EVE Search - SiSi: No cargo allowed in ships inside a carrier ship maint. array

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Test Server Feedback

SiSi: No cargo allowed in ships inside a carrier ship maint. array

» 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 18 19 20 .. 21 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 5 post(s)
Ungdall Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.10.30 03:38:00 - [301] Hey CCP, if you rally want to change something, try this: the only time you will get a message about your insurance is when you open the insurance tab in a station. Unless you do that, you have no way to know if your ship is still insured. Fix dat, bitte.
Gerry Ryan	Posted - 2007.10.30 05:15:00 - [302] Originally by: Ungdall Hey CCP, if you rally want to change something, try this: the only time you will get a message about your insurance is when you open the insurance tab in a station. Unless you do that, you have no way to know if your ship is still insured. Fix dat, bitte. You can show info on the ship and there's an insurance tab last time I checked ?
baffy Coalition of Nations Free Trade Zone.	Posted - 2007.10.30 05:46:00 - [303] can i have my 4 months worth of training back please
Stellar Vix State War Academy	Posted - 2007.10.30 06:18:00 - [304] Quote: I stand by my original assessment of your clue-possessing skills. Your only valid use in life at this point is to provide for the entertainment of the eve community as a whole by removing yourself from the gene pool in the manner Ive already mentioned. Stop reading this and get going. Go on... There is nothing in your post that has any validity other than being used as the perfect example of how NOT to have a constructive discussion. Im hoping you take my advice on removing your defective heredity from the gene pool but in the event you dont please keep the following in mind in the inevitable event you decide to share with us more of your nonsensical rantings: - this thread is about carrier rapage. not about any other module or nerf which you also have no clue about. - no one cares about your imaginary over inflated PVP kills I know its about carriers and thier misuse you carebear. I was constructive I was making suggestions and ideas that could generate a favorable outcome and orignally I wasnt out to trool anything either. I mean did you know there is another ship class known as the corvette in the data base thats very likely to never see trinity due to they way carriers and motherships dont work now on tranq? supposed to be a player controllable fighter with fighter assingment bonuses. They arent removing your guys abilities to move and field ships, just the ability to abuse them to fuel massive empires and war machines that have been cranking out thosands of capitol ships within the last month, its sad to see that allainces and pilots are losing such ships faster than frigates and almost just as the same additude with them of losing an ibis, "oh i can get another one at the station" and dont call bs on that most of GS and friends made those statements numerous times. Im not here for your entertainment, if anything I am here for your torment. <^-^> Also I'm not genetically defective spending days on end whining about a stupid little game, Im just here for design aspects as I tinker around with the idea of being a developer for game systems myself one day. SWA PVP
Ungdall Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.10.30 11:36:00 - [305] Originally by: Gerry Ryan Originally by: Ungdall Hey CCP, if you rally want to change something, try this: the only time you will get a message about your insurance is when you open the insurance tab in a station. Unless you do that, you have no way to know if your ship is still insured. Fix dat, bitte. You can show info on the ship and there's an insurance tab last time I checked ? Correct, but when your insurance runs out you are supposed to receive an evemail telling you so. However, you only get that mail when you open the insurance tab, so you'll magically have multiple ships lose insurance all at once.
Varrakk Chosen Path	Posted - 2007.10.30 11:45:00 - [306] How about nerfing something that is unbalanced, like nanoships/mwd? Just a wild idea I got..
aaron 619 Gallente DAB RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2007.10.30 12:45:00 - [307] One by one they try to fix something that isn't broken. I can't wait to see how long the petition to halt the code for this is. If a jump freighter is going to be T 1 and 2 bills, this won't be so bad...just one month tell I can fly one, yah.... I really want to see how this plays out.... beginning of the end for eve, maybe. I'm going to miss this game if it is. If I can do it, so can you! If you choose not to, your fault, not mine! Stop Spamming the T1 Nerf Torp CCP. Invent a T2 boost Torp and use it! Balance is Important, EVE still being fun, Priceles
infinityshok	Posted - 2007.10.30 12:48:00 - [308] Originally by: Stellar Vix Quote: I stand by my original assessment of your clue-possessing skills. Your only valid use in life at this point is to provide for the entertainment of the eve community as a whole by removing yourself from the gene pool in the manner Ive already mentioned. Stop reading this and get going. Go on... There is nothing in your post that has any validity other than being used as the perfect example of how NOT to have a constructive discussion. Im hoping you take my advice on removing your defective heredity from the gene pool but in the event you dont please keep the following in mind in the inevitable event you decide to share with us more of your nonsensical rantings: - this thread is about carrier rapage. not about any other module or nerf which you also have no clue about. - no one cares about your imaginary over inflated PVP kills I know its about carriers and thier misuse you carebear. I was constructive I was making suggestions and ideas that could generate a favorable outcome and orignally I wasnt out to trool anything either. I mean did you know there is another ship class known as the corvette in the data base thats very likely to never see trinity due to they way carriers and motherships dont work now on tranq? supposed to be a player controllable fighter with fighter assingment bonuses. They arent removing your guys abilities to move and field ships, just the ability to abuse them to fuel massive empires and war machines that have been cranking out thosands of capitol ships within the last month, its sad to see that allainces and pilots are losing such ships faster than frigates and almost just as the same additude with them of losing an ibis, "oh i can get another one at the station" and dont call bs on that most of GS and friends made those statements numerous times. Carriers are not being 'misused.' Every ship in this game has positive and negative attributes programmed to them by the developers. These attributes are being properly used by anyone and everyone who decides to put in the time and effort to use them. Short of hacking the code or finding a bug/exploit, nothing can be misused. WTF are you talking about...every ship in the game is being produced in as massive of a quantity as they can be sold. With that clueless train of thought every ship in the game would be eliminated until all that is left would be shuttles. Before you make these posts with your misinformed statistics you need to come down off whatever illegal narcotic you are on. Carriers are not being lost at anywhere near the rate of frigates and for the cost in both time and isk that carriers entail, they sure as hell better be effective ships. Carriers and dreads are the only effective means of hauling the required material to 0.0 space. Freighters are not acceptable. The new t2 freighters, with their current requirements, are not acceptable. You have made it plainly clear you dont like the way 0.0 is being run which leaves you with the only option of taking your sorry noob self back to jita and mining some veld. Good luck with that and dont hurt yourself. Originally by: Stellar Vix Quote: Im not here for your entertainment, if anything I am here for your torment. <^-^> You flatter yourself. The only thing you get from me is pity you sad pathetic deluded little troll. Originally by: Stellar Vix Quote: Also I'm not genetically defective spending days on end whining about a stupid little game Once again...your blaring knack for stating the obvious is apparent. Or lack of. Originally by: Stellar Vix Quote: Im just here for design aspects as I tinker around with the idea of being a developer for game systems myself one day. Fortunately that will never happen. Your CEO needs to change your in-game title to 'clueless.' Wait...youre in a NOOB corp. And not even old enough to fly a carrier. That in itself disqualifies you from ever posting on the forums again. Noob.
Artorius Pearson Caldari 3B Legio IX Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2007.10.30 13:53:00 - [309] Originally by: Gor Kraon So you can carry a small gang of frigates/cruisers but they can't have ammo/charges/drones in them? Whats the point of a carrier being able to carry ships then? If you want to nerf carriers carrying industrials, just make them friggin huge so they don't fit in a carrier. SIGNED
HydroSan GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.10.30 17:00:00 - [310] CCP, are you going to comment on this at all? Even a nod that you acknowledge dissent?


CCP Gangleri	Posted - 2007.10.30 17:15:00 - [311] Carrier != Hauler Ships will be allowed to carry ammo in their cargo hold even while inside a ship maintenance bay. As it stands now carriers have a ship maintenance bay of 1m on Sisi. Nothing on Sisi is ever final. Please provide constructive feedback with minimal misinformation and speculation where possible. I reiterate: Carrier != Hauler

Riley Craven Caldari Copacetic Corporation	Posted - 2007.10.30 17:23:00 - [312] Originally by: CCP Gangleri Carrier != Hauler Ships will be allowed to carry ammo in their cargo hold even while inside a ship maintenance bay. As it stands now carriers have a ship maintenance bay of 1m on Sisi. Nothing on Sisi is ever final. Please provide constructive feedback with minimal misinformation and speculation where possible. I reiterate: Carrier != Hauler You seem to have forgotten one simple fact.... Carriers have ship bay, carriers have a corp bay, carriers have a cargo bay... Therefore Carrier = Hauler In fact this statement also works Any Ship with a cargo bay = hauler Just in case you arent clear... Main Entry: haul+er Pronunciation: \ˈhȯ-lər\ Function: noun Date: 1674 : one that hauls: Poor logic skills ftl....
Ford Cruller	Posted - 2007.10.30 17:26:00 - [313] Edited by: Ford Cruller on 30/10/2007 17:27:26 Originally by: CCP Gangleri Carrier != Hauler It's super that you think that, really, but could you please elaborate on how you do intend for us to haul? As it stands we are seeing our 2+ billion investment turned into a jump driving Iteron Mark 4 with absolutely no compensation for our wasted time and money. P.S. A dreadnought can hold more than a pimped out Iteron Mark 5, do they need to be nerfed too?
HydroSan GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.10.30 17:37:00 - [314] Originally by: CCP Gangleri Carrier != Hauler Ships will be allowed to carry ammo in their cargo hold even while inside a ship maintenance bay. As it stands now carriers have a ship maintenance bay of 1m on Sisi. Nothing on Sisi is ever final. Please provide constructive feedback with minimal misinformation and speculation where possible. I reiterate: Carrier != Hauler Yes, we understood "Carrier != Hauler" when the GSC nerf came in. You guys made that very clear. But as it stands, nobody will be able to use the Jump Freighter in time for this. You're leaving a lot of alliances (those without Titans) high and dry by rolling out this cargo nerf at the exact same time as releasing the substitute. How are alliances supposed to cope with POS logistics in the time gap left between the transition of Carriers to Jump Freighters? If you want people to feel better about the changes (and if you really must implement them), hold off the carrier nerf and allow people to train up for and produce the jump freighters. Also, seriously consider making the jump freighters teir two and not tech two. This will be the major brick wall of people getting into them, because inventing them is going to be an absolute pain and will further lengthen the transition period of carrier -> jump freighters. As with any change to logistics, people are not so much angry at the change, but angry that there is no mature substitute to take its place. These changes could be held over to Trinity 1.1, when people are finally getting their hands on the new freighters and getting their skills up to par. And you can bet people are going to be training as hard as they can for them.
Grayton GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.10.30 19:03:00 - [315] Originally by: CCP Gangleri Carrier != Hauler Ships will be allowed to carry ammo in their cargo hold even while inside a ship maintenance bay. As it stands now carriers have a ship maintenance bay of 1m on Sisi. Nothing on Sisi is ever final. Please provide constructive feedback with minimal misinformation and speculation where possible. I reiterate: Carrier != Hauler What kind of utterly worthless reply is this? You urge us to only "provide constructive feedback with minimal misinformation and speculation where possible" yet you fail to respond in any larger capacity about all of the valid points that people have raised. Oh who cares about the fact there will be a months-long gap between when rev3 comes outs and when people will finally be able to use jump freighters, carriers aren't meant to be haulers so not providing a viable alternative immediately at the same time as release is completely ok! Because as we all know logistics should be horrifically tedious and anything that makes it easier and is immediately available is just wrong and against the grand plan! And let's just further ignore the fact that carriers have been in the game for something like two years now, and until the GSC nerf it was never, EVER implied that using carriers in a hauling capacity was somehow against what they were intended, and hundreds if not thousands of people trained into them for this reason because they were never told it wasn't how it was intended, and used them for this purpose for years. Noooo, instead since it doesn't fit into CCP's "grand design" for the carrier it must be nerfed to hell and back, because as we all know anything CCP decides on as the set path for this game is absolutely, positively right and should never be questioned. I am going to find it so hilarious when for those months people are using expanded dreads to do the hauling work. The only thing I can infer from this post is that maybe we should wait for more finalized stats on sisi. I always find it hilarious though that CCP releases what are essentially game breaking changes for some people, then releases an alternative weeks later onto sisi that had been "planned all along" after all of the public outcry. Maybe, just maybe, if you've got an alternative like a lowslot mod or some such, you should release it at the same time as you release the gigantic nerf so that you don't get the gigantic public outcry. Until then, saying bs like "nothing on sis is ever final" and "minimal misinformation and speculation where possible" is worthless because you rarely actually tell us anything and just implement changes without any documentation or reason behind it. The fact that it can take days, even weeks of constant outcry should be indicative of the fact that maybe, just maybe, to prevent "minimal misinformation and speculation where possible you should DOCUMENT THE CHANGES YOU MAKE WHEN YOU MAKE THEM EVEN IF IT'S ON THE TEST SERVER. You can't just say "Nothing on Sisi is ever final" and expect us to sit down and take it when a vast, vast majority of the big changes you put into Sisi pre-patch are actually final and do go into the live game. Oh, and since you guys love to argue semantics it seems, last time I checked, the carriers weren't doing the hauling. It was the haulers inside the carriers doing the hauling.
Alexandra Frigaro Celestial Horizon Corp. Valainaloce	Posted - 2007.10.30 19:13:00 - [316] Originally by: HydroSan As with any change to logistics, people are not so much angry at the change, but angry that there is no mature substitute to take its place. These changes could be held over to Trinity 1.1, when people are finally getting their hands on the new freighters and getting their skills up to par. And you can bet people are going to be training as hard as they can for them. He¦s totaly right. I¦m using my carrier to haul crap around, but dont want to train my combat caracter to freighter 5 to use the jump freighter. My industrial/miner caracter needs 73 days of skilltraining to use the frieghter with decent jump skills. It¦s the time in between that is the issue. Just a idea, why no have a cargo module for the regular carrier to convert drone space to cargo space? It would fit the new idea to have specialized carriers. What otehr drawbacks that module could have i leave upto you.
Lady Beauvoir Slutty Witches	Posted - 2007.10.30 19:14:00 - [317] Edited by: Lady Beauvoir on 30/10/2007 19:14:51 Originally by: CCP Gangleri Carrier != Hauler Ships will be allowed to carry ammo in their cargo hold even while inside a ship maintenance bay. As it stands now carriers have a ship maintenance bay of 1m on Sisi. Nothing on Sisi is ever final. Please provide constructive feedback with minimal misinformation and speculation where possible. I reiterate: Carrier != Hauler Could you explain your plan for the ships inside the SMB? What can they hold inside? Ammo? Cap booster charges? Scan probes? Obviously those, right? The new scripts too (I assume they use the ammo code)? How about bubbles? I assume you can't fit modules inside them and put the ships into SBM, so does that rule out the bubbles? Replacement racial ECM modules? Oh, and if I could add some constructive feedback, could you either increase the size of the corp hangar bay (so the carrier could carry few more of the capital sized mods and some replacement fuel) or decrease the size of the capital sized modules on SiSi? Since you seem to want to keep the carrier's role as something else as a hauler, are you perhaps considering doing something to dreads and their hauling capacity? I'd like to know what kind of alternatives for jump hauling we might have in the near future while jump freighters are being invented. Skills take awful lot of time to train and pilots won't last long in the battlefield without replacement ships and modules. "Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connaet point." -Blaise Pascal, PensTes, 4, 277
HatfulOfHollow GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.10.30 19:19:00 - [318] Edited by: HatfulOfHollow on 30/10/2007 19:19:37 Originally by: Grayton Originally by: CCP Gangleri Carrier != Hauler Ships will be allowed to carry ammo in their cargo hold even while inside a ship maintenance bay. As it stands now carriers have a ship maintenance bay of 1m on Sisi. Nothing on Sisi is ever final. Please provide constructive feedback with minimal misinformation and speculation where possible. I reiterate: Carrier != Hauler What kind of utterly worthless reply is this? You urge us to only "provide constructive feedback with minimal misinformation and speculation where possible" yet you fail to respond in any larger capacity about all of the valid points that people have raised. Oh who cares about the fact there will be a months-long gap between when rev3 comes outs and when people will finally be able to use jump freighters, carriers aren't meant to be haulers so not providing a viable alternative immediately at the same time as release is completely ok! Because as we all know logistics should be horrifically tedious and anything that makes it easier and is immediately available is just wrong and against the grand plan! And let's just further ignore the fact that carriers have been in the game for something like two years now, and until the GSC nerf it was never, EVER implied that using carriers in a hauling capacity was somehow against what they were intended, and hundreds if not thousands of people trained into them for this reason because they were never told it wasn't how it was intended, and used them for this purpose for years. Noooo, instead since it doesn't fit into CCP's "grand design" for the carrier it must be nerfed to hell and back, because as we all know anything CCP decides on as the set path for this game is absolutely, positively right and should never be questioned. I am going to find it so hilarious when for those months people are using expanded dreads to do the hauling work. The only thing I can infer from this post is that maybe we should wait for more finalized stats on sisi. I always find it hilarious though that CCP releases what are essentially game breaking changes for some people, then releases an alternative weeks later onto sisi that had been "planned all along" after all of the public outcry. Maybe, just maybe, if you've got an alternative like a lowslot mod or some such, you should release it at the same time as you release the gigantic nerf so that you don't get the gigantic public outcry. Until then, saying bs like "nothing on sis is ever final" and "minimal misinformation and speculation where possible" is worthless because you rarely actually tell us anything and just implement changes without any documentation or reason behind it. The fact that it can take days, even weeks of constant outcry should be indicative of the fact that maybe, just maybe, to prevent "minimal misinformation and speculation where possible you should DOCUMENT THE CHANGES YOU MAKE WHEN YOU MAKE THEM EVEN IF IT'S ON THE TEST SERVER. You can't just say "Nothing on Sisi is ever final" and expect us to sit down and take it when a vast, vast majority of the big changes you put into Sisi pre-patch are actually final and do go into the live game. Oh, and since you guys love to argue semantics it seems, last time I checked, the carriers weren't doing the hauling. It was the haulers inside the carriers doing the hauling. CCP hates people who do 0.0 logistics.
Ford Cruller	Posted - 2007.10.30 19:22:00 - [319] Originally by: Grayton Originally by: CCP Gangleri Carrier != Hauler Ships will be allowed to carry ammo in their cargo hold even while inside a ship maintenance bay. As it stands now carriers have a ship maintenance bay of 1m on Sisi. Nothing on Sisi is ever final. Please provide constructive feedback with minimal misinformation and speculation where possible. I reiterate: Carrier != Hauler What kind of utterly worthless reply is this? You urge us to only "provide constructive feedback with minimal misinformation and speculation where possible" yet you fail to respond in any larger capacity about all of the valid points that people have raised. Oh who cares about the fact there will be a months-long gap between when rev3 comes outs and when people will finally be able to use jump freighters, carriers aren't meant to be haulers so not providing a viable alternative immediately at the same time as release is completely ok! Because as we all know logistics should be horrifically tedious and anything that makes it easier and is immediately available is just wrong and against the grand plan! And let's just further ignore the fact that carriers have been in the game for something like two years now, and until the GSC nerf it was never, EVER implied that using carriers in a hauling capacity was somehow against what they were intended, and hundreds if not thousands of people trained into them for this reason because they were never told it wasn't how it was intended, and used them for this purpose for years. Noooo, instead since it doesn't fit into CCP's "grand design" for the carrier it must be nerfed to hell and back, because as we all know anything CCP decides on as the set path for this game is absolutely, positively right and should never be questioned. I am going to find it so hilarious when for those months people are using expanded dreads to do the hauling work. The only thing I can infer from this post is that maybe we should wait for more finalized stats on sisi. I always find it hilarious though that CCP releases what are essentially game breaking changes for some people, then releases an alternative weeks later onto sisi that had been "planned all along" after all of the public outcry. Maybe, just maybe, if you've got an alternative like a lowslot mod or some such, you should release it at the same time as you release the gigantic nerf so that you don't get the gigantic public outcry. Until then, saying bs like "nothing on sis is ever final" and "minimal misinformation and speculation where possible" is worthless because you rarely actually tell us anything and just implement changes without any documentation or reason behind it. The fact that it can take days, even weeks of constant outcry should be indicative of the fact that maybe, just maybe, to prevent "minimal misinformation and speculation where possible you should DOCUMENT THE CHANGES YOU MAKE WHEN YOU MAKE THEM EVEN IF IT'S ON THE TEST SERVER. You can't just say "Nothing on Sisi is ever final" and expect us to sit down and take it when a vast, vast majority of the big changes you put into Sisi pre-patch are actually final and do go into the live game. Oh, and since you guys love to argue semantics it seems, last time I checked, the carriers weren't doing the hauling. It was the haulers inside the carriers doing the hauling. If you won't listen to me, or anyone else, at least listen to Grayton, he is a logistics director for Goonswarm and obviously knows a lot more about logistics than anyone at CCP.
Carsidava Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.10.30 19:54:00 - [320] Originally by: CCP Gangleri Carrier != Hauler Ships will be allowed to carry ammo in their cargo hold even while inside a ship maintenance bay. As it stands now carriers have a ship maintenance bay of 1m on Sisi. Nothing on Sisi is ever final. Please provide constructive feedback with minimal misinformation and speculation where possible. I reiterate: Carrier != Hauler Why not? What are the first two syllables in "carrier"? Carry. They carry things. What sort of rationalization beyond "Carrier != Hauler" do you have for not allowing carriers to carry things? Seriously, CCP doesn't actually want people to live in 0.0, do they? You're making the logistics of living in 0.0 a living hell. Are we supposed to live in Empire and go fight in 0.0?

Indigo Johnson Minmatar	Posted - 2007.10.30 19:58:00 - [321] Originally by: CCP Gangleri Carrier != Hauler Ships will be allowed to carry ammo in their cargo hold even while inside a ship maintenance bay. As it stands now carriers have a ship maintenance bay of 1m on Sisi. Nothing on Sisi is ever final. Please provide constructive feedback with minimal misinformation and speculation where possible. I reiterate: Carrier != Hauler Problem is, at the moment, Carrier != Offensive drone attack unit (due to it "carrying" drones/fighters), Carrier != Frontline vehicle if you have to assign drones to get the most out of it and Carrier != Logistic ship if all it can carry in the holds of ships is ammo. What is the asnwer to Carrier =
SkyLander Minmatar Dragon's Rage Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2007.10.30 20:12:00 - [322] Edited by: SkyLander on 30/10/2007 20:14:14 Then what the hell is the carrier supposed to be? First you want to pretty much destroy it's ability to defend it self and force it to rely on other people or alts, supposedly bringing it in line with its "support" role. Which it was pretty much doing before you tried to force it on everyone. Now you want to nerf its "support" role by removing the ability for it to actually haul things in the bay that was designed to frigging haul things. So what is it? You are just dead set to change the carrier in some way? That all the logic put forth by the people in the 57 page thread and the people in this 11 or 12 page thread now is just out right ignored? I mean this just seems so mind boggling wrong, that you nuke all 0.0 logistics with no suitable replacement, a lot is now dependent on the fact that the carrier can move resources around in 0.0 space. Besides the fact that dreadnoughts can haul MORE than the damn carrier. It's just that the carrier can jump farther. Leave the carrier alone, really. Even though you guys seem so ignorant to everyone else out there and just want to ******* change something just to change something. Then when people call you on this cluster you make dev blogs and posts that make you guys seem even more ignorant to the ship and game you guys designed. __________________________________________________
infinityshok	Posted - 2007.10.30 20:20:00 - [323] Originally by: CCP Gangleri Carrier != Hauler Ships will be allowed to carry ammo in their cargo hold even while inside a ship maintenance bay. As it stands now carriers have a ship maintenance bay of 1m on Sisi. Nothing on Sisi is ever final. Please provide constructive feedback with minimal misinformation and speculation where possible. I reiterate: Carrier != Hauler Note: '!=' means 'not the same as.' Supposedly it is some sort of programming jargon. Im sure there are many readers of this thread that arent into programming. Im not and had to ask wtf '!=' was. Dev: speak english Considering you are the only one to respond to this issue I applaud you for that. You want feedback, we want feedback. The only info we have to go on at this point is minimal and utter & complete bull-****. The only feedback you are going to get is going to be based on speculation and misinformation BECAUSE THAT IS ALL WE HAVE. Your marginally cryptic minimalistic response is borderline useless. If 'carrier != hauler' is the course the devs are taking it is time to provide a means to haul the massive amounts of material required to make 0.0 a viable alternative to living in empire. Both transporting to empire and from empire. Based on the current stats of the jump freighter that is not the answer. The cost and skills required are excessive to the point of being useless. CCP is the one that chose to make POS warfare the way it is. To support these time sinks there needs to be a more effective method of feeding them. Setting them up, taking them down, and maintaining them is NOT an enjoyable part of this game. CCP is the one that chose to encourage 0.0 migration. The players are the ones that have attempted to use the most effective means at their disposal to make 0.0 livable. No, flying transport ships and freighters thru dozens of jump gates is not the answer. Before you devs decide to bring a feature online, keep in mind this is a game that people are paying for to get enjoyment and pleasure out of, not tedium and monotony. POSs are the epitome of tedium and monotony. Unless you can come up with a viable, valid reason that carriers should not be used in the current role they are used in now, leave them the hell alone. There is no alternative ship that can carry the capacity, which is minimal as it is, with the range it does. This thread is evidence enough the paying players are more than satisfied using carriers in the role they currently have. I reiterate: PAYING. The players dont care what the intentions of the devs are. With this degree of response the only option is to leave carriers the hell alone. Any other course makes is plainly apparent the devs have no consideration what the PAYING players want. I reiterate: leave carriers the hell alone. There is nothing wrong with them.
Hyakuchan Earth Federation Space Force	Posted - 2007.10.30 21:10:00 - [324] Edited by: Hyakuchan on 30/10/2007 21:15:11 Originally by: infinityshok Carriers and dreads are the only effective means of hauling the required material to 0.0 space. Freighters are not acceptable. The new t2 freighters, with their current requirements, are not acceptable. Clearly carriers will not be acceptable either now. So apparently you'll be forced to re-evaluate your judgment of freighters. Which I believe is the whole point of why CCP is doing this in the first place. Quote: Any other course makes is plainly apparent the devs have no consideration what the PAYING players want. I pay. I want them to change it so carriers aren't haulers. Clearly you need to step back and come up with a more persuasive argument that goes beyond "Because I say so."
Ungdall Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.10.30 21:18:00 - [325] guys guys guys! I've figured out how CCP makes decisions concerning major, massive and very important game mechanic changes: 1.brainstorm (light showers) 2.begin changes 3.whoops, turns out they didn't think more than one jump ahead 4.not profit
infinityshok	Posted - 2007.10.30 21:32:00 - [326] Originally by: Hyakuchan Edited by: Hyakuchan on 30/10/2007 21:15:11 Originally by: infinityshok Carriers and dreads are the only effective means of hauling the required material to 0.0 space. Freighters are not acceptable. The new t2 freighters, with their current requirements, are not acceptable. Clearly carriers will not be acceptable either now. So apparently you'll be forced to re-evaluate your judgment of freighters. Which I believe is the whole point of why CCP is doing this in the first place. Quote: Any other course makes is plainly apparent the devs have no consideration what the PAYING players want. I pay. I want them to change it so carriers aren't haulers. Clearly you need to step back and come up with a more persuasive argument that goes beyond "Because I say so." Welcome to approximately page 70-something of players that agree with my train of thought and disagree with yours.
Jiks Caldari Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2007.10.30 21:40:00 - [327] @ Hyakuchan, Fair enough, you don't want carriers to carry stuff. Can I ask why and who would benefit from this idea? Speaking as a regular on the old ASCN convoy runs I really don't think normal space freighter runs are remotely viable these days, not to mention horribly boring and time consuming. Why should players of a game be forced to return to say 7 hours of escorting freighters each week or more? Not much fun even it goes smoothly but bearing in mind nothing on that scale can be kept secret ... plus there are many more counters to frighter runs now than there were 18 months ago it prolly wouldnt go smoothly would it? Thats before lag, waiting for escorts be be bullied into staying up half the night, waiting for bugged freighters to slow down from 13 M km/s ... etc. In short HORRIBLE and not something many want to pay to do for "fun." I'm interested to know your logic since it seems closer to CCP's thn the rest of us have been able to get^^ Jiks
Ockk	Posted - 2007.10.30 21:42:00 - [328] Meh, I'm training one of my characters to fly a carrier.. when it gets there, if this nerf is in place, I'm just going to cancel my accounts. This is getting pretty ridiculous. They make flying these ships so hard to get to, and expensive. They know what the incentives are, after years of seeing them in the game. If they allow an arbitrary and pointless decision like this to go through, I think it will demonstrate to me their complete inability to make rational decisions. In that case, I might as well save my money and time and find another game.
JitaScienceAlt1	Posted - 2007.10.30 21:44:00 - [329] Edited by: JitaScienceAlt1 on 30/10/2007 21:43:49 Originally by: Phrixus Zephyr Originally by: Banlish STOP NERFING THE GAME. FIX THE LAG WE ARE ALL begging you to fix day after day. BoB, Goons, RA, FiX, MC, IAC, MM, TRI, RAZOR, SMASH, YouWhat, ALL of them, day after day, hour after hour ask for LAG FIXES. NOTHING ELSE. How much more clear can we be? Before you derail I'd hasten to point out that the Eve cluster is one of, if not THE most advanced gaming cluster on the planet. How exactly do you propose they pull a lag fix out of their ass when they're pioneering the tech? "I demand you invent the lightbulb right now, because candles suck"? D20, as in roll one. Id immagine if you took out all the complex maths of radial velocity and whatnot and instead made them modifiers to dice rolls, it would solve a lot of lag issues. This carrier nerf is also stupid.
infinityshok	Posted - 2007.10.30 21:54:00 - [330] Originally by: Jiks @ Hyakuchan, I'm interested to know your logic since it seems closer to CCP's thn the rest of us have been able to get^^ Jiks His only intention was to become a fly in the ointment, so to speak. He had nothing useful to add. The character isnt even old enough to fly a carrier.



Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 21 :: 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.