EVE Search - Rev 2.0: Psychiatrists across the world rejoice...

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Rev 2.0: Psychiatrists across the world rejoice...

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page]
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Elmicker The Phoenix Rising Vigilance Infinitas	Posted - 2007.06.11 21:06:00 - [1] Well, it seems CCP has decided on their flavour of the month for Revelations 2.0. Our old friend the time sink. More specifically: Logistics time sinks. Apparantly, CCP felt alliances having the ability to conquer one another at a rate of knots is a bad thing. So, instead of making subtle gameplay changes that have ripple effects to slow everything down, they have simply slapped a big huge timesink onto everything POS and territory-related. First, we have multi-stage sovereignty. Now, instead of station ping-pong being a simple six-day POS war, they can stretch on for weeks, with cyno-blockers preventing the attacker from making a dent in POSes. This is a good change, it puts the focus more on support fights instead of capital slugfest. I'd like to see more changes like this. Second, we have the absolutely moronic change to carriers. From Revelations 2.0 carriers will not be able to haul GSCs inside ships. This is a major blow to all alliance's logistics. Every alliance except those with titans rely on carriers for the majority of their haulage, especially for POS fuel. Removal of GSCs is approximately a 30% capacity nerf, aswell as removal of the ability to organise the fuel/cargo logically. This increases the cost and time of using a carrier to haul by a massive amount. Third, we have the removal of the ability to warp to 0km on a tower. You now absolutely have to warp to within 5km of the shield. There is no way to warp into a POS shield. Not only does this make a POS absolutely useless in terms of system defense, but it means that it will take an abhorrently long time to refuel POSes. Slowboating from the shield, to the tower in an expanded hauler (or even a freighter) multiple times will take such an ungodly amount of time, its not even worth thinking about. Then, you have to do it another 9 times per outpost system, or 49 times if you're RA in a state of war. All i have to ask is... WHY?! Those responsible for logistics already have the short end of the stick. Once Rev 2.0 hits, it'll be a 24/7 job to keep up with POS logistics, even if we're all using freighters. None of the changes made make any sense whatsoever. Why nerf carriers? Sure, fix the bug, but give them another 20k of corp hangar space to make up for it. Why force a 5km warpin for POSes? Sure, it'll stop the 1-2 occasions of POS bowling per week, but it'll create literally hundreds of man-hours of work per month for logistics managers. I'd really like to see the reasoning behind the changes, because whoever made them has obviously never been in a position of responsibility over POSes. All i can say is i'm thankful i'm not responsible for them anymore.
Dark Shikari Caldari Imperium Technologies Firmus Ixion	Posted - 2007.06.11 21:13:00 - [2] Originally by: Elmicker Second, we have the absolutely moronic change to carriers. From Revelations 2.0 carriers will not be able to haul GSCs inside ships. This is a major blow to all alliance's logistics. Every alliance except those with titans rely on carriers for the majority of their haulage, especially for POS fuel. Removal of GSCs is approximately a 30% capacity nerf, aswell as removal of the ability to organise the fuel/cargo logically. This increases the cost and time of using a carrier to haul by a massive amount. Third, we have the removal of the ability to warp to 0km on a tower. You now absolutely have to warp to within 5km of the shield. There is no way to warp into a POS shield. Not only does this make a POS absolutely useless in terms of system defense, but it means that it will take an abhorrently long time to refuel POSes. Slowboating from the shield, to the tower in an expanded hauler (or even a freighter) multiple times will take such an ungodly amount of time, its not even worth thinking about. Then, you have to do it another 9 times per outpost system, or 49 times if you're RA in a state of war. WTF?????????? These changes sound like total BS. No GSCs = impossible to fill industrial ships in ship bay without getting in them = impossible for carriers to haul properly without docking, and motherships can't even dock. Titans get yet another advantage And the warp to zero with a shield--what the hell? That means POSs are completely useless for what their primary purpose is! 23 Member EVE Video makers: save EVE-files bandwidth! Use the H.264 AutoEncoder!
Darekish Caldari Ascent of Ages Dark Matter Coalition	Posted - 2007.06.11 21:16:00 - [3] signed POS warp in if implemented and carrier nerf will be a nightmare. Darekish.
Aceoil Direct Intent Blind Beavers	Posted - 2007.06.11 21:16:00 - [4] No WTZ with POS shields? Here come the instabookmarks again.
Elmicker The Phoenix Rising Vigilance Infinitas	Posted - 2007.06.11 21:18:00 - [5] Originally by: Aceoil No WTZ with POS shields? Here come the instabookmarks again. Instabookmarks do not work. No matter what you do, you land 5km from the shield, just like a warp bubble. Its quite well documented in the game development forum.
Thanos Draicon	Posted - 2007.06.11 21:20:00 - [6] I'm guessing the 5KM POS shield warp is a direct counter to mothership and titan bowling...
Rhaegor Stormborn Sturmgrenadier Inc R i s e	Posted - 2007.06.11 21:22:00 - [7] Carrier nerf is stupid. Not sure how I feel about the warp to 5 at towers, doesn't seem to bad, and I hate people messing with stront timers while a POS is under attack. The cyno field thing is great and there will be no more super deep enemy territory POSes that people can just fuel with motherships an/or carrier jump-ins. RISE Recruitment Thread
Haffrage Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2007.06.11 21:22:00 - [8] Originally by: Dark Shikari No GSCs = impossible to fill industrial ships in ship bay without getting in them = impossible for carriers to haul properly without docking, and motherships can't even dock. No, I actually think this change was in order. GSC's are a way of circumventing the original game mechanic - that you had to get IN a ship to do anything to it. This included having a module's bonus (in this case expanded cargoholds) and a pilot's skills applied. With GSC's all it took was ONE assembly, JUST one, and an iteron mark v would always have the same cargo capacity even after the character that set it up, say I dunno, biomassed themselves. That's not right. Now you have to have a skilled character there to load up the indy. It sounds perfectly in order to me. ----- Tech 2 Tier 2 Battlecruisers
Sheriff Jones Amarr Space Perverts and Forum Warriors United Cult of War	Posted - 2007.06.11 21:22:00 - [9] whips out magic eight ball Will there be alot of whining on these forums in the coming weeks? shakes All signs point to nerf. Well you're no help... So yeah, i have a problem with being serious, but it's the almost smallest problem i have.
Christopher Scott Caldari	Posted - 2007.06.11 21:23:00 - [10] I really hope CCP can find a better solution for POS bowling than removing WTZ from the tower, that is just plain stupid. Originally by: DB Preacher I may be a muppet on these forums and wind peeps up massively but what is going on here is waaaaay over the edge of reasonable morality.
Elmicker The Phoenix Rising Vigilance Infinitas	Posted - 2007.06.11 21:23:00 - [11] Originally by: Thanos Draicon I'm guessing the 5KM POS shield warp is a direct counter to mothership and titan bowling... Yeah, apparantly stopping something rare that could only be done by less than 50 people, all of whom now risk an immediate and very expensive permanent ban, takes precedence over the thousands of hours that will now be wasted slowboating to the tower from the shield. Not to mention the hundreds of ships that are going to be slaughtered as they try and get into the pos shield while under fire from carriers + dreads.
Alora Venoda Caldari GalTech	Posted - 2007.06.11 21:24:00 - [12] Originally by: Aceoil No WTZ with POS shields? Here come the instabookmarks again. no it's to prevent bowling. since before, regardless of access you could warp to 0 km of the tower. if you didn't have access it bounced you out. how about if you have access, then you CAN wtz inside the shiled, otherwise you end up 5 km outside. that would make much more sense. ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ Take away the risk and it would make flying around in space utterly pointless. Take away the flying around part and you make EVE into a space themed spreadsheet application.
Major Stormer Caldari Infinitus Odium	Posted - 2007.06.11 21:26:00 - [13] Quote: These changes sound like total BS. No GSCs = impossible to fill industrial ships in ship bay without getting in them = impossible for carriers to haul properly without docking, and motherships can't even dock. Titans get yet another advantage This is the one thing that seriously confuses me about this patch. Everything else is either fine, or I can adapt to, but this, while I dont have a carrier yet, seems a tad pointless, and makes it a headache for carrier pilots, who will have to have a written inventory of everything on board when loading. --------- Its just a game. Get over yourselfs. www.eve-tribune.com Dont get too excited now.
Dark Shikari Caldari Imperium Technologies Firmus Ixion	Posted - 2007.06.11 21:26:00 - [14] Originally by: Haffrage Originally by: Dark Shikari No GSCs = impossible to fill industrial ships in ship bay without getting in them = impossible for carriers to haul properly without docking, and motherships can't even dock. No, I actually think this change was in order. GSC's are a way of circumventing the original game mechanic - that you had to get IN a ship to do anything to it. This included having a module's bonus (in this case expanded cargoholds) and a pilot's skills applied. With GSC's all it took was ONE assembly, JUST one, and an iteron mark v would always have the same cargo capacity even after the character that set it up, say I dunno, biomassed themselves. That's not right. Now you have to have a skilled character there to load up the indy. It sounds perfectly in order to me. So in other words it will now take an hour to load up a single mothership? 23 Member EVE Video makers: save EVE-files bandwidth! Use the H.264 AutoEncoder!
Elmicker The Phoenix Rising Vigilance Infinitas	Posted - 2007.06.11 21:29:00 - [15] Originally by: Alora Venoda how about if you have access, then you CAN wtz inside the shiled, otherwise you end up 5 km outside. that would make much more sense. Apparantly, this is how its meant to work. Though, lets be honest; this is CCP. I wouldnt be surprised if it becomes an undocumented feature before rev 2.0 ships.
Haffrage Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2007.06.11 21:29:00 - [16] Originally by: Dark Shikari So in other words it will now take an hour to load up a single mothership? What, are you kidding me? It really takes an HOUR to jet an itty mk v, load stuff into it on another char, then put it back in and repeat a few times? If it does, then yes, that sounds like a reasonable deduction to me. Things that take an hour to do will, more than likely, take an hour to do. ----- Tech 2 Tier 2 Battlecruisers
Derovius Vaden	Posted - 2007.06.11 21:31:00 - [17] On the bright side, POS bowling will be a thing of the past...
Dr Qu Caldari The Renegade Order Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.06.11 21:31:00 - [18] Looks to me like CCP are trying to force alliances to cut down on the ammount of areas they hold sovereignity in. By making it virtually impossible for an alliance to maintain hundreds of POSes throughout their space, with 10+ POSes per system, owned space will shrink and the idea of a fronteir (few poses in outlying systems) becomes more of a reality, with stronger and more POSes in your key systems. The WTZ nerf though can be a bit of a pain, but it will still be a viable defense platform within your system. Sounds like CCP are just trying to change 0.0 POS warfare to include more tactic then just load up a carrier, cyno and be done with it. Will be a pain in the neck for all those hauler pilots though. I dont envy them. Nerfing the Carriers ability to carry GSC hurts though. Perhaps CCP decided it was too easy to get vast ammounts of items into 0.0 via empire. That certainly changes now.
Patch86 Di-Tron Heavy Industries Sparta Alliance	Posted - 2007.06.11 21:33:00 - [19] No warping inside POS shields? Thats ridiculous. If a POS is under siege, you'll get shredded trying to get in to the thing. And the sheer inconvenience of slow boating the distance to the POS structures is a maddening thought. The cure really is worse than the disease... --------
Major Stormer Caldari Infinitus Odium	Posted - 2007.06.11 21:33:00 - [20] Originally by: Derovius Vaden On the bright side, POS bowling will be a thing of the past... It already is, cos its a exploit. --------- Its just a game. Get over yourselfs. www.eve-tribune.com Dont get too excited now.
Nicocat Caldari New Age Solutions New Age Solutions Amalgamated	Posted - 2007.06.11 21:34:00 - [21] Since when do warp bubbles bring you to 5km? They bring you to the edge. That's how POS bubbles should be. As for the GSCs, boo hoo, maybe the big alliances won't spread like wildfire now, since they'll have to gasp HAUL things in HAULERS instead of COMBAT VESSELS. I for one hate the jump-drive freighter (not to be confused with the idea that a freighter itself should have a mini-jump drive). It makes disrupting supply lines impossible. Not hard, absolutely impossible. Originally by: Splagada SEED ME DADDY Down with alts! One character per account per IP!
Lord Frost Minmatar The Crystal Method	Posted - 2007.06.11 21:35:00 - [22] As I stare into my crystal ball... I see the future... I see... carrier containers. Seriously tho, these "fixes" suck balls. And what the hell is a cyno-blocker? I don't like the sound of that!
Dave White coracao ardente Triumvirate.	Posted - 2007.06.11 21:35:00 - [23] Originally by: Elmicker Third, we have the removal of the ability to warp to 0km on a tower. You now absolutely have to warp to within 5km of the shield. There is no way to warp into a POS shield. Not only does this make a POS absolutely useless in terms of system defense, but it means that it will take an abhorrently long time to refuel POSes. Slowboating from the shield, to the tower in an expanded hauler (or even a freighter) multiple times will take such an ungodly amount of time, its not even worth thinking about. Then, you have to do it another 9 times per outpost system, or 49 times if you're RA in a state of war. That's ridiculous... Guess it's insta-time again? CORA. Killboard Personal Killboard
Commander Solo Caldari Digital Fury Corporation Digital Renegades	Posted - 2007.06.11 21:39:00 - [24] Originally by: Dave White That's ridiculous... Guess it's insta-time again? Bingo. Once again CCP fail to understand the problems and implement a fix that really has no bearing on the issue it was meant to solve. GJ LADS!!
Elmicker The Phoenix Rising Vigilance Infinitas	Posted - 2007.06.11 21:41:00 - [25] Edited by: Elmicker on 11/06/2007 21:41:45 Originally by: Nicocat As for the GSCs, boo hoo, maybe the big alliances won't spread like wildfire now, since they'll have to gasp HAUL things in HAULERS instead of COMBAT VESSELS. I for one hate the jump-drive freighter (not to be confused with the idea that a freighter itself should have a mini-jump drive). It makes disrupting supply lines impossible. Not hard, absolutely impossible. Don't be a moron. POS fuel = wtfhuge. Carriers are the best way to transport it, freighters are too expensive and too slow. Maintaining a 50+man gang for 8 hours to escort a freighter is in excess of 4 billion isk lost at a rate of 10mil/hour/pilot. Carriers and dreads have always been used for 0.0 hauling, and failing a major, major, major nerf, they still will be. You can still disrupt the supply lines, it just takes more thought than blobbing up a pipe. What you do is find the midpoint POS, knock it into reinforced, and enjoy destroying the gang that comes to defend it. If they're not using a pos.. well. A cloaked dictor with a cyno should serve nicely Originally by: Lord Frost Seriously tho, these "fixes" suck balls. And what the hell is a cyno-blocker? I don't like the sound of that! At a certain level of sovereignty, you can deploy a POS module that blocks all cynosural fields within the system. Gives the system defender a massive advantage, as they'll still have access to jump bridges to bring capitals in.
Alski Gallente Di-Tron Heavy Industries	Posted - 2007.06.11 21:45:00 - [26] Originally by: Aceoil No WTZ with POS shields? Here come the instabookmarks again. QTF, uterley stupid idea and useless change - oh, and thanks CCP for makeing POS's even more annoying to refuel, thats just what we needed. And the GSC inside inde inside carrier thing isent going to change the way carriers are used for hauling one little bit, just make it harder and less m3 = more carriers hauling. It does very much nurf one aspect of carrier hauling - hauling peoples personal crap around inside GSCs, which is a perfectley fair and reasonable use for them given the value some of the stuff we're asked to haul, now we're limited to either 3 GSCs in the corp hanger, or refuseing to take anything except MSCs / SSCs. I guess next time a hardcore PvP pilot needs his collection of T2 mods moved somewhere he should just train gallente industrial 5 and get a transport ship huh? -
Andrachim Tar'nar The first genesis	Posted - 2007.06.11 21:47:00 - [27] Edited by: Andrachim Tar''nar on 11/06/2007 21:53:57 Edited by: Andrachim Tar''nar on 11/06/2007 21:50:46 Arrrg shut it Elm, I am 1.5 days from an Archon... ! ;) The POS warp thingy is too unreal to be in its final stage of developement. ( I hope ) 2nd Edit: There we go ;) http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=535068&page=1#26
Lord Frost Minmatar The Crystal Method	Posted - 2007.06.11 21:49:00 - [28] Originally by: Elmicker At a certain level of sovereignty, you can deploy a POS module that blocks all cynosural fields within the system. Gives the system defender a massive advantage, as they'll still have access to jump bridges to bring capitals in. Wait... so you're telling me the only way capitals would be able to jump in are thru titan jump bridges? The system defender can't even put up a cyno field?
Draconyx	Posted - 2007.06.11 22:01:00 - [29] I really don't see the issue with 5 km to shields. Means a little more tactics for fighting. And better logistics for POS's Personnally our old corp used to keep a months worth of fuel at the POS and just have someone stop by once a week to refuel the tower (THat can be done in a shuttle) A little off topic but I seen the change that states frieghters can now interface with the POS towers but what about the POS corp bay. If they can it would be the whole system fairly easy to maintain. If not well just more work but managable.
Elmicker The Phoenix Rising Vigilance Infinitas	Posted - 2007.06.11 22:13:00 - [30] Edited by: Elmicker on 11/06/2007 22:12:06 Originally by: Draconyx I really don't see the issue with 5 km to shields. Means a little more tactics for fighting. Tactics dont come into it when there's 30 dreads and 6 motherships sitting 30km away. You simply die. Quickly. Quote: And better logistics for POS's Better?! Are you some sort of sadist? Quote: Personnally our old corp used to keep a months worth of fuel at the POS and just have someone stop by once a week to refuel the tower (THat can be done in a shuttle) POS. Singular. This change barely affects single lone lowsec/0.0 corp. Its a major, massive, huge nerf to 0.0 alliances, who operate 20+ large POSes and rely on regular, daily carrier jumps to replenish supplies of T2 mods and capital/POS fuel. this capability has been reduced by 30%, and the time and manpower required to do it increased by a massive amount. All in the name of fixing a minor bug, which has gone unnoticed for 18 months. Quote: A little off topic but I seen the change that states frieghters can now interface with the POS towers but what about the POS corp bay. If they can it would be the whole system fairly easy to maintain. If not well just more work but managable. Freighters require 50 man escorts at all times when in space if you're not using a titan. Its just not feasable to use them for everyday logistics.
Szprinkoth Sponsz Chaos Reborn	Posted - 2007.06.11 22:25:00 - [31] ITT people listen to rumors and hit panic mode without doing any actual testing/read what people who actually have tested says. The warp to bubble-nerf applies only to hostiles warping to your bubble, not the tower owner corp/alliance. And yes, it applies even if no password is set. No, you cant make an insta, as the bubble works like a warp disruption field; i.e. you always end up on the inbound edge of it, regardless of where you would actually drop out of warp inside the shield. Do the canary spin!
Korizan Oort Cloud Industries	Posted - 2007.06.11 22:25:00 - [32] Originally by: Elmicker Edited by: Elmicker on 11/06/2007 22:12:06 Originally by: Draconyx I really don't see the issue with 5 km to shields. Means a little more tactics for fighting. Tactics dont come into it when there's 30 dreads and 6 motherships sitting 30km away. You simply die. Quickly. Quote: And better logistics for POS's Better?! Are you some sort of sadist? Quote: Personnally our old corp used to keep a months worth of fuel at the POS and just have someone stop by once a week to refuel the tower (THat can be done in a shuttle) POS. Singular. This change barely affects single lone lowsec/0.0 corp. Its a major, massive, huge nerf to 0.0 alliances, who operate 20+ large POSes and rely on regular, daily carrier jumps to replenish supplies of T2 mods and capital/POS fuel. this capability has been reduced by 30%, and the time and manpower required to do it increased by a massive amount. All in the name of fixing a minor bug, which has gone unnoticed for 18 months. Quote: A little off topic but I seen the change that states frieghters can now interface with the POS towers but what about the POS corp bay. If they can it would be the whole system fairly easy to maintain. If not well just more work but managable. Freighters require 50 man escorts at all times when in space if you're not using a titan. Its just not feasable to use them for everyday logistics. Forgive me for not EXPLICTATELY stating multiples which there where and it is not my fault if your corp can't keep up with all the POS's it dropped. You are making a mountain out of a mole hill. ANd I am very aware to what it takes to move a frieghter in 0.0 cause I lost one in 0.0 but I was asking about frieghters and POS hangers and can they interface.
Elmicker The Phoenix Rising Vigilance Infinitas	Posted - 2007.06.11 23:07:00 - [33] Edited by: Elmicker on 11/06/2007 23:06:35 Originally by: Korizan Forgive me for not EXPLICTATELY stating multiples which there where and it is not my fault if your corp can't keep up with all the POS's it dropped. You are making a mountain out of a mole hill. Have you ever had to deal with fuelling 10 large towers 40 jumps into 0.0? Its a job that takes tens of hours. Its an easy job to manage, monotonous and repetetive in fact. It just takes an ungodly amount of time. The changes introduced mean it'll now take longer. I'd also like to point out my experience does not come from my current corporation, with whom i have no other responsibilites than to shoot people, but from my previous role in Myriad Alliance where i managed the sovereignty towers for 2O-EEW and Z-H2MA in Immensea. That period in my career holds the record for most mind-numbingly tedious thing i have ever done. Putting up 10 towers in a day, fuelling them, putting up 15+ modules on every one takes far, far, far too long. The removal of GSCs from carriers make it much harder to organise and transport the fuel. Its adding another time sink to what is the most time-intensive operation in EVE. Its no mole hill, saying it is just shows you've obviously never dealt with more than one or two towers at once. Quote: ANd I am very aware to what it takes to move a frieghter in 0.0 cause I lost one in 0.0 but I was asking about frieghters and POS hangers and can they interface. Freighters can interface with POS hangars, but the only time this is likely to be used is for mass-transportation of minerals or components to a capital factory POS. Its overkill for simple fuel operations, due to the escort requirement.
Khonsu Rest home for Tired Seadogs	Posted - 2007.06.11 23:27:00 - [34] No more warp to zero for towers: Obviously the easy way out for nerfing POS bowling - which I assume won't be possible after this "change".
Callistus Gallente Coreli Corporation Corelum Syndicate	Posted - 2007.06.11 23:39:00 - [35] Re-posted from the Game Development Forum in case some of you guys missed it: Originally by: CCP Chronotis The POS bowling 'fix' does not nerf your bookmark warps to the control tower and in all tests I have performed where you are ordinarily allowed access inside the forcefield (password or corp/alliance flag), it is still the case that you can warp to zero of the control tower. Anyone who is not meant to be entering the field now stops a few km short of the forcefield without bouncing. If this is not the case on sisi, please run logserver and submit a bug report. -------------- [Coreli Corporation Mainframe]
FarScape III	Posted - 2007.06.11 23:46:00 - [36] Edited by: FarScape III on 11/06/2007 23:46:07 Originally by: Patch86 No warping inside POS shields? Thats ridiculous. If a POS is under siege, you'll get shredded trying to get in to the thing. And the sheer inconvenience of slow boating the distance to the POS structures is a maddening thought. The cure really is worse than the disease... What did you guys do when it was WT15km? Or did people use bookmarks? Originally by: Callistus Re-posted from the Game Development Forum in case some of you guys missed it: Originally by: CCP Chronotis The POS bowling 'fix' does not nerf your bookmark warps to the control tower and in all tests I have performed where you are ordinarily allowed access inside the forcefield (password or corp/alliance flag), it is still the case that you can warp to zero of the control tower. Anyone who is not meant to be entering the field now stops a few km short of the forcefield without bouncing. If this is not the case on sisi, please run logserver and submit a bug report. So there you go people, everyone can relax now. Do what you want to EVE, as long as nothing fun is taken away and anything new is fun. A Minmater City... Cool! [url="http:/
Maglorre	Posted - 2007.06.12 00:10:00 - [37] Originally by: Elmicker Don't be a moron. POS fuel = wtfhuge. Carriers are the best way to transport it, freighters are too expensive and too slow. Maintaining a 50+man gang for 8 hours to escort a freighter is in excess of 4 billion isk lost at a rate of 10mil/hour/pilot. Carriers and dreads have always been used for 0.0 hauling, and failing a major, major, major nerf, they still will be. So don't use a 50 man gang. Send them all out to rat and make ISK to replace the freighter if you lose it. Freighter only needs a small escort, 3 or 4 scouts and a webber. I've regularly been involved in moving these things around in 0.0 this way and it's quite possible if you have scouts that know what they are doing, and safe spots in all the systems you will be travelling in. We have not lost a freighter yet. Busting through a gate camp to get into 0.0 is not possible with this arrangement but once in 0.0 it's simple. You have to avoid trouble rather than just blasting your way through anything. Now that freighters can interact with POS hangars it's quite easy to leave a large amount of fuel at the POS. Leave a hauler at one POS in a system to be used to refuel other POS and you can limit the number of hangars you need as well (although they are pretty cheap and use no fuel when offlined) and then go to the system in a fast frig/shuttle/other ship of choice.
Badhands Gallente Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2007.06.12 00:18:00 - [38] Have you ever considered that perhaps carriers weren't made to be uberhaulers? Originally by: Player Guide Don't expect CONCORD to keep you immune to attacks or ship losses.
Chelone	Posted - 2007.06.12 00:44:00 - [39] An idea which is probably not true, but possible - maybe "gas clouds" will be used as a local fuel supplement, so lots of hauling from empire isn't as necessary?
Kuseka Adama Gallente WOLFPACK DELTA	Posted - 2007.06.12 00:47:00 - [40] Originally by: Badhands Have you ever considered that perhaps carriers weren't made to be uberhaulers? This is most likely the case but given the price of freighters and the materials involved in POS fueling/movement i would rather use a carrier (it can jump) compared to a freighter which is stuck on normal shipping lanes. If i had access to a titan this COULD be different. But i dont and not a lot of people do. This could significantly impact smaller alliances.
Dark Shikari Caldari Imperium Technologies Firmus Ixion	Posted - 2007.06.12 00:49:00 - [41] Originally by: Badhands Have you ever considered that perhaps carriers weren't made to be uberhaulers? They hardly hold much more than a T1 industrial. They're far from "uber" as it is. 23 Member EVE Video makers: save EVE-files bandwidth! Use the H.264 AutoEncoder!
Jirad TiSalver Caldari 4S Corporation Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2007.06.12 01:04:00 - [42] I believe that CCP intends to make it much more difficult for huge alliances to control large territories. This could ultimately make the game more interesting and may give smaller organizations a chance to move out in to low sec. I have always thought it rediculous that an alliance with a few hundred members should control as much as 2 regions of space. Great job CCP!!!
Plaetean coracao ardente Triumvirate.	Posted - 2007.06.12 01:10:00 - [43] Edited by: Plaetean on 12/06/2007 01:11:52 This is ridiculous, if the POS thing is being done to counter POS bowling; there's a much easier solution. Just make it so you warp to 5km outside the shield if you don't have the password/required standing for the POS to let you in. So instead of warping to the tower and being catapulted out, you land just outside the shield. Same principle, no POS bowling, no ******* up POSes and making them more of a bore + hassle than they already are. Carrier nerf is ridiculous too.. EDIT: damn just read above post, and CCP already had that idea. -----
Nanobotter Mk2	Posted - 2007.06.12 01:11:00 - [44] Quote: No warping inside POS shields? Thats ridiculous. If a POS is under siege, you'll get shredded trying to get in to the thing. And the sheer inconvenience of slow boating the distance to the POS structures is a maddening thought. but isn't that how it should be? Why would you be able to warp through an armada attacking a POS directly to safety? It kind of role plays the shield coming down to let you in with out the shield coming down. I think CCP might be on the right track, might be the wrong way but right now it seems the wrong mechancis are dictating your empire size in 0.0. as well as how you control your turf.
Acacia Everto	Posted - 2007.06.12 01:53:00 - [45] If you read in the thread, it was quoted that: * If you're meant to be in the POS (e.g. Corp/Alliance) you will warp normally through the shield. * If you're a hostile, you will stop dead 5km out. I don't see why this arrangement is a big deal, unless you're relying on POS bowling, in which case your tactics are going to need a change.
Wink Caldari Asgard Protectorate	Posted - 2007.06.12 01:55:00 - [46] NIBDS Anyways, I've figured it out people. I started the thread in the Dev forums about the GSC (IBDS on that one). Why I tested this was because I was attempting to assist a friendly corp who's alliance was failing to..nvm on that part. Anyways, I've figured out what they are doing. This is Aprils Fools everyone!! Yea, these are all joke changes that the mods are making so ha ha, you guys got us. Good one, better than the Molle incident. Wow, you Dev's are good. Wooo, I'm still laughing at myself for thinking these were gonna be real changes. Pheew, I sure am glad this was all just an April Fools joke on the part of CCP and not real changes that were going onto Rev2 which, now that I think about it, if they were to implement them would be
Callthetruth Caldari Logical Logtistics	Posted - 2007.06.12 02:20:00 - [47] looks like a anti large alliance change which is about time it will affect bob and slow the war games. Might be a good thing also an anti goon and would hav ebeen an anti ASCN and anti d2 measure
Dufas Amarr Dark-Rising Fallen Souls	Posted - 2007.06.12 02:27:00 - [48] Bend over and take it like a man..patch day is comming...and once again in order to stop a few ppl from doing something they screw the majority .... ________ RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE Free Paris!!!!
Swindy BlackOps Brigade	Posted - 2007.06.12 02:33:00 - [49] Originally by: Elmicker All i have to ask is... WHY?! This must be a rhetorical question, because the answer is so obvious ... "because it's the easy thing to do."
Recluse Viramor Reikoku Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.06.12 02:51:00 - [50] Originally by: CCP Chronotis The POS bowling 'fix' does not nerf your bookmark warps to the control tower and in all tests I have performed where you are ordinarily allowed access inside the forcefield (password or corp/alliance flag), it is still the case that you can warp to zero of the control tower. Anyone who is not meant to be entering the field now stops a few km short of the forcefield without bouncing. If this is not the case on sisi, please run logserver and submit a bug report.
Danton Marcellus Nebula Rasa Holdings	Posted - 2007.06.12 03:00:00 - [51] Instead of making POS' even more of a bore to manage why not just simply remove the smuggler gates, you know you only introduced them to further conflict in 0.0, now with conflict a-plenty there's no need for this catalyst, they have outlived their usefulness and needs to be put down! Also Known As
Curzon Dax Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2007.06.12 03:12:00 - [52] Folks, you're missing an important fact here. Space is flat. Think about that for a moment. Space...is...flat. At least, in Eve it is. If your POS is under siege, the attacking fleet isn't spread around it in sphere...they're grouped together at one point of it. If you want to get into a POS that's under siege safely, you warp in on the point OPPOSITE them.
Alias11 Gallente GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.06.12 03:20:00 - [53] Originally by: Badhands Have you ever considered that perhaps carriers weren't made to be uberhaulers? It's right there in the name, bucko
Derran Minmatar Khumatari Holdings Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2007.06.12 05:03:00 - [54] Doesn't the change to the way sovereignity works, in addition to the new POS structures, also mean you'll likely use less POSs meaning you'll have less to refuel? With increased time to try to steal sovereignity now, it'll be just as hard, if not harder, on the attacker. Of course, I expect this point to be totally ignored with the way people prefer to whine all the time.
Herculite Black Eclipse Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.06.12 05:08:00 - [55] Originally by: Christopher Scott I really hope CCP can find a better solution for POS bowling than removing WTZ from the tower, that is just plain stupid. Let me fix this a bit... I really hope CCP can find a better solution for POS bowling than removing WTZ from the tower, that is just plain LAZY.
Vana Gank Gallente Nosferatu Security Foundation	Posted - 2007.06.12 06:04:00 - [56] Edited by: Vana Gank on 12/06/2007 06:06:39 oops, dbl post -------------------------- Please adjust the map, please. Im not clever enough to figure out which way to fly.
Vana Gank Gallente Nosferatu Security Foundation	Posted - 2007.06.12 06:07:00 - [57] Originally by: Szprinkoth Sponsz ITT people listen to rumors and hit panic mode without doing any actual testing/read what people who actually have tested says. The warp to bubble-nerf applies only to hostiles warping to your bubble, not the tower owner corp/alliance. And yes, it applies even if no password is set. No, you cant make an insta, as the bubble works like a warp disruption field; i.e. you always end up on the inbound edge of it, regardless of where you would actually drop out of warp inside the shield. I hope ppl are able to read what some of you guys are posting - seems like ppl are too lazy to read anything except the OP. ;) -------------------------- Please adjust the map, please. Im not clever enough to figure out which way to fly.
Siigari Kitawa Gallente The Aduro Protocol	Posted - 2007.06.12 06:20:00 - [58] So what's this I hear about the Myrm getting nerfed to 4 midslots? _________________ Burn.
Layla Dark and Light inc. D-L	Posted - 2007.06.12 07:12:00 - [59] Originally by: Vana Gank Originally by: Szprinkoth Sponsz ITT people listen to rumors and hit panic mode without doing any actual testing/read what people who actually have tested says. The warp to bubble-nerf applies only to hostiles warping to your bubble, not the tower owner corp/alliance. And yes, it applies even if no password is set. No, you cant make an insta, as the bubble works like a warp disruption field; i.e. you always end up on the inbound edge of it, regardless of where you would actually drop out of warp inside the shield. I hope ppl are able to read what some of you guys are posting - seems like ppl are too lazy to read anything except the OP. ;) Thank you for the clarification. That certainly seems reasonable and will stop the bowling problem without affecting POS owners/allies. However, the GSC nerf for carriers seems unreasonable unless CCP seed Carrier containers (like the Freight containers) on the market. Carriers can haul an absolute maximum of 6M Trit at a time (without GSCs). That's hardly "uber" in today's Eve. Looking forward to seeing the Carrier containers, please CCP.
Kartikeya	Posted - 2007.06.12 07:53:00 - [60] Everyone is complaining about carrier nerf and its going to be a pain in ass to haul with a carrier. Maybe CCP never wanted a carrier to be used for hauling? Everyone is also complaining how its going to be a pain in the ass to fuel all 60 of there large POS. Maybe CCP doesnt want you to have so many damn POS and they are trying to nerf POS numbers so we dont have this *** ass POS warfare anymore. They are also making POS alot stronger now and more usefull. Now two POS in a system is a powerfull thing. One with a cyno blocker and one with a Jump bridge. All you need to keep a system safe is 2 POS and an alliance that can respond to a slowboat freighter trying to sneak in POS for spam.
Sokratesz Paradox v2.0 Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.06.12 08:08:00 - [61] If CCP wants to reduce territorial control except in really important areas (shipyards / hqs), then they should say so and back these measures up with reason.
Ozstar Naughty 40	Posted - 2007.06.12 09:51:00 - [62] It seems to me that the responses to most of the upcoming carrier changes as largely negative. Triage Module Whilst i welcome anything that makes the carrier more useful, it seems people feel that the triage module will be a bad thing for carriers, with it being dubbed "the slow death". Nerfing carriers & gsc's (Giant Secure Containers) This will really hurt those carrier pilots such as myself who dont have all the skills to be useful on the front line, but instead fill a vital logistical role. Having spent almost 11 months dedicated to training a carrier pilot, im still a good 4-5 months off being able to use it effectively in combat. Fighters As they stand now i feel fighters need a little work to make them balanced. With the tanking ability of many ships in the game - carriers on their own pose little threat with the damage their fighters can do. Then we have the overall cost of a fight, which is around the same cost as a T1 BC such as the Cyclone. When fighters are engaged its usually by 10 or more support ships - my suggestion would be to keep the DPS of the fighters the same and just give them a HP boost to increase their survivability - or reduce the cost of them. Whilst i appreciate that CCP are trying to balance the game - logistics is usually the job of a small dedicated bunch of guys, your just making their job a whole lot harder and entire alliances will feel the strain as those hardworking logistics guys throw the towel in. Originally by: CCP Eris Discordia It¦s still very ackward reading threads about ¦how to ride eris¦
Cindera Gallente Royal Assassin's	Posted - 2007.06.12 10:07:00 - [63] Originally by: Kartikeya Everyone is complaining about carrier nerf and its going to be a pain in ass to haul with a carrier. Maybe CCP never wanted a carrier to be used for hauling? Everyone is also complaining how its going to be a pain in the ass to fuel all 60 of there large POS. Maybe CCP doesnt want you to have so many damn POS and they are trying to nerf POS numbers so we dont have this *** ass POS warfare anymore. They are also making POS alot stronger now and more usefull. Now two POS in a system is a powerfull thing. One with a cyno blocker and one with a Jump bridge. All you need to keep a system safe is 2 POS and an alliance that can respond to a slowboat freighter trying to sneak in POS for spam. Perhaps CCP would also WANT to fly everyone's ships so they fly in the exact direction the WANT them to ... ffs adaptation and possibility of creative use is what makes the game so good ... if we were all using the ships the way CCP intended them too it would be the most boring game ever ... do you think CCP WANTED ppl to put nanofibres on curses ? ... or Crows do 10km/s ... or Vultures passivetank entire fleets ... or plated Mallers and Raxes with small artillery guns ? ... no ... someone came up with those and they are great ships as a result ... so should ccp ban artillery weapons on amarr ships because that's not how they WANTED them to be ? ... this whole thing with the GSC smells of Pirates yapping again how there are not enough Freighters in lowsec for them to gank cause everyone is using carriers ... there are better ways of stopping alliances from expanding ... you just up the sovereignty change requirements ... make it two weeks instead of 5 days and stations will take months to conquer instead of a week ... and if you think this'll stop the titan alliances from expanding ... think again ... jumpbridges make their logistics way too easy ...
Amarria Black Clan Anthraxx	Posted - 2007.06.12 10:46:00 - [64] Originally by: Elmicker Tactics dont come into it when there's 30 dreads and 6 motherships sitting 30km away. You simply die. Quickly. "Die" is so... active. I prefer "evaporate". Originally by: Dark Shikari They hardly hold much more than a T1 industrial. They're far from "uber" as it is. Well, we all know the uber part of a Carrier -vs- a decked out hauler begins with J and ends with -ump drive. Originally by: Alias11 Originally by: Badhands Have you ever considered that perhaps carriers weren't made to be uberhaulers? It's right there in the name, bucko Y'know, no matter how I spell "Carrier", I never seem to find the word "haul".
Imuran	Posted - 2007.06.12 11:24:00 - [65] Originally by: Elmicker Third, we have the removal of the ability to warp to 0km on a tower. You now absolutely have to warp to within 5km of the shield. There is no way to warp into a POS shield. Not only does this make a POS absolutely useless in terms of system defense, but it means that it will take an abhorrently long time to refuel POSes. Slowboating from the shield, to the tower in an expanded hauler (or even a freighter) multiple times will take such an ungodly amount of time, its not even worth thinking about. Then, you have to do it another 9 times per outpost system, or 49 times if you're RA in a state of war. Oh for goodness sake that is ridiculous. Thankfully I only run a small pos for my own research but that is plain stupid.
Wixxs	Posted - 2007.06.12 11:35:00 - [66] Edited by: Wixxs on 12/06/2007 11:34:37 Quote: Third, we have the removal of the ability to warp to 0km on a tower. You now absolutely have to warp to within 5km of the shield. There is no way to warp into a POS shield. Not only does this make a POS absolutely useless in terms of system defense, but it means that it will take an abhorrently long time to refuel POSes. Slowboating from the shield, to the tower in an expanded hauler (or even a freighter) multiple times will take such an ungodly amount of time, its not even worth thinking about. Then, you have to do it another 9 times per outpost system, or 49 times if you're RA in a state of war. Yet ANOTHER attempt from CCP to make this game even more mind-numbingly boring than it already is. I can understand not letting Motherships and the like to WTZ, but Industrials and especially Freighters should not have this restriction. FFS CCP why are you turning this game into a chore?
Ki An Gallente The Really Awesome Players	Posted - 2007.06.12 11:44:00 - [67] Love these changes. Managing POSes in two-three regions will be so mind numbingly boring that it is virtually impossible. Yay! Perhaps we'll see some more enteties in 0.0 now that an alliance of 1000 people can't control rediculous amounts of space. Good changes all around CCP. /Ki Joy to the world Beware: I'm a "viscous pirate"!
flashfreaking LFC FATAL Alliance	Posted - 2007.06.12 11:48:00 - [68] Originally by: Vana Gank Originally by: Szprinkoth Sponsz ITT people listen to rumors and hit panic mode without doing any actual testing/read what people who actually have tested says. The warp to bubble-nerf applies only to hostiles warping to your bubble, not the tower owner corp/alliance. And yes, it applies even if no password is set. No, you cant make an insta, as the bubble works like a warp disruption field; i.e. you always end up on the inbound edge of it, regardless of where you would actually drop out of warp inside the shield. I hope ppl are able to read what some of you guys are posting - seems like ppl are too lazy to read anything except the OP. ;) Learn to f*ing read, stop whining, if you don't like it, quit and let those who enjoy the game enjoy it without having nasty whiny ppl around, kthx...
Jin Entres Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2007.06.12 12:02:00 - [69] Originally by: Amarria Black Y'know, no matter how I spell "Carrier", I never seem to find the word "haul". Originally by: American Heritage Dictionary car+ri+er (kār'ē-ər) Pronunciation Key n. 1. One that transports or conveys: baggage carriers; a message carrier. 2. One, such as a person, business, or organization, that deals in the transport of passengers or goods. Can't get much clearer than that. Here's something funny worth noting, by the way: Originally by: Dictionary.com haul+er /ˈhɔlər/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[haw-ler] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation ûnoun 1.a person who hauls. 2.a commercial trucking company. 3.a vehicle used for hauling or trucking. 4.Slang. a car capable of very high speeds. ---
Fink Angel Caldari The Merry Men	Posted - 2007.06.12 12:08:00 - [70] Originally by: Ki An Love these changes. Managing POSes in two-three regions will be so mind numbingly boring that it is virtually impossible. Yay! Perhaps we'll see some more enteties in 0.0 now that an alliance of 1000 people can't control rediculous amounts of space. Good changes all around CCP. /Ki You might have hit the nail on the head here. I think sometimes people don't give CCP enough credit for knowing their game. Maybe it's a re-balance to try to reign in some of the huge alliances to leave some breathing space for the smaller ones.
Druadan Gallente Aristotle Enterprises Ethereal Dawn	Posted - 2007.06.12 12:16:00 - [71] Edited by: Druadan on 12/06/2007 12:17:05 Originally by: Draconyx I really don't see the issue with 5 km to shields. Means a little more tactics for fighting. And better logistics for POS's Personnally our old corp used to keep a months worth of fuel at the POS and just have someone stop by once a week to refuel the tower (THat can be done in a shuttle) A little off topic but I seen the change that states frieghters can now interface with the POS towers but what about the POS corp bay. If they can it would be the whole system fairly easy to maintain. If not well just more work but managable. Fail Originally by: Badhands Have you ever considered that perhaps carriers weren't made to be uberhaulers? Ultrafail Originally by: Herculite Originally by: Christopher Scott I really hope CCP can find a better solution for POS bowling than removing WTZ from the tower, that is just plain stupid. Let me fix this a bit... I really hope CCP can find a better solution for POS bowling than removing WTZ from the tower, that is just plain LAZY. Combo-breaker! Give this man a coconut for nail and head interaction. Originally by: Jin Entres Here's something funny worth noting, by the way: Originally by: Dictionary.com haul+er /ˈhɔlər/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[haw-ler] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation ûnoun 1.a person who hauls. 2.a commercial trucking company. 3.a vehicle used for hauling or trucking. 4.Slang. a car capable of very high speeds. rofl. It's from the latin ''haulus assus''. __________________________________________________ "A witty saying proves nothing" - Voltaire
Ralara Caldari Exanimo Inc Triumvirate.	Posted - 2007.06.12 12:20:00 - [72] Originally by: Dark Shikari Originally by: Badhands Have you ever considered that perhaps carriers weren't made to be uberhaulers? They hardly hold much more than a T1 industrial. They're far from "uber" as it is. oh play fair, we all know you shove industrials inside the ship hanger. Industrials fitted with tech 2 expanders, piloted by people with racial industrial 5 :D My question is: what about GSCs inside the haulers - can these be put inside the carrier, if they're in the cargo hold of a hauler, that's to be put in an array? To the testmobile!
Druadan Gallente Aristotle Enterprises Ethereal Dawn	Posted - 2007.06.12 12:22:00 - [73] Originally by: Szprinkoth Sponsz ITT people listen to rumors and hit panic mode without doing any actual testing/read what people who actually have tested says. The warp to bubble-nerf applies only to hostiles warping to your bubble, not the tower owner corp/alliance. And yes, it applies even if no password is set. No, you cant make an insta, as the bubble works like a warp disruption field; i.e. you always end up on the inbound edge of it, regardless of where you would actually drop out of warp inside the shield. What worries me about that is that I foresee CCP's awful POS-management foresight will create a situation where they lazily link this behaviour to a role, like starbase config. So I need to give everyone in my damn corp the rights to take the tower apart just so they can WTZ on it. So long as it works properly, and my corp and alliancemates can warp to the centre of my tower without problem and without a pain in the arse way of managing it, then I'm happy, which would make one change I'm not completely opposed to. Yay for progress -_- __________________________________________________ "A witty saying proves nothing" - Voltaire
Kartikeya	Posted - 2007.06.12 12:22:00 - [74] Originally by: Jin Entres Originally by: Amarria Black Y'know, no matter how I spell "Carrier", I never seem to find the word "haul". Originally by: American Heritage Dictionary car+ri+er (kār'ē-ər) Pronunciation Key n. 1. One that transports or conveys: baggage carriers; a message carrier. 2. One, such as a person, business, or organization, that deals in the transport of passengers or goods. Can't get much clearer than that. Here's something funny worth noting, by the way: Originally by: Dictionary.com haul+er /ˈhɔlər/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[haw-ler] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation ûnoun 1.a person who hauls. 2.a commercial trucking company. 3.a vehicle used for hauling or trucking. 4.Slang. a car capable of very high speeds. Quote: American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source car+ri+er (kār'ē-ər) Pronunciation Key n. One that transports or conveys: baggage carriers; a message carrier. One, such as a person, business, or organization, that deals in the transport of passengers or goods. A mechanism or device by which something is conveyed or conducted. Medicine A person or an animal that shows no symptoms of a disease but harbors the infectious agent of that disease and is capable of transmitting it to others. Genetics An individual that carries one gene for a particular recessive trait. A carrier does not express the trait but, when mated with another carrier, can produce offspring that do. Electronics A carrier wave. A charge-carrying entity, especially an electron or a hole in a semiconductor. An aircraft carrier. An insurance or underwriting organization. A telecommunications company. Wow Becareful carriers also care infectious disesses becaureful. I think the defenition we are looking for would fall under aircraft carrier. In are cace spacecraft carrier http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_carrier
Tobias Sjodin Caldari Ore Mongers R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.06.12 12:44:00 - [75] Ever thought about the carrier was meant as a "drone carrier" ? It doesn't necessarily have to be connected to "carrying goods". - Recruitment open again-
Kagura Nikon Minmatar Guardians of the Dawn Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.06.12 12:57:00 - [76] Seem people are failing to grasp the concept. The idea is CCP WANTS POS mantainace become much heavier. Because they don want alliances to hold and extend so easily to HUGE amounts of space!!! Its a GREAT and uber inteligent idea! Now they only need also to prevent freighters form jumping with a titan. The future should be the shrinkage of the States in EVE. If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough
Jin Entres Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2007.06.12 13:08:00 - [77] Originally by: Kartikeya Wow Becareful carriers also care infectious disesses becaureful. I think the defenition we are looking for would fall under aircraft carrier. In are cace spacecraft carrier http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_carrier You're right. But aircraft carriers also had cargo carrying applications (see e.g. MACs). In any case, their role in EVE is not defined by any analogous real life definitions, so in the absence of a clear statement from the development team, we can only determine their role by the descriptions and abilities. As far as descriptions go, their intended applications seem to vary anywhere from personnel and fighter carrying, support in small and mid-sized engagements, serving as "mobile citadels" or having "varied applications in the vast arena of deep space" to bluntly just "all out warfare". Given how efficient the cargo carrying capacity of carriers makes them in deep space logistics, their abilities certainly support their role as capital logistics ships, to which their remote repairing bonuses are also a testament. Be it supplying ships and equipment or fuel and construction parts, carriers are the supportive element both on frontlines and within deep space fortresses. Obviously they should not make freighters obsolete in lowsec or 0.0, but with current mechanics the gap in both capacity and risk are reasonable. Maintaining sizable 0.0 infastructure requires a lot logisticswise, and any changes aimed at making it more difficult should focus on something else than increasing timesinks that already test players' motivation as "the neccessary evil". ---
Derran Minmatar Khumatari Holdings Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2007.06.12 13:32:00 - [78] Originally by: Derran Doesn't the change to the way sovereignity works, in addition to the new POS structures, also mean you'll likely use less POSs meaning you'll have less to refuel? With increased time to try to steal sovereignity now, it'll be just as hard, if not harder, on the attacker. Of course, I expect this point to be totally ignored with the way people prefer to whine all the time. I knew the point I was trying to make would be glossed over. Forum whinaged at its best. Not only is the sovereignity change being overlooked, you get to fit an iteron V with expander IIs and 3 cargohold optimizers to get approximately 38,000m3 cargo. Then do something similiar with a Wreathe since that will also fit in a regular carrier too. And yet that isn't enough for you people. No wonder CCP doesn't give a rat's a$$.
Kartikeya	Posted - 2007.06.12 14:01:00 - [79] Originally by: Jin Entres Obviously they should not make freighters obsolete in lowsec or 0.0, but with current mechanics the gap in both capacity and risk are reasonable. Maintaining sizable 0.0 infastructure requires a lot logisticswise, and any changes aimed at making it more difficult should focus on something else than increasing timesinks that already test players' motivation as "the neccessary evil". With the new sov and the bost that CCP is giving to POS the number of POS in a system will go down and the POS in a constilation might go up, but the over all need for POS spaming should drop away, because it will be hard to spam a system with POS if they got a cyno blocker in it. Its also going to be easyer for a defender to keep his sapce, harder for an attacker to take it. Most importintly tho its going to be very hard for a small but powerful alliance to control huge amounts of space or a large but disorganized group. And I think both of these will be good for Eve. But all of this complaining will be totaly useless if the POS jump bridges will work on freighters as you will be able to just jump your freighter into every damn system you need without the cost of owning a titan. And if not you still will have the ease of moving a fleet of iteron V all rigged out and expanded without any risk.
SkullyP Winebo The Shadow Order Hydra Alliance	Posted - 2007.06.12 14:17:00 - [80] This is already giving me a headache. CCP please let Carriers - Be Carriers!! Signed
Elmicker The Phoenix Rising Vigilance Infinitas	Posted - 2007.06.12 14:44:00 - [81] Originally by: Kagura Nikon Seem people are failing to grasp the concept. The idea is CCP WANTS POS mantainace become much heavier. Because they don want alliances to hold and extend so easily to HUGE amounts of space!!! ... The future should be the shrinkage of the States in EVE. And do you really think that'll happen? Do you really think the moaning of the 3-4 logistics guys who dedicate their EVE careers to prop up your alliance will slow down the territorial nature of the other 2000 members? Of course it won't. And the worst bit is your logistics managers will carry on putting the work in, because they are, invariably the most loyal and hard working people in the alliance. If CCP want to stop proliferation of empires, nerfing logistics is not the way to do it. All the nerf causes is more work for the poor bastards tasked with keeping your outposts safe, who, eventually, will just throw in the towel and the fun will be ruined for the thousands of others it affects. And anyway, its already been said the carrier nerf was not intended as a nerf, but as a by-product of some code maintenance and a minor bugfix. Originally by: Kartikeya But all of this complaining will be totaly useless if the POS jump bridges will work on freighters as you will be able to just jump your freighter into every damn system you need without the cost of owning a titan. And if not you still will have the ease of moving a fleet of iteron V all rigged out and expanded without any risk. Not true. POS jump bridges feature a low range and high fuel requirement, also they require sovereignty to anchor and use. Unless you require freighter loads of equipment moved every day, carriers are still the cheaper, more effective way to move fuel and mods. You'd need 10-12 jump bridge arrays for the longest routes, which will probably pass through NPC or hostile territory at some point, making it difficult to maintain. That, and you still require the 50-man escort to get your freighters through the 0.0 chokepoint and to your first jump POS.
Wink Caldari Asgard Protectorate	Posted - 2007.06.12 17:55:00 - [82] and no one even liked my lil pic I made a few pages back /me goes to stuff himself with plank generator donuts as comfort.
Tortun Nahme Minmatar Heimatar Services Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.06.12 18:36:00 - [83] Dear CCP plz nerf Whine Gang Link, the group bonus is too high Real turtles tank armor. Real men fly Pink.
Princess Jodi Vendetta Underground Rule of Three	Posted - 2007.06.12 18:37:00 - [84] Disallowing GSC's in Carriers is pure boneheaded thinking. I agree with the comments about nerfing Carrier's ability to move loads of goods - it just makes it more expensive and harder to move things. But that's not the biggest problem in my eyes. People need to have an easy way to seperate thier items from other freight. This is so critical I could talk for pages about it. Suffice it to say that without the ability to put stuff into a can with your name on it, I seriously doubt I'll be moving any more of my Alliance mates stuff. It just won't be worth the hassle to track individual items and put them in the right spot.
Saladin Minmatar Eternity INC. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2007.06.12 18:51:00 - [85] Originally by: Haffrage Originally by: Dark Shikari No GSCs = impossible to fill industrial ships in ship bay without getting in them = impossible for carriers to haul properly without docking, and motherships can't even dock. No, I actually think this change was in order. GSC's are a way of circumventing the original game mechanic - that you had to get IN a ship to do anything to it. This included having a module's bonus (in this case expanded cargoholds) and a pilot's skills applied. With GSC's all it took was ONE assembly, JUST one, and an iteron mark v would always have the same cargo capacity even after the character that set it up, say I dunno, biomassed themselves. That's not right. Now you have to have a skilled character there to load up the indy. It sounds perfectly in order to me. This is not correct. You cannot empty the contents of the GSC inside a ship without boarding that ship or by dragging the GSC's out of the ship. Once the GSC's are taken out of the ship, you will never be able to put them back in unless the ship is active. ----
Patch86 Di-Tron Heavy Industries	Posted - 2007.06.13 00:18:00 - [86] Originally by: FarScape III Edited by: FarScape III on 11/06/2007 23:46:07 Originally by: Patch86 No warping inside POS shields? Thats ridiculous. If a POS is under siege, you'll get shredded trying to get in to the thing. And the sheer inconvenience of slow boating the distance to the POS structures is a maddening thought. The cure really is worse than the disease... What did you guys do when it was WT15km? Or did people use bookmarks? For refuelling, yeah. But unless I'm much mistaken, 15km's from a tower is still a lot less far than from the edge of a large POS's bubble. I'm very glad everyone's saying that it's not the case, for the POS's owners. --------
William Hamilton Caldari THE LEGION OF STEEL WARRIORS.... R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.06.13 01:24:00 - [87] Freighters + Jump bridges = Logistics win
Kartikeya	Posted - 2007.06.13 19:43:00 - [88] Originally by: Princess Jodi Disallowing GSC's in Carriers is pure boneheaded thinking. I agree with the comments about nerfing Carrier's ability to move loads of goods - it just makes it more expensive and harder to move things. But that's not the biggest problem in my eyes. People need to have an easy way to seperate thier items from other freight. This is so critical I could talk for pages about it. Suffice it to say that without the ability to put stuff into a can with your name on it, I seriously doubt I'll be moving any more of my Alliance mates stuff. It just won't be worth the hassle to track individual items and put them in the right spot. Now I could be wrong on this but isnt there a countract type called currior where you can place your items up for some one to transport them for you? And dont they get put into a nice lil package with the persons name on them? And dont they automaticly deliver them selves once you get them to the distination? Thats sounds like a good system for movingother peoples stuff and not getting it mixed up dont you?
Druadan Gallente Aristotle Enterprises Ethereal Dawn	Posted - 2007.06.13 20:38:00 - [89] Originally by: Kartikeya Originally by: Princess Jodi Disallowing GSC's in Carriers is pure boneheaded thinking. I agree with the comments about nerfing Carrier's ability to move loads of goods - it just makes it more expensive and harder to move things. But that's not the biggest problem in my eyes. People need to have an easy way to seperate thier items from other freight. This is so critical I could talk for pages about it. Suffice it to say that without the ability to put stuff into a can with your name on it, I seriously doubt I'll be moving any more of my Alliance mates stuff. It just won't be worth the hassle to track individual items and put them in the right spot. Now I could be wrong on this but isnt there a countract type called currior where you can place your items up for some one to transport them for you? And dont they get put into a nice lil package with the persons name on them? And dont they automaticly deliver them selves once you get them to the distination? Thats sounds like a good system for movingother peoples stuff and not getting it mixed up dont you? Those are being given the same treatment as cans. You can't put a ship in the carrier if it has a courier package in the hold. Something about things within things within things. You can't put an assembled brain inside a skull inside a CCP dev. __________________________________________________ "A witty saying proves nothing" - Voltaire
Tovarishch Caldari Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2007.06.13 20:51:00 - [90] Edited by: Tovarishch on 13/06/2007 20:49:56 Originally by: Druadan Those are being given the same treatment as cans. You can't put a ship in the carrier if it has a courier package in the hold. Something about things within things within things. You can't put an assembled brain inside a skull inside a CCP dev. Personal insults are for children on the playground. Be mature and constructive in your criticism. CCP and the Devs make mistakes of judgement at times... deal with it. All life is sacred... until the client says otherwise.
Kodiak31415 An Eye For An Eye Rule of Three	Posted - 2007.06.13 20:57:00 - [91] This would be a great time for CCP to unveil the new ORE cap ship, hopefully with some pretty good haulage capability..... _______________________________ Pleese exucse any seplling erorr's in tihs psot
Wylker Caldari Pyrrhus Sicarii Aftermath Alliance	Posted - 2007.06.13 20:59:00 - [92] I didn't read all 4 pages, but you guys should know the WTZ thing for towers is bugged. If you are allowed inside the POS forcefield you are supposed to be able to still warp inside the bubble. The landing 2-5km outside the bubble is only supposed to affect people that are not allowed inside the forcefield. It has been noted and is being looked at on SiSi. The explanation from the testing team on the GSC thing is that it allows fitted ships with ammo to be put into maint arrays and maint bays. Somehow, allowing GSCs in cargo along with whatever fix for the fitted ship/ammo problem opened up a bunch of exploits so they don't let you do GSCs in cargo anymore. Most/all of this info is in the test server forum. I'd recommend more reading and less flipping out next time.
Mortuus Minmatar Viper Squad Triumvirate.	Posted - 2007.06.13 21:23:00 - [93] Hmmm...nerf carrier hauling, check; nerf pos logistics, I wish; remove PoS's, please. Logistics should be vulnerable to attack, I can't wait till they allow small gangs to damage PoS modules. ex-Occassus Republica <3
Druadan Gallente Aristotle Enterprises Ethereal Dawn	Posted - 2007.06.13 21:26:00 - [94] Originally by: Tovarishch Edited by: Tovarishch on 13/06/2007 20:49:56 Originally by: Druadan Those are being given the same treatment as cans. You can't put a ship in the carrier if it has a courier package in the hold. Something about things within things within things. You can't put an assembled brain inside a skull inside a CCP dev. Personal insults are for children on the playground. Be mature and constructive in your criticism. CCP and the Devs make mistakes of judgement at times... deal with it. Agreed. Normally I would be the one making your post. But how can I throw my rattle out of the pram without first being a child? "A witty saying proves nothing" - Voltaire
Nobuo213	Posted - 2007.06.13 21:43:00 - [95] Read every word of this,and since I'm new to the game none of it affects me.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [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.