| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Hohenheim OfLight
   |
Posted - 2005.09.22 10:59:00 -
[1]
Secure cans are too small we all know it, Let make a decent sized one say 20km3.
Time for miners to get some lovin
|
Masu'di
|
Posted - 2005.09.22 11:03:00 -
[2]
not signed |
Harcole
|
Posted - 2005.09.22 11:04:00 -
[3]
 Originally by: Hohenheim OfLight
Secure cans are too small we all know it, Let make a decent sized one say 20km3.
Time for miners to get some lovin
20km¦ ??? OMG how would you move it?? lol!
But yeah bigger secure cans for looting and mining would be better! but lets mak it reasonable... say about 10,000m¦ cargo space to fit one and get 14-15,000m¦ in it.
Edit: I just reliased you didn't mean km's! My bad 
|
Avon
|
Posted - 2005.09.22 11:10:00 -
[4]
Please can I have a way of decreasing risk whilst increasing profit, all for no effort?
kthx.
______________________________________________
The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur |
Tsavong Lah
|
Posted - 2005.09.22 11:10:00 -
[5]
TBH I'd be happy with the release of Cargo Expander II (although they'd need about 200 bpos to keep the price lower than a BS).
Hell, even if it was nerfed to 28% instead of 29.5% I'd be happy. |
infused
|
Posted - 2005.09.22 11:13:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Avon
Please can I have a way of decreasing risk whilst increasing profit, all for no effort?
kthx.
|
Joe
|
Posted - 2005.09.22 11:14:00 -
[7]
The GM's have allready posted in previous 'forum petitions' that they are not taking into consideration, and generally ignored.
Have you ever noticed thats theres a IDEAS FORUM? or do you beleive your idea is so important that it must take up space in the general discussions forum, and that the rules of forum posting dont apply to you?
The only trade good you can't fit in a Giant can is a capital component. I don't see the need to release a new can specificly for 1 type of item, and if your not moving capital compoennts, why cant you use a giant can instead.
If anything, cans should be decreased in size, theres no station container or similiar that can be freightered
Oberon Tech II Sales. |
Freddy Krueger
|
Posted - 2005.09.22 11:27:00 -
[8]
* Avon "Please can I have a way of decreasing risk whilst increasing profit, all for no effort?"
A typical response from a forum ***** with no valid reasoning. You do realise that you are not required to live on the forums & reply to every damn post.
|
SilentSentinel
|
Posted - 2005.09.22 11:27:00 -
[9]
2 things:
1. Lets go one step further. Limit the anchoring time for all secure containers so that they don't clutter up the belts. They will be like "jet cans", time based.
2. GM's move this thread to the ideas forum.
regards
|
Thomus
|
Posted - 2005.09.22 11:37:00 -
[10]
/signed
|
Xaphi Gekatuminik
|
Posted - 2005.09.22 11:50:00 -
[11]
lets be sensible. delete all containers. id sign that. |
Pychian Vanervi
|
Posted - 2005.09.22 12:14:00 -
[12]
Edited by: Pychian Vanervi on 22/09/2005 12:14:41
Originally by: Freddy Krueger
* Avon "Please can I have a way of decreasing risk whilst increasing profit, all for no effort?"
A typical response from a forum ***** with no valid reasoning. You do realise that you are not required to live on the forums & reply to every damn post.
I think Avon just posted what most were thinking. I am sure he could go into details of why the statement is correct but why bother.....
not signed.
-----------------------------
It's all about the fortune and glory, fortune and glory!
|
Jack Brimstone
|
Posted - 2005.09.22 12:39:00 -
[13]
Quote:
I think Avon just posted what most were thinking. I am sure he could go into details of why the statement is correct but why bother.....
I'll be honest, I don't agree with you or Avon, and I don't see why larger secure cans involve decreased risk. Giant secure containers already cost ~300k, so any new size containers would have a proportional increase in cost. If anchored in low sec, the financial risk would if anything increase, especially with the secure can HP reductions (not that I am suggesting that they should be only restricted to low sec).
It would likely reduce can clutter quite a bit, as miners switched over to the new larger cans (needing less of them).
To those people about to bring out the "multiplayer game" argument, secure can mining does not preclude co-operation - many miners use the SCs as a buffer for their hauler, or to "time-shift" the job of hauling to when they have corpmates to assist.
It seems odd that in every "ohnoes ore theives took my ore!!11oneone" thread, one of the sensible suggestions presented is for the miner to use secure cans, yet often suggestions for improvments to secure cans are jumped on like this.
In short, this is not an "off the wall" suggestion by the OP but the larger secure can request is a respectable one. You can disagree ofc, but some reasonable arguments would be nice.
Although I do agree that "sign this" posts are spammy and annoying, and the OP could have in fact presented the arguments himself, preferably in "features and ideas" rather than general discussion.
=========================
Market Based Standings? |
Summersnow
|
Posted - 2005.09.22 12:52:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Avon
Please can I have a way of decreasing risk whilst increasing profit, all for no effort?
kthx.
can you honestly tell me you've touched a mining laser anytime in recent memory to the point that that this topic even concerns you and that your post is something other then a flagarant troll?
didn't think so :-p
|
Avon
|
Posted - 2005.09.22 13:04:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Summersnow
Originally by: Avon
Please can I have a way of decreasing risk whilst increasing profit, all for no effort?
kthx.
can you honestly tell me you've touched a mining laser anytime in recent memory to the point that that this topic even concerns you and that your post is something other then a flagarant troll?
didn't think so :-p
Anything which detracts from teamplay is bad.
Period.
______________________________________________
The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur |
Pychian Vanervi
|
Posted - 2005.09.22 13:15:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Jack Brimstone
Quote:
I think Avon just posted what most were thinking. I am sure he could go into details of why the statement is correct but why bother.....
I'll be honest, I don't agree with you or Avon, and I don't see why larger secure cans involve decreased risk. Giant secure containers already cost ~300k, so any new size containers would have a proportional increase in cost. If anchored in low sec, the financial risk would if anything increase, especially with the secure can HP reductions (not that I am suggesting that they should be only restricted to low sec).
It would likely reduce can clutter quite a bit, as miners switched over to the new larger cans (needing less of them).
To those people about to bring out the "multiplayer game" argument, secure can mining does not preclude co-operation - many miners use the SCs as a buffer for their hauler, or to "time-shift" the job of hauling to when they have corpmates to assist.
It seems odd that in every "ohnoes ore theives took my ore!!11oneone" thread, one of the sensible suggestions presented is for the miner to use secure cans, yet often suggestions for improvments to secure cans are jumped on like this.
In short, this is not an "off the wall" suggestion by the OP but the larger secure can request is a respectable one. You can disagree ofc, but some reasonable arguments would be nice.
Although I do agree that "sign this" posts are spammy and annoying, and the OP could have in fact presented the arguments himself, preferably in "features and ideas" rather than general discussion.
If this does not make any sort of isk difference to miners, why does it need changing?
Is it just a convenience thing you are after or is there a real justified reason to need them?
Giant cans hold 3900m3 which is plenty, then you have a jet can which holds 27km3 which is plenty more and adds a little risk. If you are a miner in .5 and above then you have no worries mining all day into the 3900m3 cans and never ever ever ever get ganked or have ore stollen without the attacker getting fragged CONCORD style.
In .4 and below mining into jet cans well you have the ability to defend yourself and your can. If you choose to do it solo and defenceless then thats the risk you take.
If 10km3 are introduced then does the increase and requests stop there.... I think not, there wlll be groups who want 20km3 or even 30km3.... so leave it as it is and use the numerous already existant ingame ways to mine.
-----------------------------
It's all about the fortune and glory, fortune and glory!
|
Avon
|
Posted - 2005.09.22 13:18:00 -
[17]
Edited by: Avon on 22/09/2005 13:19:18
If I asked for a ship which gave me all the bonuses possible for gangs, and a +10 scrambler with a 100km range, 8 battleship hi-slots, 8 mid slots, 8 low slots, but with the speed and agility of an interceptor, the resists of a HAC and the armour/shields of a BS, I have the feeling that people may argue against it.
Why though?
All I am asking for is a way to do what a team of players can do, but on my own.
If you want the abilities of a group, work in a group.
If you want to work alone, accept that it will not be as rewarding.
If you want things to be safe, accept a lower reward.
If you want a bigger reward, be prepared to take a bigger risk.
This shouldn't apply to just mining or PvP, it should be the guiding principle of the whole game; the underlying ethos.
If you fail to see how larger secure cans detract from that, then maybe you would be wise to reconsider how the same selfish wants would affect other parts of the game if they were allowed. They type of things you wouldn't want to be on the wrong end of.
I appologise if my replies were curt or cryptic, but let's face it, this isn't the first thread like this, and it won't be the last.
______________________________________________
The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur |
Hohenheim OfLight
|
Posted - 2005.09.22 14:17:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Joe
The GM's have allready posted in previous 'forum petitions' that they are not taking into consideration, and generally ignored.
Have you ever noticed thats theres a IDEAS FORUM? or do you beleive your idea is so important that it must take up space in the general discussions forum, and that the rules of forum posting dont apply to you?
The only trade good you can't fit in a Giant can is a capital component. I don't see the need to release a new can specificly for 1 type of item, and if your not moving capital compoennts, why cant you use a giant can instead.
If anything, cans should be decreased in size, theres no station container or similiar that can be freightered
The problem with that is that every ones does them any way and the things they ask for tend to get done, no one else has stoppepd making threds.
I find it stupid that the biggest can is only 3.9k I can mine that about 10 mins, yes i could have 20 of them in a belt and move around.
But if we could get rid of them and you only need one can per belt thing of all the server load we could save, people always complain about bm's/ insta's sayin it will cut server load, why can we not have bigger cans to cut server load?
|
Avon
|
Posted - 2005.09.22 14:19:00 -
[19]
If I had a gun that could wtfbbq any ship in 1 hit that would reduce server load too.
I'm all for it.
______________________________________________
The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur |
Viggen
|
Posted - 2005.09.22 14:25:00 -
[20]
I remember seeing on Eve-I's object explorer a "Colossal Secure Can" under the secure cans list. Spec was 11,000m3 capacity and physical size was 6,000m3.
These would be a nice size if released for industrial ships and those who have trouble with the infamous ore thieves. 4 of these loaded into an Iteron V would give you up to 45,211m3 capacity (with the best current expenders).
Unfortunatly I cant post a linky here as Eve-I is not working yet due to server uprades or something, but these would be a nice addition for those who need to haul lots of stuff and cant afford the frieghters and like i said, safer mining from ore theives, a nice size imho.
|
Winterblink
|
Posted - 2005.09.22 14:37:00 -
[21]
As with most everything in EVE, if secure cans were increased in size they should also have a counter to their uberness in protecting your ore.
I put it to you that counter should be a lockpicking skill and module of some sort. This would allow anyone, with enough time (and maybe a minigame?) to get into secure cans.
|
Jastra
|
Posted - 2005.09.22 14:42:00 -
[22]
not signed, and I'm a noob who uses them, they are a tactical unit for mining in unsecure areas, if you could fill uber sized ones you wouldnt need to create corp mining events and thus no need for the extra M in MMORPG. Just buy a hauler and setup some instas
|
Miri Tirzan
|
Posted - 2005.09.22 14:57:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Avon
Please can I have a way of decreasing risk whilst increasing profit, all for no effort?
kthx.
You already have it, it is called empire piracy.
svetlana - "whining gets you stuff. that is why humans got to the top of the food chain and all the other animals got nerfed."
|
Longasc
|
Posted - 2005.09.22 15:08:00 -
[24]
I am against this.
|
Sperril
|
Posted - 2005.09.22 15:32:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Miri Tirzan
Originally by: Avon
Please can I have a way of decreasing risk whilst increasing profit, all for no effort?
kthx.
You already have it, it is called empire piracy.
Great argument to give miners, (and their corp and gang members,) the ability to fire on ore thieves. It's still not an argument for larger secure cans.
|
AdamC
|
Posted - 2005.09.22 15:52:00 -
[26]
/sign
|
Allen Deckard
|
Posted - 2005.09.22 15:58:00 -
[27]
signed
|
Jesmel
|
Posted - 2005.09.22 16:06:00 -
[28]
Signed
|
Space Chutney
|
Posted - 2005.09.22 16:39:00 -
[29]
Im not gonna argue with you, but just looking through the list of your last few posts....
|
Avon
|
Posted - 2005.09.22 16:41:00 -
[30]
Which ones do you have in mind?
______________________________________________
The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur |
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |