These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Kyt Thrace
Lightspeed Enterprises
Goonswarm Federation
#101 - 2014-04-29 14:28:49 UTC
I do not claim to be a math expert, but the 50% increase to isotope usage to the 1/3 reduced m3 of isotope, still seems that we are getting screwed & will not be able to carry as much fuel as before.

Should it not be 1/2 reduced m3 of isotope to even it out?

R.I.P. Vile Rat
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#102 - 2014-04-29 14:29:04 UTC
I think you've all successfully ran the whole "quoting long posts of meaningless numbers" thing into the ground.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Needmore Longcat
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#103 - 2014-04-29 14:29:48 UTC
In all seriousness, not trolling or trying to be nasty at all.

Why can we not work on the things that have been broken for literally 10 years, before we start changing mechanisms that work at least somewhat well at the moment?

POS comes to mind, for one...
1Robert McNamara1
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#104 - 2014-04-29 14:30:01 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
We're going to go ahead and use Resgo's suggestion. Instead of the increase in fuel bay size we will decrease the volume of isotopes by 1/3. OP updated.



This nerf disproportionately effects BLOPS fleets over capitals.
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#105 - 2014-04-29 14:30:25 UTC
Kyt Thrace wrote:
I do not claim to be a math expert, but the 50% increase to isotope usage to the 1/3 reduced m3 of isotope, still seems that we are getting screwed & will not be able to carry as much fuel as before.

Should it not be 1/2 reduced m3 of isotope to even it out?


Before: A jump takes 1000 topes. At 0.15 m^3 per tope, that is 150 m^3
After: A jump takes 1500 topes. At 0.10 m^3 per tope, that is 150 m^3

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
tobs
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#106 - 2014-04-29 14:30:39 UTC
Kyt Thrace wrote:
I do not claim to be a math expert, but the 50% increase to isotope usage to the 1/3 reduced m3 of isotope, still seems that we are getting screwed & will not be able to carry as much fuel as before.

Should it not be 1/2 reduced m3 of isotope to even it out?


I dont understand - please use more numbers to represent your argument
penifSMASH
ElitistOps
Deepwater Hooligans
#107 - 2014-04-29 14:30:57 UTC
Querns wrote:
I think you've all successfully ran the whole "quoting long posts of meaningless numbers" thing into the ground.


You've successfully ran the "make terrible posts on internet forums" thing into the ground
ZehNarume
Pulling The Plug
PURPLE HELMETED WARRIORS
#108 - 2014-04-29 14:31:52 UTC
Querns wrote:
Kyt Thrace wrote:
I do not claim to be a math expert, but the 50% increase to isotope usage to the 1/3 reduced m3 of isotope, still seems that we are getting screwed & will not be able to carry as much fuel as before.

Should it not be 1/2 reduced m3 of isotope to even it out?


Before: A jump takes 1000 topes. At 0.15 m^3 per tope, that is 150 m^3
After: A jump takes 1500 topes. At 0.10 m^3 per tope, that is 150 m^3


Can you do this for 100 topes to 30,000 topes in 100 tope increments?
Phroon Thoom
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#109 - 2014-04-29 14:32:01 UTC
Kyt Thrace wrote:
I do not claim to be a math expert, but the 50% increase to isotope usage to the 1/3 reduced m3 of isotope, still seems that we are getting screwed & will not be able to carry as much fuel as before.

Should it not be 1/2 reduced m3 of isotope to even it out?


Think of it this way, a 100m3 cargo hold currently can hold a maximum of 666 isotopes. After the change that 100m3 will be able to hold 1000 isotopes, a 50% increase. Exactly equal to the usage change.
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#110 - 2014-04-29 14:32:21 UTC
Querns wrote:
I think you've all successfully ran the whole "quoting long posts of meaningless numbers" thing into the ground.


In before Ezwal locks the topic because he cannot keep up with shortening quotes. Big smile

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.
Kyt Thrace
Lightspeed Enterprises
Goonswarm Federation
#111 - 2014-04-29 14:33:20 UTC
Querns wrote:
Kyt Thrace wrote:
I do not claim to be a math expert, but the 50% increase to isotope usage to the 1/3 reduced m3 of isotope, still seems that we are getting screwed & will not be able to carry as much fuel as before.

Should it not be 1/2 reduced m3 of isotope to even it out?


Before: A jump takes 1000 topes. At 0.15 m^3 per tope, that is 150 m^3
After: A jump takes 1500 topes. At 0.10 m^3 per tope, that is 150 m^3


Thanks, makes sense now.

R.I.P. Vile Rat
Migui X'hyrrn
No More Dramas Only Llamas
#112 - 2014-04-29 14:35:20 UTC
"We are going to make it more expensive so people jumps/bridges less"

This is a correlation vs causation fallacy.

Migui is running for CSM10!
ovenproofjet
Gallifrey Industries
#113 - 2014-04-29 14:35:21 UTC  |  Edited by: ovenproofjet
Michael Harari
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
#114 - 2014-04-29 14:36:42 UTC
Kyt Thrace wrote:
I do not claim to be a math expert, but the 50% increase to isotope usage to the 1/3 reduced m3 of isotope, still seems that we are getting screwed & will not be able to carry as much fuel as before.

Should it not be 1/2 reduced m3 of isotope to even it out?


It should not be.
MissBolyai
ElitistOps
Deepwater Hooligans
#115 - 2014-04-29 14:37:24 UTC
Someone should convert the RL dollar cost increase of taking a supercap fleet various light years
Apollo Purvon
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#116 - 2014-04-29 14:37:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Apollo Purvon
You expect highsec ice consumption to drop on the theory that people will downsize their towers, ignoring the idea that more people will drop towers because you're also removing standings requirements and giving bonuses to tower manufacturing. In order to offset this drop in Highsec consumption, you're increasing nullsec logistics costs. This is a bad fix based on a non-existent problem.
Ammzi
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#117 - 2014-04-29 14:39:27 UTC
Apollo Purvon wrote:
You expect highsec ice consumption to drop on the theory that people will downsize their towers, ignoring the idea that more people will drop towers because you're also removing standings requirements and giving bonuses to tower manufacturing. In order to offset this drop in Highsec consumption, you're increasing nullsec logistics costs. This is a bad fix based on a non-existent problem.


Welp. CCP just got out-smarted.
Kat Ayclism
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#118 - 2014-04-29 14:40:34 UTC
Apollo Purvon wrote:
You expect highsec ice consumption to drop on the theory that people will downsize their towers, ignoring the idea that more people will drop towers because you're also removing standings requirements and giving bonuses to tower manufacturing. In order to offset this drop in Highsec consumption, you're increasing nullsec logistics costs. This is a bad fix based on a non-existent problem.

Please don't burst Fozzie's delusion-bubble by pointing out the contradictory changes being made.
Needmore Longcat
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#119 - 2014-04-29 14:41:43 UTC
Calorn Marthor
Standard Fuel Company
#120 - 2014-04-29 14:42:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Calorn Marthor
CCP Fozzie wrote:
We're going to go ahead and use Resgo's suggestion. Instead of the increase in fuel bay size we will decrease the volume of isotopes by 1/3. OP updated.


Are you aware that this is very close to making fuel blocks questionable?
Currently it takes 217.6m³ of materials to make 40 fuel blocks which have a total volume of 200m³.
60m³ thereof are isotopes which means you are here cutting the bill of materials by 20m³.

Instead of compressing the stuff, you are now inflating it a tiny bit (197.6m³->200m³).
Especially when Jump Freighter transports get more expensive, fuel blocks should be SMALLER than their components - otherwise people would just transport the materials and then assemble the fuel blocks at the destination (which would pretty much defeat the original purpose why fuel blocks were invented in the first place).

While I think this proposed change will not outweigh the convenience factor yet, it will definitely incentivize local PI and fuel block production (especially in combination with the announced 5% material bonus in starbases).
Still people's own decision, but players who want to play "optimal" may feel the need to return to the messy pre-fuel-block-situation in terms of handling stuff PLUS the extra step of fuel block creation.