Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Why do you think it could stand a bit more tank? Not that I wouldn't love it to have more HP myself, but do you have specific reasons and data to back this opinion up? My primary problem with this line of argument is that (god help me) I actually agree with fozzie and rise, balancing a ships EHP against this scenario is not the way to do it. I know there was a lot of up roar in the command ship thread when none of the other command ships got a damnation like bonus to raw HP. They didn't cave to anyone there, so why should this ship be any different? If ganking is the reason that you want more HP, then there are better ways to address the profitability of ganking than just throwing raw HP around.



Again, why is this relevant? This is not a combat ship, and transport ships are not really designed around fleet/gang warfare, nor should they be.



The ship in no way shape or form needs a drone bay, its not like freighters get a drone bay. This is one of those bad ideas that needs to die in a fire.



I think gankers themselves are being a bit disingenuous with their answer to this question. I think a good bit of the reason they use taloses over dessies in this case is that it takes far few people to gank a freighter with taloses than it does with dessies. That's just my two cents.

Now what could this ship use?

A sensical skill tree. The devs really need to look at how the cap indy ships skills are geared vs other cap ships. The prereqs are in all the wrong places.

More warp speed. Why should this ship be slower than every other cap indy ship? (Especially one that does have fighting capability like the roq)

It needs to have a very small ammo bay. Especially if this ship is geared toward incursion runners. (3-5k range) It needs just enough to be able to resupply the ships it just dropped off but not enough that they can run without resupply for months. Think about how remote most incursions are and how expensive ammo can get that remotely vs how many long jumps it would take to get ammo. Now keep in mind when I move ships I pack their hold full of all the mods they would need to refit to and everything else being ammo. Even 500m3s of ammo isn't all that much in an incursion and that's assuming you can even hold that much.

Now for the interesting bit of fix: It needs to not be scanable. On the flip side to this it needs to always drop the ships. This would make it a true "pinata". You break it but you never know what you are going to get. Could be empty, could have a bunch of frigates etc. My reasoning for this is that assembled ships are a completely different ball game than packed ones. Think about it. I would assume that packed ships have been in some state disassembled (think a raven with the wings taken off so it fits in a nice box). Assembled ships on the other hand are fully combat ready. Meaning that even if a ship around them was destroyed they'd still have hull and armor to protect them from that explosion. I think this would be a far better way to address the ganking than anything thus far provided here.

It has a cargo bay of about that size. I t can also carry haulers just chock full of ammo.



If it is indeed a Ship Maint Array - then it should drop just like POS SMAs do. TBC by CCP.

The thing about carriage of ships that seems to be missing (by at least p23....) is that Freighters can already carry fitted and rigged Frigates and Cruisers (even a couple of battleships) - lots of them!

Me, I'd go for the new skills affecting SMA size by 20% per level - and the SMA starting at 1.0m m3.

Fair enough, my mistake for not looking at the stats closely enough. Though I don't think people moving ships around are going to have enough room to fit a hauler full of ammo, I do think a 4k cargo bay is perfect.



I'm not sure this is true. I haven't tried recently but I remember trying some time this year and getting a weird error about ships not being able to go in cargo that are assembled..

Request denied. I was referring to this post:



I don't think it did a good enough job of stating the full picture clearly. Therefore I added what I thought was important.

AH! That's good to know. Guess you really can teach a vet new tricks. Still I wish work arounds like this weren't needed and that you could just drop an assembled ship into a cargo hold.

requires a minimum of 2 ships so not that crazy. Also not solo, gankers are always saying work in a group so you don't get ganked this would be that group work.

The original question was directly about Taloses and alpha from Mike Azariah - there was nothing disingenuous about his reply about the Talos.

You're just being argumentative.

He's referring to the horribly broken exploit of using courier contracts to package up fitted and rigged ships that can then be carried in a freighter. Now that we have a dedicated high sec ship mover + Plenty of options in low/null, this needs to be addressed.

Well its matter of phrasing really. He said "when taloses" are used. I read the question as why are you using taloses vs dessies. The "when" part implies there are more options available to do the same job and they are using taloses over something cheaper. In that case why aren't you using the cheaper method, and the likely answer is man power. I'm not being argumentative. I think that's an important part of ganking math because it means you can gank a ship with far fewer people thereby making it easier to get a group together to gank in the first place.

You're still being argumentative - the question was about using taloses, not why. Your nitpick about catalysts is obvious - of course you use the cheapest alternative if you have the manpower. If you don't, you scale up. No one has tried to hide that or played dumb about it, which is more or less what you need to be doing to be disingenuous.

Or to quote Inigo Montoya, "You keep using that word... I do not think it means what you think it means."