EVE Search - Jump Freighters vs. Rorqual

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Test Server Feedback

Jump Freighters vs. Rorqual

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Nizdaar Gallente STK Scientific	Posted - 2007.10.31 20:28:00 - [1] Currently there is a lot questions about the viability of jump freighters when compared to a rorqual. The comparison below does not show stats that are the same between them. Jump distance for example is the same, so it's not shown. Jump skills assume just Jump Drive Operation I for skill point requirements since after that, it's the same for both anyway. Skill Point requirements assume you are starting from level 0. I'm ignoring hitpoints on these ships. I consider you dead if you're under enough fire to take you out anyway. Freighter bpcs can be made every ~28 days with science 5 and in an advanced mobile lab which has a time modifier of 0.65. Implants can reduce this slightly. The production limit on freighter bpcs is 1, so you can only ever invent from a single run bpc. Anshar: Has a capacity of ~280k m3 (3) Uses 3100 isotopes per ly (4) Skpts Required: ~5.5 million Base cap recharge time: 215.58 seconds Estimated build cost: ~3.7bil(1) Skillbooks cost: ~135mil + jump freighter skillbook (unknown cost) Rorqual Has a capacity of ~120k m3 with T2 expanders and T1 rigs Uses 1000 isotopes per ly Skpts Required: ~3.5 million Base cap recharge time: 3900 seconds Estimated build cost: ~1.3bil(2) Skillbooks cost: ~1bil Training for the anshar gets you the ability to pilot T1 and T2 (with just one more skill) haulers, a freighter and a jump freighter. Training for a rorqual gets you a covetor capable character who can use T1 strip miners. Jump freighters Pros: - Much faster cap recharge time - >2x the cargo capacity of the rorqual Cons: - cost - 2 mil skpt more than a rorqual - Once you train for a jump freighter, that's the end of the skill tree - Availability will be a problem. - Large amount of isotopes used per ly jumped - No repping ability Rorqual Pros: - Skill training can continue for added utility of ore compression, gang modules and training into an exhumer for extra isk making, clone vat. - Greater availability - Costs significantly less - Uses a lot less isotopes to jump around. - Can fit a capital shield booster for survivability until light and medium attack. Cons: - Less than half the capacity of a jump freighter - Takes significantly longer than a jump freighter to regain it's cap to jump again. 1: Market price assumes 750mil build cost for an obelisk, 230mil per obelisk bpc, 2mil per mech eng datacore, 250k per starship eng datacore, 5 attempts to get a single run Anshar BPC (using no decryptors, assuming 20% success rate) and jita market average prices for components. Capital Ship component prices based on ME20 and current market prices for minerals. T2 components used jita market average prices. An ME of 0 was used for component quantity. component total was ~1bil of the build cost if someone wants to figure out the waste value of an invented bpc and adjust it accordingly. 2: ME of 20 on all components, ME 1 on rorqual bpo. 3: Base capacity of 225,000m3 with a 5% bonus to capacity per freighter level. Freighter 5 is required to fly a jump freighter, so actual capacity is ~280k m3 for an Anshar. 4: Jump freighter skill currently reduces isotope use by 5% per level
Nizdaar Gallente STK Scientific	Posted - 2007.10.31 20:40:00 - [2] The purpose of the post wasn't to call for a nerf or buff of one ship or there other. Merely to show the differences between them as the rorqual is the most like the jfreighters in terms of usability and capacity. The rorqual shouldn't be nerfed. It's designated purpose is to jump to a system with mining barges/exhumers in it's ship maintenance bay, haul the ore in (or have a hauler bring it to the rorqual), crunch the ore and jump the barges/haulers and ore back to where the minerals will be refined. Reducing the cargo capacity of the rorqual would seriously impact it's intended role of remote mining operations. Assuming that like carriers, you can't have anything in the cargo hold of a hauler in a rorqual, it isn't a viable option to take a tower out with you in the rorqual to set up shop along with a CHA and transfer the compressed ore to a jump freighter. Not to mention that it would bring the cost of the ability to do remote mining operations to an astronomical amount isk wise in investment in ships.
Batlet	Posted - 2007.10.31 21:27:00 - [3] Please excuse me but : Rorqual : 40000 m3 (sisi stats) 40000 (+25%),(+25%),(+25%),(+10%),(+10%) is in my book 94.5 k m3 cargo. Unless i missed something here. Care to explain the 120k m3 ?
Nizdaar Gallente STK Scientific	Posted - 2007.10.31 21:38:00 - [4] Expanded Cargohold II's are 27.5% Cargohold Optimization I's are 15% The rorqual has 3 lows and 3 rig slots. 40k * 1.275^3 * 1.15^3 = ~125k m3 Sorry, I rounded a bit too much down to 120.
EscortQueen	Posted - 2007.10.31 21:43:00 - [5] Hello, there are some points missing in your calculation. 1. The Rorqual has a ship maintenance bay that takes at least 2 of the largest Transport ships available. 2. You can start compression jobs and just not deliver them. This will add some additional space to move around (OK, this is somehow limited to ores, but still it is space).
bsspewer Caldari Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2007.10.31 21:51:00 - [6] Originally by: EscortQueen Hello, there are some points missing in your calculation. 1. The Rorqual has a ship maintenance bay that takes at least 2 of the largest Transport ships available. 2. You can start compression jobs and just not deliver them. This will add some additional space to move around (OK, this is somehow limited to ores, but still it is space). he's comparing them because there will be a nerf to putting items into a ships bay when in a ship hanger. IE: no more packed iteron v's in your carrier/rorqual/mothership/titan You're also missing one key point of observation though: Giant Secure Cargo Cans. The Rorqual can pack these into it's regular cargo and add more hauling space. But a freighter cannot use cans, it's cargo is static. ____________________
Nizdaar Gallente STK Scientific	Posted - 2007.10.31 21:52:00 - [7] Originally by: EscortQueen Hello, there are some points missing in your calculation. 1. The Rorqual has a ship maintenance bay that takes at least 2 of the largest Transport ships available. 2. You can start compression jobs and just not deliver them. This will add some additional space to move around (OK, this is somehow limited to ores, but still it is space). 1) I decided not to include that into the calculations as stated in my second post. The rorqual currently has 1,000,000m3 of ship maint. bay space on Sisi. That's enough room for 3 iteron mark V's. I'm assuming that it's receiving the same changes as carriers - that they aren't able to have items in the hauler's holds when placed into the maint. bay. 2) Good point! But it is ore specific and I was trying to compare them more on the basis of long distance generic hauling. Although minor, the rorqual is also able to store most of it's isotopes in the corporate hanger and move only what is necessary into the cargo bay for jumping. A jump freighter has to carry enough isotopes for the entire trip in the hold, reducing the amount it has for cargo by a little bit.
Montaire Genbuku. Daisho Syndicate	Posted - 2007.10.31 22:27:00 - [8] Some good points. While anyone who reads these boards knows I <3 the Rorqual in its current (SiSi) incarnation, I agree with you. Something isnt quite right with it vs a Jump Freighter. I'd caution against using Skill Requirments or Build information just yet, as I am nearly certian it will change. All that aside, I do not know if removing the Rorqual's capacity is the best answer, but its certianly one of the options. The Rorqual needs a large hold to make it efficient at its job, which is Mining Support. I think its cargo space is about right for that role on SiSi right now (In the 120-140k range). Perhaps a specialized Ore only cargobay ? I think the benefits of the Jump Freighter will be that it can toodle around empire and jump from empire straight to its cyno, even if it has to use gates to get back (no cynos in empire). You have the problem spot on right now though, as a pure hauler the Rorqual has a lot going for it. I'd wait until we actually see the jump freighters to make judgment though. And remember, the Rorqual should be ultimate freighter for raw, unrefined ore.
Seonae STK Scientific	Posted - 2007.10.31 22:40:00 - [9] Originally by: Montaire Some good points. While anyone who reads these boards knows I <3 the Rorqual in its current (SiSi) incarnation, I agree with you. Something isnt quite right with it vs a Jump Freighter. I'd caution against using Skill Requirments or Build information just yet, as I am nearly certian it will change. All that aside, I do not know if removing the Rorqual's capacity is the best answer, but its certianly one of the options. The Rorqual needs a large hold to make it efficient at its job, which is Mining Support. I think its cargo space is about right for that role on SiSi right now (In the 120-140k range). Perhaps a specialized Ore only cargobay ? I think the benefits of the Jump Freighter will be that it can toodle around empire and jump from empire straight to its cyno, even if it has to use gates to get back (no cynos in empire). You have the problem spot on right now though, as a pure hauler the Rorqual has a lot going for it. I'd wait until we actually see the jump freighters to make judgment though. And remember, the Rorqual should be ultimate freighter for raw, unrefined ore. While, as you say, what is on SiSi is not garunteed, lets assume that they're close to the final format. 7-8 billion isk -SALE- price for a Jump Freighter (I'm not stupid enough to believe in altruism) for a ship that has the following: 1/4th the capacity of a standard freighter no tank loses 10% of it's cargo capacity to carry isotopes for mid-to deep 0.0 travel takes over a month to have a chance at building Rorqual: going rate is 2.5bil? ~1/2 the space if fitted specifically for haulage tankable requires 1/3rd the isotopes for same distance traveled garunteed build every time TBH, you're better off saving up for a Titan and jump bridging real freighters around.
Nizdaar Gallente STK Scientific	Posted - 2007.10.31 22:55:00 - [10] I tried to keep the initial post impartial at least. Something that was touched on was containers. The rorqual is able to move them around while freighters aren't. When moving a large amount of corp and personal assets around it's a huge time saver to have corp mate put personal items into containers. Standard procedure for any 0.0 corp I've been in is that if you want stuff moved you name your ship and toss it into a secure corp hanger that only a limited number of people have access to. Same with other assets. Put them into a container, name it and toss it into the corp hanger. A freighter can't make use of this method. Although neither the rorqual or freighters can move an assembled ship, a carrier can do it much more efficiently in it's current state on Sisi. It can be argued that people should be using courier contracts. Those work in a freighter as long as the courier "container" doesn't contain anything in it that a freighter won't normally allow anyway. I've used them recently for freighter runs for corp mates. The problem with them is that if you set up for for anyone in the corp to accept, well, anyone in the corp can accept it and take your items. Collateral is an option but I'm sure the freighter pilots themselves don't have the isk to cover the collateral for everything they'll be hauling. Not to mention that in the past we've had to divert from one station to another one owned by the corporation/alliance that was within a few jumps of the pre-assigned destination. This just doesn't work with courier contracts as they have a very specific destination set in them. It's also possible to set them up to be accepted by a specific person rather than at corp/alliance level. But then that requires that person to be on to accept it and either haul it themselves or pass it to someone to bring down then have it passed back to them to finish the contract. In the past, we've handled diverting with just breaking open the packaging and dealing with it just like any other container. The courier contract would then just expire. Because no reward or collateral was assigned, no isk was lost. I hope this thread doesn't get hijacked into a thread about courier contracts advantages and disadvantages. I'm just pointing out merely how they work (since most people don't know) and that they do in fact fit in freighters. The one thing I never want to deal with again is having 200 of a specific module or 500,000 units of T2 ammo that I then need to break the stacks of or keep them unstacked and dole them out to each individual person and keep a record of who had what and how many. Logistics suck enough as it is. Containers just make it easy. My stuff is in my can. It has my name on it. No sorting required.

bsspewer Caldari Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2007.10.31 23:51:00 - [11] wow, you hijacked your own thread.. ____________________
Szap Light	Posted - 2007.11.01 00:31:00 - [12] Well you know what will be happening now... Rorqual will be reduced to 2000 cargo so that Capital Industrial != Hauler
Verite Rendition Caldari AUS Corporation CORE.	Posted - 2007.11.01 01:10:00 - [13] The waste value of a BPC is going to be about 100% since the most efficient way to do this invention is to use the highest +runs decryptor. So you need to add at least a bil to your costs, and then probably factor in the fact that the rarity of these things is going to push the price even higher. ---- AUS Corp Lead Megalomanic EVE Automated Influence Map
Bob Biac Caldari Meridian Dynamics FREGE Alliance	Posted - 2007.11.01 01:22:00 - [14] you do realize that T2 freighters are NO WHERE near completion, right? those stats are placeholders
Verite Rendition Caldari AUS Corporation CORE.	Posted - 2007.11.01 01:29:00 - [15] Originally by: Bob Biac you do realize that T2 freighters are NO WHERE near completion, right? those stats are placeholders Tell that to CCP, they seem to think they're complete enough to nerf the carriers. ---- AUS Corp Lead Megalomanic EVE Automated Influence Map
Futher Bezluden Minmatar ORIGIN SYSTEMS Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2007.11.01 01:35:00 - [16] You cannot put industrials with cargo into the rorqual ship array. Screwed again. THUKKER -Be Paranoid Skeet Skeet L33t
Montaire Genbuku. Daisho Syndicate	Posted - 2007.11.01 02:31:00 - [17] C'mon Verite, thats not entirely fair. The Rorqual changes are more than enough to compensate for any carrier change in regards to logistics. And we both know that these current T2 Freighters will never see live as they are right now. Originally by: Verite Rendition Originally by: Bob Biac you do realize that T2 freighters are NO WHERE near completion, right? those stats are placeholders Tell that to CCP, they seem to think they're complete enough to nerf the carriers.
Kokob	Posted - 2007.11.01 04:36:00 - [18] I wonder Montaire what makes you say that? From the looks of things CCP is getting very close to what these will be on TQ. The last week has seen the addition of bonus's, before that we saw an increase in jump range. With the "re-balancing" of carriers and other jump capable ships, it seems CCP is carving a very nice role for the jump freighters.
Verite Rendition Caldari F.R.E.E. Explorer Atrum Tempestas Foedus	Posted - 2007.11.01 07:16:00 - [19] Originally by: Montaire C'mon Verite, thats not entirely fair. The Rorqual changes are more than enough to compensate for any carrier change in regards to logistics. And we both know that these current T2 Freighters will never see live as they are right now. Originally by: Verite Rendition Originally by: Bob Biac you do realize that T2 freighters are NO WHERE near completion, right? those stats are placeholders Tell that to CCP, they seem to think they're complete enough to nerf the carriers. Not everyone who can fly carriers can fly the Rorq though. It's the same problem, different ship. ---- AUS Corp Lead Megalomanic EVE Automated Influence Map
Montaire Genbuku. Daisho Syndicate	Posted - 2007.11.01 07:42:00 - [20] But the skills to run an industrial or hauling ship should probably be different than that of a combat vessel. My main cant fly the Rorq, although Monty can, and I am going to take a hit to my hauling abilities. So I know where a lot of people are coming from. Skill choices should be meaningful. If you can get all the hauling power you need by training for combat ships, who needs to train the hauling skills ? Originally by: Verite Rendition Not everyone who can fly carriers can fly the Rorq though. It's the same problem, different ship.

Seonae STK Scientific	Posted - 2007.11.01 15:11:00 - [21] Originally by: Montaire But the skills to run an industrial or hauling ship should probably be different than that of a combat vessel. My main cant fly the Rorq, although Monty can, and I am going to take a hit to my hauling abilities. So I know where a lot of people are coming from. Skill choices should be meaningful. If you can get all the hauling power you need by training for combat ships, who needs to train the hauling skills ? The fundemental flaw in all of this is that there is not (nor is does there appear to be) an appropriate replacement for the hauling that carriers have done in the past. Jump freighters as they stand are a ridiculous (and quite sorry) attempt at appeasement. I simply can't fathom a non-tankable ship that's going to cost me 8bil or more (I'm expecting it to be closer to 9-10 myself) that takes 3k isos per light year to jump, can only go 5ly max range, and has barely 1/4 the capacity of standard freighter. I've said it before, and I'll say it again .. for the price of a jump freighter you might as well skill up and save for a Titan, then use it to move multiple freighters at once.
Duhmad IbnRa Gallente	Posted - 2007.11.01 15:52:00 - [22] not to mention that it will take at least one month before the first jump freighter will be completed (assuming invention succeeds). So its save to assume it will take at least a year before jump freighters make it to public markets for reasonable prices... _________________________________________________ For more players and action in lowsec
Vladimir Tinakin Caldari Hadean Drive Yards Archaean Cooperative	Posted - 2007.11.01 17:39:00 - [23] Originally by: Bob Biac you do realize that T2 freighters are NO WHERE near completion, right? those stats are placeholders Not quite. The stats I've seen are pretty well fleshed out/detailed. So they're not placeholders, they're playtesting values. The point of these...er..."constructive criticism" threads is to point out the deficiencies of the current designs and to maybe make the thing worth the price tag--or to get the price tag reduced. At the moment, the status of Jump freighters is one of simply not being worth the extreme hassle to build one, or not worth the extreme price tag to buy one. I'm grudgingly accepting the carrier nerf, but only because the rorq is getting a buff and should compensate for the loss of functionality, albeit necessitating crash training and construction programs to get things ready for the nerf. However, the jump freighter--if properly implemented--would be a huge boon to alliance and logistic operation. Its not ready for prime time yet...bumping the cargo hold to half that of T1 (at the least) would go a great deal towards getting there. The pricetag on these things will be 5-6x that of T1 freighters (at the least)--and we're talking 4-6 BILLION isk more, just to get jump drive capability. That alone is a large enough negative, let alone the painful/expensive invention process these things will have if you try to invent it yourself. Slashing their one thing they're able to do--haul stuff--to 1/3 that of regular freighters makes them ineffective and seems rather excessive. ----------------------------------------------- Adm Vladimir Tinakin CFO Hadean Drive Yards
Duhmad IbnRa Gallente	Posted - 2007.11.01 20:01:00 - [24] jump freighters should be tier 2 not tech 2. 'nough said _________________________________________________ For more players and action in lowsec
Seonae STK Scientific	Posted - 2007.11.01 20:27:00 - [25] Originally by: Duhmad IbnRa jump freighters should be tier 2 not tech 2. 'nough said yep, that about sums it up, by making them tech 2, they've essentially turned 0.0 logistics from a part time crap job, to a full time crap job, one you have to pay the employer to perform no less.
Montaire Genbuku. Daisho Syndicate	Posted - 2007.11.01 20:45:00 - [26] The placeholders that are on SiSi right now will be changed. Once the look and feel (ie. how they operate) is worked out, the invention stats will change.
Vladimir Tinakin Caldari Hadean Drive Yards Archaean Cooperative	Posted - 2007.11.01 21:04:00 - [27] Originally by: Montaire The placeholders that are on SiSi right now will be changed. Once the look and feel (ie. how they operate) is worked out, the invention stats will change. You have a lot of faith. For all our sake, I hope you're right. Just to play it safe though, people should not and must not stop pointing out the deficiencies and flaws of gameplay changes where they exist. After all, you can't know for sure unless you're in the CCP office whether or not they truly realize some of the secondary, tertiary, or even primary impacts of the game changes. In an environment as complex as eve, the Law of Unintended Consequences must be treated as holy writ. ----------------------------------------------- Adm Vladimir Tinakin CFO Hadean Drive Yards
Nizdaar Gallente STK Scientific Black-Out	Posted - 2007.11.01 21:09:00 - [28] Originally by: Montaire The placeholders that are on SiSi right now will be changed. Once the look and feel (ie. how they operate) is worked out, the invention stats will change. You talk like you know this as fact. Can you cite a source that they will be changed drastically for sure? I don't see any of the other 4 ship classes that are being introduced being changed drastically. They were announced and asked to be tested because they are combat ships. They have a delicate balance in pvp to keep between being overpowered and underpowered. Jump Freighters are haulers. They don't require playtesting for balance. Jump range. Cost to build. How much they can haul. Those are the stats that really matter and don't require anyone to actually get into one to see if they "work". Ships and items don't make it to Sisi without their stats being close to finalized with some minor tweaking here and there.
Verite Rendition Caldari F.R.E.E. Explorer Atrum Tempestas Foedus	Posted - 2007.11.01 21:45:00 - [29] Edited by: Verite Rendition on 01/11/2007 21:45:53 Originally by: Montaire But the skills to run an industrial or hauling ship should probably be different than that of a combat vessel. My main cant fly the Rorq, although Monty can, and I am going to take a hit to my hauling abilities. So I know where a lot of people are coming from. Skill choices should be meaningful. If you can get all the hauling power you need by training for combat ships, who needs to train the hauling skills ? Originally by: Verite Rendition Not everyone who can fly carriers can fly the Rorq though. It's the same problem, different ship. If you're using a carrier for hauling, then you've already trained up a racial industrial skill or two to V, and maybe have Transport Ships too. So you've already trained for a hauler. The problem is that the Rorq requires Mining Barge V and Industry V, which aren't hauling skills (well Industry V is, but only if you went for Transport Ships) and as such few carrier pilots will have them. ---- AUS Corp Lead Megalomanic EVE Automated Influence Map
Shirei Minmatar Cutting Edge Incorporated	Posted - 2007.11.01 22:28:00 - [30] Don't worry, once CCP notice that the Rorqual can be used for hauling large amounts, they'll nerf it as well in short order like they did with all other hauling ships except the jump freighter.

Ztrain Evolution Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.11.01 23:56:00 - [31] Originally by: Seonae 1/4th the capacity of a standard freighter no tank loses 10% of it's cargo capacity to carry isotopes for mid-to deep 0.0 travel takes over a month to have a chance at building Rorqual: going rate is 2.5bil? ~1/2 the space if fitted specifically for haulage tankable requires 1/3rd the isotopes for same distance traveled garunteed build every time TBH, you're better off saving up for a Titan and jump bridging real freighters around. Bingo. Reading over the nurfs I guess their trying to make a titan actually worth it again by nurfing all the other haulers so you need a titan bridge to be able to haul. Anyways some other things of note. For the T2 jump freighters it is a CHANCE of getting. A chance that unless you spend a year making a max run copy for the attempt you need to use a decryptor or are guaranteed a failure. So your going to have a horrible ME or reduced chance of sucess because without a data core your guaranteed a failure without a max run BPC. The next big thing is your going to be blowing 128 data cores PER ATTEMPT!!! Waste of resources for nothing in return. Build titans to be used with regular freighters. So CCP has effectively nurfed something that wasn't broken and surved up crap as the balence. The competition to EVE gets easier and easier each day. 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.
Bu Jinkan Amarr GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.01 23:59:00 - [32] Originally by: Ztrain Originally by: Seonae 1/4th the capacity of a standard freighter no tank loses 10% of it's cargo capacity to carry isotopes for mid-to deep 0.0 travel takes over a month to have a chance at building Rorqual: going rate is 2.5bil? ~1/2 the space if fitted specifically for haulage tankable requires 1/3rd the isotopes for same distance traveled garunteed build every time TBH, you're better off saving up for a Titan and jump bridging real freighters around. Bingo. Reading over the nurfs I guess their trying to make a titan actually worth it again by nurfing all the other haulers so you need a titan bridge to be able to haul. You can't jump bridge freighters anymore, so it seems that CCP just doesn't like people hauling period.
Nizdaar Gallente STK Scientific Black-Out	Posted - 2007.11.02 01:18:00 - [33] Originally by: Ztrain Anyways some other things of note. For the T2 jump freighters it is a CHANCE of getting. A chance that unless you spend a year making a max run copy for the attempt you need to use a decryptor or are guaranteed a failure. So your going to have a horrible ME or reduced chance of sucess because without a data core your guaranteed a failure without a max run BPC. Z As stated in my first post, the production limit on a tech 1 freighter is 1. A single run copy IS the max run.
Zen Tao Minmatar The Older Gamers R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.11.02 19:22:00 - [34] Originally by: Bu Jinkan You can't jump bridge freighters anymore, so it seems that CCP just doesn't like people hauling period. Please elaborate .... !?
Seonae STK Scientific	Posted - 2007.11.02 20:01:00 - [35] Originally by: Zen Tao Originally by: Bu Jinkan You can't jump bridge freighters anymore, so it seems that CCP just doesn't like people hauling period. Please elaborate .... !? see this thread.... http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=627120
Montaire Genbuku. Daisho Syndicate	Posted - 2007.11.02 22:51:00 - [36] That was a data error and is getting fixed. Scripts gone amok I say, AMOK! Originally by: Seonae Originally by: Zen Tao Originally by: Bu Jinkan You can't jump bridge freighters anymore, so it seems that CCP just doesn't like people hauling period. Please elaborate .... !? see this thread.... http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=627120
Seonae STK Scientific	Posted - 2007.11.03 00:27:00 - [37] Originally by: Montaire That was a data error and is getting fixed. Scripts gone amok I say, AMOK! Originally by: Seonae Originally by: Zen Tao Originally by: Bu Jinkan You can't jump bridge freighters anymore, so it seems that CCP just doesn't like people hauling period. Please elaborate .... !? see this thread.... http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=627120 Either I'm a lot more cynical than you, or you're a lot more naive than I am, either way I have an exceptionally hard time buying that it was an accident. If I were a betting man, I'd say they threw up there to see how people would react, and well.. they got their answer.
Montaire Genbuku. Daisho Syndicate	Posted - 2007.11.03 00:55:00 - [38] Perhaps, or I may know some thing that you do not. (oooh, mysterious) In reality I dont have any special info. Honestly when I saw that it was a 10 multiple I just assumed it was an error. Although making 8b per day with virtually zero risk because of freighters and jump portals is a bit silly. We should remember that this is the test server though. If they put something up there just to see our reaction, well thats what they have publicly said they intend to do on SiSi. Originally by: Seonae Either I'm a lot more cynical than you, or you're a lot more naive than I am, either way I have an exceptionally hard time buying that it was an accident. If I were a betting man, I'd say they threw up there to see how people would react, and well.. they got their answer.
Nizdaar Gallente STK Scientific Black-Out	Posted - 2007.11.08 19:17:00 - [39] Updated the cap recharge time on JFreighters.
Princess Jodi Vendetta Underground Rule of Three	Posted - 2007.11.08 22:00:00 - [40] I agree that the 10x mass of Freighters on Sisi was no accident. It also effectively prevents the use a Jump Bridges, as you can't have enough Liquid Ozone in the array to jump a Freighter. People use Carriers to haul because the job NEEDS to be done, and the Carrier is the best available tool at present. Nerf Carriers, and people will use Dreads and Rorquals. What has been needed for over a year is the Jump Freighter. What I don't understand is CCP's desire to make the thankless job of Logistics even harder. Our alliance has about 75 POS's - not cuz we want to but because we HAVE to in order to have a reasonable level of security for our space. (As an indication of how important it is: We've removed 2 alliances from our neighborhood because they didn't have 51% Moon coverage in their station systems.) its 55 jumps from our main Outpost to Jita. Now...given the above... how am I supposed to keep all those POS's fueled?



Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]

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