EVE Search - New Greyscale Blog: Alchemy

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE Information Portal

New Greyscale Blog: Alchemy

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 6 post(s)
Fulber	Posted - 2008.10.28 17:26:00 - [151] Edited by: Fulber on 28/10/2008 17:27:10 Originally by: CCP Greyscale - The use of the word "refine" in the blog is, as pointed out by some other players in this thread, used because that's exactly what it means. Unrefined materials need to be refined, in a refinery. Currently this will only work in station refineries; if there's a need to extend this to starbase refineries we can add that in future but the inefficiencies would seem to make it something of a lost cause. So you now have to involve a station in the process as well? Awesome. Edit: Inefficiencies? Starbase refineries? Have you ever refined ice at a POS?

CCP Greyscale	Posted - 2008.10.28 17:28:00 - [152] Originally by: ChaosOne could a dev please reply and state how the unrefined reaction to make Fluxed condensates is going to work?? It uses both Neodymium and thulium... It'll use both Vanadium and Platinum, and the unrefined product will refine down into just Fluxed Condensates Originally by: Recluse Viramor IE. Less Valuable moons = less reasons to fight = less ships being blown up = less demand for ships being made = less demand for materials to build ships = .... I'm not sure I buy the assertion that there was substantially less conflict in the EVE universe in the past than there is now (which this implies). I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, but that doesn't match up with my current understanding of the cluster's military history. I wouldn't argue that contemporary conflicts weren't larger in scale than many past ones have been, but I'm not convinced that the actual amount of conflict has increased rather than simply consolidated. Originally by: Karina Bellac Edited by: Karina Bellac on 27/10/2008 17:21:06 Originally by: Shadowsword Why don't you just create some reaction requiring 100 Hafnium + 2000 Cadmium = 200 ferrofluid? The T2 production cycle is already complex enough as it is without having to add some new unrefined reactions. A product cannot be manufactured from two different blueprints with differing material requirements. I would hazard a guess that reactions suffer from the same piece of awful design*. The workaround, instead of actually fixing things, is to react something that can then use refining definitions to create a product that has an existing reaction/blueprint defined. Actually, that's not a restriction of the reaction system - the inputs and outputs can be entirely arbitrary, subject to certain limitations based around universal batch sizes that necessitated the extra step of refining the unrefined product. The reason there's no 100 Hafnium + 2000 Cadmium reaction is that at that rate you could fit five hours of Cadmium into a silo at default capacity, and we came to the conclusion that that wasn't a reaction that many people would want to use.

CorbonDallas	Posted - 2008.10.28 17:29:00 - [153] Originally by: CCP Greyscale On reflection this probably wasn't made sufficiently clear in the blog: this is step one. The goal for this initial release of the Alchemy concept was to make the minimal necessary change to relieve some of the pressure from the system. We'll be watching how things pan out and seeing where the system reaches equilibrium, and then deciding if there should be a second step and, if so, what it should be. The scope is, therefore, intentionally limited. For the same reason, we deliberately avoided changing or supplementing existing dependencies between intermediate and advanced materials, or switching up which high-end raw materials are used in which intermediates. Changing these dependencies would have an extremely large impact on existing producers in terms of logistics and so on. Some other things: - Note that in terms of fiction, as it was brought up briefly from a couple of different angles, despite the name this is not transmutation. Instead it's simply utilizing different raw materials for the same product. There's a reasonable parallel here with biofuel, I think, although more in terms of running diesels on pure chip fat rather than the 5% ethanol fuel or whatever. - The use of the word "refine" in the blog is, as pointed out by some other players in this thread, used because that's exactly what it means. Unrefined materials need to be refined, in a refinery. Currently this will only work in station refineries; if there's a need to extend this to starbase refineries we can add that in future but the inefficiencies would seem to make it something of a lost cause. - The 20:1 figure is roughly approximate, with the emphasis on roughly Greyscale or dev plz comment upon Why not take that idea and go with an additional step? Basically you have your ways to make your reactions and advanced reactions, why not introduce new reactions that can make the same end result advanced reaction. This way people that have their old reactions can still keep their chains going, yet new people could say: "Well we'd need item A and B to make Item Z. However we have new BPO's where we can take item A and F to make Item Z." This would use thulium and Neodyium, you've said yourselves that you see that dypso and prom are needed extremely over everything else. Why not give a reason for those other 2 moons to be mined (I've seen many of them left alone since the reaction isn't needed compared to the others). This would increase the available supply by around 30% to 40%ish because the base reactions for thul and neo would still be done but the new reactions would take those mins too. So now you COUPLE that idea with the Alchemy idea and you've given tons of new ways to make tech two, help out the majority of players and 90% of EVE is happy (even the giants that own the dypso and prom moons in the first place). It's adding two steps instead of just one and if your willing to make it 10 to 1 or even 8 to 1 instead of 20 to 1 (unless you enable people to anchor new SPECIFIC reactors that take very little and are ONLY for this alchemy) then it might save you 6 to 18 months of balancing and reworking.
adriaans Amarr Ankaa.	Posted - 2008.10.28 17:30:00 - [154] Edited by: adriaans on 28/10/2008 17:31:09 this might help, and i'm glad to see something being done, however, woulnd't this problem among a lot of others be solved by adding a substantial extra amount of new space (both high, low and 0.0 sec)(i'm thinking in the 10k+ figures here)? edit: and also be more of a long term solution -sig- Support the introduction of Blaze M crystals for Amarr!
CorbonDallas	Posted - 2008.10.28 17:34:00 - [155] Originally by: CCP Greyscale Originally by: Karina Bellac Edited by: Karina Bellac on 27/10/2008 17:21:06 Originally by: Shadowsword Why don't you just create some reaction requiring 100 Hafnium + 2000 Cadmium = 200 ferrofluid? The T2 production cycle is already complex enough as it is without having to add some new unrefined reactions. A product cannot be manufactured from two different blueprints with differing material requirements. I would hazard a guess that reactions suffer from the same piece of awful design*. The workaround, instead of actually fixing things, is to react something that can then use refining definitions to create a product that has an existing reaction/blueprint defined. Actually, that's not a restriction of the reaction system - the inputs and outputs can be entirely arbitrary, subject to certain limitations based around universal batch sizes that necessitated the extra step of refining the unrefined product. The reason there's no 100 Hafnium + 2000 Cadmium reaction is that at that rate you could fit five hours of Cadmium into a silo at default capacity, and we came to the conclusion that that wasn't a reaction that many people would want to use. This is just a suggestion, but what about adding smelting to make finer grade moon mins so that type of reaction would work. New POS module, put in Moon min (one type only) works like an intensive refinery, 3 hours later up to 200,000m3 worth of moon mins could come out as (fine or ultra refined Cadmium) this lets you keep the silos the same scale they are now yet that new reaction would still work. If you think people would abuse it only allow rarity 16 and below moon mins to go into it or whatever is fair. But it would allow this exact reaction to work as Shadowword said, if you think that's a solution that would be good for everyone.
Karina Bellac	Posted - 2008.10.28 17:35:00 - [156] Originally by: CCP Greyscale Originally by: Karina Bellac Edited by: Karina Bellac on 27/10/2008 17:21:06 Originally by: Shadowsword Why don't you just create some reaction requiring 100 Hafnium + 2000 Cadmium = 200 ferrofluid? The T2 production cycle is already complex enough as it is without having to add some new unrefined reactions. A product cannot be manufactured from two different blueprints with differing material requirements. I would hazard a guess that reactions suffer from the same piece of awful design*. The workaround, instead of actually fixing things, is to react something that can then use refining definitions to create a product that has an existing reaction/blueprint defined. Actually, that's not a restriction of the reaction system - the inputs and outputs can be entirely arbitrary, subject to certain limitations based around universal batch sizes that necessitated the extra step of refining the unrefined product. The reason there's no 100 Hafnium + 2000 Cadmium reaction is that at that rate you could fit five hours of Cadmium into a silo at default capacity, and we came to the conclusion that that wasn't a reaction that many people would want to use. That's good to hear. At least I covered my backside by saying "hazard a guess". And that I was right about blueprints.
Shadowsword COLSUP Tau Ceti Federation	Posted - 2008.10.28 17:44:00 - [157] Originally by: CCP Greyscale On reflection this probably wasn't made sufficiently clear in the blog: this is step one. The goal for this initial release of the Alchemy concept was to make the minimal necessary change to relieve some of the pressure from the system. We'll be watching how things pan out and seeing where the system reaches equilibrium, and then deciding if there should be a second step and, if so, what it should be. The scope is, therefore, intentionally limited. For the same reason, we deliberately avoided changing or supplementing existing dependencies between intermediate and advanced materials, or switching up which high-end raw materials are used in which intermediates. Changing these dependencies would have an extremely large impact on existing producers in terms of logistics and so on. Some other things: - Note that in terms of fiction, as it was brought up briefly from a couple of different angles, despite the name this is not transmutation. Instead it's simply utilizing different raw materials for the same product. There's a reasonable parallel here with biofuel, I think, although more in terms of running diesels on pure chip fat rather than the 5% ethanol fuel or whatever. - The use of the word "refine" in the blog is, as pointed out by some other players in this thread, used because that's exactly what it means. Unrefined materials need to be refined, in a refinery. Currently this will only work in station refineries; if there's a need to extend this to starbase refineries we can add that in future but the inefficiencies would seem to make it something of a lost cause. - The 20:1 figure is roughly approximate, with the emphasis on roughly Thanks for the precisions. I think the idea is good as a concept, but I don't agree with the numbers. - First because adding a reprocessing step in the way the whole thing work will limit it's use to 0.0 npc stations, and the few guys here and there who didn't ruin their standings hunting the local NPCs. And in high-sec, limited to mission-runners who have 5.0 faction standing or more. This basically exclude everyone else. - Second, because the 1:20 ratio, even if it turn out not to be exactly 1:20, means that you're going to need 10 large pos AND 20 small mining POS AND at least one refining POS to emulate just one small R64 moon. That's a ****load of investment, work and fuel, and it makes the production cost huge. So huge, in fact, that you're not that far from the current dysprosium market price, meaning first that the whole thing isn't much worth the effort, second that the price of dysprosium will remain very, very high. The effect on the finised T2 product will likely be insignifiant, and isn't one of your objectives than to lower the production cost? I think the ratio should be closer to 1:10. At that ratio "alchemy" would be used at an industrial scale. Right now it will stay mostly an experiment, and will have no macro-effect. ------------------------------------------
Vigilant Gallente Vigilant's Vigilante's	Posted - 2008.10.28 18:00:00 - [158] Add more moons Add moon mineral to existing moons that do not have them now Add ability to harvest high security moon minerals (obviously at some slower, more painful rate) Problem will be less significant. My 2 isk
zzbooks	Posted - 2008.10.28 19:05:00 - [159] Edited by: zzbooks on 28/10/2008 19:06:41 I think it would be better to have a new simple reaction which takes in 200 Cadmium and outputs 20 Dysp, no need for refing at a station Is the aim of this change to reduce the price of Dysp, of just to stop it from going much higher. A ratio of 20 to 1, or 10 to 1 makes this mechanism useless for anything other than Dysp at current prices
Mecinia Lua Galactic Express Burning Horizons	Posted - 2008.10.28 20:23:00 - [160] Considering over half the stuff in the game isn't worth inventing, I'm a bit skeptical that this will work. I think it might have just been better to have increased the frequency of each of the moon minerals and reseeded moons. I wouldn't even mind seeing a find depleted from time to time. Thoughts expressed are mine and mine alone. They do not necessarily reflect my alliances thoughts. Your signature is too large. Please resize it to a maximum of 400 x 120 with the file size not exceeding 24000 bytes. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] - Mitnal

Trading Bunnz Equatorial Industires Dark Taboo	Posted - 2008.10.28 23:03:00 - [161] Thanks for the clarifications Greyscale, but I'm still worried by the pending changes and what it will actually achieve. - If it works as intended and provides a relief valve to the impact of dysprosium shortages, then the flow on effects will be devastating to a large segment of the market, Gallente, through stupidly increased demand for the key component in their racial carbides. - If it doesn't work as intended, then it will have no effect at all and isn't worth even bothering to put in. Originally by: Greyscale The goal for this initial release of the Alchemy concept was to make the minimal necessary change to relieve some of the pressure from the system. It all comes down to cost. I know I have modelled it, I am sure you have modelled it, one of us must be wrong if you think this change makes any difference. Ferrofluid currently costs about ~41k/u to make with direct dysprosium. With your new figures, the cost to make unrefined ferrofluid is higher than existing costs. Without counting in any spike in cadmium pricing, its around ~48k/u. Not only does it cost significantly more to make, its a significantly greater logistical challenge. 10x the amount of fuel and mats to haul around. 10x the amount of silo's to stock and tend. Then to add to this, you have to take what you get back to a station, at which hopefully you have standings, and a taxless/lossless refine rate, and melt the stuff so you can take it back to your advanced reactors to feed in. Racial Carbides! Uncouple the r16 pairings with the minerals to avoid having consequences on production chains along racial lines. Poor Gallente. Poor ORE. Given there is no need to "reprocess" these materials (you refine them instead) the fact that 4 blueprints use different materials to generate "unrefined ferrofluid" wont matter, it can all lump together and get refined down to the expected ferrofluid and hafnium. Uncoupling these pairings will deliver more of the solution you want, as it then means that this can be done with those "worthless" minerals as well, and it wont then have such a flow on effect because of the discrete cadmium/dysprosium link, once it becomes cost effective to even use this solution. Once you uncouple, you allow those sov moons sitting out there to basically be producing, as most systems are likely to have at least 1 r16 somewhere. :) PS : Dont blame us for calling it alchemy, its the title of your blog and recurs more than once. FRPB Shares in Default
Felix Dzerzhinsky Caldari Wreckless Abandon G00DFELLAS	Posted - 2008.10.28 23:04:00 - [162] This is not the solution: Cad and Chro are used for Crystaline Carb. An essential Gallente building block. So Gallente ships are going to shoot up in price. Also, you picked two already in high demand minerals (and watch the effects already!) and gave them the ability to transform into a very high end minerals. Its a bad solution that only drives up Cad and Chro and the price hit will be felt in places other then Dyspro/Promo - the core of the problem is left unresolved. ---- ECCM is a Counter-measure not a defense.
Artmedis Valben Gallente Lobster of Babel	Posted - 2008.10.28 23:57:00 - [163] Would be better if "Alchemy" or Nucleosynthesis would be a way of slowly changing low end materials into high ends. As it stands you have 4 of each rarity type. So it stands to reason you could have those form into 4 "racial" lines of rarity. 100x r4 + 100x r8 + 100x r16 + 100x r32 = 20x r64 So to replace 1 moon miner on a r64 moon you need 20 moon-miners and 5 "nuclear-reactors" and a host of silos. But the end product would be a rarity 64 moon mineral that you could use for any of the functions of it, or just sell on the market, which would mean it was an effective price cap. Other "alchemy" formulas could well be: 100x r4 + 100x r8 + 100x 16 = 20x r32 100x r4 + 100x r8 = 20x r16 Selling: PERFECT PRINTS + RESEARCH
Trading Bunnz Equatorial Industires Dark Taboo	Posted - 2008.10.29 00:39:00 - [164] Look, I like the idea and fully support the basic premise here. Its not alchemy (despite the blog name), it doesn't "break" the fiction by turning lead into gold "magicallY", its not more dysprosium thats needed on the market, its a solution to avoid the need for dysprosium in all facets of t2. What the CCP team have come up with almost functional. The outstanding problems are simple: a) As it stands, its too expensive to be a viable alternative. b) Its too "unfair", in light of racial requirements for the r16's. c) It does nothing to address the inbalance in needs for minerals within each level of rarity. Now c) may not be an issue, thats CCP's call as to how they want this balance to work. a) and b) however are critical if this solution is to improve anything. They've given us what their plan is, its mostly solid, its fictionally sound, it just doesn't make economic sense. People coming in here and saying "ZOMG, seed more Dyspro!" or, even worse, "ZOMG, let me make dysprosium from atmospheric gases" really aren't looking at the big picture. Nor is this likely to happen in the short term, as its something that can't easily be "tinkered" with. Maybe all they need to do is uncouple the direct links between the r64's and r16's from the current plan and allow people to research the reaction prints to reduce the consumption. That delivers a solution thats inline with what they were going for, removes the economic disaster that this would be for the Gallente and allows a gradual reduction in the cost of replacement products should people go to the effort to do that. Its also fully inline with so many other aspects of the game. There are hundreds of other solutions, a lot of which have been discussed to death in other forums. I'm sure they read them. This is what they come up with, its clear what they are trying to achieve and how they are trying to tie it into the game itself, I'd just like to see minor tweaks to make sure the "unintended consequences" aren't worse than the problem they are actually trying to solve. FRPB Shares in Default
Makhan	Posted - 2008.10.29 01:01:00 - [165] Originally by: CCP Greyscale I'm not sure I buy the assertion that there was substantially less conflict in the EVE universe in the past than there is now (which this implies). I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, but that doesn't match up with my current understanding of the cluster's military history. I wouldn't argue that contemporary conflicts weren't larger in scale than many past ones have been, but I'm not convinced that the actual amount of conflict has increased rather than simply consolidated. Seriously, they could turn all the 0.0 belts to veldspar, all the moons to dry husks, and there would still be power struggles in 0.0.
ChaosOne Caldari DarkStar 1 GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.10.29 03:01:00 - [166] Edited by: ChaosOne on 29/10/2008 03:04:20 I have a solution to the problem. after looking at the simple/complex reactions i've concluded that a 20th simple reaction is needed. Currently thulim and technium are used in only 1 simple reaction so these 2 can be paired making the new simple reaction. Then replace dysproite with the new simple reaction from the hypersynaptic fibers complex reaction. Net result would be dysporiosium used in 2 complex reactions from 3 decreasing the demand by 1/3rd and in turn the cost, promethium remaining static. Thulium and neodryium would then have more of a use. I believe these changes would have only a minimal effect on manufactoring whilst keeping the value of the moons at a decent level.
Sahara Eternity Amarr Imperial Academy	Posted - 2008.10.29 13:08:00 - [167] Why did you make moon minerals unlimited ? Why not make them ... like asteroid belts ... in roids for example. You mine 2 - 3 months and the moon becomes ... empty - worthless crap. I am sure this will bring you the dynamism we are all looking for. Perhaps anfter a X perioud of time the moon might "respawn" new moon mins, for example , if you finish Cromium then after a while it respawns Disp, make it random. This way large alliances won't control hi end moon mins but it cold be a chance for the small ones to evolve. Or why don't allow special ships to mine the moon ? for example 10 mins cycle = 10 m3 of moon mins, I am sure you can think of something better ... Any way just some thoughts.
raphaell	Posted - 2008.10.29 13:51:00 - [168] that sounds great, but how about also rewarding those of us who have spent the time to gain enough faction to place a high sec POS in empire to add a reaction lab to it. also allow us to moon mine empire moons with maybe just one type of low end product from it that at the 20 to 1 ration we could then make reactions also?
Vio Geraci Amarr GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.10.29 14:25:00 - [169] The problem is that the amount of dysprosium/promethium has not significantly increased as the number of players on the server has increased. This change just adds a sort of price cap, perhaps as insulation against 0.0 cartels. In order to not have a bottleneck, you need to allow players to convert their time to moon minerals in some way. This is assuming that the bottleneck is undesirable, as I believe it to be. Adding more space is silly when 80% of 0.0 systems never see use anyway. Highsec moons are silly, too, because moon minerals are probably the main thing that empire relies on lowsec and nosec for.
Vigilant Gallente Vigilant's Vigilante's	Posted - 2008.10.29 14:44:00 - [170] Vio, anybet that every prom and dispo moon has a tower on it ? Also, if bump the alchemy ratio in the process, you will need more moon minerals. A slower high security moon miner would help this grind. Assuming you don't let high security mining or moon minin ship happen, then you need to populate dead moons and /or add moons to less populated planets. This solves the issue of the server pop increase. Maybe !!! Or at least a partial solution.

Vio Geraci Amarr GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.10.29 15:11:00 - [171] Edited by: Vio Geraci on 29/10/2008 15:11:07 Originally by: Vigilant Vio, anybet that every prom and dispo moon has a tower on it ? Although I'm sure there are a few dyspro/prom moons out there that haven't been found, the vast majority are seeing use right now. Moon space, more moons, won't solve anything unless CCP plans on adding them every time the player population hits a new benchmark. CCP Grayscale, what other changes have you got in mind for the moon mineral situation? Any that you are able to discuss?
Vigilant Gallente Vigilant's Vigilante's	Posted - 2008.10.29 16:17:00 - [172] Here's a crazy thought, allow two towers per moon if the same corp / alliance owns them. Yeah I know, that is logical. Output would double and prices might drop. : /
Vio Geraci Amarr GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.10.29 16:25:00 - [173] I don't know what you think that would solve. The problem is that there is no "organic" way to increase moon mineral output in the game. Doing dev-level things like adding alchemy, t2 moon miners, etc.. Is only going to buy a little time, unless the developers plan on adding more ways to get moon minerals for every three thousand new players that join the game. Players being able to mine moon minerals at gravimetric sites would fit the bill nicely, allowing players to tranform labor (exploring, mining, running a POS) into a moon minerals. Any other solution is a band aid on a permanent scarcity market.
Jimmycs83 Gallente The Angry Mob	Posted - 2008.10.29 19:16:00 - [174] Originally by: Trading Bunnz People coming in here and saying "ZOMG, seed more Dyspro!" or, even worse, "ZOMG, let me make dysprosium from atmospheric gases" really aren't looking at the big picture. Nor is this likely to happen in the short term, as its something that can't easily be "tinkered" with. Surely if they allowed people to scan down sites with prom/dyspro clouds (or asteroids/comets/whatever you like) in them in 0.0 then the system would be easier to tinker with not more difficult. I mean, all they would have to do would be to alter spawn rates to increase/reduce the value of the stuff.
Vigilant Gallente Vigilant's Vigilante's	Posted - 2008.10.29 19:19:00 - [175] CCP likes to "band aid" stuff instead of just perma fixing it. More than likely we will get just that.
Wrathraker Point of No Return Eradication Alliance	Posted - 2008.10.29 20:08:00 - [176] Greyscale, why is the answer to create MORE work and logistics for the players of eve? This seems to be CCP's approach to a lot of things. You find a solution, but the process is much more labor and time intensive then an actual fix to an existing problem. This does not make it any harder for the people that currently have no problems with this, EG Bob already have their moons so it will not affect them but it will of course the rest of us. Sure you will have a few people that will do this, but as described it will not get enough people to participate in what you want to see done. Stop making more work for the players, and use the K.I.S.S. principle. The game is already to much WORK now. Why give us more to do?
Arcadia Derzelas	Posted - 2008.10.30 07:56:00 - [177] Edited by: Arcadia Derzelas on 30/10/2008 07:56:51 Quote: Originally by: Sahara Eternity Why did you make moon minerals unlimited ? Why not make them ... like asteroid belts ... in roids for example. You mine 2 - 3 months and the moon becomes ... empty - worthless crap. I am sure this will bring you the dynamism we are all looking for. ___________________________________________________________________________________________ I agree with limited moon minerals deposits. I would say that a moon, after a random period of moon mining (i meant that it will consider the dimensions of the moon and the quantity of moon mineral extracted), it will desintegrate and the residuu will float around the same spot (as barren asteroids or something) and in few weeks, a new moon will arise from scratch, with new mineral deposits (diferent minerals). Before desintegration, the corp administrating the tower, will recive a warning message that the moon has changed her stabile trajectory and in 24 hours, it will colapse. If the corp will not intervine to unanchor the tower, this will be put offline, unanchored and will float in space for a period of time. if nobody will pick up the POS, it will be integrated in the new moon and it will be lost. Btw, When scaning a moon, the result must indicate an aproximate time of mining for every mineral or, the aproximate quantity of the mineral deposit and u will do the math... That's how i see this and i don't say it's the best aproach but... i think is best this way than to give someone posibility to monopolise the moon mineral market and to have unlimited acces to some resources. Sorry for my bad english and i hope u understand what i meant
Karina Bellac	Posted - 2008.10.30 11:44:00 - [178] Originally by: Vio Geraci ...allowing players to tranform labor ... And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how you fix static artificial limits in the situation of an increasing market. Peoples' Exhibit A: T2 BPOs and Invention.
REV001 Caldari VXR Heavy Industries	Posted - 2008.10.30 12:36:00 - [179] Nice idea. Practical ? I don't thinks so, as far as I understand it will take for ever to produce (20 times longer) the same ammount of reactions than with the high-end moon minerals. need to do the math, but could even be that with the cost of fuel for the extra towers you'll need to put up, you get to pay more for the same.
Lord Fitz Project Amargosa	Posted - 2008.10.30 13:52:00 - [180] Originally by: CCP Greyscale Actually, that's not a restriction of the reaction system - the inputs and outputs can be entirely arbitrary, subject to certain limitations based around universal batch sizes that necessitated the extra step of refining the unrefined product. The reason there's no 100 Hafnium + 2000 Cadmium reaction is that at that rate you could fit five hours of Cadmium into a silo at default capacity, and we came to the conclusion that that wasn't a reaction that many people would want to use. Somehow a reaction that requires 10x the towers is preferable to a reaction that just requires a few more silos, a bonused tower and more frequent emptying ? Originally by: CCP t0rfifrans CCP is a greedy money chewing monster



Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 :: 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.