These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page123Next page
 

Freighting ships still terribly inconvenient.
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#21 - 2012-07-02 22:09:49 UTC
Jada Maroo wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:
As nice as this would be, I can also see the value in not having this... it encourages industry outside of the acknowledged market hubs.


As it is now, you can freely freight unrigged/packaged ships and those use a lot less space. So it won't have an effect on the market.

But just from a sense-making perspective - what the hell is stopping me from putting my own rigged ship in a wrapper and freighting it? I can do it for someone else, I can do it with my own alts, but I can't do it for myself?


I probably didn't explain the point well.

Right now it is very convenient to build ships in the major hubs where resources are plentiful on the market and cheap.

It is also very handy to outfit those ships in said market hubs, where modules and rigs are plentiful.

What is NOT as handy is moving those fitted ships (although it is certainly doable).

This provides some minor incentive to build and outfit those ships closer to the area where they will be used, especially fully equipped BS which are consumed in null like candy.

While removing that slight bit of difficulty won't affect things much either way, this is heading in the wrong direction. Transporting ships, equipment, and personel long distances in EVE needs to be more difficult than it currently is, not less. Projection of force and ease of logistics is creating far more deeply rooted issues in EVE than most people realize.

That being said, I can certainly understand why you would want this. Truthfully, from a personal point of view, I do as well... but from the viewpoint of looking at what impact it would have on the overall health of the game I see it as a small step in the wrong direction.

Every encouragement reasonably possible to build finished product closer to where it is going to be used should be considered.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Sentamon
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#22 - 2012-07-02 23:02:10 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:
As nice as this would be, I can also see the value in not having this... it encourages industry outside of the acknowledged market hubs.

Ease of logistics is a bit of a problem at the moment.



Yup, people pile into a small number of zones way too much already.

~ Professional Forum Alt  ~
Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#23 - 2012-07-02 23:24:17 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:
Jada Maroo wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:
As nice as this would be, I can also see the value in not having this... it encourages industry outside of the acknowledged market hubs.


As it is now, you can freely freight unrigged/packaged ships and those use a lot less space. So it won't have an effect on the market.

But just from a sense-making perspective - what the hell is stopping me from putting my own rigged ship in a wrapper and freighting it? I can do it for someone else, I can do it with my own alts, but I can't do it for myself?


I probably didn't explain the point well.

Right now it is very convenient to build ships in the major hubs where resources are plentiful on the market and cheap.

It is also very handy to outfit those ships in said market hubs, where modules and rigs are plentiful.

What is NOT as handy is moving those fitted ships (although it is certainly doable).

....

That can be done now. Move the ship, rigs and modules packaged, assemble at the destination.

The trouble here is when you need to move your home base. You got ships you can package (easy, drop in the freighter) modules and stuff ( again, just drop in the freighter), and then you got all your rigged ships......

What to do to move them? Several ways:

Fly them one by one
Rip out the rigs, package. (If you got the BPOs its even smaller to reprocess them to minerals and rebuild them at the other end)
Contract them to an alt, have the alt make a courier contract, move the ships, have the alt contract them back.

Its this last method, used by many, that is a clumsy workaround to something that should have a in-game mechanic. Some way of just placing an assembled ship in the cargo of a freighter without a bunch of contracts. Still full size, still hard to move many at once, just the removal of a pile of mouse clicks.

Example: Right click on ship, select "Apply shrink wrap". You get a shipping box just like when you do a courier contract. The box is the same volume as the assembled ship. But it can be placed in the hold of another ship. When it comes to how many rigged ships you can place in a freighter there would be no advantage. Its just to save a large number of mouse clicks.

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction
GSXRSquid
Sarum Prime Innovations
#24 - 2012-07-02 23:42:23 UTC
CCP likes it when we waste time doing things. they take great care to make it so. If they didn;t we might actually get something done.
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#25 - 2012-07-03 00:03:03 UTC
Vincent Athena wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:
Jada Maroo wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:
As nice as this would be, I can also see the value in not having this... it encourages industry outside of the acknowledged market hubs.


As it is now, you can freely freight unrigged/packaged ships and those use a lot less space. So it won't have an effect on the market.

But just from a sense-making perspective - what the hell is stopping me from putting my own rigged ship in a wrapper and freighting it? I can do it for someone else, I can do it with my own alts, but I can't do it for myself?


I probably didn't explain the point well.

Right now it is very convenient to build ships in the major hubs where resources are plentiful on the market and cheap.

It is also very handy to outfit those ships in said market hubs, where modules and rigs are plentiful.

What is NOT as handy is moving those fitted ships (although it is certainly doable).

....

That can be done now. Move the ship, rigs and modules packaged, assemble at the destination.

The trouble here is when you need to move your home base. You got ships you can package (easy, drop in the freighter) modules and stuff ( again, just drop in the freighter), and then you got all your rigged ships......

What to do to move them? Several ways:

Fly them one by one
Rip out the rigs, package. (If you got the BPOs its even smaller to reprocess them to minerals and rebuild them at the other end)
Contract them to an alt, have the alt make a courier contract, move the ships, have the alt contract them back.

Its this last method, used by many, that is a clumsy workaround to something that should have a in-game mechanic. Some way of just placing an assembled ship in the cargo of a freighter without a bunch of contracts. Still full size, still hard to move many at once, just the removal of a pile of mouse clicks.

Example: Right click on ship, select "Apply shrink wrap". You get a shipping box just like when you do a courier contract. The box is the same volume as the assembled ship. But it can be placed in the hold of another ship. When it comes to how many rigged ships you can place in a freighter there would be no advantage. Its just to save a large number of mouse clicks.


Hello Vincent, as usual a well thought out post.

However, as I said before, I know that it is certainly doable now... I have done all of the steps you outlined above many times.

Here's the thing, it shouldn't be any easier or simpler to relocate one's home base than it is now... in fact, it really needs to be more difficult than it is now.

Currently it is simplicity itself to move huge volumes of material (including handily pre fit ships) vast distances in EVE. Whether that be from it's area of production/fitting to where it will be used, to relocating your home base in case of invasion (or just because the nebulae is greener on the other side of the fence).

This is a problem. Where you base, where you build, and logistics between the two should be important decisions that have consequences if badly thought out. As it is freighters, jump freighters, jump bridges, and jump portals all contribute to the issue. Anything that makes moving an outfitted ship across the EVE universe easier is something to be avoided from a game design perspective, and compounds the very problems that are fairly universally complained about by high sec dweller and null sec resident alike.

The same problem also affects movement of active fleets (capital and otherwise), but that is for another thread.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Bootleg Jack
ACME Mineral and Gas
#26 - 2012-07-03 00:13:40 UTC
As long as ships in this state could only be loaded and unloaded in a station I don't really see it as a huge issue.

Maybe make it take several hours to "prep" the ship and several more hours to "unpack" the ship.

The idea being allow shipping of complete ships without creating some kind of free carrier.

I'm an American, English is my second language...
Markus Reese
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#27 - 2012-07-03 00:15:48 UTC
I agree on what the other people say, simple solution, eve needs a new freighter class ship specifically for ship maint bay only. T1 normal, T2 jump.

To quote Lfod Shi

The ratting itself is PvE. Getting away with it is PvP.
Saile Litestrider
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#28 - 2012-07-03 00:25:48 UTC
I've had a couple thoughts along this subject.

First, I'd like to see an orca variant that's focused more toward combat ops. The orca's currently shoehorned into that role pretty frequently, but requires a lot of mining-focused training, and has a lot of options that don't really fit the role. We could see a variant orca with a larger ship bay, no mining bonuses or ore hold, some large scale logistics-focused bonuses (remote rep? warp/align speed? cloak movement speed ala black ops? fleet boosting? lots of choices here), and a training path that, while no shorter, is more in-line with a combat and/or logistics pilot. I'm sure some people would scoff at the idea, but the niche of a mini-carrier is obviously desired, given how the orca is used for this, so why not fill the niche properly? This line of logic has been used several times in the past.

Second, and perhaps more on-topic, I have to think: why are rigs different from modules? From my understanding they were originally intended to be an equal tradeoff that made a ship fit its pilot's personal preferences more, but that's definitely not achieved. They're essentially used like modules, if you need more tank, tank rigs, if you need more capacitor, cap rigs, and so on. So then, what would happen if we removed the "destroyed on removal" property entirely? Obviously the rig market would crash, this could be at least partially offset by making them harder to produce. Would anything else really change, apart from the removal of a lot of ship-transporting and fitting headaches?
Constable Chang
#29 - 2012-07-03 00:33:33 UTC
Victoria Sin wrote:
arcca jeth wrote:
I think the Orca might be your solution besides, do you really want a target painted on your forehead that says "transporting BIG ships!"

and if in low or 0.0 you have your obvious solutions.


Orca can carry 2 Hulks. It's ship bay is pathetically small.


Orca ship bay only has to be increased in size a very small amount to be able to carry a battleship. I had imagined that the reason they set the size of the ship bay where they did is precisely this.
Constable Chang
#30 - 2012-07-03 00:36:12 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:

While removing that slight bit of difficulty won't affect things much either way, this is heading in the wrong direction. Transporting ships, equipment, and personel long distances in EVE needs to be more difficult than it currently is, not less. Projection of force and ease of logistics is creating far more deeply rooted issues in EVE than most people realize.

That being said, I can certainly understand why you would want this. Truthfully, from a personal point of view, I do as well... but from the viewpoint of looking at what impact it would have on the overall health of the game I see it as a small step in the wrong direction.

Every encouragement reasonably possible to build finished product closer to where it is going to be used should be considered.


Make ammo a more take up a more 'realistic' volume. Logistics problem solved. Or rather made much more interesting...
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
#31 - 2012-07-03 00:40:23 UTC
^ what about lazers then? Or crystals to be more exact.

Signature removed for inappropriate language - CCP Eterne
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
#32 - 2012-07-03 00:41:34 UTC
Xercodo wrote:
Luba Cibre wrote:
Get a carrier, problem solved.


HIGH SEC Battleship movement D:

You mean auto-pilot?

[center]"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings"  -MXZF[/center]
Constable Chang
#33 - 2012-07-03 00:45:42 UTC
rodyas wrote:
^ what about lazers then? Or crystals to be more exact.


Make t1 crystals wear out.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#34 - 2012-07-03 00:48:16 UTC
Simi Kusoni wrote:
Xercodo wrote:
Luba Cibre wrote:
Get a carrier, problem solved.


HIGH SEC Battleship movement D:

You mean auto-pilot?

Considering you can't light cyno's in highsec, the ship would need to be able to use gates and as such, yes, AP would be an option if you were to choose to do so.
Amber Solaire
COMA Holdings
Cosmic Maniacs
#35 - 2012-07-03 00:50:22 UTC
No matter which freighter you can use, no more than 1 Orca (repackaged), can be carried

Orca repackaged size is too large......
Mors Sanctitatis
Death of Virtue
#36 - 2012-07-03 00:56:02 UTC
Everyone in this thread is thinking about this COMPLETELY WRONG.

I for one am 100% in favor of a "ferry" style freighter.

Give it 10% of the EHP of a standard freighter. Allow it to carry a maximum of 30 rigged and fitted battleships. All other aspects mirror existing freighters with respect to cost, speed, warp speed, align time etc. When ever a ferry is destroyed, it drops all of its ships in space.

See what I did there? Pirate

Intelligence shouldn't be free.   Mining, reloaded.   ADDICTED.

stoicfaux
#37 - 2012-07-03 00:58:52 UTC
Mors Sanctitatis wrote:
Everyone in this thread is thinking about this COMPLETELY WRONG.

I for one am 100% in favor of a "ferry" style freighter.

Give it 10% of the EHP of a standard freighter. Allow it to carry a maximum of 30 rigged and fitted battleships. All other aspects mirror existing freighters with respect to cost, speed, warp speed, align time etc. When ever a ferry is destroyed, it drops all of its ships in space.

See what I did there? Pirate

Sure, except that the ferry is "surrounded" by the battleships it is carrying, which you have to shoot away before you can actually damage the ferry.

Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
Lykouleon
Noble Sentiments
Second Empire.
#38 - 2012-07-03 01:27:02 UTC
Nothing is meant to be convenient. Nothing.

Lykouleon > CYNO ME CLOSER so I can hit them with my sword
Mina Sebiestar
Minmatar Inner Space Conglomerate
#39 - 2012-07-03 01:40:15 UTC
Just lift contract bullcrap so i can haul 2 rigged vargurs in my minmatar freighter and we are good.

Also this just in new breakthrough in technology High tech impossible to invent ....clamps.


Yep.

You choke behind a smile a fake behind the fear

Because >>I is too hard
Constable Chang
#40 - 2012-07-03 02:00:28 UTC
Mina Sebiestar wrote:
Just lift contract bullcrap so i can haul 2 rigged vargurs in my minmatar freighter and we are good.

Also this just in new breakthrough in technology High tech impossible to invent ....clamps.


Yep.


thats an awesome screenshot. What is it from?
Previous page123Next page