| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
maphell
   |
Posted - 2008.09.28 00:01:00 -
[1]
How about as a means of getting ore from a hulk or mining vessel to a hauler,instead of jetcans u had a device that could send ore particles straight to a hauler by means of another beaming device,and a in the cargo bay.
The decompiler device in the cargo bay of the mining ship would take the ore in question then atomize it whilst generating waves of magnetized neutrinos which would pick up the ore molecules up to a depth of 3 molecules thick around the neutrino.Then the neutrinos would be sent via a beam down to the haulers compiler which demagnifies the neutrinos then picks up the ore molecules and compiles them back into ore.Maybe there should b a limit of cycle time for example every 30 seconds a certain amount of ore is streamed.
To reduce lag it may be a good idea to keep the beams length to 2 or 3k maximum from the hauler.skills that may come into affect from such a technology may be.
ore streaming. which may give a 20 percent bonus to the amount of ore that can be streamed per 30 second cycle.
advanced neutrino understanding. which would allow use of the compiler/decompiler.
|
maphell
|
Posted - 2008.09.28 00:01:00 -
[2]
How about as a means of getting ore from a hulk or mining vessel to a hauler,instead of jetcans u had a device that could send ore particles straight to a hauler by means of another beaming device,and a in the cargo bay.
The decompiler device in the cargo bay of the mining ship would take the ore in question then atomize it whilst generating waves of magnetized neutrinos which would pick up the ore molecules up to a depth of 3 molecules thick around the neutrino.Then the neutrinos would be sent via a beam down to the haulers compiler which demagnifies the neutrinos then picks up the ore molecules and compiles them back into ore.Maybe there should b a limit of cycle time for example every 30 seconds a certain amount of ore is streamed.
To reduce lag it may be a good idea to keep the beams length to 2 or 3k maximum from the hauler.skills that may come into affect from such a technology may be.
ore streaming. which may give a 20 percent bonus to the amount of ore that can be streamed per 30 second cycle.
advanced neutrino understanding. which would allow use of the compiler/decompiler.
|
maphell
|
Posted - 2008.09.28 11:16:00 -
[3]
thx for u posts guys.
Also: the beam MUST be visible.. I want even more bright colored streams flying through my asteroid belts!
yea i like this neutrinos themselves are invisible there similar to electrons only they do not carry any electrical charge, so maybe the color would represent the type of ore your transporting and its biggest mineral content.so tritanium would be yellow ,nocxium would be dark gray,mexallon would b green etc etc
|
maphell
|
Posted - 2008.09.28 15:13:00 -
[4]
That are Minerals, not Ores.
well u dont say incredible, and its they not that.the beam would take on the color of the mineral that is most common in the ore.
|
maphell
|
Posted - 2008.09.29 14:22:00 -
[5]
a logical and fair and sane argument,people like jason are just gutless people that unhappy with there own inadequacies as human beings and that weak minded they need to fight people who cant fight back to make themselves feel better bout there lives.or vent there small minded opinion and hatred on peoples forum posts.thats why i just ignored replying tbh not worth the typing.
|
maphell
|
Posted - 2008.09.29 19:17:00 -
[6]
the reduction in yield would come because instead of having 3 strip miners on a hulk, u would have 2 strip miners and the particle streaming device. |
maphell
|
Posted - 2008.09.29 21:51:00 -
[7]
i hear what you are saying but macroing has been rife for years and still ccp has not implemented anything effective to stop it so maybe they dont care.anyhow macroing is another thread.1 things 4 sure whilst popping there ships might slow them down temporarily it will never have any impact on the overall problem.they only people that will suffer are legitimate miners.
|
maphell
|
Posted - 2008.09.30 00:56:00 -
[8]
thx 4 posts:)but no point carrying on argueing about macro miners wrong thread.
|
maphell
|
Posted - 2008.09.30 09:04:00 -
[9]
ah yea like rigs affect/speed/hull points u mean yea i prefer this to using a high slot.say maybe a 10-15% reduction in yield,i am not sure about using a mid though this would affect the tanking ability of a barge from gankers.hmm maybe it should take the form of a rig you use a rig slot for,or a low?? |
maphell
|
Posted - 2008.09.30 12:32:00 -
[10]
yea the idea is evolving, there has been sum good points made,and slowly the idea is taking shape please keep posting ur ideas:) |
maphell
|
Posted - 2008.10.04 08:32:00 -
[11]
I still think it should be a mid slot. High's are obviously out, low's don't make sense, as it has an external effect. Also, if it was a low slot, it would already cause a drop in yield, as the loss of an upgrade slot.
Well as far as sense goes i think that lows do make sense or rig placement.as there the only places u can have any direct change to your cargo bay size via,expanders,and the ore is being beamed from your cargo bay i think lows are the logical choice.
i agree with I am looking more just to save from the constant, repetitive drag/drop scheme. I would end up beaming the ore to a can probably.though .
|
maphell
|
Posted - 2008.10.04 10:46:00 -
[12]
Well theres two ways of looking at it, if u beam it to a can then theres no real advantage to the system we use now save for the moving of ore from cargo to container.so maybe there shouldnt be a yield loss.
Or you could beam it straight to the hauler with the mod put in place at a 30% yield loss recoverable to 15% with the ore streaming skill at 5.the only reason u should lose yield is for the safety of having it beamed to a hauler.
|
| |
|