EVE Search - m3 / Volume Nerf super suckity sucks.

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Ships and Modules

m3 / Volume Nerf super suckity sucks.

» 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)
Enkilil Minmatar Carbon Moon Corporation	Posted - 2007.12.12 01:51:00 - [1] Edited by: Enkilil on 12/12/2007 01:52:17 Edited by: Enkilil on 12/12/2007 01:52:04 100m3 for 800 and 1600 armor plates? 50m3 for all drain / vampire modules? Honestly, ratting has gone from 'kill 6-8 BS rats, dock, empty hold' to 'kill 2 rats, dock, empty hold, go back to belt to the the rest of your loot' CCP, please un-homo-nerf this ridiculous change. How does this EVEN REMOTELY push the 'need for speed' initiative? This is the definitely THE most asinine pea brained backassward nerf possible.
goodby4u Logistic Technologies Incorporated	Posted - 2007.12.12 01:56:00 - [2] I think the idea behind this nerf was to make marauders more helpfull,although it hurts to loot now
Grimpak Gallente Trinity Nova	Posted - 2007.12.12 01:58:00 - [3] Originally by: goodby4u I think the idea behind this nerf was to make marauders more helpfull,although it hurts to loot now no, idea was to nerf compression. well it works now and tbh it's the most sensible way to nerf compression. however, the drawback is that stuff is much more harder to loot now. --- planetary interaction idea!
Shardrael Caldari AWE Corporation Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2007.12.12 02:38:00 - [4] tbo it doesnt hurt compression that much as there are still ways around it and now mission runners got the total shaft. It was already a large pain in reward/time to loot missions now having to do 3 or 4 complete trips in a salvage battlecruiser or destroyer to loot is just unfeasible. let alone that you cant salvage some races bs because you need 250m3 free to poetntiall carry the 6 cubic assloads of scrapmetal you will get
Enkilil Minmatar Carbon Moon Corporation	Posted - 2007.12.12 03:02:00 - [5] Ok here's another example of the stupidity I'm talking about... a Brutix w/ a 400m3 cargo hold kills 2 Sansha BS rats, can carry one rat's loot away + 1 module from the other one??? This is completely unacceptable and just plain bad for the game. 20m3 Heavy Cap Booster I 50m3 Large Energy Transfer Array I 50m3 Heavy Nosferatu I 20m3 Mega Modulated Energy Beam I 150m3 Large EMP Smartbomb I (yes, 150m3) 50m3 Dual Heavy Beam Laser I That's all she wrote once you add in ammo. What clown thought this was even remotely a good idea?
Ogul Caldari ZiTek Deepspace Explorations Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.12.12 03:11:00 - [6] Originally by: Enkilil What clown thought this was even remotely a good idea? Clown Control Productions. --- This is a war declaration, issued from your alt corp. It is used to gank people in high sec.
NoNah	Posted - 2007.12.12 03:20:00 - [7] I'd like an explenation on how this doesnt hurt mineral compression? What ways are there around it? In my eyes they've nerfed it by about 93%, give or take? As for looting, I don't quite see the issue either. For me it's gone from one jump to every other pocket to one jump to every pocket. Not that big of a deal. Bring 2 tractor beams and some salvagers on your mission setups, drag a can, drop the loot in the can and bring the salvage back. Bookmark each can, and get them all in a hauler? Postcount: 618985
Grimpak Gallente Trinity Nova	Posted - 2007.12.12 03:33:00 - [8] Originally by: Shardrael tbo it doesnt hurt compression that much as there are still ways around it and now mission runners got the total shaft. It was already a large pain in reward/time to loot missions now having to do 3 or 4 complete trips in a salvage battlecruiser or destroyer to loot is just unfeasible. let alone that you cant salvage some races bs because you need 250m3 free to poetntiall carry the 6 cubic assloads of scrapmetal you will get ? let's take the example of the sensor boosters. they were 5m3 before and they are now... 20? 50? anyways a sensor booster with perfect skills uses 4527 trit, 50 pyer, and 2 isogen. that is 45.27m3 of trit, 0.5m3 of pyer and 0.02 of isogen = 45.79m3 of minerals compressed in a 5m3 volume mod. if they increased the size of the passive targeter to 50m3, it is now a waste, in terms of mineral compression. other example is the EANM where you have roughly 2 to 3 times the ammount of minerals and the size was 5m3. if it's 100m3 in size, then the mineral compression for this mod has been effectively nerfed and made useless. --- planetary interaction idea!
PathetiQ Gallente Vale Heavy Industries Molotov Coalition	Posted - 2007.12.12 05:18:00 - [9] When I was -5 and even now that i can enter 0.9 system, i'm using shuttle and rookie ship to go buy modules and stuff for war and lowsec. now need a hauler alt , or someone else. it really suck yes the nerf was needed but i think if we were at 0% now we are at 100% ner can we set the m3 size half way please :S ::Killing Space Monkey Since 1969::
Deva Blackfire D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2007.12.12 06:27:00 - [10] instead of moving modules for t2 production with prorator i need freighter now. Great.

Shereza	Posted - 2007.12.12 06:45:00 - [11] Honestly, the biggest problem with this is, so far as I know, CCP didn't apply it evenly across the board. T1 modules that used to be 5m3 or 10m3 and are now 50m3 and 100m3 have 5/10m3 named and T2 counterparts and this is completely wrong. At the very least T2 mods should have the same, if not more, cubage as the T1 mods they're based on. As things stand CCP's attempt to correct an "exploit" can, and will, cause serious issues with mission runners, especially as a sizable chunk of their income can, and does, come from T1 mods which often have better sell prices (or at least had) than low-grade named mods. Barring fixing this bug (and until the increased cubages are applied across the board I consider it a bug because two modules that are virtually identical having massively different sizes makes no sense) CCP should increase the cargo boost provided by expanded cargo holds from 27.5% (T2) to a minimum of 127.5% (T2) per mod without stacking penalty so that people can actually be able to loot their missions without giving up in frustration. Oddly, this move can, and likely will, fly in the face of their "Need for Speed Initiative." Think on it. Every person who does a mission and doesn't completely salvage/loot a wreck causing it to disappear is leaving that many more things for the server to keep track of, no matter how briefly the item might exist in the game. How much more lag will there be due to, for example, 80% of the mission runners in the game no longer looting their kills?
Siyanamar	Posted - 2007.12.12 09:07:00 - [12] Originally by: Shereza Think on it. Every person who does a mission and doesn't completely salvage/loot a wreck causing it to disappear is leaving that many more things for the server to keep track of, no matter how briefly the item might exist in the game. How much more lag will there be due to, for example, 80% of the mission runners in the game no longer looting their kills? QFT.
Dristra Amarr Shadows of the Dead Aftermath Alliance	Posted - 2007.12.12 09:15:00 - [13] Originally by: Enkilil Edited by: Enkilil on 12/12/2007 01:52:17 Edited by: Enkilil on 12/12/2007 01:52:04 100m3 for 800 and 1600 armor plates? 50m3 for all drain / vampire modules? Honestly, ratting has gone from 'kill 6-8 BS rats, dock, empty hold' to 'kill 2 rats, dock, empty hold, go back to belt to the the rest of your loot' CCP, please un-homo-nerf this ridiculous change. How does this EVEN REMOTELY push the 'need for speed' initiative? This is the definitely THE most asinine pea brained backassward nerf possible. are you sure that is how it is? it is supposed to be based on the minerals used, if they have just slapped 50m3 on ALL drain / vampire modules, and the same m3 on 800 and 1600 plates it is just ccp lazy-man strike and i agree it should be fixed, a small nos does not use the same space as a large one... It's great being Amarr isn't it. Support the introduction of Blaze M crystals for Amarr!
Cpt Branko The Bloody Red	Posted - 2007.12.12 09:17:00 - [14] Originally by: Grimpak Originally by: goodby4u I think the idea behind this nerf was to make marauders more helpfull,although it hurts to loot now no, idea was to nerf compression. well it works now and tbh it's the most sensible way to nerf compression. however, the drawback is that stuff is much more harder to loot now. Errrr... but, erm, do you really think a medium blaster or a EANM I reprocess to 100m3 of minerals, or a small hull rep to 50m3? They don't. Rifters!
Cpt Branko The Bloody Red	Posted - 2007.12.12 09:18:00 - [15] Edited by: Cpt Branko on 12/12/2007 09:19:53 Originally by: NoNah Bring 2 tractor beams and some salvagers on your mission setups, drag a can, drop the loot in the can and bring the salvage back. Bookmark each can, and get them all in a hauler? Do I need to do this after I kill someone in a belt using mostly T1 stuff, too? Originally by: Shereza Honestly, the biggest problem with this is, so far as I know, CCP didn't apply it evenly across the board. T1 modules that used to be 5m3 or 10m3 and are now 50m3 and 100m3 have 5/10m3 named and T2 counterparts and this is completely wrong. Well, it's not, since nobody would ever use T2 production to compress minerals. Seriously. Can you imagine someone making , say, thousands of EANM IIs to melt them for minerals? The problem is that now the modules take much more then the amount of stuff they reprocess into. Rifters!
Grimpak Gallente Trinity Nova	Posted - 2007.12.12 11:09:00 - [16] Originally by: Cpt Branko Originally by: Grimpak Originally by: goodby4u I think the idea behind this nerf was to make marauders more helpfull,although it hurts to loot now no, idea was to nerf compression. well it works now and tbh it's the most sensible way to nerf compression. however, the drawback is that stuff is much more harder to loot now. Errrr... but, erm, do you really think a medium blaster or a EANM I reprocess to 100m3 of minerals, or a small hull rep to 50m3? They don't. for how long have you been playing EVE? you know that CCP uses a sledgehammer approach to nerfing things --- planetary interaction idea!
Darqion Zenix	Posted - 2007.12.12 11:42:00 - [17] Originally by: Grimpak Originally by: Cpt Branko Originally by: Grimpak Originally by: goodby4u I think the idea behind this nerf was to make marauders more helpfull,although it hurts to loot now no, idea was to nerf compression. well it works now and tbh it's the most sensible way to nerf compression. however, the drawback is that stuff is much more harder to loot now. Errrr... but, erm, do you really think a medium blaster or a EANM I reprocess to 100m3 of minerals, or a small hull rep to 50m3? They don't. for how long have you been playing EVE? you know that CCP uses a sledgehammer approach to nerfing things Hitting stuff with a hammer should make it smaller, not bigger
Xanos Blackpaw Amarr The Firestorm Elite	Posted - 2007.12.12 11:44:00 - [18] how about they change back the named modules to the normal size? that will help looting... Playing minmatar is "like going down a flight of stairs in a office chair firing an Uzi".
James Lyrus Lyrus Associates Enuma Elish.	Posted - 2007.12.12 12:08:00 - [19] So... don't pick up the big modules, and leave the 'chaff' to people who consider the isk/hour of doing so a fair trade? Why are you crying about this? Everyone is affected by this change. Your relative isks/hour are undiminished, next to every other ratter/mission runner out there - they are ALL in the same situation. -- Crane needs more grid 249km locking? GMP and TNP
Augeas	Posted - 2007.12.12 12:26:00 - [20] Sounds like a nice boost to T1 manufacturing.

NoNah	Posted - 2007.12.12 12:26:00 - [21] Originally by: James Lyrus So... don't pick up the big modules, and leave the 'chaff' to people who consider the isk/hour of doing so a fair trade? Why are you crying about this? Everyone is affected by this change. Your relative isks/hour are undiminished, next to every other ratter/mission runner out there - they are ALL in the same situation. Irony of the story, the missionrunners and ratters are the ones not very hurt by the nerf. The industrialists are hurt, but.. not more than they had coming. The pirates and other forms of pvpers however... Harrharr! I soloed a harbinger in my intie! oh noes! 7 Faction lazurz and I can't fit one in my cargo bay! =( Postcount: 282479
Enkilil Minmatar Carbon Moon Corporation	Posted - 2007.12.12 12:32:00 - [22] Originally by: James Lyrus Why are you crying about this? Yes, pointing out a really bad CCP decision is crying. Shut down all the forums, you're all crying Originally by: James Lyrus Everyone is affected by this change. Your relative isks/hour are undiminished, next to every other ratter/mission runner out there Wrong. You obviously don't rat in 0.0, or don't pay to enter a station. Originally by: James Lyrus - they are ALL in the same situation. Also wrong. See above. Obvious troll is obvious.
Shevar Minmatar A.W.M Ka-Tet	Posted - 2007.12.12 12:36:00 - [23] Originally by: Grimpak Originally by: goodby4u I think the idea behind this nerf was to make marauders more helpfull,although it hurts to loot now no, idea was to nerf compression. well it works now and tbh it's the most sensible way to nerf compression. however, the drawback is that stuff is much more harder to loot now. There is no sensible way to nerf compression. It would suck if they would increase size of modules and it would suck if they nerfed refining. Heck mineral compression has been around since beta, why suddenly change it? --- -The only real drug problem is scoring real good drugs
tabadabb	Posted - 2007.12.12 12:37:00 - [24] Originally by: Enkilil Originally by: James Lyrus Why are you crying about this? Yes, pointing out a really bad CCP decision is crying. Shut down all the forums, you're all crying Figure of speech? Originally by: James Lyrus Everyone is affected by this change. Your relative isks/hour are undiminished, next to every other ratter/mission runner out there Wrong. You obviously don't rat in 0.0, or don't pay to enter a station. Minimal difference, or you have an increadibly bad deal. Originally by: James Lyrus - they are ALL in the same situation. Also wrong. See above. Obvious troll is obvious. Bah, you're right! It was obvious, and yet, I replied. =( Wow, just had to reply to this.
NoNah	Posted - 2007.12.12 12:38:00 - [25] Originally by: Shevar Originally by: Grimpak Originally by: goodby4u I think the idea behind this nerf was to make marauders more helpfull,although it hurts to loot now no, idea was to nerf compression. well it works now and tbh it's the most sensible way to nerf compression. however, the drawback is that stuff is much more harder to loot now. There is no sensible way to nerf compression. It would suck if they would increase size of modules and it would suck if they nerfed refining. Heck mineral compression has been around since beta, why suddenly change it? Some of the capital modules put it to an extreme, and instead of fixing jus he capial modules, they went for the root of the problem. Postcount: 495491
Grimpak Gallente Trinity Nova	Posted - 2007.12.12 13:19:00 - [26] Originally by: Shevar Originally by: Grimpak Originally by: goodby4u I think the idea behind this nerf was to make marauders more helpfull,although it hurts to loot now no, idea was to nerf compression. well it works now and tbh it's the most sensible way to nerf compression. however, the drawback is that stuff is much more harder to loot now. There is no sensible way to nerf compression. It would suck if they would increase size of modules and it would suck if they nerfed refining. Heck mineral compression has been around since beta, why suddenly change it? indeed there is not. there were 3 options available to make mineral compressio not worthwhile. first is the change of minerals in the module to reflect the module size while maintaining a relative value. sounds good in paper, but considering the volatility of EVE market, too much can go wrong. second comes the refining nerf. making modules refining for less than they were built might create some DB problems, and also, considering that a great ammount of minerals in the market come from refining loot, a similar problem as the above situation might arise. third is the increse of the volume of the mods. Sure it sucks they are too big now for you to cram in your, already full of ammo, cargo hold, but it is adaptable by either having a guy, or your own alt behind in a indy looting all your wrecks. it also makes scavenging worthwhile since people will start to leave more and more loot behind. in all, it's a bad nerf, but it's the option that has the least negative impact on the long run. --- planetary interaction idea!
Cpt Branko The Bloody Red	Posted - 2007.12.12 13:47:00 - [27] Edited by: Cpt Branko on 12/12/2007 13:51:04 Originally by: Grimpak but it is adaptable by either having a guy, or your own alt behind in a indy looting all your wrecks. it also makes scavenging worthwhile since people will start to leave more and more loot behind. You do realise that this poses significant problems in low-sec, where 'bookmark the can and go in a industrial' isn't the brigtest of ideas? It's a big nerf to frigate-sized ships ratting or pirating, and funniest thing now is that you often can't loot a frigate's remains in another frigate or a cruiser's remains in another cruiser if they have some, let's say, T1 EANMs. Since I'm such a dog that I want to pick up even the T1 stuff out of wrecks, what can I say? At any rate, the m3 on a lot of modules is completely overdone, because you sure as hell can't tell me a medium blaster or a EANM I reprocesses to 100m3 of minerals. A way to nerf compression would be a flat out 10% reprocessing hit on T1 stuff: it would reduce the amount of minerals obtained, but so does this. In combination with increasing the m3 on certain popular "compression" modules by a sensible amount, that would have been a good move. Making modules take more then the minerals required to produce them is not a good move. That reeks of inappropriate sledgehammer usage. You could also argue that certain low-end minerals do need to have their m3 sizes slightly reduced. Rifters!
Grimpak Gallente Trinity Nova	Posted - 2007.12.12 13:51:00 - [28] Originally by: Cpt Branko Edited by: Cpt Branko on 12/12/2007 13:50:31 Originally by: Grimpak but it is adaptable by either having a guy, or your own alt behind in a indy looting all your wrecks. it also makes scavenging worthwhile since people will start to leave more and more loot behind. You do realise that this poses significant problems in low-sec, where 'bookmark the can and go in a industrial' isn't the brigtest of ideas? It's a big nerf to frigate-sized ships ratting or pirating, and funniest thing now is that you often can't loot a frigate's remains in another frigate or a cruiser's remains in another cruiser if they have some, let's say, T1 EANMs. Since I'm such a dog that I want to pick up even the T1 stuff out of wrecks, what can I say? At any rate, the m3 on a lot of modules is completely overdone, because you sure as hell can't tell me a medium blaster or a EANM I reprocesses to 100m3 of minerals. A way to nerf compression would be a flat out 10% reprocessing hit on T1 stuff: it would reduce the amount of minerals obtained, but so does this. In combination with increasing the m3 on certain popular "compression" modules by a sensible amount, that would have been a good move. Making modules take more then the minerals required to produce them is not a good move. You could also argue that certain low-end minerals do need to have their m3 sizes slightly reduced. as I said, the way of the nerf in CCP is to apply a sledgehammer. the bigger, the better --- planetary interaction idea!
Cpt Branko The Bloody Red	Posted - 2007.12.12 13:55:00 - [29] Originally by: Grimpak as I said, the way of the nerf in CCP is to apply a sledgehammer. the bigger, the better Yeah, but someone needs to learn that the sledgehammer is not your little friend for swatting flies. Rifters!
James Lyrus Lyrus Associates Enuma Elish.	Posted - 2007.12.12 13:56:00 - [30] Vague basis for complaint: 1pt. Use of nerf in post: 1pt Use of nerf in post title: 1pt. Complaint about subject that is of interest to a moderately-large player group: 2pts. Reference to homosexuality: -1pt. Declaration of quality of nerf without basis: -1pt. Assertion about 'need for speed' which is entirely unrelated to the reason for the balance change: -1pt. YOU SCORE: 2 trollpoints. Not bad, but could use a little more work to become an epic troll. -- Crane needs more grid 249km locking? GMP and TNP



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.