open All Channels
seplocked Features and Ideas Discussion
blankseplocked Shouldn't the Secure Cargo Container hold way more?
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Author Topic

Almost Ineluctable
Posted - 2010.08.02 00:07:00 - [1]
 

I don't think I have to explain why.

Does anyone agree?

Grarr Dexx
Amarr
Kumovi
The G0dfathers
Posted - 2010.08.02 00:11:00 - [2]
 

I don't agree.

I don't think I have to explain why.

Bhattran
Posted - 2010.08.02 00:13:00 - [3]
 

No, you have to explain why.

Almost Ineluctable
Posted - 2010.08.02 00:21:00 - [4]
 

A flat piece of paper takes up (and also has) a volume of nearly zero.

A flat piece of paper assembled into a cube takes up (and also has) a volume many times more than zero.

Prime FLux
Caldari
Posted - 2010.08.02 00:33:00 - [5]
 

you mean that the 3900m3 you can put into a 3000m3 gigant secure container is not enought?

Grarr Dexx
Amarr
Kumovi
The G0dfathers
Posted - 2010.08.02 00:53:00 - [6]
 

Originally by: Almost Ineluctable
A flat piece of paper takes up (and also has) a volume of nearly zero.

A flat piece of paper assembled into a cube takes up (and also has) a volume many times more than zero.


But that's not a piece of paper, it's a several-megaton steel box.

Almost Ineluctable
Posted - 2010.08.02 01:03:00 - [7]
 

The concept still applies.

What is the volume of the plastic wrapping that holds a 500-pack white paper?

Using the game's terms, lets "assemble" these 500 pieces of paper and make a huge box that has a volume hundreds of times more than the plastic wrapping.

Putting the "un-assembled" 500-pack of white-paper inside your backpack (your ship), and then assembling the huge box at home (the asteroid belt), and you get a huge box that has more volume than your back pack.

Caldari 5
Amarr
The Element Syndicate
Blazing Angels Alliance
Posted - 2010.08.02 03:00:00 - [8]
 

The Current set of containers are too small, there needs to be some more Larger Containers Created with Similar Ratios of size.

EG XL Secure Container 30 000m3 volume with 39 000m3 Holding capacity

Danatious
Posted - 2010.08.05 11:43:00 - [9]
 

Originally by: Caldari 5
The Current set of containers are too small, there needs to be some more Larger Containers Created with Similar Ratios of size.

EG XL Secure Container 30 000m3 volume with 39 000m3 Holding capacity



i completely agree, mining with a load of 3 900m3 cans is a tedious chore especially when you need to position them 5k from anything, even if you position your ship with perfect accuracy .i.e. 5 001m from anything it flings it out towards the asteroids and you have to then pick it up and put it back, now do this with another 10 - 15 cans, it can be VERY long task.

with just 1 can at 39 000m3 this would be so much easier.

Straight Ballin
Gallente
Solar Wind
AAA Citizens
Posted - 2010.08.05 15:38:00 - [10]
 

No, no, no. All this will do is strengthen the highsec macro miners.

If for some god forsaken reason there is to be a bigger can, it should either be entirely unanchorable, or only anchorable in 0.4 sec or lower.


B17332
Posted - 2010.08.05 17:30:00 - [11]
 

I agree. There should be a larger container, but not anchorable.

Veliria
Posted - 2010.08.05 18:10:00 - [12]
 

Mixed feelings on this one.
On one side, I'd say no because this would be a macrominer's wet dream.
No longer having to fear jetcans being flipped would make it all that much easier.
High-sec mining, especially if you cargo mine into your Hulk, is perfectly safe if you know where to mine and where not to.

On the other side, having to fill a 22-30k m3 hauler with a whole armada of cans gets a bit tedious and especially for the newer miners still working in their Retrievers it would be a nice compromise.

I'd go for 9000m3 with 12000m3 cargo, but with a shorter max anchorage time (7-14 days?) because it's so big and heavy and whatnot.
Not as big as a jetcan and the same rules apply (5km from each other), but a logisticly a little more practical.

Phantom Factor
Posted - 2010.08.11 23:42:00 - [13]
 

Something would be nice. Just know its kinda weird having the ability to make a can out of thin air that holds 27,500 m3. I kinda figured that jet cans would have the same space as the ship that spat it out, but whatever. And those secure containers are a bit off in my opinion, your spending isk for an upgraded jet can with a lock on it, and the largest one only holds 3,900 m3? Taking up 23,600 m3 of space just for a lock is a bit... off? I would like to see the secure containers getting a boost to their cargo space. And there is no need to dismiss this idea just cause of macro miners, nothing you can do about them unless you change the way players use the interface when mining. (Loot box shows up in a random position?! HAH! Macro that!) Back on track... Nice idea that would be helpful to old and new players alike! If your in a small corp that doesn't have enough members to have mining runs daily, this could help them out. I know dropping secure containers in a field for miners is already done but this could enable them to stay out longer with out the need to have them emptied as often. Also, those players mining with basic industrial skills would only have to drop off 1 container instead of several, thus making the basics a bit easier. Sitting in an industrial idle while someone mines (or using an alt account) is often the safest way to go with out the loss of gathered ore while you go "Back and Forth" from belt to station, or from belt to station to industrial to belt to station with the ore to mining ship and back to field. This improvement could lessen the blow. Also, its a bit annoying to have to buy a crapload of those containers just cause a hulk can fill one in about 1 cycle. Would like to see them modified to be more inline with ships and needs. Like having giant secure containers have the capacity of a basic fitted industrial with like 20,000 m3 and degrading from there. Players mining in a frigate could find use for a medium secure container with a space of like 2.5k, cruisers and a large with like 5k, bc, bs, and basic barge could use a huge with like 10k. Not saying that players couldnt buy a giant one and mine for quite some time, just giving some figures for the various sizes.

Dunno, but that is my 2 cents.

Davelantor
Caldari
The Resistance Movement
Posted - 2010.08.12 18:57:00 - [14]
 

Ability to put 3900m3 of stuff inside a 3000m3 container is stressful enough on space and time ... now you want to increase that ? ... are you trying to tear the fabric of the universe ?

kongking wang
Gallente
Posted - 2010.08.14 17:07:00 - [15]
 

i want a tardis container. 0.1m3 outside but 1,000,000,000,000,000m3 inside. would certainly be handy.

on a serious note i vote yes

GysVolbeerah
Posted - 2010.09.16 11:50:00 - [16]
 

IMO there should be two types of larger containers avaiable:
1. unsecured ones that you can buy and which will take up 20k+ m3 packaged (some kind of energy net) which can unfold to around 200k m3 and would last in space for 1 day if not repackaged in time

2. secured storage modules that you can link to each other with around 25-35k m3 per packaged module and storaged space after anchoring of the same range


Torothanax
Posted - 2010.09.16 15:02:00 - [17]
 

I don't see why a larger secure container would matter. You still have to haul the ore. Hard core miners already bypass the requrirement of a secure container by using a hauler alt in an orca or a Mk V, along with several hulk alts.

shady trader
Posted - 2010.09.16 21:47:00 - [18]
 

That about making the larger cargo cans only launchable corp and have them anchorable. This way you can always war dec the people you suspect of being a macro miner.

On the plus side it also encourages more players in to player run corps.

Dharh
Gallente
Ace Adventure Corp
Posted - 2010.09.16 22:18:00 - [19]
 

Yeah i'm all for a non-anchorable XL cargo container. I use containers primarily for organization rather than extra space. Also id love being able to have all my haul in one container rather than having to split it up into 10 containers. The tedium of moving stuff in and out of the containers (like all the other click fests in EVE) sucks.

Caldari 5
Amarr
The Element Syndicate
Blazing Angels Alliance
Posted - 2010.09.17 02:49:00 - [20]
 

Also in favour of increasing the GSC to 4000m3 storage space, at 3900m3 is can't even take 1 cycle of Ice from a Mackinaw.

Abdiel Kavash
Caldari
Paladin Order
Fidelas Constans
Posted - 2010.09.17 16:43:00 - [21]
 

+1 to larger secure cans only anchorable in lowsec space. Even if they don't give any cargo bonus.

With CCP's treatment of POS hangar access rights, the only way to have private storage in 0.0 outside of outposts and in wormholes are GSCs. 3,900 m^3 runs out fast, and it's a pain to access multiple of them if they have to be 5k apart (for no apparent reason).

Bonus point: bigger GSCs = less GSCs = less data to store on servers = less lag.

Aelana Anais
Gallente
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
Posted - 2010.09.17 19:50:00 - [22]
 

Originally by: Veliria
Mixed feelings on this one.
On one side, I'd say no because this would be a macrominer's wet dream.
No longer having to fear jetcans being flipped would make it all that much easier.
High-sec mining, especially if you cargo mine into your Hulk, is perfectly safe if you know where to mine and where not to.

On the other side, having to fill a 22-30k m3 hauler with a whole armada of cans gets a bit tedious and especially for the newer miners still working in their Retrievers it would be a nice compromise.

I'd go for 9000m3 with 12000m3 cargo, but with a shorter max anchorage time (7-14 days?) because it's so big and heavy and whatnot.
Not as big as a jetcan and the same rules apply (5km from each other), but a logisticly a little more practical.


Macro-Miners won't care about these. It is easier for them to just code the macro and drop their ore, and warp out. The time docking is not significant compared with the overall time mining for a macro and there are actually benefits to having it do so (macro doesn't have to contend with can flips, etc) From observation most macros don't actually jetcan. The jetcanners are the semi-afk industrial miners that griefers like to call macros so they can justify being antisocial.

Templar Dane
Amarr
Amarrian Retribution
Posted - 2010.09.17 20:48:00 - [23]
 

OH yeah, that's exactly what we need, more cans anchored in belts.

Make friends, jetcan mine, or get an orca alt.

ViolenTUK
Gallente
Demolition Men
Posted - 2010.09.17 23:05:00 - [24]
 

How about reducing the size of containers and how about removing the ability to anchor containers? Well that would be nice but Iím not really expecting that to happen.

Reaver Glitterstim
Legio Geminatus
Posted - 2010.09.18 20:44:00 - [25]
 

I agree, those cans are way too small. I think the biggest benefit would be high-sec solo-mining but still there will be plenty of distance between them and we team miners. They're never going to mine like we do. And low sec ore will never be more profitable than high sec ore. So I'm not worried at all, in fact it'll be nice when nobody in my corp is on and I want to mine but there's pirates...I can just go to the big can and mine there. That way I don't have to set up 10-15 cans, and that way I can put the cans on my overview and not have it cluttered with everyone else's tiny cans all over the belt.

Reaver Glitterstim
Legio Geminatus
Posted - 2010.09.18 20:49:00 - [26]
 

Originally by: Davelantor
Ability to put 3900m3 of stuff inside a 3000m3 container is stressful enough on space and time ... now you want to increase that ? ... are you trying to tear the fabric of the universe ?


It doesn't have to be a graviton-whatever container. It could be 15000m3 inside and 20,000m3 outside.

Furthermore, packaged containers should take up less space as (I would assume, anyway) they can be collapsed and not be reserving space on the inside.

Glyken Touchon
Gallente
Independent Alchemists
Posted - 2010.09.18 21:44:00 - [27]
 

Originally by: Reaver Glitterstim

Furthermore, packaged containers should take up less space as (I would assume, anyway) they can be collapsed and not be reserving space on the inside.


This, definately- repackaging should reduce volume by say, 50%.

mchief117
Posted - 2010.09.19 00:07:00 - [28]
 

Ok has any one ever tried putting a container inside another container , you cant , there < cant remember the name> devices that as far as i can tell create a micro universe with in themselves that can store any form of cargo from radio actives to star ships. They are not just nano-steel boxs. so while yes you technically could get more space out of the container if it was hollow you would also need to have a special container for virtually everything as gas clouds are not going to stay in one place just cause you ask nicely


 

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only