These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

REMOVE ALL Cargo restrictions for ships in SMB

Author
Anthar Thebess
#61 - 2015-01-14 09:28:12 UTC
Now every thing should be possible to have in ship cargo holds.
Hauling in a capital ( not JF) sorry - 2j max per day usually - that is something that JF can do almost in 1 jump ... and it can jump again quite fast.

Using carriers to haul stuff ( in SMA haulers ) is not an issue any more.

Current restrictions are just annoying now.
Anhenka
The New Federation
Sigma Grindset
#62 - 2015-01-14 17:20:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Anhenka
Anthar Thebess wrote:
Now every thing should be possible to have in ship cargo holds.
Hauling in a capital ( not JF) sorry - 2j max per day usually - that is something that JF can do almost in 1 jump ... and it can jump again quite fast.

Using carriers to haul stuff ( in SMA haulers ) is not an issue any more.

Current restrictions are just annoying now.

Oh look it's the "Carriers would not be as good of bulk haulers as JFs, and that makes them ok to turn into bulk haulers even though they were not bulk haulers before" argument yet again.

Tell me, what's your opinion of Slicers with 5k m3 ore holds? Prospects do it better, so why not?

Maybe Rifters with only half the remote rep bonus of a burst? Bursts with half the damp bonus of a Maulus?



Removing the restrictions is not just removing some minor hassle, it's giving carriers a very large amount of usability that they didn't have before, that overlaps an existing ship class. It's not a minor tweak. "Not as good as a JF" is not an argument to add this capability.
Lady Rift
His Majesty's Privateers
#63 - 2015-01-14 19:41:28 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Kenneth Feld wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Kenneth Feld wrote:


Really, the original intent was reprocessing nerf. That is no longer a threat, due to Crius, so it shouldn't mater what we pack in a ship.



where are you getting your information the reason for it had nothing to do with reprocessing but to do with how carriers were able to haul far more than intended and became a cheaper and all around better alternative to just about any-other hauler outside of HS. and this would still be the case



What people were hauling was XL ammo and 425 rails to far away places to REPROCESS to get minerals for building. Back then you got 100% return from reprocessing.

Fast forward to 2014 - reprocessing is nerfed to the ground and no one in their right mind would reprocess to get minerals, everyone uses compressed ore (Which can be left as the last item not able to go in a SMA)

Sure - could someone load up a titan with a bunch of industrials and go gate to gate or take 2 days to get to a station and try and sell the stuff - maybe. At this point, i would say that is content and not exploiting the cargo of the ship.


It wasn't what they were moving but what they were moving it IN

and since jump freighters are going to get their range nerffed back down to the intended 5LY once the rest of the industry changes are done this would still be the case




Please stop repeating what CCP will do till they do it. It might be the 20th anniversary of eve before all the changes they want are in to nerf JF range and by then have forgotten about it.
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#64 - 2015-01-14 20:06:31 UTC
So, my read on the consensus of folks in this thread is:

1. Nobody really has a problem with lifting the restrictions on cargo in ships loaded into a SMB as long as said cargo is mainly incidentals in ships other than industrials. People like to keep spare mods in their ships and searching for them to remove is a pain, or move small quantities of cargo which shouldn't be an issue.

2. Some folks have a problem with Carriers using multiple loaded industrials to haul goods like compressed ore in place of jump freighters. Even though Carriers have shorter jump range and suffer far more from jump fatigue issues, they are far cheaper, more durable, and combat capable, which means that their role as a hauler should be inherently limited. (It should be noted that CCP originally placed these restrictions on SMBs specifically to avoid such a condition.)

Given these two things, it seems to me that the ideal solution (assuming you're going to advocate for a change at all, which I'm not convinced is necessary) would be to lift the SMB cargo restrictions and somehow restrict the number of industrials you can load into SMBs (increase their volume, flat-out ban their storage in SMBs, etc.).

Thoughts?

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs

Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#65 - 2015-01-14 20:37:42 UTC
Bronson Hughes wrote:
So, my read on the consensus of folks in this thread is:

1. Nobody really has a problem with lifting the restrictions on cargo in ships loaded into a SMB as long as said cargo is mainly incidentals in ships other than industrials. People like to keep spare mods in their ships and searching for them to remove is a pain, or move small quantities of cargo which shouldn't be an issue.

2. Some folks have a problem with Carriers using multiple loaded industrials to haul goods like compressed ore in place of jump freighters. Even though Carriers have shorter jump range and suffer far more from jump fatigue issues, they are far cheaper, more durable, and combat capable, which means that their role as a hauler should be inherently limited. (It should be noted that CCP originally placed these restrictions on SMBs specifically to avoid such a condition.)

Given these two things, it seems to me that the ideal solution (assuming you're going to advocate for a change at all, which I'm not convinced is necessary) would be to lift the SMB cargo restrictions and somehow restrict the number of industrials you can load into SMBs (increase their volume, flat-out ban their storage in SMBs, etc.).

Thoughts?


All ship with the "hauler" trait keep the current limitation while others don't. We know the "hauler" trait exist since they all get the same reduction to jump fatigue generation.
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#66 - 2015-01-14 20:48:39 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
All ship with the "hauler" trait keep the current limitation while others don't. We know the "hauler" trait exist since they all get the same reduction to jump fatigue generation.

That's one of those, "Why the bloody hell didn't I think of that?" solutions.

+1.

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs

Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#67 - 2015-01-14 20:58:11 UTC
Bronson Hughes wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
All ship with the "hauler" trait keep the current limitation while others don't. We know the "hauler" trait exist since they all get the same reduction to jump fatigue generation.

That's one of those, "Why the bloody hell didn't I think of that?" solutions.

+1.


Well they would still need to make addition for "can fit strip miner" to include the barge and exhumer but that flag exist too I guess so vOv.
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
#68 - 2015-01-14 22:40:28 UTC
Bronson Hughes wrote:
So, my read on the consensus of folks in this thread is:

1. Nobody really has a problem with lifting the restrictions on cargo in ships loaded into a SMB as long as said cargo is mainly incidentals in ships other than industrials. People like to keep spare mods in their ships and searching for them to remove is a pain, or move small quantities of cargo which shouldn't be an issue.

2. Some folks have a problem with Carriers using multiple loaded industrials to haul goods like compressed ore in place of jump freighters. Even though Carriers have shorter jump range and suffer far more from jump fatigue issues, they are far cheaper, more durable, and combat capable, which means that their role as a hauler should be inherently limited. (It should be noted that CCP originally placed these restrictions on SMBs specifically to avoid such a condition.)

Given these two things, it seems to me that the ideal solution (assuming you're going to advocate for a change at all, which I'm not convinced is necessary) would be to lift the SMB cargo restrictions and somehow restrict the number of industrials you can load into SMBs (increase their volume, flat-out ban their storage in SMBs, etc.).

Thoughts?



Let me start by saying, I don't care about industrials really one way or the other

Second, the range penalty and especially the fatigue penalty in my opinion would override any potential gain from jamming industrials full of cargo

I would advocate for no compressed ore, but if someone wants to try hard and fill their industrials with ammo or modules and jump it around, I personally think it would be an awesome lossmail and should be allowed for that reason only.

Either way, I don't much care about limiting indutrials, but just saying no compressed ore would be a far simpler solution to everything
BlitZ Kotare
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#69 - 2015-01-15 00:40:33 UTC
Kenneth Feld wrote:

Either way, I don't much care about limiting indutrials, but just saying no compressed ore would be a far simpler solution to everything


To be completely honest I don't think we need even this much. Loading max skilled fully expanded haulers into a carrier full of compressed ore you're going to get less than 1/3 the capacity of a poorly skilled Jump Freigher. Granted a carrier is a more capable transport but it'll still die in a horrible fire as a hauler. If people are willing to take the chance let them, it'll make for more of those "player interacitons" CCP are always saying they want more of.

In any case, all I really want is for it to be a little less painful to pack and unpack things from my carriers. Logistics in EVE are already horribly painful and unfun, this one small quality of life change would at least alleviate an appreciable chunk of the unfun part.
Anthar Thebess
#70 - 2015-01-15 07:25:02 UTC
Tbh.

Lifting this rule for any ship except for indy also make this game less annoying .

I don't think that hauling stuff in carrier or super SMA will be an issue.
Mainly because :
- wherever you go , you need ships - so you put them there first.
- lack of fatigue reduction will block any serious stuff movement

The only ship that might cause some issue is rorqual , as it could carry more than JF.
Tarsas Phage
Sniggerdly
#71 - 2015-01-15 16:54:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Tarsas Phage
Bronson Hughes wrote:

Given these two things, it seems to me that the ideal solution (assuming you're going to advocate for a change at all, which I'm not convinced is necessary) would be to lift the SMB cargo restrictions and somehow restrict the number of industrials you can load into SMBs (increase their volume, flat-out ban their storage in SMBs, etc.).

Thoughts?


Well, currently I use a T1 hauler to carry my spare ammo, bombs, cap boosters, and paste when I pack my carrier up for deployment. This would put an end to that.

I mean, I need the hauler (a Mammoth) anyway for other purposes wherever I go, so if I have to drag it along with me, I might as well toss my spare charges in it. As we all know, cap boosters especially can be hard currency if you're out in the boonies.
Anhenka
The New Federation
Sigma Grindset
#72 - 2015-01-15 17:03:53 UTC
Tarsas Phage wrote:
Bronson Hughes wrote:

Given these two things, it seems to me that the ideal solution (assuming you're going to advocate for a change at all, which I'm not convinced is necessary) would be to lift the SMB cargo restrictions and somehow restrict the number of industrials you can load into SMBs (increase their volume, flat-out ban their storage in SMBs, etc.).

Thoughts?


Well, currently I use a T1 hauler to carry my spare ammo, bombs, cap boosters, and paste when I pack my carrier up for deployment. This would put an end to that.

I mean, I need the hauler (a Mammoth) anyway for other purposes wherever I go, so if I have to drag it along with me, I might as well toss my spare charges in it. As we all know, cap boosters especially can be hard currency if you're out in the boonies.


The charge exception is rater silly tbh. The intent of it is to allow your combat ships to carry their ammo/boosters/we ofc.

But then it gets abused by filling haulers full of ammo. Because for some reason, even though a miasmos can't carry rock while stored, and epithal can't carry PI, all the haulers can carry massive amounts of volatile explosive substances. Silly, no?

I'd say simply remove the ability for all haulers to carry anything at all while stored, but allow non haulers to carry everything.

Would also allow CCP to revert the size increases made to the industrial awhile back.
Kat Ayclism
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#73 - 2015-01-15 17:04:29 UTC
Anhenka wrote:
Anthar Thebess wrote:
Now every thing should be possible to have in ship cargo holds.
Hauling in a capital ( not JF) sorry - 2j max per day usually - that is something that JF can do almost in 1 jump ... and it can jump again quite fast.

Using carriers to haul stuff ( in SMA haulers ) is not an issue any more.

Current restrictions are just annoying now.

Oh look it's the "Carriers would not be as good of bulk haulers as JFs, and that makes them ok to turn into bulk haulers even though they were not bulk haulers before" argument yet again.

Tell me, what's your opinion of Slicers with 5k m3 ore holds? Prospects do it better, so why not?

Maybe Rifters with only half the remote rep bonus of a burst? Bursts with half the damp bonus of a Maulus?



Removing the restrictions is not just removing some minor hassle, it's giving carriers a very large amount of usability that they didn't have before, that overlaps an existing ship class. It's not a minor tweak. "Not as good as a JF" is not an argument to add this capability.

You're spectacularly deluded and you have to keep reducing yourself to absurdity to justify why these dumb restrictions are still a thing. All you do with such ridiculous things is make yourself look like a clown. None of those things is comparable to a ship that already hauls other ships, can't be made to haul other items with even a significant fraction of the efficiency of a JF, and would be a significant quality of life change for yknow people that actually use their ships.
Anthar Thebess
#74 - 2015-01-15 17:14:33 UTC
Sorry but i don't see an issue.
Will lifting restrictions will make people life easier - yes a bit.
Will this change game - yes.
Will this brake every thing? No, as the most limiting factor will be fatigue.

Try to move 300k m3 20 LY away.

Using carrier this takes hours just to not boost your fatigue.
Using JF - almost instant 2jumps away.

People will not be using this to haul stuff every day , simply because if they try fatigue will "kill" their mobility after few quick jumps.

Anhenka
The New Federation
Sigma Grindset
#75 - 2015-01-15 17:15:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Anhenka
Seems to be two camps of people in here.

The one's who want to be able to fit things other than just charges in their combat ships while moving (+1 for this much)
We can all agree that it would be nice not to have to unload all non charge mods from our ships while moving them by carrier.

And the ones who look at removing the restriction as a way to get the first point, and then also a cheap bulk hauler for when you are moving things short distances or already taking a carrier (or several) along somewhere.

I have yet to see anyone explain why the second part should be a part of the combat focused carrier class at all. Everyone is just waving their hands going "That would be cool, and so I want it" with a side order of "It's not as good at it as the ultra specialized JF (no **** Sherlock) just like every other thread in F&I where the poster feels entitled to exactly what he proposes.

In the simplest terms possible, a carrier is not currently a hauler for anything except fitted ships and charges.


Why should it change so that a carrier can haul 20 times more than it can currently, of any type of item it wants?

+1 to combat ships holding non charge items. -1 to industrials being abused as giant transit boxes.
Anthar Thebess
#76 - 2015-01-15 17:29:36 UTC
It is not about hauling stuff, just about making this aspect less annoying.
If you ant to haul stuff you need to use rorqual or JF.

Currently my fast hauler in nullsec -> BO , rigged for cargo and cargo holds.
Guess why
Tex Raynor
Guardians of Asceticism
#77 - 2015-01-15 17:51:06 UTC
Since we are on the topic of cargo restrictions, here's my 2 cents.

SMB - As was suggested, removing all restrictions would be great for anyone using them. You could balance it out by either:
1. Having the cargo from stored ships affect the fleet hangar space available. For instance, a carrier has 10 000 m3, so if I try to put a hauler with 11 000 m3 used, I would get an error. If I then remove some items and they only take 9 000 m3, the fleet hangar will have 1 000 m3 left available.
2. Remove all restrictions, but have total cargo m3 (your ships and the ships it's hauling) affect jump fatigue. This means that ships with 90% jump fatigue reduction should be relatively unaffected, but the others would see a significant delay on their jump fatigues if they try to haul 10x more then they were designed to. emergent gameplay, risk vs reward.

SMA - Very similar, but please remove restrictions there as well. With the addition of mobile depots to the game and things such as refitting t3 subs in space, I feel it has become common place to carry spare mods in cargo bays. It is actually easier (and slightly more efficient) to carry cargo containers in your ships to separate fits and loot. In wh's though, I must always drop the cans (then not forget to grab them) whenever I store a ship. You can, however, store a ship with a fleet hangar full of those containers which is either a intended or a forgotten fluke.
Alexis Nightwish
#78 - 2015-01-15 17:56:27 UTC
Bienator II wrote:
would like to have it total volume based. If you put a hauler into a carrier, everything which is in the cargo of the hauler would be added to the volume of the hauler itself.

Brilliantly simple and elegant solution. +1

While we're at it, can we have this done to SMAs/CHAs/etc.?

CCP approaches problems in one of two ways: nudge or cludge

EVE Online's "I win!" Button

Fixing bombs, not the bombers

Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
#79 - 2015-01-15 18:42:48 UTC
Anhenka wrote:
Tarsas Phage wrote:
Bronson Hughes wrote:

Given these two things, it seems to me that the ideal solution (assuming you're going to advocate for a change at all, which I'm not convinced is necessary) would be to lift the SMB cargo restrictions and somehow restrict the number of industrials you can load into SMBs (increase their volume, flat-out ban their storage in SMBs, etc.).

Thoughts?


Well, currently I use a T1 hauler to carry my spare ammo, bombs, cap boosters, and paste when I pack my carrier up for deployment. This would put an end to that.

I mean, I need the hauler (a Mammoth) anyway for other purposes wherever I go, so if I have to drag it along with me, I might as well toss my spare charges in it. As we all know, cap boosters especially can be hard currency if you're out in the boonies.


The charge exception is rater silly tbh. The intent of it is to allow your combat ships to carry their ammo/boosters/we ofc.

But then it gets abused by filling haulers full of ammo. Because for some reason, even though a miasmos can't carry rock while stored, and epithal can't carry PI, all the haulers can carry massive amounts of volatile explosive substances. Silly, no?

I'd say simply remove the ability for all haulers to carry anything at all while stored, but allow non haulers to carry everything.

Would also allow CCP to revert the size increases made to the industrial awhile back.



NEWS FLASH: you can already fiil haulers with ammo

We are not talking ammo here, that is currently and always has been OK

We are talking, spare tank modules, mobile depot, Liquid Ozone (For lighting cynos) drugs, mobile tractor units etc

Rockstara
Reaction Scientific
#80 - 2015-01-15 20:14:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Rockstara
As a player in this game I would like to be able to drag my fit ships and drop them into my SMA. It is pretty straightforward. Some fit ships keep liquid ozone in the cargohold, some ships keep drugs even hi sec safe drugs like quafe, and some keep a moble depot and a few spare mods. I don't care if industrials don't enjoy this freedom. This is a little thing that would make the game less tedious.

It seems the arguments against this don't focus on solving this extremely annoying requirement in the game and instead focusing on how industrial ships could be packed with all manner of things. So my question to those making this agruments, if it was allowed for all non-hauler ships is that unbalanced?