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)
itsan egro	Posted - 2007.10.27 23:56:00 - [241] Originally by: Jehuty Vanricadia WE DONT HAVE DEVS ANYMORE NO MORE DEVS IN BOB THEY WOULD NEVER MAKE STUPID DECISIONS IF THEY WERE STILL WITH US IN BOB fixed that for you
Aaron Mirrorsaver R.E.C.O.N.	Posted - 2007.10.28 00:16:00 - [242] and ccp effectively cuts 30k players from their player base in one vile move. With all the grinding and time sink in eve now, add more. more more! R.E.C.O.N. is recruiting
Frenche	Posted - 2007.10.28 01:03:00 - [243] I have read many of these topics regarding nerfing and think this: This nerf like others may be ridiculous and ill conceived in terms of current game mechanics flawing the fundamental choices you made, however CCP is a business. EVE like any other online game relies on your addiction to levelling your character, and attaining you necessary career paths. Attaining the next ship skill or piece of equipment is fundamental to keeping you subscribing to the game. You are held by the time you have already invested. Whatever the change is, it is irrelevant, and done not to either ruin or enhance your fun but to ensure as many career paths as possible are avaliable to hold you in game for as long as possible. The game is a sandbox where you make the decision of how to play. The EULA states they can change or shut down the game at any time. CCP is a business so wants you to have to train 3.5 - 4 months for a different ship and wants you to spend 000's man hours doing pointless tasks, time is money. Sorry for the off topic rant just my perspective.
Goca KAOS. Rule of Three	Posted - 2007.10.28 01:29:00 - [244] Originally by: Jehuty Vanricadia Those who whined about ccp staff playing the game in major alliances; I think its safe to say they dont anymore. I'd have to say it appears they don't play the same game the rest of us do at all.. Even funnier is when they state that they don't read the posts where helpful suggestions are not made.. LOL! I think there have been many helpful suggestions made here, the best and most prevalent made has been "remove head from ass"..
Javeir Shadows of the Dead Aftermath Alliance	Posted - 2007.10.28 03:20:00 - [245] CCP, stop nerfing things that don't need to be nerfed, and start fixing the massive amounts of lag and bugs in your game. Forget about carriers, leave them the way they are, and stop being completely ****** in this random nerfbat attacks. Don't ***** break eve like you seem to be doing now.
Shaddam V Amarr 9th Wonders	Posted - 2007.10.28 03:20:00 - [246] I just logged into sisi and was able to dock a ship with with ammo in the cargo hold into a POS SMA. I can't test the bays in ships, but this might have been a change that we were told to ignore in the dev blog.
Javeir Shadows of the Dead Aftermath Alliance	Posted - 2007.10.28 03:28:00 - [247] We're not talking about SMA's. We're talking about carrier & roquoral ship maint bays.
Breathing Mork Incorporated	Posted - 2007.10.28 03:52:00 - [248] PLEASE dont let this come out on Tranquility. Removing cargo cans from ships is one thing, but making them empty ALL their cargo is a bridge too far.... Seriously. And not just from a cargo capacity point of view, but also just as rediculously it will introduce EVEN MORE NEEDLESS ANOYING TIMECONSUMING MICRO-MANAGEMENT of peoples ships cargos (ammo, cap boosts, spare fits etc). Its tedious enough as it is. If this is all because people are using haulers in the ship bays to expand cargo then PLEASE just do something about the haulers. Having to empty the ammo from a collection of 20 inties / dicors and cruisers, and then redistribute it all at the other end is NOT WHAT I PLAY EVE FOR.
Danatank STK Scientific Black-Out	Posted - 2007.10.28 04:18:00 - [249] I'm mainly ****ed because I did specifically start this account and train it up to carrier to be a logistics ship, and now it'll be useless for that. Definitely cancelling at least this account if it goes though, there'll be no more use for it.
infinityshok	Posted - 2007.10.28 04:28:00 - [250] Originally by: Raketefrau Edited by: Raketefrau on 27/10/2007 23:19:09 ** 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. EDIT: And anyone who thinks that this is just to stop the mega-alliances: a) You have no idea what it's like to keep towers up for even a single corp in deep 0.0. Do you honestly think that jumping carriers isn't necessary to get fuel for all your towers? With 6-8 carrier pilots per corp, it's still tough to keep moving enough fuel out to our constellation. b) The mega-alliances have Titans with jump bridges. They just jump-bridge their freighters around when they need to. This will just give them an even bigger edge over the rest of us. c) We trained carriers because they are great logistics ships, because it's the only way to move fuel efficiently out here. Do you understand that, CCP? We put over a year into the ability to fly a single ship to move large quantities of materials around. Over a year. And now you seem dead set on taking that away from us. An entire *** year of training. Do you honestly not understand why everyone is so ed off, or do you just not *** care? I totally *** agree with the of this *** and but * all * *. The * and ** * for themselves. What * of * * was *. * and *** **** ** to ****. Thank you.
Stellar Vix State War Academy	Posted - 2007.10.28 04:47:00 - [251] I do belive ccp does know about how carriers work, and they dont like the way they do work. Which is why i support this nerf, tbh I wouldnt mind losing a job and get to enjoy flying around with fighters against as they where orignially intended, two years ago we didnt have titans, we didnt have a war over being fought over 8 regions with several hundred capitol ships involved, before the attack on the bob capitol yard the previous record for most dreads ever killed was 8 in a single battle, that record got beaten by 50+ dreadnaughts lost. In two years capitol ships have gone the way devs didnt expect them, I have meet corps with 100% carrier pilots and it wouldn't surprise me if that they didnt nerf the carrier that it could be a requirement for some corps as well in the future. But tech 2 freighters will be here in less than a year with thier jump drives. Which leaves the question of titan functionality other than its DDD that is 100% ineffective aginst the bolbs they where designed against. The only thing that seems to be fine and dandy are the dreads fullfilling the role they are supposed to fulfill kill other capitol ships and POS. Carriers however are probably being used more as freighter than thier combat fighter spewing support role. I would love to see far less logisitics and far more fleet center orintated ships. Titans are supposed to be mobile stations, there isnt much station to them, clone vat and 20 cruiser ships, with no internal repair facility, no half assed refinery, no minature mobile lab. If they reroll the titans to be mroe station like and not the uselss hunks of metal they are now before the jump freighters make it to tranq Id be happy. But seriously do you carrier pilots really enjoy hauling all of those ships around? I dont and really if your empire is too big to support maybe you should consider downsizing and make a more managable allaince because you took a bite bigger than you can chew with. SWA PVP
velocity7	Posted - 2007.10.28 05:06:00 - [252] You guys do realize that jump freighters are being introduced to replace this aspect of carriers?
infinityshok	Posted - 2007.10.28 05:07:00 - [253] Originally by: Stellar Vix I do belive ccp does know about how carriers work, and they dont like the way they do work. Which is why i support this nerf, tbh I wouldnt mind losing a job and get to enjoy flying around with fighters against as they where orignially intended, two years ago we didnt have titans, we didnt have a war over being fought over 8 regions with several hundred capitol ships involved, before the attack on the bob capitol yard the previous record for most dreads ever killed was 8 in a single battle, that record got beaten by 50+ dreadnaughts lost. In two years capitol ships have gone the way devs didnt expect them, I have meet corps with 100% carrier pilots and it wouldn't surprise me if that they didnt nerf the carrier that it could be a requirement for some corps as well in the future. But tech 2 freighters will be here in less than a year with thier jump drives. Which leaves the question of titan functionality other than its DDD that is 100% ineffective aginst the bolbs they where designed against. The only thing that seems to be fine and dandy are the dreads fullfilling the role they are supposed to fulfill kill other capitol ships and POS. Carriers however are probably being used more as freighter than thier combat fighter spewing support role. I would love to see far less logisitics and far more fleet center orintated ships. Titans are supposed to be mobile stations, there isnt much station to them, clone vat and 20 cruiser ships, with no internal repair facility, no half assed refinery, no minature mobile lab. If they reroll the titans to be mroe station like and not the uselss hunks of metal they are now before the jump freighters make it to tranq Id be happy. But seriously do you carrier pilots really enjoy hauling all of those ships around? I dont and really if your empire is too big to support maybe you should consider downsizing and make a more managable allaince because you took a bite bigger than you can chew with. CCP has been advertising titans since '03...I still have the instruction manual describing their features. How long did it take them to actually show up? You have clearly stated you have no clue about anything related to anything. Please follow the example of CCP and nerf yourself immediately. The most effective method would be a swandive into a woodchipper. Post the video.
Verite Rendition Caldari AUS Corporation CORE.	Posted - 2007.10.28 05:51:00 - [254] Originally by: velocity7 You guys do realize that jump freighters are being introduced to replace this aspect of carriers? Sure, there will be a handful of them available a couple of months after the change goes live, where you can pay 10-15bil for one and train up a boatload of new skills to level 5 to fly the thing. The jump freighter is not the solution, it's probably not even going to make it in to Rev 3. ---- AUS Corp Lead Megalomanic EVE Automated Influence Map: Keeping Down The Clone Business Since 2007AD
Brungar Caldari Adeptus Illuminati Aegis Authentica Ethereal Dawn	Posted - 2007.10.28 07:15:00 - [255] Originally by: Verite Rendition Originally by: velocity7 You guys do realize that jump freighters are being introduced to replace this aspect of carriers? Sure, there will be a handful of them available a couple of months after the change goes live, where you can pay 10-15bil for one and train up a boatload of new skills to level 5 to fly the thing. The jump freighter is not the solution, it's probably not even going to make it in to Rev 3. And that's exactly it. It's looking suspiciously much like I'll have to train and invest loads to be able to do what I currently (after lots of training and investment) already can do. I find this incredibly demotivating, and I'm sure I'm not the only one at that. If I am going to invest loads in something, I want it to enable something cool that I could not already do. "War is a continuation of commerce by other means" - Unknown Caldari philosopher
Lasati	Posted - 2007.10.28 07:56:00 - [256] Edited by: Lasati on 28/10/2007 08:02:47 Edited by: Lasati on 28/10/2007 08:00:57 Originally by: Alski If this change does go through, IÆm almost going to be amused at the drama that will follow, all the people who think this change is a good thing are going to be VERY UNamused when the following happens: -Weekley mandatory freighter ops to bring in fuel -Daily transport/hauler escorts to get pos fuel out in the field -Alliances losing space because they no-longer have any means of sustaining there posÆs. -Alliances losing outposts because there freighters canÆt get through enemy space/fleets/entry points So this is just my opinion. But why are these bullet points a bad thing? I think you're right that running fuel shouldn't fall on the shoulders of a couple of guys. That is selfish. Now when I think about "authenticity" of building a space empire, I think about battles happening over supply lines, alliances losing territory because they can't get fuel through enemy space, etc. For those who say it already is about this -- I have never heard a CTA for attacking a fuel runner. I don't think about building a space empire as sticking freighters in the belly of a carrier, and having a couple of guys whose job it is to do this & they support everyone else. I think there should be escort duties for guarding fuel runners... and it should matter because fuel running is distributed across the corp. And if your corp / alliance can't field guys for daily / weekly escort, they shouldn't own a POS.
Kayl Breinhar Gallente GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.10.28 08:14:00 - [257] Edited by: Kayl Breinhar on 28/10/2007 08:14:39 Originally by: velocity7 You guys do realize that jump freighters are being introduced to replace this aspect of carriers? And hopefully you realize that no one can train and complete Freighter V before this nerf goes live. That's at least a 20-30 day period where 0.0 logistics are paralyzed. This change needed to be broadcast far in advance, not just dumped in our laps.
Ungdall Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.10.28 08:31:00 - [258] Originally by: velocity7 You guys do realize that jump freighters are being introduced to replace this aspect of carriers? It's cute when you post without reading a thread. So cute, it makes one tempted to wear your hands like gloves.
Alski Gallente Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2007.10.28 09:52:00 - [259] Originally by: Lasati Edited by: Lasati on 28/10/2007 08:02:47 Edited by: Lasati on 28/10/2007 08:00:57 Originally by: Alski If this change does go through, I’m almost going to be amused at the drama that will follow, all the people who think this change is a good thing are going to be VERY UNamused when the following happens: -Weekley mandatory freighter ops to bring in fuel -Daily transport/hauler escorts to get pos fuel out in the field -Alliances losing space because they no-longer have any means of sustaining there pos’s. -Alliances losing outposts because there freighters can’t get through enemy space/fleets/entry points So this is just my opinion. But why are these bullet points a bad thing? I think you're right that running fuel shouldn't fall on the shoulders of a couple of guys. That is selfish. Now when I think about "authenticity" of building a space empire, I think about battles happening over supply lines, alliances losing territory because they can't get fuel through enemy space, etc. For those who say it already is about this -- I have never heard a CTA for attacking a fuel runner. I don't think about building a space empire as sticking freighters in the belly of a carrier, and having a couple of guys whose job it is to do this & they support everyone else. I think there should be escort duties for guarding fuel runners... and it should matter because fuel running is distributed across the corp. And if your corp / alliance can't field guys for daily / weekly escort, they shouldn't own a POS. What you think is irrelevant. Sorry if that comes off as a bit harsh, but it’s a simple fact that freighters are SO INCREADABLEY SLOW and 0.0 space is SO LARGE that it takes anything from THREE TO SIX HOURS to make a freighter run from empire to 0.0, I guess my alliance is lucky since we are “only” about 30 jumps in from empire, many alliances are double that, back when I lived in what is now deep RA space, it was more like SEVENTY jumps. Now… try to imagine doing a five or six hour, 60 jump freighter run, and then being told “thanks guys, oh and btw please show up next week, we’ve got to do ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY JUMPS BECAUSE THE DAMN FREIGHTER NEEDS TO GO BACK TO EMPIRE AND THEN BACK IN TO 0.0 AGAIN!!!” Do you understand yet? Do you not realise that people WILL NOT DO THIS? - *signature removed - please email us to find out why (include a link) - Jacques([email protected]) (combat) Patch belonging to CCP hits your drones, wrecking their liberty and freedom.
Jiks Caldari Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2007.10.28 10:41:00 - [260] CCP, Is it too much to ask for a simple statement whether you intend to do this or not? Thanks. If this is implemented now it will,again, make fleet fights worse as we can't load ammo in the ships and even worse destroy alliance logistics. You are planning jump freighters that will gradually replace the current carrier role but will not be available imediately or ever to the smaller alliances. Why there is need to break something that works with no workable alternative in sight I really cannot imagine. Unfortunately imagining your motives is all I can do as, again, there has been no mention of this in a Dev blog. Jiks
Lady Beauvoir Slutty Witches	Posted - 2007.10.28 11:38:00 - [261] I'm rather curious: I don't understand what they are hoping to accomplish with this change? I mean, I can still fit a Moros to carry 70808m^3 (T2 expanders and T1 rigs, Revelation will carry loads more and SISI rorqual will carry 150000m^3 without expanders or rigs), whereas my old carrier carried less. I can still use the Moros to carry modules and such but use the carrier to move assembled ships, since the size of the SMB was increased. Jump hauling will stay, and jump freighters probably won't be used, the jump hauling just takes more jumps and a more expensive ship than before. It just takes skilling for a new ship, and buying of said ship, but in principle, nothing will change. Some groups will probably hiccup for a week when they need to purchase their ships, but that's it. Why was the SMB size increased, I wonder? "Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connaet point." -Blaise Pascal, PensTes, 4, 277
Jaleera Kaisin Amarr Eve Defence Force Praesidium Libertatis	Posted - 2007.10.28 11:48:00 - [262] Sigh . . . . . Only things I use my carrier for is repositioning ships in a ready combat state (You know - fueled and ammoed up and ready to roll), and moving my stuff (modules etc in time of emergency) Damn thing is too fragile for small scale combat, to expensive to move lots of items already, has little offensive capability and now has the main existing useful feature taken away. This nerf takes away my ONLY reason for me using a carrier. It also takes away my ability to relocate to 0.0 without making an insane number of jumps losing valuable items on the way. Words really escape me . . . but I'll try. so far in the last few months I've had to redeploy everything I own in 0.0 space a number of times due to alliance moves, corp changes and war, having had EVERYTHING i own locked in hostile stations twice in the last 2 years now I resolved that I'd rather quit the game than start all over yet again, This move by CCP will stop people from effectively being able to evacuate their gear in an emergency. Are you deliberately TRYING to send us all back to empire. I for one am just sick and tired of the nerfs, stealth nerfs and changes that CCP seem to be making at random that have a HUGE impact on players. I have 4 accounts and use them regularly . . . . .after reading this thread and seeing the last few threads on carrier nerfs (and CCP's replies). I'm just gonna walk away for a bit and not play again until I see what changes go through to production. The future in this game just looks too depressing to bother right now. If this one happens - effectively confining me to Empire or losing everything I own in case of emergency then I'm out of here. Very disappointed in CCP over their sudden frenzied attack on carriers. Are they hoping that waves of repeated nerf threats will make us accept some because we get confused with what is happeneing? And yes you can have my stuff if this change goes live.
Montaire Genbuku. Daisho Syndicate	Posted - 2007.10.28 14:15:00 - [263] Rorqual - with expanders and its corp hangar array your at about 150k m3. Double what a carrier can do now. C'mon people! You know that Iteron V, its an Industrial Ship. The Rorqual is a Capital Industrial Ship. You will note the Rorqual does not require Battleship 5 ? It requires Barge V, and Industry V. Why cant we have a decent role for the carrier in combat, and a decent role for the Rorqual in industry. Also, note that pre-positioning ships is EASIER now with the carrier, since you dont have ot know what ammo types your pilots can use. Just put the ammo in your corp hangar array and pilots can fill up on their way out. If they are not in your corp, just jettison it for them. Originally by: Verite Rendition Originally by: velocity7 You guys do realize that jump freighters are being introduced to replace this aspect of carriers? Sure, there will be a handful of them available a couple of months after the change goes live, where you can pay 10-15bil for one and train up a boatload of new skills to level 5 to fly the thing. The jump freighter is not the solution, it's probably not even going to make it in to Rev 3.
infinityshok	Posted - 2007.10.28 15:09:00 - [264] Originally by: Montaire Rorqual - with expanders and its corp hangar array your at about 150k m3. Double what a carrier can do now. C'mon people! You know that Iteron V, its an Industrial Ship. The Rorqual is a Capital Industrial Ship. You will note the Rorqual does not require Battleship 5 ? It requires Barge V, and Industry V. Why cant we have a decent role for the carrier in combat, and a decent role for the Rorqual in industry. Also, note that pre-positioning ships is EASIER now with the carrier, since you dont have ot know what ammo types your pilots can use. Just put the ammo in your corp hangar array and pilots can fill up on their way out. If they are not in your corp, just jettison it for them. Originally by: Verite Rendition Originally by: velocity7 You guys do realize that jump freighters are being introduced to replace this aspect of carriers? Sure, there will be a handful of them available a couple of months after the change goes live, where you can pay 10-15bil for one and train up a boatload of new skills to level 5 to fly the thing. The jump freighter is not the solution, it's probably not even going to make it in to Rev 3. Im not expending the time and resources to fly another ship so it can be wasted after CCCP decides to nerf it at some point in the future. 450mil isk for another skill...training mining barge V...all to fly an overfed iteron. No. Certainly not after spending the massive time and resources I already have to fly a ship I already do. That last comment about not knowing what ammo types to load and all...on that train of thought it would be easier to simply not bring any ammo and not have to worry about it in the first place. Ammo is over rated anyway.
infinityshok	Posted - 2007.10.28 15:16:00 - [265] Originally by: Kayl Breinhar Edited by: Kayl Breinhar on 28/10/2007 08:14:39 Originally by: velocity7 You guys do realize that jump freighters are being introduced to replace this aspect of carriers? And hopefully you realize that no one can train and complete Freighter V before this nerf goes live. That's at least a 20-30 day period where 0.0 logistics are paralyzed. This change needed to be broadcast far in advance, not just dumped in our laps. velocity7...you do realize that the current production requirements will make the jump freighter all but unattainable. kayl...this change needs to be flushed down the toilet, its creators sent to a remote Siberian janitorial camp to spend the rest of their days using floor mops as girlfriends, and any threads concerning it permanently deleted so no future chest slapping, window licking, slobering short bus bandits get the idea to bring it up again.
Alais Wiccanfae Gallente Templars of Space Freelancer Alliance	Posted - 2007.10.28 15:16:00 - [266] Originally by: Montaire C'mon people! You know that Iteron V, its an Industrial Ship. The Rorqual is a Capital Industrial Ship. You will note the Rorqual does not require Battleship 5 ? It requires Barge V, and Industry V. Why cant we have a decent role for the carrier in combat, and a decent role for the Rorqual in industry. The rorquals got a great role in industry, gang mining and then hauling minerals from aforementioned mining op - any further hauling roles are coincidental, much like a carrier(which I will repeat is called a CARRIER, not a ship carrier or drone carrier, just a carrier). A carriers role in combat - Fleet op: sit at a pos, give out 200/300m worth of hardware to other pilots to enjoy and dole out cap/shields/armour/ships to said pilots - funfunfun Alternatively enter the battle in the hopes of having some fun, get damped, tackled and then drilled by snipers whilst being too lagged out to do **** about it. Gang combat: Get pinned by 1 or 2 tacklers whilst your support who are controlling your fighters seeing as your damped to hell and back die off, one by one, because funny enough, a damped carrier can't rep friendlies. Then nervously wait(assuming your tank holds) to see if your tacklers friends show up before yours do - note the carrier at this point has provided an island to fight around and hasn't actually contributed one whit. Like 70% of other carrier pilots I got mine for the logistical side of things combat action is just part of the package. If I wanted to be combatcentric I would have trained for a dreadnaught. For the people who like to make r/l references, a carrier in todays warfare makes almost every other ship about it redundant, it can launch cruise missiles, ECM planes and Radar specialised planes, submarine hunting planes, anti air planes - so if we're going to talk about how r/l carriers don't haul ships with cargo in them, are we going to mention how they are solopwnmobiles? this is EVE<-----not----->Earth If this goes through it will be the nail in the coffin for my 3 accounts. /me waits patiently for Age of Reckoning
Jack Toad Federal Space Academy Red Army Alliance	Posted - 2007.10.28 15:25:00 - [267] WE. DEMAND. OFFICIAL. ANSWER. period. PS: Went to write the list of 20 Russian unique bad words describing the upcoming change
Zachri Minmatar IVC Consortium INVICTUS.	Posted - 2007.10.28 15:58:00 - [268] So, as Level 3 has been blocking Sisi for me since a while now, what are the current exact build requirements and processes for the T2 Jump Freighters, and the exact M3 changes to carriers, Rorquals and that new mini Rorqual called Orca?
Trent Nichols Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2007.10.28 18:12:00 - [269] Edited by: Trent Nichols on 28/10/2007 18:11:46 Yes CCP, this silence is both cowardly and disrespectful. I understand that the jump carrier is coming and I have seen the buffs to the Rorq but neither of those makes nerfing the carrier in any way sensible. If you don't want the carrier to be the premier logistics ship just make these two other capital ships better at logistics and watch carriers slowly fall to the wayside. Stupid stupid stupid CCP! Do you like ****ing off your customers!?
Vanye Inovske Two Brothers Mining Corp. Friend or Enemy	Posted - 2007.10.28 19:43:00 - [270] Originally by: Zachri So, as Level 3 has been blocking Sisi for me since a while now, what are the current exact build requirements and processes for the T2 Jump Freighters, and the exact M3 changes to carriers, Rorquals and that new mini Rorqual called Orca? Jump Freighters exist only as an entry on the Variations tab of regular freighters. You can get the showinfo on jump freighters that way, but they're clearly not finished (for ex all races use Nitrogen Isotopes for jump fuel). So far as I can tell there's no way to see blueprints, so any guesses at build requirements are just guesses. However, if it follows the trend of other T2 ships we'd be looking at say 3-4x the build cost of a T1 freighter at ME 0, which moves up to at least 5x T1 since all invented bpcs will be at ME -7 (80% wastage) because you'd be insane to install a freighter invention job with anything besides the best chance decryptor. Tack on invention costs and a healthy premium for the extreme rarity due to the long copy times and we're probably looking at 5B-ish build costs and 10B-ish open market prices. That's just a guess, though. I'm still hoping that they'll come to their senses and make them Tier 2 freighters with seeded bpos and a pricetag in the 1.5B range, and require a more reasonable Freighter IV + jump skills. Carrier cargo and corp hangar sizes are unchanged. Ship maintenance bays have been doubled to 1M m3. Rorqual cargo has been doubled to 40k m3, and ship maintenance bay has been bumped up from 800k m3 to 1M m3. Corp hangar size is unchanged. Rigged and expanded you get 125k m3 or so of space which has the advantage of being contiguous. Plus, you could presumably fill it with GSCs for even more space. The Orca is just an idea at this point, and won't be in the patch. Though frankly, given the mostly unfinished state of jump freighter I'm not sure they'll make it into the patch either. If the no cargo in the maintenance bay thing goes ahead, and my guess is that it will, the Rorqual is the only near-term option for deep space logistics this side of jump portalling T1 freighters. The unfortunate aspect of all this is that it nerfs carrying combat vessels in carriers as well, and that is presumably the whole point of that maintenance bay. If CCP is deadset on nerfing the hauler carrier (and I believe that they are) they really ought to disallow the fitting of expanders on ships in the carrier bay rather than this silliness of disallowing cargo entirely.

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.