These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Crius] Jump Drive Isotope Consumption

First post First post First post
Author
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#661 - 2014-07-21 20:12:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Rowells
Alyssa Haginen wrote:
Where are the low slot fuel conservation modules that were coming with this change?

Some people seem to think your fuel capacity will increase after this update which is not true.

50% increase in fuel use minus a 33% decrease in fuel volume equals a 17% loss to your fuel capacity.

Again

50 - 33 = 17% loss overall range/storage.


One more thing it does is ruins the covert jump portal because it will take 3/4 tank of fuel to jump one plate fit recon.

Omg dat math doe

Seriously go back to your high school records and double check the name on your diploma.

E: in the spirit of not being TOO much of an a**hole here's the correct formula

For ease of use we'll pretend 100 isotopes takes up 100m3 and also assume that is a full cargo.

100x1.5 (fuel coat increase) = 150
150x.66 (size reduction) = 99 (if you use .66 continuous then it rounds up to 100 properly)
Khiluale Zotakibe
Thermal Collision Consortium
#662 - 2014-07-22 10:27:36 UTC
Carniflex wrote:
Khiluale Zotakibe wrote:
@ CCP Fozzie

I'm sorry if someone mentioned this before but wouldn't it make more sense to just increase the fuel bay sizes by 50% instead?


No because some poor bastard has to haul all that fuel to the places where its needed. It's not like the capital pilots in power-blocks haul their own fuel for strategic ops.


I know, the desired effect would be to make if harder to fuel logistics for quick moves across the map.

More resupply points = slower move
More resupply points = Higher logistics effort

All of this because crossing the universe shouldn't be easy nor quick.
Alyssa Haginen
State War Academy
Caldari State
#663 - 2014-07-22 16:57:57 UTC
Rowells wrote:

Omg dat math doe

Seriously go back to your high school records and double check the name on your diploma.

E: in the spirit of not being TOO much of an a**hole here's the correct formula

For ease of use we'll pretend 100 isotopes takes up 100m3 and also assume that is a full cargo.

100x1.5 (fuel coat increase) = 150
150x.66 (size reduction) = 99 (if you use .66 continuous then it rounds up to 100 properly)



Shut up thats called political math. ;p
Joraa Starkmanir
Station Spinners United
#664 - 2014-07-22 23:03:35 UTC
Alyssa Haginen wrote:

Shut up thats called political math. ;p


Nothing political ever give a real answer, so that cant be political math...
If his math was 2 pages long, talking about everything remotly related (or not) then ending up with an unsertan answer it would be political math
SFM Hobb3s
Perkone
Caldari State
#665 - 2014-07-23 13:45:59 UTC
I'm convinced CCP took the wrong approach to this altogether. When they went and made jumping more expensive, what they should have done was make it take more time. Yes, now power projection costs more, but the big blocs don't really care and it won't make any real difference for them. It will certainly help to crush the little guys out there tho.

This is one thing I hope they roll back. I'm sure somewhere in their six-week development cycle they could make jumping require a spoolup time.
Suzuka A1
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#666 - 2014-07-23 13:48:06 UTC
Rowells wrote:

Seriously go back to your high school records and double check the name on your diploma.


There is no need to get personal. This needs to be a constructive conversation.

Never forget the battle of Z9PP-H  What actually happened: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgcUwTmHY74 Battle Report: http://www.kugutsumen.com/showthread.php?42836-They-Might-Be-Giants-The-Southwest&p=497626&viewfull=1#post497626

Suzuka A1
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#667 - 2014-07-23 13:51:43 UTC
Alyssa Haginen wrote:
Where are the low slot fuel conservation modules that were coming with this change?


I'm looking at the market and cannot find them. I don't remember seeing anything about them being delayed.

Never forget the battle of Z9PP-H  What actually happened: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgcUwTmHY74 Battle Report: http://www.kugutsumen.com/showthread.php?42836-They-Might-Be-Giants-The-Southwest&p=497626&viewfull=1#post497626

Mantis Baghdad
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#668 - 2014-07-23 14:04:48 UTC
Suzuka A1 wrote:
Alyssa Haginen wrote:
Where are the low slot fuel conservation modules that were coming with this change?


I'm looking at the market and cannot find them. I don't remember seeing anything about them being delayed.


Neither can I. I'm not sure why we haven't heard any of the relevant CCP developers comment in this thread for as long as it has been. Obviously the +50% isotope consumption changed (without actually fundamentally addressing the power projection issues), now I'm curious to know if the jump fuel conservation modules for jump freighters still plan on being introduced let alone even discussed.
Takeshi Kazuki
Shell Fuel and Ore Supply
#669 - 2014-07-23 18:39:00 UTC
Suzuka A1 wrote:
Alyssa Haginen wrote:
Where are the low slot fuel conservation modules that were coming with this change?


I'm looking at the market and cannot find them. I don't remember seeing anything about them being delayed.

It never said it would be released in Crius. In fact when I pulled up the freighter thread it said it would be implemented after Crius.
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#670 - 2014-07-24 00:48:42 UTC
Hey guys. I'm doing some design work on the fuel conservation modules this week and we expect they should be ready for the Hyperion release (coming up next).

I'll be posting a new feedback thread for them as soon as we're a little further.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie

Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#671 - 2014-07-24 02:11:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Rowells
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey guys. I'm doing some design work on the fuel conservation modules this week and we expect they should be ready for the Hyperion release (coming up next).

I'll be posting a new feedback thread for them as soon as we're a little further.

Sweet

e: can we get a teaser on some of the ideas? Pretty please?
TheButcherPete
Blackbase Incorporated
#672 - 2014-07-24 05:59:46 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey guys. I'm doing some design work on the fuel conservation modules this week and we expect they should be ready for the Hyperion release (coming up next).

I'll be posting a new feedback thread for them as soon as we're a little further.


Fozzie, I like you man, but this 6 week thing is already off to a bad start. What were Crius' original features that were pushed back to Hyperion, starting a really crappy pattern?

[b]THE KING OF EVE RADIO

If EVE is real, does that mean all of us are RMTrs?[/b]

Jarnis McPieksu
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#673 - 2014-07-24 06:41:39 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey guys. I'm doing some design work on the fuel conservation modules this week and we expect they should be ready for the Hyperion release (coming up next).

I'll be posting a new feedback thread for them as soon as we're a little further.


Make them cheap to build so it doesn't cost me arm & leg to buy 6 for each carrier to be fitted before each jump.
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#674 - 2014-07-24 07:02:34 UTC
TheButcherPete wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey guys. I'm doing some design work on the fuel conservation modules this week and we expect they should be ready for the Hyperion release (coming up next).

I'll be posting a new feedback thread for them as soon as we're a little further.


Fozzie, I like you man, but this 6 week thing is already off to a bad start. What were Crius' original features that were pushed back to Hyperion, starting a really crappy pattern?


I take it you have not watched the respective Fanfest presentation where CCP talked about specifically this "issue", have you?

Jarnis McPieksu wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey guys. I'm doing some design work on the fuel conservation modules this week and we expect they should be ready for the Hyperion release (coming up next).

I'll be posting a new feedback thread for them as soon as we're a little further.


Make them cheap to build so it doesn't cost me arm & leg to buy 6 for each carrier to be fitted before each jump.


Like the Hyperspatial Velocitiy Amplifiers? Roll

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.

Anthar Thebess
#675 - 2014-07-24 09:21:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Anthar Thebess
Jarnis McPieksu wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey guys. I'm doing some design work on the fuel conservation modules this week and we expect they should be ready for the Hyperion release (coming up next).

I'll be posting a new feedback thread for them as soon as we're a little further.


Make them cheap to build so it doesn't cost me arm & leg to buy 6 for each carrier to be fitted before each jump.


I really hope that this will be only JF modules.
If you are planing to add them to other capitals make them refitable ONLY on stations.
AtomicGrog
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#676 - 2014-07-25 02:03:47 UTC
Anthar Thebess wrote:
Jarnis McPieksu wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey guys. I'm doing some design work on the fuel conservation modules this week and we expect they should be ready for the Hyperion release (coming up next).

I'll be posting a new feedback thread for them as soon as we're a little further.


Make them cheap to build so it doesn't cost me arm & leg to buy 6 for each carrier to be fitted before each jump.


I really hope that this will be only JF modules.
If you are planing to add them to other capitals make them refitable ONLY on stations.


Obviously excepting the caps that cant dock...
Gaijin Lanis
Gallente Federation
#677 - 2014-07-25 02:16:30 UTC
AtomicGrog wrote:
Obviously excepting the caps that cant dock...

Whats wrong with keeping conservation modules off super-capitals and titans completely? As has been mentioned over and over (and over) in this thread, the cost to jump is completely out of line with the mass/volume of a ship.

The above was written and posted with nothing but love in my heart for all.

Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#678 - 2014-07-25 03:16:03 UTC
Gaijin Lanis wrote:
AtomicGrog wrote:
Obviously excepting the caps that cant dock...

Whats wrong with keeping conservation modules off super-capitals and titans completely? As has been mentioned over and over (and over) in this thread, the cost to jump is completely out of line with the mass/volume of a ship.

Compared to what?
Carrier 1,500 isotopes per 6.5 LY

Titan 1,500 isotopes per 3.5 LY

Moving a Titan the same distance as a carrier, will cost you nearly 50% more isotopes.
A titan is twice the mass/volume of a carrier.

Seems balanced to me.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.

Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#679 - 2014-07-25 05:00:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Rowells
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Gaijin Lanis wrote:
AtomicGrog wrote:
Obviously excepting the caps that cant dock...

Whats wrong with keeping conservation modules off super-capitals and titans completely? As has been mentioned over and over (and over) in this thread, the cost to jump is completely out of line with the mass/volume of a ship.

Compared to what?
Carrier 1,500 isotopes per 6.5 LY

Titan 1,500 isotopes per 3.5 LY

Moving a Titan the same distance as a carrier, will cost you nearly 50% more isotopes.
A titan is twice the mass/volume of a carrier.

Seems balanced to me.

Nope. Those numbers are per lightyear. Little tooltip even says so. The only ships with more than 1500/LY are jump freighter coming in at 4100-4400/LY. The lightest titan (Ragnarok) is 2.16 times bigger in mass than the heaviest JF (Rhea), but uses 66% less fuel at base numbers.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#680 - 2014-07-25 06:02:05 UTC
Rowells wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Gaijin Lanis wrote:
AtomicGrog wrote:
Obviously excepting the caps that cant dock...

Whats wrong with keeping conservation modules off super-capitals and titans completely? As has been mentioned over and over (and over) in this thread, the cost to jump is completely out of line with the mass/volume of a ship.

Compared to what?
Carrier 1,500 isotopes per 6.5 LY

Titan 1,500 isotopes per 3.5 LY

Moving a Titan the same distance as a carrier, will cost you nearly 50% more isotopes.
A titan is twice the mass/volume of a carrier.

Seems balanced to me.

Nope. Those numbers are per lightyear. Little tooltip even says so. The only ships with more than 1500/LY are jump freighter coming in at 4100-4400/LY. The lightest titan (Ragnarok) is 2.16 times bigger in mass than the heaviest JF (Rhea), but uses 66% less fuel at base numbers.

Yes, when I re-read it just now I realized my error. Doubling the cost to move supers is not unreasonable (although it would be a very controversial change)

On the other hand, JF fuel costs are disproportionate.
To balance JF costs it could to be based on empty or loaded. If your JF has an empty cargo hold it costs, say, 1.500 per LY to move, if it is loaded with goodies, the cost is increased.
A bit like a truck on a highway, empty it can get 8 mpg, once loaded it gets 5 mpg.

The problem would be with coding such a change. TQ would need to recognize the difference between a JF with an empty cargo hold and a full one.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.