These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Dev blog: Corp Hangars on ships and You

First post First post
Author
Riffix
Synergistic Arbitrage
#161 - 2012-11-30 18:43:51 UTC
I really like these changes! Thanks CCP!

Lead, Follow, or Get the #@$!@ Out of the Way.

Versuvius Marii
Browncoats of Persephone
#162 - 2012-11-30 18:46:25 UTC
Add Alliance permissions to the Corp/Fleet hangar windows too please. A lot of smaller alliances in high and null would love this to be added as well.

The Gaming MoD - retro to modern, console to MMO, I blog about it if it's a game and I'm interested in it. Yes, I play games other than Eve and I don't care if you think I'm wrong.

Gogela
Krigmakt Elite
Safety.
#163 - 2012-11-30 18:47:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Gogela
Hmm... big changes there. I have 2 comments and 2 questions:

Lifting the restrictions on freighters will make possible a new form of grieving. For instance, a bitter player might load up a freighter full of assembled cargo containers and jettison them in front of Jita 4-4. 9000 containers showing up in undock is going to cause a lot of lag, and could facilitate ganking as undocking pilots won't be able to redock before they are dead. As someone who does not grief, I look forward to the change because it makes my freighters more useful to me. That said, I'm mindful of those who do...

Second, love that loot is dropping from everything now. Everything destroyed in space should have some chance of dropping loot.

Question 1: Why make all these new uncompressed containers? Now that the restrictions are gone on freighters, why not just create a compressed freighter can and eliminate the freighter group all together?
A: Found in patch notes: "Freighters and jump freighters have been upgraded with a jettison tube and can freely jettison, scoop and move items between containers. They are still not able to load or scoop assembled containers into their cargo hold, except freight containers."

Question 2: Googled but get conflicting info... if you blow up a corp hanger array on a POS, is there some chance that everything in it will drop? I guess another way of asking it is "does everything in space now drop loot?"

Signatures should be used responsibly...

Swidgen
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#164 - 2012-11-30 18:57:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Swidgen
C'mon, who are you kidding? Everything is a QA nightmare for you to validate. Next week will prove that point yet again.

Good tweaks to the ship bays re. scanning and not dropping from SMBs. Freighters performing cargo ops in space.... hmmmmm, will have to wait and see about that one; the big red EXPLOIT sign in my head is blinking.

Divisions are necessary. You're making it so 90% of the problematic issues after 4 December will get drowned out by people complaining about the removal of divisions and continuing problems with the inventory UI. New containers don't begin to make up for the loss of division usefulness.

Given your lack of acumen with programming nested containers using Python, I suppose it'll have to do for a few years. I hope your design/programming teams document what they're doing so 5 years down the road a new bunch of devs doesn't say, "This old code is too complicated to understand. Let's get rid of it and re-invent the wheel again!". At least you're admitting it's a functional downgrade. Trying to sell people on the idea that it's "unavoidable", though, borders on evil. It was completely avoidable if you had done things right the first time and, gods forbid, actually had a QA team when the station and ship hangar code was first developed.
DJ P0N-3
Table Flippendeavors
#165 - 2012-11-30 18:59:02 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Crexa wrote:

"...but we need to get the complexity of EVE under control and doing so is going to require functionality downgrades in certain areas."


This scares the living Be-jesus out of me!!!!!!!!!!! Why? Because complexity is the hallmark of EvE Online. PLEASE! Keep in mind that streamlining for the sake of reducing complexity is not always a good thing.


Don't worry, it scares the bejesus out of us too Smile The trend over the last few years though has been steadily increasing complexity year-on-year, which makes it harder and harder for us to replace lost customers. We've got to get this under control to keep EVE healthy. It's not something we do lightly, but we've got to find *safe* places where we can make incisions.


Does this mean that someday you will be addressing the general anguish that is dealing with containers? The fleet hangar change wouldn't be so bad if containers weren't as awful as they are.
Meleene Isenplox
Rudeltaktik
#166 - 2012-11-30 19:01:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Meleene Isenplox
If you're going to remove the functionality of having only one hangar in ships, at least give us more flexibility with the cans. 5, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 100 K m3 would be much better. 50K m3 is too big for most cap uses and 10K m3 is too small. I want to carry 150-200K fuel in my super carrier, which is about 25-30K m3.

Fleet containers that adjusted their size to the fleet hangar would be ideal. So shared m3 for all fleet containers in a fleet hangar.
Dunkler Imperator
SUNDERING
Goonswarm Federation
#167 - 2012-11-30 19:02:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Dunkler Imperator
question

Does the blockade runner scanner immunity also work for NPC?

CCP has said they don't like the current mechanics for boosters(npc random scan everyship = bad)
I would love this to work as moving my drugs to market is all random and very frustrating for us drug runners.


Edit: Read the thread

Answer : No they still randomly scan players


Next Idea:
a dev mentioned that they were looking into the deep space transport ship and why no1 uses it.
I have a suggestion.

Make the DST immune to NPC scans BUT let players scan it just fine.

Bouns points: if you scan a ship with cargo scanner and the player is carrying contraband Give said player suspect tag.

Let the players be the police. Think this fit's in very nicely with EVE sandbox.
Karig'Ano Keikira
Tax Cheaters
#168 - 2012-11-30 19:08:54 UTC
hm... so this makes it possible to throw ore into freighter? interesting change
Schwein Hosen
DuckPus Fightclub
#169 - 2012-11-30 19:10:17 UTC
Nice changes, but this leaves one very big question unanswered: Do cargo scanners now work on offlined pos modules with corp hangars?

Currently, this functionality works like you are about to make blockade runners work (ie kind of buggy imo). You can activate a cargo scanner on an offline module (say a corp hangar, ship maintenance array, mobile lab), but it shows nothing on the scan. This leads the user to believe that it worked and there was nothing in it. However, there may actually be loot in these modules, and it may drop if you destroy them. Is anything different concerning this in Retribution? (plz say yes)

And secondly, something I just thought about while writing this, if you are making all other hangars in ships drop loot, shouldn't you also include the ship maintenance bay, and make it drop assembled ships... LIKE IT ALREADY DOES ON A POS SHIP MAINTENANCE ARRAY??

If there is one thing I love in EVE, it's getting loot.
Deornoth Drake
Vandeo
#170 - 2012-11-30 19:27:44 UTC
it would be interesting to have corporation/fleet access to the corp hangar as well, so miners could drop the stuff right in there.
But for the easy of coding either open ALL ore hangars or none, don't put any logic in there.

about orca's being replaced by freighters. I see the orca as a mining director providing bonus and temporarily storing the ore and a freighter picking it up.

Anyway, nice changes and awesome idea to upgrade the blockade runners to block cargo scanners!
Andski
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#171 - 2012-11-30 19:48:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Andski
Gypsio III wrote:
Adding +1 to the fact that Blockade Runners are already unscannable because of their covops cloak, and that making them unscannable just means that AFKing them about empty becomes far riskier than beforehand. It's the sort of idea that sounds great at first, but five minutes' thought later sees you headbutting the table in despair at its stupidity.

If you insist on making BRs unscannable, make this the function of a BR-only module, and make sure that there's a difference between the scan results returned from an empty BR and those returned from a scan-proofed BR.

But ultimately, this effect is neither needed nor useful, either as a bonus or a module.


I think it's a foregone conclusion that CCP is deadset on making blockade runners foolproof. Then when they're constantly getting ganked by opportunists, they'll hold down the 9 key until they're satisfied with the HP numbers like they did with barges.

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar

Gilbaron
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#172 - 2012-11-30 19:48:36 UTC
the idea to make DSTs unscannable instead of BRs is a great one, would love to hear CCPs opinion on it :)
CaptainFalcon07
Scarlet Weather Rhapsody
#173 - 2012-11-30 20:05:25 UTC  |  Edited by: CaptainFalcon07
Well its good to see divisions are around, but I question your reason why you gave the unscannable bonus to the BR, instead of the DST's.


The BR's can fly cloaked, the unscannable bonus is rather redundant, and considering that BR are pretty fragile, this is not going to help them much. A tornado can pretty much oneshot a BR so it won't help it at all.

The DST however is fairly lacking, the unscannable bonus would make much more sense for these ships, they are slow, the are supposed to be tanky. Giving DST the unscannable bonus will force gankers to do a guessing game and have to devote more than 1-2 tornados to do a simple gank.

Right now there is little reason to fly DST, giving them an unscannable bonus would help though.
Sturmwolke
#174 - 2012-11-30 20:29:36 UTC
Blockade runners with cargo scan immunity, wtf? Have the CCP devs gone daft somewhere along the way?

The blockade runner's ALREADY a cloaky ship and in the MAJORITY of cases have no issues running low volume high value items.
No one sane would autopilot a blockade runner, regardless whether the cargo can be scanned or not ... so in truth, it's a pointless change.

Now take a HARD LOOK at the Deep Space Transport class. Why wasn't this chosen?
Andski
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#175 - 2012-11-30 20:33:00 UTC
Gilbaron wrote:
the idea to make DSTs unscannable instead of BRs is a great one, would love to hear CCPs opinion on it :)


CCP FoxFour already stated that it "fits" the BR's role more. I can't imagine what they consider the BR's role to be, but you shouldn't even be getting locked in a blockade runner, and if you're sticking around long enough for a scanner to cycle, you're doing something completely wrong.

Let's consider the differences between blockade runners and DSTs.

A BR is fast, aligns quickly and has a high warp speed. It jumps through a gate, clicks warp and cloaks. If you get locked, you're not cloaking. If you get pointed, you're done for. Even with a tank fit, you're trivial to gank. Opportunistic ganking on blockade runners will be hilariously easy. On TQ, properly flown blockade runners have absolutely no trouble running high-value, low-volume cargo through highsec. The "properly flown" part is near-trivial: undock, warp to an insta-undock, cloak in warp and travel the rest of your route.

A DST is slow, it aligns like a pig and its warp speed is lower than its T1 counterparts. It can, however, fit a tank comparable to a HIC, and it requires 2 scrams to tackle. On TQ, they generally go unused mainly because blockade runners have slightly less cargo capacity but have the advantage of being /much/ faster and much more maneuverable.

BRs being unscannable is just silly - as it is, they align like bombers and, as previous posters have pointed out, they are nearly uncatchable if properly flown. Unscannable Orcas worked because they required a lot of DPS/alpha to suicide gank and the cargo wouldn't drop anyway. Now, blockade runners will simply be targeted for "lolganks" when they are unable to cloak because of gate NPCs or whatever and the cost of a failed gank (i.e. nothing drops, the ship had nothing in cargo, w/e) will simply not be high enough to make their invulnerability to scans discourage other players from ganking them. On the other hand, unscannable DSTs would have a high enough cost to gank that unless the gankers have prior knowledge of what the guy is carrying (through metagaming, for example) or can reasonably expect it to be carrying valuable cargo, they won't make such casual gank targets.

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar

Andski
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#176 - 2012-11-30 20:35:00 UTC
Oh and the extra risk that comes from getting a suspect flag for looting wrecks is a non-issue unless you're looting freighter wrecks, so that's not even worth bringing into the discussion.

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar

Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#177 - 2012-11-30 20:35:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Gypsio III
Andski wrote:
Gypsio III wrote:
Adding +1 to the fact that Blockade Runners are already unscannable because of their covops cloak, and that making them unscannable just means that AFKing them about empty becomes far riskier than beforehand. It's the sort of idea that sounds great at first, but five minutes' thought later sees you headbutting the table in despair at its stupidity.

If you insist on making BRs unscannable, make this the function of a BR-only module, and make sure that there's a difference between the scan results returned from an empty BR and those returned from a scan-proofed BR.

But ultimately, this effect is neither needed nor useful, either as a bonus or a module.


I think it's a foregone conclusion that CCP is deadset on making blockade runners foolproof. Then when they're constantly getting ganked by opportunists, they'll hold down the 9 key until they're satisfied with the HP numbers like they did with barges.


it's a really bad way of making BRs foolproof. Making them unscannable makes it as risky to autopilot along in an untanked, empty blockade runner as it will to do it in one full of PLEX. This means that every time you autopilot in one it essentially becomes a crapshoot of pure dumb luck whether you get ganked or not, regardless of what you actually have in cargo.

Speaking as someone who only APs a BR when it's empty, this is insane game design.
CaptainFalcon07
Scarlet Weather Rhapsody
#178 - 2012-11-30 20:42:06 UTC
Precisely agree with the poster above, it makes little sense, the Cloak/fast align time on a the BR is its unscannable ability.

The DST needs something to make it worth fly, it is worthless for nullsec, where there's bubbles and lowsec, where you have a bunch of people that will point you past your +2 stab bonus.

The BR is used for nullsec and lowsec, leaving the DST only choice to really go is highsec to withstand suicide ganks.

But current DST, aren't worth crap in highsec, due to overall how poor and redundant they are.

The unscannable bonus will make the BR a lolgank lottery target, regardless of you are carrying anything or not, due to how weak it is.

The DST with an unscannable bonus will not be something you can trivially lolgank and will definately give a guessing game to those who are considering about ganking it.
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
#179 - 2012-11-30 20:44:44 UTC
CCP FoxFour wrote:
Keep in mind guys that team Game of Drones has been going on a balancing rampage of ships lately, I think something like 59 re-balanced or new ships with Retribution, when they get to the industrial ships they very well may change which ships have what bonuses.

Based on the feedback thus far on this thread, I suspect that the unscannable cargohold will end up being transferred to the DST next year, anyways, unless someone at CCP chooses to be stubborn for the sake of being stubborn.

Why not discuss this issue with Game of Drones today, and make the change once - to the DST now - rather than having to reverse the change later on the BR?
Gogela
Krigmakt Elite
Safety.
#180 - 2012-11-30 21:01:36 UTC
I agree. The bonus should have gone to the DST and NOT the blockade runners... they are almost like shuttles to warp anyway. The DST is pretty worthless atm...

Signatures should be used responsibly...