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)
Jones Maloy Minmatar Unified Naval Command	Posted - 2007.12.12 14:27:00 - [31] 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
Iria Ahrens Amarr Ministry of War	Posted - 2007.12.12 14:41:00 - [32] I don't see how you are applying mineral compression to modules. Minerals are raw, that's supposed to be why they can be compressed. You compress a mineral to eliminate wasted space. When you uncompress the mineral the mineral is the same. Putting a module in a trash compactor, it may be made of the same minerals, but it won't work when you release the compressor.
Derek Sigres	Posted - 2007.12.12 14:45:00 - [33] Originally by: Cpt Branko 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. Actually, considering the fact that weapons for example have lots of empty space inside, it is reasonable that they take up more space than the materials required to make them. Also, I was wondering why I wasn't able to loot anything but I didn't pay any real attention cause my Eve was busy crashing after the update
Iria Ahrens Amarr Ministry of War	Posted - 2007.12.12 14:50:00 - [34] Originally by: Derek Sigres Originally by: Cpt Branko 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. Actually, considering the fact that weapons for example have lots of empty space inside, it is reasonable that they take up more space than the materials required to make them. Also, I was wondering why I wasn't able to loot anything but I didn't pay any real attention cause my Eve was busy crashing after the update You don't even have to look inside. The geometry of the weapon itself takes up more space than the minerals would if you ground them up and compressed them.
Jones Maloy Minmatar Unified Naval Command	Posted - 2007.12.12 14:52:00 - [35] ahem Originally by: Jones Maloy 110m3 of minerals to produce a 5m3 item (eanm). --- Originally by: Kagura Nikon .......That is why I started an alt to be completely specced in ammar. Because eventually CCP will buff it...... rofl
Cpt Branko The Bloody Red	Posted - 2007.12.12 15:10:00 - [36] Originally by: Derek Sigres Originally by: Cpt Branko 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. Actually, considering the fact that weapons for example have lots of empty space inside, it is reasonable that they take up more space than the materials required to make them. Also, I was wondering why I wasn't able to loot anything but I didn't pay any real attention cause my Eve was busy crashing after the update Does it change the fact it's not a good move? Rifters!
Dreadmuppet Four	Posted - 2007.12.12 15:24:00 - [37] oh no, that means my normal source of mins for ammo in 0.0 has gone. Don't tell me CCP are going to force me to mine AAAARRRRRGGGGGHHHHHHH
Durzel	Posted - 2007.12.12 15:42:00 - [38] Originally by: Cpt Branko Making modules take more then the minerals required to produce them is not a good move. That reeks of inappropriate sledgehammer usage. Added to which it's not very realistic either. There's plenty of real World examples where manufacturing burns, discards or otherwise loses a significant quantity of raw materials in order to build whatever it is they're building. Having a near direct translation of mineral weight to product weight doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
Dr Fighter	Posted - 2007.12.12 15:59:00 - [39] idea: tripple all non hauler ships cargo! done and done!
James Lyrus Lyrus Associates Enuma Elish.	Posted - 2007.12.12 16:02:00 - [40] Originally by: Durzel Originally by: Cpt Branko Making modules take more then the minerals required to produce them is not a good move. That reeks of inappropriate sledgehammer usage. Added to which it's not very realistic either. There's plenty of real World examples where manufacturing burns, discards or otherwise loses a significant quantity of raw materials in order to build whatever it is they're building. Having a near direct translation of mineral weight to product weight doesn't make a whole lot of sense. It does when the translation is bidirectional though. In the real world, you don't get the same number of raw materials back, if you melt down what you just built. Even if the 'finished product' was the same volume as the ingredients, but especially if there's 'waste' from manufacturing. -- Crane needs more grid 249km locking? GMP and TNP

Durzel	Posted - 2007.12.12 16:21:00 - [41] Originally by: James Lyrus Originally by: Durzel Originally by: Cpt Branko Making modules take more then the minerals required to produce them is not a good move. That reeks of inappropriate sledgehammer usage. Added to which it's not very realistic either. There's plenty of real World examples where manufacturing burns, discards or otherwise loses a significant quantity of raw materials in order to build whatever it is they're building. Having a near direct translation of mineral weight to product weight doesn't make a whole lot of sense. It does when the translation is bidirectional though. In the real world, you don't get the same number of raw materials back, if you melt down what you just built. Even if the 'finished product' was the same volume as the ingredients, but especially if there's 'waste' from manufacturing. Fair point. Your logic is sound and I'm too new to the game to suggest sweeping changes to the reprocessing system :)
Ulstan	Posted - 2007.12.12 16:35:00 - [42] New module sizes do not reflect mineral composition I grow tired of repeating this to the parrots who just chirp the same old disproven line over and over. CCP may have intended to adjust module size to reflect mineral composition to nerf mineral compression, but currently that's not what it does. Many modules are grotesquely inflated in size - remote sensor boosters are 100m3. Meanwhile many modules that give many times greater minerals upon reproccessing are 50 or even 25 m3. It's very uneven and inaccrautely applied, so it needs to be changed. New module sizes do not reflect mineral composition
Nur Vadenn Amarr	Posted - 2007.12.12 16:44:00 - [43] 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. Hmm... miners have been dealing with this since the game's inception. Even barges can't do more than two or three cycles in a belt before they run out of cargo. The advice to deal with this from NPC ratters and PvPers? When full just dock up or use secure containers. I guess what's good for the goose is good for the gander now. Of course you can always get that hauler alt to follow you around. I mean miners have to have one, seems fair that NPCers and even PvP gangs should need one too. Now what's that phrase oh so popular as a reply to whining? *Adapt or die*... yeah thats it.
cptgone	Posted - 2007.12.12 16:54:00 - [44] mission runners, ratters and explorersà - lose either time or loot - have to take more risk (e.g. traveling back to deadspace through lowsec; increased risk of having their loot/salvage stolen) - need to switch to bigger ships for looting (and suffer the delay involved) - need to check each piece of loot for size (esp. with all the inconsistencies involved) - lose out on gameplay (itÆs frustrating to either leave stuff behind, or lose time fetching it/optimising cargo load) - canÆt salvage some battleships anymore (unless they have 250m¦ free for scrapmetal) hauler(s) and trader(s) (alts) need bigger ships, and the skills to fly æem 0.0 alliances have to build/haul in more mods (esp. named t1 mods) everyoneà - suffers more lag (due to lingering wrecks and cans) - loses cargos space, on top of space lost to scripts and jump bridge fuel - needs to check an item's size before buying remotely (whereas size used to be predictable, e.g. frig mod = 5 m¦) --- refining nerf would have been a much better solution IMHO.
Johnthechaotic Gallente JOHN CO.	Posted - 2007.12.12 17:06:00 - [45] so, is there any module you can manufacture that will yield even a 2:1 or better mineral compression ratio or is every item no longer useful for compressing anyone looked into this? John! WTB officer and faction co-processors! WTB officer or faction shield extenders! WTB officer or faction shield power relays and shield recharges...if they even make those eve mail me!
Brianna Talnor	Posted - 2007.12.12 17:20:00 - [46] My T1 production has become even more profitable then it was before :) I'm happy everyone but me seems to have been nerfed. It's awesome! Oh, and train for a bigger hauler you big baby
Etho Demerzel Gallente Holy Clan of the Cone	Posted - 2007.12.12 18:11:00 - [47] Edited by: Etho Demerzel on 12/12/2007 18:12:06 Originally by: Johnthechaotic so, is there any module you can manufacture that will yield even a 2:1 or better mineral compression ratio or is every item no longer useful for compressing anyone looked into this? There are a lot. The greatest villain that started this process, the Jump Gate Generator still have near 50:1 compresion rate. And guess what, they can't do it much bigger (it is already 10K m3 now). Same happens to a lot of modules. CCP, for God's sake, admit you screwed up in this one. Rollback, and forget about it. You tried to fix something that did not need fixing and by doing this you made everybody's life more miserable. I can't see anyone who was positively affected by this change and even if there are case the cases where the opposite happens far outnumber them. You didn't stop and CANNOT stop mineral compression withotu completely reworking your game economy, you just created a lot of unecessary work, discontentment and load for yoru servers. ===== "If a member of the EVE community finds he or she cannot accept our current level of transparency, we bid you good luck in finding a company that meets your needs." - CCP kieron...
Derek Sigres	Posted - 2007.12.12 18:24:00 - [48] Originally by: Cpt Branko Originally by: Derek Sigres Originally by: Cpt Branko 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. Actually, considering the fact that weapons for example have lots of empty space inside, it is reasonable that they take up more space than the materials required to make them. Also, I was wondering why I wasn't able to loot anything but I didn't pay any real attention cause my Eve was busy crashing after the update Does it change the fact it's not a good move? Nope, in fact it seems like the silliest possible solution to a problem I didn't even realize existed. . . Why not just make it so you can't perfect refine items or something? There would be complaints about that certainly but I don't look at my loot as a primary source of money for my character, simply a supplement to what I am getting anyway. Making it this difficult pretty much means I am not going to bother looting anything anymore since it won't be worth the time.
Etho Demerzel Gallente Holy Clan of the Cone	Posted - 2007.12.12 18:32:00 - [49] Edited by: Etho Demerzel on 12/12/2007 18:32:55 Originally by: Derek Sigres Originally by: Cpt Branko Originally by: Derek Sigres Originally by: Cpt Branko 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. Actually, considering the fact that weapons for example have lots of empty space inside, it is reasonable that they take up more space than the materials required to make them. Also, I was wondering why I wasn't able to loot anything but I didn't pay any real attention cause my Eve was busy crashing after the update Does it change the fact it's not a good move? Nope, in fact it seems like the silliest possible solution to a problem I didn't even realize existed. . . Why not just make it so you can't perfect refine items or something? There would be complaints about that certainly but I don't look at my loot as a primary source of money for my character, simply a supplement to what I am getting anyway. Making it this difficult pretty much means I am not going to bother looting anything anymore since it won't be worth the time. Making reprocessing not 100% efficient would only mean people would continue using compression and prices would rise accordingly in 0.0. It does not solve the problem either. It is a problem with no solution as using carriers to transport minerals (they currently can still be used very well for this purpose using ships as mineral compression). CCP just can't fix it and in trying it they just made it worse for everybody, as I said previously. ===== "If a member of the EVE community finds he or she cannot accept our current level of transparency, we bid you good luck in finding a company that meets your needs." - CCP kieron...
Odium47	Posted - 2007.12.12 19:01:00 - [50] I don't think CCP thought of this very well...I think is the result of a brainstorming. Increasing module volume will result in low efficiency in ratting and missions. Low efficiency in ratting and mission will determine an increase in some module demand as well as low flow of cash for most players. The low flow of cash will influence some people to buy cash from websites. A strange effect would be that if people need money, a good part of them will buy game codes in order to sell them for isk. In this case: Is CCP desperate for and/or short of money ???

Twilight Moon Minmatar Malicious Intentions The Church.	Posted - 2007.12.12 19:04:00 - [51] but hey.....at least the Rorqual has a use now! New siggeh required!
Niques Leutre Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2007.12.12 19:33:00 - [52] Edited by: Niques Leutre on 12/12/2007 19:33:19 OH NOES! A loot nerf!? This means I'll have to (gasp) use real cargo ships for cargo! No more looting a small fleet of wrecks (or hauling enough modules to equip a small fleet) with just a single frigate! Oh woe is me. Originally by: Odium47 I don't think CCP thought of this very well...I think is the result of a brainstorming. Increasing module volume will result in low efficiency in ratting and missions. Low efficiency in ratting and mission will determine an increase in some module demand as well as low flow of cash for most players. The low flow of cash will influence some people to buy cash from websites. A strange effect would be that if people need money, a good part of them will buy game codes in order to sell them for isk. In this case: Is CCP desperate for and/or short of money ??? Fallacious deductive logic is bad. By your argument no one should ever start a new character without CCP giving them a huge lump-sum of money. After all, in any situation players are poor they will buy ISK off of websites, right? Let's give all starting chars 1 billion ISK so they won't be tempted into going to eBay! ___________________________________ When Newbies Attack! -- A True Story
Odium47	Posted - 2007.12.12 19:40:00 - [53] I think Deep Core Mining Inc. below your name says it all, dosn't it ? Its shamefull that i have to fly a couple of times to gather what i left behind. Its also shameful that my Mac its bigger than your Obelisk, but has a smaller cargo than a Nighthawk. On one side, we all might tranport our stuff, and on the other side, maybe more will just lay around shooting miners !
Kvaell Minmatar Terra Incognita Dark Matter Coalition	Posted - 2007.12.12 19:55:00 - [54] Originally by: Enkilil 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' Welcome to the Drone Regions. It's great isn't it?
Niques Leutre Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2007.12.12 19:56:00 - [55] Edited by: Niques Leutre on 12/12/2007 20:00:10 Originally by: Odium47 I think Deep Core Mining Inc. below your name says it all, dosn't it ? Its shamefull that i have to fly a couple of times to gather what i left behind. Its also shameful that my Mac its bigger than your Obelisk, but has a smaller cargo than a Nighthawk. On one side, we all might tranport our stuff, and on the other side, maybe more will just lay around shooting miners ! Actually, if you had bothered to check my employment history you'll see I am a former pilot out of the Curse Region back when RA was trying to storm over it way back ago. And the reason I'm in DCI is because the last corp I left -- half a week ago -- I actually joined temporarily to help them get rid of high sec griefers that had wardeced them. Ask their CEO if you don't believe me. Oh and one more thing: I haven't trained freighters yet, either. This is yet another example of possibly fallacious deductive reasoning. Be careful when using a corporation name to sum up a player's entire existence next time. Anyways, as of right now I'm currently rebuilding my wallet reserves with missions so I have been hit by the module size increase as well. But I see it as a good thing; as I said cargo ships (transports, freighters, large cruisers) will now have to be employed more often to haul supplies and loot. I always found it kind of silly, and perhaps even abusive to have CovOps frigates being able to do a high-to-low-sec freight run to equip an entire douzen smaller T2 ships -- or even more. I believe frigates shouldn't be able to haul over twenty battleship turrets in a single freight run. Cargo should take up a remotely realistic amount of space, so I support the move. ___________________________________ When Newbies Attack! -- A True Story
Etho Demerzel Gallente Holy Clan of the Cone	Posted - 2007.12.13 01:22:00 - [56] Sorry Niques, but you are out of your mind and totally clueless. There is nothing good about mineral compression. And you can hear that from a person who flies exclusively Industrial ships, Freighters and cargo ships in general. It is awful for 0.0 economy and will be circumvented in a myriad of ways. Therefore it serves nothing, but to annoy. ===== "If a member of the EVE community finds he or she cannot accept our current level of transparency, we bid you good luck in finding a company that meets your needs." - CCP kieron...
Ogul Caldari ZiTek Deepspace Explorations Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.12.13 01:28:00 - [57] Cut the poor CCP developers some slack, will you? They must be suffering badly from withdrawal from whatever got them stoned enough to come up with this idea. And it's not like any of you stood up sooner to shed some light on their mistake, mkay? Now that I think of it, actually EVERYBODY and THEIR MOTHER sad this was one of the most horribly idiotic ideas you guys have had over the years. And the best thing is: it didn't fix anything. --- This is a war declaration, issued from your alt corp. It is used to gank people in high sec.
IamBen Caldari Celestial Apocalypse Insurgency	Posted - 2007.12.13 02:04:00 - [58] for people that dont have multiple accounts and pick up loot with their ratting ship this change is unfair and ridiculously annoying. This is a stupid fix.
Gisar	Posted - 2007.12.13 03:38:00 - [59] Originally by: Niques Leutre Actually, if you had bothered to check my employment history you'll see I am a former pilot out of the Curse Region back when RA was trying to storm over it way back ago. And the reason I'm in DCI is because the last corp I left -- half a week ago -- I actually joined temporarily to help them get rid of high sec griefers that had wardeced them. Ask their CEO if you don't believe me. Oh and one more thing: I haven't trained freighters yet, either. This is yet another example of possibly fallacious deductive reasoning. Be careful when using a corporation name to sum up a player's entire existence next time. Anyways, as of right now I'm currently rebuilding my wallet reserves with missions so I have been hit by the module size increase as well. But I see it as a good thing; as I said cargo ships (transports, freighters, large cruisers) will now have to be employed more often to haul supplies and loot. I always found it kind of silly, and perhaps even abusive to have CovOps frigates being able to do a high-to-low-sec freight run to equip an entire dozen smaller T2 ships -- or even more. I believe frigates shouldn't be able to haul over twenty battleship turrets in a single freight run. Cargo should take up a remotely realistic amount of space, so I support the move. By your Logic a Truck would not be able to move 20 wheels, but I can tell you, they fit a lot more then that. I have seen trucks moving 20-30 cars at time, Or hell, they even moved a space ship 7 towns on the back of the truck, and guess what, the ship was ALOT bigger then the Truck. Also, Freighters are big hollow cubes, so battleships might be bigger, but they have a lot less space because of all the weapons and the like. Also, as a Final point, In the Eve universe, they have teleporters, Mining lasers that can extract only one type of ore out of the hundreds inside the roid, Hell, they have a ship that can instantly travel 1000's of light years, using Water as a fule. I do not find it that much harder to believe that there refining abilities have gotten to the point where you can remove all the Iron or something from a device with almost 100% perfection. Think Star Trak, with the Replicators, they use solid mater, and then recombine that matter to form something else, and then use the left over matter to make the next thing. Its just Recycling. Also, Its very possible to compress things in this day and age, get a Gas, cool it down and it compresses itself. You can also compress metals into Alloys that will take up less SPACE then both metals before combining them. They might weigh the same, but in space, weight means nothing, the density and the volume of the object is all that matters, and its very easy to make objects more dense, and take up less volume. So, this change does not have any real bases in Real life, as its real life somewhere in the very distant future where they have the ability to change matter on the scale of a atom.
Karanth Gallente Eve's Brothers of Destiny Free Trade Zone.	Posted - 2007.12.13 03:40:00 - [60] tl;dr Also, Your whine makes me hot How I long for all your stuff Can I has them now? All that's left... There is only one sig hijack that matters, the orginal and only member of the hijack squad. me. -Eris. ps Black russians are better then beer. Well, there's not many of us left! -Rauth



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.