Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 21 post(s) |
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University Ivy League
1154
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 14:48:00 -
[121] - Quote
CCP FoxFour wrote: Do we need the 1,000 m3 version?
No, I'd rather have a 20k-40k size in its place. And one up around 200-300k m3 (probably 250k would be perfect). |
Meytal
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
127
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 14:48:00 -
[122] - Quote
Will the BPOs (containers, ORE Frigate, new destroyers, etc) be seeded before patch day?
And speaking of NPC-provided products...
While my industrial character will be pleased to manufacture these new containers, I also wonder about other NPC items that have a far greater impact on the game: Meta, Deadspace, and Officer modules. Has there been any thought about changing these into player-manufactured items (mineral sinks instead of mineral faucets)? For example, NPC drops damaged module (commodity) that players can then use as a reference item with normal T1 blueprints to make the advanced module. Or use a reference item and a T1 item to reverse engineer a BPC for the advanced item. The items could still be reprocessed, but at a much lower rate of return than presently.
Has there been any thought or discussion about this?
Sassums wrote:You introduced WH's and now you completely ignore them and it's getting old. By and large, w-space was one area of the game they got "right". You say it has been neglected, but I and many others say w-space has escaped problems by being largely ignored. The upcoming POS changes have the potential to destroy much of what is good about w-space and bringing things from empire that we detest into w-space, so many of us feel that they can wait as long as they need to wait for new POSes.
If CHAs and SMAs could be given an audit log, that would be an amazing stop-gap measure for short term.
|
Rengerel en Distel
Amarr Science and Industry
480
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 15:08:00 -
[123] - Quote
CCP FoxFour wrote:Due to the desire from people in this thread, and some other reason, we have decided that there needs to be some new containers. Specifically in the category of freight containers, ones that have the same capacity and volume so can be used in freighters.
This is what I am currently thinking:
Small Freight Container: 1,000 m3 Medium Freight Container: 5,000 m3 Large Freight Container: 10,000 m3 Huge Freight Container: 120,000 m3 (the current General Freight Container)
I am upset that small does not mean 120 m3 like small does for all other use cases in containers. This goes the same for medium and large. So I maybe want to find a new name for them.
Do we need the 1,000 m3 version?
Are there going to be secure versions that can be used in the new fleet hangars?
|
Ampoliros
Aperture Harmonics K162
60
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 16:00:00 -
[124] - Quote
CCP FoxFour wrote:Due to the desire from people in this thread, and some other reason, we have decided that there needs to be some new containers. Specifically in the category of freight containers, ones that have the same capacity and volume so can be used in freighters.
This is what I am currently thinking:
Small Freight Container: 1,000 m3 Medium Freight Container: 5,000 m3 Large Freight Container: 10,000 m3 Huge Freight Container: 120,000 m3 (the current General Freight Container)
I am upset that small does not mean 120 m3 like small does for all other use cases in containers. This goes the same for medium and large. So I maybe want to find a new name for them.
Do we need the 1,000 m3 version?
1000 m3 version seems like it'd be handy for moving a few modules/items from jita for someone.
not sure you need both the 5 and 10k versions though. maybe move the med to 10k, the large to 120k, and add a larger container size at 250-300k? |
Cerulean Ice
Repercussus RAZOR Alliance
34
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 17:14:00 -
[125] - Quote
Meytal wrote:If CHAs and SMAs could be given an audit log, that would be an amazing stop-gap measure for short term. Seconded. Audit logs by default on POS modules with any sort of inventory would be amazing, and wouldn't break anything. |
Cerulean Ice
Repercussus RAZOR Alliance
34
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 17:19:00 -
[126] - Quote
Scrapyard Bob wrote:CCP FoxFour wrote: Do we need the 1,000 m3 version?
No, I'd rather have a 20k-40k size in its place. And one up around 200-300k m3 (probably 250k would be perfect). Why not both? the 1k m3 cans would be perfect for blueprints/implants/other tiny things that need sorting, and there definitely needs to be something between 10k and 120k. What use would a 250k can have, though? |
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University Ivy League
1155
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 17:25:00 -
[127] - Quote
Cerulean Ice wrote: Why not both? the 1k m3 cans would be perfect for blueprints/implants/other tiny things that need sorting, and there definitely needs to be something between 10k and 120k. What use would a 250k can have, though?
A 250k m3 can is useful for times where you don't want to deal with a station container, but still need something that is larger then 120k m3. I chose that size because you can get (3) of them into a freighter and a 200k felt too small while a 300k would be slightly too large to get (3) into some of the freighters.
|
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
1090
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 21:15:00 -
[128] - Quote
CCP FoxFour wrote:Due to the desire from people in this thread, and some other reason, we have decided that there needs to be some new containers. Specifically in the category of freight containers, ones that have the same capacity and volume so can be used in freighters.
This is what I am currently thinking:
Small Freight Container: 1,000 m3 Medium Freight Container: 5,000 m3 Large Freight Container: 10,000 m3 Huge Freight Container: 120,000 m3 (the current General Freight Container)
I am upset that small does not mean 120 m3 like small does for all other use cases in containers. This goes the same for medium and large. So I maybe want to find a new name for them.
Do we need the 1,000 m3 version? I once proposed we have a "Bag". In a way we already have bags: Its what stuff goes into when you do a courier contract. What a bag is is a container with no defined size. It holds whatever you place in it. No compression, no logging, no security, no mass or hit points of its own. Its just a way to sort your stuff, and a way to place a fitted ship in your cargo (first, place it in a bag). If you jet it, the stuff jetted appears in space without the bag and the bag itself is gone. That is its like you removed the stuff from the bag, then jetted it.
http://vincentoneve.wordpress.com/ |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor Cosmic Consortium
1975
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 22:18:00 -
[129] - Quote
Cerulean Ice wrote:Why not both? the 1k m3 cans would be perfect for blueprints/implants/other tiny things that need sorting, and there definitely needs to be something between 10k and 120k. What use would a 250k can have, though?
We already have 100m3 cans which are far too large for blueprints: if you're filling one of those, you're putting too many eggs in one basket :)
As for CCP FoxFour, is there really a need for a 1k m3 freight container when we have so many containers in that size range already? it would be nice to have a planck containment field version of the 10k container (i.e.: just a super-large Giant Secure Container).
The 1:1 containers could simply be "General Freight" (120k) and "Personal Freight" (10k). The other sizes aren't really necessary.
The Enormous Secure Container (10k / 12k) would be especially useful for orca pilots who have to deal with 20-odd GSCs when hauling junk around.
Day 0 advice for new players: Day 0 Advice for New Players |
Cerulean Ice
Repercussus RAZOR Alliance
34
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 00:17:00 -
[130] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:We already have 100m3 cans which are far too large for blueprints But, these cans are magic space expanding cans and can't be put in freighters. The idea of a small can for freighters to sort the tiny things is what we're after :3 |
|
Seatox
Northstar Cabal Fatal Ascension
48
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 00:28:00 -
[131] - Quote
Cerulean Ice wrote:Mara Rinn wrote:We already have 100m3 cans which are far too large for blueprints But, these cans are magic space expanding cans and can't be put in freighters. The idea of a small can for freighters to sort the tiny things is what we're after :3
A 10m3 cardboard box. |
|
CCP FoxFour
C C P C C P Alliance
846
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 09:28:00 -
[132] - Quote
Cerulean Ice wrote:Mara Rinn wrote:We already have 100m3 cans which are far too large for blueprints But, these cans are magic space expanding cans and can't be put in freighters. The idea of a small can for freighters to sort the tiny things is what we're after :3
And this is why I was thinking the 1,000 m3 can.
Seems like a lot of people are also in need of a slightly larger than 120,000 m3 can as well. Hmmmmm Content Designer | Team Five 0 @regnerBA |
|
Tres Farmer
Gallente Federation Intelligence Service
89
|
Posted - 2012.10.28 03:06:00 -
[133] - Quote
Hm.. nice on the containers but I got a question about the probes: With all the static condition of moon-goo distribution and it being publicly available - who in their right mind does need them any more?
Read: Don't imply infinite complexity and randomness of completely static and already known content by covering it with gameplay that implies hunting for random treasures like exploration. |
Abramul
StarFleet Enterprises Red Alliance
7
|
Posted - 2012.10.28 15:09:00 -
[134] - Quote
The ideal would probably be to allow Planck containers to be used in freighters, but check cargo volume and disable compression when they're loaded, and add a mid-size or two.
Or just allow them, period ... the extra cargo wouldn't be an issue, but I have a feeling that 200 subcontainers might result in Bad Things somehow. |
Mistress Rose
Taurus Quantum Technologies Taurus Quantum Dynamics
2
|
Posted - 2012.10.28 21:21:00 -
[135] - Quote
Fox Four:
Regarding my earlier post, and pondering the geographic disposition of the corps selling the BPOs... I still think the Gallente seller should be Chemal Tech, but the Caldari seller should remain your original idea....Ishukone.
Your comments are awesome and I like that you are taking the time to reply and think on things.
You're my new favorite Dev!
Mistress |
Talus Veran
Valis Inc
23
|
Posted - 2012.10.28 21:25:00 -
[136] - Quote
Inquisitor Tyr wrote:Could you please consider adding some additional container sizes that can be placed, assembled with contents, into Freighters other than General Freight Containers?
I understand the current containers cant be placed into freighters as their capacity is more than their volume and doing so would inflate the cargo capacity.
What I would like to see is a few smaller options;
Small Freight Container - 200m3 volume / 200m3 capacity (great for blueprints and all those hundreds of small things that need splitting up for organizing but take up little actuall volume) - e.g. Many industrialists have their hundreds of blueprints divided into dozens of containers based on their function.
Medium Freight Container - 10,000m3 volume + Capacity (useful for when you are moving modules for your freinds.) - Its rare that my corp lives close to a trade hub. "Im going to Jita, need anything?" is a comment I think we've all seen. Well when your corp lives 40 jumps from Jita, you tend to get a lot of "yes... please get me X while you are there" And then suddenly you have a dozen peoples stuff and you have to lump it all together since you can only fit so many general freight containters in a freighter (usually not nearlly filled to capacity).
The Limits of the General Freight container for logistical purposes is worse for Jump Freighters as they can only accomodate 3.
This is a great Idea! I have often been baffled at the large gap in sizes. "Zee Goggles, Zey Do Nothing!"
Message me on Twitter-á-á @talus_veran I follow -á #eveonline-á &-á #tweetfleet |
Gaetring Xana
Unstable Reaction Inc.
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.29 18:26:00 -
[137] - Quote
Your percentages in the image about the packaged size of the various containers are wrong. Assuming the rest of the numbers are accurate, the Station Warehouse Container and the Station Vault Container packaged m3 percentage should be .001 and .005, respectively.
Just thought I'd let you know as I didn't see a post from anyone else about it. |
|
CCP FoxFour
C C P C C P Alliance
849
|
Posted - 2012.10.30 11:24:00 -
[138] - Quote
Gaetring Xana wrote:Your percentages in the image about the packaged size of the various containers are wrong. Assuming the rest of the numbers are accurate, the Station Warehouse Container and the Station Vault Container packaged m3 percentage should be .001 and .005, respectively. Just thought I'd let you know as I didn't see a post from anyone else about it.
???
Not sure you understand the image correctly.
Name: Station Warehouse Container Capacity: 100,000,000 Volume: 10,000,000 Packaged M3: 100,000 Percentage: 0.01 Mineral M3: 2,720.00 Compression: 36.76470588
Capacity is it's internal capacity when assembled. Volume is how much M3 it will take up when assembled. Packaged M3 is how much M3 it will take up when repackaged. Percentage is the percent of space the packaged version will take up compared to the volume of container. Mineral M3 is the volume the minerals take up. Compression is a comparison of the mineral M3 to the packaged M3.
Your numbers would work if I was doing a percentage of the packaged M3 compared to the capacity but I am doing it packaged to volume.
:)
Hope that helps. My actual formula is: Volume * Percentage = Packaged M3 Content Designer | Team Five 0 @regnerBA |
|
Jaison Savrin
Remnants of the Forgotten Seekers of the Unseen
59
|
Posted - 2012.10.30 12:32:00 -
[139] - Quote
CCP FoxFour wrote:Due to the desire from people in this thread, and some other reason, we have decided that there needs to be some new containers. Specifically in the category of freight containers, ones that have the same capacity and volume so can be used in freighters.
This is what I am currently thinking:
Small Freight Container: 1,000 m3 Medium Freight Container: 5,000 m3 Large Freight Container: 10,000 m3
Huge Freight Container: 120,000 m3 (the current General Freight Container)
I am upset that small does not mean 120 m3 like small does for all other use cases in containers. This goes the same for medium and large. So I maybe want to find a new name for them.
Do we need the 1,000 m3 version?
The 1000m3 version would be amazing for sorting out peoples personal orders/requests when "the freighter guy" mentions he is going to Jita. In some corps there really is one or two of us lol so we get lots of requests from "too lazy to go shopping" mission runners, miners and PvPers. Having that tool saves us (the freighter guys) from having to make lists or make people Eve Mail us their shopping lists so we can reference them while contracting stuff out.
I would also like to see a larger than 120k M3 container like others have mentioned. The 250k range is good but I could even see uses for a 400k one. Like when your corp is moving and you, the freighter guy, are basically gathering corp assets from here and there. It would be nice to have the tools to sort them rather than keeping lists or telling the CEO "your problem. I have more stuff to move."
P.S. Thanks for doing this CCP Foxfour. Containers are so useful and as an OCD organizer of things I can always find uses for more sizes. |
Mistress Rose
Taurus Quantum Technologies Taurus Quantum Dynamics
3
|
Posted - 2012.10.30 23:32:00 -
[140] - Quote
Fox Four:
Here I am back again...with another idea. Could we PRETTY PRETTY please have all the containers have a siganture radius so they can be probed down? Even if its itty bitty and requires Virtues or a pimped-out Covert Ops?
Please? =) Jita is polluted with waste cans.
Thanks for even considering it.
Mistress |
|
Mistress Rose
4
|
Posted - 2012.11.01 21:49:00 -
[141] - Quote
"I am more in favor of removing all non-loot cans from space entirely -- such pranks are tedious and really only funny a couple times. Its mainly overview clutter that should be cleared by system drones. If you got amusing jokes or recruiting ads or warnings...maybe CCP needs to just add tabs for system/gate/station graffitti channels. Or since its is grafffitti just expand the view function for stations & gates to see graffitti scrawled on such structures.[/quote]
This is a GREAT comment, and goes back to my idea above. Space is heavily polluted with abandoned containers. The 30-day anchoring thing sucks big time. The idea about adding a channel in each system for ads, warnings, etc. is an exceptionally good one. It could even turn into an ISK sink! Now, any BUILT container should have a signature radius, and I think a 24-hour timer on lifetime is pretty good for anchored containers. I mean, isn't accounting for all those containers causing some sort of server load?
Honestly, I can think of only a few situations where people will go out of their way to probe down a off-grid container. I'm guessing that will lead to PvP opportunites, since most of these are hidden supply dumps. Wanna use a container for a navigation waypoint?...fine....24 hours is plenty. Most other containers are going to be in belts and don't need to be probed. And a 24-clock in the belts keeps the belts tidy and makes hard-core residents actually do some work (hauling, manufacturing) to mine into secure containers.
Food for thought.
MR |
Hallvardr
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.11.12 01:16:00 -
[142] - Quote
Wow .... I've been preaching this since I joined ... the sizes, capacity, packaging never made sense. And NO BPO's ???
This is a long time coming ! I think I need a smoke. |
Zelous Mandible
Eve Engineering Finance Eve Engineering
1
|
Posted - 2012.11.13 17:20:00 -
[143] - Quote
With station containers becoming more like the rest of Eve's items, will this imply that the containers will now become refine able? Have yet to see this question posted. |
shado20
EXTERMINATUS. Nulli Secunda
47
|
Posted - 2012.12.04 18:29:00 -
[144] - Quote
as a director in a corp, i would like to see password protected cans able to be locked down in corp hangers. having a password protected can in a corp hanger is useless as you could jest take the whole can and repackage it 3 months latter to get all the goods. |
Michal Jita
Lords Of The Universe
0
|
Posted - 2012.12.08 13:29:00 -
[145] - Quote
I can't find this info anywhere. Which assembly do I need to produce station conatiner at a POS?
|
Nightshade Mary
Sarz'na Khumatari The Unthinkables
8
|
Posted - 2012.12.14 11:52:00 -
[146] - Quote
shado20 wrote:as a director in a corp, i would like to see password protected cans able to be locked down in corp hangers. having a password protected can in a corp hanger is useless as you could jest take the whole can and repackage it 3 months latter to get all the goods.
Don't give them the container take role and they can't take the whole can. |
Freighdee Katt
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
5
|
Posted - 2012.12.14 19:48:00 -
[147] - Quote
It's a fun idea, but I'm having a hard time seeing industrialists bothering to make the station containers in thousands of different stations where they're now always available at low NPC seeded prices, on always-up sell orders.
There are some kinds of goods like this that have a marginal utility value when they're always available at dirt cheap prices, but not enough value to make it worth shipping them around or dumping BPOs all over the place to produce them on the spot. The secure containers that have tangible features like anchoring and locking are one thing; but I just don't see the cost / benefit working out for hangar containers.
This is why you don't see shuttles everywhere when you would like to find one; you would buy one if it was there, and if it was super cheap, but you wouldn't pay enough to make it worth it for another player to make or deliver. So now you just don't see them anywhere that isn't a mission or trade hub, or very close to one.
If station containers are all player made, then if you want to have containers and you don't live in a trade hub, you either have to make a separate trip to drag the containers with you, after you have moved all your stuff, or you carry your own BPO around and make them yourself wherever you set down. I'm not sure I'll bother to do either of those things. They're nice to have, but not nice enough to make them worth even that little bit of trouble. And they're kinda clunky as means of simply sorting things, which is all that most people want them for anyway, so it's extra work just to get something that is already about break even in terms of annoyance added vs. annoyance saved. |
Driven
Qantium Superior Eve Engineering
3
|
Posted - 2012.12.28 17:21:00 -
[148] - Quote
Eric Raeder wrote:Will we be able to manufacture these items in POS assembly arrays? What sort will it take?
This.
It is inconvenient to not be able to manufacture a deployable item in an equipment array that states it is able to manufacture deployables. |
Driven
Qantium Superior Eve Engineering
4
|
Posted - 2013.02.18 06:16:00 -
[149] - Quote
See above post. EVER?
Is anyone paying attention? |
|
CCP FoxFour
C C P C C P Alliance
1620
|
Posted - 2013.02.18 11:36:00 -
[150] - Quote
Driven wrote:See above post. EVER?
Is anyone paying attention?
We are aware of this and have a defect on it, no ETA on a fix for it though. Game Designer | Team True Grit |
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |