EVE Search - New Dev Blog, Nozh's Jump Freighter!

All Channels

EVE Information Portal

New Dev Blog, Nozh's Jump Freighter!

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
Princess Xenia Caldari School of Applied Knowledge	Posted - 2008.02.19 06:23:00 - [61] "We also made them a bit easier to manufacture, increasing the max production runs on their blueprints to 10 runs. " LOL.. do you use this excuse to suggest inventors can compete with T2 ship BPO owners???
Hidden Path	Posted - 2008.02.19 06:43:00 - [62] Originally by: Princess Xenia "We also made them a bit easier to manufacture, increasing the max production runs on their blueprints to 10 runs. " LOL.. do you use this excuse to suggest inventors can compete with T2 ship BPO owners??? I guess he is, since there are no BPO's for jump freighters at all.
Hidden Path	Posted - 2008.02.19 06:48:00 - [63] Originally by: Xykanth Roldeir I'm suprised no one else has said anything about this. The biggest drawback of all that I can see is having to train a rank 10 freighter skill to level 5 before even starting to fly a Jump freighter. I may be wrong in a few of my figures, but isn't that about 2 months training on one skill. Lowering the skill requirements alone will cause them to be much more commonly used that anything else that I could possibly think of. In the meantime the cargonaught still sounds like the best option. It is level 4 and always have been.
Xykanth Roldeir	Posted - 2008.02.19 06:56:00 - [64] Originally by: Hidden Path It is level 4 and always have been. I stand corrected. Training to level 4 isn't so bad.
Timaios Art of War	Posted - 2008.02.19 08:01:00 - [65] Originally by: Terradoct Edited by: Terradoct on 18/02/2008 20:13:38 Originally by: Timaios Now, if you would nerf both the rorqual and the dread and utterly decimate their ability to haul, I would. And make Eve from "Here we give you a tool, use is ans you wish" to "You can't use you BMW 525 for rally, because it's not WRS model". Stop nerfing ships and nerfing players abylity to use ships as we wish. The easyest solution will be to made them Tier 2. It was a misstake from the begining, CCP was told about it many times befor realesing them. Now they try to make them popular, that what happend when you are stabborn and do not listen others. I don't think it's like you say. There's a difference between tools and multitools, in my opinion. You can turn the raven into a nanoship with torpedoes and NOSs, like the nanophoon of old. But it will not do a good job at it. In similar vein, you can turn the drake into a nanodrake, but it still won't compete with the dedicated speedtanking ships where the hull was developed for speed in the first place. What I mean is that there should be versatility and different options on what to do with the tools you are given, but no such tools which are outright superior either in performance or cost-effectiveness in areas which are not their specialty. But, it must still be possible to use the tool for various purposes. Perhaps I came off as a bit too drastic with my comments about decimating cargo dreads and rorquals. Perhaps reducing their nonrole cargo capacity to one third of what it is now would do the trick. One could still haul with the rorqual or dreads, but jump freighter would be far superior to it. Nevertheless, it might then still be vialbe to haul with a dread/rorqual in some circumstances or when it's really necessary and no other means are available. But it would not be cost effective by any means. What I'm trying to tell is that EVE is big, but ease of logistics makes it small. I like the ideas about building jump bridge networks and as such, which is building the logistic infrastructure which is vulnerable to attack. I don't like the ability to easily support that huge infrastructure, however.
Carniflex Caldari Fallout Research Fallout Project	Posted - 2008.02.19 09:27:00 - [66] Quote: We also made them a bit easier to manufacture, increasing the max production runs on their blueprints to 10 runs. Does this mean that this change is not on TQ yet but is coming instead in 1.1 patch ? I kinda understood that it was supposed to be on live server already.
Verite Rendition Caldari F.R.E.E. Explorer Atrum Tempestas Foedus	Posted - 2008.02.19 09:45:00 - [67] Originally by: Daan Sai Edited by: Daan Sai on 18/02/2008 13:51:13 Cut their cost to 2-2.5 billion to compete with the alternatives Give them a non-turret high slot for a cloak Give them the means to carry assembled rigged ships Take a loooooong look at the T2 invention process, and see if you should really make them T2 or expensive Tier 2 T1 (like moms). The sheer time it will take to copy out the freighter bpcs alone is horrible let alone the other issues around invention. This right here is a great list of exactly what's wrong with the current Jump Freighter, none of which gets addressed by the fixes going in to Trinity 1.1. The JF is a giant flying liability, the cost means few people can afford them in the first place, and the lack of a cloak makes it a ripe target for ganking. The price needs to be in line with the most expensive cap ships (Dread/Rorq) at around 2bil and they need to at least be able to fit a cloak if not a moderate tank too. With a Rorq right now if your cloak fails you can atleast try to hold out long enough for your mates to hotdrop some carriers as support, you can't do either of those with a JF. No one wants to spend 7bil on a ship they can never use because the situation is always too risky. ---- FREE Explorer Lead Megalomanic EVE Automated Influence Map
Niki Silver Ethereal Imperium	Posted - 2008.02.19 10:27:00 - [68] Edited by: Niki Silver on 19/02/2008 10:31:47 edit: spelling Might see a few more of them around if it didn't take a friggen month to make an inventable BPC... Ethereal Imperium [E-IMP] is recruiting! Please visit our webpage for more information.
Kakita J Placid Reborn Coalition Of Empires	Posted - 2008.02.19 10:37:00 - [69] I think the inability to cloak is the biggest letdown (lame as it is). It is standard today for everyone and their dog to fit a cloak, because it can't realistically be countered. As long as this difference between dreads/rorqual and the JFs persists, you can forget about people using JFs. You _must_ find a solution to cloaked ships not being scannable, and not consuming fuel of some kind. Either make them scannable (meh) or make the cloak consume fuel (yay). Still, people who really want to be cloaked (capital jump logistics pilots do) will spend the fuel without a second thought, so the JF is still at a disadvantage. Alternatively, nerf the rorq's and dreads' cargo hauling capacity, and face a massive outcry from players, probably at least on the scale of the (averted, for now) carrier nerf outcry. People don't like having their capabilities artificially cut short because a minority (the devs ) think it would be better for the game, if a specific aspect was harder all of a sudden (0.0 logistics). The solution I think would be to make the ships in question more role specific. If you effectively jump-cargo-nerf the dreads and rorqual in some way, compensate players by buffing them to encourage their intended usage. Rorqual could get a bigger bonus to mining foreman links, and the native ability to fit 3 links (like fleet CS). Dreads could be given a substantially higher siege mode damage boost. This might sound drastic on first glance, but if you run the numbers on DPS, dreads deal around a measly 200% of the DPS of BSes that cost 1/10th tops. Maybe make them even more specialized to hit stationary targets, aka even bigger nerfs to tracking and explosion velocity. I think this would hardly make them overpowered in fleet battle situations, it would mainly cut down the time to take down a POSes shields (from a four hour gank fest to a say two hour gank fest). The real battle occurs when the POS comes out of reinforced, anyway. Or the duration and fuel consumption of all siege/deployed modes could be halved, so you can enter and leave siege mode more readily. -------------------------------------- "They better fix the bleep bleep bleep jump bleep gates before I bleepbleepbleep and then some."
Marlona Sky Caldari D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.02.19 11:27:00 - [70] I'm sure to get flamed here but here goes... Having a jump freighter be escorted by a gang thru non-empire space is just not realistic. Not when you can use a cargonaught/rorqual with a cloak. Now, what if you made the jump freighter not so defensless. As in being able to fit a tank and guns on it like other ships. If it cost so much, and you dont want to increase its jump range, well then give the pilot more bang (literally) for his buck. What fool goes into the wild west and doesn't pack a gun with them? Now I'm not talking about it being like some crazy PvP ship, but the ability to tank to a degree and shoot back. Not capital guns but enough grid to fit a bunch of anti-bs and smaller guns. Do some things to it where it gets severly penalized for fitting EW so its not used as a bait ship, but why not give it the slots and rig layout to make the attackers have to earn that kill. I am not talking like 2-3 turret/launchers either... it is a big ship, no less than the max 8 high slots for turrets/launchers. I mean who is really gonna complain like, "ZOMG, the jump freighters are to over powered!!" I don't fly any freighters but if I was a freighter pilot in the EVE universe, you can bet your last ISK I would have put some guns on it to make its survivabilty in the harsh universe a bit better. And a drone bay too!
Daan Sai HAZCON Inc	Posted - 2008.02.19 11:42:00 - [71] Originally by: Kakita J The solution I think would be to make the ships in question more role specific. If you effectively jump-cargo-nerf the dreads and rorqual in some way, compensate players by buffing them to encourage their intended usage. This is the antithesis of the player sandbox concept that Eve started with. No thanks. For example the cargonaught is a great solution in reach of a small corp who can just about work towards one group owned capital ship to help their low sec expansion plans. Just because the designers only thought they would be used in siege mode against POSs, doesn't mean a logistics dread is a bad thing in any way. If you don't have a fleet reserve to hot drop in when the freighter gets jumped, then you wouldn't bother. A dread has a small chance to defend itself, vital for small groups without huge alliance resources. As it is going, I feel the JF is an elite huge alliance tool, with little or no bearing for many many eve pilots and smaller groups. If all a smaller group can risk is a dread and you cry 'nerf the dread to force people to use the JF, then you are being unfair and in fact are undermining the fundamental design philosophies that went into Eve in the first place. If you went this path then ship roles like the destroyer salvager would never arise. The lowsec mining Apoc is a cooool idea. And a Dominix is the swiss army knife of battleships. So please, whatever else happens, please don't try to force pre-concieved ideas about specific roles by crippling items/ships for other purposes. If the JF is to compete with the Rorq or a dread for popular jump freight, then it has to be a role neutral change like pricing and production ease, not by ad hoc nerfing of other ships. My 2c.
XLR Eight Viziam	Posted - 2008.02.19 11:42:00 - [72] Originally by: CCP Nozh So why didn't we give it an increased jump range? ..our way of slowing down jump freighters is by decreasing their jump range, forcing ships that are jumping with them as support to take shorter leaps. We think this it is a fine and fair compromise. I don't really get it, what do you mean by support here. Are you imagine future of the freighter runs with capital support fleet jumping with it (caps online)? But capitals can't follow it to hi sec so you will need a regular support fleet as well to protect this juicy target against hi sec gankage. But in case we use regular support fleet then isn't it better to use the T1 freighters? It can haul more, it's cheaper, it doesn't need cap fleet support, easier lo learn to fly. It doesn't have as much HP but it does't really matter, it is less agile but it makes no difference if there is a webber in the fleet. The only real advantage would be the jumprange boost but we don't seem to be on the same page with this one. Anyways, I still don't see the whole picture, why is it worth to buy one T2 freighter instead of two dreads.
Timaios Art of War	Posted - 2008.02.19 11:58:00 - [73] Originally by: Daan Sai Originally by: Kakita J The solution I think would be to make the ships in question more role specific. If you effectively jump-cargo-nerf the dreads and rorqual in some way, compensate players by buffing them to encourage their intended usage. This is the antithesis of the player sandbox concept that Eve started with. No thanks. For example the cargonaught is a great solution in reach of a small corp who can just about work towards one group owned capital ship to help their low sec expansion plans. Just because the designers only thought they would be used in siege mode against POSs, doesn't mean a logistics dread is a bad thing in any way. Yes, but I still argue that the ship whose main role is not to haul (but can be modified to do so at the expense of other abilities, like everything else in this sandbox) should not be more efficient or cost-efficient outside it's planned role than the ship planned for that specific role. But, as stated earlier, the greatest ability of JF's (the ability to jump from highsec) is something (and the only thing at the moment) that might eventually make JF's more popular. That's something that this patch is not affecting in any way, nor giving any new incentives to purchase the best JF.
Daan Sai HAZCON Inc	Posted - 2008.02.19 12:23:00 - [74] Edited by: Daan Sai on 19/02/2008 12:24:22 Originally by: Timaios Yes, but I still argue that the ship whose main role is not to haul (but can be modified to do so at the expense of other abilities, like everything else in this sandbox) should not be more efficient or cost-efficient outside it's planned role than the ship planned for that specific role. But, as stated earlier, the greatest ability of JF's (the ability to jump from highsec) is something (and the only thing at the moment) that might eventually make JF's more popular. That's something that this patch is not affecting in any way, nor giving any new incentives to purchase the best JF. Fair points, but personally I feel that if the cargonaught competes with JF cost effectiveness, we should improve the JF, by making it much easier/cheaper to obtain and run, rather than crippling the dread which was minding it's own business. This sort of competitive evolution needs the participants to improve themselves not get the competition handicapped - otherwise you end up with everyone the lesser (ships in our case). Ideally the JF should greatly improve long range heavy logisitics, not just provide an alternative that has had little or no big impact (for lots of reasons). Fill Eve with JFs I say. Make them the cheapest capital, as they really can only do one thing well, and make them do that so well that people go 'Wow, I/we waaant one.' Frankly I detect some timidity on the part of CCP designers. I like the changes suggested here, but they just don't go far enough to tip the balance, and the T2 issues are somewhat of an unnecessary barrier. Have you tried to copy multiple run bpcs off a capital BPO to go into the invention process? ( It seems to me that motherhsips should be T2 and JFs T1 ) Anyway, good points on all sides here, nice to have a rational discussion, but I'm off to train for a dread for now, as I figure I can get through one lowsec gate myself....
Timaios Art of War	Posted - 2008.02.19 12:42:00 - [75] Originally by: Daan Sai Edited by: Daan Sai on 19/02/2008 12:24:22 Originally by: Timaios Yes, but I still argue that the ship whose main role is not to haul (but can be modified to do so at the expense of other abilities, like everything else in this sandbox) should not be more efficient or cost-efficient outside it's planned role than the ship planned for that specific role. But, as stated earlier, the greatest ability of JF's (the ability to jump from highsec) is something (and the only thing at the moment) that might eventually make JF's more popular. That's something that this patch is not affecting in any way, nor giving any new incentives to purchase the best JF. Fair points, but personally I feel that if the cargonaught competes with JF cost effectiveness, we should improve the JF, by making it much easier/cheaper to obtain and run, rather than crippling the dread which was minding it's own business. This sort of competitive evolution needs the participants to improve themselves not get the competition handicapped - otherwise you end up with everyone the lesser (ships in our case). Ideally the JF should greatly improve long range heavy logisitics, not just provide an alternative that has had little or no big impact (for lots of reasons). Fill Eve with JFs I say. Make them the cheapest capital, as they really can only do one thing well, and make them do that so well that people go 'Wow, I/we waaant one.' Frankly I detect some timidity on the part of CCP designers. Yes, drastic improvement of JF's is also a possibility - as long as it is clearly the most effective jump hauling ship there is. Of course, there's limit to buffing the JF, and that is the good old T1 freighter; they need to be less effective in hauling, because T1 freighters cannot be buffed in terms of cargo capacity, otherwise we'd have freighter hauling cap ships into highsec. Unless, of course, one wants to increase the volume of unpackaged cap ships. I'm not against that at all, though. Perhaps CCP should start with an idea on how easy they want to make the logistics in the first place and then go with the freighter design. In a sense we are getting mixed signals (jump bridges easing logistics, carrier nerf making it more difficult, and the of jump freighters being a bit iffy). And to point I do agree with what you say about developers being a bit timid (or probably too careful) with respect to JF's. They truly need to sit down and think on how to make the ship more attractive/cost-effective than dreads or rorquals for hauling purposes.
Verite Rendition Caldari F.R.E.E. Explorer Atrum Tempestas Foedus	Posted - 2008.02.19 13:03:00 - [76] Originally by: Timaios But, as stated earlier, the greatest ability of JF's (the ability to jump from highsec) is something (and the only thing at the moment) that might eventually make JF's more popular. That's something that this patch is not affecting in any way, nor giving any new incentives to purchase the best JF. Does anyone really find the jump-from-highsec ability all that useful? The ship is a massive target for ganking in high-sec just due to the infamy that would come from it, and as we know it's basically impossible to stop a freighter gank-squad once they start. Furthermore since it can't jump in to high-sec, you have to jump your 7 billion ISK hostile magnet in to a .4 chokepoint to get it back in to high-sec, there can't be too many people thrilled about that. ---- FREE Explorer Lead Megalomanic EVE Automated Influence Map
Timaios Art of War	Posted - 2008.02.19 13:29:00 - [77] Originally by: Verite Rendition Originally by: Timaios But, as stated earlier, the greatest ability of JF's (the ability to jump from highsec) is something (and the only thing at the moment) that might eventually make JF's more popular. That's something that this patch is not affecting in any way, nor giving any new incentives to purchase the best JF. Does anyone really find the jump-from-highsec ability all that useful? The ship is a massive target for ganking in high-sec just due to the infamy that would come from it, and as we know it's basically impossible to stop a freighter gank-squad once they start. Furthermore since it can't jump in to high-sec, you have to jump your 7 billion ISK hostile magnet in to a .4 chokepoint to get it back in to high-sec, there can't be too many people thrilled about that. I'd try to overcome this by jumping at a quiet moment, perhaps utilizing an alternative jumproute, using a station with a large docking radius or just using a POS to jump to. It certainly doesn't eliminate the risk, but reduces it a great deal. And besides, with other alternatives, you need to use that lowsec chokepoint twice: first to get the cargo in and the second time to get the cargo out of there (if you're bringing something back). Sure, freighter ganksquads are a possible threat but one could always haul the cargo in to highsec startpoint with a regular freighter in smaller lots that aren't worth ganking and then switching to JF just for the trip to 0.0.
Blubeanz Caldari D.M.Z. Free Trade Zone.	Posted - 2008.02.19 14:11:00 - [78] Why isn't everyone flying one?...... Umm maybe it's because they are going for 10.4 bil on contract :p that could be a reason ya think -Blu
Max Essen Gallente Serenity Engineering and Transport Company deadspace society	Posted - 2008.02.19 15:32:00 - [79] At the current cost, the JF is really an uber-alliance tool who can afford and protect it properly. This is not a tool for every little corp or fledgling alliance otherwise, I would have one. Real Men Structure-Tank
Manfred Rickenbocker	Posted - 2008.02.19 15:35:00 - [80] Edited by: Manfred Rickenbocker on 19/02/2008 15:38:32 I think the word "nerf" is inappropriate to whats going on... that aside... How is jump fuel consumption calculated? Its some value of distance and mass correct? So the more massive a ship is, the more fuel is required to move it across the depths of space. Maybe I am confusing this with jump bridges or something, but in this equation, the mass of the ship's cargo is not accounted for. If this is true, in order for ships to calculate fuel consumption correctly, it'd be best to have cargo mass or volume factored in to fuel cost or make jump distance relative to mass/volume. This way if you "hauler" fit a ship, you have to pay for it with a little extra fuel. This is predicated on one thing: that each ship has a base allowed additional mass/volume, for example the Moros carries 8,500m3 standard, so even if it were filled to the brim without cargo mods it would not affect the jump distance or fuel consumption. Don't outright reduce dread hauling capacity as its already difficult to jam enough fuel, strontium AND ammo for a long POS siege. If you must muck with cargo capacity, give it a separate fuel bay to compensate. Another possible solution would be the addition of a penalty on cargo expander mods such that it reduces jump drive efficiency for increased cargo capacity. Similar to how these mods reduce the speed of a ship, it should similarly affect jump range and/or fuel consumption These ideas obviously need to be fiddled with... but it seems that the prevailing idea is that in order to boost the perceived JF utility, either A) the ship cost needs to drop significantly or B) utility relative to other ships needs to increase. ------------------------ Exploration: A discipline for those who have a lot of time, don't want to put in a lot of effort, and have a high tolerance for mental anguish.
Moridin Interstellar eXodus R0ADKILL	Posted - 2008.02.19 16:34:00 - [81] i think the primary reason jump freighters are not poppular is the simple reason it just takes to dammed long building them. i got a -1pe copy cooking and that takes me 24 days. also relative speking few people are active building them since high price means low demand and high risk. beside that i agree with high cost on the thing. now just nerf the Roqual and il be happy.
suzy homemaker	Posted - 2008.02.19 16:42:00 - [82] I think one of the ongoing problems here is the whole slotless ship design is flawed. Give freighters and J-Freighters slots and make people choose cargo or defense. IMHO its been the problem all along in not having that option. Suzy
DrAtomic Atomic Heroes Phalanx Alliance	Posted - 2008.02.19 17:37:00 - [83] From an alliance standpoint of view with a jump bridge network in place the jump freighter is a nice tool; however more often then not POS refueling is done by individuals rather then by teams (in my expierence with 0.0 alliances). Freighters allready filled that role nicely for bringing in the fuel for large alliances. The jump freighter is a nice addition for them. However carriers filled a role for lots of smaller corps/alliances/indiviuals, that role is not replaced by the jump freighter. Mainly due to the lack of available support needed for escort purposes. Thus the majority shifts to using Dreads or Rorquals for those purposes, since they can be flown by one person with cyno alts without support (sure it requires pre-scouting for managable hostilities but this is how they are used and how carriers were (and still are) used. Shorter jump range means increased operational costs if the fuel bonus makes the total cost involved less or equal to covering the same distance with a Dread/Rorqual/Carrier then that issue is gone. It still leaves two major issues; 1. Even with the increased HP a freighter or jump freighter with escort will still be primaried even with huge support fleets. When you can do 8 bil of damage, knowing what damage type to do, how much dps it takes and knowing that you'll blow up a lot of isk worth in their holds as well their wont be a reason not to sacrifice 15 BS to gank it; heck even suicide ganking it with 80 BS still yields a win in isk lost versus destroyed fights and that's what counts in the end. This whole thing is basicly a huge issue with all forms of haulers/transports/freighters; no matter the amount of support you bring they are easy prey. A solution could be to give them rep amount bonusses on remote reps received. A real zero sec example is when we scouted out a MM freighter run with support near a midstop POS, we ganked 1 of their freighters with 30 interceptors, had a second one in hull but warped out because they were starting to get locks on us plus their remote rep support was starting to acquire locks on their freighters as well. We didnt loose a single ship, was great fun for us but also very lame from a protection point of view (they had the support but still lost one). 2. A single 25 mil interceptor with scram and web is enough to imobilize an unsupported Jump Freighter. - - - Originally by: CCP Wrangler If you can understand our goal, disagree with our solution and offer a solution that is equal or better your opinion has a better chance of being heard...
Gimpb	Posted - 2008.02.19 18:23:00 - [84] What about e-war immunity? As in need an interdictor to stop 'em. Might be too much, I suppose.
Arlenna Molatov Caldari The 59th Parallel	Posted - 2008.02.19 18:56:00 - [85] I think the consensus here is, and I totally agree.... youhave to nerf the ships that brought about these changes. Change the cargo of the Rorq and dreads. If Dreads are combat ships, limit the # of cargo expanders they can use, give them cargo slots. Just like turret slots. Perhaps do the same to the Rorq as well.
Seriya Caldari Eve Defence Force Insurgency	Posted - 2008.02.19 19:29:00 - [86] I honestly don't think you've gone far enough. They're still really not much better than Rorquals and cost 5 times more. The vast majority of players will still find it way more cost efficient to use a Rorqual or Dread with expanders, leaving Jump Freighters very much in the lurch.
Malena Shiva	Posted - 2008.02.19 19:39:00 - [87] WHEN?!
Adam Coyle Caldari Vesa Supply Corp	Posted - 2008.02.19 20:26:00 - [88] Jump Freighters was a nice idea and these changes will take it a bit of the way. I would like to see some improvments though: * Give Freigthers 3 rig slots and Jump Freighters 2 rig slots (as mentioned above) * Boost cargo space even further on both Freigthers and Jump Freighters (liked the comparison with the oil tanker) * Fix the blueprint copy bug that increases the copy time per skill level instead of lowering the copy time. * Maybe even give the Jump Freighter some Warp Strength bonus like the small Blockade Runners (maybe only +1 Warp Strength) For the bigger corporations and alliances the price is not so much of a problem, the problem for them is to produce enough Freighter BPC so you can start the invention process with reasonable success. For smaller alliances the price is an issue, but then again so is the problem of getting enough support ships protecting them. For smaller alliances a new ship class would be much more useful. Today Industrials and Transports are in the Cruiser class and Freighters and Jump Freighters are in the Capital class. A new ship class for hauling that are in the Battleship class would make much more sence for smaller Alliances and medium corporations. Cargo haul should be in the range of holding a single Freighter can. All other stats should be in the range of comparing a cruiser to a battleship and then boost an industrial the same amount, give or take a few.
Gnulpie Minmatar Miner Tech	Posted - 2008.02.19 22:38:00 - [89] Copy time of the freighter bpo is a big problem at the moment. Another one is the range issue. Why not incorporating a single med slot where you can fit a module which lets you chose: big cargo/short range, normal cargo/normal range, small cargo/big range. Call it auxillary jump drive or whatever Otherwise it is good to see that CCP looks into things after they noticed that it didn't work as intended and that they are going to improve the thing in question instead of nerfing everything else to promote the other thing.
Kweel Nakashyn Minmatar Aeden Tau Ceti Federation	Posted - 2008.02.19 22:55:00 - [90] Edited by: Kweel Nakashyn on 19/02/2008 22:56:02 Edited by: Kweel Nakashyn on 19/02/2008 22:55:26 Originally by: Varrakk This changes nothing, still too expensive and too vulnerable. Much more efficient to refuel POS's with a MWD-Cargonaught +1, or a Rorqual. The price is something that should be looked at. Noone wants to buy a 2B ship without being able to fit a tank. End of story... 2isk

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 :: 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.