Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Mnengli Noiliffe
|
Posted - 2007.10.08 08:26:00 -
[151]
Edited by: Mnengli Noiliffe on 08/10/2007 08:30:42 if you have to haul t1 modules from empire now, why don't you haul the worst named mods instead after this change? They cost less than t1 mods due to absense of price cap, They perform better than t1 mods, They have the same volume as before on sisi.
When they nerf named drops will be the time to scream. And I believe they will, as soon as anyone tells about them to the professor. Because t1 mods production needs a serious boost, right? (does anyone really do it now? I'd rather believe that all meta0 comes from rat drops just like the named)
|
Tonto Auri
|
Posted - 2007.10.08 09:02:00 -
[152]
Originally by: Zeph Solaris There's a mini-freighter comming to balance this out. Use haulers for light moving, the mini-freighter for "normal" use, and the existing freighter for large scale stuff.
Can You fit 4x Tractors and 4x Salvagers on freighter? -- Thanks CCP for cu<end of sig> |
|
CCP Chronotis
|
Posted - 2007.10.08 09:13:00 -
[153]
What your seeing on sisi is just placeholders with a generic volume increase applied but in most cases it will not end up being that high (if changed at all) with the exception of some special cases. The more finalised changes will be put in over the next week after which we can get better feedback. We realise that the information flow process is out of sync with the static update so most of the data your pulling from sisi should rightly of been preceded with blogs and posts giving the big picture which is our bad and something that will improve after kali 3 with changes to how we update the static so 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.
|
|
Malachon Draco
eXceed Inc. INVICTUS.
|
Posted - 2007.10.08 09:13:00 -
[154]
Originally by: Red Harvest
Originally by: Malachon Draco
Thirdly, I would advise to introduce a new shiptype, the Mineral/Ore freighter. A ship with a seriously huge cargohold, but only capable of minerals and/or ores. A ship that can transport for example 20m m3 of veldspar. Maybe let it carry ice and ice-products as well, or introduce a second ship for it.
t2 freighters are already planned. 200k+ m¦ cargo + 5LY jumpdrive (still can use gates) I think those will be more than enough for all hauling needs. Hope they can load at the belt but even if at pos or carrier only they should still be great.
200k m3 is nowhere near enough. Can't build more than 1 tier 3 BS max with a fully filled T2 freighter. And if you want capital construction in 0.0, you need tons more. ------------------------------------------------
New idea for sovereignty: Sovereignty revisited |
Kuolematon
Space Perverts and Forum Warriors United Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.10.08 09:22:00 -
[155]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis .. and something that will improve after kali 3 with changes to how we update the static so we can make sure changes only go out when they are ready ..
Wait, wait for it .... ah there. I had a dejav·. I think it was as early as 2003 when I first heard this "oops orry, we will improve our informing".
It's great being Amarr isn't it.
|
Tonto Auri
|
Posted - 2007.10.08 09:30:00 -
[156]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis What your seeing on sisi is just placeholders with a generic volume increase applied but in most cases it will not end up being that high (if changed at all) with the exception of some special cases.
Well, at least, I see one possibility to keep things as is. Just stop dropping meta 0 modules at all. Drop Meta 1 instead. It will serve to 3 things at once. 1. prevent mineral compression 2. keep market up with low-end supplies 3. encourage miners a bit to mine low-end ores to serve T2 production -- Thanks CCP for cu<end of sig> |
Nadarius Chrome
Celestial Horizon Corp. Valainaloce
|
Posted - 2007.10.08 09:43:00 -
[157]
The last year has seen lowends rise continuously in price. Data from a year ago shows 2.0 ISK as being pretty average for Trit. It's now around 3.5. Mexallon has moved from 12 to 35!
Nerfing T1 unnamed drops, either in cargo space requirements or in reprocess rate will only serve to further drive lowend prices up. Sure, it may drive more people to highsec belts for mining, but it's already pretty common to find highsec systems entirely stripped. The only people who will directly and only profit from this are macrominers.
And really, saying "Nothing's certain, we're just trying some stuff out" doesn't do anything to lessen the worry that people have. CCP has repeatedly demonstrated in the past that it will listen only to massive reactions by the playerbase. Anything less just bounces off. Since this is how we need to make ourselves heard, you only have yourselves to blame, as you have fostered this kind of relationship. |
ElCoCo
KIA Corp KIA Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.08 10:37:00 -
[158]
So is mineral compression such a big deal? Honestly now...
Just increase the sizes of the modules commonly used for it (doomsday device etc) and/or make them lose at least 10% mineral value when recycled...
|
Helison
Gallente Times of Ancar Pure.
|
Posted - 2007.10.08 11:42:00 -
[159]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis What your seeing on sisi is just placeholders with a generic volume increase applied but in most cases it will not end up being that high (if changed at all) with the exception of some special cases. The more finalised changes will be put in over the next week after which we can get better feedback. We realise that the information flow process is out of sync with the static update so most of the data your pulling from sisi should rightly of been preceded with blogs and posts giving the big picture which is our bad and something that will improve after kali 3 with changes to how we update the static so 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.
Well, I think there is nothing wrong in releasing working-values to Sisi, the only problem is, that the official information is lagging behind (once more). I think it¦s much better to hear the thoughts of the players than in a few weeks, when every number is set in stone and when it is too late to change anything.
Btw: Please don¦t change anything, which isn¦t broken.
|
Bes Man
|
Posted - 2007.10.08 11:47:00 -
[160]
Well if this actually is as bad as It sounds here is why I wont like it: Its need for speed backwards!
U will need more hauling and mining. Those are the 2 things about the game that I hate the most. Those are things that I does not enjoy doing, and playing a game I am supposed to have fun, right?
If mineral compressing is the problem just follow ElCoCo excellent idea, just make it so that you do not get all minerals back when refining certain items. If other things are the idea, like _forcing_ (yes this is what it is) ppl to spend time on logistics, please reconsider as this would make the game utterly boring! ps. its already takes way to much time to go buy a new ship including fittings.
|
|
Kayna Eelai
|
Posted - 2007.10.08 11:47:00 -
[161]
what i said in another post:
Quote: i agree totally. but CCP does this game for MONEY. they get money from the TIME we spend playing.
the more time we need to haul our missions empty, the better for them, more money for them.
NERFING THE GAME TO FEED A GREEDY COMPANY = BAD! please invest the time of your devs into FIXING BUGS, not this kind of bull****. kkthxbye
it seems like all of u just care to nerf ratting or buff mining or whatever... no1 gives a flying **** about mission runners i guess? i allready have to pay a second account to make salvaging viable without nerfing my dps and have a steady income... now i need to buy a 3rd account to have a hauler too, WTF? (or waste loads of time to change ships)
one question... if a module previously was 20m3 and now is 2000m3 ... will we get 10000% more minerals from refining it too?
|
Mnengli Noiliffe
|
Posted - 2007.10.08 12:02:00 -
[162]
Originally by: ElCoCo So is mineral compression such a big deal? Honestly now...
Just increase the sizes of the modules commonly used for it (doomsday device etc) and/or make them lose at least 10% mineral value when recycled...
10% is just the price to pay for the privelege, won't change anything if it's still faster to use than to haul with freighter.
Increasing size for the most compression ratio mods will only make people use other modules, which - perhaps ccp has considered all the other compression ratios and ruled that neither is acceptable other than rorqual compression...
|
Herring
Pimpology Free Trade Zone.
|
Posted - 2007.10.08 12:23:00 -
[163]
I could probably get used to this *** idea eventually. But just because it wouldn't affect me directly doesn't make it a stellar decision.
@CCP:
1. Why do you have a hardon to nerf compression when you should still be working hard on getting rid of the static farmable complexes (cosmos), and giving invention and exploration more love? Seriously, work on the problems that you have NOW, and end the MO of creating more to distract people.
2. I agree with the people saying that you're doing this just to make your 80% compression nerf seem much more viable. Please refer to (1.). I might add that this tactic is lame, and it's not wise to intentionally try to **** off more than 20% of your userbase.
3. Please have your economist start having intimate relations with one of your PR staff so that we can at least get some warning about these fabulous ideas before they hit sisi. The information train is fairly constipated.
I play this game for fun; not to be a logistical yoda. Fix the problems you have now before you start mucking about with compression. You know what would be nice to see in the next patch? Look here:
1. Cosmos static complexes moved to exploration only and scattered about 0.0 like DED complexes. Quit ignoring the posts about farmers. 2. More tweaking of exploration so that covops pilots can create bm's for more overlap if they want to spend the money to do so. Get rid of probe overlap restrictions. Fix the anomoly vs. unknown signature bug with regard to multispectral probes. 3. Tweaking of invention slightly UPWARD with regard to success rates so that inventors can have a chance at competing with the lottery holders.
|
Zighsev
Corp 1 Allstars Insurgency
|
Posted - 2007.10.08 12:30:00 -
[164]
The best way to deal with the compression is to lower the amount of minerals required to build mods. divide all quantites by 100.
EG a mod requies 1m tri, it would therefore require 10k. and simply reduce the ammount of minerals u get from refining........
PROBLEM SOLVED!
Corp 1 Allstars |
Damned Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.08 12:51:00 -
[165]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis What your seeing on sisi is just placeholders with a generic volume increase applied but in most cases it will not end up being that high (if changed at all) with the exception of some special cases. The more finalised changes will be put in over the next week after which we can get better feedback. We realise that the information flow process is out of sync with the static update so most of the data your pulling from sisi should rightly of been preceded with blogs and posts giving the big picture which is our bad and something that will improve after kali 3 with changes to how we update the static so 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.
There are so many bugs in this came, and so many things can be improved, but u every time r able to find something what makes this game worst, and even if 99% of posts is against u make it. So i hoipe u dont implement such of change, but as i see the last changes and the arrogance of devs which handling like little idiotic childs u would do it. So all devs go to ... with this "if changed at all", we all know u would implement....... fools
|
Shevar
Minmatar A.W.M Ka-Tet
|
Posted - 2007.10.08 13:08:00 -
[166]
Why try and fix something that isn't broke (and actually breaking it in the process)?
What will be the gameplay advantage of introducing this? Who will profit from this? Noone mines veld in .0, noone will mine veld in .0 in the future. So for whom would this actually be a good addition? This feature is redudant and only causes more head aches.
--- -The only real drug problem is scoring real good drugs
|
Don Shadow
Spectrum Solutions INC Phalanx Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.08 13:12:00 -
[167]
Originally by: TheDevilsJury Edited by: TheDevilsJury on 07/10/2007 00:13:49 Around 20% of the profit from ratting comes from looting, and a good deal of the minerals in 0.0 (nearly half if I recall correctly). This is a colossally stupid move as it makes a lot harder to produce in 0.0, makes it more difficult to import or export tech 1 mods to/from 0.0 (to sell, ignore compression), prevents people from refitting in the field (how do we even refit a battleship at a POS?), and decreases ratting profits substantially. It affects even more areas that the previous proposed compression nerf (the refine nerf for big modules or whatever).
Furthermore, there's no need to nerf mineral compression if the new veldspar rocks are implemented properly.
/signed
|
Solar Shard
|
Posted - 2007.10.08 14:12:00 -
[168]
why the hell do you feel you have to nerf compression anyway? Logistics in this game already suck ass, making it more of a job than something that is done for fun. I don't personally use compression anymore, but there is no reason to nerf it. You already have artificial limitations in the game that prevent transporting what needs to be transported. Why don't you spend your time fixing things that actually need to be fixed instead of spending it on crap like this?
|
Jarne
Increasing Success by Lowering Expectations Free Trade Zone.
|
Posted - 2007.10.08 14:54:00 -
[169]
With the newly introduced Rorqual and its Industrial Core, you really only need to make the previous "methods" for mineral compression somehow worse than the compression achieved with the Industrial Core. I really hope you do the math before fixing the volumes of modules.
As I get it, the Industrial Core is currently able to compress Veldspar to roughly 1/40 of its original size, Arkonor to 1/20. This makes me feel like only the really efficiently compressing modules like Small Tractor Beams, Jump Portal Generator and the like have to be fixed.
I would also suggest not to increase the volume of the respective modules, but to reduce the reprocessing yield, possible mostly for the low-end mins to not lower their reprocessed value that much. Why are there separate values for the reprocessing yield anyway, if they're always the same as the production need? - Success=Achievements/Expectations
|
Tonto Auri
|
Posted - 2007.10.08 14:58:00 -
[170]
Originally by: Jarne Why are there separate values for the reprocessing yield anyway, if they're always the same as the production need?
You're wrong, there's no separate reprocessing yields. Check tech forum for details (keywords is "database" "dump" "reprocess") -- Thanks CCP for cu<end of sig> |
|
Elmicker
Black Sea Industries Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.10.08 15:13:00 -
[171]
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?!
|
Sy Sperling
Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.08 15:23:00 -
[172]
Well, I feel a lot better about this after reading Chronotis' post, but I figured since I read this far, I gotta throw my voice in with the pilots who really don't like the idea - I'm not gonna bore anyone else by repeating all of the valid points made above, except to emphasize that the point about new pilots really hits home for me; this game can be tough enough without taking away a good way for the noob frigate driver to make some quick isk. I'm sure that the experienced pilots will find a way to muddle through while adding yet another bullet point to the list of things CCP did to tick them off . At this point all we can really do is wait and hope that this change either dies or the volume increases become less widespread and/or a little less ridiculous. |
Gaogan
Gallente Solar Storm Sev3rance
|
Posted - 2007.10.08 15:26:00 -
[173]
DON'T TOUCH THE FRIGGING VOLUME!
There is no problem here for you to solve, stop wasting your dev time on this. You already took care of the ridiculously high compression items. The vast majority of T1 items are not effective for compression, and with the introduction of the rorqual, you are better off compressing the raw ore. If you muck with the size of these items it will just make ratting even more of a PITA, not to mention make it impossible to bring a few spare mods with you to swap out while running missions.
|
Sinder Ohm
Infinite Improbability Inc Mostly Harmless
|
Posted - 2007.10.08 15:39:00 -
[174]
this change sux sorry :(
I see our roaming gangs taking a cloaked hauler with to carry loot :(
Originally by: Karanth Wimps play empire. Real men play in 0.0. Hardcore masochists live out in drone space.
|
Azuse
The Brotherhood Of The Blade Pure.
|
Posted - 2007.10.08 16:25:00 -
[175]
/me carefully pulls the wool back over everyones eyes.. -------------------------------------------
|
Shevar
Minmatar A.W.M Ka-Tet
|
Posted - 2007.10.08 16:43:00 -
[176]
Originally by: Gaogan DON'T TOUCH THE FRIGGING VOLUME!
There is no problem here for you to solve, stop wasting your dev time on this. You already took care of the ridiculously high compression items. The vast majority of T1 items are not effective for compression, and with the introduction of the rorqual, you are better off compressing the raw ore. If you muck with the size of these items it will just make ratting even more of a PITA, not to mention make it impossible to bring a few spare mods with you to swap out while running missions.
If the rorqual could enter 1.0, if the rorqual could compress minerals and not ore you would be right then it would be a decent substitute. And if it was a decent substitute it would be perfectly fine. But it's not, ore compression lacks far to much to actually replace passive targeters.
--- -The only real drug problem is scoring real good drugs
|
Kayna Eelai
|
Posted - 2007.10.08 16:48:00 -
[177]
my take (copy&paste) on how this will affect mission runners:
Quote: it will affect mission runners more than just by that. i'll try to elaborate:
i run missions with 2 accounts. the "runner" and the "looter". but i guess same applies for every1, except they might have to switch to a looting ship.
my salvaging destroyer, a coercer, with nearly 800m3, already has to do several runs to salvage and loot a lvl4 mission. i could fix that by using a battlecruiser for example.
anyways,
the thing is: i go in, i tractor stuff, i salvage it and then i loot the can by simply opening it, CTRL+A (select all) and drag it into my cargo. i salvage it first and loot can after, because viceversa it has happened to me sometimes that if i loot a wreck while salvaging, i might get an empty can floating around, which for me, is annoying.
the whole looting is stupid enough allready in this game. either you pay for two accounts (CCPs wet dreams) or you have to go back and switch to another ship, wasting time (and the more time u need, the more month u play... again CCPs wet dreams) which also means sometimes travel back and forth several jumps... or you fit a salvager (and tractor) on your mission running ship, gimping your setup and you would still have cargo problems, specially the active tanks which need cap booster.
ok, so... with this incomming bull**** "nerf" (or call it whatever u like) we either buy another account for looting (and even so we need to do more runs than we did before) or u waste time changing ships (and will still have to several runs) OR, like you suggested... we leave loot behind. yay CCP... another nerf to buff your wallet, huh? too obvious.
TO THE POINT: if i do as you suggested, and leave stuff behind... in first place i'll be losing ISK/hour compared to before. and in second place, it will leave me with loads of floating half empty cans around, i'll probably travel to a can i've been before (GIEF "MARK AS VIEWED FOR CANS"!!! - dont make me gimp my salvage ship putting a gun on it to destroy cans) which is just a waste of time for me.
all in all, this nerf is just done so we waste more time and CCP makes more money, there has not been a SINGLE REASON why this nerf is really needed.
|
General Apocalypse
Amarr The Merchant Marines
|
Posted - 2007.10.08 17:52:00 -
[178]
Edited by: General Apocalypse on 08/10/2007 17:53:02 I haven't seen the modules myself but this change is worst then what you guys almost did whit the trade forums .
Mineral Compression is NOT A PROBLEM . This will affect rating like no hell. We already have to destroy crappy loot . Now WTF I'm suppose to do . Dock up 3 times to drop the lot from , a fuking triple spawn . Are you guys fuking ******** or what
Who the hell is the DEV that's smoking weed on the job ? Name and shame
Next time try something like moving all agents in EVE in 1 system (Jita if posibile) and removing the isk reward from rats . That will make us happy **** yay ! go for it !
Originally by: CCP Morpheus nerf ccp plz
Originally by: CCP Oveur To the gankmobile!
|
Kvarium Ki
Legion Du Lys GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.08 18:26:00 -
[179]
Mineral compression is as much a problem as the power balls (I think that's what ccp called it) wich was fixed with the revamp of stealth bombers and introduction of bombs.
|
TroNaaR
Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.08 18:43:00 -
[180]
Originally by: Artorius Pearson Bad idea CCP.
signed. Wherever you go... There you are... |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |