EVE Search - Expanded Cargohold II

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Expanded Cargohold II

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Gary Goat	Posted - 2005.03.30 18:09:00 - [1] Well scince most tech II items are out now i was wondering where the cargo expanders are or if there are plans to add them? I have never seen any ingame and the bpo's havent been entered into the rp lottery yet Is there a reason why we dont have em?
Damocles Ician	Posted - 2005.03.30 18:22:00 - [2] probably because such a BPO would be a license to print isk :) -------------
Face Lifter	Posted - 2005.03.30 18:23:00 - [3] Originally by: Damocles Ician probably because such a BPO would be a license to print isk :) All tech 2 BPOs are like that. If devs want to reduce the profit margins for tech 2 BPO owners, all they need to do is release more BPO copies, laws of supply & demand would do the rest.
Pottsey	Posted - 2005.03.30 18:27:00 - [4] I would like to see that module along with Shield Flux T2, Shield Relays T2, Invulnerability Filed T2 and Auto target module T2. _________________________________________________ Gallente defensive innovation comes from unexpected source.
Dionysus Davinci	Posted - 2005.03.30 18:34:00 - [5] Originally by: Face Lifter Originally by: Damocles Ician probably because such a BPO would be a license to print isk :) All tech 2 BPOs are like that. If devs want to reduce the profit margins for tech 2 BPO owners, all they need to do is release more BPO copies, laws of supply & demand would do the rest. Actually, I'd rather see Reverse Engineer turned on to produce a BPO at 5% or less chance to control price gouging and actually give researchers a chance to succeed. Oh, and reverse engineering should be extreamly slow, like 15-20 days for a Cap Recharger II.
Chuck Sausage	Posted - 2005.03.31 09:55:00 - [6] How long to reverse engineer an Ibis? Ibis BPO 4tw!!!
ViPerZ	Posted - 2005.03.31 10:31:00 - [7] Edited by: ViPerZ on 31/03/2005 10:32:32 Originally by: Face Lifter Originally by: Damocles Ician probably because such a BPO would be a license to print isk :) All tech 2 BPOs are like that. If devs want to reduce the profit margins for tech 2 BPO owners, all they need to do is release more BPO copies, laws of supply & demand would do the rest. Not all BPO's are like that. There are so many crappy ones . Also, Tech II production is already quite hard with the increasing number of BPC flying about. Please dont think for a second that it is necessarily an easy ride. and releasing more blueprints would make the profit worthless. It is ok as it is at the moment. Perhaps research agents should give out more BPC though.
Turiya Flesharrower	Posted - 2005.03.31 11:06:00 - [8] I think it's more an issue with jetcans than anything else. If you think about it you should see why.
Pottsey	Posted - 2005.03.31 11:32:00 - [9] I dont see a problem with jetcans the only problem I see is some ships will end up with 0 or -10 or worse speed. Whats the problem with jetcans? _________________________________________________ Gallente defensive innovation comes from unexpected source.
Cerryh	Posted - 2005.03.31 11:48:00 - [10] If you do the math for an Iteron 5 for example you'll notice that they will have more then 27.500m3 of cargo with t2 cargo expanders, given the current stats. Which would (probably) be bad, since CCP would need to change the entire code in case one of those ships gets blown up, since then you need to spawn 2 cans. That is the popular theory at least why they aren't in yet.
theRaptor	Posted - 2005.03.31 11:53:00 - [11] Originally by: ViPerZ Edited by: ViPerZ on 31/03/2005 10:32:32 Originally by: Face Lifter Originally by: Damocles Ician probably because such a BPO would be a license to print isk :) All tech 2 BPOs are like that. If devs want to reduce the profit margins for tech 2 BPO owners, all they need to do is release more BPO copies, laws of supply & demand would do the rest. Not all BPO's are like that. There are so many crappy ones . Also, Tech II production is already quite hard with the increasing number of BPC flying about. Please dont think for a second that it is necessarily an easy ride. and releasing more blueprints would make the profit worthless. It is ok as it is at the moment. Perhaps research agents should give out more BPC though. It depends on the BPO really. Some have 15000000% profit (Cap recharger II's) and others only have 50% markup. Personally I know about 10 people who have T2 frig BPO's. And only about 3 that have HAC BPO's. Yet T2 frigs have a higher markup (Only cost 3-4 mil to build), then HAC (30-40 mil to build). --------------------------------------------------
Pottsey	Posted - 2005.03.31 11:54:00 - [12] That make sense and I didnÆt think of that. Wonder what they will do when the large 100k m3 ships get blown up when they arrive. What about the current transport ships that hold 33k m3? Do the giant Containers end up inside the tin? Or does the loot inside the container over pill? _________________________________________________ Gallente defensive innovation comes from unexpected source.
Tophereon	Posted - 2005.03.31 13:24:00 - [13] I wish I could build a T2 frig for 3-4 mill! That would make my day! Toph. :)
Dionysus Davinci	Posted - 2005.03.31 14:24:00 - [14] If rats can drop two cans when they splode. Why not a player ship.
Glarion Garnier	Posted - 2005.03.31 14:24:00 - [15] Originally by: Pottsey That make sense and I didnÆt think of that. Wonder what they will do when the large 100k m3 ships get blown up when they arrive. What about the current transport ships that hold 33k m3? Do the giant Containers end up inside the tin? Or does the loot inside the container over pill? Tech 2 jetcan's FTW
Matthew	Posted - 2005.03.31 14:36:00 - [16] Originally by: Cerryh If you do the math for an Iteron 5 for example you'll notice that they will have more then 27.500m3 of cargo with t2 cargo expanders, given the current stats. Which would (probably) be bad, since CCP would need to change the entire code in case one of those ships gets blown up, since then you need to spawn 2 cans. That is the popular theory at least why they aren't in yet. Well, they're going to have to sort that out for the freighters anyway, with 100,000m3 base cargo capacity. Mind you, a quick fix for the uber-expanded ItV wouldn't be that hard: For(all_ship_contents){ If(item.survives()){ if(!item.put_in_can()){ item.destroy();()}}} Which effectively says that if more loot survives than fits in the jet-can, then the excess is assumed destroyed.
Discorporation	Posted - 2005.03.31 14:41:00 - [17] Less stuff survives :D [Heterocephalus glaber]
Balbriggan	Posted - 2005.03.31 16:05:00 - [18] Originally by: Cerryh If you do the math for an Iteron 5 for example you'll notice that they will have more then 27.500m3 of cargo with t2 cargo expanders, given the current stats. Which would (probably) be bad, since CCP would need to change the entire code in case one of those ships gets blown up, since then you need to spawn 2 cans. That is the popular theory at least why they aren't in yet. You are assuming that all the cargo would survive then yes? Something ALWAYS gets destroyed.
Dionysus Davinci	Posted - 2005.03.31 16:13:00 - [19] Originally by: Balbriggan Originally by: Cerryh If you do the math for an Iteron 5 for example you'll notice that they will have more then 27.500m3 of cargo with t2 cargo expanders, given the current stats. Which would (probably) be bad, since CCP would need to change the entire code in case one of those ships gets blown up, since then you need to spawn 2 cans. That is the popular theory at least why they aren't in yet. You are assuming that all the cargo would survive then yes? Something ALWAYS gets destroyed. No it doesn't. I had a shuttle drop its cargo completely intact with no destruction of cargo items in the kill mail. I to got 1 unit of Med Iron charge.
Turiya Flesharrower	Posted - 2005.03.31 18:31:00 - [20] Edited by: Turiya Flesharrower on 31/03/2005 18:32:53 It's all about probability, there's always a chance that ALL of the ship's cargo would survive its destruction. In which case you'd have to have more than one jetcan eject when it explodes; something I doubt CCP has coded into the game yet.
Zyrla Bladestorm	Posted - 2005.03.31 19:02:00 - [21] POS can hold more than one jetcans worth, dont they just kick out multiple cans already ? (granted, they may not have thought to add that bit of code to ships yet) . ----- Apologys for any rambling that may have just occurred.
Hyey	Posted - 2005.03.31 19:47:00 - [22] Originally by: Turiya Flesharrower Edited by: Turiya Flesharrower on 31/03/2005 18:32:53 It's all about probability, there's always a chance that ALL of the ship's cargo would survive its destruction. In which case you'd have to have more than one jetcan eject when it explodes; something I doubt CCP has coded into the game yet. NPC's do it quite often already though... ~~ Hyey I just payed 15 dollars this month just to be able to respond on the forums... stupid cancellation error.
Flammius	Posted - 2005.03.31 21:13:00 - [23] Cargo Expander 2 will be the mother of all t2 BPOs. Hell, even cap-recharger 2 BP owners will probably look poor next to the owner of a t2 expander.... _________________________ Scientist, manufacturer, trader Selling Co-processor II, Tachyon Beam Laser II, Modulated Strip Miner II Buying Tech 2 BPOs (check my bio ingame)
FalloutBoy	Posted - 2005.04.01 00:18:00 - [24] they will prolly be released at the same time frieghters are...would negate alot of thier worth. they would still be good but not as much so if there were no frieghters
Scythmar	Posted - 2005.04.01 18:12:00 - [25] Originally by: Matthew Originally by: Cerryh If you do the math for an Iteron 5 for example you'll notice that they will have more then 27.500m3 of cargo with t2 cargo expanders, given the current stats. Which would (probably) be bad, since CCP would need to change the entire code in case one of those ships gets blown up, since then you need to spawn 2 cans. That is the popular theory at least why they aren't in yet. Well, they're going to have to sort that out for the freighters anyway, with 100,000m3 base cargo capacity. Mind you, a quick fix for the uber-expanded ItV wouldn't be that hard: For(all_ship_contents){ If(item.survives()){ if(!item.put_in_can()){ item.destroy();()}}} Which effectively says that if more loot survives than fits in the jet-can, then the excess is assumed destroyed. That may be the shabbiest excuse for pseudocode I've ever seen, but the theory is flawless. --------------- I guarantee that my opinions are the complete opposite of those of my corp and alliance. Get over it.

Pages: [1] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.