These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#241 - 2012-12-01 21:31:32 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Greyscale
Misanth wrote:
Overly simplified, and overly complicated compensations to make up for the crap you do (as in, adding new containers to compensate for the lost divisions).

Let's see what I use my corp hangars for today:

* 1) In this 20man corp we have made the corp divions "personal". As in, when we use supercaps, capitals or orcas to move stuff, we know that division X belong to player X. And we name the divions after that person. This is really convenient for maintaining personal stuff, while moving, because we also give that particular person that particular divison access.

- 1) In this new system, we can't do that at all. Either we have no access at all, or we all have access to everything. I guess it's ok in the sense that this means we take more risks and have to trust eachother more, no problem. But - how do we separate eachothers items, without having to carry a gazillion of cans? To compensate for the divisions, now we have to bring cans for each person instead, for their fittings/loot/etc! Ok, let's pretend this is a good compensation offer, but, suddenly it strike you - how do you know what size of this container you'd use? Because an ammo or loot can will grow/shrink, while a module can won't. So everyone will have to take up alot more space of this particular ship to cover their bases, with alot bigger cans than they probably will need.. because they "might" need it.

* 2) Our alt trading/hauling/market corps has been using Orcas with divions set up to match our main corp. They do this to separate stuff they are hauling.

- 2) For them, the new cans might compensate, as they have a "fixed" storage size. But it will be a damn blob of cans instead in stations. For example, one of the alt corps arranges some of the buying/selling for a few people of us in Jita. That corp currently uses the corp divisions and wallet to separate who's assets/funds belongs to who. You could easily use multiple people in this 'business alt corp' to share the divisions/wallet access and all have access to everything. But with this new system, we'll have to keep moving stuff in and out of cans in corp headquarters (where there still is divisions), to keep things separated. Otherwise a single account will keep everything in his cans. And every person moving stuff, will end up having a big chunk of cans moving between Jita/other locations. Instead of making his inventory clean in whatever-system he is, like it is today (usually 5-10 station hangars + using divisions to separate), you now end up with 5-10 station hangars + all various sizes of cargo containers you use on the move + you need more corp offices for more divisons. It'll cost more, it will clutter up inventory more, it will make it less transparent and easy to manage over multiple accounts, etc.

3) Let's not get started over how bad it is freighters can now use cans, but I'm just gonna ignore that point and pretend someone had an aneurysm. It will be fun seeing the freighters sitting in ice belts everywhere tho.

So, is there nothing positive coming out?

The intentions above is positive, but it makes EVE alot more complicated and worse to manage for sure. But there are some positive changes. It was silly Orcas was not scannable, so it's good to see that gone. It was also weird they dropped no loot. It's also interesting to see the Blockade Runner getting the scan immunity, means people will have to take a chance on them, I doubt less of them will die, rather probably more of them. This is positive and an interesting change. Having more containers is not bad either, by itself, it's just bad it's handed out as a compensation for removing a much superior system (divisions). The changes CCP bring to make passwords and fleet settings store, is good as well.

But this:

Quote:
Why are you removing divisions? They're useful!

Yes, they are. However, we're currently of the opinion that they're not *necessary*, we don't feel that they're adding a lot of value in the most common use cases, and as such we're treating them as a case of unnecessary complexity.


That's just plain wrong. "not a lot of value" is completely off. They add something unique, that is really really good and valuable, and you remove it without replacing it with anything nearly as useful.

"Unecessary complexity" is also quite damn off, you're replacing something that is very simple, very useful, with something that is alot more complicated (using cans rather than divisions), which doesn't really add anything (bar them having more variation in size). The new system is more complicated, will take alot more inventory space, will have to be calculated carefullly about sizes on cans, will not alow separate members having separate access, harder to use across-multiple-accounts in shared corps, etc.

TL;DR, it's an unecessary change, and your reasons to do that is plain wrong. You're just trying to find arguments to push through changes you 'want' to have, but your arguments are plain invalid (or you have no experience of using the divisions, that'd explain why you don't see how useful they are). I suggest you shouldn't touch game changes for mechanics you don't understand, and stick to those you figured out how they work (non-scannable orca not even dropping loot etc). But don't try to take us for fools and post bullcrap like the reasons for the division removal, that is simply not truth/completely off.


Foreword: this is exactly the sort of unusual use case that we knew was going to be impacted by this change. All I can say is "yeah, sorry". For every feature in the game, no matter how obscure, there are some people who've figured out how to make it work for them, and removing it will hurt for those people. If we're going to address the overall complexity of the game, though, we unfortunately need to take an axe to some of these options. The hard bit is working out which ones can be removed and which ones can't.

Actual...
Haifisch Zahne
Hraka Manufacture GmbH
#242 - 2012-12-01 22:41:08 UTC
Tell that to the victims of Hurricane Sandy.

Just how, pray tell, did you expect to sell that 1 Scrap Metal loot to repay for your ship? hmmmm?




Andski wrote:
Haifisch Zahne wrote:
All part of two trends at CCP towards Eve: 1) dumb down the game, and 2) increase the ISK sink due to combat loss, etc.


combat losses are not an "isk sink"
Mara Pahrdi
The Order of Anoyia
#243 - 2012-12-01 22:43:25 UTC
So my fleet hangars are doomed to become a mess, unless I become used to getting a headache with fixed size containers.

And I'm getting an unscannable cargo space on my cloaky haulers? Those, that are cloaked 99% of the time even in hisec? This is just ridiculous.

I'm fine with everything else. But this fleet hangar thing... leaves a bad taste for me and is throwing a shadow over most of the good changes in this expansion.

Sorry, CCP. I just don't like it.

Remove standings and insurance.
Mara Pahrdi
The Order of Anoyia
#244 - 2012-12-01 22:59:48 UTC
None ofthe Above wrote:
Mr John Smith wrote:
You really have given the unscannable bonus to the wrong ship. If a BR get's scanned they haven't been flown right. DST's have the potential buffer to dissuade random lolganks, BR's do not. If any ship should get the unscannable bonus it should be the DST not the BR who can already cloak and warp with relative impunity.
As it stands all this change serves to do is paint a big bulls eye on the backside of every BR undocking from jita or flying through highsec.


How about both unscannable?

I do agree otherwise.

How about none unscannable?

Remove standings and insurance.
AbsoluteHavoc
Hybrids of Steel
#245 - 2012-12-01 23:45:21 UTC
Bessa Miros wrote:
Gogela wrote:
If the DST got the scanning denial bonus, though, it would make it a much more valuable ship, because nobody would know if it were full or empty and thus each engagement would have a higher risk of being for nothing. You need far more ships to kill a DST than you do a BR. A few destroyers can gank a BR. A DST can field BS class tanks. The BR doesn't benefit from not being scannable because it already warps so fast few can lock it. The BR is already the go-to for solo logistics. The DST isn't used by anyone much at all anymore.

Agree - makes a good case.

The bigger slower t2 hauler (DST) is useless right now. Make it unscannable and you throw in a really cool variable to high-sec ganking - "is it empty, is it full of plex?" Risk for reward!

People won't just gank a DST, they'll have to get organized to do it with costly ships - unlike a BR on AutoPilot for home which can be popped by small throwaways.


I too have to agree with this.
Pls give the bonus to the DST s they have some tank/a decent cargo hold.
The BRs are cloaked all the time anyway the changes would just make it impossible (read impractical) to auto pilot them. [or are u really going with such a weird nerf tactic for em?]
Mund Richard
#246 - 2012-12-02 00:29:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Mund Richard
+1 on cloaky ship not making much sense being scan-shielded.

Only situation where it becomes useful (that I can think of so fast) is Jita 4-4 undock.
But one can get more creative to avoid that, and in any other situation...

"We want PvE activities to require active participation and mirror PvP more closely." Stacking penalty for NPC EWAR then? Lock range under 9km from over 100 in a BS is not fun. Nor is two NPC web drones making me crawl 10m/s. PvP SW-900 x5: 75m/s.
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#247 - 2012-12-02 01:38:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Vaerah Vahrokha
CCP Greyscale wrote:

Foreword: this is exactly the sort of unusual use case that we knew was going to be impacted by this change. All I can say is "yeah, sorry". For every feature in the game, no matter how obscure, there are some people who've figured out how to make it work for them, and removing it will hurt for those people. If we're going to address the overall complexity of the game, though, we unfortunately need to take an axe to some of these options. The hard bit is working out which ones can be removed and which ones can't.


There's really nothing obscure at using an Orca. Yes there's some *labels* that are a bit misleading but hey, the learning curve is about:

1) Try the super-specific-obscure feature.
2) If it does not work then be at peace. The remaining 95% obvious, rich, useful features keep working.


Instead your current approach is: "if old code was complex it's because it was bad and we streamline it for the dumbs".

No, the old code was there to add a constellation of niche-yet-constantly used features. If the code is bad, then rewrite it like I have done for 2 decades, don't just dump the baby with the wash water.

The classic example of lack of clue on CCP side is when earlier this year you just removed a vital Orca feature completely (ability to share to fleet). The very fact it happens, means who was in charge had no idea WHY things are like they are.

Chances are, the old coders used the sphyncter as programming device but knew the context they were adding the features in.
It'd be welcome to see actual refactoring not brutal features tearing down and removal.

As of today I still get issues with the "new and improved" inventory. Same trail of thought: not a refactor but a removal of functional features that had a reason to exist and dumb down the whole game in the process.


Also, this has to be a gem in consistency: tearing down existing features to streamline the code and remove exceptions...

... just in time to make Blockade Runners a new exception. An exception that is redundant (BRs are cloaky and quick aligning anyway) and can only cause discomfort and losses (since from now on, an uncloaked BR = BOOOM ganked with the premise it HAS to hold valuable stuff).

Plus, it's not really a change in line with EvE philosophy. The un-scannability should be optionally implemented by adding a dedicated module, not imbued with WoW magic into the hull.

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials
Derath Ellecon
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#248 - 2012-12-02 02:00:30 UTC
I'm still waiting on a DEV response as to why they felt it was a good idea to paint a bullseye on every blockade runner. I mean give it an unscannable cargohold. This seems to have been thrown in last minute and I haven't seen any major cries to add this to blockade runners.

It seems pretty conclusive from all of the threads on the subject that it is a universally bad idea, which almost nobody wants, or that we asked for.
Sir Prometeus
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#249 - 2012-12-02 02:48:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Sir Prometeus
next thing probably will be: a magic calculator that tells you exactly if you can kill a freighter, orca or whatever before concord arrives, the money you'll earn....etc

Making highsec camping even more profitable. Thank god I gave up at trying to understand why CCP hates traders so much. Now I'm living in a wormhole, much more peaceful than highsec these days. The only change that we are awaiting is a fix for the POSes, so our corp can grow without having to worry so much about thieves. One hangar division for each person is not a good solution in the long run.
Bessa Miros
#250 - 2012-12-02 03:43:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Bessa Miros
I support all your changes (except the unscannable cloaky hauler - give it to the DST instead)

The Orca nerf is great - it should never have been used as a non-drop, unscannable hauler - I didn't even know you could do that! What kind of feature is unknown to most players? Moving that feature to the cloaky hauler is promoting killing them as they sleep walk through hi-sec, empty - which I think is what you secretly want to do. HI sec ganks are fine, but make pirates have to put some money into ganking an unscannable ship - risk for rewards

I like the Cans for organizing aboard ships, but they are terrible in stations:

  • let us see whats in Containers through Science and Industry window
  • let us move things in and out of Containers when not in station - reason I don't use containers
  • let contents of Containers be filtered like other hangar items
  • make the cans assemble-able / re-nameable when in corporate hangars? (small thing)

  • and... Let us see the contents of our In Space modules so i can take inventory without having to visit POS.

Why not just use the Market system for Inventory? It works well now. Heck, use it for Contracts too. If all 3 (Market, Inv, Contracts) worked the same, new players would have an easier time.
Panhead4411
Rothschild's Sewage and Septic Sucking Services
The Possum Lodge
#251 - 2012-12-02 05:56:01 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:


Foreword: this is exactly the sort of unusual use case that we knew was going to be impacted by this change. All I can say is "yeah, sorry". For every feature in the game, no matter how obscure, there are some people who've figured out how to make it work for them, and removing it will hurt for those people. If we're going to address the overall complexity of the game, though, we unfortunately need to take an axe to some of these options. The hard bit is working out which ones can be removed and which ones can't.


Please refer to the previous "fleet hanger feedback" thread...the issue with what he is talking about is the root problem here, there are alot of use-cases you have considered to be 'rare' and inconsequential...i'm pretty sure most Capitol pilots are not in favor of this change.

As many have said before, why can't you simply work to find a better way to code it to fix the troublesome code, work to fix it, and THEN, after a comparable thing is created to replace the current system, only after that do you actually remove the current functionality.

Why is it deemed absolutely necessary to cut this functionality 100% RIGHT NOW? Why can't this wait till it has a suitable replacement?

So far all the CCP responses have wreaked of the arrogance of the previously not so popular changes that CCP initially said that you didn't believe us that it was not good (or in some cases even functional). Then after you pushed the things that you were warned by your testing player base as a whole, that the feature should be delayed until a better version is created, you only responded after you lost subs out of the game while not really have a viable replacement.

http://blog.beyondreality.se/shift-click-does-nothing    < Unified Inventory is NOT ready...
Conjaq
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#252 - 2012-12-02 10:53:07 UTC
CCP Habakuk wrote:
CaptainFalcon07 wrote:
CCP Habakuk wrote:
...
From the patch notes:
"It is no longer possible to jettison unassembled ships from the cargo hold."
...


I see an issue with this. For instance let say I'm transporting ships in a hauler to a place where there are no stations and only pos. How am I supposed to assemble the ships and put them to use with the sma if I can no longer jet them. You can't assemble ships in a cha and you can't put packaged ships in an small. So there's a problem right there.


You can assemble ships in a CHA, if it is close to a SMA or a carrier / orca - but you need to have enough space for the assembled ship. Then you can move the assembled ship to the SMA.




That seems odd, does a CHA not only have 10k, M^3 effectively, making it not fit _any_ ships?
non judgement
Without Fear
Flying Burning Ships Alliance
#253 - 2012-12-02 11:12:39 UTC
Just a quick math question. Having a Charon full of trit and then jettison all the trit.

How many jetcans will that create?
Tres Farmer
Gallente Federation Intelligence Service
#254 - 2012-12-02 11:41:57 UTC
still no Dev response on the BR/DST issue for unscannability? Really?
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#255 - 2012-12-02 12:08:30 UTC
Tres Farmer wrote:
still no Dev response on the BR/DST issue for unscannability? Really?


+1 for a response on whether the devs really intend to make it impossible for people to safely AP an empty blockade runner through highsec.

People APing with valuable cargos in fiimsy ships deserve to get ganked. But unscannable BRs will make it dangerous to AP anywhere, as people cannot scan you to find out that your ship is empty, while piloted BRs with valuable cargos are are already immune to cargo scans.
Lynwich
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#256 - 2012-12-02 12:53:48 UTC
Quote:
Blockade Runners are being updated to be immune to cargo scanners, and as such will always show up as empty on scans


When I see this, I have the wild dream of launching the author of this “wonderful” idea in the nettles or in the poison ivy, and after that to do the same thing to the one who implemented it.
This thing brings absolutely nothing to the game and become a major hassle for many “carebear” players like me.

Blockade Runners were really good (maybe a little too good, but I will not complain about it). They were ideally suited to move high value cargo with few risk due to their align time and cloaked-warp capacity. I use them a lot in low sec for this reason.
By the same time BR were also ideal for small chore like moving low value / low volume cargo on great distance with autopilot because of their high speed/low align time. It made them perfectly suited to delivery/hangar cleansing, or simply moving stuff around.

But all of this is now gone.
Immunity to scanning is totally useless for high value goods moving: you used cloaking and marked yourself as a potential high value target, or used autopilot and deserve to die if you were caught.
In low sec and null sec no one use cargo scanner so one time again it’s useless.
But this immunity mark you as a giant piñata so all the capacity to make small chore in a reasonable time (ie a time that don’t make your brain melt of boredom) disappear because gankers will burn you to have the chance of striking the “carebears” (but in theses cases the appropriate term is more “idiots”) that will think that immunity to scan means immunity to gank.

So this change means that BR are now almost forbidden in high sec. But well as usual, it’s adapt or die, let’s go to EFT to see if we can find an industrial ship with a fitting that allow me logistic tasks without ragekitting because of boredom.

TL;DR: this idea is useless in my PoV and break my gameplay, and I clearly think it’s bullshit

PS: sorry for the bad English, it’s not my native language. Grammar nazi are welcome to help me to improve it
Daedalus II
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#257 - 2012-12-02 13:03:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Daedalus II
Tres Farmer wrote:
still no Dev response on the BR/DST issue for unscannability? Really?

They have responded to it: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2244682#post2244682
It wasn't a good response, but it was a response nevertheless.

I think the reasoning is strange, EVE has NEVER abandoned playability for reality. Submarine physics and warping thorugh planets should give an indication how much "reality" means in this game :p
CCP Habakuk
C C P
C C P Alliance
#258 - 2012-12-02 13:38:52 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Habakuk
Conjaq wrote:
CCP Habakuk wrote:
CaptainFalcon07 wrote:
CCP Habakuk wrote:
...
From the patch notes:
"It is no longer possible to jettison unassembled ships from the cargo hold."
...


I see an issue with this. For instance let say I'm transporting ships in a hauler to a place where there are no stations and only pos. How am I supposed to assemble the ships and put them to use with the sma if I can no longer jet them. You can't assemble ships in a cha and you can't put packaged ships in an small. So there's a problem right there.


You can assemble ships in a CHA, if it is close to a SMA or a carrier / orca - but you need to have enough space for the assembled ship. Then you can move the assembled ship to the SMA.




That seems odd, does a CHA not only have 10k, M^3 effectively, making it not fit _any_ ships?


I am referring to the corporate hangar array at a POS here - it has 1.4M m3, enough space to assemble battleships.

non judgement wrote:
Just a quick math question. Having a Charon full of trit and then jettison all the trit.

How many jetcans will that create?

Currently it will create 10 jet cans full of tritanium, the remaining tritanium will stay in the freighter. (I personally think that 10 jet cans is still too high, as you can only jettison one can every few minutes with most other ships. But for now this limit should be good enough.)

CCP Habakuk | EVE Quality Assurance | Team Five 0 | (Team Gridlock)

Bug reporting | Mass Testing
Miregar Shakor
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#259 - 2012-12-02 14:13:15 UTC
Viscis Breeze wrote:
Kimo Khan wrote:
Viscis Breeze wrote:
Nicol Caius wrote:
@Devs,
please reconsider the unscannable bonus to the blockade runner. as others have said, its largely a determent to this ship class. my blockade runner will now be a target for just auto-piloting to jita empty. the best case scenario would be to give this bonus to the deep space transport. this would improve the usage of this ship class, isn't that way you guys are aiming for with all the other ship balancing changes? if this isn't possible, i suggest removing it altogether. i'd rather not have my expensive blockade runners being used as pinatas wherever i go to hi-sec.


I would at least like the option to turn it off.


Ok you turn it off with nothing in your cargo hold. Question: Is the cargo empty or blocked. How does the ganker know?


Fair point.

Maybe a work around saying that the "cargo hold cannot be penetrated with your scanners" or "the cargo hold is empty"

Meh, you would just put a single piece of ammo or something like that in there and you'd be good to go.
FnStrabo
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#260 - 2012-12-02 15:20:04 UTC
CCP Habakuk wrote:
Grideris wrote:
I assume that the immunity to cargo scanning is not being extended to Deep Space Transports? (The other class of T2 industrial ships)

Correct.



So ... Just one more blow to the industrialists of eve. Leave us with the smaller of the two cargoholds, and no tank to speak of.

Thanks again, for your consideration.

NOT!