Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 .. 21 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 5 post(s) |
Cadde
Gallente 221st Century Warfare
|
Posted - 2010.05.11 08:25:00 -
[421]
Originally by: Jim Luc
I see pixels in your images. There shouldn't be any pixels - that's what I'm trying to say. It looks terrible when there are pixels.
... Bwaaahahahahaha! There are pixels in my image.
But seriously though, what you are seeing is artifacts from compression. The same type of artifacts you get on compressed video etc etc.
And IF textures where to be loaded on demand and released nicely to keep your memory open to other things you would have a lot of loading bars popping up as eve loads to memory... That or textures being drawn like gif images progressively and it doesn't take away from he fact your harddrive will be going non stop as you scroll around the planet. Every time you zoom in it would load more higher detailed textures and every time you zoomed out and scrolled a little it would release that memory again. It's excessive and wasteful for something as simple as planetary interaction. Not to mention the expansion would take a few hundred megabyte more in size if the compression ratio was reduced on the textures. Eve is large enough as it is already.
Furthermore, ever tried zooming in on a ship before? Hold your right mouse button and move the mouse and you will see far worse pixellation on your ship than there is in PI. Everything in eve is pixelated if you look closely enough.
Originally by: Jim Luc
I agree though, while I'm not sure why other games can have high res textures and Eve can't, if the reason is a memory or a game engine issue (are we still on DX9??), then I guess I understand why we get the lower quality images.
The reason other games can have nicer textures is because they are built with nicer textures in mind from the ground up. Eve has it's problems, it's not even close to having a good render routine and yes, it's running on DX9... Yes, a lot of graphical calculations STILL happens on the CPU as opposed to the GPU. This is a problem with the eve client as a whole, not just some textures on some planets.
Originally by: Jim Luc
The cover artwork and all of the videos produced by CCP are shot in ultra high quality. For those of us with textures set to high, I think we should get the ultra high quality. Simply being "good enough" isn't quite what I'm after. I don't really get a sense of vertigo looking down on the planet when the planet and clouds are pixelated.
It's quite rare to see actual game footage used to promote a game. (Even in this age) The videos produced are not made with any ingame footage, it's all made in a render studio (Possibly Maya or 3D studio) and there is a lot of after editing on the videos to make them look nice in every aspect. Also if those of us who could run "ULTRA HIGH PWNBATMAN" settings would get the option to use those settings CCP would have to go back to a Premium vs classic client release as the size of the premium is something most people wouldn't wanna download at 1 MBit/s. Would you apply for a internship at CCP so you could maintain the second client for free?
Just be happy eve isn't looking like it did before the second graphical update.
And also, heheeheh... there are pixels in my image...
My opinions belong to me, you can't have them!
|
Snabbik Shigen
|
Posted - 2010.05.11 11:22:00 -
[422]
23h cycle is better but it should've been shortened to 22h to allow more flexibility in people's schedules.
The 30m extraction duration is too short. Make the standard durations 5h, 10h, 20h, 40h and 80h.
Give people the option to stop and manually re-survey without having to rip out and replace the extractor. Which also fixes the need that people have for more flexible scheduling of their game time.
Extractors should ALWAYS run on a 15 min cycle. The varying cycle length is needlessly complex and is going to be confusing.
|
Foreman Janeau
NextGen Engineering
|
Posted - 2010.05.11 11:28:00 -
[423]
tl;dr the entire topic, so I have 3 questions:
1) Is PI available on the W-space planets? 2) Are the orbitting cargo hangars/planetary structure destroyable by capsuleers? 3) If (2==yes){ Will they be defendable by gun/ewar batteries?; } ________________
|
ihcn
|
Posted - 2010.05.11 11:57:00 -
[424]
Edited by: ihcn on 11/05/2010 12:01:32 The first thing that struck me about the need to upgrade links is that it's very annoying to have to
1. attempt to place a route 2. notice that this route would overload some links (or not notice, and receive an error) 3. upgrade each overloaded link 4. see if the upgrades were enough by trying to place the route again
I fully support the notion of making people upgrade heavily-used routes, but it needs to be a little more streamlined. Perhaps opening up a dialog box that tells you "some of the links would have to be upgraded, it would take a total of 432 extra cpu and 454353 extra power grid, do you want to do this?" would make it a little easier to use. If the user says yes, the links will automatically be upgraded to the necessary levels.
|
|
CCP Chronotis
|
Posted - 2010.05.11 12:58:00 -
[425]
Originally by: Foreman Janeau Edited by: Foreman Janeau on 11/05/2010 11:38:28 tl;dr the entire topic, so I have 3 questions:
1) Is PI available on the W-space planets? 2) Are the orbitting cargo hangars/planetary structures destroyable by capsuleers? 3) If (2==yes){ Will they be defendable by gun/ewar batteries?; }
1. Yes (but you cannot remote scan for resources such planets unless in the system itself) 2. No
|
|
Vordel
|
Posted - 2010.05.11 13:55:00 -
[426]
You need to make upgrading links cheaper. Right now it cheaper to place a whole new link before a congestion point and divert traffic then it is to upgrade the link. Kinda defeats the purpose of link upgrades. Upgrades needs to be more efficient or at least the same efficiency of a new link. Not 80% of cost for 50% of traffic.
|
Salizar Amolkshue
|
Posted - 2010.05.11 14:43:00 -
[427]
Originally by: Anela Cistine ... Many people can't rearrange their lives around video games. Forcing them to adhere to specific timers to "play" the game is just plain bad.
I completely agree with and endorse this statement. EvE is a game, first and foremost. I should not have to "clock in" at the same time every day just to play it.
As others have suggested, give us a slider for extraction rate that adjusts the efficiency & rate. A min value of 30 minutes and a max value of 7 days would be great, in 30 minute increments. That way I can choose to play the game MY way. Other people can play the game THEIR way. And we all go to bed happy at night not worrying that our extractors are going to stop digging at 3am.
|
Magis Drannor
|
Posted - 2010.05.11 14:49:00 -
[428]
Biggest thing i would like to see is a way to activate multiple extractors at once on a planet. Much like how you can drag guns together in the fitting service. I find it very tedious going through and clicking them 1 by one on 6 planets. Only bug i have found so far is that After you build your cc and submit it, you have to exit planet view and re-enter before you can continue building things.
|
Seamus Donohue
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.05.11 15:02:00 -
[429]
Originally by: Anela Cistine We need either way more options for deposit time, or the ability to stop the extraction without demolishing the extractor.
I set a 24 hour timer, and log back in 22 hours later, but I can't do anything for 2 more hours. But maybe I need to go out or I just need to go to bed early tonight, and I can't hang around playing EVE for another 2-3 hours. If I go to bed now my extractors will go idle in 2 hours, and all my other factories will stop soon after. Everything will stop for at least 4 hours after that, maybe longer if I don't have time to play video games for half an hour in the morning before I head off to work or school.
Likewise, there are plenty of people who can't play on the weekend and probably some people who can only play on the weekend -- the 4 day timer is terrible for both of them. People will have to be doing all kinds of crazy math trying to figure out if the get more resources running the 4 day extraction, or running a 1 day extraction and then letting everything go dark for X hours.
Many people can't rearrange their lives around video games. Forcing them to adhere to specific timers to "play" the game is just plain bad.
Agreed completely.
The easiest way to fix this problem is to get rid of the timers entirely. Abandon the concept of "Players who look at the planet more frequently get more resources per cycle time". Each extractor should pull an amount of resources per cycle dependent only upon the heat map at the time.
If CCP thinks that that's a bad game design change, then an alternative solution is to have extractors start off extracting a certain number of resources per unit time, which gradually decreases as time goes on, but gets reset when the player looks at the planet from their NeoCom. (Really, that's what the current system amounts to; the difference would be the removal of explicit extraction timers. Removing those timers would be a good thing; scrapping the "Players who look at the planet more frequently get more resources per cycle time" concept would be a better thing.)
-----
I now notice that the cycle times are different for each deposit selection. This makes things more confusing for the player. Please make all cycles 5 minutes long, or change the PER CYCLE column to PER HOUR.
-----
Your link upgrade numbers have issues, please check them. Upgrading links becomes less CPU-efficient and Powergrid-efficient per upgrade when upgrading towards "III - Standard", and then becomes more efficient per upgrade when upgrading after "III - Standard". When compared to a link that has not been upgraded at all, links don't become more efficient on Powergrid until "VI - Expedited" and don't become more efficient on CPU until "VIII - Advanced".
By "efficiency", I refer to Total Capacity divided by Total CPU Requirement (or divided by Total Powergrid Requirement) at each upgrade level.
What I've noticed trying to harvest Noble Metals and Heavy Metals on planets in Gurista space is that an extractor on a typical hotspot with an un-upgraded direct link to a storage facility can harvest a 5-hour deposit without overloading the link (provided that a second extractor's output isn't routed through the first extractor and then over the same link). The current link upgrade numbers seem to encourage giving each extractor it's own direct, unupgraded link to the storage facility that's going to buffer it's output.
I do notice that encouraging players to make more direct links (as opposed to trying to route multiple large flows through the same link) does avoid the micromanagement issue of having to upgrade links. After all, if it's more efficient to just create new links, then why bother upgrading links? One would only upgrade a link if a single route were overloading a link all by itself. __________________________________________________ Survivor of Teskanen, fan of John Rourke. |
Vordel
|
Posted - 2010.05.11 15:08:00 -
[430]
You need to have someone round off those capacities for link upgrades. Level 10-experimental is 14416.2597656
|
|
Casiella Truza
Ecliptic Rift New Eden Research
|
Posted - 2010.05.11 15:45:00 -
[431]
I understand planet types will change when it hits TQ, but I do hope somebody's making a note of all the planets already described in PF (like Starkmanir Prime as Arzad II) and keeping at least those the same...
|
Louis deGuerre
Gallente Amicus Morte Shock an Awe
|
Posted - 2010.05.11 16:06:00 -
[432]
Clicking expedited transfer in storage with nothing selected -> error message.
When in station attempting to launch rocket from spaceport -> message : you must be in same system. I am in the same system, but docked. Undocked, I can launch. Message is misleading.
Resurveying 6 planets and expediting -> OMFG what a horror of a clickfest. My mousearm can't take it tbh. Sol: A microwarp drive? In a battleship? Are you insane? They arenĘt built for this! Clear Skies - The Movie
|
Toawa
EVE Mercantile Exchange Virtue of Selfishness
|
Posted - 2010.05.11 17:10:00 -
[433]
It would be very nice to have a visual indicator of when a link is overloaded; color it red or something.
|
Jim Luc
Caldari Rule of Five
|
Posted - 2010.05.11 18:22:00 -
[434]
Originally by: Cadde
Originally by: Jim Luc
I see pixels in your images. There shouldn't be any pixels - that's what I'm trying to say. It looks terrible when there are pixels.
Just be happy eve isn't looking like it did before the second graphical update.
And also, heheeheh... there are pixels in my image...
Sisi was slightly higher resolution before the last update, that's all I'm trying to say. It wasn't quite what I want, but it was better than it is now. I'm not a big MMO player - most of them have terrible graphics. With only 300k subscribers, Eve Online can up its graphical settings because most people play it either at lowest res, or at full res. 6 Gigs vs 7 Gigs full download isn't a big deal to most people.
I'm only a casual Eve player - and am attracted to it for many reasons, but I would also like to see some more quality put into the visual and cinematics similar to other games in this generation (or even similar to the commercials).
It's pretty deceiving to be a new player going "why isn't the game anything like the commercials?" Most new games' commercials are shown in the game's resolution, unless it is pre-rendered.
Anyways - CCP will do what it wants I guess.... It's no secret that I'm not very happy with the way PI is turning out. It's way too confusing for the casual gamer to pick up and play.
A few small suggestions:
disable buttons or grey them out if there is a timer or something that will cause a stupid error message to pop up. Why show the error message in the first place? Just enable/disable the option.
Extractors are simple and I like the way they are currently. Scanning, place extractor, etc. Where it gets really confusing is the processors. If I place a simple metals extractor - how do I know what processor to place without first placing it and spending my money??? A list of possible "inputs" NEED to be visible BEFORE you set the processor down. Also, searching through the huge list is terrible - you need to make it easier to skip right to the correct input. Put in a quick search bar or something.
Bottom line - I see how it's getting complicated, but no effort has been made to simplify things for the casual player. You can keep it complicated - it's great, but also basic game design mandates an entry level that eases the player into how it's played.
Oh, and what's up with upgrading my CC from basic to Elite?? A few things are great, but others are like.... who the hell came up with this???
|
Raekek
Caldari New Eden Regimental Navy Rebel Alliance of New Eden
|
Posted - 2010.05.11 19:39:00 -
[435]
Just a few issues/suggestions:
I spent about 8 million isk on a Plasma planet on a system dedicated to producing Robotics. I was using an elite CC and power output wasn't maxed out but it was near the max efficiency possible for making the item on that planet. It makes 3 units of Robotics every 1-2 hours (extractors set to extract for 24 hrs). According to Eve-Central, 1 unit of Robotics is worth about 5,000 isk. At this cost it would take around 30-45 days to earn back the isk I spent to create the system. You could earn 8 mil in a Procurer in a day or two (or less). I'm not sure if that was your intention but I think the costs of the CC units should be reduced a bit, or at least reduce their cycle times or something.
I have a great suggestion, why not add planet filters to the Map? This would making searching for the right planet soo much easier, maybe even filter stars by planet type?
Bugs: -Really laggy -After removing an extractor its circular-disc placeholder thing was stuck there permanently, couldn't click on it or build anything over it - only happened once.
Overall I think you've done a great job with the new content. Planets are no longer just eye candy and it adds a TON of depth to the game!! /clap
|
Gouverneur
|
Posted - 2010.05.11 20:14:00 -
[436]
Err, I'm really missing Pricetags in Build-Tab. That small line showing entire cost is easily overseen.
|
snake driver
Amarr
|
Posted - 2010.05.11 22:00:00 -
[437]
As far as SISI is concerned, it would be nice to be able to be reimbursed for isk invested in PI when changes to the system force you to scrap everything and rebuild. I've burned through almost 100 mil in the last week or so - not a sustainable rate of spending.
More importantly, the inability to upgrade a command center without scrapping everything on a planet is flat-out poor design, in addition to not making much sense. What I would suggest would be to allow multiple command centers on a planet, but only use the power and CPU output of the largest, or simply allow me to build a new CC by dropping it right on top of the old one. Either way, this allows for the gradual build-up of planets without forcing me to waste a ton of resources on replacing built structures.
It would be nice to be able to shift resources between to starports on the same planet without having to spend 15 isk per unit/m3 going through the space dock.
I may be in the minority here, but I liked the previous setup for resource extraction times. The ridiculous output rate of the 30-minute cycle meant that it was possible for a person to set up 6 planets and then do nothing but maintain them - by the time they were done with the last planet, the first in line would be ready for updates. This makes sense with CCP's stated goal of making any and all options viable in EVE. It made sense that people who were willing to dedicate more time to PI would have greater incomes. People who are willing to spend more time mining or running missions get greater incomes as well. It allows PI to work better as a stand alone activity rather than something that you let run in the background and don't think about most of the time.
|
Toawa
EVE Mercantile Exchange Virtue of Selfishness
|
Posted - 2010.05.11 22:06:00 -
[438]
Originally by: snake driver As far as SISI is concerned, it would be nice to be able to be reimbursed for isk invested in PI when changes to the system force you to scrap everything and rebuild. I've burned through almost 100 mil in the last week or so - not a sustainable rate of spending.
More importantly, the inability to upgrade a command center without scrapping everything on a planet is flat-out poor design, in addition to not making much sense.
It's Sisi; if you need money, buy the most valuable (T1) ship you can fly for 100 isk, go out and self destruct. Buy insurance for that extra little boost. Free money.
I agree with you on the command centers, though. It really should be possible to upgrade command centers.
|
Dr BattleSmith
PAX Interstellar Services
|
Posted - 2010.05.12 00:54:00 -
[439]
Originally by: Seamus Donohue
The easiest way to fix this problem is to get rid of the timers entirely. Abandon the concept of "Players who look at the planet more frequently get more resources per cycle time". ...... If CCP thinks that that's a bad game design change, then an alternative solution is to have extractors start off extracting a certain number of resources per unit time, which gradually decreases as time goes on, but gets reset when the player looks at the planet from their NeoCom. (Really, that's what the current system amounts to; the difference would be the removal of explicit extraction timers.
This. The current design is based around a click-sink.
This is not good game-play and just makes another click bottleneck for people to macro.
Abandon the click-sink and instead use solid gameplay to hold it together rather then repetitive senseless actions.
|
Kyra Felann
Gallente Neh'bu Kau Beh'Hude Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2010.05.12 01:34:00 -
[440]
I noticed that now if you double-click an extractor, it'll automatically survey for deposits and if you double-click a processor, it'll go to the schematic tab. Nice. Now performing the most common actions only takes a few double clicks instead of 7-8 clicks--ie: now you can double-click an idle extracor, double-click the cycle setting you want, then double click the product and double-click where you want to route it.
It doesn't save much in the total number of clicks involved, but there's much less cursor travel require now--I'd rather do one double-click than two single clicks in different spots.
Now if we could just select/define groups of extractors and work with them all at once, it'd actually be fairly painless to work with.
|
|
Jim Luc
Caldari Rule of Five Lucky Starbase Syndicate
|
Posted - 2010.05.12 01:36:00 -
[441]
Originally by: Dr BattleSmith
Originally by: Seamus Donohue
The easiest way to fix this problem is to get rid of the timers entirely. Abandon the concept of "Players who look at the planet more frequently get more resources per cycle time". ...... If CCP thinks that that's a bad game design change, then an alternative solution is to have extractors start off extracting a certain number of resources per unit time, which gradually decreases as time goes on, but gets reset when the player looks at the planet from their NeoCom. (Really, that's what the current system amounts to; the difference would be the removal of explicit extraction timers.
This. The current design is based around a click-sink.
This is not good game-play and just makes another click bottleneck for people to macro.
Abandon the click-sink and instead use solid gameplay to hold it together rather then repetitive senseless actions.
AGREED. The UI and gameplay was designed by interns.
|
Toawa
EVE Mercantile Exchange Virtue of Selfishness
|
Posted - 2010.05.12 03:47:00 -
[442]
Another thing that would be nice is the ability to set temporary markers on the planets surface, so you can mark out deposits while planning your bases.
|
Circumstantial Evidence
|
Posted - 2010.05.12 03:53:00 -
[443]
[seen in v.150907] Sometimes I want to mass-delete links from the link display UI. It's possible to shift-select or ctrl-select links in the list. If I select all links in the list, and click "delete link", only one is removed. I'd also like the delete key to work here.
Over on the routes "tab", it's not possible to select more than one at a time.
|
Circumstantial Evidence
|
Posted - 2010.05.12 04:03:00 -
[444]
Quote: Another thing that would be nice is the ability to set temporary markers on the planets surface, so you can mark out deposits while planning your bases.
Extractors can be placed & deleted anywhere [light orange outline], no charge until you click 'submit'
|
Sturmwolke
|
Posted - 2010.05.12 04:56:00 -
[445]
Originally by: Jim Luc
Originally by: Dr BattleSmith
This. The current design is based around a click-sink. This is not good game-play and just makes another click bottleneck for people to macro. Abandon the click-sink and instead use solid gameplay to hold it together rather then repetitive senseless actions.
AGREED. The UI and gameplay was designed by interns.
I beg to DISAGREE. That's an overstatement. It's designed by 5-10 year olds.
Proof - see pic at bottom page. |
Zedia Zhane
|
Posted - 2010.05.12 05:00:00 -
[446]
Edited by: Zedia Zhane on 12/05/2010 05:02:24 Variable extractor durations is a horrible idea.
All the routes are based on quantity. If all my extractors have the same cycle time, it's easy to see how much raw material is coming in to my storage facility just by adding up the incoming route numbers, and dividing by the fixed extractor cycle time.
If extractors are running on different cycle times, then all that goes out the window. And the "quantity" column in the Routes pane becomes utterly meaningless. I now have to check each extractor individually, compute it's raw materials harvested per hour (which, by the way I now need a spreadsheet for). And then add up all extractors routed to that storage facility.
Meanwhile, there's no longer any sort of standard for the various deposits... each has a different number of units over a different cycle length. So in practice (not with the arbitrary deposits currently on Sisi), you will have to crunch numbers just to figure out what the units/hour extraction rate is for each deposit so you can compare them.
What is needed is a way to stop an extractor mid-cycle. Just press a 'stop' button, and it delivers what it has, and stops, ready to look for a new deposit. Make it work the same way a strip miner does when you stop it mid-cycle.
Then nobody ever has to log on at some obscurely scheduled time to update their extractors. When an extractor gets close to finishing off a deposit, just stop it and move to a new deposit.
|
Jim Luc
Caldari Rule of Five Lucky Starbase Syndicate
|
Posted - 2010.05.12 06:09:00 -
[447]
Originally by: Sturmwolke
Originally by: Jim Luc
Originally by: Dr BattleSmith
This. The current design is based around a click-sink. This is not good game-play and just makes another click bottleneck for people to macro. Abandon the click-sink and instead use solid gameplay to hold it together rather then repetitive senseless actions.
AGREED. The UI and gameplay was designed by interns.
I beg to DISAGREE. That's an overstatement. It's designed by 5-10 year olds.
Proof - see pic at bottom page.
Ha! The funny thing is PI in its current form is pretty true to that pic - but the buttons beside the CC would have been a great addition to the UI had they kept it in.
A simple idea - which I doubt anyone reads my posts anymore, it seams the nerds love this, but those who actually play simulation games are ignored....
A simple idea would be to add a UI layer of commonly used buttons that surround each node when selected. A left and right arrow on each side will cycle through the nodes, panning to each fluidly.
They still haven't fixed the bug where if you are placing a building, and click and drag the planet to pan to a better location - IT PLACES THE DAMN BUILDING when you release the button! This should be fixed. It's a simple fix, I'm surprised it has gotten through to this build.
|
Jin Nib
Resplendent Knives
|
Posted - 2010.05.12 06:42:00 -
[448]
Can some explain to me why I have to use "expedited transfers" to move things from storage to another storage? What is wrong with creating a route?
In fact I don't really get what the "expedited transfers" are for at all, I must be missing something... It seems weird to set up a system with an unnecessary manual step.
(Obviously I can work around this (it won't be as clean of course), I'm just saying I don't understand it thats all. Especially since the storages have to have a continuous link between them to make the transfer anyways...) -Jin Nib Trading on behalf of Opera Noir since: 2009.03.02 03:53:00
|
Miquela
|
Posted - 2010.05.12 07:29:00 -
[449]
Originally by: Seamus Donohue
The easiest way to fix this problem is to get rid of the timers entirely. Abandon the concept of "Players who look at the planet more frequently get more resources per cycle time". Each extractor should pull an amount of resources per cycle dependent only upon the heat map at the time.
If CCP thinks that that's a bad game design change, then an alternative solution is to have extractors start off extracting a certain number of resources per unit time, which gradually decreases as time goes on, but gets reset when the player looks at the planet from their NeoCom. (Really, that's what the current system amounts to; the difference would be the removal of explicit extraction timers. Removing those timers would be a good thing; scrapping the "Players who look at the planet more frequently get more resources per cycle time" concept would be a better thing.)
Following up on that thought, and as another poster suggested,
have the extractors have declining resources over time, that can be reset by rescanning for that resource. This will decrease the click-fest, will still allow different cycles, and also stays true to the "you need to do something" principle, that in itself is sensible, otherwise it would just be free income.
|
ihcn
|
Posted - 2010.05.12 08:05:00 -
[450]
Originally by: Seamus Donohue
The easiest way to fix this problem is to get rid of the timers entirely. Abandon the concept of "Players who look at the planet more frequently get more resources per cycle time". ...... If CCP thinks that that's a bad game design change, then an alternative solution is to have extractors start off extracting a certain number of resources per unit time, which gradually decreases as time goes on, but gets reset when the player looks at the planet from their NeoCom. (Really, that's what the current system amounts to; the difference would be the removal of explicit extraction timers.
I fully agree with this. I love the idea of being able to select different "deposits" that all have diminishing returns on different levels, so that one deposit gives you great yield at first but drops off quickly, and another one is much smoother, but that seems too complicated; any kind of interface wouldn't be intuitive etc.
So the best alternative is to do away with deposits entirely, and have a single system of diminishing returns. The player clicks a button on the extractor, and without having to select anything, it begins extracting at whatever amount. is determined by the resource concentration of the land it is on. It continues running cycles until the player comes back, clicks a "stop extracting" button, and resurveys.
Imagine the formula "(initial*2)/(cyclecount+1)". Let's say initial is 10000. On the first half-hour cycle, you get 10000 units. I can't check because singularity is in downtime right now, but this seems similar to what a half-hour deposit might currently get. the second cycle, however, would only yield (10000*2/3), or 6666 units. The total for the two cycles would be 16666. Half of this is 8333, so you effectively get 8333 per cycle. Ten cycles, or 5 hours, would be 10000*2/11, or 1818. you would only get 1818 for the 10th cycle. The sum of all yields from cycles 1 to ten is just 40397, which comes out to the equivalent of 4k per cycle, less than half that of running your extractor for one cycle.
48 cycles or 24 hours, would give you a total of 69k units, or 1449 per cycle. 192 cycles (96 hours) would yield 96849, or just 504 per cycle.
If you ran it for 2 weeks, you would get 121k units, at the equivalent of 181 units per cycle.
In this way, players who want to check every 6 cycles will be rewarded more than players who want to check every 5 cycles, etc.
It seems like a lot of these numbers are higher than they can be found on singularity currently (the 96 hour one definitely is), but I cannot emphasize how easy it is to change numbers around to get what you want.
The new system would have the advantages of simplified interface, a more intuitive design, and a more fine-grained ability to reward players who put more effort in, without punishing people who can only get on eve every 8 hours rather than every 5.
The only disadvantage is that managing links becomes more complicated, but I would honestly welcome a change from the current system. Perhaps extractors could have like 500m3 of space, and the route creation system would autofill the exact number of units that the links in the route could handle, and the rest would go in storage. The net effect would be that a player with long periods between resurveys could keep un-upgraded links because the small storage of the extractor would provide a buffer for the initial cycle or two of high volume. But a player who kept resurveying every half hour would be forced to upgrade their links, otherwise the storage space on the extractor would overflow and the materials would be lost.
It's a shame that this was brought up a week before release, because I think this could work out really really well. Much better than the current system.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 .. 21 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |