These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Proposal Bowhead Fleet Hangar
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Thor Nergal
Deadly Interstellar Cynosural Killing Squad
#1 - 2015-09-01 07:29:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Thor Nergal
I am pretty sure that this is not posted elsewhere on the F&I thread but can the Bowhead get a Fleet Hangar.

I use my Bowhead like one would use an Orca, put in multiple ships and have fittings in the cargo bays, However when it comes to the Bowhead there is no way to allow fleet members to fit the modules unless they have it in their cargo,

I also find it annoying to move mobile depots etc to these pilots as they can't be jettisoned.

CCP please add a Fleet Hangar to the bowhead 5,000m3 would be plenty!

Regards
Thor Nergal

P.S happy to hear from others as to why this should not happen or support the adjustment.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#2 - 2015-09-01 07:58:25 UTC
I agree with this wholeheartedly. I'd also like to tack on increasing the cargohold space of industrials with specialized bays, especially mining barges. I feel the cargoholds are unfairly cramped in the following ships:

Procurer (350m3)
Retriever (450m3)
Covetor (350m3)
Skiff (350m3)
Mackinaw (450m3)
Hulk (350m3)
Kryos (550m3)
Epithal (550m3)
Miasmos (550m3)
Hoarder (500m3)

CCP, would it kill you to give them at least 1000m3 each?

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Caleb Seremshur
Bloodhorn
Patchwork Freelancers
#3 - 2015-09-01 09:57:36 UTC
Wasn't the bowhead like specifically designed to be some carebear incursion hauling ship? It doesn't even have a jumpdrive.
FireFrenzy
Cynosural Samurai
#4 - 2015-09-01 12:59:01 UTC
it wasnt specifically designed as such, but alot of incursion runners do you use it to haul **** around highsec...

But i know a bunch of people who want to use them out in nullsec...
TigerXtrm
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#5 - 2015-09-01 13:02:07 UTC
While we're at it, could the yield for mining barges please be increased so I can strip a belt in about half an hour? I find it fairly annoying that mining takes so long. Also please give them a cargobay of about 1 million m3 so I don't have to fly back to station constantly and lose time, very frustrating you know.

Thanks, CCP!

My YouTube Channel - EVE Tutorials & other game related things!

My Website - Blogs, Livestreams & Forums
Thor Nergal
Deadly Interstellar Cynosural Killing Squad
#6 - 2015-09-01 13:35:22 UTC
Ok I get it just because something is annoying we shouldn't change it right? Oops

Well the Bowhead performs in practice similar features of an orca and rorqual.
However this ship doesn't just move mining barges around it moves almost any sub-cap.

Thus why does it not have a fleet hangar like these ships?

Additionally @Reaver Glitterstim in the case your post was not trolling Blink I don't believe or endorse such a change. The barges and industrial's work fine for their particular purpose (in respect to cargo space alone).

Jump Drives, would be a tech II thing thus a separate subject.

Regards
Thor Nergal
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#7 - 2015-09-01 14:57:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Reaver Glitterstim
Thor Nergal wrote:
Additionally @Reaver Glitterstim in the case your post was not trolling Blink I don't believe or endorse such a change. The barges and industrial's work fine for their particular purpose (in respect to cargo space alone).

I wasn't trolling. I'd gladly give up 2500m3 in my PI hold on my Epithal for 500m3 more cargohold.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Maldiro Selkurk
Radiation Sickness
#8 - 2015-09-01 18:20:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Maldiro Selkurk
Niche ships are always very good at what they do since they are niche ships. If you want your niche ship to become more generalized you mist pay a severe penalty for this increased generalization. What carrying capacity are you willing to give up to get your 5000m3 hanger, 15 percent and i back your request anything less and you arent paying the price for generalization.

Yawn,  I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#9 - 2015-09-01 23:45:33 UTC
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:
If you want your niche ship to become more generalized you mist pay a severe penalty for this increased generalization.

Why don't we hand out a new set of specialized industrials with a smaller main bay and bigger cargohold, for the races that don't have much variety?

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#10 - 2015-09-01 23:59:49 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:
If you want your niche ship to become more generalized you mist pay a severe penalty for this increased generalization.

Why don't we hand out a new set of specialized industrials with a smaller main bay and bigger cargohold, for the races that don't have much variety?

Because the only reason those "specialized" industrial hulls exist is because many players wailed for the DEVs to keep the "extra" industrials after the industrial ship rebalance (for various reasons).
Originally the were being considered for deletion.

So the "specializations" you see today are literally the result of, "eh, give them bonuses and fitting that are superfically cool but don't step on the toes of the newly rebalanced ships" type thinking.

How did you Veterans start?
Thor Nergal
Deadly Interstellar Cynosural Killing Squad
#11 - 2015-09-02 00:07:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Thor Nergal
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:
Niche ships are always very good at what they do since they are niche ships. If you want your niche ship to become more generalized you mist pay a severe penalty for this increased generalization. What carrying capacity are you willing to give up to get your 5000m3 hanger, 15 percent and i back your request anything less and you arent paying the price for generalization.


Firstly I don't see how this makes the Bowhead more generalized. It is a ship moving freighter with a fitting service, IMHO to have a fleet hangar is a given.

However the Bowhead has a base cargo hold capacity of 4,000m3,
I would be willing to reduce this to 250m3, almost all of it, in lieu of a fleet hangar.
The increase to utility would be well worth the price.

Regards
Thor Nergal
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#12 - 2015-09-02 00:10:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Reaver Glitterstim
ShahFluffers wrote:
So the "specializations" you see today are literally the result of, "eh, give them bonuses and fitting that are superfically cool but don't step on the toes of the newly rebalanced ships" type thinking.

Well in that vein they failed miserably. Not only do these ships haul a lot more that a fully-cargo-fit large industrial, they do it without being cargo-fit at all. Being specialized, they may not push other industrials off the table completely but they are certainly stepping on toes.



Thor Nergal wrote:
However the Bowhead has a base cargo hold capacity of 4,000m3,
I would be willing to reduce this to 250m3, almost all of it, in lieu of a fleet hangar.
The increase to utility would be well worth the price.

Regards
Thor Nergal

Why does it need to be specialized to the point of making it painful to fly? Howabout:
1,500,000m3 Ship Maintenance Bay
6,000m3 Cargohold
20,000m3 Fleet Hangar

And yes, I did opt for an increase in its SMB capacity. Considering how much less space value you get per m3 in a ship maintenance bay, the Bowhead is far underperforming in total hauling capacity as a freighter. I think even 2.5 mil m3 is more than reasonable but I went for 1.5 mil m3 because apparently people are sensitive about the idea of hauling ships just because it's a newish feature.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Thor Nergal
Deadly Interstellar Cynosural Killing Squad
#13 - 2015-09-02 23:32:43 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:


Why does it need to be specialized to the point of making it painful to fly? Howabout:
1,500,000m3 Ship Maintenance Bay
6,000m3 Cargohold
20,000m3 Fleet Hangar


I would love those stats Big smileBig smile TBH however I would also be happy with just a fleet hangar.
Maldiro Selkurk
Radiation Sickness
#14 - 2015-09-02 23:53:05 UTC
Thor Nergal wrote:
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:
Niche ships are always very good at what they do since they are niche ships. If you want your niche ship to become more generalized you mist pay a severe penalty for this increased generalization. What carrying capacity are you willing to give up to get your 5000m3 hanger, 15 percent and i back your request anything less and you arent paying the price for generalization.


Firstly I don't see how this makes the Bowhead more generalized. It is a ship moving freighter with a fitting service, IMHO to have a fleet hangar is a given.

However the Bowhead has a base cargo hold capacity of 4,000m3,
I would be willing to reduce this to 250m3, almost all of it, in lieu of a fleet hangar.
The increase to utility would be well worth the price.

Regards
Thor Nergal


Wait so in one breath you say that it isnt increasing generalized use and in the same breath you say that having a fleet hanger would be a nice utility addition.

Btw, when you give up something to become more generalized you dont give up trivial stuff for increased generalization, it doesnt work that way, so again take a 15% cut to your ability to haul ships where it becomes a legitimate cost to something you actually care about or there is no reason to justify this change.

Yawn,  I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
Maldiro Selkurk
Radiation Sickness
#15 - 2015-09-03 01:04:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Maldiro Selkurk
deleted

Yawn,  I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
Thor Nergal
Deadly Interstellar Cynosural Killing Squad
#16 - 2015-09-03 03:48:36 UTC
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:


Wait so in one breath you say that it isnt increasing generalized use and in the same breath you say that having a fleet hanger would be a nice utility addition.

Btw, when you give up something to become more generalized you dont give up trivial stuff for increased generalization, it doesnt work that way, so again take a 15% cut to your ability to haul ships where it becomes a legitimate cost to something you actually care about or there is no reason to justify this change.


Wait are you suggesting we trade 15% reduction to SMA for a fleet hangar?
If so I am happy to pay that price however I am not sure others would. Not unless the fleet hangar was a lot bigger than the proposed 5,000m3

Also you are aware the fleet hangar only allows fleet member (and corp mate) access to one's cargo hold right? That why I am asking how this makes the Bowhead "more generalized"