These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Test Server Feedback

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Fleet hangars and changes to various settings

First post First post
Author
Arcosian
Arcosian Heavy Industries Corp Holding
#221 - 2012-11-02 05:02:09 UTC
rodyas wrote:
^ But I mean its easy to pop the alt that scoops that wreck with the new crimewatch.

I suppose if someone is fast enough, its easy to get the cargo then escape easily.

So you can gank more targets, but people can easily gank the gankers, if they aren't fast enough.

Or does the wreck from a player's ship belong to the ganker?

If the gankers abandon the wreck then its free game. If you shot the alt that scoops it you would be concorded. Crimewatch only means criminals like can flippers and ninja salvagers can be killed by anyone now not just the person/corp they steal from.
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
#222 - 2012-11-02 05:09:01 UTC
Ah, I did not know the ganked wreck belonged to the ganker. Then yeah that will be easy to sidestep.

Signature removed for inappropriate language - CCP Eterne

Sinzor Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
#223 - 2012-11-02 05:59:46 UTC
rodyas wrote:
Ah, I did not know the ganked wreck belonged to the ganker.

But it doesnt.
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
#224 - 2012-11-02 06:05:29 UTC
Ah, sweet, so if orca and stuff ganking got too "cool" people would line up to gank the gankers, thus reducing the amount of ganks.

Considering I don't fly an orca, so I won't be a guinea pig. I support this change coming to tranquility.

Signature removed for inappropriate language - CCP Eterne

Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#225 - 2012-11-02 08:16:29 UTC
rodyas wrote:
Ah, I did not know the ganked wreck belonged to the ganker. Then yeah that will be easy to sidestep.


No, this is only the case with NPCs. Player wrecks belong to the player that lost the ship.

Twitter: @EVEAndski

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

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#226 - 2012-11-02 10:44:34 UTC
Andski wrote:
rodyas wrote:
Ah, I did not know the ganked wreck belonged to the ganker. Then yeah that will be easy to sidestep.

No, this is only the case with NPCs. Player wrecks belong to the player that lost the ship.

…although it was mentioned somewhere, either in the blog or in the comment thread, that the looting rights for player wrecks would be extended to whomever caused that wreck.

Combine this with the new s-flagging for theft, and it essentially creates a situation where the ganker would own the wreck.
Tess La'Coil
Messerschmitt Vertrieb und Logistik
#227 - 2012-11-02 10:51:47 UTC
CCP GingerDude wrote:

Out of the question :) We rely heavily on items having fixed volume, particularly client side. The plastic wraps are a source of constant pain and I regard them as a spawn of Cthulu. They will be exorcized out of my codebase next time I'm in the mood for such shenanigans.


Thats fine, as soon as you allow courier contracts with a container inside them to be sub-contracted. Otherwise it'd be a royal pain in the ass for any Shipping Corporation.
Someone once said I was a muppet. If that's so, I'm quite sure the Swedish Chef is my brother. 
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
#228 - 2012-11-02 11:03:58 UTC  |  Edited by: rodyas
Well poor orcas then.

The forums are gonna be filled with rage quitters when retribution goes live. Not just from this aspect alone. Best to just cleanse myself from all the nerfs coming and just sit back and laugh.

Signature removed for inappropriate language - CCP Eterne

Tess La'Coil
Messerschmitt Vertrieb und Logistik
#229 - 2012-11-02 11:22:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Tess La'Coil
Orca's will remain to have an advantage if you don't Max-Cargo fit it but tank it instead.

Also, 100MN MWD and the ability to use a cloak will still grant you a 10second warp, with Cloak inbetween.
Someone once said I was a muppet. If that's so, I'm quite sure the Swedish Chef is my brother. 
Dave Stark
#230 - 2012-11-02 11:51:10 UTC
ouch, good job my orca is being retired to fleet boosting. that really was the orca's main selling point, the whole unscannable thing.

guess with the freighter's larger cargo hold i guess it's time to waste 1.5bn...
Scaugh
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#231 - 2012-11-02 12:30:46 UTC
CCP Habakuk wrote:
m0jo wrote:
#50 Posted: 2012.10.20 01:16 | Edited by: CCP Habakuk
Scanning: Items in the fleet hangar can not be scanned by cargo scanners - this has not changed. Customs officials on the other hand will find items in the fleet hangar - this has also not changed compared with the corp hangar on TQ.

#136 Posted: 2012.11.01 13:04 | Edited by: CCP Greyscale
Fleet hangars will now behave like normal cargo hold when it comes to ship scanners and loot drops (ie, will be scannable, and loot will drop from them)


So what happened here? Who had the brain fart? Also why not work on functions in the game that are broken, like say high sec ganking? High sec ganking is completely broken with no penalties at all considering what the gain is.


The design changed, mostly based on the feedback in this thread. I have to agree, that it makes much more sense to be able to scan stuff in the fleet hangars and that this stuff drops as loot.


This is one change I am not pleased with. AT ALL.....

You say people complained and gave feedback asking for changes to the current staus quo for fleet hangars. Well my feedback is you should be leaving it the fleet hangar as it is.
Mioelnir
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#232 - 2012-11-02 12:51:39 UTC
As much as I hated the no-lootdrop freighters of old, the fact that after this change you have to make a separate Orca/JF trip for every single item with a worth around 1.5b is just maddening. Single items above 5b in worth will be close to unmoveable.

I am all for the player-regulated toolset approach, but this game has been lacking an escort mechanic for transport protection for years. Closing the last foxholes players built around this problem without addressing it will not benefit the game, it's just player harrassment by the devs.
Sinzor Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
#233 - 2012-11-02 13:09:32 UTC
Mioelnir wrote:
As much as I hated the no-lootdrop freighters of old, the fact that after this change you have to make a separate Orca/JF trip for every single item with a worth around 1.5b is just maddening. Single items above 5b in worth will be close to unmoveable.

I am all for the player-regulated toolset approach, but this game has been lacking an escort mechanic for transport protection for years. Closing the last foxholes players built around this problem without addressing it will not benefit the game, it's just player harrassment by the devs.

What are you talking about?
Escort is easily accomplished by scouts and webbers. Also, you may use T2 transports. Or tanked cloaky T3 cruisers. Or use alternative routes. Or stop using Jita as the center of the World, trade at other hubs. Or... you name it - there is a damn lot of possibilities, just stop whining and adapt.
Mioelnir
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#234 - 2012-11-02 13:20:41 UTC
You might want to read up on the techlevel of a Jumpfreighter. Bathes your whole post in a sketchy light.
Dramaticus
State War Academy
Caldari State
#235 - 2012-11-02 13:56:41 UTC
Its almost like yall now get to share in the mortal agony that is 0.0 logistics just a tiny bit

The 'do-nothing' member of the GoonSwarm Economic Warfare Cabal

The edge is REALLY hard to see at times but it DOES exist and in this case we were looking at a situation where a new feature created for all of our customers was being virtually curbstomped by five of them

Bugsy VanHalen
Society of lost Souls
#236 - 2012-11-02 14:18:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Bugsy VanHalen
This is a great change from my point of view. It adds much more utility and ease than it removes. ORCA's will no longer be the super safe gank proof way of moving high value cargo. They will however still be able to use the cloak/MWD trick to get thru relatively safe.

One issue remains though. It would seem that this will greatly increase the number of gank targets in high sec. Which in theory the more targets there are the less chance you have of getting targeted. PVP does not work this way however. And since gankers view themselves as PVPers we need to look at this from a PVP perspective. In PVP more targets means more opportunity for PVP which will result in a major increase in gankers to attack these abundant targets. So in fact this will have the opposite affect. the chances of getting ganked will become much higher when this patch goes live.

This is the only down side I see to this change is, it is a major buff to ganking. All cargo will now have a chance to drop when ganked adding ORCA's to the list of profitable targets. Since an max tanked orca only has EHP comparable to a freighter at much higher skill costs, and will now not have the no scan/loot corp hanger I expect most haulers will go back to using freighters as the security benefit ORCA's had will be gone.

Although there have always been ways to increase the safety of haulers through escorts there is really no defense against an alpha strike. Since both ORCA's and Freighters are generally hull tanked, I would like to see some sort of logistics module added that remotely affects hull ehp, like a remote hull hardener adding resists. This way a logistics ship running escort for a freighter could use this module to enhance the freighter or ORCA's tank. This being a hull module, it would have limited use in other engagements.

Freighters are just way to easy to gank now. With the new battlecruisers a freighter can be ganked at a cost of about 650 mil. This is not to say you only need 650 mil worth of ships, but once you factor in the loot and salvage of all the ganking ships, plus the salvage from the freighter. Any loot drop from the freighter over 650 mil in value can mean profit for the gankers. this just seems out of balance to me.

However considering that it takes a well organized fleet to pull this off, I believe the counter should also require a fleet/escort for the freighter. This is why I suggest some sort of remote tank that can be activated on the freighter before it is hit to allow it to withstand a much higher alpha strike letting it survive until concord shows up. Successfully ganking a remote tanked freighter should cost 1.5-2 bil isk compared to the 650 mil it costs now. Ganking would still be very possible just cost more. And I am sure there would still be an abundance of unescorted freighters around to gank at the lower cost.
Reticle
Sight Picture
#237 - 2012-11-02 15:01:56 UTC
Tess La'Coil wrote:
CCP GingerDude wrote:

Out of the question :) We rely heavily on items having fixed volume, particularly client side. The plastic wraps are a source of constant pain and I regard them as a spawn of Cthulu. They will be exorcized out of my codebase next time I'm in the mood for such shenanigans.


Thats fine, as soon as you allow courier contracts with a container inside them to be sub-contracted. Otherwise it'd be a royal pain in the ass for any Shipping Corporation.

I smell a frog.
Abdiel Kavash
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#238 - 2012-11-02 15:12:22 UTC
Mioelnir wrote:
As much as I hated the no-lootdrop freighters of old, the fact that after this change you have to make a separate Orca/JF trip for every single item with a worth around 1.5b is just maddening. Single items above 5b in worth will be close to unmoveable.

I am all for the player-regulated toolset approach, but this game has been lacking an escort mechanic for transport protection for years. Closing the last foxholes players built around this problem without addressing it will not benefit the game, it's just player harrassment by the devs.


There are plenty mechanics for transport protection. CCP is just eliminating a mechanic for 100% safe no-effort AFK transport.
Mioelnir
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#239 - 2012-11-02 15:25:21 UTC
Abdiel Kavash wrote:
There are plenty mechanics for transport protection. CCP is just eliminating a mechanic for 100% safe no-effort AFK transport.

No, there are mechanics for evasion. Anything actually protecting a freighter would need at least a range bonus on remote hull reps which currently no ship has.
Engad Tanon
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#240 - 2012-11-02 15:48:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Engad Tanon
hey ,

Is there any serious analys or arqumentations why You doing these changes. What good we get? When You changed hangar system before, also with last patch you changed chat mechanics, nothing is came better. Before both chat system and hangars was simple and easy to use. Now players need make many extra clikc's to get same place where before was need only one simple click. Better put your effort to fix some serious gamemehanic problems and these hugh blobs on map.

/ET