EVE Search - Module size increase

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Module size increase

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Reto The Last Resort	Posted - 2007.12.09 00:06:00 - [1] Edited by: Reto on 09/12/2007 00:08:37 is there a reasoning behind it? atm its hard to ferry the turrets i need to build a bc from a station to another with a destroyer. i used to buy stuff and pick it up via des in order to have all my stuff in the same place but somehow 100m¦ for med turrets kinda freak me out. why was this implemented? Originally by: s4mp3r0r "Hey man, you're mom has a cruise missile".
SnakeByte86	Posted - 2007.12.09 00:09:00 - [2] CCP wants everyone to need two accouts, so they make more money. That and mineral compression, which wasnt that big of a problem, no matter how hard CCP tries, i am not mining veld in 0.0
Tamia Clant New Dawn Corp New Eden Research	Posted - 2007.12.09 00:12:00 - [3] Originally by: SnakeByte86 That and mineral compression, which wasnt that big of a problem, no matter how hard CCP tries, i am not mining veld in 0.0 You're not mining now because mineral compression ensured trit was easily transportable from empire. When the only valid option is to mine it, trit prices increase until veld mining is more profitable than say, arkonor. Looking for queue-free research slots? Click here!
Krazy Bitsch	Posted - 2007.12.09 00:13:00 - [4] Originally by: Reto Edited by: Reto on 09/12/2007 00:08:37 is there a reasoning behind it? atm its hard to ferry the turrets i need to build a bc from a station to another with a destroyer. i used to buy stuff and pick it up via des in order to have all my stuff in the same place but somehow 100m¦ for med turrets kinda freak me out. why was this implemented? use a hauler?
SnakeByte86	Posted - 2007.12.09 00:19:00 - [5] Originally by: Tamia Clant Originally by: SnakeByte86 That and mineral compression, which wasnt that big of a problem, no matter how hard CCP tries, i am not mining veld in 0.0 You're not mining now because mineral compression ensured trit was easily transportable from empire. When the only valid option is to mine it, trit prices increase until veld mining is more profitable than say, arkonor. I will never mine veld, it doesnt matter how profitable it is, im a builder, i don sell the trit. It simply takes to much time to mine any usefull amount of trit.
Reto The Last Resort	Posted - 2007.12.09 00:23:00 - [6] Edited by: Reto on 09/12/2007 00:24:23 Originally by: Krazy Bitsch Originally by: Reto Edited by: Reto on 09/12/2007 00:08:37 is there a reasoning behind it? atm its hard to ferry the turrets i need to build a bc from a station to another with a destroyer. i used to buy stuff and pick it up via des in order to have all my stuff in the same place but somehow 100m¦ for med turrets kinda freak me out. why was this implemented? use a hauler? the point in using a destroyer is to save time as this ship is faster and more agile. another point is that u not always have 2 ships in one place. and the last thing i thought anbout is the npc loot thing. how can i do missions in reasonable time if i have to make cargo runs for 2 hours during a single mission in order to secure my precious loot? im playing 2 hours a day max. and atm eve has become more of a work situation than a playing situation for me. its not reasonable to think thateveryone can spend 5 hours a day infornt of their pcs to play eve just to get the stuff together to actually have fun isnt it? Originally by: s4mp3r0r "Hey man, you're mom has a cruise missile".
Krazy Bitsch	Posted - 2007.12.09 00:25:00 - [7] Originally by: Reto Originally by: Krazy Bitsch Originally by: Reto Edited by: Reto on 09/12/2007 00:08:37 is there a reasoning behind it? atm its hard to ferry the turrets i need to build a bc from a station to another with a destroyer. i used to buy stuff and pick it up via des in order to have all my stuff in the same place but somehow 100m¦ for med turrets kinda freak me out. why was this implemented? use a hauler? the point in using a destroyer is to save time as this ship is faster and more agile. another point is that u not always have 2 ships in one place. and the last thing i thought anbout is the npc loot thing. how can i do missions in reasonable time if i have to make cargo runs for 2 hours during a single mission in order to secure my precious loot? im playing 2 hours a day max. and atm eve has become more of a work situation than a playing situation for me. its not reasonable to think thateveryone can spend 5 hours a day infornt of their pcs to play eve just to get the stuff together to actually have fun or isnt it? and the point of the hauler is to...OMFG...HAUL! Try using the ships that were intended for the job?
Reto The Last Resort	Posted - 2007.12.09 00:26:00 - [8] btw was there any feedback of the devs on this matter. i would like to hear their opinions why this was implemented. i want to understand the whole issue instead of simply bragging about it. Originally by: s4mp3r0r "Hey man, you're mom has a cruise missile".
Crumplecorn Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations	Posted - 2007.12.09 00:26:00 - [9] Originally by: Reto Edited by: Reto on 09/12/2007 00:24:23 Originally by: Krazy Bitsch Originally by: Reto Edited by: Reto on 09/12/2007 00:08:37 is there a reasoning behind it? atm its hard to ferry the turrets i need to build a bc from a station to another with a destroyer. i used to buy stuff and pick it up via des in order to have all my stuff in the same place but somehow 100m¦ for med turrets kinda freak me out. why was this implemented? use a hauler? the point in using a destroyer is to save time as this ship is faster and more agile. another point is that u not always have 2 ships in one place. and the last thing i thought anbout is the npc loot thing. how can i do missions in reasonable time if i have to make cargo runs for 2 hours during a single mission in order to secure my precious loot? im playing 2 hours a day max. and atm eve has become more of a work situation than a playing situation for me. its not reasonable to think thateveryone can spend 5 hours a day infornt of their pcs to play eve just to get the stuff together to actually have fun isnt it? If its not worth your time to loot, don't loot. - I wish I was a three foot female doll with a watering can and heterochromatic eyes.
Joana Darklight	Posted - 2007.12.09 00:28:00 - [10] Originally by: Crumplecorn Originally by: Reto Edited by: Reto on 09/12/2007 00:24:23 Originally by: Krazy Bitsch Originally by: Reto Edited by: Reto on 09/12/2007 00:08:37 is there a reasoning behind it? atm its hard to ferry the turrets i need to build a bc from a station to another with a destroyer. i used to buy stuff and pick it up via des in order to have all my stuff in the same place but somehow 100m¦ for med turrets kinda freak me out. why was this implemented? use a hauler? the point in using a destroyer is to save time as this ship is faster and more agile. another point is that u not always have 2 ships in one place. and the last thing i thought anbout is the npc loot thing. how can i do missions in reasonable time if i have to make cargo runs for 2 hours during a single mission in order to secure my precious loot? im playing 2 hours a day max. and atm eve has become more of a work situation than a playing situation for me. its not reasonable to think thateveryone can spend 5 hours a day infornt of their pcs to play eve just to get the stuff together to actually have fun isnt it? If its not worth your time to loot, don't loot. Good point maybee when the EVE economy colapses cause theres no more loot CCP will be forced to look at its reatrded decision to do this. and to the gentleman who said use a hauler, why so poor noobs get highsec ganked more ? maybee thats CCP's plan get everyone using cheap T1 hauler so a ass in a cruiser can gank em.
SiJira	Posted - 2007.12.09 00:30:00 - [11] mineral prices have been slated to go up ever since it was announced im not going to explain the market to you ____ __ ________ _sig below_ devs and gms cant modify my sig if they tried! _lies above_ CCP Morpheus was here Morpheus Fails. You need colors!! -Kaemonn [yellow]Kaem
Krazy Bitsch	Posted - 2007.12.09 00:31:00 - [12] Originally by: Joana Darklight Good point maybee when the EVE economy colapses cause theres no more loot CCP will be forced to look at its reatrded decision to do this. and to the gentleman who said use a hauler, why so poor noobs get highsec ganked more ? maybee thats CCP's plan get everyone using cheap T1 hauler so a ass in a cruiser can gank em. how would the non-looting of TECH 1 mods force the economy to collapse? If anything itd direct more funds into tech 1 producers' wallets. This is a move by CCP to increase cashflow to people who actually want to make tech 1 gear. As to your point about haulers...not EVERY hauler gets ganked in high sec. The reality is that a SMALL percentage of all haulers/freighters running through high sec actually get ganked.
SnakeByte86	Posted - 2007.12.09 00:32:00 - [13] Originally by: SiJira mineral prices have been slated to go up ever since it was announced im not going to explain the market to you As if they arnt high enough? At least soem, look at trit. I remember when it sold for 1isk. The more mineral prices go up, the more money farmers make, the more money farmers make, the more money CCP makes, The more hauling gets nerfed, the more Alts are needed, the more alts that are needed, the more money CCP makes. Anyone see a pattern? Try a little harder, you'll see it.
Reto The Last Resort	Posted - 2007.12.09 00:33:00 - [14] Originally by: SiJira mineral prices have been slated to go up ever since it was announced im not going to explain the market to you u mean ccp wants to increase the cost of minerals by making loot too big for transport and reprocessing? Originally by: s4mp3r0r "Hey man, you're mom has a cruise missile".
Krazy Bitsch	Posted - 2007.12.09 00:34:00 - [15] Originally by: Reto Originally by: SiJira mineral prices have been slated to go up ever since it was announced im not going to explain the market to you u mean ccp wants to increase the cost of minerals by making loot too big for transport and reprocessing? and giving miners a role again? Heaven forbid!!!!!
Reto The Last Resort	Posted - 2007.12.09 00:39:00 - [16] Originally by: Krazy Bitsch Originally by: Reto Originally by: SiJira mineral prices have been slated to go up ever since it was announced im not going to explain the market to you u mean ccp wants to increase the cost of minerals by making loot too big for transport and reprocessing? and giving miners a role again? Heaven forbid!!!!! i have the strong feeling the discussing of this issue makes u angry in some sort. i am asking questions here since i want to understand this decision, i dont want to begin a dispute about whats good and whats bad for the game. please refrain from posting if u feel attcked by the cometns posted here. this doent help ppl to get a picture of the whole backround of this decision. Originally by: s4mp3r0r "Hey man, you're mom has a cruise missile".
Abrazzar	Posted - 2007.12.09 00:48:00 - [17] The module size adjustment was meant to nerf the mineral compression of some modules. People build modules hauled them and reprocessed them again to haul larger quantities of minerals than they could have normally. The compression factor of some modules was so high that ccp decided to increase the size of almost all T1 modules. The side effects may or may not be intentional.
SnakeByte86	Posted - 2007.12.09 00:49:00 - [18] Originally by: Abrazzar The module size adjustment was meant to nerf the mineral compression of some modules. People build modules hauled them and reprocessed them again to haul larger quantities of minerals than they could have normally. The compression factor of some modules was so high that ccp decided to increase the size of almost all T1 modules. The side effects may or may not be intentional. They could have just adjusted minerals needed to build some modules. Problem solved.
Reto The Last Resort	Posted - 2007.12.09 00:56:00 - [19] Originally by: Abrazzar The module size adjustment was meant to nerf the mineral compression of some modules. People build modules hauled them and reprocessed them again to haul larger quantities of minerals than they could have normally. The compression factor of some modules was so high that ccp decided to increase the size of almost all T1 modules. The side effects may or may not be intentional. i just read about this issue in another thread in general discussion. i wasnt aware that mineral compression was such a big problem. i think that reducing the mineral amouts u get via reprocessing would have been a better aproch tho, as i tend to loot the bigger modules and resell them (gun turrets, mwds, etc.) i guess this has to do with the new rorqual. ccp implemented something new to the game but the game already offered a unintented way of mineral compression so they had to blance this out. but while doing so created some new big problems for various player groups like pirates, ratters and missionrunners. i hope u devs read this discussion and take this problem into consideration. Originally by: s4mp3r0r "Hey man, you're mom has a cruise missile".
Crumplecorn Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations	Posted - 2007.12.09 00:58:00 - [20] Originally by: SnakeByte86 Originally by: Abrazzar The module size adjustment was meant to nerf the mineral compression of some modules. People build modules hauled them and reprocessed them again to haul larger quantities of minerals than they could have normally. The compression factor of some modules was so high that ccp decided to increase the size of almost all T1 modules. The side effects may or may not be intentional. They could have just adjusted minerals needed to build some modules. Problem solved. Make an arbitrary bunch of modules then times cheaper to make to solve an unrelated problem? I'm glad you don't balance EVE... - I wish I was a three foot female doll with a watering can and heterochromatic eyes.
Reto The Last Resort	Posted - 2007.12.09 01:09:00 - [21] Originally by: Crumplecorn Originally by: SnakeByte86 Originally by: Abrazzar The module size adjustment was meant to nerf the mineral compression of some modules. People build modules hauled them and reprocessed them again to haul larger quantities of minerals than they could have normally. The compression factor of some modules was so high that ccp decided to increase the size of almost all T1 modules. The side effects may or may not be intentional. They could have just adjusted minerals needed to build some modules. Problem solved. Make an arbitrary bunch of modules then times cheaper to make to solve an unrelated problem? I'm glad you don't balance EVE... i think the amout of minerals u put into a mod to build it should be a lot bigger than the amout u get out of reprocessing. its logical that recycling isnt able to facilate all of the materials used and maybe even wasted during manufactoring. making modules require less minerals for building would skyrocket the price inflation in eve, which is alsobad in the end. Originally by: s4mp3r0r "Hey man, you're mom has a cruise missile".
Tortun Nahme Minmatar Heimatar Services Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.12.09 01:11:00 - [22] there is a reason he quoted someone elses post reto Originally by: Cecil Montague They should change that warning on entering low sec to: "Go read Crime and Punishment for a few days then come back."
SnakeByte86	Posted - 2007.12.09 01:20:00 - [23] Originally by: Crumplecorn Originally by: SnakeByte86 Originally by: Abrazzar The module size adjustment was meant to nerf the mineral compression of some modules. People build modules hauled them and reprocessed them again to haul larger quantities of minerals than they could have normally. The compression factor of some modules was so high that ccp decided to increase the size of almost all T1 modules. The side effects may or may not be intentional. They could have just adjusted minerals needed to build some modules. Problem solved. Make an arbitrary bunch of modules then times cheaper to make to solve an unrelated problem? I'm glad you don't balance EVE... one dimensional fool. The amount of minerls, and values are not related. 1000 trit, and 1000 zydrine take up the same space, and are the same amounth. Yet one is worth 800 times the other. If you dont manufacture, please dont talk in this forum about it.
Crumplecorn Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations	Posted - 2007.12.09 01:22:00 - [24] Originally by: SnakeByte86 Originally by: Crumplecorn Originally by: SnakeByte86 Originally by: Abrazzar The module size adjustment was meant to nerf the mineral compression of some modules. People build modules hauled them and reprocessed them again to haul larger quantities of minerals than they could have normally. The compression factor of some modules was so high that ccp decided to increase the size of almost all T1 modules. The side effects may or may not be intentional. They could have just adjusted minerals needed to build some modules. Problem solved. Make an arbitrary bunch of modules then times cheaper to make to solve an unrelated problem? I'm glad you don't balance EVE... one dimensional fool. The amount of minerls, and values are not related. 1000 trit, and 1000 zydrine take up the same space, and are the same amounth. Yet one is worth 800 times the other. If you dont manufacture, please dont talk in this forum about it. And the demand for each mineral changing due to 'adjusted' mineral requirements on a multitude of modules won't have any effect on the market? Just stop trolling, ffs. - I wish I was a three foot female doll with a watering can and heterochromatic eyes.
Tortun Nahme Minmatar Heimatar Services Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.12.09 01:24:00 - [25] now now crumplecorn, you cant expect him to be able to read all that text I mean, we have to take some pity on the lesser species Originally by: Cecil Montague They should change that warning on entering low sec to: "Go read Crime and Punishment for a few days then come back."
SnakeByte86	Posted - 2007.12.09 01:25:00 - [26] Originally by: Crumplecorn Originally by: SnakeByte86 Originally by: Crumplecorn Originally by: SnakeByte86 Originally by: Abrazzar The module size adjustment was meant to nerf the mineral compression of some modules. People build modules hauled them and reprocessed them again to haul larger quantities of minerals than they could have normally. The compression factor of some modules was so high that ccp decided to increase the size of almost all T1 modules. The side effects may or may not be intentional. They could have just adjusted minerals needed to build some modules. Problem solved. Make an arbitrary bunch of modules then times cheaper to make to solve an unrelated problem? I'm glad you don't balance EVE... one dimensional fool. The amount of minerls, and values are not related. 1000 trit, and 1000 zydrine take up the same space, and are the same amounth. Yet one is worth 800 times the other. If you dont manufacture, please dont talk in this forum about it. And the demand for each mineral changing due to 'adjusted' mineral requirements on a multitude of modules won't have any effect on the market? Just stop trolling, ffs. Watch how complicated it is, increase usage of higher value minerals in small things, and increase the usage of lower value minerals in large things. Look balance! Though i know it is not that simple, it would change mineral demand some, but this current change did that too. Get a clue.
Tortun Nahme Minmatar Heimatar Services Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.12.09 01:26:00 - [27] so of course, now it refines into more of the GOOD minerals thereby nerfing compression by allows us to transport valuable minerals in small bundles, wow I want to learn economics from you! Originally by: Cecil Montague They should change that warning on entering low sec to: "Go read Crime and Punishment for a few days then come back."
SnakeByte86	Posted - 2007.12.09 01:33:00 - [28] Originally by: Crumplecorn Edited by: Crumplecorn on 09/12/2007 01:30:08 Originally by: SnakeByte86 Watch how complicated it is, increase usage of higher value minerals in small things, and increase the usage of lower value minerals in large things. Look balance! Though i know it is not that simple, it would change mineral demand some, but this current change did that too. Get a clue. So now you not only want to fix incorrect sizes by making the mineral requirements equally incorrect, but also screw with everything else in attempt to balance it? Your general methodology seems to be, when someone is wrong fix it with another wrong. And when you realize that, ha ha, two wrongs don't make a right, expecting that doing the same thing a second time will get a different result. Like I said, glad you don't balance EVE. I never said it needed fixed in the first place, but this fix makes a ton more sense then jacking up the size of modules.
Crumplecorn Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations	Posted - 2007.12.09 01:35:00 - [29] Originally by: SnakeByte86 Originally by: Crumplecorn Edited by: Crumplecorn on 09/12/2007 01:30:08 Originally by: SnakeByte86 Watch how complicated it is, increase usage of higher value minerals in small things, and increase the usage of lower value minerals in large things. Look balance! Though i know it is not that simple, it would change mineral demand some, but this current change did that too. Get a clue. So now you not only want to fix incorrect sizes by making the mineral requirements equally incorrect, but also screw with everything else in attempt to balance it? Your general methodology seems to be, when someone is wrong fix it with another wrong. And when you realize that, ha ha, two wrongs don't make a right, expecting that doing the same thing a second time will get a different result. Like I said, glad you don't balance EVE. I never said it needed fixed in the first place, but this fix makes a ton more sense then jacking up the size of modules. No, it doesn't. The mineral requirements had and have no problem. The volumes on the modules were incorrect. They corrected them. Correcting things is a good procedure when fixing. - I wish I was a three foot female doll with a watering can and heterochromatic eyes.
Mohia Matara The Blue Dagger Mercenery Agency	Posted - 2007.12.09 01:36:00 - [30] What modules have increased in size? All ones that i've looked for are the same volume on my end. ___________________ I'm annoying

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: 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.