| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Tapper Jackson
Gallente
   |
Posted - 2007.01.31 19:35:00 -
[1]
I've tried to find a post on this, to no avail. Sorry if it's one that has been done to death, but I'd appreciate information on CCP's reasoning.
Prior to the release of Revelations, T2 Expanded Cargoholds gave a cargo capacity bonus of 29%. The release of Revelations reduced this to 27.5%, the same as Local Hull Conversion Expanded Cargo I (a T1 device). The only possible release note that could apply to this was the one stating they were going to "round off" the cargo expanders. I assumed this meant they were going to make whole numbers out of the fractions, i.e. reduce Locals to 27% or increase them to 28%.
I know I can regain the lost expansion with a rig on the Iteron V, but that's a 57 million ISK cost for something I'd already spent millions on in the form of tech 2 expanders.
So here it is: How does CCP rationilze this, assuming they do? Since when is a tech 1 item the same in its primary attribute as a tech 2 item? The difference in the secondary attributes is so microscopic as to make the Local and the T2 expanders vitrually the same item. Finally, how is this "rounding off"?! At best you'd have to call it a cap.
So far the only reasonable justification for this I can think of is perhaps the players making obscene amounts of ISK from sales of Local expanders complained enough and CCP just capitulated.
As already mentioned, I'd appreciate any information on this. Thanks.
Regards,
Tapper
|
Majin82
Caldari
g guild
|
Posted - 2007.01.31 19:40:00 -
[2]
Old news with no answer.
Many of us got ripped off as you did.
It's just another T2 item where a top-end named is a better option.
-------------------------------------
The difference between a Pirate and an Anti-Pirate is that an Anti-Pirate fights ships fitted with guns!
Passive Drake For The Win |
Kery Nysell
Caldari
Nysell Incorporated
|
Posted - 2007.01.31 19:45:00 -
[3]
Well, I'm not CCP, but maybe they thought that 29.5% was too much ?
By the way, the T2 Expanders have one advantage over the Local Hulls : the speed and structure HP penalty is lower on the T2 version (albeit by only 1% ...).
|
Azerrad InExile
|
Posted - 2007.01.31 20:45:00 -
[4]
Best named T1 is typically equivelant to T2.
|
Malena
Perpetual Dawn
|
Posted - 2007.01.31 22:20:00 -
[5]
There are a number of items that the tech 2 versions are not better...target painters and webifiers jump to mind off the top of my head...
And true the bonus is the same, but the increased speed and hitpoints over the local version is a bonus. Add to this the availability of them on a "quick, need room now" kind of basis is great.
You are still getting great hauling from them, and have likely earned back what they cost, and personally I think the fact that they didn't turn out like miner 2s is a great thing, considering how long we waited for them to appear. True, bpo holders still making a fortune (no way does it cost close to 12 mil to produce) but someone is always going to make the money.
|
Warrio
|
Posted - 2007.01.31 22:27:00 -
[6]
 Originally by: Tapper Jackson
Since when is a tech 1 item the same in its primary attribute as a tech 2 item?
Guns?
It's not the size of the dog in the fight that matters, it's the number of dogs you warp in with. |
Marcus Alkhaar
Celestial Apocalypse
Insurgency
|
Posted - 2007.01.31 22:56:00 -
[7]
With 8x 29% expanders you could make a revelation get 57k m3 cargohold
which is enough to hold 1 repacked BS and 3 frigate sized ships
I just thought I wanted to add that
Originally by: darth solo
I dont blame XS, tbh if i was in there shoes i wouldnt fight us either, its like bringing a caldari mountain sheep to fight a gallante war wolf(u like how i kept that in character |
Bisesa
|
Posted - 2007.02.01 00:15:00 -
[8]
With 29.5% cargo expanders, and the introduction of rigs, some haulers would be able to exceed 50000m3 without cans, and thus haul items, including packaged battleships, which CCP probably don't want to be haulable. If they had wanted that, those would already have fitted in an Itty V with local expanders.
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |