These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page12
 

Moving assembled ships
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Lex Gabinia
Res Repetundae
#21 - 2016-08-05 03:16:17 UTC
Luscius Uta wrote:
Danika Princip wrote:
Luscius Uta wrote:
Should we continue?


You can start by explaining to the class why the options that already exist to do exactly what you want aren't good enough.

Use a bowhead.

Hell, if you're moving small ****, use a DST.

Or eat the rig cost. They're cheap anyway.


They are good, I'm not disputing that. I'm debating the logic of the game not letting me put an assembled ship inside a cargo bay when I can avoid this obstacle by placing them inside a courier package.

Why can't I put a 100m3 cargo container inside a 3900m3? Game mechanics that's why.

There are ships for shipping ships and ships not for shipping ships.
elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
#22 - 2016-08-05 05:25:41 UTC
Luscius Uta wrote:
...when I can avoid this obstacle by placing them inside a courier package.


The Bowhead is not an obstacle but a ship freighter. And a "straw-man" is something very different than you think it is but let's not make this about politics.

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever
Shalmon Aliatus
Bluestar Enterprises
The Craftsmen
#23 - 2016-08-05 11:57:47 UTC
Luscius Uta wrote:
Danika Princip wrote:
Luscius Uta wrote:
Should we continue?


You can start by explaining to the class why the options that already exist to do exactly what you want aren't good enough.

Use a bowhead.

Hell, if you're moving small ****, use a DST.

Or eat the rig cost. They're cheap anyway.


They are good, I'm not disputing that. I'm debating the logic of the game not letting me put an assembled ship inside a cargo bay when I can avoid this obstacle by placing them inside a courier package.


So if you couldn't place the assembled ship inside a cargo bay inside a courier package you would be happy ?

Be careful what you wish for Twisted
Luscius Uta
#24 - 2016-08-05 12:14:48 UTC
Shalmon Aliatus wrote:
Luscius Uta wrote:
Danika Princip wrote:
Luscius Uta wrote:
Should we continue?


You can start by explaining to the class why the options that already exist to do exactly what you want aren't good enough.

Use a bowhead.

Hell, if you're moving small ****, use a DST.

Or eat the rig cost. They're cheap anyway.


They are good, I'm not disputing that. I'm debating the logic of the game not letting me put an assembled ship inside a cargo bay when I can avoid this obstacle by placing them inside a courier package.


So if you couldn't place the assembled ship inside a cargo bay inside a courier package you would be happy ?

Be careful what you wish for Twisted


What makes you think I wouldn't? If the game explicity tells me I'm not allowed to do something, and yet I found I way to do it, that's called an exploit. Yet CCP tolerates this exploit for some reason. If CCP doesn't consider it to be an exploit, then they shoudn't restrict us from doing that without having to create a courier contract. If it is - that's okay too. All I'm asking from CCP is to be consistent, instead of creating restrictions that can be bypassed in a way that doesn't makes anyone's game experience better.

Workarounds are not bugfixes.
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#25 - 2016-08-05 15:15:32 UTC  |  Edited by: ShahFluffers
Quote:
If the game explicity tells me I'm not allowed to do something, and yet I found I way to do it, that's called an exploit. Yet CCP tolerates this exploit for some reason. If CCP doesn't consider it to be an exploit, then they shoudn't restrict us from doing that without having to create a courier contract. If it is - that's okay too. All I'm asking from CCP is to be consistent, instead of creating restrictions that can be bypassed in a way that doesn't makes anyone's game experience better.

It is called "emergent gameplay."

The DEVs have traditionally been quite tolerant or even lauded player creativity in manipulating game mechanics... up until that creativity begins to give some players and excessive advantage over others.

By your standard... we should also get rid of the following as they are manipulations of the current game mechanics and/or do not make sense from a "consistency" standpoint.

- webbing-warp trick
- MWD-warp trick
- cloak-MWD trick

- bumping

- logoffski

- dissolving and reestablishing a corporation to get rid of unwanted war decs
- wars in high-sec in general
- suicide ganking
- pirate NPCs in high-sec
- CONCORD presence and rules in high-sec systems that have an Incursion in them
- why the NPCs even allow you to have pirate based technology (see: ships) in high-sec

- alt characters

- docking mechanics in general

- capital ships not being able to store players inside them


It is a game.
Don't be anal retentive and ask for everything to make sense.

How did you Veterans start?
Cyrus Gandohmei
Persian Peddling and Logistics
#26 - 2016-08-05 15:28:46 UTC
I second what the OP is going on about. If the game developers did not explicitly intend for something to be a certain way, it is by definition an exploit and should be removed.

If it isn't then it calls into question the competency and fairness of the developers. Either you do not allow any exploits, or you have to allow all of them.
Elenahina
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#27 - 2016-08-05 15:54:04 UTC
Luscius Uta wrote:
Raphael, you leave an impression that I have a problem with gankability of my ships. I don't. I have a problem with having to metagame in order to move an assembled ship.


You don't have to. You choose to.
There's a difference.

Eve is like an addiction; you can't quit it until it quits you. Also, iderno
Elenahina
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#28 - 2016-08-05 16:02:47 UTC
Cyrus Gandohmei wrote:
I second what the OP is going on about. If the game developers did not explicitly intend for something to be a certain way, it is by definition an exploit and should be removed.

If it isn't then it calls into question the competency and fairness of the developers. Either you do not allow any exploits, or you have to allow all of them.


Which exploit were we discussing?

Eve is like an addiction; you can't quit it until it quits you. Also, iderno
Raphael Deimatar
Cynosural Samurai
#29 - 2016-08-05 16:12:08 UTC
if you use a bowhead you dont need to do the courier package thing, since they have a humongous SMA...

and it isnt metagaming its using the mechanics provided... I am fairly sure eve has no "the spirit of the rules" there is "it works" and "it does not"
Luscius Uta
#30 - 2016-08-05 17:15:46 UTC
ShahFluffers wrote:
stuff


You bring on some good points. However, if we would, for example, not allow freighters to enter warp faster with webs (clearly an exploit in my opinion since neither freighters should be able to instantly enter warp neither is a stasis webifier designed to be used on friends), it would be a huge nerf to freighter pilots and an even bigger boon to freighter gankers. However, who would benefit or lose if you could place an assembled ship inside a freighter or DST without the need to place them inside a courier package? Nobody. And bumping is broken and is on the way to be fixed.

Also there is a thin line between an exploit an emergent gameplay. A lot of people said that stuff like bumping ships out of POS shields and hobojamming are clever and creative uses of game mechanics.

Workarounds are not bugfixes.
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#31 - 2016-08-05 17:52:42 UTC
Luscius Uta wrote:
ShahFluffers wrote:
stuff


You bring on some good points. However, if we would, for example, not allow freighters to enter warp faster with webs (clearly an exploit in my opinion since neither freighters should be able to instantly enter warp neither is a stasis webifier designed to be used on friends), it would be a huge nerf to freighter pilots and an even bigger boon to freighter gankers. However, who would benefit or lose if you could place an assembled ship inside a freighter or DST without the need to place them inside a courier package? Nobody. And bumping is broken and is on the way to be fixed.

Also there is a thin line between an exploit an emergent gameplay. A lot of people said that stuff like bumping ships out of POS shields and hobojamming are clever and creative uses of game mechanics.


FYI, you CAN place an assembled ship inside of a DST without having to repackage. Three frigates will fit in the fleet hanger. Or one destroyer.
Lex Gabinia
Res Repetundae
#32 - 2016-08-05 19:09:17 UTC
Cyrus Gandohmei wrote:
I second what the OP is going on about. If the game developers did not explicitly intend for something to be a certain way, it is by definition an exploit and should be removed.

If it isn't then it calls into question the competency and fairness of the developers. Either you do not allow any exploits, or you have to allow all of them.

CCP defines what is an exploit. /thread
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#33 - 2016-08-05 19:50:23 UTC
Quote:
However, who would benefit or lose if you could place an assembled ship inside a freighter or DST without the need to place them inside a courier package? Nobody.

Well... you certainly would. But that is moot point.

You also missed my point.
BECAUSE no one is really benefitting (without tedium) or hurting from the current system, there is no reason to change the status quo.


But if you insist on the current state of things being changed, the DEVs will probably not change it the way you want.

It is more likely they will disallow any assembled ship from being wrapped up in a normal contract at all. And then they would introduce a brand new contract (or contract option) specific for assembled ships and make it so that they can only be placed in a ship maintenance bay.

The reason for this is simple;
Allowing assembled ships to be put in regular cargoholds effectively makes the Bowhead and Orca obsolete (because the freighters are now "all-in-one" ships).
Unless, of course, you also allow ships like the Bowhead and Orca to use their Maintenance bays as cargoholds... in which case, both are better than a regular freighter in some respects (see: tank and/or space).

Capital ships, with their 1 million cubic meters worth of Maintenance bay space will become cheaper, tankier, and more roomy Jump Freighters.

Super capitals? Oooo... what you could do with 2.6+ million cubic meters of space.


So in order to keep thing both balanced and consistent (by your definition) things would be changed so that you will no longer be able to move ships around with plastic wrap.

My advice? Don't rock the boat!

How did you Veterans start?
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
#34 - 2016-08-06 14:04:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Donnachadh
ShahFluffers wrote:
As for the "plastic wrap" trick for transporting assembled/fitted ships in freighters; that is a workaround from the intended mechanics.

Going back to the first page to get this as a starting point for my thoughts.

As Shah points out it is so trivial and easy to get around this supposed restriction is it really worth defending?

Does the restriction really limit anyone in the game?
OK there are those with a single character and only one account and there are some who have never heard of the bubble wrap work around but really are there enough of them in the game that it really matters?

It would limit the usefulness of the bowhead as our friend ShahFluffers states, my response is that the cost to purchase a bowhead is more of a factor in limiting their use than the OP idea could ever be. Besides that the limited cargo space of the other less costly options along with the advantages of the bowhead's ship maintenance bay ensure there will always be a reason to use one for those with the ISK to buy it, and the same holds true for the Orca.

In the end there is only one thing that we should be discussing here and yet no one has even mentioned it.
If a ship is not bubble wrapped then it could simply be ejected from the hold, a pilot could board it and fly away.
I am not saying this is bad, or that it is good, I am simply saying that when we look at what really happens in the game this is the only valid point to be discussed with regards to carrying assembled ships in a normal cargo hold without them being bubble wrapped.
Lex Gabinia
Res Repetundae
#35 - 2016-08-06 20:40:08 UTC
Donnachadh wrote:
ShahFluffers wrote:
As for the "plastic wrap" trick for transporting assembled/fitted ships in freighters; that is a workaround from the intended mechanics.

Going back to the first page to get this as a starting point for my thoughts.

As Shah points out it is so trivial and easy to get around this supposed restriction is it really worth defending?

Does the restriction really limit anyone in the game?
OK there are those with a single character and only one account and there are some who have never heard of the bubble wrap work around but really are there enough of them in the game that it really matters?

It would limit the usefulness of the bowhead as our friend ShahFluffers states, my response is that the cost to purchase a bowhead is more of a factor in limiting their use than the OP idea could ever be. Besides that the limited cargo space of the other less costly options along with the advantages of the bowhead's ship maintenance bay ensure there will always be a reason to use one for those with the ISK to buy it, and the same holds true for the Orca.

In the end there is only one thing that we should be discussing here and yet no one has even mentioned it.
If a ship is not bubble wrapped then it could simply be ejected from the hold, a pilot could board it and fly away.
I am not saying this is bad, or that it is good, I am simply saying that when we look at what really happens in the game this is the only valid point to be discussed with regards to carrying assembled ships in a normal cargo hold without them being bubble wrapped.

No, that is not the only valid point. The fact is some cargo holds only carry certain types of items - ore holds, planetary commodities holds, ammo holds, ships, drone bays, etc. There are tools/ships available for moving ships as assembled ships (one being the courier contract) - use them. Every ship and every cargo hold is not for everything.
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
#36 - 2016-08-07 13:53:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Donnachadh
Lex Gabinia wrote:
No, that is not the only valid point. The fact is some cargo holds only carry certain types of items - ore holds, planetary commodities holds, ammo holds, ships, drone bays, etc. There are tools/ships available for moving ships as assembled ships (one being the courier contract) - use them. Every ship and every cargo hold is not for everything.

I know you have been in the game a long time in fact longer than I have based on this character, yet it is clear that you still have at least one thing left to learn.

"Ore" holds like those in the Miasmos and the Orca are designed to carry "ore" only.
"Planetary commodities" holds like the one in the Epithal are designed to carry, well you guessed it planetary commodities.
Yet virtually every ship in the game has a non-specialized space that allows us to carry virtually anything we want to put into them and in a rather crazy twist in the reality of the game of EvE these general storage / hauling spaces are called "cargo" holds". CCP wisely gave all of these different storage / hauling spaces a unique name so we would have clue what we can use them for, and to avoid mass confusion of the type you exhibit in this quoted post.

No one wants or has asked to carry assembled ships in an "ore" bay or any other specialty bay they are in fact asking to carry them in the general storage space known as a "cargo" hold so my point still stands.
Since we can already carry assembled ships in our "cargo" holds the only real question to debate here is whether it is good or bad to allow them to be carried without being bubble wrapped first.

Another thought, well a question really do you understand how something in this game gets "bubble" wrapped? Or is that another aspect of EvE that you still need to learn.
Lex Gabinia
Res Repetundae
#37 - 2016-08-07 16:42:16 UTC
Donnachadh wrote:
Lex Gabinia wrote:
No, that is not the only valid point. The fact is some cargo holds only carry certain types of items - ore holds, planetary commodities holds, ammo holds, ships, drone bays, etc. There are tools/ships available for moving ships as assembled ships (one being the courier contract) - use them. Every ship and every cargo hold is not for everything.

I know you have been in the game a long time in fact longer than I have based on this character, yet it is clear that you still have at least one thing left to learn.

"Ore" holds like those in the Miasmos and the Orca are designed to carry "ore" only.
"Planetary commodities" holds like the one in the Epithal are designed to carry, well you guessed it planetary commodities.
Yet virtually every ship in the game has a non-specialized space that allows us to carry virtually anything we want to put into them and in a rather crazy twist in the reality of the game of EvE these general storage / hauling spaces are called "cargo" holds". CCP wisely gave all of these different storage / hauling spaces a unique name so we would have clue what we can use them for, and to avoid mass confusion of the type you exhibit in this quoted post.

No one wants or has asked to carry assembled ships in an "ore" bay or any other specialty bay they are in fact asking to carry them in the general storage space known as a "cargo" hold so my point still stands.
Since we can already carry assembled ships in our "cargo" holds the only real question to debate here is whether it is good or bad to allow them to be carried without being bubble wrapped first.

Another thought, well a question really do you understand how something in this game gets "bubble" wrapped? Or is that another aspect of EvE that you still need to learn.

Yes, I understand these things. Perhaps you miss the point that an assembled ship is not cargo but a wrapped ship is cargo. It is a simple rule, assembled ships are not allowed in general cargo holds.

"CCP wisely gave all of these different storage / hauling spaces a unique name so we would have clue what we can use them for, and to avoid mass confusion of the type you exhibit in this quoted post.*

Indeed , they named one ship maintenance bay, but, please, condescend to me some more.
Brokk Witgenstein
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#38 - 2016-08-07 17:14:53 UTC
So a guy wants to do exactly the same thing everyone's been doing since like forever, and all of a sudden he gets accused for wanting to dumb down the game, with connotations of being a carebear?

Wewlad.

Granted it's not top-priority but using an alt for wrapping up cargo really adds no gameplay. For anyone. At all. Worst case the pilot has only one account and needs to relog to accept the item transfer and set up the courier contract. Easiest way to get rid of that step without touching any existing mechanics, is to allow players to set up a contract to be completed by themselves. All you'd have to do is not count success/failure If contractor equals customer. (kinda the same thing as right-click "Wrap into Package", but using the existing interface to do it)

Is it so hard to do this without moaning as if he were a dirty bear asking for nothing short of gamebreaking favouritism? Jebus.
Lex Gabinia
Res Repetundae
#39 - 2016-08-07 22:15:08 UTC
Brokk Witgenstein wrote:
So a guy wants to do exactly the same thing everyone's been doing since like forever, and all of a sudden he gets accused for wanting to dumb down the game, with connotations of being a carebear?

Wewlad.

Granted it's not top-priority but using an alt for wrapping up cargo really adds no gameplay. For anyone. At all. Worst case the pilot has only one account and needs to relog to accept the item transfer and set up the courier contract. Easiest way to get rid of that step without touching any existing mechanics, is to allow players to set up a contract to be completed by themselves. All you'd have to do is not count success/failure If contractor equals customer. (kinda the same thing as right-click "Wrap into Package", but using the existing interface to do it)

Is it so hard to do this without moaning as if he were a dirty bear asking for nothing short of gamebreaking favouritism? Jebus.

It is yet another step towards the simplification and generalization of the game. Their are specialized ships to perform specialized tasks. Someone, some time ago came up with a creative way around this (wrapping) that, in true CCP fashion, was allowed to stay in the game. If this is somehow seen as inconsistent then fine, fix the inconsistency. Do not allow assembled ships to be wrapped and only allow assembled ships to be transported in the proper type of cargo hold.
Previous page12