open All Channels
seplocked Test Server Feedback
blankseplocked Alternative to T1 module volume increase
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Author Topic

Ba'Zap Da'Rezd
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2007.12.12 21:18:00 - [1]
 

I have read the arguments that have been made about changing certain T1 modules that are used for "mineral compression", and while I do not agree that the changes were needed, it seems to be something that the developers want to do. With this in mind, I would like to propose an alternative to the T1 module volume increase introduced with Trinity. I believe that modifying the mineral content of the modules in question would remove their appeal as "mineral compressors" while leaving their volume unchanged. Essentially the manufacturing cost of the module would stay the same, and all rat loot would return to pre-Trinity volumes without having to modify the loot tables for every rat out there.

For example:

The Passive Targeter requires 12,525 tritanium to produce assuming Production Efficiency 5 and a ME 50 blueprint. Before Trinity Passive Targeters took up 5m3 and refined into 12,500 trit (125m3). This gives a compression ratio of 25:1.
With Trinity, the volume increased to 25m3 which reduced the compression ratio to 5:1.

My proposal would modify the build requirements, so instead of 12,500 tritanium (and a cost of 37,375 isk), it would require 5,000 tritanium, 1,739 pyerite, 234 mexallon, and 115 isogen (at a cost of 37,391 isk). This change means that no one mineral has better than the same 5:1 compression ratio that resulted in the Trinity volume change, and means the cost also stays (approximately) the same.

I used current high volume sell order values from The Forge regional market to calculate values, so some adjustment is probably in order, and the amount of pyerite, mexallion, and isogen added to the material requirements are just arbitrary values for the purpose of the example. This change is similar to the change made to the Jump Portal Generator, which had the required lowends reduced and required highends increased.

The point is that a change to the material requirements for modules that CCP feels should not be used for mineral compression makes more sense than an increase in volume, would accomplish the mineral compression nerf, and would have no impact on rat loot volume. This proposal might involve more balancing effort than simply increasing module volumes, but surely it would involve less work than removing T1 modules from all loot tables for all rats as suggested in other threads.

Hatch
Minmatar
4 Marketeers
Rura-Penthe
Posted - 2007.12.12 21:20:00 - [2]
 

I've got a better idea than any nerf or change...Put it back the way it was.

Righteous Deeds
Posted - 2007.12.12 23:54:00 - [3]
 

Originally by: Hatch
I've got a better idea than any nerf or change...Put it back the way it was.


Bingo.

WilWheaton
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2007.12.13 00:07:00 - [4]
 

Edited by: WilWheaton on 13/12/2007 00:08:15
the loot volume change would have made sense had CCP gone through with boosting 0.0 lowend asteroid yield (super veld etc)

instead they just talked about it and did nothing but make 0.0 pretty hard to keep industrially self-sufficient

Xenomorphea II
Posted - 2007.12.13 11:04:00 - [5]
 

Originally by: Hatch
I've got a better idea than any nerf or change...Put it back the way it was.


This.

Cheers, Xeno


 

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