These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE Information Portal

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Dev Blog: More from you and less from the evil nasty NPC

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University
Ivy League
#121 - 2012-10-25 14:48:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Scrapyard Bob
CCP FoxFour wrote:

Do we need the 1,000 m3 version?


No, I'd rather have a 20k-40k size in its place. And one up around 200-300k m3 (probably 250k would be perfect).
Meytal
Doomheim
#122 - 2012-10-25 14:48:45 UTC
Will the BPOs (containers, ORE Frigate, new destroyers, etc) be seeded before patch day?

And speaking of NPC-provided products...

While my industrial character will be pleased to manufacture these new containers, I also wonder about other NPC items that have a far greater impact on the game: Meta, Deadspace, and Officer modules. Has there been any thought about changing these into player-manufactured items (mineral sinks instead of mineral faucets)? For example, NPC drops damaged module (commodity) that players can then use as a reference item with normal T1 blueprints to make the advanced module. Or use a reference item and a T1 item to reverse engineer a BPC for the advanced item. The items could still be reprocessed, but at a much lower rate of return than presently.

Has there been any thought or discussion about this?


Sassums wrote:
You introduced WH's and now you completely ignore them and it's getting old.

By and large, w-space was one area of the game they got "right". You say it has been neglected, but I and many others say w-space has escaped problems by being largely ignored. The upcoming POS changes have the potential to destroy much of what is good about w-space and bringing things from empire that we detest into w-space, so many of us feel that they can wait as long as they need to wait for new POSes.

If CHAs and SMAs could be given an audit log, that would be an amazing stop-gap measure for short term.
Rengerel en Distel
#123 - 2012-10-25 15:08:36 UTC
CCP FoxFour wrote:
Due to the desire from people in this thread, and some other reason, we have decided that there needs to be some new containers. Specifically in the category of freight containers, ones that have the same capacity and volume so can be used in freighters.

This is what I am currently thinking:

Small Freight Container: 1,000 m3
Medium Freight Container: 5,000 m3
Large Freight Container: 10,000 m3
Huge Freight Container: 120,000 m3 (the current General Freight Container)

I am upset that small does not mean 120 m3 like small does for all other use cases in containers. This goes the same for medium and large. So I maybe want to find a new name for them.

Do we need the 1,000 m3 version?


Are there going to be secure versions that can be used in the new fleet hangars?

With the increase in shiptoasting, the Report timer needs to be shortened.
Ampoliros
Aperture Harmonics
#124 - 2012-10-25 16:00:13 UTC
CCP FoxFour wrote:
Due to the desire from people in this thread, and some other reason, we have decided that there needs to be some new containers. Specifically in the category of freight containers, ones that have the same capacity and volume so can be used in freighters.

This is what I am currently thinking:

Small Freight Container: 1,000 m3
Medium Freight Container: 5,000 m3
Large Freight Container: 10,000 m3
Huge Freight Container: 120,000 m3 (the current General Freight Container)

I am upset that small does not mean 120 m3 like small does for all other use cases in containers. This goes the same for medium and large. So I maybe want to find a new name for them.

Do we need the 1,000 m3 version?


1000 m3 version seems like it'd be handy for moving a few modules/items from jita for someone.

not sure you need both the 5 and 10k versions though. maybe move the med to 10k, the large to 120k, and add a larger container size at 250-300k?
Cerulean Ice
Royal Amarr Reclamation
#125 - 2012-10-25 17:14:05 UTC
Meytal wrote:
If CHAs and SMAs could be given an audit log, that would be an amazing stop-gap measure for short term.

Seconded. Audit logs by default on POS modules with any sort of inventory would be amazing, and wouldn't break anything.

Cerulean Ice, Professor, E-UNI
Cerulean Ice
Royal Amarr Reclamation
#126 - 2012-10-25 17:19:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Cerulean Ice
Scrapyard Bob wrote:
CCP FoxFour wrote:

Do we need the 1,000 m3 version?


No, I'd rather have a 20k-40k size in its place. And one up around 200-300k m3 (probably 250k would be perfect).

Why not both? the 1k m3 cans would be perfect for blueprints/implants/other tiny things that need sorting, and there definitely needs to be something between 10k and 120k. What use would a 250k can have, though?

Cerulean Ice, Professor, E-UNI
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University
Ivy League
#127 - 2012-10-25 17:25:20 UTC
Cerulean Ice wrote:

Why not both? the 1k m3 cans would be perfect for blueprints/implants/other tiny things that need sorting, and there definitely needs to be something between 10k and 120k. What use would a 250k can have, though?


A 250k m3 can is useful for times where you don't want to deal with a station container, but still need something that is larger then 120k m3. I chose that size because you can get (3) of them into a freighter and a 200k felt too small while a 300k would be slightly too large to get (3) into some of the freighters.
Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#128 - 2012-10-25 21:15:48 UTC
CCP FoxFour wrote:
Due to the desire from people in this thread, and some other reason, we have decided that there needs to be some new containers. Specifically in the category of freight containers, ones that have the same capacity and volume so can be used in freighters.

This is what I am currently thinking:

Small Freight Container: 1,000 m3
Medium Freight Container: 5,000 m3
Large Freight Container: 10,000 m3
Huge Freight Container: 120,000 m3 (the current General Freight Container)

I am upset that small does not mean 120 m3 like small does for all other use cases in containers. This goes the same for medium and large. So I maybe want to find a new name for them.

Do we need the 1,000 m3 version?

I once proposed we have a "Bag". In a way we already have bags: Its what stuff goes into when you do a courier contract. What a bag is is a container with no defined size. It holds whatever you place in it. No compression, no logging, no security, no mass or hit points of its own. Its just a way to sort your stuff, and a way to place a fitted ship in your cargo (first, place it in a bag). If you jet it, the stuff jetted appears in space without the bag and the bag itself is gone. That is its like you removed the stuff from the bag, then jetted it.

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#129 - 2012-10-25 22:18:26 UTC
Cerulean Ice wrote:
Why not both? the 1k m3 cans would be perfect for blueprints/implants/other tiny things that need sorting, and there definitely needs to be something between 10k and 120k. What use would a 250k can have, though?


We already have 100m3 cans which are far too large for blueprints: if you're filling one of those, you're putting too many eggs in one basket :)

As for CCP FoxFour, is there really a need for a 1k m3 freight container when we have so many containers in that size range already? it would be nice to have a planck containment field version of the 10k container (i.e.: just a super-large Giant Secure Container).

The 1:1 containers could simply be "General Freight" (120k) and "Personal Freight" (10k). The other sizes aren't really necessary.

The Enormous Secure Container (10k / 12k) would be especially useful for orca pilots who have to deal with 20-odd GSCs when hauling junk around.

Day 0 Advice for New Players
Cerulean Ice
Royal Amarr Reclamation
#130 - 2012-10-26 00:17:26 UTC
Mara Rinn wrote:
We already have 100m3 cans which are far too large for blueprints

But, these cans are magic space expanding cans and can't be put in freighters. The idea of a small can for freighters to sort the tiny things is what we're after :3

Cerulean Ice, Professor, E-UNI
Seatox
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#131 - 2012-10-26 00:28:36 UTC
Cerulean Ice wrote:
Mara Rinn wrote:
We already have 100m3 cans which are far too large for blueprints

But, these cans are magic space expanding cans and can't be put in freighters. The idea of a small can for freighters to sort the tiny things is what we're after :3


A 10m3 cardboard box.
CCP FoxFour
C C P
C C P Alliance
#132 - 2012-10-26 09:28:03 UTC
Cerulean Ice wrote:
Mara Rinn wrote:
We already have 100m3 cans which are far too large for blueprints

But, these cans are magic space expanding cans and can't be put in freighters. The idea of a small can for freighters to sort the tiny things is what we're after :3


And this is why I was thinking the 1,000 m3 can.

Seems like a lot of people are also in need of a slightly larger than 120,000 m3 can as well. Hmmmmm

@CCP_FoxFour // Technical Designer // Team Tech Co

Third-party developer? Check out the official developers site for dev blogs, resources, and more.
Tres Farmer
Gallente Federation Intelligence Service
#133 - 2012-10-28 03:06:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Tres Farmer
Hm.. nice on the containers but I got a question about the probes:
With all the static condition of moon-goo distribution and it being publicly available - who in their right mind does need them any more?

Read: Don't imply infinite complexity and randomness of completely static and already known content by covering it with gameplay that implies hunting for random treasures like exploration.
Abramul
Canadian Forces Corp
United 4 Nations
#134 - 2012-10-28 15:09:44 UTC
The ideal would probably be to allow Planck containers to be used in freighters, but check cargo volume and disable compression when they're loaded, and add a mid-size or two.

Or just allow them, period ... the extra cargo wouldn't be an issue, but I have a feeling that 200 subcontainers might result in Bad Things somehow.
Mistress Rose
Defensores Fidei
#135 - 2012-10-28 21:21:05 UTC
Fox Four:

Regarding my earlier post, and pondering the geographic disposition of the corps selling the BPOs...
I still think the Gallente seller should be Chemal Tech, but the Caldari seller should remain your
original idea....Ishukone.

Your comments are awesome and I like that you are taking the time to reply and think on things.

You're my new favorite Dev!

Mistress
Talus Veran
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#136 - 2012-10-28 21:25:07 UTC
Inquisitor Tyr wrote:
Could you please consider adding some additional container sizes that can be placed, assembled with contents, into Freighters other than General Freight Containers?

I understand the current containers cant be placed into freighters as their capacity is more than their volume and doing so would inflate the cargo capacity.

What I would like to see is a few smaller options;

Small Freight Container - 200m3 volume / 200m3 capacity (great for blueprints and all those hundreds of small things that need splitting up for organizing but take up little actuall volume)
- e.g. Many industrialists have their hundreds of blueprints divided into dozens of containers based on their function.

Medium Freight Container - 10,000m3 volume + Capacity (useful for when you are moving modules for your freinds.)
- Its rare that my corp lives close to a trade hub. "Im going to Jita, need anything?" is a comment I think we've all seen. Well when your corp lives 40 jumps from Jita, you tend to get a lot of "yes... please get me X while you are there" And then suddenly you have a dozen peoples stuff and you have to lump it all together since you can only fit so many general freight containters in a freighter (usually not nearlly filled to capacity).

The Limits of the General Freight container for logistical purposes is worse for Jump Freighters as they can only accomodate 3.


This is a great Idea!
I have often been baffled at the large gap in sizes.

Co-Host of the Monthly Toronto Player Gathering - Next Meet July 4th

Message me on Twitter:  @talus_veran / @Toronto_EVE

E-mail: talus.veran@gmail.com / torontoeveonline@gmail.com
Gaetring Xana
Unstable Reaction Inc.
#137 - 2012-10-29 18:26:33 UTC
Your percentages in the image about the packaged size of the various containers are wrong. Assuming the rest of the numbers are accurate, the Station Warehouse Container and the Station Vault Container packaged m3 percentage should be .001 and .005, respectively. Smile

Just thought I'd let you know as I didn't see a post from anyone else about it.
CCP FoxFour
C C P
C C P Alliance
#138 - 2012-10-30 11:24:32 UTC
Gaetring Xana wrote:
Your percentages in the image about the packaged size of the various containers are wrong. Assuming the rest of the numbers are accurate, the Station Warehouse Container and the Station Vault Container packaged m3 percentage should be .001 and .005, respectively. Smile

Just thought I'd let you know as I didn't see a post from anyone else about it.


???

Not sure you understand the image correctly.

Name: Station Warehouse Container
Capacity: 100,000,000
Volume: 10,000,000
Packaged M3: 100,000
Percentage: 0.01
Mineral M3: 2,720.00
Compression: 36.76470588

Capacity is it's internal capacity when assembled.
Volume is how much M3 it will take up when assembled.
Packaged M3 is how much M3 it will take up when repackaged.
Percentage is the percent of space the packaged version will take up compared to the volume of container.
Mineral M3 is the volume the minerals take up.
Compression is a comparison of the mineral M3 to the packaged M3.

Your numbers would work if I was doing a percentage of the packaged M3 compared to the capacity but I am doing it packaged to volume.

:)

Hope that helps. My actual formula is: Volume * Percentage = Packaged M3

@CCP_FoxFour // Technical Designer // Team Tech Co

Third-party developer? Check out the official developers site for dev blogs, resources, and more.
Jaison Savrin
Brave Empire Inc.
Brave United
#139 - 2012-10-30 12:32:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Jaison Savrin
CCP FoxFour wrote:
Due to the desire from people in this thread, and some other reason, we have decided that there needs to be some new containers. Specifically in the category of freight containers, ones that have the same capacity and volume so can be used in freighters.

This is what I am currently thinking:

Small Freight Container: 1,000 m3
Medium Freight Container: 5,000 m3
Large Freight Container: 10,000 m3

Huge Freight Container: 120,000 m3 (the current General Freight Container)

I am upset that small does not mean 120 m3 like small does for all other use cases in containers. This goes the same for medium and large. So I maybe want to find a new name for them.

Do we need the 1,000 m3 version?


The 1000m3 version would be amazing for sorting out peoples personal orders/requests when "the freighter guy" mentions he is going to Jita. In some corps there really is one or two of us lol so we get lots of requests from "too lazy to go shopping" mission runners, miners and PvPers. Having that tool saves us (the freighter guys) from having to make lists or make people Eve Mail us their shopping lists so we can reference them while contracting stuff out.

I would also like to see a larger than 120k M3 container like others have mentioned. The 250k range is good but I could even see uses for a 400k one. Like when your corp is moving and you, the freighter guy, are basically gathering corp assets from here and there. It would be nice to have the tools to sort them rather than keeping lists or telling the CEO "your problem. I have more stuff to move."

P.S. Thanks for doing this CCP Foxfour. Containers are so useful and as an OCD organizer of things I can always find uses for more sizes.
Mistress Rose
Defensores Fidei
#140 - 2012-10-30 23:32:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Mistress Rose
Fox Four:

Here I am back again...with another idea. Could we PRETTY PRETTY please have all the containers have a signature
radius so they can be probed down? Even if its itty bitty and requires Virtues or a pimped-out Covert Ops?

Please? =) Jita is polluted with waste cans.

Thanks for even considering it.

Mistress