Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Jarne
Increasing Success by Lowering Expectations Enuma Elish.
|
Posted - 2007.12.07 01:26:00 -
[1]
Please, CCP, I understand the reasons why you made some T1 modules such big, but I thought you would be at least so clever to make the NPCs drop less if not none of the T1 modules which are bigger than their named variants now :(.
I cannot even fit the loot of 3 BS wrecks into my BS cargo anymore, because most of the modules are oversized T1 modules. Why don't you change the loot tables and make those T1 modules worst named instead. Would that be so hard? Looting T1 modules is not worth it anymore, so what you effectively did by not changing the loot tables together with the T1 module sizes is a massive nerf to ratting & co. As it currently stands it's a drop to 50% loot compared to pre-patch. I guess this is not what you wanted, I thought you would do something against mineral compression instead :(. - Success=Achievements/Expectations
|
Gaogan
Gallente Solar Storm Sev3rance
|
Posted - 2007.12.07 02:45:00 -
[2]
/signed
|
Grieg Samsonov
|
Posted - 2007.12.07 04:44:00 -
[3]
Why was this done in the first place? As Jarne stated, my Dominix can barely fit 3 BS worth of loot now? What is the point of this? Some of us use loot for minerals, you know? This really is a nerf and a bad one at that. Couple this with boot.ini and this has been a horrible patch experience.
|
Rakshasa Taisab
Caldari Sane Industries Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.12.07 09:09:00 -
[4]
Because the reprocessing whiners whined, trading also got borked...
Damn you and your "my mom always gave me 100% refining efficiency" whines. Now I need to get a jump freighter to move a few 100MN MWD's from 0.0.
|
Shadowsword
COLSUP Tau Ceti Federation
|
Posted - 2007.12.07 09:13:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Jarne Please, CCP, I understand the reasons why you made some T1 modules such big, but I thought you would be at least so clever to make the NPCs drop less if not none of the T1 modules which are bigger than their named variants now :(.
I cannot even fit the loot of 3 BS wrecks into my BS cargo anymore, because most of the modules are oversized T1 modules. Why don't you change the loot tables and make those T1 modules worst named instead. Would that be so hard? Looting T1 modules is not worth it anymore, so what you effectively did by not changing the loot tables together with the T1 module sizes is a massive nerf to ratting & co. As it currently stands it's a drop to 50% loot compared to pre-patch. I guess this is not what you wanted, I thought you would do something against mineral compression instead :(.
Well, it's not as if I made a thread about it a month ago on this forum to warn CCP of the issues involved in pve... Oh wait, I did!
It's sad to see that whatever you say, if it's not a 15-pages thread CCP ignore it completely. ------------------------------------------
What is Oomph? It the sound Amarr players makes when they get kicked in the ribs. |
ElCoCo
KIA Corp KIA Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.12.07 10:09:00 -
[6]
Yeah but how else are they going to "force" you to have an extra account for hauling the loot? |
Rascael
Perpetua Umbra Brotherhood Of Steel
|
Posted - 2007.12.07 20:52:00 -
[7]
A current workaround to the module looting nerf is to jettison something into a container, and loot into it. Bookmark it's location, get an industrial ship, and fly back to retreive it. The module change is just a time nerf to salvaging.
|
Femaref
Caldari Armageddon Day
|
Posted - 2007.12.07 22:12:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Rascael A current workaround to the module looting nerf is to jettison something into a container, and loot into it. Bookmark it's location, get an industrial ship, and fly back to retreive it. The module change is just a time nerf to salvaging.
Why? Just activate the salvager on the wreck (with loot in it!)
|
Orion Eridanus
Dark Nova Crisis
|
Posted - 2007.12.08 19:15:00 -
[9]
Sure jettisoning a can works for mission runners, but what about us low sec belt ratters?
Originally by: Paulo Damarr That is a most Excellent Drake fitting, you are lucky to have survived.
|
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2007.12.08 22:48:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Orion Eridanus Sure jettisoning a can works for mission runners, but what about us low sec belt ratters?
Same thing if the rats don't start firing on the container .
When ratting I usually keep a can (jet can or secure, depend) in one of the belt and warp there to drop all the loot, then I return to pick it up with a industrial, keeping only the very good loot in the BS.
Obviously I do this only in system wit a POS or station.
|
|
Tek'a Rain
Gallente Isis Technologies
|
Posted - 2007.12.09 03:17:00 -
[11]
seconded and thirded, signed, etc.
if you want t1 items to be borked for producers to punish them, thats one thing. but failing, or certainly letting it Look like failing to consider the effects of size changes to mission runners and ratter is just foolish.
Remember, more and more of the reward of missions and ratting has been pushed to loot and salvage.
Breaking the Loot means ANOTHER nerf to the isk making, meaning more annoying grinding, and dare I say it, more illegal isk for cash ventures.
If everyone is dead set against reversing the size change, the least that can be done is removing t1 items from the loot tables, or setting them So low that your more likely to get an officer named mod then a giant, bloated t1 gun.
and maybe hauler spawns could drop compressed ore blocks. off topic for this thread.. but it would be kinda cool. and makes more in game sense then finding refined minerals in their holds in belts.
|
MJ Maverick
IronPig Sev3rance
|
Posted - 2007.12.09 03:20:00 -
[12]
also /signed --------------------
|
Jurgen Cartis
Caldari Interstellar Corporation of Exploration
|
Posted - 2007.12.09 10:48:00 -
[13]
It is time for a real salvage ship. We've been using destroyers since salvage came out, as yet there remains no mini-profession ship for salvaging and looting. Until now, a fully expanded Catalyst did the job just fine.
This doesn't help belt ratters, but it will help missioners. For belt rats, make them drop less base T1 loot. Revise the loot tables for similar values but fewer m3s. -------------------- ICE Blueprint Sales FIRST!! -Yipsilanti Pfft. Never such a thing as a "last chance". ;) -Rauth |
Blazing Fire
Interstellar Operations Incorporated Black-Out
|
Posted - 2007.12.09 11:45:00 -
[14]
this is one of the stupied changes i've seen.
I manufacture T1 items in 0.0 space, and with the volume increase it take too much space to be hauled here and there.
Please just modify the reprocess ammount, and return the original volume.
Blazing Fire CEO Interstellar Operations Incorporated Corp web site
Recruitment PvPeers wanted for 0.0 Fleet ops and roaming/defense gangs Looking for experienced players Looking for new EVE players
Services [Service] Killboard hosting [Service] Forum hosting [Service] Web site hosting [Service] Obelisk for rent [Service] Alliance Creation |
Majickthise
S0G
|
Posted - 2007.12.09 13:30:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Blazing Fire
Please just modify the reprocess ammount, and return the original volume.
this. i often wonder how the average game developers mind works.
problem: items giving to much mins for their volume size. solution 1: lower the amount of mins for the items on refine solution 2: make items larger and keep mins the same
hmm... now im not a developer, but one of those solutions is going to effect more than the refining issue..
|
Jurgen Cartis
Caldari Interstellar Corporation of Exploration
|
Posted - 2007.12.10 07:36:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Majickthise
Originally by: Blazing Fire
Please just modify the reprocess ammount, and return the original volume.
this. i often wonder how the average game developers mind works.
problem: items giving to much mins for their volume size. solution 1: lower the amount of mins for the items on refine solution 2: make items larger and keep mins the same
hmm... now im not a developer, but one of those solutions is going to effect more than the refining issue..
Actually, those both have a lot of knock-on effects. Both nerf mineral compression and ratters/missioners at the same time.
Greyscale or Chronotis (can't remember which) actually suggested solution 1 at one point. The response was VERY negative, which was part of why they decided to make T1 mods huge instead. -------------------- ICE Blueprint Sales FIRST!! -Yipsilanti Pfft. Never such a thing as a "last chance". ;) -Rauth |
Xenomorphea II
|
Posted - 2007.12.10 08:30:00 -
[17]
/not signed
Removing these modules from the NPC loot is NOT a solution either. It would be fixing the symptoms, not the problem.
CCP, the decision of inflating standard T1 module one is a poor one, since there were other options available to avoid the "mineral compression exploit". My suggestion:
- Reduce the amount of minerals you get from reprocessing T1 modules, so they cannot be used to carry minerals in compressed form. - Please return the volume of ALL T1 modules to their original value, as they have ALWAYS been since 4 years, and as they are logically supposed to be.
Current "CCP Solution" breaks gameplay as it is causing these griefes (among others): . carrying around fitting for a T1 ship in cargo has become impossible (a max of 3 med modules fit in a cruiser bay - wtf?) . carrying around T1 modules in a hauler for trading is totally unprofitable now. You can just fit 50 med modules in a standard hauler, vs. 500 before. . looting from NPC rats (ratting in 0,0, or running missions) fills the cargo in no time - is now a second "hauling" account required even for ratting?!? . capital modules are so large (4000 m¦) that capital pilots have no chance to carry additional modules for refitting, which greatly hinders the flexibility of such ships
Come on CCP, we all love EVE - I cannot believe you can be so blind to let such a change pass through. If you do, you seriously fail at making EVE the wonderful MMPORG it is supposed to be.
Cheers, Xeno
|
Flavia Clio
Ero Guro VENOM Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.12.10 08:43:00 -
[18]
CCP fixing **** that aint broke makeing Eve an even bigger grind than is was to begin with.
I swear some of the Dev's must have a passive aggressive hatred of their customers.
|
Din Shelter
|
Posted - 2007.12.10 09:55:00 -
[19]
Some time ago CCP said they would like to remove the bounty from NPC at all, less printed isk machine that is ratting, and more focusing on looting and salvaging.
How will you implement that now, if CCP is ever gonna iplement it.
Look like this will be salvage online ( 1m3 for salvage unit lol )
Reconsider it. Thank you
|
Dzajic
Gallente
|
Posted - 2007.12.10 09:57:00 -
[20]
Well, there is the poison of salvage, also known as scrap metal.
|
|
Mr Friendly
That it Should Come to This Derek Knows Us
|
Posted - 2007.12.10 11:06:00 -
[21]
The change is getting annoying. I too understand why t1 mods shouldn't provide a mega-storage/volume benefit. Fair enough. Close that loophole for players looking for an 'easy' way to transport minerals.
However, I don't understand why these crap modules need drop at all. Though I'm not a programmer/db guy in any way, couldn't you also remove them from loot tables as well as increasing their volumes? That would prevent compression 'exploits' while not increasing the annoyance in looting a mission.
Save EveTV, please. Sign to ask CCP to fund EveTV! |
Ryuga VonRhaiden
Caldari Insurgent New Eden Tribe Deus Ex.
|
Posted - 2007.12.10 12:39:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Jarne Please, CCP, I understand the reasons why you made some T1 modules such big, but I thought you would be at least so clever to make the NPCs drop less if not none of the T1 modules which are bigger than their named variants now :(.
where's the problem?
just skip 'em if you don't like 'em... :| there's a lot of oversized and useless loot...
Do not try and find the signature... that's impossible. Instead only try to realize the truth... There is no signature. |
OneSock
Crown Industries
|
Posted - 2007.12.10 12:53:00 -
[23]
Not signed. T1 modules are often worth more in minerals than the lower end named modules. In fact some lower end named is almost worthless in comparison and that would only get worse if their drop rate was increased. There would also be less minerals coming into the markets from recycled T1.
After this nerf there will be less minerals anyway because I expect a lot of people will just stop collecting when their salvage ship is full.
CCP need to rethink. What they have done is not a workable solution. Return the modules to their correct size and just adjust the mineral content of the items.
|
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2007.12.10 13:12:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Mr Friendly The change is getting annoying. I too understand why t1 mods shouldn't provide a mega-storage/volume benefit. Fair enough. Close that loophole for players looking for an 'easy' way to transport minerals.
However, I don't understand why these crap modules need drop at all. Though I'm not a programmer/db guy in any way, couldn't you also remove them from loot tables as well as increasing their volumes? That would prevent compression 'exploits' while not increasing the annoyance in looting a mission.
You see the key point is that they are "crap modules" because they drop in loot.
Even if any drop from rats was guri derad cazzabubbol xx 79 supermodule, after the 100th you have recovered it would be crap as every other player ratting or doing missions would be getting the same module.
A high priced module will stay high priced only if it is relatively rare and in demand.
If it is very common, even if it is used because it is a good module, the price will reach the bottom value of his mineral content in no time, as the request will be lower than the quantity harvested from rats by the players.
So the mineral content of every module is his "bottom value". Reducing the mineral content will simply lower that value.
|
Dragon Greg
Amarr IVC Consortium Imperial Republic Of the North
|
Posted - 2007.12.10 13:36:00 -
[25]
Welcome to the drone regions I'd almost say, I trust people have made good use of the Power of 2 initiative, for soon everyone will be needing a hauler on a 2nd account following the ratter on the first account.
Cheers
Dragon Greg |
Ulstan
|
Posted - 2007.12.10 14:10:00 -
[26]
Quote: solution 1: lower the amount of mins for the items on refine solution 2: make items larger and keep mins the same
hmm... now im not a developer, but one of those solutions is going to effect more than the refining issue..
Solution 1 is worse than 2.
Solution 2 would be ok if the sizes reflected the actual mineral value of the module, instead of some random big ass number.
Also, it would be ok if rats stopped dropping t1 and started dropping worst named. or something. A variety of things CCP could do which would make more sense than having a remote sensor booster take 100m3.
|
Righteous Deeds
|
Posted - 2007.12.10 14:14:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Xenomorphea II /not signed
Removing these modules from the NPC loot is NOT a solution either. It would be fixing the symptoms, not the problem.
CCP, the decision of inflating standard T1 module one is a poor one, since there were other options available to avoid the "mineral compression exploit". My suggestion:
- Reduce the amount of minerals you get from reprocessing T1 modules, so they cannot be used to carry minerals in compressed form. - Please return the volume of ALL T1 modules to their original value, as they have ALWAYS been since 4 years, and as they are logically supposed to be.
Current "CCP Solution" breaks gameplay as it is causing these griefes (among others): . carrying around fitting for a T1 ship in cargo has become impossible (a max of 3 med modules fit in a cruiser bay - wtf?) . carrying around T1 modules in a hauler for trading is totally unprofitable now. You can just fit 50 med modules in a standard hauler, vs. 500 before. . looting from NPC rats (ratting in 0,0, or running missions) fills the cargo in no time - is now a second "hauling" account required even for ratting?!? . capital modules are so large (4000 m¦) that capital pilots have no chance to carry additional modules for refitting, which greatly hinders the flexibility of such ships
Come on CCP, we all love EVE - I cannot believe you can be so blind to let such a change pass through. If you do, you seriously fail at making EVE the wonderful MMPORG it is supposed to be.
Cheers, Xeno
This is the correct response. Retract the size changes, and if it's really such a problem (and I don't believe it is) adjust the extractable mineral content of the problem modules. Personelly, I advocate leaving well enough alone, and let the producers/haulers make their money. Doesn't hurt me at all.
|
Xenomorphea II
|
Posted - 2007.12.10 15:44:00 -
[28]
Edited by: Xenomorphea II on 10/12/2007 15:44:21
Originally by: Righteous Deeds
This is the correct response. Retract the size changes, and if it's really such a problem (and I don't believe it is) adjust the extractable mineral content of the problem modules. Personelly, I advocate leaving well enough alone, and let the producers/haulers make their money. Doesn't hurt me at all.
Yep, I really do not mind them making their money by moving minerals in a smart way, but I DO mind when missioning, NPCing and moving around just the fitting for a standard cruiser takes 10x more trips and/or an extra hauler account.
CCP: additional time sinks suck, we've got enough of them already. In fact, why don't you reinstore the carrying capability of the Carriers for the time being? 0.0 logistics are currently a nightmare!
Cheers, Xeno
|
Chade Malloy
Anarchy Unleashed
|
Posted - 2007.12.10 15:45:00 -
[29]
Edited by: Chade Malloy on 10/12/2007 15:45:32 leave the T1 size as it is right now, adjust drops at least for belt rats to worst named T1 variants. Nuff said.
Originally by: Oveur Jesus Christ. The Freighter ate the Stargate god and the Dreadnought didn't!
|
Jarne
Increasing Success by Lowering Expectations Enuma Elish.
|
Posted - 2007.12.10 18:03:00 -
[30]
How about the following solution:
Introduce a new "meta 0" level item with exactly the same stats as the T1 item, except the volume (which should correspond to the other named variants), and with exactly the same reprocessing yield. Drop those instead of the T1 modules in NPC loot.
Change nothing for player-produced modules.
=> Mineral compression "exploit" removed => NPC loot left as it was before
What do you think? - Success=Achievements/Expectations
|
|
Shadowsword
COLSUP Tau Ceti Federation
|
Posted - 2007.12.10 18:37:00 -
[31]
Edited by: Shadowsword on 10/12/2007 18:38:26
Large smartbomb: 150 m3.
This is freaking ridiculous. I can't even imagine how someone with a normal IQ could come up with an idea like that and not realise right away how it would kill looting... ------------------------------------------
What is Oomph? It the sound Amarr players makes when they get kicked in the ribs. |
Pfrundpaechter
Increasing Success by Lowering Expectations Enuma Elish.
|
Posted - 2007.12.10 19:18:00 -
[32]
CCP please rethink what you have done with T1 Mod volumes. It nerfs ratters much harder than those who abused mineral compression before the patch.
Please remove Tech1 modules from the loot tables, as it is the only logical consequence after inflating mod volumes to 2 or 3 times of their initial size.
There may be some issues with the pricing for eg. MWDs, as they only have one or two named variations, which makes them quite precious. But increasing the number of their variations along with making them drop instead of T1 should fix this (why are there even only 1 or 2 variations, and not 5?)
|
Hatch
Minmatar Cloak and Daggers Knights Of Syndicate
|
Posted - 2007.12.10 19:34:00 -
[33]
not to mention, all the cap boosters are now 100m3, including the cap booster 8
|
Emperor D'Hoffryn
No Quarter. Vae Victis.
|
Posted - 2007.12.10 20:57:00 -
[34]
as someone who lives in deep 0.0, i usually never bothered with loot unless it was something good, like best named t1....which means i only checked high end BSes....
the worst named t1 version of all affected modules should be modified to give the same minerals has regular t1, if they do not do so already. You cant manufacture them, so it doesnt matter.
make all rats drop this instead.
give us a way to refine loot at POSes, so i have a reason to care.
Originally by: Snuggly It's just so great to have an actual reason to not die, incentive is fantastic!
|
Tek'a Rain
Gallente Isis Technologies
|
Posted - 2007.12.11 04:13:00 -
[35]
Originally by: Jarne How about the following solution:
Introduce a new "meta 0" level item with exactly the same stats as the T1 item, except the volume (which should correspond to the other named variants), and with exactly the same reprocessing yield. Drop those instead of the T1 modules in NPC loot.
Change nothing for player-produced modules.
=> Mineral compression "exploit" removed => NPC loot left as it was before
What do you think?
this = good idea.
|
squall321
Gallente Unity Of Legends
|
Posted - 2007.12.11 13:40:00 -
[36]
i wasnt going to reply to this issue and then i was out missioning just for a while.. and noticed something so fricken stupid..
now.. tell me wth you where thinking when you made this nerf/buff...o.O crazy. -----------
|
Roy Gordon
Caldari The Star Wolves Aunni Ti Tsuun Consortium
|
Posted - 2007.12.11 15:22:00 -
[37]
I could understand this if other modules in the same class also suffered the same penalty, but they dont. Why on Earth is the Small Hull Repairer 1 50 units, a ten fold increase, when the Medium and Large versions are unchanged? The easiest solution should have been to reduce the minerals one got from modules, not increasing their size. And why on Earth is the Remote Sensor Booster 1 now 100 units? Would it in real life just be a collection of circuits etc? These module changes are the most bizarre fix I've ever seen in a game. Its as if we are supposed to have collective amnesia about everything before the latest patch. Anyone for Dallas? That which does not kill us makes us stronger. The Universe is ruled by three basic principles- Matter, Energy and Enlightened Self-Interest! |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |