Again, my complaint is more of the volume of fuel than the mechanics.
If you look at going from a T1 laser to a B2 crystal, you get about 80% more yield, each crystal lasts on average about 3 hours and each takes up 10m3. So, if my rough back of napkin math is right, my Mack gets about 7km3 more ore per m3 of fuel (crystal is fuel)
Boosting is a bit tougher because its AOE. If you look an uncored T2 boosting, you get about 68% more yield, with a charge lasting 60 seconds (autofire not boost time) with a volume of 0.01. So a bonus of 77k m3 per m3 of fuel (per ship)
If you look at the core running (not including the fuel of the boosting charge), you get 87% increase in yield, with a charge lasting 150 seconds and a volume of 120m3, so a bonus of 8m3 per m3 of fuel.
As a personal choice, I do not see the relatively small increase in yield compared to the relatively large increase in fuel logistics to be worth running the core.
EDIT:
I don’t mind the mechanic systems of the core itself. My issue is with the fuel logistics. If CCP introduced a fuel cell for cores that costs the same as what it costs now but had a significantly smaller volume, I would be fine with it.
If you go from one action every 1 minute to 1 action every hour, your gameplay is complete inactive one, and make people want to do something else.
When you reduce the activity requirement of a gameplay, you make it more AFK : more people will need to do something else than what became a non-gameplay. And this is the case with reducing the yield - if nothing else is done.
The problem is not what I have in my hold at any given moment during an op, but typically I have spare crystals, booster charges, and as much fuel as I can carry. I keep an eye on my fuel and restock by a hauler as needed.
The issue is that I do not always mine close to a trade hub, so if I run out of something like crystals or booster charges I can send someone in just about any ship and pick up hours or days worth of supplies. That cannot be said about Heavy Water. I can send a large hauler, like an orca or freighter and pick up a large supply, but it is inconvenient and as I said, to me it isn’t worth the hassle.
Its a personal opinion that I am sharing and if you don’t have the same opinion , that is fine more Heavy Water for you.
If what you’re saying is true, we should have seen a price drop for the Orca correct ? Since the concern was it felt like everyone was afk mining in a Orca.
yours has been the only other argument in this that has made any sense.
I definitely agree with you - the drawbacks of the new core do not balance with the benefits they provide. Maybe they do a little better in HS (moons or ice specifically), but certainly not in WH, LS or null. The 2.5 minutes of immobility alone I dont think the relatively small buff to boosts come anywhere near to justifying. But then you add having to deal with moving fuel on top of that, which isn’t a difficult task, but is something extra to support using something that is already extremely questionable as to whether or not it was worth it. I also think however that making them any stronger would make it pretty overpowered for a baby capital ship and really think the only way to balance it is to decrease the drawbacks even if it means decreasing the buffs.
I do not have max rorqual boosts, but uncored, I can boost 4% less than a max boosts T2 orca can cored up. I believe that would close to within 2% once I get to max uncored rorqual boosts. To me it is no consideration to go with a cheap trash fit rorqual that never cores up, has far more utility than an orca, more storage and less hauling required than an orca and can also get off grid whenever I need. With a trash fit rorq, the cost difference really isn’t that much either compared to a well fit orca, and the added utility and safety of a rorqual I think more than makes up for the slightly worse boosts.
I had hoped they were going to match the light core to the stats of the bastion module. I wouldn’t necessarily have had a problem with using fuel as well, but a lot less of it by volume, and maybe even give slightly less than the 46% boosts with fewer drawbacks. The drawbacks just dont make any sense for most applications given how small the benefits are in comparison.
with a higgs, you are already flying at full speed (down to 30m/s so can stay next to the rock till you are full), so its insta warp as its already aligned. Your pictures assume you are stood still…
Sonny, I have been playing online games for a very long time. I began with Asheron’s call in 1999. It intrigues me that you are irritated because I choose to log off.
Oof. More embarrassing for you. You try to flex but then I started earlier than that with MUDs and UO I was there on AC launch too “Sonny” indeed ROFL.
Sit down bro. Its not irritating, its laughable that you’ve apparently played MMOs this long and are still so bad at them
I also just lost my venture and 2 brand new Hobgoblin II drones because of this terrible collision box blocking my warp. Remind me again why they changed it from the crescent shape belts to the blob of rocks? Seems to only add frustration and make players rage quit.
I recommend you warp off in a direction that isn’t blocked by any objects.
Yes, I know the feeling of being stuck at an asteroid while you want to warp off. After that happened a few times I usually try to position my ship so that the direction I want to warp off to in case of danger is free of asteroids.
So there’s a videogame where you can go mining in the asteroids. and it’s dangerous like living on the edge of space frontier? That sounds like a fun game!
I had read somewhere that the developers of EvE were frustrated with the pvp mechanic in UO and went out to create their own game, which culminated is this glorious universe of EvE.
I was there on AC launch too