Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Shadowsword
COLSUP Tau Ceti Federation
|
Posted - 2007.10.07 10:00:00 -
[91]
For those who say it's to help T1 producers. Seriously, how many ratters bother selling their T1 loot on the market?
The huge majority melt them to produce ships, they don't bother putting dozens of sell orders on hte market for minimal profits... ------------------------------------------
What is Oomph? It the sound Amarr players makes when they get kicked in the ribs. |
Liv Dawn
PPN United Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2007.10.07 10:07:00 -
[92]
Originally by: Xilimyth Derlin
Originally by: BlackHorizon I like this change.
Just out of curiosity... any particular reason? Something beyond the anticipated 'death to carebearing'.
I mean I think the mineral payoff is personally too high from reprocessing Level 4 missions especially.... but this. This just makes getting supplies difficult. I mean, imagine new players trying to equip their first Merlin or something. They'd have to make full jumps for each piece of equipment.
i dont get it why everyone and his mother is against this change completely. i agree that ratting should give as much income as before and even mission running should. but the payout in minerals was and is totally wrong, since there is one profession giving minerals and pure isk. you should require an industrialist to get the minerals. easy? maybe with such an increase in volume they should consider resizing some haulers, yes.
but higher transaction cost is good too. well not for you, the most people in this thread who see their furs swimming away. but for new producers, traders, haulers, everyone who makes a living of t1 production this is awesome. why? cause this will really support local markets, so there are more options for newer players to produce t1 stuff and actually sell it, but having to compete with 10 or 20 people controlling the markets in jita, rens, amarr, tash and oursualeart. cause to compete there you have to babysit your orders 24/7 or the traders will rip you off. with this change the customers need to buy at local markets. and dont be afraid margins will mebbe raise from 10% to 30 or even 100!!!elevenone percent on some items. but paying 100k more for a t1 item ruins nobody.
to all those yeah 80% reprocessing yield is better! no it isnt, and you, the customer, will pay the fee. its a refining tax and taxes are paid by the customer. was this way always and will always be.
|
Kerdrak
3B Legio IX Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.07 10:22:00 -
[93]
This is a logistics nerf that will do life in 0.0 harder, not a ratting/missioning nerf.
CCP WTF??? ________________________________________
|
Trishan
Green Men Incorporated
|
Posted - 2007.10.07 10:30:00 -
[94]
I'm left speechless. I cannot imagine what kind of thought process goes through the heads of the people who design this changes. Speechless.
Oh, and it's going to be fun to read C&P: - OMG I killed a rupture and I can only carry 1 of its guns in my cargo! - Drop some boosters you injector *****. - No mate, I'm flying empty!
|
Nackturion
Celestial Horizon Corp. Valainaloce
|
Posted - 2007.10.07 10:51:00 -
[95]
I feel the need to restate. I realize that everyone is worrying about what this will do to ratting in 0.0. That's understandable, but it pales in comparison to what this would do to mission runners who have loot/salvage clean-up to do on much larger scales and for effeciency, can't use a Hauler (which is ineffecient for it anyway, as you no only grab loot but need room for salvagers and tractors.)
Not to mention people like me, whom run a loot/salvager service for mission runners. It would all but make my ability to do that effectively quite impossible (and take away my money making ability).
A previous poster said they can't believe everyone is totally against it, on the same token, I can't see how anyone could be for it.
|
Comstr
Technology Acquisition Collective Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.10.07 11:14:00 -
[96]
Looks like CCP wants people like me, who rat and use the loot to build ships and mods locally in 0.0, to stop doing that and get a 2nd account and mine with it instead.
Oh, and buy that 2nd account so it can use a carrier to move the stuff around, because my blockade runner sure won't fit it.
|
Kagura Nikon
Minmatar MASS HOMICIDE Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.10.07 11:30:00 -
[97]
Changing size of stuff will not solve the logistic issue. Only reducign reprocessign efficiency. If you make modules take a lot of space. People wwill simply make Thanatoses in Low sec jump to 0.0 and reprocess the Carrier there.
If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough |
Vincent S
|
Posted - 2007.10.07 11:40:00 -
[98]
Edited by: Vincent S on 07/10/2007 11:41:36 I wonder if CCP has a special department that only deals with removing all the fun from 0.0. Ratting is one of the few places in non PVP Eve where there is actually some excitement (what will I get in the wreck?). Refining rat loot was how I got started in production, and you are now removing that possibility.
CCP: You should make it EASIER to live in 0.0 if you want this game to live, not harder. It takes such a humongous amount of work to get production going in 0.0 already, and now you want to remove one of the largest sources of minerals available (refining)?
If you seriously think that more people will mine because of these changes, you must be very confused about your own game. Sure, there are those that enjoy mining, but they make up a small percentage of your subscribers. Mining is so mind-numbingly boring that I would never ever consider doing it. The only thing this change would accomplish is emptying 0.0 even more.
I am also starting to think that you should fire that worthless economist of yours. He has accomplished nothing and his "dev blogs" are full of the most idiotic conclusions that any idiot could make after playing Eve for two weeks. I understand that you want to make your game appear scientific and all, but drop all that and remember that it's a game. It's supposed to be fun - nobody cares about that guy's opinions on markets. We're here to have fun, not be test subjects in his market experiments.
I would also like to say that what I've read in the past about removing rat loot and going towards most of the money coming from "meta items" such as salvage is such a stupid idea that I can't quite put it into words. Don't you realize that people play your game for the excitement and to have fun? Not knowing what you will get in a wreck, looting, melting stuff down and producing from it, etc is FUN. Getting 32 smashed trigger units and having to haul it to jita to sell is NOT FUN. You should seriously reconsider where you're going with this game before you destroy it entirely.
|
James Duar
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.07 12:09:00 -
[99]
Originally by: Kagura Nikon Changing size of stuff will not solve the logistic issue. Only reducign reprocessign efficiency. If you make modules take a lot of space. People wwill simply make Thanatoses in Low sec jump to 0.0 and reprocess the Carrier there.
Changing reprocessing mechanics has flow on effects though. If you can't melt down mods any more, then people will sell them and it'll dilute the T1 market profitability (or what's left) to basically nothing.
|
Senator Martin'Lefouret
|
Posted - 2007.10.07 12:23:00 -
[100]
Dear ccp, if you want to reduce the income from melting rat loot, reduce the amount of minerals recovered from reprocessing, don't make it impossible for peopel to just go pick up the new modules they bought for their shiney new toy in a fast ship instead of a hauler.
|
|
Mrs Pants
|
Posted - 2007.10.07 13:04:00 -
[101]
Originally by: Senator Martin'Lefouret Dear ccp, if you want to reduce the income from melting rat loot, reduce the amount of minerals recovered from reprocessing, don't make it impossible for peopel to just go pick up the new modules they bought for their shiney new toy in a fast ship instead of a hauler.
Make mineral recovery require insane skills to be profitable. Do not make ship fitting in o.o require insane cargo space, thats anti eveish.... |
Largo
|
Posted - 2007.10.07 13:17:00 -
[102]
wouldent it be more logic to change the mineral output on the mods instead?
CCP no thanks
|
Lara Giron
|
Posted - 2007.10.07 13:18:00 -
[103]
A very bad change doesent make change tbh!!
NO thanks CCP
|
Xindra
Gallente Really Nice And Laidback Corporation
|
Posted - 2007.10.07 13:21:00 -
[104]
i think this will kill som of the fun ingame tbh a small new started mission runner cant rely on the mission rewards only couse they are very low on lvl 1 2 misison, and now you want to take away the few extra bucs he can make by collecting the loot?
make the modules give back less minerals that needed to build em when you are reprossesing then instead make more sence
no thanks alot CCP
|
Gragnor
Ordos Humanitas FREGE Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.07 13:59:00 -
[105]
Ok.
This is meant to fix the use of mineral compression as a device. Simply lower the return on refining modules by 20%.
I look forward to Fanfest in a few weeks time as I am flying from the other side of the world. Make sure your economist is on hand and has his facts straight. Otherwise, some recently annointed Doctor of Philosphy is going to get a regal spanking from me in a few weeks time if he goes through with this illogical change.
If CCP makes me mine trit in zero sec to stay in a ship, this game will be dead within a year.
|
Tonto Auri
|
Posted - 2007.10.07 14:03:00 -
[106]
I think I understand... This change was made to force people use macromining. -- Thanks CCP for cu<end of sig> |
Kerfira
|
Posted - 2007.10.07 14:06:00 -
[107]
Edited by: Kerfira on 07/10/2007 14:07:15 Hmm, I don't think this change is all bad.
Of.c. there are things about it that'll annoy a lot of people (like 99% of the above), but there are a few very good point to it too....
1. A change like this will nerf Jita! If moving stuff around gets more cumbersome, it could encourage more trade hubs. 2. It'll make mining for minerals more attractive. Simply because competition from mission runners and ratters will be much less. 3. It'll make T1 production more profitable for the same reason as above. Less competition from mission runners and ratters.
The disadvantages are relatively minor IMHO. 1. Ratters and mission runners earn less. This has to be done anyway since income from this is FAR too high (yes, I run L4 missions for income at around 50m/hour). 2. More difficult to carry alternate fits around. This is the most serious bit IMHO, but manageable.
So, all in all I think that I like this change. Sure, it'll reduce my mission income, but the good effects of it on the GAME far compensates for that.
If people could look further than their own ISK wallet and consider what's good for the GAME, they should agree...
Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
|
Swamp Ziro
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.07 14:14:00 -
[108]
Originally by: Tonto Auri I think I understand... This change was made to force people use macromining.
Hi and welcome to The Power of Two, now available!
|
Tonto Auri
|
Posted - 2007.10.07 14:18:00 -
[109]
Originally by: Kerfira 1. A change like this will nerf Jita! If moving stuff around gets more cumbersome, it could encourage more trade hubs.
Mispoint. It is easier to produce and sell in one place than haul to another. So, Jita will start MORE popular with this patch, because producers will live in Jita instead of just carrying produced stuff there to sell. You simply cannot break established trade hub into many. You can only kill it completely, as it was made with Yulai in the past. But it will reborn somewhere else.
Quote: 2. It'll make mining for minerals more attractive. Simply because competition from mission runners and ratters will be much less.
It will provoke more players to use macromining. Nothing else. Remember: players here for pleasure and resting, not for working and boring.
Quote: 3. It'll make T1 production more profitable for the same reason as above. Less competition from mission runners and ratters.
Please show me where are these "competitors"? 90% of players will never buy meta-0 equipment if there's cheaper(!!) and better(!!!) named variant.
Quote: The disadvantages are relatively minor IMHO. 1. Ratters and mission runners earn less. This has to be done anyway since income from this is FAR too high (yes, I run L4 missions for income at around 50m/hour).
But that is Your raw income, not including loot and salvage IIRC. So mispoint again.
Quote: 2. More difficult to carry alternate fits around. This is the most serious bit IMHO, but manageable.
Nothing changed in the case showed above: I'll NEVER buy meta-0 module if there's cheaper and better named variant.
Quote: So, all in all I think that I like this change. Sure, it'll reduce my mission income, but the good effects of it on the GAME far compensates for that.
If people could look further than their own ISK wallet and consider what's good for the GAME, they should agree...
You are so naive... -- Thanks CCP for cu<end of sig> |
Eleana Tomelac
Gallente
|
Posted - 2007.10.07 14:25:00 -
[110]
This means I'll be throwing the loot away in space and only do salvage? great, you should have said it before. It's the end of looting & salvaging with a destroyer, now we need an industrial with ... 2 hi slots, so fun, so fast. -- Pocket drone carriers (tm) enthousiast ! The Vexor Navy Issue is much more fun than the Myrmidon ! |
|
Kerfira
|
Posted - 2007.10.07 14:26:00 -
[111]
Edited by: Kerfira on 07/10/2007 14:32:37
Originally by: Tonto Auri Stuff.....
Responses....
Jita: If it is annoying for the BUYERS to move stuff around, THAT will encourage selling stuff where the BUYERS are. I.e. YOU'RE WRONG!
Mining: Plenty of players actually DO like to mine for the social aspect (not me). Macromining needs a nerf, but that's a completely different matter. I.e. YOU'RE WRONG!
T1 production: If modules don't appear for free, people will need to produce them (for T2 if nothing else). I.e. YOU'RE WRONG!
Mission income: So? It's still a nerf til mission/ratting income. WHICH IS NEEDED!!! I.e. YOU'RE WRONG!
Alternate fits: What has that to do with named modules??? I.e. YOU'RE WRONG! (well, you actually didn't address the point at all...)
Originally by: Tonto Auri You are so naive...
You are so whiney! Just because something hurt YOUR ISK income doesn't mean it's universally bad!
Look beyond your little ISK wallet and look at what's good for the GAME, you whiney little man!
Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
|
Nomarak
|
Posted - 2007.10.07 14:28:00 -
[112]
Originally by: Mrs Pants
Make mineral recovery require insane skills to be profitable. Do not make ship fitting in o.o require insane cargo space, thats anti eveish....
you already have to train 1 rank 1 skill to lvl 5, 2 rank 3 skills to lvl 5 and one rank 5 skill to lvl 5 (about 80 days of training) and you still wont get 100% refine in ouposts
To fly a hulk you need to train 3 rank 1 skills to lvl 4 (mining, science and spaceship command ), 1 rank 1 to lvl 5 (industry), 1 rank 3 skill to lvl 5 (astrogeology), 1 rank 4 skill to lvl 4 (mining upgrades), 1 rank 4 skill to lvl 5 (Mining Barge) and one rank 5 skill to lvl 1-4 (Exhumer) and you have a decent hulk pilot sucking ore at a good speed (1137 mining yield per min)and this is with no drones and assuming all the above skills with exhumer 4 (about 72 days of training, 77 if you whant mining 5 for 1185 yield per min)
if you whant to get mining cristals in you hulk you will need to do a part of the 1st grind that will take you something like 26-27 days (refining and refining efficiency) and then the adequate ore processing skill (you will get something like +200 mining yield min in ark with ark cristals II)
This means that a ratter, to be able to refine eficiently will need to spend 80 days training the adequate skills and even then he will only have a 100% refine yield in NPC stations (where he has to pay taxes if he doesnt have good enough standings with the npc corp that owns the station)and are not so close to the major producing centers of most 0.0 alliances (so alot of logistic work will have to be done to transport the minerals after refining loot in this stations).
I dont think this is unbalanced at all but if something needs to change, change the refining yield of stations and outposts and also change the refining, refining efficiency and remaining refining\processing skills so that you can get a max of 95-100% of refining yield with the apropriate skills trained to 5 and get less than 50% yield with none of the skills trained (instead of the 87,5% you get in empire with absolutely no skills trained)
|
Pleased
StarLight Inc. Prismatic Refraction
|
Posted - 2007.10.07 14:34:00 -
[113]
Originally by: Arushia This certainly nefrs mineral compression. Unfortunately, it also nerfs ratting, missioning, trading, hauling goods to market, carrier refitting, and even invention.
Logistics and hauling are already annoying enough, no need to make them impossible.
I couldn't have said it better myself.
Please CCP - don't do this! You are about to introduce something that will prove to be a logistic nightmare, and it will affect everything in the game!
|
Kerfira
|
Posted - 2007.10.07 14:37:00 -
[114]
Originally by: Nomarak ....change the refining yield of stations and outposts and also change the refining, refining efficiency and remaining refining\processing skills so that you can get a max of 95-100% of refining yield with the apropriate skills trained to 5 and get less than 50% yield with none of the skills trained (instead of the 87,5% you get in empire with absolutely no skills trained)
This is actually a VERY good idea IMHO.
If changes were made so the maximum REFINING in stations/outposts/POS remained as they were, but REPROCESSING was reduced to half what it is today (i.e. max. 50%), that'd solve the mineral compression problem.
Not to mention the fact that it'd be MUCH more realistic!
Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
|
Di Jiensai
Gallente Domination. League of Abnormal Gentlemen
|
Posted - 2007.10.07 14:38:00 -
[115]
Originally by: murder one I find this whole thing really amusing.
People are like water. You leave little *****s in the system, they flow through them. No matter how small, how mundane the *****s are, they find them and exploit them.
This is what has been going on with logistics. Everything that is done in todays modern game of Eve with respect to manufacturing and logistics is a hack, a work around.
You guys act like this change is only going to affect you and you alone. Of course it's not, it's going to affect everyone.
Everything about ore compression/loot refining devalues the point of freighters and haulers and miners and the overall scheme of logistics. You're mad because it's not going to be easy anymore. Oh well.
Ease of use devalues breaking supply lines as a war strategy. It devalues the loss of a battleship, or any ship for that matter, if they can be so easily replaced on the spot due to easy production materials derived from ratting/loot.
CCP is slowly plugging the *****s in the design. It's going to take them a while longer to get it sorted out, but just maybe Alliances will be able to be strangled and choked into submission once their supply lines are cut and they can't build any more ships to defend themselves.
Things won't be 'worse'. They'll be different. More difficult in some respects, but not worse. Commanders will value their assets more after this. Killing an enemy ship will be more meaningful after this. Instead of the never ending meat grinder that is todays combat model.
These changes arn't going to dent ratting ISK that much. Mineral generation is going to move from ratting to mining, as it should be. Miners will have their roles become more important as a result. In the long run, once everything gets sorted out, it will be a better game.
Sure, there will be some turmoil in the short term until everyone gets adjusted to the new systems, but it won't be like that forever. Maybe prices go up slightly due to more manpower requirements to actually deliver finished goods, but so what? Everyone will be paying the same prices. It's not like the playing field isn't level.
Heck, it might even provide more opportunity for 'carebear' careers like professional freighter pilots etc.
So very true. Eve is going to change again. People never like change. Just like in the world outside.
|
misscoda
Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.07 14:43:00 -
[116]
Please do not do this to us CCP. I know you mean well but this change is really not wanted as it creates more issues than it solves. Please think about it again...and whipe it from the board...
|
Elmicker
Black Sea Industries Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.10.07 15:51:00 -
[117]
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.
|
Nomarak
|
Posted - 2007.10.07 16:09:00 -
[118]
Originally by: Kerfira
Originally by: Nomarak ....change the refining yield of stations and outposts and also change the refining, refining efficiency and remaining refining\processing skills so that you can get a max of 95-100% of refining yield with the apropriate skills trained to 5 and get less than 50% yield with none of the skills trained (instead of the 87,5% you get in empire with absolutely no skills trained)
This is actually a VERY good idea IMHO.
If changes were made so the maximum REFINING in stations/outposts/POS remained as they were, but REPROCESSING was reduced to half what it is today (i.e. max. 50%), that'd solve the mineral compression problem.
Not to mention the fact that it'd be MUCH more realistic!
The idea is that you can have 95-100% refining\reprocessing IF you have the right skills trained. there should be no reason for a player that invested 80+ days in training refining, refining efficiency and scrapmetal processing sholdnt be able to reprocess with 95-100% efficency.
on the other hand there is no reason for a player that has invested no time in said skills can refine\reprocess at an empire station with 87,5% efficency
when you try to reprocess in a empire station you get 50% refining yield from the equipment and 37,5% from your "skills" using the said equipment. when you try to reprocess in a 0.0 outpost you get 35% refining yield from the equipment and X% from your "skills" using the said equipment.
I would propose that you get only the refining yield from the equipmente and 0% from skills until you train them.
when fully trained the skills should allow you to have 95-100% refining\reprocessing yield in both 0.0 and empire stations
One way to do this is change the refining skill so that would give 3% extra yield, the refining efficiency so that it would guive 5% extra yield and the ore\scrapmetal processing skills so that they would guive 5% extra yield at the apropriate tipe of ore\loot refining\reprocessing.
This way, if you trained refining and refining efficiency to 5 you would have 50%+15%+25%= 90% refining\reprocessing yield in empire stations and 35%+15%+25%=75% yield in 0.0 outposts
if you then trained scrapmetal processing to lvl 2 yo should have 100% yield in empire\Npc stations and 85% yield in 0.0 outposts. If you chose to spend the extra 30+ days to train it to lvl 5 there should be no reason why you couldnt have 100% yield at 0.0 outposts (no, you cant have 115% yield at empire\Npc stations)
You could get a 100% reprocess yield but keep in mind that this would requier 80+ days of skill training
If you chose to instead make looting rats an even more bothersome job that it already is all you do is punish those players that have already invested 80+ days in refining skills becouse they (the skills) sudenly become useless (no one will be looting 100m3 modules from wrecks so the refinners wont have loot to reprocess)
if you chose to create a "tax" or a "waste factor" so that no t1 mdule refines for more than 80% of the cost to make it you are, again, punishing those that invested time in there refining skills becouse even with a 100% yield they will get less minerals than a 1 day noob gets today in empire from the same module.
|
Tonto Auri
|
Posted - 2007.10.07 16:30:00 -
[119]
Originally by: Kerfira Jita: If it is annoying for the BUYERS to move stuff around, THAT will encourage selling stuff where the BUYERS are. I.e. YOU'RE WRONG!
Mining: Plenty of players actually DO like to mine for the social aspect (not me). Macromining needs a nerf, but that's a completely different matter. I.e. YOU'RE WRONG!
T1 production: If modules don't appear for free, people will need to produce them (for T2 if nothing else). I.e. YOU'RE WRONG!
Mission income: So? It's still a nerf til mission/ratting income. WHICH IS NEEDED!!! I.e. YOU'RE WRONG!
Alternate fits: What has that to do with named modules??? I.e. YOU'RE WRONG! (well, you actually didn't address the point at all...)
Originally by: Tonto Auri You are so naive...
You are so whiney! Just because something hurt YOUR ISK income doesn't mean it's universally bad!
Look beyond your little ISK wallet and look at what's good for the GAME, you whiney little man!
I'm not a trader/producer (well, producer actually, but I'm working for corp only). I've been in Jita 3 times in all my play time. I have no profit there. Jita isn't hurt my in any way. So You aren't right guessing that i'm whining. Actually I just explaining.
Talking specifically about Your points: > Jita: If it is annoying for the BUYERS to move stuff around, > THAT will encourage selling stuff where the BUYERS are. > I.e. YOU'RE WRONG!
You're so naive. You guessing that Jita is a problem for trading, but actually it is not a trade/production/logistic problem. It is only navigational problem. So then adding logistical horror just raising navigational problem to solve it.
> Mining: Plenty of players actually DO like to mine for the > social aspect (not me). > Macromining needs a nerf, but that's a completely different matter. > I.e. YOU'RE WRONG!
Kidding? How many miners You actually see in belts? Not many, right? How many ships You see around Ours III at the same time? Much more than miners in all nearby systems. Again, You're guessing from wrong point.
> T1 production: If modules don't appear for free, people > will need to produce them (for T2 if nothing else). > I.e. YOU'RE WRONG!
Producing T1 modules for sale and producing T1 modules to produce T2 modules having great difference. Any T2 producer (researcher in the same time, typically), have it's own well-researched BPO for every single module he/she inventing and producing. It isn't hard to make 300 modules for later T2 production. But I hardly imagine someone who willing to start selling these T1 modules when market flooded with much cheaper and smaller-sized named modules.
> Alternate fits: What has that to do with named modules???
Named modules still have it's original 5/10/whatsoever size.
> I.e. YOU'RE WRONG! (well, you actually didn't address the point at all...)
Where? -- Thanks CCP for cu<end of sig> |
Specops
Celestial Horizon Corp. Valainaloce
|
Posted - 2007.10.07 16:58:00 -
[120]
This sucks I need my lewt.
~Specops~ |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |