| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Jones Maloy
Minmatar
Unified Naval Command
   |
Posted - 2007.12.10 16:18:00 -
[1]
why did they nerf module sizes (eanm is 100m3, was 5m3)
check the volume on all of your stuff to see what I mean.
---
 Originally by: Kagura Nikon
.......That is why I started an alt to be completely specced in ammar. Because eventually CCP will buff it......
rofl |
Asestorian
Domination.
|
Posted - 2007.12.10 16:40:00 -
[2]
As explained in the other billion threads about it, it was to nerf mineral compression. However, nobody knows why CCP did it like this when they could have simply changed the minerals needed to build the modules, but keeping the same overall value.
---
MOZO
|
Grimpak
Gallente
Trinity Nova
|
Posted - 2007.12.10 17:03:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Asestorian
As explained in the other billion threads about it, it was to nerf mineral compression. However, nobody knows why CCP did it like this when they could have simply changed the minerals needed to build the modules, but keeping the same overall value.
the most probable reason is that they attempted to make the least impact on market value.
this way, they increase the modules size, but they remain with the exact same value.
problem is, to the belt npc'ers, it nerfs the ability of packing the loot.
it's no surprise tho. the nerfs that CCP makes sometimes are double edged *cough*damps*cough*
---
planetary interaction idea! |
Clavius XIV
Auctoritan Syndicate
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.12.10 17:09:00 -
[4]
It doesn't really impact belt npcers because it only applies to t1 loot that has blueprints. Thus your n-type ean has exactly the same volume as before.
|
Jones Maloy
Minmatar
Unified Naval Command
|
Posted - 2007.12.10 17:37:00 -
[5]
ah, makes some sense.
mine minerals, make item with 0% waste, ship item, refine item with 0% waste, get minerals back.
was that really such a big problem to need their size changed that much?
*does some research*
wow, yes it was a very big problem
110m3 of minerals to produce a 5m3 item (eanm).
is there anything else they could do instead of changing the volume of the item? I can't think of anything that wouldn't cause another side effect.
I about fell out of my chair when I saw the 100m3 on the nano membrane.
---
Originally by: Kagura Nikon
.......That is why I started an alt to be completely specced in ammar. Because eventually CCP will buff it......
rofl |
Grimpak
Gallente
Trinity Nova
|
Posted - 2007.12.10 17:47:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Jones Maloy
ah, makes some sense.
mine minerals, make item with 0% waste, ship item, refine item with 0% waste, get minerals back.
was that really such a big problem to need their size changed that much?
*does some research*
wow, yes it was a very big problem
110m3 of minerals to produce a 5m3 item (eanm).
is there anything else they could do instead of changing the volume of the item? I can't think of anything that wouldn't cause another side effect.
I about fell out of my chair when I saw the 100m3 on the nano membrane.
change the mineral requirements to produce the item.
however, even if you tried to maintain the same relative value of the mod, you can be sure that the market would get screwed somehow. Murphy's law. remember it.
so CCP had 2 choices: increase the module size massively, maintaining the same mineral value, thus making it hard to transport, or change the minerals needed, while maintaining the same relative value, but with the probability to crash the market while we're at that.
---
planetary interaction idea! |
Rashmika Sky
|
Posted - 2007.12.10 19:38:00 -
[7]
Why not make refining items less efficient, so it's not worthwhile to create items, transport, and then refine them? Seems like it'd have the some purpose without increasing module sizes.
I imagine there's a good explaination why not to do this, though.
-Rash
|
Yoinx
Caldari
JET FORCE
|
Posted - 2007.12.10 19:53:00 -
[8]
Perhaps even just make it so that any item that is reprocessed within say a week of being created would only refine for like 5% of the minerals. Though, this probably would have made for a lot more server and database work.
While I HATE the new sizes. It does make sense to me, and seems the best solution all around.
-
I wish I had something witty to put in a signature.
- |
Chaplain Veritas
Amarr
The Aduro Protocol
The Fifth Race
|
Posted - 2007.12.10 19:54:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Rashmika Sky
Why not make refining items less efficient, so it's not worthwhile to create items, transport, and then refine them? Seems like it'd have the some purpose without increasing module sizes.
I imagine there's a good explaination why not to do this, though.
-Rash
i'm not an industrialist so i'm throwing in my completely irrelevant opinion, but that make sense to me too. i mean, when you recycle something, you don't get 100% of your material, there's going to be *some* wasted.
but yeah i'm sure that would bork industrialists big time who spent time training to improve their efficiency in building / reprocessing
____________________________
the eyes are the groin of the face - dwight shrute |
Grimpak
Gallente
Trinity Nova
|
Posted - 2007.12.10 20:11:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Yoinx
While I HATE the new sizes. It does make sense to me, and seems the best solution all around.
exactly my feelings.
---
planetary interaction idea! |
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |