EVE Search - Few MotherShip questions

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Few MotherShip questions

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
MadGelo	Posted - 2008.08.02 15:06:00 - [1] note, been awhile since iv played, so could you asnwer me a few questions 1. Mom still dont dissapear when you logoff, there for you need POS to keep it, right? ( cant dock) 2. now can be scrambled in low sec? thank you very much
Hawkspur Firestarter Amarr TiS Industries Ursa Stellar Initiative	Posted - 2008.08.02 15:12:00 - [2] 1. Standard logoff disappear rules apply. 2. Can be scrambled in lowsec by a heavy interdictor with a focused warp disruption script.
MadGelo	Posted - 2008.08.02 15:13:00 - [3] Originally by: Hawkspur Firestarter 1. Standard logoff disappear rules apply. 2. Can be scrambled in lowsec by a heavy interdictor with a focused warp disruption script. realy, it dissapear when logoff? nice thx
Drachma Golea Caldari hunter killers	Posted - 2008.08.02 15:36:00 - [4] Originally by: MadGelo Originally by: Hawkspur Firestarter 1. Standard logoff disappear rules apply. 2. Can be scrambled in lowsec by a heavy interdictor with a focused warp disruption script. realy, it dissapear when logoff? nice thx Yeah they logoff, but when you want another ship to fly, you want a pos for sure...
Dirk Magnum Spearhead Endeavors	Posted - 2008.08.02 15:42:00 - [5] Originally by: MadGelo Originally by: Hawkspur Firestarter 1. Standard logoff disappear rules apply. 2. Can be scrambled in lowsec by a heavy interdictor with a focused warp disruption script. realy, it dissapear when logoff? nice thx Was there ever a time when they didn't, or when CCP discussed changing things so they wouldn't disappear? I'm not asking rhetorically, I'm really curious.
Reptzo Channel 4 News Team	Posted - 2008.08.02 15:48:00 - [6] Originally by: Dirk Magnum Was there ever a time when they didn't, or when CCP discussed changing things so they wouldn't disappear? I'm not asking rhetorically, I'm really curious. Originally, Moms and Titans were going to stay in game at all times. But the players convinced CCP (rather easily) that that would be a bad idea, due to real life issues easily getting in the way of game play.
Korizan Oort Cloud Industries Ultionis Quietus	Posted - 2008.08.02 15:49:00 - [7] Originally by: Dirk Magnum Was there ever a time when they didn't, or when CCP discussed changing things so they wouldn't disappear? I'm not asking rhetorically, I'm really curious. I can't see why they would even want too. Allowing a ship to disappear when your not logged on is a must. People do have real lives so never logging off is not very practical. If they ever went that route they would have to add in more features to support it. Along the lines of pilot / Co-pilot where 2 people could be in the same ship and just transfer command. Anything short of that would cause to many issues considering the cost of the ship.
Dirk Magnum Spearhead Endeavors	Posted - 2008.08.02 15:52:00 - [8] Originally by: Reptzo Originally by: Dirk Magnum Was there ever a time when they didn't, or when CCP discussed changing things so they wouldn't disappear? I'm not asking rhetorically, I'm really curious. Originally, Moms and Titans were going to stay in game at all times. But the players convinced CCP (rather easily) that that would be a bad idea, due to real life issues easily getting in the way of game play. Yikes. And to think people say that the proposed Zulupark carrier change was the worst design decision ever.
Reptzo Channel 4 News Team	Posted - 2008.08.02 15:54:00 - [9] Originally by: Korizan Originally by: Dirk Magnum Was there ever a time when they didn't, or when CCP discussed changing things so they wouldn't disappear? I'm not asking rhetorically, I'm really curious. I can't see why they would even want too. Allowing a ship to disappear when your not logged on is a must. People do have real lives so never logging off is not very practical. If they ever went that route they would have to add in more features to support it. Along the lines of pilot / Co-pilot where 2 people could be in the same ship and just transfer command. Anything short of that would cause to many issues considering the cost of the ship. I don't have the quote or link to the thread, but CCP was talking about not letting cap ships dock inside stations anymore (all caps). Instead they would dock on the outside, and the station guns/shield would defend the ships. This of course has its flaws.
Korizan Oort Cloud Industries Ultionis Quietus	Posted - 2008.08.02 15:58:00 - [10] Edited by: Korizan on 02/08/2008 15:58:47 Originally by: Reptzo I don't have the quote or link to the thread, but CCP was talking about not letting cap ships dock inside stations anymore (all caps). Instead they would dock on the outside, and the station guns/shield would defend the ships. This of course has its flaws. Now that would be ugly. I would hate to even guess how many dreads are stored in station until they are needed. I guess if they did that there would be ALOT of people creating alts for capital storage.
Reptzo Channel 4 News Team	Posted - 2008.08.02 16:01:00 - [11] Originally by: Korizan Edited by: Korizan on 02/08/2008 15:58:47 Originally by: Reptzo I don't have the quote or link to the thread, but CCP was talking about not letting cap ships dock inside stations anymore (all caps). Instead they would dock on the outside, and the station guns/shield would defend the ships. This of course has its flaws. Now that would be ugly. I would hate to even guess how many dreads are stored in station until they are needed. I guess if they did that there would be ALOT of people creating alts for capital storage. LOL, I hadn't even thought of that, stations would have to be much larger, to graphically handle 100+ cap ships docked there.
Gunner Chick	Posted - 2008.08.02 16:31:00 - [12] Actually, the last thing i heard was that due to ambulation the possibility of allowing super caps to dock outside stations was "interesting" to one of the dev's. Obviously the purpose of this would be to allow super cap pilots(alts hehe) to enjoy ambulation as well. It was in a dev response and no i dont remember where it was
Mika Meroko Minmatar Crayon Posting Inc	Posted - 2008.08.02 17:00:00 - [13] Originally by: Reptzo Originally by: Korizan Originally by: Dirk Magnum Was there ever a time when they didn't, or when CCP discussed changing things so they wouldn't disappear? I'm not asking rhetorically, I'm really curious. I can't see why they would even want too. Allowing a ship to disappear when your not logged on is a must. People do have real lives so never logging off is not very practical. If they ever went that route they would have to add in more features to support it. Along the lines of pilot / Co-pilot where 2 people could be in the same ship and just transfer command. Anything short of that would cause to many issues considering the cost of the ship. I don't have the quote or link to the thread, but CCP was talking about not letting cap ships dock inside stations anymore (all caps). Instead they would dock on the outside, and the station guns/shield would defend the ships. This of course has its flaws. hello Grand theft spaceship! Originally by: CCP Atropos I pod people because there's money to be made in selling tears.
Lui Kai Better Than You	Posted - 2008.08.02 17:14:00 - [14] Originally by: Mika Meroko hello Grand theft spaceship! GTA: Delve Ally ---------------- Ambulation Answers
Donna Heywood Amarr Guiding Hand Social Club	Posted - 2008.08.02 17:56:00 - [15] Please note that Wyverns and other Super capitals can disappear from POS.
Trocent Amarr 24th Imperial Crusade	Posted - 2008.08.02 19:55:00 - [16] They could have the stations deploy exterior hangar arrays which mount the Capital ships and extend the stations shields around the Capital ship (Preventing firing on the ship or stealing it). For nullsec stations this would be a bit more dangerous but could add a little more to alliance warfare =p.
Aegrimonia Black Bands	Posted - 2008.08.02 20:30:00 - [17] Originally by: Dirk Magnum Yikes. And to think people say that the proposed Zulupark carrier change was the worst design decision ever. lol, he got flamed sooooo bad ------- 2hot4u
Dirk Magnum Spearhead Endeavors	Posted - 2008.08.02 20:32:00 - [18] Originally by: Aegrimonia Originally by: Dirk Magnum Yikes. And to think people say that the proposed Zulupark carrier change was the worst design decision ever. lol, he got flamed sooooo bad I don't ever remember any player or developer who was so maligned (oh wait yeah there was one other.)
Janu Hull Caldari Terra Incognita Vanguard.	Posted - 2008.08.02 22:12:00 - [19] Originally by: Reptzo Originally by: Korizan Originally by: Dirk Magnum Was there ever a time when they didn't, or when CCP discussed changing things so they wouldn't disappear? I'm not asking rhetorically, I'm really curious. I can't see why they would even want too. Allowing a ship to disappear when your not logged on is a must. People do have real lives so never logging off is not very practical. If they ever went that route they would have to add in more features to support it. Along the lines of pilot / Co-pilot where 2 people could be in the same ship and just transfer command. Anything short of that would cause to many issues considering the cost of the ship. I don't have the quote or link to the thread, but CCP was talking about not letting cap ships dock inside stations anymore (all caps). Instead they would dock on the outside, and the station guns/shield would defend the ships. This of course has its flaws. Christ on a crutch, as if capital logistics weren't painful enough... In the event of an emergency, my ego may be used as a floatation device.

Pages: [1] :: 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.