EVE Search - [Issue] Allow rigged ships to go in cargo

All Channels

Assembly Hall

[Issue] Allow rigged ships to go in cargo

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Imperator Jora'h	Posted - 2008.05.29 00:10:00 - [1] Edited by: Imperator Jora''h on 29/05/2008 00:11:57 This is not a huge issue but one that has bugged me for ages. All too often I find myself wanting to move stations for one reason or another but it is made much more difficult because a majority of my ships have rigs on them. As such they cannot be put into the cargo of my freighter. Instead I have to move them one at a time. Moving just 5 ships a mere 10 jumps means a total trip of 90 jumps to move the lot (and all too often I want to go further). I am guessing there is some issue on what happens if such ships drop after getting blown up. I really do not know. Certainly I have seen no game balance reasons on why this should not be allowed and just seems needlessly tedious. Heck, with my rigged ships all in cargo I become a more attractive target to gankers giving them a shot at the loot. When I move them one at a time none of the ships are worth a second glance (they are in travel mode for speed and cheaply fitted). Even if the mechanism to allow such a thing does not exist today I would like CCP to tell us if they do not bother for some game balance reason or why it would be too difficult to implement if they have no intention of bringing it in game (presumably they could make it a unique form of packaging so they cannot be sold on market and such). -------------------------------------------------- "Of course," said my grandfather, pulling a gun from his belt as he stepped from the Time Machine, "there's no paradox if I shoot you!"
Imperator Jora'h	Posted - 2008.05.29 00:10:00 - [2] Edited by: Imperator Jora''h on 29/05/2008 00:11:57 This is not a huge issue but one that has bugged me for ages. All too often I find myself wanting to move stations for one reason or another but it is made much more difficult because a majority of my ships have rigs on them. As such they cannot be put into the cargo of my freighter. Instead I have to move them one at a time. Moving just 5 ships a mere 10 jumps means a total trip of 90 jumps to move the lot (and all too often I want to go further). I am guessing there is some issue on what happens if such ships drop after getting blown up. I really do not know. Certainly I have seen no game balance reasons on why this should not be allowed and just seems needlessly tedious. Heck, with my rigged ships all in cargo I become a more attractive target to gankers giving them a shot at the loot. When I move them one at a time none of the ships are worth a second glance (they are in travel mode for speed and cheaply fitted). Even if the mechanism to allow such a thing does not exist today I would like CCP to tell us if they do not bother for some game balance reason or why it would be too difficult to implement if they have no intention of bringing it in game (presumably they could make it a unique form of packaging so they cannot be sold on market and such). -------------------------------------------------- "Of course," said my grandfather, pulling a gun from his belt as he stepped from the Time Machine, "there's no paradox if I shoot you!"
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.05.29 00:20:00 - [3] Oh my god I wish! Speaking as a founder member of "rigged ships anonymous" (I have about 50 that I have to manually move every time we move base) I'd dearly love this to happen somehow. Fingers crossed somebody comes up with a good proposal to make this possible that we can take to CCP CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Herschel Yamamoto Bloodmoney Incorporated	Posted - 2008.05.29 01:02:00 - [4] The most obvious fix to this is either a non-capital ship with a corp hangar, or the ability to put unpackaged ships into a cargo bay(at their full size, of course). The latter is more appealing to me, but the former could be a perfectly valid role for either existing freighters or the proposed mini-freighters. That said, I'll agree that this is one that needs addressing. ------------------ Fix the forums!
Imperator Jora'h	Posted - 2008.05.29 01:37:00 - [5] Edited by: Imperator Jora''h on 29/05/2008 01:36:41 Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto The most obvious fix to this is either a non-capital ship with a corp hangar, or the ability to put unpackaged ships into a cargo bay(at their full size, of course). The latter is more appealing to me, but the former could be a perfectly valid role for either existing freighters or the proposed mini-freighters. That said, I'll agree that this is one that needs addressing. Well...unpackaged you could not move more than one Abaddon or Hyperion at a time in which case it is not terribly useful. It would be nice if you could cram in at least three of the largest battleships on any freighter (trained to L4). Of course in packaged mode you could carry a lot more than three. But maybe moving rigged ships should have a drawback. I don't see why a drawback would be necessary but if people think it must then ok. -------------------------------------------------- "Of course," said my grandfather, pulling a gun from his belt as he stepped from the Time Machine, "there's no paradox if I shoot you!"
Herschel Yamamoto Bloodmoney Incorporated	Posted - 2008.05.29 02:03:00 - [6] Originally by: Imperator Jora'h Edited by: Imperator Jora''h on 29/05/2008 01:36:41 Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto The most obvious fix to this is either a non-capital ship with a corp hangar, or the ability to put unpackaged ships into a cargo bay(at their full size, of course). The latter is more appealing to me, but the former could be a perfectly valid role for either existing freighters or the proposed mini-freighters. That said, I'll agree that this is one that needs addressing. Well...unpackaged you could not move more than one Abaddon or Hyperion at a time in which case it is not terribly useful. It would be nice if you could cram in at least three of the largest battleships on any freighter (trained to L4). Of course in packaged mode you could carry a lot more than three. But maybe moving rigged ships should have a drawback. I don't see why a drawback would be necessary but if people think it must then ok. Some battleships can be crammed in in pairs, and for the solo ones you get one battleship and a pile of lighter stuff. Either way, it'd speed it up a decent amount, depending on the shape of your hangar. It certainly wouldn't hurt. And if that's a killer issue, then perhaps drop the unpackaged size on some ships, to make it work more effectively. The fundamental barrier here is that CCP won't allow anything that can carry a capital ship into high-sec. This puts a pretty firm upper limit on the size of what you can play with(i.e., no mega-freighters can exist unless capital sizes are increased dramatically), and cuts off a lot of otherwise attractive options. The ones I mentioned above are what I think we're left with. Packaged ships have to lose their rigs, since everything is identical once packaged(for market purposes), which limits you to moving the ships unpackaged. That means either you bring corporate hangar bays to high-sec, or you let unpackaged ships be placed in cargo. At the moment, I default to the one that doesn't require a new freighter class, since the "next freighter" niche is so overpopulated already. It's not perfect, but it's what I think we're left with. ------------------ Fix the forums!
Imperator Jora'h	Posted - 2008.05.29 02:24:00 - [7] Why not just have a different packaging mode? Instead of "Repackage" you make it "Transport Package" (I'm sure someone can come up with something more snappy). The Transport Package is (say) 5x the size of a fully packaged item. It cannot be stacked and cannot go on market. However it retains its rigs ( although mods pop off and cargo empties). Tint the pic some color (maybe black and white) to identify it as Transport Packaged. This would be untradeable and unsellable. Reassemble as you would any ship. With the above you could move a max of three battleships at once and have cargo left over (for smaller ships or whatever). -------------------------------------------------- "Of course," said my grandfather, pulling a gun from his belt as he stepped from the Time Machine, "there's no paradox if I shoot you!"
Herschel Yamamoto Bloodmoney Incorporated	Posted - 2008.05.29 02:54:00 - [8] Originally by: Imperator Jora'h Edited by: Imperator Jora''h on 29/05/2008 02:28:52 Why not just have a different packaging mode? Instead of "Repackage" you make it "Transport Package" (I'm sure someone can come up with something more snappy). The Transport Package is (say) 5x the size of a fully packaged item. It cannot be stacked and cannot go on market. However it retains its rigs ( although mods pop off and cargo empties). Tint the pic some color (maybe black and white) to identify it as Transport Packaged. This would be untradeable and unsellable. Reassemble as you would any ship. With the above you could move a max of three battleships at once and have cargo left over (for smaller ships or whatever). Frankly I'd rather they repackage all the way down to normal packaged items size-wise. The only issue I see is if CCP felt they must allow cargo scanning to reveal the ship as rigged in the cargo. That may over complicate it. That could work, but it's too complex to be a really good solution IMO. I'm still leaning towards being able to put unpackaged ships in cargo - it deals with the problem somewhat, it's just good sense(Why is that number for unpackaged size even there if it's not useful? Yes, I know it matters in some POS/corp hangar situations, but still), and it doesn't add unnecessary complexity. ------------------ Fix the forums!
Windjammer	Posted - 2008.05.29 03:06:00 - [9] God, yes!!!! PLEASE. This would be a win/win for everyone. Suicide gankers, industrialists.......everyone. Very best regards and thanks to the OP, Windjammer
Katini Ellegahn Capital Development and Security Industries	Posted - 2008.05.29 04:45:00 - [10] Just a reminder to those above me, and those posting after me; Check the "Support this topic" checkbox if you do indeed support the topic. We have no way of knowing how CCP or the CSM members will use the information at a glance - so please make it worth your time and check the appropriate boxes. I also Support this idea.
Vlad Cetes Crimson-Jihad Critical Dissent	Posted - 2008.05.29 06:38:00 - [11] Transport packagin as posted above seems a great idea for the problem. I do not see why man should not be just as cruel as nature.
Exodus Alpha	Posted - 2008.05.29 09:54:00 - [12]
Jason Edwards	Posted - 2008.05.29 09:59:00 - [13] I support this. Perhaps boosting the transport ships so the transport skill increases the amount of corp hangar size. While essentially removing the cargo bay size. So cargo expanders aren't as valuable. This could do quite a few things. 1. Mini-freighter; 200,000m3 space or so; without the 4 billion isk pricetag. 2. Allow easier moving of rigged ships across empire. 3. Suicide ganking defense; suicide gankers will have to take a risk. 4. Giving an actual reason to train transport ships skill beyond 1. ------------------------ "There was this bright flash of light - and now this egg shaped thing is on my screen - did I level up?"
James Lyrus Lyrus Associates	Posted - 2008.05.29 10:37:00 - [14] I wish to apply support to this issue. I too have rigged and/or insured ships I'd like to be able to rebase, using highsec. Whilst having removable rigs go part way to do this, I don't think that's a desirable solution. And not just because I like being able to keep ships and fits together. Carriers in part, are able to do this, but not nearly to the full extent that I would like. As I see it, I can see as possibilities: Transport case: Take a 'secure can' of some form. Turn it into a ship maintenance bay, and corp hangar array, of 'about' a size to fit a ship in. Perhaps sized, so you get 'battleship sized' on down? (I'd like to be able to fit frigates in a normal hauler again too). Each having a small ish, 'corp hangar' style bay (assuming that's possible given current mechanics, as ownership of can isn't as straight forward as ownership in a carrier) ideally too, for the 'spares' that tend to go with a ship bundle. Actually, I think it'd be nice to make them anchorable too, to act as 'supply points' in 0.0, and places to stash/swap/fit a couple of ship, that are probable, shootable, but not quite as intensive as a POS. Transport ship: Converted Freighter, that's basically a carrier style cargo bay, ship maintenance bay, and corp hangar. But without a jump drive, fighters, logistics ability or indeed slots at all. I don't know what would be a good sizing for this. Personally I don't think 'about the same' as you could currently fit in a freighter (e.g. 20 battleships ish) would be too much a problem, given it would be seriously limited in 'normal' hauling capacity terms. Ship maintenance bay conversion module/rig: Converts cargohold to Ship maintenance bay. Given relative difference between sizes though of packaged vs. unpackaged, it might have to be at a bit of a size skew. (Especially if this is module based, and therefore trades off against cargo expansion - an expanded up hauler can multiply it's size by 5 without too much difficulty) Perhaps as a specialist role for deep space transports? I believe a DST can fit a packaged battleship at the moment, if you go for full expansion capacity. So ... giving them a capability to transport an assembled one, doesn't seem too far beyond the realms of 'reasonable'. Especially if it's also at a similar 'cost' in terms of speed/maneuverability that expanders and rigs apply. -- Crane needs more grid 249km locking?
Ethaet Aliastra	Posted - 2008.05.29 10:37:00 - [15] Allow assembled ships to be put in freighters. -------------------------------------------------------------- Seriously, we need some kind of separation between the post and signature. There you go. Now that wasn't so hard
Sir Substance	Posted - 2008.05.29 10:56:00 - [16] well, i think rigs are meant to be kinda like boosters. they give you that edge, but they need drawbacks as well. that said, i was very surprised to find that you couldn't put an unpackaged ship in a freighter.
Serenity Steele Dynamic Data Distribution Ministry of Information	Posted - 2008.05.29 11:01:00 - [17] Originally by: Vlad Cetes Transport packagin as posted above seems a great idea for the problem. Post 6: Transport Packaging GMV too. Other Benefits Would also solve the problem of using a generic (aka. Stackable) item type. However I think the size should remain the same as the unpackaged ship - consider it like a plastic-foil wrapper around an assembled ship that is being transported. Related Considerations Would require that freighters accepted "Transport Packages" as well as freight containers. May mix the roles of carriers and jump freighters, as people would simply use jump freighters instead. In this case, the packages should not be possible to jettison, otherwise it will totally be carrier-like. What will happen to the transport packaging if the carrying ship is destroyed? . Will it be ejected into space, or simply destroyed? If ejected into space, then as a completed ship? If simply destroyed, is this a fail-proof way to move ships around NOT using carriers? Anyone know if when a carrier is destroyed, if ships in it's hangar appear in space, or are they automatically destroyed? ≡v≡ Strategic Maps now in Eve-Online Store - Includes Black Rise & Empyrean Age
Riho Mercenary Forces Privateer Alliance	Posted - 2008.05.29 11:23:00 - [18] i have alot of ships i need to move if i change base and all of them have rigs. i have freighter but i cant use it. even tho my ship could fit in the hold the game doesnt let it... thats really annoying :( hope this gets adressed soon :) ---------------------------------- Yes... this is my main. Extreme Troll Slayer...
Ming Mongol Cerebellum Enterprises	Posted - 2008.05.29 12:26:00 - [19] Needs addressing, definitely
Sunwillow Auryn	Posted - 2008.05.29 12:32:00 - [20] As noted above the 'next Freighter' slot is heavily congested, but hey, look at how many different types of trucks there are on the roads and you understand why the specialist way is sometimes the only way ;) Similar to a car transporter on the roads, have a freighter that could only carry ships (either packaged or unpackaged).
Mr Toril Imperial Shipment	Posted - 2008.05.29 14:17:00 - [21] Great idea
Imperator Jora'h	Posted - 2008.05.29 15:18:00 - [22] Originally by: James Lyrus Perhaps as a specialist role for deep space transports? I believe a DST can fit a packaged battleship at the moment, if you go for full expansion capacity. So ... giving them a capability to transport an assembled one, doesn't seem too far beyond the realms of 'reasonable'. Especially if it's also at a similar 'cost' in terms of speed/maneuverability that expanders and rigs apply. A DST cannot move a packaged battleship. The very, very best cargo a hauler class can get is a bit over 52,000 m3 and I am pretty sure that requires GSC and T2 cargo rigs to achieve. Without GSC and no T2 cargo rigs they cannot manage 50,000 m3 cargo which is one packaged battleship. Note that some here would be happy with allowing an unpackaged battleship in cargo. While an improvement over today you could not get one in a Jump Freighter. I think whatever solution occurs you should be able to squeeze at least one battleship into a JF (which would allow at least three battleships in a standard freighter).
Herschel Yamamoto Bloodmoney Incorporated	Posted - 2008.05.29 16:35:00 - [23] Originally by: Serenity Steele Originally by: Vlad Cetes Transport packagin as posted above seems a great idea for the problem. Post 6: Transport Packaging GMV too. Other Benefits Would also solve the problem of using a generic (aka. Stackable) item type. However I think the size should remain the same as the unpackaged ship - consider it like a plastic-foil wrapper around an assembled ship that is being transported. Related Considerations Would require that freighters accepted "Transport Packages" as well as freight containers. May mix the roles of carriers and jump freighters, as people would simply use jump freighters instead. In this case, the packages should not be possible to jettison, otherwise it will totally be carrier-like. What will happen to the transport packaging if the carrying ship is destroyed? . Will it be ejected into space, or simply destroyed? If ejected into space, then as a completed ship? If simply destroyed, is this a fail-proof way to move ships around NOT using carriers? Anyone know if when a carrier is destroyed, if ships in it's hangar appear in space, or are they automatically destroyed? If it's the same size as the unpacked ship, then why are you bothering with the bubble wrap mechanic at all? Just assume your longshoremen know how to fit it in there without breaking anything. If the mechanic doesn't add anything, then don't add the mechanic - just let people put unpacked ships in cargo. ------------------ Fix the forums!
Windjammer	Posted - 2008.05.29 18:51:00 - [24]
Khwalik Ghetto Kings	Posted - 2008.05.29 19:04:00 - [25] supported
Venkul Mul	Posted - 2008.05.29 20:02:00 - [26]
James Lyrus Lyrus Associates	Posted - 2008.05.29 22:06:00 - [27] Originally by: Imperator Jora'h Originally by: James Lyrus Perhaps as a specialist role for deep space transports? I believe a DST can fit a packaged battleship at the moment, if you go for full expansion capacity. So ... giving them a capability to transport an assembled one, doesn't seem too far beyond the realms of 'reasonable'. Especially if it's also at a similar 'cost' in terms of speed/maneuverability that expanders and rigs apply. A DST cannot move a packaged battleship. The very, very best cargo a hauler class can get is a bit over 52,000 m3 and I am pretty sure that requires GSC and T2 cargo rigs to achieve. Without GSC and no T2 cargo rigs they cannot manage 50,000 m3 cargo which is one packaged battleship. Note that some here would be happy with allowing an unpackaged battleship in cargo. While an improvement over today you could not get one in a Jump Freighter. I think whatever solution occurs you should be able to squeeze at least one battleship into a JF (which would allow at least three battleships in a standard freighter). Ah good point. I thought they were smaller than that for some reason. Sure enough, a Scorpion packaged is 50,000m3. As best I can tell, you can just about do 41800k m3 in a hauler (ironically, the Iteron 5 overtakes DSTs due to 3 rig slots). So at the moment the only way to move a battleship, be it packed or unpacked is a freighter (or carrier). -- Crane needs more grid 249km locking?
Tessen Stellar Tide	Posted - 2008.05.29 22:29:00 - [28]
JafoPBCFR	Posted - 2008.05.29 22:48:00 - [29] Well one thing you can make it is. Half the repakage value and not allow the cargo or fittings be allowed on the ship transported. And if its a real issue maybe have the ship thats transported have a time to be packed and unpacked. Possably even a fee to do so. Also make it transportable by only frighters. This way your keeping your rig and able to transport it.
Imperator Jora'h	Posted - 2008.05.30 00:55:00 - [30] Originally by: Serenity Steele Related Considerations Would require that freighters accepted "Transport Packages" as well as freight containers. May mix the roles of carriers and jump freighters, as people would simply use jump freighters instead. In this case, the packages should not be possible to jettison, otherwise it will totally be carrier-like. What will happen to the transport packaging if the carrying ship is destroyed? . Will it be ejected into space, or simply destroyed? If ejected into space, then as a completed ship? If simply destroyed, is this a fail-proof way to move ships around NOT using carriers? 1) I do not see why that would be a problem technically or an issue game wise but of course I have no idea what would be technically easy for CCP to implement. Clearly the game already does checks on what is or is not ok to go in a cargo hold even if it would technically fit. 2) Freighters cannot jettison anything already. Further, the ships in a transport package could not have modules installed or cargo in the bay. I forget what ships in a carrier can carry these days (just ammo?). Certainly though a freighter must deliver the cargo to a station or POS that can handle them to be reassembled and fitted. More to the point though is carriers cannot move ships through hi sec. I do not know how many battleships a carrier can drag around but a Jump Freighter as proposed above could only carry one. Not sure that it steps on the carrier's toes and besides, even if they could move similar amounts of rigged ships which would you rather be jumping around no-sec in? 3) I honestly do not know the answer to this question. IIRC CCP made it so all loot from a freighter dropped in one giant can since people could crash a node if it spewed out thousands of items upon destruction. However I do not know if ships in a freighter's hold go in the can or pop into space. I see no reason why they should not go in the can though since they are unusable anyway till re-assembled. The bigger question I suppose is for haulers that get popped carrying smaller ships in this fashion. If the ship is bigger than a jet can what happens? A simple solution to me would be to make cans that drop from ships (or at least haulers) hold 45,000 m3 of stuff so whatever single item even the most pimped hauler could carry would fit into a can. Note I do not mean to change regular jet cans on this. Just the loot drop cans (and make them so nothing can be put into them manually which I think it already the case but not sure). -------------------------------------------------- "Of course," said my grandfather, pulling a gun from his belt as he stepped from the Time Machine, "there's no paradox if I shoot you!"

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: 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.