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)
SnakeByte86	Posted - 2007.12.09 01:37:00 - [31] Originally by: Crumplecorn 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. The modules volumes have been like that since beta, They did *not* need corrected, Nothing needed corrected. It was a small problem, and not even a major problem. Now they just make it harder on everyone, creating more work. Not making the game harder, but more tedious, more boring, more time consuming, so less time is actualy spent on fun.
Crumplecorn Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations	Posted - 2007.12.09 01:38:00 - [32] Originally by: SnakeByte86 Now they just make it harder on everyone, creating more work. Not making the game harder, but more tedious, more boring, more time consuming, so less time is actualy spent on fun. If all you want is pure fun, might I suggest the test server? - 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 01:38:00 - [33] "durr, I say there was no problem therefore im right, yukk yukk" 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."
Imperator Jora'h	Posted - 2007.12.09 01:40:00 - [34] Mineral compression was obnoxious. Someone noted they could move over 2 billion minerals in a freighter via mineral compression. A Dev once confirmed a frigate could move as much as a freighter via compression. For those who would rather they nerfed the output of minerals when melting a mod you'd be here now complaining that CCP nerfed your income and you likely would not loot at all as it would not be worth the time (and face it...most non-named loot gets melted). The added time to loot really is not all that much in comparison to your overall mission time. Drag a can around with you and dump loot to the can (keep named mods in cargo). Dock and get a hauler to bring it back. Or, if you fear thieves, dock at a local station and unload then bring a hauler around once a week to scoop all your goodies. Lots of ways to do it and on a mission that takes 2 hours to do and loot previously it will probably take you 2 hours and 10 minutes now with just a little bit of thought. Not to mention you have Marauders now which can considerably speed your looting. So this backs it off a tad. OMG...balance!
Reto The Last Resort	Posted - 2007.12.09 01:41:00 - [35] Originally by: Mohia Matara What modules have increased in size? All ones that i've looked for are the same volume on my end. medium gun turrets for example are now 100m¦in size. Originally by: s4mp3r0r "Hey man, you're mom has a cruise missile".
SnakeByte86	Posted - 2007.12.09 01:41:00 - [36] Originally by: Crumplecorn Originally by: SnakeByte86 Now they just make it harder on everyone, creating more work. Not making the game harder, but more tedious, more boring, more time consuming, so less time is actualy spent on fun. If all you want is pure fun, might I suggest the test server? Yeah this Game should not be any fun? I mean right? Who wants to have fun in a game? All i am saying is if you want to make a game harder, make it more challenging, make it require thought. Dont make it more time consuming, and more tedious, and more repetitive. This game used to be about who was smarter, now it is about who has the most hauler alts. Notice this benefits CCPs wallet? Enjoy being a fanboi, maybe they will reward you with more nerfs that directly effect you.
Sky Marshal Aeden Tau Ceti Federation	Posted - 2007.12.09 01:42:00 - [37] Edited by: Sky Marshal on 09/12/2007 01:46:35 Edited by: Sky Marshal on 09/12/2007 01:45:46 Originally by: Crumplecorn 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. At the cost of less profit for ratters... Now loot 3 BS is the maximum for a Raven before have to go to the safe to unload it in some giant containers (more will be required now). Depends of the time of warp and the unloading operation (as you never warp at less than 2km of a container), I can lost 1 mn each 4 mn of killing/looting/salvaging, so 20% time waste. As I can't play 20% more, this will reduce my profits. At least, CCP would raise bounties, or make NAMED loot that they give the same amount of minerals than pure T1 modules (actualy a Named give 50% less), to compensate.
Mohia Matara The Blue Dagger Mercenery Agency	Posted - 2007.12.09 01:43:00 - [38] Originally by: Reto Originally by: Mohia Matara What modules have increased in size? All ones that i've looked for are the same volume on my end. medium gun turrets for example are now 100m¦in size. You sure about that? Their comming up at 10.0 on mine. ___________________ I'm annoying
SnakeByte86	Posted - 2007.12.09 01:44:00 - [39] Originally by: Imperator Jora'h Mineral compression was obnoxious. Someone noted they could move over 2 billion minerals in a freighter via mineral compression. A Dev once confirmed a frigate could move as much as a freighter via compression. For those who would rather they nerfed the output of minerals when melting a mod you'd be here now complaining that CCP nerfed your income and you likely would not loot at all as it would not be worth the time (and face it...most non-named loot gets melted). The added time to loot really is not all that much in comparison to your overall mission time. Drag a can around with you and dump loot to the can (keep named mods in cargo). Dock and get a hauler to bring it back. Or, if you fear thieves, dock at a local station and unload then bring a hauler around once a week to scoop all your goodies. Lots of ways to do it and on a mission that takes 2 hours to do and loot previously it will probably take you 2 hours and 10 minutes now with just a little bit of thought. Not to mention you have Marauders now which can considerably speed your looting. So this backs it off a tad. OMG...balance! Yeah Looting when you pvp, so easy to bring a can with you. Nice thinking. What about producers and traders? Now its impossible to do anything with out a freighter. I dont know who told you you could move a freighters worth of minerals in a frigate, because they were wrong. Like i said it was a small problem, but just that small. Super alliances can just as easily move 35 freighters, intead of 15. Small corps cant. This screws the solo/small corp player the most, and spreads the gap between the big corps and the small corps.
SnakeByte86	Posted - 2007.12.09 01:45:00 - [40] Originally by: Mohia Matara Originally by: Reto Originally by: Mohia Matara What modules have increased in size? All ones that i've looked for are the same volume on my end. medium gun turrets for example are now 100m¦in size. You sure about that? Their comming up at 10.0 on mine. different guns, different m3, so logical right? Try 250mm rail guns They take up twice as much space as a DUAL 250mm rail
Mel Ionix	Posted - 2007.12.09 01:45:00 - [41] Personally I find it hilarious how people with legitimate concerns will just find their thread trolled to ** by others who would accept any, and I mean any** action that CCP makes. Such is the shallow life of your average forum troll
Crumplecorn Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations	Posted - 2007.12.09 01:46:00 - [42] Originally by: SnakeByte86 All i am saying is if you want to make a game harder, make it more challenging, make it require thought. Dont make it more time consuming, and more tedious, and more repetitive. Their aim wasn't to make the game harder, but to fix an error. - I wish I was a three foot female doll with a watering can and heterochromatic eyes.
Crumplecorn Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations	Posted - 2007.12.09 01:48:00 - [43] Edited by: Crumplecorn on 09/12/2007 01:51:33 Originally by: Mohia Matara Originally by: Reto Originally by: Mohia Matara What modules have increased in size? All ones that i've looked for are the same volume on my end. medium gun turrets for example are now 100m¦in size. You sure about that? Their comming up at 10.0 on mine. CCP only changed the ones they needed to fix mineral compression. The only reasons I can think of for this are laziness and stupidity. Originally by: Mel Ionix Personally I find it hilarious how people with legitimate concerns will just find their thread trolled to ** by others who would accept any, and I mean any** action that CCP makes. Such is the shallow life of your average forum troll I find it hilarious how people who post selfish whines only loosly related to genuine issues will be supported by others who will attack any action CCP makes. Such is the shallow life of your average forum troll. - I wish I was a three foot female doll with a watering can and heterochromatic eyes.
SnakeByte86	Posted - 2007.12.09 01:49:00 - [44] Originally by: Crumplecorn Originally by: SnakeByte86 All i am saying is if you want to make a game harder, make it more challenging, make it require thought. Dont make it more time consuming, and more tedious, and more repetitive. Their aim wasn't to make the game harder, but to fix an error. Yeah an error, that the majority of people A. did not know about. or B. Thought was not a problem. Meanwhile they dont fix the real "errors" like bugs and massive lag. Hey you are one the smarter fanbois i've ever ran into, maybe you managed to graduate middleschool after all.
Mohia Matara The Blue Dagger Mercenery Agency	Posted - 2007.12.09 01:50:00 - [45] Ah finally found some enlarged modules. Tbh their not that much of an enlargement. Can quite easily fit looted modules from pvp kills into my ship. As for missions I just jet can trail so wont fill up. Not sure how this might affect others though so for me this change doesn't mean anything, for others it might. ___________________ I'm annoying
Imperator Jora'h	Posted - 2007.12.09 01:52:00 - [46] Edited by: Imperator Jora''h on 09/12/2007 01:55:21 Originally by: SnakeByte86 I dont know who told you you could move a freighters worth of minerals in a frigate, because they were wrong. Actually seems I got it wrong. Seems you could move TWO freighters worth of mins in a frig. A CCP Dev said it. Call him a liar (bolding mine). Quote: We realise many supercap industries have heavy reliance on this method to supply their minerals from the marketplace and that whilst the ability to move two freighters worth of minerals in a frigate is broke and something we want to fix, it can be done in a better way. SOURCE: CCP Chronotis EDIT: Oh, and notice in the quote above how he mentions supercaps industries "heavy" reliance on this method of transport. So no, it was not a "small" problem.
Crumplecorn Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations	Posted - 2007.12.09 01:55:00 - [47] Originally by: SnakeByte86 Originally by: Crumplecorn Originally by: SnakeByte86 All i am saying is if you want to make a game harder, make it more challenging, make it require thought. Dont make it more time consuming, and more tedious, and more repetitive. Their aim wasn't to make the game harder, but to fix an error. Yeah an error, that the majority of people A. did not know about. or B. Thought was not a problem. Meanwhile they dont fix the real "errors" like bugs and massive lag. Hey you are one the smarter fanbois i've ever ran into, maybe you managed to graduate middleschool after all. Enough people knew about it that they took the time to change it. And of course people didn't think it was a problem. It allowed them to do many things they are not able to do now that the figures are correct. If you can 'fix' lag, go ahead. I'd love to live in a world where there was no latency involved in digital signals. - I wish I was a three foot female doll with a watering can and heterochromatic eyes.
SnakeByte86	Posted - 2007.12.09 02:00:00 - [48] Since i've never seen this be done, and never heard anyone doing it, and never in all my years of living in 0.0, manufacturing, trading, hauling, mining. Have i ever seen a way this can be done. Yes i am going to call Bull***. Even a frig with awesome cargo expanders couldn't hold more then 500m3 i think, at most. So at most that is 100 5m3 modules. since a freighter can move roughly 75million minerals with out skill bonuses taken into effect. 75,000,000 2 /100 = 1.5million minerals,per 5m3. Now assuming it wasnt some sort of bug with a pos module, or capital ship class module. I do not see how it is possible to move that much minerals in a frigate. I would beg someone to explain it to me. Those are generous estimates of what a frig can carry, and conservative estimates of what a freighter can carry. The only thing i can possibly see being anywhere near this effective is plush compoud, which is still nowhere near effective, and can not be built.
Crumplecorn Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations	Posted - 2007.12.09 02:03:00 - [49] Edited by: Crumplecorn on 09/12/2007 02:03:40 Originally by: SnakeByte86 75,000,000* 2 /100 = 1.5million minerals,per 5m3. Now assuming it wasnt some sort of bug with a pos module, or capital ship class module. I do not see how it is possible to move that much minerals in a frigate. 1.5M minerals in 5m3 is a 3000:1 ratio. I've heard of a module with a 4000:1 ratio. But I'm not sure if its true - I wish I was a three foot female doll with a watering can and heterochromatic eyes.
SnakeByte86	Posted - 2007.12.09 02:04:00 - [50] Originally by: Crumplecorn Originally by: SnakeByte86 Originally by: Crumplecorn Originally by: SnakeByte86 All i am saying is if you want to make a game harder, make it more challenging, make it require thought. Dont make it more time consuming, and more tedious, and more repetitive. Their aim wasn't to make the game harder, but to fix an error. Yeah an error, that the majority of people A. did not know about. or B. Thought was not a problem. Meanwhile they dont fix the real "errors" like bugs and massive lag. Hey you are one the smarter fanbois i've ever ran into, maybe you managed to graduate middleschool after all. Enough people knew about it that they took the time to change it. And of course people didn't think it was a problem. It allowed them to do many things they are not able to do now that the figures are correct. If you can 'fix' lag, go ahead. I'd love to live in a world where there was no latency involved in digital signals. You said this earlier, once again you show your lack of knowledge. If the "latency" between us and the servers was the only problem, it would be wonderful. We're talking at most a 200ms delay if you are on broadband. Right now in fleet battles, the lag can be 60 seconds or more. Thats enough time to send the signal to the moon and back about 25 times. Do we have a problem? Yes we do. The lag is server side, has nothing to do with latency over the lines, if lag was that bad, noone could ever play a first person shooter. Or control a UAV on the opposite side of the world. Have you ever even taken a computer class? Or see the inside of a class room?
SnakeByte86	Posted - 2007.12.09 02:05:00 - [51] Originally by: Crumplecorn Edited by: Crumplecorn on 09/12/2007 02:03:40 Originally by: SnakeByte86 75,000,000* 2 /100 = 1.5million minerals,per 5m3. Now assuming it wasnt some sort of bug with a pos module, or capital ship class module. I do not see how it is possible to move that much minerals in a frigate. 1.5M minerals in 5m3 is a 3000:1 ratio. I've heard of a module with a 4000:1 ratio. But I'm not sure if its true Obviously if thinks like this existed it needed fixed, but few items would be all, NOT half the items in the game.
Crumplecorn Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations	Posted - 2007.12.09 02:06:00 - [52] Originally by: SnakeByte86 Originally by: Crumplecorn Originally by: SnakeByte86 Originally by: Crumplecorn Originally by: SnakeByte86 All i am saying is if you want to make a game harder, make it more challenging, make it require thought. Dont make it more time consuming, and more tedious, and more repetitive. Their aim wasn't to make the game harder, but to fix an error. Yeah an error, that the majority of people A. did not know about. or B. Thought was not a problem. Meanwhile they dont fix the real "errors" like bugs and massive lag. Hey you are one the smarter fanbois i've ever ran into, maybe you managed to graduate middleschool after all. Enough people knew about it that they took the time to change it. And of course people didn't think it was a problem. It allowed them to do many things they are not able to do now that the figures are correct. If you can 'fix' lag, go ahead. I'd love to live in a world where there was no latency involved in digital signals. You said this earlier, once again you show your lack of knowledge. If the "latency" between us and the servers was the only problem, it would be wonderful. We're talking at most a 200ms delay if you are on broadband. Right now in fleet battles, the lag can be 60 seconds or more. Thats enough time to send the signal to the moon and back about 25 times. Do we have a problem? Yes we do. Actually I was wondering if you would spot that. The part of the post I left out was, I would also like to live in a world where you managed to make problems which are factorial in n linear in n, so the server could scale up to huge n. - I wish I was a three foot female doll with a watering can and heterochromatic eyes.
Imperator Jora'h	Posted - 2007.12.09 02:12:00 - [53] Originally by: SnakeByte86 Originally by: Crumplecorn Edited by: Crumplecorn on 09/12/2007 02:03:40 Originally by: SnakeByte86 75,000,000* 2 /100 = 1.5million minerals,per 5m3. Now assuming it wasnt some sort of bug with a pos module, or capital ship class module. I do not see how it is possible to move that much minerals in a frigate. 1.5M minerals in 5m3 is a 3000:1 ratio. I've heard of a module with a 4000:1 ratio. But I'm not sure if its true Obviously if thinks like this existed it needed fixed, but few items would be all, NOT half the items in the game. They did exist and there is no arguing with you. You are so hell bent on being angry that no amount of "proof" will work for you. I provided a quote from a Dev in an epic thread on the subject and you still do not believe it. Like any good fanatic you refuse to see anything but your own preconceptions. Some modules were way over the top (4000:1 or more) in mineral compression but there were many that still did it at 100:1 ratios. CCP did not run through and up every mod. From what they said they looked at what was out there and adjusted accordingly. The thread I linked to earlier has a looong discussion on this when CCP originally proposed nerfs to this. I am surprised you are surprised by all this.
SnakeByte86	Posted - 2007.12.09 02:15:00 - [54] You have yet to tell me what mod gave that much compression, i am eager to hear.
Malcanis High4Life SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2007.12.09 02:17:00 - [55] Originally by: SnakeByte86 You have yet to tell me what mod gave that much compression, i am eager to hear. Tractor beams used to be the module of choice for this. CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that.
Elmicker The Scope	Posted - 2007.12.09 02:18:00 - [56] Unfortunately, the opposition to mineral compression is unreasonable. It was one of the core mechanics that allowed 0.0 to exist as it did. There was no reason to nerf it beyond "We want logistics guys to do more work." Which, is ******* stupid. Let's not forget 0.0 alliances need smooth logistics to enable their members to pvp easily. All this does is increase the amount of work those logistics guys have to do. (It was the jump portal generator, iirc)
SnakeByte86	Posted - 2007.12.09 02:25:00 - [57] I see they changed the volume to 50, i dont remember the previous mineral content, but one can assume they only changed the volume, not the minerals, since aparently changing needed materials is a no no. So i just did some math, at best it is a 107:1 ratio before volume change. So if this was the one of choice? Where is the 4000 to 1? For that matter tractor beams still over a 10:1 now. So what was fixed?
SnakeByte86	Posted - 2007.12.09 02:27:00 - [58] Originally by: Elmicker Unfortunately, the opposition to mineral compression is unreasonable. It was one of the core mechanics that allowed 0.0 to exist as it did. There was no reason to nerf it beyond "We want logistics guys to do more work." Which, is ******* stupid. Let's not forget 0.0 alliances need smooth logistics to enable their members to pvp easily. All this does is increase the amount of work those logistics guys have to do. (It was the jump portal generator, iirc) Yeah everyone keeps saying this helps miners, Coming from an ex miner, i'd like to see how it really makes a difference, all it does is raise demand for veldspar in 0.0, trit would have to be like 30 a unit (random guess) to make it worth mining over ark.
Elmicker The Scope	Posted - 2007.12.09 02:28:00 - [59] Originally by: SnakeByte86 So if this was the one of choice? Where is the 4000 to 1? Jump portal generator I Quote: So what was fixed? Nothing, it just ****s mission runners and sends both 0.0 and empire prices skyward.
Imperator Jora'h	Posted - 2007.12.09 02:29:00 - [60] Originally by: SnakeByte86 I see they changed the volume to 50, i dont remember the previous mineral content, but one can assume they only changed the volume, not the minerals, since aparently changing needed materials is a no no. So i just did some math, at best it is a 107:1 ratio before volume change. So if this was the one of choice? Where is the 4000 to 1? For that matter tractor beams still over a 10:1 now. So what was fixed? Not sure what you are looking at although our 4000:1 is off a decimal place I think. Doing some math on a JPG I get a roughly 430:1 compression ratio. If a frig carried 4 of these that would melt out to 2 freighters worth of mins. It may have been that a frig would mount the JPG in a slot. Of course the frig could not run it but the game allowed you to mount it just offline. I think that can no longer be done though. Not 100% on that but I think that was part of the trick.

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.