| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Imperator Jora'h
   |
Posted - 2007.08.16 12:28:00 -
[31]
 Originally by: Big Al
The nerf will probably go ahead anyway eventually, but giving people who have billions invested 1-2 weeks to prepare isn't really fair.
I think I misrepresented CCP's timeline in all this. Upon further review I am not sure when their original planned implementation was. Their current stated timeline is Rev-3 or sometime shortly after that.
So, you have several months before it is an issue looks like.
|
Mashie Saldana
Hooligans Of War
|
Posted - 2007.08.16 12:37:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Raem Civrie
Module ore compression is ****ty.
Capital ore compression is cool.
The whole point is that ideally, there would exist regions in EVE virtually independent from Empire save for non-constructible consumables (POS parts, skillbooks, outpost construction parts and new BP's). But for viable frontier mining, we need something like the proposed Rorqual. Also, your math is off. The 430:1 ratio is only on a titan module, which happens to be 1000m3.
The problem is when someone decide to plug in those modules offline in the highslots on frigs using a total of 0m3 for four of them. Hence how you can fit two freighter loads worth of minerals in a frig.
|
Xantia Gedur
House of Gedur
|
Posted - 2007.08.16 12:37:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Imperator Jora'h
In all my time viewing the EVE Forums I do not think I have seen a larger and more unanimous whine than
There was a huge amarr thread some time ago, oh and of course the lets not forget the monolithic caldari whine threads that almost broke the forums when the missile/sig radius changes were announced.
Yep torpedos used to 1 shot frigs lol
|
Riley Craven
Caldari
Copacetic Corporation
|
Posted - 2007.08.16 12:44:00 -
[34]
Then you obivously havent been here long enough. Tomb proposed changes to drones when they went from 10 to 5 and gallente was going to get a racial damage bonus instead of an all around damage bonus to their drones. The **** storm was 3 times the size of that thread and of course Tomb quickly caved.
The fact of the matter is if you think either of these threads is a massive whine fest then you are a complete noob that knows nothing about Eve.
|
Jaketh Ivanes
Amarr
Do Or Die And Live Or Try
|
Posted - 2007.08.16 12:45:00 -
[35]
Yes, i might take a crap load of time to research it to ME25, but even at ME0, it will have a very high ration. Not done any numbers, but a minimum of 100:1. That is still to much.
If you take 1 ton of iron, melt it and make a really big pole with it, then move it 1000km and melt it again, you end up with less than 1 ton of iron.
The volume of the raw 1 ton of iron, the pole and the remelted pole are still closely the same.
Also, your argument of "suddenly nothing works" have no grounds as such nerfs have been done previously (stacking penality for one).
Me: "Oh, why did my 8 heat sinks on my Armageddon suddenly stop working as well as they used to??".
Friend: "Because they were to powerful and needed to be balanced".
I fully endorse this balance, and think CCP should have stealthed it into the game. All it does it make a market for lowends in 0.0 (which have an abundance of it allready) and hopefully make ships more valuable.
Next in line to get nerfed, should be insurance. In quite a lot of ways 
|
Riley Craven
Caldari
Copacetic Corporation
|
Posted - 2007.08.16 12:49:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Wild Rho
Supporting the OP in this. Life in 0.0 is supposed to be tough and dangerous, in other words a challenge. The field of logistics should be one that requires the same sort of talent and organization from players that fleet battles and smaller generally do. Let the truly skilled industrialists be capable of showing their worth out in 0.0 as well as the pvp types.
Yes there will be knock on effects, there always is when these changes come in but people WILL adapt to it and those with the brains will get by just fine.
Since when was 0.0 supposed to be easy?
You pvp types are a complete an utter joke. You complain that 0.0 should be hard but whine like little babies everytime you have to do POS warefare. You complain its a massive time sink and everything else.
Well guess what, if this change isnt fully thought out (which CCP's changes never are) then you are just making moving low ends to 0.0 just as much a grind fest as your crappy pos warfare. So get a clue and stfu already.
|
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2007.08.16 12:50:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Haffrage
Originally by: Venkul Mul
Originally by: Imperator Jora'h
Originally by: Haffrage
The main problem I see coming with ore compression is Rorquals being built by corps with large assembly arrays on their high sec poses, and people afk mining veld into them. Either Industrial Cores shouldn't be enabled in high sec, or Rorquals should be only manufacturable in =<.4 stations & capital assembly arrays.
As much as I would like to be able to use a Rorqual in hi sec I agree completely. The potential for abuse by AFK miners/farmers is too much.
It is a jump capable ship, so it can be used only in low sec/0.0.
Some corporations anchored Large Ship Assembly Arrays in high sec poses before CCP made them like moon mining equipment, which is only anchorable in =<.3 space. Large Ship Assembly Arrays can manufacture dreads and carriers. Seeing as CCP only nerfed the ability to anchor more, and left already anchored ones alone, those corporations are even now manufacturing carriers and dreads in high sec for resale or personal use. You can keep them there, but using them offensively is considered an exploit.
Seeing as a Rorqual would, could, and certainly should ONLY be used for mining, after you got one there you'd have a free ride to mining and compressing low ends in 100% safety. ESPECIALLY if you just pos the thing up to do it.
AS I already posted using a capital ship in any fashion in high sec is a exploit and if it is reported the ship will be moved to low sec. Cribba has a special dispensation, but I dubt that CCP will be so comprensive with other people using them.
As the ship can't be moved from the systems where they are build (with the exception of going to low sec) the belts in those system, even if the exploit is undetected, will disappear in no time.
I dubt that it will be a problem.
A notable exception can be a system with ice in it, but I think CCP will keep an eye on that.
|
Elmicker
The Phoenix Rising
FreeFall Securities
|
Posted - 2007.08.16 12:50:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Imperator Jora'h
I think I misrepresented CCP's timeline in all this. Upon further review I am not sure when their original planned implementation was. Their current stated timeline is Rev-3 or sometime shortly after that.
Their original timeline was rev 2.2, slated for a couple of weeks time. This would have screwed over dozens of people. For example - my corp has recently invested a large sum of isk in JPG BPOs for mineral compression purposes, which would be absolutely worthless, and nigh on useless. The extra time allows us to investigate whether using a rorqual in the same capacity is viable.
|
Virtuozzo
IVC Consortium
INVICTUS.
|
Posted - 2007.08.16 12:55:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Imperator Jora'h
Consider what ore compression gets you now:
- 430:1 compression ratios
- Frigates that can move as much as TWO freighters (non-compressed) worth of minerals 
EDIT: I should note that the ore compression of the Rorqual (proposed ORE Cap Ship) is fine as that is its purpose and is balanced (presumably) not to mention it gives more purpose to that ship. For this thread when I say "ore compression" I am talking about using modules to compress ore.
Even with an edit you're still confusing folks. Ore compression is not the same as Mineral compression. Mixing the two up is manipulating the argument.
As for the extremes, notably the Jump Portal Generator, that's something which should have been addressed long ago. A very long time ago.
Still, you appear oblivious to the impact of mineral compression on deep space economics, particularly of the drone regions, small alliances trying to compete with larger ones with much more vested infrastructures (not competing as in gank wars, but conquest wars) and economics of large alliances as a whole.
Mineral compression is for instance what keeps the drone regions alive. This is not an understatement. The cost of living and competing on a galactic scale there is the highest of EVE, with the least possible incentive to live there at all. It would be nice if CCP's dream of regional competition would be possible, but it isn't, 4 years of 0.0 warfare has made that clear.
Mineral compression is an extremely high level economical assets. EVE is not a grind game, like Wow, developments and trends occur in real time, it's one of those things which makes the challenges in EVE so fun and hard at the same time. Being able to run things properly while not making it a job as such means that you find and implement methods to secure optimum mechanisms for self sustainability. Mineral compression is not only the way to keep prolonged and heavy wars engaged upon, it is also - even more so - an extremely large element in deep space economics.
When you drop such a change out of the blue on people, without looking for the scale of consequences, that is a bad thing. The equivalent what many people do not realise would be to a week before a patch announce that all T2 BPO's will be changed to 1000 run copies. The amount of ISK tied into compression prints, mineral queues locked into production runs in the dozens of billions of isk for most small to medium sized alliances alone. The bulk of the static investments with such a change would pretty much overnight become worthless for core values, think of researched compression prints for instance.
The entire debate was not about the excesses, it is pretty clear those should be addressed, as they present an imbalance. But an overall drastic short term change of this nature and impact, without leaving time to adjust or adapt, would bankrupt quite a few alliances for having to undertake renewed investments for solutions. CCP as such would suddenly have a direct impact on in game geopolitics with one stroke of the pen, so to speak.
Deep space is complicated, sometimes hectic, but intrinsically connected. Mineral compression for "pew pew" is merely a tiny factor, the bulk of the mechanism is what allows organisations to compete. It's not even about supercapitals, as those still represent a minute fraction of volumes, and impact on economies on the whole.
The devblog feedback thread has been one of the most cosntructive ones ever on such a topic. To a point where CCP started to do the math on impact of the change on economics, and thus the impact of politics. In a nutshell, the impact would be too vaste and drastic and wastefull to justify. Hence the change. Not the whine.
Unionised? Yeah. What do you expect :P It is the one mechanism which all deep space alliances have within their economics. It would be the same if the devblog had announced all T2 originals to change to 1000 run copies in two weeks.
Virtuozzo
Last words of a Caldari general: "Pull the Ravens back! Full retreat! they've got frigates!"
*snip* Inappropriate. -Elmo Pug |
Zombie Network
GoonFleet
|
Posted - 2007.08.16 12:55:00 -
[40]
You could nerf Compression/Importation to the point where it costs 6-8ISK/unit of Trit to import, and it would still be more profitable to mine the the high-ends and import the stuff than to just mine it yourself.
Nerfing compression will not make people suddenly mine Veldspar over Crockite, it will mean that the value of imported minerals will increase exponentially, inflating the prices of everything on the 0.0 market to ridiculous levels, which is not what CCP want.
The solution is to introduce some new roids to 0.0 that will allow for the bulk mining of Trit and other lowend minerals at an ISK value comparable to that of another high-end roid.
|
|
|
New Shadow
Caldari
CyberDyne Industries
Te-Ka
|
Posted - 2007.08.16 13:08:00 -
[41]
To the OP:
Fundamentaly, I do agree with you as it is rather absurd.
But, since in all respects, it is a game, hauling would become a much larger grind fest as stated above. You say ships would be harder to loose thus blobs will end. I do not how this will be the case as the reason blobs exist is to protect ships in the first place. Blob will still be there no matter what and since the lose of a ship would take a harder hit on the wallet (Especially in the case of the less experienced whom CCP are trying to get out there) would mean they won't PvP as much and only in the protection of other ships.
Another thing that you say is 0.0 is easier now then before and your right, it probably is. But the problem is not the minerals and heres the reason why. With your logic, you are saying ships are too easy to come by, but if it is, why doesn't contending 0.0 alliances send more groups out and erase the allusion that their space is safe? Why doesn't pirates risk their ships more since the replacement of another is so easy to come by? In my opinion, 0.0 will become even safer after this as less are willing to do such. And as for the argument about POSs, that never stops groups from warping in and harassing a few people for fun and keeping them on their toes.
Mission runners will be further dwarfed as their mineral output will take a 20% beating and markets may be flooded with equipment trying to earn back the ISKs they lost.
Also I don't see how this will dwarf alliances anyways as they will simply prepare the new ship to move their minerals, which I believe is able to cyno around as well as a carrier (Or perhaps a little worse).
This move seems to be more about making CCP's "new end-all industrial ship" of more importance then actually nerfing alliances. I am against this move unless empire gets an industrial ship capable (to a much lesser extent) of compressing as well.
|
New Shadow
Caldari
CyberDyne Industries
Te-Ka
|
Posted - 2007.08.16 13:08:00 -
[42]
To the OP:
Fundamentaly, I do agree with you as it is rather absurd.
But, since in all respects, it is a game, hauling would become a much larger grind fest as stated above. You say ships would be harder to loose thus blobs will end. I do not how this will be the case as the reason blobs exist is to protect ships in the first place. Blob will still be there no matter what and since the lose of a ship would take a harder hit on the wallet (Especially in the case of the less experienced whom CCP are trying to get out there) would mean they won't PvP as much and only in the protection of other ships.
Another thing that you say is 0.0 is easier now then before and your right, it probably is. But the problem is not the minerals and heres the reason why. With your logic, you are saying ships are too easy to come by, but if it is, why doesn't contending 0.0 alliances send more groups out and erase the allusion that their space is safe? Why doesn't pirates risk their ships more since the replacement of another is so easy to come by? In my opinion, 0.0 will become even safer after this as less are willing to do such. And as for the argument about POSs, that never stops groups from warping in and harassing a few people for fun and keeping them on their toes.
Mission runners will be further dwarfed as their mineral output will take a 20% beating and markets may be flooded with equipment trying to earn back the ISKs they lost.
Also I don't see how this will dwarf alliances anyways as they will simply prepare the new ship to move their minerals, which I believe is able to cyno around as well as a carrier (Or perhaps a little worse).
This move seems to be more about making CCP's "new end-all industrial ship" of more importance then actually nerfing alliances. I am against this move unless empire gets an industrial ship capable (to a much lesser extent) of compressing as well.
|
Jaketh Ivanes
Amarr
Do Or Die And Live Or Try
|
Posted - 2007.08.16 13:19:00 -
[43]
Originally by: Zombie Network
You could nerf Compression/Importation to the point where it costs 6-8ISK/unit of Trit to import, and it would still be more profitable to mine the the high-ends and import the stuff than to just mine it yourself.
Nerfing compression will not make people suddenly mine Veldspar over Crockite, it will mean that the value of imported minerals will increase exponentially, inflating the prices of everything on the 0.0 market to ridiculous levels, which is not what CCP want.
The solution is to introduce some new roids to 0.0 that will allow for the bulk mining of Trit and other lowend minerals at an ISK value comparable to that of another high-end roid.
If you can suddenly sell trit for 6-8 isk/unit, I think I would try to earn a bit of isk by moving trit to 0.0. 100-166% increase in profits would be nice. yeah, risky, but dooable.
Thats one of the reasons this change should be made. Look at it this way, if the prices go up and empire haulers suddenly see a profit the effort and risk, you won't have to move trit from empire to 0.0, it will be delivered to you.
Now, doesn't that sound good? Will ofcourse require that you don't shoot every single hauler that comes to your space and stick more to combat vessels  .
If a change has to be done, rather now then in 2 months. You stand to lose just as much now as then.
|
Tzrailasa
Destructive Influence
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.08.16 14:44:00 -
[44]
Personally, I see all this as a storm in a glass of water....
The change will have ONE effect for general 0.0 (not the drone regions which has more problems), and one effect only:
Minerals (and things built from them) will be up to 25% more expensive in 0.0.
...and thats IT!
Every other supposed/feared effect will be insignificant....
Ratting/missioning loot will be (on average) marginally less value.
There's absolutely no effect on the T2 market.
There's absolutely no effect on the rigs market.
...which IMHO is the HIGHEST cost of PvP in 0.0...
So a 200m Battleship will now cost 210m... 'Buhu, I can't afford one now'... 
As other people have pointed out though, a fix of mineral compression could be far more efficiently done by making some modules larger and changing the mineral composition of others. I suspect what CCP really want is a mineral-sink....
The new mining ship is pretty useless anyway IMHO. I expect the first one to die about 7 minutes after it engages its 'Mining Siege' mode (well, if bonuses are limited to grid)....
My views are my own. They do not represent the views of my corporation or alliance. |
Roemy Schneider
BINFORD
|
Posted - 2007.08.16 15:11:00 -
[45]
Edited by: Roemy Schneider on 16/08/2007 15:14:22
appearantly everybody seems tp think that the proposed changes will change mineral compression - this is not the case. the JPG I will still compress 430:1
the only change is a 20% refining penalty, which results in a 344:1 outcome - like all other popular mineral compression methods, this will go on no matter what. the 12:1 trit compression (via veldspar) of the new ore capital ship does not compete... at all...
we understood the GSC nerf and we understand the need to correct the evil compression ratio of the top five compression methods (all five being titan modules)
however, all this suggestion is about is making everybody in 0.0 need 25% more low-min logistics and higher prices due to demand. just reducing module sizes would have the same effect but without the exploding markets
the only group not affected, at all, will be macro miners...
reduced mission and ratting loot will result in fewer minerals throughout the entire galaxy aswell - it's more than you think.
in short, all they want is a time&isk sink. this could have been done a lot more elegantly by revamping the production and/or refining equation(s).
but if it's really just about compression itself, 'minerals/volume' can best be correct by increasing the volume - simple as that.
they want your isk and wave around the JPG I blueprint to get it...
-
putting the gist back into logistics |
Kyrie Elaison
GoonFleet
|
Posted - 2007.08.16 15:15:00 -
[46]
Originally by: Tzrailasa
Personally, I see all this as a storm in a glass of water....
The change will have ONE effect for general 0.0 (not the drone regions which has more problems), and one effect only:
Minerals (and things built from them) will be up to 25% more expensive in 0.0.
...and thats IT!
Every other supposed/feared effect will be insignificant....
Ratting/missioning loot will be (on average) marginally less value.
There's absolutely no effect on the T2 market.
There's absolutely no effect on the rigs market.
...which IMHO is the HIGHEST cost of PvP in 0.0...
So a 200m Battleship will now cost 210m... 'Buhu, I can't afford one now'...
As other people have pointed out though, a fix of mineral compression could be far more efficiently done by making some modules larger and changing the mineral composition of others. I suspect what CCP really want is a mineral-sink....
The new mining ship is pretty useless anyway IMHO. I expect the first one to die about 7 minutes after it engages its 'Mining Siege' mode (well, if bonuses are limited to grid)....
1. Any change to compression will have an effect on the t2 market. T2 items, especially modules, are inherently tied to the ships that use them. If people have difficulty affording the ships, it's not hard to imagine that they'd have difficulty affording the t2 mods. You can't change one variable and expect everything else to behave as though it's in a vacuum.
2. It will affect the rig market for the exact same reason it will affect the t2 market. Think of these as secondary effects, rather than primary effects, such as battleships jumping up in price by 25%.
3. A 25% price increase on a 200m bs would result in a cost of 250m, not 210m. For a more realistic example, take Ravens in 0.0. 110m is roughly the average price from what I've seen. A 25% increase on a Raven would result in a cost of 138.5m. Now, as insurance pays roughly 108.5m (around there anyway) and costs roughly 32m, the person who loses a Raven would be out around 61.5m (just for the hull). That's a lot of money to lose for the vast majority of people. Making it harder for most people to fly the ships they want and enjoy the game is counterproductive.
This change will have far-reaching consequences, some predictable and some not. I hope CCP takes the time to figure out what the predictable consequences are and how they will affect the game. The golden rule for this sort of thing is always the same: does it make the players' experience better or worse?
|
Tzrailasa
Destructive Influence
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.08.16 15:49:00 -
[47]
Edited by: Tzrailasa on 16/08/2007 15:53:19
Originally by: Kyrie Elaison
...above post
So, if ships get more expensive and less ships gets sold, the same amount of T2/Rigs are produced and less is bought by players, prices of them go UP (that's how I read your statement)???
That's about as illogical as any argument I've seen here for a LONG, LONG time!!!
Even taking your 200m vs. 250m price example as valid (which I don't).....
If you can't afford to buy a 250m ship, chances are you can't afford a 200m one either....
...and even if you're correct (which I doubt...), I fully applaud the effect...
A ship loss is meant to be FELT 
Originally by: Kyrie Elaison
Making it harder for most people to fly the ships they want and enjoy the game is counterproductive.
On this statement in particular I don't agree. The more value the ship you fly has to you, the more intense is the adrenaline rush of taking it into battle. That adrenaline rush is WHY most people like PvP.....
My views are my own. They do not represent the views of my corporation or alliance. |
Karash Amerius
Amarr
O.E.C
Legionnaire Services Ltd.
|
Posted - 2007.08.16 16:57:00 -
[48]
Great post. It all comes down to "Gaming the game" and to be frank, people moving minerals in frigates is just beyond absurdity.
Merc Blog
|
Princess Jodi
Vendetta Underground
Rule of Three
|
Posted - 2007.08.16 17:09:00 -
[49]
I notice the vast majority of people posting here are not in 0.0 alliances. I would submit that you really have no idea how hard it is to run full industrial operations in 0.0 alliance. Its very difficult. Ore Compression is one of the things we 'have' to do, not something we 'want' to do.
The high end minerals are not a problem. Its Trit, Pye and Mex that are the issue. Without being able to take advantage of the cheap labor implied by empire-created compressed modules, you would have to increase the price of low-end minerals several times to be competetive with other forms of income generation in 0.0. In other words, make Trit at about 8-12 isk per unit and we'll mine it. Less,and we'll import it using mineral compression methods.
If you notice, the entire 'problem' area is 0.0, not Empire. Gettign people to mine veld in 0.0 is very hard at current prices.
|
Rhaegor Stormborn
|
Posted - 2007.08.16 17:36:00 -
[50]
I don't like how they went about removing compression with a flat refine tax on certain items, but I do agree that the idea behind it was a good one. Logistics should not be so easy, armies should be held back by their logistics, and ships of all sorts, both capital and regular, should be worth more. I never ever mind losing a ship. It is seriously nothing to lose a ship with insurance the way it is. That should definitely not be the case for a person involved in constant warfare on the front lines over a 5 month period.
|
|
|
Dark Shikari
Caldari
Imperium Technologies
Firmus Ixion
|
Posted - 2007.08.16 17:44:00 -
[51]
All that removing mineral compression does is benefit the already powerful alliances (those with titans to jump bridge freighters) and hurts everyone else.
23 Member
EVE Video makers: save EVE-files bandwidth! Use the H.264 AutoEncoder! |
000Hunter000
Gallente
Magners Marauders
|
Posted - 2007.08.16 17:53:00 -
[52]
Originally by: Dark Shikari
All that removing mineral compression does is benefit the already powerful alliances (those with titans to jump bridge freighters) and hurts everyone else.
Nerf jumpbridges then
then again it also might work the other way around now, instead of having to use a hauler to get valuable minerals out of 0.0 u can now stick it in a fast agile frig.
CCP, let us pay the online shop with Direct Debit!!!
Magners is now recruiting, evemail me or Dagazbo ingame.
|
Virtuozzo
IVC Consortium
INVICTUS.
|
Posted - 2007.08.16 18:59:00 -
[53]
Originally by: 000Hunter000
Originally by: Dark Shikari
All that removing mineral compression does is benefit the already powerful alliances (those with titans to jump bridge freighters) and hurts everyone else.
Nerf jumpbridges then
You missed his point. Titan jump bridge = jump portal, mobile logistics. POS based jump bridges = static pretty defenceloss costly high maintenance logistics at besides all the previously mentioned disadvantages an activation cost two times that of a Titan based mobile jump portal.
:P
Virtuozzo
Last words of a Caldari general: "Pull the Ravens back! Full retreat! they've got frigates!"
*snip* Inappropriate. -Elmo Pug |
Virtuozzo
IVC Consortium
INVICTUS.
|
Posted - 2007.08.16 18:59:00 -
[54]
Originally by: 000Hunter000
Originally by: Dark Shikari
All that removing mineral compression does is benefit the already powerful alliances (those with titans to jump bridge freighters) and hurts everyone else.
Nerf jumpbridges then
You missed his point. Titan jump bridge = jump portal, mobile logistics. POS based jump bridges = static pretty defenceloss costly high maintenance logistics at besides all the previously mentioned disadvantages an activation cost two times that of a Titan based mobile jump portal.
:P
Virtuozzo
Last words of a Caldari general: "Pull the Ravens back! Full retreat! they've got frigates!"
*snip* Inappropriate. -Elmo Pug |
Imperator Jora'h
|
Posted - 2007.08.17 03:12:00 -
[55]
Originally by: Princess Jodi
I notice the vast majority of people posting here are not in 0.0 alliances. I would submit that you really have no idea how hard it is to run full industrial operations in 0.0 alliance. Its very difficult. Ore Compression is one of the things we 'have' to do, not something we 'want' to do.
As I mentioned earlier I am no longer in a 0.0 Alliance but I once was and was deeply involved inthe logistics. This was back before freighters and jump bridges and ore compression. Somehow we managed so I have no sympathy for your "problems".
Quote:
In other words, make Trit at about 8-12 isk per unit and we'll mine it. Less,and we'll import it using mineral compression methods.
If you notice, the entire 'problem' area is 0.0, not Empire. Gettign people to mine veld in 0.0 is very hard at current prices.
You do what you see fit. If appropriate changes to ore compression were made you should have a real decision on your hands. Mine low ends in 0.0 or mine high ends and sell those and ship in low ends. Whatever works for you is fine but the decision should exist unlike today where it is a no-brainer.
|
Imperator Jora'h
|
Posted - 2007.08.17 03:14:00 -
[56]
Originally by: Dark Shikari
All that removing mineral compression does is benefit the already powerful alliances (those with titans to jump bridge freighters) and hurts everyone else.
I agree with 000Hunter000. This is an argument against jump bridges and I personally agree jump bridges mess the game up more than they help. That said I guess it is a topic for a different thread.
|
Elmicker
The Phoenix Rising
FreeFall Securities
|
Posted - 2007.08.17 03:25:00 -
[57]
Originally by: Imperator Jora'h
I agree with 000Hunter000. This is an argument against jump bridges and I personally agree jump bridges mess the game up more than they help. That said I guess it is a topic for a different thread.
Do you have any experience of using them? The pos-based module is very high-cost (both initial and in terms of fuel use), requires a high sovereignty level (and thus invesment in poses, fuel and time), is vulnerable to attack and is very short range. They're very much limited internal logistics tools. Titan jump portals on the other hand, are the complete opposite. They're mobile and practically invulnerable if used correctly.
Not that that's got anything to do with mineral/ore compression, as that's all done with carriers.
|
Riley Craven
Caldari
Copacetic Corporation
|
Posted - 2007.08.17 03:27:00 -
[58]
Edited by: Riley Craven on 17/08/2007 03:32:12
Originally by: Imperator Jora'h
Originally by: Dark Shikari
All that removing mineral compression does is benefit the already powerful alliances (those with titans to jump bridge freighters) and hurts everyone else.
I agree with 000Hunter000. This is an argument against jump bridges and I personally agree jump bridges mess the game up more than they help. That said I guess it is a topic for a different thread.
I think the major difference between the 0.0 of today and the 0.0 of yesterday was that the scales were totally different... Now I could be wrong... but I really dont think so. Not only do we have way more subs than we did back then, but more people are in 0.0 then back then, and not only that we now have cap ships.
My point... the logistics of back then doesnt even touch on the logistics of today... not even close.
Until you can agree that SOME method is needed to move vast amounts of materials over long distances to keep the status quo... you will never have a valid point. The only way it would work is if they just deleted pos and cap ships and call it the **** fest it really is.
Oh and one other thing... if you people think mineral compressions is SOOO easy... why dont you try it out instead of talking out of your @ss. You people act like it takes no time or resources to achieve. Using normal modules and etc takes days if not weeks to compress that much crap plus you have to use a CRAP LOAD of manufacturing slots to do it in that time... otherwise it would take you months. NO one in this thread or that thread thinks that the ratios should be that high for cap modules... but then again you pvp guys want to force the indy guys to have to deal with a massive grind fest like you pvp types have to deal with for shooting down pos, so I wouldnt expect you to have any common or rational sense.
|
Imperator Jora'h
|
Posted - 2007.08.17 03:29:00 -
[59]
Originally by: Elmicker
Originally by: Imperator Jora'h
I agree with 000Hunter000. This is an argument against jump bridges and I personally agree jump bridges mess the game up more than they help. That said I guess it is a topic for a different thread.
Do you have any experience of using them? The pos-based module is very high-cost (both initial and in terms of fuel use), requires a high sovereignty level (and thus invesment in poses, fuel and time), is vulnerable to attack and is very short range. They're very much limited internal logistics tools. Titan jump portals on the other hand, are the complete opposite. They're mobile and practically invulnerable if used correctly.
I have not used them but know people who do and have read about them. I was not clear that my concern lies more with the Titan Jump Bridge. The POS-based one seems ok(ish) from what I can tell (in that it has inherent limitations which cause players to balance cost versus benefits...as it should be).
|
Riley Craven
Caldari
Copacetic Corporation
|
Posted - 2007.08.17 03:35:00 -
[60]
Originally by: Imperator Jora'h
Originally by: Elmicker
Originally by: Imperator Jora'h
I agree with 000Hunter000. This is an argument against jump bridges and I personally agree jump bridges mess the game up more than they help. That said I guess it is a topic for a different thread.
Do you have any experience of using them? The pos-based module is very high-cost (both initial and in terms of fuel use), requires a high sovereignty level (and thus invesment in poses, fuel and time), is vulnerable to attack and is very short range. They're very much limited internal logistics tools. Titan jump portals on the other hand, are the complete opposite. They're mobile and practically invulnerable if used correctly.
I have not used them but know people who do and have read about them. I was not clear that my concern lies more with the Titan Jump Bridge. The POS-based one seems ok(ish) from what I can tell (in that it has inherent limitations which cause players to balance cost versus benefits...as it should be).
So what exaclty do you think the benefits should be... It takes months of preparation and vasts amounts of resources... after the recent nerf they arent good at combat anymore... so should that relegate them to nothing more than a ship with a nifty fleet bonus??? I think you just like to complain because some other people might not have it as bad as you do.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |