open All Channels
seplocked Test Server Feedback
blankseplocked SiSi: No cargo allowed in ships inside a carrier ship maint. array
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : ... 13 14 15 16 17 18 [19] 20 21 : last (21)

Author Topic

infinityshok
ZYNC
Posted - 2007.11.29 21:06:00 - [541]
 

Originally by: Kerfira
Originally by: Darth Sylar
...what is a bleeding carrier if not a logistics ship? it has no primary weapon for god's sake!

Try walking up the the captain of the USS Nimitz and tell him his ship is a logistics ship. My guess is you'll get a fist in the face...

A carrier is a COMBAT ship! Not a bloody hauler!



Come up with an analogy that has some vague relevance. When was the last time you saw an aircraft carrier warping around outer space in a far off galaxy.

CCP Gangleri


Minmatar
Posted - 2007.11.29 21:17:00 - [542]
 

Originally by: infinityshok
Originally by: Kerfira
Originally by: Darth Sylar
...what is a bleeding carrier if not a logistics ship? it has no primary weapon for god's sake!

Try walking up the the captain of the USS Nimitz and tell him his ship is a logistics ship. My guess is you'll get a fist in the face...

A carrier is a COMBAT ship! Not a bloody hauler!



Come up with an analogy that has some vague relevance. When was the last time you saw an aircraft carrier warping around outer space in a far off galaxy.




The reason for people bringing this analogy to the table is that so many posters use the logic:

carrier=carries stuff=hauler

Which is just not true, carriers are combat ships that carry mostly what they need to support their own combat ability. This should also hold true for carriers in eve, they are combat ships that were always meant to be used for combat logistics as opposed to POS fueling logistics. In my previous post on page 18 I explained how logistics for large scale POS networks are being moved over to ships that are less geared toward combat tasks. They will need combat support, and carriers will still be very useful in that role.

Trent Nichols
Di-Tron Heavy Industries
Atlas Alliance
Posted - 2007.11.29 21:44:00 - [543]
 

Edited by: Trent Nichols on 29/11/2007 21:45:48
Originally by: CCP Gangleri
Carriers now have the ability to transport up to two battleships fully combat ready, that includes ammo, in their massively upgraded ship maintenance bays. They lost the ability to be fully combat ready haulers instead. Where is the nerf?

I get the feeling the majority of the people posting here do not check their facts, I am still seeing people on page 18 claim that ammo will not be allowed in ships stored in the ship maintenance bays. Jump freighters will not take that long for people to train for and on top of that there is already a jump capable industrial ship on TQ that has a rather nice cargohold (please check these facts on Singularity before commenting on them) so all in all the changes being made are:

a) Combat ships are being made more combat related
b) Industrial ships are being made more important in the logistics of running a large POS network

It is true that many alliances now count on carriers for logistics work, it is not true that the coming patch will
completely cripple alliances that run large logistics networks.



The nerf is in that you are are making logistics more of a grind without giving replacements a chance to mature.
On top of this, the expanded ship bays are hardly a replacement for the loss of cargo capacity.

Rorquals are still so rare at this point that the construction of one is news. There are hardly enough in place to replace carriers.

While its true that the skill requirements for Jump freighters are now reasonable, the build requirements are not so they will be useful only to the largest alliances for months.

Also, I see your claim that the patch will not cripple logistics networks and you may be right. With enough griding, spending many hours running freighters and industrial ships alliances should be able to make up for the loss of carriers. Id love to hear you explain how this is a good thing.

The only reason for this nerf I can come up with is some irrational attachment the Devs have to making carriers pure combat ships. Let them become obsolete as haulers, a nerf isnt needed.

bobtheminer
Posted - 2007.11.29 21:45:00 - [544]
 

Edited by: bobtheminer on 29/11/2007 22:34:05
have the gal bs's been looked at or is it intentional that u can only move 1 gal bs at a time as the mega certainly and i belive the hyp are over 500k each, where as other races bs's are under 500k each

edit
teir 2 and 3 bs size's
tempest 450km3
maelstrom 472km3
megathron 513km3
hyperion 513km3
raven 486km3
rokh 486km3
apoc 517km3
abaddon 495km3

so are we just supposed to be able to transport 2 types of some bs or is the general idea any 2 bs, because if its any i think the apoc and the gal bs's need a look at

Cassius Yaoma
Demonic Retribution
Pure.
Posted - 2007.11.29 22:32:00 - [545]
 

Yes, carriers are haulers. But not in the industrial sense. They haul war supplies/ships/persons into battle. They also repair ships and provide intel. IMO, this change is a step in the right direction, but still not perfect.

The thing that differs between carriers in game and carrier irl is that you cannot dock at a carrier and it take you where you need to go, and then you undock. I would LOVE to see this change. Have carriers be able to be able to haul fuel, ammo, guns, extra ships. And let people be able to dock at moms to be cyno'd to whereever.

As far as the fighter "nerf". I don't see a problem with it. You can still put out just as many fighters, you just need people there with you.

CCP Gangleri


Minmatar
Posted - 2007.11.29 22:35:00 - [546]
 

There is no fighter nerf, that was simply a suggested solution to the fact that carriers were in essence combat ready haulers. Instead we are removing the hauling ability from them and adding more combat logistics power.

Natalie Jax
Battlestars
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2007.11.29 22:57:00 - [547]
 

I'm still a bit baffled by the fact that you are allowing ships in the maintenance arrays to carry ammunition but nothing else. So for some reason a ship containing explosives is A-OK but a ship containing soil is not? Wait, what? Usually y'all are consistent with metagaming logic, this one is just way off the mark.

BTW, kudo's to Gangleri for posting CCP's opinions on the matter, too often of late all we get are generalities and vauge promises that "we know what we're doing just trust us" without any insight into the logic behind things. Even if I disagree with the reason for something I much prefer knowing it.

Fraps
Setenta Corp
F A I L
Posted - 2007.11.29 23:17:00 - [548]
 

Originally by: CCP Gangleri
Carriers now have the ability to transport up to two battleships fully combat ready, that includes ammo, in their massively upgraded ship maintenance bays. They lost the ability to be fully combat ready haulers instead. Where is the nerf?

I get the feeling the majority of the people posting here do not check their facts, I am still seeing people on page 18 claim that ammo will not be allowed in ships stored in the ship maintenance bays. Jump freighters will not take that long for people to train for and on top of that there is already a jump capable industrial ship on TQ that has a rather nice cargohold (please check these facts on Singularity before commenting on them) so all in all the changes being made are:

a) Combat ships are being made more combat related
b) Industrial ships are being made more important in the logistics of running a large POS network

It is true that many alliances now count on carriers for logistics work, it is not true that the coming patch will completely cripple alliances that run large logistics networks.


Do you know off the top of your head how many players are t2 freighter ready? do you know the amount of time it will take to become t2 freighter ready? Should we all just stock up on fuel before the patch so that we will have enough to last until we get some t2 freighter pilots. Letís not even think about cost to build/buy them.

This change will cripple smaller alliances, you are now forcing them to take a group of haulers through hostile space (in some cases) in order to fuel their distant outpost systems. While on the surface that may seem like a grand way to encourage team play but letís look a reality.

I have ten haulers/3 freighters worth of supplies to get out to my outpost 30 jumps from empire. To get there I need to go through 20 or so jumps of hostile space. in order to ensure the safety of these supplies I need to form an alliance op. that pretty much means a Saturday/Sunday op when the server is at its peak population. Otherwise know as ZOMG LAGG time

So now I have my 80 man fleet to escort my supplies together, yaaaa for the big blob. However hostile forces have spies in the empire to 0.0 gateway systems. They know we are coming. So now they form up a 100 man gang to nail the freighters.

Letís suppose we make it half way then our scout spots the 100 man gang sitting on the gat ein the next system. We send our 80 man gang ahead believing we can break the gate camp. Blob warfare ensues and lag wins the day. Because of the mechanics of the game more than half of our fleet is decimated but the hostiles leave the gate and we decide to seize the opportunity to get through. We jump in the freighters. Hostile dictor un-cloaks and bubbles the gang. Hostile group warps back in. blob warfare ensues, lag again wins the day and our freighters and haulers die.

Because we now lack the fuel for our POS's they go offline we lose sov. And get ganked in our weak state. So now we are out billions in ships and POS fuel, Billions more POS equipment and the station. Every one is ****ed and we all disband and join other, larger alliances that can support 0.0 space, since they are the ones with jump bridges, titans, and when they eventually come out they will have the first jump freighters.
Wow you really are trying to break up the large alliance holding space thing, as well as encourage small gang warfare. Oh and you are murdering casual players like myself. You guys are well on your way to pulling an SWG move.

thanksConfused

HydroSan
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2007.11.30 02:11:00 - [549]
 

Edited by: HydroSan on 30/11/2007 02:12:19
Again, CCP: we are not angry at the change, but the lack of notice, the lack of a mature substitute, and the lack of knowledge the devs seem to have of just how massive a change like this is to EVERY alliance in the game. This will hurt smaller alliances living in NPC 0.0 who rely on carriers to jump their faction/mission running loot out, or the people in the drone regions who practically depend on mineral/alloy exportation for survival. How are they supposed to cope without any substitutes in place? The T2 freighters will cost at least 5b when they come off the assembly line and only the biggest will be able to get their hands on them.

If you had held off any carrier changes, made it clear a carrier nerf was in the future, introduced Jump Freighters and gotten people producing them, and then introduced the carrier nerf with advanced notice in Trinity 1.1... people wouldn't be as mad as they are right now. In fact, people might actually be able to cope with it.

This combined with the Trit nerfs will make life extremely difficult in 0.0. And while I have your attention: what about that "superveld" you guys were talking about? Or blast mining? How are people supposed to get Trit in 0.0 for production? You've nerfed logistics in more than one way and haven't brought in mature substitutes to take their place.

Kerfira
Kerfira Corp
Posted - 2007.11.30 11:08:00 - [550]
 

Originally by: HydroSan
Originally by: Kerfira
Sorry for not answering before, but I've been busy RL.

I don't really see them as contradictory. The density in people per system would go up, and I don't think anyone (CCP, me, anyone...) minds alliances/corps claiming territory that they're using!
The thing that needs nerfing is them claiming territory they AREN'T using, since that space could be used by corp/alliances that were willing to do so, but can't because <big alliance> is claiming it.

This'll help a bit, and the compression nerf will help some more. I don't think it's enough, but every little bit helps.



Too bad that the Jump Freighters shoot a hole in this entire argument. All it will do is allow the super-rich alliances to keep logistics at the status quo they're at right now and make it difficult to near-impossible for any smaller alliance to claim space unless they get help from the bigger alliances. Bigger alliances will still have POS fuel, trit and manageable logistics two months after Trinity when they get their hands on Jump Freighters: the smaller alliances (e.g: drone regions) will probably not be able to afford it.

The nerf to carrier logistics ranges from a pain in the ass to a mild annoyance to bigger alliances, and a death sentence to smaller alliances. Your whole "NERF THE BIG ALLIANCES" speech was inspiring, though, but unfortunately you're entirely off the mark!

For what it's worth, I think the Jump Freighter should never have been put in. As you say, its a tool that'll benefit only big alliances. For that matter, both dreads and the Rorqual should also have their hauling capabilities nerfed, and freighters should not be able to use jump bridges (static or titan).

Resources used in 0.0 need to be generated there if 0.0 is to have any chance of attracting other player types than PvP'ers.

However, jump freighters will not be as prevalent as carriers in game. Their high cost and training time should suffice to ensure that, not to mention their lesser range and higher fuel consumption. The freighters will also be significantly easier to kill, even at a hostile pos, and being so expensive they almost require an escort. This too will limit their usability. Even so, I still intensely dislike the concept of them.

In addition, the compression nerf will help (not eliminate) the trit problem.

Plutoinum
Mercenaries of Andosia
Veritas Immortalis
Posted - 2007.11.30 11:12:00 - [551]
 

Edited by: Plutoinum on 30/11/2007 11:18:46
Hmm, still alternatives. Besides the rorqual, jump freighters and probably hauling some stuff with dreads, I didn't read anything that you can't jump a freighter through a black ops jump portal. Don't know about the range though and lack the skill for that portal generator to try it out.

P.S.: I agree with the change anyway, since I think carrier hauling made logistics easy, which is maybe a reason for deploying so many pos and claiming so much territory in 0.0.

CCP Gangleri


Minmatar
Posted - 2007.11.30 11:31:00 - [552]
 

Black ops portals are only usable by covert ops ships, Recon, Covert ops and Black ops can use them. No other ship type can use them.

Virtuozzo
The Collective
Against ALL Authorities
Posted - 2007.11.30 13:19:00 - [553]
 

Originally by: CCP Gangleri


It is true that many alliances now count on carriers for logistics work, it is not true that the coming patch will completely cripple alliances that run large logistics networks.


I don't know which game you play :P Sorry, just had to say that.

It is true that most alliances now count on carriers for logistics because there is no better tool for factors of manhours and fun factors.

It is true as well that the coming patch will cripple many alliances without vested infrastructures which are very costly and take a long long time to set up and which still because of changes do not in any means compensate for the loss of shipping capacity because of the carrier changes.

You are missing some key elements Gangleri:
- cost factors. Do not confuse large vested alliances with smaller or medium ones where cost is tied to capacity. Jump freighters are relatively affordable, but you will have to be bloody rich to afford them to a level where they can take over the current carrier capacity (not to mention, burst sniping jump freighters when they jump to a pos is ridiculously easy).

- work factors. EVE is a game, not a job. The current carrier mechanics allow for a distributed workload, leaving time for fun. Switching to jump freighters, makes it a limited specialty for a long time to come (training & funding), not to mention that jump bridge networks suffer from a work factor as well as a cost factor (particularly with the mass changes for standard freighters).

This element of gameplay should never have been subject to the question "how can we prevent eve online from becoming capital online". This element should never have been tied together with the element of intended use. This element should never have been dumped on people without proper information management beforehand and laying out alternatives in advance giving people a chance to prepare.
We're no longer flapping around on a level of "oh battleship blew up, wish you a speedy recovery". We're dealing with elements which take thousands of manhours of player activity to set up, fund, and implement.


You are 100% correct that carriers ended up in a role which was not originally intended. The problem is that the players had no other alternative because of game mechanics and the absence of competing solutions. Do not blame the players for using the elements in game the way they are put in game, regardless of intent. When you leave gaps hanging for such a long time, it is way too easy to spot trends and act on them early, rather then late.
You are now offering alternatives, of a limited type, which require a substantial amount of time for people to retrain for (freighter pilot going for jump drive calibration 5 from warp drive operation 4 for instance to make use of existing dread based jump networks) while in the mean time there is a huge gap in capacity, while with the new "solutions" facing the issue that they require even more manhours to handle.

Why are staff acting surprised that people are still angry. Granted, there's idiots who don't check facts among the players, and some people loose sight because of the complexity or emo, but come on, look at the trends you created and then let spin out of control and then at the gaps in information control and alternatives for retraining, manhours and fun.

Virtuozzo
The Collective
Against ALL Authorities
Posted - 2007.11.30 13:21:00 - [554]
 

Originally by: CCP Gangleri
There is no fighter nerf, that was simply a suggested solution to the fact that carriers were in essence combat ready haulers. Instead we are removing the hauling ability from them and adding more combat logistics power.


Does it surprise you that subscribers no longer believe staff and just go for the worst case scenarios? Look at the amount of bad communications. I will not be surprised if in time (suddenly) there will be a new bandwidth model for carriers and motherships limiting the amount of fighters for deployment and control factors. Why? Because of how these forums are used for subtle checks on responses and ideas.

Kerfira
Kerfira Corp
Posted - 2007.11.30 13:28:00 - [555]
 

Edited by: Kerfira on 30/11/2007 13:29:26
Originally by: Virtuozzo
You are missing some key elements Gangleri:
- cost factors. Do not confuse large vested alliances with smaller or medium ones where cost is tied to capacity. Jump freighters are relatively affordable, but you will have to be bloody rich to afford them to a level where they can take over the current carrier capacity (not to mention, burst sniping jump freighters when they jump to a pos is ridiculously easy).

- work factors. EVE is a game, not a job. The current carrier mechanics allow for a distributed workload, leaving time for fun. Switching to jump freighters, makes it a limited specialty for a long time to come (training & funding), not to mention that jump bridge networks suffer from a work factor as well as a cost factor (particularly with the mass changes for standard freighters).

....And I think you are missing out on the obvious solution to this, and probably what is CCP's intention.

- Alliances/corp must reduce the area they control!

Having single alliances, no matter whether they're several 1000's of members, control a vast number of regions they're not even using is quite frankly ridiculous, and deprives other players who might want to use it of the ability to do so.
Increasing the workload/cost of keeping that territory is the ONLY way of reducing it!
Ideally, an alliance should be able to control the territory they actively use, and no more.

bobtheminer
Posted - 2007.11.30 13:39:00 - [556]
 

not all space is good and usable though, which to a point is why alot of alliances claim alot of space because to get those 2 good systems in that constelation and those other 2 over their u end up being classed as caliming that entire constelation, theirs very few const's in eve i dare say that have mass's of high belt low sec status systems u get 1-2 good systems then the rest are average or if your really unlucky junk systems that have 2-6 belts and a sec status of -0.01, if ccp wants to decrease the size of space alliances create they need to make smaller area's able to sustain enough ppl for it to be viable

Virtuozzo
The Collective
Against ALL Authorities
Posted - 2007.11.30 13:41:00 - [557]
 

Originally by: Kerfira

....And I think you are missing out on the obvious solution to this, and probably what is CCP's intention.

- Alliances/corp must reduce the area they control!

Having single alliances, no matter whether they're several 1000's of members, control a vast number of regions they're not even using is quite frankly ridiculous, and deprives other players who might want to use it of the ability to do so.
Increasing the workload/cost of keeping that territory is the ONLY way of reducing it!
Ideally, an alliance should be able to control the territory they actively use, and no more.



No, I'm not missing that. It's something I would utterly love. Small pockets of (rude) "civilisation" lashing out to each other over vast distances. Juicy.

The problem with this reasoning is that there is a treshold involved. The current changes are ridiculously easy to adapt to and shake off for exactly those larger and complex organisations which hold claim to insane amounts of space. Because of the amount of pilots finding capacity of rorqual able pilots is easy, same for jump freighters, and funding those elements is **** easy - it is after all a volume based economy. Not to mention that the largest of such organisations completely bypass the issue with other means of logistics which small to medium alliances just do not have, let alone can afford.

If CCP's focus truly is to cut space up again, combined with not letting eve online become capital online, then reinforcing the large vested organisations in their capabilities is a bad thing. Not providing even a crossover timeframe for small/medium organisations is also a bad thing.

It is not that these changes are being implemented. It is the timing, the manner and the methodology. None of which shows any support for the lovely target of cutting space up again. In contrast it hits small/medium organisations even harder. Keep in mind that no matter how small, medium or big you are, you all have the same sovereignty requirements.

A station in a system with 80 moons these days? I'd really love to see a small/medium organisation manage coping with keeping sovereignty there .... especially with these changes.

I agree with you, the notion of those huge areas of "claimed" space, it is kinda silly. And I would love to see more good old real 0.0 again like before the days of station ping pong, but human nature does not change, nor do these changes help to break up the large claims. Instead they reinforce the large claims, because they already have the manpower for manhours, the means for the infrastructure, the means for distributed nearly invulnerable income, and the pre trained older pilots always ready to hop into the next "solution" because of the skillpoints.

No, these changes do not help, if reducing the claims is the target, or even a "desired side effect".

Barimen
Posted - 2007.11.30 13:50:00 - [558]
 

Originally by: Benn Helmsman
Edited by: Benn Helmsman on 26/10/2007 09:06:31
Use a jump freighter, stop crying your ubercarriers cant do everything on their own.


This kind of reminds me of a story about the french revolution, when Marie Antoinette was told "The people is angry and starving because they have no bread" she was rumoured to have said, "But then why dont they eat cookies instead?"

Not sure if that one was true, scholars seems to indicate it was not.

Does not matter though, we have a new quote to source that makes Marie look like a Mensa member.

Thank you.

Kerfira
Kerfira Corp
Posted - 2007.11.30 13:57:00 - [559]
 

Originally by: Virtuozzo
Post...

I do see your point, I just happen not to agree fully Smile

While you rightly say that large alliances might be able to compensate quickly, there's a difference between having the formal ability (ie. players with the possibility of training the required skills), and the actual ability to do so (ie. get those players to do so).
It's one thing to spend training time for a carrier which is a bad-ass pwn-ship in itself that can accidentally act as a hauler, quite something different for a PvP player to train for an industrial ship.

In addition, the ships that'll replace the carriers now used are 2-3 times more expensive at least, and has 2/3 (?) of the range.

All in all, I think this will have at least some limiting effect on current alliances (even the bigger ones), but as I've said before, I think jump freighters should never have been put in the game, and that Rorqual and expanded dreads needs a nerfbat in the groin. Add to that the inability of freighters to use jump bridges, and we may just have the beginning of real full-featured empires in 0.0.
The only other thing missing in that picture is all fuel types available in all of 0.0, and more ice belts in general (and possibly a removal of true-sec so 75% of 0.0 isn't useless).

Virtuozzo
The Collective
Against ALL Authorities
Posted - 2007.11.30 14:12:00 - [560]
 

Originally by: Kerfira
Originally by: Virtuozzo
Post...

I do see your point, I just happen not to agree fully Smile

While you rightly say that large alliances might be able to compensate quickly, there's a difference between having the formal ability (ie. players with the possibility of training the required skills), and the actual ability to do so (ie. get those players to do so).
It's one thing to spend training time for a carrier which is a bad-ass pwn-ship in itself that can accidentally act as a hauler, quite something different for a PvP player to train for an industrial ship.

In addition, the ships that'll replace the carriers now used are 2-3 times more expensive at least, and has 2/3 (?) of the range.

All in all, I think this will have at least some limiting effect on current alliances (even the bigger ones), but as I've said before, I think jump freighters should never have been put in the game, and that Rorqual and expanded dreads needs a nerfbat in the groin. Add to that the inability of freighters to use jump bridges, and we may just have the beginning of real full-featured empires in 0.0.
The only other thing missing in that picture is all fuel types available in all of 0.0, and more ice belts in general (and possibly a removal of true-sec so 75% of 0.0 isn't useless).



The large vested organisations holding vast amounts of space, have a lot of luxuries. Some who are at that point enjoy the benefits of coordinated training because people help the team all along the way to even more territory. Others simply enforce it (train this, or you die). Both mechanisms (and there's a few others) work with ease.

You might be missing that for such organisations it is not "something else" for a pvp player to train an "industry" alt to fly a carrier. It is part of the whole pvp focus. After all, it is about territory. Anything required for that goes into the pvp element. Almost sick yes :P But true. It is just as simple, because of the large team focus and the available means, to buy an extra alt here or there exactly for those purposes. On that level, ISK ain't an issue, even for a coordinated approach of buying a good team of dedicated pilots each an extra pre skilled alt. It's common practice, sadly.

No, because it will mean more work for small/medium organisations who have less comfort zones and comfort capability (margins), it helps the larger alliances. On top of that, for any large organisation which focuses on territory, the cost is pocket money, the manhours are a laugh.

I agree that the whole racial ice issue is boobies up for 0.0, but I doubt any CCP is so far as to jump on that topic..

Jump freighters. Too easy to kill, even when they have remote repair support. A good sniper gang can kill it at a pos before any carriers can lock it and have the repair cycles kick in :P
Rorquals, will be perverted for shipping, just like dreadnoughts, and AGAIN we will arrive at the same issue of "not intended role".

I can picture an idea suddenly being posted by CCP on seperate fuel bays for dreadnoughts and rorquals, with only some types of items being allowed in the cargo bay ....

Shevar
Minmatar
Target Practice incorporated
Posted - 2007.11.30 14:20:00 - [561]
 

Originally by: CCP Gangleri
Originally by: infinityshok
Originally by: Kerfira
Originally by: Darth Sylar
...what is a bleeding carrier if not a logistics ship? it has no primary weapon for god's sake!

Try walking up the the captain of the USS Nimitz and tell him his ship is a logistics ship. My guess is you'll get a fist in the face...

A carrier is a COMBAT ship! Not a bloody hauler!



Come up with an analogy that has some vague relevance. When was the last time you saw an aircraft carrier warping around outer space in a far off galaxy.




The reason for people bringing this analogy to the table is that so many posters use the logic:

carrier=carries stuff=hauler

Which is just not true, carriers are combat ships that carry mostly what they need to support their own combat ability. This should also hold true for carriers in eve, they are combat ships that were always meant to be used for combat logistics as opposed to POS fueling logistics. In my previous post on page 18 I explained how logistics for large scale POS networks are being moved over to ships that are less geared toward combat tasks. They will need combat support, and carriers will still be very useful in that role.


Euhm I'm sorry but a jump capable freighter that can't even fit cap recharge modules won't be fun to jump around (or can they jump around without cap?).

So basicly CCP wants to fully segregate combat and logistics? So that combat specced characters can't help significantly with any form of logistics? What kind of ploy is that? To force more people into having multiple accounts?

Logistics is looked upon as a drag, nearly a dayjob like thing that needs to be done to keep an alliance running in .0. Instead of making it more tedious you should be working on making it easier in my opinion. Unless offcourse you want to increase the population in highsec and futher lower the ammount of population in .0. But I doubt that that is what CCP wants to accomplish.

Also why nerf something without having introduced the replacement prior to nerfing it? I thought the outcry of the mineral compression nerf would have learned you to avoid such a mistake (do note ore compression is in no way a replacement for mineral compression, so when you decide to "change" that again expect another huge outcry).


CCP Gangleri


Minmatar
Posted - 2007.11.30 14:54:00 - [562]
 

Edited by: CCP Gangleri on 30/11/2007 14:56:42
Dreads and Rorquals fitted for cargo expansion are reducing their combat effectiveness for hauling power. That was not the case with the carriers as they were. This is the heart of the matter, massive hauling potential without any loss of combat ability is simply out of the question.

As for the larger alliances vs. smaller and medium sized alliances. That is and always will be unbalanced, did you expect it to be easy for a tiny band of brave carrier pilots to run a massive POS network in deep 0.0 next to a huge hostile alliance?
Oh you did?
Well, thats not the way it should be.

Jump freighters will and should require backup to be most effective, 0.0 logistics will no longer be one carrier pilot and his cyno alt.


edit: typos and other stuff

Shevar
Minmatar
Target Practice incorporated
Posted - 2007.11.30 15:05:00 - [563]
 

Originally by: CCP Gangleri

Jump freighters will and should require backup to be most effective, 0.0 logistics will no longer be one carrier pilot and his cyno alt.



So this change is only aimed at making logistics more tedious/boring and more time consuming?

Mondo Shiva
Posted - 2007.11.30 15:09:00 - [564]
 

Well this is the biggest isk sink that will hit TQ.

- T2 freighters - sky rocket prices for characters with proper t2 freighter skills.

- Dropping the price of carrier characters.

- Entire business with selling characters have recieved wrecking dmg with is good couse lot of people sold carriers chars for 5-15 bil.

- Large allainces will be forced for several months either run more often logistic trips or make their space smaller.

- Lot of smaller alliances or corps trying to get to 0.0 individualy with their own poses. Most of post otold its not possible i think it is. Smaller corporaations can easily manage 2-3 poses. And if they are combat oriented they can gang up with others.

Most damage was done to large sovereignity holding alliances like goons or red alliance for example and make space for smaller entities. Interesting is that Bob withdraw month ago so they dont need to care.

Kerfira
Kerfira Corp
Posted - 2007.11.30 15:17:00 - [565]
 

Edited by: Kerfira on 30/11/2007 15:17:34
Originally by: Mondo Shiva
Well this is the biggest isk sink that will hit TQ.

None of your points are ISK sinks!

ISK leaving your wallet and going to another players wallet is not an ISK sink.
ISK leaving the game (as in buying NPC goods) is an ISK sink.

Vanessa Vale
Posted - 2007.11.30 15:58:00 - [566]
 

Originally by: Shevar
Originally by: CCP Gangleri

Jump freighters will and should require backup to be most effective, 0.0 logistics will no longer be one carrier pilot and his cyno alt.



So this change is only aimed at making logistics more tedious/boring and more time consuming?

So is grinding isks for new ships (which is probably now more time consuming with the module volume nerf) *shrug* Nothing special with this. You do what you can tolerate and what you cannot you don't.

Hatch
Minmatar
4 Marketeers
Rura-Penthe
Posted - 2007.11.30 16:02:00 - [567]
 

so with the two thirds of the cargo bay now taken away, how much fuel does the thing need to get around and how much will you be able to carry when you have not room because of fuel constraints.

bobtheminer
Posted - 2007.11.30 16:17:00 - [568]
 

Gangleri since your commenting in this thread could u comment on the bs point i brought up earlyer or point a dev who can comment this way?

Lord DeFault
Minmatar
Serenity Prime
Posted - 2007.11.30 16:35:00 - [569]
 

Edited by: Lord DeFault on 30/11/2007 16:36:40
I agree with CCP about carryís being to useful. However...

the effect you are having on small corps is horrible.
Warp to 0 Made EVE a small place. No havens for a small corp to set up in 0.0.(good thing bad effect)

Small Corps alliances cannot afford silly t2 freighters.
Imagine the man power needed at both ends to use it. How should they haul now?
Thereís some stuff in eve you just donít move in a hauler in 0.0...

Corps cannot claim sov.
Even limited Sov levels. So they have to Join some terrible alliance, Filled with nitwits and divisions..
or fork up another BILLION.

They should be able to claim limited number of systems and sov levels.

EVE tools allow alert all the big boys instantly. meaning you get smite before it's ready. Normally by a fight collation. And simply blobbed out before you defensive structures are ready.

Afew Carriers, A targetitble sum for a new 100man corp. can fuel and supply add limited combat support at 20mill apop.
Now.. What will they do after this? Field carriers at the gate vs. much bigger alliances? You mad? Lol

Capital industrial ship appears to be a good idea, However itís use with moon mins and other such industrial items is shrouded in mystery. And itís 3 odd bill Just to move the basics. And does nothing else. You would need 3/4 of these? lol

Swedish Bob
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2007.11.30 16:38:00 - [570]
 

Edited by: Swedish Bob on 30/11/2007 17:18:29
Originally by: CCP Gangleri
In my previous post on page 18 I explained how logistics for large scale POS networks are being moved over to ships that are less geared toward combat tasks. They will need combat support, and carriers will still be very useful in that role.


What nobody has explained is why you need this to happen right this second. You have basically walked in busted up all the logistics guys toys and then told them to sort it out themselves. There is no reason that this nerf needs to happen before the market has created a viable alternative. I think you guys are being pig headed about this and unwilling to make adjustments where it would ease the transition. Or you just have not planned this out well enough.


Pages: first : previous : ... 13 14 15 16 17 18 [19] 20 21 : last (21)

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only