| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
mazzilliu
   |
Posted - 2009.06.21 05:37:00 -
[1]
a lot of people use medium, small, and giant secure containers to carry a tiny bit of extra stuff in space. its a lot of hassle and extra clicking and using them incurs restrictions such as the inability to see its contents within the assets window, and all those other quirks you encounter with cans
giant secure containers are used very commonly by haulers and any ship with cargo above 3k capacity. their inside is 30% larger then the space they take.
medium and small cans are used by subcapital non-hauler non-barge ships and are 20% bigger on the inside then the outside
how about, for every ship with cargo space lower then 3k let's increase it by 20%, and for every ship with cargo space larger then 3k let's increase it by 30%. don't alter ships that cant use cans anyways. then lets make cans the same size inside as they are outside. so now people can use cans as proper dividers for items and other legitimate uses rather then being forced to use them as some sort of semi-exploitive, inconvenient cargo expanders. practical game play is unaffected.
special restrictions on what you can put in cans and what you can put cans into, etcetera, might even be removable since the exploit potential is gone. maybe we can use giant secure cans in freighters then?
MAZZILLIU 2009. CHANGE I CAN IMPOSE ON YOU. |
mazzilliu
|
Posted - 2009.06.21 05:38:00 -
[2]
hmmm I THINK I AGREE WITH MY IDEA
MAZZILLIU 2009. CHANGE I CAN IMPOSE ON YOU. |
Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange
Coalition of Free Stars
|
Posted - 2009.06.21 05:52:00 -
[3]
My first reaction was distaste, but on reflection, I'm not sure why. Yeah, this is a mechanical change that affects some things - hauling large objects, most notably. But the change isn't all that big, and it'd make the whole container process far easier. I'd still prefer to see containers work in a sane fashion, but this doesn't really interfere with that. It's a really broad change to deal with a fairly small problem, but in practice it's not actually a very big change. It feels like a bigger hammer than is needed, but it's a pretty practical solution, all told.
I can't help but feel I'm missing something, but for now, I think I have to support this.
|
Mos7Wan7ed
|
Posted - 2009.06.21 06:24:00 -
[4]
so, buff the cargo on all ships equal to the buff they would get equal to the largest size they could carry? Then remove the container's 20-30% space increase buff they get. Then allow cargo cans to be used by all ships as they don't have the possibility to nest for infinite space anymore.
/supported
|
Xailz
Godless Horizon.
|
Posted - 2009.06.21 11:24:00 -
[5]
Anything that gives some love to the Maelstroms pathetic cargo hold
<3
Xz |
Ortos
Brutor tribe
|
Posted - 2009.06.21 11:44:00 -
[6]
 Originally by: Xailz
Anything that gives some love to the Maelstroms pathetic cargo hold
<3
Xz
oh dear god yes
Yarrrr |
Dapto
Dissolution Of Eternity
Event Horizon.
|
Posted - 2009.06.21 12:12:00 -
[7]
I agree hate carting half full containers from corpies so not to mix their stuff up in my fenrir and nomad.
Dapto |
Verys
The Black Ops
Black Core Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.06.21 13:25:00 -
[8]
It would be really nice however there should be a good look across the board which ships would receive these bonuses and which not such as only industrials or all ships.
I suggest if this is implemented freighters will not get the bonus. This would then allow jump freighters/freighters to also carry secure containers instead of only the freight containers, putting some logistical nightmares to bed.
--------------------
Support a change in the blueprint locking mechanics!
Click Me |
Bunyip
Center for Advanced Studies
|
Posted - 2009.06.21 15:54:00 -
[9]
Sounds reasonable, but it might require a lot of work on CCP's part (altering the very structure of how cargo works). I do completely agree with the bit about freighters/JFs though, as not being able to put cargo cans other than the general freight cans is a headache.
CCP might have some nightmares about it's implementation, but I support this measure. |
shuckstar
Hauling hogs
|
Posted - 2009.06.21 17:22:00 -
[10]
|
zzbooks
Fighting Cats
|
Posted - 2009.06.22 11:50:00 -
[11]
Using containers reduces the load on the database, the 30% size bonus is to encourage us to use them. |
Resivan
|
Posted - 2009.06.22 12:28:00 -
[12]
Just to play devil's advocate:
Training Anchoring 1 and buying all those cans is a tax people pay for the extra cargo space. Also, undivided cargo space is more valuable than divided space when you need to carry bulky stuff like packaged ships. This proposal would be a noticeable buff. Buffs like that usually come with compensating nerfs.
|
Uzume Ame
|
Posted - 2009.06.22 12:34:00 -
[13]
|
Omber Zombie
|
Posted - 2009.06.23 11:18:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Resivan
undivided cargo space is more valuable than divided space when you need to carry bulky stuff like packaged ships. This proposal would be a noticeable buff.
is my thoughts on this |
Dedalus99
|
Posted - 2009.06.23 14:38:00 -
[15]
100% supported. |
mazzilliu
|
Posted - 2009.06.23 17:59:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Omber Zombie
Originally by: Resivan
undivided cargo space is more valuable than divided space when you need to carry bulky stuff like packaged ships. This proposal would be a noticeable buff.
is my thoughts on this
ok let's look at some numbers:
_________________________________________________________________
an iteron 5, with 5 expanded cargohold II's, unrigged, lv 5 skills- probably the most common sort of setup and the sort of setup we would look to to find potential exploitable situations
25270 cargohold
filled with giant secures, you get
3900+3900+3900+3900+3900+3900+3900+3900+1270=32470 cargo
after the buff, with a straight 30% increase you would get
32851 cargo
(or, if you want to be really picky and not give a bonus to that extra bit of cargo that couldnt hold giant cans anyways you would get)
32470 cargo
-if you were carrying two cruisers with the old setup, now you can carry three
-you can carry four instead of three large control tower. assuming you leave the fuel at home.
-you can carry three whole capital modules instead of two
-hauling things like 5-100M3 sized modules, POS fuel, and other things that could otherwise be fit evenly in a divided cargohold will not be affected
AND, heres the most extreme possible case i can think of to try exploiting this change:
iteron 5 with expanded cargohold II's and two t2 rigs and 1 t1 rig for cargo max skills:
41848 cargo currently
3900+3900+3900+3900+3900+3900+3900+3900+3900+3900+3900+3900+3900+2848=53548 cargo divided up with cans
after buff
54402 cargo or
53548 cargo depending on whether you bonus the leftover space or not
it's pretty big, but it's still not going to overthrow the freighter for hauling really big items, and it's really not any bigger then it was before except all that giant secure can bull**** was removed. if for some reason someone owns this and not a freighter, they can haul 5 instead of 4 capital components. or even one battleship when they could not before. but why they would do this and not use a freighter is beyond me.
_________________________________________________________________
the question is, how commonly does someone haul really, really big items in an iteron? the only real buff is when carrying those sorts of things, and the iteron cant even carry very many of them in the first place. if you are hauling craploads of really big items, in an iteron, then you are doing it wrong.
while this may be a boost to people who can afford lots of big items but not freighters, this would solve logistical problems when freighter pilots want to divide up their cargo in increments smaller then 100k. I don't think there is any way to do that currently short of using a courier mission. It would also take away some amount of frustration from pos fuelers, as currently they are forced to divide up their cargo in 3900m^3 sized chunks. and remove all the daily crap one has to go through when managing their cargo space and using containers to do so, whether you are using iteron or battleships
also while i doubt many people also hold some of the views mentioned earlier in this thread i might as well address them:
-giant secure containers dont cost a lot of money. they can be reused forever anyways.
-the database load will be shifted instead to more items showing in cargo, away from mass packaging and repackaging of giant secures. and repackaging giant secures with tons of items in then. i really dont think its much load either way.
-im of course not sure how much work it would take on ccp's part. but the code is lready there for freight containers and they might be able to re-use it for giant cans so they can finally go into freighters
MAZZILLIU 2009. CHANGE I CAN IMPOSE ON YOU. |
Red Raider
Caldari
Airbourne Demons
DeMoN's N AnGeL's
|
Posted - 2009.06.23 19:10:00 -
[17]
Originally by: zzbooks
Using containers reduces the load on the database, the 30% size bonus is to encourage us to use them.
I can't imagine how this is possibly true but if it is then I can't support this even though I like the idea. |
Scoop EMP
|
Posted - 2009.06.25 13:49:00 -
[18]
|
Kytanos Termek
Darkstorm Command
Ethereal Dawn
|
Posted - 2009.06.27 17:34:00 -
[19]
Supported.
|
Mister Xerox
|
Posted - 2009.06.30 14:57:00 -
[20]
Agreed.
I'd like to have audit log giant secures as well.
Also, the ability to repackage station hangars without that stupid '3 week old' log crap getting in the way after I've emptied them. Just give me a warning: Repackaging the station [whatever] will displace all items into the [corporate hangar with the least access rights] or your personal hangar.
Also: "This container contains items that have been locked down. Please unlock these items to repackage the station [whatever]". If a person can unlock the items, they can steal them anyway once they access the container.
|
Piitaq
19th Star Logistics
|
Posted - 2009.07.01 00:28:00 -
[21]
supported
|
Venkul Mul
|
Posted - 2009.07.03 11:31:00 -
[22]
Yes
|
Solo Player
|
Posted - 2009.07.05 01:27:00 -
[23]
Assuming this is actually a proposal and not just a vague idea thrown in: supported.
|
Dav Varan
|
Posted - 2009.07.20 17:01:00 -
[24]
A far simplier solution.
Although I support the aim of this post , I find the proposed solution to be overcomplicated.
Issues that arise are
What happens with ships that can have cargo holds less than 3k or more than 3k depending upon expanders / rigs fitted.
20-30% buff for carrying items that can't currently be carried in cans.
20-30% buff for Cap Injecting ship setups cargo hold space is a premium here.
|
Velvet69
eXceed Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.07.20 17:09:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Dapto
I agree hate carting half full containers from corpies so not to mix their stuff up in my fenrir and nomad.
What?
Last time I checked , the only assembled containers that could be put in a freighter class ship were general freight containers.
IXC Velvet69
Proud Member of 'The House of Prawn' |
Andrea Griffin
|
Posted - 2009.07.20 19:49:00 -
[26]
Edited by: Andrea Griffin on 20/07/2009 19:50:33
I agree. I think that containers should not be able to contain more space than they take up. A container that takes up 3,000m3 should be able to hold no more than 3,000m3.
Edit to show support. I re-read the extremely poorly worded OP and realized that he was advocating the opposite of what I had originally thought.
|
Maewei Balducci
|
Posted - 2009.09.02 17:12:00 -
[27]
this imply an important change :
the limitation of 3900 m2 will deseapear.
it's important for example when hauling big modules (like pos structure), cause we can't use container with then, and we lost a lot of space.
i'm for, but dunno if CCP will accept allowing that
|
Fille Balle
Ballbreakers R us
|
Posted - 2009.09.02 18:42:00 -
[28]
Sounds like fun (more fun than managing containers that is).
|
Drake Draconis
Shadow Cadre
|
Posted - 2009.09.02 20:14:00 -
[29]
Supported.
And to the idiots who keep saying that "Using Can's lessens the load on the database" Please STFU.
Are you CCP? Are you a Dev? A GM?
Then how the hell can you say such a thing with any amount of authority?
Think about it... 1 more object is more entry in a DB... and said object is a "Container" which even more "Stuff" to store in the Database.... this means additional queries..
Somehow I think your logic is really screwy there.
The fewer things you have to store and the fewer calls to the DB the better.
=========================
CEO of Shadow Cadre
http://www.shadowcadre.com
========================= |
Valea
Life. Universe. Everything.
|
Posted - 2009.09.02 22:26:00 -
[30]
This would not work for freighters unless the volume of capital ships is increased, because as it stands any freighter would be able to haul a packaged dreadnought or carrier into highsec given a small percentage boost in cargo storage.
Or freighters could just be excluded from the cargo boost.
---
signature removed - please email us to find out why (include a link to the image URL) - Jacques([email protected]) |
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |