EVE Search - Most large guns using 100m3 space in Sisi?

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Test Server Feedback

Most large guns using 100m3 space in Sisi?

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
Elmicker Black Sea Industries Cult of War	Posted - 2007.10.06 23:01:00 - [1] Oh god. I thought they'd abandoned the idea of a mineral compression nerf. Obviously not. Time for carebear threadnought mk2?
Elmicker Black Sea Industries Cult of War	Posted - 2007.10.07 01:28:00 - [2] Originally by: Matthew You have seen the uberveld and uberpyrox on sisi? That tends to suggest to me that mining boosts (0.0 specific) are coming along with this change. Still not going to be viable to mine for your minerals in 0.0. There's just too much work and time involved. Not to mention the sheer amount of minerals a 0.0 alliance actually goes through. You're talking dozens of freighters of minerals every month. What are you supposed to do for replacement ships when you come under attack or even launch an attack of your own? Ask for a 2-day truce so you can mine enough mins for a new fleet BS each?
Elmicker Black Sea Industries Cult of War	Posted - 2007.10.07 01:32:00 - [3] Edited by: Elmicker on 07/10/2007 01:32:56 Edited by: Elmicker on 07/10/2007 01:32:41 Edited by: Elmicker on 07/10/2007 01:32:27 Originally by: Manufakturka Really, get a f* freighter and do your logistics the proper way That comment is up there with "Use the correct dread". Quote: It will increase since you would probably want few corp buddies to escort you. It'll increase what? double spaces? nothingness? Yep, sounds about right. Quote: It will provide a lot of fun and game content for raiders and 0.0 pirates. No such thing as a 0.0 pirate; not that they dont get enough action to satiate themselves already. Quote: It will also give a lot of fun for your corp buddies that are protecting you. Quote: It will stop one alliance holding 7 regions**gotry... Oh good, raging homophobia. Quote: It will unnerf lowsec and 0.0 mining a bit Will it ***s. Quote: Really, claiming that it nerfs invention is one of most **** arguments I have seen on internet and I have seen a lot. You're looking at what's spewing from your hole, then? Invention requires BULK TECH ONE ITEMS** these items have now quadrupled in size. You've just quadrupled the time inventors have to spend hauling their T1 items from market hubs to their labs. Hello again, 25mil/unit 425mm IIs.
Elmicker Black Sea Industries Cult of War	Posted - 2007.10.07 01:42:00 - [4] Originally by: Goumindong Quintupled :colbert: s'3am :P.
Elmicker Black Sea Industries Cult of War	Posted - 2007.10.07 01:46:00 - [5] Originally by: Celedris This won't effect me in anyway directly, but imposing a 400% PvP logistics tax on the modules that young players use seems like a pretty bad way to increase your subscription numbers. I'm agreeing with the theory above, that they're proposing this monumentally ****** idea as a replacement to the ever so slightly ****** idea that preceded it which was all items that can be used for compression higher than ore compression nerfed to only yield 80% of their minerals when refined. Obviously they're hoping we'll hail them as gods when they switch to that method, which presented only a 25% tax on logstics. Or, what they COULD do, is leave 0.0 <-> empire logstics alone, because it isn't broken and doesn't need fixing.
Elmicker Black Sea Industries Cult of War	Posted - 2007.10.07 15:51:00 - [6] Originally by: Gragnor This is meant to fix the use of mineral compression as a device. Simply lower the return on refining modules by 20%. I refer you to page 2, where we discussed the possibility of this simply being a really **ty idea implemented on purpose to make the previous really ty idea look like a good one. Now, since its obvious CCP no longer gives a flying monkey's about 0.0 dwellers, we need to appeal to them from our empire carebear hearts. So, has CCP even considered what this will do to the 0.0 <-> empire relationship? Currently, the majority of trade between 0.0 and empire is in minerals. 0.0 sells its high ends to empire so it can buy bulk low ends to ship back in for production purposes. Now, they're making mineral compression nigh on impossible, and providing 0.0 dwellers with a viable low end mining solution (in theory, at least, it's actually **). So, the end result. Everything 0.0 needs is in 0.0. 0.0 alliances no longer sell their bulk high ends in empire, as they have all their low end needs met by the new super ores. Empire's high end supply dries up entirely. There are no longer any minerals coming from loot refines because some bright spark decided to quadruple their size. No high ends in empire means ship prices go through the roof. Under the recommendation of CCP's economist, all mineral caps have been removed, so there's no way to govern the astronomical prices that result. Congratulations CCP (and your resident economist), you've just collapsed empire AND 0.0 with one apparantly minor change.
Elmicker Black Sea Industries Cult of War	Posted - 2007.10.07 23:32:00 - [7] Edited by: Elmicker on 07/10/2007 23:33:58 Edited by: Elmicker on 07/10/2007 23:32:23 Originally by: Bein Glorious If this change goes through, rats had better start dropping nothing but named equipment. ******* officer drops, tbh. At least that way you can make some money with all the 3 of them you can fit in your cargo hold. However, this way, nobody would be reprocessing for minerals, as the named mods would be worth more (for a time, at least). You end up introducing a new supply problem. Not to mention the big hole you've just opened in the wallets of alliances who live on refinery taxes.
Elmicker Black Sea Industries Cult of War	Posted - 2007.10.08 15:13:00 - [8] Originally by: CCP Chronotis We can make sure changes only go out when they are ready to prevent the crystal ball effect which none of you should be subject to and for that I apologise that your seeing stuff in its 'in development' phase rather than 'ready for testing/feedback' phase. I could swear i've seen this said by a dozen devs since i started playing. Also - why bother? WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO FIX?!
Elmicker Black Sea Industries Cult of War	Posted - 2007.10.08 23:39:00 - [9] Edited by: Elmicker on 08/10/2007 23:40:15 Originally by: Battlecheese It's certainly a much more efficient use of 40 people's time. No it's not. The most efficient use would be to have 38 of those 40 ratting with 100% tax in standard T2 fit ravens, with number 39 running mineral compression (NOT ore compression) jobs, and occasionally dropping cynos for #40 in a carrier. Mining sucks. Escorting freighters sucks. We play this game to have fun. The above activities are not fun. Mineral compression and logistics should be enhanced, not nerfed, if only to facilitate the actual fun aspect of the game.
Elmicker Black Sea Industries Cult of War	Posted - 2007.10.10 16:07:00 - [10] I'm still interested as to why you think this needs "fixing", Chronotis. There's nothing unbalanced or broken about it.

Elmicker Black Sea Industries Cult of War	Posted - 2007.10.13 00:20:00 - [11] Originally by: Raaz Satik I suspect that the Jump Drive Frieghter announced today in the Trinity Developer Blog ties in closely with a possible Mineral Compression nerf. A carrier carrying even a few JDCs was capable of carrying several times what the new jump freighter will likely be able to carry. You'd struggle to keep up with most alliance's logistical demands with a couple of jump freighters carrying uncompressed minerals, or even compressed ores. The sheer quantities of minerals involved is just utterly insane. You'd be hauling minerals for a good few days just to replace the losses of a single fleet battle, and in these times, we're seeing multiple fleet battles every day. Trying to replace 20+ BSes a day without the current level of compression is a frankly insane amount of work. It's for this reason compression should not be nerfed. The only reasons cited by CCP so far are along the lines "Because we can", "It wasn't intended" and "It's not immersionist". Well, ** intention, realism. If playing a slightly more realistic game means those responsible for logistics have to devote their entire game time to supporting their alliance mates - is it really worth it? Compression should be buffed, not nerfed. The current proposed nerfs (reduce mineral returns and increase volume) should be especially avoided, as the knock-on effects and collateral damage are simply staggering. Aside from that - it's gone all quiet on the dev blog/dev post side on this subject. Why? Quote:** Huh? Oil? I believe he was referring to the fact the physics of flight in this game are modelled as if we're suspended in a very dense liquid, such as oil.

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.