| Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Dinslan
Minmatar
   |
Posted - 2007.12.06 11:26:00 -
[1]
Salvaging obviously hasn't changed, but with module sizes being bigger the loot is going to be harder to fit.
It looks to me like the average loot haul from a level 4 mission is about double the volume it was before. ( excluding metal scraps and cap boosters ). A relatively small mission ( 2 pockets, 20ish ships ) was too big for my Thrasher.
Prior to Trinity I was using a Hurricane ( <1800m3 ) or a Thrasher ( <600m3 ) for salvaging but this change looks like the Thrasher will be obsolete for level 4 mission looting. The Hurricane never ran out of space but was pretty close a number of times, I suspect 2 trips will be required for some missions now.
|
Jonathan Calvert
Minmatar
The Smithzonian Institute
|
Posted - 2007.12.06 13:17:00 -
[2]
I had a corpmate bring an indy to cleanup a lvl 4 yesterday. I would salvage with the thrasher, move everything into a can and tow the can around. Then hed get everything from the can.
|
FT Diomedes
Gallente
Ductus Exemplo
|
Posted - 2007.12.06 13:25:00 -
[3]
I will continue to do what I have always done. Loot in a Catalyst, with my second account on standby with an industrial. There were plenty of missions before Trinity that could not fit all the loot into a destroyer (or a Typhoon with 7x expander IIs for that matter).
------------
Improvize. Adapt. Overcome. |
OneSock
Crown Industries
|
Posted - 2007.12.06 13:33:00 -
[4]
Why they change this ? No damn reason and just a PITA. Thanks for nothing again CCP.
|
Ekscalybur
Caldari
Templar Services Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.12.06 14:41:00 -
[5]
Some of the size issues don't seem to make sense either. I noticed when sorting my loot back at a station. (I sort my loot in cans) I tried to place my loot in the cans, and noticed that most of my cans were overfilled when previously they were only partially filled.
For instance, I keep all guns/launchers in one can. I noticed that medium rails take up 2.5 times more volume than large ones. Even wackier was that heavy blasters take up 5 times the volume of large rails. Why does a 250mm rail gun take up more than twice the space of a 425mm rail gun??
I guess I'll have to get more cans.
|
RedMage
Digital Foundry
|
Posted - 2007.12.06 17:01:00 -
[6]
 Originally by: FT Diomedes
There were plenty of missions before Trinity that could not fit all the loot into a destroyer (or a Typhoon with 7x expander IIs for that matter).
Nice. People used to tell me that rigging a salvage hurricane of typhoon was ridiculous and expensive. Just wait till you see people getting Marauders fitted and rigged just to salvage missions.
Vargur(Tempest Marauder):
Cargo: 1,150 m3
Low Slots: 5
(Expander II)Cargo Hold
(0) 1,150 m3
(1) 1,466 m3
(2) 1,869 m3
(3) 2,383 m3
(4) 3,039 m3
(5) 3,874 m3
With 2 Cargo Rig I's: 5,124 m3
With 2 Cargo Rig II's: 5,579 m3
However, the rigs are silly, I'm sure that any uber rich missioner at this point would just use salvage rigs.
But maybe Marauder's huge bay and the bigger loot sizes have something to do with each other.
|
Sofring Eternus
Amarr
|
Posted - 2007.12.06 17:08:00 -
[7]
Hey! thats a good idea for a role for the Paladin.
Fill highs with tractors and salvagers
Fill lows with cargo expanders
Slap a MWD into the med slot.
---
ΞνΞ ΘΠLІΠΞ
Amarr dont need Grr... and RAWR is definately too much, but some Oomph would be nice. |
Carniflex
Caldari
Fallout Research
Fallout Project
|
Posted - 2007.12.06 17:11:00 -
[8]
Most people who are going to use Marauders as glorified looting ships will be most likely fitting 2x salvage rigs. I believe that using Marauders as looting ships will be relatively common for higher end mission runners for those few missions that are still worth looting. Who knows, perhaps with tractor beam bonus they will make even few more missions worth looting isk/h wise.
Around up to 3000 m3 will be adequate if you dump scrap metal and capacitor charges for even the bigger missions. Perhaps up to max 4000 m3 in biggest ones (like Gone Berzek).
|
Kelbesque Crystalis
Minmatar
Eve University
|
Posted - 2007.12.06 18:22:00 -
[9]
You can do what i do:
Skip looting anything but the BS, and offer your BM's to coprmates who want to clean up the rest. I still salvage any ship on the way, but I can't be arsed to loot small/med wrecks these days. 90% of the loot value is in the BS drops.
Meanwhile many corp mates are happy to clean up after me.
|
Angel DeMorphis
Gallente
|
Posted - 2007.12.06 19:14:00 -
[10]
Originally by: OneSock
Why they change this ? No damn reason and just a PITA. Thanks for nothing again CCP.
Previously players in 0.0 (or anywhere, really) that wanted to sell minerals could produce lots of a certain module or two, haul it to where they want to, then reprocess it all back into minerals. They could move a lot more minerals this way. This isn't a mission nerf, it's a compression nerf.
|
|
|
Gaius Sejanus
Gallente
Federal Navy Academy
|
Posted - 2007.12.06 21:09:00 -
[11]
It's ham-handed, lazy, and stupid.
They just took a bunch of common compression items and bumped them up to 100m3. They've been working on this compression change for what, 6 months now, more? How hard would it have REALLY been to customize the final size of these modules? 100m3 is VASTLY in excess of the mineral size these things mulch into. How about changing some of them from 10m3 to 21m3, just slightly above mineral volume.
They knew which items were "too good" as compression objects, so they also knew which ones to change, and what that ratio was. Not individually modifying these modules is completely inexcusable, particularly given the time frame they had to do it. It's a trivial database issue. How long would it have really taken? An hour? So to save themselves an hour, they screw us with our pants on.
|
RedMage
Digital Foundry
|
Posted - 2007.12.07 17:06:00 -
[12]
well it does make sense. If you have an ounce of aluminum it's about 3 cubic centimeters, but makes a can of coke, or quaffe.
it really makes logistics for those of us in 0.0 way more a pain. However w/ jump freighters, and their ability to operate in high/low/no-sec the scales did get a balance.
-----
roll with the punches or whine on the forums
|
|
ISD Santiago Cortes
Caldari
ISD Interstellar Correspondents
|
Posted - 2007.12.07 20:09:00 -
[13]
The changes were made to stop mineral compression/transport that allowed people to transport large amount of minerals at a smaller capacity.
Modules now reflect the composition of minerals within them.
forum rules | mailto:[email protected] |
|
Ulstan
|
Posted - 2007.12.07 20:10:00 -
[14]
Quote:
Modules now reflect the composition of minerals within them
No, they don't. They reflect a randomly chosen, large, round number.
Medium guns are 100m3 and are composed of far fewer minerals than large guns, which are about 50m3.
Sensor boosters refine for almost nothing and are 100m3.
|
Commander Prishe
Caldari
The LoneStar Corp
Edge Of Sanity
|
Posted - 2007.12.08 00:00:00 -
[15]
Gonna train for hurricane now this was big nerf to comorant and destroyers in general, they was only ever mainly used for salvaging/looting lol.
As for mauraders as salvage/loot vessels there nice ad love the tractor bonuses, its just that agility I hate, so slow to warp and turn, I loved my little destroyer (sorry salvager) it was so agile and nifty.
|
marie claude
|
Posted - 2007.12.10 07:50:00 -
[16]
Edited by: marie claude on 10/12/2007 07:50:36
ISD Santiago Cortes
ISD
Caldari
ISD Interstellar Correspondents
Posted - 2007.12.07 20:09:00 - [13] - Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The changes were made to stop mineral compression/transport that allowed people to transport large amount of minerals at a smaller capacity.
Modules now reflect the composition of minerals within them.
---------------------------------------------------
uh.. no they dont sorry dont just repete the speal to us check how they refine. and btw just why was min compression so freaking bad? why did it make ccp so mad that by useing game rules ppl found a smart way to move material without useing a billion isk frieghter?
i also am biulding a lootercain already reprocessed my fleet of looting catalists.
|
Alex Harumichi
Gallente
Gradient
Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2007.12.10 11:09:00 -
[17]
Originally by: ISD Santiago Cortes
Modules now reflect the composition of minerals within them.
As others have noted, this is blatantly untrue.
|
Licking Linford
|
Posted - 2007.12.10 11:48:00 -
[18]
Edited by: Licking Linford on 10/12/2007 11:47:51
God forbid they'd have done something sensible and just reduced the amount of minerals you can reprocess from the problem modules instead.
|
Kerfira
|
Posted - 2007.12.10 13:21:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Licking Linford
God forbid they'd have done something sensible and just reduced the amount of minerals you can reprocess from the problem modules instead.
Except they'd have to reduce the amount of stuff you get to maybe 1/10th of what you're getting now...
Imagine the whines then.....
From my calcs, this adds MAYBE 5% extra time to each L4 mission on average (kill/loot/salvage), and that is the absolute WORST case!
CLEARLY worthy of the monumental whining going on about it!
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.
|
Khwalik
Ghetto Kings
|
Posted - 2007.12.11 11:32:00 -
[20]
Just for sh#t's and giggles I took a geddon and made it a 4/4 salvager with ab and mwd in mid with a lg cap bat, and 8 t2 expanders in lows. and 3 salv tackles yesterday after dt. total cargo of like 4190m3. nice on some bigger missions i've run so far but drives like you'd expect a geddon to.
Marauder= 'salvage boat of the stars'
|
|
|
Shadowsword
COLSUP
Tau Ceti Federation
|
Posted - 2007.12.11 12:21:00 -
[21]
Originally by: ISD Santiago Cortes
The changes were made to stop mineral compression/transport that allowed people to transport large amount of minerals at a smaller capacity.
Modules now reflect the composition of minerals within them.
Leaving aside the numerous modules that take now far more volume than the minerals inside them, why in the name of Hell was that implemented before the T1 loot was removed of the NPC loot tables?
Or, to put it differently, was it worth it? Make looting worthless to fix a very minor "exploit"?
It's the drone regions zydrine oversupplying all over again. How can you make mistakes of such epic proportions?
------------------------------------------
What is Oomph? It the sound Amarr players makes when they get kicked in the ribs. |
OneSock
Crown Industries
|
Posted - 2007.12.11 12:21:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Angel DeMorphis
Originally by: OneSock
Why they change this ? No damn reason and just a PITA. Thanks for nothing again CCP.
Previously players in 0.0 (or anywhere, really) that wanted to sell minerals could produce lots of a certain module or two, haul it to where they want to, then reprocess it all back into minerals. They could move a lot more minerals this way. This isn't a mission nerf, it's a compression nerf.
They could have done the same just by dropping the mineral composition of the module rather than shafting PVE looting.
|
Saietor Blackgreen
|
Posted - 2007.12.11 13:52:00 -
[23]
Originally by: OneSock
They could have done the same just by dropping the mineral composition of the module rather than shafting PVE looting.
No, I believe thats much more work. As far as it looks, the table for module production and module refining are the same. So to change the amount of minerals T1 stuff reprocesses into they'd have to add a whole set of new parameters to all T1 modules or change the way reprocessing is done for them.
Not that it excuses them though, the way it was done in this patch is the worst way to do it.
Good variants would be:
1) Make T1 stuff reproduce to a fraction of the mins they are made from. So to say add a "T1 penalty" to reprocessing of that stuff.
2) OR make T1 stuff non-reprocessible at all, why not? With proper ratio of mod volume/mineral volume looting these things for reprocessing will be unprofitable anyway.
But with current system they achieved more pain in the ass for looters and T1 manufacturers, while there was nothing wrong with those.
|
Vasq
Imperial Shipment
|
Posted - 2007.12.11 14:23:00 -
[24]
another way to look it would be to improve ships for looting, like a sigil with 8 high slots would be nice :)
Smoke me a kipper, i'll be back for breakfast! |
Dinslan
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2007.12.11 15:10:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Saietor Blackgreen
Edited by: Saietor Blackgreen on 11/12/2007 13:55:38
Originally by: OneSock
They could have done the same just by dropping the mineral composition of the module rather than shafting PVE looting.
No, I believe thats much more work. As far as it looks, the table for module production and module refining are the same. So to change the amount of minerals T1 stuff reprocesses into they'd have to add a whole set of new parameters to all T1 modules or change the way reprocessing is done for them.
Not that it excuses them though, the way it was done in this patch is the worst way to do it.
Good variants would be:
1) Make T1 stuff reproduce to a fraction of the mins they are made from. So to say add a "T1 penalty" to reprocessing of that stuff.
2) OR make T1 stuff non-reprocessible at all, why not? With proper ratio of mod volume/mineral volume looting these things for reprocessing will be unprofitable anyway.
Or
3) Make modules never smaller than their component minerals but reduce the mineral sizes such that module size is sensible.
If minerals were reduced in volume by a factor of 20 and this would probably work okay.
Is there any game balance reason why minerals need to be big?
|
|
ISD Santiago Cortes
Caldari
ISD Interstellar Correspondents
|
Posted - 2007.12.11 23:19:00 -
[26]
Owing to a variety of computer problems I've been unable to test missions and was passing on what I'd been told re: mineral composition.
Given this has become a duplicate of an earlier thread on the same subject I think it's best to lock this one and direct further compression discussion to Here
forum rules | mailto:[email protected] |
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |