve would be much happier spending playing the game.
Ozstar Naughty 40 Triumvirate.	Posted - 2007.06.30 18:37:00 - [338] Originally by: Berand I don't think logistics people are saying their worlds will fall apart. I think they're saying their worlds, which are already a lot of work, will be made that much more tedious for no gain and no reason beyond "that's the way it's supposed to be". Which, keeping in mind that this is a game, really really sucks. Berand /signed Originally by: CCP Eris Discordia It¦s still very ackward reading
HydroSan GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.07.01 01:13:00 - [339] Edited by: HydroSan on 01/07/2007 01:12:11 I motion that we continue bumping this thread until we get another response from CCP. I don't think they understand just how mindnumbing half of their game is, and that this change only made it even more mindnumbing. A carrier costs a billion and a half to buy and fit, and over six months of training. Seeing as how carriers haven't been able to run missions for a long time (and the fact that the new L5's don't allow capitals to enter), and taking into account how bugged fighters are and how a battleship can often tank an entire carrier worth of fighters with even a T1 low-SP tank, there should at least be a FEW perks to owning a carrier. Jumping GSCs was one of those perks.
Shigawahhhhh Caldari Metalworks	Posted - 2007.07.01 02:44:00 - [340] This is dodgy as hell. If there really worried about space why did they give us these cans :P also if its all about the fact you can fit more than the cargo hold of the ships you carry then give us cans that are 1m to 1m no tardus effect so we can sort stuff. And fix fighters :P

Vanye Inovske Two Brothers Mining Corp. The Sundering	Posted - 2007.07.01 02:45:00 - [341] New Eden, where the scions of Earth have conquered death itself with the perfection of cloning technology. Starships the size of small moons warp across star systems at many times the speed of light, and jump between them in a blink of an eye. Weapons generating enough energy to power entire cities lash out at defensive systems to match. However, basic inventory tracking technology to facilitate organized cargo shipments? That would be just a little too advanced, apparently.
William Hamilton Caldari THE LEGION OF STEEL WARRIORS.... R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.07.01 03:30:00 - [342] What they realy should've done is bump up the unpackaged size of haulers a bit.
HydroSan GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.07.01 04:28:00 - [343] Originally by: William Hamilton What they realy should've done is bump up the unpackaged size of haulers a bit. Or at least allowed Standard Containers (remember those?) into the cargo bay of ships. If CCP doesn't like GSCs for whatever reason that's fine, but they should at least give us a way to sort out our crap.
Kage Toshimado 54th Knights Templar O X I D E	Posted - 2007.07.01 14:48:00 - [344] Originally by: Vanye Inovske However, basic inventory tracking technology to facilitate organized cargo shipments? That would be just a little too advanced, apparently. LOL!!! very good point indeed Another bump from a carrier pilot in the drone regions.
Omak Topal Gallente KDM Corp Firmus Ixion	Posted - 2007.07.02 05:51:00 - [345] back to page 1. can't we get a sticky on this one? --------[sig]--------- I didn't do it, i swear!
Agent Stone Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Volition Cult	Posted - 2007.07.02 09:41:00 - [346] Bump as still awaiting responce from CCP! My Thoughts Originally by: Omak Topal can't we get a sticky on this one? /signed, lol.
Miyamoto Uroki Katsu Corporation	Posted - 2007.07.02 14:08:00 - [347] Quite harsh nerf for me as i cannot fly the rigged industrials by myself. So Iteron V went down from 47k m¦ to 6k m¦... darn. And the hauling dreads are ridiculous. Find another, better solution for this, ccp. Edit: Jumpbrigdes might acutally reduce the issue of increased times for logistics..
Omak Topal Gallente KDM Corp Firmus Ixion	Posted - 2007.07.02 18:16:00 - [348] 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? --------[sig]--------- I didn't do it, i swear!
Wink Caldari Asgard Protectorate	Posted - 2007.07.02 21:21:00 - [349] 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
Jack Toad Federal Space Academy Red Army Alliance	Posted - 2007.07.03 04:04:00 - [350] Still no answer from CCP, so here is the Bump...

Dr Wellesley Burden of Mars	Posted - 2007.07.03 10:32:00 - [351] Now this is a story all about how My life got flipped turned upside down And I'd like to take a minute just sit right there I'll tell you how I became the prince of a town called Bel-Air In West Philadelphia born and raised On the playground is where I spent most of my days Chillin' out maxin' relaxin' all cool and all shootin' some b-ball outside of the school When a couple of guys who were up to no good Started makin' trouble in my neighborhood I got in one little fight and my mom got scared And said you're movin' with your auntie and uncle in Bel-Air I begged and pleaded with her day after day But she packed my suitcase and sent me on my way She give me a kiss and then she gave me my ticket I put my walkman on and said I might as well kick it First class yo this is bad Drinkin' orange juice out of a champagne glass Is this what the people of Bel-Air live like Hmmm this might be all right But wait I hear they're prissy, bourgeois and all that Is this the type of place that they should send this cool cat I don't think so I'll see when I get there I hope they're prepared for the prince of Bel-Air Well uh the plane landed and when I came out There was a dude looked like a cop standin' there with my name out I ain't tryin' to get arrested yet I just got here I sprang with the quickness like lightening disappeared I whistled for a cab and when it came near The license plate said "Fresh", and it had dice in the mirror If anything I could say that this cab was rare But I thought man forget it yo home to Bel-Air I pulled up to the house about 7 or 8 And I yelled to the cabbie, "Yo Holmes, smell ya later!" Looked at my kingdom I was finally there To sit on my throne as the thread gets bumped. <---// We like trees. We like trees. They're so green and ... BRANCHY!
Piccolo Lupo	Posted - 2007.07.03 11:41:00 - [352] I'm going to seriously miss putting courier contracts in an industrial.. I don't need the secure containers, but nerfing couriers like this hurts everyone. I personally don't give two hoots about what the carrier was "supposed" to be, whats the point in limiting a ship and reducing the player controlled roles of it? What's next? Carriers already seem pretty nerfed, dmg output is WEAK so it gets used for logistics and medicare. Now it's only real use is healing people on the front lines and fighterbombing?
Eyes Burn 54th Knights Templar O X I D E	Posted - 2007.07.03 14:46:00 - [353] Lack of response of any nature shows poor management. In the words of Kanye West after Hurrican Katrina - "CCP Doesn't care about EVE people."
Bubble Jet	Posted - 2007.07.03 15:27:00 - [354] /signed. Carrying fuel for 0.0 POSes is a huge hassle now. Its a lot of space to lose and in many cases an extra trip. The logistics of POS fueling in this game is frankly a nightmare and the time requirement for it is ridiculous. Why make it even worse? By the way, an IttyV with expanders/rigs is larger than an Occator
Weedge Rampage Eternal Ka-Tet	Posted - 2007.07.03 16:36:00 - [355] By eliminating GSC's from being used it still does not stop you from transporting items in the cargo hold of your ships in the ship maintenance bay. How about making specific transport containers, i.e. containers that are 3K M3 in size hold 3K M3, this way we are able to organize the cargo holds. Or like other posts have said just allow us to use the contract system to package our items for transport like that was designed to do.
Deacon Ix Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Volition Cult	Posted - 2007.07.04 08:02:00 - [356] Bump back to the first page we go The person who said 'violence never solves anything' has obviously never thrown a Rubix cube at a wall
Mainreh Rhonaki Jazz Associates R i s e	Posted - 2007.07.04 21:44:00 - [357] We languish in this thread with no CCP response. Bump for continued perseverance.
Damned Force	Posted - 2007.07.05 09:28:00 - [358] ANSWER ANSWER ANSWER ANSWER
Anglo Minmatar Astral Mexicans	Posted - 2007.07.05 09:54:00 - [359] its simple really.. some say make titans.. well thats a major task, and when done u will get atacked. also not all wanna use that much isk on a ship. njaaa make mini freighters. with jump drives.. we all hate to move around stuff.. make it so i can jumo with 100.000 cargo.. hell its not making a big difrent. and make it so they can only unload at stations. simple..
Omak Topal Gallente KDM Corp Firmus Ixion	Posted - 2007.07.05 13:32:00 - [360] Originally by: Anglo its simple really.. some say make titans.. well thats a major task, and when done u will get atacked. also not all wanna use that much isk on a ship. njaaa make mini freighters. with jump drives.. we all hate to move around stuff.. make it so i can jumo with 100.000 cargo.. hell its not making a big difrent. and make it so they can only unload at stations. simple.. someone translate this for me if its useful information lol. I have absolutely no idea what he is talking about. --------[sig]--------- I didn't do it, i swear!

Deacon Ix Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Volition Cult	Posted - 2007.07.05 13:45:00 - [361] Edited by: Deacon Ix on 05/07/2007 13:50:38 Edited by: Deacon Ix on 05/07/2007 13:50:03 Edited by: Deacon Ix on 05/07/2007 13:49:08 Edited by: Deacon Ix on 05/07/2007 13:48:43 Edited by: Deacon Ix on 05/07/2007 13:47:19 Edited by: Deacon Ix on 05/07/2007 13:46:18 Originally by: Omak Topal Originally by: Anglo its simple really.. some say make titans.. well thats a major task, and when done u will get atacked. also not all wanna use that much isk on a ship. njaaa make mini freighters. with jump drives.. we all hate to move around stuff.. make it so i can jumo with 100.000 cargo.. hell its not making a big difrent. and make it so they can only unload at stations. simple.. someone translate this for me if its useful information lol. I have absolutely no idea what he is talking about. wouldn't go as far to say it's useful but To overcome the problem of not being able to put containers in Transport and Industrial ships and then place them in a Carrier's Ship maintenance array we could all build Titans and use the Ability to create Jump bridges for Freighters and Haulers. Now the Problem with the construction of Titans is that it is very costly and would make you a target. So as a solution to the problem of transporting various individuals goods accross large distances a smaller version of a freighter is proposed incorporating a 'jump drive' to allow it to cross the vast intersteller distances with ease. This would facilitate the movement of large volumes and allow the sorting of cargo. Mr Anglo then goes on to suggest that it can only dock at stations, this I do dissagree with strongly as it has only just been make possible to load and unload a standard Freighter at a POS or 'Player Owned Structure or Starbase' and would in so doing put us back a few patches. edit lots Spelling (thats what comes of spending lunch hour at the pub...) Originally by: Steini OFSI The most efficient way to get a dev response is to have the word beer somewhere in your thread.
Omak Topal Gallente KDM Corp Firmus Ixion	Posted - 2007.07.05 13:53:00 - [362] Edited by: Omak Topal on 05/07/2007 13:53:14 meh i think i read somewhere that the code doensn't allow for assembled containers to be "2 levels" deep. (cans in hauler, hauler in carrier) then why not alter the code? lol --------[sig]--------- I didn't do it, i swear!
Deacon Ix Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Volition Cult	Posted - 2007.07.05 13:59:00 - [363] Originally by: Omak Topal Edited by: Omak Topal on 05/07/2007 13:53:14 meh i think i read somewhere that the code doensn't allow for assembled containers to be "2 levels" deep. (cans in hauler, hauler in carrier) then why not alter the code? lol lol they have 'fixed' to code which previously allowed you to do that, hence the reason for this topic.... Originally by: Steini OFSI The most efficient way to get a dev response is to have the word beer somewhere in your thread.
Salia Deluri	Posted - 2007.07.06 00:02:00 - [364] Originally by: Vanye Inovske New Eden, where the scions of Earth have conquered death itself with the perfection of cloning technology. Starships the size of small moons warp across star systems at many times the speed of light, and jump between them in a blink of an eye. Weapons generating enough energy to power entire cities lash out at defensive systems to match. However, basic inventory tracking technology to facilitate organized cargo shipments? That would be just a little too advanced, apparently. /signed in regards to my original post. Hey Devs for this one. Take note to the Dev over in the thread about rokhs being able to out mine Hulks. At least that Dev responded with something that made sense. Hell, that Dev even admitted to making a mistake.
Druadan Gallente Aristotle Enterprises Ethereal Dawn	Posted - 2007.07.06 14:08:00 - [365] Back to the top. "A witty saying proves nothing" - Voltaire
Hohenheim OfLight Pegasus Mining and Securities R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.07.06 14:39:00 - [366] CCP medals again please undo the change you have done more damage to the fabric of space time than you can imagine, ccp this is mistake and it should be undone! ---------------------------------------------- Is mining for a hel mad? or just ambishus?
Karlemgne The Malevolent	Posted - 2007.07.06 15:14:00 - [367] 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
Wink Caldari Asgard Protectorate	Posted - 2007.07.06 20:30:00 - [368] 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 - [369] 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.
Karlemgne The Malevolent	Posted - 2007.07.06 22:03:00 - [370] Originally by: Wink 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. First of all, the last time I looked, Fighter Drones don't need "bombs" and "ammo." Second of all, there is plenty of room for you to fit ammo on your carrier, should you be dumb enough to want to fit guns on it. Now having said that, my point was a simple illustration. It seemed that you, or whoever is at the top of this thread, actually believed (by the content and context of their post) that it was ironic that a "carrier" couldn't be used as an uber hauling ship, allowing you to jump loads of crap deep into 0.0 with relatively no risk. The source of this supposed irony was that they thought a ship named a "carrier" should carry stuff. I'm just pointing out that this isn't very intelligent. Further, I was pointing out why the ship was called a carrier. Now, judging from the DEV RESPONSE in this thread, I hit the nail on the head. Though, of course, a "ship" (so called) in a sci-fi space MMO is not the same as a naval vessel in the real 3D world, the intention of the DESIGNERS OF THE GAME, was for their faux ship to play a similar role to the real life Aircraft Carrier. In other words, the PEOPLE WHO MADE this game, think that a "Carrier" in EVE online denotes a "carrier" of Fighter Drones for the purposes of combat. The DO NOT feel that they designed the "Carrier" to simply be a "carrier" of stuff for you, you're corp, or your alliance. -Karlemgne

Karlemgne The Malevolent	Posted - 2007.07.06 22:11:00 - [371] Originally by: Wink 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. Excuse me, there is a capital class transport ship. Its called a Freighter. I'm confused as to why exactly these big 0.0 alliances need to be able to transport stuff too and from 0.0 with very little appreciable risk. -Karlemgne
Wink Caldari Asgard Protectorate	Posted - 2007.07.06 22:16:00 - [372] #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.
Mainreh Rhonaki Jazz Associates R i s e	Posted - 2007.07.07 07:40:00 - [373] Edited by: Mainreh Rhonaki on 07/07/2007 07:41:00 Originally by: Karlemgne Excuse me, there is a capital class transport ship. Its called a Freighter. I'm confused as to why exactly these big 0.0 alliances need to be able to transport stuff too and from 0.0 with very little appreciable risk. Then perhaps you should clear that confusion before joining the debate. Secondly, carrier logistics is not inherently safe. The main reason why not many carriers are lost there, is because no one has bothered to do enough surveillance work to catch one at a bad time. Carriers will now and then get bumped out of hiway POSes and can be manually bumped at its endpoint stations. To answer your question: A medium-sized alliance will require several runs per week, or the waiting for replacement equipment will take too long. If you can gather a fleet of thirty defenders for a 70 jump escort 3-4 days a week, you are lucky. It would not be feasible for our alliance.
Eyes Burn 54th Knights Templar O X I D E	Posted - 2007.07.07 15:16:00 - [374] 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 I think you have no idea whatsoever what you're talking about Karl. Your simply trying to take the argument of, the devs aren't doing anything or responding so obviously they agree with your approach stance? I think the devs not saying anything just shows how bad they f'ed up and they aren't sure how to reply to this until they have a resolution. The one they give now of, "we're fixing a bug" after so many people had trained carrier specifically to jump their items to and from empire to 0.0 is complete and utter BS. I have been training carrier since October of 2006 up to now and if I would have known that I would have to spend time writing everything down of who has what, and then sorting it back out again I would have NEVER started. The argument is being able to seperate items in our holds. So until you read up fully on what we are wanting and discussing in here take your unwanted flaming and high and mighty attitude of "use a freighter" to go 40+ jumps elsewhere.
Karlemgne The Malevolent	Posted - 2007.07.07 15:19:00 - [375] 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? I guess this is the devs saying nothing, and I'm clearly fabricating that they, essentially, agree with me on the fundamentals--Carriers are not designed to "carry" in terms of hauling. -Karlemgne
Kage Toshimado 54th Knights Templar O X I D E	Posted - 2007.07.07 16:07:00 - [376] Well why don't you read what WE are asking for once then? It has nothing to do with being a Carrier in the since of being a modern day Aircraft Carrier. It has to do with being able to seperate things in our holds. So YOUR point, whatever it may be, is not what we are trying to clue YOU and the DEVS in on! I mean Joe Schmo moving company at least knows how to seperate things using cardboard boxes and a magic marker! So quit replying with the same lame excuse
Karlemgne The Malevolent	Posted - 2007.07.07 20:56:00 - [377] Edited by: Karlemgne on 07/07/2007 20:56:45 Originally by: Kage Toshimado Well why don't you read what WE are asking for once then? It has nothing to do with being a Carrier in the since of being a modern day Aircraft Carrier. It has to do with being able to seperate things in our holds. So YOUR point, whatever it may be, is not what we are trying to clue YOU and the DEVS in on! I mean Joe Schmo moving company at least knows how to seperate things using cardboard boxes and a magic marker! So quit replying with the same lame excuse My point was to chastise the person who said that it was "ironic" that "carriers" can't carry anything. That's the only reason I brought up modern carriers, because I assume that like modern carriers, eve carriers are not elaborate cargo ships. Perhaps you should have read what I wrote. That and, on the topic, if containers can be used to exploit, like being able to fill a container that holds 10 m3 but only takes up 2k m3 in a cargo hold, then I don't see a problem with restricting their use in your capital ships. Again, this is an exploit, and I'm not sure what all the anger is about. Your capital ships were designed, by the people who made the game and should know, for combat operations. This is most decidedly NOT hauling stuff. -Karlemgne
Wink Caldari Asgard Protectorate	Posted - 2007.07.07 22:14:00 - [378] 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?
Druadan Gallente Aristotle Enterprises Ethereal Dawn	Posted - 2007.07.08 01:53:00 - [379] Edited by: Druadan on 08/07/2007 02:00:16 Puh-leaze. Karlemgne, the ''carriers don't carry things'' and ''it was an exploit'' arguments were both shot down quicker than a geriatric at one of Cheney's hunts. If you're going to argue that carriers don't carry anything other than fighter, don't bring up real-life aircraft carriers, which do carry cargo and supplies as well as aircraft. Carriers were used to take supplies to New Orleans after Hurrican Katrina. They are used to take aid to places all over the world. They are packed nook and cranny with additional supplies for theatre warfare. The same should hold true in EVE, right? Or it shouldn't have any bearing on EVE because we're way out in space and the paradigm is different? Arguing that carriers should carry nothing other than fighters because their real-life counterparts only carry planes is either irrelevant or wrong. Pick one. The problem was not the extra space lost. With rigs, the space is made up. Personally I found 3900m3 fitting inside 3000m3 to be stupid, planck bubbles or no planck bubbles. The problem is that CCP single-handedly f***d over every carrier pilot's organisation. This does severely impact the carriage power of the carrier, as without cans we can't organise our supply and have to sink more time into the most tedious job in EVE. "A witty saying proves nothing" - Voltaire*
Ignition SemperFi The Arrow Project Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2007.07.08 21:32:00 - [380] this shouldnt be off the front page... CCP might forget that they have to continue to ignore it ARROW CAP SHIPS FOR SALE We Promise you wont be disappointed!

Karlemgne The Malevolent	Posted - 2007.07.09 02:26:00 - [381] Originally by: Druadan Puh-leaze. Karlemgne, the ''carriers don't carry things'' and ''it was an exploit'' arguments were both shot down quicker than a geriatric at one of Cheney's hunts. I must have missed that part of the thread. But suffice it to say, we disagree on the fundamentals, and apparently, CCP disagrees too. Quote: If you're going to argue that carriers don't carry anything other than fighter, don't bring up real-life aircraft carriers, which do carry cargo and supplies as well as aircraft. Alright, time out. The reality of the situation is that this is a game, and in that game, we fly space ships. One of those space ships is a carrier. This ship was designed by the makers of the game to fill a specific combat role. Now, as to your assertions that RL carriers "carry stuff," you've got to fudge the facts a bit, now don't you. Sure, a carrier is crammed with crap, they've got to feed 5,000 sailors, some of them require fuel, and the weapon systems that they're designed to deploy require ammunition, spare parts, fuel, etc, etc. So this cargo that you are discussing almost entirely revolves around a carrier, and its combat role in a modern navy. As to the assertion that RL carriers carried supplies into New Orleans after Katrina, maybe. I haven't seen any facts to back this up, but for the moment I will assume you aren't making it up. Fair enough? Katrina was a huge natural disaster, and if US carriers were used to "carry supplies," I assure you it wasn't very much. Not to mention, that this kind of work is well beyond the normal for how these ships are used. Now, lets be fair about what you do, and what you are complaining about. I've played EVE for awhile and have been in one or two 0.0 corporations. I know that you are complaining, precisely because you've taken a carrier, and converted it into an elaborate transport ship. You know, you fit all the lows with cargo expanders, fill up the corporate maintenance bay with ships, THEN, in the past, you've stacked cargo containers in both your cargo hold, and then the cargo hold of the ships in the bay, to carry more stuff than you otherwise could have. You've done this to avoid the long jumps through chokes, and potentially hostile systems with Freighters (the capital ship that WAS designed to haul) and industrials--rather vulnerable targets. So, essentially, you've converted your carriers, via an exploit no less, into dedicated hauling ships (something RL carriers are never used for), to avoid the risks involved in hauling stuff to your 0.0 space. Am I close? Now, you can say all you want about how boring it is to haul stuff the conventional way, and that's fine. You've got a point. However, its part of the game, the way it was designed... And you will get as much sympathy from me as the whiners in the C&P forums who want their cake and to eat it too. I.e. those calling for carriers and level 5/6 missions in high sec. As far as I'm concerned, part of the hassle of living in 0.0 is getting stuff in and out... stop complaining because you're uber no risk hauling in carrier operation has been gimped a very little bit. -Karlemgne
Wink Caldari Asgard Protectorate	Posted - 2007.07.09 03:36:00 - [382] 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. :)
Druadan Gallente Aristotle Enterprises Ethereal Dawn	Posted - 2007.07.09 04:07:00 - [383] Exactamundo! The space nerf wasn't the biggest problem. We just rigged the haulers instead. The organisation loss was the problem. It created a needless timesink in the most tedious job in EVE. If hauling in carriers was the exploit, then they would have stopped us putting industrials in the cargo hold. But that would be even more impossible to explain, and the reason would probably go something like, ''Yeah, there was some, uh... swamp gas? And, uh... refracted off of Venus? So the carrier... it, uh, won't go in the ship maintenance bay any more.'' The change was to stop us putting assembled containers into the hold of industrials, and then putting those into ship maintenance bays. What I'm struggling to find is why this is only an exploit when done to a carrier? It doesn't allow the creation of massive amounts of space, and no more space is created when the industrial goes into the bay of the carrier, so why is it an exploit here but when the industrial is outside of the carrier? Container within a container within a container is a stupid excuse for CCP to give, because this wasn't causing a problem. If you could put a GSC within a GSC, then I could see the problem, but you can't. The best way to achieve the same goal is to get shot of the planck bubble crap. 3900m3 within 3000m3 is just daft. Either make the can take 3900m3 or bring its capacity down to 3000m3, and then let us put assembled containers in our cargo holds - including courier packages. What, we can put rocks in the hold of the industrial but not crates? Give me a break. Doing this would eliminate the additional cargo capacity ''problem'' and let us organise our cargo properly, while getting rid of the double standard of ''why the hell can this go in the industrial in the bay but not this?'' "A witty saying proves nothing" - Voltaire
Karlemgne The Malevolent	Posted - 2007.07.09 06:02:00 - [384] Originally by: Wink Edited by: Wink on 06/07/2007 22:20:12 #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 bumuck 0.0 place "safely". It's so funny. and a freighter is stupid to take to 0.0 unless you have 30 people to guard it, not that I haven't taken a freighter in 0.0 plenty of times but how many time sinks do we need in this game? Sheesh! I agree with most of what you are saying herek actually. However, I just want to point a couple of things out. I actually worked for an unspecified company, on an unspecified MMO, so that's where this is coming from. Number one, time sinks: Yeah, I understand that these suck, but they are in for a reason. Mostly because complete and instant gratification spells loss of MMO subs. Hard sad fact about the MMO business. BUT, like I said, I agree. There could be some middle ground, however, given how this game operates, I would like for this "faster" method of transport to be AS dangerous as freightering into 0.0. It is supposed to be scary and dangerous moving large amounts of stuff in and out of 0.0. Number two, I sympathize with the organization aspect. I know it seems* that it is a really easy to change things in a sensable way, i.e. making cargo containers universal in size and capacity. Sometimes however, what seems easy to outsiders, is very difficult to change code wise without causing problems elsewhere. This would be why I would think the cans themselves haven't been changed. -Karlemgne
Sister Loquatious Sisters of Retribution	Posted - 2007.07.09 07:37:00 - [385] I'm confused. Why not just use Appropriately named GSCs directly in the Carrier's hold if you want "Organization"? Set standards in your Corp/Alliance that any goods to be transported via capital ship should be pre-packaged and pre-labelled by the owner, so that all the shipper has to do is redistribute based on the names on the containers. I may be naieve as a non-carrier pilot, but is that not feasible?
Omak Topal Gallente KDM Corp Firmus Ixion	Posted - 2007.07.09 08:49:00 - [386] Originally by: Sister Loquatious I'm confused. Why not just use Appropriately named GSCs directly in the Carrier's hold if you want "Organization"? Set standards in your Corp/Alliance that any goods to be transported via capital ship should be pre-packaged and pre-labelled by the owner, so that all the shipper has to do is redistribute based on the names on the containers. I may be naieve as a non-carrier pilot, but is that not feasible? The carrier hold itself is not that big, and it used for fuel for the carrier. The iteron mark V ship has much more cargo space and thus is better to use for cargo transporting. The weird thing in my opinion is that the iteron mark 5, a smaller ship, has more cargo capacity then a carrier. --------[sig]--------- I didn't do it, i swear!
Agent Stone Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Volition Cult	Posted - 2007.07.09 10:40:00 - [387] Karlemgne, I think the issue is not just about the Carrier nerf specifically but 0.0 Logistics in general. Nerfing the carrier would have been fine, if only there was another ship introduced before hand, or a safer method of 0.0 logistics for smaller alliances and corporations. Jump Portals, or POS Jump Arrays are out of reach or have limited scope. I know Risk/Reward may be one of your arguements for forcing people to use freighters or transport ships, but with the Drone Regions for example, its hard to balance that. Ratters have to haul there Drone Alloys to empire to get Isk, which is additional risk compared to other regions. I will admit the Carrier role is a combat ship, and not hauler, but CCP have not added any form of 0.0 jumpable hauler, or any solution to the work many of us have to do. If you use a Carrier for logistics, you will understand, people are willing to pay good Isk for safe transport, which means we will keep using the Carrier over Transport ships, so regardless of what anyone thinks. Until CCP offer something else, carriers will be used for 0.0 Logistics. As they nerf them, and then offer no other as safe option, the game becomes less fun for us Carrier pilots as all we do is haul for our Corporations, and Alliances. Hence the 13 page thread. :P My full views are here, feel free to make comments. I think the ideal solution is CCP to intoduce a jumpable freighter with less capacity, or something. They like people to move out to 0.0 and fight, etc. And offering logistics ships for that would do some good for everyone who does not own a titan and make the game fun again.
HydroSan GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.07.09 23:53:00 - [388] Stop bringing real life analogies into this. We're talking about EVE, not the US Navy. Bumping this so it doesn't leave the front page.
Karlemgne The Malevolent	Posted - 2007.07.10 00:21:00 - [389] Originally by: HydroSan Stop bringing real life analogies into this. We're talking about EVE, not the US Navy. Bumping this so it doesn't leave the front page. Don't bring in real life anaologies, and opinions, especially those related to game design, and implementation for MMO's, a field you work in, Karl.
Druadan Gallente Aristotle Enterprises Ethereal Dawn	Posted - 2007.07.10 12:39:00 - [390] Edited by: Druadan on 10/07/2007 12:41:09 On the topic of the risk vs. reward for using a carrier, a carrier is not a risk-free transport method. It can't jump from anywhere to anywhere, so you need to make multiple jumps through 0.0 to do the route. It is remarkably easy to snag a carrier doing this, provided you have done the research on your mark. This is perfectly sound. A corp with a carrier has a logistics advantage out in 0.0, and by logistics I mean actual logistics, not CCP's definition of logistics (remote repair). So to take out this corps supply lines you have to plan your hit, rather than setting up a lazy gatecamp. A gatecamp actually won't get you the freighter, as the front scout will hit the camp and the freighter will just route around it or log off until its clear. Carrier logistics can be risky buisiness. It's not jump-jump-jump-jump and we're home. You have to wait for your cap to recharge before you can make the next jump, and that is an agonising wait. Just because your opponent has to be on the ball to take you out doesn't mean it's risk-free, but sure... take the opportunity for skill, planning, and a truly satisfying ambush out and encourage anti-freighter gatecamping. That's gonna make things real fun. [edited for readability] "A witty saying proves nothing" - Voltaire

Karlemgne The Malevolent	Posted - 2007.07.10 14:59:00 - [391] Originally by: Druadan Edited by: Druadan on 10/07/2007 12:41:09 On the topic of the risk vs. reward for using a carrier, a carrier is not a risk-free transport method. It can't jump from anywhere to anywhere, so you need to make multiple jumps through 0.0 to do the route. It is remarkably easy to snag a carrier doing this, provided you have done the research on your mark. This is perfectly sound. A corp with a carrier has a logistics advantage out in 0.0, and by logistics I mean actual logistics, not CCP's definition of logistics (remote repair). So to take out this corps supply lines you have to plan your hit, rather than setting up a lazy gatecamp. A gatecamp actually won't get you the freighter, as the front scout will hit the camp and the freighter will just route around it or log off until its clear. Carrier logistics can be risky buisiness. It's not jump-jump-jump-jump and we're home. You have to wait for your cap to recharge before you can make the next jump, and that is an agonising wait. Just because your opponent has to be on the ball to take you out doesn't mean it's risk-free, but sure... take the opportunity for skill, planning, and a truly satisfying ambush out and encourage anti-freighter gatecamping. That's gonna make things real fun. [edited for readability] You are right, those with carriers have an advantage logistically, absolutely. You and I both know how it really works, though. You've got a route that you take with your carriers, and that route includes NPC stations, friendly outposts, or POSes every step of the way. Making it one of the safest methods of transport in and out of 0.0 available. -Karl
Riley Craven Caldari Copacetic Corporation	Posted - 2007.07.10 16:03:00 - [392] Originally by: Karlemgne You are right, those with carriers have an advantage logistically, absolutely. You and I both know how it really works, though. You've got a route that you take with your carriers, and that route includes NPC stations, friendly outposts, or POSes every step of the way. Making it one of the safest methods of transport in and out of 0.0 available. -Karl Even so you are forgetting that SOMEONE has to travel the route regardless to make the cyno, and that person also has to carry the fuel. If carriers could just jump to any system in range you would have a valid point, but as it stands they cant. My point is saying this is not to say that you are wrong that the goods arent safe (because carrier transport is safer), but that are wrong in assuming that the added safety isnt balanced by the increased logistical nature of what it involves to actually move the goods from point to point and at what cost it takes to do so. Again if it was free (i.e. didnt take any fuel for the cyno field or the jumps) then you might have a point. Further, there is no such thing as a "sploit" when something is coded to work a certain way. In this instance CCP's stated that containers within containers within containers should not work. In reality what they 'fixed" was only GSC's. If it were possible to put a generic freighter container in a hauler, that would be allowable by the code, which is clearly a container within a container within a container. CCP's was not fixing something that was broken (unlike the actual barge sploit along time ago). The code can and will support this regardless of what CCP says.
Riley Craven Caldari Copacetic Corporation	Posted - 2007.07.10 16:09:00 - [393] Further, no one in this thread can call a Carrier a true "combat" ship with the recent patch. No "combat" ship in Eve gets logistical abilities bonuses. Its not like the apoc has a repair siege ability mode. Lastly, the role of a ship arguement is irrelevant to begin with. People use ships how the see fit, destroyers used as purely salvage ships, apocs used as miners, etc. The game was designed to be a "sandbox" as evidence by the game itself and many dev comments to the fact. In this instance CCP is saying that the game is not a sandbox and players are not allowed to use a ship for something other than what it gets bonuses for. My point is if they are willing to take a step in the wrong direction here, then it illustrates they are willing to do it elswhere.
Karlemgne The Malevolent	Posted - 2007.07.10 19:16:00 - [394] Edited by: Karlemgne on 10/07/2007 19:18:18 Edited by: Karlemgne on 10/07/2007 19:17:12 Edited by: Karlemgne on 10/07/2007 19:16:34 Originally by: Riley Craven The stuff you said. Fair enough, let me respond. First, you are pointing out the logistic difficulties in using a cyno-capable ship for transport. The funny thing is, you and I both just agreed that those who transport goods in and out of 0.0 with carriers have a logistic advantage. That being said, again, I know how this works. At some point, someone needs fuel, sure... however, we both know there are cyno alts who never leave the "stops" on a cyno-hauling route. You just log on X, Y, and Z cyno-alts, start dropping cynos, then you're on your way. And even if we take what you've said at face value, and you actually had people traveling to the jump locations on every trip, the MOST you are risking is the cyno-frigate and some fuel. As you've stated, at no point is the cargo being hauled ever in danger, meaning you are reaping the rewards of 0.0 by circumventing the standard hauling system (serious risk.) Now exploits, you aren't actually correct about that. Essentially, an exploit is something that allows you to use game mechanics for something unintended by the game designers. Things like isk duplication via bug, item duplications, rendering your ship invulnerable, all by coded, yet unintended, game mechanic qualify as an exploit. I think its pretty well established that CCP did not intend GSCs to be used to increase the cargo capacity of ships. So when you use game mechanics to add capacity to your ship in an unintended way, you are exploiting. As for the sandbox issue, well, you have a point. However, there are limitations to the "sandbox" nature of any game, eve, and ships in eve. For instance, you cannot as of yet, "design" your own ship. This is a limitation of the game. Similarly, you cannot decide to put all guns on a ship with 6 turret hard points and 4 launcher hard points. This is because, despite its sandbox nature, CCP is trying to balance the game. Cargo hauling with carriers is similar. Using these capital ships, as is described in this thread, was something that was not intended by CCP. They made these changes to the GSCs visa vis carriers in an attempt to balance what the designers felt was unbalanced. You cannot really argue with that. I mean, you can I suppose, argue that no changes need to be made, but in this case the designers of the game disagree. I know I don't always agree with how EVE is balanced, or even the games I work on, so its fair that you are complaining here. I am just trying to argue CCPs side on this issue. In the final analysis, I don't really care, as I'm not in a 0.0 alliance or fighting one atm. Just giving you an outside perspective on (probably) why what was done, was done. -Karlemgne
Omak Topal Gallente KDM Corp Firmus Ixion	Posted - 2007.07.10 19:36:00 - [395] Originally by: Karlemgne Edited by: Karlemgne on 10/07/2007 19:18:18 Edited by: Karlemgne on 10/07/2007 19:17:12 Edited by: Karlemgne on 10/07/2007 19:16:34 Originally by: Riley Craven The stuff you said. and that what you said what about the other fuction cans have, like sorting stuff from multiple persons, its not like the iteron mark 5 has tabs you can use to sort stuff out in. --------[sig]--------- I didn't do it, i swear!
Karlemgne The Malevolent	Posted - 2007.07.10 20:35:00 - [396] Originally by: Omak Topal Originally by: Karlemgne Edited by: Karlemgne on 10/07/2007 19:18:18 Edited by: Karlemgne on 10/07/2007 19:17:12 Edited by: Karlemgne on 10/07/2007 19:16:34 Originally by: Riley Craven The stuff you said. and that what you said what about the other fuction cans have, like sorting stuff from multiple persons, its not like the iteron mark 5 has tabs you can use to sort stuff out in. Agreed. Now having said that, I'll point out again that its sometimes difficult to change things code wise in ways that make sense. So, while it seems that they should just change the cans, so that the cans occupy as much space as they hold, this can sometimes be difficult to do. Number one, above and beyond what other kinds of code might be tied to something as simple as GSC size/volume, you also have unintended consequences, such as people trying to use the containers for their intended purpose (like anchoring in a belt) no longer being able to fit a single can in their hauler. The easiest solution here would be for CCP to create a new cargo container asset, that's only function was organization. This, you might have a better chance at getting, than a return to GSCs in carriers, or "hauling" cyno capitals. -Karlemgne
Jack Toad Federal Space Academy Red Army Alliance	Posted - 2007.07.11 02:49:00 - [397] And what is the risk when Titan jump-bridging a bunch of freighters? I don't see any balance here, sorry
Karlemgne The Malevolent	Posted - 2007.07.11 03:44:00 - [398] Originally by: Jack Toad And what is the risk when Titan jump-bridging a bunch of freighters? I don't see any balance here, sorry I agree, super capitals are the most game breaking ship as far as balance goes, period. I don't like their existence, but thankfully, as a low sec dweller (much more fun tbh) I don't encounter them often. Though, the MoMs in low sec I have encountered, and nothing is more game breaking than a completely unkillable ship. -Karlemgne
Ignition SemperFi The Arrow Project Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2007.07.11 22:21:00 - [399] virtual space still remains with GSEs and the need for organization instead of using cans for inside the ship is still a very valid need. BACK TO PAGE 1 ARROW CAP SHIPS FOR SALE We Promise you wont be disappointed!
Daneel Baley	Posted - 2007.07.12 18:52:00 - [400] the need for organization instead of using cans for inside the ship is still a very valid need. /signed

Riley Craven Caldari Copacetic Corporation	Posted - 2007.07.12 19:20:00 - [401] Edited by: Riley Craven on 12/07/2007 19:23:20 Originally by: Karlemgne Stuff you've said that diesnt make sense I am pointing out MORE than the logistics required for the cyno ship. Just because you try to disect one part of an arguement with flawed anayslsis doesnt mean your arguement works. My arguement is that cyno ships need fuel to function. Fuel does not magically appear out of thin air. So even with your alt arguement, they wont have fuel forever, and fuel just doesnt exist on the market in quantities to make fields on a regular basis in both 0.0 and low sec. Further that is only ONE aspect of logistics. Carriers themselves require fuel. At the price point of isotopes it can be cost prohitive to haul in such manners. You havent run the numbers so you wouldnt know. THE TOTAL ADDED LOGISTICAL COST OF HAULING GOODS VIA CARRIER IS BALANCED. Further your safety arguement is also flawed. Since you seem so intrested in using "alts" to justify your arguements here is another for you. A well known pirate by the name of CPT. Pugwash has already admitted in this thread that safe hauling can already be accomplished with a regular and a scout team. The same prinicples apply. One way is faster and costs alot, the other way is slower and costs nothing but time. Either way smart people will never incur losses (because afterall the only risk in the above situation is to the scout, just like the only risk for a carrier is on the cyno alt) Your quantification of safety in this instance is flawed. On your point about exploits you are still wrong. If CCP didnt want a cargo can to increase carrying capicty on all ships then it wouldnt have been coded in the first place. If using a gsc in one ship is valid under CCP's will but not another ship, this is not classified as an EXPLOIT it is classified as a BALANCE. On your balance issue, I would argue there is a distinct difference. CCP in most instances is not trying to BALANCE the game, they are trying to CONTROL the game. There is a point at which most logical thinking people realize that actions taken by someone else go beyond the scope of a defined word. In this instance CCP has gone well beyond that scope as evidenced by this thread.
Octavian Stratus Caldari Perkone	Posted - 2007.07.13 17:19:00 - [402] To the front page with you. Please fix the Carriers!
Karlemgne The Malevolent	Posted - 2007.07.13 19:29:00 - [403] Originally by: Riley Craven Edited by: Riley Craven on 12/07/2007 19:23:20 I am pointing out MORE than the logistics required for the cyno ship. Just because you try to disect one part of an arguement with flawed anayslsis doesnt mean your arguement works. Such venom, my friend. I know it is difficult to argue with me, but, it not worth getting so heated about. Quote: My arguement is that cyno ships need fuel to function. Correct, that they do. The thing is, you are just going to cyno the fuel to them via Carrier. So don't try and lecture me about the logistical difficulties of providing fuel for your alts. Quote: Fuel does not magically appear out of thin air. No, it sure doesn't. However, you are making a fatal mistake. You are assuming that I have no experience in 0.0, or with a 0.0 alliance. The fuel costs in terms of isk and man-hours is not prohibitive, in any way. You mine the fuel, and you buy the fuel in empire. The profits made during your daily 0.0 operations aren't even dented by this costs, and you and I, and everyone here, all know it. Quote: Further that is only ONE aspect of logistics. Carriers themselves require fuel. At the price point of isotopes it can be cost prohitive to haul in such manners. Again, its not prohibitive. When it costs around 4 million isk to cyno up a large POS from empire (plus a month's fuel) into the drone regions, without any serious risk, I'd consider that a very good deal. Quote: THE TOTAL ADDED LOGISTICAL COST OF HAULING GOODS VIA CARRIER IS BALANCED. I have lived in 0.0, I have had stuff hauled to me by Carrier, and let us not forget, a few posts ago you were all on about the incredible logistical advantages of hauling via carrier. Now you want to tell me that its actually logistically prohibitive to use Carriers instead of Freighters. Quote: Further your safety arguement is also flawed. Since you seem so intrested in using "alts" to justify your arguements here is another for you. You act as if I'm just making stuff up here. You use cyno-alts. EVERYONE who flies a Capital ship has one, and every 0.0 alliance has cyno-alts at the ready to move their capital fleets to fight, or to haul. Quote: A well known pirate by the name of CPT. Pugwash has already admitted in this thread that safe hauling can already be accomplished with a regular and a scout team. Safer hauling. A well timed and prepared attack can still wipe out your freighter, even with a scout, and a 30 man protection team. Nobody will ever, ever be able to kill your Carrier-Haulers as you cyno from one PoS to the next. Quote: On your point about exploits you are still wrong. If CCP didnt want a cargo can to increase carrying capicty on all ships then it wouldnt have been coded in the first place. If using a gsc in one ship is valid under CCP's will but not another ship, this is not classified as an EXPLOIT it is classified as a BALANCE. I'm not actually wrong, you are. Then again, what do I know? I just make video games for a living. Let me just say, again, you are absolutely wrong. Game designers and coders are not perfect, it is not always possible to see every possible implication of a given game mechanic before you code something in-game. Its also not always possible to find every bug before a game goes live. Needless to say, it is VERY possible to have a game asset, like a GSC, whose function is to hold stuff in space, and not be conscious of the fact that it will be used in a way that disrupts game balance. That's why games are tested, they go live, problems are noted, they are correct (when possible,) there is a patch, etc. For instance, when this game launched, you could fit two MWDs to a single ship. This was not really intended, and when CCP noticed people using this to essentially unbalance the game, the issue was corrected.
Karlemgne The Malevolent	Posted - 2007.07.13 19:38:00 - [404] Quote: On your balance issue, I would argue there is a distinct difference. CCP in most instances is not trying to BALANCE the game, they are trying to CONTROL the game. There is a point at which most logical thinking people realize that actions taken by someone else go beyond the scope of a defined word. In this instance CCP has gone well beyond that scope as evidenced by this thread. You call it what you will. Those of us with a little experience making MMOs understand that the "control" you are talking about amounts to, control, for the purposes of BALANCING the game. Obviously, someone at CCP took note of you using GSC inside carriers to haul. It was determined, by CCP, that a changed needed to be made, and it was. Now you are complaining about it here. Again, that's your right, but lets face it, you are a dime a dozen. People always complain, in any game, when their unbalanced game mechanic of choice is nerfed, be it nano-fibers in eve, or the: unequip-everything-instantly before my raid wipes so my amazing raid gear doesn't get damaged in another game. I am so sad for you, I can't hold back the tears. Now having said that, I do have sympathy for the organization aspect others have discussed earlier.
Riley Craven Caldari Copacetic Corporation	Posted - 2007.07.13 21:15:00 - [405] Edited by: Riley Craven on 13/07/2007 21:16:31 Originally by: Karlemgne Quote: On your balance issue, I would argue there is a distinct difference. CCP in most instances is not trying to BALANCE the game, they are trying to CONTROL the game. There is a point at which most logical thinking people realize that actions taken by someone else go beyond the scope of a defined word. In this instance CCP has gone well beyond that scope as evidenced by this thread. You call it what you will. Those of us with a little experience making MMOs understand that the "control" you are talking about amounts to, control, for the purposes of BALANCING the game. Obviously, someone at CCP took note of you using GSC inside carriers to haul. It was determined, by CCP, that a changed needed to be made, and it was. Now you are complaining about it here. Again, that's your right, but lets face it, you are a dime a dozen. People always complain, in any game, when their unbalanced game mechanic of choice is nerfed, be it nano-fibers in eve, or the: unequip-everything-instantly before my raid wipes so my amazing raid gear doesn't get damaged in another game. I am so sad for you, I can't hold back the tears. Now having said that, I do have sympathy for the organization aspect others have discussed earlier. What a heart warming arguement that is yet flawed again. First, you make the assumption that I am actually complaining about the issue to begin with. Not once in this thread have I actually complained. On the contrary I havent flown my carrier in months, much less used this game mechanic. I feel no sense of loss in regardes to this change. My main input in this thread is to decry yet another senseless change made by the stupid desk jockies at CCP. CCP is no more controlled by issues of balance than I am controlled by the limitations of my ship. (I.E. there are no issues of controll) There are SOOOO many changes that they make to this game that are needless and pointless and SOOO many changes that never get put in that players have literally been complaining about since this game was made. My point in all this is not to argue that this change sucks (even though it does) but merely to offered LOGICAL reasoned points of view. If you want to argue based off emotions thats fine with me, but you will loose every time. There is a difference between balance and control. This is not an issue of balance or an exploit as I have clearly outlined above. In the absence of those things its an issue of doing something for the sake of doing it. Personally, I dont cry about the split milk. Its done, nothing you can do about it. What I WILL complain about is the stupid a-hole that spilt it in the first place. I encourage you to look back through this thread (should be about the middle of it) and look at the well reasoned arguements I made on this subject. If a pirate can say to look at the points I have made from a carebear's perspective and tell other carebears to think like that, then there must be something there. Personally, since you havent countered ANY of my arguements here and have done no research yourself (or at least mentioned it) you have the markings of a troll, or at the very least someone who dissents just for the sake of doing it without any rhyme or reason. You and CCP both remind me of President Bush, ignorning good advice to fight senseless battles.
Wink Caldari Asgard Protectorate	Posted - 2007.07.13 22:18:00 - [406] 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.
Salia Deluri	Posted - 2007.07.14 01:39:00 - [407] Originally by: Karlemgne The easiest solution here would be for CCP to create a new cargo container asset, that's only function was organization. This, you might have a better chance at getting, than a return to GSCs in carriers, or "hauling" cyno capitals. -Karlemgne omg I read multiple pages of your argument and we get right back to what most of us who have responded to you have been saying for oh I don;t know ...a few pages now. We don't care about the space loss, we want something to organize with. Something like say um I don't know ...maybe a Can with the same volume as it take s up in a hold. ahhh you make &(#^#&#^!#%13 sense. Why so many pages of blah blah blah and you knew damn well what we were asking. on another note back to the Rl analogy We have here in the US what is called an assault carrier which is used to carry troops and light equipment. In other words forward base stuff. Hmm sounds like a POS, ammo and stuff to go in it. It has helicopters to deploy these troops and light equipment when land can't be reached by the ship. I think the ability to launch a transport with stuff in it is equal. Not like you can unload a ship in you maint array unless you take it out. Notice it's not called an aircraft carrier but it can do it. Notice the carrier in EVE is not called a fighter carrier it is simply a "carrier". So your real life analogy is lost. But anyways. As I said with my other posts. I'll eat the space loss. Please give me some organizational tools or give me a jump capable frieghter.
Salia Deluri	Posted - 2007.07.14 01:42:00 - [408] Oh and one other thing. I forgot what system its in but us carrier pilots don;t jump into it because peopel hunt capital ships there. It is a low sec system with many NPC stations. I don't subscribe to your theory that it's safe to jump wiht a carrier. Quite the contrary I can equip an occator to be a hell of lot safer.
Riley Craven Caldari Copacetic Corporation	Posted - 2007.07.14 05:02:00 - [409] Originally by: Wink 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. I will address this first before going back on a topic that I was clearly discussing. While you may not condone "attacks" as you call them by CCP I still believe it my right to critize them for obvious mistakes and their humantiy. CCP knows its not perfect and for this reason I believe they will let my posts stand. While I understand that no dev or anyone is perfect, CCP has exhibited a clear pattern of behavior over the years contrary to the lines they feed the public. I have seen them ban people for no reason at all (rl friends mind you), and that is just the icing on the cake. Regardless, I always try to hold back on personal arguements until they are brought against me. I maintained well reasoned posts through out my discussion with Kar until he started throwing passive aggressive insults. True, while I did fall into a trap of bait probably laid by him, I still feel vindicating in my answer. Further, I don't believe I have mentioned any RL anogilies in regards to this discussion. I believe that distinction belongs to Mister K.
Wink Caldari Asgard Protectorate	Posted - 2007.07.14 05:10:00 - [410] 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.

Riley Craven Caldari Copacetic Corporation	Posted - 2007.07.14 05:38:00 - [411] Originally by: Karlemgne more stuff I will go over your points in detail. First, my heat is in answer to your blatant disregard to any civility to myself in regards to this discussion. You only make the argument difficult because of your attacks against me. ôAgain, that's your right, but lets face it, you are a dime a dozenö, ôI am so sad for you, I can't hold back the tears.ö If you want to argue this way that is fine by me, but donÆt complain when I respond in kind. LetÆs go into the discussion now. I believe for the purpose of this discussion it would be better to compare 2-3 regular haulers (badger 2 perhaps) than it would be to compare a carrier to a freighter. Freighters are on a different scale of transport altogether. But I will try to add in some talk about them for the sake of this discussion because after all carriers and freighters are the same class of ship. Now about cyno alts, Yes I will be cynoing fuel to them, but fuel takes space, and the more jumps I make the less room I have to haul stuff. While this is not a difficulty per se it is still a consideration that must be taken. Now again I am not making the distinction that you have no 0.0 experience. Just that you donÆt know the true cost of fuel. ThereÆs a difference. What I am trying to say is that for doing deep 0.0 runs for small groups of people (i.e. 50 people or less, the cost can be prohibitively high) For one thing not all types of ice can be had in every 0.0 region. Not everyone is going to fly the same type of carrier. Further, fuel does cost a lot in terms of isk and in terms of manpower UNLESS you have a large scale operation. This would include large alliances. Even so, you take away skilled people and resources that could otherwise be devoted to another task. Just because you can write fuel as cheap doesnÆt mean it really is. The truth of the matter is that you HAVE to have a large scale operation to be cost effective and even then have to use your resources wisely, because you know as much as I do that having one large pos and a little bit of fuel is NOT going to make you a profit. And if you are going to have an operation that big itÆs much more cost effective to freighter the fuel. Trust me I know, my last corp needed 12 freighters worth of fuel every 6 weeks to maintain their pos and doing that via carrier would be stupid. Bottom line is you canÆt just write fuel off because its easy. (P.S. just because a portion of the drone regions might be close to empire, like 10 light years or less, doesnÆt mean all regions are like that, try jumping stuff to feyth and you might understand how much fuel really costs) Now I want to address this point specifically: ôI have lived in 0.0, I have had stuff hauled to me by Carrier, and let us not forget, a few posts ago you were all on about the incredible logistical advantages of hauling via carrier. Now you want to tell me that its actually logistically prohibitive to use Carriers instead of Freighters.ö As I mentioned above there is a big difference between doing small low budget hauls and doing large scale hauls all the time. In the example I mentioned above it would be cost prohibitive for even ONE corp to move goods around like this. If you would try to move the amount of goods via carrier that a freighter could move and actually DO the math, you would know how stupid that sounds. Carriers are great haulers, but they fit a very specific niche and can in no way be compared to freighters. ôYou act as if I'm just making stuff up here. You use cyno-alts. EVERYONE who flies a Capital ship has one, and every 0.0 alliance has cyno-alts at the ready to move their capital fleets to fight, or to haul.ö Not sure what your real point here is. You could argue that everyone has scout alts too for haulers making them just as safe as carriers. In terms of this discussion safety balances out on most levels when all factors are considered.
Riley Craven Caldari Copacetic Corporation	Posted - 2007.07.14 05:38:00 - [412] ôSafer hauling. A well timed and prepared attack can still wipe out your freighter, even with a scout, and a 30 man protection team. Nobody will ever, ever be able to kill your Carrier-Haulers as you cyno from one PoS to the next.ö WasnÆt talking about freighters as outlined why above. Further people have killed carrier haulers like that before. DonÆt act like something has NEVER happened in a game as big as Eve. People make mistakes all the time and that is why they die. (I have seen the loot corp mates have gotten from killing said carriers, so I know) P.P.S If you are talking about log in traps when talking about well time tactics, that in itself is viewed as a shady tactic by the community and should be limited in this discussion. ôLet me just say, again, you are absolutely wrong. Game designers and coders are not perfect, it is not always possible to see every possible implication of a given game mechanic before you code something in-game. Its also not always possible to find every bug before a game goes live. Needless to say, it is VERY possible to have a game asset, like a GSC, whose function is to hold stuff in space, and not be conscious of the fact that it will be used in a way that disrupts game balance. That's why games are tested, they go live, problems are noted, they are correct (when possible,) there is a patch, etc.ö Nice try, but you arenÆt fooling anyone. Where did CCP ever say that was GSC intended purpose? I read every dev comment I can, and I havenÆt seen any such statement. Further, if what you say is actually true, then they would have nerfed GSC on ALL ships. I have seen countless pvp videos of people using cans in their holds to store extra ammo etc. A lot of people use this tactic. Further, why would CCP knowingly keep GSC around when they increase carrying capacity in much greater instances than just the one you outlined if that wasnÆt their intended purpose? For that matter, why even code something like that if thatÆs not what they wanted.
Riley Craven Caldari Copacetic Corporation	Posted - 2007.07.14 05:40:00 - [413] Edited by: Riley Craven on 14/07/2007 05:42:27 Originally by: Wink 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. Quite right, and done on purpose too. If you wish to try and control my posting I suggest you take it up with the mod team, otherwise I stand by my comments and my right to post them. Note, I never say they werent insults just why they were there in the first place. In fact to be really honest with you, I have insulted the devs on numerous occasions (mostly Tomb) Dont believe I have ever been moderated before. Probably because what I was saying actually made sense.
Kerkar Confederation of Red Moon Red Moon Federation	Posted - 2007.07.14 07:44:00 - [414] In all honesty the BEST solution here would be to allow normal containers in ships. This way you arnt getting that extra space that Secure ones allow, and it means when you move stuff you can actually subdivide it down, instead of being stuck with 1000s of items and having to sort them. Would make life easier, but not change the ammount you could fit into a carrier. Sorted. :)
HydroSan GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.07.15 05:54:00 - [415] Originally by: Riley Craven Nice try, but you arenÆt fooling anyone. Where did CCP ever say that was GSC intended purpose? I read every dev comment I can, and I havenÆt seen any such statement. Further, if what you say is actually true, then they would have nerfed GSC on ALL ships. I have seen countless pvp videos of people using cans in their holds to store extra ammo etc. A lot of people use this tactic. Further, why would CCP knowingly keep GSC around when they increase carrying capacity in much greater instances than just the one you outlined if that wasnÆt their intended purpose? For that matter, why even code something like that if thatÆs not what they wanted. Agreeing with this. Bumping to keep on first page.
Riley Craven Caldari Copacetic Corporation	Posted - 2007.07.16 01:45:00 - [416] Originally by: HydroSan Originally by: Riley Craven Nice try, but you arenÆt fooling anyone. Where did CCP ever say that was GSC intended purpose? I read every dev comment I can, and I havenÆt seen any such statement. Further, if what you say is actually true, then they would have nerfed GSC on ALL ships. I have seen countless pvp videos of people using cans in their holds to store extra ammo etc. A lot of people use this tactic. Further, why would CCP knowingly keep GSC around when they increase carrying capacity in much greater instances than just the one you outlined if that wasnÆt their intended purpose? For that matter, why even code something like that if thatÆs not what they wanted. Agreeing with this. Bumping to keep on first page. Lol the world is coming to an end! A goon has just agreed with a previous BoB member! Everyone to the presses!!!! :)
HydroSan GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.07.16 13:13:00 - [417] Originally by: Riley Craven Lol the world is coming to an end! A goon has just agreed with a previous BoB member! Everyone to the presses!!!! :) Game mechanics affect everyone regardless of politics. Bump.
Popular Science Caldari State War Academy	Posted - 2007.07.17 00:34:00 - [418] Bring Back GSC's
Seblis Hyperion	Posted - 2007.07.17 14:23:00 - [419] Edited by: Seblis Hyperion on 17/07/2007 14:29:01 Edited by: Seblis Hyperion on 17/07/2007 14:27:13 the no GSC change has been hell on carrier shipments to 0.0 their hangers are nothing but a cluster of items all mushed together and spend hours sorting corp members things that have been dumped into the ship hangers. If there will be no GSC at lest allow couier contracts to be shipped up. and this is very important in the drone regions where there is no ccp market. "everything" has to be shiped up for use in drone regions and the amount of time for a freighter to move 30-60 jumps is madding carrier is the only real option unless a cyno capiable freighter/industral is created.
Miko Li	Posted - 2007.07.17 18:06:00 - [420] We need a way to: Move x km3 of person y's 'stuff' from point a to point b, without mixing it with perxon z's 'stuff', via a ship with a jump drive. Now, I personally do not care whether this is done by: - reinstating the ability to put GSC in the holds of docked indys in a carrier, - adding the the ability to put normal, non-plank containers in the holds of docked indy's in a carrier, - adding the ability to put Courier-contract 'packages' in the holds of docked indys in a carrier, - adding the ability to put any of the above types of container into the ship bay of a carrier, sans indys, - merging all of the space inside a carrier into one huge bay, in which you can put anything at all (so that ships and packages and GSC and all other kinds of container can go in it, effectively removing one level of nesting), - giving Freighters Jump Drives (balance here could be fine-tuned by considering the following areas: Module(s) required to upgrade the Freighter to include such a Drive [mods eat loslots?]; pilot suddenly needs to train Jump Drive skills; LY per jump could be restricted to Titan-like levels) - making all Industrial ships un-scrammable, - dumping a whole new type of ship onto the market which covers this need in some way. This issue needs fixing, CCP. Somehow. Soon. ~Miko Li

Sabian Treehugger Minmatar 54th Knights Templar O X I D E	Posted - 2007.07.17 18:29:00 - [421] fix this pls /signed
Velvet69 eXceed Inc. INVICTUS.	Posted - 2007.07.18 03:37:00 - [422] 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. Have you ever played EvE? o/ Velve IXC Velvet69 Proud Member of 'The House of Prawn'
HydroSan GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.07.19 12:17:00 - [423] To the first page we go.
Torshin Prophets Of a Damned Universe	Posted - 2007.07.19 13:23:00 - [424] Originally by: Velvet69 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. Have you ever played EvE? o/ Velve ya they play all the time remember? thats why we can use heat and bombs now. ------------------------------------------- Backdoor Bandit - Unofficial leader of the new 'Post with your main or STFU' campaign. I'm Shinra and I'm the champion of Eve.
Riley Craven Caldari Copacetic Corporation	Posted - 2007.07.19 17:59:00 - [425] Originally by: Torshin Originally by: Velvet69 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. Have you ever played EvE? o/ Velve ya they play all the time remember? thats why we can use heat and bombs now. Not sure what your point is exactly. Your just refrencing more broken content. There is enough bomb's suck threads out there to prove it too.
Ignition SemperFi The Arrow Project Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2007.07.21 21:12:00 - [426] this shouldnt of fallen off the first page. CCP might forget they screwed the pooch on this one ARROW CAP SHIPS FOR SALE We Promise you wont be disappointed!
Salia Deluri	Posted - 2007.07.21 22:47:00 - [427] bump not on first page. I understand your delima witht he exploit. Just make the game check the skills of the pilot so that if you can;t fly the ship you can;t put anything in the Containers in it.
Bubble Jet	Posted - 2007.07.22 04:11:00 - [428] Yet another bump. Sorry, a "Heat Dissipation Array" shouldn't count as a container. Extracting POSes are completely unreasonable, now.
Jack Toad Federal Space Academy Red Army Alliance	Posted - 2007.07.23 10:57:00 - [429] Still waiting for comments. Bump.
Bon Hedus Amarr O.E.C Legionnaire Services Ltd.	Posted - 2007.07.23 11:17:00 - [430] Edited by: Bon Hedus on 23/07/2007 11:50:42 Edited by: Bon Hedus on 23/07/2007 11:21:31 Also to reiterate... your normal cargo bay is used to carry Jumpfuel. That doesn't leave very much space for anything else... how about a Corporate Hangar bay increase to make up for lost cargo space, and something like a Standard Container, similar to what is used in Freighters so devisions of cargo can be made. Or even better, give us a jump capable freighter that also allows gate travel. Sort of a Hybrid ship. 150k m3 cargo cost around 1.5 billion fairly high armor and resists 1/1/1 slot space (high being a utility slot, no guns or missiles) no cargo expanders jump drive can scoop and deploy POS Cannot scoop jet cans (sorry miners) required: Advanced spaceship Command V Transport Ships V Capital Ships II Racial Freighter IV edit to change around some ideas after some thought -------------------------------------- Heavy Lag Spike II belonging to EvE Cluster Node #0815 hits your Connection, wrecking your latency to 998ms

GonzoWCS The Shadow Order	Posted - 2007.07.24 11:43:00 - [431] Fix This <signed>
Ssoraszh Tzarszh Minmatar Grumpy Old Farts Gruntfuttocks	Posted - 2007.07.24 12:33:00 - [432] Originally by: Riley Craven Originally by: Torshin Originally by: Velvet69 Originally by: CCP Oneiromancer .... ... ... Not sure what your point is exactly. Your just refrencing more broken content. There is enough bomb's suck threads out there to prove it too. Sure thing, and four people reposting the same crap every other day makes it a majority yessir. Bla bla broken content. I'm not arguing that it would be handy to have some sort of method of sorting stuff out, but i have coped withoud the can's and you will have to do the same.
joahn	Posted - 2007.07.24 14:38:00 - [433] Well just for the record for everybody that has been using a RL carrier in there arguments. I have family that serves/served on carriers for the US navy. A super carrier Has the capibility of my self sustaining for 4 months on open sea before needed to port for resupply and the smaller varients are able to sustain for 2-3months depending on what mission they are on. Also the size of these monsters on the open water is like looking at a floating city. They have to be able to sustain themselves for a very long period of time which meand that they have to carry supplies for the crew as well and ammo and fuel for all the fighters that it carries. The carriers of today are basically HUGE cargoships with armor and fighters in all regard for front line battle they need to be part of a fleet and are usually not on the front line but a few knots away from the actual fight with a couple of escorts. Now that being said the Dev's by "fixing" gsc's have actually nerfed what a carrier in terms of meaning and use. A RL carrier gets shipments of what ever via crates not a pile of bullets and bombs. plus there are ammo hold, fuel hold, store holds(yes there is a PX onboard this monster of a ship), and a carrier does not need to carry fuel for itself since its primary engines are run by the reactor and battery cells. so the excuse of RL carriers are not used for hualing is inacurate and just plain wrong. In all honesty where i live we get super frieghters and carriers porting all the time. and a carrier is larger in all ways to a super frieghter. Length width and height. the only restrition that a carrier has is the amount of crew quaters and fighter storage. IMHO CCP just killed one primary us of carriers. This "Fix" was uncalled for and hampers almost every 0.0 alliance to a certain regard. There need to be either an introduction of a new transport class ship with a decnt m3 count that can use jump drives, or they need to create a way to make the carrier usefull again cause at this time most 0.0 alliances are feeling this pain. There are not to many alliances that have titans so being able to use jump bridges is going to not be a real option for them. and when it comes the freighter runs to empire that is going to be a logistical nightmare in its own right. Since this game is played by people that live in all diferent areas of the world it will be hard to get the number of people on and in places needed to move a freighter especially if you are in a deep area of 0.0 Ie. the new drone regions. it take out 40 jump for my crew to make it to empire in and another 40 back and not everybody can be on that long to babysit the frieghter. And for the people that are going to say "well RL carriers cant hold ships and such." this statement is not true during WWII the carriers had the ability of housing the boats that helped take Omaha beach and the Sherman tanks that where brought on land.
Deacon Ix Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Volition Cult	Posted - 2007.07.24 15:13:00 - [434] Originally by: joahn Well just for the record for everybody that has been using a RL carrier in there arguments. I have family that serves/served on carriers for the US navy. A super carrier Has the capibility of my self sustaining for 4 months on open sea before needed to port for resupply and the smaller varients are able to sustain for 2-3months depending on what mission they are on. Also the size of these monsters on the open water is like looking at a floating city. They have to be able to sustain themselves for a very long period of time which meand that they have to carry supplies for the crew as well and ammo and fuel for all the fighters that it carries. The carriers of today are basically HUGE cargoships with armor and fighters in all regard for front line battle they need to be part of a fleet and are usually not on the front line but a few knots away from the actual fight with a couple of escorts. Now that being said the Dev's by "fixing" gsc's have actually nerfed what a carrier in terms of meaning and use. A RL carrier gets shipments of what ever via crates not a pile of bullets and bombs. plus there are ammo hold, fuel hold, store holds(yes there is a PX onboard this monster of a ship), and a carrier does not need to carry fuel for itself since its primary engines are run by the reactor and battery cells. so the excuse of RL carriers are not used for hualing is inacurate and just plain wrong. In all honesty where i live we get super frieghters and carriers porting all the time. and a carrier is larger in all ways to a super frieghter. Length width and height. the only restrition that a carrier has is the amount of crew quaters and fighter storage. IMHO CCP just killed one primary us of carriers. This "Fix" was uncalled for and hampers almost every 0.0 alliance to a certain regard. There need to be either an introduction of a new transport class ship with a decnt m3 count that can use jump drives, or they need to create a way to make the carrier usefull again cause at this time most 0.0 alliances are feeling this pain. There are not to many alliances that have titans so being able to use jump bridges is going to not be a real option for them. and when it comes the freighter runs to empire that is going to be a logistical nightmare in its own right. Since this game is played by people that live in all diferent areas of the world it will be hard to get the number of people on and in places needed to move a freighter especially if you are in a deep area of 0.0 Ie. the new drone regions. it take out 40 jump for my crew to make it to empire in and another 40 back and not everybody can be on that long to babysit the frieghter. And for the people that are going to say "well RL carriers cant hold ships and such." this statement is not true during WWII the carriers had the ability of housing the boats that helped take Omaha beach and the Sherman tanks that where brought on land. Nice post /signed (again) Originally by: Steini OFSI The most efficient way to get a dev response is to have the word beer somewhere in your thread.
batmoth Amarr Empirius Enigmus Navy Dark Matter Coalition	Posted - 2007.07.24 16:51:00 - [435] Edited by: batmoth on 24/07/2007 16:55:09 /signed I agree with you joahn. the situation is bad. The devs really should look at this again and come up with a ability to orginize the cargo that we are carrying. also it would help if they start thinking about adding a cargo ship with jump capability. Cause of right now for the deep 0.0 pilots carriers are a must to move goods be it mods for ships or fuel for towers. drone regions are another nightmare when it comes to making isk also. Trying to move freighters that deep are very painful and extremely risky endevour.
Roemy Schneider BINFORD	Posted - 2007.07.24 20:32:00 - [436] while we're at it... gargantuan secure contis plz: 7.500m¦ -> 10.000m¦ thx - putting the gist back into logistics
batmoth Amarr Empirius Enigmus Navy Dark Matter Coalition	Posted - 2007.07.24 20:48:00 - [437] Originally by: Roemy Schneider while we're at it... gargantuan secure contis plz: 7.500m¦ -> 10.000m¦ thx HAHA your so funny /sacrcasim off
Jack Toad Federal Space Academy Red Army Alliance	Posted - 2007.07.25 08:42:00 - [438] Back to page 1. Bump
Koti Resci	Posted - 2007.07.25 09:45:00 - [439] CCP, You stated that this "fix" was to prevent a possible exploit. This "fix" has been around for a month and a half, and yet you still have yet to detail exactly what exploit was being or could have been abused. As has been stated here by countless individuals (and moreso by those whom have not bothered to tell you their feelings), putting items inside of a cargo container is not an exploit. Putting that cargo container into a ship is not an exploit. Putting that ship into a carrier is not an exploit. So surely combining those three scenarios is not an exploit! Besides the fact that it's a simple matter of logic, it was most certainly working without any issues or complaints before you decided to put in this 'fix'. I trust that the real exploit has been fixed for long enough for investigations to have come to fruition to result in punishments. I trust that you're going to detail to us exactly why you've sent a lot of capital pilots reeling and haven't even given them the courtesy of a refund. I trust you're going to tell us why we can use industrials inside of carriers to hold a starbase under construction, but cannot do the same for a starbase under deconstuction. I trust you, CCP, to fix this fix. Surely, CCP, you're not going to betray my trust? Again?
Kagura Nikon Minmatar Guardians of the Dawn Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.07.25 15:43:00 - [440] People just need to start using dreads to move stuff.. 1 dread with cargo expanders on all low slots have avery good capability and can carry GSCs If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough

batmoth Amarr Empirius Enigmus Navy Dark Matter Coalition	Posted - 2007.07.25 21:14:00 - [441] the problem is. that if we do start using dreadnaughts most likely they will find a way to nerf them as well. CCP needs to find a way of making teh carrier useful again, and triage is not the answer.
Virtuozzo IVC Consortium INVICTUS.	Posted - 2007.07.26 11:59:00 - [442] Now there's the angle CCP sees as providing the solution for the problems arising from the carrier "fix". Jump Bridges. Nice idea, for controlled space, but looking at the posts in this thread I don't think many folks can agree with that perception. Virtuozzo Last words of a Caldari general: "Pull the Ravens back! Full retreat! they've got frigates!" snip Inappropriate. -Elmo Pug
batmoth Amarr Empirius Enigmus Navy Dark Matter Coalition	Posted - 2007.07.26 12:16:00 - [443] Originally by: Virtuozzo Now there's the angle CCP sees as providing the solution for the problems arising from the carrier "fix". Jump Bridges. Nice idea, for controlled space, but looking at the posts in this thread I don't think many folks can agree with that perception. now here is the problem with that so called "resolution" that the dev quoted. Deep 0.0 alliances are not going to be able to set these up 1 jump from empire. reason is casue some one else has sovernty there ie. drone regions. lets say i wanted to set a jump bridge from my territory to empire, I would have to claim quite a few systems not in my region. such as frege space and possibly invictus space which would make a mess of things. so Once again the devs are still not giving a good enough answer to why they did this to the carriers.
Virtuozzo IVC Consortium INVICTUS.	Posted - 2007.07.26 13:13:00 - [444] Originally by: batmoth now here is the problem with that so called "resolution" that the dev quoted. Deep 0.0 alliances are not going to be able to set these up 1 jump from empire. reason is casue some one else has sovernty there ie. drone regions. lets say i wanted to set a jump bridge from my territory to empire, I would have to claim quite a few systems not in my region. such as frege space and possibly invictus space which would make a mess of things. so Once again the devs are still not giving a good enough answer to why they did this to the carriers. Well it is part of it. Jump Bridges are great for controlled space. But that is it. Anything above that and you're looking either at creating huge super alliance organisations (boring, detrimental, also in conflict with CCP's old concept of inter regional or even constellation specific pew pew) or infrastructural deployments for warfare which takes weeks to effectuate (hardly compatible with how the game is shall we say .. ). Jump Bridges are a railroad network. Great if you control a vast amount of space to move your troops from one end to the next. Great to move troops from an entry point to a destination at a frontline IN or at the edge of controlled space. But, they're not for logistics. First of all it is dreadfully easy to take out such an infrastructure, and who in his or her right mind puts all his money on one horse (donkey maybe, in this case :P). Secondly it's only feasible within controlled space, not outside, making it a defensive mechanism in that controlled space .. which is not a logistical attribute for large volumes of goods which by default come from outside of controlled space anyway. So Jump Bridges are lovely, but in no way or form an answer to the logistical challenge with this carrier "fix". No matter how you turn it, it is one of the most extreme examples in the past few years of how a small change can turn eve into a job for countless pilots. I know, adaptation is key. In older times everyone with a gun had an alt with an indy to move stuff around, these days it is pretty much obligatory to have a carrier alt. Still it is not a balanced picture, as with the coming of Revelations 2 the need for volumes of resources has gone through the roof, most notably with the sovereignty level specific infrastructures. To cut it short: CCP thought the solution was to be found in game. Unfortunately concepts are not practice proof. Usefulness and use alike depend on in game trends, practices and most importantly on the divide between perception from the outside and the effective situation on the inside. I think Jump Bridges are lovely, and a great tool at home, but the intended scope for them fails, and hard. Carriers, or any jump bridge enabled ship (and obviously Titans with their jump portals) are the only practical and feasible solutions on keeping the ever increasing logistics lines open - if not for the failure of Jump Bridges in practical situations, then for their flexibility and being able to use it in offensive situations which comprise imo the bulk of warfare in EVE. We really need either a reversal, or a new dedicated module for changing shipping capacity, or a new jump drive enabled ship type. Virtuozzo Last words of a Caldari general: "Pull the Ravens back! Full retreat! they've got frigates!" snip Inappropriate. -Elmo Pug
DaMaster Architect SOTI Inc. FREGE Alliance	Posted - 2007.07.26 17:00:00 - [445] It really should be clear that there should be a ship that can jump, and is made for hauling. Come on CCP, you know we want this for so long! As long as you don't give us a tool that can jump and is made for hauling, we will use every ship we can that can jump and has a big enough cargohold. Until you nerfed the crap out of everything. Nerfing is bad, mkay? At least I may hope that the ORE capital ship is suited for this purpose.
Ricky1989 Caldari Vengeance of the Fallen Curse Alliance	Posted - 2007.07.26 19:12:00 - [446] Okay so what, they nerfed carriers by restricting GSC in hauler cargoholds. Its here to stay so get over it.
batmoth Amarr Empirius Enigmus Navy Dark Matter Coalition	Posted - 2007.07.26 19:17:00 - [447] Originally by: Ricky1989 Okay so what, they nerfed carriers by restricting GSC in hauler cargoholds. Its here to stay so get over it. Gee it must be pretty hard for you to move things to your area of 0.0 ooh wait where are you guys again i cant seem to find you on the sovernty map?
Virtuozzo IVC Consortium INVICTUS.	Posted - 2007.07.26 20:48:00 - [448] Here's a bit of insight for those who are not fully in touch with how CCP is pretty much providing the content in regards to sovereignty. POS are terribly easy to engage, target cycling of defences and lock times are a joke for the unforeseeable future. Something which has the nice consequences of making a POS now an arena for all ship types, but the bad consequence of bringing the blob. But that's a seperate topic. With POS being so vulnerable to becoming engagement zones, it is a must to tilt the balance of defence vs use implementation of a POS towards the defence angle. Beyond the human resources aspect of having several 4-5 man teams with good skill level in Starbase Defence management, you need to have the weaponry. Now look at the various cpu and more so grid requirements of the new infrastructural pos structures: cyno generator, cyno jammer, jump bridge. I'm sorry, but unless you're suicidal, you will have to implement for backup towers with such structure placement locations, as well as spreading the structure types out over several towers on a per type basis. So, with the logistical nerf through this carrier "fix", cutting hard into the capacity subscribers have for logistics without making the game a job - no matter how much teamwork you use (PVE sucks btw, EVE is about people, not structures), and with the post Revelations 2 increase in numbers of POS to run, in redundancy even, here is yet another argument for an incredibly speedy solution. 1. You've decreased available capacity for logistics total. 2. You've increased required volume of logistics by a severely high factor. Mismatch. EVE = PVP. We all get the point of POS, in the light of the ping pong of old times, and in the light of industry. But it is going overboard now. The above is jsut for the defensive point of view, and not even for a conquest view, where it gets even more interesting. I can't put it any other way: mismatch. Don't make EVE a job, or just PVE. Virtuozzo Last words of a Caldari general: "Pull the Ravens back! Full retreat! they've got frigates!" snip Inappropriate. -Elmo Pug
Develon Hitaki	Posted - 2007.07.27 18:19:00 - [449] bump to page 1
HydroSan GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.07.27 20:19:00 - [450] I'm willing to bet that CCP has this topic on their ignore list, because there isn't any reason why this topic has reached 16 pages and been on the front page of this forum without a dev response to our suggestions, complaints and questions. Oh well. Here's hoping we get some kind of jump-capable logistics ship (as in moving things, not healing things).

batmoth Amarr Empirius Enigmus Navy Dark Matter Coalition	Posted - 2007.07.28 18:15:00 - [451] yet still we are supposed to voice our problems and this is a problem
Ignition SemperFi The Arrow Project Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2007.07.29 01:39:00 - [452] they responded but that was almsot 15 pages ago guess that means they are exempt from reading any further ?? ARROW CAP SHIPS FOR SALE We Promise you wont be disappointed!
Agent Stone Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Volition Cult	Posted - 2007.07.29 10:39:00 - [453] Bump! My views on this were here. Been a month since that post...
Kaben	Posted - 2007.07.30 07:02:00 - [454] bump, they might forget it being on page 2
Thomina Yorke GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.07.30 22:42:00 - [455] It appears that industrial capital ships are going to be coming in Rev 2.2. Try looking up "Industrial Capital Ships" on SiSi. It requires Exhumers V and stuff like that but it'll be interesting to see if it actually serves as a proper logistics platform.
GonzoWCS The Shadow Order	Posted - 2007.07.31 12:42:00 - [456] To the Front Page Carrier Drivers Unite!!!
batmoth Amarr Empirius Enigmus Navy Dark Matter Coalition	Posted - 2007.07.31 17:30:00 - [457] Originally by: Thomina Yorke It appears that industrial capital ships are going to be coming in Rev 2.2. Try looking up "Industrial Capital Ships" on SiSi. It requires Exhumers V and stuff like that but it'll be interesting to see if it actually serves as a proper logistics platform. well untill they actually anounce what this ship is it could be justa mobile refiner with bonuses to mining and such. that is if its the ORE capitol ship everyones been hinting about. I guess we will just have to wait and see.
Kage Toshimado 54th Knights Templar O X I D E	Posted - 2007.08.01 14:51:00 - [458] To the top again. FIX THIS CCP PLEASE!
Druadan Gallente Aristotle Enterprises Ethereal Dawn	Posted - 2007.08.02 05:07:00 - [459] To the window! To the bump! ### I nearly finish carriers, and they nerf it. I nearly finish Amarr recons, and they make them useless. Vagabond pilots beware... I have bought Minmatar Cruiser.
Salia Deluri	Posted - 2007.08.02 21:10:00 - [460] Was not on the first page bump.

batmoth Amarr Empirius Enigmus Navy Dark Matter Coalition	Posted - 2007.08.02 22:48:00 - [461] well its finaly here... The almighty ore capital ship here is a link: ore capital It requires a skill that is for ore compression but it would seem trasnporting stuff is not part of its job. once again the carrier pilots are going to get the shaft
GonzoWCS The Shadow Order	Posted - 2007.08.03 12:03:00 - [462] Ohh no you dinn't To the 1st Page Carrier Drivers Unite!!
Jerppu Minmatar Brotherhood of Polar Equation Mordus Angels	Posted - 2007.08.03 12:03:00 - [463] Originally by: GonzoWCS Ohh no you dinn't To the 1st Page Carrier Drivers Unite!! Yep, page one. Eve-directory : Eve Directory Forum Topic
Omak Topal Gallente KDM Corp Firmus Ixion	Posted - 2007.08.05 13:25:00 - [464] Originally by: GonzoWCS To the Front Page Carrier Drivers Unite!!! --------[sig]--------- I didn't do it, i swear!
SamuraiJack Caldari Celestial Horizon Corp. Valainaloce	Posted - 2007.08.05 16:23:00 - [465] you cant contract carriers with ships in anymore either. even if they are empty. /me gets smacking stick ready for Onerious SJ. CLS CEO, Valainloce Executor and Standings Director =-
Acacia Everto State War Academy	Posted - 2007.08.05 17:15:00 - [466] The last stats I saw on the ORE Capital is 50,000m3 of Corp Hangar space and 2,500,000m3 of maintenance bay. Hopefully this sticks and lets us use it in lieu of a Carrier.
Damned Force	Posted - 2007.08.05 17:25:00 - [467] Originally by: Acacia Everto The last stats I saw on the ORE Capital is 50,000m3 of Corp Hangar space and 2,500,000m3 of maintenance bay. Hopefully this sticks and lets us use it in lieu of a Carrier. What an absolute idiotic idee to have more Maintanance bay on an ORE capital than on a carrier....... :(
Borgholio Minmatar Quantum Industries Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.08.06 06:50:00 - [468] Yarr! To page one with thee! ----------------------------------- You will be assimilated...bunghole!
Virtuozzo IVC Consortium INVICTUS.	Posted - 2007.08.06 11:32:00 - [469] 4 LY Jumprange for the ORE capital ship .... Virtuozzo Last words of a Caldari general: "Pull the Ravens back! Full retreat! they've got frigates!" snip Inappropriate. -Elmo Pug
Agent Stone Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Volition Cult	Posted - 2007.08.06 14:05:00 - [470] Originally by: Virtuozzo 4 LY Jumprange for the ORE capital ship .... Not sure that is set in stone. The screenshot I saw showed a Corp Hanger and SMA similar sized to the Nyx, so the test capital ore ship screenshot looked like it was copyed from the Nyx as a base? If the Ore Capital does only have a 4 LY Jumprange, that would be pretty poor solution to the already time consuming work of 0.0 Logistics.

Salia Deluri	Posted - 2007.08.07 02:59:00 - [471] So I was all happy to see the ORE Capital ship. Has some cool features. I had even thought I was gonna forgive CCP for the whole GSC thing. Then I started planning how I would use this thing in an OP and the CCP NERF BAT came out with a vengence. # Fitting capital tractor beam modules which can pull cargo containers from two hundred kilometres at a much faster velocity than normal tractors beams can, # Inherent bonuses to the range of survey and cargo scanners allowing it to survey asteroid belts at a glance from its position and the status of cargo cans for its mining gang, ya see these are OH SO VERY NICE except for when you have to freakin keep track of who mined what...... need some way to organize stuff in a hold CCP Bump to the moon
JamesTalon Caldari Electric Fury Corp	Posted - 2007.08.07 03:54:00 - [472] If this is 16 pages of people wanting to use GSC's to compress item sizes down to fit more into a carrier, then I have no comment on that, however if its 16 pages of people asking for some way to organize peoples stuff in their carrier, then I support it completly, and hope they don't allow it to compress the actual size of items. "Return with your shield, or on it."
Virtuozzo IVC Consortium INVICTUS.	Posted - 2007.08.07 14:45:00 - [473] With the revisions for the ORE Capital ship under way and slowly taking form folks who hope they will be the answer to the insane logistics problems of todays EVE ... look again. And cry. Virtuozzo Last words of a Caldari general: "Pull the Ravens back! Full retreat! they've got frigates!" snip Inappropriate. -Elmo Pug
batmoth Amarr Empirius Enigmus Navy Dark Matter Coalition	Posted - 2007.08.08 14:03:00 - [474] come on CCP please make it so we can orginize our stuff its getting really bad
Druadan Gallente Aristotle Enterprises Ethereal Dawn	Posted - 2007.08.08 14:09:00 - [475] First pa-age, da-derrr derr. It's the page. The page, with the thread you want to touch. ### I nearly finish carriers, and they nerf it. I nearly finish Amarr recons, and they make them useless. Vagabond pilots beware... I have bought Minmatar Cruiser.

Pirlouit Forum Moderator Interstellar Services Department	Posted - 2007.08.08 18:52:00 - [476] This thread has run its course and is now locked. please email [email protected] with any questions. Pirlouit. forum rules \| email



Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 .. 16 :: [one 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.