EVE Search - Massive Secure Container

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Massive Secure Container

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Allen Ramses Caldari Typo Corp	Posted - 2009.01.23 02:47:00 - [1] Volume: 10000m3 Capacity: 12000m3 Basically, this is a step up from the GSC. It is useful for mining operations, unlike its smaller brother. Discuss. ____________________ Pimped out Raven to run level 4 missions quickly: 210 Mil ISK. Realizing your 120 Mil ISK Drake gets the job done faster: Priceless. Made a reality by speed and missile nerf.
Marcus Gideon Gallente Excessive Force	Posted - 2009.01.23 03:08:00 - [2] Edited by: Marcus Gideon on 23/01/2009 03:09:20 Considering how the GSC is the suggested solution to avoid Flippers... and yet a decent Hulk can fill one in about 1 cycle... I'd love to see something bigger. Plus, Secure Cans help maximize cargo space on haulers, and I wouldn't need to invest in 47 cans to fill an Orca! EDIT: However, I'd actually recommend something more like 10000 volume, 15000 capacity. Smaller cans increase about 5-10%, GSC does 30%, it'd be nice to see some extra spatial folding or whatever. --- Don't take my ranting personally. I may just be arguing the topic, unless you're saying something stupid, and then I mean every word. "Players don't want Variety. They want THE BEST"
Irn Bruce	Posted - 2009.01.23 03:12:00 - [3] No. They're unnecessary. Secure cans are used as a method of storing stuff in space (usually ore) so as other people can't get it. The drawback is that they are smaller than unsecure cans. The argument that a properly fitted hulk can fill them in one cycle is invalid. A gank fitted combat ship can't tank, does that mean something should be changed so they can? No. Likewise, a hulk fitted for maximum yield (the mining equivalent of gank) can't store all that ore so easily. So strike a balance with your fittings.
Lythandros	Posted - 2009.01.23 03:37:00 - [4] I agree with the need for more larger volume cans to be available. Don't really care if they're secured or not, but what about the transport of small ships made easy with some space for their fittings. Or the trade and transport fraternity would love to see this. Volume would need to be reworked though as pointed out can compression technology has a 30% increse in storage volume over space required.
NightF0x Gallente Ardent Industrial Arcane Alliance	Posted - 2009.01.23 04:51:00 - [5] Or you could make a friend and have them haul your ore for you. Yeah I know...personal interaction in an MMO...who would have thought of that? Heaven forbid that you actually interact with someone else in the game. ------------------------------------
Torothanax	Posted - 2009.01.23 04:59:00 - [6] Edited by: Torothanax on 23/01/2009 05:02:01 Originally by: NightF0x Or you could make a friend and have them haul your ore for you. Yeah I know...personal interaction in an MMO...who would have thought of that? Heaven forbid that you actually interact with someone else in the game. Or have an alt hauler on a second account that you play at the same time. Hey look at that, mining is still a single player profession, no interaction with people required. You just have to pay for and run two acounts at once. Add a third and you have a command ship with command link bonuses as well. Every serious miner I know uses this method. Because of the alt work around there's no reason you shouldn't be able to put a lock on a larger container, even if it doesn't have the high hit points of a regular secure can.
Kobushi OCForums	Posted - 2009.01.23 06:05:00 - [7] Edited by: Kobushi on 23/01/2009 06:05:59 I believe a very secure container that can store up to 300K m3 has been introduced recently , it's called the Orca by the way... what you are asking is akin to saying the Falcon can Ewar just fine but lacks in dps so let's keep the Ewar as is and all a few low/high slot so it can actually kill stuff solo too. This game was not called Eve-Solo for a reason, to get the maximum effectiveness out of anything you need to interact with and god forbid cooperate with other players.
Nnamuachs Caldari Kiith Paktu	Posted - 2009.01.23 06:14:00 - [8] Originally by: Kobushi Edited by: Kobushi on 23/01/2009 06:05:59 I believe a very secure container that can store up to 300K m3 has been introduced recently , it's called the Orca by the way... what you are asking is akin to saying the Falcon can Ewar just fine but lacks in dps so let's keep the Ewar as is and all a few low/high slot so it can actually kill stuff solo too. This game was not called Eve-Solo for a reason, to get the maximum effectiveness out of anything you need to interact with and god forbid cooperate with other players. Uh, the falcon "can" kill stuff solo, it just takes forever.. your point is moot.. but i agree.. no need for larger secure containers.
Kobushi OCForums	Posted - 2009.01.23 08:20:00 - [9] Originally by: Nnamuachs Uh, the falcon "can" kill stuff solo, it just takes forever.. your point is moot.. but i agree.. no need for larger secure containers. There we go: hulk "can" mine stuff solo, it just takes forever..
Mia Sin Amarr	Posted - 2009.01.23 14:08:00 - [10] Originally by: Irn Bruce The argument that a properly fitted hulk can fill them in one cycle is invalid. A gank fitted combat ship can't tank, does that mean something should be changed so they can? No. Likewise, a hulk fitted for maximum yield (the mining equivalent of gank) can't store all that ore so easily. So strike a balance with your fittings. Uhm. A couple of points here: a) Your comparison is apples and ora... nukes. b) You don't need to fit a hulk for maximum yield to fill one GSC in less than one cycle. c) Why would anybody with half a brain fit his hulk for cargo capacity (as opposed to yield) when the whole point of using cans/conts is to remove the need for station running (capacity>yield) or immediate hauling? d) Chicken > Bananas?
MrWendell	Posted - 2009.01.23 15:09:00 - [11] I'm in favour. Storing private reserves of ammo, hardeners and the like in 0.0 is invaluable. GSCs aren't cut out for this at all.
Irn Bruce	Posted - 2009.01.23 18:32:00 - [12] Originally by: Mia Sin Originally by: Irn Bruce The argument that a properly fitted hulk can fill them in one cycle is invalid. A gank fitted combat ship can't tank, does that mean something should be changed so they can? No. Likewise, a hulk fitted for maximum yield (the mining equivalent of gank) can't store all that ore so easily. So strike a balance with your fittings. Uhm. A couple of points here: a) Your comparison is apples and ora... nukes. b) You don't need to fit a hulk for maximum yield to fill one GSC in less than one cycle. c) Why would anybody with half a brain fit his hulk for cargo capacity (as opposed to yield) when the whole point of using cans/conts is to remove the need for station running (capacity>yield) or immediate hauling? d) Chicken > Bananas? My point was that in order to get the maximum yield you need to take risks, i.e. use an unsecure container. Nothing in Eve is suposed to be risk free. If you must can mine, either reduce your yield so it will fit in the secure container, or take a bit more risk and do it the insecure way.
Marcus Gideon Gallente Excessive Force	Posted - 2009.01.24 00:44:00 - [13] Max yield or not... I can fit 5 GSC inside my Hulk when I solo mine casually. Yes, I could do better at the cost of space. But I don't have to worry about using Jet Cans and being flipped. So, for one... I'd like to put a single Super Secure Can inside, instead of several "Giants" which really aren't all that giant to begin with. As others have said... this would have more impact than just miners. Being able to store PvP mods, ammo, and the like safely, without having to scatter your belongings kilometers apart.
Allen Ramses Caldari Typo Corp	Posted - 2009.01.26 07:59:00 - [14] Up from page 5. Has anyone who mentioned the orca or an alt as the solution ever considered the fact that not every rookie character has access to an orca, and not every player has an alt? And even then, have you considered that not every mining operation is a fleet of hulks? They are still fairly expensive and skill intensive, after all. Stop spewing out garbage that only applies to 20 mil SP industrial characters. Rookies, small corps, and po' folks are people too. Oh, and the Orca can't carry 300k m3, it can carry 85k m3. Know the difference.
NightF0x Gallente Ardent Industrial Arcane Alliance	Posted - 2009.01.26 10:15:00 - [15] Originally by: Allen Ramses Up from page 5. Has anyone who mentioned the orca or an alt as the solution ever considered the fact that not every rookie character has access to an orca, and not every player has an alt? And even then, have you considered that not every mining operation is a fleet of hulks? They are still fairly expensive and skill intensive, after all. Stop spewing out garbage that only applies to 20 mil SP industrial characters. Rookies, small corps, and po' folks are people too. Oh, and the Orca can't carry 300k m3, it can carry 85k m3. Know the difference. If you take the command industrial skill past level 1 then you will see that you get a ton of room. Even at level 1 you can carry 90k m3
Cyberman Mastermind	Posted - 2009.01.26 10:54:00 - [16] Originally by: NightF0x Or you could make a friend and have them haul your ore for you. Yeah I know...personal interaction in an MMO...who would have thought of that? Heaven forbid that you actually interact with someone else in the game. Interesting idea. But who is going to work for free? Because if we split up the ore, both get almost nothing. AND the hauler is either busy all the time or bored to death. Why is mission-runner an acceptable solo-profession but mining isn't? -------------------------------------------------- I'm a rich person. How I know? I can afford to be a miner.
Torothanax	Posted - 2009.01.27 01:53:00 - [17] Originally by: Cyberman Mastermind Originally by: NightF0x Or you could make a friend and have them haul your ore for you. Yeah I know...personal interaction in an MMO...who would have thought of that? Heaven forbid that you actually interact with someone else in the game. Interesting idea. But who is going to work for free? Because if we split up the ore, both get almost nothing. AND the hauler is either busy all the time or bored to death. Why is mission-runner an acceptable solo-profession but mining isn't? The idea of a larger secure can comes up all the time. The replies are always the same. "Eve isn't a solo game." Like hell it's not. Everyone and thier brother has an alt account. Hauling, scouting, cyno-ing, spying, you name it. CCP encourages it. A single player mining with a hauler alt is not a multiplayer game. And as Cyberman and countless others have pointed out, mission running is solo as well. So is ratting. So is production. So is market trading. These all take only one player, but are more effecient with an alt or two. Multiplayer games are allowed to have solo activities. What's wrong with solo grinding and group pvp? That's the way most people play the game works anyway.
Irn Bruce	Posted - 2009.01.27 03:46:00 - [18] The multiplayer aspect isn't the point. The point is that there needs to be some risk involved. that's one of the core principles of Eve. The least risky way to mine is in a tanked hulk in highsec with a secure can, while in a NPC corp. A hulk won't be killed by highsec rats, a bit of a tank makes it practically immune to suicide ganks since that got nerfed, a secure can can't be flipped, and in a NPC corp you can't be war decced. By rights, that near total safety should mean that it's the least profitable way to do it, or at the very least is much less profitable than riskier methods. I know all you industrialists don't like to draw comparisons with combat, but lets do it anyway. When running missions or ratting, you maximise your profit by maximising your DPS. This means you can finish missions faster. However, because of the way ship fittings work, more DPS generally means less tank, and therefore more chance of losing a ship. Most mission runners will get around this by prioritising tank and simply taking a bit of a profit hit. After all, it's usually better to be guaranteed 15mil an hour than to risk losing a 150mil ship for 20mil an hour. But everyone has to weigh that risk vs reward up for themselves. Bringing it back to industry, to maximise profit when mining, you maximise yield. To maximise yield in your hulk, that means taking a hit to cargo capacity, which means you have to use some form of outboard storage. If it's a given that outboard storage will be used, then to maximise profit, you want to have the least possible time spent emptying and hauling that storage, and so you want the highest capacity. As things stand, that means non-secure cans. Secure cans minimise the risk (in fact they pretty much negate it), so they should be at a significant reward hit. Right now this is the case, and that's exactly as it should be. On the solo vs multiplayer point, comparing with mission running again, if you do it solo in the highest rewarding systems (the hubs) you stand a very high risk of losing out on some or all of the salvage and/or loot and therefore losing a pretty big chunk of the potential profit. Missions are not secure, they can be probed and stolen from. The equivalent to bigger secure cans would be to make missions into instances, so they couldn't be probed. this goes entirely against the ethos of Eve, and will never happen. Industry is a much safer profession than either mission running or ratting, but yet it's more profitable. Industrialists already have it good from that point of view, it doesn't need made easier.
Johli Caldari AWE Corporation Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2009.01.27 05:33:00 - [19] use a hauler alt, mining is already so easy, don't be lazy, even in 0.0 you need anything bigger than a gsc or two for supplies, etc.
Torothanax	Posted - 2009.01.27 07:14:00 - [20] Originally by: Irn Bruce The multiplayer aspect isn't the point. The point is that there needs to be some risk involved. I breeze through lvl 4's without even paying attention in an unrigged basic t2 fit tempest. Where is the risk? Originally by: Johli use a hauler alt, mining is already so easy, don't be lazy, even in 0.0 you need anything bigger than a gsc or two for supplies, etc. Exactly. There is zero risk if you use an alt hauler. It's completely single player. What's the problem with letting single account miners do the same on a smaller scale? RL wallet size isn't supposed to factor in to the game. Some of us mine (I rarely do it anymore because lvl 4's are way better cash) because it's peaceful. Put some music on, read through the data base, look at the market, think, whatever. It's not peaceful when are constantly worrying about some griefer fliping your can, just because. GSC's are a joke while mining in anything bigger then a cruiser. Even jet can mining in an out of the way high sec system a solo, maxed hulk makes what, 4 mil an hour? If he can find rocks that last longer half a cycle. Wooo hooo. That's so game breaking.
Cyberman Mastermind	Posted - 2009.01.27 12:11:00 - [21] Quote: A hulk won't be killed by highsec rats, a bit of a tank makes it practically immune to suicide ganks since that got nerfed, I'm not sure on this. The basic hulk tank isn't that great, unless you see a faction shield booster as standard. Quote: a secure can can't be flipped, Well, yes, but there really is no reason to use one unless you've got a hauler. Quote: and in a NPC corp you can't be war decced. Restrict the bigger container to player-corps only. Quote: By rights, that near total safety should mean that it's the least profitable way to do it, or at the very least is much less profitable than riskier methods. Well, it is. Quote: Bringing it back to industry, to maximise profit when mining, you maximise yield. To maximise yield in your hulk, that means taking a hit to cargo capacity, which means you have to use some form of outboard storage. Unless I'm jetcan-mining, I AM sacrificing yield and efficiency. There is no way to win, only to lose. Either max storage and less immediate yield, or more immediate yield with less storage and thus less efficiency. Any way you turn it, you are losing money if you're alone. And if you aren't - you're still losing, because you'll have to split the profit. Quote: Secure cans minimise the risk (in fact they pretty much negate it), so they should be at a significant reward hit. Right now this is the case, and that's exactly as it should be. Right now, secure cans are absolutey useless to a miner who's using a barge. It's like fitting a civilian gatling gun because you don't have enough powergrid for a real weapon. It looks like a gun and would do damage, but in reality you can't use it for anything. If you're worried that a bigger container might be too much of a advantage, give it some penalties. Like, as I said before, only for player-corps to remove NPC-safety. Or give it less structure than normal GSCs, so they might be destroyed with enough effort. If need be, what if they burned starbase charters? They'd at least get more useful with that. Mining as it is now will only attract more and more macros and afk-miners who sign up a dozen accounts to be somewhat efficiently. While nice for CCP, I don't think it'll be any good for the game.
Tanalei Caldari	Posted - 2009.01.28 03:35:00 - [22] I"m all for a larger secure container the current ones are a joke. We need something between the "giant" secure container and a freight container.
Nephilius Caldari Grey Legionaires	Posted - 2009.01.30 19:25:00 - [23] Originally by: Tanalei I"m all for a larger secure container the current ones are a joke. We need something between the "giant" secure container and a freight container. Exactly. I was on the market the other day for one and found nothing. Reading all the arguments, I see no reason why something like this can't be implemented. None. Who's it gonna hurt really? The can flippers? I'd wager that's about it. I ate a Carebear once...couldn't quit farting rainbows for a month.
Auriga Amtiskaw	Posted - 2009.01.31 01:29:00 - [24] And no oneÆs worried that this may kill off haulers? Make single player mining a little too easy? well... i guess ccp is ^^
Allen Ramses Caldari Typo Corp	Posted - 2009.01.31 03:50:00 - [25] Originally by: Auriga Amtiskaw And no oneÆs worried that this may kill off haulers? Make single player mining a little too easy? well... i guess ccp is ^^ Why would this kill off haulers? If anything, it'd make their lives a tad less miserable. You have to look at it from the viewpoint that this isn't designed to be used with a hulk, it's to be used with a gang of retrievers. Hulks don't need these, their cargohold is already big enough. When a gang of retrievers (or non-barges, for that matter) need to dump their load every three minutes, they have two options: A jetcan which can be flipped, or a GSC which is really not big enough. A jetcan is not practical because of ore thieves, and a GSC is not practical because the hauler would have to go to that location every six minutes. Having a larger secure can would give haulers and miners alike a much larger buffer to work with.
Torothanax	Posted - 2009.02.08 13:02:00 - [26] With all the alts, meta gaming, and dual boxing, that are encouraged by ccp, there's no reason we shouldn't have larger secure cans.
Dr Prometheus Caldari Gears of Construction	Posted - 2009.02.08 21:05:00 - [27] We already have our bigger GSC; its called Orca, - Dude where is my Charon? -
Torothanax	Posted - 2009.02.09 21:14:00 - [28] Originally by: Dr Prometheus We already have our bigger GSC; its called Orca, The orca is just one more justification for larger secure cans. Players can now do with 2 accounts what used to take 3. A player can now haul and boost the minining output of his hulk with one alt. alt's an meta gaming have ruined game balance and turned a multi player game into a single player game. Time to rebalance.
Allen Ramses Caldari Typo Corp	Posted - 2009.02.10 02:10:00 - [29] Originally by: Dr Prometheus We already have our bigger GSC; its called Orca, You do realize that not every Tom, ****, and Harry have access to a 750 mil ISK ship, right? Right? ____________________ CCP: Catering to the cowards of a cold, harsh universe since November, 2006.
Torothanax	Posted - 2009.02.25 02:56:00 - [30] Edited by: Torothanax on 25/02/2009 02:57:07 I guess I should bump this thread.
Abrazzar	Posted - 2009.02.25 03:10:00 - [31] IMHO all containers should be tripled in size. That way the smaller ones would actually get used. Currently they're just database junk only used on rare occasions. And while we're at it, remove the restriction of Enriched Uranium to be put into cans or finally add fuel rods. I like to sort the fuel in cans of certain durations for easier refueling. -------- Ideas for: Mining
Torothanax	Posted - 2009.02.26 06:28:00 - [32] Originally by: Abrazzar IMHO all containers should be tripled in size. That way the smaller ones would actually get used. Currently they're just database junk only used on rare occasions. And while we're at it, remove the restriction of Enriched Uranium to be put into cans or finally add fuel rods. I like to sort the fuel in cans of certain durations for easier refueling. Good point: why is there a restriction on items like Enriched Uranium being placed in a container?
Torothanax	Posted - 2009.03.20 15:20:00 - [33] Cans need work.
Nephilius Caldari Grey Legionaires	Posted - 2009.03.20 16:38:00 - [34] Seriously CCP, there is no reason not to have something between GSCs and Freight Containers. I ate a Carebear once...couldn't quit farting rainbows for a month.
Aarin Wrath Caldari Quatidion	Posted - 2009.03.20 16:57:00 - [35] Originally by: Tanalei I"m all for a larger secure container the current ones are a joke. We need something between the "giant" secure container and a freight container. I'd second that. We need Bigger cans. I mostly want bigger ones for my equipment stores in 0.0. Having multiple GSC for fuel reserves, ammo reserves, equipment, blah blah is rather annoying to manage. Personally I'd love a 10k in size 13k compressed can of some sort.
Corian Teranos Caldari Kneb Corp Ghosts of the Hallowed Sword	Posted - 2009.03.20 19:11:00 - [36] Edited by: Corian Teranos on 20/03/2009 19:13:34 I had an idea a while back that could resolve the need for a hauler alt. i was thinking about making a special drone that can only be fitted on mining barges has a decent cargo capacity and warps back and forth dumping your ore in a station or pos you predesignate and if a someone wants to flip you he blows up the drone and takes the ore. this way the anti can advocates are happy and the miners can stop *****ing all the time
Valegresch	Posted - 2009.03.21 09:53:00 - [37] I'd like for it to have a capacity of 15000 myself. That would help those that have industrials with large cargo bays. cough Iteorn Mark V cough
GOSMIC	Posted - 2009.03.22 02:43:00 - [38] Why cans... I whant a ship that can picup 27 cans. I have now a ship that can't pic up any cans and his cargo is 270.000m3 so that skill is wasted. Thx to EvE to put no info what a ship can't do... 1000000000 isk wasted
Darkdood	Posted - 2009.03.22 13:56:00 - [39] I would love to see larger secure cans. However I don't believe these should be made like the GSC's were its 3000 outside and 3900 inside. A whole new set of super large secure cans is needed but 1 to 1 is fine. Like 10k 15k 20k 25k 30k 35k inside and out. That way you can pick the can closest in size to your hauler. Fill it up and off you go etc etc. Frankly I could care less if they were smaller inside than outside. I just want something secure I can hang in space that will hold a huge amount of stuff. Hulk carry 17k with expanders and rigs. Bestower and Iteron 5's can hold 22k and 38k. GSC's don't cut it if your a serious miner.
Valegresch	Posted - 2009.03.22 17:36:00 - [40] Originally by: Darkdood A whole new set of super large secure cans is needed but 1 to 1 is fine. Like 10k 15k 20k 25k 30k 35k inside and out. That way you can pick the can closest in size to your hauler. That sounds reasonable, I like that idea. /signed
Torothanax	Posted - 2009.03.29 06:56:00 - [41] Better secure cans please.
Clansworth Good Rock Materials	Posted - 2009.03.29 08:41:00 - [42] I propose a 27,500m¦ can that can be deployed where ever you want, and can hold any item without restriction. You should be able to carry this can around in the smallest of ships, even shuttles, to allow easy deployment in the field. Obviously, since this is such a convenient device, there should be a downside (everything in EvE has a downside). Lets instead make it NOT secure, so that anyone can take stuff from it. Lets also give them a limited lifetime, regardless of usage. On the positive note, we can set it up so that if someone takes stuff from your can, you will be allowed to shoot them... Seriously though, the Orca has done a great thing in this situation. The excuse that it takes lots of isk/sp to use is ridiculous. Why SHOULDN'T the best option require the most capital investment/skill level? The alts vs corpmate argument is moot. The game should always be more productive for those who decide to work together. It's how the real world works, and should be so in new eden as well. What would the ramifications be if this 10,000-15,000m¦ secure beast was introduced? The less experienced, less social members of the community would receive a boost in productivity, while the more coordinated teams would lose their advantage. This is NOT what should be. As for the argument that larger containers are needed between GSC and GFC, I agree, but like the GFC, it should not be secure. It should also not provide space compression (in fact, I really disagree with the fact that this compression exists in ANY of the containers). For the most flexibility in moving/organizing goods, I still agree that there needs to be a item grouping/shrink wrap solution added to the game. System Influence
Mike C Caldari	Posted - 2009.03.29 09:49:00 - [43] Edited by: Mike C on 29/03/2009 09:50:50 18000m¦ Volume 25000m¦ Capacity would be better. Also, it should be .3 and below only, like assigning fighters. EDIT 1/2: And yes this is to ** over the empire macro miners who would be ing impossible to kill off (Don't ye miss snowballs?) EDIT 2/2: Goddamn filters... __________________________________________________ Originally by:** Mike C Trolls - We keep Humanity alive... and kicking...
Imertu Solientai Gallente	Posted - 2009.03.29 11:32:00 - [44] Sure, as long as it requires anchoring 5 to anchor, and preferably is a corp-only item.
Sagittarius Voidsoul Caldari	Posted - 2009.03.29 12:16:00 - [45] Originally by: Imertu Solientai Sure, as long as it requires anchoring 5 to anchor, and preferably is a corp-only item. Rather excessive,don't you think? ------------------------------------------------ "Memento mori"
Clansworth Good Rock Materials	Posted - 2009.03.29 12:17:00 - [46] Originally by: Sagittarius Voidsoul Originally by: Imertu Solientai Sure, as long as it requires anchoring 5 to anchor, and preferably is a corp-only item. Rather excessive,don't you think? Perhaps instead it should only be anchorable at a POS... System Influence
Mike C Caldari	Posted - 2009.03.29 19:44:00 - [47] Originally by: Imertu Solientai Sure, as long as it requires anchoring 5 to anchor, and preferably is a corp-only item. Id say anchoring 4 would be better... And definately should not be anchorable for corp. __________________________________________________ Originally by: Mike C Trolls - We keep Humanity alive... and kicking...
Torothanax	Posted - 2009.03.29 20:11:00 - [48] Originally by: Clansworth What would the ramifications be if this 10,000-15,000m¦ secure beast was introduced? The less experienced, less social members of the community would receive a boost in productivity, while the more coordinated teams would lose their advantage. So a solo player makes more then an entire team of hulks boosted by an orca? a SOLO player can already make plenty all by himself, even with out larger secure can. You run two or more accounts at once. One in an orca, the rest in hulks. So how would it be bad to help out the solo player with one account? Eve IS in fact, a solo game if you want it to be.
Kahega Amielden Minmatar Suddenly Ninjas	Posted - 2009.03.29 21:13:00 - [49] No. Jetcan mining provides an interesting mechanic. Increased profit, but you could lose it all. If you don't want to risk it, then just warp to and from station when your hold fills...
Nephilius Caldari Grey Legionaires	Posted - 2009.03.29 21:37:00 - [50] Still haven't heard a good reason to not have a MSC. I ate a Carebear once...couldn't quit farting rainbows for a month.
Torothanax	Posted - 2009.03.29 21:50:00 - [51] Originally by: Kahega Amielden No. Jetcan mining provides an interesting mechanic. Increased profit, but you could lose it all. If you don't want to risk it, then just warp to and from station when your hold fills... Jet can mining is easily bypassed with two accounts. Tiny secure containers only hurt single account players.
Mike C Caldari	Posted - 2009.03.29 22:09:00 - [52] ATM These are the specs for GSC (Details) Notes - This Giant container is fitted with a password-protected security lock. (Targeting) Signature Radius - 3km (Structure) Mass - 6,000,000 kg Volume - 3000 m¦ Capacity - 3900 m¦ (Required Skills) ñ Primary Skill - Anchoring I This is what I suggest for Massive Secure Container: (Details) Notes - This Massive container is fitted with a password-protected security lock. Due to CONCORD regulations on sub-space distortion containers of this size are deemed unsafe for policed territory, and thus cannot be anchored in systems with a security rating of 0.4 or above. (Targeting) Signature Radius - 30km (Structure) Mass - 60,000,000 kg Volume - 18000 m¦ Capacity - 25000 m¦ (Required Skills) ñ Primary Skill - Anchoring IV ¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼ Seems fair to me... Won't be of any use to most solo miners who dare not toward the promises of low sec ore... __________________________________________________ Originally by: Mike C Trolls - We keep Humanity alive... and kicking...
Sagittarius Voidsoul Caldari	Posted - 2009.03.30 02:37:00 - [53] Edited by: Sagittarius Voidsoul on 30/03/2009 02:38:19 Originally by: Mike C (Details) Notes - This Massive container is fitted with a password-protected security lock. Due to CONCORD regulations on sub-space distortion containers of this size are deemed unsafe for policed territory, and thus cannot be anchored in systems with a security rating of 0.4 or above. (Targeting) Signature Radius - 30km (Structure) Mass - 60,000,000 kg Volume - 18000 m¦ Capacity - 25000 m¦ (Required Skills) ñ Primary Skill - Anchoring IV ¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼ I like the stats on this,and the anchoring restriction is more than fair considering what is being offered. High sec pilots may not be able to anchor it but it would still help a great deal with hauling, as it would be 2nd only to the standard freight container in regards to containers used for hauling.(The larger ones being station bound). ------------------------------------------------ "Memento mori"
Marcus Gideon Gallente Limited Liability Corp	Posted - 2009.03.30 02:57:00 - [54] Edited by: Marcus Gideon on 30/03/2009 02:58:06 I like the dimensions. But I have to disagree with this "Low Sec Only" thing you're trying to pull off. We all get it, you're not a fan of Care Bears. But that doesn't mean that we need to discriminate against them so blatantly. The only things that aren't allowed in High Sec are ships that would be overpowering. As for "sub-space distortion", what about Freighters? They use the same TARDIS effects to fit more. So does every Iteron V and Orca out there. Every miner who's ever been flipped while trying to use the Jet Can capacity to their advantage is told "Use secure cans, noob". And yet, how many do you have to anchor before you can justify coming back with a hauler. How many GSC can you fit into a fully rigged and fitted Iteron V? I know I can fit 5x GSC and then some into my Hulk. If I can fit so much into a cardboard box (Jet Can), why can't I buy a wooden/metal box the same size? Preferably one with a padlock, since there's an abundance of klepto sociopaths. --- *Players aren't interested in Variety, they only want THE BEST.*

Pages: 1 2 :: [one 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.