These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Test Server Feedback

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[hulk] ok, hand over the rest of the space.
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Dave Stark
#1 - 2012-07-27 15:43:10 UTC
you had 8000m3, you split it 7500/500. now you've normalised the ore bays to 350 for all exhumers.

yet the ore bay is 7500 still, can we have our 150m3 space back please ccp?

thanks.
Annette Aumer
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#2 - 2012-07-27 15:57:15 UTC
Dave stark wrote:
you had 8000m3, you split it 7500/500. now you've normalised the ore bays to 350 for all exhumers.

yet the ore bay is 7500 still, can we have our 150m3 space back please ccp?

thanks.


Lol Dave.. is 7650 really going to make that much of a difference?
Dave Stark
#3 - 2012-07-27 15:57:47 UTC
Annette Aumer wrote:
Dave stark wrote:
you had 8000m3, you split it 7500/500. now you've normalised the ore bays to 350 for all exhumers.

yet the ore bay is 7500 still, can we have our 150m3 space back please ccp?

thanks.


Lol Dave.. is 7650 really going to make that much of a difference?


it's the principle.
Denidil
Cascades Mountain Operatives
#4 - 2012-07-27 16:12:22 UTC
whine more.

Tedium and difficulty are not the same thing, if you don't realize this then STFU about game design.
Dave Stark
#5 - 2012-07-27 16:13:45 UTC
Denidil wrote:
whine more.


ccp said they wanted to take the 8k and split it, not take the 8k split it, and then throw some away. why they even got rid of any to begin with is a bit of a mystery.

it's hardly whining, it's reminding ccp what they said they were going to do vs what they have done
Barbara Nichole
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#6 - 2012-07-27 17:12:03 UTC
Dave stark wrote:
you had 8000m3, you split it 7500/500. now you've normalised the ore bays to 350 for all exhumers.

yet the ore bay is 7500 still, can we have our 150m3 space back please ccp?

thanks.

I would even take the smaller cargo and the full 8000 ore bay.. I keep my crystals in the orca. I would like 2 cycles space in the ore bay to allow for hauling without interuption.

  - remove the cloaked from local; free intel is the real problem, not  "afk" cloaking -

[IMG]http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a208/DawnFrostbringer/consultsig.jpg[/IMG]
Dave Stark
#7 - 2012-07-27 17:26:04 UTC
Barbara Nichole wrote:
Dave stark wrote:
you had 8000m3, you split it 7500/500. now you've normalised the ore bays to 350 for all exhumers.

yet the ore bay is 7500 still, can we have our 150m3 space back please ccp?

thanks.

I would even take the smaller cargo and the full 8000 ore bay.. I keep my crystals in the orca. I would like 2 cycles space in the ore bay to allow for hauling without interuption.


and how do you load crystals without a cargo bay? in a fleet op not every one is going to be anchored on the orca to use it's fitting service, infact assuming you have an orca to begin with is questionable, even just having some one in an ittyV hauling ore is sufficient "fleet support" to use the hulk over a mack.
Commander A9
This Was The Way
Homicidal Tendencies.
#8 - 2012-07-27 19:50:06 UTC
I have to concur.

I'm not happy with the Hulk's ore-holding capacity being reduced from 8,000 to 7,500, and i'm also not happy about the cargo expander rigs not applying to ore holds.

Why would ORE realistically reduce the operating capacity of their best mining ship? Doesn't make any sense to me...

It's like you have a choice between the Hulk vs. Mackinaw now: Choose between a third Strip Miner or a bigger ore hold...

The bigger ship holds less than the smaller ship...doesn't make sense to me...

Recommendations:

-enable ships wobbling in hangar view (pre-Captains Quarters)

-add more missions (NPC fleet vs. NPC fleets that actually shoot)

-STOP NERFING EVERYTHING!

Join Live Events!
Dave Stark
#9 - 2012-07-27 20:18:25 UTC
Commander A9 wrote:
The bigger ship holds less than the smaller ship...doesn't make sense to me...


if you want sense then i offer you; in order to have a higher yield the space in the bigger ship is taken up by fancy stuff that makes it mine more.
Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#10 - 2012-07-27 21:15:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Vincent Athena
Well if that was so, ORE should put in the special loading algorithms they designed for the Skiff into the Hulk and get +200% yield for each of its 3 strips.

I personally think CCP should just limit all barges to one strip, reduce the strip's cycle time and increase yield to get the right total, and drop the "loading algorithms" language in the description. Then the extra highs become useable for other stuff, or are eliminated. Or give all 3 ships 3 highs, but only one can be a strip.

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction
Dave Stark
#11 - 2012-07-27 21:17:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Dave Stark
Vincent Athena wrote:
Ell if that was so, ORE should put in the special loading algorithms they designed for the Skiff into the Hulk and get +200% yield for each of its 3 strips.


guessing you haven't been on sisi then?

edit

infact, wait, what the ****?

what... why would you do this and what would it achieve?
Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#12 - 2012-07-27 21:18:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Vincent Athena
Dave stark wrote:
Vincent Athena wrote:
Well if that was so, ORE should put in the special loading algorithms they designed for the Skiff into the Hulk and get +200% yield for each of its 3 strips.


guessing you haven't been on sisi then?


Was on this morning. Has something changed since then?

Edit: Just checked the Skiff description: "they came up with a unique loading system that allows this one module to work at triple efficiency." Why would ORE not put this on the Hulk?

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction
Dave Stark
#13 - 2012-07-27 21:20:17 UTC
Vincent Athena wrote:
Dave stark wrote:
Vincent Athena wrote:
Ell if that was so, ORE should put in the special loading algorithms they designed for the Skiff into the Hulk and get +200% yield for each of its 3 strips.


guessing you haven't been on sisi then?


Was on this morning. Has something changed since then?


no i misread your absurd idea :P
Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#14 - 2012-07-27 21:27:08 UTC
Its not an idea for a game change. Its a comment on a description that somewhat strains immersion. The goal of having all 3 ships give similar ore amounts is good, I just think CCPs method of achieving that goal could be better.

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction
Dave Stark
#15 - 2012-07-27 21:28:44 UTC
Vincent Athena wrote:
Just checked the Skiff description: "they came up with a unique loading system that allows this one module to work at triple efficiency." Why would ORE not put this on the Hulk?


because it's all well and good being able to do that for 1 strip, but doing it for 3 puts too much pressure on the ship's systems!
Roll Sizzle Beef
Space Mutiny
#16 - 2012-07-27 23:11:25 UTC
Dave stark wrote:

because it's all well and good being able to do that for 1 strip, but doing it for 3 puts too much pressure on the ship's systems!


Pft, well yeah!? Any ORE mechanic worth their salt had learned this in the first week of training. Strain the CPU algorithm load across three separate turret systems and you greatly increase the chance of bricking the whole barge. And I don't make house calls. Yet we at ORE will never cease our pursuit of better excavation technologies. Maybe a few years down the road we will hit a new glorious breakthrough.