EVE Search - [PROPOSAL] Support Tug-class Vessel

All Channels

Assembly Hall

[PROPOSAL] Support Tug-class Vessel

» 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 17 .. 17 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 2 post(s)
Dipluz Notorious Legion Mildly Intoxicated 3	Posted - 2012.02.17 12:22:00 - [91] - Quote stop beeing lazy, NO a carrier can already move 1-2 battleships in its ship maintanance array, we dont need duplicate ships. especially ships which requires 0 risk!
Kimbeau Surveryor Stapeley House 1	Posted - 2012.02.17 14:04:00 - [92] - Quote Not sure if I've missed a discussion, but will the ship bay be scannable, and if so to what level of information? Doesn't really matter unless ships can drop, but my personal view is that it makes gameplay more interesting if it can be scanned (preferably including modules in the ships) -- and this also slightly protects newer players who like shipping their cheap T1 fleet around. Can one of these beasts scoop a ship parked in space, like freighters can scoop GFCs?
Tanya Powers Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 808	Posted - 2012.02.17 20:40:00 - [93] - Quote Me supports this excellent idea because it's needed. Also: -would this ship bay be restricted to only assembled ships or packaged ones too? -restricted to ships only and so no minerals/loot/cans whatever. Because if I agree with the first one (assembled) I'd completely disagree with the later. There are already frighters for this purpose and Jump Capable Freighters can also bring package ships. Something different and nasty to train for and something individuals as megacorps would want in thier assets? My humble opinion would be that this ship had a single version of it and since it's a very exposed ship (hello cargo scanners) it would be capable of jumps directly in high sec (only 0.5) but at very high fuel cost (high sec blahblah stuff increase 500% fuel consumption etc) Normal jump abilities in low sec and increase by 25% jump range in null sec - not because of risk because you'll take hundred more time risk undocking at jita than in null sec. The idea is to give alliances and corps an expensive and capable logistics ship to move stuff at far distances without being spoted and open new tactics of invasion or evasion.
Kimbeau Surveryor Stapeley House 2	Posted - 2012.02.18 12:52:00 - [94] - Quote How does this beast interact with courier contracts? Can you make a contract for moving a ship (or ships) which this hauler can fulfil, and if so, how is it clear which contracts can be done with this hauler? I'm thinking that corps may well want to offer the service of moving missioneers from one agent to another, for example.
Zanban Stealth Sector The Revenant Order 21	Posted - 2012.02.18 15:13:00 - [95] - Quote Dipluz wrote: stop beeing lazy, NO a carrier can already move 1-2 battleships in its ship maintanance array, we dont need duplicate ships. especially ships which requires 0 risk! I don't thank you get the idea this support tug ship is designed to be a ship to move around your other big ships so you not have to repackage them and loseing your rigs. Yes a carrier can haul 1-2 battleships bit they can't be used in high sec space. Before you say drop the care bear act no that I'm not a care bear and do enjoy pvp and low sec but I also enjoy running missions. Also I have different battleships that I like to use to make it more interesting to run missions. For that I don't want to jump 20 jumps then go back and get my other ships 2-3 times. This support tug ship is perfect for this. Plus it could be a good idea for null as well not sure however
Tanya Powers Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 811	Posted - 2012.02.18 16:27:00 - [96] - Quote Zanban wrote: This support tug ship is perfect for this. Plus it could be a good idea for null as well not sure however For someone like me that is not willing to train Capitals with my character to get stuck in some Nyx, and believe me I really love that ship, this Tug would be the perfect ship. I'm not willing neither to put 5B in a crappy jump freighter that can't hold my fitted ships and cargo (hello nanite paste CCP?) I do have to train for a carrier just for my own logistics because the price is acceptable, I can load 2 fitted BS or several other ships, have a corp hangar etc, so if I don't have the choice but to move I'll be free to do it by my own. This is where the Tug ship idea is awsome, just fill the ships cargo with your stuff, put your ships in the Tug undock, jump to cyno and dock. 2min logistics = more time to play around Could also be a new service for corps and help a lot of players with stuff stuck in null stations
Jack Carrigan Order of the Shadow The Revenant Order 558	Posted - 2012.02.18 17:49:00 - [97] - Quote It will also create a new opportunity for Freight Corporations. "War is not measured in terms of who wins or loses, who is right or wrong.-á It is measured in terms of who survives."
Jack Carrigan Order of the Shadow The Revenant Order 558	Posted - 2012.02.18 17:51:00 - [98] - Quote Kimbeau Surveryor wrote: How does this beast interact with courier contracts? Can you make a contract for moving a ship (or ships) which this hauler can fulfil, and if so, how is it clear which contracts can be done with this hauler? I'm thinking that corps may well want to offer the service of moving missioneers from one agent to another, for example. Courier missions for other ships would be an interesting subject, as courier packages are a pain in the ***. But seeing as how a fitted ship would be in the courier container, I don't see why it wouldn't work out with courier contracts. But, if there was anything other than an assembled ship in the courier container, the ship would not be able to haul it. "War is not measured in terms of who wins or loses, who is right or wrong.-á It is measured in terms of who survives."*
Jack Carrigan Order of the Shadow The Revenant Order 559	Posted - 2012.02.19 19:43:00 - [99] - Quote Bump for more exposure and support. I would like to see this idea taking on a role in New Eden. "War is not measured in terms of who wins or loses, who is right or wrong.-á It is measured in terms of who survives."
Jack Carrigan Order of the Shadow The Revenant Order 560	Posted - 2012.02.22 05:15:00 - [100] - Quote Let's add more fuel to this fire. Bumping for exposure. "War is not measured in terms of who wins or loses, who is right or wrong.-á It is measured in terms of who survives."
Smiling Menace Star Nebulae Holdings Inc. 134	Posted - 2012.02.22 11:14:00 - [101] - Quote Jack Carrigan wrote: I appreciate all of the support this is garnering. Let's see if we can keep this thing going. Indeed, Jack. Would be nice to see this class of vessel in game.
Mechael Team Pizza Viro Mors Non Est 41	Posted - 2012.02.22 11:44:00 - [102] - Quote Not supported as is. I think it's a better idea to transform supercarriers for this role. Essentially they'd be like ship hangar arrays in POSes but mobile and with the typical supercarrier tank. You can change strategies on the fly with them, and replace losses very quickly. It'd also be even more of a pain to lose. Then you could remove the turrets from Titans and tweak the way doomsdays work to be a solid counter. Two birds, one stone. Supercap problem solved. Supercarriers function more like carriers ought to, and Titans are no longer wtfbbqpwnmobiles to anything but cap ships. I'd rather die in battle against a man who will lie to me, than for a man who will lie to me.
Smiling Menace Star Nebulae Holdings Inc. 135	Posted - 2012.02.24 01:53:00 - [103] - Quote Mechael wrote: Not supported as is. I think it's a better idea to transform supercarriers for this role. Essentially they'd be like ship hangar arrays in POSes but mobile and with the typical supercarrier tank. You can change strategies on the fly with them, and replace losses very quickly. It'd also be even more of a pain to lose. Then you could remove the turrets from Titans and tweak the way doomsdays work to be a solid counter. Two birds, one stone. Supercap problem solved. Supercarriers function more like carriers ought to, and Titans are no longer wtfbbqpwnmobiles to anything but cap ships. Would be interesting to hear your idea as to how a super carrier would be allowed into hi sec, or do people only move ships in null/low sec?
Mechael Team Pizza Viro Mors Non Est 43	Posted - 2012.02.26 00:39:00 - [104] - Quote Smiling Menace wrote: Would be interesting to hear your idea as to how a super carrier would be allowed into hi sec, or do people only move ships in null/low sec? That's actually a really good question. I don't have a solid answer, but I'm open to suggestions. A couple things I thought of, off the top of my head, which are probably the most obvious answers .. Option 1) Caps/Supercaps supposedly can't use stargates because of some sort of mass limitation on the stargates themselves. By this logic, any ship that is capable of carrying multiple rigged, unpackaged battleships also wouldn't be able to fit through a stargate. Therefore, these ships would not work in highsec but still be viable in low/nullsec where their force-projection capabilities are most needed anyway. It may not be the most pleasant answer, but then again by the same token how easy should it be for a nullsec alliance, or anyone really, to cross from one end of the galaxy to the other? Something important to consider. Option 2) Allow them to use stargates, but still not be able to cyno in highsec. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense by the lore as far as I understand it, but if it must be done for some reason beyond "How awesome would it be if ..." then that's one way. Option 3) Special cyno for supercarriers ("motherships" if you will, like they used to be called.) It'd work in highsec. Again, doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, but you can write it into the lore as a new tech breakthrough or that this new, modulated cyno is permitted by CONCORD. It's still very important to consider the ramifications of giving nullsec quick and easy access to regions far, far from their home turf (naps are already a pretty rampant problem according to some of us, and why bother fighting your neighbors when you can fight someone really far away at your relative liesure?) Based on these knee-jerk options, I like the idea of keeping this sort of force-projection ability out of highsec. I am open to discussion and suggestions though, for sure. I don't have all the answers, just feedback as a really old player. :) I'd rather die in battle against a man who will lie to me, than for a man who will lie to me.
Tyran Scorpi Association of Commonwealth Enterprises Test Alliance Please Ignore 5	Posted - 2012.02.26 01:42:00 - [105] - Quote Smiling Menace wrote: Would be interesting to hear your idea as to how a super carrier would be allowed into hi sec, or do people only move ships in null/low sec? Letting any capital ships into high sec would be a bad idea IMO. Carriers are only slightly larger than freighters to begin with, yet they cant use jump gates, which leads me to believe that they aren't allowed in high sec because concord doesn't want them there. A freighter designed to carry rigged ships would need to be bigger than a standard freighter I would think, so why not make it a teir 2 freighter instead of tech 2? Then you could always add a tech 2 variant of your ship hauler with a lowered maint bay capacity and a jump drive.
Jack Carrigan Order of the Shadow The Revenant Order 564	Posted - 2012.02.27 00:18:00 - [106] - Quote It is designed to be a Tier 2 Freighter, so that later down the line, a Tech 2 (jump-capable) version can be produced. "War is not measured in terms of who wins or loses, who is right or wrong.-á It is measured in terms of who survives."
Tyran Scorpi Association of Commonwealth Enterprises Test Alliance Please Ignore 5	Posted - 2012.02.27 05:59:00 - [107] - Quote Jack Carrigan wrote: It is designed to be a Tier 2 Freighter, so that later down the line, a Tech 2 (jump-capable) version can be produced. ah ok, it sounded like it would be based on the freighter hull to start with, so, my mistake.
Smiling Menace Star Nebulae Holdings Inc. 144	Posted - 2012.02.27 23:18:00 - [108] - Quote Tyran Scorpi wrote: Smiling Menace wrote: Would be interesting to hear your idea as to how a super carrier would be allowed into hi sec, or do people only move ships in null/low sec? Letting any capital ships into high sec would be a bad idea IMO. Carriers are only slightly larger than freighters to begin with, yet they cant use jump gates, which leads me to believe that they aren't allowed in high sec because concord doesn't want them there. A freighter designed to carry rigged ships would need to be bigger than a standard freighter I would think, so why not make it a teir 2 freighter instead of tech 2? Then you could always add a tech 2 variant of your ship hauler with a lowered maint bay capacity and a jump drive. I was being sardonic with that post. What I actually meant was don't just assume that this proposal is for low/null sec as people do still need to move ships around hi sec space as well. This proposal would benefit all. Oh and by the way? Freighters, Jump Freighters and Orcas are capital ships and they are already used in hi sec. As long as this ship does not have a direct combat capability, it would just be following on from the capital ships already allowed in hi sec. Still would like to see a Tug class ship solely for moving ships.
Jack Carrigan Order of the Shadow The Revenant Order 564	Posted - 2012.02.29 02:08:00 - [109] - Quote The only "combat" capability one of these ship classes would have would be purely defensive modules. Modules designed to break locks, and assist in escaping hostilities. And some base tank modules. "War is not measured in terms of who wins or loses, who is right or wrong.-á It is measured in terms of who survives."
Jack Carrigan Order of the Shadow The Revenant Order 566	Posted - 2012.03.01 19:55:00 - [110] - Quote Another bump for the future of logistics in game. "War is not measured in terms of who wins or loses, who is right or wrong.-á It is measured in terms of who survives."
Smiling Menace Star Nebulae Holdings Inc. 154	Posted - 2012.03.02 03:26:00 - [111] - Quote We seem to be missing a Tug class ship here. Would be nice to see these in game.
Jack Carrigan Order of the Shadow The Revenant Order 566	Posted - 2012.03.02 20:11:00 - [112] - Quote I know plenty of people that move frequently due to operations within their corporations. So, this would be exceptionally useful to them. "War is not measured in terms of who wins or loses, who is right or wrong.-á It is measured in terms of who survives."
Jack Carrigan Order of the Shadow The Revenant Order 567	Posted - 2012.03.03 18:14:00 - [113] - Quote And... bump for exposure. "War is not measured in terms of who wins or loses, who is right or wrong.-á It is measured in terms of who survives."
Jack Carrigan Order of the Shadow The Revenant Order 568	Posted - 2012.03.04 19:41:00 - [114] - Quote This would be a nice fill to a hole in the logistical aspects of warfare in New Eden. "War is not measured in terms of who wins or loses, who is right or wrong.-á It is measured in terms of who survives."

CCP Phantom C C P C C P Alliance 1057	Posted - 2012.03.05 23:04:00 - [115] - Quote Please remember that bumping threads are prohibited according forum rule #12. CCP Phantom - German Community Coordinator

Smiling Menace Star Nebulae Holdings Inc. 163	Posted - 2012.03.05 23:13:00 - [116] - Quote CCP Phantom wrote: Please remember that bumping threads are prohibited according forum rule #12. I don't think Jack was bumping. I think he was highlighting a need for further exposure to a good idea and was very eager to garner more support by keeping this topic in the eyes of his peers. If he was, I am sure he meant no offence or to break any rules as Jack is a very fine and upstanding player of EVE that would never break any rules. Saying that, this is a good idea and I doubt it would break the the game to have a ship dedicated to the moving of other ships. Another isk sink that CCP is very fond of.
Jack Carrigan Order of the Shadow The Revenant Order 568	Posted - 2012.03.06 02:13:00 - [117] - Quote CCP Phantom wrote: Please remember that bumping threads are prohibited according forum rule #12. Ehh, oops. But as Menace said, I was just trying to keep this idea in the eyes of my peers to garner more support for something that would be extremely useful, and non-game breaking. "War is not measured in terms of who wins or loses, who is right or wrong.-á It is measured in terms of who survives."
Aren Valle Lonetrek Mineral Corporation 0	Posted - 2012.03.07 07:02:00 - [118] - Quote The idea of ship mass being prohibitive isn't necessarily an issue. We are talking about a tug after all, which is really nothing more than a cockpit and engines with a framework in between to attach ships. Not really a terribly large amount of mass there. The anchor points wouldn't even need to be enclosed. You don't see it with tow-trucks or even most auto trailers for semis, and this is basically the same idea.
Kaylana Kavees StarFire Industrialist Exchange 2	Posted - 2012.03.07 07:29:00 - [119] - Quote A tug ship for the rivers of space, sort of like how a river barge needs a tug to tow or push it along. But in this case the ships are housed within the tug if I am understanding correctly. It could be a novel idea and would facilitate moving fleets around easier and would open up a new market. I agree no launching from the bay. Would need to dock up at a station before the ships could be unloaded. I think the +.06 should only be on a t2 variant though or it would be to strong against a fleet trying to lock it down, once the skill was maxed out. No on jump drive for a t1 variant, but maybe on t2 variant it would be feasible. The young never do as they are told, The old never do as they say.
Malcorath Sacerdos Deep Space Equinox 16	Posted - 2012.03.07 07:47:00 - [120] - Quote This is a great idea! not that it will benefit me personally since i live in WH but its still a great idea ! +1

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 .. 17 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.