| Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Traska Gannel
   |
Posted - 2007.12.06 17:41:00 -
[1]
I was out looting a Level 4 mission today and found that 4 trips were necessary to recover all the loot (~650m3 cargo bay on my loot/salvage Flycatcher). It appears that the volume of many modules has been changed with this patch - and the changes don't seem to make a lot of sense. So I am suspecting at least some of it is a bug. Here are some examples:
Example:
L size Dual Heavy Beam Laser I - now 50m3
M size Heavy Beam Laser I - now 100m3
L size 425mm Railgun I - 50m3
L size 350mm Railgun I - 50m3
M size 250mm Railgun I - 50m3
M size 200mm Railgun I - 10m3
M size 250mm Carbide Railgun I - 10m3
L size Neutron Blaster Canon I - 50m3
M size Heavy Neutron Blaster I - 100m3
M size Heavy Neutron Blaster II - 10m3
S size Light Neutron Blaster I - 5m3
From this sampling it would appear that the table containing the volumes of many base model medium turrets has been changed and not for the better - or if CCP chose to make these changes then there doesn't seem to be any logic behind it.
In addition, it would seem to me that the deployment of this patch should in no way require changes to the volumes of base modules - such a change affects the carrying capacity of every ship already in the game and I haven't seen anything in this patch which would represent a balance issue without this change.
Traska
|
FT Diomedes
Gallente
Ductus Exemplo
|
Posted - 2007.12.06 18:10:00 -
[2]
The changes to module sizes were done to make it harder to compress minerals for transport to and from 0.0. The numbers you have listed do seem a bit inconsistent.
------------
Improvize. Adapt. Overcome. |
Caldorous
Gallente
|
Posted - 2007.12.06 18:16:00 -
[3]
It's not a bug, its a feature and an annoyance, it was done to reflect the amount of minerals used for their construction. It has been reflected on the patch notes so this is no surprise
-----------------------------
|
Traska Gannel
|
Posted - 2007.12.06 21:29:00 -
[4]
From the patch notes:
"The volume of a selection of tech 1 player manufactured modules has been increased by varying factors to take into account the materials used to manufacture them."
Now a M size Heavy Beam Laser I requires (perfect values):
Isogen: 2
Mexallon: 3563
Nocxium: 18
Pyerite: 2951
Tritanium: 9042
And an L size Dual Heavy Beam Laser I requires (perfect values):
Isogen: 1580
Mexallon: 5999
Nocxium: 124
Pyerite: 12029
Tritanium: 45096
Zydrine: 8
So the Dual Heavy Beam Laser I requires VASTLY more resources to manufacture than a Heavy Beam Laser I and presumably will also reprocess for VASTLY more - and yet a Heavy Beam Laser I has been sized at 100m3 and a Dual Heavy Beam Laser I at 50m3. I'd say this is a bug - someone was adjusting module sizes and made a mistake. I'll also add that when I bug reported it the response was ...
"Thank you for your bugreport - ID##### Title: Some medium size modules now require unreasonable volumes - affecting looting in missions and product transport
We were not aware of this problem, and have used your bugreport to create a new issue in our defect tracking system."
... but in all likelihood that could be an automated response and it won't really be classified as a bug until a developer looks at it.
Traska
|
Traska Gannel
|
Posted - 2007.12.06 22:07:00 -
[5]
Actually - while we are on this topic - anyone care to list any other modules they find with apparently unreasonable sizes?
Remote Sensor Booster I - 100m3
Minerals:
Mexallon: 34
Pyerite: 3958
Tritanium: 5606
By the way - the volume of all base minerals is 0.01m3
If they really wanted to conserve volume of minerals -> modules then they really need to make a Dual Heavy Beam Laser I about 650m3.
Also, if the problem they are trying to solve is mineral transportation by conversion to finished goods and back to minerals then the issue they need to address is reprocessing efficiency and not module volume.
|
syphurous
Gallente
Center for Advanced Studies
|
Posted - 2007.12.07 02:05:00 -
[6]
Small Hull Repairer I 50m3, while the Medium Hull Repairer is only 10m3.
If this is going to happen for all t1 items, then rats need to drop only named items.
___
All Ur Salvage R Belong 2 Me ! |
pandymen
Caldari
Red Dwarf Mining Corporation
space weaponry and trade
|
Posted - 2007.12.07 04:28:00 -
[7]
Yea...this is kinda like the torp "change." It's been talked about for quite a while now. This has been in the works and it's been known for quite some time that it would affect looting of ships on missions....but honestly, do you really need to loot the medium railgun 1's?
|
syphurous
Gallente
Center for Advanced Studies
|
Posted - 2007.12.07 04:52:00 -
[8]
You would be suprized at what you can sell, and at what prizes you can sell things at.
___
All Ur Salvage R Belong 2 Me ! |
Jenni Concarnadine
|
Posted - 2007.12.07 08:49:00 -
[9]
For some people  survival depends on getting all the loot back. This "feature" will have us penniless in days -- I have already had to sell my poniez, as I can't afford to feed them all.
* * * * *
Hamsters don't overload very well |
Mel Ionix
|
Posted - 2007.12.07 11:00:00 -
[10]
Oh this is just awesome. The whole salvaging/looting thing has just become even more time consuming - can they make it any more boring?
|
Iracham
Gallente
|
Posted - 2007.12.07 12:24:00 -
[11]
Prisoners are now 7.5m3 each
I never could figure out how to make soylent green out of them though...
|
Shadowsword
COLSUP
Tau Ceti Federation
|
Posted - 2007.12.07 12:59:00 -
[12]
Yep I saw about the prisonners.
I did a "down with slave traders" with an absolution (which is not exactly a small ship, mind you), and surprise, 50 prisonners take 375m3, and you have a base 350 cargo. Cool.
I am quite a bit ****ed at CCP right now, wrecking the whole loot system for something as minor as mineral compression, while they had ample warning that something like that wouldn't work, AND a dev stated the usual "it's the test server...temporary stats...we'll look into it...". Well, if they really did look into it, whoever in CCP was in charge of that should be fired for lack of basic common sense !
------------------------------------------
What is Oomph? It the sound Amarr players makes when they get kicked in the ribs. |
Traska Gannel
|
Posted - 2007.12.07 15:00:00 -
[13]
Yes - but how many minerals do Prisoners reprocess into? I also didn't realize that prisoners could be manufactured and used for mineral compression :) ... though I have to admit - they must be giants to require 7.5m3 each :)
|
Ulstan
|
Posted - 2007.12.07 15:10:00 -
[14]
There is absolutley no question that CCP somehow ****** up the the changes. Low mineral requirement modules are taking 100m3. ONE HUNDRED!!!! You could loot maybe 3 of these on a normal ship.
Meanwhile larger tier guns taking far more minerals take about..10-60 m3.
Then there's the prisoner issue - prisoners can't be built so are outside the entire compression issue entirely and is nothing more than idiocy.
|
Samson Wing
|
Posted - 2007.12.07 17:44:00 -
[15]
A logical approach to implement the mineral compression nerf would have been to just flag the selected modules that come out of factories with increased volume, while leaving the modules that come out of loot-tables unchanged.
Unfortunately the Devs' solution is to increase module's volume across the board and penalizing the majority of missioners.
|
Sithren
Gallente
Federal Navy Academy
|
Posted - 2007.12.07 18:13:00 -
[16]
 Originally by: Traska Gannel
...Also, if the problem they are trying to solve is mineral transportation by conversion to finished goods and back to minerals then the issue they need to address is reprocessing efficiency and not module volume.
This makes a ton more sense.
|
Corstaad
Minmatar
Brutor tribe
|
Posted - 2007.12.09 00:00:00 -
[17]
Hopefully this was done to nerf high sec mission running. Best miner around is a Raven.
|
Kaya Divine
Federal Navy Academy
|
Posted - 2007.12.09 04:31:00 -
[18]
Anyone know some good tank build for Iteron? ty.
I consulted moralists to learn how to appear, philosophers to find out what to think and novelists to see what I could get away with and in the end it all came down to one principle:win or die. |
Chu Ran
Caldari
Challenger Logistics Corporation
Momentum Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.12.09 05:30:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Kaya Divine
Anyone know some good tank build for Iteron? ty.
Highs:
Doesn't matter, you're not using it to fight.
Med:
1) Gist X-Type X-Large Shield Booster (perma-tank your Itty V so no pirate can gank you in high-sec)
2) Estamel's Modified Invulnerability Field (who in the world can get through 50% resist across the board for your shields??? Hmm... Better make that 2 just in case) X 2.
3) Seleyne's Capacitor Recharger (you'll need it to succeed in your perma-tank... Better make that 2 as well just in case) X 2
Lows:
1) Cargo Expander II X 5
Voila! No high-sec pirate will be able to touch you!
OK... on a serious note, this module volume increase is completely non-sensical and illogical in the way it was implemented as so many of you have pointed out. I have no problem with making modules volume in line with their mineral composition volume, but 150 m^3 for a Large smartbomb is just insane....
|
marie claude
|
Posted - 2007.12.09 06:01:00 -
[20]
i said hang it all got a hurricain to loot in
|
Minji Harashua
|
Posted - 2007.12.09 09:38:00 -
[21]
Smartbombs are also odd. For instance, in the Large smartbombs the norm seems to be 50m3 yet for EMP, Plasma, and Proton variants they are 150m3! (Note, the tech2 versions are 50m3). |
Leo Kessler
|
Posted - 2007.12.09 10:56:00 -
[22]
maybe some dedicated lootships could solve the problem
|
Kerfira
|
Posted - 2007.12.09 11:53:00 -
[23]
Edited by: Kerfira on 09/12/2007 11:54:09
There's a lot of whining going on about this issue (lots of threads in 'general'), and they are fully out of proportion with the effects of this change.
Some missions, there're no changes at all. The increased size will still not fill the typical looting ship, the Destroyer.
Other mission, you'd have to drag a 'can behind you and go back for a hauler anyway because they already gave more than a destroyer could hold.
So this leaves only those missions that now exceeds the hold where they didn't before. This is MAYBE 50% of them (at most).
The time to go back and get a hauler is typical 2-5 minutes, which is added to 30-60 minutes of mission running (for a skilled mission runner), plus 20-45 minutes of salvage/looting.
So, the WORST case, is a 10% increase in total mission time for those missions, and IF they constitute 50% of the total spread, that means at MAXIMUM a 5% increase in mission time overall.
Clearly worthy of the massive whines you guys make 
None of you complained when CCP gave you CCC's for a huge improvement of your tanks. None of you complained when they added rig components for a large increase in mission income, and now you go frothing at the mouth raving flaming mad because of a lousy 5% (at absolute worst) increase in mission time.
Look into a mirror, and you'll see the perfect image of a whiner!!!
EDIT: There are some weird discrepancies between modules, but I'm sure CCP will sort it out.
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.
|
Kerfira
|
Posted - 2007.12.09 12:03:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Traska Gannel
...Also, if the problem they are trying to solve is mineral transportation by conversion to finished goods and back to minerals then the issue they need to address is reprocessing efficiency and not module volume.
This would not solve anything!
The problem CCP were looking to solve was easy mineral transport.
The suggested alternative change using reprocessing efficiency was that 'big' modules only refined 80% (incidentally this would have hit mission income too).
This would only have been a slight decrease of the ease of mineral transport, not a solution.
Where you previously had to do 4 freighter runs, you'd now have to do 5.
That solves..... ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!
The current solution does solve the problem (at least somewhat). Where you before could get 30x mineral compression, you now only get 3x (numbers for illustration only).
Where you previously had to do 1 freighter runs, you'd now have to do 10.
That solves.... THE PROBLEM!
So no, the reprocessing 'solution' wasn't one!
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.
|
Ashen Angel
Minmatar
Eve University
Ivy League
|
Posted - 2007.12.09 12:29:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Kerfira
Edited by: Kerfira on 09/12/2007 12:22:44
Originally by: Traska Gannel
...Also, if the problem they are trying to solve is mineral transportation by conversion to finished goods and back to minerals then the issue they need to address is reprocessing efficiency and not module volume.
This would not solve anything!
The problem CCP were looking to solve was easy mineral transport.
The suggested alternative change using reprocessing efficiency was that modules with good compression only refined 80% (incidentally this would have hit mission income too).
This would only have been a slight decrease of the ease of mineral transport, not a solution.
Where you previously had to do 4 freighter runs, you'd now have to do 5.
That solves..... ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!
The current solution does solve the problem (at least somewhat). Where you before could get 30x mineral compression, you now only get 3x (numbers for illustration only).
Where you previously had to do 1 freighter run, you'd now have to do 10.
That solves.... THE PROBLEM!
So no, the reprocessing 'solution' wasn't one!
It would resolve a lot of the problems actually.
Miners having to compete with mission runners for minerals - less refine on scrap metal = less minerals from missions
mineral compression - less refine means they no longer can use it to haul the full amount in smaller modules, they lose minerals mined. In effect it isn't x number of more trips to get the same amount, because each trip has a loss compared to teh raw minerals
|
Kerfira
|
Posted - 2007.12.09 18:22:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Ashen Angel
Originally by: Kerfira
My stuff
It would resolve a lot of the problems actually.
Miners having to compete with mission runners for minerals - less refine on scrap metal = less minerals from missions
mineral compression - less refine means they no longer can use it to haul the full amount in smaller modules, they lose minerals mined. In effect it isn't x number of more trips to get the same amount, because each trip has a loss compared to teh raw minerals
Not it wouldn't.....
If the design aim is to make it 10x as difficult to haul minerals into 0.0, then a 20% reduction in refining of compressable modules is not going to do that.
What would be needed would be a 90% (yes, ninety) reduction.
If whiney threads like this pop up on a measly 5% (in the absolute worst case) reduction in mission income, I'd hate to see the mega-whines THAT would provoke from the people complaining here!
The point about miners though is a good one, but the problem this solution was supposed to solve was mineral compression, which is (mostly) does.
Maybe a reduction in reprocessing is needed too to address the other one. Personally I see it as pretty farfetched that you can get 100% back of what was put into a module.
CCP should probably put a max. on reprocessing of 75% or maybe 50% in addition to the compression changes.
Refining should still be possible at 100%...
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.
|
Kadoes Khan
|
Posted - 2007.12.09 18:52:00 -
[27]
Quote:
CCP should probably put a max. on reprocessing of 75% or maybe 50% in addition to the compression changes.
Refining should still be possible at 100%...
I disagree, there should be some waste going from base minerals to finished product back to base minerals. Personally I'd cap it at 90% with 5/5/5 skills in an empire reprocessing plant.
About the volumes though they need to be made consistant or at least able to add a "volume" column in your cargo hold so you can see if some small module is taking up 100m^3.
-=^=-
"Someday the world will recognize the genius in my insanity." |
Kerfira
|
Posted - 2007.12.09 18:57:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Kadoes Khan
About the volumes though they need to be made consistant or at least able to add a "volume" column in your cargo hold so you can see if some small module is taking up 100m^3.
Yeah, the inconsistencies need to be adressed. Not much sense in a medium weapon being larger than a small one. They'll get around to it sometime I guess.....
The principle of the feature is pretty good though....
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.
|
Ashen Angel
Minmatar
Eve University
Ivy League
|
Posted - 2007.12.09 20:05:00 -
[29]
Edited by: Ashen Angel on 09/12/2007 20:12:07
Originally by: Kerfira
Originally by: Ashen Angel
Originally by: Kerfira
My stuff
It would resolve a lot of the problems actually.
Miners having to compete with mission runners for minerals - less refine on scrap metal = less minerals from missions
mineral compression - less refine means they no longer can use it to haul the full amount in smaller modules, they lose minerals mined. In effect it isn't x number of more trips to get the same amount, because each trip has a loss compared to teh raw minerals
Not it wouldn't.....
If the design aim is to make it 10x as difficult to haul minerals into 0.0, then a 20% reduction in refining of compressable modules is not going to do that.
What would be needed would be a 90% (yes, ninety) reduction.
If whiney threads like this pop up on a measly 5% (in the absolute worst case) reduction in mission income, I'd hate to see the mega-whines THAT would provoke from the people complaining here!
The point about miners though is a good one, but the problem this solution was supposed to solve was mineral compression, which is (mostly) does.
Maybe a reduction in reprocessing is needed too to address the other one. Personally I see it as pretty farfetched that you can get 100% back of what was put into a module.
CCP should probably put a max. on reprocessing of 75% or maybe 50% in addition to the compression changes.
Refining should still be possible at 100%...
Odd, no numbers listed yet you pulled some out of the air
By adjusting the reprocessing rates to levels they want, they would solve the issue to their satisfaction.
The fact is the current solution is causing issues due to the fact the loot drops for basic items are now barely able to fit in ship cargo holds of most frigates.
This is in effect adversely affecting those who are not using compression as well, since it now takes them more trips to bring in materials for their T2 production. It also affects those that are T1 producers, in regards to getting their product to market.
A recycle adjustment would affect the raw mineral compression issue and make it harder to mine by laser.
|
Traska Gannel
|
Posted - 2007.12.09 20:39:00 -
[30]
Ok - I don't "get" this mineral compression thing ... from the data I posted above - An L size Dual Heavy Beam Laser I requires about 5 to 6 times the minerals of a M size Heavy Beam Laser I. A Dual Heavy Beam Laser I requires 50m3 while a new Heavy Beam Laser I requires 100m3 (before the change it required 10m3 I believe). So - someone can now shift to making L size Dual Heavy Beam Laser I instead of Heavy Beam Laser I and will obtain exactly the same level of mineral compression as before this change to the M size module. So instead of making Heavy Beam Laser I's they start making Dual Heavy Beam Laser I's and shipping those. What am I missing? Can someone explain this? Maybe there just aren't any BPO's for Dual Heavy Beam Laser I's? Or maybe CCP is only concerned about compression of certain minerals and the additional higher end mineral requirements for the large modules are considered sufficient to prevent people from shifting production to these?
Also - I received the typical brain dead response to my bug report on this issue -
"The problem you have described as an intended game feature, and not a bug."
- it seems clear to everyone that there are inconsistencies that are either bugs or could use an explanation - the change in volume to prisoners being a prime example. So I consider the response from the bug filtering to be less than useful - though I am sure they are busy trying to deal with much more significant bugs in Trinity.
Finally, I actually don't care too much about the sizes - I can change loot ships or looting methods to accommodate the changes - the main issue I have is that the volume changes appear random, inconsistent and unrelated to mineral requirements to build the modules as was stated in the patch notes - and as such may either need fixing or some sort of more useful explanation.
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |