| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
zacuis
Infinite Improbability Inc
Dusk and Dawn
   |
Posted - 2006.09.28 23:03:00 -
[1]
im sure this has been talked to death in the past, but i really cant find any info on why these things have been on the market for at least the last 2 years but never released can some one give me the reason plz. perhaps a kind dev would like to explain why they have never been released im sure everyone would love to have this time and i really cant think why they would be over powered or some such.
|
Ortu Konsinni
KIA Corp
|
Posted - 2006.09.28 23:10:00 -
[2]
And they would be such a nice target for the kind of people who handle the Cap Recharger II market, too... Cargo Expanders II have to be a major ISK printer as well, oh man.
---
High quality pics of ALL EVE ships!
|
zacuis
Infinite Improbability Inc
Dusk and Dawn
|
Posted - 2006.09.28 23:21:00 -
[3]
thats not really a reason to not release them many items are over priced. besides would al depend on how many bpo`s they released as to how expencive the item would be or how many items could be made per day from 1 bpo. look at expander 1`s there a limited bpo but there not expencive.
|
Sessho Seki
|
Posted - 2006.09.29 01:50:00 -
[4]
actually, there is a reason not to release them, and it has to do with an impossible speed.
normal expanders reduce your speed by 10m/s each, however, the cargo expander 2's would reduce your speed by 15m/s each.
most people are likely saying "so?"
but there are several ships with low enough base speed and enough low slots that if filled with CE2's, they would be reduced to a speed that is below zero.
now at first, most people think that "negative speed" would mean you're going backwards, but that's not the case, because any movement in any direction is positive speed, direction is irrelivant to the value being positive.
"negative speed" is impossible since you're either moving or you're not, but you can't have the inverse of moving as there is no way to define it.
perhaps the game would just "tilt" and render such a thing as zero speed, but it may also cause logical errors that simply can't be represented since there is no way to represent something that is impossible by definition.
anyway, even if the ships "worked" and were merely left with zero max speed, that in itself would cause all kinds of havoc with stranded ships (and the certainty of resulting petitions) that can never dock since they can't move.
curiously, they would theoretically still be capable of warp, since 75% of 0m/s would still be easily achieved INSTANTLY since they would thus always be at 0m/s.
|
Deathcharge
Minmatar
Flying Spaghetti Monsterz
Serenus Letum
|
Posted - 2006.09.29 02:24:00 -
[5]
 Originally by: Sessho Seki
curiously, they would theoretically still be capable of warp, since 75% of 0m/s would still be easily achieved INSTANTLY since they would thus always be at 0m/s.
uh... instas all teh way 
===+++===
|
Audri Fisher
Caldari
The Keep
THE R0CK
|
Posted - 2006.09.29 03:14:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Sessho Seki
actually, there is a reason not to release them, and it has to do with an impossible speed.
normal expanders reduce your speed by 10m/s each, however, the cargo expander 2's would reduce your speed by 15m/s each.
most people are likely saying "so?"
but there are several ships with low enough base speed and enough low slots that if filled with CE2's, they would be reduced to a speed that is below zero.
now at first, most people think that "negative speed" would mean you're going backwards, but that's not the case, because any movement in any direction is positive speed, direction is irrelivant to the value being positive.
"negative speed" is impossible since you're either moving or you're not, but you can't have the inverse of moving as there is no way to define it.
perhaps the game would just "tilt" and render such a thing as zero speed, but it may also cause logical errors that simply can't be represented since there is no way to represent something that is impossible by definition.
anyway, even if the ships "worked" and were merely left with zero max speed, that in itself would cause all kinds of havoc with stranded ships (and the certainty of resulting petitions) that can never dock since they can't move.
curiously, they would theoretically still be capable of warp, since 75% of 0m/s would still be easily achieved INSTANTLY since they would thus always be at 0m/s.
let's pretend you do manage to get stuck, would not taking some of them offline fix this? Yes you might have to jetson some cargo but hey, Darwin ftw.
|
Darksaber64x
Ecchi co.
|
Posted - 2006.09.29 04:20:00 -
[7]
Isn't another reason because and iteron 5 with a full row of these would have a bigger cargo bay than a eject canister?
*is too lazy to the the math for it, but I though I remember seeing this somewhere*
|
Tunajuice
|
Posted - 2006.09.29 04:25:00 -
[8]
An itty 5 with currently in game stuff can already break 30,000 volume.
|
Mnengli Noiliffe
|
Posted - 2006.09.29 05:33:00 -
[9]
why all those speculations about negative speed effects, as if it's not possible already to achieve negative max speed.. take an impel or a dread and fill lows with expanders, and see what happens.. actually the ship won't move at all, which means it won't be able to warp.
|
|
Chribba
Otherworld Enterprises
Otherworld Empire
|
Posted - 2006.09.29 08:45:00 -
[10]
Edited by: Chribba on 29/09/2006 08:47:45
^^ I know from experience that what he said is indeed how it works. Negative speed gets rounded to 0 when in space.
EDIT/
And oh about getting stuck. Yes offlining them would make you able to move again, but you wouldn't be able to do anything if your cargo is bigger than the cargo hold (oversized cargo because of offlining ce's).
So you would have to jettison your cargo, and if the cargo happends to be bigger than a jetcan you will end up with two cans.
EVE-Files | EVE-Search | Monitor this Thread |
|
Ortu Konsinni
KIA Corp
|
Posted - 2006.09.29 12:15:00 -
[11]
With regard to the speed issue, you guys are reasoning based on the stats that you can currently view in the game; admittedly that is all we have to work with at the moment but keep in mind that these specs are in no way set in stone and will almost undoubtedly change when/if these items are released (just like tech 2 warp scramblers).
I remember reading a discussion where it was stated that you could fix the problem by simply changing the -15m/s value to a -15% speed value. I also seem to remember that devs were involved in that discussion, but I'm really not sure about that.
To the OP: my first reply wasn't to provide a reason for CCP not to release cargo expanders II, I was merely adding something to your post 
---
High quality pics of ALL EVE ships!
|
Dr CapitalShip
Caldari
Out Siders
Ascendant Frontier
|
Posted - 2006.09.29 12:20:00 -
[12]
They are coming ingame with the new invention skills.
Lets forget about the T2 lottery - We finally won guys - We got it beat!
Oh dear - It appears that invention needs the Blueprint of the t1 item.... Which was lotteried IIRC :)
|
Haniblecter Teg
F.R.E.E. Explorer
EVE Animal Control
|
Posted - 2006.09.29 15:05:00 -
[13]
Friend.
They're not on the market because it would kill the most valuable non-t2 modules in the game, the Local Hull Expander.
Release the t2, and you kill those, whom alot of people base a livelihood on.
OFC, they've quartered the drop rate in fade on them, so that may signal their arrival in KALI.
----------------------------------------
Friends Forever
|
Vivus Mors
|
Posted - 2006.09.29 20:31:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Haniblecter Teg
Friend.
They're not on the market because it would kill the most valuable non-t2 modules in the game, the Local Hull Expander.
Release the t2, and you kill those, whom alot of people base a livelihood on.
OFC, they've quartered the drop rate in fade on them, so that may signal their arrival in KALI.
I'm sorry, but that argument just doesn't work out in the wash.
look at missile launchers, before T2 launchers nammed launchers were the name of the game, and arbalest launchers (particularly sieges) could fetch a high price.
the second T2 launchers were made available in their stead, the prices for arby sieges fell like a stone.
I feel little sympathy if a comparable and more plentiful product is made available through T2 and that cramps the style of those selling the nammed T1 versions. That's the market showing that plentiful production can drive prices down and that the market can control itself so long as it isn't artificially constrained which was the case before T2 launchers existed.
if you wanted better than "vanilla" launchers, you HAD to buy nammed products, and the same is true with cargo expanders, want more space than standard expanders, then you pay for it or find the nammed ones yourself. So by all means, release the T2 expanders (and perhaps change the speed penalty to percentages rather than a flat value).
-------------------------------------------------
For the price of one can of Quafe cola a day, you can adopt an Ewok... Please... think of the Ewoks... |
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |