Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 .. 16 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 4 post(s) |
Tonto Auri
Center for Advanced Studies
|
Posted - 2007.06.11 03:44:00 -
[31]
Originally by: CCP Oneiromancer Yes, this is going out into Revelations 2. And I don't see any major nerf anywhere. You can still use carriers for transport, you make it sound like that was their designed intended use and we're nerfing that. People have been asking for the ability to store loaded ships at ship maintenance bays and arrays and a change was made to allow that. Assembled containers and courier packages are the only restricted items that cannot be in an assembled ship inside a ship maintenance bay/array, in order to prevent exploits.
That all sonds like EVE have bad design in core and it whole full of exploits. I still surprising why I can't REALLY DOCK to POS/Carrier, and now You said that I can't place something in my cargobay. I'd agree with one of previous authors that we'll wait when You forbid to place ore into jetcan. -- . |
Mercostol
Gallente Nova Lusitania Red Moon Federation
|
Posted - 2007.06.11 04:02:00 -
[32]
Its easy, increase the corporate hangar to a decent size, like 30k m3
|
Borgholio
Minmatar Quantum Industries Prime Orbital Systems
|
Posted - 2007.06.11 04:45:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Mercostol Its easy, increase the corporate hangar to a decent size, like 30k m3
Good idea. If CCP has no issues with people using carriers as a deep-space freighter, then increasing the corp hangar array would be a good way to do this. ----------------------------------- You will be assimilated...bunghole! |
Yuki Nagato
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.06.11 05:04:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Borgholio Please tell me you're coming out with something along the lines of a jumpdrive-enabled freighter? It's already hard enough moving large quantities of goods in and out of 0.0 without reducing the amount of cargo a carrier can haul.
Build a Titan and you can jump bridge as many freighters as you want from lowsec to your home systems completely without risk. BoB do it every day all day.
|
Methylene Dioxy
|
Posted - 2007.06.11 05:32:00 -
[35]
This is a terrible idea. Why not make ship maint. arrays only take ships with no GSCs in their cargo but not for carriers?
Also, people don't use ship maint. arrays because you can't access ships inside them after the POS has gone into reinforced. |
Wink
Caldari Asgard Protectorate
|
Posted - 2007.06.11 05:51:00 -
[36]
Edited by: Wink on 11/06/2007 05:50:15 The problem for me isn't so much the carrying capacity, it's about organization. We already have to use those giant behemoth freight containers which limit organization in freighters.
Now we can't use cans labeled for the person that needs to move items in a carrier.
and I do understand what the word "carrier" means. What I am wondering is if YOU know what the word carrier means.
|
Borgholio
Minmatar Quantum Industries Prime Orbital Systems
|
Posted - 2007.06.11 06:30:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Yuki Nagato
Build a Titan and you can jump bridge as many freighters as you want from lowsec to your home systems completely without risk. BoB do it every day all day.
Excellent idea! Let me make a quick run to Jita and sell my mission loot... ----------------------------------- You will be assimilated...bunghole! |
FatKao
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.06.11 06:47:00 -
[38]
Thanks for this CCP. I'm gladd you're out fixing the "bugs" that really trouble the playerbase. Now that I don't have to worry about that pesky "Carriers making living in 0.0 almost fun" part of the game I can go back to my horrible logistics grind!
|
Grayton
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.06.11 07:10:00 -
[39]
Let's see if I can make a reply without any profanity; this may be a bit hard.
Man, you know, as one of my corp's logistics guys, if there's one thing I absolutely LOVE CCP doing, it's making my job even more tedious and boring!
Seriously, are you trying to make people burn out and quit from the game faster? Because it really seems like you are. After all, by slashing the capacity a carrier can, you know, carry, you're making it so that we get to experience even more fun of sitting around and waiting for every little thing in this game due to even more jumps we have to make. Not to mention introducing not one, but TWO more 30 second waits we get to experience by having to get into each industrial to load it. I mean really, if there's one thing this game needs, it's more completely meaningless, pointless 30 second waits that are just there to slow this game down even more.
The ONLY way this will be acceptable in my eyes is if the fancy ore capital ship is some sort of jump drive capable freighter, otherwise all a nerf like this is, is f'ing over the people in this game that already spend 80% of the time they're in the game bored off their ass dealing with horrifically tedious actions because that's what is required to do anything even remotely logistically related in this game.
And to counter some of the arguments I'm sure CCP has: "But Grayton, you can just jump bridge freighters via poses instead of having to carrier jump in Rev 2.0!" Oh yeah, definitely, if we want to setup anywhere from 9 to 14 poses on a route that traverses almost three times the space it takes to get directly from empire to our home territory due to the fact you need system sov to do so. "But Grayton, you can just double click industrials to move things to/from their cargohold!" This would be all nice and good if doing so would actually properly show the expanded space of the industrial instead of just the unexpanded space. "But Grayton, you shouldn't be able to do it anyway!" Why not? what is so insanely wrong about putting GSCs in industrials that are packed into a ship maintenance array? How does this not make sense? Seriously, I just honestly do not see any actual reason for why putting a ship with a can into a ship bay is some horrible sin against the gods of Eve balancing. "Graviton harmonics" is a BS line to pull. This isn't a can-inside-a-can issue- we can't infinitely create space by packing ships into the ship bay. And "in order to prevent exploits"? Last time I checked people have been loading gscs into haulers in carriers for over a year and there haven't been any exploits in regards to it. So what is the logical reason for this change?
I could say more but I'm afraid I'd launch into a more generalized rant over all of the inherent problems with every way logistics is handled in this game, and that's not really fitting to the thread. I just hope CCP comes to the senses and stops continuing to introduce further tedium-enforcing game mechanics to drive even more people away.
|
Borgholio
Minmatar Quantum Industries Prime Orbital Systems
|
Posted - 2007.06.11 07:20:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Grayton
Well thought out rant. :-P
In a nutshell, us corp / alliance logistics fellas need some love here. Carriers are currently the only really efficient method of moving gear to and from 0.0 space. This nerf only makes it harder to supply 0.0 operations. CCP, you have said you want to get more people out into 0.0. But how do you expect to accomplish this if you only make it harder for these people to move cargo back and forth? Come on guys, use your heads for once. ----------------------------------- You will be assimilated...bunghole! |
|
Jerppu
Minmatar Brotherhood of Polar Equation Mordus Angels
|
Posted - 2007.06.11 07:29:00 -
[41]
Edited by: Jerppu on 11/06/2007 07:28:20
Originally by: Borgholio
In a nutshell, us corp / alliance logistics fellas need some love here. Carriers are currently the only really efficient method of moving gear to and from 0.0 space. This nerf only makes it harder to supply 0.0 operations. CCP, you have said you want to get more people out into 0.0. But how do you expect to accomplish this if you only make it harder for these people to move cargo back and forth? Come on guys, use your heads for once.
/signed!
Eve-directory : Eve Directory Forum Topic |
Ktadaemon
Confederation of Red Moon Red Moon Federation
|
Posted - 2007.06.11 07:56:00 -
[42]
Originally by: CCP Oneiromancer I don't see any major nerf anywhere.
maybe you should open your eyes then, come on how stupid do you think your customers are?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nerf_%28computer_gaming%29
"A nerf is a change to the rules of a computer game that weakens a certain object or ability."
i.e Carrier carrying ability will be greatly reduced and seperating individuals items will become a nightmarish grind, yep i'd say that classifies as weakening the ability of a carrier = NERF
oh its to stop exploits? No sorry thats far too easy an excuse rolled out far too often to hide lazy programming.
|
Borgholio
Minmatar Quantum Industries Prime Orbital Systems
|
Posted - 2007.06.11 09:01:00 -
[43]
Originally by: Ktadaemon
Originally by: CCP Oneiromancer I don't see any major nerf anywhere.
maybe you should open your eyes then, come on how stupid do you think your customers are?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nerf_%28computer_gaming%29
"A nerf is a change to the rules of a computer game that weakens a certain object or ability."
i.e Carrier carrying ability will be greatly reduced and seperating individuals items will become a nightmarish grind, yep i'd say that classifies as weakening the ability of a carrier = NERF
oh its to stop exploits? No sorry thats far too easy an excuse rolled out far too often to hide lazy programming.
Oneiromancer is right, it's not a MAJOR nerf...but it's a nerf nonetheless. It's a nerf that will do nothing except make people's lives a little bit more inconvenient. ----------------------------------- You will be assimilated...bunghole! |
clone 1
Caldari The Short Bus Squad The SUdden Death Squad
|
Posted - 2007.06.11 09:39:00 -
[44]
Originally by: CCP Oneiromancer Yes, this is going out into Revelations 2. And I don't see any major nerf anywhere. You can still use carriers for transport, you make it sound like that was their designed intended use and we're nerfing that. People have been asking for the ability to store loaded ships at ship maintenance bays and arrays and a change was made to allow that. Assembled containers and courier packages are the only restricted items that cannot be in an assembled ship inside a ship maintenance bay/array, in order to prevent exploits.
So this nerf to carriers, is an indirect result to an exploit preventative measure in a change to ship maintenance bays, because they use a similar codebase? Did we not learn our lesson from Covert OPs Cloaks and cyno generators then?
Always Moaning About Race Retardations |
G Dabak
Magellanic Itg GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.06.11 10:16:00 -
[45]
Originally by: clone 1
Originally by: CCP Oneiromancer Yes, this is going out into Revelations 2. And I don't see any major nerf anywhere. You can still use carriers for transport, you make it sound like that was their designed intended use and we're nerfing that. People have been asking for the ability to store loaded ships at ship maintenance bays and arrays and a change was made to allow that. Assembled containers and courier packages are the only restricted items that cannot be in an assembled ship inside a ship maintenance bay/array, in order to prevent exploits.
So this nerf to carriers, is an indirect result to an exploit preventative measure in a change to ship maintenance bays, because they use a similar codebase? Did we not learn our lesson from Covert OPs Cloaks and cyno generators then?
It sounds like they just unified the code for the two and took the path of least resistance. Maybe not. In any case it's fine if they did, but at some point CCP needs to recognize the horrifying grind of POS logistics and throw the players a bone.
|
Treylis
Gallente GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.06.11 10:29:00 -
[46]
Originally by: CCP Oneiromancer Yes, this is going out into Revelations 2. And I don't see any major nerf anywhere. You can still use carriers for transport, you make it sound like that was their designed intended use and we're nerfing that.
I'm sorry to be frank, but this statement says to me that you have either spent no or very little time handling logistics-related matters in this game. This is a nightmarishly bad change and I would highly suggest that you research the matter further before making it. |
Dalaxi
Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.06.11 11:57:00 -
[47]
Oh CCP. You know, I'd be impressed if a Dev reads this thread and posts with some feedback to the feedback.
Oh yeah, guns outside the POS force field are a great idea too. And the new changes to hamper bowling. That's three things now that just don't make any sense at all - I mean sure, they make just a little sense, but the negative side effects created are mind boggling.
|
Space Hog
NEW DAWN CO Fuzzy Nut Attack Squirrels
|
Posted - 2007.06.11 11:59:00 -
[48]
I frankly don't understand why CCP feels the need to make this change. I personally don't view it as an exploit. If they are going to take this away then why not consider increasing the Corp Hanger array to 30k M3? Or while you are at it fix the Graphic GLITCH on the Chimera.
I say the CORP Hanger should be increased to offset this change. Caution
Visit Nuts |
|
CCP Oneiromancer
|
Posted - 2007.06.11 12:04:00 -
[49]
The code does not support a container within a container within a container. Placing GSC's inside industrials inside carrier ship maintenance bays was using a loophole, which was fixed. This was both a programming and a game design decision.
|
|
hilaw
|
Posted - 2007.06.11 12:21:00 -
[50]
Originally by: CCP Oneiromancer The code does not support a container within a container within a container. Placing GSC's inside industrials inside carrier ship maintenance bays was using a loophole, which was fixed. This was both a programming and a game design decision.
So it took you a year to fix the bug that was so horrifically convenient for players it had to go
|
|
Jeff Anderson
Advanced Security And Asset Protection
|
Posted - 2007.06.11 12:25:00 -
[51]
The Dev made it sound like they found a problem and fixed it but in doing so they removed the ability to do what carrier pilots have been doing for ages, carrying haulers full of GSC's to the far reaches of the eve universe where A) no GSC's were opnely available, B) It was more economical to use GCS in in hauler to jump pos fuel around.
So in fixing a problem, CCP has made GSC prices in 0.0 higher (already 1-2mil isk each in some areas) and pos fuel has now become more expensive as well as you cannot jump as much in 1 go.
Sig: Miners supply the ore that the Industrialists use to build the ships you PVP/E with so please think of them as your ship blows up from the enhanced PVP/E in EVE. We know CCP hasn't.
|
Juggernot
|
Posted - 2007.06.11 12:27:00 -
[52]
After reading all posts here, there are two things that are apparent. 1st it is CCP's sand box they make the rules, this is a done deal and it is gonna happen, no I don't like it but I can't do anything about it <<insert list of why this hurts carriers>> read above for details 2nd there is obviously a need for a jump capable trasport ship, almost every post above echos this need. If that isn't the gamers speaking I don't know what is.
If it is ccps vision for the game to have specific roles for ships dread = pos killer/dps, carrer = ?healer? etc. . then there are a few ships missing. Medium hauler and jump transport ship are two missing for a industrailist perspective. I realize eve is a combat game or so i understand, but every big alliance/corp HAS to have an indusral side which means hauling and adding to the tedium of that is like raking you nails across a chalk-board. I haven't seen anything official so i am guessing here, but is it CCP's plan for low sec transport to require a 'blob' of ppl to move stuff? I thought blobs were bad. but to move a freighter through low sec how else would you do it? Or do we use indusrials with 38k m3 cpacity. What is the answer? POS jump arrays? require sov. so unless you in a uber-corp you can't and are screwed. Most ppl aren't in those kind of corps. THIS is the problem that most above have been saying, SO, ccp how do we fix it?
|
Dalaxi
Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.06.11 12:27:00 -
[53]
Originally by: CCP Oneiromancer The code does not support a container within a container within a container. Placing GSC's inside industrials inside carrier ship maintenance bays was using a loophole, which was fixed. This was both a programming and a game design decision.
Oh come on. A ship maint bay is hardly a container, and removing the ability for an industrial to carry GSC's when in space it normally can is just laughable.
If you want to follow through with this, you'd make it so that you couldn't put cans in cargo bays, and you couldn't load ships of any sort into a ship maint bay, because they're a container inside a container.
|
Trak Cranker
Feral Tendency Ratel Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.06.11 12:33:00 -
[54]
Originally by: CCP Oneiromancer The code does not support a container within a container within a container. Placing GSC's inside industrials inside carrier ship maintenance bays was using a loophole, which was fixed. This was both a programming and a game design decision.
Programming decision, fine.
However it does not change the fact that the change is going to be another fire under the carrier pilots buring out on Eve doing logistics. I can count on more than one hand, the number of players I know that has stepped away from the game after having run 0.0 logistics for a substantial period. Even if we disregard the loss of m3, the loss of the ability to compartmentalise the cargo is going to create so much extra work its unbelieveable.
So game design decision, not so fine.
Changes like these are exactly why I want CCPs developers to actually play the game. All aspects of it. Go find one of your fellow employees that does extensive carrier logistics for his corp/alliance - and ask him what he thinks of that change. I, sadly, cannot be there to protect you when you do - but please do it anyway.
|
B Glorious
Imperial Academy
|
Posted - 2007.06.11 12:38:00 -
[55]
Originally by: CCP Oneiromancer The code does not support a container within a container within a container. Placing GSC's inside industrials inside carrier ship maintenance bays was using a loophole, which was fixed. This was both a programming and a game design decision.
So, is jump bridging freighters going to get addressed at all? |
Rinaldo Titano
Caldari Domus Fatalis FREGE Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.06.11 12:52:00 -
[56]
Originally by: CCP Oneiromancer The code does not support a container within a container within a container. Placing GSC's inside industrials inside carrier ship maintenance bays was using a loophole, which was fixed. This was both a programming and a game design decision.
No it would be a loophole if u cloud pu a carrier into a carriers hangar.
If u think this was a bug, and carrier should be able working as transporters, than incrase the corp hangar or the ship bay up to 1m m3. http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/9741/rinaldo2ir8.jpg |
Eleana Tomelac
Gallente
|
Posted - 2007.06.11 12:58:00 -
[57]
A 20% increase in ship maintenance bays and corp hangars would help much to compensate this! -- Pocket drone carriers (tm) enthousiast ! Happy owner of a Vexor Navy Issue and few ishkurs. The Vexor Navy Issue is much more fun than the Myrmidon ! |
clone 1
Caldari The Short Bus Squad The SUdden Death Squad
|
Posted - 2007.06.11 13:05:00 -
[58]
Is mineral compression a loophole? Is it game design? I am getting confused as the goal posts keep shifting.
Why was this bug not listed in the Known Issues list?
Let us call a spade a spade, and say that this change was due to ship maintenance bays, and the corresponding change 'nerf' to carriers is not worth bothering about.
Always Moaning About Race Retardations |
Lord DarkStar
Gallente Mobile Alcohol Processing Units
|
Posted - 2007.06.11 13:18:00 -
[59]
As ccp says,carriers were not ever ment to be transports and haulers,they were ment to be combat ships,this i agree on. What i dont agree on is nerfing logistic operations for any corp in 0.0. Why is it a nerf you say? we can still haul industrials in the carrier hanger you say? Well,sure we can,but when you fit 3 or 4 differnt peoples items into 1 industrial ... how are you going to seperate it all when you get it where its going? I swear it will take over 30 mins to get 1 industrial straightend out.
Now i myself am not a carrier pilot nor do i do logistics for my corp other then hauling POS fuel, but i have had carrier runs done and i do know how they work and its gona be a major problem for them.
On a second note i also believe that from what has bin posted here that ccp is trying to nerf the carriers ability to run logistics because as stated above its a combat ship not a hauler,and they will be giving us a jump capable frieghter in return. It probly wont be able to jump half the distance of a carrier but thats another issue.
We of the Unicorn clan are the best horsemen in the land,our horses are our lives and brothers,we fight as one,we live as one,we die as one. |
Cpt Pugwash
Rubra Libertas Militia
|
Posted - 2007.06.11 13:35:00 -
[60]
Carriers are combat ships and should not be allowed to perform a logistics role by scooping Industrials.
You want to live in deep 0.0 you should have to organise logistic convoys. Use your numerical advantage to escort vulnerable transport ships
Industrial ships should not be allowed inside carriers (they are to fragile) and freighters/Industrials should not be able to use a jumpbridge. This would force a lot more industrials into space and give alliances a way to wage war that did not involve huge blobs shooting POS.
You could effectively lay seige to an enemy and starve him out without ever engaging a single pos.
This is a long overdue nerf and does not go nearly far enough
Movies: Make Mine a Bob Light
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 .. 16 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |