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

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)
Tonto Auri	Posted - 2007.10.27 15:49:00 - [211] Originally by: Gor Kraon If you want to nerf carriers carrying industrials, just make them friggin huge so they don't fit in a carrier. This one. Or Amarr lasers PWN all. -- Thanks CCP for cu<end of sig>
Montaire Genbuku. Daisho Syndicate	Posted - 2007.10.27 15:51:00 - [212] Originally by: Druadan If you want people to stop using carriers for hauling goods, make other ships better than the carrier for hauling via cyno. The Rorqual needs the same jump range as the Carrier. The jump freighter doesn't; it just needs significantly more space than a carrier/Rorqual can provide. I think this is exactly it. They dont want to have to measure every ship they make by the carrier. If everything has to be "better" than the carrier, it equiates to power escalation writ large, and thats bad for any game.
Li via	Posted - 2007.10.27 16:09:00 - [213] Just drop it already.... CCP. These nerf discussions are not getting you anywhere but tickign off the playerbase... get the hint... STOP.
Druadan Gallente Aristotle Enterprises Ethereal Dawn	Posted - 2007.10.27 16:19:00 - [214] Originally by: Montaire Originally by: Druadan If you want people to stop using carriers for hauling goods, make other ships better than the carrier for hauling via cyno. The Rorqual needs the same jump range as the Carrier. The jump freighter doesn't; it just needs significantly more space than a carrier/Rorqual can provide. I think this is exactly it. They dont want to have to measure every ship they make by the carrier. If everything has to be "better" than the carrier, it equiates to power escalation writ large, and thats bad for any game. sigh Putting words in my mouth to marginalise my opinion. Sneaky. Every ship is measured against its existing counterparts. There is no escaping that. You can abstract that further and say that every solution is measured against existing solutions. So, you see, not every ship will be measured against the carrier, and saying so is ignorant. It is aspects of ships that are measured against aspects of other ships that share that aspect. Introduce an EWAR ship, and it is measured against existing EWAR ships. Not doing this comparison is just blind introduction of new ships, with no thought to purpose and improvement.
Ztrain Evolution Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.10.27 16:29:00 - [215] Well if this is the case and now CCP has once again proven that they are uable to actually design to their stated goals. CCP has in other threads posted that they want carriers to be logistic ships. But now they do this nurf if it really is a nurf and not a bug. That's fairly said. Most of the alliances in the game are far better at achieving their stated goals then the developers. This is their lively hood and people from other countries then Iceland are better at achieving entertainment goals in a game then CCP devs are at making their game development goals. That's kinda sad actually on many levels. Z Originally by: CCP Zulupark That's the rough idea, yes. We still have in no way started thinking about what modules to introduce, what they would do or anything of the likes, but the idea is that.
Arria Periclee Gallente Aristotle Enterprises Ethereal Dawn	Posted - 2007.10.27 17:08:00 - [216] Edited by: Arria Periclee on 27/10/2007 17:12:21 It's pure nonsense. Why would a loaded ship be any different than an empty ship anyway? Weight? Carriers look like they can carry their huge loads, don't they? But anyway, along with the other carrier nerf that raised voices (and a lot of players finding it nonsensical, but haven't worded it here yet), it just looks like a drastic and stupid solution to a minor issue. Even with the current state of affairs, carriers still won't be better than those new freighters that have been announced. I know devs play EVE also, but does that clear them from listening to the playerbase's view on the issue? To me it's clearly a case of "nice try, now try thinking again and find a better nerf". And I'm not even a carrier pilot to boot, but silly decisions like that are making me consider cancelling my subscription like it did for many before me. Think twice, CCP, we love EVE Online for its intelligence, don't make us hate it because it suddenly became stupid.
Jinmie	Posted - 2007.10.27 17:23:00 - [217] Was CCPs target for this year to get a worse reputation than SOE when it came to MMOs?
Montaire Genbuku. Daisho Syndicate	Posted - 2007.10.27 18:02:00 - [218] Was not my intent to be deceptive. I guess in the end I see the carrier filling a different role than you do. If CCP were to disagree with me as they obviously disagree with you, I suppose I'd be doing the same thing you are doing; trying to get CCP to change their mind. I think Rorquals should be better at hauling and 0.0 logistics than a carrier. Originally by: Druadan Putting words in my mouth to marginalise my opinion. Sneaky. Every ship is measured against its existing counterparts. There is no escaping that. You can abstract that further and say that every solution is measured against existing solutions. So, you see, not every ship will be measured against the carrier, and saying so is ignorant. It is aspects of ships that are measured against aspects of other ships that share that aspect. Introduce an EWAR ship, and it is measured against existing EWAR ships. Not doing this comparison is just blind introduction of new ships, with no thought to purpose and improvement.
Baun 4S Corporation Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2007.10.27 18:09:00 - [219] Edited by: Baun on 27/10/2007 18:09:00 CCP, you are putting this in game before you introduce modular role refitting for carriers? Are you completely ******* insane? You do NOT randomly eliminate a ship's abilities as a precursor to a larger overall change. You make the changes all at once to see how they fit together. Learn to balance your game and stop screwing your customers. Account remains canceled. The Enemy's Gate is Down
Gnulpie Minmatar Miner Tech	Posted - 2007.10.27 18:16:00 - [220] WTF I hope that this change won't reflect any serious thought of CCP to nerf carriers. You say: use t2 freighters. Yeah, sure. And how many carrier pilots can fly the t2 freighters? And where should all the t2 freighters come from? Inventions? That's a joke, 4 weeks for a single freighter copy - so 4 weeks for a single invention try. With best skills 15% success maybe and that makes then 26 weeks to invent ONE freighter in average. You say: CCP will introduce new modules to expand cargohold/corp hangar drastically. But why do they need to completely wipe out the usability of the carrier as hauler? They said the carrier will still be a jack of all trades, but as I see it will be a jack of all crap. Completely useless!
Montaire Genbuku. Daisho Syndicate	Posted - 2007.10.27 18:23:00 - [221] Originally by: Gnulpie But why do they need to completely wipe out the usability of the carrier as hauler? They said the carrier will still be a jack of all trades, but as I see it will be a jack of all crap. Completely useless! For the same reason that a Raven is a lousy hauler. The Raven is a combat ship, so is the carrier. Contrary to overwhelmingly popular feelings the Capital Industrial skill is different than the Carrier Skill. They have different training times and pre-req's. You need different skills to fly a Heavy Assault Cruiser than you need to fly a Blockade Runner or Deep Space Transport. Similar thing going on here.
md5oogle	Posted - 2007.10.27 18:28:00 - [222] Im not able to fly a carrier as of yet, however my corp can, and alliance can. I am also against this new nerf, and I think its time for CCP to start listening to the people that provide them the funds to keep this game going. If this is how my eve experience is going to be, with everything being nerfed and playing turning into a "job". When i get done work for the day, i dont feel like escorting freigters all week just to fuel pos when there are many better things to do. Agree with making those ships too big to fit in the hold, but not allowing any other ships to carry modules/cargo is stupid. My moto is, if the hole is big enough, stick it in and ** the rest. CCP, if your going to nerf ** like this at random, my subscription service will be severly brief.
Gnulpie Minmatar Miner Tech	Posted - 2007.10.27 18:37:00 - [223] Originally by: Montaire For the same reason that a Raven is a lousy hauler. The Raven is a combat ship, so is the carrier. Wrong! CCP said and still says everywhere that they want the carrier as a multi-purpose ship and NOT as a pure combat ship. They WANT it to be a hauler, and a logistics and a combat support ship - they want it as a ship that fills many roles. And they DON'T WANT it to be a pure combat ship. I get the feeling that they got that fixed idea 'nerf carrier' no matter what. So the first nerf was cancelled because of massive protests. Now they try it with a different approach. Why can't they understand? There is nothing wrong with the carrier!! LEAVE IT ALONE! Leave it alone and maybe add modules. But don't remove stuff out of the blue for invalid reasons.
Ungdall Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.10.27 18:44:00 - [224] CCP just needs to release tier 2 and 3 carriers that are specialized to perform different tasks that go with the carriers assorted duties. Make one for fighters, one for logistics and one for I don't know.
Montaire Genbuku. Daisho Syndicate	Posted - 2007.10.27 19:02:00 - [225] That would certianly be interesting. Link ? Originally by: Gnulpie Originally by: Montaire For the same reason that a Raven is a lousy hauler. The Raven is a combat ship, so is the carrier. Wrong! CCP said and still says everywhere that they want the carrier as a multi-purpose ship and NOT as a pure combat ship. They WANT it to be a hauler, and a logistics and a combat support ship - they want it as a ship that fills many roles. And they DON'T WANT it to be a pure combat ship. I get the feeling that they got that fixed idea 'nerf carrier' no matter what. So the first nerf was cancelled because of massive protests. Now they try it with a different approach. Why can't they understand? There is nothing wrong with the carrier!! LEAVE IT ALONE! Leave it alone and maybe add modules. But don't remove stuff out of the blue for invalid reasons.
judes23 The Silent Rage	Posted - 2007.10.27 19:15:00 - [226] oh gosh lol i thought carriers where suppose to keep the traveling with ships (with there assets in them) around lol claps at CCP for thinking another way to ruin the carriers ----------------------------------- save them, save your future
judes23 The Silent Rage	Posted - 2007.10.27 19:18:00 - [227] oh i bet it was zulupark's idea 2, just to **** us off even more laughs ----------------------------------- save them, save your future
Brungar Caldari Adeptus Illuminati Aegis Authentica Ethereal Dawn	Posted - 2007.10.27 19:21:00 - [228] Damn, just when I thought I'd seen it all. I trained carrier for 2 reasons: (a) help the alliance with the logistics of living in 0.0 space (b) to engage in 0.0 pvp Now, in the past week, CCP has reveals plans that show: (a) is not the intended use, as they limit the amount transported to a fraction of what it used to be (don't forget that it's already been nerfed pretty badly with respect to contract, before!). I'm guessing this is because the carrier really is supposed to be used in combat, neh? (b) apparantly is also not the purpose of the carrier. The only practical use of the carrier after the proposed changes would be to sit at a POS and assign fighters. I did not spend a year of training (in effect investing 190 US $!) to end up as a bit of static POS scenery. Why is it suddenly necessary to sneak in change after change to carriers? WTF is the agenda here? It'dbe bearable if I got the impression CCP has any clue what they are doing. But they obviously have never tried supporting a network of POSes. Nor have they gained much experience fighting with carriers, or we would not be hearing about them "killing battleships in 0.5 seconds". Did some noob marketeer manage to grab the helm of future "development", or what else is going on here? I'm having a really hard time thinking up any new long term (skill) plans, as in all likelyhood whatever road I decide upon next, even though it may look cool now, will probably get nerfed to oblivion real soon. As for people claiming that current ships need to be nerfed to make the next generation of ships "cool", that just sounds too dodgy. If the new content doesn't offer new value of it own, please stuff it somewhere where the sun don't shine, and leave the old content alone. And yes, I'm aware I'm ranting here, but I'm well and truly fed up. "War is a continuation of commerce by other means" - Unknown Caldari philosopher
Damned Force	Posted - 2007.10.27 20:06:00 - [229] If they implement such drastical changes and force us to use another ship for the same thing, after 6+ months training and invested bilions, i hope they would burn in hell and the game would go down very quick so they dont have they jobs anyomre.. So take my "best" wishes, because the worst i even dont want to public
POMPO Gallente Immortal Serial Killers	Posted - 2007.10.27 20:24:00 - [230] Have we really spent all this friggin time training just for CCP to turn around and **** on us? Enough is enough CCP...sort it out or lose my two accounts aswell. PS No you cant have my stuff Im selling it on ebay ..i..
Ur235 The Illuminati. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2007.10.27 20:31:00 - [231] Edited by: Ur235 on 27/10/2007 20:31:44 Seriously if you want to stop people using haulers to ferry fuel and what not, then just make all haulers the size of a bs or something. How the hell am i meant to eject ships to players who have lost there ships in battle, when there is no friggin ammo in there cargo??? WTF!! Great mate you have got me a ship but no ammo w00t?
Curx Ardent Industrial Hydra Alliance	Posted - 2007.10.27 20:32:00 - [232] Why Should a carrier do more dps then a Battleship? Why Should a Carrier be able to load up with supplies? Why should a Carrier be more Powerful then an Ibis? - Curx
infinityshok	Posted - 2007.10.27 20:33:00 - [233] Originally by: Montaire I want to hire a choir of angels's to sing over and over : Use a Rorqual for 0.0 hauling! It has 150k m3 in cargo hold (at least on SiSi it does) and that is double what a carrier can hold. Carriers are combat ships, Rorquals are industrial ships. A Raven is a combat ship. An Itteron Mk V is an industrial ship. Do you take the raven, or the Itteron to haul large amounts ? Use a Capital Industrial Ship! Hossanah ? Originally by: Torrus Blatella Please, no. Making POS fueling and logistics even more of a pain in the ass is not a good idea. I wanna shoot people, not spend hours upon hours hauling fuel. While youre hiring put a clue on your list. Haul some expensive gear thru empire in an iteron and see how quickly a suicide ganker turns your southernmost orifice into a flaming kill mail. Carriers were introduced as being capable of hauling other ships for combat use. A ship with no charges loaded in either its high slots or cargo bay is not a useful ship. The cost of the Rorqual both in skills and actual ship amount is ridiculous considering the amount already sunk into the carrier. The other ridiculous factor is Rorquals will wind up being nerfed when some dementia-infested dev gets the deluded notion to nerf them after he has nerfed carriers into oblivion.
Valea Wrath Of Khaine	Posted - 2007.10.27 20:52:00 - [234] Oh no, now I can't jump as much stuff. Because I definitely got my carrier for hauling. ---
Ur235 The Illuminati. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2007.10.27 20:59:00 - [235] Edited by: Ur235 on 27/10/2007 21:02:23 Originally by: Valea Oh no, now I can't jump as much stuff. Because I definitely got my carrier for hauling. I couldnt care less about using haulers in carrier for logistics, It effects the use of the carrier as a base though, if one of my mates loses a ship in battle i can eject a new one for them to get into and keep em in the battle But hey wait a minuite O SH!T no ammo wtf am I gonna do now? I guess ill just fly 15 jumps back load some ammo up fly back and arrive at a battle half an hour later when its over. W00T?
Futher Bezluden Minmatar ORIGIN SYSTEMS Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2007.10.27 21:22:00 - [236] CCP. Carriers are the logistics hub of a fleet. Look up a carrier sometime while cruising pRon sites. They are floating cities. They have supplies for months, manufacturing and repair centers, and airpower that makes nations crap themselves whenever one is moved from one theatre to another. Completely gimping the way a carrier's ship maintenance array works completely breaks how eve works. So you don't want iteron 5's stuffed in them, fine. Seed T1 Jump Freighters 2-3 months before you throw this horrendous idea into EVE. Jump Freighter is just a freighter with less cargo space for capital jump drives. After Fleet battles, someone always goes to the carrier to get a hauler to start scooping loot. How the hell is that going to happen when you don't allow cargo inside ships to go into the ship array? Really thinking this through, aren't ya? THUKKER -Be Paranoid Skeet Skeet L33t
Ambrosious Martin Dominus Imperium	Posted - 2007.10.27 22:34:00 - [237] Edited by: Ambrosious Martin on 27/10/2007 22:36:26 Originally by: Al Franken Originally by: Grayton Seriously, does CCP even have any idea about the dedication and time it takes to run an alliance level logistics program? Do they even understand how slow and mind numbing it is? It's easy to say "oh, this isn't hard at all!" to 10, 20, even 30 POSes that need fueling and an already in place infrastructure of bridges. But to have to run a 100+ POS network spanning multiple regions and hundreds of light years without always having the easy to use bridge infrastructure in place? they do. This is in line with CCP's belief that there should not be large mega alliances owning multiple regions. They've said quite a few times that their goal is to allow constellation size alliances to exist, in which case this move is largely understandable. If this is such an understandable idea, so that small alliances or maybe even corps that control 0.0 constelations can survive. Then explain to me why it is my 8 man corp that lives 50+ jumps from empire is freaking out over the fact that we have over 5bill in assets that we have to get hauled out now so we can actually get them out.. becuase this change with detrimentally effect the life we live in 0.0 Its obvious to me that you must be one of the empire loving station huggin hippies that I hate so much, which made me move to 0.0. Now we cant move our stuff back and forth. you think one of us wants to start training the next 6 months worth of skills, just so you can get your jollies by thinking this is a nessacary nerf. this game isnt all about the big 10 major alliances. Its about us all who pay for it.. If this nerf is aimed at the POS junkies then solve the problem and make the Tower able to handle 1 years worth of fuel, besides the Stront which is only used under attack anyhow. CCP needs to severlly rethink the way its going about effecting the world we live in. I play this game so I dont have to deal with 12 year olds screaming in the microphone, and so I can excerscise my brain. its amazing to me to see the amount of work players take out there real lives for this game doing things wholly out of enjoyment( I.E Evemon, EFT, all the math geeks that figure out our DMG and HP calculators) we enjoy this game CCP.. and your IMO seriouselly starting to **** US(the community) off.. your CEO and CFO must have sold there holdings already cuz there prolly the only smart ones there able to see that your tanking your own business and messing with disaster. RANT ENDED And another note.. if they didnt want large mega alliances holding multiple regions than why are there the skills ingame that allow you to control allainces up to 10,000+ people? and where do you think all those people are supposed to be? Empire.. sorry chum but I think your wrong on this one
Raketefrau Caldari Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2007.10.27 23:14:00 - [238] ** you, CCP. Seriously, you in your stupid *** non-lubed ***s. It must be tough, waking up every morning and having to come up with new ways to completely off the people who've spent years playing your game, paying you a monthly fee to do so. Why not just tell us flat-out that you're going to completely remove the ability to use the carrier as a hauler? Why keep up with this stupid *** sneaky ? It just es us off more and more every time you do it. Be up front with us, stop trying to sneak this in the back door, and oh, maybe, just possibly, listen to your *** customers for once. This is first-class bull**.
honour Gallente Raddick Explorations	Posted - 2007.10.27 23:21:00 - [239] Not happy with carrier nerfs. but ccp will do as they wish.. wether i like it or not So they dont want you to use a carrier for logistics, Then they need to REPLACE it with something BETTER. if they do it then people will use it because its easier, safer, quicker, and they will WANT to have it. if you make logistics easier WE have more fun and small corps/alliance can do 0.0 so what about this jump freighter ,carries 500k can jump as far as a carrier or further. can carry packaged ships. make them cheep if everyone can have them it levels the playing field for all. this makes logistics a no brainer for everyone. we can do all the ****e stuff quick and get on with the fun. Even the pirates and gankers will like it cos we will be out flying normal ships(and probably diying). has slots and rigs but cannot fit drones guns or missles or offensive weapons. not sure on how many slots/rigs, ideas anyone? cannot launch towers in space,can only unload towers at station or outpost(but can carry them)(makes tower spamming hard) after all this is designed for 0.0 an inherently unsafe place, designers of said ships may be stupid but not that stupid. needs to be tech 1 , cos carriers are and they HAVE jump drives. A freighter is in essence a carrier with the guts ripped out. skill lev freighter 3. plus jump drive skill etc At some point there will be tech 2 jump freighters which will require freighter 5. possibly jump calibration 5 and another skill/module for even more range. (lets face it the eve universe will expand and more systems will come online the ability to bypass known space will be required for newer corps to get out there) shoot this down by all means but no one will use a carrier for hauling when there is better. and thats better by capacity and better by range. after all carrier with jump calibration 5 is 14.46 ly not like dreads.(an extra jump when you dont have too, i dont think soooo) hey maybe 2 ships one with better range and one with better cargo. luv honour
Raketefrau Caldari Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2007.10.27 23:24:00 - [240] Edited by: Raketefrau on 27/10/2007 23:26:32 Originally by: Darklin Eldaris I mean think about it honestly, the military doesn't load up a freight ship then load that into a carrier then drive it across the ocean. They load up the freight ship and drive it, because that's what it does, it moves freight. They load containers onto carriers. Massive containers full of supplies. We use indy ships instead because CCP is so dead set on making freight containers worthless. Quote: Look on the bright side tho guys, its better than only having 5 fighters. ALOT better. Hey yeah guys, check it out! They're stopped ***** us in the ass, now they're just ***** us in the ear! As for jump freighters, if the plan is to make them the haulers of fuel for 0.0, wouldn't it make sense to put those in the game and give us some time to skill up to them BEFORE removing everyone's 0.0 logistics ships?

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.