EVE Search - Stop the compression nerf CCP

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Stop the compression nerf CCP

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 2 post(s)
Lisento Slaven Amarr BAD ATTITUDES	Posted - 2007.10.07 23:38:00 - [31] Originally by: Cosmo Raata Pay more for mins?? Boy are you clueless. This is about logistics, getting mins where you need them without spending extra time. It also means people who refine loot for minerals will no longer be able to do so. Less minerals flowing into the market from them. More of them will have to buy minerals rather than get their own from refining mods etc. There are more implications than making it harder to simply move stuff from A to B. The only thing that it really depends on is how many of the minerals in EVE are actually from refined rat loot rather than strip miner I's. --- Put in space whales!
syphurous Gallente	Posted - 2007.10.07 23:41:00 - [32] Wouldn't it just make sense that T1 version just refine to less, leaving named and T2 alone? I still pick up all those 1M AB's that battleships drop. ___ Too Many Anchored Cans
Kylar Renpurs Dusk Blade	Posted - 2007.10.07 23:45:00 - [33] Originally by: Kelso Bluebane After logging into the test server ,,, Nuff said. It's the test server. I logged onto the test server and ran several missions whos description was "asdasfasfasdfasfdasfdsadfasdfsafasf" or similar. I don't see them in TQ :P Improve Market Competition!
Mr Funkadelic Tenacious Danes Ka-Tet	Posted - 2007.10.07 23:51:00 - [34] Its a nice change imho - So im support this
Redback911 Malevolent Intentions	Posted - 2007.10.07 23:57:00 - [35] Would work so long as ALL loot dropped by rats is named or faction.
Mr Friendly That it Should Come to This	Posted - 2007.10.08 00:01:00 - [36] Originally by: Tortun Nahme this isn't a nerf, its a buff, its a buff for miners, its a buff for haulers, and its a buff for the market in general nah, it's a feature. Seriously though, why would CCP go this far? I really don't see why they need to go this far to deal with a limited problem. I sometimes wonder if their changes are made by drawing random ideas out of a hat... Damn it, I don't want to have to fly back to station 10 times just so I can loot a single mission. __________________________________________________ FOLD. The Ultimate PVP. It really is Us vs. Them. clicky
syphurous Gallente	Posted - 2007.10.08 00:16:00 - [37] So from the moment the change hits, you wont be able to find a manufacturing slot within atleast 3 jumps of a trade hub. And you wont be able to manufacture unless you own a Frieghter to move the goods once you've manufactured them ? ___ Too Many Anchored Cans
Arana Tellen Gallente The Blackguard Wolves Knights Of the Southerncross	Posted - 2007.10.08 00:34:00 - [38] 50m3, that means my salvager eris will be able to carry only 20 modules --------------------------------- Core 2 Duo E4300 1.8ghz @ 3ghz, 2GB Gskill DDR2 5400 @ 800mhh 4-4-4-12, Abit fatality mATX F-I90HD @ 334mhz, 8800GTS 320mb 2x250GB 7200.10s Raid 0, Vista 64 Home.
Zosana	Posted - 2007.10.08 00:43:00 - [39] I hope this doesn't come through. ******** doesn't even begin to describe this change. I do not buy the argument that it is to make the Rorqual useful. A more intelligent solution would've been to up the compression rate on the Rorqual or alternatively accept that modules can lead to more efficient compression rather than break the system. If it does happen I'll simply stop looting missions and suspect many will as well.
Taua Roqa Minmatar Eve University Ivy League	Posted - 2007.10.08 01:00:00 - [40] Originally by: Arana Tellen 50m3, that means my salvager eris will be able to carry only 20 modules But the same will apply to everyone else, so people will only loot named modules and t1 modules can be produced by industrialists and minerals can be mined by miners :O) it sounds good to me, in theory at least, no idea how the game works. -------------------------------------------- Threads are stacking-nerfed; the more posts you add the less effective those posts are. mooooooo.
Inturist Nuclear Reactor Inc	Posted - 2007.10.08 01:04:00 - [41] Baaaaaaaad idea --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THCS Imperium Technologies Firmus Ixion	Posted - 2007.10.08 01:07:00 - [42] Edited by: THCS on 08/10/2007 01:08:39 I remember back in the beginning modules were larger than they are now, large shield booster was 50m3 ect and yes it sucked tbh. whats funny is the marauders (tech 2 mission/ratting bs) have a increased cargo hold (supposedly to let ratters ect haul more) but with this coming in your actual ammount hauled will be less than you can now. so in effect marauders will really be useless to a mission runner or ratter.
omiNATION Gallente	Posted - 2007.10.08 01:26:00 - [43] Originally by: THCS Edited by: THCS on 08/10/2007 01:08:39 I remember back in the beginning modules were larger than they are now, large shield booster was 50m3 ect and yes it sucked tbh. whats funny is the marauders (tech 2 mission/ratting bs) have a increased cargo hold (supposedly to let ratters ect haul more) but with this coming in your actual ammount hauled will be less than you can now. so in effect marauders will really be useless to a mission runner or ratter. or perhaps, after the changes, only marauders will be useful mission runners since every other ship can fit maybe, 10 modules.
Par Bobot	Posted - 2007.10.08 01:26:00 - [44] Originally by: Patch86 Seems stupid. It'll basically kill off combat looting of anything except good named modules. Expect T1 module prices to explode. Maybe thats it- this is a stealth buff to T1 module manufacturers... SHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Verone Veto Corp	Posted - 2007.10.08 01:44:00 - [45] This is absolutely going to destroy a massive chunk of the profits for people who run roaming piracy gangs. Seriously, I'm not usually one to criticize CCP, but messing up Sansha ships, now this... sort your act out and focus on the things that are actually broken in the game and need addressing. >>> TRIBUTE TO A FALLEN WINGMAN <<<
Law Enforcer	Posted - 2007.10.08 01:54:00 - [46] the dev who decided this change was a good idea deservs to get shot.
Law Enforcer	Posted - 2007.10.08 01:54:00 - [47] Originally by: Verone This is absolutely going to destroy a massive chunk of the profits for people who run roaming piracy gangs. Seriously, I'm not usually one to criticize CCP, but messing up Sansha ships, now this... sort your act out and focus on the things that are actually broken in the game and need addressing. I actually support the sansha ship changes :)
Cosmo Raata Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.10.08 01:57:00 - [48] Originally by: Verone This is absolutely going to destroy a massive chunk of the profits for people who run roaming piracy gangs. Seriously, I'm not usually one to criticize CCP, but messing up Sansha ships, now this... sort your act out and focus on the things that are actually broken in the game and need addressing. New Sanshas ship design is probably the most brilliant fix CCP has done in a long time. I hope the idea is applied to the rest of Amarr. Don't Ban me for my Love of Amarr!
Selim Veto. Veto Corp	Posted - 2007.10.08 02:22:00 - [49] Way to nerf solo/small gang pvp. Its going to be impossible to loot anything unless you have a hauler trailing you. Which kinda kills the whole point of solo, and for small gangs its still silly.
Eric Black Caldari Tripocalyptic Enterprises	Posted - 2007.10.08 03:21:00 - [50] For all you guys wholl not be looting your missions, please call me. Ill be happy to take all those inconvient modules off your hands, not to mention the salvage and I wont even charge you to do it........ On a more seriuos note. It doesnt make much sense to me that you can transport more minerals buy making a module and then melting it down at the destination. Modules that I might add have nowhere even close to the size/mass they should have when you look at how much material goes into making them. Anyone else see a problem with that? There is an upside to this to. People bringing minerals to empire wont have to waste all that isk and time making modules to transport them.
Jinx Barker GFB Scientific	Posted - 2007.10.08 04:00:00 - [51] I would not jump a gun and say that this is final. However, in case it is, I agree that it is a bad idea. It all ties in with he Rorqual (or whatever) and Marauders, and some other crap, like the formed JPG units. Still, mineral compression is what keeps mineral prices more or less stable. If it is removed, what we will see is an immediate translation onto markets, especially on something as basic as the T1 ship market, then, all the people who are saying now - Adapt or die, Awwww you will have to pay more for minerals etc, - will come here and whine that their T1 Mods all of a sudden tripled in price and the Basic T1 BS setup now costs a fortune. Bad idea for all across the board. Give Rorqual a better bonus on compression then, do not nerf the regular compression. Bad Idea, and whether people realize it or not, it will come to bite us on the arse, every single one of us, because it affects the most basic need of every EVE player for minerals, whether in the form of Ships, or in the form of Raw materials....
Allestin Villimar	Posted - 2007.10.08 04:13:00 - [52] Come on people, this is on the TEST SERVER. They haven't said one way or the other what they're doing yet, quit panicking over nothing.
Lavinrac Krad Caldari	Posted - 2007.10.08 04:33:00 - [53] Here is a list of all the Mods on the market of Sisi that are not 5m ECCM projectors T-1 Not named = 100 m Cloaking Devices T-1, T-2, Covert ops = 100m Passive Targetor T-1 not named = 100m Remote Sensor Booster T1 not named = 100m Tractor Beam T1 = 150m Capital Tractor Beam = 4000m Capacitor Bats Micro = 2.5m Medium = 10m Large = 10m Capacitor Boosters Micro = 2.5m Medium = 10m Large = 20m T-1 Energy Neutralizer not named Large = 50m Energy Transfer Array Capital = 4000m Large T1 not named = 100m Medium T1 not named = 100m Small T1 not named 25m Nos T1 Large Not named = 100m Nos T1 Medium not name = 25m Micro Auxillary Power Core T-1 not named = 50m Capital Armor Repairer = 4000m ALL Large armor repairers = 50m ALL Medium armor repairers = 10m All Large Hull repairers = 50m All Medium Hull repairers = 10m Small unnamed T-1 Hull Repairer 50m Capital remote Armor repairer = 4000m All Large remote armor repairers = 50m All Medium remote Armor repairers = 10m Capital Remote Hull repairer = 4000m Large Remote Hull Repairer = 50m Medium remote Hull repairer = 10m Armor Hardeners T-1 not named = 100m 1600mm Steel T-1 =100 1600mm the rest = 20m 800mm Steel T-1 = 100 800mm the rest = 20m 400mm Steel T-1 = 100 400mm the rest = 10m 200mm all = 10m Energized Resistance Plating T-1 not named = 100m Basic = 25m Reinforced Bulkhead T-1 not named = 25m Afterburner 100mn T-1 unnamed = 100m 10mn T-1 not named = 100m Micro Warp Drive 100mn T-1 not named = 100m 10mn T-1 not named = 100m All of the other Micro Warp Drives regardless of size = 10m Shield Boost Amp T-1 not named = 100m Capital shield Booster = 4000m XL shield Booster all = 50m Large T-1 = 25m T-2 = 10m Medium shield Booster = 10m Large Shield extender = 20m Medium shield extender = 10m Micro Shield Extender = 2.5m Capital Shield Transporter = 4000m Large Shield Transporter = 25m Medium Shield transporter = 10m Micro shield Transporter = 2.5m Shield Hardener T-1 unnamed = 100m Large Smartbomb T-1 unnamed = 150m the rest = 50m Medium Smartbomb T-1 unnamed = 100m the rest = 10m Small Smartbomb T-1 unnamed = 100m Micro Smartbomb all = 2.5m Turret XL = 4000m Turret Large T-1 unnamed = 100m the rest = 20m Turret Medium = 10m Gas Harvester T-1 unnamed =100m Ice Harvester T-1 unnamed = 100m Strip Miner T-1 = 100m T-2 = 50m Assault Launcher = 10m Citadel Launcher = 4000m Cruise Launcher = 20m Heavy assault Launcher = 10m Heavy Launcher = 10m Siege Launcher = 20m Magnetic Field Stabilizer T-1 unnamed= 25m Siege Mods = 4000m Tracking Link T-1 unnamed = 25m Bomb Launcher = 100m DD = 8000m Warfare/Mining Links = 60m Clone Bay = 4000m Cynosural Field Gen = 100m Jump Portal Gen = 10000m Discuss, look over it, get angry, rip heads off, and have fun. -Sig Starts- Why donÆt you show us on the dolly where the bad miner touched you. -Thesas THE NERF BAT COMETH! REPENT SINNER! --If I were god, then I'd nerf mice and men, like in that sayin
Neslo Gallente DarkStar 1	Posted - 2007.10.08 04:46:00 - [54] Originally by: Allestin Villimar Come on people, this is on the TEST SERVER. They haven't said one way or the other what they're doing yet, quit panicking over nothing. Yeah, but the older vets of EVE know... what goes on the test server rarely stays on the test server. :-) From Ashes to Ashes... From Dust to Dust....
SnakeByte86	Posted - 2007.10.08 04:50:00 - [55] Im a trader, looter, and seller. This is simply STUPID. ITs overkill, BIG TIME.
syphurous Gallente	Posted - 2007.10.08 05:00:00 - [56] While they're at it, why not make metal scraps 50m3 each ? ___ Too Many Anchored Cans
Marux Gallente Aliastra	Posted - 2007.10.08 05:06:00 - [57] Edited by: Marux on 08/10/2007 05:06:19 You know, if there was a ship out there that was specially designed for salvaging and looting (like a hauler with high slots) then this wouldn't be that bad. But from the looks of it, all the items are increasing their size by roughly 3-10x as much. So now, when i want to loot my lvl 4 missions I have to find a way to move roughly 10,000-40,000m3 of cargo. Yeah, that sounds great. Is there a reason why we cant just have a xx% reduction to the minerals that come from refining modules instead? ----- I've heard shuttles don't tank very well.
Kazuma Saruwatari	Posted - 2007.10.08 05:17:00 - [58] Oh god no... If this horrible "fix" gets onto TQ, thats it CCP, I'm closing shop for good this time. - Odd Pod Out, a blog of EVE Online
Teresa Delaflote Gallente Oyster Colors	Posted - 2007.10.08 05:18:00 - [59] Originally by: Kazuma Saruwatari Oh god no... If this horrible "fix" gets onto TQ, thats it CCP, I'm closing shop for good this time. QFT.
Brujo Loco Amarr Brujeria Teologica	Posted - 2007.10.08 05:27:00 - [60] Ugh! Only way I see this working somehow (for mission runners at least) is by introducing Industrial ships that actually have more than one hi slot and then again it still is a crap idea. Honestly, why isnt it better to just make the modules yield less minerals as several people have pointed out? Or just fix the worst offenders somehow else ? Viva VENEZUELA!!! Archipelago Theory

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

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.