|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 6 post(s) |
Maul555
Nuts and Vindictive Remix Technologies
265
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 13:49:00 -
[1] - Quote
I would just like to stop in and applaud the mining ship buffs and updates. This is perhaps the most significant update to industry since mining barges where introduced. I cant wait! |
Maul555
Nuts and Vindictive Remix Technologies
268
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 14:00:00 -
[2] - Quote
Gankers will be pissed for sure. They will just have to up their game and use the new tier 3 battlecruisers for what they where made for. It looks like destroyers are being returned to their intended roles as anti-frig platforms instead of ultra-cheap gank ships to take out expensive exhumers.
+1 internets for you CCP |
Maul555
Nuts and Vindictive Remix Technologies
269
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 16:18:00 -
[3] - Quote
Selissa Shadoe wrote:Aemonchichi wrote:PLEASE CCP :
answer me this - what do you mean by -
Covetor/hulk: ore bay is identical to its current cargo hold, little to average EHP, but best mining output. Basically made for group operations when players have industrials and protection to back them up.
please explain WHAT protection you mean when you talk of this ? remote rep ? a low ehp ship? ever heard of alpha ? pretty please dear developer that is reading this explain what this protection could be in your eyes ? we need to understand what u think if you want us to give you feedback
I'm concerned about that too. If the Hulk is made any weaker and if the cargo hold is transformed to an 'ore hold' so that you're not able to increase the size with a cargo expander, then there's some real issues there. You'll be left making the 'best mining barge' (currently) in to something amazingly crappy just to make the other ship classes feel better. :/
wow, I didn't even think of that. your right. If ore automatically goes into an ore hold that is smaller than my expanded cargo hold, this will majorly mess up a lot of mining... Having to evacuate ore much more often or face your mining lasers shutting down on you when it fills up. CCP, I beg thee, just increase the size of the cargo hold and completely forget about having a dedicated ore hold. I ether that, or make the ore hold much bigger than the cargo hold. |
Maul555
Nuts and Vindictive Remix Technologies
269
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 16:31:00 -
[4] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Maul555 wrote:wow, I didn't even think of that. your right. If ore automatically goes into an ore hold that is smaller than my expanded cargo hold, this will majorly mess up a lot of mining... Having to evacuate ore much more often or face your mining lasers shutting down on you when it fills up. CCP, I beg thee, just increase the size of the cargo hold and completely forget about having a dedicated ore hold. I ether that, or make the ore hold much bigger than the cargo hold. If you need a larger ore hold, pick one of the other barges. If you want to use the Hulk, get an Orca to support it. GǪand your cargo hold will be much smaller than the ore hold, so there is no point in trying to expand on it GÇö doing so will just make the ship worse.
According to the dev blog, the hulk will have an unchanged base cargo hold, and an additional ore hold that is the exact same size. They also plan on having ore automatically dump into the ore hold, thus limiting any options to expand my "ore space". I think this was a short-sighted decision by ccp, and may be an unintentional nerf. Just because CCP said so does not mean it needs to be gospel. I don't think I should have to choose a lesser mining vessel just because someone goofed on a new feature. Or are you saying that you support a hulk capacity nerf? |
Maul555
Nuts and Vindictive Remix Technologies
269
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 16:46:00 -
[5] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Swearte Widfarend wrote:I've not seen CCP pull rigs off ships and repackage them I have. It's not a problem. Maul555 wrote:According to the dev blog, the hulk will have an unchanged base cargo hold, and an additional ore hold that is the exact same size. Read it again GÇö that's not what it says. It says GÇ£mining barges should have proper cargo holds so they not always have to rely on jet cans (without turning them into industrials however). That means giving them large, specialized ore bays where all the ore will automatically go into when mining.GÇ¥ In other words, they will lose their current standard cargo holds and get a large ore bay instead, otherwise, they compete with industrials for the role of hauling cargo. For the Hulk, specifically, this means that the new ore bay will have the same size as the current cargo hold, and what the new cargo hold size will be is left unmentioned GÇö probably a few hundred m-¦. There won't be any real need to expand that cargo hold, or the ore bay for that matter, and with the already-expanded ore bays on the others, they don't need particularly the expansion either. The cargo hold will basically be there to hold your mining crystals.
Tippia, plese... read it again
Quote: Covetor/hulk: ore bay is identical to its current cargo hold, little to average EHP, but best mining output. Basically made for group operations when players have industrials and protection to back them up.
|
Maul555
Nuts and Vindictive Remix Technologies
270
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 16:56:00 -
[6] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Maul555 wrote:Tippia, please... read it again Quote: Covetor/hulk: ore bay is identical to its current cargo hold, little to average EHP, but best mining output. Basically made for group operations when players have industrials and protection to back them up.
Yes, please do. What does it say about its new cargo hold? Nothing. It says that the ore bay will have the same size as its current cargo hold. What the new cargo hold size will be isn't mentioned, and leaving it the same size as it is right now, with the same kind of expansion capabilities it has, breaks the design philosophy mentioned earlier about not letting them compete with industrials. So, new ore bay = old cargo hold; new cargo hold = who knows, probably enough space for a couple of crystals.
I can only hope that you are right, but I don't read it as that. It seems to explain that the current Hulk cargo bay will stay the same, it will get an Ore bay of the same size (that cant be expanded if it works like other ore bays), and that mined ore will automatically be dumped into the ore bay. this results in the highest mining output of all the exhumers being outputted to a small bay. This will mean that hulks will require twice the attention they do now to use. |
Maul555
Nuts and Vindictive Remix Technologies
270
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 17:00:00 -
[7] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Selissa Shadoe wrote:
So, you support a Hulk nerf? I don't, I think that's going about it the wrong way.
Amusingly your sig has the quote 'GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥' .. which is what a lot of industrial/miner ppl on here are trying to do :)
How is this a hulk nerf?
If you use expanded cargo holds, and/ore cargo rigs on a hulk, then this is looking like a big operational nerf/headache. I would love to get some clarification on hulk bay changes and the forcing of mined ore into ore bays. |
Maul555
Nuts and Vindictive Remix Technologies
270
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 17:08:00 -
[8] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Maul555 wrote:baltec1 wrote:Selissa Shadoe wrote:
So, you support a Hulk nerf? I don't, I think that's going about it the wrong way.
Amusingly your sig has the quote 'GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥' .. which is what a lot of industrial/miner ppl on here are trying to do :)
How is this a hulk nerf? If you use expanded cargo holds, and/or cargo rigs on a hulk, then this is looking like a big operational nerf/headache. I would love to get some clarification on hulk bay changes and the forcing of mined ore into ore bays. So you have to empty the hold a bit more. These things are ment to be used in goups you know. Worst case is you just warp to the station and back a bit more but then again, a smart miners fits a tank and does this anyway. If you want a massive hold then use a retriver/mack.
No, they are meant to be used as I like. In this case, I usualy mine alone. Anyways, mining in groups doesnt change the problem I am pointing out. you have to empty the ore much more often if this change goes thru. Mining in a big group only changes it from 1 guy emptying a bay more often, to a group of miners emptying bays more often.
And what do you think about all of thoes cargo rigs that are about to be useless and must be stripped out of all the hulks in new eden? They are there for ore space... not cargo runs! |
Maul555
Nuts and Vindictive Remix Technologies
270
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 17:18:00 -
[9] - Quote
So if I want to semi-afk mine ore in highsec, I have to use a mackinaw now. and its my problem? mining ore in a mackinaw? that just seems pants on head ********.
also I can mine in a cargo expanded hulk and not be called stupid. Thanks guys... I know gankers exist. My problem, not yours. If i want more lasers cycles before I have to empty the hold, why shouldn't I still be able to fit for that? |
Maul555
Nuts and Vindictive Remix Technologies
270
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 17:22:00 -
[10] - Quote
If ccp adds ore hold expanders, this would fix a lot of problems. also add a lot more options to orcas... |
|
Maul555
Nuts and Vindictive Remix Technologies
270
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 17:25:00 -
[11] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Maul555 wrote:If ccp adds ore hold expanders and rigs, this would fix a lot of problems. also add a lot more options to orcas... They arn't
They might ^^
/me stares at CCP |
Maul555
Nuts and Vindictive Remix Technologies
270
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 17:42:00 -
[12] - Quote
Karl Hobb wrote:Swearte Widfarend wrote:Did you read the same thread I did?
I haven't seen tons of baseless, idiotic claims or tears (except for a few who really want the hulk to have the BS tank). The last couple of pages are pretty bad, especially all the crap about the Hulk's tank and cargo expanders and such. v0v Swearte Widfarend wrote:This discussion is much more reasonable than the Sisi Wardec thread... Can't argue with you on that point. ******* tinfoil...
Pointing out what may be an unintentional operational nerf to Hulks, and a lesser extent Covetors, is not whining. Debating the merits of changes and giving the devs something to think about is what this forum is for. |
Maul555
Nuts and Vindictive Remix Technologies
270
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 17:47:00 -
[13] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Maul555 wrote:So if I want to semi-afk mine ore in highsec, I have to use a mackinaw now. and its my problem? mining ore in a mackinaw? that just seems pants on head ********. Why is it ********? It'll be the best ship for the job. Picking the best ship rather than one that doesn't do the same job as well seems rather clever, I'd thinkGǪ Quote:If ccp adds ore hold expanders and rigs, this would fix all the problems I can see. What problems? Your refusal to fly any other ship than a Hulk isn't a game design problem GÇö it's just you being stubborn. Again, get out of the GÇ£Hulk is best GÇö must use Hulk!GÇ¥ mindset and the problems you're having instantly vanish. Denidil wrote:at a much higher cost. Doesn't matter.
Mackinaws have always been Ice mining platforms because of bonuses, and Hulks for all Ores except Mercoxit. I understand that CCP is tryign to shake things up a bit, but it seems really wierd for a Mackinaw to be the "best choice" for mining ore in my playstyle, because CCP took away customizations options.
---
No. The problem is that CCP is forcing ore into a new bay that cannot be expanded. I am loosing operational space. This requires more attention to keep my lasers from automatically shutting off when the bay gets full. You cannot deny that they have taken away customizations options by forcing that stuff into an ore hold. That's what I am talking about. And that's the problem that ore bay expanders/rigs would solve. |
Maul555
Nuts and Vindictive Remix Technologies
270
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 17:50:00 -
[14] - Quote
Karl Hobb wrote:Maul555 wrote:Pointing out what may be an unintentional operational nerf to Hulks, and a lesser extent Covetors, is not whining. Debating the merits of changes and giving the devs something to think about is what this forum is for. Considering the ships are being re-purposed into new roles, I'd say it's not exactly an "unintentional operational nerf". Retriever/Mack will be the ship of choice for AFK solo mining, Hulk/Covetor for fleet mining (hence no real need for a bigger hold), Procurer/Skiff for specialized work and also for the paranoid. The ships will not have the same stats after this change. In short, you're whining.
You cannot be sure its unintentional, and neither can I... I saic, "what may be..." I am pointing out these problems that are not apparent on the surface, so that the devs can act on them as they wish. If this is some smart part of the plan, then fine. but don't pretend to read their minds. |
Maul555
Nuts and Vindictive Remix Technologies
270
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 18:00:00 -
[15] - Quote
Nagarythe Tinurandir wrote:
who told you that you can't move ore into your cargohold and thus having 8k m-¦ + 10k m-¦ (your numbers) as "operational space"? the blog did not say "there shall be no more ore in cargo holds". maybe wait until the idea gets more fleshed out in another dev blog? geeee.......
I never said that. Of corse I can move that stuff into the cargo hold... I have absolutely no need to though. I mine with an orca. Ore goes straight from my big expanded cargo hold straight into my orcas corporate hangers. This new change dumps mined ore right to a new ore bay, that cannot be expanded. This means I will have to dump the ore hold to the corporate hangers much more often, or face all my lasers shutting down on me. This is what I am mad about... Some of us like to do stuff while mining. I didn't realize that highsec mining was supposed to be such an attentive operation ^^. |
Maul555
Nuts and Vindictive Remix Technologies
270
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 18:05:00 -
[16] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Maul555 wrote:Mackinaws have always been Ice mining platforms because of bonusesGǪ GǪand you're sure they'll remain ice mining ships with the same bonuses? And if they do retain the T2 roles, use a Retriever instead GÇö same solo-centric design, without the odd bonus for a different resource than the one you're interested in. Quote:it seems really wierd for a Mackinaw to be the "best choice" for mining ore in my playstyle, because CCP took away customizations options. Actually, they gave you even more options, because now you have six useful ships to choose between for this task, with a much wide span of abilities, and every one of them can be customised to match your needs. Quote:No. The problem is that CCP is forcing ore into a new bay that cannot be expanded. I am loosing operational space. So what? You don't need it any more. You jettison the stuff or transfer it to the Orca directly once every six minutes, which requires such a pitiful amount of attention that it should have roughly zero impact on your operation. Nagarythe Tinurandir wrote:who told you that you can't move ore into your cargohold and thus having 8k m-¦ + 10k m-¦ (your numbers) as "operational space"? I did, because it doesn't make any sense to let them retain their current cargo holds given the design goals provided in the blog.
Tippia, Now you are just arguing to argue... I have stated my position and pointed out some possible unintended consequences. The devs will now do what they do. I am done. |
Maul555
Nuts and Vindictive Remix Technologies
271
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 18:15:00 -
[17] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Maul555 wrote:Tippia, Now you are just arguing to argue... I have stated my position and pointed out some possible unintended consequences. The devs will now do what they do. I am done. GǪand I'm saying that they're not unintended and that the things you consider problems are actually the solution to the problem tiercide is trying to fix.
You cant know it's intentional unless you are one of the DEV's or know someone who knows something specific that you are not letting on about.
In any case. Its not something I am going to rage quit over. I would really like to drop the topic now as the new changes appear to be creating a fanboi attitude and spawning arguments. |
Maul555
Nuts and Vindictive Remix Technologies
271
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 18:32:00 -
[18] - Quote
Andoria Thara wrote:I keep seeing people say miners will continue to use the Hulk because of the yield. Did everyone miss this part of the blog? Quote: Mining output: first and most visible balancing factor, plan is to increase all barge mining output to be within an acceptable margin of the Hulk, not miles behind as it is currently.
I didn't miss it. I like it and cant wait for it. It will make barges much more useful in wormholes especially. |
Maul555
Nuts and Vindictive Remix Technologies
271
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 18:38:00 -
[19] - Quote
OMG!!!! T2 Mining Frig: Covert Ops Ninja Miner? |
Maul555
Nuts and Vindictive Remix Technologies
271
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 20:00:00 -
[20] - Quote
CCP has not mentioned what is happening with the current Exhumer roles (Mercoxit - Skiff, Ice - Mackinaw, Ore - Hulk)... This is a fact.
Would it be possible to get some clarification? |
|
Maul555
Nuts and Vindictive Remix Technologies
272
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 23:48:00 -
[21] - Quote
I noticed 6 mining turret hardpoints on the mining frig. I am hoping for 7 highslots ^^ |
Maul555
Nuts and Vindictive Remix Technologies
273
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 00:08:00 -
[22] - Quote
Yonis Kador wrote:Maul555 wrote:I noticed 6 mining turret hardpoints on the mining frig. I am hoping for 7 highslots ^^ Good eye, Maul. I didn't notice the 6 turret hardpoints, but now that the new mining frigate is my desktop background, I see it well. I love the design. Six turrets will significantly increase the capacity to allow for dual mining/defensive roles in group industrial ops. It still may not be enough yield to entice industrialists to devote resources to piloting them en masse, but it'll still be good for the new player experience and it's a good start at giving industrialists options to engage. YK
Looking again, it might be 3 turret points, with physical representations for both sides of the ship, hence seeing 6... In that case I hope it has very good bonuses and 4 high slots ^^ |
Maul555
Nuts and Vindictive Remix Technologies
276
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 17:14:00 -
[23] - Quote
Tippia, I cant help but notice that you seem to take some perverse pleasure in making lazy miners lives more difficult. As though we should all come up with some collective NEED to justify our fits for your particular brand of logic.
Just a thought... Don't take it too seriously. That is just how you are coming off... |
Maul555
Nuts and Vindictive Remix Technologies
276
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 17:17:00 -
[24] - Quote
And thanks for the Answers!!! Now maybe we can stop arguing about cargo holds and some other stuff ... maybe
Is there any way we can get back the Cargo Expander rigs on our mining ships? They will be useless now, and when I bought them, they came with a lifetime warranty.... or something like that... |
Maul555
Nuts and Vindictive Remix Technologies
277
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 17:48:00 -
[25] - Quote
I would like to echo requests for a Hulk ore bay that can hold at least 2 full cycles + drones from a maxed out player recieving max boosts (including implants, please)
Our chosen profession should not become a pain to do just because we are "too good"... But I guess I could "live" with enough space for 1 cycle |
Maul555
Nuts and Vindictive Remix Technologies
279
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 18:16:00 -
[26] - Quote
Tippia, Where did you study for your degree in Monday Morning Quarterbacking?
I have someone who is looking for a good school... |
Maul555
Nuts and Vindictive Remix Technologies
279
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 18:23:00 -
[27] - Quote
Geksz wrote:Tippia wrote:Geksz wrote:-+ The Hulk is the biggest of all the mining ships, it would be odd that it has the smallest cargohold/orehold and also the smallest EHP from the 6 ships. Something has to be changed there. This also falls in to the GÇ£Hulk = bestGÇ¥ mindset. The entire point of the tiercide effort is that this will no longer be true. The Hulk will be the best for some purposes; the others will be better for others. Also, consider how tiny a portion of the overall ship the bay is. A Mackinaw is 150,000m-¦ GÇö the new ore bay accounts for 27,500m-¦ of that. The remaining 80% of the ship is taken up by whatever lore bits you'd want (engines, crew space, debris sorting etc). That give a lot of room for explaining why the Hulk is that much larger: maybe the sorting machinery that gives it that higher yield takes a whole lot of space GÇö everything is tripple-scanned instead of the once-over it gets in, say, a Skiff, so the skiff discards a whole lot more potentially useful pieces of rock. If the visuals bother you, it's easily fixed by switching the hulls around. What * will* bother me if it's stats(mass, volume) and visuals will remain the same. Something has to justify that more mass and volume, but i doubt that any lore will be written to make it sensible...:( There are a lot of ships in EVE that are not consitent with their stats. And personally that can drive me mad, if i let it... :)
I agree. considering the drastic changes to the lower ships, Battleship sized tank on the little guy, and humungo sized bay on the medium one, with much less space on the big one, I would like to see a ship redesign along with the winter expansion. Something to physically reflect these changes. It will look a bit wonky as is.
|
Maul555
Nuts and Vindictive Remix Technologies
284
|
Posted - 2012.06.17 17:04:00 -
[28] - Quote
People still use mining cruisers on ore? Hell, even my gas mining cruiser isn't one of the "mining cruisers"...
What/where are you people mining that this makes sense anymore? Just low skilled players? Just people needing to mine some crap to get a mission over with? |
Maul555
Nuts and Vindictive Remix Technologies
284
|
Posted - 2012.06.17 17:58:00 -
[29] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Inspiration wrote: You know very well from the other tread, that I am NOT talking about those people. Seeing you post here, makes me convinced you are quite clueless or just plain trolling!
Who are you talking about then? Who really, really needs the extra 30s of cargohold? And if they really, really need it, why don't they use one of the other options?
Well, I am not sure what "30's" of cargohold is, as I have never encountered such a thing... But I will tell you that a lot of miners definatly use that extra space. My standard hulk highsec config is 2 cargo rigs, with a cargo mod, and a mining laser upgrade, with a tank in the mids, and a mining implant in the head, while recieving mining boosts from an orca. You might be suprised just how quickly a cargo hold can fill up when you get destracted for a couple of minutes, and turn your head to see all your lasers shut down.
While we may have no NEED for the extra space, we definitely want it, and can use it to make our lives a bit more relaxing. It is a fitting option. I have decided to sacrifice survivability for time, and I have given gankers an opportunity in the process. With this new change coming up, I am going to put pretty hefty tanks on all my hulks, the miners will up their game, and I will have less time.
Edit: in before someone tells me to just use the new mackinaw instead |
Maul555
Nuts and Vindictive Remix Technologies
284
|
Posted - 2012.06.17 19:08:00 -
[30] - Quote
I am still wondering if the Devs realize that they will be rendering thousands of cargo rigs across new eden useless. And if they are working on a scheme to address that problem, or just tell us to go pound sand. Either way, it would be nice to know. (yeah, I know it's still really early in the process) |
|
Maul555
Nuts and Vindictive Remix Technologies
284
|
Posted - 2012.06.18 02:38:00 -
[31] - Quote
Inspiration wrote:Maul555 wrote:I am still wondering if the Devs realize that they will be rendering thousands of cargo rigs across new eden useless. And if they are working on a scheme to address that problem, or just tell us to go pound sand. Either way, it would be nice to know. (yeah, I know it's still really early in the process) I am quite sure they will not reimburse rigs because ship specifications change. They never did before and I see not why they would start doing it now!
I cannot recall in recent Eve history, any ship change that has rendered rigs as useless as this in such a large population of ships.... rigs must be destroyed to be removed, and I expect CCP to take this into consideration. CCP has in the past reimbursed people for skills or other items that they removed from the game and it is not a stretch to expect some reimbursement process for this. Something like a 1 time free rig removal without destruction for all barges and exhumers. |
Maul555
Nuts and Vindictive Remix Technologies
285
|
Posted - 2012.06.18 03:18:00 -
[32] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Maul555 wrote:Inspiration wrote:Maul555 wrote:I am still wondering if the Devs realize that they will be rendering thousands of cargo rigs across new eden useless. And if they are working on a scheme to address that problem, or just tell us to go pound sand. Either way, it would be nice to know. (yeah, I know it's still really early in the process) I am quite sure they will not reimburse rigs because ship specifications change. They never did before and I see not why they would start doing it now! I cannot recall in recent Eve history, any ship change that has rendered rigs as useless as this in such a large population of ships.... rigs must be destroyed to be removed, and I expect CCP to take this into consideration. CCP has in the past reimbursed people for skills or other items that they removed from the game and it is not a stretch to expect some reimbursement process for this. Something like a 1 time free rig removal without destruction for all barges and exhumers. When Align time rigs were rendered Useless on ALL titans (and shield titans in general were rendered shi t), did they reimburse them? Nope. (By the way, at that time EVERY titan was fitted and usually rigged for align time). Now, shield titans bridge and rat, respectively. When Motherships were turned into Supercarriers and lost their Clone bays, were they reimbursed SP? Nope. When countless other changes occured and FotM/optimal builds changed, nobody got anything reimbursed. When CCP changes things, they don't reimburse you. You got the use of the item. It is still useable (the rig is still expanding your cargo). So it is your choice, as always, whether another rig would be worth ripping this one out for or not. Miners are getting an enormous boon on the top of a bigger one (drone poop removal). Why the he ll are you guys still whinging?
I don't speak for the entire mining community. I am not their elected leader. Us guys are not whining about anything...
I am just noting that I have a ton of rigs I will be forced to destroy, and am looking for CCP's position on the matter, one way or another.
If you think that us miners have it so good, then why don't you become one instead of whining about it? |
Maul555
Nuts and Vindictive Remix Technologies
285
|
Posted - 2012.06.18 03:31:00 -
[33] - Quote
Commander A9 wrote:Hey, don't worry. THIS hardcore industrialist isn't happy either. There go your cargorig optimization rigs. I hope at least our protection and powergrid/CPU will be improved-for ALL barges and exhumers. It's such a pain to properly tank a Mackinaw.
You know, I really wish CCP would have tested the new UI as extensively as these new ships, IF they're testing them at all! And when people tell CCP they don't want something, I really hope the devs listen this time! Otherwise, people are going to bail in droves (or maybe blow up another statue)!
I hear ya... I currently have a mackinaw that has a tank of over 12,000 EHP, with a all t1 mod/rig setup, and shield boosts from my orca. I cant use t2 stuff because of cpu restrictions, and am currently looking at implants to help take me a little farther. |
Maul555
Nuts and Vindictive Remix Technologies
285
|
Posted - 2012.06.18 03:50:00 -
[34] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Maul555 wrote:Us guys are not whining about anything...
I am just noting that I have a ton of rigs I will be forced to destroy RiiiightGǪ so all this noise about rigs (like the post I just answered to) is all joy and happiness over the significant improvements to the mining ship line? No, it's mostly overlooking all of that and painting a positive change in the rigging options as a negative. Oh, and you are not being forced to destroy any rigs regardless of how they choose to handle the switch-over. Quote:If you think that us miners have it so good, then why don't you become one instead of whining about it? I don't know if you noticed, but he is one. He's not whining.
I am not overlooking anything. My first comment about this entire change was that I applaud it. I am trying to focus some attention onto hulk changes and give my reasons for some tweaks to the proposed changes, and am seeking information on specifics from CCP. And yes, you are correct. I am not being forced to destroy my rigs in the same sense that I am not forced to avoid a major collision every time I drive a vehicle on the road.
Also he is not a miner. I thought for a moment that he actually might be, so I did about 2 minutes of research on him. He is a 0.0 PvP'er that appears to be attached to Pandemic Legion. Not a bunch known for their mining abilities. If he does mine, then he must be doing it in safe blue space, where he can run from local spikes and never get any mining mishaps on his combat record. The 1 hulk he lost that I can find was in a wormhole, so that would stand to reason. |
Maul555
Nuts and Vindictive Remix Technologies
285
|
Posted - 2012.06.18 04:00:00 -
[35] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Maul555 wrote: I don't speak for the entire mining community. I am not their elected leader. Us guys are not whining about anything...
I am just noting that I have a ton of rigs I will be forced to destroy, and am looking for CCP's position on the matter, one way or another.
If you think that us miners have it so good, then why don't you become one instead of whining about it?
I'm sorry what? I just pointed out that in the past 12 months, whining from miners and HS carebears has gotten the Insurance Nerf, the Drone Poop nerf, the CONCORD buff, and now new improved mining barges. (I was all for several of those, btw). Ganking you is more expensive, you're making more isk, you're going to have new toys, and you're whinging that your rigs will have less function. And the other guy is whinging because, despite being given a dedicated tanky mining ship, the Hulk doesn't have the tank of a Dreadnaught. There is seriously no pleasing you lot. I don't mine because I don't enjoy it. I don't give a rats how much it makes, I just don't enjoy it. Because it's an official profession in EvE, I've always wanted to see its income buffed (Drone poo nerf). But, now that it's been buffed, the amount of complaining about shi t that's an integral part of the game you lot signed up to play, I say bring back the drone poo and t1 drops, and double their refinery output. (And you're not being forced to destroy anything. You're making a choice based off of changing utility.)
I don't know of any whining from miners in the last 12 months. I am ignorant on that topic, and I admit it. However in this thread I don't think that an argument could be made that there is a flood of carebear tears. I also like the changes for the most part as I stated earlier upthread. If i hated the entire planned rollout, I would say so. My responses thus far have been mostly limited to hulk tweaks. I am not advocating that they scrap all their plans. |
Maul555
Nuts and Vindictive Remix Technologies
285
|
Posted - 2012.06.18 04:16:00 -
[36] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:
I never lost a Hulk in HS because you have to be braindead to lose a Hulk in HS.
Must we go back down this road again? This is a false statement and I demand that it be stricken from the record!
/me puts on his tinfoil hat and returns to talking to goldfish
|
Maul555
Nuts and Vindictive Remix Technologies
285
|
Posted - 2012.06.18 13:48:00 -
[37] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Maul555 wrote:RubyPorto wrote:
I never lost a Hulk in HS because you have to be braindead to lose a Hulk in HS.
Must we go back down this road again? This is a false statement and I demand that it be stricken from the record! /me puts on his tinfoil hat and returns to talking to goldfish I mined in a Hulk, in HS for quite a long time. I never lost a single one. Mine in a backwater. Mine aligned. Use Local. Use D-Scan. The list goes on. Sitting like a lump at the warpin of the belt, mining while alt tabbed away, is how a lot of hulks get ganked. Doing that when you know you have a price on your head is, I believe, one of the clinical signs of brain death. Commence the organ harvesting.
1 I do mine in a backwater 2 mining aligned is hardly the life saver it is said to be when your not being a hyper-paranoid meth freak 3 I use local 4 this is highsec, I am too busy using D-Scan in my actual wormhole to give a rats ass about gankers
And I never sit at at the warp in point for belts like a lump as you say... And there is no price on my head.
Are you going to continue to fantasize about my mining routines while calling me stupid, or can we drop all of this nonsense? |
Maul555
Nuts and Vindictive Remix Technologies
285
|
Posted - 2012.06.18 17:46:00 -
[38] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Maul555 wrote:
1 I do mine in a backwater 2 mining aligned is hardly the life saver it is said to be when your not being a hyper-paranoid meth freak 3 I use local 4 this is highsec, I am too busy using D-Scan in my actual wormhole to give a rats ass about gankers
And I never sit at at the warp in point for belts like a lump as you say... And there is no price on my head.
Are you going to continue to fantasize about my mining routines while calling me stupid, or can we drop all of this nonsense?
If you're too distracted to mine safely in HS, you might consider running a less expensive mining ship. Mining aligned will keep you 100% safe, guaranteed. Just warp off when someone starts landing on grid. You just admitted that you are choosing to not use the tools available to keep safe. So why should your expensive cardboard box be safe?
I have not once asked for my expensive cardboard box to be safe. And yes, I am too distracted to mine safely in highsec, and I wrote that possibility off a long time ago. I am really glad for you that when you mined in highsec, that was the only thing you where doing, and you devoted %100 of your attention to that task while eying every passer by with suspicion. |
Maul555
Nuts and Vindictive Remix Technologies
295
|
Posted - 2012.06.22 14:38:00 -
[39] - Quote
Inspiration wrote:Being full of **** seems to be your strong point. Tanking a hulk to the eyeballs (aprox 30k EHP with maxed fleet shield bonus) means dropping two MLU's and even then it will be ganked by a pack dessies in high sec without any logistics support. And with logistics support only the shield portion of the EHP really counts. Making the hulk no better the new mackinaw with does not require a list of prerequisites and far fetched fantasy IFs just to validate its role!. As it stands, the only thing the hulk is any good at is maximum yield as all costs! Don't pretend its tank able to the level you describe and then still imply that it is the best miner too! I kind of had it with your bullshit as I said before and then ignored you, but since almost a week later your still fanatically bullshitting everyone, I decided to put my 2cents in this time. By the way, you can have that last word as your still not really worth discussing with!
Yeah... I gotta say that tornado ganking scenario doesn't sound right. A few destroyers can do the job, 4 at most... and those things are a dime per dozen... |
Maul555
Nuts and Vindictive Remix Technologies
295
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 16:25:00 -
[40] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Maul555 wrote:Inspiration wrote:Being full of **** seems to be your strong point. Tanking a hulk to the eyeballs (aprox 30k EHP with maxed fleet shield bonus) means dropping two MLU's and even then it will be ganked by a pack dessies in high sec without any logistics support. And with logistics support only the shield portion of the EHP really counts. Making the hulk no better the new mackinaw with does not require a list of prerequisites and far fetched fantasy IFs just to validate its role!. As it stands, the only thing the hulk is any good at is maximum yield as all costs! Don't pretend its tank able to the level you describe and then still imply that it is the best miner too! I kind of had it with your bullshit as I said before and then ignored you, but since almost a week later your still fanatically bullshitting everyone, I decided to put my 2cents in this time. By the way, you can have that last word as your still not really worth discussing with! Yeah... I gotta say that tornado ganking scenario doesn't sound right. A few destroyers can do the job, 4 at most... and those things are a dime per dozen... RR says you're wrong.
I am not dedicating a RR guy in highsec (assuming I even have that luxury available). My corp mates would just stare at me like I am crazy. That is only a solution in your world. |
|
Maul555
Nuts and Vindictive Remix Technologies
295
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 17:37:00 -
[41] - Quote
Tommy Blue wrote:Maul555 wrote:I am not dedicating a RR guy in highsec (assuming I even have that luxury available). My corp mates would just stare at me like I am crazy. That is only a solution in your world. If you are not going to do something that potentially works because your friends might think you're crazy, then stop complaining. CCP is giving you the tools. If you decide to not use a tool that could potentially make your life easier, than that is your choice.
Except it makes nobodys life easier. I, or my corp mates, would buy someone a hulk just to get them to STFU about this RR idea... its not worth the pain of finding someone to be RR guy and splitting the profits with them just to counter the occasional gank. |
Maul555
Nuts and Vindictive Remix Technologies
295
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 17:42:00 -
[42] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote: Then don't. But it is a solution that raises the cost to gank with destroyers to 10-15 of them. Without RR, a destroyer gang will still lose money ganking you.
There are a few other options, that I will list here:
Here are some options you might try during this trying time.
1. Continue Mining like normal and Accept the losses 2. Continue Mining as normal but in a Covetor and Accept the losses 3. Mine in a Rokh, comfortably immune* to Suicide Ganks 4. Tank your Hulk and Accept a lower number of Losses from edge case profit based ganks. 5. Tank your Hulk with RR and be comfortable immune to Suicide Ganks 6. Mine in a Normally Fit Hulk but use a short range D-Scan to escape ganks 7. Set up safespots such that you can maintain a rough orbit in range of a roid by aligning to each BM in turn 8. Set up Hulks to Web each other, mine aligned to 1 SS at 7m/s (warpable speed) (can be done @ max yield) 9. Watch local for known gankers, accept the occasional gank from unknown ganks 10. Mine in Mission pockets 11. Mine in Grav Sites, occasionally scanning D-Scan 12. Tank your Hulk and have friends in BLAP AC Nados ready to shoot (one should kill a Cat before you die, failing the gank) 13. Tank your Hulk and have friends with ECM 14. Tank your Hulk and run 5x Med ECM drones and accept that you'll die if they fail 15. Mine in Lowsec (can be done solo in a quiet system) 16. Mine in Null (can be done solo in a quiet NPC sov system) 17. Mine in WH space
*all cases of immunity from Suicide Ganks assume profit-based ganks. Non-Profit based ganks are rare and are not something that can be negated by game mechanics changes besides eliminating ganks, thus can be ignored.
All of these options have advantages and disadvantages. All of them will work. Not all of them are perfect.
I am not complaining. I am countering all these ******* fantasy miners that like to play backseat driver. Seriously... I have been trying to stop at point number ******* 1 over here... as that's WHAT I DO ALL ******* DAY. And as if that didnt make all your other points completly moot, I also do numbers 4, 9, 11, and 17.... |
|
|
|