Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page |
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |

Overlord Anubis
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.07.31 23:00:00 -
[61]
signed
|

Inanna Zuni
|
Posted - 2008.07.31 23:03:00 -
[62]
Makes sense to me; I'll bring this to the next CSM meeting for consideration.
IZ
My principles
|

Christiaan Huygens
|
Posted - 2008.07.31 23:25:00 -
[63]
having just got into carrier use, I can vouch for the frustration of trying to swap ships, only to realise you have one non-0ammo item in your cargohold, or trying to scoop some ships left in a POS etc etc.
|

Karentaki
Maximum Yarrage
|
Posted - 2008.07.31 23:33:00 -
[64]
/SIGNED However, now you are just reading my signature... Or are you...
========= Sporks FTW |

Thereisnogod PurePwnage
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.08.01 00:53:00 -
[65]
Agreed. |

Bos Tess69
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.08.01 01:32:00 -
[66]
carriers need this
|

Sorcerror
Igneus Auctorita GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.08.01 03:05:00 -
[67]
Edited by: Sorcerror on 01/08/2008 03:05:44 obcourse
|

Irongut
M'8'S Frontal Impact
|
Posted - 2008.08.01 04:20:00 -
[68]
Originally by: Dannie Trejo Dualboxing one character who flies a Falcon and a Buzzard and another who flies a Thanatos is a total nightmare because of this restriction. While it should be just a two click process to switch from one hull to another, instead it takes five minutes of shuffling scan probes and LO around just so I can keep my cargohold full of the things I need to go about my business.
Scan probes are a form of ammunition and can be in the hold of stored ships. 
There was a reason for this nerf, carriers had become the Swiss Army knife of EVE. If they undo this nerf then we go back to that and within a few months they'll be looking at another, perhaps bigger carrier nerf. Do you want any of the changes from the infamous reviled dev blog instead?
-
The future is Black. Brace for Impact! |

Phyneas
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.08.01 05:54:00 -
[69]
Agreed. I routinely carry lots of spare fittings on extended deployments and it's a real pain not to be able to use an SMA to store my ship or have it carrier-jumped elsewhere because of that. Ditto for ozone, not just for cynoships but also for taking jump bridges; have fun flying fifty jumps because you had to jet your ozone to store your ship and there isn't any available anywhere by the time you get it back out.
|

Wurgf
Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.08.01 13:43:00 -
[70]
Agreed!
|

Natas Dog
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.08.01 16:32:00 -
[71]
Originally by: Irongut Scan probes are a form of ammunition and can be in the hold of stored ships. 
There was a reason for this nerf, carriers had become the Swiss Army knife of EVE. If they undo this nerf then we go back to that and within a few months they'll be looking at another, perhaps bigger carrier nerf. Do you want any of the changes from the infamous reviled dev blog instead?
Did you even read the OP? The replacement ships provided by CCP for importation and mineral handling outshine the pre-nerf carrier's ability to do the same job by a significant margin with a lot less hassle and somewhat less training. It's not like people will start training for carriers before making the train up to JFs or Rorqs in the event this change is reversed. All this does is remove a lot of the hassle currently in place to prevent a now obsolete use of carriers thanks to CCP providing alternate means to complete the job.
|

Sylthi
Coreward Pan-Galactic
|
Posted - 2008.08.01 16:45:00 -
[72]
When this nerf went live, it was just one in a long line of lazy "balance" nerfs that were poorly thought out and even more pooly implemented. Hell, from this same "patch" mission runners are still dealing with people (as cargo) that take up 7m3 or more EACH. ON some missions a person (as cargo) takes up 1m3, on other missions its 7m3; and everywhere in betweem. Please..... CCP, at least PRETEND like you know how to code your own game.
This was ALSO promised to be fixed more than 3 patches ago in live dev blogs. AND, has been promised to be fixed in every patch since.
Get on it CCP. Fix this, and other m3 loot maddness that you instituted on a poorly though out whim. *
* |

Gramtar
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.08.01 17:02:00 -
[73]
Agreed - the ozone issue affects both cyno ships and any alliance with a jump bridge network. The module issue affects everyone using a SMB/SMA.
Now that Jump Freighters and Rorquals are commonly used for even moderate scale logistics, there's no reason to not remove the restriction on POS fuel for carriers as well. Individuals and smaller corporations should be able to use carriers to move POS fuel and strontium more easily in 0.0. It will encourage them to expand into 0.0 space by requiring a more utilitarian ship (carrier). Miners will likely still gravitate towards using a Rorqual, but for those who rat or do complexes they should not be required to have a Rorqual or Jump Freighter simply to set up and service a few Medium POS's.
|

Entelechia
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.08.01 17:40:00 -
[74]
Agreed. I somewhat understood the change at the time, but everyone who plans to use one has a JF or a Rorqual, it's time to ease the restriction on us carrier pilots who really only ever used our carriers to carry combat supplies to begin with.
|

Entelechia
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.08.01 17:42:00 -
[75]
Edited by: Entelechia on 01/08/2008 17:42:36
Originally by: Irongut
Originally by: Dannie Trejo Dualboxing one character who flies a Falcon and a Buzzard and another who flies a Thanatos is a total nightmare because of this restriction. While it should be just a two click process to switch from one hull to another, instead it takes five minutes of shuffling scan probes and LO around just so I can keep my cargohold full of the things I need to go about my business.
Scan probes are a form of ammunition and can be in the hold of stored ships. 
There was a reason for this nerf, carriers had become the Swiss Army knife of EVE. If they undo this nerf then we go back to that and within a few months they'll be looking at another, perhaps bigger carrier nerf. Do you want any of the changes from the infamous reviled dev blog instead?
Carriers had become the haulers of EVE because there was nothing else. There is something else, something better, now: Jump Freighters and Rorquals. This change was instituted to force people to switch to those ships: They have. The people that have switched to them aren't all the sudden going to go back to using carriers, because they will never carry as much. Reverting this change makes those of us who use our carriers FOR THE INTENDED PURPOSE, have an easier time of it. That intended purpose is front line logistics and combat support.
|

Hottie McGee
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.08.01 18:36:00 -
[76]
|

Ranerro
Point-Zero R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2008.08.01 19:48:00 -
[77]
Edited by: Ranerro on 01/08/2008 19:54:41
Originally by: Entelechia
Carriers had become the haulers of EVE because there was nothing else. There is something else, something better, now: Jump Freighters and Rorquals. This change was instituted to force people to switch to those ships: They have. The people that have switched to them aren't all the sudden going to go back to using carriers, because they will never carry as much. Reverting this change makes those of us who use our carriers FOR THE INTENDED PURPOSE, have an easier time of it. That intended purpose is front line logistics and combat support.
I would disagree that jump freighters and rorqs are patently better than a carrier able to fit haulers with cargo in them. Why? Carriers have a longer jumprange.
Carriers also have the added benefit of having far more numbers in existance and use, and less cost to build one. Reversing that nerf would put us right back in the position for a Carrier to be ONE of the viable options for the hauling jobs it clearly wasn't intended to do.
The only way I would support removing the ammo-only restriction is if ONLY combat ships were allowed in the carrier's SMA (i.e. no haulers or barges). The haulers and barges could still effectively be moved in the SMAs of Rorqs.
I agree the restriction is a nuisance, but it fixed a real problem, so the new fix should not bring back the old problem. Disallowing haulers in the bay is one option for solving both problems at the same time.
|

Trojanman190
D00M. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.08.01 19:52:00 -
[78]
Pweese!
|

0mega
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.08.01 22:22:00 -
[79]
Originally by: Ranerro I agree the restriction is a nuisance, but it fixed a real problem, so the new fix should not bring back the old problem. Disallowing haulers in the bay is one option for solving both problems at the same time.
Originally by: xttz Devs, if it really bothers you then just change it to not being able to store a ship with more than 1000m3 in its cargo bay.
|

Wasted Mind
Syntech Research and Development Lords of the Damned
|
Posted - 2008.08.01 22:28:00 -
[80]
|

RDevz
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.08.01 23:12:00 -
[81]
Having to move stuff between my Corporate hangar and the ship cargo hold before I scoop it and after I launch it just make my day that little bit less enjoyable. Anyone that needs to move large amounts of stuff long distances uses JFs and Rorqs, and has the logistics in place to cope with the cyno chains needed. This "nerf" just serves to annoy these days.
|

RDevz II
|
Posted - 2008.08.01 23:13:00 -
[82]
poast |

Daveydweeb
Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.08.02 07:30:00 -
[83]
Edited by: Daveydweeb on 02/08/2008 07:30:29
Originally by: Irongut
Originally by: Dannie Trejo Dualboxing one character who flies a Falcon and a Buzzard and another who flies a Thanatos is a total nightmare because of this restriction. While it should be just a two click process to switch from one hull to another, instead it takes five minutes of shuffling scan probes and LO around just so I can keep my cargohold full of the things I need to go about my business.
Scan probes are a form of ammunition and can be in the hold of stored ships. 
Thanks for ignoring the critical "AND LO" bit. (o_o)b
Quote: There was a reason for this nerf, carriers had become the Swiss Army knife of EVE. If they undo this nerf then we go back to that and within a few months they'll be looking at another, perhaps bigger carrier nerf. Do you want any of the changes from the infamous reviled dev blog instead?
God damn, son, you didn't read the OP either.

Your signature is too large. Please resize it to a maximum of 400 x 120 with the file size not exceeding 24000 bytes. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] - Mitnal |

Luckyduck
Gallente Game-Over The Requiem
|
Posted - 2008.08.02 07:46:00 -
[84]
Edited by: Luckyduck on 02/08/2008 07:46:34 now that all the goons have voted:
No, it's ment to add diversity of ships. Carrier gaining this effect again would limit the amount of use of rouqals and jump freighters b/c people w/carriers would solo haul every thing rather than actually train for freighters or ask for help. Why waste time and money on a virtually undefendable ship to move that valuable cargo when you can run a carrier and defend better.
|

Daveydweeb
Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.08.02 09:21:00 -
[85]
Originally by: Luckyduck Edited by: Luckyduck on 02/08/2008 07:46:34 now that all the goons have voted:
No, it's ment to add diversity of ships. Carrier gaining this effect again would limit the amount of use of rouqals and jump freighters b/c people w/carriers would solo haul every thing rather than actually train for freighters or ask for help. Why waste time and money on a virtually undefendable ship to move that valuable cargo when you can run a carrier and defend better.
Way to read the OP.

Your signature is too large. Please resize it to a maximum of 400 x 120 with the file size not exceeding 24000 bytes. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] - Mitnal |

Garregus
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.08.02 14:59:00 -
[86]
maybe just make it so haulers cant have anything in cargo but other ships can?
either way, supporting
|

Phillipe d'Rothschild
Discrete Solutions Ltd.
|
Posted - 2008.08.02 15:36:00 -
[87]
Originally by: Luckyduck Edited by: Luckyduck on 02/08/2008 07:46:34 No, it's ment to add diversity of ships. Carrier gaining this effect again would limit the amount of use of rouqals and jump freighters b/c people w/carriers would solo haul every thing rather than actually train for freighters or ask for help. Why waste time and money on a virtually undefendable ship to move that valuable cargo when you can run a carrier and defend better.
As long as it's cheaper to haul mass quantities of stuff via Jump Freighter/Rorqual, they will still see use. My carrier alt trained up jump freighters for this very reason. Carrier got hit hard with the nerf, as it pulled much of the intended ship hauling functionality out of the carrier and also eliminated much of the ISK making potential you got from having one in deep 0.0 space. If you're going to rat in 0.0 and are smart you don't use a carrier. CCP intended JF's for large alliances, so what are the smaller alliances supposed to utilize?
|

Deludo Audacter
|
Posted - 2008.08.02 19:58:00 -
[88]
|

Captain Keenbean
|
Posted - 2008.08.02 19:59:00 -
[89]
|

Luckyduck
Gallente Game-Over The Requiem
|
Posted - 2008.08.02 20:05:00 -
[90]
Originally by: Phillipe d'Rothschild
Originally by: Luckyduck Edited by: Luckyduck on 02/08/2008 07:46:34 No, it's ment to add diversity of ships. Carrier gaining this effect again would limit the amount of use of rouqals and jump freighters b/c people w/carriers would solo haul every thing rather than actually train for freighters or ask for help. Why waste time and money on a virtually undefendable ship to move that valuable cargo when you can run a carrier and defend better.
As long as it's cheaper to haul mass quantities of stuff via Jump Freighter/Rorqual, they will still see use. My carrier alt trained up jump freighters for this very reason. Carrier got hit hard with the nerf, as it pulled much of the intended ship hauling functionality out of the carrier and also eliminated much of the ISK making potential you got from having one in deep 0.0 space. If you're going to rat in 0.0 and are smart you don't use a carrier. CCP intended JF's for large alliances, so what are the smaller alliances supposed to utilize?
With the added ship cargo and the jump distance bonus, a carrier would easily replace a rouqal with this change. If they say hey, ok, sure, but no haulers, then i'd support it.
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |