Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 32 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 6 post(s) |
|
CCP Phantom
C C P C C P Alliance
1433
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 11:54:00 -
[1] - Quote
Our all beloved spaceships (they make wonderful explosions) are an important part of the New Eden and therefore our developers also apply special love to them. A while ago we announced a grand plan to balance the existing ships.
Now that we had enough time to collected good feedback (thank you for all the constructive discussions) and to think about it, we can present you an update of our plans.
Please welcome CCP Ytterbium and his new dev blog "Ship balancing summer upgrade" where he explains our updated plans and introduces the road ahead in regards to ship balancing. The blog can be read here.
Your constructive feedback is most welcome. CCP Phantom - German Community Coordinator |
|
|
Chribba
Otherworld Enterprises Otherworld Empire
3738
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 11:55:00 -
[2] - Quote
rawr!
MINING FRIGATE!! <3333
|
|
|
CCP Veritas
C C P C C P Alliance
506
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 12:01:00 -
[3] - Quote
I'm going to fly so many Bantams... CCP Veritas - Senior Programmer - EVE Software |
|
Peta Michalek
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
21
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 12:03:00 -
[4] - Quote
Good god...
Can we expect the first batch of changes with Inferno 1.1? If yes, what ships would be affected?
Also, that mining frig looks sweet. |
Krystyn
Serenity Rising LLC Vanguard.
84
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 12:03:00 -
[5] - Quote
CCP Veritas wrote:I'm going to fly so many Bantams...
T2 bantam??? |
Ponder Yonder
Fleet of the Damned Ace of Spades.
31
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 12:04:00 -
[6] - Quote
I can't wait! Great plans, CCP. |
Brolly
Romex Inc. Dustm3n
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 12:04:00 -
[7] - Quote
thanks the gods...or devs!, larger hold for barges :D
How much of an increase are we looking at?, any vague figures or ideas? |
I Love Boobies
All Hail Boobies
143
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 12:08:00 -
[8] - Quote
I wonder how many people are gonna complain about barges with battleship sized EHP, especially with large ore holds? I am sure there is going to be a tear or two over them. ( o Y o ) ( o Y o ) ( o Y o ) ( o Y o ) ( o Y o ) ( o Y o ) ( o Y o ) ( o Y o ) ( o Y o ) ( o Y o ) ( o Y o ) ( o Y o )
The world would be a better place if boobies ran the world instead of boobs. |
Adaahh Gee
Rock jockeyz
37
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 12:09:00 -
[9] - Quote
Nice work CCP, Looks good.
Bring out some Tier 2 Destroyers, would be good as E-war platforms. Cormorant should be a missile boat.
Don't take Turrets away from Thrasher, it's king of the destroyers at the moment. (maybe remove it's launcher hardpoint) |
Sidrun
Life sucks then you die Ltd.
22
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 12:10:00 -
[10] - Quote
These look pretty awesome. |
|
Peta Michalek
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
21
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 12:10:00 -
[11] - Quote
I Love Boobies wrote:I wonder how many people are gonna complain about barges with battleship sized EHP, especially with large ore holds? I am sure there is going to be a tear or two over them.
It's really not much different from what we have now - if you maximize yield on a Hulk you have no defense, if you tank properly you lose yield. |
Arkady Sadik
Gradient Electus Matari
655
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 12:13:00 -
[12] - Quote
Good changes!
I especially like the damp boost.
The barge changes - especially large cargo hold and high EHP - will cause a lot of whining of highly-competent PvPers who are afraid of getting their ability removed to prove their competence against this extremely dangerous ship class. Looking forward to that. |
Prime FLux
The Rising Stars The Volition Cult
29
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 12:13:00 -
[13] - Quote
Bring out the orbital bombardment destroyer! The only way to make sure! |
eVRiAL
Pact Of Honour Red Alliance
5
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 12:15:00 -
[14] - Quote
New destroyers concept art are coming out? |
Peter Powers
Terrorists of Dimensions Free 2 Play
81
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 12:15:00 -
[15] - Quote
this looks pretty cool, and new destroyers are a good idea (love the idea of drone destroyers)
but one thing bothers me all ships and ship changes lately have been mostly positive for new players, even when t3 cruisers got introduced, their skill sets where set so they can be trained quite fast. so when are you going to give us vets a few new toys?
also what happend to t3 in other ship classes?
|
Daneel Trevize
The Scope Gallente Federation
143
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 12:16:00 -
[16] - Quote
Edit: never mind all the below, I missed a key point about this Summer update, the release of these minor changes will be for Winter?!
- When are ASBs getting looked at? Dual XL all the things, armour aren't even 1/3 as capable for a meta0 module. Your latest new things are the least balanced yet.
- When Are Tier3s being checked? You think you got them right first time, with that speed & agility (best meta-tank)?
- When will ECM be something that you aren't embarrassed to put on an AT prize ship?
- How about a Cynabals and Macharials nerf just like the Dramiel got? At least fitting tweaks, force a choice.
- The other end of the spectrum, the Exequror needs the same slot swap as the T2 version got 6months ago now.
- Tengus, Drakes (you had a detailed change in the works last year), Canes. You know the usage numbers.
- Info links?
- Armour rigs & plates speed penalty (again you almost had a change for these)
- Cloaky Legion?
- We know the list of existing high priority things goes on and on...
You call this balance? This is the lowest hanging fruit, the easiest set of changes to please the most existing and new players? The most key elements to vastly improving this game? |
Arkady Sadik
Gradient Electus Matari
655
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 12:18:00 -
[17] - Quote
Oh right, and a note of caution: Griffins are surprisingly effective in a combat role already, as they can almost perma-jam most frigates. If you boost them - e.g. to make them more viable as a fleet support frigate - make sure that they do not become too strong in frigate-only combat. |
Archinquisitor
Eve Defence Force Fatal Ascension
10
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 12:19:00 -
[18] - Quote
Before making ADDITIONAL destroyers, consider upgrading one racial frigate each to destroyer, as we have so many frigates already, some without a proper role. |
Peta Michalek
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
21
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 12:21:00 -
[19] - Quote
[quote=Daneel Trevize]You said you will work your way up from the bottom up, starting with frigates - why aren't you changing cruisers, battlecruisers and T3?[quote]
Why did kamikaze pilots wear helmets? |
Adainy Gwanwyn
Legion of Darkwind Order of the Void
19
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 12:21:00 -
[20] - Quote
Peter Powers wrote:this looks pretty cool, and new destroyers are a good idea (love the idea of drone destroyers)
but one thing bothers me all ships and ship changes lately have been mostly positive for new players, even when t3 cruisers got introduced, their skill sets where set so they can be trained quite fast. so when are you going to give us vets a few new toys?
also what happend to t3 in other ship classes?
I'd like to think after they smooth out the progression of all the T1 ships, we'll see an explosion of new T2/T3 ships. That's how it's looking, at least. ;)
Also, super excited for damp boost, more drone boats and subtle Gallente boosts.
#LongLiveGallente |
|
Louis deGuerre
The Dark Tribe Against ALL Authorities
324
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 12:23:00 -
[21] - Quote
My only concern is T1 destroyers might make T1 frigates obsolete due to sheer firepower. FIRE FRIENDSHIP TORPEDOES ! Louis's epic skill guide v1.1 |
DeBingJos
Avalon Project Shadow Rock Alliance
300
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 12:24:00 -
[22] - Quote
Thank you very much CCP! Fix FW ! |
J3ssica Alba
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
424
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 12:25:00 -
[23] - Quote
inb4 ganker tear flood over skiff EHP This is my signature. There are many others like it, but this one is mine.-á Without me, my signature is useless. Without my signature, I am useless |
Trax Chasmwalker
Monkey Attack Squad Goonswarm Federation
2
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 12:25:00 -
[24] - Quote
+1 for BSG |
Bam Stroker
InterSun Freelance Moon Warriors
65
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 12:27:00 -
[25] - Quote
Standing by for ganker tears... |
Kata Amentis
Re-Awakened Technologies Inc
61
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 12:31:00 -
[26] - Quote
destroyers with orbital bombardment?
out of curiosity, does this mean Dust is getting different "sizes" of orbit strike, for small, medium, large and xl weapons being used in eve? Curiosity killed the Kata...
... but being immortal he wasn't too worried about keeping a count. |
Ribikoka
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
205
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 12:32:00 -
[27] - Quote
Dont forget to add +1 mid slot to coercer. That's why i missed some Rupture kills :P |
DJ P0N-3
Table Flippendeavors
19
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 12:32:00 -
[28] - Quote
Quote:possibly mini-profession operations, like hacking and codebreaking as well.
Oh my. Could this be a sign of new ships/bonuses in bigger ships to come?
I like where this devblog is going. |
Luthar Carrock
Dark Circle Enforcement Templis Dragonaors
1
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 12:33:00 -
[29] - Quote
Love most of these ideas; new destroyers/roles for destroyers sound very exciting!
I look forward to seeing the details on the frigate reworkings, but I would ask... nay, plead, that the Bantam hull be redesigned as part of its overhaul, for it is truly butt-ugly!
You could make it the most effective Caldari combat frigate and I would still be embarrassed to fly it.
Thanks for continuing to work to make internet spaceships awesome! |
Kenpachi Viktor
Gradient Electus Matari
180
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 12:36:00 -
[30] - Quote
with regards to the mining/ehp balancing, you can T2 fit a Rokh that mines 98.8% of a T2 fit Hulk while having over 5 times the EHP What is the point if every race has an Jam/Damp/Disruptor/ ship etc? Not every race has to be a fluffy little mirror of each other, it's seriously not needed. Things like Gallente having the only drone BS and Caldari having the only ECM BS are incredibly cool distinctions that only add to EVE in both game play value and flavour. |
|
Sturmwolke
233
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 12:36:00 -
[31] - Quote
I loled at the mining barge changes
Edit : Damn that new ORE frigates looks good. Completely unfair to the old cruiser hulls. |
Cry J
Midas Inc.
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 12:36:00 -
[32] - Quote
Quote:Retriever/Mackinaw: made for self-reliance. Would be nice if at least mackinaw would get bonus for active shield tanking, IMO it fits well with its new role.
Quote:That is why we want to introduce new tech 1 destroyers to fill roles that are not yet covered GÇô as such, Amarr / Gallente would receive additional drone boats, while Caldari / Minmatar would be more missile based. I do hope that drone destroyers will get additional +drone speed and +tracking bonus to be effective vs frigates, and +explosion speed\size for missile boats.
also, DAT ORE FRIG! Its model is gorgeous. Also, reminds me of Homeworld game series somehow |
Istan Mahwi
4
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 12:37:00 -
[33] - Quote
like where this is going
the ore frig looks rather nice-spiffy cant wait to hear more! (keep it up) |
J3ssica Alba
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
425
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 12:37:00 -
[34] - Quote
Kata Amentis wrote:destroyers with orbital bombardment?
out of curiosity, does this mean Dust is getting different "sizes" of orbit strike, for small, medium, large and xl weapons being used in eve?
I want a red and white paintjob for the catalyst with "Baron Von Ricthtofen" written on the site and then i'll go on orbital strafing runs
This is my signature. There are many others like it, but this one is mine.-á Without me, my signature is useless. Without my signature, I am useless |
Dolneagra
Viziam Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 12:39:00 -
[35] - Quote
I wonder if this will bring back casual jet-can mining of old. Would be nice NOT to be one-vollied by a Tempest/Malestrom for a change. ( and, NO, my barge was NOT set up to RECEIVE 11K+ while mining in a .8 belt )
|
Eugene Spencer
Rodents of Unusual Size
137
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 12:39:00 -
[36] - Quote
There is a spelling mistake. Last paragraph before "Destroyer of Worlds".
Due to how nested skill requirements work, players who alreadhy have the mining barge skill trained WON'T need to train the ORE frigate skill to keep flying their Covetor for example.
Other than that, these changes look great :) I have a specific comb for my beard. |
Kirkra
The In-Humane Society Shadow Theory.
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 12:39:00 -
[37] - Quote
So eh, is the invention chances for different Exhumers now going to be smoothed out as well? Currently retrievers are as hard as frigs, and making a Hulk is as painful as making a Marauder (BPC wise). Also, I will just love if the timing with this thing goes on like it did with POS fuel... So many WH dwellers switching mining hulls in their home systems, just to find that the change is postponed))) |
Kiandoshia
Gnampf Inc.
121
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 12:40:00 -
[38] - Quote
Quote:They rebelled, they evolved. They have a plan.
I find the whole plan part pretty hard to believe at the minute. Also, why would you need to rebel to change something about your own game? =/ |
Chris Wheeler
Massively Motivated
6
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 12:40:00 -
[39] - Quote
Prime FLux wrote:Bring out the orbital bombardment destroyer! The only way to make sure!
I went out of my way to log in so I could like this post. |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Industrial Complex Cosmic Consortium
1509
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 12:43:00 -
[40] - Quote
I am looking forward to the ice & minerals market crashing due to imbalance introduced by attempting to rebalance mining barges and exhumers. I'm sure that someone in CCP will think that increasing yields will somehow be a good idea.
Will the new Hulk have more or less HP than they currently do? Will it still be possible to tank the Hulk to withstand two shots from a Destroyer before the logistics pilot wakes up and starts reaping? I'm sure the gankers are going to love you for making the hulk even thinner than the paper thin hull it currently is.
Will the Hulk have more or less ice/ore production capacity than now?
Do CCP devs understand that you can't repair a ship that gets popped in one salvo?
How does a drone frigate work as a long range sniping platform? A frigate that can launch a sentry drone? Gets a bonus to drone travel speed, so you can foolishly send your drones flying 40km to the enemy who picks them off with 1400mm artillery?
:)
I am looking forward to more revelations on this topic of ship rebalancing!
Day 0 advice for new players: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=77176 |
|
Mangala Solaris
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
88
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 12:43:00 -
[41] - Quote
Pretty solid from my point of view, give me more things to lose in horrible ways :) Mangala is not FC, yet another randomly updated EVE blog.
http://mangala.rvbganked.co.uk/ |
Felix Macey
Lead Farmers Kill It With Fire
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 12:43:00 -
[42] - Quote
Very nice changes. And good fixes to the rather broken mining barge class.
Any chance of getting a specialised barge for gas harvesting? 5 high slots and a jet can sized gas only cargo bay. |
Gilbaron
Free-Space-Ranger Ev0ke
263
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 12:45:00 -
[43] - Quote
very interresting changes, what about ice/merkoxit/(gas) mining ? |
Vas Vadum
LankTech Zero Hour Alliance
28
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 12:47:00 -
[44] - Quote
CCP, Don't forget you can also invent T3 mining barges. Something stronger or faster than a hulk with some other sort of setback or something like that.
Also, the Mackinaw isn't just a t2 of the Retriever. I use the Mackinaw for ice and the Hulk for Ore. Don't classify the 2 ships based on their t1 variant. Mackinaws are for ice while Hulks are for Ore. Maybe you should swap the position of the Mackinaw and the Covetor in your list of improvements. People may not like this, but with the current method you punish ore miners the most while giving ice miners an incredible boost to both cargohold and tank.
I just thought I'd point out a minor balancing flaw I saw. If CCP can quote my reply or something when they reply, that would be great so I can see that I have a reply. |
Teshania
Aliastra Gallente Federation
24
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 12:47:00 -
[45] - Quote
Loving the casting of changes coming out in all the ships.. The Vigil needs much love. Although i Hope it keeps its Minmatar love of speed.. and maybe actually be able to fight with this thing o.O can't friggin wait.
As For Minning Barges.. I love the frig idea!!!!
Though i do have a couple of Questions, since they are being Re balanced via Tank vs Output. Is there going to be a barge/exhumer that specializes in specific ore/mining Ice/Maybe Moon Goo? |
J3ssica Alba
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
428
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 12:49:00 -
[46] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:whine whine whine
your glass is always half empty right? This is my signature. There are many others like it, but this one is mine.-á Without me, my signature is useless. Without my signature, I am useless |
Antihrist Pripravnik
Scorpion Road Industry Devil Divided By Zero
38
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 12:49:00 -
[47] - Quote
oh, goodie CCP Ytterbium: Yarrblblbgrlblbgrlblblblbblbgrlblblbgrblblyarrrrdrooooooolonthekeyboardlikealunatic |
Chris Wheeler
Massively Motivated
6
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 12:51:00 -
[48] - Quote
Kiandoshia wrote:Quote:They rebelled, they evolved. They have a plan. I find the whole plan part pretty hard to believe at the minute. Also, why would you need to rebel to change something about your own game? =/
The cylons didn't bother informing the writing staff what their plan was. That gets more and more obvious the further you get in the series. |
Green Gambit
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 12:51:00 -
[49] - Quote
Bring on the frig changes, it'll be nice to fly something other than a Rifter!
|
MotherMoon
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
876
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 12:52:00 -
[50] - Quote
wow page 3 already! I'm scared to read the thread! will it full of hate or full of win! this is a big change! Why dust 514 is on Console and not PCBattle field 3 sales Xbox 360: 2.2 million PlayStation 3: 1.5 million PC: 500,000http://dl.eve-files.com/media/1206/scimi.jpg |
|
Kalzin Maya
7
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 12:52:00 -
[51] - Quote
regarding new mining frig document, only one p in top |
Captain Praxis
EVE University Ivy League
88
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 12:52:00 -
[52] - Quote
I like the way this is going.
The mining barge changes & new mining frigate in particular look awesome.
o7 CCP |
Victor Twenty
Odyssey Space Exploration
33
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 12:52:00 -
[53] - Quote
Great changes CCP, but why do you need to wait so long.... Maybe you should bump up your time table so we can see Cruiser and Battlecruiser changes before end of year!!!!
Keep up the good work.
Vic20 |
impli
Tr0pa de elite. Against ALL Authorities
13
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 12:53:00 -
[54] - Quote
With the re-balancing of the frigates .. will be there new models .. or have we use the s**** old bantam frigate ? :) I want new shiny models .. and please re-size the Rifter to 70m long axes again .. 139m is tooo large and doesn't fit in the Size of the rest of the frigates anymore .. |
tasman devil
Pangalactic Punks n' Playboys HUN Reloaded
21
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 12:54:00 -
[55] - Quote
CCP Phantom wrote:Our all beloved spaceships (they make wonderful explosions) are an important part of the New Eden and therefore our developers also apply special love to them. A while ago we announced a grand plan to balance the existing ships. Now that we had enough time to collected good feedback (thank you for all the constructive discussions) and to think about it, we can present you an update of our plans. Please welcome CCP Ytterbium and his new dev blog "Ship balancing summer upgrade" where he explains our updated plans and introduces the road ahead in regards to ship balancing. The blog can be read here. Your constructive feedback is most welcome. sounds like fun, Also take a look at this: http://lifeofzenith.wordpress.com/2012/04/25/ore-ships-rebalance/ I don't belive in reincarnation I've never believed in it in my previous lives either... |
Chris Wheeler
Massively Motivated
6
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 12:54:00 -
[56] - Quote
J3ssica Alba wrote:Mara Rinn wrote:whine whine whine
your glass is always half empty right?
There's a song with the line "but my cup is one sixteenth full." Even that sounds better than half empty:) |
Dino Boff
Lead Farmers Kill It With Fire
3
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 12:55:00 -
[57] - Quote
I love the coming changing, but something's missing ...
Can we have a dedicated ship to harvest Gas, maybe a t2 ORE frigate with bonus t2 harvester cpu requirement and to gas harvested amount, and with a gas bay? |
Fade Toblack
Per.ly The 20 Minuters
21
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 12:56:00 -
[58] - Quote
The mining frig/barge stuff all sounds just about spot on - good that you're fixing the Mining Barge skill requirements too.
Just one thing - how about the Exhumers skill? Is the plan to do the same as with Mining Barge, and unlock all the ships with the first level of the skill?
|
Moonaura
The Dead Rabbit Society
158
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 12:57:00 -
[59] - Quote
All welcome changes from what I can see from this outline.
As a Caldari focused corp, yes, the Cormorant sort of sucks for us compared to a thrasher. Right now we're better off in Merlins.
The Kestrel will need a lot more DPS, smaller signature or more speed to justify using it with Rockets. Right now it's best used as a missile kiter rather than a Merlin rocket equivalent (For which the Navy Hookbill is used instead as it works in that role).
Can I make the suggestion that instead of:
Magnate, Heron, Imicus, Probe: strengthening current roles as support frigates. Which mainly means scanning and possibly mini-profession operations, like hacking and codebreaking as well.
That they become drone frigates for each race? At least in addition to any side skills. Otherwise they still won't be popular. Be nice to see some of these hulls make it to regular use.
For the fast frigates:
Executioner, Condor, Atron, Slasher: role dedicated to fast interception with weapon systems that support it GÇô in order, energy turrets, missiles, hybrid turrets, projectile turrets.
They need to have at least some of the bonus that an interceptor gets (reduced MWD signature) to really be more useful. The Caldari Condor and it's T2 variants both need some speed increase, as they are by far the slowest of any race. That would be 'Fine' if they kept the Caldari ability to be agile and fast aligning... but they are no better than any other race, which would at least allow them to orbit faster, despite the reduced speed. Both the T1 and T2 Caldari fast frigates have significant issues with capacitor and fitting when using Hybrids, a Raptor for example is hard to make both fast, and cap stable with a warp disruptor and rails and comes in 2000 m/s slower than the Amarr Malediction and has identical align time with a speed fit. The Condor should act as a base for an eventual overhaul of their agility or speed.
But anyway, keep up the good work I look forward to the changes and using these ships more in Faction Warfare Caldari focused fleet PvP
Join us for 100% Caldari fleets in Faction Warfare and small fleet PvP
www.thedeadrabbitsociety.com/recruitment |
Ponder Yonder
Fleet of the Damned Ace of Spades.
31
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 12:59:00 -
[60] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Magnate, Heron, Imicus, Probe: strengthening current roles as support frigates. Which mainly means scanning and possibly mini-profession operations, like hacking and codebreaking as well.
Two suggestions:
1. Please add remote repping and salvaging bonusses to the above ships as well.
2. Since you are overhauling the barges, how about giving us a dedicated gas miner?
Anyway, great changes. |
|
Morgan North
The Wild Bunch Electus Matari
77
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 12:59:00 -
[61] - Quote
I like the fact that EVE, being 10 years old, is taking a nice revamp. With some luck, in a year or two, it'll actually be a completly different game, with only some ship hulls being the same, but ith mostly diferent abilities/capacities in play. That alone will be sufficient to shake up the entire universe.
I do hope a good job is done, and that variety is added by providing for player-specific needs in terms of preferred playstyles and combat approaches.
I especially like the new ORE frigate. :) |
Suleiman Shouaa
The Tuskers
129
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 13:00:00 -
[62] - Quote
Can't wait. Sounds excellent. |
Benny Ohu
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
171
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 13:03:00 -
[63] - Quote
This is an absolute outrage.
I just changed my desktop background to a picture of young ladies holding guns in their underpants,
and now you release a pic of this big exciting chunky yellow spaceship,
and the poor young ladies are sent back to C:/Users/Benny/My Pictures for a month while the spaceship sits on desktop.
I wish you'd consider the young ladies in their underpants before you did things like this. |
Ribikoka
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
205
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 13:03:00 -
[64] - Quote
Moonaura wrote:They need to have at least some of the bonus that an interceptor gets (reduced MWD signature) to really be more useful. The Caldari Condor and it's T2 variants both need some speed increase, as they are by far the slowest of any race. That would be 'Fine' if they kept the Caldari ability to be agile and fast aligning... but they are no better than any other race, which would at least allow them to orbit faster, despite the reduced speed. Both the T1 and T2 Caldari fast frigates have significant issues with capacitor and fitting when using Hybrids, a Raptor for example is hard to make both fast, and cap stable with a warp disruptor and rails and comes in 2000 m/s slower than the Amarr Malediction and has identical align time with a speed fit. The Condor should act as a base for an eventual overhaul of their agility or speed. But anyway, keep up the good work I look forward to the changes and using these ships more in Faction Warfare
T1 inty hull class shipes dont have enough capacitors, thats important too. |
Amdor Renevat
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
17
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 13:06:00 -
[65] - Quote
This blog is happy making. |
Avila Cracko
377
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 13:07:00 -
[66] - Quote
Will we get ORE cruiser??? truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. |
MotherMoon
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
876
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 13:08:00 -
[67] - Quote
Oh wow ok I need to condense all of my pure amazement at this dev blog into one post.
1st off great changes to the mining lines! I don't fly these ships much but I'm blown away by the forward thinking in their design now. Great idea, I hope we see more of that moving forward. 2nd.
Quote:Since DUST514 is approaching and we want to forge both games into the same universe, they will receive some advantage for planetary bombardment
That's amazing. Making one of the cheaper ships a main tool in DUST 514 lowers the barrier for newer players to take part. I'm really impressed, this is cool.
Ok down to some real feed back.
Quote:Burst still is bit blurry at the moment GÇô considered roles are mobile artillery platform, drone boat or a mix of both.
Maybe this is a good time to have the artist do the burst redesign? You could have the art tailors for the role you want it to fit. Making it a series of platforms to hold long range artillery sounds pretty awesome. Send this memo to the art team, work with this, you have a rare chance to make a brand new minmatar ship, and no one , i repeat NO ONE will miss the old burst model.
This one is important to me.
Quote:Magnate, Heron, Imicus, Probe: strengthening current roles as support frigates. Which mainly means scanning and possibly mini-profession operations, like hacking and codebreaking as well.
I made a huge post in F&I on this and I hope you take it into account. Give these 4 ships heavy defense. the 5% to armor resistances per level skill. Then give them 3 weapon hardpoints each, but no combat bonuses.
This would give them one tiny role in combat when they aren't out scanning. Staying alive. Being able to scan down enemies is handy, but being able to last until your fleet shows up, that's the ticket. Plus you even describe the ships like they are hard to kill with super advanced defense systems. Just listen to the show into on the Probe.
"The Probe is large compared to most Minmatar frigates and is considered a good scout and cargo-runner. Uncharacteristically for a Minmatar ship, its hard outer coating makes it difficult to destroy, while the limited weapon hardpoints force it to rely on fighter assistance if engaged in combat."
It's like it's describing the 25% armor resistances allready! Why dust 514 is on Console and not PCBattle field 3 sales Xbox 360: 2.2 million PlayStation 3: 1.5 million PC: 500,000http://dl.eve-files.com/media/1206/scimi.jpg |
DJ P0N-3
Table Flippendeavors
21
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 13:09:00 -
[68] - Quote
I had forgotten my most important question:
Will the ORE frigate have moving parts? |
RedClaws
Dragon's Rage Tribal Dragons
5
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 13:10:00 -
[69] - Quote
CCP,
Please realize that players with higher SP currently don't like flying destroyers and to a lesser degree frigates because of the clonecosts , for me it costs about 50-60 mil to replace my medical clone. The odds of getting podkilled in a light interdictor is quite high.
Having high skillpoints doesn't mean that the player also has a lot of isk or some way to make isk more efficiently than a lower skilled character. Sure, I don't deny that it helps but having 10 mil SP or 100mil SP doesn't really matter for the income of level 4 agent missions.
Thanks, Red
|
Felix Macey
Lead Farmers Kill It With Fire
1
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 13:10:00 -
[70] - Quote
Benny Ohu wrote:This is an absolute outrage.
I just changed my desktop background to a picture of young ladies holding guns in their underpants,
and now you release a pic of this big exciting chunky yellow spaceship,
and the poor young ladies are sent back to C:/Users/Benny/My Pictures for a month while the spaceship sits on desktop.
I wish you'd consider the young ladies in their underpants before you did things like this.
+1 Internets
|
|
Vdr
Grim Determination Nulli Secunda
1
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 13:11:00 -
[71] - Quote
will the ore cargo on the hulk be = to the current unmodified cargo or max cargo? |
Chris Wheeler
Massively Motivated
6
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 13:12:00 -
[72] - Quote
Benny Ohu wrote:This is an absolute outrage.
I just changed my desktop background to a picture of young ladies holding guns in their underpants,
and now you release a pic of this big exciting chunky yellow spaceship,
and the poor young ladies are sent back to C:/Users/Benny/My Pictures for a month while the spaceship sits on desktop.
I wish you'd consider the young ladies in their underpants before you did things like this.
please email that to me. |
Wenron
Rifterlings Damu'Khonde
6
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 13:13:00 -
[73] - Quote
One technical note:
Damping - reducing an effect, or, in the world of controls, minimizing overshoot.
Dampening - getting something wet.
There, I've finally said it. This has been annoying me for a looooooong time.
*IRL mechanical engineer* |
Ribikoka
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
205
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 13:14:00 -
[74] - Quote
RedClaws wrote:CCP,
Please realize that players with higher SP currently don't like flying destroyers and to a lesser degree frigates because of the clonecosts , for me it costs about 50-60 mil to replace my medical clone. The odds of getting podkilled in a light interdictor is quite high.
Having high skillpoints doesn't mean that the player also has a lot of isk or some way to make isk more efficiently than a lower skilled character. Sure, I don't deny that it helps but having 10 mil SP or 100mil SP doesn't really matter for the income of level 4 agent missions.
Thanks, Red
This is good point. I like flying with small ships too, but prices of my clone is too costly to flight with them in 0.0. Repair in 0.0 is costfree, would be nice there the cost free clones or reduced costs such as at FW stations. |
Kor'o Yr'Y'eldi
EVE University Ivy League
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 13:16:00 -
[75] - Quote
Wenron wrote:One technical note:
Damping - reducing an effect, or, in the world of controls, minimizing overshoot.
Dampening - getting something wet.
There, I've finally said it. This has been annoying me for a looooooong time.
*IRL mechanical engineer*
Thank god someone else noticed that. |
Destination SkillQueue
Are We There Yet
2421
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 13:18:00 -
[76] - Quote
That is one sexy frigate. |
Chris Wheeler
Massively Motivated
6
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 13:20:00 -
[77] - Quote
Wenron wrote:One technical note:
Damping - reducing an effect, or, in the world of controls, minimizing overshoot.
Dampening - getting something wet.
There, I've finally said it. This has been annoying me for a looooooong time.
*IRL mechanical engineer*
If I was a girl, some of these things could legitimately be called dampeners, but I'm not, so please fix these:) |
Grog Drinker
The Tuskers
48
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 13:20:00 -
[78] - Quote
Great stuff. Found myself actually thinking about mining .
Maybe make a t2 version of the mining frig with a cov ops cloak... |
Axl Borlara
T.R.I.A.D Defiant Legacy
36
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 13:21:00 -
[79] - Quote
Sounds promising so far.
But, why does it take so long? T1 frigates and mining ships done this *winter*. That still leaves:
actually fixing them afterwards Faction frigates Cruisers (t1, t2, faction, t3) Battlecruisers Battleships and so on
Are we really looking at several years to get that reasonably done? |
Abigail Sagan
Active Fusion Cold Fusion.
11
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 13:22:00 -
[80] - Quote
The changes in both combat and mining areas sound promising. The unclear bonus on the Burst didn't sound too great, but I think you can figure out some near way to make it both good and not too good. But all in all; I love the little ships, and I hope the tune to them (and later the big ships) works out great. One minor thing the frigates lack is a logistics frigate - ie: a frigate with some kind of remote repair/shield transfer/energy transfer bonus. Maybe you can find room for such from your plans, now or later.
In addition to your "Barge in on me" plans, maybe you could consider adding specializations to each ORE mining barge/exhumer. For example like below:
- Procuror: low-sec ores (low-sec miners could use the toughest mining barge)
- Retriever: high-sec ores (high-sec miners want the big ore hold)
- Covetor: null-sec ores (null-sec miners can arrange the best protection for their miners)
- Skiff: gas mining (there is no gas mining ship yet)
- Mackinaw: ice mining (Mack would remain the ice miner of choise)
- Hulk: Planet Ring mining? (Rumor has it Planet Ring mining is the 'incursions of mining' and thus a fleet operation)
|
|
Nagapito
The Dirty Rotten Scoundrels In Tea We Trust
12
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 13:23:00 -
[81] - Quote
I'm afraid the changes to the T1 electronic frigs are going to make the T2 EAF's even more irrelevant.....
|
Ravcharas
GREY COUNCIL Nulli Secunda
167
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 13:23:00 -
[82] - Quote
Daneel Trevize wrote:Edit: never mind all the below, I missed a key point about this Summer update, the release of these minor changes will be for Winter?!
You call this balance? This is the lowest hanging fruit, the easiest set of changes to please the most existing and new players? The most key elements to vastly improving this game? I'm also frustrated with the slow pace of this rebalance thing. I think they should have an entire team on ships and modules. But surely you cannot disagree with starting with the lowest hanging fruit?
Getting new players into ships that can make a difference is good for everyone. |
Aemonchichi
Limited Access Guardian Society
19
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 13:25:00 -
[83] - Quote
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
|
darmwand
Repo.
49
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 13:25:00 -
[84] - Quote
I've been having tons of fun with the new Incursus and Merlin and this sounds very promising. Can't wait! darmwand Repossession Agent http://www.repo-corp.net/ Recruitment is OPEN |
Galphii
Sileo In Pacis THE SPACE P0LICE
48
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 13:25:00 -
[85] - Quote
Been waiting for another blog on this, and it did not disappoint - it all sounds fantastic, and the only downside is having to wait another 5 months for it |
Sarah xCalibre
FLA5HY RED
22
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 13:26:00 -
[86] - Quote
RedClaws wrote:CCP,
Please realize that players with higher SP currently don't like flying destroyers and to a lesser degree frigates because of the clonecosts , for me it costs about 50-60 mil to replace my medical clone. The odds of getting podkilled in a light interdictor is quite high.
Having high skillpoints doesn't mean that the player also has a lot of isk or some way to make isk more efficiently than a lower skilled character. Sure, I don't deny that it helps but having 10 mil SP or 100mil SP doesn't really matter for the income of level 4 agent missions.
Thanks, Red
What relevance does this even have to do with their rebalance of friggies and adding some more Destroyers? Just because we got pilots with over 100m SP we cant add anything smaller then battleships? Maybe you should post an idea about lowering clone cost.
On a personal note I like theese changes and additions, even as a pirate I really liked the mining barge changes and that friggie does look awesome, almost so awesome I must have one.
Ive deleted this sig 500 times now! - Sarah xCalibre |
J3ssica Alba
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
430
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 13:27:00 -
[87] - Quote
Benny Ohu wrote:This is an absolute outrage.
I just changed my desktop background to a picture of young ladies holding guns in their underpants,
and now you release a pic of this big exciting chunky yellow spaceship,
and the poor young ladies are sent back to C:/Users/Benny/My Pictures for a month while the spaceship sits on desktop.
I wish you'd consider the young ladies in their underpants before you did things like this.
use photoshop or paint or something to resise the young ladies, their underwear and their guns into a decal and put it on the spaceship. There you will have fixed both your needs. This is my signature. There are many others like it, but this one is mine.-á Without me, my signature is useless. Without my signature, I am useless |
darmwand
Repo.
49
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 13:29:00 -
[88] - Quote
Sarah xCalibre wrote: On a personal note I like theese changes and additions, even as a pirate I really liked the mining barge changes and that friggie does look awesome, almost so awesome I must have one.
Heh, yep, when I read the article that was the first time in, I suppose, forever that I was a little sad I wasn't a miner. darmwand Repossession Agent http://www.repo-corp.net/ Recruitment is OPEN |
Grog Drinker
The Tuskers
49
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 13:32:00 -
[89] - Quote
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 came here expecting ganker tears and instead find more bears complaining about hulks getting ganked .
Dude... just fly the new skiff.
The hulk is for a secure system (null) with support. |
JamesCLK
Lone Star Exploration Lone Star Partners
181
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 13:32:00 -
[90] - Quote
Holy veldspar, a Skiff with Battleship-like EHP |
|
Damion Rayne
Lorentz Technology Group
89
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 13:33:00 -
[91] - Quote
Daneel Trevize wrote:Edit: never mind all the below, I missed a key point about this Summer update, the release of these minor changes will be for Winter?!
- When are ASBs getting looked at? Dual XL all the things, armour aren't even 1/3 as capable for a meta0 module. Your latest new things are the least balanced yet.
- When Are Tier3s being checked? You think you got them right first time, with that speed & agility (best meta-tank)?
- When will ECM be something that you aren't embarrassed to put on an AT prize ship?
- How about a Cynabals and Macharials nerf just like the Dramiel got? At least fitting tweaks, force a choice.
- The other end of the spectrum, the Exequror needs the same slot swap as the T2 version got 6months ago now.
- Tengus, Drakes (you had a detailed change in the works last year), Canes. You know the usage numbers.
- Info links?
- Armour rigs & plates speed penalty (again you almost had a change for these)
- Cloaky Legion?
- We know the list of existing high priority things goes on and on...
You call this balance? This is the lowest hanging fruit, the easiest set of changes to please the most existing and new players? The most key elements to vastly improving this game?
I like how you think you know this game inside and out, you know what the dev's are doing, and how you think your little list is so damn perfect, right, and needs done NOW. Get over yourself, you're not anywhere near as important as you think you are. Teamwork.. Maturity.. Tactics.. www.tacticalgamer.com |
Sovai Elaaren
KABS Deep Recon Unit
25
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 13:34:00 -
[92] - Quote
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
Looks like we're still going to get players who must have the highest yield regardless of how safe they are or how their fleets are composed. That's good news for Goonswarm. |
Sentient Blade
Walk It Off Imperial Ascension
419
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 13:34:00 -
[93] - Quote
"Protection" cannot protect you from an alpha gank. |
Atomic Option
Taggart Transdimensional Virtue of Selfishness
16
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 13:35:00 -
[94] - Quote
Awesome! Love all of it! Can't Wait! |
darmwand
Repo.
49
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 13:35:00 -
[95] - Quote
Sentient Blade wrote:"Protection" cannot protect you from an alpha gank.
Paying attention can. darmwand Repossession Agent http://www.repo-corp.net/ Recruitment is OPEN |
Tavin Aikisen
Revenent Defence Corperation Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
14
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 13:37:00 -
[96] - Quote
These are all fantastic changes. Really looking forward to them! Remember this. Trust your eyes, you will kill each other. Trust your veins, you can all go home. -Cold Wind |
Aemonchichi
Limited Access Guardian Society
19
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 13:39:00 -
[97] - Quote
well then ccp should clarify this
the hulk is designed to never come in a combat situation because its designed not to survie it - like that
not some vague "Protection" gibberish
how are we supposed to give feedback if ccp doesnt clarify what they are thinking when they talk like this |
Liam Mirren
551
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 13:41:00 -
[98] - Quote
Proof CCP is full of carebears who want to empower non-effort lazy gameplay, mining barges with jetcan like cargo room?
Hello Kitty online, here we go. Excellence is not a skill, it's an attitude.
My guides: http://mirren.freeforums.org |
Chris Wheeler
Massively Motivated
6
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 13:41:00 -
[99] - Quote
J3ssica Alba wrote:Benny Ohu wrote:This is an absolute outrage.
I just changed my desktop background to a picture of young ladies holding guns in their underpants,
and now you release a pic of this big exciting chunky yellow spaceship,
and the poor young ladies are sent back to C:/Users/Benny/My Pictures for a month while the spaceship sits on desktop.
I wish you'd consider the young ladies in their underpants before you did things like this. use photoshop or paint or something to resise the young ladies, their underwear and their guns into a decal and put it on the spaceship. There you will have fixed both your needs.
Or photoshop the frigs in place of the guns. Then everyone can ask "what are they mining?" |
ChromeStriker
The Riot Formation Get Off My Lawn
126
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 13:42:00 -
[100] - Quote
\o/ - Nulla Curas |
|
Severian Carnifex
189
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 13:43:00 -
[101] - Quote
If I am not wrong, there is one mining Cruiser for each race. If you are making mining Frigates non-mining, will you do the same with mining Cruisers????? And, will we get mining ORE Cruiser too????? |
Grog Drinker
The Tuskers
49
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 13:43:00 -
[102] - Quote
Aemonchichi wrote:well then ccp should clarify this
the hulk is designed to never come in a combat situation because its designed not to survie it - like that
not some vague "Protection" gibberish
how are we supposed to give feedback if ccp doesnt clarify what they are thinking when they talk like this
No one hunts hulks in null with alpha squads. A logi or ECM boat will be able to provide plenty of protection to get a small mining fleet out. |
Thebriwan
LUX Uls Xystus
96
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 13:44:00 -
[103] - Quote
THAT I call a good dev blog!
Well done in the mining department.
The first time I wish it to be xmas already ^^ |
Keras Authion
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
96
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 13:45:00 -
[104] - Quote
This looks promising. Please keep us updated.
For the frigates the concepts look fine. Please give the bantam a new model as the current one is rather hauler-y. You might also want to add a logistic frigate later on to get those small remote reppers some use.
More destroyers are certainly welcome. For the cormorant I'd say the ship is fine but the chances to snipe are too difficult to arrange reliably. I'd also consider making a dedicated destroyer with a bonus to planetary bombardment rather than slapping it on existing ones. I'd see that the hull is too small to house enough systems for that many purposes and it's a chance to make another awesome hull line.
Miners were in destperate need of love. I don't think anyone would disagree with that. With the proposed changes there is now a real choice to be made between ships, which is a welcome change to the current covetor/hulk situation. And the new frigate looks just awesome. The art people really know their stuff.
Oh and the mining frigate picture has a typo in it. Topp on the top view. The previous post was rated "C" for capsuleer. |
Kari Trace
Advanced Tactics and Manufacturing Fidelas Constans
18
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 13:45:00 -
[105] - Quote
Good dev blog. This is the kind of stuff I Iike hearing about!
Side note: Frigate image: "TOPP" should be "TOP" :) AVTM Comms / PvP Officer Kari Trace |
Drew Solaert
Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation
186
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 13:45:00 -
[106] - Quote
CCP. I love you. That is all. I lied :o
|
Lelob
ElitistOps Pandemic Legion
35
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 13:46:00 -
[107] - Quote
Inquisitor, Breacher, Kestrel, Tristan: missile based ships
Please do not do this. The tristan does not function as a missile boat, nor should it be forced into this role. It functions as a BLASTER BOAT and it does so damn well, with a lot of dps and a respectable tank. Nerfing it by making it use missiles would just be a a depressing. It does not make sense from an RP perspective, and it certainly does not make sense from any other perspective, except for CCP to say "hurr look all the races are the same now." Please, if you must change the tristan, give it more hybrid slots like you did with the merlin. Do not make it garbage with rockets. |
None ofthe Above
205
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 13:46:00 -
[108] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium, I've decided you need to be turned into a verb. Its the only way to describe the effect your missives have on me.
Ytterb GÇé GÇé[ee-terb] verb (used with object) 1. to interrupt the quiet, rest, peace, or order of; unsettle. Resulting in mixed emotions: Rage, fear, grudging respect, and perhaps a little awe. 2. to interfere with or interrupt the status quo; challenge preconceived notions; requiring thought and discussion to interpret
You ytterb me, sir.
Had to pick up my jaw from the floor a couple of times.
On specific points:
Frigates, Heavy Payload Delivery - Interesting. I think the specifics will have to be looked at. Several of the frigates might as well be new ships as they'll be changed so much (bantam comes to mind). Hard to say yet whether there will be any holes or unbalances left, but I think it will be very interesting to find out. Most of the Frigs will need bonus and slot increases to catch up to the Rifter class Tier for their role. I find myself looking forward to it.
Will Frigs also have the Level 1 to fly and level 4 to proceed to next hull size? Makes sense from a Tiercide standpoint.
FYI - I think maybe Caldari should nudge slightly more in the drone direction. In my experience they use drones a lot and fits very well into their racial combat doctrine. Snipers without drone support are not terribly viable. Not to edge out Gallente, but just a bit more than they have now. 5m3 drone bays on the frigs would be extremely handy, larger but sub-gallente (or match in cases where they already do) as you go higher.
Barge in on me - Uh wow. I don't disagree that the barges really needed a look at but am surprised you rethought the whole concept. It took a bit to wrap my head around your new plan, but I think it will work well. Retriever/Mackinaw may need some alterations to the model to not be incomprehensible with larger holds than the Covetor/Hulk. Finally, a reason to have a Procurer. The specializations for T2 for ice and gas mining will still apply? And kudos to the art Dept and yourself on the Mining Frig. Do want. Skill requirements change is huge. Covetor down from 5 to 1? Wow. I recently decided to give mining a try and really hated that train. I think that's a good change, but it'll take a bit to get used to.
Destroyer of Worlds - Gawd yes! Orbital bombardment is a bit of a surprise, but sure. I would think the larger class vessels would be more used for this, but it would make sense if the Destroyer was an entry level into orbital bombardment. Destroyer Missile Platform for Caldari!?!?!?! Do want! So needed. Drone for Gallente makes tons of sense. Coercer and Cormorant suffer for having only one mid or low slot, turns out to be pretty crippling, that would help if you fix.
Taking a look at the Aegis class of destroyer (defense) would be pretty interesting too. Granted that is probably a bit more complex than everything else you have here.
The Plan - Delaying the racial Destroyer and Battlecruiser shift till you actually get to those hulls makes sense. I am still not sure I am onboard with this idea, but am starting to think that in the scheme of things it may not suck too badly.
Tl;DR: I am ytterbed.
|
Severian Carnifex
189
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 13:46:00 -
[109] - Quote
And yea... i am hoping that Hulk will get EHP boost... because even in fleet you cant help it survive if you leave it like its now. Like I said before, ORE ships are made of aluminum foil, and it just cant survive in space. Even if you say its not for solo mining, you must make it so it can survive in space because now even the biggest fleet cant save if from alpha and it will pop in one volley. |
Krell Kroenen
Miners In Possession
23
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 13:47:00 -
[110] - Quote
All looks good to me, looking forward to seeing my Breacher seeing some love. |
|
JTK Fotheringham
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
64
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 13:48:00 -
[111] - Quote
This looks like a jug of winsauce, ready to poured liberally on the neglected dish that is EVE mining.
I might even be tempted back to hear the droning noise again, we shall see. |
Alx Warlord
SUPERNOVA SOCIETY Tribal Conclave
130
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 13:49:00 -
[112] - Quote
YAy!!! Awesome!!! that is more than expected!!!!
CCP FTW! |
Maul555
Nuts and Vindictive Remix Technologies
265
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 13:49:00 -
[113] - 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! |
Swearte Widfarend
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
77
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 13:49:00 -
[114] - Quote
I'm glad to see the discussion start on the changes to the rest of the frigates, as well as the mining ships.
A couple of things:
Ship Skills I know that ship skills provide bonuses based on the level of the skill, but I really think you should re-evaluate "all ships unlocked at level 1." Granted, with skills at such a low multiplier, the difference between 1 and 3 is only a couple hours, but I think you should consider unlocking hulls with skill level, with a cap that all hulls are unlocked by LV 4 for a Tech 1 ship. Logically, the hulls are different, and behave differently, so having a higher skill would also imply that the hull has a higher benefit in some way (which may even be true after the changes).
I really think skills are a whole can of worms - and maintaining just a little complexity here isn't a bad thing.
Frigates Maybe I'm the only person who cares, but please ensure we still have a good selection of (inexpensive) Tech 1 frigates that can fit a cynosural field generator and 350 units of LO. in the cargo hold. Each race should have a semi-disposable frigate that can be a cheap cyno.
Mining Barges I think there should be a tradeoff in tank and ore. Right now, all the barges are fairly thin, and easy to gank, but I like the idea that you can have a viable tank and still have a useful barge is interesting. Just don't go too far. The mining Rokh brought up earlier is an example of what's wrong with mining ships - if you have a BS-tanked ship it needs to compete (capacity and cycle time) with that. I also agree that gas mining needs to be addressed - although that brings all sorts of trickle-down issues with boosters and Tech3. Gas (like ice) is a fairly high-volume product, so perhaps an option like a T2 variant of the Retriever for gas mining (so you could invent Mackinaw or GasBoat) - that has bonuses for gas mining instead of ice? Democracy is only as good as the despot managing the voting booth. |
Rrama Ratamnim
Phoenix Evolved Part Duo
57
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 13:51:00 -
[115] - Quote
Holy crap thats some wicked changes for the ships in total especially the mining changes
but im confused....
are these summer inferno point things that are coming or are they winter expansion things?!?!?
winters mentioned but title says summer |
None ofthe Above
205
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 13:53:00 -
[116] - Quote
Rrama Ratamnim wrote:Holy crap thats some wicked changes for the ships in total especially the mining changes
but im confused....
are these summer inferno point things that are coming or are they winter expansion things?!?!?
winters mentioned but title says summer
Its summer devblog on the work on the ship balancing for the winter update. That's how I read it, anyway.
|
Alara IonStorm
2414
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 13:53:00 -
[117] - Quote
The only thing I don't like about this blog is the time frame for Cruiser Balance.
If it really will take so long some Powergrid / CPU Bandaids to say the Omen and others would be nice. Baby Stat adjustments to make certain ones flyable until everything is sorted.
I love the new Mining Frigate BTW. Absolutely gorgeous. This blog was the perfect thing to wake up to this morning. |
Rrama Ratamnim
Phoenix Evolved Part Duo
57
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 13:53:00 -
[118] - Quote
Louis deGuerre wrote:My only concern is T1 destroyers might make T1 frigates obsolete due to sheer firepower.
the issue is destroyers are frigate killers but die to anything else easily due to there sig and crap tanks... frigates die to destroyers but can pretty much sig tank damn near everything else
Personally im interested to see if next year sees more t1 destroyer variants and t2 frigate variants |
Andrea Griffin
292
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 13:54:00 -
[119] - Quote
Thank you for laying out a broad vision for us. It lets us know in general what to expect for the frigate line, something that the previous release didn't quite do. I'm excited, however; lots of interesting changes.
I'm still not sold on the concept of 'long range frigate' however. But that's okay I guess - everything else seems great. CCP Sreegs is my favorite developer. |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol Project Wildfire
315
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 13:55:00 -
[120] - Quote
I'm disappointing that CCP didn't see fit to create a new gas mining ship.
It also sucks that the Hulk isn't getting an EHP boost... But who cares?! I stopped mining once i realize it was the dullest mechanic i've ever experienced in a game.
|
|
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University Ivy League
1083
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 13:56:00 -
[121] - Quote
On the mining barge/exhumer cargo bay issue. Please keep in mind the size of T1/T2 mining crystals and the need to carry both primary and spares for each ore type that you expect to find out in the belts.
For a Hulk, this typically means 3 "used" crystals and 3-4 "new" crystals for each type (usually 3-4 different ore types in a belt). With T1 crystals, this means a minimum of 6 x 3 x 30m3 (540 m3 total), with the upper end using T2 crystals this is 7 x 4 x 50 m3 (1400 m3).
And if you are an organized person, you usually keep the T2 crystals in Medium Standard Containers, one per ore type, which are 325m3 each and hold 7 T2 crystals. So for most cases, you'll be hauling (4) of those containers out to the belts so that you have the right selection of crystals as well as spares. That's 1300 m3 of cargo space needed for crystal storage.
Alternately - you could consider reducing the size of crystals to 10 m3 for T1 and 15 m3 for T2. Which would cut the above numbers by about 1/3. |
Rrama Ratamnim
Phoenix Evolved Part Duo
57
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 13:57:00 -
[122] - Quote
Severian Carnifex wrote:And yea... i am hoping that Hulk will get EHP boost... because even in fleet you cant help it survive if you leave it like its now. Like I said before, ORE ships are made of aluminum foil, and it just cant survive in space. Even if you say its not for solo mining, you must make it so it can survive in space because now even the biggest fleet cant save if from alpha and it will pop in one volley.
No thats the point you get to be king of ore sucking probably more than it is even now as they said, but its not going to be a tank... meanwhile you go down to retriever level which will also get a buff and u have a battleship tank safe for highsec hulkageddon mining almost |
Rrama Ratamnim
Phoenix Evolved Part Duo
57
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 13:58:00 -
[123] - Quote
ya if your hitting the new mining ships changes and a new frigate miner, why not a new miner for gas????? slightly ruggedized for wormholes perhaps with a twist liek that |
Amy Elteam
No Bull Ships
10
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 13:59:00 -
[124] - Quote
So much to comment on, so little time.
Just make sure the Bantam and Ibis can mount missile launchers
1) We were promised missile launching bantams back in 2001, I'm still waiting 2) Caldari noobs need to use missiles to stop wasting time on railguns. |
Aarin Wrath
East Khanid Laboratories Khanid Trade Syndicate
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 13:59:00 -
[125] - Quote
Great blog. CCP is on a roll this year it seems Love the new Ore Frigate. Any plans for its name?
|
Rrama Ratamnim
Phoenix Evolved Part Duo
57
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 13:59:00 -
[126] - Quote
Nagapito wrote:I'm afraid the changes to the T1 electronic frigs are going to make the T2 EAF's even more irrelevant.....
i know i'd hope there gonna revise the t2 variants at the same time but i doubt they will, they'll probably do t1 make t2 irrelevant and then fix t2 |
None ofthe Above
206
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 14:00:00 -
[127] - Quote
Severian Carnifex wrote:If I am not wrong, there is one mining Cruiser for each race. If you are making mining Frigates non-mining, will you do the same with mining Cruisers????? And, will we get mining ORE Cruiser too?????
What size do you think Barges and Exhumers correspond to?
|
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy Tactical Narcotics Team
157
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 14:00:00 -
[128] - Quote
Tiericide is AWESOME... You have done an awesome job giving all the ships proper roles however I hope you manage to work it out faster than expected... This is the thing that will give Eve new life for everybody!!
About frigates they currently have a few problems easily solved but IMO necesary to look into:
- Medium autocannons especially track and hit frigates very well from 0-24km with the tracking enhancers giving 30% fall-off
- Battlecruisers being the most used platform for pvp having way too much EHP for frigates while being able to apply at least 5 drones and with medium weapons not suffering agaisnt frigates like battleships do.
- Gate guns cheat and hit a frigate for the same damage as a battleship
A few notes to the roles listed : Plz be very carefull with the missile frigates: Rockets were recently buffed, however light missiles are horrible not delivering dps OR alpha against anything but rookie ships. The same goes for the rapid missile launchers (old assault missile launchers) who on a crusier/battlecruiser used to deal the same dps as the old rockets... In my opinion you will make 2 of the frigates useless for pvp if you force them to rely on current light missiles as their main weapon platform :-(
For the support frigates, how will you give them a role for combat as well as for probing, scanning, anaylyzing and codebreaking? I would suggest enough hi-slots to still deal decent dps, but not enough lowslots damage mods and no weapon bonuses. Perhaps give them a full rack of unbonused weapons, a tank bonus, scan bonus and a scan resolution able to tackle stuff without stepping on the toes of the fast tacklers with dps?
The rookie ships should all be able to fit 2 guns (learn to group weapons) and a civilian rocket launcher while giving them enough medslots to fit civilian afterburner AND civilian shield booster. With the stats and fitting available for the rookie ships they are hardly a threat anyway? Just do what you can to avoid rookie ship scouts...
The new aproach on mining is perfect. No matter how little I like to mine the mining industry should be the backbone of Eve and giving them more tank wont save most of the miners anyway if people want them dead. Battleship tank seems too much, but battlecruiser tank is reasonable - this gives organised players an option to defend miners from rats and players if properly prepared. The next step is to make belt rats fewer and stronger, give lowsec a huge boost in minerals available and give lowsec more belts to hide in and more hi-sec/lo-sec gates to make camping more difficult. Making it easier to hidem easier to protect and giving miners better rewards in lowsec will be good for Eve if you can balance it against nasty blobs of bloodthirsty pirates...
PS: I love the YELLOW mining frigate giving it an industrial look - Plz make all barges industrial yellow NOW hehe :-)
Pinky |
Maul555
Nuts and Vindictive Remix Technologies
268
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 14:00:00 -
[129] - 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 |
T'san Manaan
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
38
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 14:01:00 -
[130] - Quote
Peta Michalek wrote:I Love Boobies wrote:I wonder how many people are gonna complain about barges with battleship sized EHP, especially with large ore holds? I am sure there is going to be a tear or two over them. It's really not much different from what we have now - if you maximize yield on a Hulk you have no defense, if you tank properly you lose yield.
Not at all, they said they would have specialized ore holds. If i recall correctly the cargo hold expanders do not effect specialized holds only your normal cargo hold. |
|
Rees Noturana
Red Rock Mining Company
94
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 14:02:00 -
[131] - Quote
Abigail Sagan wrote:
- Procuror: low-sec ores (low-sec miners could use the toughest mining barge)
Low sec miners don't need the toughest mining barge. They need the most agile to let them react to threats. No barge tank will survive once tackled. Let the attentive pilot have a chance to get away and leave the AFK miners behind to be tackled.
-á |
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University Ivy League
1083
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 14:04:00 -
[132] - Quote
T'san Manaan wrote:Peta Michalek wrote:I Love Boobies wrote:I wonder how many people are gonna complain about barges with battleship sized EHP, especially with large ore holds? I am sure there is going to be a tear or two over them. It's really not much different from what we have now - if you maximize yield on a Hulk you have no defense, if you tank properly you lose yield. Not at all, they said they would have specialized ore holds. If i recall correctly the cargo hold expanders do not effect specialized holds only your normal cargo hold.
Which is something I would hope they are able to address. Cargo expansion should affect the specialized holds. That puts more of the decision into the player's hands of "do I want more cargo? more tank? more utility? more yield? etc".
|
Severian Carnifex
189
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 14:04:00 -
[133] - Quote
None ofthe Above wrote:Severian Carnifex wrote:If I am not wrong, there is one mining Cruiser for each race. If you are making mining Frigates non-mining, will you do the same with mining Cruisers????? And, will we get mining ORE Cruiser too????? What size do you think Barges and Exhumers correspond to?
If you now go mining frigate -> mining cruiser -> mining barge/exumer Then logic says they are bigger then cruiser - so BC size. |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2497
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 14:04:00 -
[134] - Quote
This is great stuff! Hulkageddon just got a LOT more challenging, and as it should be.
My vote is make the burst a sniper - something about the name just makes sense! Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
masternerdguy
Inner Shadow NightSong Directorate
721
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 14:07:00 -
[135] - Quote
Buffing mining ships discourages teamwork. Things are only impossible until they are not. |
Marcel Devereux
Aideron Robotics
120
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 14:08:00 -
[136] - Quote
Your blog isn't very clear on the time line for release. Are you saying that all the changes mentioned in the blog will be out before the Winter expansion? There is a lot of changes in the dev blog. I'm more interested in when the frigate changes are going to be released. I'm assuming that you won't be lumping everything together. Can we get a estimate of when they will be released? |
Alara IonStorm
2414
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 14:10:00 -
[137] - Quote
masternerdguy wrote:Buffing mining ships discourages teamwork. Solo Catalyst Pilots disagree with this statement.
|
Aruken Marr
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
146
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 14:11:00 -
[138] - Quote
This is sounding like it's gonna be good.
Not sure why people think gankers will be pissed seeing as it harldy changes anything. Just bring more catalysts. Assuming that miners will learn to tank with or without the higher base ehp... |
Severian Carnifex
189
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 14:12:00 -
[139] - Quote
Rrama Ratamnim wrote:Severian Carnifex wrote:And yea... i am hoping that Hulk will get EHP boost... because even in fleet you cant help it survive if you leave it like its now. Like I said before, ORE ships are made of aluminum foil, and it just cant survive in space. Even if you say its not for solo mining, you must make it so it can survive in space because now even the biggest fleet cant save if from alpha and it will pop in one volley. No thats the point you get to be king of ore sucking probably more than it is even now as they said, but its not going to be a tank... meanwhile you go down to retriever level which will also get a buff and u have a battleship tank safe for highsec hulkageddon mining almost
But you have no way of protecting your hulk fleet if they stay like they are now... use 1000 ship fleet and still you cant protect your hulk when its alpha killed few seconds after ganker warp in. And "fleet ship" should have benefit from the fleet and it don't have the way it is now. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3412
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 14:12:00 -
[140] - Quote
Interesting changes, though I'd like a little more clarity on when these are coming: it's hard to tell if these are inferno 1.x things or Winter 1. |
|
Aemonchichi
Limited Access Guardian Society
19
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 14:12:00 -
[141] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:This is great stuff! Hulkageddon just got a LOT more challenging, and as it should be.
My vote is make the burst a sniper - something about the name just makes sense!
if this should be an answer to hulkaggeddon then ccp fail in their own game lulz ^^
btw hans jagerblitzen u realize the name ? HULKaggeddon ? not BS-tanked-low-miningyield-skiffgeddon |
Rrama Ratamnim
Phoenix Evolved Part Duo
57
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 14:13:00 -
[142] - Quote
CCP tackle frigs please check there capacitor a mwd and disruptor should cap them out in 40 seconds after you guys fix them especially the ones with cap sensitive weapon systems.
a RR frigate would be nice as well
and WHY CCP WHY WHY WHY WINTER?!?!!!??!?!?!?! This just seems silly release frigates as part of inferno finish frigates as inferno so cruisers can be started in winter expansion, this just seems NUTS to delay |
Droxlyn
TOHA Heavy Industries TOHA Conglomerate
82
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 14:14:00 -
[143] - Quote
Please consider giving all of the Barges and Exhumers enough tank that if properly defended by other ships, the ship will survive or escape. The Retriever, Mackinaw, Covetor, and Hulk have 3/4s the EHP of the new Procurer or Skiff.
I know Eve is all about the pick one: speed, gank, or tank; but mining yield is not gank. Gank is DPS and mining lasers deal 0 dps.
I see the frigate as a Speed ship, give it good mobility.
With your groupings do the following: Procurer/Skiff: primarily made for self-defense: Extra tank. Retriever/Mackinaw: made for self-reliance. Extra speed, give these guys a GOOD time to warp, around 6s or less, maybe a built-in warp stab. Covetor/hulk. Extra GANK! Give these ships the ability to SHOOT. Let them use weapon systems. (without removing strip miners.)
Good luck! |
Rrama Ratamnim
Phoenix Evolved Part Duo
57
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 14:14:00 -
[144] - Quote
Aemonchichi wrote:Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:This is great stuff! Hulkageddon just got a LOT more challenging, and as it should be.
My vote is make the burst a sniper - something about the name just makes sense! if this should be an answer to hulkaggeddon then ccp fail in their own game lulz ^^
lol, its not an answer to hulkageddon but will make it interesting as u just know some idiots will still want that little bit extra mining / minute... and will still fly hulks in hulkageddon lol |
Fabulousli Obvious
State War Academy Caldari State
345
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 14:14:00 -
[145] - Quote
From what I read, the Procurer and Skiff now get 'battleship type EHP', and the Hulk stays the same.
I see no change there at all for the Hulk. Hulkageddon stays the same. No difference.
You think my 3 year Main is excited about getting into the new mining FRIGATE ?
We were asking for an alternative to the Hulk, but I do not think that was what we miners had in mind, tbh. I think that God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability. In all matters of opinion, our adversaries are insane. ~~ Oscar Wilde, writer, d. November 30, 1900 |
Jame Jarl Retief
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
172
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 14:18:00 -
[146] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:How does a drone frigate work as a long range sniping platform? A frigate that can launch a sentry drone? Gets a bonus to drone travel speed, so you can foolishly send your drones flying 40km to the enemy who picks them off with 1400mm artillery?
That was my question as well.
Sentry drone on a frigate would be a bit dumb - sentry needs Drone Interfacing IV, which is a rather longish skill to train for a frigate, on top of Drone Sharpshooing IV. That's a week of training if I remember right. And a sentry is pretty useless against frigates anyway, except when they're on approach. When they get close, it's over, even a Garde II won't track them.
And I don't see how any other drone can be considered a "sniping" weapon, not unless CCP plans to drastically boost the drone travel speeds across all sizes, or give them jump drives or something. Because even lights take a bit of time to cover 40km, especially Gallentean ones.
|
Sven Viko VIkolander
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
7
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 14:18:00 -
[147] - Quote
I love the upcoming changes. I like having lots of ship options, even if some are "clear winners" for certain roles. It is nice to be able to change things up, at least, as well as have new very specialized "mini-roles" for certain less-used ships in both PVE and (particularly) PVP.
As a newer player (below 3mil SP) I also like having many ships quite easily available yet like having flying those ships well NOT easy time-wise and I think the changes to mining ships fits this well. However, I hope that getting to V in skills like mining barge, destroyer, and others, will still be useful for dedicated roles. Perhaps even more useful than they are now.
Finally, I also hope that ganking any mining ship in high-sec remains feasible, if more difficult when the miner is fitted correctly (as, to an extent, it can be now). No ship (besides rookies at certain times) should be practically invulnerable in high sec and taking away risk from eve takes away eve from eve. |
Rrama Ratamnim
Phoenix Evolved Part Duo
57
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 14:20:00 -
[148] - Quote
CCP Phantom/Other Devs
Please explain when these are coming i just noticed
"So, when all of this is going out you ask? These changes will be out by the time the winter expansion hit, which will leave us in a very good shape to start overhauling tech 1 cruisers and battlecruisers next year, possibly earlier if things go well."
Out by the time winter expansion hits......
does that mean that these will be coming out during inferno 1.1 releases and further, or are these coming WITH the winter expansion....
Its a confusing way you guys said it as you said there summer changes and winter expansion is mentioned....
But you later say they will be OUT by the time winter hits so you can start cruisers....
Does this mean that frigates and destroyers are inferno 1.2 / 1.3 things perhaps... and Cruisers start in Winter? |
None ofthe Above
207
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 14:20:00 -
[149] - Quote
Lelob wrote:Inquisitor, Breacher, Kestrel, Tristan: missile based ships
Please do not do this. The tristan does not function as a missile boat, nor should it be forced into this role. It functions as a BLASTER BOAT and it does so damn well, with a lot of dps and a respectable tank. Nerfing it by making it use missiles would just be a a depressing. It does not make sense from an RP perspective, and it certainly does not make sense from any other perspective, except for CCP to say "hurr look all the races are the same now." Please, if you must change the tristan, give it more hybrid slots like you did with the merlin. Do not make it garbage with rockets.
Are you ytterbed?
Gallente need a brawler frigate that's for sure. Tristan is currently a bit funky since its the platform for the Gallente Stealth bomber. I always found it an odd fit for the Gallente line. Almost works well, but the split weapons system with the unbonused missiles hamper its effectiveness. I have a fondness for it and enjoyed flying it anyway.
I think as long as the brawling blaster frig role is adequately covered elsewhere, Tristan might make a good platform for entry level missile boat (which is a secondary rarely used Gallente weapons system, or perhaps tertiary after hybrids and drones).
|
Lili Lu
268
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 14:21:00 -
[150] - Quote
Daneel Trevize wrote:Edit: never mind all the below, I missed a key point about this Summer update, the release of these minor changes will be for Winter?!
- When are ASBs getting looked at? Dual XL all the things, armour aren't even 1/3 as capable for a meta0 module. Your latest new things are the least balanced yet.
- When Are Tier3s being checked? You think you got them right first time, with that speed & agility (best meta-tank)?
- When will ECM be something that you aren't embarrassed to put on an AT prize ship?
- How about a Cynabals and Macharials nerf just like the Dramiel got? At least fitting tweaks, force a choice.
- The other end of the spectrum, the Exequror needs the same slot swap as the T2 version got 6months ago now.
- Tengus, Drakes (you had a detailed change in the works last year), Canes. You know the usage numbers.
- Info links?
- Armour rigs & plates speed penalty (again you almost had a change for these)
- Cloaky Legion?
- We know the list of existing high priority things goes on and on...
You call this balance? This is the lowest hanging fruit, the easiest set of changes to please the most existing and new players? The most key elements to vastly improving this game? All good points. But of course CCP coming from a glacial island will continue to move at a glacial pace. So even when they inadvertently create the next Drake and Tengu in 5 years or so, they will take another 5 years to fix that.
Should have known when the CFC adopted the Drake fleet doctrine last Winter that they (he) was operating on the inside knowledge that the Drake wasn't slated for alteration for a good long time still. Thanks, CCP. Looking forward to yet more years of Drakes and Tengus online.
Arkady Sadik wrote: Oh right, and a note of caution: Griffins are surprisingly effective in a combat role already, as they can almost perma-jam most frigates. If you boost them - e.g. to make them more viable as a fleet support frigate - make sure that they do not become too strong in frigate-only combat Also a good point. Griffins do not need any buff. And still waiting for a sensor integrity skill, better eccm, or eccm that is point based and not percentage based such that frigs, destroyers, cruisers, and even battlecruisers are not easy jams.
Archinquisitor wrote: Before making ADDITIONAL destroyers, consider upgrading one racial frigate each to destroyer, as we have so many frigates already, some without a proper role. And another good suggestion. One of the frigate lines, maybe the sniper role, could be folded into the new destroyer. Would mesh with "orbital bombardment" role.
Lastly, concerning the missile frigs, of course you will undoubtedly make the amarr and gallente armor tanking. Then you will not give them enough speed and agility to get in range with their probable rocket systems. And it won't matter anyway because if they try to fit buffer in the vain attempt to get in range of the light missile shield tankers, the plates will only slow them further. Stay true to form CCP.
Meet the new balancing - same as the old balancing
|
|
Rrama Ratamnim
Phoenix Evolved Part Duo
57
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 14:21:00 -
[151] - Quote
Jame Jarl Retief wrote:Mara Rinn wrote:How does a drone frigate work as a long range sniping platform? A frigate that can launch a sentry drone? Gets a bonus to drone travel speed, so you can foolishly send your drones flying 40km to the enemy who picks them off with 1400mm artillery? That was my question as well. Sentry drone on a frigate would be a bit dumb - sentry needs Drone Interfacing IV, which is a rather longish skill to train for a frigate, on top of Drone Sharpshooing IV. That's a week of training if I remember right. And a sentry is pretty useless against frigates anyway, except when they're on approach. When they get close, it's over, even a Garde II won't track them. And I don't see how any other drone can be considered a "sniping" weapon, not unless CCP plans to drastically boost the drone travel speeds across all sizes, or give them jump drives or something. Because even lights take a bit of time to cover 40km, especially Gallentean ones.
actually it would be possible, give the ship a bonus to reduce drone signature radius, increase drone durability, and increase drone control range... walla drone sniper platform that would be quite interesting. |
Fabulousli Obvious
State War Academy Caldari State
346
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 14:22:00 -
[152] - Quote
Rrama Ratamnim wrote: and will still fly hulks in hulkageddon lol
My main has for 3 Hulkageddons. Some of us know what to do. Kinda hard to be ganked actually when you are at keyboard. So anyway, laugh it up fuzzball. I think that God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability. In all matters of opinion, our adversaries are insane. ~~ Oscar Wilde, writer, d. November 30, 1900 |
Rrama Ratamnim
Phoenix Evolved Part Duo
57
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 14:24:00 -
[153] - Quote
None ofthe Above wrote:Lelob wrote:Inquisitor, Breacher, Kestrel, Tristan: missile based ships
Please do not do this. The tristan does not function as a missile boat, nor should it be forced into this role. It functions as a BLASTER BOAT and it does so damn well, with a lot of dps and a respectable tank. Nerfing it by making it use missiles would just be a a depressing. It does not make sense from an RP perspective, and it certainly does not make sense from any other perspective, except for CCP to say "hurr look all the races are the same now." Please, if you must change the tristan, give it more hybrid slots like you did with the merlin. Do not make it garbage with rockets. Are you ytterbed? Gallente need a brawler frigate that's for sure. Tristan is currently a bit funky since its the platform for the Gallente Stealth bomber. I always found it an odd fit for the Gallente line. Almost works well, but the split weapons system with the unbonused missiles hamper its effectiveness. I have a fondness for it and enjoyed flying it anyway. I think as long as the brawling blaster frig role is adequately covered elsewhere, Tristan might make a good platform for entry level missile boat (which is a secondary rarely used Gallente weapons system, or perhaps tertiary after hybrids and drones).
agreed theres already a browler blaster frigate, so unsplitting its weapon system and giving it missle bonuses is a damn good change finally. |
Lin-Young Borovskova
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
215
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 14:24:00 -
[154] - Quote
Epic Mining Barges changes needed Epic effort from players to achieve this. Thank you gankers.
Frigates: loving the "words" now lets see these balances and how will they affect T2 counterparts balance, but overall these are excellent news.
Destroyers: Important stuff is important stuff, supremacy of Catalysts and Thrashers is undeniable and this is not good for the game, for rookies or for older players, revisiting this is an excellent choice. Adding new T1 destroyer hulls is also a very wise/interesting move, I'd only hope CCP introduces those as Navy versions instead that offer a larger fitting, EHP therefore combat abilities for younger players as for older ones.
Mining barges: even thou I don't mine any more this is about to change when these changes hit TQ, I miss these evenings on vocal with boys and girls blahblahing their life, telling stories and sometimes drunken stories (most fun ones) while doing important stuff for our common interest (corp moneys) and our rookies.
On paper looks all good, lets see how this can be implemented knowing that at first draw some changes will obsolete even more some T2 hulls and T1 cruisers, but ti's just a matter of time those are balanced too, so, I'm waiting for this !! brb |
Ciar Meara
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
670
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 14:25:00 -
[155] - Quote
I like this blog!
CCP wrote: The Cruficier is being changed to a mini-arbitrator (swapping useless turret capacitor use bonus for drone damage)
CCP wrote: Ore ships: another point is to give some of them proper EHP not to be one-shot by anything that even remotely sneezes on them.
hehe, small ganking nerf. This will be music to the miners ears. I also love the new mining ideas (not that I mine but still)
And destroyers:
I thought that destroyers would get some kind of advantage with their inclusion in the trailer for DUST. Good to see those get extra ships also. AND buffing the Coercer, yesplease.
In short, here is my money. Where do I put it? - [img]http://go-dl1.eve-files.com/media/corp/janus/ceosig.jpg[/img] [yellow]English only please. Zymurgist[/yellow] |
Mecinia Lua
Galactic Express Intrepid Crossing
23
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 14:26:00 -
[156] - Quote
I like what I see here. Will the barges and t2 varieties have bonuses for both ice and mining in the new format.
Also I know it would be unusual but given his recent Spotlight and his many years of service to the Eve Community, and since it seems a capital mining vessel isn't likely, could the ORE Frigate be the Chribba Class. |
Thenoran
Tranquility Industries
1
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 14:27:00 -
[157] - Quote
Could you please please make the Skiff (or Mackinaw in its new role) into a Ninja Mining barge? Great agility (3 to 4 sec align time max), +2 warp strength and perhaps a bonus to signature radius or regular cloak.
I'd love to be able to sneak into a system, mine the good stuff and not having to warp out as soon as someone else appears in local. Instead the ship should allow for the miner to only having to warp off when someone is actively gunning for you. If someone warps to you the warp strength and agility should allow for a quick get away but you will still be vulnerable to being nabbed by a cloaked ship or a gang of inties. Staying alert and monitoring directional and local should make all the difference (leaving it up the pilot).
As for cargo expanders, what will their new effect be? I currently Cargo mine with my Hulk as I always have, never using a jetcan. Will my cargo expanders now be useless?
What will happen to the current roles of the Exhumers (mining Mercoxit, Ice)?
P.S. Can we have the old strip miner sounds back? Those actually sounded like they did something. |
None ofthe Above
207
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 14:27:00 -
[158] - Quote
T'san Manaan wrote:Peta Michalek wrote:I Love Boobies wrote:I wonder how many people are gonna complain about barges with battleship sized EHP, especially with large ore holds? I am sure there is going to be a tear or two over them. It's really not much different from what we have now - if you maximize yield on a Hulk you have no defense, if you tank properly you lose yield. Not at all, they said they would have specialized ore holds. If i recall correctly the cargo hold expanders do not effect specialized holds only your normal cargo hold.
That's a good point on the effects of cargo expanders. Also cargo rigs. That should be considered. Either new variations to work on ore holds specifically or change the existing ones to work on both. Must give min-maxing miners the opportunity to gimp their tank to provide food for the gods of Hulkeggedon.
|
Thor Kerrigan
Guardians of Asceticism
90
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 14:27:00 -
[159] - Quote
Miners will be miners, gankers will be gankers. Such is the nature of our world.
Looking forward for the new changes/challenges. |
Rrama Ratamnim
Phoenix Evolved Part Duo
57
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 14:29:00 -
[160] - Quote
How come we still see t1 ships and talk of going to the cruisers in winter, but still no talk of the t2 frig tweaks? i mean come on Eris vs Sabre LMFAO come on people theres no way the t2 destroyers and frigs are balanced., i mean the t2 frigates arent as bad Assault frigs are actually quite good.... but EAF's are PIECES OF CRAP |
|
Zimmy Zeta
Paramount Commerce Masters of Flying Objects
1050
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 14:29:00 -
[161] - Quote
Maybe it would be better to introduce the cruiser rebalancing into the same expansion. Good T1 frigates like rifters can already easily kill most of the lower tier cruisers, with the coming changes every t1 frigate would be able to beat the crap out of most of the original lower t1 cruisers to a point where they would be completely obsolete. -.- |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7937
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 14:31:00 -
[162] - Quote
Sounds very nice.
To no-one's surprise, I'd like to comment on the barge change.
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. One thing you might think about doing for these two is to essentially let them have the same EHP as now (perhaps a bit more for the Covetor), but make them fragile speedsters: give them an agility bonus and/or give them a fitting bonus for MWDs (lower power draw; lower activation cost) on the basis that this lets the intended group move together more easily and also lets it deploy over a larger area more quickly. It even makes sense that, having to lug around far less ore and having less structure to hold up that smaller storage space, they'll be a bit nippier than the average barge.
Of course, the actual benefit is that it gives them a different survival option than their beefier cousins: simply getting out of Dodge. With a proper MWD bonus, you could even be given a slightly lowered base top speed GÇö they have more lateral thrusters now to provide that extra agility, but that means fewer thrusters pointing straight back to push the ship along GÇö which lets them mine aligned for longer without getting out of range from the ore/ice, and thus they are even better at just warping off. And of course, with the ability to fit an MWD comes the ability to never need more than 10s to align, but ideally, the agility bonus should mean that it would only ever take 7GÇô8 seconds anyway. 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¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Guttripper
State War Academy Caldari State
150
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 14:31:00 -
[163] - Quote
Of course, once all these changes go live, some spread sheet nerds will determine the ideal set up using what shall be determined as the one best, specific ship and claim anyone using anything but this particular ship and module combination as "fail!" |
Aeril Malkyre
Knights of the Ouroboros
83
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 14:33:00 -
[164] - Quote
Holy **** snacks. I can't really even wrap my brain around all of that at once, but i know I love every piece of it.
- Drone frigates, oh my. That could be a wacky good time.
- It will be great not to have to can mine in a Retriever.
- The new ORE hull looks spectacular.
- ORBITAL BOMBARDMENT DESTROYERS. Wow. That is just all of the awesome.
- We can always use more hulls, and it's about time the destroyer line got some friends. Might I suggest a Minmatar hull that takes cues from the Hurricane and Tornado, just as the Thrasher takes cues from the Cyclone. And pursuant to the orbital bombardment role: guns on the belly or racks on the sides like the Mael. I want to be able to zoom in on the artillery as it volleys
Eager to hear and see more, way to go devs. |
Lyron-Baktos
Selective Pressure Rote Kapelle
231
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 14:35:00 -
[165] - Quote
I can't really see small destroyers doing orbital bombardments from orbit. Now, letting them fly into the top part of the atmosphere and doing some strikes would be the bees knees. Or even closer On holiday. -áIn some other world. Where the music of the radio was a labyrinth of sonorous colours. To a bright centre of absolute convicton where the dripping patchouli was more than scent, It was a sun-á |
Amy Elteam
No Bull Ships
10
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 14:36:00 -
[166] - Quote
None ofthe Above wrote:Severian Carnifex wrote:If I am not wrong, there is one mining Cruiser for each race. If you are making mining Frigates non-mining, will you do the same with mining Cruisers????? And, will we get mining ORE Cruiser too????? What size do you think Barges and Exhumers correspond to?
Packaged mining barges are 3750m^3 - making them smaller than destroyers. |
Lili Lu
268
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 14:37:00 -
[167] - Quote
Moonaura wrote:All welcome changes from what I can see from this outline. As a Caldari focused corp, yes, the Cormorant sort of sucks for us compared to a thrasher. Right now we're better off in Merlins. The Kestrel will need a lot more DPS, smaller signature or more speed to justify using it with Rockets. Right now it's best used as a missile kiter rather than a Merlin rocket equivalent (For which the Navy Hookbill is used instead as it works in that role). Can I make the suggestion that instead of: Magnate, Heron, Imicus, Probe: strengthening current roles as support frigates. Which mainly means scanning and possibly mini-profession operations, like hacking and codebreaking as well. That they become drone frigates for each race? At least in addition to any side skills. Otherwise they still won't be popular. Be nice to see some of these hulls make it to regular use. For the fast frigates: Executioner, Condor, Atron, Slasher: role dedicated to fast interception with weapon systems that support it GÇô in order, energy turrets, missiles, hybrid turrets, projectile turrets. They need to have at least some of the bonus that an interceptor gets (reduced MWD signature) to really be more useful. The Caldari Condor and it's T2 variants both need some speed increase, as they are by far the slowest of any race. That would be 'Fine' if they kept the Caldari ability to be agile and fast aligning... but they are no better than any other race, which would at least allow them to orbit faster, despite the reduced speed. Both the T1 and T2 Caldari fast frigates have significant issues with capacitor and fitting when using Hybrids, a Raptor for example is hard to make both fast, and cap stable with a warp disruptor and rails and comes in 2000 m/s slower than the Amarr Malediction and has identical align time with a speed fit. The Condor should act as a base for an eventual overhaul of their agility or speed. But anyway, keep up the good work I look forward to the changes and using these ships more in Faction Warfare . . . and your signature - Caldari focused fleet PvP - Join us for 100% Caldari fleets in Faction Warfare and small fleet PvP
Says it all. There is not a point in your post where you don't take off your Caladari cetric glasses. Sure let's give all the Caldari ships more speed and dps. Also let's give them a drone boat, so they lack for nothing and the old racial preferences for weapons means nothing. Yes all ships in this race should keep the most range and best tanks but also have the most speed and agility with which to maintain that range and tanking advantage. Oh and buff ecm . . again. It should be 40% per ship level bonuses
You make me sick :barf:
edit- No other race has cap or fitting or whatever issues, only mine. Buff my ships moar CCP kthnxbye |
|
CCP Phantom
C C P C C P Alliance
1444
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 14:38:00 -
[168] - Quote
A clarification about the time line.
This blog is an update on what we are doing this summer (therefore the title 'Ship balancing summer update') to be released this winter and later. CCP Phantom - German Community Coordinator |
|
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
758
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 14:41:00 -
[169] - Quote
thanks god you move away from the steam punk mining vessel design. (Nothing against steam punk but it does not fit to eve IMO) a eve-style bounty system https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=359105 You fail you fail you fail you fail you fail you fail you fail to jump because you are cloaked |
Orakkus
The Fancy Hats Corporation
44
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 14:41:00 -
[170] - Quote
CCP Phantom wrote:Our all beloved spaceships (they make wonderful explosions) are an important part of the New Eden and therefore our developers also apply special love to them. A while ago we announced a grand plan to balance the existing ships. Now that we had enough time to collected good feedback (thank you for all the constructive discussions) and to think about it, we can present you an update of our plans. Please welcome CCP Ytterbium and his new dev blog "Ship balancing summer upgrade" where he explains our updated plans and introduces the road ahead in regards to ship balancing. The blog can be read here. Your constructive feedback is most welcome.
So um.. is there a petition out to give this nice new mining frigate a name.. perhaps.. the "Chribba"? |
|
Lili Lu
268
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 14:41:00 -
[171] - Quote
CCP Phantom wrote:A clarification about the time line.
This blog is an update on what we are doing this summer (therefore the title 'Ship balancing summer update') to be released this winter and later. You already made it abundantly clear I thought in the blog that nothing is happening til winter. And that will be just frigs from the look of it.
Anyway, looking forward to another alliance tournament filled with Drakes, Tengus, ECM boats, and some Angel/Minmatar ships. |
Droxlyn
TOHA Heavy Industries TOHA Conglomerate
83
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 14:49:00 -
[172] - Quote
Droxlyn wrote:I know Eve is all about the pick one: speed, gank, or tank; but mining yield is not gank. Gank is DPS and mining lasers deal 0 dps.
With your groupings do the following: Procurer/Skiff: primarily made for self-defense: Extra tank. Retriever/Mackinaw: made for self-reliance. Extra speed, give these guys a GOOD time to warp, around 6s or less, maybe a built-in warp stab. Covetor/hulk. Extra GANK! Give these ships the ability to SHOOT. Let them use weapon systems. (without removing strip miners.)
Good luck!
I've been thinking about this a little more: Procurer/Skiff are playing bait. Give them a bonus to warp scramblers. Retriever/Mackinaws are raiders. Bonus to warp stab. Frigate-like time-to-warp. Still needs a good Ore hold or there is no point. Covetor/Hulk are bullies. 7 or 8 high slots, limit 3 strip miners. 4/5 turret and 4/5 launcher hard points (so the pilot doesn't have to choose a second weapon system to specialize). Heavy missiles or med guns. The idea that a squad or two of hulks going to mine a level 4 mission before it has been fought intrigues me. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7939
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 14:49:00 -
[173] - Quote
Oh, and another thing:
Presumably, the ore bays on these ships will not drop the ore as loot when the ship is destroyed, right? 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¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Zimmy Zeta
Paramount Commerce Masters of Flying Objects
1050
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 14:50:00 -
[174] - Quote
So um.. is there a petition out to give this nice new mining frigate a name.. perhaps.. the "Chribba"?[/quote]
There can be only one Chribba- but how about some anagram like Brachbi ?
-.- |
Pirmasis Sparagas
Final Fortress Happy Tree Fiends
20
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 14:52:00 -
[175] - Quote
Good news! I like it!
One aditional ship to rebalanse - Primae - best ship for planetary stuff. Make it happen CCP, as DUST514 is comming |
Bloodpetal
Mimidae Risk Solutions
676
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 14:52:00 -
[176] - Quote
May I have more suh!
Love It!
Can you consider a burst remodel to go with he changes! Squashed bug as I like to call it.
Love the new mining barge ideas, might make me fly one :) Mimidae Risk Solutions Recruiting |
MotherMoon
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
881
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 14:52:00 -
[177] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:This is great stuff! Hulkageddon just got a LOT more challenging, and as it should be.
My vote is make the burst a sniper - something about the name just makes sense!
If it was a real Minmatar ship it would have 2 turret hardpoints that can fit MEDIUM turrets. :P Why dust 514 is on Console and not PCBattle field 3 sales Xbox 360: 2.2 million PlayStation 3: 1.5 million PC: 500,000http://dl.eve-files.com/media/1206/scimi.jpg |
Marcel Devereux
Aideron Robotics
120
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 14:52:00 -
[178] - Quote
CCP Phantom wrote:A clarification about the time line.
This blog is an update on what we are doing this summer (therefore the title 'Ship balancing summer update') to be released this winter and later.
Let me clarify your statement. The changes outlined in the dev blog will be worked on over the Summer. The target release data is starting at the winter expansions? Is that correct? If so can we see the frigate changes before then? If I recall the last batch didn't take that long to get out.
|
None ofthe Above
208
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 14:54:00 -
[179] - Quote
Amy Elteam wrote:None ofthe Above wrote:Severian Carnifex wrote:If I am not wrong, there is one mining Cruiser for each race. If you are making mining Frigates non-mining, will you do the same with mining Cruisers????? And, will we get mining ORE Cruiser too????? What size do you think Barges and Exhumers correspond to? Packaged mining barges are 3750m^3 - making them smaller than destroyers.
Packaged? We don't need no steenkin' packaged! (joke)
I think that's because they are mostly cargo hold, which would be collapsed while packaged.
A covetor or hulk is 200000 m3 assembled. That's pretty squarely cruiser.
|
Blawrf McTaggart
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1060
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 14:54:00 -
[180] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:Should have known when the CFC adopted the Drake fleet doctrine last Winter that they (he) was operating on the inside knowledge that the Drake wasn't slated for alteration for a good long time still. Thanks, CCP. Looking forward to yet more years of Drakes and Tengus online.
Entirely coincidentally and unrelated to this point, the CFC will be replacing their Maelstrom "Alpha Fleet" concept with a drone and sensor dampening Dominix hull, with hull tanking modules to increase the hardiness of our ships.
I would wish to reiterate that we certainly don't have any information that points toward a huge Dominix buff in the not-so-far flung future.
Please modify your skillplans accordingly. |
|
MotherMoon
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
881
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 14:55:00 -
[181] - Quote
CCP Phantom wrote:A clarification about the time line.
This blog is an update on what we are doing this summer (therefore the title 'Ship balancing summer update') to be released this winter and later.
oh? then what kind of eta to SiSi testing? 2 weeks or so? Why dust 514 is on Console and not PCBattle field 3 sales Xbox 360: 2.2 million PlayStation 3: 1.5 million PC: 500,000http://dl.eve-files.com/media/1206/scimi.jpg |
|
CCP Soundwave
C C P C C P Alliance
1452
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 14:55:00 -
[182] - Quote
Marcel Devereux wrote:CCP Phantom wrote:A clarification about the time line.
This blog is an update on what we are doing this summer (therefore the title 'Ship balancing summer update') to be released this winter and later. Let me clarify your statement. The changes outlined in the dev blog will be worked on over the Summer. The target release data is starting at the winter expansions? Is that correct? If so can we see the frigate changes before then? If I recall the last batch didn't take that long to get out.
Target for release is autumn/winter, with these changes going into 2-3 different releases. |
|
vasuul
BLUE M00N Fetish Group Eternus Imperium Alliance
59
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 14:57:00 -
[183] - Quote
Victor Twenty wrote:Great changes CCP, but why do you need to wait so long.... Maybe you should bump up your time table so we can see Cruiser and Battlecruiser changes before end of year!!!!
Keep up the good work.
Vic20
no offense here BUT lets give them all the time they need to get it right we don't want a half finished or rushed product ,we have seen enough of that
Personally it all looks good
except i am confused as to why you are looking to nerf the EHP on the HULK ? if anything it should be buffed a bit Hulks are the staple of deep space mining in 0.0 they are designed to tank big rats while cutting away at precious ore, They cost more because they are worth it Not to mention all T2 barges especially the hulk and mackinaw ,have become cannon fodder in certain activities as of late ,Due to the technetium used to make em ( but hey that's the sandbox right )
One thing i did have was the comment on making mimnatar use missiles more and i ask that you balance that against the fact that the majority of us mimnatar currently use GUNS and we like GUNS , and we probably didn't train much in missiles because they were not our mainstay of a weapon system ( so please be gentle )
Aside from these concerns i like where thing are headed and ,yes your new mining frigate looks awesome can't wait to see it in action
|
Ban Bindy
Bindy Brothers Pottery Association
354
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 14:58:00 -
[184] - Quote
Changes sound promising. Despite all the gankers declaring that miners will fly hulks anyway. We will see.
The mackinaw needs more help, in my opinion, but maybe the final product will be better than it sounds. Ice mining is the easiest to gank since there are many times fewer ice systems in Eve.
Still, there's a chance that the golden age of ganking will end. Of course, Goons will find another way to ***** for attention. |
Rrama Ratamnim
Phoenix Evolved Part Duo
57
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 14:59:00 -
[185] - Quote
CCP Phantom wrote:A clarification about the time line.
This blog is an update on what we are doing this summer (therefore the title 'Ship balancing summer update') to be released this winter and later.
holy crap so non of this is coming in inferno, wow its going to be 2017 before you get to battleships, considering this doesnt even include EAFs |
Lili Lu
269
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 15:00:00 -
[186] - Quote
Blawrf McTaggart wrote:Lili Lu wrote:Should have known when the CFC adopted the Drake fleet doctrine last Winter that they (he) was operating on the inside knowledge that the Drake wasn't slated for alteration for a good long time still. Thanks, CCP. Looking forward to yet more years of Drakes and Tengus online. Entirely coincidentally and unrelated to this point, the CFC will be replacing their Maelstrom "Alpha Fleet" concept with a drone and sensor dampening Dominix hull, with hull tanking modules to increase the hardiness of our ships. I would wish to reiterate that we certainly don't have any information that points toward a huge Dominix buff in the not-so-far flung future. Please modify your skillplans accordingly. Awesome! |
Rico Ramos
STARMINE inc Solaris Mortis
8
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 15:00:00 -
[187] - Quote
Great Dev Blog super excited about it all! Internet Space Ships is Serious Business |
Rrama Ratamnim
Phoenix Evolved Part Duo
57
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 15:01:00 -
[188] - Quote
Orakkus wrote:
So um.. is there a petition out to give this nice new mining frigate a name.. perhaps.. the "Chribba"?
I would 110% get behind this, naming it after Chribba would be a wicked idea, and im sure most other people would be good with it as well lol |
Callic Veratar
Power of the Phoenix
242
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 15:04:00 -
[189] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:Target for release is autumn/winter, with these changes going into 2-3 different releases.
Excellent, that's exactly what I was hoping for. The first set after ATX in August, the second set in September, and the rest of the balances October-ish. Following that with new destroyers and mining frigate in November. |
Bloodpetal
Mimidae Risk Solutions
676
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 15:04:00 -
[190] - Quote
MotherMoon wrote:Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:This is great stuff! Hulkageddon just got a LOT more challenging, and as it should be.
My vote is make the burst a sniper - something about the name just makes sense! If it was a real Minmatar ship it would have 2 turret hardpoints that can fit MEDIUM turrets. :P
2 Medium Guns would be the size of the Burst I think.
DO it! :) Mimidae Risk Solutions Recruiting |
|
Singoth
Kronos Fleet
71
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 15:04:00 -
[191] - Quote
3 words are sufficient:
I. WANT. THIS. Less yappin', more zappin'! |
Peta Michalek
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
22
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 15:05:00 -
[192] - Quote
CCP Phantom wrote:A clarification about the time line.
This blog is an update on what we are doing this summer (therefore the title 'Ship balancing summer update') to be released this winter and later.
Seriously?
So let me get this straight.
T1 frigates.destroyers to be released this winter; T1 BCs/BS one update after that(summer 2013) T2 frigs/destroyers after that(winter 2013) T2 BCs/BS after that (summer 2014) T3 and/or faction ships at the end(winter 2014)
Two and half years long balance plan? |
Rrama Ratamnim
Phoenix Evolved Part Duo
57
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 15:07:00 -
[193] - Quote
ya this was brought out previously but the ship build costs are starting to get skewed considering there new capabilities... shouldnt these be getting shifted. |
None ofthe Above
208
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 15:07:00 -
[194] - Quote
Zor'katar wrote:I'm sure I'm not the first to bring this up, but I haven't heard it addressed...
If the goal is to remove the tiered structure of the usability of ships within a given class, is any thought being also given to flattening out the manufacturing costs among them? If a Slasher is supposed to be just as useful for its role as a Rifter is for its, should the latter not cost 10x more to manufacture than the former?
Are you ytterbed?
This cost is even more dramatic in the barges and exhumers.
I agree that this should be considered.
|
Midnight Hope
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
39
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 15:08:00 -
[195] - Quote
Awesome! Can't wait!! Keep it up guys! |
Fidelium Mortis
Quantum Cats Syndicate
91
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 15:08:00 -
[196] - Quote
A T2 version of the mining frig would be interesting. Perhaps have it specialize in "ninja" mining ops, or low/null-sec gas mining.
So what's the point? - While the yield isn't the best, it gives people an opportunity to gather some of the higher tier minerals without holding down sov or establishing a heavy presence in a low-sec system. Plus, paired with some transport ships and a black ops BS, there are some interesting opportunities that might provide for some interesting mining ops (think of the mining equivalent of the weekend warrior taking trips into low/null).
Here's some suggested bonuses:
Ore Mining Frigate: 5% bonus to shield resistance, and 100% bonus to mining laser and gas harvester yield per level. Exploratory Mining Frigate: 10% bonus to ore bay storage capacity and 5 m3 bonus to drone bay capacity per level.
Role bonus: 100% bonus to the range mining lasers (not strip miners) and gas harvesters and 99% reduced CPU requirement for covert-ops cloaking devices.
Base drone bay capacity 25 m3 (so at level 5 it can fit up to 10 light drones/mining drones) Destroyer-like speed and agility so there is a chance for frigs to decloak. 3000 m3 base ore bay capacity
ICRS - Intergalactic Certified Rocket Surgeon |
Centurax
Eve Engineering Authority Eve Engineering
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 15:09:00 -
[197] - Quote
Really like the changes
Some suggestions:
Would be good to have a frigate with some kind of Logistic capability, could be helpful with frigate fleets.
If you are looking at the ORE ships this time round how about a dedicated Gas miner, maybe based on the Noctis/Primae or I am sure you guys can design something cool for that .
Some Questions:
With the changes in the Mining Barges/Exhumers, does that mean that the bonuses to ore, ice or mercoxite mining going to be removed, making them all more general miners?
So when will we get to see the design for the new Ring Mining ship? |
Rrama Ratamnim
Phoenix Evolved Part Duo
57
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 15:09:00 -
[198] - Quote
Callic Veratar wrote:CCP Soundwave wrote:Target for release is autumn/winter, with these changes going into 2-3 different releases. Excellent, that's exactly what I was hoping for. The first set after ATX in August, the second set in September, and the rest of the balances October-ish. Following that with new destroyers and mining frigate in November.
Phantam / Soundwave is the above kinda what CCP is looking to do? just to clarify though not specify exact dates/months but like the above. |
darmwand
Repo.
51
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 15:09:00 -
[199] - Quote
Peta Michalek wrote:CCP Phantom wrote:A clarification about the time line.
This blog is an update on what we are doing this summer (therefore the title 'Ship balancing summer update') to be released this winter and later. Seriously? So let me get this straight. T1 frigates.destroyers to be released this winter; T1 BCs/BS one update after that(summer 2013) T2 frigs/destroyers after that(winter 2013) T2 BCs/BS after that (summer 2014) T3 and/or faction ships at the end(winter 2014) Two and half years long balance plan?
Sounds reasonable to me. You don't want them to rush into things, better make sure that the ships that have been rebalanced actually work before doing the next bigger class. darmwand Repossession Agent http://www.repo-corp.net/ Recruitment is OPEN |
Marcel Devereux
Aideron Robotics
120
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 15:11:00 -
[200] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:Marcel Devereux wrote:CCP Phantom wrote:A clarification about the time line.
This blog is an update on what we are doing this summer (therefore the title 'Ship balancing summer update') to be released this winter and later. Let me clarify your statement. The changes outlined in the dev blog will be worked on over the Summer. The target release data is starting at the winter expansions? Is that correct? If so can we see the frigate changes before then? If I recall the last batch didn't take that long to get out. Target for release is autumn/winter, with these changes going into 2-3 different releases.
Thanks for the clarification. |
|
Iosue
Virtual Warriors IMPERIAL LEGI0N
87
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 15:11:00 -
[201] - Quote
interesting changes afoot. i like the changes to mining barges overall, however i wonder if the skiff and mack will keep their specialized roles? will skiff still get bonuses for mercx and mack for ice? |
Zorok
Edge of Abyss Guardian Knights Citizens
3
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 15:13:00 -
[202] - Quote
Hi, I'm happy to hear that you are willing to give *some* of the mining barges a bit of a buff against attackers. The ore hold bonus to the retriever/mackinaw is nice but I don't think that 1 jettison can worth of ore + a bit tougher defense is going to get people to switch to using these ships. The best setup for a lone miner is to use a hulk to mine and then use an Orca to pick up the jet cans. I believe that if you want to make the ore hold really worth while on the mackinaw/retriever, you should look at the minimum of 4 jet cans in space if you're expecting pilots to give up using a Hulk/Orca combo.
In Eve, time is money and vice versa- unless you can make the mackinaw/retriever mine more efficiently w/o Orca or other hauler support (basically make it mine more or equivalent to a Hulk mining and then the time it would take to fly back to station and grab an orca to haul jet cans etc), the Mackinaw/Retriever will be used by only a small percentage of players.
To the point: CCP, make the Mackinaw/Retriever worth my time as a lone miner and I will use this over the Hulk. |
|
CCP Soundwave
C C P C C P Alliance
1454
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 15:20:00 -
[203] - Quote
Rrama Ratamnim wrote:Callic Veratar wrote:CCP Soundwave wrote:Target for release is autumn/winter, with these changes going into 2-3 different releases. Excellent, that's exactly what I was hoping for. The first set after ATX in August, the second set in September, and the rest of the balances October-ish. Following that with new destroyers and mining frigate in November. Phantam / Soundwave is the above kinda what CCP is looking to do? just to clarify though not specify exact dates/months but like the above.
I'd prefer not to give exact dates on stuff that's potentially months in the future, but that's fairly close to what we're hoping to do. The alliance tournament is next month which will see the first ships go out (the prize ships) which will be followed by the rest of the package, with changes going out somewhere around august and december. |
|
Swearte Widfarend
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
78
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 15:20:00 -
[204] - Quote
Droxlyn wrote:Please consider giving all of the Barges and Exhumers enough tank that if properly defended by other ships, the ship will survive or escape. The Retriever, Mackinaw, Covetor, and Hulk have 3/4s the EHP of the new Procurer or Skiff.
I know Eve is all about the pick one: speed, gank, or tank; but mining yield is not gank. Gank is DPS and mining lasers deal 0 dps.
I'm sorry, I thought mining lasers dealt significant DPS to the undefended asteroids they assault?
Seriously. You need to man up. Everyone has to make choices and compromises on fits or fleets, and Gank/DPS is the same whether auto cannon or strip miner. Democracy is only as good as the despot managing the voting booth. |
Rrama Ratamnim
Phoenix Evolved Part Duo
58
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 15:22:00 -
[205] - Quote
Zorok wrote:Hi, I'm happy to hear that you are willing to give *some* of the mining barges a bit of a buff against attackers. The ore hold bonus to the retriever/mackinaw is nice but I don't think that 1 jettison can worth of ore + a bit tougher defense is going to get people to switch to using these ships. The best setup for a lone miner is to use a hulk to mine and then use an Orca to pick up the jet cans. I believe that if you want to make the ore hold really worth while on the mackinaw/retriever, you should look at the minimum of 4 jet cans in space if you're expecting pilots to give up using a Hulk/Orca combo.
In Eve, time is money and vice versa- unless you can make the mackinaw/retriever mine more efficiently w/o Orca or other hauler support (basically make it mine more or equivalent to a Hulk mining and then the time it would take to fly back to station and grab an orca to haul jet cans etc), the Mackinaw/Retriever will be used by only a small percentage of players.
To the point: CCP, make the Mackinaw/Retriever worth my time as a lone miner and I will use this over the Hulk.
a bit of an ehp buff? are you serious?
BATTLE SHIP TANK = 100k EHP
|
Dalilus
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
18
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 15:22:00 -
[206] - Quote
A suggestion: allow freighters to pick up ore at belts or wherever miners mine. The cargoholds of industrials are getting a bit small for the quantity of ore they must transport when a mining fleet of several hulks are chewing up belts. |
Rrama Ratamnim
Phoenix Evolved Part Duo
58
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 15:24:00 -
[207] - Quote
Dalilus wrote:A suggestion: allow freighters to pick up ore at belts or wherever miners mine. The cargoholds of industrials are getting a bit small for the quantity of ore they must transport when a mining fleet of several hulks are chewing up belts.
Umm thats what orca's and rorquals are for. |
Dersen Lowery
Children of Armok
36
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 15:25:00 -
[208] - Quote
Lovely read, and a lovely ORE frigate design. Bravo, CCP!
The choice between tank and yield is (finally!) a good choice to make between the various barges. Consider the alternative that a number of people have suggested, of align time + MWD cap bonuses for the smaller hulls, so that you can choose between a small boat that can get out fast when necessary, a slow-moving, max-yield monster, and a compromise boat in the middle. The frigate is, of course, the ultimate GTFO boat.
But even if the choice winds up being between tank and yield, it'll still be nice to have a real reason to choose something other than a Hulk for ore mining. |
vasuul
BLUE M00N Fetish Group Eternus Imperium Alliance
59
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 15:28:00 -
[209] - Quote
Rrama Ratamnim wrote:Orakkus wrote:
So um.. is there a petition out to give this nice new mining frigate a name.. perhaps.. the "Chribba"?
I would 110% get behind this, naming it after Chribba would be a wicked idea, and im sure most other people would be good with it as well lol
Aye +1 vote from me
I can't think of a better christening name for a new mining ship
If anyone in this game ever earned the honor of having a ship named after them. its CHRIBBA
|
Rrama Ratamnim
Phoenix Evolved Part Duo
58
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 15:29:00 -
[210] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:Rrama Ratamnim wrote:Callic Veratar wrote:CCP Soundwave wrote:Target for release is autumn/winter, with these changes going into 2-3 different releases. Excellent, that's exactly what I was hoping for. The first set after ATX in August, the second set in September, and the rest of the balances October-ish. Following that with new destroyers and mining frigate in November. Phantam / Soundwave is the above kinda what CCP is looking to do? just to clarify though not specify exact dates/months but like the above. I'd prefer not to give exact dates on stuff that's potentially months in the future, but that's fairly close to what we're hoping to do. The alliance tournament is next month which will see the first ships go out (the prize ships) which will be followed by the rest of the package, with changes going out somewhere around august and december.
ok that clears things up nicely thanks for the clarification.
btw VERY sexy mining frigate....
Does this mean the sensor damp changes will also be coming prior to winter expansion? Any outlook for the EAF changes/tweaks? |
|
Moonaura
The Dead Rabbit Society
159
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 15:32:00 -
[211] - Quote
RedClaws wrote:CCP,
Please realize that players with higher SP currently don't like flying destroyers and to a lesser degree frigates because of the clonecosts , for me it costs about 50-60 mil to replace my medical clone. The odds of getting podkilled in a light interdictor is quite high.
Having high skillpoints doesn't mean that the player also has a lot of isk or some way to make isk more efficiently than a lower skilled character. Sure, I don't deny that it helps but having 10 mil SP or 100mil SP doesn't really matter for the income of level 4 agent missions.
Thanks, Red
Except for those of us doing faction warfare, where Destroyers are a big deal, and getting your pods out in lowsec is a non-issue. The universe does not live in 0.0. Caldari focused fleet PvP
Join us for 100% Caldari fleets in Faction Warfare and small fleet PvP
www.thedeadrabbitsociety.com/recruitment |
Palovana
Inner Fire Inc.
227
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 15:37:00 -
[212] - Quote
The yellow and black of the Ore Frigate makes it look like a piece of construction equipment.
Quite appropriate for its role, IMO. Please support: export of settings in editable format
Your stuff goes here. |
Gnaw LF
AQUILA INC Verge of Collapse
65
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 15:40:00 -
[213] - Quote
Nice job, the industrialists deserved some fresh content. Now if only you can add a dedicated gas mining ship. *wink*wink*nudge*nudge* |
Peta Michalek
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
22
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 15:40:00 -
[214] - Quote
darmwand wrote:Peta Michalek wrote:CCP Phantom wrote:A clarification about the time line.
This blog is an update on what we are doing this summer (therefore the title 'Ship balancing summer update') to be released this winter and later. Seriously? So let me get this straight. T1 frigates.destroyers to be released this winter; T1 BCs/BS one update after that(summer 2013) T2 frigs/destroyers after that(winter 2013) T2 BCs/BS after that (summer 2014) T3 and/or faction ships at the end(winter 2014) Two and half years long balance plan? Sounds reasonable to me. You don't want them to rush into things, better make sure that the ships that have been rebalanced actually work before doing the next bigger class.
Well I am new here so I guess I'm not used to EVE work cycles, but you know - entire games were made in less time.
Plus there's the "why would I play/fly this now if it's going to be buffed/nerfed/changed anyway" factor. |
Nagarythe Tinurandir
Catholic School for Boys Dark Legion Alliance
20
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 15:40:00 -
[215] - Quote
well, that blog makes one lust for more! :D
are there some ideas how to differentiate between t1 and t2 barges? in the blog they are grouped. would be interesting, what is planned there.
|
Selissa Shadoe
96
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 15:42:00 -
[216] - Quote
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. :/ |
Swearte Widfarend
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
81
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 15:47:00 -
[217] - Quote
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. Autonomy: 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. Resilience: another point is to give some of them proper EHP not to be one-shot by anything that even remotely sneezes on them.
As a result we thus get:
New ORE frig: we want this ship to replace current mining frigates as low barrier of entry vessel, but also fulfill high-end gameplay expectations by providing a very mobile platform for mining in hostile space. Lowest mining output, decent ore bay, little to no resilience. Procurer/Skiff: primarily made for self-defense. Better mining rate than the ORE frig, good ore bay, but capable of having battleship-like EHP. Retriever/Mackinaw: made for self-reliance. Has the largest ore bay, similear to the size of a jet can, second best mining output but less EHP than the procurer mining barge. 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.
I want to suggest a few things based on this, remembering that the Tech 2 variants have specific roles already (Skiff = Mercoxit, Mackinaw = Ice, Hulk = Ore).
First of all, the Cargo Hold needs to be at least 300m3 on all of these barges, to account for crystals. Please don't forget that in your modifications.
I mentioned before it might make sense to add a second Tech 2 Retriever, for Gas Cloud Harvesting. Based on your suggested changes it's the best fit for the ship, since Gas has large m3 and is losec/nullsec/WH only. Also, Gas Cloud Harvesters are listed as mining lasers, so a bonused ship makes sense here.
Having the Procurer/Skiff as the "toughest" barges make sense, but you may also need to address the mining laser range on the Skiff. Mercoxit clouds (currently) should never reach a Skiff due to the range of the Deep Core Mining Laser II. Either the cloud needs to be larger, or the range reduced on those lasers. It makes sense that this should be the tankiest with the T2 variant use in mind, so no real issue here other than the joke of mercoxit cloud damage.
Retriever/Mackinaw as the self-reliance ship - OK, yeah. Largest Ore bay because of ice volumes - Mack pilots will love you, and make the Retriever a viable losec mining barge with the cost/volume/loss issue fairly balanced I think.
Covetor/Hulk - Best mining output - OK, so the wonder of the largest ship is the fastest output/highest volume per cycle. Here's where all the fun begins though - because of rigs and modules.
It's pretty common to fit Hulks (and Covetors) with Cargo Expansion Rigs and even sometimes the Expander II mods. I hope you realize this and will also either transfer the bonuses for these mods/rigs to the Ore Hold, or create a separate Mod and Rig to expand the Ore Hold (with similar penalties to the cargo rigs/mods). If you do it right with SM/M/LG Rigs, it also provides bonuses to the ORE Mining Frigate, the Orca and Rorqual, which wouldn't be a bad thing.
However, there are a large number of Barges out there fit with Cargo Expander Rigs - which (if the rig doesn't affect the Ore Bay after the change) is a pretty big issue (these rigs are pretty expensive, after all). I'm going to humbly suggest that if the Cargo Rigs don't affect the Ore Bay after this change, they be removed (not destroyed) and placed in the cargo hold of the ship they were on (for barges only). Democracy is only as good as the despot managing the voting booth. |
Rrama Ratamnim
Phoenix Evolved Part Duo
60
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 15:47:00 -
[218] - Quote
Peta Michalek wrote: Well I am new here so I guess I'm not used to EVE work cycles, but you know - entire games were made in less time.
Plus there's the "why would I play/fly this now if it's going to be buffed/nerfed/changed anyway" factor.
TImeing in eve is different than other games, especially you have to take into accounts this isnt the only thing going on this is a subset.... These are changes being made in parallel to the other fixes and changes, that are ongoing for Inferno, as well as the ongoing development work that has to go into the winter expansion... theres a lot of stuff going on besides balancing. |
Ravcharas
GREY COUNCIL Nulli Secunda
167
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 15:49:00 -
[219] - Quote
Peta Michalek wrote:CCP Phantom wrote:A clarification about the time line.
This blog is an update on what we are doing this summer (therefore the title 'Ship balancing summer update') to be released this winter and later. Seriously? So let me get this straight. T1 frigates.destroyers to be released this winter; T1 BCs/BS one update after that(summer 2013) T2 frigs/destroyers after that(winter 2013) T2 BCs/BS after that (summer 2014) T3 and/or faction ships at the end(winter 2014) Two and half years long balance plan? You're failing to factor in going back and revisiting stuff that gets broken during the process. |
DazedOne
The Crabbit S O L A R I S
94
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 15:49:00 -
[220] - Quote
Grog Drinker wrote:Great stuff. Found myself actually thinking about mining . Maybe make a t2 version of the mining frig with a cov ops cloak...
So what your saying you'll be invisible with mining lasers shooting out from you......
You deserve an epic FACEPALM
|
|
darmwand
Repo.
51
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 15:52:00 -
[221] - Quote
DazedOne wrote:Grog Drinker wrote:Great stuff. Found myself actually thinking about mining . Maybe make a t2 version of the mining frig with a cov ops cloak... So what your saying you'll be invisible with mining lasers shooting out from you...... You deserve an epic FACEPALM
I think he meant to have the cloak for travelling. Something like a Cheetah with mining bonuses. darmwand Repossession Agent http://www.repo-corp.net/ Recruitment is OPEN |
Alistair Cononach
The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance
166
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 15:52:00 -
[222] - Quote
Sentient Blade wrote:"Protection" cannot protect you from an alpha gank.
Being aware and warping out if others enter the belt can.
Flying the "BS Hitpoints" variant can.
There seems to be an assumption that afk-high-sec mining is a basic EVE human right. It isn't.
If you wish to be protected, fly the ships that can withstand ganks (like the new proposed skiff or a Mining Battleship).
If you have protection, are self-aware enough to not sit there when soemthing unknown warps into the belt, or are in nullsec (where your potection can alpha the ganker first or otherwsie provide cover for mining ops), then you can fly the high-yield no-tank variants.
What is your desired end result here? A ship that can tank any gankers, haul it's own ore, and be in effect untouchable in a high-sec environemnt while still pulling in the highest yield?
If so, no. |
Sister Rhode
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
83
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 15:53:00 -
[223] - Quote
It's exciting to play Eve now that they are actually focusing on the spaceship part of the game again! |
DazedOne
The Crabbit S O L A R I S
94
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 15:53:00 -
[224] - Quote
Rrama Ratamnim wrote:Zorok wrote:Hi, I'm happy to hear that you are willing to give *some* of the mining barges a bit of a buff against attackers. The ore hold bonus to the retriever/mackinaw is nice but I don't think that 1 jettison can worth of ore + a bit tougher defense is going to get people to switch to using these ships. The best setup for a lone miner is to use a hulk to mine and then use an Orca to pick up the jet cans. I believe that if you want to make the ore hold really worth while on the mackinaw/retriever, you should look at the minimum of 4 jet cans in space if you're expecting pilots to give up using a Hulk/Orca combo.
In Eve, time is money and vice versa- unless you can make the mackinaw/retriever mine more efficiently w/o Orca or other hauler support (basically make it mine more or equivalent to a Hulk mining and then the time it would take to fly back to station and grab an orca to haul jet cans etc), the Mackinaw/Retriever will be used by only a small percentage of players.
To the point: CCP, make the Mackinaw/Retriever worth my time as a lone miner and I will use this over the Hulk. a bit of an ehp buff? are you serious? BATTLE SHIP TANK = 100k EHP You seriously dont seem to be calculating in the whole loss of 1 hulk = -300m ISK thats a lot of mining every time you loose one, which during certain times mainly in highsec happens quite often.
Thats when you adapt and fly one of the tankier hulls they are coming out with. Its your personal choice to go with more tank and less yield OR less tank and more yield. Make a choice man it isn't difficult. |
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War DarkSide.
699
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 15:54:00 -
[225] - Quote
So battlecruisers are still remaining as OP as today?
So EHP idiocy is kept the same?
So tech3 vs Command Ships nonses is left intact?
Who the hell decided it's a good idea to commit that much manpower into damn frigates? Come on, man! By next summer, the date you're going to have remote chances of actually addressing bigger stuff (I'm even optimistic here), It will have been a damn year of you trying to fix these pesky frigates! How long will it take to address all the other issues then?
Let me remind you of some:
- cyno mechanics - rigs - armour vs. shield in general (with Shield extenders not affecting mobility, while apparently they should) - abovementioned stuff
14 |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7940
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 15:54:00 -
[226] - Quote
Selissa Shadoe wrote: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. :/ It's being turned into a group miner GÇö local cargo hold is no longer particularly relevant, and you can concentrate on beefing up that tank instead.
What they're doing is making each barge being GÇ£the bestGÇ¥, only at different things.
Swearte Widfarend wrote:It's pretty common to fit Hulks (and Covetors) with Cargo Expansion Rigs and even sometimes the Expander II mods. I hope you realize this and will also either transfer the bonuses for these mods/rigs to the Ore Hold, or create a separate Mod and Rig to expand the Ore Hold (with similar penalties to the cargo rigs/mods). Same goes here: doing that, and trying to expand the cargo hold of the new Hulk to begin with, would be to go completely counter to its new purpose and intended use. You don't need a big ore hold GÇö the Orca in your gang has that covered.
Most likely, when these changes go through, they're simply going to force-strip all barges and exhumers since none of the fittings will make sense any more (and some of them might even no longer be able to fit the things they currently carry). They've done that before when they've completely revamped ship bonuses and layouts, so it will probably be the preferred solution here as well. 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¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Jeremy Hayden
EVE University Ivy League
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 15:56:00 -
[227] - Quote
It seems a bit odd to me that some mining barges would get a special ore bay and others won't. In my opinion, it would make more sense to standardize and give every ORE ship a dedicated ORE hold.
ORE frigate - Good mining frigate for new players. Small ORE hold, small cargohold on par with current "mining" frigates. Newer players could also experiment solo mining in low sec.
Procurer - Preferred for low sec mining with small fleet support. Medium ORE bay, small cargohold. +2 warp strength. High EHP. Mining yield is still less than retriever and higher ships.
Skiff - Preferred for low sec mining with small fleet support. Medium ORE bay. small-medium cargohold depending on fittings. +3 warp strength. Highest EHP of all barges\exhumers. Mining yield is still less than retriever and higher ships.
Retriever - Large ORE bay (jetcan size), small-medium cargo hold depending on fittings. Increased EHP, but not even near the procurer/skiff. It's a flexible ship, its yield is decent, but still not as good as the more dedicated t2 ships like the mack, hulk, or covetor. It can hold the most ore, though.
Mackinaw - Medium ORE bay. small - medium cargohold depending on yield or defense fittings tradeoff. Increased EHP from current, but still average EHP. Would still receive ice bonus to keep it as the best yield ship for ice mining.
Covetor - Medium ORE bay, small cargohold. Little EHP and limited fittings, still can't really fit a tank at all, Think of it as a stripped down hulk distilled to its basic purpose: mining yield.
Hulk - Medium ORE bay, and small-medium cargohold depending on yield\defense fittings tradeoff. Average EHP. Still the preferred max-yield ore mining vessel.
And while we're at it:
Orca
- X-large ORE bay (increased from current). 80,000m3
- Same size cargohold as current. - Same size corp hanger as current. - Same size ship maint hanger as current.
|
Johan March
The Corporation of Noble Sentiments Sleeper Social Club
1
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 15:59:00 -
[228] - Quote
I really like the frigate rebalancing and will really enjoy flying some of these new ships. A few recommendations: Atron, etc. - some sort of MWD bonus to make it a viable T1 tackler. Doesn't have to be as good as an inty, but something. That would be a fun boat to fly.
The destroyer changes sound good too, but the old Navy man in me says "destroyer not [strike]shore[/strike] planet bombardment ship". Now special forces team insertion. That's what destroyers do.
I'm no miner, but the changes to those ships seem reasonable too. The new mining frigate looks cool. |
Darius III
Interstellar eXodus BricK sQuAD.
1425
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 15:59:00 -
[229] - Quote
Overall these changes, IMO reflect the renewed dedication CCP has taken with regards to FiS and i am liking the rebalancing hat they are doing. +1
I would be even more pleased if they would respec the mining skills and refund the mining /industry skillpoints that players have accumulated ;) Hmmm |
Freelancer117
Obsidian Tigers
26
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 16:00:00 -
[230] - Quote
Mining Frigate, wait...... EvE = Homeworld 3 Eve Radio |
|
Fade Toblack
Per.ly The 20 Minuters
21
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 16:00:00 -
[231] - Quote
Swearte Widfarend wrote:I know that ship skills provide bonuses based on the level of the skill, but I really think you should re-evaluate "all ships unlocked at level 1." Granted, with skills at such a low multiplier, the difference between 1 and 3 is only a couple hours, but I think you should consider unlocking hulls with skill level, with a cap that all hulls are unlocked by LV 4 for a Tech 1 ship. Logically, the hulls are different, and behave differently, so having a higher skill would also imply that the hull has a higher benefit in some way (which may even be true after the changes).
No! You're basically going back into tiers, where you unlock "better" ships.
The new thinking where all ships in a class have slightly different abilities and roles is much better. Rather than nearly-always flying the "best" ship, the trade-off allows for more variety in the game. With this world-view, unlocking all the ships at the same time makes more sense.
|
Alistair Cononach
The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance
167
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 16:01:00 -
[232] - Quote
Peta Michalek wrote:
Well I am new here so I guess I'm not used to EVE work cycles, but you know - entire games were made in less time.
And died in less time too.
EVE defines, for better or worse, the "long game" in gaming.
Quote:Plus there's the "why would I play/fly this now if it's going to be buffed/nerfed/changed anyway" factor.
Because it's fun right now?
If you're not flying/playing now for fun now, you're doing it wrong.
Every MMO changes over time. EVE is no different. |
Grady Eltoren
Aviation Professionals for EVE
63
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 16:01:00 -
[233] - Quote
Archinquisitor wrote:Before making ADDITIONAL destroyers, consider upgrading one racial frigate each to destroyer, as we have so many frigates already, some without a proper role.
THIS - take one frig from each race and make it a destroyer. Too many frigates. That will cut down on your work load and make it easier for players. Unless of course this totally fubar's your balance plans already laid... : (
Anyways - SO MUCH LOVE in this devblog! Great comments so far. Hoping people post ideas in the right thread though OR dev's are following this one close taking notes.
ORE changes - +1000 so unexpected and pleasant. THANK GOD for the ORE frigate too. So cool! I LIKED the changes to the mining ships but....
WE still NEED A dedicated ICE miner (Mackinaw) this was not mentioned and not sure how this will work out? DEV's can you answer??
also
What about a dedicated GAS miner??? |
Benny Ohu
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
182
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 16:03:00 -
[234] - Quote
Johan March wrote:The destroyer changes sound good too, but the old Navy man in me says "destroyer not [strike]shore[/strike] planet bombardment ship". Now special forces team insertion. That's what destroyers do. That's what happened in the trailer at FanFest, come to think of it. A Coercer dropped a team of DUST mercs onto a planet. |
WilliamMays
Stuffs Inc.
9
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 16:04:00 -
[235] - Quote
this is a heavy payload of win |
darmwand
Repo.
51
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 16:06:00 -
[236] - Quote
Grady Eltoren wrote:Too many frigates.
Huh, how can there be too many of something? I like having more combat frigates around, that will make fights much less predictable.
darmwand Repossession Agent http://www.repo-corp.net/ Recruitment is OPEN |
GRIEV3R
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
26
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 16:09:00 -
[237] - Quote
1) These sweeping changes are very exciting. I can't wait to see them ingame! 2) The new mining frig looks awesome 3) next year's Hulkageddon will definitely be more interesting |
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War DarkSide.
699
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 16:10:00 -
[238] - Quote
darmwand wrote:Grady Eltoren wrote:Too many frigates. Huh, how can there be too many of something? I like having more combat frigates around, that will make fights much less predictable. Yeah. I mean, when I see a Drake, I surely expect something really really unpredictable.
The point is: given current mods/rigs balance, the number of ships is pretty much irrelevant - there are always like 1 or 3 (at most) usable setups. 14 |
Axl Borlara
T.R.I.A.D Defiant Legacy
37
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 16:13:00 -
[239] - Quote
Selissa Shadoe wrote:[quote=Aemonchichi]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. :/
There shouldn't be a flat out 'best' ship. Instead, there should be range of ships, each of which is best suited to a particular role or task. Which is what I think the devblog is suggesting. |
Lyta Jhonson
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
4
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 16:17:00 -
[240] - Quote
Devblog wrote:... we want to introduce new tech 1 destroyers to fill roles that are not yet covered ... Then what about new ship design contest like one we got tier 3 battlecruiser models from? |
|
Maul555
Nuts and Vindictive Remix Technologies
269
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 16:18:00 -
[241] - 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. |
ivar R'dhak
STK Scientific
61
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 16:18:00 -
[242] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote: with changes going out somewhere around august and december. I-¦d really like to know if it-¦s you that-¦s so keen on pushing this "stew" ship re-balancing or is it the general consensus at CCP-¦s agile "happenings"?
With "STEW" re-balancing I mean making all races basically the same. It shows again with the frigate re-balancing (amarr droneboats?!? , GALENTE missile boats ! ) and blatantly with the new "Hulks" you-¦re going to introduce.
Here-¦s my take on the super-duper miner revamp.
Quote:As a result we thus get:
New ORE frig: we want this ship to be obsolete after a week of gametime. To the designer who came up with the cool design? Sux to be him.
Procurer/Skiff: primarily made to be ignored. As mining yield is the only thing that counts on a m+¦thaeffin-¦ mining ship and EHP is worth cr+ñp when the gankers just upgrade from two destroyers to two Tornados.
Retriever/Mackinaw: made for cheap bots and/or watching Game of Thrones/P+ûrn while "you" mine.
Covetor/hulk: is identical to the current broken state. Just that now you can have a fit that stands up to better belt rats. yay
First of all CCP, can mining is an EMERGENT GAMEPLAY! Effin-¦get it already and don-¦t try to kill it every time you have a new brainwave by sprint committee.
Then I-¦d actually like to congratulate you on the ore-bay. It-¦s a good idea and should-¦ve been implemented a week after you learned how to do it to Rorquals. I forgot, how many years ago was that again?
Here-¦s my take on a proper Exhumers revamp:
That "super-hardy" EHP you-¦re planing for the Mack? Double it then give it to ALL THE THINGS.
Those oh so quaint and "oh so" obsolete roles the different Exhumers have, is actually the MAIN thing they should keep. In fact make it even more pronounced.
Apart from the Skiff, it-¦s main trick of dodging space-rock farts is a bit weak. Give it a proper ore hold and warp core stabs to finally become the ninja miner that some people supposedly are dreaming of.
As for your new and already obsolete(especially with skill revamps) mining frig, PLEASE don-¦t give us another useless skill to train for. Just make the damn thing use the Barge skill on lvl1, set the other barges at 2, 3 & 4 and for all I care give them all those nifty ideas you have cooked up.
BTW how about a dedicated gas cloud miner? I heard you-¦re making a new mining ship that could use a Tech2 variant?
Tl;dr Proper T2 Mining ships? Where? |
Terrorfrodo
Deep Space Darwinian Law Enforcement Agency
83
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 16:20:00 -
[243] - Quote
Changes to mining ships sound very good. CCP, You should still consider the idea linked in my signature
And you should change the basic gameplay of mining to make it worthwile for humans. The Invulnerability Sphere:Make mining/industrial vessels defendable, better fights for everyone! |
Jagga Spikes
Spikes Chop Shop
72
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 16:21:00 -
[244] - Quote
i support this product and/or service. neat! |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
972
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 16:21:00 -
[245] - Quote
can't wait till all of the hulk miners realize that the Skiff is much more resilient and they switch to it, making Hulkageddon a thing of days past (no, not really) eh |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7941
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 16:22:00 -
[246] - Quote
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. 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¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2503
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 16:25:00 -
[247] - Quote
Dino Boff wrote:I love the coming changing, but something's missing ... Can we have a dedicated ship to harvest Gas, maybe a t2 ORE frigate with bonus t2 harvester cpu requirement and to gas harvested amount, and with a gas bay?
Not sure if you've mined gas before - but its *dangerous* business. Exploding clouds and all. I don't really think a frigate is best suited for this - though I too would LOVE a dedicated gas harvester. I don't really envision it as an ORE barge though, maybe a unique Poteque Pharmaceuticals cruiser with 5 turret slots and a 1000m gas bay? Could also just be a Tech 2 Noctis variant as well.
Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
Grady Eltoren
Aviation Professionals for EVE
63
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 16:26:00 -
[248] - Quote
darmwand wrote:Grady Eltoren wrote:Too many frigates. Huh, how can there be too many of something? I like having more combat frigates around, that will make fights much less predictable.
Dude,
There are 7 (count them SEVEN) STANDARD Frigates for EACH race. NOT INCLUDING navy/faction varieties.
We could shrink that down to 5 and take 2 from each race and make them NEW destroyer hulls. This would simplify the workload on the Art department. It would also make CCP Ytterbium's (and company) job EASIER by letting them focus on 5 GOOD frigates that fit the new tiericide philosophy.
The logic is undeniable. :)
You can have brawlers, long range, ewar, missile, you name it varieties of the 5 frigates.
Total new amount of destroyers 3 per race (just like the battlecruisers). Total frigates 5 per race which is plenty to do what the devs want. |
Lili Lu
270
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 16:26:00 -
[249] - Quote
Darius III wrote:Overall these changes, IMO reflect the renewed dedication CCP has taken with regards to FiS and i am liking the rebalancing hat they are doing. +1 Yes, it is nice they recognize the problems finally, and the solutions hinted at seem on the right track. Unfortunately they don't seem to recognize that this effort has a "need for speed" heh. It is central to the health of the game.
CCP should be pouring manpower into coding, testing, and art for this effort. Not wasting it on a new inventory system that was not really needed. Sure it's nice to name pos mods or whatever. But, having to do things now with two or three clicks for what used to take one click is not an improvement. And having those devs tied up in fixing the inventory mess makes me sad face.
Frigs by coming winter? Cruisers by one year from now? BCs by one and half years from now? T3s when? Commands when? HACs? EAF? Please prioritize this process. Speed it up. Pour more people into it.
Give us the new "weapon disruptors" so that missiles have some counters like turrets, besides a ******** smartbombing (which works better for drones anyway) or broken and useless defender missiles. Give us the micro jump drive? There are some innovative mods you've floated on the forums but appear to be years away. You moved pretty quickly on the new shield boosters and adaptive armor hardeners. You moved quickly to tweak the hardeners. What's wrong with doing the same with TDs and tweaking them until you have the grand plan suite of changes in place?
All fine to have grand plan for comprehensive overhauls but since this will take years to implement how about some relaitively easy to code stop gap measures? How about just giving damp boats, painter boats, TD boats a 10% bonus or something. Make those other forms of ewar mean maybe half of what ecm means, whereas now they mean maybe a quarter of ecm. DO SOMETHING relatively easy and not game breaking in the interim as we wait for the grand plan to be implemented. |
Moonaura
The Dead Rabbit Society
159
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 16:27:00 -
[250] - Quote
Fon Revedhort wrote:So battlecruisers are still remaining as OP as today? So EHP idiocy is kept the same? So tech3 vs Command Ships nonses is left intact? Who the hell decided it's a good idea to commit that much manpower into damn frigates? Come on, man! By next summer, the date you're going to have remote chances of actually addressing bigger stuff (I'm even optimistic here), It will have been a damn year of you trying to fix these pesky frigates! How long will it take to address all the other issues then? Let me remind you of some: - cyno mechanics - rigs - armour vs. shield in general (with Shield extenders not affecting mobility, while apparently they should) - abovementioned stuff
Again, like many other players, you seem to assume that nobody flys these T1 frigate things... we fly them regularly, because of the way Faction Warfare works. And its a lot of fun let me tell you :)
How should shield extenders affect mobility? What? The extra size creates push back from the solar wind or something? lol
One thing that is typically forgotten is that to tank for shields properly, it means using the mid slots up, as well as a rather large amount of power grid to fit them. And last time I checked, Caldari weren't all that fast to begin with. I've heard this idea promoted before and its a poor way to fix the nano drake issue. Not exactly many Rokh's whizzing around at speed are there? Caldari focused fleet PvP
Join us for 100% Caldari fleets in Faction Warfare and small fleet PvP
www.thedeadrabbitsociety.com/recruitment |
|
Denidil
Larimer Highlands Heavy Industries
277
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 16:28:00 -
[251] - Quote
CCP i love this set of changes :D This High Sec vs Null sec pissing and gank fight is fracking up the economy.. stop being stupid people, miners provide the materials for the ships you fly. |
Eternal Error
Exitus Acta Probant
37
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 16:31:00 -
[252] - Quote
I'll wait until more details are out to really discuss it, but "battleship-like EHP" (100k+) on a mining barge sounds a bit excessive to me. Mining frigate is needed. I don't like the introduction of a pure missile ship for every race as it can encourage non-caldari guys to really go for missiles, which is a mistake that early. However, that has always been an issue as some of them had a few missile hardpoints, so whatever.
+1 for upgrading a current frigate to a destroyer class rather than getting an entirely new destroyer. All the frigate choices can easily overwhelm a newb, and most older players only use the brawler frigates anyway.
+1 for speeding up your timetable. A lot of these changes are common sense, and some of the more serious issues with cruiser/BC hulls cannot wait until next year. |
Swearte Widfarend
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
83
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 16:31:00 -
[253] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Swearte Widfarend wrote:It's pretty common to fit Hulks (and Covetors) with Cargo Expansion Rigs and even sometimes the Expander II mods. I hope you realize this and will also either transfer the bonuses for these mods/rigs to the Ore Hold, or create a separate Mod and Rig to expand the Ore Hold (with similar penalties to the cargo rigs/mods). Same goes here: doing that, and trying to expand the cargo hold of the new Hulk to begin with, would be to go completely counter to its new purpose and intended use. You don't need a big ore hold GÇö the Orca in your gang has that covered. Most likely, when these changes go through, they're simply going to force-strip all barges and exhumers since none of the fittings will make sense any more (and some of them might even no longer be able to fit the things they currently carry). They've done that before when they've completely revamped ship bonuses and layouts, so it will probably be the preferred solution here as well.
I've not seen CCP pull rigs off ships and repackage them - a straight up strip of the ship would result in the destruction of the rigs. And 10 million ISK is't a lot, for one person/one ship, but when you have thousands of ships with two expander rigs, that's gone from one guy and 10 million ISK to a few billion ISK of assets across hundreds of players potentially destroyed by "stripping the ships" - hence the question. Democracy is only as good as the despot managing the voting booth. |
Maul555
Nuts and Vindictive Remix Technologies
269
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 16:31:00 -
[254] - 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? |
Fabulousli Obvious
State War Academy Caldari State
346
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 16:32:00 -
[255] - Quote
I can understand the new ORE Frigate for beginners.....but there is indeed NOTHING HERE for the Veteran Miner.
"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"
Skiff gets "battleship-like EHP", but Hulk stays the same BY THOSE WORDS.
The New Player Experience is being nicely worked on, that's for sure and "**OBVIOUS**",..........but what about Player RETENTION ? I think that God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability. In all matters of opinion, our adversaries are insane. ~~ Oscar Wilde, writer, d. November 30, 1900 |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
972
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 16:36:00 -
[256] - Quote
Fabulousli Obvious wrote: I can understand the new ORE Frigate for beginners.....but there is indeed NOTHING HERE for the Veteran Miner.
"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"
Skiff gets "battleship-like EHP", but Hulk stays the same BY THOSE WORDS.
The New Player Experience is being nicely worked on, that's for sure and "**OBVIOUS**",..........but what about Player RETENTION ?
Fly the Retriever/Mackinaw then. eh |
Saracena
Infinatech
12
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 16:37:00 -
[257] - Quote
Good changes overall but a gas mining ship would be a welcome addition if you're really looking hard at role management/need within the game. People have said they wanted something along those lines; it's in the assembly hall of acknowledged frequently proposed ideas for goodness sake. This would have been a perfect chance to address that need unless you're specifically thinking about cruisers.
But overall good looking changes, especially ehp.
edit: wait, you don't plan on buffing hulk ehp? meh. Not so good. |
Swearte Widfarend
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
83
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 16:38:00 -
[258] - Quote
Fade Toblack wrote:Swearte Widfarend wrote:I know that ship skills provide bonuses based on the level of the skill, but I really think you should re-evaluate "all ships unlocked at level 1." Granted, with skills at such a low multiplier, the difference between 1 and 3 is only a couple hours, but I think you should consider unlocking hulls with skill level, with a cap that all hulls are unlocked by LV 4 for a Tech 1 ship. Logically, the hulls are different, and behave differently, so having a higher skill would also imply that the hull has a higher benefit in some way (which may even be true after the changes). No! You're basically going back into tiers, where you unlock "better" ships. The new thinking where all ships in a class have slightly different abilities and roles is much better. Rather than nearly-always flying the "best" ship, the trade-off allows for more variety in the game. With this world-view, unlocking all the ships at the same time makes more sense.
Was going to argue this, wrote up my argument, and decided I agree with you.
Jeremy Hayden wrote:It seems a bit odd to me that some mining barges would get a special ore bay and others won't. In my opinion, it would make more sense to standardize and give every ORE ship a dedicated ORE hold.
Retriever - Large ORE bay (jetcan size), small-medium cargo hold depending on fittings. Increased EHP, but not even near the procurer/skiff. It's a flexible ship, its yield is decent, but still not as good as the more dedicated t2 ships like the mack, hulk, or covetor. It can hold the most ore, though.
Mackinaw - Medium ORE bay. small - medium cargohold depending on yield or defense fittings tradeoff. Increased EHP from current, but still average EHP. Would still receive ice bonus to keep it as the best yield ship for ice mining.
And while we're at it:
Orca
- X-large ORE bay (increased from current). 80,000m3
- Same size cargohold as current. - Same size corp hanger as current. - Same size ship maint hanger as current.
Why would you make the Mack ORE bay smaller, when it's specific role is to harvest the largest volume product in EVE? That seems stupid to me. Also, don't think I've seen a Tech 2 hull have a smaller cargo volume than Tech 1 - but I can't be arced to look at every Tech 1/Tech 2 ship ATM. Sure it has it's on DB entry so they can do whatever, but what's your justification for the smaller hold on the ship that harvests the largest junk? Democracy is only as good as the despot managing the voting booth. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3425
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 16:42:00 -
[259] - Quote
CCP Phantom wrote:A clarification about the time line.
This blog is an update on what we are doing this summer (therefore the title 'Ship balancing summer update') to be released this winter and later. Thanks, this timeline is much appreciated. |
Lili Lu
270
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 16:42:00 -
[260] - Quote
Eternal Error wrote:I'll wait until more details are out to really discuss it, but "battleship-like EHP" (100k+) on a mining barge sounds a bit excessive to me. Mining frigate is needed. I don't like the introduction of a pure missile ship for every race as it can encourage non-caldari guys to really go for missiles, which is a mistake that early. However, that has always been an issue as some of them had a few missile hardpoints, so whatever.
+1 for upgrading a current frigate to a destroyer class rather than getting an entirely new destroyer. All the frigate choices can easily overwhelm a newb, and most older players only use the brawler frigates anyway.
+1 for speeding up your timetable. A lot of these changes are common sense, and some of the more serious issues with cruiser/BC hulls cannot wait until next year. The mining barge changes make sense though if the beefy one has one strip miner hardpoint. You want safety mr miner, well you trade that for lesser yield. Makes sense. But yes the cruiser and BC issues need faster attention. Frigs really should be done by the end of the Summer, and then Cruisers and BCs by the next expansion. I hope CCP rethinks their timetable to speed it up to that.
I'm ambivalent about everyone getting a missile frig. Amarr makes sense ever since the Khanid changes. Gallente really doesn't. But oh well, one frig is no big deal. I doubt we will have a tech I Gallente missile boat. That there are so many cruisers probably lent itself to everyone getting one. I suppose Frigs could be the most diverse. Hell I'm even rethinking my criticism of the Caldari FW guys post wanting a drone frig. No harm in frigs tbh. With the fewer number of tech I cruisers there it is unlikely that Gallente will get a missile cruiser and Caldari a drone cruiser. Having frigs be so diverse can help new players discover a type of ship they might like and then cross train to a race that specializes in that before losing too many sp to training their original race of ships and not liking the predominant weapon system for it. |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7941
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 16:43:00 -
[261] - Quote
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. 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¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Maul555
Nuts and Vindictive Remix Technologies
269
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 16:46:00 -
[262] - 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.
|
MisterNick
The Sagan Clan Persona Non Gratis
62
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 16:48:00 -
[263] - Quote
Looking forward to the combat Navitas, that hull is just too pretty to just sit orbiting an asteroid.
Bots are going to be all over those new tanky procurers/skiffs, but hey, at least they'll not be sucking up as much of the belts as they are now - or at least, not on a per bot basis.. "Fools! I'll show them all!"
What do you mean that one's already taken? |
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University Ivy League
1085
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 16:49:00 -
[264] - Quote
I don't think the T2 variants need to be quite that varied. They should keep their existing bonus specializations and be the best at doing that specialization.
Skiff - mercx mining Mack - ice mining Hulk - ore mining
It's not a problem that the Hulk is the best for mining ore. And I think that trying to shoehorn the other 2 T2 variants into also being suitable for ore mining to be a bit of a stretch. The primary issues:
Skiff - very specialized, has a very weak tank and hardly any PG. But it's also very specialized so I'm not sure this matters much. Could probably use 1-2 more mids and 1-2 more lows and a bit more PG.
Mack - weak tank. Biggest issue on the mack is the lack of power grid and missing out on low/mid slots. Even another 50-75 PG would be a huge boost if combined with 1-2 more lows and 1 more mid.
Hulk - weak power grid. Like the rest of the barges/exhumers, it uses medium sized rigs, is obviously a cruiser class, but has less power-grid then destroyers. Two more low slots and maybe 1 more mid slot and another 50-75 PG would have gone a long way towards fixing the Hulk.
The important thing in designing the new PG/CPU values, the slot layouts, etc is that you need to leave as much of the choice into the player's hands as possible. Give them more low slots so they can choose whether to fit more tank, more yield or more cargo as suits their tastes.
The orca is almost the best example of this. Because of the large amount of structure HP, you can outfit an orca to be a max-yield carrying beast but with a weak 80-90k EHP tank. Or you can go with a mid-level fit which trades away some cargo space in exchange for taking the EHP up to about 140k. Or you can sacrifice even more cargo space and get something in the 250-290k EHP range.
|
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War DarkSide.
703
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 16:49:00 -
[265] - Quote
Moonaura wrote:Fon Revedhort wrote:So battlecruisers are still remaining as OP as today? So EHP idiocy is kept the same? So tech3 vs Command Ships nonses is left intact? Who the hell decided it's a good idea to commit that much manpower into damn frigates? Come on, man! By next summer, the date you're going to have remote chances of actually addressing bigger stuff (I'm even optimistic here), It will have been a damn year of you trying to fix these pesky frigates! How long will it take to address all the other issues then? Let me remind you of some: - cyno mechanics - rigs - armour vs. shield in general (with Shield extenders not affecting mobility, while apparently they should) - abovementioned stuff Again, like many other players, you seem to assume that nobody flys these T1 frigate things... we fly them regularly, because of the way Faction Warfare works. And its a lot of fun let me tell you :) You missed the point.
1) CCP's already taken quite a lot of steps to balance out frigs.
2) On the other hand, they pretty much agreed that perfect balance is not possible and they'd rather have more of small but frequent shifts in the future to fight stagnation.
Guess what? By providing so much love to frigates alone and neglecting anything else they're just bound to cause a freaking stagnation rampart while chasing that mistique "ultimate frigs balance", which is said to be unreachable anyway.
Just think about that youself, dude. 14 |
Selissa Shadoe
97
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 16:49:00 -
[266] - Quote
Swearte Widfarend wrote:Tippia wrote:Swearte Widfarend wrote:It's pretty common to fit Hulks (and Covetors) with Cargo Expansion Rigs and even sometimes the Expander II mods. I hope you realize this and will also either transfer the bonuses for these mods/rigs to the Ore Hold, or create a separate Mod and Rig to expand the Ore Hold (with similar penalties to the cargo rigs/mods). Same goes here: doing that, and trying to expand the cargo hold of the new Hulk to begin with, would be to go completely counter to its new purpose and intended use. You don't need a big ore hold GÇö the Orca in your gang has that covered. Most likely, when these changes go through, they're simply going to force-strip all barges and exhumers since none of the fittings will make sense any more (and some of them might even no longer be able to fit the things they currently carry). They've done that before when they've completely revamped ship bonuses and layouts, so it will probably be the preferred solution here as well. I've not seen CCP pull rigs off ships and repackage them - a straight up strip of the ship would result in the destruction of the rigs. And 10 million ISK is't a lot, for one person/one ship, but when you have thousands of ships with two expander rigs, that's gone from one guy and 10 million ISK to a few billion ISK of assets across hundreds of players potentially destroyed by "stripping the ships" - hence the question.
I seriously hope noone has been silly enough to put T2 cargohold rigs on their mining barge .. lol .. that'd really pee in their cornflakes if they wake up and find they're obsoleted/stripped.
I like the idea of ore-bay expanders. I like the idea of choice of how a ship is configured. I like the idea of balance between cargo and tank that you can do right now. It comes down to preference and risk/reward. Losing that capability feels like it will be one-size-fits all for fittings. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7941
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 16:51:00 -
[267] - Quote
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. 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¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Selissa Shadoe
97
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 16:55:00 -
[268] - 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.
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 :) |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3425
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 16:56:00 -
[269] - Quote
We are having some discussions about the ORE Frig: can you assure us that if we have no mining skills you won't be saddling us with ore frig skills to replace the mining cruisers? Many people would prefer not to have such stuff on their character board. |
Maul555
Nuts and Vindictive Remix Technologies
270
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 16:56:00 -
[270] - 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. |
|
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3425
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 16:56:00 -
[271] - Quote
Selissa Shadoe wrote: 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 :)
He doesn't mean on the forums. |
Marcel Devereux
Aideron Robotics
120
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 16:56:00 -
[272] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Dino Boff wrote:I love the coming changing, but something's missing ... Can we have a dedicated ship to harvest Gas, maybe a t2 ORE frigate with bonus t2 harvester cpu requirement and to gas harvested amount, and with a gas bay? Not sure if you've mined gas before - but its *dangerous* business. Exploding clouds and all. I don't really think a frigate is best suited for this - though I too would LOVE a dedicated gas harvester. I don't really envision it as an ORE barge though, maybe a unique Poteque Pharmaceuticals cruiser with 5 turret slots and a 1000m gas bay? Could also just be a Tech 2 Noctis variant as well.
This is why gas harvesting should be done with drones and not ships. I think ORE ship actually makes sense. Especially if we could get rid of the current harvesters and use drones. |
baltec1
1443
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 16:57:00 -
[273] - Quote
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? |
Denidil
Larimer Highlands Heavy Industries
277
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 16:57:00 -
[274] - 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.
even if it kept it's current bay
8000m3 primary, 8000m3 ore < good skills T1 hauler.
that being said i expect the bay parameters on the new and improved hulk to be something like 1000m3 primary, 8000m3 ore I like all these gankbear tears, now maybe you'll have to go prove your "l33t pvp" skills against something that shoots back like the rest of us do. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7941
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 16:59:00 -
[275] - Quote
Selissa Shadoe wrote:So, you support a Hulk nerf? What nerf? It's a role change. Hell, it's not really even that GÇö it's a role clarification.
Maul555 wrote: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. Yes? You're going to need that anyway since you have to co-ordinate your work effort with the rest of the team (and hell, you will need to attend to it once every six minutes to jettison the cargo for tractoring or transfer to a close-by Orca, which isn't much to ask, tbhGǪ). If you want a more AFK experience, pick a Retriever/Mack.
Denidil wrote:even if it kept it's current bay
8000m3 primary, 8000m3 ore < good skills T1 hauler. If it kept its current bay, it would be able to achieve 17k+ m-¦ primary + 8k m-¦ ore, which is well within the range of competing with industrial ships. 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¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Biterno Sintaph
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
1
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 17:00:00 -
[276] - Quote
Dear CCP,
These changes look great. The mining frig reminds me a lot of Homeworld.
While you're at it, can you add ships that have a bonus to smartbomb damage and radius? |
Maul555
Nuts and Vindictive Remix Technologies
270
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 17:00:00 -
[277] - 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. |
PinkKnife
The Scope Gallente Federation
121
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 17:02:00 -
[278] - Quote
There is a lot of reading fail in this thread, and a lot of misinformation on how things work.
Peta Michalek wrote: Seriously?
So let me get this straight.
T1 frigates.destroyers to be released this winter; T1 BCs/BS one update after that(summer 2013) T2 frigs/destroyers after that(winter 2013) T2 BCs/BS after that (summer 2014) T3 and/or faction ships at the end(winter 2014)
Two and half years long balance plan?
They started with frigates because there are the most of them, and they have to start from the ground up to set the power and ability levels. If you rebalance a drake now, but then buff the frigates and cruisers later, you then have to go back and re-rebalance the drake so that it fits nicely in line with the changes.
Yes, We are impatient and want the ships we fly most often new and shiny. But that doesn't exactly work out well.
Also, It isn't just rebalancing. The roles defined by frigates will be reflected in new ships in other hull sizes. Look to see new support battleships, and other T2 variants down the line.
Also, Ship balance team is not all of CCP. Ship balance doesn't work on artwork, doesn't work on UI stuff, doesn't work on modules and balance within. Just because the tiercide changes are taking a while, doesn't mean you won't see other updates in the mean time. I.e. Inferno saw new frigate changes, and a whole crap ton of other gameplay changes as well.
That said, onto the dev blog:
I like it. With the exception to the idea of every racing having drone boats. This is a gallente weapon predominantly, and should be stuck on amarr/gallente ships near exclusively. Give us SOME reason to fly gal for once. Racial homoginization is bad, and drones are very much a gallente racial characteristic. Drone bays on some ships are fine, just make sure that the Gallente version has a better bay/better bandwidth.
|
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3425
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 17:03:00 -
[279] - Quote
I would appreciate hulk miners still having an incentive to fill their lows with expanded cargoholds and their rigs with cargohold optimizations, or give them mining rigs that reduce tank, or rigs that increase ore bay size and reduce tank.
Basically, anything that dangles shinies in front of miners encouraging them to forgo tank entirely for that little extra yield. |
Selissa Shadoe
97
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 17:03:00 -
[280] - Quote
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.
Yes, exactly.. At least you 'get it' too. |
|
baltec1
1443
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 17:05:00 -
[281] - Quote
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. |
Selissa Shadoe
97
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 17:06:00 -
[282] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:I would appreciate hulk miners still having an incentive to fill their lows with expanded cargoholds and their rigs with cargohold optimizations, or give them mining rigs that reduce tank, or rigs that increase ore bay size and reduce tank.
Basically, anything that dangles shinies in front of miners encouraging them to forgo tank entirely for that little extra yield.
Yes, exactly. It's called choice and I support that. If it lets you get ganked easier, then that was the choice made. |
Selissa Shadoe
97
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 17:07:00 -
[283] - 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.
Yea, maybe that's it.. There's going to be something like a fire-sale on Hulks after the patch. Fire up the Mack blueprints, everyone. |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Divine Power. Cascade Imminent
1168
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 17:08:00 -
[284] - Quote
Scrapyard Bob wrote:Skiff - very specialized, has a very weak tank and hardly any PG. But it's also very specialized so I'm not sure this matters much. Could probably use 1-2 more mids and 1-2 more lows and a bit more PG.
Actually a skiff's tank can be fit nearly identically to a hulk's due to the reduction in PG reqs thanks to only one strip miner fitted,and is actually better at tanking then a hulk in my experience since it has less then half the sig radius of a hulk and the speed of a cruiser; just set it to orbit a jetcan at 500m and shrug off 5-6 BS at once.
Skiffs are pretty sweet except for that they require exhumers V to yield equally to a hulk, and only work on mercoxit |
Maul555
Nuts and Vindictive Remix Technologies
270
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 17:08:00 -
[285] - 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! |
Dren Nas
Big Johnson's Ascendance.
3
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 17:09:00 -
[286] - Quote
Dear CCP,
TYVM for attempting to address the issues with ORE barges; however, I wish there were more variations of t2 battleships. There are tons of cruisers, but only 2 types of t2 BS. I'd love to see heavy logistics or super heavy interdictors one day |
Javajunky
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
28
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 17:11:00 -
[287] - Quote
This isn't the first time I've mentioned it, but it's a good time to iterate...
How about some Mining Op love? Allow hulks in range of the rorq/orca an ability to directly deposit ore to the ore holds?
Lots of solo miner love and no one thought - how could we make it cooler for the mining ops?
Java |
Ila Gant
Hedion University Amarr Empire
119
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 17:12:00 -
[288] - Quote
Maul555 wrote:If you use expanded cargo holds, and/or cargo rigs on a hulk, then this is looking like a big operational nerf/headache. If you use expanded cargo holds on a Hulk then you're already doing it wrong. In hi-sec, you should be fitting a tank on that Hulk and have a buddy (or alt) haul, in low-sec you should be fitting MLUs and have a buddy (or alt haul), and have your corp/alliance secure the space or monitor the gates. Better you should be in a fleet with an Orca or Rorqual that can tractor your yield and hold it for you.
If you're trying to go completely solo, no hauler, then you're doing it wrong. |
baltec1
1443
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 17:12:00 -
[289] - Quote
Maul555 wrote:
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.
I want my megathrons turrets to hit frigates. Because thats what I want them to do.
As for the rest, christ suck it up. You have to empty your hold slightly more than you used to. Its not the end of the world. |
Selaya Ataru
Pink Kitten Kommando To The Moon
8
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 17:12:00 -
[290] - Quote
J3ssica Alba wrote:inb4 ganker tear flood over skiff EHP
Since the skiff will have a low yield and most miner will still fly Hulks for max profit the ganker can be quite happy with this. Though it is a good change to give miners the choice to fly either supertanks or high yield ships without having to train caldari BS
|
|
Temmu Guerra
Genco Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
71
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 17:12:00 -
[291] - Quote
My mining fleet says thank you for the changes to the cargo holds on the hulks and such.
Now can we start talking about capital mining ships |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7942
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 17:12:00 -
[292] - Quote
Maul555 wrote:No, they are meant to be used as I like. GǪexcept that the whole point of tiercide and of this change is that each ship will have a well-defined role.
The new role defined for the Hulk/Covetor is group mining. You can use it any way you like, but if you push it outside its role, it will be bad at it. This is no different than trying to use a HIC for remote reps and trying to use Logistics for tackling GÇö it can be done, but it's the wrong ships for the wrong tasks. If you want to mine alone, a Retreiever/Mack will suit your purpose far better. 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¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Swearte Widfarend
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
83
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 17:13:00 -
[293] - 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. How does providing the option to expand the size of an ore bay break the "design philosophy mentioned earlier"? Democracy is only as good as the despot managing the voting booth. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7942
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 17:15:00 -
[294] - Quote
Swearte Widfarend wrote:How does providing the option to expand the size of an ore bay break the "design philosophy mentioned earlier"? The option to expand the cargo holds would break the philosophy of not having them compete with industrials, if those cargo holds were to remain the same size they are today.
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¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3426
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 17:16:00 -
[295] - Quote
yeah im not sure why anyone thinks we'd be upset about this: the people who would fly the tanked barges are flying battleships right now
this just gives us new reasons to mock our victims
hell they'll probably take a skiff and fit it for max yield and in doing so make it still paper thin |
baltec1
1444
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 17:16:00 -
[296] - Quote
Swearte Widfarend wrote: How does providing the option to expand the size of an ore bay break the "design philosophy mentioned earlier"?
You put the hauling hauler out of work and reduce jetcans which also puts can flippers out of work. We cant do that |
Maul555
Nuts and Vindictive Remix Technologies
270
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 17:18:00 -
[297] - 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? |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3426
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 17:20:00 -
[298] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:yeah im not sure why anyone thinks we'd be upset about this: the people who would fly the tanked barges are flying battleships right now
this just gives us new reasons to mock our victims
hell they'll probably take a skiff and fit it for max yield and in doing so make it still paper thin this reminds me: CCP please make it possible to fit a skiff for max yield and utterly ruin the tank
you know you'll enjoy the killmails as much as I will |
baltec1
1444
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 17:21:00 -
[299] - Quote
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 ********.
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?
Face it, you now have to make choices. You people whined for the barges to be "fixed" and now they have. The rest is up to you. |
Maul555
Nuts and Vindictive Remix Technologies
270
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 17:22:00 -
[300] - Quote
If ccp adds ore hold expanders, this would fix a lot of problems. also add a lot more options to orcas... |
|
Lili Lu
270
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 17:23:00 -
[301] - Quote
PinkKnife wrote:There is a lot of reading fail in this thread, and a lot of misinformation on how things work. Peta Michalek wrote: Seriously?
So let me get this straight.
T1 frigates.destroyers to be released this winter; T1 BCs/BS one update after that(summer 2013) T2 frigs/destroyers after that(winter 2013) T2 BCs/BS after that (summer 2014) T3 and/or faction ships at the end(winter 2014)
Two and half years long balance plan?
They started with frigates because there are the most of them, and they have to start from the ground up to set the power and ability levels. If you rebalance a drake now, but then buff the frigates and cruisers later, you then have to go back and re-rebalance the drake so that it fits nicely in line with the changes. Yes, We are impatient and want the ships we fly most often new and shiny. But that doesn't exactly work out well. Also, It isn't just rebalancing. The roles defined by frigates will be reflected in new ships in other hull sizes. Look to see new support battleships, and other T2 variants down the line. Also, Ship balance team is not all of CCP. Ship balance doesn't work on artwork, doesn't work on UI stuff, doesn't work on modules and balance within. Just because the tiercide changes are taking a while, doesn't mean you won't see other updates in the mean time. I.e. Inferno saw new frigate changes, and a whole crap ton of other gameplay changes as well. That said, onto the dev blog: The current changes to the mining barges is not a final list, They said they would look at barge EHP, stop whining about the gankability of Hulks, when they have already said they will address it. You're just shouting at the people who are giving you want you want and making yourself look bad for failing to read. I like it. With the exception to the idea of every racing having drone boats. This is a gallente weapon predominantly, and should be stuck on amarr/gallente ships near exclusively. Give us SOME reason to fly gal for once. Racial homoginization is bad, and drones are very much a gallente racial characteristic. Drone bays on some ships are fine, just make sure that the Gallente version has a better bay/better bandwidth. I disagree about the pace. They do need to get faster at this. They've already been hinting at it for a year. Then we got 5 frigs changed. Now we are looking at more years of waiting for the big problem areas to get addressed.
For frigates racial homogenization is no big deal as long as the camel's nose under the tent syndrome doesn't take hold. With only 4 racial tech I cruisers, one being logi, one being ewar, it doesn't lend itself to each race having a drone boat or a missile boat. ANd then with only 3 BCs and 3 BSs there is little danger of homogenization up the chain.
A caldari drone frig and a Gallente missile frig is not a big deal. If it manages to avoid future whines on the forums for a Caldari drone Cruiser or BS or a Gallente missile cruiser or BS by providing experience and knowledge of other weapon systems, and inducing racial cross training to an individually preferred type it would be a positive. Too many posts are of the variety of "my weapon system sucks but his weapon system (with which I have no experience) sure looks better . . ." |
baltec1
1444
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 17:24:00 -
[302] - Quote
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 |
Sidus Isaacs
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
122
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 17:24:00 -
[303] - Quote
Nice to see CCP and EVE on the important Internet spaceship path again! :) |
Maul555
Nuts and Vindictive Remix Technologies
270
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 17:25:00 -
[304] - 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 |
Karl Hobb
Imperial Margarine
357
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 17:26:00 -
[305] - Quote
I figured this would eventually end up as some sperg-fest with miners claiming "tears" and making all sorts of baseless, idiotic claims, and I'm sad to see I'm right. Oh well, guess I'll just wait for all this to hit Sisi.
Definitely going to train for that mining frigate though, at the very least just to fly it around. Nothing Found |
baltec1
1444
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 17:30:00 -
[306] - Quote
Karl Hobb wrote:I figured this would eventually end up as some sperg-fest with miners claiming "tears" and making all sorts of baseless, idiotic claims, and I'm sad to see I'm right. Oh well, guess I'll just wait for all this to hit Sisi.
Definitely going to train for that mining frigate though, at the very least just to fly it around.
Ironicly its miners who are shedding the most tears |
ostar ostar
Odyssey Space Exploration
10
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 17:30:00 -
[307] - Quote
All awesome, awesome changes, but please, just one suggestion:
DON'T GIVE THE BARGES AN ACTIVE TANK BONUS
Why? Because it's gratifyingly hard to repair your shield/armor when an artillery tornado just turned your (puny) buffer tank to space dust, that's why. All the logistics in the world cannot save you from an instant, huge hit that is more than your total EHP.
Oh, and thread was a little tl;dr, so sorry if this has been answered, but the blog states that Mining Barge I is enough to fly all T1 barges. Does the Exhumers skill apply likewise to Exhumers? If not, i have no complaint, although it will make the skill tree arrangement look a little odd.
Keep up the good work guys! |
Swearte Widfarend
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
83
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 17:30:00 -
[308] - Quote
Karl Hobb wrote:I figured this would eventually end up as some sperg-fest with miners claiming "tears" and making all sorts of baseless, idiotic claims, and I'm sad to see I'm right. Oh well, guess I'll just wait for all this to hit Sisi.
Definitely going to train for that mining frigate though, at the very least just to fly it around.
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).
This discussion is much more reasonable than the Sisi Wardec thread... Democracy is only as good as the despot managing the voting booth. |
Henry Haphorn
Aliastra Gallente Federation
382
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 17:33:00 -
[309] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:yeah im not sure why anyone thinks we'd be upset about this: the people who would fly the tanked barges are flying battleships right now
this just gives us new reasons to mock our victims
hell they'll probably take a skiff and fit it for max yield and in doing so make it still paper thin
This.
When it comes to events like Hulkageddon and the OTEC operation, I don't see how the Skiff or Procurer will help. In fact, seeing people mine in a Skiff or Procurer is such a rare thing their mere presence fascinates me still.
Also, considering that the Hulk's yield seems to stay the same, I don't see these changes as a problem.
Now, as a career miner, I would certainly have a problem if the exhumer class (particularly the Mack and Hulks) were ever given a mining yield buff as that would most certainly hurt mineral prices. Adapt or Die |
Denidil
Larimer Highlands Heavy Industries
277
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 17:33:00 -
[310] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Denidil wrote:even if it kept it's current bay
8000m3 primary, 8000m3 ore < good skills T1 hauler. If it kept its current bay, it would be able to achieve 17k+ m-¦ primary + 8k m-¦ ore, which is well within the range of competing with industrial ships.
at a much higher cost. I like all these gankbear tears, now maybe you'll have to go prove your "l33t pvp" skills against something that shoots back like the rest of us do. |
|
Karl Hobb
Imperial Margarine
357
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 17:35:00 -
[311] - Quote
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... Nothing Found |
PinkKnife
The Scope Gallente Federation
122
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 17:36:00 -
[312] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote: disagree about the pace. They do need to get faster at this. They've already been hinting at it for a year. Then we got 5 frigs changed. Now we are looking at more years of waiting for the big problem areas to get addressed. For frigates racial homogenization is no big deal as long as the camel's nose under the tent syndrome doesn't take hold. With only 4 racial tech I cruisers, one being logi, one being ewar, it doesn't lend itself to each race having a drone boat or a missile boat. ANd then with only 3 BCs and 3 BSs there is little danger of homogenization up the chain. A caldari drone frig and a Gallente missile frig is not a big deal. If it manages to avoid future whines on the forums for a Caldari drone Cruiser or BS or a Gallente missile cruiser or BS by providing experience and knowledge of other weapon systems, and inducing racial cross training to an individually preferred type it would be a positive. Too many posts are of the variety of "my weapon system sucks but his weapon system (with which I have no experience) sure looks better . . ."
Inertia is a hell of a thing Now that they have the ball rolling they can get things out of the door easier. A lot of this time has been spent identifying the problem and deciding what direction to take. The actual implementation shouldn't take nearly as long. VS this summer we saw just one line of frigates changed, by winter we'll have 4 or 5 changed. From there it should quickened as things begin to get ironed out and focused.
I'm less concerned about a drone boat frig to introduce the concept, and more concerned with every race having a myrmidon or Arbitrator when they are not those races focus. I would gladly see the bay removed on all minmatar ships sub battleship. As was stated earlier by someone the Cane has no problems picking off frigates as it is, it doesn't need a drone bay for this.
We will likely see more battlecruisers, destroyers, and battleships added as the rebalance progresses, I don't want these to be the token drone boat support role per race. Its lazy and uncreative, and completely removes the heterogeneous nature of the races. Keep drones on Gallente, and a few Amarr boats. |
Sanadras Riahn
Molten Metalworks
14
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 17:36:00 -
[313] - Quote
Loving the way the changes are looking so far! I like having everything have a very defined role. My only suggestion (and I think this was mentioned, but just to be sure) is to just flat out have the ship skills grant access to all ships of that race and class. Don't remove the pre-reqs for the next level of ship (Frigate 4 to get to Cruiser 1, etc), however. That way, access to every ship of every role, and you increase your ability with the class before progressing. "This is our way of wisdom, warrior. To be true. To be full. To include our hearts in every aspect of what we do. --- Let those that fly cold numbers be the Amarr. We fly better than that."---Alica Wildfire, inscribed on the inside and outer shell of Sanadras' Capsule. |
Plato Idari
TK Corp
17
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 17:36:00 -
[314] - Quote
I think these changes look very good. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7942
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 17:37:00 -
[315] - Quote
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. 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¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Haifisch Zahne
HZ Corp
54
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 17:40:00 -
[316] - Quote
Well, I will say that the changes look good (a first for me?), assuming the specific changes to ships are sensible.
I am a little puzzled by (possibly) making the Burst a drone boat. I hope that part of the new Ship Rebalancing will not be to disrupt each race's focus on specific primary/secondary weapon platforms. If you do, can we have the MinnieDominix and the Gall(bladder) Burst, etc.? Just prepend each ship name with the race's abbreviation. Great idea, hunh?
However, I will point out that I and many others wasted a lot of time training Destroyer and Battlecruiser to Lever V because of the announced changes when my neural map was just horrible for it. Something on the order of around 20 days. Wasted. Thanks. |
Maul555
Nuts and Vindictive Remix Technologies
270
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 17:42:00 -
[317] - 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. |
Wolodymyr
Breaking Ambitions Solid Foundation
165
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 17:43:00 -
[318] - Quote
So the T1 frigates will be smaller versions of their T2 counterparts. Atron is a little Tyrannis. This is a pretty good idea. It'll let our newer member fit into roles without having to wait for a bunch of level 5 skills to train. I hope to see similar changes to the T1 cruisers.
Quote:Resilience: another point is to give some of them proper EHP not to be one-shot by anything that even remotely sneezes on them. I predict an incoming wave angry gankers.
Quote:capable of having battleship-like EHP. gird your loins! IT BEGINS! I honestly thought this was a good idea https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1417544 |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7944
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 17:46:00 -
[319] - Quote
Wolodymyr wrote:I predict an incoming wave angry gankers. So far, the miners are the ones being angry, and the gankers have already figured out how to handle itGǪ
Plus +ºa change. 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¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Maul555
Nuts and Vindictive Remix Technologies
270
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 17:47:00 -
[320] - 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. |
|
Karl Hobb
Imperial Margarine
357
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 17:47:00 -
[321] - Quote
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. Nothing Found |
PinkKnife
The Scope Gallente Federation
122
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 17:47:00 -
[322] - Quote
Haifisch Zahne wrote:However, I will point out that I and many others wasted a lot of time training Destroyer and Battlecruiser to Lever V because of the announced changes when my neural map was just horrible for it. Something on the order of around 20 days. Wasted. Thanks.
Yes CCP made you remap and train up a skill because you failed to read what they said clearly in bold text multiple times, because you wanted to game a system to not have to train a skill later on.
Yeah, it's their fault. |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
190
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 17:47:00 -
[323] - Quote
Looks good, love the way you plan to distinguish the barges from one another. Any plans for a dedicated gas-snorter?
So the new dessies will be bog standard dps/ehp .. what possible purpose would they have that is not covered by existing hulls? Make them small'ish (frig size or lowere even) semi-zippy with range and efficiency bonuses to small RR modules. Logistics platform is all that is truly missing from the lights, done properly it should be able to survive/function as support for an AF/Ceptor gang.
Quote:...part of what players now call GÇ£tiericideGÇ¥... What do you mean by "now? Pretty sure that's what we've called it for several years, believe the thread calling for tiericide (use roles rather than tiers as differentiator) is just over two years old now .. way to keep up with the rabble, dears
Good thing about an endeavour like this is that it is very easy to grade/judge after it has gone live .. just see if variety of ships used is close(r) to number of ships available rather than the 10-15% we are probably at nowadays |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2505
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 17:47:00 -
[324] - Quote
Haifisch Zahne wrote: However, I will point out that I and many others wasted a lot of time training Destroyer and Battlecruiser to Lever V because of the announced changes when my neural map was just horrible for it. Something on the order of around 20 days. Wasted. Thanks.
Just thought I'd point out that those two skills are some of the most useful in the entire game. You'd be hard pressed to convince everyone it was a waste of time. Go forth and pwn, you've got a lot of options now!! Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
Maul555
Nuts and Vindictive Remix Technologies
270
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 17:50:00 -
[325] - 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. |
Nagarythe Tinurandir
Catholic School for Boys Dark Legion Alliance
20
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 17:52:00 -
[326] - Quote
Maul555 wrote: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.
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.......
|
Denidil
Larimer Highlands Heavy Industries
277
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 17:53:00 -
[327] - Quote
Henry Haphorn wrote:
In addition to my Hulk comment, I also don't want to see any tank buffs on the Hulk as it is already capable of achieving over 30,000 EHP with the right skills and mods. Those who always complain about the Hulk's lack of tank happens to be those who always fit cargo rigs and cargo mods (these take away tank) then complain why a cruiser took out their Hulk.
no.. all mining barges should receive a buff to their innate tank - they're cruiser sized hulls. that being said
skiff - battleship like tank mackinaw - battlecruiser sized tank hulk: weak cruiser sized tank
for base tanks.. then mod how you want. add some new modules that increase ore bay at a meaningful cost to tank, maybe some mining rigs that hurt tank too.
CCP already stated they're going to make the mining yield spread much closer than it is now. I like all these gankbear tears, now maybe you'll have to go prove your "l33t pvp" skills against something that shoots back like the rest of us do. |
Ma'kal
Unrepentant Gaming The Volition Cult
6
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 17:56:00 -
[328] - Quote
This sounds great. i was hoping to see some more info on this subject and it is sounding good. I am looking forward to how these ship changes help diversify what ships are flown in the Eve universe. Down with the Drake domination of the ship that is for everything.
Edit: Forgot to mention I really like how you are changing the mining ships. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7944
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 17:58:00 -
[329] - Quote
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. 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¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Karl Hobb
Imperial Margarine
357
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 18:00:00 -
[330] - Quote
Maul555 wrote: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. Neither do I but they're re-purposing these ships. Changes are going to happen and the Hulk will end up with a different role (fleet miner) and it will need to fit that role (excellent yield, not much cargo since you'll have a fleet to handle that). Everything in parens here has been stated in the dev blog. Nothing Found |
|
Maul555
Nuts and Vindictive Remix Technologies
270
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 18:00:00 -
[331] - 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 ^^. |
Torneach
Viziam Amarr Empire
253
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 18:03:00 -
[332] - Quote
Looking good, I do have a few concerns, mostly with regards to the mineral costs of the rebalanced 'untiered' ships.
Currently, in the tiered system, the weaker frigates cost fewer minerals to produce, corresponding to their comparable weakness to the more powerful frigates, namely the Punisher, Merlin, Incursus, and Rifter. Among other factors including demand, this causes the weaker lower tier frigates to be much cheaper on the market than the powerful combat frigates.
When these changes go live, will the build requirements for the newly-balanced ships be adjusted to reflect the new untiered design system? |
Maul555
Nuts and Vindictive Remix Technologies
270
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 18:05:00 -
[333] - 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. |
Nagarythe Tinurandir
Catholic School for Boys Dark Legion Alliance
20
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 18:09:00 -
[334] - Quote
Maul555 wrote: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 ^^.
ah, got it. you are an afk miner. well i have to say, thats whining on a very high level... i also like to do stuff while mining and 3 minutes (even with full orca bonus and mining drones you can not get below that) give you plenty of time to do so. 1 second later you can go afk again. i do not see the problem. there is really potential in the new changes. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7945
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 18:11:00 -
[335] - Quote
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.
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¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
gfldex
565
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 18:14:00 -
[336] - Quote
:o
With that frigate you will turn me into a miner! When someone burns down your sandcastle, bring sausages. |
Maul555
Nuts and Vindictive Remix Technologies
271
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 18:15:00 -
[337] - 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. |
Swearte Widfarend
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
83
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 18:25:00 -
[338] - 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. Tiericide has nothing to do with the Mining Barge changes except that in removing the racial frigate that was substituted as a frigate miner, CCP noticed the rest of the barge fleet and decided to tweak it.
CCP is redefining the functionality and roles of Mining Barges, but (like a few other ships in EVE), two mining barges actually had roles that were specific and being filled correctly.
This is ship rebalancing - I'd expect you to understand the difference - and people are asking questions because some of the changes being suggested (because this is change for the next 4-5 months) are vague, which means they aren't fully thought out or fleshed out yet.
CCP is defining roles for ships - some of us realize that at least two of the six ships in the barge class have roles that they already perform fairly well, and want to know if that is changing. Democracy is only as good as the despot managing the voting booth. |
Andoria Thara
Fallen Avatars
35
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 18:30:00 -
[339] - Quote
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.
|
Selissa Shadoe
98
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 18:30:00 -
[340] - Quote
Maul555 wrote:
Tippia, Now you are just arguing to argue...
It's just what she does. You didn't think that smug character pic was JUST a picture did you? |
|
Maul555
Nuts and Vindictive Remix Technologies
271
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 18:32:00 -
[341] - 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. |
Sheol Duncan
B0rthole Test Alliance Please Ignore
58
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 18:32:00 -
[342] - Quote
No destroyer/battlecruiser change, but any word on the removal of the Battleship 5 requirement for caps that was in the original dev blog? |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7946
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 18:37:00 -
[343] - Quote
Swearte Widfarend wrote:Tiericide has nothing to do with the Mining Barge changes GǪyou mean, aside from them removing the tiers from mining barges and exhumers, and giving them distinct roles rather than just be +1 to the previous model (which is exactly the point of tiercide).
Quote:This is ship rebalancing [GǪ] CCP is defining roles for ships. Exactly: tiercide.
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¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Maul555
Nuts and Vindictive Remix Technologies
271
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 18:38:00 -
[344] - Quote
OMG!!!! T2 Mining Frig: Covert Ops Ninja Miner? |
Nate Gordo
Re-Awakened Technologies Inc
5
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 18:38:00 -
[345] - Quote
IS there anything in the pipeline to improve the Hel Supercarrier, as it doesnt really serve a function with its current bonuses, could it be worked that its a rate of fire bonus for drones, just so it can be brought on par with the other supercarriers, which either tank better or do more dps. At the momemtn it can't stay in the fight for as long or do as much damage, so whats is the point of the Hel as a supercarrier.
The Nidhoggur could do with some work too, as its supposedly the best support carrier in terms of bonus but is nearly matched by the Archon which can tank better.
The Hel and Nidhoggur are not well balanced, and they should be.
On another note good work on the mining frig looks awesome. |
Anvil44
Independent Traders and Builders MPA
98
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 18:45:00 -
[346] - Quote
Very exciting changes coming here. I see a lot of arguing about what the changes will do to the various barges/exhumers, yet, unless someone has inside info, is a lot of conjecture not based on facts.
What we know besides what was written in the blog is that CCP is looking to get away from t1,t2,t3 ships and instead re-purpose ship hulls. Before we start hitting panic buttons left, right and center, lets try to wait and see what details emerge. I can already see that this will make nice new challenges for ganking. I believe the gankers won't be crying, they will be excited at the new challenges to accomplish what they want.
Miners will have to balance between solo-mining with lower yield, huge ore hold ships and higher yield, lower capacity ships. Or join a fleet. Eve has always been and will always be, about choices and trade-offs. One size should NOT fit all. I would like to stare at a different ship every now and then when mining. Although, I sure don't know if I could take the extra excitement.
I would like to see modules for giving mining bonuses instead of role bonuses. I could see that as being something interesting for use. It would give miners additional choices/trade-offs.
Change is good, this whole blog was full of good. Keep up the good work CCP. I may not like you or your point of view but you have a right to voice it. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1294
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 18:47:00 -
[347] - 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...
It's all of 1 guy. TO THE INTERNETS! Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Issler Dainze
Tadakastu-Obata Corporation The Honda Accord
2083
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 18:49:00 -
[348] - Quote
As a miner the changes in the mining ships is the best news I've heard for us rock hounds since the Orrca!
I agree it would nice is not only is the small barge a tough little guy but slippery as well. Give it the ability to quickly warp away and suddenly ninja mining in dangerous areas becomes attractive!
When I saw the dev blog prior to release I couldn't wait for it to go out so I could talk about it. Now all I can say is thanks CCP for showing us miners some overdue love!
These mining ship changes are going to be awesome!
Issler |
Zorok
Edge of Abyss Guardian Knights Citizens
3
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 18:51:00 -
[349] - Quote
Rrama Ratamnim wrote:Zorok wrote:Hi, I'm happy to hear that you are willing to give *some* of the mining barges a bit of a buff against attackers. The ore hold bonus to the retriever/mackinaw is nice but I don't think that 1 jettison can worth of ore + a bit tougher defense is going to get people to switch to using these ships. The best setup for a lone miner is to use a hulk to mine and then use an Orca to pick up the jet cans. I believe that if you want to make the ore hold really worth while on the mackinaw/retriever, you should look at the minimum of 4 jet cans in space if you're expecting pilots to give up using a Hulk/Orca combo.
In Eve, time is money and vice versa- unless you can make the mackinaw/retriever mine more efficiently w/o Orca or other hauler support (basically make it mine more or equivalent to a Hulk mining and then the time it would take to fly back to station and grab an orca to haul jet cans etc), the Mackinaw/Retriever will be used by only a small percentage of players.
To the point: CCP, make the Mackinaw/Retriever worth my time as a lone miner and I will use this over the Hulk. a bit of an ehp buff? are you serious? BATTLE SHIP TANK = 100k EHP You seriously dont seem to be calculating in the whole loss of 1 hulk = -300m ISK thats a lot of mining every time you loose one, which during certain times mainly in highsec happens quite often.
It doesn't really matter what kind of buff they give it. If you get scrambled, you are most likely going to die. When mining, agility and speed is everything. You should be gone by the time hostiles show up at your mining spot. |
Tanaka Sekigahara
United Space Marine Corp
118
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 18:52:00 -
[350] - Quote
I Love Boobies wrote:I wonder how many people are gonna complain about barges with battleship sized EHP, especially with large ore holds? I am sure there is going to be a tear or two over them.
Seemed rather clear you got either the Battlrship like EHP, or the jetcan sized ore-hold, not both.But yes, Pirate/Goon tears incoming. Also, with huge cargohold, now one can truly "AFK" mine, as opposed to haveing to swap the crap into a can every 3 minutes.
|
|
Pertuabo Enkidgan
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
18
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 18:52:00 -
[351] - Quote
Good news, however, I could not help notice the part of where we need to wait another 6 months for balancing. Why not sooner? This is exactly what I was afraid of. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
358
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 18:53:00 -
[352] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Swearte Widfarend wrote:Tiericide has nothing to do with the Mining Barge changes GǪyou mean, aside from them removing the tiers from mining barges and exhumers, and giving them distinct roles rather than just be +1 to the previous model (which is exactly the point of tiercide). Quote:This is ship rebalancing [GǪ] CCP is defining roles for ships. Exactly: tiercide.
How do you have sooo much patience in the face of willful obliviousness?? I'm in awe!!!
Overall, I think the changes sound good... It will be interesting to see the outcome. I like the role changes to the mining barges, and sincerely hope they maintain the tradeoff between haul, yield, and tank. It sounds like CCP is planning to (i.e. no major tank buff to hulk), but I'm weary of the announced BS-quality-tank exhumer with a "closer yield" to the hulk...
I really like the idea of the hulk gaining a cruiser-quality agility, and having a decent agility - orehold tradeoff to the various mining vessels! |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3429
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 18:57:00 -
[353] - Quote
Tanaka Sekigahara wrote:I Love Boobies wrote:I wonder how many people are gonna complain about barges with battleship sized EHP, especially with large ore holds? I am sure there is going to be a tear or two over them. Seemed rather clear you got either the Battlrship like EHP, or the jetcan sized ore-hold, not both.But yes, Pirate/Goon tears incoming. Also, with huge cargohold, now one can truly "AFK" mine, as opposed to haveing to swap the crap into a can every 3 minutes. one might suppose if those "tears" were actually coming they'd be in the thread by now
soz m8 not everyone cries as delightfully as miners |
Rek Esket
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
39
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 19:03:00 -
[354] - Quote
The primary problem with the non-Hulk iterations of Exhumers is their limited CPU, if you brought them up to the same baseline level as Hulks they'd be far more competitive. |
Unforgiven Rage
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 19:12:00 -
[355] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Magnate, Heron, Imicus, Probe: strengthening current roles as support frigates. Which mainly means scanning and possibly mini-profession operations, like hacking and codebreaking as well.
Suggestion:
Please give these frigs also 1 bonus for cyno activities and a cargo hold that can store at least 3 cycles of cyno fuel for a pilot with level 2/3 to open cynos.
Thanks
|
Unforgiven Rage
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 19:20:00 -
[356] - Quote
Question:
When the frigs tiers are gone and these changes are in tranquility will the materials of constrution defined in the Bpos/Bpcs be ajusted to reflect this new reality of no tiers and the new ships funtionality in game? If yes when should we expect these changes? |
MidnightWyvern
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
8
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 19:20:00 -
[357] - Quote
Peter Powers wrote:this looks pretty cool, and new destroyers are a good idea (love the idea of drone destroyers)
but one thing bothers me all ships and ship changes lately have been mostly positive for new players, even when t3 cruisers got introduced, their skill sets where set so they can be trained quite fast. so when are you going to give us vets a few new toys?
also what happend to t3 in other ship classes?
I'm curious about this as well. I'm sure I'm not the only one that would love to have Strategic Frigates and Battleships to pilot. I'm fully onboard with redoing all of T1 to make them all useful ships, as that's been something we've needed for a while, but I hope its not coming at the cost of innovation. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=eaUaJUhTZfw#t=148s An excellent example of why pod killmails are the best feature to be implemented in EVE Online since warping at zero. |
Desert Ice78
Cobra Kai Dojo WHY so Seri0Us
136
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 19:25:00 -
[358] - Quote
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. Autonomy: 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. Resilience: another point is to give some of them proper EHP not to be one-shot by anything that even remotely sneezes on them. As a result we thus get:
New ORE frig: we want this ship to replace current mining frigates as low barrier of entry vessel, but also fulfill high-end gameplay expectations by providing a very mobile platform for mining in hostile space. Lowest mining output, decent ore bay, little to no resilience. Procurer/Skiff: primarily made for self-defense. Better mining rate than the ORE frig, good ore bay, but capable of having battleship-like EHP. Retriever/Mackinaw: made for self-reliance. Has the largest ore bay, similear to the size of a jet can, second best mining output but less EHP than the procurer mining barge. 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.
My constructive feedback is that I ******* love you. Whoever is responsible, please show yourself so that I can kiss you. I am a pod pilot: http://dl.eve-files.com/media/corp/DesertIce/POD.jpg
CCP Zulu: Came expecting a discussion about computer monitors, left confused. |
Indahmawar Fazmarai
804
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 19:25:00 -
[359] - Quote
Quote:New ORE frig: we want this ship to replace current mining frigates as low barrier of entry vessel, but also fulfill high-end gameplay expectations by providing a very mobile platform for mining in hostile space. Lowest mining output, decent ore bay, little to no resilience. Procurer/Skiff: primarily made for self-defense. Better mining rate than the ORE frig, good ore bay, but capable of having battleship-like EHP. Retriever/Mackinaw: made for self-reliance. Has the largest ore bay, similear to the size of a jet can, second best mining output but less EHP than the procurer mining barge. 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.
Looks interesting, but begs to wonder what will be the exact stats and what they call a "battleship EHP" in Reykjavik.
The difference between "ore bay" and "cargo hold" just was a strike of good sense waiting to happen. EVE is Serious Business: You shall not feel entitled to being allowed to play EVE just because you are paying it. |
Gogela
Direct Action LLC.
810
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 19:27:00 -
[360] - Quote
The new mining frigate looks awesome, and I don't even mine!
|
|
MadMuppet
Kerguelen Station
462
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 19:33:00 -
[361] - Quote
Benny Ohu wrote:Johan March wrote:The destroyer changes sound good too, but the old Navy man in me says "destroyer not [strike]shore[/strike] planet bombardment ship". Now special forces team insertion. That's what destroyers do. That's what happened in the trailer at FanFest, come to think of it. A Coercer dropped a team of DUST mercs onto a planet.
I hate to tell an old Navy guy he is wrong, but the US Navy has often used destroyers for shore and other in-land target bombardment.
I like the way the change are heading. New models would be nice, espeicall if they were based off the stylings of the new Yellow 'Vincent' mining frigate (looks like something from 'The Black Hole meets WALLY') and the Noctis. Check out the new Orca model, brought to you by the Unified Inventory System
http://i.imgur.com/InJgK.jpg-á
|
In ViTrIoL
Sons of Ivaldi Zero Hour Alliance
1
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 19:38:00 -
[362] - Quote
What about a gas harvesting barge!!! |
Marlona Sky
Massive PVPness Psychotic Tendencies.
1168
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 19:43:00 -
[363] - Quote
One concern is mining barge agility. Having a nice big buffer tank is pointless when the main defense is agility to warp out. I am all for barges having huge tanks so they can last while the protection fleet engages the attackers. But if the barge can be in warp long before an attacker can even land in the belt, there is no need for a protection fleet or a big tank.
Give the barges the big tank, but nerf the **** out of their agility so the tank has a point. Also don't allow mining lasers to activate if the ship is above 20% top speed.
Maybe my specific suggestions are off, but I hope everyone understands the point.
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
Serenity Arsten
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 19:46:00 -
[364] - Quote
New Destroyers??!!?? I may have to train that up, then...
p.s., As mentioned earlier; some pictures of said "New Destroyers" would be fan-frikkin-tastic. |
Henry Haphorn
Aliastra Gallente Federation
382
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 19:53:00 -
[365] - Quote
Denidil wrote:Henry Haphorn wrote:
In addition to my Hulk comment, I also don't want to see any tank buffs on the Hulk as it is already capable of achieving over 30,000 EHP with the right skills and mods. Those who always complain about the Hulk's lack of tank happens to be those who always fit cargo rigs and cargo mods (these take away tank) then complain why a cruiser took out their Hulk.
no.. all mining barges should receive a buff to their innate tank - they're cruiser sized hulls. that being said skiff - battleship like tank mackinaw - battlecruiser sized tank hulk: weak cruiser sized tank for base tanks.. then mod how you want. add some new modules that increase ore bay at a meaningful cost to tank, maybe some mining rigs that hurt tank too. CCP already stated they're going to make the mining yield spread much closer than it is now.
1. The Hulk, Mackinaw, and Skiff are not mining barges. They are exhumers (T2). Get it right. Although the blog does mention them, the changes seem to imply that the barges are going to be more specialized like the exhumers rather than being a kid's bike with training wheels.
2. These are mining ships, not combat ships. The Procurer/Skiff are the only exception to that statement as they are meant more for sneaking into low-sec space, mine, and getting out fast. The changes in the blog help compliment their purpose. In the case of the Hulk, it's meant more for operating in null-sec where it has the protection of its fellow alliance, which explains the current base tank it has. Although, it can survive NPC rats in 0.0. Hell, I took a Hulk into a combat PvE mission once and it did well.
3. As for your comment about new mods that increase the bay at the expense of tank, we got that already. Their called Cargohold Optimizations and Expanded Cargoholds. They eat at your hull or armor. Adapt or Die |
Swearte Widfarend
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
83
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 19:53:00 -
[366] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Swearte Widfarend wrote:Tiericide has nothing to do with the Mining Barge changes GǪyou mean, aside from them removing the tiers from mining barges and exhumers, and giving them distinct roles rather than just be +1 to the previous model (which is exactly the point of tiercide). Quote:This is ship rebalancing [GǪ] CCP is defining roles for ships. Exactly: tiercide.
Um, no. Perhaps next time if you don't selectively quote me, you will accept the possibility that you aren't right 100% of the time. I know that's a challenge for you, so I'm not optimistic, but hey, CCP is working on EVE, the spaceship game so miracles can happen.
The only piece of what is happening to Mining Barges that can be called "tiericide" is the removal of the requirement to train Mining Barge past level 1 to fly the Tech 1 barges. Tiericide is being done to ship classes while at the same time roles are being introduced to provide differentiation between ships (and theoretical usefulness). Two different things - related but not the same thing.
The difference with the discussion on the barges is that CCP is not just touching the Tech 1 ships - they are touching the Tech 2 ships as well, and those ships already had roles. Nowhere has CCP clarified if those roles are going to continue, and in fact the vague role definitions in the devblog hint that they might not.
Hence the question.
Did you follow that, or do I need to use smaller words? Democracy is only as good as the despot managing the voting booth. |
Torneach
Viziam Amarr Empire
256
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 19:56:00 -
[367] - Quote
Unforgiven Rage wrote:Question:
When the frigs tiers are gone and these changes are in tranquility will the materials of constrution defined in the Bpos/Bpcs be ajusted to reflect this new reality of no tiers and the new ships funtionality in game? If yes when should we expect these changes?
I asked a similar question, an answer would be great, CCP.
EDIT: If they can find it in this mess of back-and-forth about the mining barges... |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7948
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 19:57:00 -
[368] - Quote
Swearte Widfarend wrote:Um, no. GǪaside from tiercide being exactly that: the removal of tiers and instead giving ships specific roles, just like they're doing with the barges and exhumers.
Quote:The only piece of what is happening to Mining Barges that can be called "tiericide" is the removal of the requirement to train Mining Barge past level 1 to fly the Tech 1 barges. Tiericide is being done to ship classes while at the same time roles are being introduced to provide differentiation between ships (and theoretical usefulness). GǪwhich is exactly what they're doing to the exhumers and barges.
Quote:The difference with the discussion on the barges is that CCP is not just touching the Tech 1 ships - they are touching the Tech 2 ships as well, and those ships already had roles. They also had tiers. Now they're removing those tiers and adjusting the rolesGǪ you know, tiercide. What they're doing to the exhumers is no different than what they're doing to the T1 frigates, and what they're doing to the barges is tiercide at its finest since those ships were only about the tiers. 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¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Maul555
Nuts and Vindictive Remix Technologies
271
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 20:00:00 -
[369] - 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? |
Nyreanya
Serenity Labs New Eden Research.
164
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 20:03:00 -
[370] - Quote
The mining barge changes are perfect! You should be able to sacrifice yield for more tank on different hulls. Brilliant. I'm unreasonably happy. |
|
Swearte Widfarend
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
85
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 20:04:00 -
[371] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Swearte Widfarend wrote:Um, no. GǪaside from tiercide being exactly that: the removal of tiers and instead giving ships specific roles, just like they're doing with the barges and exhumers. Quote:The only piece of what is happening to Mining Barges that can be called "tiericide" is the removal of the requirement to train Mining Barge past level 1 to fly the Tech 1 barges. Tiericide is being done to ship classes while at the same time roles are being introduced to provide differentiation between ships (and theoretical usefulness). GǪwhich is exactly what they're doing to the exhumers and barges. Quote:The difference with the discussion on the barges is that CCP is not just touching the Tech 1 ships - they are touching the Tech 2 ships as well, and those ships already had roles. They also had tiers. Now they're removing those tiers and adjusting the rolesGǪ you know, tiercide.
So did I miss in the Devblog where you don't have to train the Exhumer skill past level 1 to fly all 3"? Hmmm.. Nope. It's not there. Therefore, tiericide does not apply to the proposed changes on the Exhumers. They already had roles, which is the "new" model CCP is following. They weren't just +1 (if that's what you want to use for your definition of tiericide). Democracy is only as good as the despot managing the voting booth. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
81
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 20:05:00 -
[372] - Quote
Looks good! Can't wait to test those rebalanced frigs. ORE frigate looks great!
And I really like what you're doing to mining ships. Can't wait the tear flood from gankers. |
Petrus Blackshell
Rifterlings Damu'Khonde
1257
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 20:09:00 -
[373] - Quote
Heh. Look at all the "I want to be safe" miners thinkng the changes will make them safe, and their impotent chestbeating.
Bets that they will be the ones whining about the cruiser buff when it happens?
I haven't actually ganked any exhumer yet, but once these changes drop and the carebear glee is high, I may want to fix my sec status and show miners a sweet game called "bumper cars". Rifterlings - Small gang lowsec combat corp specializing in frigates and cruisers (all races, not just Rifters!). US Timezone veterans and newbies alike are welcome to join. Come chat in the "we fly rifters" in-game channel. Free fitted frigates for members! |
Alli Othman
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
26
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 20:10:00 -
[374] - Quote
Sexy, sexy changes... There seems to be a puddle on my desk and chair now... |
Denidil
Larimer Highlands Heavy Industries
277
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 20:10:00 -
[375] - Quote
Henry Haphorn wrote:Denidil wrote:Henry Haphorn wrote:
In addition to my Hulk comment, I also don't want to see any tank buffs on the Hulk as it is already capable of achieving over 30,000 EHP with the right skills and mods. Those who always complain about the Hulk's lack of tank happens to be those who always fit cargo rigs and cargo mods (these take away tank) then complain why a cruiser took out their Hulk.
no.. all mining barges should receive a buff to their innate tank - they're cruiser sized hulls. that being said skiff - battleship like tank mackinaw - battlecruiser sized tank hulk: weak cruiser sized tank for base tanks.. then mod how you want. add some new modules that increase ore bay at a meaningful cost to tank, maybe some mining rigs that hurt tank too. CCP already stated they're going to make the mining yield spread much closer than it is now. 1. The Hulk, Mackinaw, and Skiff are not mining barges. They are exhumers (T2). Get it right. Although the blog does mention them, the changes seem to imply that the barges are going to be more specialized like the exhumers rather than being a kid's bike with training wheels. 2. These are mining ships, not combat ships. The Procurer/Skiff are the only exception to that statement as they are meant more for sneaking into low-sec space, mine, and getting out fast. The changes in the blog help compliment their purpose. In the case of the Hulk, it's meant more for operating in null-sec where it has the protection of its fellow alliance, which explains the current base tank it has. Although, it can survive NPC rats in 0.0. Hell, I took a Hulk into a combat PvE mission once and it did well. 3. As for your comment about new mods that increase the bay at the expense of tank, we got that already. Their called Cargohold Optimizations and Expanded Cargoholds. They eat at your hull or armor.
1) i'm sorry i'm being lazy and referring to mining barges and their high tech equivalents collectively by their T1 name. if it annoys you i will continue doing it. (if it doesn't annoy you, i will also continue doing it)
2) that old stupid argument. did i anywhere say to put guns on them? there is no reason a mining ship cannot have a ******* shielding system. stupid ass argument. it is clear from CCP's statement that they're upping the tank for everything
3) did you notice the part where i said "ore bay" not "cargo hold"? I like all these gankbear tears, now maybe you'll have to go prove your "l33t pvp" skills against something that shoots back like the rest of us do. |
Petrus Blackshell
Rifterlings Damu'Khonde
1257
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 20:14:00 -
[376] - Quote
OH, and ib4 tears when bears realize there are no cargohold expander mods for ore bays (and there will most likely be none). Rifterlings - Small gang lowsec combat corp specializing in frigates and cruisers (all races, not just Rifters!). US Timezone veterans and newbies alike are welcome to join. Come chat in the "we fly rifters" in-game channel. Free fitted frigates for members! |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7948
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 20:19:00 -
[377] - Quote
Swearte Widfarend wrote:So did I miss in the Devblog where you don't have to train the Exhumer skill past level 1 to fly all 3"? Hmmm.. Nope. It's not there. Therefore, tiericide does not apply to the proposed changes on the Exhumers. They already had roles, which is the "new" model CCP is following. They weren't just +1 (if that's what you want to use for your definition of tiericide). Did you notice the part where they said you don't have to train the Frigate skill past lvl I to fly all seven? Nope. Not there. So congratulations, you've just proven that they're not doing any tiercide on the frigates.
Like I said: what they're doing to the exhumers is the exact same thing as they're doing to the frigates (because, they already have different roles as well). Both are tiercide.
Oh, and the exhumers were pretty much +1 as well. The Hulk could do the job of the other two just fine (or even better in some circumstances).
Petrus Blackshell wrote:OH, and ib4 tears when bears realize there are no cargohold expander mods for ore bays (and there will most likely be none). You're way too late on that oneGǪ 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¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Denidil
Larimer Highlands Heavy Industries
277
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 20:21:00 -
[378] - Quote
Petrus Blackshell wrote:OH, and ib4 tears when bears realize there are no cargohold expander mods for ore bays (and there will most likely be none).
as someone with both combat and industrial accounts - would they be nice to have? yup and i suggested it am i going to be upset not getting them? nope, my industrial char's hulk is not cargo expandered I like all these gankbear tears, now maybe you'll have to go prove your "l33t pvp" skills against something that shoots back like the rest of us do. |
Mechael
Ouroboros Executor Collective
120
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 20:26:00 -
[379] - Quote
Peter Powers wrote:this looks pretty cool, and new destroyers are a good idea (love the idea of drone destroyers)
but one thing bothers me all ships and ship changes lately have been mostly positive for new players, even when t3 cruisers got introduced, their skill sets where set so they can be trained quite fast. so when are you going to give us vets a few new toys?
also what happend to t3 in other ship classes?
You act like the vets don't get these new toys, too. Or is your ePeen the measure of your total skillpoint? If you want a game based around leveling up, go play some other mmo, please. I'd rather die in battle against a man who will lie to me, than for a man who will lie to me. |
Eija-Riitta Veitonen
Unicorn Enterprise
17
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 20:29:00 -
[380] - Quote
The changes for mining barges are spot-on, however one thing troubles me - will hulk receive the ore bay of the default cargo bay size (8k m-¦) or will it be more like with expanded cargohold and rigs (in range of 17k m-¦)? And what will be the difference in yeld between Mack and hulk? 'Cause atm hulk mines at 1.5x of mack's yeld. |
|
Petrus Blackshell
Rifterlings Damu'Khonde
1257
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 20:35:00 -
[381] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Petrus Blackshell wrote:OH, and ib4 tears when bears realize there are no cargohold expander mods for ore bays (and there will most likely be none). You're way too late on that oneGǪ Tch, that's what I get for not reading through 18 pages of stuff. Oh well.
On another topic, frigate changes look super sweet! I can't wait to use my Navitas. Rifterlings - Small gang lowsec combat corp specializing in frigates and cruisers (all races, not just Rifters!). US Timezone veterans and newbies alike are welcome to join. Come chat in the "we fly rifters" in-game channel. Free fitted frigates for members! |
Hungry Eyes
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
397
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 20:37:00 -
[382] - Quote
i think it's really disheartening that you guys arent touching the heart of the game (BC's and cruisers) until next year. why are you dragging your feet like this? balance the damn drake already, bring T3's in line, buff command ships, give HAC's a freaking role... i mean what are you doing? who gives a **** about t1 frigs? |
Denidil
Larimer Highlands Heavy Industries
277
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 20:38:00 -
[383] - Quote
Hungry Eyes wrote:i think it's really disheartening that you guys arent touching the heart of the game (BC's and cruisers) until next year. why are you dragging your feet like this? balance the damn drake already, bring T3's in line, buff command ships, give HAC's a freaking role... i mean what are you doing? who gives a **** about t1 frigs?
because they're trying to do it right - balance from the ground up and you don't have to go back and rebalance later I like all these gankbear tears, now maybe you'll have to go prove your "l33t pvp" skills against something that shoots back like the rest of us do. |
Jada Maroo
Mysterium Astrometrics
745
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 20:38:00 -
[384] - Quote
Before you make the Bantam into any kind of warship you really ought to consider making it look less like a flying ballsack. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7952
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 20:40:00 -
[385] - Quote
Jada Maroo wrote:Before you make the Bantam into any kind of warship you really ought to consider making it look less like a flying ballsack. Nah. That's just tea-bagging, EVE-style. 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¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Hungry Eyes
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
397
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 20:41:00 -
[386] - Quote
Denidil wrote:Hungry Eyes wrote:i think it's really disheartening that you guys arent touching the heart of the game (BC's and cruisers) until next year. why are you dragging your feet like this? balance the damn drake already, bring T3's in line, buff command ships, give HAC's a freaking role... i mean what are you doing? who gives a **** about t1 frigs? because they're trying to do it right - balance from the ground up and you don't have to go back and rebalance later
it's not ground up. frigs are an entirely different beast from cruisers and bc's. unless your talking modules, which we're not. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
202
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 20:42:00 -
[387] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Haifisch Zahne wrote: However, I will point out that I and many others wasted a lot of time training Destroyer and Battlecruiser to Lever V because of the announced changes when my neural map was just horrible for it. Something on the order of around 20 days. Wasted. Thanks.
Just thought I'd point out that those two skills are some of the most useful in the entire game. You'd be hard pressed to convince everyone it was a waste of time. Go forth and pwn, you've got a lot of options now!! So very true. I put 2 characters training plans on hold to train BC V just in case as the original blog was unclear on the time frame. I regret nothing. |
Challu
Wishful Desires Inc. Armada Assail
34
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 20:45:00 -
[388] - Quote
Nice going, CCP!
New players seem to blaze their way through frigs and cruisers onto BCs and BSes. This led to having one month old pilots in drakes/canes who didn't know much of anything about anything about flying ships right, and lots of unnecessary heartache. By giving them more defined roles and making them more interesting, hopefully it will encourage people to learn how to fly what they can fly well, and not just sprint to tiers of ships they are not ready for.
|
Fade Toblack
Per.ly The 20 Minuters
23
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 20:47:00 -
[389] - Quote
ivar R'dhak wrote:amarr droneboats?!?
Obviously I've just been imagining the Arbitrator then.
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
202
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 20:47:00 -
[390] - Quote
Hungry Eyes wrote:Denidil wrote:Hungry Eyes wrote:i think it's really disheartening that you guys arent touching the heart of the game (BC's and cruisers) until next year. why are you dragging your feet like this? balance the damn drake already, bring T3's in line, buff command ships, give HAC's a freaking role... i mean what are you doing? who gives a **** about t1 frigs? because they're trying to do it right - balance from the ground up and you don't have to go back and rebalance later it's not ground up. frigs are an entirely different beast from cruisers and bc's. unless your talking modules, which we're not. Frigates are pretty much the ground here, that's where you start and what everyone can fly. Granted you fly them differently than other, heavier ship classes, but prioritizing larger ship classes, especially in the case of T2 cruisers which generally need a bit of a buff, only further exasperates the problems with frigates and risks pushing even some good frigates into obsolescence. |
|
Toris Astirit
State War Academy Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 20:48:00 -
[391] - Quote
slowly, too slowly |
Mechael
Ouroboros Executor Collective
120
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 20:53:00 -
[392] - Quote
Any idea on when/if CCP will be looking into the turret damage formula? As it stands, any ship with a long range role that does not use large weapons is mostly obsoleted by sniper ships that do have large weapons.
Large close range weapons cannot track small targets. Why should large long range weapons be able to do this?
Would appreciate some sort of Dev response, even if it's just, "We'll think about it" or "We aren't looking into it at this time" or even "No, dumbass."
Thanks.
Oh, and these changes look great! I'd rather die in battle against a man who will lie to me, than for a man who will lie to me. |
Mechael
Ouroboros Executor Collective
120
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 20:57:00 -
[393] - Quote
Hungry Eyes wrote:i think it's really disheartening that you guys arent touching the heart of the game (BC's and cruisers) until next year. why are you dragging your feet like this? balance the damn drake already, bring T3's in line, buff command ships, give HAC's a freaking role... i mean what are you doing? who gives a **** about t1 frigs?
Nobody giving a **** about the smaller ships is exactly the problem that they're trying to solve right now.
Bigger should not equal better overall. T2 should equal more specialized, but should not equal better overall. T3 should equal more versatile, but should not equal better overall.
Get it? I'd rather die in battle against a man who will lie to me, than for a man who will lie to me. |
Lord Timelord
GETCO Black Thorne Alliance
9
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 20:58:00 -
[394] - Quote
CCP, please keep the Hulk's current Cargo Hold capacity the same! There is an important reason for this. The Hulk is built to mine in 0.0 and w-space, and as such can mine all the different minerals in the game.
The Hulk can currently hold TWO SETS OF MINING CRYSTALS FOR EACH ORE TYPE. This allows a replacement crystal set to be carried on board in case you get a good mining stint going in game. It would be extremely annoying if it's cargo hold was nerfed to the point where carrying six of each mining crystal type is no longer possible.
Please pay careful attention to this issue!
Just add to the Hulks current EHP a bit, add the ORE Bay, and allow the current trade-off of max mining yield vs. setting it up for a decent tank.
A lot of players setup their Hulks with Cargo Rigs and Expanders to mine Ice when they are doing other things at the same time on their pc's... like watching Movies and TV shows on one monitor, while mining ice on the other. The large 17k cargo hold allows 'roughly' 25 minutes of ice mining to be done, making a little isk while you're chillin' out watching your favorite show/movie.
So when you make changes to the Hulk, I would suggest giving it a 15,000/18,000m3 Ore Hold (five or six pulls of ice with the three harvesters), and making sure that the Cargo Hold can hold 6x of each Tech II Crystal Type, so the pilot can carry a full replacement set of each crystal as they currently can do! |
Ris Dnalor
Black Rebel Rifter Club
354
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 21:06:00 -
[395] - Quote
I Love Boobies wrote:I wonder how many people are gonna complain about barges with battleship sized EHP, especially with large ore holds? I am sure there is going to be a tear or two over them.
might make battle-barges a bit more effective ;)
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=118961
EvE = Everybody Vs. Everybody
- Qolde |
Tierius Fro
Coronado's Cross
9
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 21:10:00 -
[396] - Quote
ORE frig for hostile space? Like in null?
It should be able to fit an MWD.
Be cool to be able to mine Merc in null. Hopefully with a suitable quantity. Zip, mine, zip out. It's not like we are going to Moscow! http://ridingevewormhole.blogspot.com/
|
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
972
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 21:18:00 -
[397] - 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.
what CCP defines as an "acceptable margin" and what a miner defines as an "acceptable margin" are two very different things eh |
Shamhat Arete
Aideron Robotics
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 21:22:00 -
[398] - Quote
Woohoo! Maulus love! Maulus love!
I fell in love with the Maulus within my first week in EVE, but it became obsolete before I made it past level 1 missions. I have a Keres now, but it still suffers for lack of an effective niche. I've always wanted that hull to be good at something, it's too beautiful to languish.
Other frigate changes are just as exciting: the Tristan will finally give us a Gallente missile boat to play with, the cute little Navitas gets something to do, and a drone+disruption Crucifier could be a monster.
I like the mining barge changes too. I actually went out in a mining frig the other day, just for nostalgia's sake, but it was so ridiculously ineffective I couldn't bear it. I've stubbornly avoided training for a Hulk, so the new frigate and barges will give me a more interesting set of options. I'm down to one account at the moment, so the solo-friendly ore holds are a huge win -- the new Retriever sounds like it might even make mining missions tolerable.
Best Ship Balancing news yet! |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
358
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 21:23:00 -
[399] - Quote
Hungry Eyes wrote:Denidil wrote:Hungry Eyes wrote:i think it's really disheartening that you guys arent touching the heart of the game (BC's and cruisers) until next year. why are you dragging your feet like this? balance the damn drake already, bring T3's in line, buff command ships, give HAC's a freaking role... i mean what are you doing? who gives a **** about t1 frigs? because they're trying to do it right - balance from the ground up and you don't have to go back and rebalance later it's not ground up. frigs are an entirely different beast from cruisers and bc's. unless your talking modules, which we're not.
I care about balanced frigate hulls. I love flying them, and even use them to solo cruisers and BC's. Balancing them is extremely important for balancing cruiser & BC hulls... although I bet you'll still cry "unfair" if I gank your vaga with a frigate...
|
Zifrian
Licentia Ex Vereor Intrepid Crossing
348
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 21:32:00 -
[400] - Quote
Very nice changes! Since I'm on page 20, I doubt you'll read this but...
Question about the following:
Quote:Before we forget, part of what players now call GÇ£tiericideGÇ¥ is to look at skill requirements. We are not pleased with how they work specifically with this ship class, since the Hulk is currently only a few hours away from the Covetor in terms of skill training. That is why, after the change, all tech 1 mining barges will now only require the Mining Barge Skill at level 1. The thing with T1 barges and going from Covetor to Hulk, isn't the Mining barge skill. It's the astrogeology skill. I'm not sure how this improves things with going from a Covetor to Hulk. I guess you could train 1 and then 5 astrogeology but it's still a bear and I'm sure people would like to train mining barge to at least 4. What is the huge deal with not changing astrogeology to 4 for the Hulk requirement?
I like all the other changes to Exhumers, very good idea for role building.
One thing I really believe is needed is a Capital Mining ship. People say no, but a Hulk is far too easy to get into with max skill/yield/etc. Rorq's and Orca's are support ships, not mining vessels. Capital mining ships would only be used in 0.0 of course and could really help with the high mineral requirements (Trit anyone?) for 0.0 and the fact that we have the hulk to provide them.
Anyway, nice work! Maximze your Industry Potential! - Get EVE Isk per Hour! |
|
Mechael
Ouroboros Executor Collective
120
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 21:36:00 -
[401] - Quote
Zifrian wrote:One thing I really believe is needed is a Capital Mining ship. People say no, but a Hulk is far too easy to get into with max skill/yield/etc. Rorq's and Orca's are support ships, not mining vessels. Capital mining ships would only be used in 0.0 of course and could really help with the high mineral requirements (Trit anyone?) for 0.0 and the fact that we have the hulk to provide them.
Please, no. Never do this, CCP. I'd rather die in battle against a man who will lie to me, than for a man who will lie to me. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
358
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 21:36:00 -
[402] - Quote
Lord Timelord wrote:CCP, please keep the Hulk's current Cargo Hold capacity the same! There is an important reason for this. The Hulk is built to mine in 0.0 and w-space, and as such can mine all the different minerals in the game.
The Hulk can currently hold TWO SETS OF MINING CRYSTALS FOR EACH ORE TYPE. This allows a replacement crystal set to be carried on board in case you get a good mining stint going in game. It would be extremely annoying if it's cargo hold was nerfed to the point where carrying six of each mining crystal type is no longer possible.
Please pay careful attention to this issue!
Just add to the Hulks current EHP a bit, add the ORE Bay, and allow the current trade-off of max mining yield vs. setting it up for a decent tank.
A lot of players setup their Hulks with Cargo Rigs and Expanders to mine Ice when they are doing other things at the same time on their pc's... like watching Movies and TV shows on one monitor, while mining ice on the other. The large 17k cargo hold allows 'roughly' 25 minutes of ice mining to be done, making a little isk while you're chillin' out watching your favorite show/movie.
So when you make changes to the Hulk, I would suggest giving it a 15,000/18,000m3 Ore Hold (five or six pulls of ice with the three harvesters), and making sure that the Cargo Hold can hold 6x of each Tech II Crystal Type, so the pilot can carry a full replacement set of each crystal as they currently can do!
50m3 x 16 ore types x 3 lasers x 2 (replacements) = Get Real... IMO, the hulk shouldn't have a bay much bigger than 600m3.
I guess you'll have to chose which ores you plan to optimize for, and not bring a crystal for every type of ore you find... That, or get an orca alt to carry your crystals for you!!
Also, you know what the perfect balancer is for you're 25 minute afk ice mining machine??? --> A Single catalyst!! |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7957
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 21:38:00 -
[403] - Quote
Lord Timelord wrote:So when you make changes to the Hulk, I would suggest giving it a 15,000/18,000m3 Ore Hold (five or six pulls of ice with the three harvesters), and making sure that the Cargo Hold can hold 6x of each Tech II Crystal Type, so the pilot can carry a full replacement set of each crystal as they currently can do! GǪor maybe 8,000m-¦ ore hold and, say, 300m-¦ cargo will be sufficient, since your fleet (especially the Orca) can hold the rest, what with the Hulk being the GÇ£gang miningGÇ¥ ship and all. That would solve the same problem without buffing the hell out of the Hulk for no particular reason and going completely against its intended purpose. 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¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Rek Esket
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
39
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 21:41:00 -
[404] - Quote
Zifrian wrote:One thing I really believe is needed is a Capital Mining ship. People say no, but a Hulk is far too easy to get into with max skill/yield/etc. Rorq's and Orca's are support ships, not mining vessels. Capital mining ships would only be used in 0.0 of course and could really help with the high mineral requirements (Trit anyone?) for 0.0 and the fact that we have the hulk to provide them.
The problem with tritanium availability in nullsec isn't the size of the ship being used to mine this mysterious veldspar. |
Gaia Ma'chello
V.I.C.E. Comic Mischief
13
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 21:45:00 -
[405] - Quote
Giving the procurer a battleship size tank will not make it useful with its current pathetic mining ability. For it to be a useful ship it has to be able to out mine the other option with a battleship size tank: A Battleship. Currently a mining Rokh can out mine a Retriever.
CCP: In your minds eye consider a plot where the vertical axis in mining yield, and the horizontal axis is EHP. If you make different fits on different ships you get a bunch of points. But there is an upper limit, a sort of a limiting line that slopes down left to right above which there are no ships. The exhumers should be on that line, the barges below it, and all other ships even lower. |
Denidil
Larimer Highlands Heavy Industries
279
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 21:47:00 -
[406] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Lord Timelord wrote:CCP, please keep the Hulk's current Cargo Hold capacity the same! There is an important reason for this. The Hulk is built to mine in 0.0 and w-space, and as such can mine all the different minerals in the game.
The Hulk can currently hold TWO SETS OF MINING CRYSTALS FOR EACH ORE TYPE. This allows a replacement crystal set to be carried on board in case you get a good mining stint going in game. It would be extremely annoying if it's cargo hold was nerfed to the point where carrying six of each mining crystal type is no longer possible.
Please pay careful attention to this issue!
Just add to the Hulks current EHP a bit, add the ORE Bay, and allow the current trade-off of max mining yield vs. setting it up for a decent tank.
A lot of players setup their Hulks with Cargo Rigs and Expanders to mine Ice when they are doing other things at the same time on their pc's... like watching Movies and TV shows on one monitor, while mining ice on the other. The large 17k cargo hold allows 'roughly' 25 minutes of ice mining to be done, making a little isk while you're chillin' out watching your favorite show/movie.
So when you make changes to the Hulk, I would suggest giving it a 15,000/18,000m3 Ore Hold (five or six pulls of ice with the three harvesters), and making sure that the Cargo Hold can hold 6x of each Tech II Crystal Type, so the pilot can carry a full replacement set of each crystal as they currently can do! 50m3 x 16 ore types x 3 lasers x 2 (replacements) = Get Real... IMO, the hulk shouldn't have a bay much bigger than 600m3. I guess you'll have to chose which ores you plan to optimize for, and not bring a crystal for every type of ore you find... That, or get an orca alt to carry your crystals for you!! Also, you know what the perfect balancer is for you're 25 minute afk ice mining machine??? --> A Single catalyst!!
make it 700m3 .. that gives room for 12 crystals + ones in strip miners + a little extra room for other stuff (like it not to tell you that your cargo bay is full when you swap crystals) and a 10k ore bay
something like
skiff - 20k ore bay, 500 cargo, +2 warp strength mack - 30k ore bay, 1k cargo hulk - 10k ore bay, 700 cargo
as for the catalyst.. you did read the dev blog right? it's going to take more than a cata to suicide gank them soon. I like all these gankbear tears, now maybe you'll have to go prove your "l33t pvp" skills against something that shoots back like the rest of us do. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
972
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 21:47:00 -
[407] - Quote
Gaia Ma'chello wrote:Currently a mining Rokh can out mine a Retriever.
i'd say that the retriever's much higher cargo capacity makes up for that eh |
Denidil
Larimer Highlands Heavy Industries
279
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 21:48:00 -
[408] - Quote
Gaia Ma'chello wrote:Giving the procurer a battleship size tank will not make it useful with its current pathetic mining ability..
READ THE ******* DEV BLOG. ffs I like all these gankbear tears, now maybe you'll have to go prove your "l33t pvp" skills against something that shoots back like the rest of us do. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
81
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 21:56:00 -
[409] - Quote
Petrus Blackshell wrote:I haven't actually ganked any exhumer yet, but once these changes drop and the carebear glee is high, I may want to fix my sec status and show miners a sweet game called "bumper cars".
Are you sure you can bump that Hulk out of Scimi's rep range if Scimi pilot is actively piloting his ship and not on Youtube watching Lady GaGa's videos? And actually do some damage before Concord lands?
Richard Desturned wrote:i'd say that the retriever's much higher cargo capacity makes up for that
Ever heard of Orca?
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=eve+online+orca |
Katy Ling
Crimnson Concept Flame Flaming Nebula
31
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 22:05:00 -
[410] - Quote
well, seems nice that you guys are improving the game ships - that's the sort of stuff that adds game value.
often we see ships that are lacking in some area, and continue playing the game, because it promises a lot, we continue, on hopes that you , the game developer make sensible adjustments that will make worth for us the pilot to say : "this is a nice ship that i feel nice in steeping in and fly"
but it seems that time is now. finally you're making balances ! i like those useless frigates to have better skills and roles.
The amarr Destroyer "Coercer" still needs a 2nd midle slot, for a tackle point, and a improvement on dps, instead of the cap usage.
GREATH JOB ! KEEP IT UP !!!
|
|
Gaia Ma'chello
V.I.C.E. Comic Mischief
13
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 22:05:00 -
[411] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Gaia Ma'chello wrote:Currently a mining Rokh can out mine a Retriever. i'd say that the retriever's much higher cargo capacity makes up for that
Solo, yes. In a group, not so much. But even with a battleship you can fit expanders in the lows, a tank in the mids, and miners in the highs. Less yield, sure. But it would still beat a Procurer. ( I wonder how close you could get to a Retriever, given travel time, both solo mining and without a jet can).
If you are solo mining or fleet mining in high sec and want to deter gankers, the ship to pick should be one of the new barges or exhumers that compromises yield for tank, not a Rokh. |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Divine Power. Cascade Imminent
1170
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 22:08:00 -
[412] - Quote
Hey devs, quick question -since you're buffing the t1 ewar frigs, will you be altering the underused T2 ewar frigs so that they're in line with their t1 counterparts? |
Rek Esket
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
40
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 22:10:00 -
[413] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Petrus Blackshell wrote:I haven't actually ganked any exhumer yet, but once these changes drop and the carebear glee is high, I may want to fix my sec status and show miners a sweet game called "bumper cars". Are you sure you can bump that Hulk out of Scimi's rep range if Scimi pilot is actively piloting his ship and not on Youtube watching Lady GaGa's videos? And actually do some damage before Concord lands? Richard Desturned wrote:i'd say that the retriever's much higher cargo capacity makes up for that Ever heard of Orca?
A mining Rokh fully fit for yield has to do ridiculous things like stagger cycles and empty the cargo bay into a jet can between each to avoid maxing out its cargo space and wasting cycles.
No thank you, even if it mined more than a Hulk I'm not dragging minerals into a can every 10-15 seconds. |
Gaia Ma'chello
V.I.C.E. Comic Mischief
13
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 22:12:00 -
[414] - Quote
Denidil wrote:Gaia Ma'chello wrote:Giving the procurer a battleship size tank will not make it useful with its current pathetic mining ability.. READ THE ******* DEV BLOG. ffs The blog gave no numbers as to how much they plan on buffing yield. I'm pointing out it better be a good buff, one that improves the Procurer's ability to mine to above that of a Rokh. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7959
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 22:17:00 -
[415] - Quote
Gaia Ma'chello wrote:The blog gave no numbers as to how much they plan on buffing yield. GǪaside from the bit where they intend to Gǣincrease all barge mining output to be within an acceptable margin of the HulkGǥ. That should put it a fair bit ahead of a Rokh.
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¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Yonis Kador
Transstellar Alchemy
156
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 22:18:00 -
[416] - Quote
Good read. It's pretty exciting to get a sense of where rebalancing is headed.
A few thoughts:
Heavy Payload Delivery -
RE: Amarr ships:
Executioner - It makes sense to move the Executioner to a "fast interception role." Of the Amarr frigates, the Executioner's speed is arguably its most important asset. Ive used one with a mwd virtually every time I was forced to do that rescue the diplomat mission and its usually the go-to when I don't have an INS handy for distance travel. But wouldn't it then make sense to have it's bonuses more in line with interdictors? A mwd bonus or warp speed bonus maybe?
Magnate - I've got lots of opinions on the role Exploration plays in game currently, how challenging it is to new players, and how exploration is the first thing many of those players arrive here wanting to do, which we should encourage, so I think any boosts you give to scanning, incentivizing that profession on principle, will almost without exception be welcome.
Crucifier - I'm not so sure exchanging one useless bonus for another is all that great here. A drone bonus for a ship with only one drone? If you're going to give the Crucifier a drone bonus, signaling it's a drone ship, at least give her two drones.
Barge in on Me -
Segmenting the mining profession into role-specific ships as opposed to a graduated system, is an interesting development but it doesn't change a whole lot in the grand scheme of things imo. I'm not completely convinced that what it does change is necessarily beneficial.
If we accept that risk-aversion is one consequence of ship design that precludes engagement, of which evasion is the primary and usually best defense, evasion that cannot be great for the quality of overall player generated content in EvE, then this just gives players more ways to evade. It may increase industrial player satisfaction, but it will probably also increase aversion in game and thus negatively impact the quality of player generated content.
On the whole, increasing player options is always a good thing for the player, irrespective of whether it's good for the game. It's difficult to predict how changes to aversion will play out in the sandbox. Time will tell. Make it too tough to gank and the less-devoted may give up entirely. Make it too easy to evade and half the playerbase becomes pariahas and contribute minimally to the volume of player generated content.
I'd like to see more ways to engage period. It's nice that miners will now have frigs that can be used for combat, and they look great btw, love em, but I'd like to see us keep going down that path. Arm those suckers. Reduce the designed tactical avoidance and increase the opportunities for engagement. I wouldn't mind seeing a mining support cruiser with one strip mining slot and two turret hardpoints.
I guess my thoughts overall are if the ehp on the Hulk isn't going to be adjusted, and Hulks are already popped like popcorn all across New Eden, these changes may incentivize miners to fly less expensive ships somewhat, but they also give gankers targets in less expensive ships to shoot at (which means less-valued killmail prizes.) How all of this translates to the quality of player generated content remains to be seen. It may reduce risk-aversion somewhat in game as some miners will be piloting less expensive ships now and may be more willing to risk them, but the overreaching issue of their necessary avoidance to survive still hasn't changed.
Gas Harvesting Ship?
I've seen a few requests for one of these in these comments, and I'd like to see CCP go all out on this. Just go nuts. Give us something unexpected and out of the box. Archaeologists can discover an ancient Jove storage unit and in it they find a gas miner that looks like the crystalline entity with a cockpit, that absorbs gas through its spiny tendrils, and forces its operator to play a damage control game while they are parked inside the cloud receiving gas cloud damage.
Blow us away.
Yonis Kador Hive Mining: A proposal by Yonis-áKador-á https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1427915&#post1427915
|
Gaia Ma'chello
V.I.C.E. Comic Mischief
13
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 22:18:00 -
[417] - Quote
Rek Esket wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:Petrus Blackshell wrote:I haven't actually ganked any exhumer yet, but once these changes drop and the carebear glee is high, I may want to fix my sec status and show miners a sweet game called "bumper cars". Are you sure you can bump that Hulk out of Scimi's rep range if Scimi pilot is actively piloting his ship and not on Youtube watching Lady GaGa's videos? And actually do some damage before Concord lands? Richard Desturned wrote:i'd say that the retriever's much higher cargo capacity makes up for that Ever heard of Orca? A mining Rokh fully fit for yield has to do ridiculous things like stagger cycles and empty the cargo bay into a jet can between each to avoid maxing out its cargo space and wasting cycles. No thank you, even if it mined more than a Hulk I'm not dragging minerals into a can every 10-15 seconds.
You do two groups of 4 miners with just a short pause between them. Just after one set cycles, but before the next you transfer ore. Then a few seconds later the other set cycles and you transfer ore. Now you got almost 60 seconds before you got to do it again. (OK, 40 seconds if you got an uber orca pilot. Still more than 15 seconds.) Yes a pain. Being blown up by gankers is also a pain. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
81
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 22:25:00 -
[418] - Quote
Gaia Ma'chello wrote:You do two groups of 4 miners with just a short pause between them. Just after one set cycles, but before the next you transfer ore. Then a few seconds later the other set cycles and you transfer ore. Now you got almost 60 seconds before you got to do it again. (OK, 40 seconds if you got an uber orca pilot. Still more than 15 seconds.) Yes a pain. Being blown up by gankers is also a pain.
That would work only with Miner IIs. Not with Deep Core Miner IIs and T2 crystals. |
Lili Lu
271
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 22:29:00 -
[419] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Hungry Eyes wrote:Denidil wrote:Hungry Eyes wrote:i think it's really disheartening that you guys arent touching the heart of the game (BC's and cruisers) until next year. why are you dragging your feet like this? balance the damn drake already, bring T3's in line, buff command ships, give HAC's a freaking role... i mean what are you doing? who gives a **** about t1 frigs? because they're trying to do it right - balance from the ground up and you don't have to go back and rebalance later it's not ground up. frigs are an entirely different beast from cruisers and bc's. unless your talking modules, which we're not. I care about balanced frigate hulls. I love flying them, and even use them to solo cruisers and BC's. Balancing them is extremely important for balancing cruiser & BC hulls... although I bet you'll still cry "unfair" if I gank your vaga with a frigate... @ Denidil - they will always have to "go back and rebalance" as they cannot create perfect balance, they can only strive for it. Every little change in the game affects other things in the game in unexpected ways. The "butterfly effect" if you will.
@ Gizznitt - Balancing frigates is fine. It is not though a necessary precursor to fixing, even temprarilly glaring usage disparities in other ship classes. Small, relatively easy nerfs or buffs can be handed out as temprorary bandaids.
For instance, damps on damp boats. A 5% per level bonus to damps means that they are incredibly weak, even on the ships supposedly specialized for their use, compared to 30% per level bonuses on ecm usage on ecm boats (not to mention that ecm is musch more powerful from the getgo anyway). Ditto the 5% per level bonuses for TDs and Painters.
These ships are forced to use their secondary tackling ewar and forget about their "racial" ewar. Wouldn't it be nice if every time you saw a Lachesis you weren't sure it was packing 2 or 3 long points, and instead were suprised to find 3 of your gangs ships scan res damped, tackled by ceptors, and locking those ceptors incredibly slowly? What would be the harm of increasing damp boats damp bonuses to 10% per level to see if anyone might then bother using damps on them? They would hardly become op and displace ecm boats now would they? But damps might then get fit and used on damp boats which would make the game more interesting, the way it was envisioned. |
Linda Shadowborn
Dark Steel Industries
146
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 23:01:00 -
[420] - Quote
much love for finally looking at our mining ships!
and it always amazes me when people put anything but tank rigs on their hulks but ah well to each their own so it wont bother me if cargo rigs wont work anymore. Its why the orca is there after all and since I never afk mine... no biggie moving ore. |
|
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1890
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 23:17:00 -
[421] - Quote
Hey, uh, question about the ore hold. Does a ship with a full ore hold fit in a Ship Maintenance Bay? If so, a couple of macks (w/ new biggified ore holds) in a Rorq will really help ship compressed ore to HS. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
Jada Maroo
Mysterium Astrometrics
745
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 23:18:00 -
[422] - Quote
Since there's an excess of t1 frigate hulls, why can't we have a cloaky ewar frigate and a ganky ewar frigate? Or a frigate sized logi? |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3438
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 23:21:00 -
[423] - Quote
Jada Maroo wrote:Since there's an excess of t1 frigate hulls, why can't we have a cloaky ewar frigate and a ganky ewar frigate? Or a frigate sized logi? because the current t2 ewar frigates are the most useless ships in the game |
Olleybear
I R' Carebear
90
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 23:23:00 -
[424] - Quote
Loving the proposed changes in the dev blog. Looking forward to them. When it comes to PvP, I am like a chiwawa hanging from a grizzley bears pair of wrinklies for dear life. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
360
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 23:25:00 -
[425] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:@ Gizznitt - Balancing frigates is fine. It is not though a necessary precursor to fixing, even temprarilly glaring usage disparities in other ship classes. Small, relatively easy nerfs or buffs can be handed out as temprorary bandaids.
While I'm not denying that the balance between t1/t2/t3 cruisers and BC's is out of whack, I don't see the state of these so blatantly broken that CCP needs to prioritize them. In my experiences, temporary bandaids often cause additional disparities, as they hide the problem rather than address it.
I also understand that BC's and cruisers are the most commonly flown hulls, and so their rebalancing is anxiously awaited. However, I think starting off with frigs has many MAJOR benefits.
1.) It allows them to refine their reblancing process, get the kinks out, learn where the pitfalls are, etc, BEFORE messing with the most popularly flown ships in the game.
2.) Frigates are quickly accessible to new players, and by creating a balanced and diverse frigate lineup, I think you improve the new player experience.
3.) Frigates are cheap, and the excitement over their new capabilities is more likely to draw players into small gang and solo PvP (which is by far the best PvP!!!). |
TalosC
Sacred Templar Knights ROL.Citizens
9
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 23:26:00 -
[426] - Quote
Hello,
Adding more content (ship/mods etc) is always welcome MMO games. I like the idea of the new specialized mining frig and I believe that a cruiser class (Gas harvesting bonus perhaps) could be added sometime.
The developer state in his post that they want to give in mining ships roles, make those ships more resilience in combat situations (NPC or PVP gang), have more cargo bay and better yeld. Sounds interesting and promising.
In his follow paragraph he says:
- New ORE frig: we want this ship to replace current mining frigates as low barrier of entry vessel, but also fulfill high-end gameplay expectations by providing a very mobile platform for mining in hostile space. Lowest mining output, decent ore bay, little to no resilience. - Procurer/Skiff: primarily made for self-defense. Better mining rate than the ORE frig, good ore bay, but capable of having battleship-like EHP. - Retriever/Mackinaw: made for self-reliance. Has the largest ore bay, similear to the size of a jet can, second best mining output but less EHP than the procurer mining barge. - 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.
I've some questions about the upcoming improvements:
A) The new ship is a good start for new players. It looks like a yellow crab ;) Any idea about the slots (low/med/high), drones capabilities etc?
B) Procurer/Skiff: primarily made for self-defense ==> As we know those ships have 1 Med slot for tank. Are we going to see an improved ship with more Med slot for tank? Also Skiff are ideal ship to harvest Mercoxit, so it's already specialized.
C) Retriever/Mackinaw : made for self-reliance ==> By saying "cargo similar to a jetcan (27.500 M3) it means: a) that the need for hauling are reducing drastically, b) the size of ship are increasing due to bigger bay and c) more Med slots perhaps for his tank.
D) Covetor/hulk: ore bay is identical to its current cargo hold ==> Those ships has bonuses on yeld and if the 'rule' : " 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 " is about to apply on those ships then they will definitely need a larger bay (not a jetcan size).
Many people says that Mackinaw designed for ICE mining while Hulk stands for ORE. I totally agree. Perhaps improving Mackinaw CPU/PG to fully support T2 ICE equipment and more tank modules could be great.
At the moment the drone bay in mining barges can hold from 1 up to 5 light drones. Is any plan to see in all barges larger drone bay and bandwidth? Since the flagship of ORE ships uses Gallentean Ice product ( for his Jump drive engine ) and all the ships has Gallentean roots, is any possibility the mining barges can adopt a bonus to drones? Ex. "x%" in drone navigation. Any idea for adding in T2 variants 3 RIG slots?
Finally are any plan to see new textures in mining barges? Any new modules/structures for mining? Regards |
Flyinghotpocket
Amarrian Retribution Amarr 7th Fleet
63
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 23:27:00 -
[427] - Quote
you dont need to rebalance the coercer and the cormorant cause the thrasher and catalyst are inferior in every singly way. (except the no point on coercer[EVEN THO YOU DONT EVEN NEED A POINT you noobs])
please do not rebalance destroyers because the only thing keeping the minmatar militia at bay is the fact that we have better destroyers than them coercer and cormorant. |
Denidil
Larimer Highlands Heavy Industries
282
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 23:27:00 -
[428] - Quote
i think it is a safe assumption the midslot loadouts of all mining barges (T1 and T2) will be fairly different after the tweaks. I like all these gankbear tears, now maybe you'll have to go prove your "l33t pvp" skills against something that shoots back like the rest of us do. |
MentaL DoG
Higher Than Everest BricK sQuAD.
23
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 23:29:00 -
[429] - Quote
THIS THREAD HAS NOW BEEN BLOCKED, AS THER ARE LOTS OF THREADS AND I THINK THIS ONE IS OLD AND RUBBISH NOW, YOU MAY STILL BE ABLE TO POST BECAUSE MY DEV ROLES HAVNT KICKED IN BUT YOU SHOULDNT AS ILL BAN YOU FROM EVE ONCE THEY DO KICK IN ALSO IM TAKING CASH FOR BPO'S AND THE LIKE SO EVE MAIL BE CHEERS MD Love many, trust few, always paddle your own canoe.VOTE D3 FOR CSM Chair
hahahahah Sorry so Sorry mittani |
Tasiv Deka
Ganked And T Bagged
44
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 23:36:00 -
[430] - Quote
TalosC wrote:Hello,
Adding more content (ship/mods etc) is always welcome MMO games. I like the idea of the new specialized mining frig and I believe that a cruiser class (Gas harvesting bonus perhaps) could be added sometime.
The developer state in his post that they want to give in mining ships roles, make those ships more resilience in combat situations (NPC or PVP gang), have more cargo bay and better yeld. Sounds interesting and promising.
In his follow paragraph he says:
- New ORE frig: we want this ship to replace current mining frigates as low barrier of entry vessel, but also fulfill high-end gameplay expectations by providing a very mobile platform for mining in hostile space. Lowest mining output, decent ore bay, little to no resilience. - Procurer/Skiff: primarily made for self-defense. Better mining rate than the ORE frig, good ore bay, but capable of having battleship-like EHP. - Retriever/Mackinaw: made for self-reliance. Has the largest ore bay, similear to the size of a jet can, second best mining output but less EHP than the procurer mining barge. - 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.
I've some questions about the upcoming improvements:
A) The new ship is a good start for new players. It looks like a yellow crab ;) Any idea about the slots (low/med/high), drones capabilities etc?
B) Procurer/Skiff: primarily made for self-defense ==> As we know those ships have 1 Med slot for tank. Are we going to see an improved ship with more Med slot for tank? Also Skiff are ideal ship to harvest Mercoxit, so it's already specialized.
C) Retriever/Mackinaw : made for self-reliance ==> By saying "cargo similar to a jetcan (27.500 M3) it means: a) that the need for hauling are reducing drastically, b) the size of ship are increasing due to bigger bay and c) more Med slots perhaps for his tank.
D) Covetor/hulk: ore bay is identical to its current cargo hold ==> Those ships has bonuses on yeld and if the 'rule' : " 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 " is about to apply on those ships then they will definitely need a larger bay (not a jetcan size).
Many people says that Mackinaw designed for ICE mining while Hulk stands for ORE. I totally agree. Perhaps improving Mackinaw CPU/PG to fully support T2 ICE equipment and more tank modules could be great.
At the moment the drone bay in mining barges can hold from 1 up to 5 light drones. Is any plan to see in all barges larger drone bay and bandwidth? Since the flagship of ORE ships uses Gallentean Ice product ( for his Jump drive engine ) and all the ships has Gallentean roots, is any possibility the mining barges can adopt a bonus to drones? Ex. "x%" in drone navigation. Any idea for adding in T2 variants 3 RIG slots?
Finally are any plan to see new textures in mining barges? Any new modules/structures for mining? Regards
if the procurer could get a larger drone bay i could make it a fairly dangerous little ship (especially with a couple more mids another high and it keeps the small sig radius) My TLDRs are usually still pretty long... so buck up and read it because usually when someone talks that much theyre either a politician or they have something important to say... sometimes both... but not usually |
|
MentaL DoG
Higher Than Everest BricK sQuAD.
23
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 23:39:00 -
[431] - Quote
Tasiv Deka wrote:TalosC wrote:Hello,
Adding more content (ship/mods etc) is always welcome MMO games. I like the idea of the new specialized mining frig and I believe that a cruiser class (Gas harvesting bonus perhaps) could be added sometime.
The developer state in his post that they want to give in mining ships roles, make those ships more resilience in combat situations (NPC or PVP gang), have more cargo bay and better yeld. Sounds interesting and promising.
In his follow paragraph he says:
- New ORE frig: we want this ship to replace current mining frigates as low barrier of entry vessel, but also fulfill high-end gameplay expectations by providing a very mobile platform for mining in hostile space. Lowest mining output, decent ore bay, little to no resilience. - Procurer/Skiff: primarily made for self-defense. Better mining rate than the ORE frig, good ore bay, but capable of having battleship-like EHP. - Retriever/Mackinaw: made for self-reliance. Has the largest ore bay, similear to the size of a jet can, second best mining output but less EHP than the procurer mining barge. - 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.
I've some questions about the upcoming improvements:
A) The new ship is a good start for new players. It looks like a yellow crab ;) Any idea about the slots (low/med/high), drones capabilities etc?
B) Procurer/Skiff: primarily made for self-defense ==> As we know those ships have 1 Med slot for tank. Are we going to see an improved ship with more Med slot for tank? Also Skiff are ideal ship to harvest Mercoxit, so it's already specialized.
C) Retriever/Mackinaw : made for self-reliance ==> By saying "cargo similar to a jetcan (27.500 M3) it means: a) that the need for hauling are reducing drastically, b) the size of ship are increasing due to bigger bay and c) more Med slots perhaps for his tank.
D) Covetor/hulk: ore bay is identical to its current cargo hold ==> Those ships has bonuses on yeld and if the 'rule' : " 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 " is about to apply on those ships then they will definitely need a larger bay (not a jetcan size).
Many people says that Mackinaw designed for ICE mining while Hulk stands for ORE. I totally agree. Perhaps improving Mackinaw CPU/PG to fully support T2 ICE equipment and more tank modules could be great.
At the moment the drone bay in mining barges can hold from 1 up to 5 light drones. Is any plan to see in all barges larger drone bay and bandwidth? Since the flagship of ORE ships uses Gallentean Ice product ( for his Jump drive engine ) and all the ships has Gallentean roots, is any possibility the mining barges can adopt a bonus to drones? Ex. "x%" in drone navigation. Any idea for adding in T2 variants 3 RIG slots?
Finally are any plan to see new textures in mining barges? Any new modules/structures for mining? Regards if the procurer could get a larger drone bay i could make it a fairly dangerous little ship (especially with a couple more mids another high and it keeps the small sig radius)
banned
Love many, trust few, always paddle your own canoe.VOTE D3 FOR CSM Chair
hahahahah Sorry so Sorry mittani |
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
490
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 23:40:00 -
[432] - Quote
We're already over 20 pages in so who knows if anyone will read this but I only just got home!
Quote:Executioner, Condor, Atron, Slasher: role dedicated to fast interception with weapon systems that support it GÇô in order, energy turrets, missiles, hybrid turrets, projectile turrets. If the range is 'dedicated to fast interception', why is it getting weapon bonuses? Wouldn't bonuses to things like speed, agility, the capacitor usage of MWDs, warp disruptor and stasis web range/cap usage, sig radius reductions etc, be more appropriate?
Quote:Navitas, Bantam, Burst: long range offensive platforms There was an interesting idea which Grady Eltoren posted and I [url=https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1478029#post1478029expanded on[/url]in F&ID about converting these hulls into the second destroyer for each race to act as a quick-fix to both the overcrowded frigate range and the lack of destroyer hulls. Take a look!
Quote:Inquisitor, Breacher, Kestrel, Tristan: missile based ships GÇô I feel the need to challenge the underlying assumption here - why does any race apart from Caldari need dedicated missile platforms? There aren't, say, dedicated frigate droneboats across the board in the same way, and I'm sure many new Gallente or Amarr pilots get frustrated at seeing a missile frigate, training into it, then realising they've essentially poured skillpoints into a dead-end since there's nothing more that really uses missile skills for those races until they hit stealth bombers or the Lachesis/Sacrilege. I would be much more in favour of making these into the 'long range offensive platforms' you're currently looking at reworking the mining frigates into, with the Kestrel getting missile range and the other three getting turret hardpoints and optimal bonuses.
Quote:Magnate, Heron, Imicus, Probe: strengthening current roles as support frigates. Which mainly means scanning and possibly mini-profession operations, like hacking and codebreaking as well. How useful these will be depends largely on whether new roles for hacking/codebreaking type activities emerge in the future (possibly some PvP-orientated roles?). If not, they'll languish in relative obscurity as they do now as little more than base hulls to invent covops' from, but I can appreciate there's not an obvious alternative niche for these to be slotted into.
Quote:Crucifier, Griffin, Maulus, Vigil: truly refocus their roles as disruption frigates. The Cruficier is being changed to a mini-arbitrator (swapping useless turret capacitor use bonus for drone damage). The Griffin has a fine role already, but like the others, will receive a boost. The Maulus improvement consists of having a look at sensor dampening, which was nerfed too heavily in the past, and possibly making it rely more on drones than turrets. The Vigil could be the most combat oriented of the disruption frigates by improving its target painting bonus and creating synergy by coupling it with missiles. Again, why weapon bonuses and damage boosts for dedicated e-war platforms? How does this help to 'truly refocus their role as disruption frigates' if they're lumbered with a mix of bonuses which encourage pilots to attempt multiple roles at once? Wouldn't it make more sense to double down on the e-war bonuses (as well as giving the Other Three tailored bonus amounts rather than the flat 5% per level across the board, as has already happened with the Griffin)?
Thanks for the update, and I'm glad that the poor neglected T1 frigates are getting some attention after all these years, but I'm not sure you're on the right path here. I'm sure I'll have more to say when threads are posted in F&ID though. Titans were never meant to be "cost effective", its a huge ****.-á- CCP Oveur, 2006
~If you want a picture of the future of WiS, imagine a spaceship, stamping on an avatar's face. Forever. |
Lili Lu
271
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 23:41:00 -
[433] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Lili Lu wrote:@ Gizznitt - Balancing frigates is fine. It is not though a necessary precursor to fixing, even temprarilly glaring usage disparities in other ship classes. Small, relatively easy nerfs or buffs can be handed out as temprorary bandaids.
While I'm not denying that the balance between t1/t2/t3 cruisers and BC's is out of whack, I don't see the state of these so blatantly broken that CCP needs to prioritize them. In my experiences, temporary bandaids often cause additional disparities, as they hide the problem rather than address it. I also understand that BC's and cruisers are the most commonly flown hulls, and so their rebalancing is anxiously awaited. However, I think starting off with frigs has many MAJOR benefits. 1.) It allows them to refine their reblancing process, get the kinks out, learn where the pitfalls are, etc, BEFORE messing with the most popularly flown ships in the game. 2.) Frigates are quickly accessible to new players, and by creating a balanced and diverse frigate lineup, I think you improve the new player experience. 3.) Frigates are cheap, and the excitement over their new capabilities is more likely to draw players into small gang and solo PvP (which is by far the best PvP!!!). Yeah we don't disagree on your numbered points concerning frigates. I will disagree with your assessment that "BC's and cruisers are the most commonly flown hulls." Really it is just BCs, and in particular the Drake and the Hurricane in that order. CCP finally woke up to the rush past frigates, past cruisers, straight to BCs, and particularly the Drake.
Temporary fixes do not necesarily cause additional disparites or mask problems. I do not see how nerfing the drake would cause problems. The simplest thing would be just rewrite the hp stats. Reduce the base shield, armor and structure stats on the tier 2 BCs to that of their tier 1 counterpart. Simple change, which will knock them down a peg. Then continue with the grand plan or tiericide at each level. They will all still have an extra slot on the tier 1s, but they won't stomp on them as much. Drakes would still have one more mid and the resist bonus. But the ehp would no longer be a BS size. That might be enough to push them out of fleet backbone status. How hard is that? Does it cause additional disparities? I don't think so, and it does not hide the need to continue with role based rebalancing of BCs later. |
Alain Kinsella
120
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 23:41:00 -
[434] - Quote
Only page 15 so far, but this was good to quote (thanks Tippia).
Tippia wrote:Maul555 wrote:No, they are meant to be used as I like. GǪexcept that the whole point of tiercide and of this change is that each ship will have a well-defined role. The new role defined for the Hulk/Covetor is group mining. You can use it any way you like, but if you push it outside its role, it will be bad at it. This is no different than trying to use a HIC for remote reps and trying to use Logistics for tackling GÇö it can be done, but it's the wrong ships for the wrong tasks. If you want to mine alone, a Retreiever/Mack will suit your purpose far better. Basically, everyone needs to get the idea of GÇ£Hulk = best minerGÇ¥ out of their heads, because the differentiation between ships will no longer work like that.
+1 here. Hulk/Covetor as 'group miner' will probably partial-nerf the cargo bay so you cannot fit a full flight of crystals. The rest of those crystals will reside in the nearby Orca in the fleet.
And there's nothing wrong with going down to T1 strips if you don't want to deal with crystals that day; In return you'll have a little more space for tank etc. I still think the new crimewatch changes could encourage any miner with a spare Mid fit a long-point.
BTW, CCP - Please put the corp permissions back on the hangar 'tabs' in the tree... We'll need this more than ever.
I may have come here from Myst Online, but that does not make me any less bloodthirsty than the average Eve player.
Just more subtle.
|
MentaL DoG
Higher Than Everest BricK sQuAD.
23
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 23:46:00 -
[435] - Quote
RIGHT YOUR ALL GETTING BANNED. IM NOT PLAYING NOW WE ALL KNOW CCP DOESN'T HAVE A SENSE OF HUMOUR AND IM SORRY TO SAY IV HAD TO ADOPT THERE ******** WAYS NOW IM A DEV.
NO MORE POSTING THIS THREAD IS BLOCKED Love many, trust few, always paddle your own canoe.VOTE D3 FOR CSM Chair
hahahahah Sorry so Sorry mittani |
Alain Kinsella
120
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 23:48:00 -
[436] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Karl Hobb wrote:I figured this would eventually end up as some sperg-fest with miners claiming "tears" and making all sorts of baseless, idiotic claims, and I'm sad to see I'm right. Oh well, guess I'll just wait for all this to hit Sisi.
Definitely going to train for that mining frigate though, at the very least just to fly it around. Ironicly its miners who are shedding the most tears
That's because they're not thinking outside the box. All I see are great visions of large, balanced fleets, almost entirely ORE ships (with the attendant cloud of drones), and only needing a couple tackle and logi to hold out for the average op.
I'm practically giddy, and very much looking forward to this.
I may have come here from Myst Online, but that does not make me any less bloodthirsty than the average Eve player.
Just more subtle.
|
Maul555
Nuts and Vindictive Remix Technologies
272
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 23:48:00 -
[437] - Quote
I noticed 6 mining turret hardpoints on the mining frig. I am hoping for 7 highslots ^^ |
sYnc Vir
Wolfsbrigade Lost Obsession
228
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 23:55:00 -
[438] - Quote
These changes are pretty awesome,
One thing, Barges are based upon Gal ships or so I believe. Ore being a off shoot from them. So with people asking for weapons systems on things like hulks along side their mining lazors. Couldn't you just make Mining Lazors damage another ship at X DPS or Give them a Drone bonus given thats their only real weapons system?
Hulk +1 Drone per level? and increased bay so 10 Warriors and 10 Mining Drones?
From my understanding, it read like ALL barges would be getting an increase in their base EHP, but each would differ based on their role.
Hulk High Yield less EHP, Skiff More EHP Less yield, but all of them greater then current, Is this correct? Also on this note given that they are base on Gal ships, they have alot of hull hit points so maybe instead of shield resist bonuses, Damage Control Bonus? First hull tanked bonused ship ever?
I also have to ask, with all barges getting Ore bays, this makes Cargo expanders useless on these ships, as well as cargo expander rigs. Will you be looking into a new module that increases only Ore Bays or will barges ore bays be so big this sort of mod would make them somewhat stupid?
Last thing, With you looking into the barges, does this mean a change to slot lay out? Increased yield meaning more base? or Extra high slot depending on there role? |
Lili Lu
271
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 23:56:00 -
[439] - Quote
Scatim Helicon wrote: decent analysis You should read back through the thread, if you get a chance or have the time. I thought the same about each race getting a missile frig or a drone frig at first. I'm more open to the idea as I thought more about it. Such a race difference destroying distribution cannot be extended to the current lineup of cruisers, BCs, and BSs simply due to numbers. And, frigate sized weapon sp is no longer a big deal since the abolition of the learning skills. In particular you could read my posts at #257 and #299 itt discussing the same issue. |
Lili Lu
271
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 23:58:00 -
[440] - Quote
MentaL DoG wrote:NO MORE POSTING THIS THREAD IS BLOCKED I think you mean to say LOCKED. Get back in character |
|
Yonis Kador
Transstellar Alchemy
156
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 00:05:00 -
[441] - Quote
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 Hive Mining: A proposal by Yonis-áKador-á https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1427915&#post1427915
|
Maul555
Nuts and Vindictive Remix Technologies
273
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 00:08:00 -
[442] - 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 ^^ |
Hakaru Ishiwara
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
226
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 00:09:00 -
[443] - Quote
Why is it that we can have so much preliminary discussion about ship balancing (a very good thing, mind you) and we are left to deal with a beta feature on Tranquility in the form of the new Inventory UI? 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284286 |
Mirei Jun
Right to Rule Test Friends Please Ignore
37
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 00:14:00 -
[444] - Quote
Looks good!
I would really like to stress how important it is that mining ships get more EHP and enough slots, PG, and CPU to fit a reasonable tank. They are un-defendable in their current form.
I'll be one of the many on the test server when this begins deployment.
EDIT: I put my full opinion on this here. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7964
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 00:18:00 -
[445] - Quote
Mirei Jun wrote:I would really like to stress how important it is that mining ships get more EHP and enough slots, PG, and CPU to fit a reasonable tank. They are un-defendable in their current form. It's entirely possible to make them defendable right now, but it requires the same kind of trade-offs as you'll see between the new barge design. 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¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Yonis Kador
Transstellar Alchemy
156
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 00:22:00 -
[446] - Quote
Maul555 wrote: 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 ^^
You're right. The other side is probably recriprocal. I'm not sure how I expected a frigate to power six turrets anyway. It would be pretty awesome if they did have that kind of dps potential, but they wouldn't be frigs anymore. They'd need to be made slower and less nimble just so pvp'ers wouldn't attack miners with their own six-turreted frigates.
YK Hive Mining: A proposal by Yonis-áKador-á https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1427915&#post1427915
|
Fearless M0F0
Incursion PWNAGE Asc
35
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 01:07:00 -
[447] - Quote
Thanks for looking at barges. I had this idea of writing a lengthy post on why they needed a rebalance, with sexy graphics and all but I guess it's no longer needed.
The idea of shifting barges cargo capacity into ore bays is brilliant. I assume their cargo bays will be reduced to a point is not worth fitting cargo expanders to them anymore?
Hulkageddon infinity has its days counted
|
Dalilus
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
18
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 01:08:00 -
[448] - Quote
Hakaru Ishiwara wrote:Why is it that we can have so much preliminary discussion about ship balancing (a very good thing, mind you) and we are left to deal with a beta feature on Tranquility in the form of the new Inventory UI?
Misdirection? Smoke and mirrors? Lol, take your pick. But the changes sound interesting....I just hope they revamp mission running as well as they seem to be doing with mining. |
Synthmilk
The United Peoples of Synth
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 01:12:00 -
[449] - Quote
Maul555 wrote: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?
I too would like clarification about this, as well as a bit more clarity regarding how close the mining yields of the barges and exhumers will be. If the Hulk only does 10% more ore yield than a Retriever, then even for group ops why use a Hulk which is far more than 10% easier, and expensive, to lose?
Right now the difference in yield between each size of mining barge/exhumer is predominantly down to the number of strip miners, which is logical. To bring the yield of a Procurer closer to that of a Hulk, you would have to either apply a massive increase to it's yield bonus, or greatly cut the yield of a strip miner. The former would just look silly and give pause to why one would want a Hulk, while the latter would be a huge nerf to mining as a whole.
I'm all for making a ship for high-risk areas, a ship for ease of the task, and a ship for maximum yield, with T2 versions that have additional bonuses that build on those roles, but leave the relative yields more or less as they are. Right now I pull in 17% more ore in a Hulk than a Covetor, a satisfactory increase for the cost and time spent training Exhumers V and the cost of a Hulk. Less than that, and why bother getting a Hulk beyond a compulsion to max out? The question is different for the Skiff and Mackinaw, as their bonuses give them equal or greater than Hulk performance for Mercoxit and Ice mining respectively, and their roles fit nicely with their changes to EHP and cargo capacity, respectively.
So what I see as good would be the Procurer having big tank, a moderate hold, and about a half of the mining potential (assuming a full T2 fit and max skills) of a Covetor. The Retriever having a moderate tank, a big hold, and about three quarters the mining capacity of the Covetor (again assuming a T2 fit and max skills), and the Covetor having a small tank and a small hold.
The T2 hulls are copies of the T1 hulls with typical T2 stat increases plus: The Skiff has roll bonuses to warp strength and agility, and a bonus to Mercoxit yield, making it about equal to that of a Hulk at max skill. Ore bay 20% larger.
The Mackinaw has a 100% bonus to Ice yield at max skill, and a role bonus of a 100% decrease to Ice Harvester duration. Ore bay 20% larger.
The Hulk has a 25% increase to miner yield at max skill, a role bonus of 5% decrease in ore miner duration, and the ability to launch 1 additional mining drones per Dro. It has the same ore capacity. (I did this to emphasize the Hulks role as an ore vacuum, relying on industrials to make it's significant mining rate worthwhile.)
This leaves all of the ships as being useful, where the T1 ships are primarily inexpensive with distinctive roles, ideal for newbies and people who mine on the side, and the T2 ships have specialities that add value to their roles in line with their increased cost. |
Delhaven
Crunchy Crunchy Peregrine Nation
11
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 01:48:00 -
[450] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote: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 like it. CCP is making the mining ships to fit play styles: if you want to mine in relative safety, you fly a Procurer/Skiff. If you like to solo mine, you fly a Retriever/Mackinaw. If you want maximum output, you fly in a group with a Covetor/Hulk. So, pure yield becomes less of a factor than how you like to play. If they end up being close enough in how much ore they pull in, I'll happily take a reduced-worry mining ship with a battleship tank.
I'm really curious to see the actual specs when they come out. |
|
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
2067
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 01:49:00 -
[451] - Quote
Just some observations, in no particular order:
1: It seems the Hulk will remain largely as it is now, possibly buffed on yield. Keep in mind that if you now have an ore bay you won't be as temped to use cargo expanders etc. You can still fit some defense, or fit to increase agility, just as easily if not more so.
However it's role as a Null sec ship is now more clearly defined, as Null sec is really the only area where you can effectively protect a relatively fragile and slow type of mining vessel (by sealing off the system with bubbles). The bigger tank alternatives are clearly intended for High Sec to provide an edge against gankers, since you can't secure the system and need to survive pre Concord death Alpha strikes.
2: Many miners will still likely try to use a Hulk in high sec, motivated entirely by greed, instead of using the slightly lower yield but much more gank survivable alternatives. Ridicule directed at Hulk pilots ganked in high sec will now need no further justification.
3: New destroyer hulls were sorely needed, especially drone and missile variants. Thank you.
4: Planetary bombardment bonuses are pure win. Thank you.
5: A Tristan launching a salvo of rockets thrills the part of me that was a Robotech / Macross fan.
6: The Burst as a long range, hard hitting, fast moving frigate sniper has merit. New model yes please. If you instead choose to make it a drone boat, please consider the creation of small (and medium as well) sentry drones.
7: If not already planned, the current color schemes of Ore vessels needs to follow the one for the new mining frigate, which absolutely should be named Chribba. When I check troll in the dictionary, it has a photo shopped picture of you standing somewhere in the vicinity of a point.
Also, I can kill you with my brain. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1892
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 01:49:00 -
[452] - Quote
Delhaven wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote: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 like it. CCP is making the mining ships to fit play styles: if you want to mine in relative safety, you fly a Procurer/Skiff. If you like to solo mine, you fly a Retriever/Mackinaw. If you want maximum output, you fly in a group with a Covetor/Hulk. So, pure yield becomes less of a factor than how you like to play. If they end up being close enough in how much ore they pull in, I'll happily take a reduced-worry mining ship with a battleship tank. I'm really curious to see the actual specs when they come out.
Then why aren't you mining in a Rokh right now? It offers yield in between that of a Covetor and a Hulk. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1892
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 01:50:00 -
[453] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote: 7: If not already planned, the current color schemes of Ore vessels needs to follow the one for the new mining frigate, which absolutely should be named Chribba.
+1 for the Chribba class mining Frig. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
203
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 01:57:00 -
[454] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Delhaven wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote: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 like it. CCP is making the mining ships to fit play styles: if you want to mine in relative safety, you fly a Procurer/Skiff. If you like to solo mine, you fly a Retriever/Mackinaw. If you want maximum output, you fly in a group with a Covetor/Hulk. So, pure yield becomes less of a factor than how you like to play. If they end up being close enough in how much ore they pull in, I'll happily take a reduced-worry mining ship with a battleship tank. I'm really curious to see the actual specs when they come out. Then why aren't you mining in a Rokh right now? It offers yield in between that of a Covetor and a Hulk. But the bay size is terrible. For the rare amount of mining I do, occasional grav site mining, the new Retriever/Mackinaw seems a much better prospect for the hold size alone. |
Delhaven
Crunchy Crunchy Peregrine Nation
11
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 02:07:00 -
[455] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Delhaven wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote: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 like it. CCP is making the mining ships to fit play styles: if you want to mine in relative safety, you fly a Procurer/Skiff. If you like to solo mine, you fly a Retriever/Mackinaw. If you want maximum output, you fly in a group with a Covetor/Hulk. So, pure yield becomes less of a factor than how you like to play. If they end up being close enough in how much ore they pull in, I'll happily take a reduced-worry mining ship with a battleship tank. I'm really curious to see the actual specs when they come out. Then why aren't you mining in a Rokh right now? It offers yield in between that of a Covetor and a Hulk. But the bay size is terrible. For the rare amount of mining I do, occasional grav site mining, the new Retriever/Mackinaw seems a much better prospect for the hold size alone. This.
Right now, it makes the most sense to either mine in a Covetor, which is cheap and pays for itself in a couple of hours, or mine in a Hulk that isn't a fail fit (i.e. something with cargo expanders or rigs). You can get enough tank on a Hulk to survive a solo ganker now; most people just don't because it doesn't fit their play styles. The options CCP is putting forward gives people more of choice in that way.
Fixing mining to make it less mind-numbing and repetitive seems like a better idea to me than fixing ships, but this'll do.
EDIT: looking forward to the Chribba Class mining frigate. The art department at CCP is right on track with that one. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1894
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 02:10:00 -
[456] - Quote
Delhaven wrote:This.
Right now, it makes the most sense to either mine in a Covetor, which is cheap and pays for itself in a couple of hours, or mine in a Hulk that isn't a fail fit (i.e. something with cargo expanders or rigs). You can get enough tank on a Hulk to survive a solo ganker now; most people just don't because it doesn't fit their play styles. The options CCP is putting forward gives people more of choice in that way.
Fixing mining to make it less mind-numbing and repetitive seems like a better idea to me than fixing ships, but this'll do.
Since when is "I WANT MAX YIELD WITH NO RISK NOR EFFORT" a play style? Or "I WANT TO PLAY A GAME AFK?" This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
Syris Khaeraan
Deep Space Unlimited
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 02:13:00 -
[457] - Quote
Felix Macey wrote:Very nice changes. And good fixes to the rather broken mining barge class.
Any chance of getting a specialised barge for gas harvesting? 5 high slots and a jet can sized gas only cargo bay.
That man said what i wanted to say :)
Would be an awesome new (ORE) ship, especially with the last tier 3 BC (picked up from the EVE design a ship contest) and this new ORE frig design. |
Marlona Sky
Massive PVPness Psychotic Tendencies.
1169
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 02:15:00 -
[458] - Quote
I can't help but admire that art work on the new mining frigate. I know people have said it a thousand times by now, but I really want to stress how amazing it looks.
Great job!
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
Tarryn Nightstorm
Hellstar Towing and Recovery
407
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 02:15:00 -
[459] - Quote
All-in-one combat-capable exploration ship--especially losec/some nullsec plex-runner--we can has, pls?
I'm thinking cruiser/BC sized (maybe the latter as this will make speed/sig-tanking harder, so less "OP-potential" but with similar/slightly less speed than an AB T3), cov-ops cloak capable missile or drone-boat with high agility that gets a bonus for the scan strength of Core probes (these only, none of the others).
Slot layout something like
(for shield-tanking, Caldari/Minmatar) maybe 7 hi (5 weapon/2 utility)//6-7 mid//3-4 low//2 rig. (for armour-tanking, Gallente/Amarr) 7 hi (same as above)//4 mid//6 or 7 low//2 rig.
At least 4 mids so one can fit dual-prop and both "profession" modules in the mids.
5 Weapons, probe-launcher (either a role-bonus, or enough CPU to fit an expanded probe-launcher so deep-space probes can be used. See below.), and CovOps cloak.
Basically, a lot of the speed of the ti-3s, with a real, but not too-heavy tank, and DPS between HAC and T3 average, with great range, or at least potential great range. No drone-bay for the non-Gallente and/or non-Amarr (the latter could be a drone-boat, there is precedent.)
No, it won't be OP.
Keep power-grid so oversized tanking modules have a damned tough time fitting, if they can fit at all, but not so much that it becomes impossible to fit for its role. (IE for Caldari/Minmatar, medium SB is fine, you can make large fit, but XL is a practical impossibility, especially if you want dual-props. T II resists go without saying.) And yes, this will also probably limit oversized afterburner fits--despite the fact that those are NOT O/P, but it's what the whinging little babies have latched onto this week, so...vOv
The same way the Tengu is not OP, despite what whingers and bads like everyone to believe.
Call it...I don't know..."Armed Reconnaissance Cruiser/Battlecruiser."
Requires considerable skill training to get into--Race-cruiser 5, BC 5, and CovOps to at least 4, plus good-to-top fitting, weapon/secondary weapon (if so equipped, though this probably shouldn't happen in the interests of balance--can you imagine essentially a Tengu with its current abilities plus a drone-bay? Right!), tanking, and probing skills.
Also, should cost quite a bit to build--not as expensive as a T3, but at least similar to a command-ship, plus the fit to get the most out of it. (Idea there being to not have them proliferate to the point that no-one flies anything else.)
Fake-edit:
Or bar that, will you please bloody well un-nerf the Ishtar's comically crap-tastic CPU, already????!!!
('Tar is the only ship at present that can even remotely fulfill this role, and downright farcical fitting-issues aside, it is arguably less-than-optimal for this. Come on, mates, throw us dangerous-space explorer/plex runners a bone which doesn't require alts!) In irae, veritas. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
203
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 02:16:00 -
[460] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Delhaven wrote:This.
Right now, it makes the most sense to either mine in a Covetor, which is cheap and pays for itself in a couple of hours, or mine in a Hulk that isn't a fail fit (i.e. something with cargo expanders or rigs). You can get enough tank on a Hulk to survive a solo ganker now; most people just don't because it doesn't fit their play styles. The options CCP is putting forward gives people more of choice in that way.
Fixing mining to make it less mind-numbing and repetitive seems like a better idea to me than fixing ships, but this'll do.
Since when is "I WANT MAX YIELD WITH NO RISK NOR EFFORT" a play style? Or "I WANT TO PLAY A GAME AFK?" If it wasn't a "playstyle" I'd imagine the goons responsible for counting exhumer/barge deaths for payouts wouldn't have much to do.
Edit: And the near 2 trillion in losses makes it appear that it indeed is a prominent play style |
|
Tarryn Nightstorm
Hellstar Towing and Recovery
407
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 02:17:00 -
[461] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:I can't help but admire that art work on the new mining frigate. I know people have said it a thousand times by now, but I really want to stress how amazing it looks.
Great job!
^^That.^^
I'd so totally mine in that! (And I can count on one hand the number of times I've mined in over 3.5+ years playing.)
Going by "guesstimated scaling," though, I would say it's closer size-wise to at least a destroyer, though? Or is that drawing totally un-scaled?
In irae, veritas. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
203
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 02:19:00 -
[462] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:I can't help but admire that art work on the new mining frigate. I know people have said it a thousand times by now, but I really want to stress how amazing it looks.
Great job! +1 |
Gevlin
Universal Might DSM FOUNDATION
156
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 02:37:00 -
[463] - Quote
That Blog put a tear of joyness in my eye!
Now I will be able to do level 4s in a Procurers?
I can see it now new level 4 mining missions requiring you to mine in extremely hostile locations.. Like In High sec next to Goon Space... The Goons are Coming, The Goons are Coming Jita the April 28, Hulk a geddon April 29 for a month. The Best Tears are the Geifer's Tears. just hope the new crime watch system is in place by then.... oh the chaos will rain!!! |
Jed Clampett
The Order Of Viision
7
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 02:47:00 -
[464] - Quote
Cannot really envision a fleet as able to protect miners except via blockading system access at gates (and cyno with new micro jump ships) -- or maybe englobing miners with warp bubbles. Once inside a system a smart ganker or small teams of gankers should normally be able to kill weak tanked Hulks and Covetors before being killed themselves. It might take some scouting stealth or combat probing first but that is just hard to stop setup as well.
Fleet revenge yeah - easy. Especially pod killing outside hi sec. Although gankers can adapt to pairs or greater to avoid implant loss sting. Plust economically a protective fleet diverts a lot of manpower and ship ISK from mining (probably half) ...assuming everyone was miner to start with.
Honestly I cannot see pressure to move group mining out of high sec unless Orca are barred or made paper weak. And even that may not be enough.
LOL - under current circumstances low sec mining groups are often done as bait for medium fleet PvP with a good way for some pilots to productively pass time and conceal what PVP ship they will fly in the Orcas. Might be the primary reason.
Similarly I think a closer look at null will find that most alliances do a lot of conscripting of miners to blobs and a general preference for PvP over mining in the general membership as well.
That is PVP just naturally goes to low and even more to null due to lack of restrictions and CONCORD...and in the process most corps tolerate or allow less and less mining as demand for PVP readiness goes up. Plus of course there are plenty of other pursuits that are more profitable and less boring...like ratting, etc. Presently Hulks in null or low sec present an abnormally high ISK risk (expensive and extremely weak in PVP) for no more than mediocre profits compared to alternative occupations.
Just as I suspect an honest examination of sovereignty mechanisms will reveal why null sec is all about blobs and not smaller fleet battles (small fleet battles are just not decisive - and small fleets invite defeat in detail by large fleets). |
Gevlin
Universal Might DSM FOUNDATION
157
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 03:05:00 -
[465] - Quote
Will there be another Design contest for new Destroyer ?
I thought the design contest was such an awesome player event allowing a person to have their work or idea presented into the game presents great pride not only with the individuals but also the community in general.
As a prize for having your models chosen the winner would get the 1st Exclusive blue print of that ship for 3 months. BPC of the ships will appear as loot during this time though. Then after 3 months the Ship BP becomes available on the market for all.
The player would, without being stupid, would be able to make several years worth of isk to buy plex, and would shake up the market.
This would be for the Winter expansion and then Do it again for BC for the Following Summer Expansion
The Goons are Coming, The Goons are Coming Jita the April 28, Hulk a geddon April 29 for a month. The Best Tears are the Geifer's Tears. just hope the new crime watch system is in place by then.... oh the chaos will rain!!! |
Che Biko
Humanitarian Communists
91
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 03:07:00 -
[466] - Quote
1. What about a dedicated gas harvester? 2. I now will probably want to have all 3 exhumers (currently I just have the bigger 2), good job ,CCP. Join in game channel/mailing list: New Eden Racing Sub-warp racing event thread: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=107164 |
Gevlin
Universal Might DSM FOUNDATION
157
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 03:38:00 -
[467] - Quote
I have always like the concept of a Drone based mining ship.
This ship would be used mine smaller asteroids, mining several Asteroids at once. Making me feel like a puppet Master.
If we are not being presented with a Done Based Mining Ship can we have modules or mining rigs or drones to make such a ship.
Ie Rigs Reduce mining laser Yeild in exchange for Beefing up Mining Drones. Increase Mining Drone Capacity and / or bandwith with in the ship Specialized Drone Ore Selection - Rig adds increase yield of drones on one type of or but lowers the yield on other ores
High Slot: Advance Mining Drone Control Unit - Able to control an extra 2-4 mining drones per module only able to be fitted on Mining barge or Exhumers. Droned tractor Stablizing unit. Adds 100% Ore Minend but extra units will have a decrease effect so that effective Each additional module ads 100% Capacity of the drones. 1st module is at 100% Strength, 2nd Modules is at 50% strength 3rd Module is 33% Strength. 3 Modules would add 300% not 700%
Drones: Type III Mining Drones, or augmented Drones that have an increase mining yield for selected ore types. Size Medium and Large Mining Drones.
Low Slot: Mining Drone Yield Augmentor
Bah I just want a drone based mining boat please ccp.
The Goons are Coming, The Goons are Coming Jita the April 28, Hulk a geddon April 29 for a month. The Best Tears are the Geifer's Tears. just hope the new crime watch system is in place by then.... oh the chaos will rain!!! |
Gevlin
Universal Might DSM FOUNDATION
157
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 03:38:00 -
[468] - Quote
I would love to have a naming contest for the new mining frigate. The Goons are Coming, The Goons are Coming Jita the April 28, Hulk a geddon April 29 for a month. The Best Tears are the Geifer's Tears. just hope the new crime watch system is in place by then.... oh the chaos will rain!!! |
Debir Achen
EVE University Ivy League
27
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 03:51:00 -
[469] - Quote
Missile sniper and rocket brawler are two completely different fighting styles. Merlin used to be a pretty good rocket brawler with excellent tank (you know there's something odd when a ship with a hybrid bonus typically fits 2 rockets and maybe 2 projectiles), but it's lost it's rocket hardpoints.
Kestrel is a pretty good missile sniper for frig vs frig engagements, but has little tank worth talking about. I'd like to see something take over from the Merlin as a rocket brawler, sitting on the edge of rocket range with good tank and decent DPS and forcing gunboats to figure how to take the fight to it. This sort of ship also works in a fleet fight, whereas a light missile sniper is going to pop as soon as something with long range medium weapons decides to lock it.
Caracal has a similar issue. In a decent size arena with cruisers and smaller it's almost unbeatable; allow the target to bring bigger ships it's likely to die before it achieves much.
Also nice to see that some ships are getting cargo capacities to match their volumes. I noticed the other day that a badger mk II has a volume of 270k m3 but a base cargo capacity of about 5-6k m3, expandable into the high 20s with skills, modules and rigs. A hauler with only 10% of it's volume available for cargo is pretty inefficient, to say the least. |
None ofthe Above
214
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 04:00:00 -
[470] - Quote
Debir Achen wrote:Missile sniper and rocket brawler are two completely different fighting styles. Merlin used to be a pretty good rocket brawler with excellent tank (you know there's something odd when a ship with a hybrid bonus typically fits 2 rockets and maybe 2 projectiles), but it's lost it's rocket hardpoints.
Kestrel is a pretty good missile sniper for frig vs frig engagements, but has little tank worth talking about. I'd like to see something take over from the Merlin as a rocket brawler, sitting on the edge of rocket range with good tank and decent DPS and forcing gunboats to figure how to take the fight to it. This sort of ship also works in a fleet fight, whereas a light missile sniper is going to pop as soon as something with long range medium weapons decides to lock it.
Caracal has a similar issue. In a decent size arena with cruisers and smaller it's almost unbeatable; allow the target to bring bigger ships it's likely to die before it achieves much.
Also nice to see that some ships are getting cargo capacities to match their volumes. I noticed the other day that a badger mk II has a volume of 270k m3 but a base cargo capacity of about 5-6k m3, expandable into the high 20s with skills, modules and rigs. A hauler with only 10% of it's volume available for cargo is pretty inefficient, to say the least.
Valid points. I was advocating for the Merlin to get double bonused with both Missile and Hybrid, with 3/3 Turret/Missile hard points. Would have made for an interestingly flexible ship. I do miss the missiles from the Merlin.
Double bonuses for split weapons systems seems not to be in the cards however. I've yet to see it even acknowledged as an option, let alone be discussed seriously.
I'd love to see both the Tristan and the Merlin get that treatment. It would be very interesting.
|
|
Jed Clampett
The Order Of Viision
7
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 04:00:00 -
[471] - Quote
I can see the skiff and retriever as maybe going low sec under fleet protection if they really have BS type ehp. Protection because they are not quick kills so defenders actually have time to protect instead of merely revenge. Maybe even solo in low sec if its practical to put decent escape measures on as well as good tank.
But again unless remarkably cheap I can't really see the new concept Hulk and Covetor in low sec as popular ship. Too zip bang gone. And historically the mass mining of cheap ores is not what frontiers are most famous for. No gold rush of very pricey and rare minerals is what frontier risk is about...often on small small. So the biggest and most fragile mining of low cost ores does fit more with safe established space...even if maybe not in the richest and oldest neighborhoods (1.0 space).
|
Viceran Phaedra
Phaed Consortium The Watchmen.
6
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 04:46:00 -
[472] - Quote
Great blog, CCP! Looking forward to the new changes shaking up the status quo. Comments follow:
--Heavy Payload Delivery-- A bit more specialisation and clarification, and a general update to T1 frigates is a good idea. Keen to see how these go when they're released. Perhaps try and synchronise with the art department to include a (even if minor) visual upgrade to rebalanced ships as they're pushed out onto the server. Now that we've seen the kinds of ships the engine is capable of rendering (old Manticore -> new Manticore is a great example), it'd be a shame not to do them justice.
--Barge In On Me-- I see what you mean with wanting barges and exhumers each to have 'an appealing role' and I see that you've considered this in terms of things like tank vs yield vs ore holding capacity etc, but the community is also very interested in those 'appealing roles' covering other important resource harvesting like Ice and Gas. Perhaps an overhaul to the mining barges/exhumers could involve something like the T2 exhumers (Skiff, Mackinaw and Hulk) all being made relatively comparable in terms of storage/tank etc but being specialised into mining gas (Skiff), Ice (Mackinaw) and Ore, including Mercoxit (Hulk) with appropriate bonuses. Perhaps a good way to tackle the tank vs yield issue would be leaving the choice in the players' hands with the introduction of a T3 Industrial...
--Destroyer Of Worlds-- Do it. Sounds awesome. Suggest you hold another 'design-a-ship' contest as well; the community loves this level of participation!
--General Comment-- We really should name the new ORE frigate after Chribba. I can see this having massive community support! |
Artyom Hunter
Battlestars S E D I T I O N
6
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 05:36:00 -
[473] - Quote
*Sleezy Wink* I'll see you up stairs CCP... |
Balder Verdandi
Czerka. The Methodical Alliance
52
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 05:40:00 -
[474] - Quote
Scrapyard Bob wrote:On the mining barge/exhumer cargo bay issue. Please keep in mind the size of T1/T2 mining crystals and the need to carry both primary and spares for each ore type that you expect to find out in the belts.
For a Hulk, this typically means 3 "used" crystals and 3-4 "new" crystals for each type (usually 3-4 different ore types in a belt). With T1 crystals, this means a minimum of 6 x 3 x 30m3 (540 m3 total), with the upper end using T2 crystals this is 7 x 4 x 50 m3 (1400 m3).
And if you are an organized person, you usually keep the T2 crystals in Medium Standard Containers, one per ore type, which are 325m3 each and hold 7 T2 crystals. So for most cases, you'll be hauling (4) of those containers out to the belts so that you have the right selection of crystals as well as spares. That's 1300 m3 of cargo space needed for crystal storage.
Alternately - you could consider reducing the size of crystals to 10 m3 for T1 and 15 m3 for T2. Which would cut the above numbers by about 1/3.
I like the way you're thinking, and hope that CCP could lean towards this direction.
All mining barges and exhumers need a mining crystal bay, similar to the multi-bay design of the Primae. If you reduced the crystal size you could easily add a second bay of roughly 1000m3 limited to store crystals.
Also, since we also need a gas harvesting platform ..... why not convert the Primae into a gas harvester, increase the cargohold in a similar fashion, eliminate the second and third cargo bays, and make this ship much more useful. We wouldn't need a completely *new* ship, just balance it out and make it more useful.
I don't stab people in the back. -áWhen you do, you miss the look on their face and that's priceless.
Long live the failure known as "Unified Inventory"! |
Cloned S0ul
Blood Fanatics
124
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 05:47:00 -
[475] - Quote
Holy Bantam sweet mother Jita, A blog full of love. Cool stuf ;D gankers gona cry, me thinking to back to mining |
Magic Crisp
Amarrian Micro Devices Silent Infinity
29
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 06:01:00 -
[476] - Quote
Please pay attention to the bonuses, regarding performance for different types of mining. The future hulk will have to be able to have the current mackinaw's performance for ice, and current skiff's for mercoxit, because (according to the devblog) that ought to be the performance ship.
Also, if you have a bit of time, could you please take a look at the rorq's compression performance capabilities? Currently it needs like 10-11 boosted hulks to maximize a single compression lane on the rorq, while having 4 boosted mackinaws all the 4 compression slots are maxed out and the rorq is lacking behind. This seems to be a bit unbalanced. For 1 slot, 11 hulks for ore, and 1 mackinaw for ice. Could you please adjust something here, so the rorq can also properly compress a decent fleet of mackinaws?
|
Geksz
Pangalactic Punks n' Playboys HUN Reloaded
37
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 06:08:00 -
[477] - Quote
Thenoran wrote:Could you please please make the Skiff (or Mackinaw in its new role) into a Ninja Mining barge? Great agility (3 to 4 sec align time max), +2 warp strength and perhaps a bonus to signature radius or regular cloak.
I'd love to be able to sneak into a system, mine the good stuff and not having to warp out as soon as someone else appears in local. Instead the ship should allow for the miner to only having to warp off when someone is actively gunning for you. If someone warps to you the warp strength and agility should allow for a quick get away but you will still be vulnerable to being nabbed by a cloaked ship or a gang of inties. Staying alert and monitoring directional and local should make all the difference (leaving it up the pilot).
This would be nice, yes pls!
Thenoran wrote:P.S. Can we have the old strip miner sounds back? Those actually sounded like they did something.
This pls!!!!! The current sound of the strip miners are awful. Bring back the old soundd pls! Pretty pls! |
Rema Dach
Unour Heavy Industries
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 06:24:00 -
[478] - Quote
Quote:Magnate, Heron, Imicus, Probe: strengthening current roles as support frigates. Which mainly means scanning and possibly mini-profession operations, like hacking and codebreaking as well. Umm, codebreaking IS hacking.... I think for one of those you meant archeology/analyzing. I'll try not to read too much into that, although someone else surely will.
Otherwise...
CCP I LOVE YOU! Can't wait for everything in this devblog, it's all awesome. |
Patient 2428190
DEGRREE'Fo'FREE Internet Business School
222
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 06:38:00 -
[479] - Quote
Oh great.
You may rebalance ships that matter by 2014. Maybe. |
Ulair Memmet
ORIGIN SYSTEMS
36
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 06:53:00 -
[480] - Quote
Ponder Yonder wrote: 2. Since you are overhauling the barges, how about giving us a dedicated gas miner?
this
Very nice changes. The new mining frigate looks good and i'm looking forward to seeing the new destroyers. |
|
Endeavour Starfleet
834
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 07:19:00 -
[481] - Quote
I completely disagree with this thought process that says that more mining yield should mean less ehp.
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.
What protection guards against an alpha strike? NONE.
If I had to fly a procurer to have a chance of surviving a T3 alpha I mise well just unsub if I were a miner. It is completely backwards. |
Tarryn Nightstorm
Hellstar Towing and Recovery
407
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 07:27:00 -
[482] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:I completely disagree with this thought process that says that more mining yield should mean less ehp. 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. What protection guards against an alpha strike? NONE. If I had to fly a procurer to have a chance of surviving a T3 alpha I mise well just unsub if I were a miner. It is completely backwards.
Oh, Christ...
You again?
And no, it isn't.
Ship optimised for a non-combat role shouldn't be expected to fare too well in combat. That's what purpose-built warships are for.
In irae, veritas. |
Miss Tyburn
Evergreen Terrace.
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 07:38:00 -
[483] - Quote
Nice devblog
One thing though. I am not sure if this has been touched before, but what do you think about the building costs.
Talking about frigates, I really don-¦t think most people care about how much they are. However, currently we still have this tiercide thing and the different building costs make sense. On the other side, if you throwing away tiercide and revamp all the ships, I think it-¦s worth looking at the building cost and the skill requirements.
Looking at the barges, Procurer 2M / Retriever: 8M / Covetor 30M; Right now, this all makes sense thus the Covetor has a higher tier than the procurer, much more EHP ...
But does this still makes sense if the procurer/skiff are going to be battleship like EHP - monsters?
Even if people still don't care about the building cost of mining barges, I guess they will if you are going to touch battlecruiser and battleships.
Talking about mining barges, I really would like to see that the building costs of all barges will be in line with the new roles they are made for
Tyburn |
Iq Cadaen
Celestial Acquisitions Talocan United
4
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 08:16:00 -
[484] - Quote
Amazing changes, can't wait to see them go live. LOVE the mining frigate model. |
Ribikoka
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
221
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 08:36:00 -
[485] - Quote
Iq Cadaen wrote:Amazing changes, can't wait to see them go live. LOVE the mining frigate model.
Maybe, but i dont know why need 6 months long time to change just few data. (to winter patch) They have ship editor tools and the testing phase not need 6 months. |
Jackie Fisher
Syrkos Technologies Joint Venture Conglomerate
92
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 08:44:00 -
[486] - Quote
Miss Tyburn wrote:Nice devblog One thing though. I am not sure if this has been touched before, but what do you think about the building costs. Talking about frigates, I really don-¦t think most people care about how much they are. However, currently we still have this tiercide thing and the different building costs make sense. On the other side, if you throwing away tiercide and revamp all the ships, I think it-¦s worth looking at the building cost and the skill requirements. Looking at the barges, Procurer 2M / Retriever: 8M / Covetor 30M; Right now, this all makes sense thus the Covetor has a higher tier than the procurer, much more EHP ... But does this still makes sense if the procurer/skiff are going to be battleship like EHP - monsters? Even if people still don't care about the building cost of mining barges, I guess they will if you are going to touch battlecruiser and battleships. Talking about mining barges, I really would like to see that the building costs of all barges will be in line with the new roles they are made for Same applies to BPO prices. Whatever CCP decide to do not IGÇÖm sure theyGÇÖll be able to announce it before hand as the market implications will be immense if they do GÇô hopefully they learnt something from the introduction of PI.
Fear God and Thread Nought |
Lemming Alpha1dash1
Lemmings Online
7
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 10:37:00 -
[487] - Quote
Next Alliance tournament will be a....
Mining tournament |
Pierced Brosmen
Priory Of The Lemon
96
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 10:40:00 -
[488] - Quote
Now, I understand this from a balancing standpoint, but it doesn't really make sense from a logical standpoint that the largest and most expensive of the barges/exhumers have considerably less ore capacity and EHP compared to the two others.
Yes, sacrificeing yield for better defense makes sense to some degree (smaller ship, lower sig radius etc), but considering the size of the vessels, the ore capacity between them seems kinda off...
Also, one thing I didn't see mentioned in the blog was wether or not the Covetor/Hulk will get an EHP buff at all or if they are gonna keep being expensive (one-shot-pop) targets... It just says it will have a lot less then the others... |
Denidil
Larimer Highlands Heavy Industries
282
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 13:01:00 -
[489] - Quote
Pierced Brosmen wrote:Now, I understand this from a balancing standpoint, but it doesn't really make sense from a logical standpoint that the largest and most expensive of the barges/exhumers have considerably less ore capacity and EHP compared to the two others.
Yes, sacrificeing yield for better defense makes sense to some degree (smaller ship, lower sig radius etc), but considering the size of the vessels, the ore capacity between them seems kinda off...
Also, one thing I didn't see mentioned in the blog was wether or not the Covetor/Hulk will get an EHP buff at all or if they are gonna keep being expensive (one-shot-pop) targets... It just says it will have a lot less then the others...
did you ever consider they might change the production costs as part of the revamp?
as for the persistent "you cannot fit tank on that! it is a mining ship! that makes no sense!" - that is a stupid argument. the people who designed the ship can do whatever the frakking hell they want. they could make an 8 hardpoint mining battleship with huge EHP, 4 strips and 4 turret hardpoints with hulk and maurader bonuses.
not that they should. but they could.
ORE could design a Mining Dreadnaught if they wanted... and then Chribba would buy it and name it the Veldnaught II ... I like all these gankbear tears, now maybe you'll have to go prove your "l33t pvp" skills against something that shoots back like the rest of us do. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7977
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 13:19:00 -
[490] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:What protection guards against an alpha strike? NONE. The kind of protection you can fit to a Hulk already. The kind of protection you'll have more reason to fit since there's no longer any point in ruining the ship with cargo expanders. 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¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
|
Zor'katar
Matari Recreation
8
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 13:26:00 -
[491] - Quote
Denidil wrote:did you ever consider they might change the production costs as part of the revamp? Sure, but as far as I know, they didn't change the production cost of the frigates they've already revamped. That's why (by my count) 4 of us have brought up the issue in this thread. We're looking for some acknowledgment from CCP either that they're aware that there is something there that needs to be addressed, or that they're not planning on addressing it and we're just going to have to live with it. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1908
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 13:27:00 -
[492] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:I completely disagree with this thought process that says that more mining yield should mean less ehp. 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. What protection guards against an alpha strike? NONE. If I had to fly a procurer to have a chance of surviving a T3 alpha I mise well just unsub if I were a miner. It is completely backwards.
Alpha is EXPENSIVE. That is your protection. Tank your ships enough to make sure it's UNPROFITABLE to gank you, and you are unlikely to be ganked. Not immune from ganking (the only reason Titans are immune to suicide gank is because you can't suicide gank in Lowsec).
If you're only worried about "a*" T3 Alpha, you can easily tank a Hulk to survive any solo T3 gank (a 70-90m gank ship cost to gain 30m from a ganked Hulk, aka unprofitable).
*tanken to mean singular ship This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
Jerioca
The Riot Formation Get Off My Lawn
2
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 13:29:00 -
[493] - Quote
I Very much like the ideas for mining barges/exhumers but I think the proposals are the wrong way of doing it.
Mining Frigate is a great idea. mining barge is cruiser class dedicated mining ship so I see no reason why there shouldn't be a frigate sized equivalent. Or, for that matter as battleship class 0.0 only equivalent. But rather than try and manipulate the current barges I'd do the following.
Reduce the volume of mining crystals by at least 75%, preferably 90%
1. Add mining frigate with 150 to 200m3 cargo hold, 2000 to 4000m3 ore hold and 0 to 25m3 drone bay and only able to deploy mining drones.
2. Remove all exhumers from the game.
3. Remove Procurer and and Retriever from the game.
4. change skill requirements as per Dev Blog for the Covetor
5. Give Covetor 300m3 to 450m3 cargo hold, 13,000m3 ore hold, and 25 to 50m3 drone bay only able to deploy mining drones.
6. Create T2 varients of the Covetor in a similar way to the Transport Ship T2 varients i.e. one small sig, small capacity, Cov-Op capable and one Hi tank, WCS boosted, larger ore capacity varient. Both capable of deploying combat drones. |
Denidil
Larimer Highlands Heavy Industries
282
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 13:49:00 -
[494] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Endeavour Starfleet wrote:What protection guards against an alpha strike? NONE. The kind of protection you can fit to a Hulk already. The kind of protection you'll have more reason to fit since there's no longer any point in ruining the ship with cargo expanders.
and with all the barges and exhumers getting a boost.. that protects you from alpha. unless it is a large group of high alpha ships - but then your scouts should have seen those coming. so if you get alpha'ed in the new mining barges blame your scouts.
i love how many people are talking without having read the dev blog, or they just have poor reading comprehension and miss the parts about them normalizing the mining output of all barges and upping the HP of all barges.
your post is bad, and you should feel bad I like all these gankbear tears, now maybe you'll have to go prove your "l33t pvp" skills against something that shoots back like the rest of us do. |
Cloned S0ul
Blood Fanatics
124
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 13:54:00 -
[495] - Quote
CCP do you plan remodeling existed mining barge ships models ? This new minining frigate looks like great robust mining space-craft i can compare this look and design to CAT Products look how about remodedeling barges with same design as this new frigate look ? |
Knug LiDi
N00bFleeT Numquam Ambulare Solus
59
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 14:07:00 -
[496] - Quote
The frigate image shows parts labelled as "MNU mineral compressors". Given that barges and exhumers deal only with ore not minerals, and the only industrial ship that deals in compressing anything is the Rorqual, what are we to make of "mineral compressors" ?
If only we could fall into a woman's arms
without falling into her hands |
Denidil
Larimer Highlands Heavy Industries
283
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 14:11:00 -
[497] - Quote
Knug LiDi wrote:The frigate image shows parts labelled as "MNU mineral compressors". Given that barges and exhumers deal only with ore not minerals, and the only industrial ship that deals in compressing anything is the Rorqual, what are we to make of "mineral compressors" ?
either
a) art department is just making **** up like they do for lore reasons on other ship loadout art b) they're thinking of doing away with the refining step and having you just suck the refined minerals directly off the roid (possibly with yield affected by your refining skills?) c) all of the above I like all these gankbear tears, now maybe you'll have to go prove your "l33t pvp" skills against something that shoots back like the rest of us do. |
Nagarythe Tinurandir
Catholic School for Boys Dark Legion Alliance
20
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 14:19:00 -
[498] - Quote
Denidil wrote:Knug LiDi wrote:The frigate image shows parts labelled as "MNU mineral compressors". Given that barges and exhumers deal only with ore not minerals, and the only industrial ship that deals in compressing anything is the Rorqual, what are we to make of "mineral compressors" ? either a) art department is just making **** up like they do for lore reasons on other ship loadout art b) they're thinking of doing away with the refining step and having you just suck the refined minerals directly off the roid (possibly with yield affected by your refining skills?) c) all of the above
i doubt that they will go for b) all the iskies spend in pimping refining in 0.0 outposts?
|
Knug LiDi
N00bFleeT Numquam Ambulare Solus
59
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 14:35:00 -
[499] - Quote
Denidil wrote:Knug LiDi wrote:The frigate image shows parts labelled as "MNU mineral compressors". Given that barges and exhumers deal only with ore not minerals, and the only industrial ship that deals in compressing anything is the Rorqual, what are we to make of "mineral compressors" ? either a) art department is just making **** up like they do for lore reasons on other ship loadout art b) they're thinking of doing away with the refining step and having you just suck the refined minerals directly off the roid (possibly with yield affected by your refining skills?) c) all of the above
While I thank you for your input:
a) That's very helpful (although I will also say probably the truth)
b) While refining in place might be considered useful, and it would imply working with minerals, its hardly mineral compression
Where we come from mineral compression utilizes manufacturing certain items to achieve mineral compression. So are you suggesting that not just refining happens on the fly, but manufacturing as well?
That's quite the industrial ship.
If only we could fall into a woman's arms
without falling into her hands |
Hildulfr
Dark Fusion Industries Limitless Inc.
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 14:46:00 -
[500] - Quote
Looking good on a lot of changes, and really like the new mining frigate design. After owning a Hulk for a few weeks, I quickly figured out that a hauler, or even better an Orca, is your best friend and not cargo rigs and expanders. My Hulk never mines alone. |
|
Imryn Xaran
Coherent Light Enterprises
38
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 15:08:00 -
[501] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Maul555 wrote:No, they are meant to be used as I like. GǪexcept that the whole point of tiercide and of this change is that each ship will have a well-defined role. The new role defined for the Hulk/Covetor is group mining. You can use it any way you like, but if you push it outside its role, it will be bad at it. This is no different than trying to use a HIC for remote reps and trying to use Logistics for tackling GÇö it can be done, but it's the wrong ships for the wrong tasks. If you want to mine alone, a Retreiever/Mack will suit your purpose far better. Basically, everyone needs to get the idea of GÇ£Hulk = best minerGÇ¥ out of their heads, because the differentiation between ships will no longer work like that.
What I would like to know is how do any of these changes improve mining ops in hi sec? No matter how much protection is in place in the op the ganker still gets the first shot and a mining ship optimised for mining can't tank it. So basically we have status quo - no matter how well organised your op is in high sec miners still have to run like little girls every time a lone dessy shows up on d-scan.
Broken game-play is still broken so gj CCP |
Denidil
Larimer Highlands Heavy Industries
285
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 15:15:00 -
[502] - Quote
Knug LiDi wrote:Denidil wrote:Knug LiDi wrote:The frigate image shows parts labelled as "MNU mineral compressors". Given that barges and exhumers deal only with ore not minerals, and the only industrial ship that deals in compressing anything is the Rorqual, what are we to make of "mineral compressors" ? either a) art department is just making **** up like they do for lore reasons on other ship loadout art b) they're thinking of doing away with the refining step and having you just suck the refined minerals directly off the roid (possibly with yield affected by your refining skills?) c) all of the above While I thank you for your input: a) That's very helpful (although I will also say probably the truth) b) While refining in place might be considered useful, and it would imply working with minerals, its hardly mineral compression Where we come from mineral compression utilizes manufacturing certain items to achieve mineral compression. So are you suggesting that not just refining happens on the fly, but manufacturing as well? That's quite the industrial ship.
did i say anything about mineral compression? I like all these gankbear tears, now maybe you'll have to go prove your "l33t pvp" skills against something that shoots back like the rest of us do. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7993
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 15:23:00 -
[503] - Quote
Imryn Xaran wrote:What I would like to know is how do any of these changes improve mining ops in hi sec? 1. No need (or point) to ruin your Hulk with cargo expanders GåÆ more reason to tank GåÆ easier to protect. 2. No need to use the Hulk to begin with, but rather go for one of the larger-tank/larger-cargo models GåÆ easier to survive. 3. Less loot GåÆ more expensive ganks GåÆ easier to become a worthless target. 4. More utility in cheaper ships GåÆ more expensive ganks and cheaper losses GåÆ easier to become a worthless target and easier to just write of any incidental loss.
Quote:no matter how well organised your op is in high sec miners still have to run like little girls every time a lone dessy shows up on d-scan. Good news: you never had to run from a lone destroyer to begin with, and there's even less need to do so after this change. If you had to run before, it's because you broke your Hulk, not because the game is broken. With this change, the Hulk (which can already withstand multiple destroyers and even a tier-3 BC or two) will be the weakest ship in the fleet. If you cannot wrap your head around how much this has improved your ability to protect yourself, then trust me: the game was never the problem GÇö it was you, all along.
Non-broken game is now even less broken. Very good job, CCP. 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¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Geksz
Pangalactic Punks n' Playboys HUN Reloaded
37
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 16:23:00 -
[504] - Quote
Some thoughts about the barge stuff:
- I hope after the changes the Hulk can tank ships at least half of it's price tag. (something that is ment for mining doesn't mean it should be defensless, and easy pray) - Some ppl will pop ur stuff even if it wasn't profitable, if it looks good on their killboard...
- 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.
- If u really want the Hulk to be a gang mining vessel u should take into account that an Orca supported Hulk with maxed skills with maxed t2 gang link skills and implants can do ~5700m3 in 121 seconds with 3 x strip miner II-s and t2 crystals and with 2 x t2 MLUs. Hence it would be nice to have an ore hold that can accomodate at least 2 cycles form all 3 strip miners. And in 0.0 usually there is a rorqual wich can give more bonuses, wich shortens the cycle more...
- Even in group ops u can't defend mining ships on site currently, couse of low EHP. At lest a big structure HP would be nice on all of them, since big ore bays, needs lots of space, lots of structure hardpoints to bear the stress of acceleration and deacceleration, and so on, so this would make sense imho, and it would be nice on Industrial ships too.
- Regarding group mining: in 0.0 u have intel channels, so there u only need to tank rats with ur exhumers/barges, in high sec, u never know when will a suicide ganker gank u, until it happens. In this regard high sec needs a better tanked ship, to avoid being easy pray. If i assume that the Hulk will have the same EHP as now, and will cost the same, then every high sec miner's only real choice will be the mackinaw, even in group ops, and that is kinda strange...
- I don't really understant the fear of using mining ships as industrials, they are much slower, less agile, and very expensive. Who would use the Hulk with it's maxed 17k m3 crago space as an industrial ship? (~300 million vs ~300k)
- We need a good cargo capacity for the crystals on the Hulk. Even in a mining op u'll need to bring ur own crystals, noone will spare precious orca space for everyones crystals. Also not everyone has an orca booster alt...
Btw. if u don't mine in a hostile enviroment - for example High sec - why would u fit for tank? Everything u do in eve u aim for maximum efficiency. Like when u do missions u won't fit more tank, or pvp modules just becouse there is a possibility that someone would jump in on u and gank ur ship. But even if that happens a PvE fit mission ship has a chance to fight back, and withstand some vollies. Where a mining ship has none of that. And in a harsh evnviroment that is EVE this is a very big deficiency.
About frigate rebalance: Hard point layouts - why do away with the split weapon systems? They have the advantage of being versatile, and u couldn't kill all their dps with let's say just weapon disruptors.
P.S.: The Hulk is not a few hours from the covetor, u need Astrogeology level 5 wich is a rank 3 skill... |
Freedom7
Pisces Group Inari Kimon
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 16:43:00 -
[505] - Quote
All looks good to me .... bring it on ASAP please |
Gainard
Eurotech Industries
53
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 16:48:00 -
[506] - Quote
Currwntly the Procurer is the least useful ship in all of the Universe. Most people don't even consider buying it when they have the skills to do so, but rather level up for the Retriever.
To make the Procurer worth anything give it a massive tank or a decent drone capacity for selfdefense and a cargohold that at least equals a jet can.
The increased training time for a Hulk should still have its merits. If you update the mining barges the hulk should still have one or two outstanding features. Fitting a gun or a missile launcher, more med slots for defense, more power/cpu/cap to help fitting or something along the line... For UI look up FUBAR on Google. For EVE see SNAFU. url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_slang_terms |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7993
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 16:54:00 -
[507] - Quote
Geksz wrote:-+ I hope after the changes the Hulk can tank ships at least half of it's price tag. (something that is ment for mining doesn't mean it should be defensless, and easy pray) - Some ppl will pop ur stuff even if it wasn't profitable, if it looks good on their killboard... -+ Even in group ops u can't defend mining ships on site currently, couse of low EHP. At lest a big structure HP would be nice on all of them, since big ore bays, needs lots of space, lots of structure hardpoints to bear the stress of acceleration and deacceleration, and so on, so this would make sense imho, and it would be nice on Industrial ships too. -+ Regarding group mining: in 0.0 u have intel channels, so there u only need to tank rats with ur exhumers/barges, in high sec, u never know when will a suicide ganker gank u, until it happens. In this regard high sec needs a better tanked ship, to avoid being easy pray. If i assume that the Hulk will have the same EHP as now, and will cost the same, then every high sec miner's only real choice will be the mackinaw, even in group ops, and that is kinda strange... For starters, the price tag of the Hulk is quite irrelevant to its balance and survivability. Even so, as it is, the Hulk can already survive a significant amount of damage and with fleet support, it can quickly become more expensive to kill one than to lose one. This change makes the Hulk the weakest of the exhumers, so if you need even more tank than that, the option will be there.
Also, there's nothing strange about the Mack being the better choice for the solo highsec miner because the notion that the Hulk is the peak predator to rocks is no longer valid. Finally, why would the Mack would be the only choice when the Retriever fills a similar role and when the Procurer and Skiff offers even more tank (if that's your main concern)?
Quote:-+ 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.
Quote:-+ If u really want the Hulk to be a gang mining vessel u should take into account that an Orca supported Hulk with maxed skills with maxed t2 gang link skills and implants can do ~5700m3 in 121 seconds with 3 x strip miner II-s and t2 crystals and with 2 x t2 MLUs. Hence it would be nice to have an ore hold that can accomodate at least 2 cycles form all 3 strip miners. And in 0.0 usually there is a rorqual wich can give more bonuses, wich shortens the cycle more... -+ We need a good cargo capacity for the crystals on the Hulk. Even in a mining op u'll need to bring ur own crystals, noone will spare precious orca space for everyones crystals. Also not everyone has an orca booster alt... Again, group mining: just dump that ore at the end of each cycle if you manage to suck up that much. That's the price you pay for the increased efficiency.
The Orca can carry the crystals just fine GÇö it's a floating secure can, and has room for over 8,000 mining crystals. If you have so many miners that that isn't enough, maybe a second Orca is in orderGǪ Also, the space isn't all that precious GÇö you just need to have a good chain of indys bringing the ore back to station. And if you can't get hold of an Orca (as an alt or otherwise), then maybe its companion ship GÇö the Hulk GÇö isn't the right tool to use. Again: it's that GÇ£Hulk = bestGÇ¥ mindset, and it will no longer be true.
Quote:Btw. if u don't mine in a hostile enviroment - for example High sec - why would u fit for tank? Because highsec is a hostile environment. In missions, you fit for sufficient tank to survive and being able to complete the mission without losing the ship. Same here: you fit your mining ship with sufficient tank to be able to survive an attack and bring back the ore. Outfitting a barge for maximum efficiency is like filling a mission ship with nothing but guns, weapon mods, tracking computers, drone mods and sensor boosters: not very clever, because it will not actually be efficient at all.
As with anything, it's a cost-benefit analysis: is the benefit of getting 200m-¦ more ore worth the cost of losing 300M ISK worth of assets? 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¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Kopfy
20
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 17:02:00 -
[508] - Quote
Quote:...as we think the destroyer class currently is a little small with only four hulls. That is why we want to introduce new tech 1 destroyers to fill roles that are not yet covered GÇô as such, Amarr / Gallente would receive additional drone boats, while Caldari / Minmatar would be more missile based.
I love you. |
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
736
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 17:03:00 -
[509] - Quote
Hey folks, thanks for the feedback, here are some answers for you.
- WHY WORKING ON FRIGATES FIRST WHEN SO MANY OTHER SHIPS CLASSES ARE BROKEN?(battlecruisers in particular): thatGÇÖs mainly because we are not just fixing ships, but overhauling EVE balancing as a whole by removing tiers. This is an extremely tricky move, which is why we want to start to get experience with frigates first before we move to the more problematic hulls.
Also, frigates suffer the most from current tiers issues, and as the first vessels provided to new players, not reflecting a good image of the game if they are being told to skip them entirely to train for battlecruisers. Finally, it's virtually impossible to hit everyone wishes at once with one set of changes, as we have hundreds of ship to go through and there is unfortunately no guarantee we can directly fix the ship you are interested in. We know it's hard to ask such a thing after years of neglect, but please be patient, we will get to them eventually
- HAVE YOU CONSIDERED MOVING SOME FRIGATE HULLS INTO DESTROYERS? Yes, we have in the past, but that idea was dropped it would create inconsistencies between the different model sizes. Besides, we preferred introducing new toys for you to play with, because all that new glittering usually is much more excitGǪ ooooh, shiny!
- ARE THERE GOING TO BE INDUSTRY / INVENTION ADJUSTMENTS PLANNED TO ALL THESE OVERHAULED SHIPS? Yes, that is part of the GÇ£tiericideGÇ¥ project, but we want to wait until we finish all ships from a specific size before this is considered to avoid frequent disruptions to the economy.
- WHAT'S HAPPENING WITH THE HULK AFTER THE CHANGE? Exact modifications are still vague, but the plan is to quite reduce its cargo hold and add an ore bay of the same size than the removed cargo hold. That means cargo expanders and rigs wonGÇÖt affect the ore bay at all, requiring players to unload ore more frequently. This is by design, as we want the Hulk to be moved into a fleet purpose that has to rely on others to make proper use of its best mining output. That also means we will not be introducing items that affect the ore bay size.
- DRONES USUALLY DON'T MIX WELL WITH LONG RANGE COMBAT DUE TO TRAVEL TIME; HOW DO YOU PLAN TO TACKLE THIS? Again, this is quite a bit early to tell, but an option is to have drone frigates provide a bonus to drone speed and tracking instead of just raw damage. Not only it avoids making them too much overpowering next to other frigates, but also provides an appealing purpose next to the larger drone hulls.
- WHY IS IT TAKING SO LONG TO MAKE SUCH CHANGES? WHY ARE YOU TAKING SO MUCH TIME REBALANCING THINGS WHEN YOU STATED PERFECT BALANCE WAS NOT POSSIBLE? ThatGÇÖs tied to the first point of this reply: we are totally revamping EVE balancing philosophy, and that unfortunately takes time. Even if perfect balance cannot be achieved, we still wish to take proper time in our balancing process to weight options, consider player feedback for iterations instead of just rushing to get everything done as fast as possible.
- ARE WE RECEIVING NEW MODELS FOR THE REVAMPED SHIP ROLES, LIKE THE BANTAM? Nope, not at the moment. It could be worse though, you could be flying a Moa .
- ARE WE RECEIVING A DEDICATED GAS MINING SHIP? A point that needs to be taken into consideration GÇô if that is possible we will integrate it into the Skiff, otherwise you may have to wait for a dedicated hull to arrive.
- HOW ARE YOU GOING TO TACKLE CAPACITOR ISSUES WITH TECH 1 ATTACK FRIGATES? First, by increasing their capacitor quite a bit, then by possibly having a fixed role bonus, even if we are not too fond of that on tech 1 ships. A most likely option would be to have a capacitor reduction to warp scrambler and disruptors on them just like on Interceptors.
- ARE YOU CONSIDERING CHANGING SOME FRIGATES TO FILL A LOGISTIC ROLE? Not at the moment, as we do not believe frigate hulls would be quite tailored for such a role: they are too frail and lack range to do the job properly. See the answer below for a more details on logistic ship plans.
- SINCE MINING FRIGATES ARE GOING AWAY, IS THERE ANY PLAN TO DO THE SAME WITH THE POOR MINING CRUISERS? Definitely, we want to remove mining bonuses from the current tier 1 cruisers and properly emphasize their logistic role when we start overhauling the cruiser class.
- ARE YOU PLANNING ON REVAMPING TECH2 SHIPS THAT MAY BECOME OBSOLETE WITH SUCH CHANGES, LIKE THE ELECTRONIC ATTACK FRIGATES? Well itGÇÖs not like EAS are not obsolete already, but hell yes we do want to improve them. However we first want to finish all tech 1 hulls before we move into more complex matters to have a frame of reference we can base ourselves upon.
- ARE YOU PLANNING ON CHANGING FRIGATE SKILL LEVELS AS PER OF THE "TIERICIDE" INITIATIVE? Yes, forgot to mention that point in the blog. Plan is to move all tech 1 frigate skill requirement to 1, while level 4 is used to jump into destroyers.
- WILL EXHUMER SHIP SPECIALIZATIONS BE AFFECTED BY SUCH CHANGES? Most likely not, except maybe for the Skiff as mentioned above.
- ARE YOU CONSIDERING A ROLE OR ANY KIND OF BONUS TO MAKE FRIGATES BETTER AT LIGHTING UP CYNOSURAL FIELDS? We donGÇÖt necessarily want to make capital fleets easier to move than they already are, but if such an attribute is considered it will most likely be on the support frigates (Magnate, Heron, Imicus, Probe).
- WILL THE BANTAM BE A MISSILE SHIP AS PROMISED A LONG TIME AGO? The blog specified it would be changed to a sniper role to take over for the Merlin overhaul, which means using hybrids turrets. If you like missiles, the Condor and Kestrel will be your hulls of choice. We also would like to remind you that quite contrary to popular beliefs, Caldari main weapon systems are missiles, ECM and hybrid turrets. So you better start training those gunnery skills as we also plan to overhaul the Moa and Ferox to be actually used as gun boats in the future.
- COULD YOU PLEASE AVOID USING LIGHT MISSILES ON FRIGATES, AS SUCH WEAPON SYSTEM ISN'T THAT GREAT IN THE FIRST PLACE? We may look at them if we find they arenGÇÖt that great during the frigate balancing.
- WILL THE NEW ORE BAY ON MINING BARGES SHOW UP ON SCAN OR DROP ORE WHEN THE SHIP IS DESTROYED? That question is still being investigated and will be tackled when we get to the actual mining barge balancing.
- WILL THE EXHUMER SKILL ALSO BE AFFECTED BY THE "TIERICIDE" INITIATIVE? Yes, all Ex...
|
|
Maul555
Nuts and Vindictive Remix Technologies
276
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 17:14:00 -
[510] - 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 -
[511] - 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... |
None ofthe Above
217
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 17:18:00 -
[512] - Quote
Great post.
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
ARE YOU CONSIDERING A ROLE OR ANY KIND OF BONUS TO MAKE FRIGATES BETTER AT LIGHTING UP CYNOSURAL FIELDS? We donGÇÖt necessarily want to make capital fleets easier to move than they already are, but if such an attribute is considered it will most likely be on the support frigates (Magnate, Heron, Imicus, Probe).
Good point. Yes, please lets not make power projection easier.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7993
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 17:18:00 -
[513] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Hope that clears some confusion. Very much so. Thanks!
The only thing would be the differentiation between the T1 and T2 barges in terms of how old and new roles mesh and how the whole GÇ£all exhumers/barges will be close to the Hulk in yieldGÇ¥ bit plays out, but that's hard without actual numbers and I'm guessing you're not quite there yet.
In particular there's the question along the lines of why the dedicated ice miner (the old role of the Mack) will also be the solo ship (the new role of the Retriever hull). What if you want dedicated ice miners with group benefits?
Maul555 wrote:Tippia, I cant help but notice that you seem to take some perverse pleasure in making lazy miners lives more difficult. No, what I'm saying is that lazy miners will have the perfect tool for the job: the Mack/Retriever GÇö in fact, it will probably make their lives easier. It won't be as good at pulling in ore as the Covetor/Hulk, but that's the price you pay for laziness.
I'm also saying that people need to stop assuming that they must fly a Hulk. With these changes, it will be the wrong tool for the job in a lot of use cases GÇö preferably, it will only be a good choice in about 1 out of 6 use cases, rather than 5/6 as is the case right now. 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¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Hoarr
RPS holdings
23
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 17:21:00 -
[514] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Hey folks, thanks for the feedback, here are some answers for you.
[list.]
ARE YOU CONSIDERING CHANGING SOME FRIGATES TO FILL A LOGISTIC ROLE? Not at the moment, as we do not believe frigate hulls would be quite tailored for such a role: they are too frail and lack range to do the job properly. See the answer below for a more details on logistic ship plans. [/list]
Thanks for clearing all of that up. I'm really excited about the changes. The only thing that I have a question about is that you mention a separate section on another logi ship but then never get into them. What changes are you talking about? |
None ofthe Above
217
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 17:21:00 -
[515] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
WHAT'S HAPPENING WITH THE HULK AFTER THE CHANGE? Exact modifications are still vague, but the plan is to quite reduce its cargo hold and add an ore bay of the same size than the removed cargo hold. That means cargo expanders and rigs wonGÇÖt affect the ore bay at all, requiring players to unload ore more frequently. This is by design, as we want the Hulk to be moved into a fleet purpose that has to rely on others to make proper use of its best mining output. That also means we will not be introducing items that affect the ore bay size.
Well that answers that. I think it's a reasonable approach. We live with this to an extent on the Orca.
When released you'll have a lot of Hulks and Covetors out there with cargo rigs though. Might be wise to have a plan for dealing with that, but I am sure that's clear already.
|
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
29
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 17:22:00 -
[516] - Quote
No the problem is CCP is finally fixing mining ships. The lazy AFK miners are still not happy until they get a MAX yield MAX tank MAX Cargo bay ship so they can play AFK all day long and not actually have to play the game. Haven't you noticed that not a single ganker tear has been shed by this because of the fact that unlink the "Lazy" miner they can adapt and change with the game. It makes me sad that we have such narrow sighted people in this game still. |
Knug LiDi
N00bFleeT Numquam Ambulare Solus
59
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 17:29:00 -
[517] - Quote
Denidil wrote:
did i say anything about mineral compression?
No, you didn't. As my original post questioned both the term and usage of "mineral compression", that was rather the point. I just pointed out, while thanking you for your contribution, that you didn't address "mineral compression" when responding to my post.
If only we could fall into a woman's arms
without falling into her hands |
Shootin' Star
The Fancy Hats Corporation
5
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 17:32:00 -
[518] - Quote
Geksz wrote:Btw. if u don't mine in a hostile enviroment (sic) - for example High sec - why would u fit for tank? Everything else you said may - or may not - make sense; but in the face of this, it's hard to care because this is so shockingly ignorant.
The answer to your question is: Because you're not an ignorant fool, and you actually realise that anytime you hit the undock button - whether you're in null, low or (yes!) high sec - you're entering "a hostile environment."
I have a completely carebear character who's fully qualified on all ORE ships through the Rorqual; and I don't care where in New Eden I am, I never undock any of those ships without at least a minimum reasonable tank. Why? Because even without the Goons continuing Hulkageddon, there's plenty of people - like me, on this character! - who'll gank you for some reason or for no reason whatsoever.
Bottom line: If you don't bother to tank at all - especially under so mistaken a believe as that there's some place in EvE that's not hostile - then you certainly deserve whatever happens. But who knows, maybe you'll get lucky and survive anyway. It's been known to happen ...
|
None ofthe Above
218
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 17:37:00 -
[519] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Hey folks, thanks for the feedback, here are some answers for you.
COULD YOU PLEASE AVOID USING LIGHT MISSILES ON FRIGATES, AS SUCH WEAPON SYSTEM ISN'T THAT GREAT IN THE FIRST PLACE? We may look at them if we find they arenGÇÖt that great during the frigate balancing.
Wait what?
Who said that?
Why is the Kestrel so popular as a frigate?
While light missiles could possibly use a boost (and battleship class Torps and Cruise while at it too please), I find it difficult to comprehend the idea that they would be eliminated from frigates.
The main problem with light missiles are the split weapons hulls that only have bonuses to one or the other. Wish you would consider doubling up on the bonuses in those cases. They would still be more skill intensive and fitting is an issue, since they don't share damage mods, but that's usually acceptable. Particularly true on frigates where you can't fit too many of weapons focused mods to begin with.
I personally enjoyed flying 2/2 Merlins and Tristans. It led to entertaining flexibility, and overcame a lot of the range issues with Hybrid turrets. They just needed those doubled up bonuses to be competitive in PVP.
|
Droxlyn
TOHA Heavy Industries TOHA Conglomerate
84
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 17:40:00 -
[520] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Hey folks, thanks for the feedback, here are some answers for you.
WHAT'S HAPPENING WITH THE HULK AFTER THE CHANGE? Exact modifications are still vague, but the plan is to quite reduce its cargo hold and add an ore bay of the same size than the removed cargo hold. That means cargo expanders and rigs wonGÇÖt affect the ore bay at all, requiring players to unload ore more frequently. This is by design, as we want the Hulk to be moved into a fleet purpose that has to rely on others to make proper use of its best mining output. That also means we will not be introducing items that affect the ore bay size.
Could at least make it big enough for two really good cycles from three strip miners IIs maxxed out? 10k m3 or so.
Thanks.
|
|
Selissa Shadoe
102
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 17:44:00 -
[521] - Quote
Ribikoka wrote:Iq Cadaen wrote:Amazing changes, can't wait to see them go live. LOVE the mining frigate model. Maybe, but i dont know why need 6 months long time to change just few data. (to winter patch) They have ship editor tools and the testing phase not need 6 months.
LOL.. Come on, this is CCP we're talking about .. what makes you think there'll be a 'testing phase'? |
Infinite Force
Hammer Of Light Covenant of the Phoenix Alliance
74
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 17:45:00 -
[522] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
WHAT'S HAPPENING WITH THE HULK AFTER THE CHANGE? Exact modifications are still vague, but the plan is to quite reduce its cargo hold and add an ore bay of the same size than the removed cargo hold. That means cargo expanders and rigs wonGÇÖt affect the ore bay at all, requiring players to unload ore more frequently. This is by design, as we want the Hulk to be moved into a fleet purpose that has to rely on others to make proper use of its best mining output. That also means we will not be introducing items that affect the ore bay size. Regardless of the role change to a "fleet" ship, the hulk (and all the ORE ships) still need to be able to hold at least 2 - 2.5 cycles (3 would be preferred) of their T2 strip miners & T2 crystals based on the bonuses of a "maxed" mining fleet.
Why? In a small gang, a hauler or Orca can sit around and handle the incoming ore - even if jetcanned. In a big fleet, it can be nearly if not impossible for the haulers to keep up with the miners. When a hostile group shows up, the miners can leave with the ore mined in their holds not needing to worry whether or not the haulers can scoop it all up before getting popped.
Also, please make sure the T1/T2 crystals are given their own cargo hold space and are "down-sized" in m3 (thanks Scrapyard Bob & Balder Verdandi for pointing this out). Again, not every "fleet" has their own dedicated "crystal distribution person". Part of fitting into a fleet means that you can be somewhat self-sufficient. HROLT CEO Live Free; Die Proud
Hammer Mineral Compression -á- The only way to go! |
Maul555
Nuts and Vindictive Remix Technologies
277
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 17:48:00 -
[523] - 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 |
Denidil
Larimer Highlands Heavy Industries
285
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 17:48:00 -
[524] - Quote
Can you give us a summary of what the planned roles are for each Mining Barge and Exhumer, a relative comparison of their yield (ore and ice), and a relative comparison of their tank?
i know these won't be exact as you guys are just sketchin them out now - but a rough sketch is better than none at all. I like all these gankbear tears, now maybe you'll have to go prove your "l33t pvp" skills against something that shoots back like the rest of us do. |
Geksz
Pangalactic Punks n' Playboys HUN Reloaded
39
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 17:49:00 -
[525] - Quote
Shootin' Star wrote:Geksz wrote:Btw. if u don't mine in a hostile enviroment (sic) - for example High sec - why would u fit for tank? Everything else you said may - or may not - make sense; but in the face of this, it's hard to care because this is so shockingly ignorant. The answer to your question is: Because you're not an ignorant fool, and you actually realise that anytime you hit the undock button - whether you're in null, low or (yes!) high sec - you're entering "a hostile environment." I have a completely carebear character who's fully qualified on all ORE ships through the Rorqual; and I don't care where in New Eden I am, I never undock any of those ships without at least a minimum reasonable tank. Why? Because even without the Goons continuing Hulkageddon, there's plenty of people - like me, on this character! - who'll gank you for some reason or for no reason whatsoever. Bottom line: If you don't bother to tank at all - especially under so mistaken a believe as that there's some place in EvE that's not hostile - then you certainly deserve whatever happens. But who knows, maybe you'll get lucky and survive anyway. It's been known to happen ...
I was using the "not hostile enviroment" in the means that usually u don't have to worry about other players killing u (the rare suicide gankers aside) like in low sec. So why tank ur ship more than the surrounding npcs' dps requires it? If u always tank for the worst from other players in high sec then u loose a lot of efficiency. Why would i overtank for a suicid ganker in every mission site when it rarely happens? I loose efficiency. In the same regard, why would i tank a Hulk to 32k EHP every time i undock from a station to go mine in high sec? |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7996
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 17:53:00 -
[526] - Quote
Infinite Force wrote:Why? In a small gang, a hauler or Orca can sit around and handle the incoming ore - even if jetcanned. In a big fleet, it can be nearly if not impossible for the haulers to keep up with the miners. When a hostile group shows up, the miners can leave with the ore mined in their holds not needing to worry whether or not the haulers can scoop it all up before getting popped. Scale the number of haulers and Orcas to match the amount of ore pulled in by the miners?
The problem rather sounds like the Orca could use a few more highslots to fit more tractor beams so it can handle the flow of cans being dumped at the end of every cycleGǪ 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¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Geksz
Pangalactic Punks n' Playboys HUN Reloaded
39
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 17:54:00 -
[527] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Geksz wrote:Btw. if u don't mine in a hostile enviroment - for example High sec - why would u fit for tank? Because highsec is a hostile environment. In missions, you fit for sufficient tank to survive and being able to complete the mission without losing the ship. Same here: you fit your mining ship with sufficient tank to be able to survive an attack and bring back the ore. Outfitting a barge for maximum efficiency is like filling a mission ship with nothing but guns, weapon mods, tracking computers, drone mods and sensor boosters: not very clever, because it will not actually be efficient at all. As with anything, it's a cost-benefit analysis: is the benefit of getting 200m-¦ more ore worth the cost of losing 300M ISK worth of assets?
Every miner tanks their ships in the belts becouse of NPC rats. But to tank against destroyer gankers u sacrifice almost all of the Hulks bonus mining potential above the covetor. So why bother with a Hulk in the first place? |
Infinite Force
Hammer Of Light Covenant of the Phoenix Alliance
76
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 17:58:00 -
[528] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Scale the number of haulers and Orcas to match the amount of ore pulled in by the miners?
The problem rather sounds like the Orca could use a few more highslots to fit more tractor beams so it can handle the flow of cans being dumped at the end of every cycleGǪ Sorry, can't do that - those "extra" haulers/Orcas are supposed to be combat protection pilots. :)
And yes, the Orca needs a few more highslots - keep the 3 ganglink max, add 3 more slots for Tractors :) HROLT CEO Live Free; Die Proud
Hammer Mineral Compression -á- The only way to go! |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7997
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 18:06:00 -
[529] - Quote
Geksz wrote:Every miner tanks their ships in the belts becouse of NPC rats. But to tank against destroyer gankers u sacrifice almost all of the Hulks bonus mining potential above the covetor. So why bother with a Hulk in the first place? Because it lets you survive said ganks much better and because it still mines better than the Covetor.
GǪbut that's how it is now. How that changes after the revamp remains to be seen until we get some numbers. Most likely, it'll be a matter of having higher yield, better protection, and requiring less effort to use than the Covetor.
Infinite Force wrote:Sorry, can't do that - those "extra" haulers/Orcas are supposed to be combat protection pilots. :) You already have more miners than you can handle, apparently, so turn one of those into an Orca or hauler and attack the problem from both ends: more logistics (in the classic sense) to deal with a reduced workload = more ore being collected more efficiently without backing up the production chain. 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¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Geksz
Pangalactic Punks n' Playboys HUN Reloaded
39
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 18:10:00 -
[530] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Geksz wrote:Every miner tanks their ships in the belts becouse of NPC rats. But to tank against destroyer gankers u sacrifice almost all of the Hulks bonus mining potential above the covetor. So why bother with a Hulk in the first place? Because it lets you survive said ganks much better and because it still mines better than the Covetor.
Yeah but then it ain't worth that 300M price tag...
|
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7997
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 18:12:00 -
[531] - Quote
Geksz wrote:Yeah but then it ain't worth that 300M price tag... That's for you and the market to decide, and isn't particularly relevant to the balancing of the two.
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¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Infinite Force
Hammer Of Light Covenant of the Phoenix Alliance
76
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 18:13:00 -
[532] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Infinite Force wrote:Sorry, can't do that - those "extra" haulers/Orcas are supposed to be combat protection pilots. :) You already have more miners than you can handle, apparently, so turn one of those into an Orca or hauler and attack the problem from both ends: more logistics (in the classic sense) to deal with a reduced workload = more ore being collected more efficiently without backing up the production chain. Not everyone can or wants to fly an Orca. Not every fleet is "perfectly" balanced or sized (combat or otherwise). HROLT CEO Live Free; Die Proud
Hammer Mineral Compression -á- The only way to go! |
Maul555
Nuts and Vindictive Remix Technologies
279
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 18:16:00 -
[533] - Quote
Tippia, Where did you study for your degree in Monday Morning Quarterbacking?
I have someone who is looking for a good school... |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7997
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 18:16:00 -
[534] - Quote
Infinite Force wrote:Not everyone can or wants to fly an Orca. Not every fleet is "perfectly" balanced or sized (combat or otherwise). That's a personnel problem, not an issue with the ships in question.
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¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Geksz
Pangalactic Punks n' Playboys HUN Reloaded
40
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 18:16:00 -
[535] - Quote
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... :) |
Maul555
Nuts and Vindictive Remix Technologies
279
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 18:23:00 -
[536] - 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.
|
Geksz
Pangalactic Punks n' Playboys HUN Reloaded
40
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 18:26:00 -
[537] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Geksz wrote:Yeah but then it ain't worth that 300M price tag... That's for you and the market to decide, and isn't particularly relevant to the balancing of the two.
Yes, and no. I think that in it's current form it's too expensive a ship for it's fargility. If it were cheaper to build, it will be sold for less ISK and with it's current tanking cabalitities it might worth it's price.
I just hope that after the balancing/refactoring/wathever, it will have a better price/survival/efficiency balance that it has now.
|
Infinite Force
Hammer Of Light Covenant of the Phoenix Alliance
76
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 18:32:00 -
[538] - Quote
Would also like to make sure that the "mining [insert battleship name]" can NOT out min a ship specially designed for this.
Battleships are not mining vessels, they are for combat.
Maybe a progression like this:
Mining Frig --> Mining BS --> Barges --> Exhumers HROLT CEO Live Free; Die Proud
Hammer Mineral Compression -á- The only way to go! |
Geksz
Pangalactic Punks n' Playboys HUN Reloaded
41
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 18:36:00 -
[539] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Hey folks, thanks for the feedback, here are some answers for you.
- WHAT'S HAPPENING WITH THE HULK AFTER THE CHANGE? Exact modifications are still vague, but the plan is to quite reduce its cargo hold and add an ore bay of the same size than the removed cargo hold. That means cargo expanders and rigs wonGÇÖt affect the ore bay at all, requiring players to unload ore more frequently. This is by design, as we want the Hulk to be moved into a fleet purpose that has to rely on others to make proper use of its best mining output. That also means we will not be introducing items that affect the ore bay size.
Hope that clears some confusion.
Since the modifications are still vague, pls make that ore hold big enough for 2 full cycles of ore to be held with maxed bonuses. It's for conviniance. Anyone that has done any decent mining in fleet, alone with a timeframe of like more than 2 hours can tell u that sometimes u have to leave ur PC for more then 4 minutes or have something get ur attention ingame, or on the net that u forget to check ur miing barge between 2 cycles. I'm not a lazy miner, and never go AFK while mining. But sometimes i have to do some other stuff, and forget to check on the lasers for 4 minutes...
Is it that big of a request? |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8001
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 18:37:00 -
[540] - Quote
Geksz wrote:Yes, and no. I think that in it's current form it's too expensive a ship for it's fargility. If it were cheaper to build, it will be sold for less ISK and with it's current tanking cabalitities it might worth it's price. It used to just cost 100M, and the only thing that has changed since is the market. It's already cheaper to build (wellGǪ aside from OTEC gouging you, but that's still not a factor in the ship balance. ) 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¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
|
Shootin' Star
The Fancy Hats Corporation
5
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 18:42:00 -
[541] - Quote
Geksz wrote:I was using the "not hostile enviroment" in the means that usually u don't have to worry about other players killing u (the rare suicide gankers aside) like in low sec. So why tank ur ship more than the surrounding npcs' dps requires it? If u always tank for the worst from other players in high sec then u loose a lot of efficiency. Why would i overtank for a suicid ganker in every mission site when it rarely happens? I loose efficiency. In the same regard, why would i tank a Hulk to 32k EHP every time i undock from a station to go mine in high sec? Have ya ever heard of a "happy medium," Geksz? Because I most certainly did not say "ZOMG YOU MUST TANK MAX FOR WORST CASE SCENARIO!!>!1!!11!!"
Turn that mighty intellect that strives for absolute efficiency - which is not a god, btw - toward finding and living in that area somewhere between "come shoot me, I r untanked ]" and "try to kill my triple-tanked beast NOW mister ganker!! " There's decent tanks in there that give you plenty of chance to survive ... without utterly slogging your efficiency as well. I know, I've seen 'em, they lived.
But whatever. It's your however many million isk ship that you and you alone are risking become a bright blue flash of plasma-pixels on the screen. If you think minimum to survive the rats is what it's worth, then like Tippia said, that's what it's worth to you. (She's a wise toon. Worth listening to.)
Listen, I can only try to help you not be a jackwagon ... but I can't make you. It's up to you. |
None ofthe Above
218
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 18:46:00 -
[542] - Quote
Would like to again, say great post. Really appreciate the opportunity to have the community and devs talk these issues out.
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Hey folks, thanks for the feedback, here are some answers for you.
DRONES USUALLY DON'T MIX WELL WITH LONG RANGE COMBAT DUE TO TRAVEL TIME; HOW DO YOU PLAN TO TACKLE THIS? Again, this is quite a bit early to tell, but an option is to have drone frigates provide a bonus to drone speed and tracking instead of just raw damage. Not only it avoids making them too much overpowering next to other frigates, but also provides an appealing purpose next to the larger drone hulls.
Ah, I see. I was initially ytterbed by the comment about the navitas becoming a drone boat when we already have the Imicus, which has a decent drone bay and a drone range bonus.
One of these could be a drone brawler (probably prefer Navitas for that actually) with bonuses to damage and durability and the other a ranged drone platform, with bonuses to speed and range. Interesting.
I see you have the Imicus down as support, which I guess is its other role. That would actually mix well with a ranged drone capability. Hope you don't decide to take that away from the Imi. (And the new model we saw a while back would be nice, but that's off topic.)
References: http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Imicus http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Navitas http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Ytterb
|
Petrus Blackshell
Rifterlings Damu'Khonde
1262
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 18:47:00 -
[543] - Quote
Geksz wrote: Anyone that has done any decent mining in fleet, alone with a timeframe of like more than 2 hours can tell u that sometimes u have to leave ur PC for more then 4 minutes or have something get ur attention ingame, or on the net that u forget to check ur miing barge between 2 cycles. I'm not a lazy miner, and never go AFK while mining. But sometimes i have to do some other stuff, and forget to check on the lasers for 4 minutes...
Is it that big of a request?
Anyone that has done any decent roaming combat fleet, can tell you that it takes more than 2 hours and everyone has to take a "bio break" now and then. These breaks involve halting or slowing the whole fleet for a few minutes, which may lead to missing, or even losing fights -- terrible consequences for something as natural as going to the bathroom. These guys don't make any income, and can sometimes go a whole night without finding a single target. They need some way to be able to not pay attention half the time and yet not lose effectiveness of the fleet.
Is it that big of a request?
Ed: also, *you, *you're, *your. This isn't a phone text message. Rifterlings - Small gang lowsec combat corp specializing in frigates and cruisers (all races, not just Rifters!). US Timezone veterans and newbies alike are welcome to join. Come chat in the "we fly rifters" in-game channel. Free fitted frigates for members! |
None ofthe Above
218
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 18:49:00 -
[544] - Quote
Geksz wrote:Tippia wrote:Geksz wrote:Yeah but then it ain't worth that 300M price tag... That's for you and the market to decide, and isn't particularly relevant to the balancing of the two. Yes, and no. I think that in it's current form it's too expensive a ship for it's fargility. If it were cheaper to build, it will be sold for less ISK and with it's current tanking cabalitities it might worth it's price. I just hope that after the balancing/refactoring/wathever, it will have a better price/survival/efficiency balance that it has now.
And its been acknowledged that construction costs need to be revisited with tiercide. All ships within the same class should probably be roughly equal to construct, with minor variations.
|
DJ P0N-3
Table Flippendeavors
24
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 18:52:00 -
[545] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:ARE WE RECEIVING A DEDICATED GAS MINING SHIP? A point that needs to be taken into consideration GÇô if that is possible we will integrate it into the Skiff, otherwise you may have to wait for a dedicated hull to arrive.
I'm entirely speaking for myself here, but I would rather wait for a dedicated ORE ship with gas-specialized prereqs than have to train for a Skiff. Gas harvesting has always been very separate from rock mining. Having to delve into Astrogeology and Mining Barge and so on to fly a ship where I won't even benefit from Astrogeology is...well...I'd probably bite the bullet and do it, but I'd grumble at my computer about it.
It's entirely your prerogative to say "well, if you want the easy access, stick to gas harvesters on a battlecruiser" and that's fair -- but gas harvesting was one of those activities that doesn't need lots of high level skills trained to V across several attributes. Using the Skiff would change that. |
None ofthe Above
218
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 18:53:00 -
[546] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Geksz wrote:Yes, and no. I think that in it's current form it's too expensive a ship for it's fargility. If it were cheaper to build, it will be sold for less ISK and with it's current tanking cabalitities it might worth it's price. It used to just cost 100M, and the only thing that has changed since is the market. It's already cheaper to build (wellGǪ aside from OTEC gouging you, but that's still not a factor in the ship balance. )
Well actually, lowering the Technetium requirements for the Hulk might very well be a reasonable think to do here, since it's no longer a Tier 3 Exhumer after tiers have been eliminated.
I agree that local market conditions shouldn't be a factor, but general availability and cost of materials should be part of the balance of ship construction.
|
Dersen Lowery
Children of Armok
36
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 19:10:00 -
[547] - Quote
I wouldn't mind a line of ORE industrial that was an Iteron-based hull with smaller cargo bays and biggish ore bays and a Noctis-style bonus to tractor beam range and velocity; basically, if the Orca is the natural counterpoint to the Hulk, what is the natural counterpoint to the other mining ships?
It would be a way for smaller fleets and newer plays to have some of the advantages of an Orca (but notably, not links or boosts) without the considerable investment that an Orca represents, or the align time that an Orca needs to GTFO when necessary.
If nothing else, it would give people a reason beyond the Noctis to train ORE Industrial... |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2514
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 19:12:00 -
[548] - Quote
Petrus Blackshell wrote: Ed: also, *you, *you're, *your. This isn't a phone text message.
Before we all become grammar *****, let's keep in mind that EVE is a multinational game played by many people for whom English isn't a first language, and so mistakes don't necessarily indicate laziness or lack of education. Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
Petrus Blackshell
Rifterlings Damu'Khonde
1262
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 19:14:00 -
[549] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Petrus Blackshell wrote: Ed: also, *you, *you're, *your. This isn't a phone text message.
Before we all become grammar *****, let's keep in mind that EVE is a multinational game played by many people for whom English isn't a first language, and so mistakes don't necessarily indicate laziness or lack of education. My bad. Sometimes I get ahead of myself and can be prejudiced at some forumgoers because of others' tendency to not put enough effort into their posts then expect to be taken seriously. Rifterlings - Small gang lowsec combat corp specializing in frigates and cruisers (all races, not just Rifters!). US Timezone veterans and newbies alike are welcome to join. Come chat in the "we fly rifters" in-game channel. Free fitted frigates for members! |
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
30
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 19:17:00 -
[550] - Quote
Dersen Lowery wrote:I wouldn't mind a line of ORE industrial that was an Iteron-based hull with smaller cargo bays and biggish ore bays and a Noctis-style bonus to tractor beam range and velocity; basically, if the Orca is the natural counterpoint to the Hulk, what is the natural counterpoint to the other mining ships?
It would be a way for smaller fleets and newer plays to have some of the advantages of an Orca (but notably, not links or boosts) without the considerable investment that an Orca represents, or the align time that an Orca needs to GTFO when necessary.
If nothing else, it would give people a reason beyond the Noctis to train ORE Industrial...
I would be in favor of this. It makes sense and wouldn't step on the toes of any other ship.
Edit: No tractor beams just a Ore Industrial with an ore bay say 30k M3 with 10% bonus per lvl so at max skills it could haul 45K ore. |
|
Buzzy Warstl
The Strontium Asylum
168
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 19:36:00 -
[551] - Quote
So, will the Industrial Career mission chain hand out ORE frigates/skills now or will it hand out the new combat frigates as if they were mining frigates? |
Shea Valerien
House of Valerien
55
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 19:51:00 -
[552] - Quote
Very excited about these changes, particularly to the mining barges. |
Haifisch Zahne
HZ Corp
57
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 20:36:00 -
[553] - Quote
I just noticed that the meta level of missiles is visible on the missile launcher with color coding (yeah, I missed this until now). Yet, with all other guns/lasers, it is not. What's up with that? Is that balanced?
Missile boats already take backseat in PvP, and now why not just broadcast the effectiveness of your missile launcher?!
You want to make missiles effective in PvP? A PvP missile boat could have a substantial bonus to missile velocity, with a drawback to its missile flight time, in order that the net equals out distance travelled. Missiles then reach the target quicker, one of the major contentions with missiles. It would be my vote that this is for the unguided versions of missiles: rockets, rapid light, assault and torpedoes.
Now that missile effects look better than gun/laser effects, let us use them to actually blow up ships!
(And, what's up with the inconsistent naming for the "Prototype 'Arbalest' Light Missile Launcher"? In all other occurances of "Prototype", it is with the unguided variation.)
|
Yonis Kador
Transstellar Alchemy
161
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 20:45:00 -
[554] - Quote
I think its important to note that since most of the Hulk stats haven't changed, if the changes to the other classes make your high-sec Hulk less desirable - because you have more options now - that isn't a problem with the game.
The conversion to a fixed-size ore bay seems to be designed to combat afk mining. Afk mining contributes very little to player-generated content. It's full-on aversion. It's not-even-looking-at-the-screen aversion. But why make the ore bays so small? The vast majority of hulks in game use cargo expanders and have had somewhere ~18K m3 to play with and now will have to deal with a much smaller fixed volume?
Single-players industrialists won't be docking after every mining cycle so this cargo cap reduction will probably increase the frequency of jetcan mining imo. Reduced onboard storage = more jetcans? (Good news pvp'ers.)
And reading all this too bad, so sad baloney has got to suck. Your max-yield Hulk won't be the best high-sec option anymore but you are welcome to keep flying it. It'll just have an olive-sized cargo bay and now may only hold just one cycle of ore. Try not to notice.
I think CCP should go one further and create a new mining boat that mines 10 percent better than the Hulk and holds 30,000m3 in its cargo bay, but it's slow as hell, has no tank, and is shaped like a giant tick. When pvp'ers then flew through high-sec all they would have to do is look for these greedy little isk suckers, and thusly de-louse EvE.
With these changes high-sec Hulks are clearly going to be the ticks (efficiency over safety - suck, suck, suck) and I've gotta admit I'm feeling a bit sentimental over the Hulk's treatment in all this. Score one for the Hulkageddon crew.
Doesn't it seem like the Hulk is being put out to pasture rather unceremoniously? A little?
For quite some time now this grand dame was the gleam in every industrialists' eye. Now she'll be just one of many. An option only best in certain situations. Much less shiny. (Don't cry baby-gurl.)
If high-sec Hulks are to be emphasized in this way as the ticks of EvE, at least make her ore storage cap comparable to what previously existed. Why not?
Don't kick the girl again when she's already down.
Yonis Kador Hive Mining: A proposal by Yonis-áKador-á https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1427915&#post1427915
|
None ofthe Above
221
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 20:51:00 -
[555] - Quote
Oh before I forget again,
If the Tristan is changed to be an all missile frig, and the Merlin stays a hybrid ship, the tutorials if not changed would have the Gallente handing out a missile frig and the Caldari not (unless you count the Condor). Probably confusing to new players.
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
203
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 20:52:00 -
[556] - Quote
Yonis Kador wrote: The conversion to a fixed-size ore bay seems to be designed to combat afk mining. Afk mining contributes very little to player-generated content. It's full-on aversion. It's not-even-looking-at-the-screen aversion. But why make the ore bays so small? The vast majority of hulks in game use cargo expanders and have had somewhere ~18K m3 to play with and now will have to deal with a much smaller fixed volume?
Single-players industrialists won't be docking after every mining cycle so this cargo cap reduction will probably increase the frequency of jetcan mining imo. Reduced onboard storage = more jetcans? (Good news pvp'ers.)
Actually it would appear that solo/AFK mining is getting a potential boost. It's just that the hulk won't/shouldn't be the ship of choice for it anymore. |
Yonis Kador
Transstellar Alchemy
161
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 21:09:00 -
[557] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Yonis Kador wrote: The conversion to a fixed-size ore bay seems to be designed to combat afk mining. Afk mining contributes very little to player-generated content. It's full-on aversion. It's not-even-looking-at-the-screen aversion. But why make the ore bays so small? The vast majority of hulks in game use cargo expanders and have had somewhere ~18K m3 to play with and now will have to deal with a much smaller fixed volume?
Single-players industrialists won't be docking after every mining cycle so this cargo cap reduction will probably increase the frequency of jetcan mining imo. Reduced onboard storage = more jetcans? (Good news pvp'ers.)
Actually it would appear that solo/AFK mining is getting a potential boost. It's just that the hulk won't/shouldn't be the ship of choice for it anymore.
The only thing getting a boost is player options, Ty.
The Hulk still delivers max yield. Because they are the most-efficient extractors, people are going to use them. But now that reasonable alternatives exist (slightly lower yield, better tank) flying the max-yield ship in high-sec may present increased risk.
I agree that increasing the size of the target on high-sec Hulks is a boost. But what it boosts and who it benefits is another matter entirely.
YK Hive Mining: A proposal by Yonis-áKador-á https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1427915&#post1427915
|
Sven Viko VIkolander
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
7
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 21:31:00 -
[558] - Quote
I like all the changes! xoxoxo |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
203
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 22:14:00 -
[559] - Quote
Yonis Kador wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Yonis Kador wrote: The conversion to a fixed-size ore bay seems to be designed to combat afk mining. Afk mining contributes very little to player-generated content. It's full-on aversion. It's not-even-looking-at-the-screen aversion. But why make the ore bays so small? The vast majority of hulks in game use cargo expanders and have had somewhere ~18K m3 to play with and now will have to deal with a much smaller fixed volume?
Single-players industrialists won't be docking after every mining cycle so this cargo cap reduction will probably increase the frequency of jetcan mining imo. Reduced onboard storage = more jetcans? (Good news pvp'ers.)
Actually it would appear that solo/AFK mining is getting a potential boost. It's just that the hulk won't/shouldn't be the ship of choice for it anymore. The only thing getting a boost is player options, Ty. The Hulk still delivers max yield. Because they are the most-efficient extractors, people are going to use them. But now that reasonable alternatives exist (slightly lower yield, better tank) flying the max-yield ship in high-sec may present increased risk. I agree that increasing the size of the target on high-sec Hulks is a boost. But what it boosts and who it benefits is another matter entirely. YK It's true that for flat yield the Hulk will reign, but considering an AFK miners goal is to minimize the need for interaction it will no longer be the best choice as it will not have the best hold. This is where the current mid tiers will shine should the plan stated be followed. This is the boost I am referring to, and depending on how similar ore yields end up it could outweigh the comparative raw yield bonus of the hulk, especially when combined with greater tankability. |
Tarryn Nightstorm
Hellstar Towing and Recovery
412
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 22:19:00 -
[560] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Hey folks, thanks for the feedback, here are some answers for you.
[list]
WHY WORKING ON FRIGATES FIRST WHEN SO MANY OTHER SHIPS CLASSES ARE BROKEN?(battlecruisers in particular): thatGÇÖs mainly because we are not just fixing ships, but overhauling EVE balancing as a whole by removing tiers. This is an extremely tricky move, which is why we want to start to get experience with frigates first before we move to the more problematic hulls. [...]
Battlecruisers are not broken, except for the Myrmidon, which could really use at least one extra (hi-)slot and a drone-bandwidth buff.
They do not need nerfing.
Anyone who says they do is a fool.
What needs buffing is cruisers. Badly so, in some cases. In irae, veritas. |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8006
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 22:22:00 -
[561] - Quote
Tarryn Nightstorm wrote:Battlecruisers are not broken, except for the Myrmidon, which could really use at least one extra (hi-)slot and a drone-bandwidth buff. He's referring to the tier-1 BCs, which are all broken since they are all completely outclassed by their higher-tiered brethren.
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¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
974
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 22:22:00 -
[562] - Quote
Tarryn Nightstorm wrote:Battlecruisers are not broken, except for the Myrmidon, which could really use at least one extra (hi-)slot and a drone-bandwidth buff.
That must be why I see so many Prophecies, Cyclones and Feroxes around eh |
Lunaleil Fournier
StarFleet Enterprises Red Alliance
1
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 22:24:00 -
[563] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote: Hope that clears some confusion.
Yes, that post was epic, thank you!
|
Tarryn Nightstorm
Hellstar Towing and Recovery
412
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 22:41:00 -
[564] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Tarryn Nightstorm wrote:Battlecruisers are not broken, except for the Myrmidon, which could really use at least one extra (hi-)slot and a drone-bandwidth buff. He's referring to the tier-1 BCs, which are all broken since they are all completely outclassed by their higher-tiered brethren.
Well, yeah, that's true, though he didn't explicitly say so.
The Brutix is an arguable exception, but what is even it really good for, except as a pure gank-ship (which the Talos now does better)?
Tier 2 for general PvP combat/mid-range PvE*...
Should stay more or less as they are, especially given that in the latter case, these are often the first ship that a new player starts to make "real" money with, and these ships have both great versatility and can grow with that new player for a long time, in a variety of uses.
But Ti-1....Maybe these ships need a whole new role, not necessarily pure combat-biased?
* ATT'N: Idiots who mindlessly bleat about the Drake being O/P:
For PvE:
Try running a DED 5/10 complex, or any of the unrated 'plexes in losec--exception, "(Faction) Minor Annex," in my experience--and you'll see this ship's limits right bloody quick .
Example: Angel's Red Light District (DED 5/10. It eats the 4/10 alive though), around an hour to do, with at least 1-2 warp-outs required. This is not what you want in risky space!
No, it won't handle the "(Faction) Annex," though trying it will hurt a lot...
For PvP:
Learn how signature radius works vis-a-vis both guns and missiles, and you'll see why the Drakes capital-ship size signature means it needs that beastly tank. That cannot be nerfed without a corresponding reduction in sig and/or buff in speed/agility, or you will just be left with another useless ship.
In the Drake's case this would be utterly criminal, especially given how useful it is now to younger/newer players to start making "real" money--to fund PvP, natch!--with its forgiving nature, relatively low cost, and easy barrier of entry skills-wise.
In irae, veritas. |
Sarmatiko
737
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 23:49:00 -
[565] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:ARE WE RECEIVING NEW MODELS FOR THE REVAMPED SHIP ROLES, LIKE THE BANTAM? Nope, not at the moment. It could be worse though, you could be flying a Moa . Moa is unique and well-designed ship. Unlike Bantam
|
Lili Lu
274
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 00:11:00 -
[566] - Quote
Tarryn Nightstorm wrote:Tippia wrote:Tarryn Nightstorm wrote:Battlecruisers are not broken, except for the Myrmidon, which could really use at least one extra (hi-)slot and a drone-bandwidth buff. He's referring to the tier-1 BCs, which are all broken since they are all completely outclassed by their higher-tiered brethren. Well, yeah, that's true, though he didn't explicitly say so. The Brutix is an arguable exception, but what is even it really good for, except as a pure gank-ship (which the Talos now does better)? Tier 2 for general PvP combat/mid-range PvE*... Should stay more or less as they are, especially given that in the latter case, these are often the first ship that a new player starts to make "real" money with, and these ships have both great versatility and can grow with that new player for a long time, in a variety of uses. But Ti-1....Maybe these ships need a whole new role, not necessarily pure combat-biased? * ATT'N: Idiots who mindlessly bleat about the Drake being O/P: For PvE: Try running a DED 5/10 complex, or any of the unrated 'plexes in losec--exception, "(Faction) Minor Annex," in my experience--and you'll see this ship's limits right bloody quick . Example: Angel's Red Light District (DED 5/10. It eats the 4/10 alive though), around an hour to do, with at least 1-2 warp-outs required. This is not what you want in risky space! No, it won't handle the "(Faction) Annex," though trying it will hurt a lot ... For PvP: Learn how signature radius works vis-a-vis both guns and missiles, and you'll see why the Drakes capital-ship size signature means it needs that beastly tank. That cannot be nerfed without a corresponding reduction in sig and/or buff in speed/agility, or you will just be left with another useless ship. In the Drake's case this would be utterly criminal, especially given how useful it is now to younger/newer players to start making "real" money--to fund PvP, natch!--with its forgiving nature, relatively low cost, and easy barrier of entry skills-wise. The only mindless idiots are people like you who mindlessly hit F1 from a stationary position as they PVE . . in their brick tank Drake. Too bad that CCP realizes the numbers can no nlonger be ignored and will be nerfing your oversized tank and lack of tradeoffs in fitting decisions. It's coming . . but let me do the crying . . because it's coming in 2014 or later.
So rest easy easy-mode gaming addict. Your mindless boat will continue to be head and shoulders above others in its class and competing with tech II ships for tanking ability for years to come still. However, I'll still be around in this horribly balanced and glacially changing game to bathe in your tears when the end comes to the reign of the Drake. |
Gevlin
Universal Might DSM FOUNDATION
158
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 00:21:00 -
[567] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium
weird your accent actually comes through your typing. I could hear you saying the works as I was reading them.. weird.
I am so going to enjoy flying all the frigates. The Goons are Coming, The Goons are Coming Jita the April 28, Hulk a geddon April 29 for a month. The Best Tears are the Geifer's Tears. just hope the new crime watch system is in place by then.... oh the chaos will rain!!! |
Gevlin
Universal Might DSM FOUNDATION
158
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 00:43:00 -
[568] - Quote
I really like the changes to barges for tech 1
Though the Nerf a while back to prevent Super Carriers from using Drones smaller than Fighters really put a dent in the play style of "Look How Much Isk I a have I have a Mining Super Carrier." And everyone and their neighbor would come to try and kill that ships.
Developing an Ore Super Carrier would give some miners with a max out mining toon a goal to train for, equip and get shot down in.
Please Please at least put it on the : I'll Think about it when I need a laugh list. The Goons are Coming, The Goons are Coming Jita the April 28, Hulk a geddon April 29 for a month. The Best Tears are the Geifer's Tears. just hope the new crime watch system is in place by then.... oh the chaos will rain!!! |
Lili Lu
274
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 00:44:00 -
[569] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote: . . WHY WORKING ON FRIGATES FIRST WHEN SO MANY OTHER SHIPS CLASSES ARE BROKEN? (battlecruisers in particular): thatGÇÖs mainly because we are not just fixing ships, but overhauling EVE balancing as a whole by removing tiers. This is an extremely tricky move, which is why we want to start to get experience with frigates first before we move to the more problematic hulls. Also, frigates suffer the most from current tiers issues, and as the first vessels provided to new players, not reflecting a good image of the game if they are being told to skip them entirely to train for battlecruisers. Finally, it's virtually impossible to hit everyone wishes at once with one set of changes, as we have hundreds of ship to go through and there is unfortunately no guarantee we can directly fix the ship you are interested in. We know it's hard to ask such a thing after years of neglect, but please be patient, we will get to them eventually HAVE YOU CONSIDERED MOVING SOME FRIGATE HULLS INTO DESTROYERS? Yes, we have in the past, but that idea was dropped it would create inconsistencies between the different model sizes. Besides, we preferred introducing new toys for you to play with, because all that new glittering usually is much more excitGǪ ooooh, shiny! DRONES USUALLY DON'T MIX WELL WITH LONG RANGE COMBAT DUE TO TRAVEL TIME; HOW DO YOU PLAN TO TACKLE THIS? Again, this is quite a bit early to tell, but an option is to have drone frigates provide a bonus to drone speed and tracking instead of just raw damage. Not only it avoids making them too much overpowering next to other frigates, but also provides an appealing purpose next to the larger drone hulls. WHY IS IT TAKING SO LONG TO MAKE SUCH CHANGES? WHY ARE YOU TAKING SO MUCH TIME REBALANCING THINGS WHEN YOU STATED PERFECT BALANCE WAS NOT POSSIBLE? ThatGÇÖs tied to the first point of this reply: we are totally revamping EVE balancing philosophy, and that unfortunately takes time. Even if perfect balance cannot be achieved, we still wish to take proper time in our balancing process to weight options, consider player feedback for iterations instead of just rushing to get everything done as fast as possible. ARE WE RECEIVING NEW MODELS FOR THE REVAMPED SHIP ROLES, LIKE THE BANTAM? Nope, not at the moment. It could be worse though, you could be flying a Moa . HOW ARE YOU GOING TO TACKLE CAPACITOR ISSUES WITH TECH 1 ATTACK FRIGATES? First, by increasing their capacitor quite a bit, then by possibly having a fixed role bonus, even if we are not too fond of that on tech 1 ships. A most likely option would be to have a capacitor reduction to warp scrambler and disruptors on them just like on Interceptors. ARE YOU PLANNING ON REVAMPING TECH2 SHIPS THAT MAY BECOME OBSOLETE WITH SUCH CHANGES, LIKE THE ELECTRONIC ATTACK FRIGATES? Well itGÇÖs not like EAS are not obsolete already, but hell yes we do want to improve them. However we first want to finish all tech 1 hulls before we move into more complex matters to have a frame of reference we can base ourselves upon. Of course it's Tricky to engage in a comprehensive overhaul. But that does not mean you couldn't take easy interim fixes and put them on tranquility. Would it be so hard to tgive eac tier II BC the hp stats of their tier I counterpart? No shifting of slots or hardpoints or bonuses. Just knocking them down a peg because they (well one and maybe two of them) are the largest ship problem you've got. This is not rushing,As for considering player feedback, where was that concern when you nerfed damps and the myrm and webs and provided no re-buffs for the dedicated ships. Would a 10% per level bonus on damps and painters be as game breaking as your increase to 30% on ecm boats?
How is shifing a frig to a destroyer not a new shiney also? You would have to design a new hull either way. Your answer makes no sense. I suppose what you could have answered was "but where will all those bpos go?" They'd be fine in silicon heaven.[;) At least the drone bonus idea is new and decent.
EAF really should concentrate on the primary ewar. There already are dedicated tackling ships. A Keres will probably never be as good a tackler as a Ceptor or AF, but it could be a great damp boat, ditto the others (Kitsune is already strong enough being that it uses ecm, but of course whatever added hp and cap you give the whole class could be given to it as well).
Seriously, take some people off the nex stor clothing project. Take them off any new inventory plans (but keep enough to fix what it broke). Prioritize this project. You've already been sying it's in the works for over a year, and here we are with another couple or more years to go before you get anywhere near fixing what it trully overrepresented (drakes and tengus) and underrepresented (EAF, HACs). I like that finally someone is in charge that can for the most part see what is wrong, but ffs scream for this project to be prioritized within the company. |
Sizeof Void
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
240
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 01:19:00 -
[570] - Quote
Mining is a peculiar profession, and the folks who spend hours, days, weeks and months doing this non-stop really don't have much in common with mission runners and PVPers.
So, while the proposed changes to mining barges sound good on paper, I hope that CCP Ytterbium and the rest of the rebalancing team are planning to spend a few weeks or so doing some actual heavy-duty mining in-game, and not just on Sisi, *before* they actually finalize any changes. I'd suggest rolling up a few disposable toons and joining some of the existing mining corps, to get the inside perspective. Try mining in a fleet, and solo. Mine ice, rocks and gas - in high, low, and null sec.
Also, I'd suggest trying your hand doing some mining in one of Weaselior and Co.'s happy hi-sec hunting grounds. You'll get a far better idea of the true effectiveness of ganking miners by being at the receiving end of their DPS. Maybe you can get Helicity and The Mittani to sponsor a mini-Hulkageddon, just for your benefit.
After all, there isn't much point in wasting hours/days designing a theoretically tankier mining barge if it is only going to take Weaselior about 5 minutes to build something cheaper to beat it. You'll just get to listen to another 5 years of complaining from the miners. |
|
Tarryn Nightstorm
Hellstar Towing and Recovery
413
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 01:23:00 -
[571] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:
[Snip: The usual Lili Lu sanctimonious nullsec whine-bear garbage]
Try reading and understanding what I ******* wrote, troll.
I'm pretty sure that you, in your Ivory Tower of 1337-ness will think that you've "got" me in this, and that I am feeling a need to justify myself--to the likes of you? Fat ******* chance, babe!--but rest assured, you couldn't be more wrong.
Let me educate you:
DED 5/10, and unrated equivalents (those are actually tougher, most of them. The Angels' Annex is said to be the "unofficial Angels DED 6/10," until CCP explicitly fills in that blank.).
In losec.
Much tougher than a level 3/4 in hisec, and much more risky.
My fit is not brick-tanked, nor should it ever be, first off because:
A) It was originally rigged/specced as a PvP ship (HAM/Medium-neut brawler, thank you very much), so it's not optimal for PvE right there, and is re-fit for that if/when pew-pew might be in the offing. I don't go looking for trouble, but EVE being EVE...
B) I have and need a CPU-mod in a low slot so I can fit an Improved cloak in the free high slot to get around aforementioned losec kinda safely. The other three lows are BCU IIs. No SPRs because that would compromise capacitor too much--not the strongest suit of Caldari ships in general to begin with--with the MWD, and compromise its already kinda weak DPS way too much.
C) MicroWarpdrive in a mid--this thing lives and dies by range/maintaining same in this situation, and the DPS is already weak enough that its tank (2 LSE II, Invuln II, 2x Explosive resist amp II--no CPU left for active hardeners) will be tested, even then--try applying a MWD/2 LSE Drake's signature radius (it's roughly 2.25 kilometres IIRC) into the turret tracking formula, even with maximum realistic transversal.
You don't "sit and mindlessly press F1" in that situation, else you will die quite quickly to the NPCs, and that's not even considering the risks from other players (Hello? Ever occur to you to get off the warp-in point for that room? MWD helps a lot there, too. You actually fly the ship to do both that, and maintain the aforementioned transversal and range to the enemies.).
You fly the damned ship, constantly watching and maximising both range and transevrsal, occasionally overheating tank- and weapon-mods, so micromanaging that (T II HMLs don't have the best heat-tolerances), and constantly watching local and/or d-scan.
If the 'plex is in a system you haven't been in before, then you also first have to get there in one piece, and also "prepare the ground" by making safe- and bounce-spots, and maybe a gate on-grid or three.
TL/DR: About as different from your lame, lemming-like idea of Drake-based PvE in hisec as it's possible to get.
It's why I like exploration in losec--actual challenge and risk, needing actual piloting skill, something your history of sanctimonious follow-the-herd forum-bleating tells me you know rather less of than I do.
The only thing "easy-mode" I'd really love is suicide-ganking your stupid ass and your pod. Sec-status isn't that important as long as you keep it above -2.00, anyway.
I suspect you'd never see it coming.
(Oh, apropos: Feel free to insert your predictable-as-death-and-taxes "Real PvPEE IN NULL!!!111!!oneone!" **** here, by the way.)
Oh, if it matters, I don't usually use key-binds--all/almost all mouse, all the time, aside from the cloak/MWD manoeuvre, though this may change once I get fully (skills-wise) into my Ishtar and learn to use drones as my primary weapons-system.
******* 1337-tard carebears, man, how the Hell do they work?
Oh, and feel free to keep condescendingly shitting all over new/new-ish players and their opportunities to get into higher-end PvE--and start making real money for PvP--just because you don't like the tools they choose to use to do so, or that they have one more or less ready-made to do so. They'll find its--considerable--limits right quick, if they're smart, and progress more or less normally.
******* 1337-tard nullsec blob-bear piece of *****, do the community a favour and biomass ASAP.
* See? I can make completely unfounded and offensive generalisations about the playstyle/methods of a person I don't even know, too. I suspect, however, that unlike you, I am right here. Please un-install the client now, and find another community to try and ruin with your elitist entitlement-whinging crap.
In irae, veritas. |
Lili Lu
275
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 01:51:00 -
[572] - Quote
Tarryn Nightstorm wrote: Spergelord Ooh, hit a nerve there. Are you conjoined to your drake? see this is what I'm talking about the wonderful tears that will flow when it gets nerfed. Thanks. |
Tarryn Nightstorm
Hellstar Towing and Recovery
413
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 01:56:00 -
[573] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:Tarryn Nightstorm wrote: Spergelord Ooh, hit a nerve there. Are you conjoined to your drake? see this is what I'm talking about the wonderful tears that will flow when it gets nerfed. Thanks.
Advice:
Take a lesson or three from Lady Skank Spank. S/he does the forum-hater/troll thing much better than you do.
3/10 as you got me to respond--twice--but no style, and even less originality.
Keep practising!
In irae, veritas. |
Joseph O'Neil
Power of the Phoenix
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 02:06:00 -
[574] - Quote
Quote:WHAT'S HAPPENING WITH THE HULK AFTER THE CHANGE? Exact modifications are still vague, but the plan is to quite reduce its cargo hold and add an ore bay of the same size than the removed cargo hold. That means cargo expanders and rigs wonGÇÖt affect the ore bay at all, requiring players to unload ore more frequently. This is by design, as we want the Hulk to be moved into a fleet purpose that has to rely on others to make proper use of its best mining output. That also means we will not be introducing items that affect the ore bay size.
THIS IS A BAD IDEA. I know the whole point is to group up and play with others, and I often do for missions and such. However, when it comes to mining, more often then not (95% of the time), I find myself mining on my alt alone in her Hulk. No Orca support (cause my Hulk pilot is the Orca pilot), and therefor I fit cargo expanders to minimize the amount of times I need to return to the station to empty.
Is this change really necessary? I mean, unless the Mackinaw is improved, it will never be as effective for mining Ore solo as the Hulk is now, due to the additional striper and the following bonus: Exhumers Skill Bonus: 3% better yield for Strip Miners per level
So I ask, CCP, what do plan to do to address this issue that some of us might have with this change. If we've grown accustomed to mining solo with the hulk, are you saying that you don't want us mining alone anymore? Or is it that you just want us to be less efficient and less productive from an isk/hour perspective? |
Geksz
Pangalactic Punks n' Playboys HUN Reloaded
42
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 02:13:00 -
[575] - Quote
Petrus Blackshell wrote: Anyone that has done any decent roaming combat fleet, can tell you that it takes more than 2 hours and everyone has to take a "bio break" now and then. These breaks involve halting or slowing the whole fleet for a few minutes, which may lead to missing, or even losing fights -- terrible consequences for something as natural as going to the bathroom. These guys don't make any income, and can sometimes go a whole night without finding a single target. They need some way to be able to not pay attention half the time and yet not lose effectiveness of the fleet.
Is it that big of a request?
+1 for this idea!:) |
Vrykolakasis
Trinity Operations Aurora Irae
41
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 02:15:00 -
[576] - Quote
Awesome changes. At this rate I can expect a Marauder buff by the mid 22nd century. |
Geksz
Pangalactic Punks n' Playboys HUN Reloaded
42
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 02:15:00 -
[577] - Quote
Petrus Blackshell wrote:Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Petrus Blackshell wrote: Ed: also, *you, *you're, *your. This isn't a phone text message.
Before we all become grammar *****, let's keep in mind that EVE is a multinational game played by many people for whom English isn't a first language, and so mistakes don't necessarily indicate laziness or lack of education. My bad. Sometimes I get ahead of myself and can be prejudiced at some forumgoers because of others' tendency to not put enough effort into their posts then expect to be taken seriously.
Sorry, my bad. I was being lazy, becouse i find *you* *you're* and *your* long words to type, at least for me they are much longer to type than handwrite, so to speed up my post writing i shorten them.
Sorry if i offended your grammar sense. I'll try to practice more.
Thanks for showing me the way! |
Tarryn Nightstorm
Hellstar Towing and Recovery
414
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 02:34:00 -
[578] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:Tarryn Nightstorm wrote: Spergelord Ooh, hit a nerve there. Are you conjoined to your drake? see this is what I'm talking about the wonderful tears that will flow when it gets nerfed. Thanks. As a serious response, you should look at the drake statistics. Guess what is multiple times over the second place module for activations in the game, HML. What tops eve-kill month after month by two or three times the second place ship for pvp, the Drake. It's not unfortunately for your argument a leet v newb issue, its surprise, a balance issue. Congrats you found an op ship like so many other folks and you use it. But hey you started the name calling with calling all drake critics mindless idiots. It sounds like you can't take a few names back. You have more problems than your favorite toy slated for a change, have to say. Anyway, why u mad, you have a few good years left with the love of your life. edit 2- I'm sorry you rate me at a 3, I will endeavor to find what pleases you.
Popular =/= overpowered, nor yet unbalanced. Gee, the fact that a ship is forgiving to fly and easy to get into, easier to fit for a newbie than many others, that couldn't possibly have a thing to do with popularity, now could it.
The vast majority of the Drake-critics are idiots, and your lame, generic, done-to-death defense of its' being "O/P" is just more of the same.
The intelligent ones usually stop being Drake-critics because they quickly learn just how limited it is outside of its niche:
Ranged tank + at-best-moderate ranged DPS, or lower-end-of-average brawl-range DPS.
Of all these, tank is the only thing it really does well.
If you want it to do other things better, then it needs a considerable signature-radius reduction, increased fitting-capacity, and a speed/agility buff. How much "less O/P" do you suppose a chassis with that much raw EHP and recharge-rate would then be?
So nerf those, and kill the only real entry-into-decent money from PvE option for most newer players, possibly costing CCP who knows how many subs?
So let's buff gank-n-speed with missiles, then. How much "Less O/P" then
Think, fool!
And I mean beyond your usual maggot's-eye-view perspective of "I don't like this, so others shouldn't have it," OK?
Now STFU and GTFO, kid.
(I find that as I age, I have less and less energy to play nice with these tw*ts, sorry 'bout that)
E: Fail typing is fail. In irae, veritas. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
204
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 03:12:00 -
[579] - Quote
Joseph O'Neil wrote:Quote:WHAT'S HAPPENING WITH THE HULK AFTER THE CHANGE? Exact modifications are still vague, but the plan is to quite reduce its cargo hold and add an ore bay of the same size than the removed cargo hold. That means cargo expanders and rigs wonGÇÖt affect the ore bay at all, requiring players to unload ore more frequently. This is by design, as we want the Hulk to be moved into a fleet purpose that has to rely on others to make proper use of its best mining output. That also means we will not be introducing items that affect the ore bay size. THIS IS A BAD IDEA. I know the whole point is to group up and play with others, and I often do for missions and such. However, when it comes to mining, more often then not (95% of the time), I find myself mining on my alt alone in her Hulk. No Orca support (cause my Hulk pilot is the Orca pilot), and therefor I fit cargo expanders to minimize the amount of times I need to return to the station to empty. Is this change really necessary? I mean, unless the Mackinaw is improved, it will never be as effective for mining Ore solo as the Hulk is now, due to the additional striper and the following bonus: Exhumers Skill Bonus: 3% better yield for Strip Miners per level So I ask, CCP, what do plan to do to address this issue that some of us might have with this change. If we've grown accustomed to mining solo with the hulk, are you saying that you don't want us mining alone anymore? Or is it that you just want us to be less efficient and less productive from an isk/hour perspective? The idea is that you trade a part of that yield for being more self sufficient. If you are not using a hulk while mining solo it means they did it right. That said the true measure of success will be how much the Machinaw/Retriever/Skiff/Procurer are buffed, but even then for pure yield the hulk should be better.
Time to adapt and change tactics. The more people that switch ships, the better the job CCP probably did. |
None ofthe Above
224
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 05:18:00 -
[580] - Quote
Tarryn Nightstorm wrote:Lili Lu wrote:Tarryn Nightstorm wrote: Spergelord I will endeavor to find what pleases you. Popular =/= overpowered, nor yet unbalanced. Gee, the fact that a ship is forgiving to fly and easy to get into, easier to fit for a newbie than many others, that couldn't possibly have a thing to do with popularity, now could it.
Would you two just get a room? The kinky hate-sex games are getting a bit tiresome.
Honestly largely agree with Tarryn here, but wish he hadn't started out calling people fools, that's a sure way to have a less than productive conversation.
Its a valid point that common heavily used things do not mean overpowered.
Are clothes over powered since everyone uses them? Doorknobs?
Drake is an example of a ship that works, much like the Rifter is. It should be largely left alone in the rebalance, IMHO.
|
|
Mars Theran
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
248
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 07:05:00 -
[581] - Quote
Love it. What? Everything. Keep up the good work. Auction - EVE Rogues Alliance [ROGUE]: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1215438#post1215438-á-á~ Latest bid: 190 million ISK. |
Varg Krugar
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
5
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 10:42:00 -
[582] - Quote
with the upcoming barge changes, please look at the ore transport capacity of a rorqual/orca stuffed with mining barges. if the barge sizes stay the same and you can put the same amount of currently smaller barges with the then bigger ore bays into the rorqual, the amount of ore transported will go up, possibly beyond what was intended.
sorry if this has already been adressed in this thread.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8015
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 10:51:00 -
[583] - Quote
Joseph O'Neil wrote:THIS IS A BAD IDEA. I know the whole point is to group up and play with others, and I often do for missions and such. However, when it comes to mining, more often then not (95% of the time), I find myself mining on my alt alone in her Hulk. No Orca support (cause my Hulk pilot is the Orca pilot), and therefor I fit cargo expanders to minimize the amount of times I need to return to the station to empty. GǪso don't use the Hulk. It will be the wrong tool for the job. What you'll want is a Mackinaw or a Retriever GÇö the two solo mining ships.
Quote:If we've grown accustomed to mining solo with the hulk, are you saying that you don't want us mining alone anymore? No, they're saying that you shouldn't be using the Hulk any more. If that comes with a reduction in yield then, surprise, group play is being rewarded, which is a rather common thing in EVE.
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¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Mal Nina
The Red Circle Inc.
16
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 13:10:00 -
[584] - Quote
From the care bear WH dweller industrialist.
Additions: Gas mining ship and or gas mining strip miners. The easy solution might be to simply make mining barges and exhumers have a bonus to gas, ice, and ore. Then create a gas strip harvester. The strip harvester combined with the ship should do better than the current 5 gas harvesters IIs at some level of proficiency. I do believe there should be a training effort to get this level so itGÇÖs worth having the skill. Having spent 2 hours with 3 people in a C540 cloud yesterday I would like something that brings down that time .
Gas compression BPOs for the rorqual. Make the ore holds in all ships be able to hold gas as well as ice and ore. Let the silos in a polymer processing array be able to work directly from compressed gas. For example, a silo only holds 20 hoursGÇÖ worth of C540 for a reaction, by using compressed gas it could hold xx hoursGÇÖ worth. For those of us running arrays this is a big deal.
off gas... how about finally giving us a Tech II orca? Tech II rorqual? Tech II noctis? There is lots of room to have some real fun in development of these ships to their ultimate design.
|
Joseph O'Neil
Power of the Phoenix
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 13:20:00 -
[585] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Joseph O'Neil wrote:THIS IS A BAD IDEA. I know the whole point is to group up and play with others, and I often do for missions and such. However, when it comes to mining, more often then not (95% of the time), I find myself mining on my alt alone in her Hulk. No Orca support (cause my Hulk pilot is the Orca pilot), and therefor I fit cargo expanders to minimize the amount of times I need to return to the station to empty. GǪso don't use the Hulk. It will be the wrong tool for the job. What you'll want is a Mackinaw or a Retriever GÇö the two solo mining ships. Quote:If we've grown accustomed to mining solo with the hulk, are you saying that you don't want us mining alone anymore? No, they're saying that you shouldn't be using the Hulk any more. If that comes with a reduction in yield then, surprise, group play is being rewarded, which is a rather common thing in EVE.
I can understand the whole group play being rewarded, and tbh, if it were up to me, I'd always mine in a group. But the reality is that some people don't have that luxury. And from everything I've read, this just looks like a nerf to solo mining more then rewarding group play. Mining in a group is already better, what with there being the mining fleet bonuses available. Not to mention the mining links and the possibility of Orca support.
If we're forced to sell our Hulks to buy a Mackinaw, then fine. More isk in my pocket as the latter costs less to begin with. But what I'm concerned about is the amount of ore yield currently possible when mining solo with the Hulk. Unless we see a considerable buff to the amount the Mackinaw can pull in, I highly doubt this is going to be a very appreciated change for some people. Until we see some numbers on the matter, these concerns will remain an issue.
On a side note, I don't see how the smaller ship between the Hulk and the Mackinaw, the smaller being the latter, is to be the one with much larger amount of storage space. It just doesn't seem realistic. I know I know. "It's a game."
And what of Ice mining? Is this change going to force mining fleets to move from the lesser expensive ship (and therefor a smaller loss if ganked) to the more expensive ship for their Ice mining ops? At the moment, the Mackinaw's role is that of an Ice mining ship. NOT the solo miner's ship.
|
DeMichael Crimson
Republic University Minmatar Republic
2751
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 13:28:00 -
[586] - Quote
Read through the first few pages but can't see spending time to read over 30 pages.
Quote:ship balancing summer update reported by CCP Ytterbium | 2012.06.14 12:59:14
Navitas, Bantam, Burst: long range offensive platforms. The Navitas is being overhauled as a drone boat, a role currently lacking among tech 1 small hulls. The Bantam will replace the Merlin as the long range dedicated Caldari sniper. Finally, the Burst still is bit blurry at the moment GÇô considered roles are mobile artillery platform, drone boat or a mix of both. - - Barge in on me Changing the mining frigates to have combat roles made us realize that we need something to replace them. - - As a result we thus get: New ORE frig: we want this ship to replace current mining frigates as low barrier of entry vessel, but also fulfill high-end gameplay expectations by providing a very mobile platform for mining in hostile space. Lowest mining output, decent ore bay, little to no resilience. - - Before we forget, part of what players now call GÇ£tiericideGÇ¥ is to look at skill requirements. We are not pleased with how they work specifically with this ship class, since the Hulk is currently only a few hours away from the Covetor in terms of skill training. That is why, after the change, all tech 1 mining barges will now only require the Mining Barge Skill at level 1.
We will most likely add the new ORE frigate skill at 4 as a Mining Barge nested prerequisite though, but remember our motto: if you could fly it before, you can fly it now.
You forgot to include the Amarr mining Frigate - Tormentor.
Also just exactly how does the ORE Frigate provide a mobile platform for mining in hostile space when it has little to no resilience? Talk about a statement that contradicts itself.
Anyway, I'm not a Mining Pilot even though I do have mining skills. I trained those up for whenever that 'once in a blue moon' need arises for when I have to do a bit of mining.
During my 4 years of playing this game, I've never had the need or wanted to train up Mining Barge skills. I still have my Burst and Scythe ships set up with max fit and still use them for the occasional mining whenever it's required. They work just fine for players like me who rarely ever need to do any mining. I have Frigate 5 and Cruiser 5 trained which, when coupled with the Burst and Scythe bonus along with my mining skills and ship fits, was all I ever needed.
Now you're saying I will no longer be able to use those ships for the occasional mining that I rarely ever do and now I will have to buy and train up new skills as well as buy and fit up new ships just to do a little mining every once in a while when needed.
I really don't see how this even remotely benefits players like me. You're basically forcing players to paint a target on their backs by having to get into a Mining Barge as well as making them spend extra ISK and waste time to train up new skills and buy / fit up new ships which they will rarely ever use.
If this is your idea of balancing, then players like me are basically the skinny little kid sitting on a see-saw stuck up in the air due to a fat big kid sitting on the other end of the see-saw. This skinny little kid is not a happy camper at all. |
Joseph O'Neil
Power of the Phoenix
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 13:29:00 -
[587] - Quote
Varg Krugar wrote:with the upcoming barge changes, please look at the ore transport capacity of a rorqual/orca stuffed with mining barges. if the barge sizes stay the same and you can put the same amount of currently smaller barges with the then bigger ore bays into the rorqual, the amount of ore transported will go up, possibly beyond what was intended.
sorry if this has already been adressed in this thread.
My guess is that they intend on making it impossible for barges with ore in their bays to be stored in the rorqual/orca, much like it is already. This shouldn't be an issue. |
Nagarythe Tinurandir
Catholic School for Boys
21
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 13:33:00 -
[588] - Quote
Joseph O'Neil wrote:Tippia wrote:Joseph O'Neil wrote:THIS IS A BAD IDEA. I know the whole point is to group up and play with others, and I often do for missions and such. However, when it comes to mining, more often then not (95% of the time), I find myself mining on my alt alone in her Hulk. No Orca support (cause my Hulk pilot is the Orca pilot), and therefor I fit cargo expanders to minimize the amount of times I need to return to the station to empty. GǪso don't use the Hulk. It will be the wrong tool for the job. What you'll want is a Mackinaw or a Retriever GÇö the two solo mining ships. Quote:If we've grown accustomed to mining solo with the hulk, are you saying that you don't want us mining alone anymore? No, they're saying that you shouldn't be using the Hulk any more. If that comes with a reduction in yield then, surprise, group play is being rewarded, which is a rather common thing in EVE. I can understand the whole group play being rewarded, and tbh, if it were up to me, I'd always mine in a group. But the reality is that some people don't have that luxury. And from everything I've read, this just looks like a nerf to solo mining more then rewarding group play. Mining in a group is already better, what with there being the mining fleet bonuses available. Not to mention the mining links and the possibility of Orca support. If we're forced to sell our Hulks to buy a Mackinaw, then fine. More isk in my pocket as the latter costs less to begin with. But what I'm concerned about is the amount of ore yield currently possible when mining solo with the Hulk. Unless we see a considerable buff to the amount the Mackinaw can pull in, I highly doubt this is going to be a very appreciated change for some people. Until we see some numbers on the matter, these concerns will remain an issue. On a side note, I don't see how the smaller ship between the Hulk and the Mackinaw, the smaller being the latter, is to be the one with much larger amount of storage space. It just doesn't seem realistic. I know I know. "It's a game."And what of Ice mining? Is this change going to force mining fleets to move from the lesser expensive ship (and therefor a smaller loss if ganked) to the more expensive ship for their Ice mining ops? At the moment, the Mackinaw's role is that of an Ice mining ship. NOT the solo miner's ship.
please read the dev blog again to answer your question concerning the future mackinaw yield and check also ccp ytterbiums clarification post a few pages back to answer your question to exhumer specialisation. all that has been answered already. multiple times. if you are too lazy: mack and retriever will get a significant yield boost and mack will stay the dedicated ice mining boat.
and why should solo mining be nearly as effective as group mining? there is absolutely no reason. when your corp maties do not want to mine with you, look for a better mining corp. simple as that. apart from that, you still can mine solo with your hulk. noone will stop you from that. you just have to deal with the trade offs.
|
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1919
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 13:35:00 -
[589] - Quote
Joseph O'Neil wrote:Varg Krugar wrote:with the upcoming barge changes, please look at the ore transport capacity of a rorqual/orca stuffed with mining barges. if the barge sizes stay the same and you can put the same amount of currently smaller barges with the then bigger ore bays into the rorqual, the amount of ore transported will go up, possibly beyond what was intended.
sorry if this has already been adressed in this thread.
My guess is that they intend on making it impossible for barges with ore in their bays to be stored in the rorqual/orca, much like it is already. This shouldn't be an issue.
Not a big issue, but somewhat annoying, especially if you have an orca pilot who doesn't fly exhumers. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
Nagarythe Tinurandir
Catholic School for Boys
21
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 13:39:00 -
[590] - Quote
DeMichael Crimson wrote:Read through the first few pages but can't see spending time to read over 30 pages. Quote:ship balancing summer update reported by CCP Ytterbium | 2012.06.14 12:59:14
Navitas, Bantam, Burst: long range offensive platforms. The Navitas is being overhauled as a drone boat, a role currently lacking among tech 1 small hulls. The Bantam will replace the Merlin as the long range dedicated Caldari sniper. Finally, the Burst still is bit blurry at the moment GÇô considered roles are mobile artillery platform, drone boat or a mix of both. - - Barge in on me Changing the mining frigates to have combat roles made us realize that we need something to replace them. - - As a result we thus get: New ORE frig: we want this ship to replace current mining frigates as low barrier of entry vessel, but also fulfill high-end gameplay expectations by providing a very mobile platform for mining in hostile space. Lowest mining output, decent ore bay, little to no resilience. - - Before we forget, part of what players now call GÇ£tiericideGÇ¥ is to look at skill requirements. We are not pleased with how they work specifically with this ship class, since the Hulk is currently only a few hours away from the Covetor in terms of skill training. That is why, after the change, all tech 1 mining barges will now only require the Mining Barge Skill at level 1.
We will most likely add the new ORE frigate skill at 4 as a Mining Barge nested prerequisite though, but remember our motto: if you could fly it before, you can fly it now.
You forgot to include the Amarr mining Frigate - Tormentor. Also just exactly how does the ORE Frigate provide a mobile platform for mining in hostile space when it has little to no resilience? Talk about a statement that contradicts itself. Anyway, I'm not a Mining Pilot even though I do have mining skills. I trained those up for whenever that 'once in a blue moon' need arises for when I have to do a bit of mining. During my 4 years of playing this game, I've never had the need or wanted to train up Mining Barge skills. I still have my Burst and Scythe ships set up with max fit and still use them for the occasional mining whenever it's required. They work just fine for players like me who rarely ever need to do any mining. I have Frigate 5 and Cruiser 5 trained which, when coupled with the Burst and Scythe bonus along with my mining skills and ship fits, was all I ever needed. Now you're saying I will no longer be able to use those ships for the occasional mining that I rarely ever do and now I will have to buy and train up new skills as well as buy and fit up new ships just to do a little mining every once in a while when needed. I really don't see how this even remotely benefits players like me. You're basically forcing players to paint a target on their backs by having to get into a Mining Barge as well as making them spend extra ISK and waste time to train up new skills and buy / fit up new ships which they will rarely ever use. If this is your idea of balancing, then players like me are basically the skinny little kid sitting on a see-saw stuck up in the air due to a fat big kid sitting on the other end of the see-saw. This skinny little kid is not a happy camper at all.
tormentor isn't a mining frig anymore since quite some time now. so he did not forget it.
as for the rest, please read the blog again it is all in there. barges will not be that of an easy target anymore and it is quite ignorant of you to depict the proposed as bad, just because they interfere with your once in a month mining.
|
|
Lili Lu
278
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 13:42:00 -
[591] - Quote
None ofthe Above wrote:Tarryn Nightstorm wrote:Lili Lu wrote:Tarryn Nightstorm wrote: Spergelord I will endeavor to find what pleases you. Popular =/= overpowered, nor yet unbalanced. Gee, the fact that a ship is forgiving to fly and easy to get into, easier to fit for a newbie than many others, that couldn't possibly have a thing to do with popularity, now could it. Would you two just get a room? The kinky hate-sex games are getting a bit tiresome. Honestly largely agree with Tarryn here, but wish he hadn't started out calling people fools, that's a sure way to have a less than productive conversation. Its a valid point that common heavily used things do not mean overpowered. Are clothes over powered since everyone uses them? Doorknobs? Drake is an example of a ship that works, much like the Rifter is. It should be largely left alone in the rebalance, IMHO. So of course it's ok to have one "ship that works." Everyone should roll or train Caldari right? And ffs, overpowered has different meanings. Is it so hard not to always interpret it as meaning "it kills everything else"? Of course drakes aren't that. But for the isk, for the sp, for the range of roles it can fill, for the range of other ship classes requiring more isk or sp with which it is able to compete or best, YES it is OP.
So how do you propose to balance that situation? Would you buff all the other battlecruisers? What does that do to the utility of Cruisers? Especially now that CCP is trying to buff them up so they are not just a wave as you fly by on the train to BC. To my mind it's a simple matter to cut the hp of the tier 2 back to the same as the tier 1 and deal with the slots and bonuses later during the comprehensive balancing.
Also, btw, it's not just null sec drake blobs. You should remember people have alts and other accounts. Drakes are everywhere, in every kind of pve and pvp. This is why the stats are so skewed so heavily to them. The stats would not be so if more ships "worked" as you say, like they do. |
Joseph O'Neil
Power of the Phoenix
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 13:52:00 -
[592] - Quote
Nagarythe Tinurandir wrote:Joseph O'Neil wrote:Tippia wrote:Joseph O'Neil wrote:THIS IS A BAD IDEA. I know the whole point is to group up and play with others, and I often do for missions and such. However, when it comes to mining, more often then not (95% of the time), I find myself mining on my alt alone in her Hulk. No Orca support (cause my Hulk pilot is the Orca pilot), and therefor I fit cargo expanders to minimize the amount of times I need to return to the station to empty. GǪso don't use the Hulk. It will be the wrong tool for the job. What you'll want is a Mackinaw or a Retriever GÇö the two solo mining ships. Quote:If we've grown accustomed to mining solo with the hulk, are you saying that you don't want us mining alone anymore? No, they're saying that you shouldn't be using the Hulk any more. If that comes with a reduction in yield then, surprise, group play is being rewarded, which is a rather common thing in EVE. I can understand the whole group play being rewarded, and tbh, if it were up to me, I'd always mine in a group. But the reality is that some people don't have that luxury. And from everything I've read, this just looks like a nerf to solo mining more then rewarding group play. Mining in a group is already better, what with there being the mining fleet bonuses available. Not to mention the mining links and the possibility of Orca support. If we're forced to sell our Hulks to buy a Mackinaw, then fine. More isk in my pocket as the latter costs less to begin with. But what I'm concerned about is the amount of ore yield currently possible when mining solo with the Hulk. Unless we see a considerable buff to the amount the Mackinaw can pull in, I highly doubt this is going to be a very appreciated change for some people. Until we see some numbers on the matter, these concerns will remain an issue. On a side note, I don't see how the smaller ship between the Hulk and the Mackinaw, the smaller being the latter, is to be the one with much larger amount of storage space. It just doesn't seem realistic. I know I know. "It's a game."And what of Ice mining? Is this change going to force mining fleets to move from the lesser expensive ship (and therefor a smaller loss if ganked) to the more expensive ship for their Ice mining ops? At the moment, the Mackinaw's role is that of an Ice mining ship. NOT the solo miner's ship. please read the dev blog again to answer your question concerning the future mackinaw yield and check also ccp ytterbiums clarification post a few pages back to answer your question to exhumer specialisation. all that has been answered already. multiple times. if you are too lazy: mack and retriever will get a significant yield boost and mack will stay the dedicated ice mining boat. and why should solo mining be nearly as effective as group mining? there is absolutely no reason. when your corp maties do not want to mine with you, look for a better mining corp. simple as that. apart from that, you still can mine solo with your hulk. noone will stop you from that. you just have to deal with the trade offs.
I DID read the Dev blog and Ytterbium's post. Sure they said the Mackinaw will get a boost, when in what world does plan is to increase all barge mining output to be within an acceptable margin of the Hulk answer my concerns? And when did I say that solo mining should be as effective as group mining? Next time carefully read a post before commenting on it. |
DeMichael Crimson
Republic University Minmatar Republic
2752
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 14:37:00 -
[593] - Quote
Nagarythe Tinurandir wrote:tormentor isn't a mining frig anymore since quite some time now. so he did not forget it.
as for the rest, please read the blog again it is all in there. barges will not be that of an easy target anymore and it is quite ignorant of you to depict the proposed as bad, just because they interfere with your once in a month mining. Ignorant huh? I have every right to voice my opinion about this change and how it affects me. I'm a paying customer and a member of this community and quite frankly I don't care what you think, my post was for CCP.
If the Tormentor has been changed already, then what mining ship is now being given to new players doing the Amarr Career Agent missions? Also, someone forgot to update the Evelopedia. http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Tormentor
As for reading the blog, I already read it 3 times before I posted.
By the way, who you trying to fool? What's the matter, don't have enough targets available for Suicide Ganking? I don't know what game you're playing but in Eve, all Mining Barges are nothing more than a giant bulls-eye waiting for overpowered Destroyers and T3 Battlecruisers to strike it.
This change is basically forcing non industrial players like me to buy 2 new skills and train them up as well as buy and fly ships that we don't want just to do a little mining on the side whenever it's needed.
|
MatrixSkye Mk2
Republic University Minmatar Republic
323
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 14:53:00 -
[594] - Quote
I like the changes, especially those affecting barges/exhumers.
Looks like, especially in comparison to the "almighty" and linear Hulk, mining vessels are getting a hell of a boost. Now, not all training roads lead a miner to the Hulk, but instead there will be decisions to be made.
Very nicely done, CCP.
|
Lili Lu
278
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 15:37:00 -
[595] - Quote
DeMichael Crimson wrote: If the Tormentor has been changed already, then what mining ship is now being given to new players doing the Amarr Career Agent missions? Also, someone forgot to update the Evelopedia. http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Tormentor Apparently the answer is it doesn't matter. You're just an idiot, see, if it does. You see that your character will lag behind for a week or two til it trains mining cruiser and mining drones for the Arbitrator, doesn't matter. You stupidly rolled a new amarr indusrialist character. Much like the 3 charisma Achura days. Who cares about a long period of imbalance in character generation and advancement?
As for the wiki, it's been like that forever. Low priority update for that. It's not like new players would go there for any information.
And so it goes ~ . . . |
ivar R'dhak
STK Scientific
62
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 16:16:00 -
[596] - Quote
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:mining vessels are getting a hell of a boost. Now, not all training roads lead a miner to the Hulk, but instead there will be decisions to be made.
Very nicely done, CCP.
You-¦re VERY wrong und this is completely UNNICELY done by CCP!
Hulk will stay the "almighty" mining ship because it still will have the best mining yield. Which is kinda important to a shipclass whose MAIN reason for existence is
M I N I N G !
It is completely irrelevant how miniscule an EHP boost a mining ship gets as the gankers will just upgrade the destroyer/Tornado hordes.
Quoting again my buried post on this whole fiasco as it-¦s lost in this sea of CCP griefer groupies that don-¦t understand mining. Which is a bit mind boggling on it-¦s own.
ivar R'dhak wrote:Here-¦s my take on the super-duper miner revamp. Quote:As a result we thus get:
New ORE frig: we want this ship to be obsolete after a week of gametime. To the designer who came up with the cool design? Sux to be him.
Procurer/Skiff: primarily made to be ignored. As mining yield is the only thing that counts on a m+¦thaeffin-¦ mining ship and EHP is worth cr+ñp when the gankers just upgrade from two destroyers to two Tornados.
Retriever/Mackinaw: made for cheap bots and/or watching Game of Thrones/P+ûrn while "you" mine.
Covetor/hulk: is almost identical to the current broken state. Just that now you can have a fit that stands up to better belt rats. And have to micromanage it more because no one was using this thing without cargo rig expanders. yay
First of all CCP, can mining is an EMERGENT GAMEPLAY! Effin-¦get it already and don-¦t try to kill it every time you have a new brainwave by sprint committee. Then I-¦d actually like to congratulate you on the ore-bay. It-¦s a good idea and should-¦ve been implemented a week after you learned how to do it to Rorquals. I forgot, how many years ago was that again? Here-¦s my take on a proper Exhumers revamp: That "super-hardy" EHP you-¦re planing for the SKIFF? Double it then give it to ALL THE THINGS. Those quaint and "oh so" obsolete roles the different Exhumers have, is actually the MAIN thing they should keep. In fact make it even more pronounced. Apart from the Skiff, it-¦s main trick of dodging space-rock farts is a bit weak. Give it a proper ore hold and warp core stabs to finally become the ninja miner that some people supposedly are dreaming of. As for your new and already obsolete(especially with skill revamps) mining frig, PLEASE don-¦t give us another useless skill to train for. Just make the damn thing use the Barge skill on lvl1, set the other barges at 2, 3 & 4 and for all I care give them all those nifty ideas you have cooked up. BTW how about a dedicated gas cloud miner? I heard you-¦re making a new mining ship that could use a Tech2 variant? Tl;dr Proper T2 Mining ships? Where?
|
Nagarythe Tinurandir
Catholic School for Boys
21
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 16:36:00 -
[597] - Quote
DeMichael Crimson wrote:Nagarythe Tinurandir wrote:tormentor isn't a mining frig anymore since quite some time now. so he did not forget it.
as for the rest, please read the blog again it is all in there. barges will not be that of an easy target anymore and it is quite ignorant of you to depict the proposed as bad, just because they interfere with your once in a month mining. Ignorant huh? I have every right to voice my opinion about this change and how it affects me. I'm a paying customer and a member of this community and quite frankly I don't care what you think, my post was for CCP. If the Tormentor has been changed already, then what mining ship is now being given to new players doing the Amarr Career Agent missions? Also, someone forgot to update the Evelopedia. http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/TormentorAs for reading the blog, I already read it 3 times before I posted. By the way, who you trying to fool? What's the matter, don't have enough targets available for Suicide Ganking? I don't know what game you're playing but in Eve, all Mining Barges are nothing more than a giant bulls-eye waiting for overpowered Destroyers and T3 Battlecruisers to strike it. This change is basically forcing non industrial players like me to buy 2 new skills and train them up as well as buy and fly ships that we don't want just to do a little mining on the side whenever it's needed.
me the suicide ganker.. right :) well yes, use your right to voice your opinion. thats what a forum is good for. but maybe make it in a constructive way? im sorry to repeat it, but as you wrote it, it was ignorant of the majority of miners, who do use barges and strip miners. a constructive proposal from your side would be: "why implement an entirely new skill for just one frig? why not make it depend on the already existing ore industrial skill?" in this way you would also benefit with the noctis. anyway,when you have trained mining skills for mining lasers and a frig/ cruiser fitting, the step into an ore frig is maybe 8h worth of training, when a ore frig skill is needed.
Joseph O'Neil wrote:
I DID read the Dev blog and Ytterbium's post. Sure they said the Mackinaw will get a boost, when in what world does plan is to increase all barge mining output to be within an acceptable margin of the Hulk answer my concerns? And when did I say that solo mining should be as effective as group mining? Next time carefully read a post before commenting on it.
Here CCP, something to consider:
Mining solo usually means using cargo extenders in the low slots. Mining in a group usually means using the mining upgrades instead. Use this when looking into just how much mining output each ship should have.
Edit: To clarify on my Ice mining/Mackinaw comment:
CCP, If the Mackinaw is to remain the Ice mining ship, but the Hulk is the fleet mining ship, then what are Ice mining fleets supposed to be flying?
given the time table of ccp ytterbium, the sentence you quoted is all you can ask for. if the details would be clear, one could already implement the stuff or better test it out on sisi. concerning mining fleet vs solo mining i might have wrote something different then i ment. you wanted to emphazise, solo mining should yield as much as it does now, which you do not see happening given the proposed changes? i still think, solo mining in a hulk is way too effective. the difference in a fully skilled hulk solo and a fully skilled hulk in a mining ops could be bigger. teamplay should pay out big time, as there is more needed to do so. not only skill-wise but also on the personal level. trust, division of labor... on the other hand the hulk may just be way too good. after working with a hulk as it is now, any changes which level the field of competence need adjustment from the player side.
|
MatrixSkye Mk2
Republic University Minmatar Republic
323
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 17:11:00 -
[598] - Quote
ivar R'dhak wrote:MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:mining vessels are getting a hell of a boost. Now, not all training roads lead a miner to the Hulk, but instead there will be decisions to be made.
Very nicely done, CCP.
You-¦re VERY wrong und this is completely UNNICELY done by CCP! Hulk will stay the "almighty" mining ship because it still will have the best mining yield. Which is kinda important to a shipclass whose MAIN reason for existence is M I N I N G ! I have to disagree. The barges won't be left that far behind in terms of mining yield, at least that is how I'm reading the changes. Yes, the Hulk will still be the king of mining yields, but by how much? Being able to sacrifice a little yieldGäó for a BS-tank to me, at least, is quite reasonable. In any case I think miners have real choices to make, instead of hopping on a Hulk which has only ever offered better yield. In other words, as it is now, better mining ship (or higher tier/class) meant mostlyl only higher yield. But with these new changes they offer a mix of yield, tank, and storage.
You want to still fly a Hulk? By all means do. But don't down-play being able to semi-AFK mine in hi sec on a Procurer with yields that won't be devastatingly lower than that of a Hulk.
|
Imryn Xaran
Coherent Light Enterprises
39
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 17:25:00 -
[599] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Imryn Xaran wrote:What I would like to know is how do any of these changes improve mining ops in hi sec? 1. No need (or point) to ruin your Hulk with cargo expanders GåÆ more reason to tank GåÆ easier to protect. 2. No need to use the Hulk to begin with, but rather go for one of the larger-tank/larger-cargo models GåÆ easier to survive. 3. Less loot GåÆ more expensive ganks GåÆ easier to become a worthless target. 4. More utility in cheaper ships GåÆ more expensive ganks and cheaper losses GåÆ easier to become a worthless target and easier to just write of any incidental loss. Quote:no matter how well organised your op is in high sec miners still have to run like little girls every time a lone dessy shows up on d-scan. Good news: you never had to run from a lone destroyer to begin with, and there's even less need to do so after this change. If you had to run before, it's because you broke your Hulk, not because the game is broken. With this change, the Hulk (which can already withstand multiple destroyers and even a tier-3 BC or two) will be the weakest ship in the fleet. If you cannot wrap your head around how much this has improved your ability to protect yourself, then trust me: the game was never the problem GÇö it was you, all along. Non-broken game is now even less broken. Very good job, CCP.
The point of organising a mining op is to allow miners to rig their barges for max yield. You seem to think that even when they take the time and trouble to organise a mining op high sec miners should still have to compromise mining yield to gain defence.
Miners in low and null don't have to make these compromises - they can mine in absolute 100% safety when they are in an organised op. Miners in high sec (the so called "safer" region of space) are vulnerable no matter how well orgaised they are. Effectively there is no point at all to orgaising mining ops in high sec because there is no gain in effiency (you have to use a sub-optimal barge with a sub-optimal fit) and no way to improve security. In fact, a high sec mining op is less safe than solo mining because a concentrated group of barges attracts gankers. I am sick and tired of hearing about the EVE "sandbox" when it is blatantly obvious that CCP has an agenda to force players to play in certain ways and in certain areas.
What happened to encouraging group play and just how "non-broken" does that sound to you? |
ivar R'dhak
STK Scientific
63
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 17:31:00 -
[600] - Quote
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote: Being able to sacrifice a little yieldGäó for a BS-tank to me, at least, is quite reasonable. Re-read my post. A minor EHP boost(to BS levels) is irrelevant for a shipclass that is by default a punching ball to anything with a gun. |
|
zerokmatrix
Federation Mission Acedemy
15
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 17:48:00 -
[601] - Quote
Dear CCP, Wow 30 pages of comments in 24 hours, anyone would think this is a thread about the unified inventory :P
Looking forward to the changes proposed, especially excited about the mining frigate, I hope it will be fun to use for ninja mining.
Someone mentioned earlier in the thread that maybe before you introduce a new destroyer, in addition to the frigates we already have, you instead "promote" one of each races frigates to destroyer or more likely, scrap one of each races frigates in favour of a new destroyer.
I support this Idea 100%.
The frigate class is already the largest buy far and there are some frigates you never see outside the starter systems. I am sure each race could stand to lose at least one.
What happened to the salvaging drones BTW?
Regards, zerokmatrix
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
4070
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 17:59:00 -
[602] - Quote
ivar R'dhak wrote:MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote: Being able to sacrifice a little yieldGäó for a BS-tank to me, at least, is quite reasonable. Re-read my post. A minor EHP boost(to BS levels) is irrelevant for a shipclass that is by default a punching ball to anything with a gun.
So keep using the Hulk if you think tripling or quadrupling your ships EHP won't help.
(It will help) Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Kievan Arakyd
MarSec Industries STR8NGE BREW
51
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 18:41:00 -
[603] - Quote
So, any plans to overhaul the orca as well? Leave a small corp hanger to hold mining crystals, convert the cargohold and shipmaint bay into orehold space, and leave just enough room to fit ships in a new maintbay? Got my Dust514 key... |
Martin0
Maximum-Overload M-A-T-R-I-X Allianz
44
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 20:38:00 -
[604] - Quote
The tristan is dead to me..... if i wanted missiles i would have skilled caldari
Everything else is good, ill start buying navitas now :D |
Vera Algaert
Republic University Minmatar Republic
196
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 21:14:00 -
[605] - Quote
None ofthe Above wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:Hey folks, thanks for the feedback, here are some answers for you.
COULD YOU PLEASE AVOID USING LIGHT MISSILES ON FRIGATES, AS SUCH WEAPON SYSTEM ISN'T THAT GREAT IN THE FIRST PLACE? We may look at them if we find they arenGÇÖt that great during the frigate balancing.
Wait what? Who said that? Why is the Kestrel so popular as a frigate? because of its combination CPU & cargohold?
not like most kestrels have any missile launchers (or any module other than a cyno for that matter) fitted... |
Mechael
Ouroboros Executor Collective
133
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 21:20:00 -
[606] - Quote
Imryn Xaran wrote:Miners in low and null don't have to make these compromises - they can mine in absolute 100% safety when they are in an organised op. Miners in high sec (the so called "safer" region of space) are vulnerable no matter how well orgaised they are. Effectively there is no point at all to orgaising mining ops in high sec because there is no gain in effiency (you have to use a sub-optimal barge with a sub-optimal fit) and no way to improve security. In fact, a high sec mining op is less safe than solo mining because a concentrated group of barges attracts gankers. I am sick and tired of hearing about the EVE "sandbox" when it is blatantly obvious that CCP has an agenda to force players to play in certain ways and in certain areas.
What happened to encouraging group play and just how "non-broken" does that sound to you?
Highsec miners don't typically dock up or run to a POS whenever a neutral pilot enters the system. Low/null miners do. So much for 100% safety. I'd rather die in battle against a man who will lie to me, than for a man who will lie to me. |
None ofthe Above
228
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 22:09:00 -
[607] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:None ofthe Above wrote:
Honestly largely agree with Tarryn here, but wish he hadn't started out calling people fools, that's a sure way to have a less than productive conversation.
Its a valid point that common heavily used things do not mean overpowered.
Are clothes over powered since everyone uses them? Doorknobs?
Drake is an example of a ship that works, much like the Rifter is. It should be largely left alone in the rebalance, IMHO.
So of course it's ok to have one "ship that works." Everyone should roll or train Caldari right? And ffs, overpowered has different meanings. Is it so hard not to always interpret it as meaning "it kills everything else"? Of course drakes aren't that. But for the isk, for the sp, for the range of roles it can fill, for the range of other ship classes requiring more isk or sp with which it is able to compete or best, YES it is OP. So how do you propose to balance that situation? Would you buff all the other battlecruisers? What does that do to the utility of Cruisers? Especially now that CCP is trying to buff them up so they are not just a wave as you fly by on the train to BC. To my mind it's a simple matter to cut the hp of the tier 2 back to the same as the tier 1 and deal with the slots and bonuses later during the comprehensive balancing. Also, btw, it's not just null sec drake blobs. You should remember people have alts and other accounts. Drakes are everywhere, in every kind of pve and pvp. This is why the stats are so skewed so heavily to them. The stats would not be so if more ships "worked" as you say, like they do. But everything can't be buffed and accomplish balance.
Enhance your calm, Citizen Lu. Take deep slow breaths. Clearly I've stumbled into some sort of Jihad, but I'll try to respond. Happy to have an actual conversation if you are.
I fly drakes, other races BCs, among other things. I know the strengths and weaknesses. They are not "easy button" against other ships in its class. Tough to kill if fitted properly, sure. That's it's strength. I don't fly in null blobs, but I would guess whatever you bring a lot of would be effective. Personally I think the perma-MWD drake is a bit crazed, but if you don't care how many you lose, I suppose it works. Heavy tank keeps them alive long enough to have some effectiveness. I don't recommend that outside of like composition fleets. I mostly think that design was primarily meant to get lots of titan blapping kill-mails to waive in front of CCP, by creating easy huge signatured targets.
All of the Tier 2 BCs are pretty decent and more or less on par with the drake. Harbinger a little less then the Drake and Cane. Myrm got nerfed a little hard a ways back, but its still quite serviceable. All the tier 3s are good ships, if you don't mind flying in a glass cannon. (Might consider adding small drone bays to the non gallente Tier 3s, the Talos's drone bay is what makes it solo-able.) I honestly think the Hurricane is every bit as good as the Drake, although with slightly different strengths and weaknesses. Not too many ships can flip from shield to armor like the Cane, very flexible, and who doesn't like projectiles?
All the Tier 1s need some work however (as noted earlier in the thread). They where designed to be inferior and it shows.
So slight buffs to Harby and a mild un-nerf to the Myrm. Much love to the former Tier 1s, serious buffs to put them on par.
This is exactly the pattern used so far when the test frigs where brought roughly on par with the Rifter. As near as I can tell, that's the plan for the rest of the frigs.
As for your question about cruisers, they'll get rebalanced first, so they will likely gain some ground on the BCs before this all happens.
Your suggestion of making them all glass cannons, well damn. Sure lets nerf all ships younger pilots can fly so they die in droves to older more experienced pilots. I am sure that will make EVE grow ever more. It doesn't make sense to you that a ship designer might put a bit more tank on a Battelcruiser than a Cruiser?
Drake is one of the few ships that the Caldari have that work. Caldari are not overpowered though, just check the FW map for confirmation. No one says roll Caldari if you want to own the battlefield *cough*winmatar*cough*. They have a slight edge in PVE, but that's doable in any race.
TL;DR: Stay Calm. Drake not OP.
|
None ofthe Above
228
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 22:11:00 -
[608] - Quote
Vera Algaert wrote:None ofthe Above wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:Hey folks, thanks for the feedback, here are some answers for you.
COULD YOU PLEASE AVOID USING LIGHT MISSILES ON FRIGATES, AS SUCH WEAPON SYSTEM ISN'T THAT GREAT IN THE FIRST PLACE? We may look at them if we find they arenGÇÖt that great during the frigate balancing.
Wait what? Who said that? Why is the Kestrel so popular as a frigate? because of its combination CPU & cargohold? not like most kestrels have any missile launchers (or any module other than a cyno for that matter) fitted...
I guess I am bad at EVE and should remove the missiles and tank from my Kestrel. My bad.
|
Yonis Kador
Transstellar Alchemy
162
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 23:42:00 -
[609] - Quote
Should one lose a frigate to get a new destroyer?
Chop off a foot to get another hand?
Players in quick ships move quickly. They interact with others more frequently. This is good for the quality of pgc.
I'd like to see frigates made even more useful. Ninja everything.
So, I'd hope the ways to interact quickly and in groups would continue unabated without losing too many options.
I have to admit though that the way the barge ore bays will affect afk mining will probably be beneficial to pgc too. I'm less sure a cap reduction will translate as enhanced gameplay to solo industrialists for whom their routine has been routine for years. That should be interesting. Even though barge roles give players more options to evade, it's still going to force all of them, no matter what they're flying, to look at their screens more while incentivizing group ops. That's a cruise missile of benefit to pgc.
But the overall effect is so dynamic that I doubt even CCP is sure of what's going to happen. Ragequits? Will bottom-liners take a yield penalty for more ehp? (Maybe.) Will they continue on in Hulks maximizing efficiency? (Some. But how many?)
Will gankers have to start ganking Macks/Retrievers when they realize players have no sympathy for high-sec Hulk kills anymore? (Oh no.) Will high-sec Hulk kills become so common that their use in high-sec is effectively depressed? (RIP Baby-gurl.)
Who knows? That's why this game is awesome.
I only predict the forums will be pretty busy for the foreseeable future.
Yonis Kador
Hive Mining: A proposal by Yonis-áKador-á https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1427915&#post1427915
|
Dalilus
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
18
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 23:53:00 -
[610] - Quote
well, i guess some changes are already happening on tranquility....anyone else notice that since yesterday ogre II drones are mostly useless against npc interceptors? |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8019
|
Posted - 2012.06.17 02:46:00 -
[611] - Quote
Imryn Xaran wrote:The point of organising a mining op is to allow miners to rig their barges for max yield. There are no rigs that improve your yield.
Quote:You seem to think that even when they take the time and trouble to organise a mining op high sec miners should still have to compromise mining yield to gain defence. Yes. Just like everyone else.
Quote:Miners in high sec (the so called "safer" region of space) are vulnerable no matter how well orgaised they are. Effectively there is no point at all to orgaising mining ops in high sec because there is no gain in effiency (you have to use a sub-optimal barge with a sub-optimal fit) and no way to improve security. GǪaside from the fact that the Hulk is already able to defend itself quite well, and with some group support backing it up, it's pretty darn difficult to kill (unless you want to expend a huge amount of ISK or manpower on the kill). Doing so will make the ganker move on to an easier target.
Quote:I am sick and tired of hearing about the EVE "sandbox" when it is blatantly obvious that CCP has an agenda to force players to play in certain ways and in certain areas. They're not forcing you. They're giving you tools that match a specific job. Whether you choose to use those tools for that job, or whether you pick some other tools, or use the tools for a completely different job, is still entirely up to you. That's what makes it a sandbox. They provide tools GÇö you use them to build.
Quote:What happened to encouraging group play and just how "non-broken" does that sound to you? Well, they're encouraging group play by making sure that, to get the best yield, you have to use the ship that requires a group to shine. That sounds very non-broken to me. 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¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
DeMichael Crimson
Republic University Minmatar Republic
2784
|
Posted - 2012.06.17 04:28:00 -
[612] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:DeMichael Crimson wrote: If the Tormentor has been changed already, then what mining ship is now being given to new players doing the Amarr Career Agent missions? Also, someone forgot to update the Evelopedia. http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Tormentor Apparently the answer is it doesn't matter. You're just an idiot, see, if it does. You see that your character will lag behind for a week or two til it trains mining cruiser and mining drones for the Arbitrator, doesn't matter. You stupidly rolled a new amarr indusrialist character. Much like the 3 charisma Achura days. Who cares about a long period of imbalance in character generation and advancement? As for the wiki, it's been like that forever. Low priority update for that. It's not like new players would go there for any information. And so it goes ~ . . .
Apparently all you can do is post personal attacks towards other players, if continued it will be reported.
Nagarythe Tinurandir wrote:DeMichael Crimson wrote:Nagarythe Tinurandir wrote:tormentor isn't a mining frig anymore since quite some time now. so he did not forget it.
as for the rest, please read the blog again it is all in there. barges will not be that of an easy target anymore and it is quite ignorant of you to depict the proposed as bad, just because they interfere with your once in a month mining. Ignorant huh? I have every right to voice my opinion about this change and how it affects me. I'm a paying customer and a member of this community and quite frankly I don't care what you think, my post was for CCP. If the Tormentor has been changed already, then what mining ship is now being given to new players doing the Amarr Career Agent missions? Also, someone forgot to update the Evelopedia. http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/TormentorAs for reading the blog, I already read it 3 times before I posted. By the way, who you trying to fool? What's the matter, don't have enough targets available for Suicide Ganking? I don't know what game you're playing but in Eve, all Mining Barges are nothing more than a giant bulls-eye waiting for overpowered Destroyers and T3 Battlecruisers to strike it. This change is basically forcing non industrial players like me to buy 2 new skills and train them up as well as buy and fly ships that we don't want just to do a little mining on the side whenever it's needed. me the suicide ganker.. right :) well yes, use your right to voice your opinion. thats what a forum is good for. but maybe make it in a constructive way? im sorry to repeat it, but as you wrote it, it was ignorant of the majority of miners, who do use barges and strip miners. a constructive proposal from your side would be: "why implement an entirely new skill for just one frig? why not make it depend on the already existing ore industrial skill?" in this way you would also benefit with the noctis. anyway,when you have trained mining skills for mining lasers and a frig/ cruiser fitting, the step into an ore frig is maybe 8h worth of training, when a ore frig skill is needed.
My reply is about the changes pertaining to the Mining Frigate and Mining Cruiser, not about the changes being implemented to Mining Barges. This change is forcing players like me to buy and train up new skills as well as buy and use ships that we don't want, plain and simple. To equal the output of a fully skilled and fitted Mining Cruiser, it will take a lot more than just 1 skill being trained for 8 hours and using an ORE Frigate.
You trying to portray this as a slight inconvenience and stating that it's a good change definitely gives the impression of a Suicide Ganker salivating at the prospect of having a lot more targets available..
You want to have a constructive conversation? Stop calling people ignorant.
|
Katy Ling
Crimnson Concept Flame Flaming Nebula
32
|
Posted - 2012.06.17 07:09:00 -
[613] - Quote
it's good to see new and exciting balances on the frigates, where there's more viable frigates than the rifter.
perhaps the developers have they're mind already set in things they want to develop and the bonus they want to give to frigates, but i would like to point out some things and why :
i think that we could make good use of Logistic frigates.
there are plenty of situations that i remember they could be useful.
1) - LVL 1 - 2 missions - granted a frigate / cruiser with a good tank could cover not needing logi, but it would still be nice.
2) - complexes that only allow frigates
3) - Frigate Roaming gangs yes scimitars are better, but frigates warp at 6 A.U instead of the scimitar 3.75 A.U. , so it would confere more mobility to a frigate roaming gang, at expense of less tank.
those frigates would be able to fit 4 small / or 2 medium repair / cap transference modules
4) some deadspace logistic modules need a rebalance (less cap activation use), as they spend an insane cap amount, to be of any use to a frigate. (remote armour / shield / capacitor transference) - they use 90 - 120 capacitor compared with the T2 version that uses around 50-60
this is just an idea on how to give some sense to a poorly used section of frigates and modules that seem to have no role or purpose, and could make small roaming gangs more fun and cheap, as well as providing a step on logistics career.
|
Nagarythe Tinurandir
Catholic School for Boys
21
|
Posted - 2012.06.17 09:33:00 -
[614] - Quote
DeMichael Crimson wrote: My reply is about the changes pertaining to the Mining Frigate and Mining Cruiser, not about the changes being implemented to Mining Barges. This change is forcing players like me to buy and train up new skills as well as buy and use ships that we don't want, plain and simple. To equal the output of a fully skilled and fitted Mining Cruiser, it will take a lot more than just 1 skill being trained for 8 hours and using an ORE Frigate. With my skills and fit up, my Mining Cruiser has an Ore yield of 602 per minute and can quickly align and go into warp a hell of a lot faster than a Mining Barge.
Guess I could just use a Battleship.
Anyway, you trying to portray this as a slight inconvenience and stating that it's a good change definitely gives the impression of a Suicide Ganker salivating at the prospect of having a lot more targets available..
You want to have a constructive conversation? Stop calling people ignorant.
maybe, to reach a comparable output, youd'd have to train ore frig to lvl 5. since it's a skill for noobs it will not have a very long training time. at max it will take as long as racial frig 5, which would take longer than 8h, you got that right. all the other skills that determine your yield and your agility and whatsoever still apply to the mining frig. you still can use those modules. the mining laser may even be bonused further. i can not imagine other skills except the racial frig/cruiser that wont apply to the ore frig aswell. but feel free to let me know. either way, a little adaptation (1 skill) is not too much asked for. do you really believe in a game like eve, with 2 major updates per year and a passionate fan base there wont be any changes?
if you still feel offended by me calling your previous post ignorant, im sorry. plain and simple. but i still think it was too self-related. again sorry for any inconvenience, bro |
ergherhdfgh
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
28
|
Posted - 2012.06.17 13:50:00 -
[615] - Quote
I like the idea of changing the barges. I also like expanding O.R.E's ship line to include frigs. Hopefully this means we'll see O.R.E. cruisers soon and maybe even one day BCs. BSs and cap ships all with mining bonuses lol.
As far as the Destroyers are concerned I find the Coercer to be by far the best for PvE. It is an awesome ship for running level 1 and 2 missions. When you say the Thrasher and Catalyst are preferred I think that is only for PvP.
In general I find most of the non-O.R.E. changes sound like homogenization of the races which I believe will lead to a dumbing down of Eve and a removing of much of the variety that makes the game interesting.
Most of these changes sound like a poorly thought out plan. I am having PTSD flashbacks to WoW balancing. You need to keep in mind that anyone can train to fly any ship and therefore it is impossible for any ship to be overpowered in this game due to the fact that if it is everyone could just fly it and therefore all are equal.
Keep in mind that there are different play styles. Some are more popular than others. But if you eliminate the less popular ones and move more towards the popular ones then I think the game as a whole will suffer.
For example a lot of players like the style of PvP that the Minmatar ships specialize in which is hard, fast, in-your-face, DPS race type of brawling. Therefore the Minmatar ships get chosen more often for PvP. However that does not mean that someone can not win in a ECM bonused ship like the Griffin just to show one alternative. If however you give every race: a brawler and a drone boat and sniping boat, that will not add to the diversity of Eve it will take away from it. Instead of seeing **** tons of rifters in PvP we will see a **** ton of the rifter equivalent in each race and therefore PvP will change in the look of the ship only and the cost will be an extreme homoginization of play style or worse and elimination of certain play styles. |
ergherhdfgh
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
28
|
Posted - 2012.06.17 14:13:00 -
[616] - Quote
Katy Ling wrote:it's good to see new and exciting balances on the frigates, where there's more viable frigates than the rifter.
Please correct me if I'm wrong as I dont' PvP but I keep hearing about how the rifter is the only ship to PvP in and how Minmatar ships are overpowered but it seems to me that the Minmatar ships are focused on a " A Type " personality combat style of all offense with little to no defense and an adrenaline filled race to very short finish in a 40 yard dash style of fighting to see who can kill who first. As opposed to more defensive based combat style that could be better described as see who can last longer.
This also eliminates other play styles like EW for example.
I'm just saying that instead of giving every race a brawler like the rifter wouldn't we be better off making sure that other play styles are equally viable?
If 80% of the people want to brawl then let 80% of them fly rifters. I just think that if another ship with a different play style in mind has an equal chance of winning then things should be left alone even if only a very small percentage of the pilot choose to fly that way.
Am I missing something here? Is it impossible for a Griffin pilot for example to jam and scram a rifter pilot and win in a 1 v 1? Do we want to make sure every race has the same chances in 1 v 1 or should some races be better at group combat and some better at solo?
|
Ribikoka
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
234
|
Posted - 2012.06.17 15:32:00 -
[617] - Quote
None ofthe Above wrote:Vera Algaert wrote:None ofthe Above wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:Hey folks, thanks for the feedback, here are some answers for you.
COULD YOU PLEASE AVOID USING LIGHT MISSILES ON FRIGATES, AS SUCH WEAPON SYSTEM ISN'T THAT GREAT IN THE FIRST PLACE? We may look at them if we find they arenGÇÖt that great during the frigate balancing.
Wait what? Who said that? Why is the Kestrel so popular as a frigate? because of its combination CPU & cargohold? not like most kestrels have any missile launchers (or any module other than a cyno for that matter) fitted... I guess I am bad at EVE and should remove the missiles and tank from my Kestrel. My bad.
Yes u are wrong. But You can fly with the most used cyno kestrel. And check Crow too ? That was the most favored interceptor. But now ? It's name is "forget it" use better. |
Ribikoka
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
234
|
Posted - 2012.06.17 15:34:00 -
[618] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:None ofthe Above wrote:Tarryn Nightstorm wrote:Lili Lu wrote:Tarryn Nightstorm wrote: Spergelord I will endeavor to find what pleases you. Popular =/= overpowered, nor yet unbalanced. Gee, the fact that a ship is forgiving to fly and easy to get into, easier to fit for a newbie than many others, that couldn't possibly have a thing to do with popularity, now could it. Would you two just get a room? The kinky hate-sex games are getting a bit tiresome. Honestly largely agree with Tarryn here, but wish he hadn't started out calling people fools, that's a sure way to have a less than productive conversation. Its a valid point that common heavily used things do not mean overpowered. Are clothes over powered since everyone uses them? Doorknobs? Drake is an example of a ship that works, much like the Rifter is. It should be largely left alone in the rebalance, IMHO. So of course it's ok to have one "ship that works." Everyone should roll or train Caldari right? And ffs, overpowered has different meanings. Is it so hard not to always interpret it as meaning "it kills everything else"? Of course drakes aren't that. But for the isk, for the sp, for the range of roles it can fill, for the range of other ship classes requiring more isk or sp with which it is able to compete or best, YES it is OP. So how do you propose to balance that situation? Would you buff all the other battlecruisers? What does that do to the utility of Cruisers? Especially now that CCP is trying to buff them up so they are not just a wave as you fly by on the train to BC. To my mind it's a simple matter to cut the hp of the tier 2 back to the same as the tier 1 and deal with the slots and bonuses later during the comprehensive balancing. Also, btw, it's not just null sec drake blobs. You should remember people have alts and other accounts. Drakes are everywhere, in every kind of pve and pvp. This is why the stats are so skewed so heavily to them. The stats would not be so if more ships "worked" as you say, like they do. But everything can't be buffed and accomplish balance.
Agreed.
|
sYnc Vir
Wolfsbrigade Lost Obsession
229
|
Posted - 2012.06.17 15:36:00 -
[619] - Quote
ergherhdfgh wrote:Katy Ling wrote:it's good to see new and exciting balances on the frigates, where there's more viable frigates than the rifter. Please correct me if I'm wrong as I dont' PvP but I keep hearing about how the rifter is the only ship to PvP in and how Minmatar ships are overpowered but it seems to me that the Minmatar ships are focused on a " A Type " personality combat style of all offense with little to no defense and an adrenaline filled race to very short finish in a 40 yard dash style of fighting to see who can kill who first. As opposed to more defensive based combat style that could be better described as see who can last longer. This also eliminates other play styles like EW for example. I'm just saying that instead of giving every race a brawler like the rifter wouldn't we be better off making sure that other play styles are equally viable? If 80% of the people want to brawl then let 80% of them fly rifters. I just think that if another ship with a different play style in mind has an equal chance of winning then things should be left alone even if only a very small percentage of the pilot choose to fly that way. Am I missing something here? Is it impossible for a Griffin pilot for example to jam and scram a rifter pilot and win in a 1 v 1? Do we want to make sure every race has the same chances in 1 v 1 or should some races be better at group combat and some better at solo?
No, Your Giffin wants to be a Merlin. Giffins are a support ship for the most part. |
Inspiration
Focused Radical Energy Engineering
22
|
Posted - 2012.06.17 15:54:00 -
[620] - Quote
So, mined ore and ice goes to the new special purpose ore hold automatically.
This means we need answers on the following:
1. Does the regular cargo hold remain the same size? 2. When the ore hold fills up, does the ore/ice continue to accumulate in the cargo hold?
I ask this because a popular fit for hulks is to use two cargo hold extender rigs, adding 2580 m3 on top of the base 8000 m3 of storage. This storage (minus max 1000 m3 for spare mining crystals) , is significantly bigger then the base cargo hold and the new ore hold for the hulk and might actually constitute a nerf if the answer to question 2 is a no.
CCP can you answer the above questions? |
|
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1940
|
Posted - 2012.06.17 16:07:00 -
[621] - Quote
Inspiration wrote:So, mined ore and ice goes to the new special purpose ore hold automatically.
This means we need answers on the following:
1. Does the regular cargo hold remain the same size? 2. When the ore hold fills up, does the ore/ice continue to accumulate in the cargo hold?
I ask this because a popular fit for hulks is to use two cargo hold extender rigs, adding 2580 m3 on top of the base 8000 m3 of storage. This storage (minus max 1000 m3 for spare mining crystals) , is significantly bigger then the base cargo hold and the new ore hold for the hulk and might actually constitute a nerf if the answer to question 2 is a no.
CCP can you answer the above questions?
Look at what they mentioned for the Mackinaw/Retriever. And how it's a massive buff for the people you're talking about. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8021
|
Posted - 2012.06.17 16:49:00 -
[622] - Quote
Inspiration wrote:This means we need answers on the following:
1. Does the regular cargo hold remain the same size? 2. When the ore hold fills up, does the ore/ice continue to accumulate in the cargo hold? If you dig around in the dev responses you'll find the answers:
1. No. 2. No.
Quote:I ask this because a popular fit for hulks is to use two cargo hold extender rigs, adding 2580 m3 on top of the base 8000 m3 of storage. This storage (minus max 1000 m3 for spare mining crystals) , is significantly bigger then the base cargo hold and the new ore hold for the hulk and might actually constitute a nerf if the answer to question 2 is a no. Actually, it's kind of a buff. If you need a lot of cargo space, you'll have at least two and probably four other ships to choose between. Since you no longer have any need, reason (or ability to) expand the Hulk's ore-holding capabilities and ruining its survivability, what with it being a group mining ship and all and you're meant to have an Orca at hand to handle all the storage, you can now spend all those rig and low slots on making it a tougher ship to destroy (which is further improved by being in the mining fleet with all the support ships you can bring to bear on that problem). 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¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Maul555
Nuts and Vindictive Remix Technologies
284
|
Posted - 2012.06.17 17:04:00 -
[623] - 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? |
Nagarythe Tinurandir
Catholic School for Boys
21
|
Posted - 2012.06.17 17:11:00 -
[624] - Quote
Maul555 wrote: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?
i do it sometimes for fun in a mining op. since the scythe can mount two missile launchers, its perfectly fine against rats, while mining like a bad t1 strip. then the other guys can keep their mining drones out. but it is no serious mining, by no means.
|
Inspiration
Focused Radical Energy Engineering
22
|
Posted - 2012.06.17 17:24:00 -
[625] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Inspiration wrote:This means we need answers on the following:
1. Does the regular cargo hold remain the same size? 2. When the ore hold fills up, does the ore/ice continue to accumulate in the cargo hold? If you dig around in the dev responses you'll find the answers: 1. No. 2. No. Quote:I ask this because a popular fit for hulks is to use two cargo hold extender rigs, adding 2580 m3 on top of the base 8000 m3 of storage. This storage (minus max 1000 m3 for spare mining crystals) , is significantly bigger then the base cargo hold and the new ore hold for the hulk and might actually constitute a nerf if the answer to question 2 is a no. Actually, it's kind of a buff. If you need a lot of cargo space, you'll have at least two and probably four other ships to choose between. Since you no longer have any need, reason (or ability to) expand the Hulk's ore-holding capabilities and ruining its survivability, what with it being a group mining ship and all and you're meant to have an Orca at hand to handle all the storage, you can now spend all those rig and low slots on making it a tougher ship to destroy (which is further improved by being in the mining fleet with all the support ships you can bring to bear on that problem).
You obviously never have seriously mined, or when you did, did so in really horrible setups and with horrible skills that your experience does not really reflect the situation your describing. Else you would not be able to write such fantasy.
You are missing the fact that in a well set up fleet, each hulk pulls so much that it needs more temporary storage to function properly. 8000 m3 sounds like a lot to an unexperienced or low skilled miner, but it is not much when you add the bonuses of a fleet, have maxed skills and an implant to boost mining yield. And lets not forget drones! |
Inspiration
Focused Radical Energy Engineering
22
|
Posted - 2012.06.17 17:30:00 -
[626] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Inspiration wrote:So, mined ore and ice goes to the new special purpose ore hold automatically.
This means we need answers on the following:
1. Does the regular cargo hold remain the same size? 2. When the ore hold fills up, does the ore/ice continue to accumulate in the cargo hold?
I ask this because a popular fit for hulks is to use two cargo hold extender rigs, adding 2580 m3 on top of the base 8000 m3 of storage. This storage (minus max 1000 m3 for spare mining crystals) , is significantly bigger then the base cargo hold and the new ore hold for the hulk and might actually constitute a nerf if the answer to question 2 is a no.
CCP can you answer the above questions? Look at what they mentioned for the Mackinaw/Retriever. And how it's a massive buff for the people you're talking about.
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! |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1941
|
Posted - 2012.06.17 17:52:00 -
[627] - Quote
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? This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
Maul555
Nuts and Vindictive Remix Technologies
284
|
Posted - 2012.06.17 17:58:00 -
[628] - 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 |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1941
|
Posted - 2012.06.17 18:06:00 -
[629] - Quote
Maul555 wrote:just use the new mackinaw instead
This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
Lili Lu
282
|
Posted - 2012.06.17 18:43:00 -
[630] - Quote
DeMichael Crimson wrote:Lili Lu wrote:DeMichael Crimson wrote: If the Tormentor has been changed already, then what mining ship is now being given to new players doing the Amarr Career Agent missions? Also, someone forgot to update the Evelopedia. http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Tormentor Apparently the answer is it doesn't matter. You're just an idiot, see, if it does. You see that your character will lag behind for a week or two til it trains mining cruiser and mining drones for the Arbitrator, doesn't matter. You stupidly rolled a new amarr indusrialist character. Much like the 3 charisma Achura days. Who cares about a long period of imbalance in character generation and advancement? As for the wiki, it's been like that forever. Low priority update for that. It's not like new players would go there for any information. And so it goes ~ . . . Apparently all you can do is post personal attacks towards other players, if continued it will be reported. Look, you need to take that chip off your shoulder. You couldn't even recognize the sarcasm that was directed at CCP and not at you. And the use of that sarcasm to support your position. So let me make it clear and without any comedy, I support your position
You need to settle down and not let your suspicions that everyone is out to get you color you ability to comprehend what appears on the page. Recognize a supportive post. |
|
Inspiration
Focused Radical Energy Engineering
22
|
Posted - 2012.06.17 18:44:00 -
[631] - 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?
The specific role of the hulk among the alternatives is the low strength tank, max mining fit in a fleet:
This implies (for high sec anyway):
* Orca with fleet mining bonuses * Fit for maximum yield (2 x T2 MLU) * Use of mining drones instead of combat drones. * At least 1 mining drone rig, to maximize output. * Likely using 1 mining implant giving 5% bonus to make the most of this all.
Then you mine 2761m3 without drones and 3084m3 with drones on a rock nearby.
With 8000 m3 as storage to buffer the output form this, you can store just under 2 minutes and 35 seconds before the modules shut off and the drones start to idle. Given the cycle time of the modules is 2 minutes and 1-2 seconds, you cannot even store the output of 4 strip miners before modules start stopping.
That means the lack of extra space, makes it extremely cumbersome to mine, every two minutes (tops) you got to empty your ore hold. The extra 15% storage, previously by using rigs was no luxury!
As some already mentioned in this thread, the bonuses from an Rorqual are even stronger. Which somewhat balances as in low/null you really need to tank the hulk and use the lows and rig slots to help with that, which subsequently lowers the amount of m3 per minute.
Tanking the hulk heavily in high sec is just a fools errant as you get ganged just the same and loose ridiculous amount of ore per minute in doing so! Thus we can conclude that is not the hulks role, we get new alternatives to deal with that!
So where does this really leave the Hulk if it needs to have a role?
In need of a bigger ore bay, i would say 14-15k would suffice, but I would be grateful with 12k too. 8k is really not enough for its designated role to be practical. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1941
|
Posted - 2012.06.17 19:03:00 -
[632] - Quote
Inspiration wrote: So where does this really leave the Hulk if it needs to have a role?
In need of a bigger ore bay, i would say 14-15k would suffice, but I would be grateful with 12k too. 8k is really not enough for its designated role to be practical.
I've mined under Orca and Rorq boosts (in null, you still use 2x MLUIIs, you've just always had to use the rigs to tank rats). Moving things once a cycle (time your move right, and you have a 4 minute break [move right before cycle 2 ends, and right after] between activity) is not a big deal.
It has a role. That of best yield. Achieving that takes some effort. To reduce the effort needed, you can stop using mining drones, accept your lasers running dry on occasion, or use the Mackinaw which will be designed with less effort as a goal. All of these effort reducing changes sacrifice varying amounts of yield. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
Maul555
Nuts and Vindictive Remix Technologies
284
|
Posted - 2012.06.17 19:08:00 -
[633] - 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) |
Lili Lu
282
|
Posted - 2012.06.17 19:36:00 -
[634] - Quote
None ofthe Above wrote:Lili Lu wrote:None ofthe Above wrote: Honestly largely agree with Tarryn here, but wish he hadn't started out calling people fools, that's a sure way to have a less than productive conversation. Its a valid point that common heavily used things do not mean overpowered. Are clothes over powered since everyone uses them? Doorknobs? Drake is an example of a ship that works, much like the Rifter is. It should be largely left alone in the rebalance, IMHO.
So of course it's ok to have one "ship that works." Everyone should roll or train Caldari right? And ffs, overpowered has different meanings. Is it so hard not to always interpret it as meaning "it kills everything else"? Of course drakes aren't that. But for the isk, for the sp, for the range of roles it can fill, for the range of other ship classes requiring more isk or sp with which it is able to compete or best, YES it is OP. So how do you propose to balance that situation? Would you buff all the other battlecruisers? What does that do to the utility of Cruisers? Especially now that CCP is trying to buff them up so they are not just a wave as you fly by on the train to BC. To my mind it's a simple matter to cut the hp of the tier 2 back to the same as the tier 1 and deal with the slots and bonuses later during the comprehensive balancing. Also, btw, it's not just null sec drake blobs. You should remember people have alts and other accounts. Drakes are everywhere, in every kind of pve and pvp. This is why the stats are so skewed so heavily to them. The stats would not be so if more ships "worked" as you say, like they do. But everything can't be buffed and accomplish balance. Enhance your calm, Citizen Lu. . . . I fly drakes, other races BCs, among other things. I know the strengths and weaknesses. . . . All of the Tier 2 BCs are pretty decent and more or less on par with the drake. Harbinger a little less then the Drake and Cane. Myrm got nerfed a little hard a ways back, but its still quite serviceable. All the tier 3s are good ships, if you don't mind flying in a glass cannon. (Might consider adding small drone bays to the non gallente Tier 3s, the Talos's drone bay is what makes it solo-able.) I honestly think the Hurricane is every bit as good as the Drake, although with slightly different strengths and weaknesses. Not too many ships can flip from shield to armor like the Cane, very flexible, and who doesn't like projectiles? . . .So slight buffs to Harby and a mild un-nerf to the Myrm. Much love to the former Tier 1s, serious buffs to put them on par. This is exactly the pattern used so far when the test frigs where brought roughly on par with the Rifter. As near as I can tell, that's the plan for the rest of the frigs. As for your question about cruisers, they'll get rebalanced first, so they will likely gain some ground on the BCs before this all happens. Your suggestion of making them all glass cannons, well damn. Sure lets nerf all ships younger pilots can fly so they die in droves to older more experienced pilots. I am sure that will make EVE grow ever more. It doesn't make sense to you that a ship designer might put a bit more tank on a Battelcruiser than a Cruiser? Drake is one of the few ships that the Caldari have that work. Caldari are not overpowered though, just check the FW map for confirmation. No one says roll Caldari if you want to own the battlefield *cough*winmatar*cough*. They have a slight edge in PVE, but that's doable in any race. TL;DR: Stay Calm. Drake not OP. Lol, you think that was an angry post? I assure you I was quite calm when I wrote it. Much as I am now sitting on the patio in a nice summer breeze with the laptop, the dog, and a glass of ice water
To your points- I've flown them all too (not on Lili though). I've repped Drakes in a scimi on Lili. So my "Jihad" is . . not one. Sorry to disappoint you. And, you've got nothing on me as far as flying all BCs.
My point about BCs is that the stats clearly demonstrate that one is much better than the others. The Drake. It doesn't get to be tops on kills for all ships (by a factor of 2 or 3!) per the EVE-Kill stats month after month for years now because EVE players are stupid. Some though don't want to lose the ease and advantage of the Drake.
Noone presently, and I doubt anyone will be, flying Harbinger fleets into battle against BSs in serious sov wars. And small gang fights the same applies, an overabundance of Drakes. In pve Harbingers are not regularly running level 4s, as are Drakes (of course there are better tools for that job though). One of the devs has a twitter feed. He tweeted about one day's module activations. HML IIs were tops, and iirc 4x the second place module which iirc was 800mm ac II. Third was salvager I, which I am more confident I recall correctly. A shield cane has nowhere near the same ehp and range as the Drake. Anyway, the stats don't support your position that any of tier 2 are "on par with the Drake."
Problem with buffing BCs up to Drake level is it leaves Cruisers as a worthless ship class. Ytterbium has already stated they are concerned about and are buffing Cruisers. It appears CCP's plan is to alter BCs down to tier 1 levels, for the very reason that Cruisers should not be easy fodder for BCs. But even the present stats would leave BCs beefier than a buffed Cruiser and not glass cannons. How does it help noobs to leave BCs way better than Cruisers?
As for FW you are overestimating the success Gallente. It is a quite even match atm. Which actually says more about the Gallente side as the NPC Caldari are more difficult to pve, and will continue to be even after the removal of the npc ecm. As for your Caldari plea, take a number. Seen any Amarr cruisers other than the Arby? Only fools fly the present Omen. Conversely, Caldari is much much better for pve and always has been. |
Inspiration
Focused Radical Energy Engineering
22
|
Posted - 2012.06.17 19:40:00 -
[635] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Inspiration wrote: So where does this really leave the Hulk if it needs to have a role?
In need of a bigger ore bay, i would say 14-15k would suffice, but I would be grateful with 12k too. 8k is really not enough for its designated role to be practical.
I've mined under Orca and Rorq boosts (in null, you still use 2x MLUIIs, you've just always had to use the rigs to tank rats). Moving things once a cycle (time your move right, and you have a 4 minute break [move right before cycle 2 ends, and right after] between activity) is not a big deal. It has a role. That of best yield. Achieving that takes some effort. To reduce the effort needed, you can stop using mining drones, accept your lasers running dry on occasion, or use the Mackinaw which will be designed with less effort as a goal. All of these effort reducing changes sacrifice varying amounts of yield.
If the mackinaw mines within 15% (assumption) and can be left alone for 10 minutes, virtually everyone will use that ship instead! All I want is the Hulk be practical (like it is now with rigs). That you can in theory time it right and have a 4 minute window is kind of irrelevant as you still have to develop RSI just to operate the ship under normal conditions. The gap between having over 10 minute storage (plus 2 minutes for a cycle as you say) and a buffer tank versus mining 15% more and having no tank and getting possibly medical issues due to much less storage (which is not even comparable) makes that an easy choice.
I am fine with specific roles and all the boosts to the other ships, but do not nerf the hulk in a sick way. Defending it is just not being critical and it is obvious (especially after my explanation) that it is too weak in an essential area as things stand now. There is a reason why people fitted cargo extenders and rigs to hulks as it is! |
Inspiration
Focused Radical Energy Engineering
22
|
Posted - 2012.06.17 19:42:00 -
[636] - Quote
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! |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1943
|
Posted - 2012.06.17 19:50:00 -
[637] - Quote
Inspiration wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Inspiration wrote: So where does this really leave the Hulk if it needs to have a role?
In need of a bigger ore bay, i would say 14-15k would suffice, but I would be grateful with 12k too. 8k is really not enough for its designated role to be practical.
I've mined under Orca and Rorq boosts (in null, you still use 2x MLUIIs, you've just always had to use the rigs to tank rats). Moving things once a cycle (time your move right, and you have a 4 minute break [move right before cycle 2 ends, and right after] between activity) is not a big deal. It has a role. That of best yield. Achieving that takes some effort. To reduce the effort needed, you can stop using mining drones, accept your lasers running dry on occasion, or use the Mackinaw which will be designed with less effort as a goal. All of these effort reducing changes sacrifice varying amounts of yield. If the mackinaw mines within 15% (assumption) and can be left alone for 10 minutes, virtually everyone will use that ship instead! All I want is the Hulk be practical (like it is now with rigs). That you can in theory time it right and have a 4 minute window is kind of irrelevant as you still have to develop RSI just to operate the ship under normal conditions. The gap between having over 10 minute storage (plus 2 minutes for a cycle as you say) and a buffer tank versus mining 15% more and having no tank and getting possibly medical issues due to much less storage (which is not even comparable) makes that an easy choice. I am fine with specific roles and all the boosts to the other ships, but do not nerf the hulk in a sick way. Defending it is just not being critical and it is obvious (especially after my explanation) that it is too weak in an essential area as things stand now. There is a reason why people fitted cargo extenders and rigs to hulks as it is!
If that choice is easy for you, great, make that choice. Some other people have never had a problem with a Hulk's base cargo hold and are fine with looking at the screen for 30s every 4m.
And since when are 2 click-drags every 4m an RSI inducing pain? I suppose inventors no longer have wrists, or do they have to take their medical bills out of their invention profits? This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
Inspiration
Focused Radical Energy Engineering
22
|
Posted - 2012.06.17 20:10:00 -
[638] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:If that choice is easy for you, great, make that choice. Some other people have never had a problem with a Hulk's base cargo hold and are fine with looking at the screen for 30s every 4m.
And since when are 2 click-drags every 4m an RSI inducing pain? I suppose inventors no longer have wrists, or do they have to take their medical bills out of their invention profits?
Now you are just twisting words, making unrealistic / practically unworkable assumptions and end with plain trolling. You are clearly not worth my time arguing with, it has been going on for to long anyway! Always ending "it is your choice", which is totally irrelevant when it comes to balancing. Might just as well skip the whole exercise of balancing and keep repeating that dull line over and over...it is that stupid a remark! |
Dorian Wylde
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
107
|
Posted - 2012.06.17 20:21:00 -
[639] - Quote
DeMichael Crimson wrote: Also just exactly how does the ORE Frigate provide a mobile platform for mining in hostile space when it has little to no resilience? Talk about a statement that contradicts itself.
It's a frigate, meaning it has a fast align time to get out if hostiles drop in. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8021
|
Posted - 2012.06.17 20:38:00 -
[640] - Quote
Inspiration wrote:You obviously never have seriously mined, or when you did, did so in really horrible setups and with horrible skills that your experience does not really reflect the situation your describing. You are obviously pulling stuff out of your ass to use as an argument since you have nothing else to bring to the table.
Quote:You are missing the fact that in a well set up fleet, each hulk pulls so much that it needs more temporary storage to function properly. No, I'm not missing the fact that a Hulk doesn't need more than 8000m-¦ as a buffer, because it is quite impossible to mine more than 4,000m-¦ per minute (which is what's required to overrun that buffer). And with a bit of clever parking, you won't even need that buffer to begin with GÇö just dump the stuff directly into the nearby Orca.
Quote:If the mackinaw mines within 15% (assumption) and can be left alone for 10 minutes, virtually everyone will use that ship instead! All I want is the Hulk be practical (like it is now with rigs) It will be practical, just not for the slow-paced usage you're aiming for. There will be other ships that serve that niche. Just get out of the GÇ£Hulk = best, must use HulkGÇ¥ mindset and you'll be fine, because that mindset will no longer reflect reality GÇö there will no longer be a GÇ£bestGÇ¥ ship, but rather each ship will be the best one for a particular purpose. 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¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
|
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1944
|
Posted - 2012.06.17 20:48:00 -
[641] - Quote
Inspiration wrote:RubyPorto wrote:If that choice is easy for you, great, make that choice. Some other people have never had a problem with a Hulk's base cargo hold and are fine with looking at the screen for 30s every 4m.
And since when are 2 click-drags every 4m an RSI inducing pain? I suppose inventors no longer have wrists, or do they have to take their medical bills out of their invention profits? Now you are just twisting words, making unrealistic / practically unworkable assumptions and end with plain trolling. You are clearly not worth my time arguing with, it has been going on for to long anyway! Always ending "it is your choice", which is totally irrelevant when it comes to balancing. Might just as well skip the whole exercise of balancing and keep repeating that dull line over and over...it is that stupid a remark!
Each ship will have a Niche. The Hulk will support a fast paced, frenzy of effort to produce a stupendous yield. The Mackinaw will support a slow paced, easy mining experience. The Skiff will support a relaxed experience, secure in the knowledge that ganking you's gonna be a pain.
You're asking for the Hulk to cut into the Mackinaw's shtick. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
Mechael
Ouroboros Executor Collective
133
|
Posted - 2012.06.17 21:09:00 -
[642] - Quote
Katy Ling wrote:it's good to see new and exciting balances on the frigates, where there's more viable frigates than the rifter. perhaps the developers have they're mind already set in things they want to develop and the bonus they want to give to frigates, but i would like to point out some things and why : i think that we could make good use of Logistic frigates. there are plenty of situations that i remember they could be useful. 1) - LVL 1 - 2 missions - granted a frigate / cruiser with a good tank could cover not needing logi, but it would still be nice. 2) - complexes that only allow frigates 3) - Frigate Roaming gangs yes scimitars are better, but frigates warp at 6 A.U instead of the scimitar 3.75 A.U. , so it would confere more mobility to a frigate roaming gang, at expense of less tank. those frigates would be able to fit 4 small / or 2 medium repair / cap transference modules 4) some deadspace logistic modules need a rebalance (less cap activation use), as they spend an insane cap amount, to be of any use to a frigate. (remote armour / shield / capacitor transference) - they use 90 - 120 capacitor compared with the T2 version that uses around 50-60 this is just an idea on how to give some sense to a poorly used section of frigates and modules that seem to have no role or purpose, and could make small roaming gangs more fun and cheap, as well as providing a step on logistics career.
Agreed. Logi frig would be win. So would a leadership bonus frig. I'd rather die in battle against a man who will lie to me, than for a man who will lie to me. |
Mechael
Ouroboros Executor Collective
133
|
Posted - 2012.06.17 21:19:00 -
[643] - Quote
Inspiration wrote:every two minutes (tops) you got to empty your ore hold.
You have to do something every two minutes!? How terrible! Two minutes is surely not enough time to go without doing anything. What, does CCP actually expect us to pay attention while we're playing now? Good lord, what's next? Making mining fun!? How dare they! I'd rather die in battle against a man who will lie to me, than for a man who will lie to me. |
Mortimer Civeri
Aliastra Gallente Federation
112
|
Posted - 2012.06.17 21:41:00 -
[644] - Quote
Inspiration wrote:RubyPorto wrote:If that choice is easy for you, great, make that choice. Some other people have never had a problem with a Hulk's base cargo hold and are fine with looking at the screen for 30s every 4m.
And since when are 2 click-drags every 4m an RSI inducing pain? I suppose inventors no longer have wrists, or do they have to take their medical bills out of their invention profits? Now you are just twisting words, making unrealistic / practically unworkable assumptions and end with plain trolling. You are clearly not worth my time arguing with, it has been going on for to long anyway! Always ending "it is your choice", which is totally irrelevant when it comes to balancing. Might just as well skip the whole exercise of balancing and keep repeating that dull line over and over...it is that stupid a remark! Soon it will be "your choice" whether to go for max yield but have to dock up/move ore a lot, go for lesser yield but larger ore bay so you don't have to dock up quite so much, or even lesser yield but have a tank like a battleship. That is balanced, so it is still "your choice," as to how you want to do things. "I don't know which is worse, ...that everyone has his price, or that the price is always so low." Calvin
|
Euripedies
nul-li-fy RED.OverLord
3
|
Posted - 2012.06.17 21:48:00 -
[645] - Quote
sounds good CCP but PLEASE give black ops, especially my panther, the ability to use the covert ops cloak. Come on, Make the Black Ops ships the lethal stike behind your enemy lines kind of ship we want it to be. Its still weak and pitiful in all the other ways so not to worry about that. It definately has to bring a gang with it. But its standing out like a sore thumb while the rest of the gang is running around cloaked. The "improved cloak" gimps the scan resolution as well and I have to pump up a 10x skill just to make it go faster, cause Im using this gimpy so-called "improved cloak" instead of the covert ops cloak all the cool kids get to use. Cruel and useless CCP |
Tarryn Nightstorm
Hellstar Towing and Recovery
419
|
Posted - 2012.06.17 21:56:00 -
[646] - Quote
Whilst alt-posting and/or sock-puppeting are time-honured EVE-O forum traditions, it is generally considered in good taste to be a bit less brazen about it, Lili Lu. In irae, veritas. |
bloodcroisis
Thunderwaffe Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.17 22:14:00 -
[647] - Quote
so thot i would bring this up but what ur doing to the hulks is going to **** over null sec miners even with a bs on gaurd rats have a nasty habit of going tho tec 2 sheilds on hulks before they can be killed. so ether give hulks a better sheild or give us a ship the size of the orca with about 4 to 5 mining lazers |
ADAM VARIAN
Tactical Tea Baggers Seventh Sanctum.
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.17 22:20:00 -
[648] - Quote
Two words "logistic frigate" now repeat to yourself again.... LOGISTIC FRIGATE |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1947
|
Posted - 2012.06.17 22:27:00 -
[649] - Quote
Covops Logi > ADAM VARIAN wrote:Two words "logistic frigate" now repeat to yourself again.... LOGISTIC FRIGATE
This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
Felter Echerie
Nebadon Experimental Sciences Corp
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.17 22:56:00 -
[650] - Quote
Quote:You have to do something every two minutes!? How terrible! Two minutes is surely not enough time to go without doing anything. What, does CCP actually expect us to pay attention while we're playing now? Good lord, what's next? Making mining fun!? How dare they!
so much win |
|
Vanessa Vansen
Cybermana
40
|
Posted - 2012.06.17 22:58:00 -
[651] - Quote
WOW ... CCP realized that they need a mining frigate when they move the racial mining frigates to combat frigates! Heads up! ... I hope the post in the previous dev blog/patch notes did help remembering that.
Anyway some thing I remember from my old days: - Forget the Procurer and go straight for the Retriever At that time an Osprey was able to mine more than a Procurer and it provided access to combat vessels. That is something to keep in mind when introducing the ore frigate and changeing the mining barges/exhumers. I.e. you might want to think about removing mining bonuses on non-ore ships at the same time.
More things to think about: - EHP It is possible to suicide gank a max (ore) yield hulk in high sec with a cruiser, so there is no need to decrease it further. oh, btw. a max (ice) yield hulk is even worse. In other words: fix the modules! You should be able to fit the same tank or whatever, no matter if you are mining ice or ore (or gas)
- Appealing role Exhumers do have that (Skiff - Mercoxit, Mackinaw - Ice, Hulk - Non-Mercoxit Ore) but mining barges don't.
- Ore Bay As somebody mentioned before, give a decent bay to all the ships, 8000 m3 for the hulk won't do, that does not even hold two cycles of its 3 strip miners (max yield)
I'm looking forward on more details on your plan for the mining frigate/mining barge/exhumer while I hope that it does inclued not only the input mentioned in this blog but also the input of discussions with some experienced miners |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8021
|
Posted - 2012.06.17 23:31:00 -
[652] - Quote
Vanessa Vansen wrote:More things to think about: - EHP It is possible to suicide gank a max (ore) yield hulk in high sec with a cruiser, so there is no need to decrease it further. oh, btw. a max (ice) yield hulk is even worse. In other words: fix the modules! You should be able to fit the same tank or whatever, no matter if you are mining ice or ore (or gas) I don't think they're going to decrease the EHP of the Hulk GÇö just keep it the same, so you can choose between full yield and being largely protected against ganks. Making sure the fitting reqs for ice and ore are the same is sensible though.
Quote:- Ore Bay As somebody mentioned before, give a decent bay to all the ships, 8000 m3 for the hulk won't do, that does not even hold two cycles of its 3 strip miners (max yield) It doesn't need to hold two cycles GÇö that's what the Orca is for. 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¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Tarryn Nightstorm
Hellstar Towing and Recovery
419
|
Posted - 2012.06.17 23:37:00 -
[653] - Quote
Sigh...For ****'s sake [facepalm]
Lili Lu wrote:To your points- I've flown them all too (not on Lili though). I've repped Drakes in a scimi on Lili. So my "Jihad" is . . not one. Sorry to disappoint you. And, you've got nothing on me as far as flying all BCs.
Again, with the condescending generalisations about the playstyles of people you probably don't even know to make your argument look better. Google ad hominem, false-consensus, and/or straw-man argument sometime, then return to us.
Lili Lu wrote: My point about BCs is that the stats clearly demonstrate that one is much better than the others. The Drake. It doesn't get to be tops on kills for all ships (by a factor of 2 or 3!) per the EVE-Kill stats month after month for years now because EVE players are stupid. Some though don't want to lose the ease and advantage of the Drake.
[The usual boilerplate about nulltard sov-wars that real EVE sandbox-players with actual lives, jobs, and families couldn't care less about, and in my experience want nothing to do with for damned good reason]
They demonstrate nothing of the sort. They only demonstrate that it is more popular, as is only natural for a ship that is easy to get into, relatively forgiving of the usual piloting/fitting mistakes for newbies/inexperienced PvP'ers, and versatile--within its limits!*--for PvE so said newbs/inexperienced PvP'ers can make money consistently to fund PvP.
Popular because it actually, you know, works, among a plethora of legacy-designed relics that don't because CCP couldn't be arsed to iterate on their broken game for like forever and a day. This =/= overpowered, nor yet is it a legitimate reason to nerf it, especially given how useful it is--I strongly suspect--in keeping players subbed in what is arguably the most important time-frame, that of (very-)approximately 6 months to 1 year in-game.
Lili Lu wrote: [...] One of the devs has a twitter feed. He tweeted about one day's module activations. HML IIs were tops, and iirc 4x the second place module which iirc was 800mm ac II. Third was salvager I [...]
Oh, goody! Appeal to authority! You're in such fine form today lovely Lili, I really don't see why should you have felt the need to sock-puppet so blatantly earlier? [/sarcasm]
Right, now then:
Exactly how is that statistic compiled?
Does it count as "one" clicking the module once, or every "auto-repeat" cycle? Are group-stacked modules all counted as "one," or as their full number, and if the latter, then is each cycle of each module its own "one-count?" That number also says nothing about what ships those HML IIs are actually mounted on:
Tengu has 5-6 missile slots in typical fits, and with any kind of skill, have a rate of fire almost 3 times faster than a Drake. There are good and sound reasons why it's a popular ship in PvE, where you're going to have a huge amount of weapon-activations regardless--however they're actually quantified--and missiles demonstrably make EVE's gratingly tedious and archaic PvE pass a little easier, as you needn't worry about tracking/transversal at all, and just keep in range.
That kind of implies that EVE's PvE component needs "buffing (read: complete and total ground-up re-invention)," how is that the fault of any one ship/mod?
Lili Lu wrote: Problem with buffing BCs up to Drake level is it leaves Cruisers as a worthless ship class. Ytterbium has already stated they are concerned about and are buffing Cruisers. It appears CCP's plan is to alter BCs down to tier 1 levels [...]
Taking BCs down to the Drake's level would be criminal and completely game-breaking nerf, not a buff.
Indeed, they are buffing cruisers, it would seem. So what's the problem?
And no, it doesn't appear that way at all, nor yet any other way, for that matter. CCP hasn't said anything definite except that they're going to leave off BCs balancing for what will likely be at least the expansion-cycle after this next one. So kindly stop making **** up just because it appeals to your fantasy of easy-mode homogeneity among EVE's ships.
And cruisers, even as they are, if properly fit, flown, and led, and with application of smart tactics are not even close to fodder for BCs:
Yes, in a straight-up 1v1 "MASH TEH BUTAN!!111oneone!" face-brawl, a cruiser will likely die unless the BC pilot is stupid or newb--why is this a negative? Bigger shouldn't, and in EVE doesn't , equal better, but by the same token, smaller shouldn't roflbeatdown bigger unless the former is smart about it.
Fortunately EVE allows one to be/do just that. Best example from my own experience: T1 cruiser gang with RR in a free high-slot and lots of ECM drones (I <3 Vexor), but I can tell you that doing this effectively requires practise and a tight-knit, disciplined fleet, and when things go pear-shaped, then you will die horribly.
Again, this is as it should be, and if I need to explain why...
* The Drake's limits are not at all "soft." Within its niche--as a ranged tank/moderate DPS--it is quite versatile--that's what BCs are supposed to be, FFS!--but running into that wall, especially such that it can't tank the beating, will hurt a lot.
Example:
The "boss" of this escalation pretty much alpha'ed my ass, even with 90% explosive resists, and my Fury missiles--near max-skill--weren't even scratching him. Yeah, I would have liked some of that obvious massive overpowered-ness, right about there! I got urp-sploded because I couldn't keep range, simple as that. IOW, I ran into that "wall of niche." Hard.
Rest well, good ship MRV Majestic, you served long with unswerving honour! ([lolRP] MRV = Minmatar Registered Vessel [/lolRP])
I think I've hit the multi-quote limit, anyway...
Next! In irae, veritas. |
Vanessa Vansen
Cybermana
40
|
Posted - 2012.06.17 23:41:00 -
[654] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Vanessa Vansen wrote:- Ore Bay As somebody mentioned before, give a decent bay to all the ships, 8000 m3 for the hulk won't do, that does not even hold two cycles of its 3 strip miners (max yield) It doesn't need to hold two cycles GÇö that's what the Orca is for. Right but from time to time you might mess up and be happy if you would have enough hold to take two cycles |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8021
|
Posted - 2012.06.17 23:51:00 -
[655] - Quote
Vanessa Vansen wrote:Right but from time to time you might mess up How the hell would you manage that? You have over five minutes to empty it. If you can't manage that, then you've deserved the loss incurred. If you expect to do it often, use a ship that's better suited for you.
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¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Vanessa Vansen
Cybermana
40
|
Posted - 2012.06.17 23:57:00 -
[656] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Vanessa Vansen wrote:Right but from time to time you might mess up How the hell would you manage that? You have over five minutes to empty it. If you can't manage that, then you've deserved the loss incurred. If you expect to do it often, use a ship that's better suited for you. Easily, reading threads in EVE forums like this one, while mining in high sec |
Sizeof Void
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
244
|
Posted - 2012.06.18 00:04:00 -
[657] - Quote
Vanessa Vansen wrote: It is possible to suicide gank a max (ore) yield hulk in high sec with a cruiser, so there is no need to decrease it further. oh, btw. a max (ice) yield hulk is even worse. In other words: fix the modules! You should be able to fit the same tank or whatever, no matter if you are mining ice or ore (or gas)
I hate to tell you this, but you can easily gank a "max yield" (aka untanked) Hulk, in high sec, with a dessie. Check the Hulkageddon killboards and you'll see plenty of examples. Using a cruiser would be overkill. :) |
Vanessa Vansen
Cybermana
40
|
Posted - 2012.06.18 00:26:00 -
[658] - Quote
Sizeof Void wrote:Vanessa Vansen wrote: It is possible to suicide gank a max (ore) yield hulk in high sec with a cruiser, so there is no need to decrease it further. oh, btw. a max (ice) yield hulk is even worse. In other words: fix the modules! You should be able to fit the same tank or whatever, no matter if you are mining ice or ore (or gas)
I hate to tell you this, but you can easily gank a "max yield" (aka untanked) Hulk, in high sec, with a dessie. Check the Hulkageddon killboards and you'll see plenty of examples. Using a cruiser would be overkill. :)
I thought so but I only could remember for sure that it works with a cruiser, hence I mentioned them. Luckily I haven't been mining in high sec lately. |
Lili Lu
283
|
Posted - 2012.06.18 00:37:00 -
[659] - Quote
Tarryn Nightstorm wrote:Whilst alt-posting and/or sock-puppeting are time-honured EVE-O forum traditions, it is generally considered in good taste to be a bit less brazen about it, Lili Lu. Wow, that's quite an assumption. And wrong. OMG there could be someone else, even more than one else, that agrees with me and not you. You are officially a tool. I'm debating whether I'm going to bother reading and responding to your lengthy post below. Or I may just hide your posts, or e-flip you off. |
Tarryn Nightstorm
Hellstar Towing and Recovery
419
|
Posted - 2012.06.18 00:50:00 -
[660] - Quote
Euripedies wrote:sounds good CCP but PLEASE give black ops, especially my panther, the ability to use the covert ops cloak. Come on, Make the Black Ops ships the lethal stike behind your enemy lines kind of ship we want it to be. Its still weak and pitiful in all the other ways so not to worry about that. It definately has to bring a gang with it. But its standing out like a sore thumb while the rest of the gang is running around cloaked. The "improved cloak" gimps the scan resolution as well and I have to pump up a 10x skill just to make it go faster, cause Im using this gimpy so-called "improved cloak" instead of the covert ops cloak all the cool kids get to use. Cruel and useless CCP
^^This.^^
Oh my God, yes.
I think CCP was/is--quite rightly, I might add--deathly afraid of that chassis becoming a just grotesquely over-powered solo "I WIN BUTAN!!111oneone!!" and so they thoughtfully "pre-nerfed" it to prevent that happening.
Again, it must be stressed, the rationale for this is bang-on, but it goes waaaaaaaaaaay the (f-word) too far.
You can't even use the bloody thing in what would arguably be its most major tactical/operational role, that of helping a small(-ish) BLOPs-strike fleet to bypass gate-camps on a nullsec entry gate from the surrounding empire-space systems due to its comical/pitiful jump-range.
Just trust me, and check DOTLAN.
Example:
Want to BLOPs-bridge a group in from Skarkon to L4X-1V and give FCON a kicking? One freaking gate-jump over? Well, you can't. And you can't go anywhere else from that system, either, even with Jump Drive Calibration at level 5 (like a 40-day train, if memory serves).
I'll have to check again, but I believe that this is the case in most empire-to-null entry point areas, if not all.
At the absolute minimum:
CCP, for Gods' sake:
Buff jump-drive/covert-bridge range to something eff'ing useful for its intended role, even if only accessible at heavy skill and/or ISK-cost (which are already covered quite nicely, IMHO).
Reduce jump-fuel use to something almost reasonable (there's a reason these ships are called "pigs" by many of their pilots.).
And yes, remove the cloaked speed-bonus, replace with something combat-useful, and add CovCloak capability. The lack of mobility of BS-size chassis in general--especially these particular chassis' lack of EHP given their as-standard Tech I resist profiles, and fitting-issues--will keep that balanced, although I think their cost and massive skill-investment justifies a proper Tech II resist-profile for their race.
These are not front-line fighting ships, and this will not make them so, this will make them what they (I think?) already are supposed to be, better: Special-Ops logistic/gang-assist platform with a secondary fire-support role.
Or, as someone's forum signature says:
CCP FIX BLACK OPS, FFS In irae, veritas. |
|
Lili Lu
283
|
Posted - 2012.06.18 01:54:00 -
[661] - Quote
Tarryn Nightstorm wrote:Sigh...For ****'s sake [facepalm] . . . {Someone who does not know how to identify false arguments but does apparently know the names for some} . . . {some anecdotal evidence, at least that is evidence not just statments of opinion} . . . {some hypotheticals, ok} . . .{and then this -} Example: The "boss" of this escalation pretty much alpha'ed my ass, even with 90% explosive resists, and my Fury missiles--near max-skill--weren't even scratching him. Yeah, I would have liked some of that obvious massive overpowered-ness, right about there! I got urp-sploded because I couldn't keep range, simple as that. IOW, I ran into that "wall of niche." Hard. Rest well, good ship MRV Majestic, you served long with unswerving honour! ([lolRP] MRV = Minmatar Registered Vessel [/lolRP]) Condescending, hmm. Well, when one is told that "I fly drakes, other races BCs, among other things. I know the strengths and weaknesses" with the clear implication that that is a difference between us, and characterized as on a "Jihad", I think some snark back is appropriate. Sorry that it seems to have affected you more than None ofthe Above . He appears to be a forum alt. A rather young character with a very short corp history. So he probably has a main that for whatever reason he doesn't use for posting. Anyway I'm sure he can take some mild snark back. Afterall his snark was rather mild. None of what he said or what I said in return was ad hominem.
Also, I think you confuse "appeal to authority" with the (admitedly partially incomplete) presentation of evidence. Eve-kill stats are evidence. However, my citation of the dev twitter is open to being called out for incomplete citation to evidence. But it is not appeal to authority, because the numeric evidence is what supports the argument, not the dev status. So, if you want to say stop being lazy and link me the thread or the twitter, then that's fine. But honestly, this is a game, and unfortunately I'm not going to read back through all my posts to find which thread it was that was commenting on which dev's tweets. Sorry. I think you'll have to find it yourself and ask the valid questions you had about how it was compiled. Or just criticize me for not linking, which is fine. Regardless, it is not "appeal to authority."
Also, thank you for stating that Drakes and Tengus are easier. Yes, there is less thinking really with heavy missiles. No wonder about flight direction, angular motion, thus tracking, range of ammo . .. Just, is the target in range? If small or fast and in range use precision, if big use fury, press button. And, "what is this thing called cap?" and "why should I bother watching it for my XLSB, or MAR". So, if the Drake is so easy for new players we should just steer them all that way? I'd rather see Harbingers, Prophecys, Brutixes, Myrms, Cyclones, Feroxes . . . and all the Cruisers viable, challenging, and rewarding for those new players. So really who has the new players interests at heart between you and me?
You seem to think I am a, what was it? Oh yeah "1337-tard nullsec blob-bear piece of *****," Aside from displaying some deep seated anger you have for null-sec players ~ it also shows you know nothing about Lili or other characters I have. But I suppose you looked on Lili's eve-kill or whatever Battleclinic shows (I usually don't go there myself). So I decided to look you up. Both boards only have 1 lifetime kill and 2 lifetime losses for you. Now I could act like you and start designing what I might think are clever names for you, based on that combat history. But instead I'll wonder whether noone you have pvp'd with or against uses killboards, or more importantly that you may operate in-game on another more active character.
Finally as for the dev statments. There is this "WHY WORKING ON FRIGATES FIRST WHEN SO MANY OTHER SHIPS CLASSES ARE BROKEN?(battlecruisers in particular) " from CCP Ytterbium's post itt. I don't know how long you've been following this issue tbh. But again, I'm going to be a bit lazy and not search back through the dev statments about their concern over new players rushing past cruisers to tier 2 BCs. I'm also not going to bother finding the statements in previous blogs and dev posts where after many years they finally acknowledged that the Drake is overrepresented and does not suffer the same forced fitting choices as other ships. But they're out there. Regardless, really, why so mad? I'm the one that is sad. Addressing this problem they have put off for at least another year.
Now, in all honesty, you need to take a chill pill. You come on here accusing me of a like post with an alt. That character is not my alt. In fact I think he (she (if only)) is someone for whom english may be a second language. You also continue to throw names. You don't know what you think you know. |
Maul555
Nuts and Vindictive Remix Technologies
284
|
Posted - 2012.06.18 02:38:00 -
[662] - 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. |
Tarryn Nightstorm
Hellstar Towing and Recovery
419
|
Posted - 2012.06.18 02:48:00 -
[663] - Quote
Precisely why I rarely bother checking combat-records, honey, even for "known mains."
In Alts-Online, they ultimately mean little, if anything. And Tarryn is my "co-main," not an alt in the traditional sense. On my "main-main" I have extensive PvP experience in a great many ships, in all types of EVE-space, over a great deal of time. That's not normally what Tarryn is for, and I am finding EVE PvP more and more boring of late, to be quite brutally honest. No, it's not the Drake's fault, nor any one ship's.
I don't need to check combat-records to know that you are almost certainly a null-sec alt:
Your holier-than-all mentality, combined with trying to tie OP-ness to whatever sov-warfare fleet-comps are the thing this week, plus your entitlement-mentality in thinking that your way is the only right way, and that you shall have it if you just stamp your feet enough, just scream it.
I wasn't trying to attack None ofthe Above at all, I agree with him, actually (usually, anyway). If I'd wanted to attack him, then I would have quoted him, not you.
(Again, read what I actually wrote.)
Numbers used as evidence =/= numbers being evidence when any analytical rigour is applied:
On what ships are those HML II's--all of them, CCP would have this information, though compiling it is not a job I would envy anyone--mounted?
Tengu, Drake, Caracal, Cerberus, plus any of umpty-dozen ships that can mount HMLs as a secondary weapon? Where is the breakdown for this?
Those numbers, tied in with CCPDiagoras' (I believe it's him that does that? I avoid Twitter like the blight it is, sorry 'bout that) raw numbers, those might be called actual evidence, given proper contextual breakdown.
And yes, you are appealing to authority: "I'm right because even CCP says...!" Even when they actually said nothing beyond that HML IIs are a popular weapon system. Context, we can has, pls?
Missile-combat has its limits precisely because range, target absolute velocity, and signature-radius are the only parameters that determine base-damage--further balanced/limited by time-to-target. Turret-combat may be more difficult/dynamic, but also ultimately allows more options. It's why many high-end PvP and PvE ships in the hands of experienced pilots are often gun-boats. (Machariel? Paladin? Vargur? Most Minmatar, Gallente, and pirate-faction ships? Hello?)
I'm not using hypotheticals--I'm using my own experiences, plus those of most EVE players I know and talk to, and have known/talked to over 3.5 years playing. Granted, that's not strictly correct either, as that's still anecdotal, and I should have explicitly said that that's where that came from--I do so here. (Character limits are a ***** when I get rolling)
Stop trying to ruin this game for who knows how large a proportion of its playerbase, just because you don't like something that a lot of them use, for good and sound reasons. "I don't like it, therefore no-one else should benefit from it" is not a good enough reason to nerf or buff anything. Neither is something being popular because it's an example of good game-design in a vast sea of crap--CCP is finally working on the crap, and ::nerfbat NAOW!!!:: is not the best or only way to fix things.
Unless you're dealing with blap-Titans, because those were just dumb.
I don't like bubbles, and think they're a rather comically grotesque form of overpowered easy-mode, but you don't see me crying for ::nerfbat:: And they're easily enough countered and/or avoided, anyway.
Why shouldn't Caldari missile-ships be efficient for PvE? They are not the only ships that are, or can be, by a long shot. Where is the problem here?
What you advocate will only homogenise both PvP and PvE combat even more than it already is, and that is the last thing this game needs.
In irae, veritas. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8023
|
Posted - 2012.06.18 03:07:00 -
[664] - Quote
Maul555 wrote: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.... Nano nerf was a far larger change than this. 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¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1949
|
Posted - 2012.06.18 03:08:00 -
[665] - Quote
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 shit), 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 hell are you guys still whinging? This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
Lili Lu
283
|
Posted - 2012.06.18 03:14:00 -
[666] - Quote
Tarryn Nightstorm wrote: stuff
Again you missed much of what I was saying, for instance thinking I thought you were attacking the other guy. And eve is already homogenized with the Drake and Tengu. Ship rebalancing is coming. Bemoan the change that will come to your precious drake.
I'm done arguing with you. I'm using the wonderful hide posts button on these forums, so I don't waste any more time.
|
Commander A9
East Khanid Trading Khanid Trade Syndicate
20
|
Posted - 2012.06.18 03:16:00 -
[667] - Quote
Oh, that's great! That means my cargorigs on my Hulk are useless. Thanks alot! [sarcasm].
You want to balance the Hulk and mining barges? Then fix their defensive capabilities and pump up their powergrid and CPU! You can't tank a Mackinaw for crap willing killing your CPU grid!
Why do I feel like this is another attempt at punishing industrialists for no clear-cut reason? If CCP wants to make changes: -rollback to old inventory system (pre-Inferno) -enable ships wobbling in hangar view (pre-Captains Quarters) -add more missions (NPC fleet vs. NPC fleets that actually shoot) -stop "fixing" what isn't "broken" |
Maul555
Nuts and Vindictive Remix Technologies
285
|
Posted - 2012.06.18 03:18:00 -
[668] - 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? |
Commander A9
East Khanid Trading Khanid Trade Syndicate
20
|
Posted - 2012.06.18 03:23:00 -
[669] - Quote
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. If CCP wants to make changes: -rollback to old inventory system (pre-Inferno) -enable ships wobbling in hangar view (pre-Captains Quarters) -add more missions (NPC fleet vs. NPC fleets that actually shoot) -stop "fixing" what isn't "broken" |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
2084
|
Posted - 2012.06.18 03:28:00 -
[670] - Quote
bloodcroisis wrote:so thot i would bring this up but what ur doing to the hulks is going to **** over null sec miners even with a bs on gaurd rats have a nasty habit of going tho tec 2 sheilds on hulks before they can be killed. so ether give hulks a better sheild or give us a ship the size of the orca with about 4 to 5 mining lazers
You need to check with your mining people (assuming you have any). There are ways of dealing with null sec rats, specifically drawing agro to a tanker and not killing off the entire spawn.
If your Hulk gets shot at by the belt rats, you are doing it wrong. When I check troll in the dictionary, it has a photo shopped picture of you standing somewhere in the vicinity of a point.
Also, I can kill you with my brain. |
|
Maul555
Nuts and Vindictive Remix Technologies
285
|
Posted - 2012.06.18 03:31:00 -
[671] - 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. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8024
|
Posted - 2012.06.18 03:31:00 -
[672] - Quote
Commander A9 wrote:You want to balance the Hulk and mining barges? Then fix their defensive capabilities and pump up their powergrid and CPU! You can't tank a Mackinaw for crap willing killing your CPU grid! You mean exactly what they're doing: buffing the inherent damage-soaking abilities of the smaller barges and exhumers so that they are tanked by default, with the Hulk being more focused on external protection and support for survival (and the removal of those cargo rigs are a boon to you GÇö it means you can make your Hulk stronger instead of weaker).
Quote:Why do I feel like this is another attempt at punishing industrialists for no clear-cut reason? Possibly because you haven't thought about what this will offer those industrialists: more options, more abilities to match your equipment to your needs, and better ability to really focus those ships to what they do best. This is a massive buff to miners.
Quote: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, you could read the blogGǪ
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. 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¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Tarryn Nightstorm
Hellstar Towing and Recovery
419
|
Posted - 2012.06.18 03:31:00 -
[673] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:[self-righteousness]
Yeah, whatever, tell it to someone who cares, troll.
I think that it will be you who will find the ultimate results of the full balancing-pass much more disappointing than me.
Next! In irae, veritas. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
2084
|
Posted - 2012.06.18 03:32:00 -
[674] - Quote
Commander A9 wrote:Oh, that's great! That means my cargorigs on my Hulk are useless. Thanks alot! [sarcasm].
You want to balance the Hulk and mining barges? Then fix their defensive capabilities and pump up their powergrid and CPU! You can't tank a Mackinaw for crap willing killing your CPU grid!
Why do I feel like this is another attempt at punishing industrialists for no clear-cut reason?
You are receiving a huge buff, and a fleet of mining vessels tailor made for any type of mining you might want to do, and a specialized ore bay that opens up a huge variety of fitting options, and you are complaining about cargo rigs.
Only a miner would look at these buffs and complain that you are getting the shaft (pun intended). When I check troll in the dictionary, it has a photo shopped picture of you standing somewhere in the vicinity of a point.
Also, I can kill you with my brain. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
2084
|
Posted - 2012.06.18 03:34:00 -
[675] - Quote
Tarryn Nightstorm wrote:Lili Lu wrote:[self-righteousness]
Yeah, whatever, tell it to someone who cares, troll. I think that it will be you who will find the ultimate results of the full balancing-pass much more disappointing than me. Next!
Fortunately, every idiot is allowed a chance to express their opinion.
You've had yours.
Next! When I check troll in the dictionary, it has a photo shopped picture of you standing somewhere in the vicinity of a point.
Also, I can kill you with my brain. |
Sizeof Void
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
244
|
Posted - 2012.06.18 03:39:00 -
[676] - Quote
Maul555 wrote: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. A valid question, since this applies not only to the mining ships, but many other ships, as well. And, since CCP is planning on redesigning most - if not all - of the ships in the game, it is a question which does need an answer.
By redesigning the existing ships to fit new roles, many of the current fits will become invalid, obsolete or useless - thus, forcing rigs to be replaced - ie. destroyed - to update the fits. For example, redesigning a missile boat into a gun ship completely invalidates any missile rigs which are installed on existing ships.
As an alternative to unnecessary player rage, whining and tears, CCP could opt to automatically remove the rigs from all instances of the redesigned ships, and put them in either the station hanger, or the ship's cargohold. This sort of thing has been done by CCP in the past, so I'd think it would not be all that difficult to implement for the future.
A fairly simple solution, I think, to which no one is likely to object. After all, you can always reinstall the rig, if you still want it on that particular ship. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1949
|
Posted - 2012.06.18 03:41:00 -
[677] - Quote
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 shit 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.) This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1949
|
Posted - 2012.06.18 03:43:00 -
[678] - Quote
Tippia wrote: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'm actually not. I used to be. Still have the good exhumer skills on my sheet, but I haven't flown one in years. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1949
|
Posted - 2012.06.18 03:45:00 -
[679] - Quote
Commander A9 wrote:Oh, that's great! That means my cargorigs on my Hulk are useless. Thanks alot! [sarcasm].
You want to balance the Hulk and mining barges? Then fix their defensive capabilities and pump up their powergrid and CPU! You can't tank a Mackinaw for crap willing killing your CPU grid!
Why do I feel like this is another attempt at punishing industrialists for no clear-cut reason?
I want CCP to punish PvPers the way they punish miners. We want this type of punishment.
How is giving you 5 new valid choices in your deck-o-mining boats a punishment? Dear god. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
Maul555
Nuts and Vindictive Remix Technologies
285
|
Posted - 2012.06.18 03:50:00 -
[680] - 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. |
|
Tarryn Nightstorm
Hellstar Towing and Recovery
419
|
Posted - 2012.06.18 03:51:00 -
[681] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:
Fortunately, every idiot is allowed a chance to express their opinion.
[...]
A good thing, else you'd have been perma-banned years ago.
In irae, veritas. |
Maul555
Nuts and Vindictive Remix Technologies
285
|
Posted - 2012.06.18 04:00:00 -
[682] - 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. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1949
|
Posted - 2012.06.18 04:05:00 -
[683] - Quote
Maul555 wrote: 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.
Fair enough. The Hulk doesn't need tweaks. It's now meant to be the most fragile, least user friendly ship in the line. In exchange, it has the best yield.
Before that, it was simply the best, and you don't fix an occupation by buffing the best, you do it by buffing the rest to compete. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1949
|
Posted - 2012.06.18 04:07:00 -
[684] - Quote
Maul555 wrote: 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.
I used to be a HS miner, hardcore. That WH loss represented the only ship (other than some scanning ships) that I brought into the WH.
I never lost a Hulk in HS because you have to be braindead to lose a Hulk in HS. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
Maul555
Nuts and Vindictive Remix Technologies
285
|
Posted - 2012.06.18 04:16:00 -
[685] - 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
|
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1950
|
Posted - 2012.06.18 04:24:00 -
[686] - Quote
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. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
ergherhdfgh
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
33
|
Posted - 2012.06.18 04:55:00 -
[687] - Quote
sYnc Vir wrote:
No, Your Giffin wants to be a Merlin. Giffins are a support ship for the most part.
But isn't that just sticking to the same combat style just with hybrids instead of projectiles? Is there only one way to fight in this game or are people just being closed minded? If there is truly no way that a Grifffin could beat a Rifter then I think that is a broken mechanic.
I mean the Griffin has 2 launchers a turret and a drone. I'd think if you could get a point on a rifter and jam him that unless he has ECCM fitted you should be able to take him down eventually.
What it seems to me CCP is trying to do is turn every ship into a rifter. I think a ship like the merlin should not be even with the rifter in 1 v 1 due to the fact that the resist bonus gives it an unfair advantage in fleet fights with cheap T1 logis around.
Caldari and Amarr resist bonuses multiply the effect of RR where the Minmatar and Gallente rep amount bonus do not. Therefore Gallente and Minmatar should be a little better in solo fights or fights where RR is not present to compensate for that.
I saw a dev blog trying to figure out a way to make it so that all 4 races got the same effect from RR. What I am talking about is encouraging a diversity of play styles instead of homogenizing combat even more than it already is.
|
Vrykolakasis
Trinity Operations Aurora Irae
42
|
Posted - 2012.06.18 06:48:00 -
[688] - Quote
My Nightmare gets five times the capacitor capacity and regeneration. I don't ever have to fit a capacitor module again - I can run all my lasers and any tanking modules I want, forever, at full cap stability! HOW DARE YOU MAKE ME GET RID OF MY CAPACITOR RIGS??????
^ This is what you sound like. |
Ribikoka
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
234
|
Posted - 2012.06.18 11:26:00 -
[689] - Quote
Tarryn Nightstorm wrote:Sigh...For ****'s sake [facepalm]
Yes facepalm, because you wrote idiotic things.
You want to proof ? Drake Rebalance Topic
Check the datas. Everything was wrote there earlier.
http://eve-kill.net/?a=top20
1 Drake 95646 kills (almost double numbers than any ships)
Most used weapons:
1 Heavy Missile Launcher II 34381
The drakes is OP, need rebalance and nerf. The buff of cruisers not help for problems. 500+ drake fleets in 0.0. Drake blobs everywhere and the missile spam eat server resources more than any gunboat fleet.
And stop those arguments, how you playing 3.5 years ago. Many players playing with this game more than 9 years ago, just like me too. |
Ribikoka
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
235
|
Posted - 2012.06.18 12:26:00 -
[690] - Quote
What ship to need to rebalance:
Coercer > Need +1 mid slot Move interceptors back to line, after faction and pirate frig buff, push them back to bad category.
Nerf drake blobs somehow.
Malediction !!! Long range tackler with short range weapon platform ? Really ? Unlogical and bad developed design.
Gallentean ships need much love. Make them faster and agile, that's need for their short range weapon system. After speed nerf and web nerf these ships got disadvantages.
|
|
Louis deGuerre
The Dark Tribe Against ALL Authorities
331
|
Posted - 2012.06.18 13:05:00 -
[691] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Wall of Text
Great stuff and amazing feedback. I'm pretty much in favour of allmost all of the plans, except making solo Hulk miner live harder.
FIRE FRIENDSHIP TORPEDOES ! Louis's epic skill guide v1.1 |
sYnc Vir
Wolfsbrigade Lost Obsession
229
|
Posted - 2012.06.18 13:21:00 -
[692] - Quote
Louis deGuerre wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:Wall of Text Great stuff and amazing feedback. I'm pretty much in favour of allmost all of the plans, except making solo Hulk miner live harder.
They are giving you an ENTIRE new ship, god as im miner im pretty pissed at my fellows. Not only have I had to put up with most of you bitching about being too easy to kill, now we have people bitching that your Hulk will suck after the changes.
1st, wait for the changes to actually be announced. 2nd, Embrace the possibiliity that maybe the Hulk isn't going to be the right ship for you anymore. 3rd, For the love of god understand its a MMO, playing along side OTHER PEOPLE, should be, is, and should always be BETTER.
This is what to expect from removal of Teirs. Ships will no get used for their role, rather than the extra crap they USE to have. |
Maul555
Nuts and Vindictive Remix Technologies
285
|
Posted - 2012.06.18 13:48:00 -
[693] - 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? |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
2085
|
Posted - 2012.06.18 14:15:00 -
[694] - Quote
Tarryn Nightstorm wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:
Fortunately, every idiot is allowed a chance to express their opinion.
[...]
A good thing, else you'd have been perma-banned years ago.
I count myself among those idiots proudly.
The only difference is that I know when to NOT take myself so seriously. When I check troll in the dictionary, it has a photo shopped picture of you standing somewhere in the vicinity of a point.
Also, I can kill you with my brain. |
Gainard
Eurotech Industries
62
|
Posted - 2012.06.18 15:41:00 -
[695] - Quote
The changes to the mining ships as a whole sound good to me, lets see how the actual changes are.
I have a few thoughts on this I wish to share: Currently the safest area for mining is 0.0 - any not blue appears, you scramble. If you run everytime a new ship enters the system in high sec you will never ever mine a decent amount of ore - its just not doable. Only after the attacker has warped in that you can try to run. If the attacker puts a point on you - for which he has plenty of time, even if you are aligned, you are dead.
Give the miners a fighting chance. Any barge should be able to withstand at least 3 salvos of a good skilled destroyer pilot. Any mining barge should be able to target a suicide ganker in such a fashion (i.e. short time) that they are able to counter attack with their drones. You can not attack the SG as it is now. Who would want his 300-500+Mill Hulk be blown up by Concord for a preemptive strike? Only after the SG fire their first shot can one counter attack, which is futile now. Let the suicide gankers at least risk to be blown apart by sufficiently (drone) skilled miners. The SG should not get away with a 2Mill Destroyer against a highly skilled adversary in a Hulk. If the suicide gankers use Battlecruisers to accomplish their goal and avoid being ripped apart by the drones, they have to spend at least a decent ammount of ISK on the ship that will eventually be blown up by Concord. Suicide ganking should still be possible, but not as easy or as cheap is it is now.
The orehold of Hulk, Skiff and Mackinaw (when icemining) should be large enough to hold two cycles of a perfect miner with a perfect supporter (both with implants and maxed out skills). Anything less is clickageddon. One of the Mackinaws' Iceminers already switches off at the begin of the second cycle although there is space left - not enough to hold the full cycle return, but more than 0m3. Check the space left only at the end of the cycle, not at the beginning.
When you add an orehold the cargohold does not need to be that big, it just needs to hold a decent amount of spare crystals and crystals for different ores. I think about 1000m3 should be sufficient for most circumstances. Mining in a remote location (no station) with 3 different ores plus replacement crystals: 3x6x50 = 900m3. 1.000m3 would leave some space for rat loot or 2 more crystals of choice, while not increasing the cargo capacity in a meaningful manner for a high skilled miner. If you want to prevent an additional block of ice being stored make it 999m3.
To make the Procurer useful it needs to be able to fit 3 stripminers. Which of course would require the retriever to fit 3 as well. Add a multiplicator to assign a bonus/malus as you seem fit. A Procurer will never become popular with just 1 stripminer and most likely not even with 2, no matter what the cargo-/orehold or the tank. If I can fit a battleship with 8 MinerII and it outmines the procurer, guess what I will use? If I can use a Hulk and even though I have to dock frequently I still outmine the Procurer, guess what I will use. In a dangerous area, where the Hulk perishes soon, how much longer will a scrambled Pocurer last? Guess who will mine there?
To make the Mackinaw more useful allow the medium slots to be used. Currently one can only put a couple of civilian shield booster there - which is just enough to fend off rat damage in upper high sec areas...
Make the cargohold extenders/rigs apply to the Orehold, please!!! I know you won't, but I would love this On a (relatively) small cargohold those are nearly useless and therefore a waste of slots.
Don't buff the Hulk beyond recognition, it takes a lot of time to get there, which should still be worthwhile. Adding the ore miner skill should take care of the training time / usefullness rate between T1 and T2 barges.
Mining cruisers - increase ore-/cargohold to make them usefull. Any Destroyer outmines them and they even come with more cargo... Better yet, skip the dedicated mining frigates, they are to small. Make the mining cruisers the entry level for dedicated mining, with a decent bonus and a suitable cargohold. Ofc one should still be able to mine in a frigate, just skip the mining bonus there. For UI look up FUBAR on Google. For EVE see SNAFU. url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_slang_terms |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1963
|
Posted - 2012.06.18 15:46:00 -
[696] - Quote
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? This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1963
|
Posted - 2012.06.18 15:57:00 -
[697] - Quote
Gainard wrote: Give the miners a fighting chance. Any barge should be able to withstand at least 3 salvos of a good skilled destroyer pilot. Any mining barge should be able to target a suicide ganker in such a fashion (i.e. short time) that they are able to counter attack with their drones. You can not attack the SG as it is now. Who would want his 300-500+Mill Hulk be blown up by Concord for a preemptive strike? Only after the SG fire their first shot can one counter attack, which is futile now. Let the suicide gankers at least risk to be blown apart by sufficiently (drone) skilled miners. The SG should not get away with a 2Mill Destroyer against a highly skilled adversary in a Hulk. If the suicide gankers use Battlecruisers to accomplish their goal and avoid being ripped apart by the drones, they have to spend at least a decent ammount of ISK on the ship that will eventually be blown up by Concord. Suicide ganking should still be possible, but not as easy or as cheap is it is now.
In order: They all can, as they have more than 3k EHP. Set drones to agressive Set ECM drones to agressive, or bring a friend in something with sebos. A tanked hulk with either a friend in a fast locking Gank BC or RR ship means Alpha is required (in fact, 6 Tornados are required.
So stop fitting and flying your ship bad, and you have everything you want.
Nullsec is safe due to the large amount of effort expended by a large number of people.
Quote: The orehold of Hulk, Skiff and Mackinaw (when icemining) should be large enough to hold two cycles of a perfect miner with a perfect supporter (both with implants and maxed out skills). Anything less is clickageddon. One of the Mackinaws' Iceminers already switches off at the begin of the second cycle although there is space left - not enough to hold the full cycle return, but more than 0m3. Check the space left only at the end of the cycle, not at the beginning.
2 clicks every ten minutes. Oh, the horror.
Quote:To make the Procurer useful it needs to be able to fit 3 stripminers. Which of course would require the retriever to fit 3 as well. Add a multiplicator to assign a bonus/malus as you seem fit. A Procurer will never become popular with just 1 stripminer and most likely not even with 2, no matter what the cargo-/orehold or the tank. If I can fit a battleship with 8 MinerII and it outmines the procurer, guess what I will use? If I can use a Hulk and even though I have to dock frequently I still outmine the Procurer, guess what I will use. In a dangerous area, where the Hulk perishes soon, how much longer will a scrambled Pocurer last? Guess who will mine there? To make the Mackinaw more useful allow the medium slots to be used. Currently one can only put a couple of civilian shield booster there - which is just enough to fend off rat damage in upper high sec areas... Make the cargohold extenders/rigs apply to the Orehold, please!!! I know you won't, but I would love this On a (relatively) small cargohold those are nearly useless and therefore a waste of slots. Don't buff the Hulk beyond recognition, it takes a lot of time to get there, which should still be worthwhile. Adding the ore miner skill should take care of the training time / usefullness rate between T1 and T2 barges. Mining cruisers - increase ore-/cargohold to make them usefull. Any Destroyer outmines them and they even come with more cargo... Better yet, skip the dedicated mining frigates, they are to small. Make the mining cruisers the entry level for dedicated mining, with a decent bonus and a suitable cargohold. Ofc one should still be able to mine in a frigate, just skip the mining bonus there.
Seriously? They said that they'd be buffing the yield of the Procurer/Retriever. Might want to wait to see the numbers before you **** yourself over them
Mining Cruisers are going the way of the Dodo, replaced by an Ore Frig.
If they're a waste of slots, don't use them... *gasp*
Scrambled industrial ships die unless CONCORD responds quickly. In areas without CONCORD, they just die. The trick is to not get scrambled. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8031
|
Posted - 2012.06.18 16:09:00 -
[698] - Quote
Gainard wrote:You can not attack the SG as it is now. Who would want his 300-500+Mill Hulk be blown up by Concord for a preemptive strike? Only after the SG fire their first shot can one counter attack, which is futile now. Let the suicide gankers at least risk to be blown apart by sufficiently (drone) skilled miners. The SG should not get away with a 2Mill Destroyer against a highly skilled adversary in a Hulk. They can't as it is, as long as the Hulk is well fitted. These changes remove the need to ruin your Hulk's defensive capabilities with cargo expanders and optimisers. The Hulk, in particular, is now meant to be used in groups so you can start considering having Logi support as part of that work package and the Hulk's buffer is more than enough to let that Logi do its thing. Yes, you could always try to alpha the Hulk, but the amount of ships needed for that will easily set you back more than the Hulk costs and far more than the gank will ever pay. The only thing that makes ganking cheap is the miners and their willingness to do everything to make the gankers' lives easier.
Quote:The orehold of Hulk, Skiff and Mackinaw (when icemining) should be large enough to hold two cycles of a perfect miner with a perfect supporter (both with implants and maxed out skills). Anything less is clickageddon. Having to empty your cargo hold every two minutes (at the most) isn't really clickageddon, and it's only the Hulk that needs to do that since it'll be the only one that will be slightly low on space. That is also the whole point: if you want that max yield, you have to work for it. As such, adding ore hold expanders would defeat the purpose of this set of changes.
Quote:On a (relatively) small cargohold those are nearly useless and therefore a waste of slots. GǪwhich is why you shouldn't use them (even right now): because they weaken your ship and they aren't entirely needed. Now there will be absolutely no reason not to fit those rig slots with tank, which is only ever a good thing. 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¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
None ofthe Above
230
|
Posted - 2012.06.18 16:09:00 -
[699] - Quote
Ribikoka wrote:Tarryn Nightstorm wrote:Sigh...For ****'s sake [facepalm] Yes facepalm, because you wrote idiotic things. You want to proof ? Drake Rebalance TopicCheck the datas. Everything was wrote there earlier. http://eve-kill.net/?a=top201 Drake 95646 kills (almost double numbers than any ships) Most used weapons: 1 Heavy Missile Launcher II 34381 The drakes is OP, need rebalance and nerf. The buff of cruisers not help for this problem. 500+ drake fleets in 0.0. Drake blobs everywhere and the missile spam eat server resources more than any gunboat fleet. And stop those arguments, how you playing 3.5 years ago. Many players playing with this game more than 9 years ago, just like me too.
Your link leads to a thread of arguments from people who are on both sides of this argument, hardly proof of any conclusion.
As for stats, Hurricane and Drake used to be fairly neck and neck, until a certain large alliance started fielding huge fleets of them. Did the Drake suddenly become OP at that point? Frequency =/= OP. After they are done with the Drake (and once CCP gets it in their head to nerf something they usually go way too far), I presume you would be screaming just as loudly to nerf the Hurricane as it becomes the fleet doctrine whelp-BC?
As for lag and server resources, are you seriously going to say the Drake is OP due to server resource use? That's more a problem for CCP to fix, and to my understanding they have made great strides in that direction.
The drake is a good ship. But there are plenty of other good ships out there. Don't start the fail-cascade of nerfing anything that works for balance's sake, because when that cycle is done all we have left are crap ships and stories from old timers who lament about the good old days when there where ships that where good to fly.
|
Ribikoka
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
235
|
Posted - 2012.06.18 16:37:00 -
[700] - Quote
None ofthe Above wrote:Ribikoka wrote:Tarryn Nightstorm wrote:Sigh...For ****'s sake [facepalm] Yes facepalm, because you wrote idiotic things. You want to proof ? Drake Rebalance TopicCheck the datas. Everything was wrote there earlier. http://eve-kill.net/?a=top201 Drake 95646 kills (almost double numbers than any ships) Most used weapons: 1 Heavy Missile Launcher II 34381 The drakes is OP, need rebalance and nerf. The buff of cruisers not help for this problem. 500+ drake fleets in 0.0. Drake blobs everywhere and the missile spam eat server resources more than any gunboat fleet. And stop those arguments, how you playing 3.5 years ago. Many players playing with this game more than 9 years ago, just like me too. ***
You are wrong. That is not arguments, that's truth and no matter you like it or not. The drakes overpowered. That's why 0.0 alliances using them. Easily to tank them with logistics, they have infinity cap (fleet doctrines), they have relative long shoting range. They have ridiculous large HP than other BCs. Those informations at hyperlinks not lying and the +500 drake fleets it's a real problem already. http://dl.eve-files.com/media/1206/Drake3LSE.jpg and you said this ship is not overpowered. 232.5 passive shield HP regenerations / seconds it's a bad joke too (2615HP/11.25sec). 2x large armor repairer (not medium) can healing 1600HP/11.25 sec. So what do you talk about it ? |
|
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2539
|
Posted - 2012.06.18 16:45:00 -
[701] - Quote
Ribikoka wrote:What ship to need to rebalance:
Coercer > Need +1 mid slot Move interceptors back to line, after faction and pirate frig OP buff, CCP push them back to bad category.
Nerf drake blobs somehow.
Malediction !!! Long range tackler with short range weapon platform ? Really ? Unlogical and bad developed design.
Gallentean ships need much love. Make them faster and agile, that's need for their short range weapon system. After speed nerf and web nerf these ships got disadvantages.
My personal thoughts:
Coercer - meh, everyone bitches about the lack of a midslot but its called a *coercer*. You get your kills exactly like the ship name says, by convincing the enemy they can take you down and WHAM they're dead. I've seen this down (yes, in solo fights) so many countless times I just don't see a real reason why all ships MUST have two mid slots. ....but on the other hand, the universe won't implode if it did.
Drakes - is it the Drake that's the problem, or the blob? Not much you can do about the blob, that's the drawback of EVE combat and not a reason to nerf a ship, though you could certainly make the case that Drakes need some.....adjustment ;)
Malediction - I don't think you understand tackle frigs, TBH. Their job is not to apply DPS to the thing they are tackling, there should be plenty of other ships around for that purpose. *Any* DPS on a pure tackle frig / inty is there for one reason - self defence, usually against drones. In that case, the small caliber turrets and short range rockets the fleet ceptors fit are quite suitable.
Gallente ships - this is exactly what they buffed, on almost every single hull, in Crucible. While there is lots of other things that will help the Gallente out (the new drone damage mod, the proposed sensor damp fix which will force more fighting against gallente ships into short range) I don't know that you're going to convince CCP that speed is still the major issue when they just got finished buffing speed and agility across the board. Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
Ribikoka
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
235
|
Posted - 2012.06.18 17:18:00 -
[702] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Ribikoka wrote:What ship to need to rebalance:
Coercer > Need +1 mid slot Move interceptors back to line, after faction and pirate frig OP buff, CCP push them back to bad category.
Nerf drake blobs somehow.
Malediction !!! Long range tackler with short range weapon platform ? Really ? Unlogical and bad developed design.
Gallentean ships need much love. Make them faster and agile, that's need for their short range weapon system. After speed nerf and web nerf these ships got disadvantages. My personal thoughts: Coercer - meh, everyone bitches about the lack of a midslot but its called a *coercer*. You get your kills exactly like the ship name says, by convincing the enemy they can take you down and WHAM they're dead. I've seen this down (yes, in solo fights) so many countless times I just don't see a real reason why all ships MUST have two mid slots. ....but on the other hand, the universe won't implode if it did. Drakes - is it the Drake that's the problem, or the blob? Not much you can do about the blob, that's the drawback of EVE combat and not a reason to nerf a ship, though you could certainly make the case that Drakes need some.....adjustment ;) Malediction - I don't think you understand tackle frigs, TBH. Their job is not to apply DPS to the thing they are tackling, there should be plenty of other ships around for that purpose. *Any* DPS on a pure tackle frig / inty is there for one reason - self defence, usually against drones. In that case, the small caliber turrets and short range rockets the fleet ceptors fit are quite suitable. Gallente ships - this is exactly what they buffed, on almost every single hull, in Crucible. While there is lots of other things that will help the Gallente out (the new drone damage mod, the proposed sensor damp fix which will force more fighting against gallente ships into short range) I don't know that you're going to convince CCP that speed is still the major issue when they just got finished buffing speed and agility across the board.
1. How many ship have in EVE just one mid slot ? Check this out.
2. The problem is the drake blob. Why ? Because the drake is the best solution if you have enough members and not need too much learning time, so the newbees can easily using them after short learning period and they will increasing those drake blob numbers.
3. Wait. methought the short range weapon have better DPS than long range. So, you are wrong. Every other ceptor can use long range weapon systems and every ceptor have bonuses for those weapon systems, except Malediction.
4. No, they still ridiculously slow. They useabled at station camp and gatecamp (except just few ship arazu etc), but when need to fight out of station/gate range they have poor performance, because they are slow and the webs not slowing downt the targets too fast. So they reach to optimum shot range too slow and this is huge disadvantage than any other ships. Just asking yourself if you would two opportunities:
Fly with a very slow boat with huge short range DPS, but can't reach the enemy or a faster ship with common DPS which can dictate range and dont lose his DPS when shot farther range.
I guess slow boat which is lost his DPS over 20km and can't reach his target it's a bad choice. No matter how big your DPS if you can't hit anything. This would be a bad approach from an engineer, if would want to build a slow boat with short range weapons.
It's same, when heavy cavalry is dissapeared which changed onto a more mobile tactical unit. |
Alain Badiou
Shinken Shobu
2
|
Posted - 2012.06.18 17:25:00 -
[703] - Quote
Ribikoka wrote:RedClaws wrote:CCP,
Please realize that players with higher SP currently don't like flying destroyers and to a lesser degree frigates because of the clonecosts , for me it costs about 50-60 mil to replace my medical clone. The odds of getting podkilled in a light interdictor is quite high.
Having high skillpoints doesn't mean that the player also has a lot of isk or some way to make isk more efficiently than a lower skilled character. Sure, I don't deny that it helps but having 10 mil SP or 100mil SP doesn't really matter for the income of level 4 agent missions.
Thanks, Red
This is good point. I like flying with small ships too, but prices of my clone is too costly to flight with them in 0.0. Ship repairs at not NPC 0.0 stations is costfree, would be nice there the cost free clones or reduced costs such as at FW stations.
Create a new char (like this one). Can be flying T1 Frigs and destroyers effectively within a month. Hilariously fun and clone cost is under 1M. Totally worth the effort. Saves my 80M char for cap warfare and all the other stuffs. |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2540
|
Posted - 2012.06.18 17:41:00 -
[704] - Quote
Ribikoka wrote:1. How many ship have in EVE just one mid slot ? Check this out.
2. The problem is the drake blob. Why ? Because the drake is the best solution if you have enough members and not need too much learning time, so the newbees can easily using them after short learning period and they will increasing those drake blob numbers.
3. Wait. methought the short range weapon have better DPS than long range. So, you are wrong. Every other ceptor can use long range weapon systems and every ceptor have bonuses for those weapon systems, except Malediction.
4. No, they still ridiculously slow. They useabled at station camp and gatecamp (except just few ship arazu etc), but when need to fight out of station/gate range they have poor performance, because they are slow and the webs not slowing downt the targets too fast. So they reach to optimum shot range too slow and this is huge disadvantage than any other ships. Just asking yourself if you would two opportunities:
Fly with a very slow boat with huge short range DPS, but never can't reach the enemy or a faster ship with common DPS which can dictate range and dont lose his DPS when shot farther range.
I guess slow boat which is lost his DPS over 20km and can't reach his target it's a bad choice. No matter how big your DPS if you can't hit anything. This would be a bad approach from an engineer, if would want to build a slow boat with very short range weapons.
It's same, when heavy cavalry is dissapeared which changed onto a more mobile tactical unit.
You didn't really address any of the points I was making.
1.) All I said was that people get plenty of kills with a one-midslot coercer. It's not a requirement for being a viable ship. Yes, it may be the *only* ship that has that layout, but "everyone else has one" isn't a reason to buff something. You have to first prove that the lack of a the second mid cripples the ship.
2.) Other's have already said this so I don't need to repeat it, but just because a ship is used in a fleet doctrine doesnt mean its OP. (Believe me, no one relishes the thought of a Drake nerf more than me - but it needs to be justified, a specific change for a specific reason). Saying "gobs of noobs use them" is not logic that will ever be used to balance a ship, I'm just explaining how the dev's work.
3.) Wait, what? My point was that tackle interceptors are not designed for applying DPS to their target. That is the job of Assault ships, or any other number of ship. As for the "short range > long range DPS" comment, feel free to mount light missile launchers on it if you like. See what kind of DPS you get when compared to rockets. It doesnt really matter, if you're attempting to fit enough DPS on your fleet inty to kill the ship you're tackling, you're doing it wrong. Fleet inty's are designed for obtaining and holding point, for the rest of the fleet to finish off. Your job is to *survive*. The enemy will have drones on you. I'd love to see you attempt to stave off a wing of warrior II's with railguns, artillery, and light missile launchers. 125mm's, gatling pulse lazers, small blasters, and rockets work much better for this purpose.
4.) You dont have to explain why Gallente ships need speed to me, I understand that. I was just explaining that CCP just got finished buffing speed, that's all. *Why* Gallente ships need speed is a separate issue from whether or not CCP is going to buff it a second time before tackling the other issues that Gallente ships struggle with. Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
Maul555
Nuts and Vindictive Remix Technologies
285
|
Posted - 2012.06.18 17:46:00 -
[705] - 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. |
Gainard
Eurotech Industries
63
|
Posted - 2012.06.18 17:49:00 -
[706] - Quote
They all can, as they have more than 3k EHP. EHP is nice, if you have time and mods that work fast enough. Otherwise just HP aply. And on top of that, the Mackinaw is a poor tanker, without the ability to use med slots.
Set drones to agressive Setting your drones to agressive in High sec can lead to you being concordockened. I actually keep them in the drone bay unless attacked by rats.
Set ECM drones to agressive, or bring a friend in something with sebos. A tanked hulk with either a friend in a fast locking Gank BC or RR ship means Alpha is required (in fact, 6 Tornados are required. ECM drones - dronebay and bandwith is limited and usually one is faced with rats, so I choose dps over ecm. My choice of course. As to having a friend in a BC/BS won't save you - if they see him they either do not attack or bring a friend or two as well.
So stop fitting and flying your ship bad, and you have everything you want. I fit my mining barge for mining. Thats its job. As for avoiding being scrambled: a mining barge should be fitted for mining and not for anti ECM or anti frig or anti what ever - fit a ship for its purpose. Try to fit it to suit all all purposes and it will fit none.
Nullsec is safe due to the large amount of effort expended by a large number of people. Never said anything different. Point is, you know immediately if the new pilot is friend or not. To do any meaningful mining you can not run each time someone appears in local - in null sec you know if it is not blue it is time to run, otherwise just mine on. In high sec gankers just push their security level high enough to not appear orange or red - if those colors appear in local I run - I am not that stupid...
Quote: The orehold of Hulk, Skiff and Mackinaw (when icemining) should be large enough to hold two cycles of a perfect miner with a perfect supporter (both with implants and maxed out skills). [...]. Check the space left only at the end of the cycle, not at the beginning.
2 clicks every ten minutes. Oh, the horror. You obviously are not a skilled miner. I am maxed out and have a maxed out supporter. Of course I also have the best implants, ships and modules. I even sometimes mine ore instead of Ice.
Quote:To make the Procurer useful it needs to be able to fit 3 stripminers. Which of course would require the retriever to fit 3 as well. Add a multiplicator to assign a bonus/malus as you seem fit. A Procurer will never become popular with just 1 stripminer and most likely not even with 2, no matter what the cargo-/orehold or the tank. If I can fit a battleship with 8 MinerII and it outmines the procurer, guess what I will use? If I can use a Hulk and even though I have to dock frequently I still outmine the Procurer, guess what I will use. In a dangerous area, where the Hulk perishes soon, how much longer will a scrambled Pocurer last? Guess who will mine there? To make the Mackinaw more useful allow the medium slots to be used. Currently one can only put a couple of civilian shield booster there - which is just enough to fend off rat damage in upper high sec areas... Make the cargohold extenders/rigs apply to the Orehold, please!!! I know you won't, but I would love this On a (relatively) small cargohold those are nearly useless and therefore a waste of slots. Don't buff the Hulk beyond recognition, it takes a lot of time to get there, which should still be worthwhile. Adding the ore miner skill should take care of the training time / usefullness rate between T1 and T2 barges. Mining cruisers - increase ore-/cargohold to make them usefull. Any Destroyer outmines them and they even come with more cargo... Better yet, skip the dedicated mining frigates, they are to small. Make the mining cruisers the entry level for dedicated mining, with a decent bonus and a suitable cargohold. Ofc one should still be able to mine in a frigate, just skip the mining bonus there.
Seriously? They said that they'd be buffing the yield of the Procurer/Retriever. Might want to wait to see the numbers before you **** yourself over them.
Actuallz I believe thez are going to push them. However, I say: kill them while the are small - I did not say anything about the new unified inventory until I had to deal with this s**t. I just try to voice my concerns before it happens again this time.
Mining Cruisers are going the way of the Dodo, replaced by an Ore Frig. Mining cruisers will go that way... unless modified as suggested. As for mining frigs - frigs by definition are small. I would not use a mini to deliver ore to a steel manufacturing plant, I' d use a resonably sized truck.
If they're a waste of slots, don't use them... *gasp* Nice to see you can be impressed!
Scrambled industrial ships die unless CONCORD responds quickly. In areas without CONCORD, they just die. The trick is to not get scrambled. Concord does respond too slow - Lost a Mackinaw in a 0.7 System though being aligned. Watching local and warping out when a ship appears in the vicinity that is not an industrial is not always working, they just take to much time for everything. As for fitting see above... For UI look up FUBAR on Google. For EVE see SNAFU. url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_slang_terms |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2540
|
Posted - 2012.06.18 17:50:00 -
[707] - Quote
Maul555 wrote: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.
No one should be *forced* to stay at their computer's 24/7, that's the cool thing about the barge overhaul. It gives people like you that don't want to play the game with 100% of your attention a chance to still make some money mining and do so in a safer setup than you ever could before. You can choose to do the semi-afk mining thing in a tanky barge, or you can actually focus exclusively on mining and go for max yield (but you'll need to keep your wits about you).
Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
Gainard
Eurotech Industries
63
|
Posted - 2012.06.18 17:54:00 -
[708] - Quote
Gainard wrote:They all can, as they have more than 3k EHP.EHP is nice, if you have time and mods that work fast enough. Otherwise just HP aply. And on top of that, the Mackinaw is a poor tanker, without the ability to use med slots. Set drones to agressiveSetting your drones to agressive in High sec can lead to you being concordockened. I actually keep them in the drone bay unless attacked by rats. Set ECM drones to agressive, or bring a friend in something with sebos. A tanked hulk with either a friend in a fast locking Gank BC or RR ship means Alpha is required (in fact, 6 Tornados are required.ECM drones - dronebay and bandwith is limited and usually one is faced with rats, so I choose dps over ecm. My choice of course. As to having a friend in a BC/BS won't save you - if they see him they either do not attack or bring a friend or two as well. So stop fitting and flying your ship bad, and you have everything you want.I fit my mining barge for mining. Thats its job. As for avoiding being scrambled: a mining barge should be fitted for mining and not for anti ECM or anti frig or anti what ever - fit a ship for its purpose. Try to fit it to suit all all purposes and it will fit none. Nullsec is safe due to the large amount of effort expended by a large number of people.Never said anything different. Point is, you know immediately if the new pilot is friend or not. To do any meaningful mining you can not run each time someone appears in local - in null sec you know if it is not blue it is time to run, otherwise just mine on. In high sec gankers just push their security level high enough to not appear orange or red - if those colors appear in local I run - I am not that stupid... Quote: The orehold of Hulk, Skiff and Mackinaw (when icemining) should be large enough to hold two cycles of a perfect miner with a perfect supporter (both with implants and maxed out skills). [...]. Check the space left only at the end of the cycle, not at the beginning.
2 clicks every ten minutes. Oh, the horror.You obviously are not a skilled miner. I am maxed out and have a maxed out supporter. Of course I also have the best implants, ships and modules. I even sometimes mine ore instead of Ice. Quote:To make the Procurer useful it needs to be able to fit 3 stripminers. Which of course would require the retriever to fit 3 as well. Add a multiplicator to assign a bonus/malus as you seem fit. A Procurer will never become popular with just 1 stripminer and most likely not even with 2, no matter what the cargo-/orehold or the tank. If I can fit a battleship with 8 MinerII and it outmines the procurer, guess what I will use? If I can use a Hulk and even though I have to dock frequently I still outmine the Procurer, guess what I will use. In a dangerous area, where the Hulk perishes soon, how much longer will a scrambled Pocurer last? Guess who will mine there? To make the Mackinaw more useful allow the medium slots to be used. Currently one can only put a couple of civilian shield booster there - which is just enough to fend off rat damage in upper high sec areas... Make the cargohold extenders/rigs apply to the Orehold, please!!! I know you won't, but I would love this On a (relatively) small cargohold those are nearly useless and therefore a waste of slots. Don't buff the Hulk beyond recognition, it takes a lot of time to get there, which should still be worthwhile. Adding the ore miner skill should take care of the training time / usefullness rate between T1 and T2 barges. Mining cruisers - increase ore-/cargohold to make them usefull. Any Destroyer outmines them and they even come with more cargo... Better yet, skip the dedicated mining frigates, they are to small. Make the mining cruisers the entry level for dedicated mining, with a decent bonus and a suitable cargohold. Ofc one should still be able to mine in a frigate, just skip the mining bonus there. Seriously? They said that they'd be buffing the yield of the Procurer/Retriever. Might want to wait to see the numbers before you **** yourself over them.Actually I believe they are going to push them. However, I say: kill them while the are small - I did not say anything about the new unified inventory until I had to deal with this s**t. I just try to voice my concerns before it happens again this time. Mining Cruisers are going the way of the Dodo, replaced by an Ore Frig.Mining cruisers will go that way... unless modified as suggested. As for mining frigs - frigs by definition are small. I would not use a mini to deliver ore to a steel manufacturing plant, I' d use a resonably sized truck. If they're a waste of slots, don't use them... *gasp*Nice to see you can be impressed! Scrambled industrial ships die unless CONCORD responds quickly. In areas without CONCORD, they just die. The trick is to not get scrambled.Concord does respond too slow - Lost a Mackinaw in a 0.7 System though being aligned. Watching local and warping out when a ship appears in the vicinity that is not an industrial is not always working, they just take to much time for everything. As for fitting see above...
For UI look up FUBAR on Google. For EVE see SNAFU. url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_slang_terms |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8033
|
Posted - 2012.06.18 18:04:00 -
[709] - Quote
Gainard wrote:Setting your drones to agressive in High sec can lead to you being concordockened. No, that is a complete impossibility. Drones will not attack a target for no reason, and that's exactly what it takes to call CONCORD down on your head.
Quote:ECM drones - dronebay and bandwith is limited and usually one is faced with rats, so I choose dps over ecm. My choice of course. As to having a friend in a BC/BS won't save you - if they see him they either do not attack or bring a friend or two as well. Even EC-300s will have a better-than-decent chance of putting the ganker out of commission until CONCORD arrives, and that leaves another 25m-¦ for light drones, which is more than enough to deal with any highsec rats. If you friend keeps the ganker away, then he has saved you. If he brings a friend or two, the BC blows him up, and you survive those other two ships as normal. Also, since there are now three of them, their costs have increased massively, and since you have a friend, they will get nothing from the gank GÇö no loot, no salvage, nothing. This turns it into a 100%-loss prospect, and that keeps them away (and keeps you safe) as well.
Quote:I fit my mining barge for mining. Thats its job. It's job is to collect ore and bring it back to the station. If you fit it for the former and not for the latter, then you're not fitting it for its job, and it should come as no surprise that it is now worse at its job than if you had balanced those two tasks.
Quote:You obviously are not a skilled miner. I am maxed out and have a maxed out supporter. Of course I also have the best implants, ships and modules. I even sometimes mine ore instead of Ice. GǪwhich still only means two clicks every couple of minutes. It is not a lot of work.
Quote:I just try to voice my concerns before it happens again this time. GǪand that's fair enough, but you're voicing your concerns about the things they've explicitly said they're going to address.
Oh, and CONCORD responds in 10 seconds in a 0.7 system. Being aligned means it takes zero seconds to warp out. If it takes longer, then you are not actually aligned and have most likely fallen for the most persistent and most horribly incorrect myths of EVE: that you can GÇ£passively alignGÇ£ anywhere. Align = moving in the right direction at 75% max speed = instant warp.
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¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1964
|
Posted - 2012.06.18 18:29:00 -
[710] - Quote
Gainard wrote:They all can, as they have more than 3k EHP. EHP is nice, if you have time and mods that work fast enough. Otherwise just HP aply. And on top of that, the Mackinaw is a poor tanker, without the ability to use med slots.
You have no idea how the game works, do you? EHP is the amount of damage it takes to kill you. The Mackinaw can easily tank any solo destroyer gank.
Quote: Set drones to agressive Setting your drones to agressive in High sec can lead to you being concordockened. I actually keep them in the drone bay unless attacked by rats.
Set ECM drones to agressive, or bring a friend in something with sebos. A tanked hulk with either a friend in a fast locking Gank BC or RR ship means Alpha is required (in fact, 6 Tornados are required. ECM drones - dronebay and bandwith is limited and usually one is faced with rats, so I choose dps over ecm. My choice of course. As to having a friend in a BC/BS won't save you - if they see him they either do not attack or bring a friend or two as well.
If they don't attack, you don't get ganked. Sounds good to me.
Quote: So stop fitting and flying your ship bad, and you have everything you want. I fit my mining barge for mining. Thats its job. As for avoiding being scrambled: a mining barge should be fitted for mining and not for anti ECM or anti frig or anti what ever - fit a ship for its purpose. Try to fit it to suit all all purposes and it will fit none.
Nullsec is safe due to the large amount of effort expended by a large number of people. Never said anything different. Point is, you know immediately if the new pilot is friend or not. To do any meaningful mining you can not run each time someone appears in local - in null sec you know if it is not blue it is time to run, otherwise just mine on. In high sec gankers just push their security level high enough to not appear orange or red - if those colors appear in local I run - I am not that stupid...
There are TONs of entirely empty HS systems.
Quote:
2 clicks every ten minutes. Oh, the horror. You obviously are not a skilled miner. I am maxed out and have a maxed out supporter. Of course I also have the best implants, ships and modules. I even sometimes mine ore instead of Ice.
Ok, so it's 2 clicks every 5m (or 4 clicks every 10, emptying just before a second cycle hits and just after) mining Ice or 2 clicks every 2m (or 4 clicks every 4m). I repeat, Oh, the Horror.
Quote: Seriously? They said that they'd be buffing the yield of the Procurer/Retriever. Might want to wait to see the numbers before you **** yourself over them.
Actuallz I believe thez are going to push them. However, I say: kill them while the are small - I did not say anything about the new unified inventory until I had to deal with this s**t. I just try to voice my concerns before it happens again this time.
Mining Cruisers are going the way of the Dodo, replaced by an Ore Frig. Mining cruisers will go that way... unless modified as suggested. As for mining frigs - frigs by definition are small. I would not use a mini to deliver ore to a steel manufacturing plant, I' d use a resonably sized truck.
If they're a waste of slots, don't use them... *gasp* Nice to see you can be impressed!
Scrambled industrial ships die unless CONCORD responds quickly. In areas without CONCORD, they just die. The trick is to not get scrambled. Concord does respond too slow - Lost a Mackinaw in a 0.7 System though being aligned. Watching local and warping out when a ship appears in the vicinity that is not an industrial is not always working, they just take to much time for everything. As for fitting see above...
I meant that CCP is planning to be rid of mining bonused ships outside the ORE line. Mining Cruisers will no longer exist. Until you see the stats for the Mining Frig, I'd say it's perfectly reasonable to assume it's going to lead into Barges pretty comfortably.
You have no idea what aligned is, do you? If you are aligned, you can wait until they start locking you, and still get out. You will warp instantly. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
|
Ribikoka
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
235
|
Posted - 2012.06.18 18:33:00 -
[711] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Ribikoka wrote:1. How many ship have in EVE just one mid slot ? Check this out.
2. The problem is the drake blob. Why ? Because the drake is the best solution if you have enough members and not need too much learning time, so the newbees can easily using them after short learning period and they will increasing those drake blob numbers.
3. Wait. methought the short range weapon have better DPS than long range. So, you are wrong. Every other ceptor can use long range weapon systems and every ceptor have bonuses for those weapon systems, except Malediction.
4. No, they still ridiculously slow. They useabled at station camp and gatecamp (except just few ship arazu etc), but when need to fight out of station/gate range they have poor performance, because they are slow and the webs not slowing downt the targets too fast. So they reach to optimum shot range too slow and this is huge disadvantage than any other ships. Just asking yourself if you would two opportunities:
Fly with a very slow boat with huge short range DPS, but never can't reach the enemy or a faster ship with common DPS which can dictate range and dont lose his DPS when shot farther range.
I guess slow boat which is lost his DPS over 20km and can't reach his target it's a bad choice. No matter how big your DPS if you can't hit anything. This would be a bad approach from an engineer, if would want to build a slow boat with very short range weapons.
It's same, when heavy cavalry is dissapeared which changed onto a more mobile tactical unit. You didn't really address any of the points I was making. 1.) All I said was that people get plenty of kills with a one-midslot coercer. It's not a requirement for being a viable ship. Yes, it may be the *only* ship that has that layout, but "everyone else has one" isn't a reason to buff something. You have to first prove that the lack of a the second mid cripples the ship. 2.) Other's have already said this so I don't need to repeat it, but just because a ship is used in a fleet doctrine doesnt mean its OP. (Believe me, no one relishes the thought of a Drake nerf more than me - but it needs to be justified, a specific change for a specific reason). Saying "gobs of noobs use them" is not logic that will ever be used to balance a ship, I'm just explaining how the dev's work. 3.) Wait, what? My point was that tackle interceptors are not designed for applying DPS to their target. That is the job of Assault ships, or any other number of ship. As for the "short range > long range DPS" comment, feel free to mount light missile launchers on it if you like. See what kind of DPS you get when compared to rockets. It doesnt really matter, if you're attempting to fit enough DPS on your fleet inty to kill the ship you're tackling, you're doing it wrong. Fleet inty's are designed for obtaining and holding point, for the rest of the fleet to finish off. Your job is to *survive*. The enemy will have drones on you. I'd love to see you attempt to stave off a wing of warrior II's with railguns, artillery, and light missile launchers. 125mm's, gatling pulse lazers, small blasters, and rockets work much better for this purpose. 4.) You dont have to explain why Gallente ships need speed to me, I understand that. I was just explaining that CCP just got finished buffing speed, that's all. *Why* Gallente ships need speed is a separate issue from whether or not CCP is going to buff it a second time before tackling the other issues that Gallente ships struggle with.
How you got CSM membership ? God save us.
1. Again the killmail whoring is not count. I have 18k kills with 3 char. I know Eve how working. I killed with coercer over 300 ships (at least 130 in 1v1), but atleast i lost 80% of kills because the coercer the only one pvp ship wich has just 1 middle slot. And you just think abouit i'm was just the one who tried prove this, you wrong. If you are in FW you should be know this.
2. I dont believe you, because i know why is the most favored ship the Drake. You say untruth things, there is the datas read it. "The problem is the drake blob. Why ? Because the drake is the best solution if you have enough members and not need too much learning time, so the newbees can easily using them after short learning period and they will increasing those drake blob numbers."
And yes overpowered : This is datas telling everything from drake:
"http://dl.eve-files.com/media/1206/Drake3LSE.jpg and you said this ship is not overpowered. 232.5 passive shield HP regenerations / seconds it's a bad joke too (2615HP/11.25sec). 2x large armor repairer (not medium) can healing 1600HP/11.25 sec." At least this ridiculous shield recharge need to fix.
3. Oh wait, how many pilots flying today with malediction. Those ships have very-very resounding success. That's why noone want to use it. Better if you fly wih AC on malediction or artillery. Better DPS + better shoting range without any ship bonuses!!!
4. So,you think about it, if a gallentean ship got cosmetics changes which is not fixing the real gallente problems, not need second revision of those changes, because CCP finished speed fix ? Do it your job that's why you are CSM member. |
None ofthe Above
230
|
Posted - 2012.06.18 18:50:00 -
[712] - Quote
Ribikoka wrote:You are wrong. That is not arguments, that's truth and no matter you like it or not. The drakes overpowered. That's why 0.0 alliances using them. Easily to tank them with logistics, they have infinity cap (fleet doctrines), they have relative long shoting range. They have ridiculous large HP than other BCs. Those informations at hyperlinks not lying and the +500 drake fleets it's a real problem already. And dont forget do you asked datas with your another character and you told you dont belive for a twitter blog. The eve killnet top20 datas and the other ones not lying. So, try harder your evade. http://dl.eve-files.com/media/1206/Drake3LSE.jpg and you said this ship is not overpowered. 232.5 passive shield HP regenerations / seconds it's a bad joke too (2615HP/11.25sec). 2x large armor repairer (not medium) can healing 1600HP/11.25 sec. So what do you talk about it ?
Not a bad bit of EFT warrioring. A bit of a LOL fit, but not too imbalanced.
I suppose you think the Mael and Nado are overpowered too, otherwise why would 0.0 alliances use them? Those fleets can if properly FCed, do some serious damage to a Drake fleet by all accounts. So still need seeing this as an OMG ONOES gamebreaking situation worthy of your zealous Drake hating campaign. Since I don't argue religion with those that can't see reason, I am out of this conversation. Buh-bye.
|
Sizeof Void
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
244
|
Posted - 2012.06.18 19:40:00 -
[713] - Quote
Ribikoka wrote: Gallentean ships need much love. Make them faster and agile, that's need for their short range weapon system. After speed nerf and web nerf these ships got disadvantages.
Have you tried using the new light and medium web drones with the Gallente blaster boats?
The aggregate effect of the web drones plus a standard scram/web is sufficient to slow down most opponents, allowing the blaster boat to actually get into range and stay there.
True, you lose some DPS by switching from combat drones to web drones, but this is rather negligible when using a full rack of blasters and completely offset by the ability to get within blaster range faster.
True, the web drones are rather fragile and don't last long when targeted, but a blaster boat also doesn't need much time to take down most opponents, once within optimal range.
Just a suggestion, not an argument. |
Ribikoka
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
235
|
Posted - 2012.06.18 20:20:00 -
[714] - Quote
None ofthe Above wrote:Ribikoka wrote:You are wrong. That is not arguments, that's truth and no matter you like it or not. The drakes overpowered. That's why 0.0 alliances using them. Easily to tank them with logistics, they have infinity cap (fleet doctrines), they have relative long shoting range. They have ridiculous large HP than other BCs. Those informations at hyperlinks not lying and the +500 drake fleets it's a real problem already. And dont forget do you asked datas with your another character and you told you dont belive for a twitter blog. The eve killnet top20 datas and the other ones not lying. So, try harder your evade. http://dl.eve-files.com/media/1206/Drake3LSE.jpg and you said this ship is not overpowered. 232.5 passive shield HP regenerations / seconds it's a bad joke too (2615HP/11.25sec). 2x large armor repairer (not medium) can healing 1600HP/11.25 sec. So what do you talk about it ? Not a bad bit of EFT warrioring. A bit of a LOL fit, but not too imbalanced. I suppose you think the Mael and Nado are overpowered too, otherwise why would 0.0 alliances use them? Those fleets can if properly FCed, do some serious damage to a Drake fleet by all accounts. So still need seeing this as an OMG ONOES gamebreaking situation worthy of your zealous Drake hating campaign. Since I don't argue religion with those that can't see reason, I am out of this conversation. Buh-bye.
EFT warrioring ? I'm not need EFT, just you need it, i have 9 years experience, i can fly with all ship witt full skills and i using them already. Maybe you need tools for sumarize 2x large repairer healing rate.
And you talk about minmatar ships. Yes those ship is OPed too because of weapon systems. That's why using them almost the all alliance in 0.0. Huge alpha or too long falloffs. Just see this.
Most used weapons:
1 Heavy Missile Launcher II 35322 2 425mm AutoCannon II 22408 3 200mm AutoCannon II 15709 4 720mm Howitzer Artillery II 10989 5 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II 10820 6 150mm Light AutoCannon II 10518 7 Mega Pulse Laser II 9846 8 Heavy Pulse Laser II 9550 9 1400mm Howitzer Artillery II 9301 10 125mm Gatling AutoCannon II 8973
7 weapons of 10 is projectile weapon, this is coincidence for you. LOL But what we expected from an inexpertly player.
Every one know why dissapearing ship types from battlefields, because those ships worsen than the used ships. Thats why the alliances using drakes and not harbingers or ferox because drakes much better (OPed) than any other BC almost all situation except Canes when need huge DPS against capital ships from short range and need neutralize them. Just check 0.0 fleet fights or try to move to 0.0 from your high sec and see those drake blobs.
And you wrong again, this is not drake hate campaign this is the truth. But for you 232HP/1sec passive shield HP regenerations it's normal thing when thats much-much larger than 2x large repairer healing rate for battleships and 4x bigger than 2x medium repairer healing rate what a BC use. LOL
|
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2541
|
Posted - 2012.06.18 20:20:00 -
[715] - Quote
Ribikoka wrote: How you got CSM membership ? God save us.
God cannot help you now!! MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!
Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
Ribikoka
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
235
|
Posted - 2012.06.18 20:26:00 -
[716] - Quote
Sizeof Void wrote:Ribikoka wrote: Gallentean ships need much love. Make them faster and agile, that's need for their short range weapon system. After speed nerf and web nerf these ships got disadvantages.
Have you tried using the new light and medium web drones with the Gallente blaster boats? The aggregate effect of the web drones plus a standard scram/web is sufficient to slow down most opponents, allowing the blaster boat to actually get into range and stay there. True, you lose some DPS by switching from combat drones to web drones, but this is rather negligible when using a full rack of blasters and completely offset by the ability to get within blaster range faster. True, the web drones are rather fragile and don't last long when targeted, but a blaster boat also doesn't need much time to take down most opponents, once within optimal range. Just a suggestion, not an argument.
First you need to move to scrambler range, but that is very hard when your opponent is faster than you. Thx your suggestion but do you know how hard to move to shoting range when the opponent using on your slow gallentean ship web drones too. Thats working vica-versa and give ability for your enemy to slowing you too. |
Yune Tillertin
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.18 21:06:00 -
[717] - Quote
. At long last
The balance is going to be restored
In the past it took a Battleship to gank a miner and that has droped down to a just a Destroyer.
The cost of ganking will now go back to where it was.
Too long the gankers has had a cheap and easey way to kill expensive mining ships.
I can see lots of Hulk miners switching to Macks when these balance restoring improvements are implimented.
and a lot of macks changing to hulks.
i will be most interested in seeing what other changes to the mining ships abilites and fittings.
.... |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8037
|
Posted - 2012.06.18 21:27:00 -
[718] - Quote
Yune Tillertin wrote:At long last The balance is going to be restored In the past it took a Battleship to gank a miner and that has droped down to a just a Destroyer. The cost of ganking will now go back to where it was. Too long the gankers has had a cheap and easey way to kill expensive mining ships. GǪexcept that none of that had anything to do with changes in the ships; except that it takes a lot more to kill a miner now than it did back then; and that back in the day, it was cheaper to gank with those battleships than it is with destroyers now.
Then again, looking at the standard miner's response to these changes, chances are that it will be easier than ever before to gank themGǪ 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¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Lili Lu
284
|
Posted - 2012.06.18 21:28:00 -
[719] - Quote
None ofthe Above wrote:Ribikoka wrote:Tarryn Nightstorm wrote:Sigh...For ****'s sake [facepalm] Yes facepalm, because you wrote idiotic things. You want to proof ? Drake Rebalance TopicCheck the datas. Everything was wrote there earlier. http://eve-kill.net/?a=top201 Drake 95646 kills (almost double numbers than any ships) Most used weapons: 1 Heavy Missile Launcher II 34381 The drakes is OP, need rebalance and nerf. The buff of cruisers not help for this problem. 500+ drake fleets in 0.0. Drake blobs everywhere and the missile spam eat server resources more than any gunboat fleet. And stop those arguments, how you playing 3.5 years ago. Many players playing with this game more than 9 years ago, just like me too. Your link leads to a thread of arguments from people who are on both sides of this argument, hardly proof of any conclusion. As for stats, Hurricane and Drake used to be fairly neck and neck, until a certain large alliance started fielding huge fleets of them. Did the Drake suddenly become OP at that point? Frequency =/= OP. After they are done with the Drake (and once CCP gets it in their head to nerf something they usually go way too far), I presume you would be screaming just as loudly to nerf the Hurricane as it becomes the fleet doctrine whelp-BC? As for lag and server resources, are you seriously going to say the Drake is OP due to server resource use? That's more a problem for CCP to fix, and to my understanding they have made great strides in that direction. The drake is a good ship. But there are plenty of other good ships out there. Don't start the fail-cascade of nerfing anything that works for balance's sake, because when that cycle is done all we have left are crap ships and stories from old timers who lament about the good old days when there where ships that where good to fly. o/ None ofthe Above. A certain person who's posts I'm no longer reading was worried that I had terribly hurt your feelings. Hope your doing ok.
Anyway, that person was just sure that Ribi is my evil "sock puppet" in posting support for my views. I'm posting this not to argue further with you about Drakes. Neither one of us will convince the other to come over to the dark side on this issue. I'm posting this instead to explain why Ribi must have made the post which you quoted. It links to another thread where Ribi and I actually had a misunderstanding (near the end of the thread). Ergo, Ribi is no sock puppet of mine. Also, it's ok Ribi and I are e-friends now.
I must confess however that I've always wanted a sock puppet, or to be someone else's sock puppet. Socks are wonderful things and in no way overpowered. Don't nerf socks! On that I hope we can all agree. o/ |
None ofthe Above
232
|
Posted - 2012.06.18 22:53:00 -
[720] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:o/ None ofthe Above. A certain person who's posts I'm no longer reading was worried that I had terribly hurt your feelings. Hope you're doing ok.
Thank you for your concern. Just fine here.
Do have to admit I don't comprehend the antidrake religious fervor, and have a limited amount of patience for repetition of previous threads. All rather off topic for now since the BCs won't be touched for quite sometime.
Fly safe and don't let those evil drakes get you!
|
|
Lyric Lahnder
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
64
|
Posted - 2012.06.18 23:20:00 -
[721] - Quote
CCP take note:
Proper Ship iteration and balancing = Happy customers.
Happy customers = More money
Continue balancing
and carry on. Noir. and Noir Academy are recruiting apply at www.noirmercs.comI Noir Academy: 60 days old must be able to fly at least one tech II frigate. I Noir. Recruits: 4:1 k/d ratio and can fly tech II cruisers. |
Tarryn Nightstorm
Hellstar Towing and Recovery
420
|
Posted - 2012.06.18 23:29:00 -
[722] - Quote
Ribikoka wrote:None ofthe Above wrote:Ribikoka wrote:Tarryn Nightstorm wrote:Sigh...For ****'s sake [facepalm] Yes facepalm, because you wrote idiotic things. You want to proof ? Drake Rebalance TopicCheck the datas. Everything was wrote there earlier. http://eve-kill.net/?a=top201 Drake 95646 kills (almost double numbers than any ships) Most used weapons: 1 Heavy Missile Launcher II 34381 The drakes is OP, need rebalance and nerf. The buff of cruisers not help for this problem. 500+ drake fleets in 0.0. Drake blobs everywhere and the missile spam eat server resources more than any gunboat fleet. And stop those arguments, how you playing 3.5 years ago. Many players playing with this game more than 9 years ago, just like me too. *** You are wrong. That is not arguments, that's truth and no matter you like it or not. The drakes overpowered. That's why 0.0 alliances using them. Easily to tank them with logistics, they have infinity cap (fleet doctrines), they have relative long shoting range. They have ridiculous large HP than other BCs. Those informations at hyperlinks not lying and the +500 drake fleets it's a real problem already. And dont forget do you asked datas with your another character and you told you dont belive for a twitter blog. The eve killnet top20 datas and the other ones not lying. So, try harder your evade. http://dl.eve-files.com/media/1206/Drake3LSE.jpg and you said this ship is not overpowered. 232.5 passive shield HP regenerations / seconds it's a bad joke too (2615HP/11.25sec). 2x large armor repairer (not medium) can healing 1600HP/11.25 sec. So what do you talk about it ?
Ooooooo...kay:
This crap again.
So people using a certain ship in large dullsec fleets now make it O/P. The fact that it is easy for a new-ish player to get into to help contribute to his corp's/alliances fleets with more than just light/fast tackle--although that is extremely important, it must be stressed--said newb will not be doing anywhere near that DPS, or tanking that hard, if he could even fit and use all that in the first place with low fitting-skills--at their skill-training level.
I take it you're not a low-skill newb, just as an aside? You've obviously got good fitting-skills in any case (Shield Upgrades and/or Energy Grid Upgrade to 5, AWU to at least 4, methinks, can't be arsed to check at the moment--that's not something most newbs will have trained early on.).
The newb, due to likely lack of Shield and/or Advanced Weapon Upgrade 4 at least, will probably need RCUs instead of PDUs to fit those 3 LSEs, and those add nothing to tank. They do have the same cost to low-slot DPS mods, though, which said newb, as stated, will probably do less of.
But I guess EVE has changed: The fact that "500" of damned near anything will pack one Hell of a punch, and be hard to kill (unless they're all newb-ships? I'm sure even 500 of those could still get a lolkill or three, though--NERF THE REAPER!!!111!!) is now what makes a ship O/P, apparently.
A dullsec 1337-ster says so, it's got to be true! They're the ultimate end-game players, after all! [/sarcasm]
More implied appeal to authority, you really need to try and be more subtle about that.
Lili. (/Me grins cynically]
Anyway, I guess that makes Rifters, AHACs, DICTOR/HICTOR, ArtyCane, "Hellcat," (Insert whichever ship you suddenly decide you don't like here), O/P too?
Learn how missiles work, especially Furies, and then get on SiSi, target something 50+ km away, shoot, and see how much more "self-balancing" the number one drawback to missiles in general--delayed damage-on-target--enforces same further.
Hint: Target at range has time to light off speed mod, and that will mitigate at least some damage, and he doesn't even have to worry about direction, just magnitude.
Oh yeah, tanking:
Look at that signature-radius again. Look up the turret-tracking formula. Plug the former into the latter, along with the relevant parameters for your typical track/blap-Titan.
There's a reason Drakes tend--or maybe I should say tended?--to be the blap-Titan's favourite food, at least from what I heard prior to those being nerfed. Unlike the Drake, those needed to be nerfed, but even I--as much as I despise the dullsec 1337-crowd and everything they represent--am willing to consider that the nerf may have gone too far.
That's another problem with this foolishness: When CCP finally decides that it needs to nerf something, they have a nasty tendency of going way the f overboard (example: Dramiel capacitor and fitting-capacity--like seriously, wtf?), and doing the same here will have massive consequences throughout a huge portion of the player-base that they really can't afford right now.
But that's enough for now, at least from me*:
You bore me, generic 1337-ster troll/sockpuppet/whatever/whomever you actually are.
(Not like it matters, you're all exactly the bloody same, anyway.)
And None ofthe Above, one of our community's genuine ::Official GoodPoasters(TM):: is pwning you quite elegantly, so I'll leave you to...(/Me chuckles)...well, to try and "tank" it as it were.
*Where is Liang Nuren, by the way--With all due repsect to other good posters/posts in this thread, the last threads full of these "NERFTEHZOPMGOPDRAEK!!!!111onoone!!" idiots, got so elegantly, yet so decisively savaged by her/him, in her/his typically delighfully calm, well-reasoned style, and that made for great lols!
In irae, veritas. |
Vorian Atraties
Vindicator Corporation Strategic Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 01:21:00 -
[723] - Quote
Not fond of the changes to the Hulks.. It's like the most popular ship to gank in high sec so you boost the hp on the other 2 but not the one everybody uses, that one gets less and pretty much left alone.. What's the point in flying one now?? Meh subscription ends in 3 days may as well just let it laps.. Minecraft is more fun than eve these days...
v. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1975
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 01:40:00 -
[724] - Quote
Vorian Atraties wrote:Not fond of the changes to the Hulks.. It's like the most popular ship to gank in high sec so you boost the hp on the other 2 but not the one everybody uses, that one gets less and pretty much left alone.. What's the point in flying one now?? Meh subscription ends in 3 days may as well just let it laps.. Minecraft is more fun than eve these days...
v.
Could have sworn that literacy was one of the system requirements for EvE. Could have sworn...
(Protip: Read the whole devblog before posting. The other ships are getting buffs so they can compete with the Hulk). This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8046
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 02:21:00 -
[725] - Quote
Vorian Atraties wrote:What's the point in flying one now?? Same as always: it gives you higher yield.
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¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1057
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 02:25:00 -
[726] - Quote
Vorian Atraties wrote:Not fond of the changes to the Hulks.. It's like the most popular ship to gank in high sec so you boost the hp on the other 2 but not the one everybody uses, that one gets less and pretty much left alone.. What's the point in flying one now?? Meh subscription ends in 3 days may as well just let it laps.. Minecraft is more fun than eve these days...
v.
Perhaps you should consider weighing your options - you can maximize yield with a Hulk at the expense of tank and cargo capacity, you can compromise and use a Mackinaw/Retriever and get good yield with a reasonable tank and cargo capacity, or mine with a Procurer/Skiff and get acceptable yield with a brick tank. Choices, choices, choices. eh |
Poetic Stanziel
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
923
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 02:51:00 -
[727] - Quote
The Cure for Mining Whining The STAIN Travel Bookmark Collection - 451 Bookmarks |
Kyrralixa Joringer
Guild of Free Traders
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 06:56:00 -
[728] - Quote
Tippia wrote:In particular there's the question along the lines of why the dedicated ice miner (the old role of the Mack) will also be the solo ship (the new role of the Retriever hull). What if you want dedicated ice miners with group benefits?
I was pondering this exact question earlier this week... and I hit upon an idea - why not move the mercoxit and ice mining specific bonuses out of the ships and into scripts for the MLU and IHU modules - kind of like the ones for tracking computers?
We could have more variety in scripts since the bonuses wouldn't be locked into the ships, and more variety in fits which is kind of the point of this rebalancing anyway. |
Imryn Xaran
Coherent Light Enterprises
40
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 07:49:00 -
[729] - Quote
Tippia wrote:There are no rigs that improve your yield.
SighGǪ Yes I should have said GÇ£fitGÇ¥ there, but you could have worked it out from the context if you werenGÇÖt such a pedant
Tippia wrote:Yes. Just like everyone else.
No. Miners in low and null do not need to compromise yield
Tippia wrote:GǪaside from the fact that the Hulk is already able to defend itself quite well, and with some group support backing it up, it's pretty darn difficult to kill (unless you want to expend a huge amount of ISK or manpower on the kill). Doing so will make the ganker move on to an easier target.
A hulk, optimised for mining yield, is not able to defend itself no matter how much support is available. In a mining op you would want to optimise the yield from your hulks to justify all the time and effort being expended, but in high sec where the ganker always gets the first shot that means you lose your hulk
Tippia wrote:They're not forcing you. They're giving you tools that match a specific job. Whether you choose to use those tools for that job, or whether you pick some other tools, or use the tools for a completely different job, is still entirely up to you. That's what makes it a sandbox. They provide tools GÇö you use them to build.
When the GÇ£ToolsGÇ¥ they give us only work properly in some areas of the game and not others then yes, they are forcing us to play in certain areas
Tippia wrote:Well, they're encouraging group play by making sure that, to get the best yield, you have to use the ship that requires a group to shine. That sounds very non-broken to me.
The ship that requires a group to shine is the hulk, but when mining in high sec even in a well organised mining op the hulk is too vulnerable to gankers when optimised for mining yield. Many people (including you) have said that miners should use a different fit or a different barge to overcome this, but that means that high sec miners have to compromise on mining yield to gain defence even when in an organised mining op, whereas low and null miners donGÇÖt have to make the same compromises. To me that is broken game play. They might as well change the description of the hulk to read GÇ£Fleet Mining Barge GÇô Recommended for Low and Null Sec use onlyGÇ¥. |
Ribikoka
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
236
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 07:58:00 -
[730] - Quote
Tarryn Nightstorm wrote:Ribikoka wrote:None ofthe Above wrote:Ribikoka wrote:Tarryn Nightstorm wrote:Sigh...For ****'s sake [facepalm] Yes facepalm, because you wrote idiotic things. You want to proof ? Drake Rebalance TopicCheck the datas. Everything was wrote there earlier. http://eve-kill.net/?a=top201 Drake 95646 kills (almost double numbers than any ships) Most used weapons: 1 Heavy Missile Launcher II 34381 The drakes is OP, need rebalance and nerf. The buff of cruisers not help for this problem. 500+ drake fleets in 0.0. Drake blobs everywhere and the missile spam eat server resources more than any gunboat fleet. And stop those arguments, how you playing 3.5 years ago. Many players playing with this game more than 9 years ago, just like me too. *** You are wrong. That is not arguments, that's truth and no matter you like it or not. The drakes overpowered. That's why 0.0 alliances using them. Easily to tank them with logistics, they have infinity cap (fleet doctrines), they have relative long shoting range. They have ridiculous large HP than other BCs. Those informations at hyperlinks not lying and the +500 drake fleets it's a real problem already. And dont forget do you asked datas with your another character and you told you dont belive for a twitter blog. The eve killnet top20 datas and the other ones not lying. So, try harder your evade. http://dl.eve-files.com/media/1206/Drake3LSE.jpg and you said this ship is not overpowered. 232.5 passive shield HP regenerations / seconds it's a bad joke too (2615HP/11.25sec). 2x large armor repairer (not medium) can healing 1600HP/11.25 sec. So what do you talk about it ? Idiocracy.
Man, that drake was just an example for how overpowered drake defensive system than any BC HP. It's your time to fit other BC without rig or module lose which have atleast same defensive capacibility with medium weapons systems. No matter if you have all lvl5 skills. Show to us.
Remember what i wrote in another topic from drake example:
"~27200Shield HP (WTF this BS category HP ???), EHP ~117k, resists without overheat 74/63/72/77 (76/66/75/79 with Invu Field overheat) WTF; Shield passive regeneration without any shield booster or active repairer 77.3 HP/sec (696HP until 9 seconds) which is much more than 2x t2 medium armor repairing (2x320HP/9sec). It's insane."
So it's your time to prove and f.
And you wrong again. This is not a 0.0 doctrine drake fit.
This is the newbee ship doctrine :
Advanced 'Limos' Heavy Missile Bay I Advanced 'Limos' Heavy Missile Bay I Advanced 'Limos' Heavy Missile Bay I Advanced 'Limos' Heavy Missile Bay I Advanced 'Limos' Heavy Missile Bay I Advanced 'Limos' Heavy Missile Bay I Advanced 'Limos' Heavy Missile Bay I
EM Ward Amplifier II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Large F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction Large Shield Extender II Experimental 10MN MicroWarpdrive I
Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Capacitor Power Relay II Power Diagnostic System II
Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Capacitor Control Circuit I
Not need AWU 5 or other really long skills, just in your dream. |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8056
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 08:19:00 -
[731] - Quote
Imryn Xaran wrote:No. Miners in low and null do not need to compromise yield Sure they do, if they want to gain defence GÇö it's still the same ship, so the same rules apply.
Quote:A hulk, optimised for mining yield, is not able to defend itself no matter how much support is available. That's because optimising yield is something rather different than having an optimal fit. An optimal fit is one that lets you do the job the best GÇö a fit that only focuses on yield will only be able to do half the jobGǪ As it happens, the Hulk can already project a significant tank while still providing a high yield.
Quote:When the GÇ£ToolsGÇ¥ they give us only work properly in some areas of the game and not others then yes, they are forcing us to play in certain areas Good thing that they're not doing that, then (except for the Rorqual).
Quote:The ship that requires a group to shine is the hulk, but when mining in high sec even in a well organised mining op the hulk is too vulnerable to gankers when optimised for mining yield. Hardly true even right now, and even less so after this change since there will no longer be any reason to weaken it by throwing on (already needless) cargo expanders. Right now, it can be made largely impervious to gankers (to the point where, to kill the Hulk, they have to expend more money than the miner) and this will not be made worse by tiercide.
Quote:Many people (including you) have said that miners should use a different fit or a different barge to overcome this, but that means that high sec miners have to compromise on mining yield to gain defence even when in an organised mining op, whereas low and null miners donGÇÖt have to make the same compromises. The nullsec miners have to make the exact same compromises: if they want the ships to have high protection, they will have to sacrifice some of the yield. With these changes, you'll be able to do it in two ways: tanking your hulk or picking a different ship. This holds true regardless of what space you're in, and it holds true for miners just like it does for everyone else. 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¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Ares Lee
The Scope Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 08:29:00 -
[732] - Quote
There are some ideas other than drake that CCP have mentioned in the CSM meeting minutes in 2011.
The content about fixing command ships is quoted as below: Command Ships and Warfare Links: CCP suggested that Command Ships should have their attributes looked into and have their utility expanded by adding two races of leadership bonus to each hull, instead of one; for example, the Eos might offer both bonuses to Information Warfare and Armor Warfare. The CSM was excited by this idea. CCP and the CSM discussed the power of Strategic Cruisers vis a vis Command Ships; both CCP and CSM agreed that the Strategic Cruisers are overshadowing Command Ships in terms of their link bonuses. CCP suggested, and the CSM agreed, that Strategic Cruisers should have a lesser but more versatile bonus to Warfare Links than Command Ships, as versatility is a core concept for Tech 3 ships.
But according to the current schedule, we won't see the new bonus of command ships in this year. I hope CCP will make a hotfix for Eos instead of to do so in next year. |
Imryn Xaran
Coherent Light Enterprises
40
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 09:26:00 -
[733] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Sure they do, if they want to gain defence GÇö it's still the same ship, so the same rules apply. Now you are just being obtuse. They donGÇÖt NEED to compromise because they can operate in 100% safety.
Tippia wrote:That's because optimising yield is something rather different than having an optimal fit. An optimal fit is one that lets you do the job the best GÇö a fit that only focuses on yield will only be able to do half the jobGǪ As it happens, the Hulk can already project a significant tank while still providing a high yield. Wrong. In the context of a well organised mining op the optimal fit is one that maximises yield. Anything else is just wasting the time and effort of all the supporting players.
Tippia wrote:Good thing that they're not doing that, then (except for the Rorqual). The tools we have to protect a mining op donGÇÖt work in high sec GÇô that should be obvious to anyone with half a brain.
Tippia wrote:Hardly true even right now, and even less so after this change since there will no longer be any reason to weaken it by throwing on (already needless) cargo expanders. Right now, it can be made largely impervious to gankers (to the point where, to kill the Hulk, they have to expend more money than the miner) and this will not be made worse by tiercide. We can get rid of cargo rigs, but the changes donGÇÖt free up any low slots GÇô those are still needed to improve mining yield. After the changes the hulk (in optimal mining yield fit) will have an, at best, marginal improvement in its tank GÇô not enough to offset the gankers first strike advantage.
Tippia wrote:The nullsec miners have to make the exact same compromises: if they want the ships to have high protection, they will have to sacrifice some of the yield. With these changes, you'll be able to do it in two ways: tanking your hulk or picking a different ship. This holds true regardless of what space you're in, and it holds true for miners just like it does for everyone else. Again with the obtuse-ness. When 100% protection is available through supporting players in an op why do they need to compromise? They donGÇÖt HAVE to compromise at all. |
Mechael
Ouroboros Executor Collective
145
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 09:38:00 -
[734] - Quote
Imryn Xaran wrote:they can operate in 100% safety.
Imryn Xaran wrote:100% protection is available
You keep on using this word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Only time anything is 100% safe in EVE is when it's docked in a station. Oh, and clothes for some reason are always 100% safe. Whether or not you win the game matters not. -áIt's if you bought it. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8058
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 10:22:00 -
[735] - Quote
Imryn Xaran wrote:Now you are just being obtuse. They donGÇÖt NEED to compromise because they can operate in 100% safety. GǪif you remove the belt rats and if you dock up as soon as anything remotely threatening appears (which, by the way, will impact your yield far more than a bit of tank will).
Quote:Wrong. In the context of a well organised mining op the optimal fit is one that maximises yield. Anything else is just wasting the time and effort of all the supporting players. GǪand saves them money since they don't have to keep rebuying those Hulks. No, it's not wrong. The purpose of the ship is to bring home the bacon. If it can only catch it and not bring it home, it is not good at its job.
Quote:The tools we have to protect a mining op donGÇÖt work in high sec GÇô that should be obvious to anyone with half a brain. Tanking works. Logis work. Fleet bonuses work. ECM drones work. Shooting the guy works. HmmGǪ what else is there, and why doesn't it work in highsec?
Quote:We can get rid of cargo rigs, but the changes donGÇÖt free up any low slots GÇô those are still needed to improve mining yield. After the changes the hulk (in optimal mining yield fit) will have an, at best, marginal improvement in its tank GÇô not enough to offset the gankers first strike advantage. And fitting a Hulk for full yield is still suboptimal since it causes such horrendous ISK losses. If it doesn't cause any horrendous ISK losses, then there is no problem to begin with, and you can fit the ship the same way you imagine it would be done in low or null.
Quote:Again with the obtuse-ness. When 100% protection is available through supporting players in an op why do they need to compromise? They donGÇÖt HAVE to compromise at all. The obtuseness here is that you assume that the GÇ£100% protectionGÇ¥ doesn't come at a cost. It does. They most certainly have to compromise their yield to gain that level of security. 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¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Poetic Stanziel
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
923
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 10:36:00 -
[736] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote: WILL EXHUMER SHIP SPECIALIZATIONS BE AFFECTED BY SUCH CHANGES? Most likely not, except maybe for the Skiff as mentioned above. Then you're minimizing the effect that these new ship roles have. People will still mine ice in Mackinaws, because it's still the best ship for the job. They will not move to a Skiff, even during events like Hulkageddon.
As someone above mentioned (Tippia?), you should create mining scripts that are inserted into Mining Laser Upgrade and Ice Harvester Upgrade modules, which supply the existing exhumer bonuses. Exhumer bonuses to specific types of mining are then removed.
In that way, players will use the ship that if functionally best for a situation (defense, yield, solo), and then load in appropriate scripts to mine the material they want at the yield/penalty a script gives.
The STAIN Travel Bookmark Collection - 451 Bookmarks |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8059
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 10:45:00 -
[737] - Quote
Poetic Stanziel wrote:As someone above mentioned (Tippia?), you should create mining scripts that are inserted into Mining Laser Upgrade and Ice Harvester Upgrade modules, which supply the existing exhumer bonuses. Exhumer bonuses to specific types of mining are then removed.
In that way, players will use the ship that if functionally best for a situation (defense, yield, solo), and then load in appropriate scripts to mine the material they want at the yield/penalty a script gives. I won't claim ownership of that idea, but I like it. What I said was that the mixing and matching of overall role and extraction speciality should be given to the players, and then the T2 hulls could have some additional bonus that gives that overall role an additional tweak (I suggested giving Hulks agility and MWD-based bonuses, for the MackGǪ idk, maybe something along the lines of improved drone capacity to let it fit a wider variety of drones, which fits with the self-sufficiency theme, and I have no suggestion for the Skiff )
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¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
DJ P0N-3
Table Flippendeavors
25
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 12:59:00 -
[738] - Quote
Imryn Xaran wrote:Now you are just being obtuse. They donGÇÖt NEED to compromise because they can operate in 100% safety.
oh goodness what could this be
or this
Every type of space has its own safety measures, and yet ganks continue to happen in every type of space anyway.
I didn't realize there was so much space honor in flying a Hulk and no other ship. |
Felter Echerie
Nebadon Experimental Sciences Corp
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 13:28:00 -
[739] - Quote
DJ P0N-3 wrote:
Every type of space has its own safety measures, and yet ganks continue to happen in every type of space anyway.
I didn't realize there was so much space honor in flying a Hulk and no other ship.
i guess that's the major problem here... people trained so hard to fly a hulk and want to fly it everyday... i began playing this game from less than a month now, and is pure awesome. the frig changes are more than welcome, as it is tiresome to get roflstomped everytime by tech2 battlecruisers, at least for a noob like me who doesn't have much clue of what's happening sometimes. and well... i started playing this game mostly because of mining... i find it neat that you can play a game without beeing agressive... i spent lots of time jetcaning with the navitas... getting fliped and all that good stuff... then i got a procurer (wich y'all know is quite useless) and now i use a retriever(im dellaying the covie training because you NEED a battle cruiser) and well... Im not as experienced in this game as you folks are... but these changes they're announcing are making the game much more interesting and viable to new players like me. I mean... it doesn't make any sense that the hulk need to be the best mining ship in every way... i mean... why mining needs to be such an expensive and dull acticity? these changes are clearly making the game better, as they give more options to suit your playstyle... and well if you'll need to brake your rigs... cry me a river. |
Arianne Dallocort
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 15:27:00 -
[740] - Quote
I only fly Gallente so I can't speak for everything but I'm excited about the idea of the Navitas being a drone boat. Drone destroyers sound pretty sweet too, I might actually put more skill points in destroyers now.
The new mining barge changes are a good idea in my opinion as well, especially the ore bay.
Good work CCP. |
|
Vanessa Vansen
Cybermana
40
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 18:41:00 -
[741] - Quote
An idea how to adapt mining barges and exhumers and how to introduce a mining frigate:
Unify skill requirements: Use the same for Procurer (this), Retriever and Covetor. Use the same for Skiff (this), Mackinaw and Hulk. This way you get rid of the tiers and open the way of roles.
Grant roles to mining brarges: Bring the Procurer in line with the Skiff (Mercoxit mining), the Retriever with the Mackinaw (ice mining) and the Covetor with the Hulk (non-Mercoxit mining). Example follows below.
Now, the mining frigate has to be balanced with a Covetor for non-Mercoxit and a Procurer (now similar to a Skiff) for Mercoxit mining.
In addtition, to also grant bonus to gas mining to make it useful beyond being a stepping stone towards mining barges. Introduce a T3 mining barge ;-)
Mining Barges with Mining Barge Skill bonus - Procurer 60% bonus to Mercoxit Mining Crystal yield multiplier per level
- Retriever 5% reduction in Ice Harvester duration per level Role: 100% bonus Ice Harvester yield but 25% penalty to duration
- Covetor 3% better yield for strip miners per level
Exhumers - Skiff Mining Barge Skill bonus 69% bonus to Mercoxit Mining Crystal yield multiplier per level 20% reduced chance of Mercoxit gas cloud forming per level Exhumer Skill bonus 7.5% bonus to all shield resistances per level add anything you like, yield is already as current
- Mackinaw Mining Barge Skill bonus 5% reduction in Ice Harvester duration per level (maybe increase it further) Role: 100% bonus Ice Harvester yield but 25% penalty to duration Exhumer Skill bonus 7.5% bonus to all shield resistances per level add anything you like, yield is already as current
- Hulk Mining Barge Skill bonus 6.5% better yield for strip miners per level Exhumer Skill bonus 7.5% bonus to all shield resistances per level add anything you like, yield is already as current |
Tommy Blue
Blackstar Technologies
6
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 19:12:00 -
[742] - Quote
Imryn Xaran wrote: that means that high sec miners have to compromise on mining yield to gain defence even when in an organised mining op, whereas low and null miners donGÇÖt have to make the same compromises. To me that is broken game play.
Oh noes, the miners who expended the TIME, MONEY, and EFFORT to operate in nullsec get to have a higher mining yield.
Please, stop your bitching and come to terms that a group of miners who are part of an alliance that spend billions of isk and lots of effort to take space and make it safe for them (or just spend lots of isk to rent it) have the right to a higher yield. Stop complaining and if you want that yield, you need to go out and do it yourself.
"And what if I do not want to go to nullsec?" Well then, you have to deal with less yield. Nullsec is where the riches are (or should be). The complexes are better, the ratting is better, the PI is better, and the mining is better. If you don't like this then EVE is not the game for you.
People have to understand that as space becomes less safe the potential for riches increases. (Low-sec needs a boost >.<) And don't you dare start talking about how safe nullsec is, because the people who own the space spend time, money, and effort to make it so, of which the high sec miners have done none.
So, you can risk going at it with a max yield hulk to match those in nullsec with the high possibility of getting blown up (lots of risk, lots of reward), or you can tank up your hulk, or change to tanker barges with inherently less yield (less risk, less reward). |
pussnheels
417
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 20:59:00 -
[743] - Quote
xhile the changes look good for the poor miner and especially good for the newer players i have some doubts about the higher EHP and ore bays for barges Will it not encourage more botting , bots are already pretty hard to detect somehow i feel it will encourage them to use barges instead of expensive exhumers I do not agree with what you are saying , but i will defend to the death your right to say it...... Voltaire |
Tarryn Nightstorm
Hellstar Towing and Recovery
422
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 21:15:00 -
[744] - Quote
Ribikoka wrote: [Snip, saying the same vacuous thing over and over and over again] I've already proven everything that needs to be proven, troll, and so have others in this thread, and other threads about this.
So:
Here we have a fleet brick--pretty fail-fit, too, I might add; Why would a passive shield buffer need CCC and CPR? Those aren't going to do much when it gets alpha'ed by 50-100 drooling F1-pushers, and yes, it will die almost as quickly as any other ship under that--that has no tackle but is fit for a lot of shields/resist/regen, and so has a lot of shields/resists/regen. (I assume, can't be arsed to check at the moment.)
So what?
It's also painfully slow and unwieldy, has the signature-radius of a capital ship under MWD--which is the only way toi get the damned thing to move out of its own way, let alone anything else's--and does ****-all DPS, and what DPS it does takes forever to arrive on-target.
You've proven absolutely nothing, you're just gratingly repeating the same damned thing over, and over, and OVER again, that popularity and forgiving design = OP, with absolutely nothing tangible to back that statement up except fervent dogma that borders on religious.
In fact, you're not even explicitly saying that anymore, you're just bleating "ZOMGOPDRAEK!!!1111oneone" with a few random insults, along with the aforementioned dogma.
You have no argument.
Your attempt at one has been thoroughly defeated. Bow out gracefully, please, I'm sure there'll be plenty of opportunities for you to fight this utterly useless fight another time.
Stop crapping this thread up with ::words:: that mean nothing, that's all they are.
In any case, your whinging ****-posts are now blocked, I don't have time for you anymore--you bore me, Lili-alt.
Next! In irae, veritas. |
Tarryn Nightstorm
Hellstar Towing and Recovery
422
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 22:37:00 -
[745] - Quote
Good blog, good blog. Would read again
(And I'm so totally going to probe out Gravi sites and go rip some 'roids once the ORE frigate goes live, and this from a guy who can count on one hand the number of times he's mined in 3.5 years. It's just so incredibly cool-looking, it would be in poor taste not to!)
In irae, veritas. |
SamuelCZ90
Bohemian Veterans Hedonistic Imperative
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 01:13:00 -
[746] - Quote
Hello
Please make some gas cloud harveting barge :D It would be nice have minning ship for everything. And i thing for gas harvesting is last missing piece :D |
Jarod Leercap
On Three 125
4
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 03:30:00 -
[747] - Quote
I can see the justification for the mining barge changes, but my sense of things is that the proposed changes will still have miners going to the ships with the most yield and then griping when they get ganked.
I'm also concerned about making the high-yield barge gank bait. As things are, a gang in high sec, even when it includes combat ships, is not much defense against suicide ganks. Unless your gang includes someone who can quickly loot and salvage your wreck, there's still (potentially) money to be made through suicide ganking if one brings a buddy to loot and salvage.
With that in mind, I would recommend giving all three T1 barges the same base stats and differentiating them only by bonuses. I would put tank bonuses on the Procurer and cargo bonuses on the Retriever. For the hard part, I would give the Covetor a gang bonus benefit bonus. I'd actually have two factors built into the bonus: the skill of the player (the bonus goes up with player skill) and the number of players in the immediate gang. I would the bonus start to kick in with the third gang member and hit the cap at six gang members.
The big plus about this approach is that there are benefits to flying the high yield boat (asterisk) in a gang, but none for doing so solo. I think this approach is the one that would do the most to resolve the miner vulnerability complaints.
I'm less certain about what to do with the Exhumers. I'd be satisfied seeing the defenses on the smaller two buffed, but I think the Hulk needs a more limited specialty like the ones on the other Exhumers. The bottom line is that I don't want to see the Hulk remain the yield king for all ore but Mercoxit. |
Wolodymyr
Breaking Ambitions Solid Foundation
166
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 06:19:00 -
[748] - Quote
Jarod Leercap wrote:I can see the justification for the mining barge changes, but my sense of things is that the proposed changes will still have miners going to the ships with the most yield and then griping when they get ganked. Well then at least it'll be their fault when they explode. Right now the only way to mine in peace is to load a Rokh with mining lasers CPU upgrades and shield mods. But if they made a mining barge with Battleship EHP then there is no good reason not to use it.
Also I remember them mentioning that there won't be as much as a yield disparity between the mining barges. At least not like now where a covetor is worth 3 procurers and 1.5 retrievers.
Jarod Leercap wrote:I'm also concerned about making the high-yield barge gank bait. Well then it's not a ship to be flown in crowded highsec. Find an out of the way system to set up shop. Or just watch local, stay off the belt warp in point, and GTFO when dudes show up.
Hell, we were thinking of taking one of our dead end out of the way lowsec systems and setting up some "lowsec renters". Basically for the low low price of whatever the hell I feel like charging that day we'll set you blue and use you as bait. I honestly think PoCo based sov is a good idea https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1417544 |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2004
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 07:17:00 -
[749] - Quote
Jarod Leercap wrote:I can see the justification for the mining barge changes, but my sense of things is that the proposed changes will still have miners going to the ships with the most yield and then griping when they get ganked.
I'm also concerned about making the high-yield barge gank bait. As things are, a gang in high sec, even when it includes combat ships, is not much defense against suicide ganks. Unless your gang includes someone who can quickly loot and salvage your wreck, there's still (potentially) money to be made through suicide ganking if one brings a buddy to loot and salvage.
SEBOed Alpha (or AC) Nado will kill enough of a Destroyer gank long before they kill the target. A blackbird or a Rook will also make them have a very bad day.
Unless you pi+¦ata fit your Hulk, alpha ganks are badly unprofitable.
Quote: With that in mind, I would recommend giving all three T1 barges the same base stats and differentiating them only by bonuses. I would put tank bonuses on the Procurer and cargo bonuses on the Retriever. For the hard part, I would give the Covetor a gang bonus benefit bonus. I'd actually have two factors built into the bonus: the skill of the player (the bonus goes up with player skill) and the number of players in the immediate gang. I would the bonus start to kick in with the third gang member and hit the cap at six gang members.
The big plus about this approach is that there are benefits to flying the high yield boat (asterisk) in a gang, but none for doing so solo. I think this approach is the one that would do the most to resolve the miner vulnerability complaints.
I'm less certain about what to do with the Exhumers. I'd be satisfied seeing the defenses on the smaller two buffed, but I think the Hulk needs a more limited specialty like the ones on the other Exhumers. The bottom line is that I don't want to see the Hulk remain the yield king for all ore but Mercoxit.
You get a bonus for flying in a gang. You get to use the hulk effectively instead of afk in a Mackinaw or safely in a Skiff. Your gang provides hauling and protection. If they can't provide one of these, you don't get to use the Hulk, you use the appropriate other Exhumer. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
Ribikoka
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
239
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 07:52:00 -
[750] - Quote
Tarryn Nightstorm wrote: balbala and personal attacks
This is your arguments. Empty phrases and personal attack when someone wrote the truth and datas from drakes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DC5P9xkyKs
This is 90% percents of 0.0 fights already and 8 months ago. Drake blobs and missile spamming nothing else. |
|
Lili Lu
286
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 12:58:00 -
[751] - Quote
Ribikoka wrote:Tarryn Nightstorm wrote: balbala and personal attacks This is your arguments. Empty phrases and personal attack when someone wrote the truth and datas from drakes. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DC5P9xkyKsThis is 90% percents of 0.0 fights already and 8 months ago. Drake blobs and missile spamming nothing else. Ribikoka, stop responding to him. Block his posts, they are not worth reading. He is certifiable. Let him sperge out to no avail. Eventually he will self destruct or get some help, irl. |
DJ P0N-3
Table Flippendeavors
26
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 13:04:00 -
[752] - Quote
I think the Drake should have a new role bonus: for every new page of any given thread on the Eve Online forums, the probability of the Drake being mentioned approaches 1. |
Gogela
Direct Action LLC.
819
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 19:23:00 -
[753] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Hey folks, thanks for the feedback, here are some answers for you.
- DRONES USUALLY DON'T MIX WELL WITH LONG RANGE COMBAT DUE TO TRAVEL TIME; HOW DO YOU PLAN TO TACKLE THIS? Again, this is quite a bit early to tell, but an option is to have drone frigates provide a bonus to drone speed and tracking instead of just raw damage. Not only it avoids making them too much overpowering next to other frigates, but also provides an appealing purpose next to the larger drone hulls.
If this is going to happen you might consider just reducing the drone bays of frigs to 0-5 m3 and adding a 1m3 drone class that can only be used with frigates. Seems more eve-like to me then just giving all frigs some odd drone bonus globally... might avoid some balance problems along the way (assigned drones?)
|
E man Industries
SeaChell Productions
284
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 19:52:00 -
[754] - Quote
Nice.
Need more-ádecent content a casual player can access in a 1-2h play period that is actually fun and contributes to long term personal and corp goals. This applies to PvE and PvP. |
AlexOrl
we dont pay tax
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 20:21:00 -
[755] - Quote
So wich of those ships will have bonuses for fitting gas harvesters? Or wich ship would have the gas harvesting role? |
Lin-Young Borovskova
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
273
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 21:00:00 -
[756] - Quote
Jarod Leercap wrote:I can see the justification for the mining barge changes, but my sense of things is that the proposed changes will still have miners going to the ships with the most yield and then griping when they get ganked
Afk mining = low yield "battleship EHP"
If said miner picks the highest yeld one and get blown up, he can always SFTU and move on, smarter next time.
Anyway expect *insert whatever mining barge name with heavy EHP* = bot = *whawhawhawhawha brrrr CCP bot, me can kill not* nerf this NAO.
brb |
Buzzy Warstl
The Strontium Asylum
170
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 21:25:00 -
[757] - Quote
I expect to be using the high tank mining barge to mine in crowded high-sec systems, just to yank people's chains :) |
Tarryn Nightstorm
Hellstar Towing and Recovery
425
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 21:49:00 -
[758] - Quote
Ribikoka wrote:Tarryn Nightstorm wrote: balbala and personal attacks This is your arguments. Empty phrases and personal attack when someone wrote the truth and datas from drakes. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DC5P9xkyKsThis is 90% percents of 0.0 fights already and 8 months ago. Drake blobs and missile spamming nothing else.
And people only fight in zerosec, in large fleets.
That's the only form of PvP in EVE.
And that paradigm is the only one about which PvP should be balanced, such that it effects the whole sandbox.
Whatever.
Get a clue, please.
Blocked for trolling, nothing more to see here. In irae, veritas. |
Valerie Tessel
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
182
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 21:54:00 -
[759] - Quote
Hoarr wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:Hey folks, thanks for the feedback, here are some answers for you.
ARE YOU CONSIDERING CHANGING SOME FRIGATES TO FILL A LOGISTIC ROLE? Not at the moment, as we do not believe frigate hulls would be quite tailored for such a role: they are too frail and lack range to do the job properly. See the answer below for a more details on logistic ship plans.
Thanks for clearing all of that up. I'm really excited about the changes. The only thing that I have a question about is that you mention a separate section on another logi ship but then never get into them. What changes are you talking about? I'm interested in "the answer below" also. I'm guessing this was just a simple omission, yes? Support Aegis Destroyers: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=97610 |
Jada Maroo
Mysterium Astrometrics
746
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 22:45:00 -
[760] - Quote
The Bantam badly needs a remodel. It is an embarassment to look at! |
|
Ribikoka
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
240
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 22:59:00 -
[761] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:Ribikoka wrote:Tarryn Nightstorm wrote: balbala and personal attacks This is your arguments. Empty phrases and personal attack when someone wrote the truth and datas from drakes. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DC5P9xkyKsThis is 90% percents of 0.0 fights already and 8 months ago. Drake blobs and missile spamming nothing else. Ribikoka, stop responding to him. Block his posts, they are not worth reading. He is certifiable. Let him sperge out to no avail. Eventually he will collapse or get some help, irl.
All right. Anyway so tiring to read his stupid troll answers. |
Trollin
Drunken Traders
98
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 23:36:00 -
[762] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote: ARE WE RECEIVING A DEDICATED GAS MINING SHIP? A point that needs to be taken into consideration GÇô if that is possible we will integrate it into the Skiff, otherwise you may have to wait for a dedicated hull to arrive.
DOES THAT MEAN SKIFF WILL HAZ 5 HIGHSLOT?
We are our own worst enemy. |
Janeway84
Masters Of Destiny ORPHANS OF EVE
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 23:51:00 -
[763] - Quote
I got a cool idea that you could implement at the same time as the mining barge rebalancing! With alot of new graphics update going into eve, i think it would be cool if you added a layer texture that makes the ship look like its more dirty and dusty the more cycles or minutes you are spending in a asteroid belt / grav site. sort of like an animated texture, that then disapears when you enter warp and you see a small dust cloud fly off your ship as you enter warp. |
Urgg Boolean
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
166
|
Posted - 2012.06.21 00:07:00 -
[764] - Quote
What? No Covert Ops Barge???
(This may have been mentioned already, but I didn't read all 38 pages...)
Actually, since we (my main's corp) have taken to flying Rokh Fleets, these changes are highly welcome and will (pretty much) render the Rokh osolete as a mining vessel. I mean, if we get a ship with yields and tankage as good as or better than the Rokh's, except with a large ore bay, we'd be very happy. |
Poetic Stanziel
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
925
|
Posted - 2012.06.21 00:58:00 -
[765] - Quote
Can CCP Screw-Up the New Ming Barge Iteration?
The tl;dr is "Of course they can." Those with short attention spans can stop reading there, I suppose.
It seems CCP might be well on the way to making the new roles for the upcoming mining barge/exhumer iteration mostly pointless.
Two of the exhumers currently have specialized bonuses. The Skiff has a mercoxit mining bonus. The Mackinaw has an ice harvesting bonus.
How will this affect the new upcoming iteration? Where mercoxit and ice mining are concerned, it kind of makes the upcoming changes pretty pointless. If you're ice harvesting, why would you fly anything other than a Mackinaw? Whether it's Hulkageddon or not, no matter what space you're in, you're never going to choose the more sturdy Skiff over the ice harvesting bonus that the Mack gives. This defeats the purpose of the player having to make choices, having to gear their activity towards other outside forces and factors.
I'd simply assumed yesterday, when I cheered on the upcoming iteration towards roles, that the specific mining type bonuses would be removed from the exhumers. It seemed nothing but common sense that they would be removed.
Apparently not the case. CCP Ytterbium clarifies in some Q&A on the ship rebalancing thread:
Quote:Q: WILL EXHUMER SHIP SPECIALIZATIONS BE AFFECTED BY SUCH CHANGES?
A: Most likely not. It's times like this when I wish CCP would actually go into some detail on the decision. What's their thinking on the issue? Why do they feel that removing the current specializations is the wrong course of action? Hopefully the reasons are deeper than just being lazy and wanting to push some changes out the door as quickly as possible.
But ...
If CCP did remove the mining type specializations from the exhumers, what would happen to them? Would there be any way to get those mining type bonuses, if they aren't attached to ship types? There are two equally valid ways for CCP to go about doing this.
- Turn the Mining Laser Upgrade and Ice Harvester Upgrade modules into items that can load scripts. The scripts define any bonuses and penalties. Perhaps the Mercoxit Script gives a 60% bonus to mercoxit yield, while delivering an ore bay capacity penality, along with a penalty to gas cloud formation.
- Mining Type rigs. Want to mine mercoxit? Install a rig on the ship. Want to increase your ice harvesting yield? Install a rig on your mining vessel. The bonus of rigs is that to replace them, you have to destroy them, which would please manufacturers.
The codebase for both of these options are already in-game. These are not unique mechanics that have been offered up by the playerbase. CCP could do either of these painlessly, and likely quickly. Both options keep the new mining barge/exhumer roles intact, giving players the flexibility to mine what they want in the ship they want to use.
Why CCP is not going down this road, I have no idea. Smacks as a quick fix to some miner screaming, versus an iteration with some real longterm potential in mind. The STAIN Travel Bookmark Collection - 451 Bookmarks |
Jarod Leercap
On Three 125
4
|
Posted - 2012.06.21 02:08:00 -
[766] - Quote
Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:Jarod Leercap wrote:I can see the justification for the mining barge changes, but my sense of things is that the proposed changes will still have miners going to the ships with the most yield and then griping when they get ganked Afk mining = low yield "battleship EHP" If said miner picks the highest yeld one and get blown up, he can always SFTU and move on, smarter next time. Anyway expect *insert whatever mining barge name with heavy EHP* = bot = *whawhawhawhawha brrrr CCP bot, me can kill not* nerf this NAO.
Heh, heh. I was rather assuming the later would not happen, but it's a fair point.
My gut assessment is that the tough barge should be be a tough suicide gank to profit from if reasonably tanked and not exhorbitantly fit. However, my read is that it should not be so tough as to make AFK mining an entirely "safe" endeavor. I just don't know that that leaves enough leeway for the higher yield ship to both (1) have sufficient yield advantage to be worth using in its intended role and (2) not be popped by solar wind. ;)
In any event, I missed the comment about yields being made more similar, so the original picture in my head left rather substantial yield differences as a matter of course.
I'm also a little unsure about the value proposition between the tough barge and the cargo barge, unless the Covetor will be the only one allowed to jettison from an ore bay. |
Tommy Blue
Blackstar Technologies
6
|
Posted - 2012.06.21 03:13:00 -
[767] - Quote
Poetic Stanziel wrote: stuff and things
While you raise a valid point, remember that exhumers are T2 ships. And CCP is not going to turn T2 ships into T1 ships.
Remember that T2 ships are all about specialization, while T1 is all about generalization.
So the three T1 barges are going to be general. They can do a bit of everything, but each in their own way (similar to how the frigs are being rebalanced). Some are better suited for certain things. The covetor will be better suited for fleets, the retriever for solo work, and the procurer for dangerous space (ganks). Each barge can work in every environment fine, but some are better at it than the others.
Now T2 is different. The exhumers take an aspect of their T1 hulls and amplify it. In the case of the Hulk, it performs better in fleets due to its massive yield and small ore bay. The mackinaw takes the large ore bay of the retriever and utilizes it for ice (which is huge). And finally the skiff takes the resilience of the procurer and puts it to use against the gas clouds that form mining mercoxit.
Now the reasons for why this is so for the mack and the skiff (a lot more so for the skiff)are in reality not really true, but this must be CCPs train of thought. Do you really need to worry a lot about toxic clouds such that you need battleship EHP? Of course not, but it gives you an idea of the reasoning behind these changes (at least from my perspective)
At the end of the day, the three T1 barges can do it all, with varying degrees of success. But the mack will be best for ice mining, which will be helped by a bonus for ice mining and the (upgraded?) ore bay it inherits from the retriever (less clicking). The skiff will be the best for mercoxit (as always) (the EHP thing doesnt really matter though), and the Hulk will be the best for mining all of the other ore, because of its yield. |
Opaque Intent
Setenta Corp AL3XAND3R.
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.21 04:08:00 -
[768] - Quote
Tommy Blue wrote:Poetic Stanziel wrote: stuff and things While you raise a valid point, remember that exhumers are T2 ships. And CCP is not going to turn T2 ships into T1 ships. Remember that T2 ships are all about specialization, while T1 is all about generalization.
IMO the exhumers should be like their t1 barges, but even more exaggerated.
Skiff should be massively, massively tanked.
Mackinaw should have a cavernous ore/ice hold.
Hulk should be uber bonused to mine anything.
|
Tommy Blue
Blackstar Technologies
8
|
Posted - 2012.06.21 04:30:00 -
[769] - Quote
Opaque Intent wrote:Tommy Blue wrote:Poetic Stanziel wrote: stuff and things While you raise a valid point, remember that exhumers are T2 ships. And CCP is not going to turn T2 ships into T1 ships. Remember that T2 ships are all about specialization, while T1 is all about generalization. IMO the exhumers should be like their t1 barges, but even more exaggerated. Skiff should be massively, massively tanked. Mackinaw should have a cavernous ore/ice hold. Hulk should be uber bonused to mine anything.
I'm fairly sure that is exactly what CCP is doing, nix the hulk being awesome at everything. There is no pvp ship that is awesome at everything, so their shouldn't be a mining ship that is awesome at everything.
I'll bet CCP will amplify the characteristics of their T1 hulls whilst also getting (keeping) their specializations. |
Yonis Kador
Transstellar Alchemy
164
|
Posted - 2012.06.21 05:03:00 -
[770] - Quote
I was looking at the schematic again and I noticed that the new ORE frig has a drone bay.
Any word on how many drones it'll carry or what the frig's bonuses will be?
Racial mining frigs had identical mining laser yield and cargo capacity bonuses. Aside from the Burst (no drones) they also shared a 5m3 drone bay. I'm hoping these new ORE frigs get more than one drone.
Would a single drone even be useful to a mining frig?
YK ... |
|
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2014
|
Posted - 2012.06.21 07:27:00 -
[771] - Quote
Urgg Boolean wrote:What? No Covert Ops Barge???
Hulk + Improved Cloak = Covops Barge. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
SubStandard Rin
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.21 08:09:00 -
[772] - Quote
Love the new mining changes,
but im worried about the "ship bonuses" on the Hulk, Mackinaw, Skiff how about when your redoing them adding a new slot to them like subsystem where you can put in one of three items
# Skiff bonus to Mercoxit mining # Mackinaw bonus to Ice mining # Hulk bonus to Other mining
what does this give us ? it also give us the same options on Ice / Mercoxit mining as the new changes gives us on the other ore.
Otherwise your pinned down in a specific ship if you mine Mercoxit or Ice.
|
Nagarythe Tinurandir
Catholic School for Boys
21
|
Posted - 2012.06.21 08:14:00 -
[773] - Quote
i have to say "mining ALL the ores" isn't really a specialisation for a t2-ship. ice and mercoxit are specialized. maybe the bonuses on the hulk need to be more specific then just "yield".
some quick ideas: option one - make the hulk bonus only apply to "high risk" ores to be found in deep low sec and 0.0 maybe like arkonor, bistot ond crokite. oh and spod. this thick brick of sturdiness is pain in the ....
option two - make the hulk the dedicated gas mining ship. since the t1 barges get more yield anyway, why not get rid of the uber-roid-sucker - anyone-whants-to-fly completly and introduce a gas mining ship. ore bay needs to be changed into a gas bay so normal mining would go through the new 600m-¦ cargo hold. gimping normal mining with hulk down to an undesireable level.
option three - make the mack the dedicated gas mining ship, give it a big gas storage hold instead of an ore hold. self reliance is surely a good thing when gas mining and the newly added ehp will not hurt either. secondly make the hulk the dedicated ice mining ship and give some survivability so that it may survive gank attemps. at least the the non-serious ones. change the ore hold into and ice hold which needs a supporting ship like orca to be as efficient as one can get, and gimp the hulks ability to mine normal ore to a level below the mack. maybe change the ice mining mechanics so it isn't promoting afk mining that much?
|
AlexOrl
we dont pay tax
1
|
Posted - 2012.06.21 10:43:00 -
[774] - Quote
Maybe a t2 version of the mining frigate could be a dedicated gas miner? |
Hulasikali Walla
Sardaukar Rise
2
|
Posted - 2012.06.21 10:47:00 -
[775] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote: Hulk + Improved Cloak = Covops Barge.
So crazy it might even work |
St Mio
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
873
|
Posted - 2012.06.21 11:02:00 -
[776] - Quote
Hulasikali Walla wrote:RubyPorto wrote: Hulk + Improved Cloak = Covops Barge.
So crazy it might even work
[Proteus, New Setup 1] Co-Processor II Mining Laser Upgrade II Mining Laser Upgrade II Mining Laser Upgrade II Mining Laser Upgrade II
[empty med slot] [empty med slot] [empty med slot] [empty med slot]
Covert Ops Cloaking Device II Miner II Miner II Miner II Miner II Salvager I
Medium Processor Overclocking Unit I Medium Processor Overclocking Unit I
Proteus Defensive - Adaptive Augmenter Proteus Electronics - Emergent Locus Analyzer Proteus Engineering - Capacitor Regeneration Matrix Proteus Offensive - Covert Reconfiguration Proteus Propulsion - Interdiction Nullifier
Next question? |
Thelron
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
32
|
Posted - 2012.06.21 14:40:00 -
[777] - Quote
Nagarythe Tinurandir wrote:i have to say "mining ALL the ores" isn't really a specialisation for a t2-ship. ice and mercoxit are specialized. maybe the bonuses on the hulk need to be more specific then just "yield".
some quick ideas: option one - make the hulk bonus only apply to "high risk" ores to be found in deep low sec and 0.0 maybe like arkonor, bistot ond crokite. oh and spod. this thick brick of sturdiness is pain in the ....
option two - make the hulk the dedicated gas mining ship. since the t1 barges get more yield anyway, why not get rid of the uber-roid-sucker - anyone-whants-to-fly completly and introduce a gas mining ship. ore bay needs to be changed into a gas bay so normal mining would go through the new 600m-¦ cargo hold. gimping normal mining with hulk down to an undesireable level.
option three - make the mack the dedicated gas mining ship, give it a big gas storage hold instead of an ore hold. self reliance is surely a good thing when gas mining and the newly added ehp will not hurt either. secondly make the hulk the dedicated ice mining ship and give some survivability so that it may survive gank attemps. at least the the non-serious ones. change the ore hold into and ice hold which needs a supporting ship like orca to be as efficient as one can get, and gimp the hulks ability to mine normal ore to a level below the mack. maybe change the ice mining mechanics so it isn't promoting afk mining that much?
I kinda like option 2, with the covetor sliding into the "big fleet o' regular-rock destruction" role and ditching the belief that there *has* to be a more-better option for basic mining. It gives each of the T2 ships an actual specialization and promotes use of the T1's for the day-to-day operations.
Though,
in any case,
Quote:maybe change the ice mining mechanics so it isn't promoting afk mining that much?
times eleventy-billion. Even just cutting ice cycle/yield/chunk m3/refining in half so it starts out more like half-again as long as strip cycles rather than *over 3 times* as long as strip cycles would make it less of a pain (no, it's not going to *stop* botting and afk-ing, but it'll at least not punish people who don't afk it as much). |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2016
|
Posted - 2012.06.21 15:04:00 -
[778] - Quote
St Mio wrote:Hulasikali Walla wrote:RubyPorto wrote: Hulk + Improved Cloak = Covops Barge.
So crazy it might even work [Proteus, New Setup 1] Co-Processor II Mining Laser Upgrade II Mining Laser Upgrade II Mining Laser Upgrade II Mining Laser Upgrade II [empty med slot] [empty med slot] [empty med slot] [empty med slot] Covert Ops Cloaking Device II Miner II Miner II Miner II Miner II Salvager I Medium Processor Overclocking Unit I Medium Processor Overclocking Unit I Proteus Defensive - Adaptive Augmenter Proteus Electronics - Emergent Locus Analyzer Proteus Engineering - Capacitor Regeneration Matrix Proteus Offensive - Covert Reconfiguration Proteus Propulsion - Interdiction Nullifier Next question?
[heart]
Love me some Proteus. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
Tommy Blue
Blackstar Technologies
8
|
Posted - 2012.06.21 15:35:00 -
[779] - Quote
The only problem to changing the hulk from the best roid rocker out there to something else will be the wave of miners freaking out because of changes to the hulk. Doing what you guys ^ have said would be interesting, but I think a lot of people would just leave the game/cause a ruckus just because they don't understand what is going on.
On a different note, I really hope CCP expands the ORE ship line. Right now we have 3 barges, an orca, a noctis, and a rorq. Since the frigates are loosing their mining bonus, we are getting a mining frig. Due to its mobility I have no choice but to believe that it is intended for ring mining (where mobility is key). Now that we know that cruisers are loosing their mining bonus, I would have to believe (or hope) that ORE will be debuting a new mining cruiser. It would be cool if the barges and their T2 counterparts were focused on ore mining, while their more traditional frigate/cruiser/(battleship?) hulls would be focused on ring mining (or gas harvesting). Perhaps CCP could add more hulls, or just make the cruiser hull focused on gas harvesting. |
ergherhdfgh
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
33
|
Posted - 2012.06.21 17:05:00 -
[780] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:
Mining aligned will keep you 100% safe, guaranteed. Just warp off when someone starts landing on grid.
I don't see how that is true. preconditions for warp are aligned and 75% of max speed. In a hulk if I hit warp it seems that I align much sooner than I hit 75% of max speed. Aligning does little to nothing to make you safer unless you are moving and if you are mining ideally you can't really move it messes up the results from the roid scanner thus fuxoring your yield.
Staying aligned and at 3/4 speed is just not a viable option and staying aligned and stopped is nearly useless.
|
|
ergherhdfgh
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
33
|
Posted - 2012.06.21 17:30:00 -
[781] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
4.) You dont have to explain why Gallente ships need speed to me, I understand that. I was just explaining that CCP just got finished buffing speed, that's all. *Why* Gallenete ships need speed is a separate issue from whether or not CCP is going to buff it a second time before tackling the other issues that Gallente ships struggle with.
Generally speaking Minmatar boats are the lowest dps of the competing gun boats. The are typically the fastest but suffer from the worst fitting stats and typically the worst tank and worst electronics. Matar ships often have damage bonuses where other ships get other useful stats and the damage bonus just helps compensate for the naturally lower dps therefore is kind of a wash.
As far as I understand the minmatar ships lag behind everyone else in everything except speed. Matar ship excelle at PvP strictly because of their ability to dictate range and make use of huge falloffs which just further reduce DPS but give a margin of safety from shorter ranged counterparts. If you reduce or eliminate the speed superiority of the Minmatar ships then they instantly become the most useless ships in game.
The minmatar are a race of people that are scrappers. They were a slave race and have had to fight for everything they have. By game design they have been made the PvP dominant race of ships in game. If you want to ship balance and give Gallenete ships enough speed to catch Matar ships in PvP you will need to change the entire concept of the game and redesign all Minmatar ships to give them a role or use and then completely change the entire Eve backstory.
|
ergherhdfgh
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
33
|
Posted - 2012.06.21 17:38:00 -
[782] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Gainard wrote:Setting your drones to agressive in High sec can lead to you being concordockened. No, that is a complete impossibility. Drones will not attack a target for no reason, and that's exactly what it takes to call CONCORD down on your head. Unless something has changed in the past 2 years since back when I used to high sec mine a lot if you set your drones to aggressive and they attacked your ganker then Concord would not come to your aid. While it may be true that setting them to aggressive will not get you Concordocken ( I'm not certain of that ) it still remains that it's a bad idea unless like I said CCP has changed that in the past couple years. Since I don't high sec mine anymore I don't know about this. |
ergherhdfgh
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
33
|
Posted - 2012.06.21 17:53:00 -
[783] - Quote
Vorian Atraties wrote:Not fond of the changes to the Hulks.. It's like the most popular ship to gank in high sec so you boost the hp on the other 2 but not the one everybody uses, that one gets less and pretty much left alone.. What's the point in flying one now?? Meh subscription ends in 3 days may as well just let it laps.. Minecraft is more fun than eve these days...
v.
This game is an MMO which means group play is CCP's priority. I think they are trying to make the ideal situation for a hulk to be a well secured null sec system in a boosted mining fleet.
This fits in with what CCP has professed as goals all along which is to get more players in null for more emergent player driven gameplay. In order to justify having combat ships securing nearby systems to make a mining fleet safe then null sec mining will have to pay more than high sec. Making the Hulk mostly only useable in well secured null sec fits in with everything this game claims to be.
If you don't like null sec being more profitable than high sec then you don't like this game and no amount of changes will bring you back. IMHO you are arguing against the core goals of CCP and Eve with this comment.
|
sYnc Vir
Wolfsbrigade Lost Obsession
233
|
Posted - 2012.06.21 19:13:00 -
[784] - Quote
ergherhdfgh wrote:Vorian Atraties wrote:Not fond of the changes to the Hulks.. It's like the most popular ship to gank in high sec so you boost the hp on the other 2 but not the one everybody uses, that one gets less and pretty much left alone.. What's the point in flying one now?? Meh subscription ends in 3 days may as well just let it laps.. Minecraft is more fun than eve these days...
v. This game is an MMO which means group play is CCP's priority. I think they are trying to make the ideal situation for a hulk to be a well secured null sec system in a boosted mining fleet. This fits in with what CCP has professed as goals all along which is to get more players in null for more emergent player driven gameplay. In order to justify having combat ships securing nearby systems to make a mining fleet safe then null sec mining will have to pay more than high sec. Making the Hulk mostly only useable in well secured null sec fits in with everything this game claims to be. If you don't like null sec being more profitable than high sec then you don't like this game and no amount of changes will bring you back. IMHO you are arguing against the core goals of CCP and Eve with this comment.
The reason so many people are not in null sec, is because of the people already in null sec. Not to mention null sec groups don't want miners who wont join pvp fleets. Something about them not training for pew pew annoys them.
I fail to see any benifit for a miner to move to null sec and put up with people yelling "Roaming fleet, join it or get reset." Alot of people should understand SOME people play EvE to mine and build, and want nothing to do with killing things. You can't live in Null sec atm, unless you join in with the killing.
And I also don't remember CCP saying the hulk would get less EHP. Its meant to be defendable While having the better yield. So unless CCP was just flat out lying, it should at lease keep the same tank it has now. You can't defend something that gets alpha'ed by 1400s. I would be perfectly happy with a MSE II that fits without the Fitting mods. Needs no more no less. |
Nagarythe Tinurandir
Catholic School for Boys
21
|
Posted - 2012.06.21 19:18:00 -
[785] - Quote
Tommy Blue wrote:The only problem to changing the hulk from the best roid rocker out there to something else will be the wave of miners freaking out because of changes to the hulk. Doing what you guys ^ have said would be interesting, but I think a lot of people would just leave the game/cause a ruckus just because they don't understand what is going on.
you definitely have a point concerning the ruckus, which makes me sad. but i have problems to accept, that this should keep a dev from making sensible changes.
Tommy Blue wrote:On a different note, I really hope CCP expands the ORE ship line. Right now we have 3 barges, an orca, a noctis, and a rorq. Since the frigates are loosing their mining bonus, we are getting a mining frig. Due to its mobility I have no choice but to believe that it is intended for ring mining (where mobility is key). Now that we know that cruisers are loosing their mining bonus, I would have to believe (or hope) that ORE will be debuting a new mining cruiser. It would be cool if the barges and their T2 counterparts were focused on ore mining, while their more traditional frigate/cruiser/(battleship?) hulls would be focused on ring mining (or gas harvesting). Perhaps CCP could add more hulls, or just make the cruiser hull focused on gas harvesting.
expanding the ore shipline surely is an thing i'd like. though they should add more ships in the allready existing categories, because one skill for each ship and only that ship is a little bit annoying. where did you get your infos about ring mining from? i only saw the keynote on fan fest. i thought ring mining will replace the belt mining and not be an completly new feature. |
Dersen Lowery
Knavery Inc. StructureDamage
40
|
Posted - 2012.06.21 19:32:00 -
[786] - Quote
Nagarythe Tinurandir wrote:i thought ring mining will replace the belt mining and not be an completly new feature.
I believe the idea is to have ring mining replace moon mining, not belts. After all, not even Chribba has managed to put together a Veldspar Cartel. |
Adeena Torcfist
Dark Underground Forces
41
|
Posted - 2012.06.21 20:33:00 -
[787] - Quote
whilst your busy at fixing ships, fix the legion please. |
Lili Lu
288
|
Posted - 2012.06.21 20:51:00 -
[788] - Quote
Adeena Torcfist wrote:whilst your busy at fixing ships, fix the legion please. Yes they'll be right on it in 2016. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2030
|
Posted - 2012.06.21 23:20:00 -
[789] - Quote
ergherhdfgh wrote:RubyPorto wrote:
Mining aligned will keep you 100% safe, guaranteed. Just warp off when someone starts landing on grid.
I don't see how that is true. preconditions for warp are aligned and 75% of max speed. In a hulk if I hit warp it seems that I align much sooner than I hit 75% of max speed. Aligning does little to nothing to make you safer unless you are moving and if you are mining ideally you can't really move it messes up the results from the roid scanner thus fuxoring your yield. Staying aligned and at 3/4 speed is just not a viable option and staying aligned and stopped is nearly useless.
Being "aligned" at 0 speed is in fact entirely useless.
Mining at 3/4 max speed is perfectly viable. Remember, the smart monkies figure out ways to reduce their max speed.
As for the roid scanner, you have to sacrifice something for perfect safety, and luckily enough for you, it's not your MLUs. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2030
|
Posted - 2012.06.21 23:27:00 -
[790] - Quote
sYnc Vir wrote: The reason so many people are not in null sec, is because of the people already in null sec. Not to mention null sec groups don't want miners who wont join pvp fleets. Something about them not training for pew pew annoys them.
I fail to see any benifit for a miner to move to null sec and put up with people yelling "Roaming fleet, join it or get reset." Alot of people should understand SOME people play EvE to mine and build, and want nothing to do with killing things. You can't live in Null sec atm, unless you join in with the killing.
And I also don't remember CCP saying the hulk would get less EHP. Its meant to be defendable While having the better yield. So unless CCP was just flat out lying, it should at lease keep the same tank it has now. You can't defend something that gets alpha'ed by 1400s. I would be perfectly happy with a MSE II that fits without the Fitting mods. Needs no more no less.
A properly tanked Hulk has enough EHP that it requires 3 Tornados to alpha it, at a cost of 210-270m Isk. Add some RR, to absolutely make Destroyer ganks (the vast majority of ganks) useless, and you need 6 Tornados to kill it, at a cost of some 420-540m Isk. A tanked Hulk is also unprofitable to gank with Catalysts.
The Hulk can tank plenty already.
Claiming otherwise because it can be suicide ganked at all is rediculous. Is a Damnation's tank too low because it's 1m EHP fit (1.7m v Quake) can be ganked? Of course not.
Also, go join a renter corp. No ebil PvPs required, but you do have to support the sov holders in another way. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
|
Tommy Blue
Blackstar Technologies
8
|
Posted - 2012.06.22 01:24:00 -
[791] - Quote
Yeah ring mining is supposed to be mining rocks for moon mins. I think they said it might be an infititely long string of rocks that you have to fly around and scan until you get something worthwhile (that's why I was hinting at frigs and cruisers for this because they are fast) |
mkint
805
|
Posted - 2012.06.22 03:10:00 -
[792] - Quote
Kinda a little late to this party, but my 2 cents:
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Hey folks, thanks for the feedback, here are some answers for you.
[list]
DRONES USUALLY DON'T MIX WELL WITH LONG RANGE COMBAT DUE TO TRAVEL TIME; HOW DO YOU PLAN TO TACKLE THIS? Again, this is quite a bit early to tell, but an option is to have drone frigates provide a bonus to drone speed and tracking instead of just raw damage. Not only it avoids making them too much overpowering next to other frigates, but also provides an appealing purpose next to the larger drone hulls.
What about a light drone that will only orbit the launching ship, but have a long optimal range like a sentry drone?
Quote:
ARE YOU CONSIDERING CHANGING SOME FRIGATES TO FILL A LOGISTIC ROLE? Not at the moment, as we do not believe frigate hulls would be quite tailored for such a role: they are too frail and lack range to do the job properly. See the answer below for a more details on logistic ship plans.
At a fanfest a few years ago there was talk about making small RR's have a not-******** range. I mean do small RR's have an on-field use at all? A frig fleet might rep eachother after a fight, or rep your drones or something, but they have zero tactical value. How about one of the frigs have a range bonus on RR's (but not a PG bonus like the T2 logis.) That would make small RR's finally useful in combat. |
Nagarythe Tinurandir
Catholic School for Boys
21
|
Posted - 2012.06.22 08:42:00 -
[793] - Quote
Tommy Blue wrote:Yeah ring mining is supposed to be mining rocks for moon mins. I think they said it might be an infititely long string of rocks that you have to fly around and scan until you get something worthwhile (that's why I was hinting at frigs and cruisers for this because they are fast)
sounds interesting. and yes, using the mining frig for such an endeavour makes sense.
|
Yonis Kador
Transstellar Alchemy
166
|
Posted - 2012.06.22 09:21:00 -
[794] - Quote
The schematic for the new mining friggie is just filled with mysteries.
Since I set it as my desktop a couple days ago, I've been looking at the thing frequently and tonight I noticed that there are some oddly named sections of the ship.
What are "mineral compressor units?" There's another spot labled "condensed mineral container." The words "compressor" and "condensed" suggest ore compression. But in a friggie? How much storage will these things have?
For a minute, I was thinking this thing may mine without using its hardpoints. I wouldn't have thought such a thing possible, but in a universe with ore compressing frigates, who knows?
YK
... |
sYnc Vir
Wolfsbrigade Lost Obsession
234
|
Posted - 2012.06.22 09:29:00 -
[795] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:sYnc Vir wrote: The reason so many people are not in null sec, is because of the people already in null sec. Not to mention null sec groups don't want miners who wont join pvp fleets. Something about them not training for pew pew annoys them.
I fail to see any benifit for a miner to move to null sec and put up with people yelling "Roaming fleet, join it or get reset." Alot of people should understand SOME people play EvE to mine and build, and want nothing to do with killing things. You can't live in Null sec atm, unless you join in with the killing.
And I also don't remember CCP saying the hulk would get less EHP. Its meant to be defendable While having the better yield. So unless CCP was just flat out lying, it should at lease keep the same tank it has now. You can't defend something that gets alpha'ed by 1400s. I would be perfectly happy with a MSE II that fits without the Fitting mods. Needs no more no less.
A properly tanked Hulk has enough EHP that it requires 3 Tornados to alpha it, at a cost of 210-270m Isk. Add some RR, to absolutely make Destroyer ganks (the vast majority of ganks) useless, and you need 6 Tornados to kill it, at a cost of some 420-540m Isk. A tanked Hulk is also unprofitable to gank with Catalysts. The Hulk can tank plenty already. Claiming otherwise because it can be suicide ganked at all is rediculous. Is a Damnation's tank too low because it's 1m EHP fit (1.7m v Quake) can be ganked? Of course not. Also, go join a renter corp. No ebil PvPs required, but you do have to support the sov holders in another way.
Im well aware the hulk can tank now, it wont be able to if its nerfed. As for renter corps. No thanks, nothing about null sec screams come play here to me. Not even the pvp, its a crappy area of space, filled with players that love themselves too much and groups that think they matter beyond corp chat.
I'll stick with my nice, easy going Low sec thanks. Where what I do is down to me, not some dumbass who thinks flying Tengus is this months Win. I might never get to have all my ships replaced for me, but I've never enjoyed playing easy mode versions of the game. I earn my stuff, I don't have it handed to me. Not unless some hauler picks a badge to move all his shinny, but thats a Darwin thing.
|
Inspiration
Focused Radical Energy Engineering
24
|
Posted - 2012.06.22 11:38:00 -
[796] - Quote
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! |
Maul555
Nuts and Vindictive Remix Technologies
295
|
Posted - 2012.06.22 14:38:00 -
[797] - 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... |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2030
|
Posted - 2012.06.22 15:14:00 -
[798] - 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!
30-34k EHP is not a profitable gank for destroyers. If people want to lose money to kill you, congrats, someone likes throwing away money at you. Why'd you **** them off. RR just makes it even less profitable to gank you.
A non-MLU Hulk still mines better than any other ship.
With Logistics, the armor and hull portion absolutely count. If the first volley gets through your shield and pokes into your armor, getting the shields repaired means that there's a good chance the second volley will leave you with some Hull left (which means ye lived, by the way). For Destroyers, RR means an amount of repping that would take 10-15 destroyers to break.
And 30k is not max with fleet bonuses. 30k (omni, it's higher vs kin/therm) is what a well fitted Hulk has solo.
I did the math on all of this in another thread. The 5-6 tornados are required to kill a tanked RRed Hulk because 3 require 2 volleys to kill you, and RR effectively negates their second volley.
Another option, if you don't like RR, is a fast locking Tornado. Shoot Dessies after they GCC but before your tanked Hulk dies. Accept that you might lose to an Alpha gank (but again, those are expensive and your ganker is losing money to kill you). This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2030
|
Posted - 2012.06.22 15:15:00 -
[799] - Quote
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. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
Zorok
Edge of Abyss Guardian Knights Citizens
3
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 15:03:00 -
[800] - Quote
Since you are making changes to the Mining Barges, why not give us T3 barges or create a sub-capital mining barge the same size as the Orca? I do mine from time to time and I'm not a lazy miner. Why not give us some more expensive mining toys to play with that mine much more and store more ore than a Hulk but give it the same agility as that of the Orca. If anyone is flying one of these in low-sec or null-sec, they will need to constantly scan local. I would say give it about the same defense as an Orca as well however it would have 5-6 High slots for Strip miners with an additional role bonus for each level of the skill set trained. Also give it a bonus to mining laser range as well (may as well). The downside is this would be a flying space pinata for anyone too lazy to pay attention to local.
If you want to go the route of T3 mining barges, I could envision a combat/mining role, you could put a limit on the number of strip miners that the ships could fit (maybe 3-4 depending on subsystems perhaps). However you would also allow them to fit some kind of weapon system depending on the type of sub-system in use. You could also give them the same abilities as existing T3 cruisers. The difference would be that these ships would inherently be slower, have a shorter targeting range as well as a large signature radius like their T1/T2 brethren. These ships would have the ability though to fight and do decent damage on par with perhaps a T2 cruiser (or perhaps even a T1 BC depending on fit). Obviously the more the ship is fit for covert or industrial bonuses, the less fighting/tank ability the ship will have. You could even tie these types of ships with a certain module that would give them a special role such as creating a mini POS bubble that has a certain range.
These ships could step into a true defense role for other barges. What you could do is tie the POS bubble's strength directly to the ship's capacitor. As the mini POS field takes damage, the ship's capacitor drains in relation to the damage of the mini bubble. You could either allow the ship to be helped by remote cap boosters or not. (I'm guessing allowing help could make it unfair). The ship running the POS field would be incapable of warping and would be penalized for movement just as the HICs are when they turn on their bubble. Ships within the POS bubble can only run mining lasers- the field must be shut off in order to for ships within the bubble to engage outside enemies. Not sure what should happen if an enemy ship is within the bubble when it deploys (or maybe make it impossible for the ship to deploy the bubble once combat begins). If a ship warps onto the bubble, it will have the same effect as if they warped into a POS bubble. The ship will simply rebound outside the confines of the bubble. |
|
Maul555
Nuts and Vindictive Remix Technologies
295
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 16:25:00 -
[801] - 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. |
Tommy Blue
Blackstar Technologies
8
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 17:09:00 -
[802] - Quote
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. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2039
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 17:37:00 -
[803] - Quote
Maul555 wrote: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.
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. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
Maul555
Nuts and Vindictive Remix Technologies
295
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 17:37:00 -
[804] - 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 -
[805] - 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.... |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2039
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 18:00:00 -
[806] - Quote
Maul555 wrote: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.... Seriously... I just want to take all of you guys and lock you in a room together, then have you fight to the death over who knows the best route to the nearest applebees... Then I'll take the survivor, drop him off at a Chinese restaurant, and then go by myself to schlotzkys where I will proceed to eat in peace!
You seem mad, bro.
The problem is that people aren't doing number 1 properly. They mine as normal then get mad and shit up the forums when they lose a ship. That's not accepting the losses. That's the opposite of accepting the losses. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
Nagarythe Tinurandir
Catholic School for Boys
21
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 20:02:00 -
[807] - Quote
an issue i just realized. i hope the hulk loses its ice harvetser duration bonus. never understood, why its there. |
MortisLegati
Caldari War Materiel
11
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 23:27:00 -
[808] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Hey folks, thanks for the feedback, here are some answers for you.
[list]
WILL EXHUMER SHIP SPECIALIZATIONS BE AFFECTED BY SUCH CHANGES? Most likely not, except maybe for the Skiff as mentioned above.
This scares me a little. There's this great Role-By-Stats with the T1 barges, but then it gets messed around with for the T2 variants (I don't know what 'mentioned above' thing for the skiff is) with the exception of the hulk, which will still act as a direct upgrade from a covetor. That means that the 'direct upgrade' path for solo miners who found themselves using the Retriever because of its ore bay will find themselves in a hulk doing group ops as often as they can or in a Mackinaw mining ice. At least that's what I see people doing after the changes have been around for a while.
What I'm trying to get to is: We're looking at the Mackinaw and the retriever as solo mining ships. Is this implying that newer miners will have a mineral mining ship and older, T2 miners will have an ice mining ship for solo mining? |
Rip Marley
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2012.06.24 03:02:00 -
[809] - Quote
In the real world, the Destroyer was a screening ship to cover the weaknesses of larger vessels. It primary role was never that of bombardment although as is true with any ship with guns, it could and sometimes did. One of the biggest roles a destroyer plays is protecting it's larger fleetmates from the silent and stealthy submarines.
Rather then making destroyers specialized in bombarding planets....I'd like to see a destroyer model that specialized in hunting cloaked ships. I can not say what the proper mechanics would be, that would take a lot of time and theory crafting, but this seems like the best use of the destroyer line. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2043
|
Posted - 2012.06.24 03:53:00 -
[810] - Quote
Rip Marley wrote:In the real world, the Destroyer was a screening ship to cover the weaknesses of larger vessels. It primary role was never that of bombardment although as is true with any ship with guns, it could and sometimes did. One of the biggest roles a destroyer plays is protecting it's larger fleetmates from the silent and stealthy submarines.
Rather then making destroyers specialized in bombarding planets....I'd like to see a destroyer model that specialized in hunting cloaked ships. I can not say what the proper mechanics would be, that would take a lot of time and theory crafting, but this seems like the best use of the destroyer line.
EvE destroyers are more like the RL predecessor of Destroyers, the Torpedo boat. Small, cheap, hit's above their weight class, no tank. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
|
Mr Kronos
Gears of Construction Gears Confederation
1
|
Posted - 2012.06.24 10:47:00 -
[811] - Quote
The new destroyers should i could be like the current tier 3 battlecruisers; the ability to fit larger gins then there class should be; so Destroyers with medium sized guns.
Also, with all the changes to ORE ships; isnt it a good idea to make all the ORE ships at least have some sort of consistent design?
The ORE Frigate, Rorqual and Primea/Noctis, do have a simular design, maybe tweak them a bit do fit them in one line.
The current barges/exhumers dont fit the ORE looks, and also if they are going to get changed rolewise a little redesign would be nice.
e.g.: Skiff/Procurer; One big clunky chunk of metal with 1 Stripminer Retriever/Mackinaw; Chunky, 2 striplasers, but show it has a big cargohold, by attaching Rorqual containers to it or something. Covetor/Hulk: "steampunk" design, 3 striplasers, show it has moving parts/equipment pure based for best yield. (Oil platform look)
Orca: Make it more blent with ORE and DCM? :p Dunno its a strange ship, maybe split its roles to get another Orca type ship. (One as current role but without the Orebay and mining bonus. The other one with HUGE orebay, Corp hangar, Ship bay only for industrials.
In other words; redesign ORE ships, in the Style of currentt Ore frigate concept, and the Primea/Rorqual design. As those seem to fit ORE best. And offcourse add Gas harvesters, maybe some specialised ring mining ships. Specialised Ore transports.
Also dont forget to add a "crystal-bay" to the revamped miningships. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2045
|
Posted - 2012.06.24 10:50:00 -
[812] - Quote
Mr Kronos wrote:The new destroyers should i could be like the current tier 3 battlecruisers; the ability to fit larger gins then there class should be; so Destroyers with medium sized guns.
Destroyers are pretty much ganky enough. (Plus, they're designed to be an anti-frigate ship, and Medium guns would be... less than beneficial for that role) This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
Mr Kronos
Gears of Construction Gears Confederation
1
|
Posted - 2012.06.24 12:57:00 -
[813] - Quote
You are right about that; its not a real good idea, but for some reason such class of ships would be nice. Just like a Battleship with capital turrets to engage capital ships. |
Nagarythe Tinurandir
Catholic School for Boys
21
|
Posted - 2012.06.24 16:45:00 -
[814] - Quote
ships with ++ber-gank always seem cool. but those medium weapon destroyerswould make the mining ship revamp obsolete.
but i like the idea of a supporting dessi which is somehow able to conter cloaky ships, or provides rr for frigate roams and or is for point defence and makes the defender missiles a thing worthwhile. should be a dessi with low or none weapons though.
|
Rip Marley
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
2
|
Posted - 2012.06.24 20:31:00 -
[815] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Rip Marley wrote:In the real world, the Destroyer was a screening ship to cover the weaknesses of larger vessels. It primary role was never that of bombardment although as is true with any ship with guns, it could and sometimes did. One of the biggest roles a destroyer plays is protecting it's larger fleetmates from the silent and stealthy submarines.
Rather then making destroyers specialized in bombarding planets....I'd like to see a destroyer model that specialized in hunting cloaked ships. I can not say what the proper mechanics would be, that would take a lot of time and theory crafting, but this seems like the best use of the destroyer line. EvE destroyers are more like the RL predecessor of Destroyers, the Torpedo boat. Small, cheap, hit's above their weight class, no tank.
Destroyers aren't THAT small. In EvE, Destroyers play the role of bully. They were meant to be a slightly larger ship than the ones they pick on. There weapons and bonuses are directly aimed at trashing small ships. My idea is simply an extension of that.
Besides, your torpedo boat comparison is would me accurate if you were talking about stealth bombers. But I believe that bombers are more accurately compared to subs. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2048
|
Posted - 2012.06.24 20:42:00 -
[816] - Quote
Rip Marley wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Rip Marley wrote:In the real world, the Destroyer was a screening ship to cover the weaknesses of larger vessels. It primary role was never that of bombardment although as is true with any ship with guns, it could and sometimes did. One of the biggest roles a destroyer plays is protecting it's larger fleetmates from the silent and stealthy submarines.
Rather then making destroyers specialized in bombarding planets....I'd like to see a destroyer model that specialized in hunting cloaked ships. I can not say what the proper mechanics would be, that would take a lot of time and theory crafting, but this seems like the best use of the destroyer line. EvE destroyers are more like the RL predecessor of Destroyers, the Torpedo boat. Small, cheap, hit's above their weight class, no tank. Destroyers aren't THAT small. In EvE, Destroyers play the role of bully. They were meant to be a slightly larger ship than the ones they pick on. There weapons and bonuses are directly aimed at trashing small ships. My idea is simply an extension of that. Besides, your torpedo boat comparison is would me accurate if you were talking about stealth bombers. But I believe that bombers are more accurately compared to subs.
Just because they have terms in common doesn't mean they're alike. I think stealth bombers and other Covops cloakies make a decent analogy for Subs.
RL Torpedo boats weren't all that small. I'm talking the late 19th, early 20th Century ones, not the WW2 Patrol Torpedo boat (which are more like frigates).
EvE destroyers do really have 2 roles. Their anti-frigate role and their gank role. Their ganking role is a lot like Torpedo boats (lots of offense, little to no defense), while their anti-frig role is kind of like the role of a modern destroyer (which is kind of to shoot the little things that the bigger ships have inadequate defenses against). This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2048
|
Posted - 2012.06.24 20:48:00 -
[817] - Quote
Mr Kronos wrote:You are right about that; its not a real good idea, but for some reason such class of ships would be nice. Just like a Battleship with capital turrets to engage capital ships.
'Kay
[Abaddon, Stealth Bomber]
Reactor Control Unit II Reactor Control Unit II Reactor Control Unit II Reactor Control Unit II Reactor Control Unit II Reactor Control Unit II Reactor Control Unit II
Warp Disruptor II Prototype 100MN MicroWarpdrive I Large Shield Extender II Target Painter II
'Limos' Citadel Cruise Launcher I Improved Cloaking Device II [Empty High slot] [Empty High slot] [Empty High slot] [Empty High slot] [Empty High slot] [Empty High slot]
Large Ancillary Current Router I Large Ancillary Current Router I Large Ancillary Current Router I
Ogre II x3
[Incursus, Oversized Guns]
Navy Micro Auxiliary Power Core Navy Micro Auxiliary Power Core Draclira's Modified Reactor Control Unit Draclira's Modified Reactor Control Unit
Dark Blood Warp Scrambler Domination Stasis Webifier [Empty Med slot]
Dual 150mm Prototype Gauss Gun, Federation Navy Antimatter Charge M Dual 150mm Prototype Gauss Gun, Federation Navy Antimatter Charge M Dual 150mm Prototype Gauss Gun, Federation Navy Antimatter Charge M
Small Ancillary Current Router II Small Ancillary Current Router II Small Ancillary Current Router I
Inherent Implants 'Squire' Engineering EG-606
This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
Rip Marley
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
2
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 00:22:00 -
[818] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Rip Marley wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Rip Marley wrote:In the real world, the Destroyer was a screening ship to cover the weaknesses of larger vessels. It primary role was never that of bombardment although as is true with any ship with guns, it could and sometimes did. One of the biggest roles a destroyer plays is protecting it's larger fleetmates from the silent and stealthy submarines.
Rather then making destroyers specialized in bombarding planets....I'd like to see a destroyer model that specialized in hunting cloaked ships. I can not say what the proper mechanics would be, that would take a lot of time and theory crafting, but this seems like the best use of the destroyer line. EvE destroyers are more like the RL predecessor of Destroyers, the Torpedo boat. Small, cheap, hit's above their weight class, no tank. Destroyers aren't THAT small. In EvE, Destroyers play the role of bully. They were meant to be a slightly larger ship than the ones they pick on. There weapons and bonuses are directly aimed at trashing small ships. My idea is simply an extension of that. Besides, your torpedo boat comparison is would me accurate if you were talking about stealth bombers. But I believe that bombers are more accurately compared to subs. Just because they have terms in common doesn't mean they're alike. I think stealth bombers and other Covops cloakies make a decent analogy for Subs. RL Torpedo boats weren't all that small. I'm talking the late 19th, early 20th Century ones, not the WW2 Patrol Torpedo boat (which are more like frigates). EvE destroyers do really have 2 roles. Their anti-frigate role and their gank role. Their ganking role is a lot like Torpedo boats (lots of offense, little to no defense), while their anti-frig role is kind of like the role of a modern destroyer (which is kind of to shoot the little things that the bigger ships have inadequate defenses against).
Yeah, when you said Torpedo Boat I was thinking of the PT boats.....like the one that got shot out from under JFK.
If my idea were to be seriously considered and CCP did make an anti-stealth destroyer, it would be one of the new ones they were talking about.....likely a tech 2. Considering that all dedicated stealth ships are T2, it only makes sense they a ship designed to track them is also T2. Such a ship would need several bonuses, making it need to be T2 anyway.
As a result, the normal destroyers would stay roughly as they are, and as you described. |
Vanessa Vansen
Cybermana
40
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 04:33:00 -
[819] - Quote
The problem with T1 barges is that they all have the same bonus, but each higher tier provides another high slot and more cargohold. Hence, the Procurer is not used besides within Skiff production, since the step from Procurer to Retriever is only a few hours, and, in addition, it mines less than an Osprey.
So, one set of roles could be 1) Mercoxit Miner - since it different to all other ore -> adapt the Procurer to become more Skiff like 2) Ice Harvester - since it is ice not ore -> adapt the Retriever to become more Mackinaw like 3) Non-Mercoxit Miner - done, Covetor is already Hulk like enough Together with unifying the required skills (the same for all mining barges, and the same for all exhumers), you "just" have to choose the ship according to what you want to mine. This way the mining frigate might mine Non-Mercoxit ore than a Procurer, but it shouldn't mine more Mercoxit even though the Procurer only has one high slot.
I do prefer this set of roles to the set of roles CCP suggests: 1) It is more stable, in terms of a Mackinaw will stay the ice miner, and so on, and you may as well mine ice in groups. It does happen and you shouldn't have to change ships only because you're mining in a group or not. 2) The introduction of the mining frigate is simpler, as mentioned above. 3) It is still possible to add Ore Cargholds to Mining Barges/Exhumers, best would be to also interoduce Ore Carghold expansion modules similar to cargohold expansion modules. This way you could get your ship as you like it (yield vs. EHP vs. cargohold). In addition, you might get Orcas and Rorqual with those rigs/modules instead of cargohold expanded ones. 4) There is room for a T3 mining barge offensive module: bonus to gas, ice, mercoxit, or on-mercoxit mining devensive module: drone bay, shield resistances, shield booster, armor/cloak? xxx module: cargohold, EHP, leadership, or reduction in duration of harvester/miner (even more yield) navigation module: similar to T3 cruisers. yes including the warp bubble immunity one last module: well, no idea at the moment |
Mr Kronos
Gears of Construction Gears Confederation
1
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 09:07:00 -
[820] - Quote
Last module could be the one giving you 1 2 3 or maybe 4 stripmininglasers depending on the module with drawbacks/advantages. Or ability to add an highsot to use with a mindlink or something. |
|
kkndking1
Knights Of Steel
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 13:20:00 -
[821] - Quote
the mining Barges need a ammo bay. make it so u can keep 6 sets of t2 mining crystals in it . survey scanner either need a buff or the barges need bonus for them like the orca, the survey scanner II scans out to 22.5m i want to see it out to 30-40m or a skill to boost the range. orca i would like to see the orca get a mining drone bonus as well even if its just to there speed |
JTK Fotheringham
Aliastra Gallente Federation
64
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 15:27:00 -
[822] - Quote
I was thinking about the T2 bonuses to merc, ice and bulk mining, and how it's not clear how these bonuses will overlap with the re-envisaged ship types.
Why not make role bonus rigs?
So you want to modify your hulk for ice mining with a larger fleet, fit some ice mining rigs.
You want your small, well tanked Ret / Mac for merc mining in an 0.0 grav site? Fit a rig that grants the current Skiff role bonus.
That way, ships can retain their basic role, as re-envisage, but you can tailor your ship to the minieral types you mine most often.
Just saying. /JTK
Stealth edit - You'll realise I don't read everything in long threads, and if this has been suggested, I'm just echoing my support. |
Vanessa Vansen
Cybermana
40
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 15:55:00 -
[823] - Quote
JTK Fotheringham wrote:I was thinking about the T2 bonuses to merc, ice and bulk mining, and how it's not clear how these bonuses will overlap with the re-envisaged ship types.
Why not make role bonus rigs?
So you want to modify your hulk for ice mining with a larger fleet, fit some ice mining rigs.
You want your small, well tanked Ret / Mac for merc mining in an 0.0 grav site? Fit a rig that grants the current Skiff role bonus.
That way, ships can retain their basic role, as re-envisage, but you can tailor your ship to the minieral types you mine most often.
Just saying. /JTK
Stealth edit - You'll realise I don't read everything in long threads, and if this has been suggested, I'm just echoing my support. Introducing rigs to grant that might be difficult. With the current numbers is would enable a hulk to mine mercoxit like 3 skiffs and to mine ice like 1.5 mackinaws, so you would have to change the number of high slots to compensate that.
Whatever CCP is going to change, they should thing about repacking the exhumers and mining barges with dropping all the modules AND RIGS into the hangar.
From my point of view the current roles of exhumers are fine, I wouldn't want to have to switch ships only because I mine the same thing in a group or solo.
We'll have to wait and see how CCP will adapt the ships. I'm looking forward to reading that dev blog. And please CCP make it a dev blog talking about that (and maybe mining frigates and T3 mining barges) only. |
Steve Thomas
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 16:37:00 -
[824] - Quote
unless things have seriously changed almost no-one RRs Hulks in Empire. Hell they rarely did so in low/nulsec.
|
Deena Amaj
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
3
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 17:21:00 -
[825] - Quote
Quote:The Vigil needs much love. Although i Hope it keeps its Minmatar love of speed..
Excuse my outrage posting but:
Thisthisthisthisthisthis.
I'd rather have the Vigil remain an untouched Virgin -- For the love of all matari gods and goddess, LEAVE THE SPEED BONUS!
My defensive suggestion would be to add a separate vigil hull with the "missile and whatever" aspects -- but the original Vigil with the Max. Speed Bonus must prevail, please *begs*
The Vigil is a fragile and rare tackling/support underdog. Please keep it that way.
confirthisposmed |
Midori Amiiko
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
12
|
Posted - 2012.06.26 07:33:00 -
[826] - Quote
I rebut two previous posts: T3 mining--having blown up an assload of Sleepers I can say that they show no signs of industrial activity. The lack of verisimilitude would be astounding. I also fail to see how the versatility provided by sub-systems would be put to good use by mining ships. I'd rather see T3 confined to combat ships. T3 frigs, yes! T3 mining barge, puh-lease!!! Caldari inty boosts--all Caldari can hang. If you don't like how slow they are, add a med extender to the mids. See how many hp you have? |
SabuMaru ICE
MINE THEM TO DEATH Coalition of the Unfortunate
5
|
Posted - 2012.06.26 11:04:00 -
[827] - Quote
Midori Amiiko wrote:I rebut two previous posts: T3 mining--having blown up an assload of Sleepers I can say that they show no signs of industrial activity. The lack of verisimilitude would be astounding. I also fail to see how the versatility provided by sub-systems would be put to good use by mining ships. I'd rather see T3 confined to combat ships. T3 frigs, yes! T3 mining barge, puh-lease!!! Caldari inty boosts--all Caldari can hang. If you don't like how slow they are, add a med extender to the mids. See how many hp you have?
as far as i know the 4 Fractions adapted the Sleeper Tech into the Tech3 ships this would mean that fitting within the storyline the ORE-Alliance is able to do the same
and also fitting within the philosophy of CCP this means it is possible to create T3-"industial" ships that can be used as the Swiss-Army knife of the Industrialists
looking at the roll with that ballpark i would say that the T3 would have the following possibilities - ORE-Mining - ICE-Mining - GAS-Harvesting - Ring-Harvesting ( if ever implemented ) - Mining Foreman - Transport of ORE/ICE/GAS/RING/MOON/Planetary and there products - Drone Specialization ( think Carrier ) - Interdiction Nullification - Stealth/Cloaking
|
Adoniyah
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
13
|
Posted - 2012.06.26 11:34:00 -
[828] - Quote
You know what the best part is? You cant get the UI right and your release new ****. |
Kayrl Bheskagor
Hedion University Amarr Empire
9
|
Posted - 2012.06.26 17:07:00 -
[829] - Quote
With CCPs track record of late, ie incursions, war decs, the inventory and the faction warfare screw-up, plus all the crushing lag from the latest 'improvements", I'm not at all looking forward to seeing how badly they screw up the barges. |
Headstone Carver
Cool4Cats
1
|
Posted - 2012.06.26 17:19:00 -
[830] - Quote
looks like the vigil is gonna get ruined, was one of my favorite t1 frigs. I can kill almost any interceptor with it, with the exception of the ranis , I've even managed a couple of Slicer kills with the Vigil, but missiles ? really ? please dont make it so that every frig must have a fleet support role , some of us like frigs as a solo option. |
|
Vanessa Vansen
Cybermana
40
|
Posted - 2012.06.27 02:22:00 -
[831] - Quote
Quote:New ORE frig: we want this ship to replace current mining frigates as low barrier of entry vessel, but also fulfill high-end gameplay expectations by providing a very mobile platform for mining in hostile space. Lowest mining output, decent ore bay, little to no resilience. Procurer/Skiff: primarily made for self-defense. Better mining rate than the ORE frig, good ore bay, but capable of having battleship-like EHP. Retriever/Mackinaw: made for self-reliance. Has the largest ore bay, similear to the size of a jet can, second best mining output but less EHP than the procurer mining barge. 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.
So, the smallest ship will have the best defense. From a graphic/size point of view, it seems more fitting to go like this:
Procurer/Skiff: ore bay is identical to Hulk's 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. -> concentrate on mining operation and cargo - Covetor/Hulk: primarily made for self-defense. Better mining rate than the ORE frig, good ore bay, but capable of having battleship-like EHP - Retriever/Mackinaw: made for self-reliance. Has the largest ore bay, similear to the size of a jet can, second best mining output but less EHP than the procurer mining barge
Or swap Covetor/Hulk with Retriever/Mackinaw |
Racro Arifistan
13th Black Templars Heavy fleet The Butterfly Effect Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.27 11:44:00 -
[832] - Quote
The tristan will have a better use and may see more usage :) |
Midori Amiiko
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
12
|
Posted - 2012.06.27 17:54:00 -
[833] - Quote
SabuMaru ICE wrote:Midori Amiiko wrote:I rebut two previous posts: T3 mining--having blown up an assload of Sleepers I can say that they show no signs of industrial activity. The lack of verisimilitude would be astounding. I also fail to see how the versatility provided by sub-systems would be put to good use by mining ships. I'd rather see T3 confined to combat ships. T3 frigs, yes! T3 mining barge, puh-lease!!! Caldari inty boosts--all Caldari can hang. If you don't like how slow they are, add a med extender to the mids. See how many hp you have? as far as i know the 4 Fractions adapted the Sleeper Tech into the Tech3 ships this would mean that fitting within the storyline the ORE-Alliance is able to do the same and also fitting within the philosophy of CCP this means it is possible to create T3-"industial" ships that can be used as the Swiss-Army knife of the Industrialists looking at the roll with that ballpark i would say that the T3 would have the following possibilities - ORE-Mining - ICE-Mining - GAS-Harvesting - Ring-Harvesting ( if ever implemented ) - Mining Foreman - Transport of ORE/ICE/GAS/RING/MOON/Planetary and there products - Drone Specialization ( think Carrier ) - Interdiction Nullification - Stealth/Cloaking on the other T3 variations or for some even more T2's are possible i do agree with you on that there should be more and more ships that offer new gameplay.. but also new modules to add to that as well but also other parts of this game need to evolve with that something CCP did in my opinion pretty good so far but in the end ... let them first balance the game as it is now,before adding more. we will mostly likely all want more ships ... more modules... more space... more content but lets just assist CCP with ideas and constructive criticism.. that is something that will be beneficial to all in the end
You may have convinced me...T3 is expensive so let's hope the risk/reward works out for the miners. |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2606
|
Posted - 2012.06.27 18:13:00 -
[834] - Quote
Vanessa Vansen wrote: From a graphic/size point of view, it seems more fitting to go like this:
Procurer/Skiff: ore bay is identical to Hulk's 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. -> concentrate on mining operation and cargo - Covetor/Hulk: primarily made for self-defense. Better mining rate than the ORE frig, good ore bay, but capable of having battleship-like EHP - Retriever/Mackinaw: made for self-reliance. Has the largest ore bay, similear to the size of a jet can, second best mining output but less EHP than the procurer mining barge
This ^^ makes the most sense. Hulk is massive, should be the tanky variety. Skiff is tiny, should be the efficient harvester. I don't give a crap how they're named, but visually that's just common sense.
I also think that they should have an item (like a midslot version of a triage or siege module, but doesnt make your ship stationary), and imparts a bonus to a particular resource being harvested.
You should be able to have bulky, tanky gas mining barges for nullsec clouds that go BOOM. You should have a lighter, faster, version that is more suited for low sec harvesting. Same with ice mining, mineral mining. I think all three material types should be able to gathered with all three barge styles, allowing miners to customize their barge for the appropriate resource and safety / efficiency level. Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
Steve Thomas
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
4
|
Posted - 2012.06.27 19:47:00 -
[835] - Quote
Kayrl Bheskagor wrote:With CCPs track record of late, ie incursions, war decs, the inventory and the faction warfare screw-up, plus all the crushing lag from the latest 'improvements", I'm not at all looking forward to seeing how badly they screw up the barges. Of late?
lets go backwords in time over there list of screwups
Incarna PI (the initial release that resulted in a masive wave of scraping of Station compoents for profit) Faction warfare aka RIFTERBLOB(and yes I flew rifters at the time) moon mat processing bug that lead to the mat exploit T2 lotto
Honestly theres times I suspect that half of us stick around just to see whatthey screw up next. |
Che Biko
Humanitarian Communists
96
|
Posted - 2012.06.27 20:19:00 -
[836] - Quote
I dunno about that, Hans. As far as I can tell, the size depends on the amount of mining turrets, so I would say the hulk should have the best mining yield, as that is what it visually conveys to me when I look at them: more turrets, more yield. Join in game channel/mailing list: New Eden Racing Sub-warp racing event thread: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=107164 |
Vanessa Vansen
Cybermana
41
|
Posted - 2012.06.28 00:11:00 -
[837] - Quote
Che Biko wrote:I dunno about that, Hans. As far as I can tell, the size depends on the amount of mining turrets, so I would say the hulk should have the best mining yield, as that is what it visually conveys to me when I look at them: more turrets, more yield.
"More turrets, more yield" this is exactly the problem CCP has to address. For Exhumers they solved it by granting special bonus for Mercoixt (Skiff) and Ice (Mackinaw) mining to compensate for missing high slots. Now, they could do the same with mining barges and end up like this: - Procurer/Skiff - Mercoxit Mining - Retriever/Mackinaw - Ice Mining - Covetor/Hulk - Non-Mercoxit Mining Together with "tiericide", i.e once you can fly a Procurer you can also fly a Retriever and a Covetor as well as once you can fly a Skiff you can also fly a Mackinaw and a Hulk, you solved that problem without having to change the number of high slots. In addition, you have room to introduce a mining frigate which could carry 5 high slots for miners (not strip miners) and to introduce a T3 mining barge to implement the ideas of CCP.
|
MortisLegati
Caldari War Materiel
12
|
Posted - 2012.06.28 00:43:00 -
[838] - Quote
Vanessa Vansen wrote: In addition, you have room to introduce a mining frigate which could carry 5 high slots for miners (not strip miners) and to introduce a T3 mining barge to implement the ideas of CCP.
It is now abundantly clear you have not read the devblog announcing the new mining frigate. I now bring into question the credence of your opinion.
|
Vanessa Vansen
Cybermana
41
|
Posted - 2012.06.28 01:23:00 -
[839] - Quote
MortisLegati wrote:Vanessa Vansen wrote: In addition, you have room to introduce a mining frigate which could carry 5 high slots for miners (not strip miners) and to introduce a T3 mining barge to implement the ideas of CCP.
It is now abundantly clear you have not read the devblog announcing the new mining frigate. I now bring into question the credence of your opinion.
|
MortisLegati
Caldari War Materiel
12
|
Posted - 2012.06.28 02:59:00 -
[840] - Quote
Vanessa Vansen wrote: The ORE Frigate should be able to gas mine effectively.
They could do that with just one slot; give it a 500% bonus. Three or four highslots could give a whole number that gives just slightly more than other ships. Highsec gas mining is super unprofitable right now, so a frigate that is a low ISK/low skill boat that could mine at the effectiveness of battlecruisers for gas would make a large amount of sense.
In the world of ship bonuses, (at least for mining) slots don't matter. |
|
Vanessa Vansen
Cybermana
41
|
Posted - 2012.06.28 05:41:00 -
[841] - Quote
MortisLegati wrote:Vanessa Vansen wrote: The ORE Frigate should be able to gas mine effectively.
They could do that with just one slot; give it a 500% bonus. Three or four highslots could give a whole number that gives just slightly more than other ships. Highsec gas mining is super unprofitable right now, so a frigate that is a low ISK/low skill boat that could mine at the effectiveness of battlecruisers for gas would make a large amount of sense. In the world of ship bonuses, (at least for mining) slots don't matter.
that's one way, another would be to reduce the fitting cost depending on the skill level, similar to covert ops and cloak, but for miners and gas harvester |
Mechael
Ouroboros Executor Collective
148
|
Posted - 2012.06.28 06:38:00 -
[842] - Quote
Honestly, I'm expecting new barge models to support the idea that they all will have roughly similar yields. They'll all need the same number of strip miners.
At which point it only makes sense to remove the ice/merc specialties and go with the tank/bay/yield specialties discussed in the blog. Whether or not you win the game matters not. -áIt's if you bought it. |
MortisLegati
Caldari War Materiel
12
|
Posted - 2012.06.28 08:11:00 -
[843] - Quote
Mechael wrote: remove the ice/merc specialties
CCP seems really attached to those specialties. |
SabuMaru ICE
MINE THEM TO DEATH Coalition of the Unfortunate
5
|
Posted - 2012.06.28 14:26:00 -
[844] - Quote
MortisLegati wrote:Mechael wrote: remove the ice/merc specialties CCP seems really attached to those specialties.
think the other way around
if the Merc miner is better protected this will increase the risk vs reward for this occupation which will increase supply which will decrease prices for merc which will decrease prices for T2's which will decrease the financial risk for T2miner etc etc
Same for ICE
in a way by adding protection to the ships they will most likely influence the market in this case in a way that is unclear how this will effect the balance of the game
personally i think that this is also reason to make the T3 miner/industrial available at that time or in close succession of releasing this "balance" as the risk of an market "collapse" is a serious issue and adding more ships will add new reasons for construction and increases in demand which will then cancel the decrease in value for materials that are easier accessible
i wonder if CCP actualy have looked into this possiblity and ow they look at it .. if its discarded as part of the sandbox ( altough a direct result of there actions ) or are serieusly lokin into that to not mess with the market to much or even something they want to happen as part of evolution of EVE
|
SabuMaru ICE
MINE THEM TO DEATH Coalition of the Unfortunate
5
|
Posted - 2012.06.28 17:20:00 -
[845] - Quote
also to add to my previeus post :
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.
this also in the Blog
which means that Yield will change in an upwards direction which will increase the risk of a market collapse due to increased resources becoming availble
ALSO on Fanfest CCP posted abot money sinks and inflation this will just add to that again imo als lower prices means lower taxes
|
MortisLegati
Caldari War Materiel
12
|
Posted - 2012.06.29 04:23:00 -
[846] - Quote
SabuMaru ICE wrote:The sky is falling due to probable increased mining output.
I'd have to disagree. The hulk is still going to remain the highest efficiency miner. Per-player, the ceiling for the amount of minerals/ice/merx is probably not going to increase (which is probably why they're working off the original specialties, as to not cause what you're afraid of).
Personally, I'd like some dev clarification on the efficiency, for minerals, on the Mackinaw (will it be comparable to a step below the hulk, or will it be the same as the retriever, as it is now?). |
Nagarythe Tinurandir
Catholic School for Boys
21
|
Posted - 2012.06.29 08:28:00 -
[847] - Quote
SabuMaru ICE wrote:also to add to my previeus post : 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. this also in the Blog which means that Yield will change in an upwards direction which will increase the risk of a market collapse due to increased resources becoming availble
they also removed drone alloys and t1-modules from loot. so there are fewer minerals to begin with and overall more gear to be produced. even if noone would by t1 and for t2, t1 is still needed to build t2. i guess, there will be need for some more minerals. maybe the prices will go down a bit but they are quite high atm.
secondly, as MortisLegati mentioned already, they plan to buff only the mining ships which are worse than the hulk atm. so while there will be some more minerals coming from the buffed "noobs" the max yield per character does not change. regarding the big picture, there will not be a big change. |
Jonak
POS Builder Inc. Silent Requiem
4
|
Posted - 2012.06.29 09:23:00 -
[848] - Quote
So the Mack will get a better tank and the Hulks tank will be nerfed? I thought they were trying to eliminate the one-shot kills? |
SabuMaru ICE
MINE THEM TO DEATH Coalition of the Unfortunate
5
|
Posted - 2012.06.29 11:45:00 -
[849] - Quote
Nagarythe Tinurandir wrote:they also removed drone alloys and t1-modules from loot. so there are fewer minerals to begin with and overall more gear to be produced. even if noone would by t1 and for t2, t1 is still needed to build t2. i guess, there will be need for some more minerals. maybe the prices will go down a bit but they are quite high atm. secondly, as MortisLegati mentioned already, they plan to buff only the mining ships which are worse than the hulk atm. so while there will be some more minerals coming from the buffed "noobs" the max yield per character does not change. regarding the big picture, there will not be a big change.
I'm not only talking about Yield increase/balance only with an increase tank there is a different risk reward situation
and its not that i'm crying .. screaming or what so ever i'm just stating a possible outcome. atm mining is one of the least effective means of making ISK its a long slow process that in some cases is boring to say the least
EXAMPLE currently an Hulk with a good boost is capable of creating an income of 20-30 Mil isk per Hour but that takes at least 2 characters. compare this with a Lvl 4 Mission runner that can earn close to if not more then a 100 Mil Isk per hour. in both cases you need at least 2 players but the difference is about a 333%-500% in income per hour and that difference is not explained by the investment that is needed in time/skill/activity
if the market will decrease both parties will be effected that is true but the mission runner the least of that
as i understand from the CCP fan-fest video's and there Blogs is that they want to make Mining more interesting but if the Reward for it is not on par with the other way's of creating Isk then aren't they actually decreasing the value of being a miner ?
keep in mind i want to exchange idea's about this possibility and not dictated the way the game is balanced i'm trying to look at the bigger picture and not just the miners them selfs |
Nagarythe Tinurandir
Catholic School for Boys
21
|
Posted - 2012.06.29 13:05:00 -
[850] - Quote
your last two post convey two different things, at least as i understand them. in the first, the one i quoted, you raised concerns about a collapsing market due to more resources available because "lower" tier mining vessels yielding more ore. in the second post you displayed the differences in income generated by missions and mining. right?
i do not get the point you want to make :( do you suggest, more minerals would bring the mineral prices down to a normal level and thereby further decrease the income a miner generates? then, i fail to see how that would collapse the market. yes, it would make mining even less desireable than it already is, but a market collapse ... dunno. the prolonged hulkageddon seems to be more disruptive, imo. it opens up possibilities for everybody not mining in high sec, but it definitely decreases the economical output of high sec.
or was there another point you wanted to make?
all in all, we have to wait for the changes to be expressed in hard numbers, before any decent conclusion can be drawn, i guess ^^ |
|
SabuMaru ICE
MINE THEM TO DEATH Coalition of the Unfortunate
5
|
Posted - 2012.06.29 14:44:00 -
[851] - Quote
Nagarythe Tinurandir wrote:your last two post convey two different things, at least as i understand them.
Both make a point, and are connected as i look at this market trend overview most of the mineral market is in a decline at the moment (decreasing demand ) with the highsec minerals going up slightly ( increasing demand ) ( this might be because of the drone changes )
Nagarythe Tinurandir wrote: in the first, the one i quoted, you raised concerns about a collapsing market due to more resources available because "lower" tier mining vessels yielding more ore. in the second post you displayed the differences in income generated by missions and mining.
i do not get the point you want to make :( do you suggest, more minerals would bring the mineral prices down to a normal level and thereby further decrease the income a miner generates? then, i fail to see how that would collapse the market. yes, it would make mining even less desireable than it already is, but a market collapse
the overview in my opinion shows that the minerals that are harder/riskier to get are starting to lose there value if the balance comes into play there is a risk for a further decline in that aspect . where in the end the market will stabilize around a lower value fort he low/0.0 sec minerals this means that a Miner will lose there income and will eventually be "forced" into missioning for instance as that will be the only way to keep his income or back to high sec to mine there
GÇâ
Nagarythe Tinurandir wrote: ... dunno. the prolonged hulkageddon seems to be more disruptive, imo. it opens up possibilities for everybody not mining in high sec, but it definitely decreases the economical output of high sec. hulkageddon, when prolonged well have an upwards force as no one will have the minerals stored up for a "year of hell" that means that miners will have to take higher risks and will want to be rewarded appropiatly
with the balance this risk will be reduced. Hulkageddon might even not be viable in highsec meaning prices will drop for the high sec minerals
this added with an increase of high sec miners as lowsec and 0.0 sec might have a lower profit margin will then decrease them even further
Nagarythe Tinurandir wrote: or was there another point you wanted to make?
all in all, we have to wait for the changes to be expressed in hard numbers, before any decent conclusion can be drawn, i guess ^^
you do have a point about it being hard to predict without some solid numbers but i think its part of our jobs to express concerns and if possible give solutions also i'm bored at work .. so theory crafting
at the end i have fixed feelings about the balancing and are trying to figure out if the other items that will be rebalanced might have an positive upswing in the end
|
MortisLegati
Caldari War Materiel
12
|
Posted - 2012.06.29 20:05:00 -
[852] - Quote
Jonak wrote:So the Mack will get a better tank and the Hulks tank will be nerfed? I thought they were trying to eliminate the one-shot kills?
Anything will only be a Nerf in comparison to other ships. The hulk will most likely actually get an EHP buff in and of its own. |
Sieges
University of Caille Gallente Federation
40
|
Posted - 2012.06.29 22:35:00 -
[853] - Quote
Can the Mackinaw keep it's Ice yield bonus and can its Ore-hold be a multiple of 4 pretty please?? Something like 28,000 m3 |
Vanessa Vansen
Cybermana
42
|
Posted - 2012.06.30 12:58:00 -
[854] - Quote
Mining Barge/Exhumer role sets A - Mercoxit, Ice, Non-Mercoxit (current exhumer roles) B - Tank, Cargo, Yield (suggested by CCP)
How to implement each role set?
Required dor both role sets: - Unify the requirements (tiericide), i.e. one for mining barges and one for exhumers
Optional: - Adjust n¼ütting numbers for ice modules to be inline with ore modules - Introduce Ore Hangar expanders, e.g. low slot modules (and rigs) with n¼üxed amount, or similar to current cargohold modules (and rigs) - Introduce Gas Strip Harvester I and Gas Strip Harvester II (around 2.5 times the yield of gas cloud harvesters, reason follows later)
Role set A - Mercoxit, Ice, Non-Mercoxit Adjust the bonus of Procurer and Retriever to copy that of Skiff and Mackinaw, e.g - Procurer - 50% more yield bonus for Mercoxit Mining Crystals per level - Retriever - same role bonus as Mackinaw (double yield but 25% penalty on duration), 4% reduction for duration of ice harvester per level - Covetor - as it is currently
Role set B - Tank, Cargo, Yield - Unify number of high slots, e.g. 2 for each mining barge and exhumer (other numbers would be possible, too) -> graphics will have to be changed - Double yield of Ice Harvester I and II (simalarity to Mackinaw) - Double yield of Modulated Deep Core Strip Miner II (similartity to Skiff) - Increase yield of Strip Miner I and Modulated Strip Miner II by 50% (similarity to Hulk) - Tank Bonus: additional EHP per level - Cargo Bonus: additional Ore Cargohold per level - Yield Bonus: increase yield or shorten duration to achieve same yield in the end as Exhumers currently (slightly less for future yield mining barge) - Decide which role is covered by the pairs Procurer/Skiff, Retriever/Mackinaw, and Covetor/Hulk, ev. grant a ship transformation via a GM or at least a rig reimbursement
Both role sets will easy the introduction of the mining frigate, i.e. it would be possible to give her up to 5 high slots. Due to the 2 high slots and the Gas Strip Harvesters having around 2.5 times the yield of their Gas Cloud Harvester counterpart, the mining frigates will be either slightly better (factor < 2.5) or slightly worse (factor > 2.5) in gas harvesting assuming that the frigate can n¼üt 5 gas cloud harvesters. |
MortisLegati
Caldari War Materiel
12
|
Posted - 2012.06.30 16:31:00 -
[855] - Quote
Vanessa Vansen wrote: - Unify the requirements (tiericide), i.e. one for mining barges and one for exhumers
- Introduce Ore Hangar expanders, e.g. low slot modules (and rigs) with n¼üxed amount, or similar to current cargohold modules (and rigs)
-That's not the whole idea for tiericide. The tiericide portion that applies most directly to barges was the elimination of stepped requirements and overall statistics gain between ships with lower and ships with higher skill requirements. By giving barges all the same requirement and allowing it to be a decision between different yield/tank/cargo stat combinations, skill-wise, the tiers are gone.
-This defeats the entire purpose of the 'conversion' to ore bays on some ships (notably the Hulk; they don't want you using it as a solo ship without gimping your effectiveness, it's part of tiericide, elsewise it would lead everyone straight to hulk(what they're stating they're trying to get rid of)). They want people to choose between (extra) tank and yield, not tank/yield/cargo between the barges
Vanessa Vansen wrote: Role set A - Mercoxit, Ice, Non-Mercoxit Adjust the bonus of Procurer and Retriever to copy that of Skiff and Mackinaw, e.g - Procurer - 50% more yield bonus for Mercoxit Mining Crystals per level - Retriever - same role bonus as Mackinaw (double yield but 25% penalty on duration), 4% reduction for duration of ice harvester per level - Covetor - as it is currently
I have literally no idea where you're going with this, since by homogenizing each ship type between T1 and T2 causes a 'tier' again, rather than a Generalization>Specialization, which, for industrial ships, implies operating on a different level (apples and oranges) than its peers within its tech level. (Personally, I feel the Hulk disrupts this to some extent but at the same time I feel it fits snugly.)
Vanessa Vansen wrote: - Unify number of high slots, e.g. 2 for each mining barge and exhumer (other numbers would be possible, too) -> graphics will have to be changed
Honestly, I feel like people hover over this in their heads far too much when they think of 'make yields closer to the hulk/covetor'. Strip miners not multiplying the yield can be explained through a multitude of different reasons without making a complete overhaul to the mining ship lineup (think manufacturing here). It makes sense, still, to keep the same number of highslots as we have, if even just to maintain visual uniqueness.
Vanessa Vansen wrote: Role set B....
This would make some significant bit of sense if it applied solely to exhumers, but it's never stated. (Basically, you're saying that the same 'specialization' could be maintained between T1-T2 by doing the same anti-tiering as was operated through their Tech 1 variants.(Yet, by maintaining the same T2 yield bonus as the hulk, you've literally created a 'tier' between T1 and T2; no specialization beyond the option to be able to mine merx and ice.(I'm going to avoid saying gas, because...)))
Vanessa Vansen wrote: Make the mining frigate a gas harvester
Is probably the one thing I could say the current philosophy put forth by the changes as they've been designed will agree with.
I'm really speaking from what I can pull from through meditation on the general philosophy the team tasked with making the mining changes is operating under. It's folly to try to turn a developer's head away from a particular way of doing things unless there's a valid reason (something's majorly ****** with the way they're doing things, etc) to scrap it and go with an entirely new set of balance calculations/arguments (back to the drawing board). |
Vanessa Vansen
Cybermana
42
|
Posted - 2012.06.30 17:27:00 -
[856] - Quote
I thought the problem would be that the Procurer is not used at all, since the 1 strip miner is outmined easily. Hence the idea of passing down some of the exhumer bonus to the mining barges.
Well, we'll have to wait and see what the devs will come up with. I just stated some basic ideas. The mining barges take the first step and the exhumers specialize in that direction. |
MortisLegati
Caldari War Materiel
12
|
Posted - 2012.06.30 18:15:00 -
[857] - Quote
They were talking about pushing yields closer together between the smaller and larger barges. The most obvious way they would do that would be to give a large multiplier to yield on ships with fewer turrets. It kind of makes me think of a stacking penalty for strips . |
Gallinari
Diablo Industries
13
|
Posted - 2012.07.01 00:04:00 -
[858] - Quote
Absolutely loving the mining ship changes. I want that ORE frigate just for fun...ill probably never use it though but its damn sexy. |
Esceem
Suns of New Eden
6
|
Posted - 2012.07.01 10:43:00 -
[859] - Quote
"No" to the barge plans as they are now.
Removing the few racial minig frigates and cruisers is the wrong way: Thus, miners only have ships of one faction while ships of all races and factions are available to combat pilots.
Instead, every race should get it's own full range of mining ships.
All ORE ships could then become the miner's equivalent to prirate faction ships. Reworking these is a good idea, though. |
Maloraki en Cedoulain
Honest Engines Inc
0
|
Posted - 2012.07.02 02:10:00 -
[860] - Quote
Lots of interesting changes to look forward to. I'm particularly looking forward to trying out a drone Navitas. On the other hand as a frequent explorer I'm worried the Imicus's drone capability will be nerfed. I dearly love being able to easily clear Radar/Mag (high sec mostly) sites with it's current drone capability. Please don't nerf it to bad, pretty please? |
|
Thelron
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
34
|
Posted - 2012.07.02 12:20:00 -
[861] - Quote
Esceem wrote:"No" to the barge plans as they are now.
Removing the few racial minig frigates and cruisers is the wrong way: Thus, miners only have ships of one faction while ships of all races and factions are available to combat pilots.
Instead, every race should get it's own full range of mining ships.
All ORE ships could then become the miner's equivalent to prirate faction ships. Reworking these is a good idea, though.
Confirming that Moas have long been known to auto-destruct if launched with mining lasers.
Now that Dessies and BCs have come along the racial lineups all have reasonable options for someone who wants to mine their way up the ladder, so it isn't like the "old days" when Caldari pilots looked at Gallente pilots and became physically ill. None of these options require built-in bonuses... the ships with those bonuses are certainly nice stepping-stones or cheap options when you don't mine often and rarely in the same place, but their removal isn't going to suddenly screw everyone over.
Additionally, the ORE ships in a lot of ways already ARE the equivalent to pirate ships, without the whole "buying them with LP" bit. They're the bigger, better, weirder, balance-bending entries in the list of "ships that break rocks," from a faction that's ALL about breaking rocks. Hence, their utter lack of any intentional offensive capabilities (anomaly-running Rorquals notwithstanding)... much like the pirate ships are generally wholly unsuitable to anyone not interested in blowing things up (as they tend to work off the same "double your guns" bonus style they tacked on to turn things like the Osprey into a part-time mining vessel).
Basically,
No. |
Urgg Boolean
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
170
|
Posted - 2012.07.03 17:58:00 -
[862] - Quote
Many people are suggesting a lot of interesting ideas, but nobody can predict what the Devs will really do. That being said, many players in this thread seem to be directly and/or indirectly suggesting T3 ORE ships. It sure seems like a T3 mining vessel would solve the "tiericide" issues by being massively flexible, and offering capabilities based upon loadout/build/skills. I seriously doubt we will get a T3 ORE ship. That being said, I give two thumbs up for the proposed rethinking/balancing of mining ships.
So, I encourage the Dev Team to give the specs to the fellow who wrote EFT so we can be working out builds for these new ORE ships well before release. |
Infinite Force
Hammer Of Light Covenant of the Phoenix Alliance
78
|
Posted - 2012.07.03 18:15:00 -
[863] - Quote
Urgg Boolean wrote:Many people are suggesting a lot of interesting ideas, but nobody can predict what the Devs will really do. That being said, many players in this thread seem to be directly and/or indirectly suggesting T3 ORE ships. It sure seems like a T3 mining vessel would solve the "tiericide" issues by being massively flexible, and offering capabilities based upon loadout/build/skills. I seriously doubt we will get a T3 ORE ship. That being said, I give two thumbs up for the proposed rethinking/balancing of mining ships.
So, I encourage the Dev Team to give the specs to the fellow who wrote EFT so we can be working out builds for these new ORE ships well before release. I support giving out the proposed specs so that we can see the EFT, PyFA and EveHQ fits (even though I doubt they'd do it). You should also be able to go on SiSi around that time and start fitting for cheap too.
+1 to T3 ORE ships +1 to releasing specs well ahead of time and LISTENING to subsequent feedback HROLT CEO Live Free; Die Proud
Hammer Mineral Compression -á- The only way to go! |
Derick Deninard
ParlanguaCo Blue Meanies
0
|
Posted - 2012.07.05 07:41:00 -
[864] - Quote
I like the idea of rebalancing the mining ships, and while I have not read all 40 some pages of replies so I am not sure if this has been suggested or not, I belive that there should be a ship class capable of transporting between 50,000 and 75,000 m3 base with decent amout of speed for a ship that size say 90mps and warp around 3 AU/s. Give it some decent sheild and armor and a couple of slots to customize it. Maybe even a turret or lancher slot depending on race. Maybe I'm alone in this thinking, but we have something like a pickup truck size craft, or a tractor trailer size ship with no delivery truck catigory. It just seems like a long way to me between 6,000m3 even maxed out with rigs and expanders around 42k m3 and the standard freighter of over 720,000 m3 cargo hold. Seems like there should be ships capable of transporting an out post but not an entire station. |
SabuMaru ICE
MINE THEM TO DEATH Coalition of the Unfortunate
5
|
Posted - 2012.07.05 09:59:00 -
[865] - Quote
Derick Deninard wrote:I like the idea of rebalancing the mining ships, and while I have not read all 40 some pages of replies so I am not sure if this has been suggested or not, I belive that there should be a ship class capable of transporting between 50,000 and 75,000 m3 base with decent amout of speed for a ship that size say 90mps and warp around 3 AU/s. Give it some decent sheild and armor and a couple of slots to customize it. Maybe even a turret or lancher slot depending on race. Maybe I'm alone in this thinking, but we have something like a pickup truck size craft, or a tractor trailer size ship with no delivery truck catigory. It just seems like a long way to me between 6,000m3 even maxed out with rigs and expanders around 42k m3 and the standard freighter of over 720,000 m3 cargo hold. Seems like there should be ships capable of transporting an out post but not an entire station.
ORCA ?
90.000M3 cargo hold 50.000M3 ORE hold 40.000M3 corporate hanger
no turrets
hence there are remarks made about makin a T3 industiel/Miner that can forefill part of that roll
|
Infinite Force
Hammer Of Light Covenant of the Phoenix Alliance
80
|
Posted - 2012.07.05 13:49:00 -
[866] - Quote
SabuMaru ICE wrote:ORCA ?
90.000M3 cargo hold 50.000M3 ORE hold 40.000M3 corporate hanger
no turrets
hence there are remarks made about makin a T3 industiel/Miner that can forefill part of that roll
edit : on the outpost remark : 1 outpost takes multiple Freighter loads to online .. that is Egg + startup fuel a station will probably requere dozens of Freighters
jumpfreighters are NOT counted as they have 200-300K capacity and as such not usefull It would be really useful if people would actualy think before they post.
Derick Deninard is asking for a mini-freighter, NOT an ORCA.
Freighers are required for Outposts - leave that alone.
HROLT CEO Live Free; Die Proud
Hammer Mineral Compression -á- The only way to go! |
SabuMaru ICE
MINE THEM TO DEATH Coalition of the Unfortunate
5
|
Posted - 2012.07.05 18:47:00 -
[867] - Quote
mis clicked |
Cloned S0ul
Blood Fanatics
162
|
Posted - 2012.07.06 09:21:00 -
[868] - Quote
I have no idea about ship balance but top mining bargers should get enough mining boost that give to miners ability to earn more money per hour and get a bit close to, lvl 4 mission runers, here is still big disspresion betwen benefit form missions lvl 4 and mining while solo. I dont whine here, just give you my opinion, i have exhumers on lvl 5 and pro mining skills on one of my mining character, and one character with tengu with well skiled missile etc, tengu pilot is able to earn like 30-40% more isk per hour (only form bounty) while runing mission lvl 4 than this miner. Teemo for president. |
MortisLegati
Caldari War Materiel
13
|
Posted - 2012.07.06 15:59:00 -
[869] - Quote
Cloned S0ul wrote:More yield will let miners make more ISK.
This is a common fallacy. More supply drives down profit since minerals are based around a supply/demand market. If every miner suddenly doubled their mineral production, mineral prices would nearly half. It would do nothing but make ships cheaper, in reality. |
Infinite Force
Hammer Of Light Covenant of the Phoenix Alliance
81
|
Posted - 2012.07.06 16:32:00 -
[870] - Quote
MortisLegati wrote:Cloned S0ul wrote:More yield will let miners make more ISK. This is a common fallacy. More supply drives down profit since minerals are based around a supply/demand market. If every miner suddenly doubled their mineral production, mineral prices would nearly half. It would do nothing but make ships cheaper, in reality. QFT. When I mine, my purpose is to pull in as much ore as possible in the shortest amount of time. Why? Because I can then go on to do other things in the time I have available to me. HROLT CEO Live Free; Die Proud
Hammer Mineral Compression -á- The only way to go! |
|
Msgerbs
Aliastra Gallente Federation
30
|
Posted - 2012.07.07 17:41:00 -
[871] - Quote
While I like some of the changes. I don't like how it seems like some of the uniqueness of the different races ships is being removed. I mean, how can you destroy the precious kestrel? D: |
Darkdood
Estrale Frontiers Project Wildfire
23
|
Posted - 2012.07.08 07:45:00 -
[872] - Quote
Just spit balling here...
Hypothetically if you gave the new mining frigate 5 high slots for mining lasers couldn't you just use a fancy version of the same artwork to make a T2 mining frigate that is specialized for gas mining?
Isn't all gas mining in 0.0 and WH's anyway? By default a dangerous job. So the ships needs to be lite and fast with maybe a point or two in warp core stability?
All you need is a Blockade Runner to haul your gas out etc etc. |
DeltaV
4 Marketeers Rura-Penthe
0
|
Posted - 2012.07.09 08:20:00 -
[873] - Quote
SabuMaru ICE wrote: ORCA ?
90.000M3 cargo hold 50.000M3 ORE hold 40.000M3 corporate hanger
no turrets
hence there are remarks made about makin a T3 industiel/Miner that can forefill part of that roll
edit : on the outpost remark : 1 outpost takes multiple Freighter loads to online .. that is Egg + startup fuel a station will probably requere dozens of Freighters
jumpfreighters are NOT counted as they have 200-300K capacity and as such not usefull
Derick Deninard is asking for a mini-freighter, NOT an ORCA.
Freighers are required for Outposts - leave that alone. HROLT CEO Live Free; Die Proud
Hammer Mineral Compression - The only way to go!
But still if you add a fuel bay and give it the ability to compress ore as you mine an Orca would be a nice mining platform.Something for higher skilled players to look forward to and not just reworked barges. |
SabuMaru ICE
MINE THEM TO DEATH Coalition of the Unfortunate
5
|
Posted - 2012.07.09 13:48:00 -
[874] - Quote
DeltaV wrote:
But still if you add a fuel bay and give it the ability to compress ore as you mine an Orca would be a nice mining platform.Something for higher skilled players to look forward to and not just reworked barges.
u mean a high sec version of an Rorqual ?
that should be a T2 varriant then but without the boosts
compressing is something that is very hard to get Economicaly Viable imo as u need large volumes of high end ORE not sure if a change in that Fuel usage would be a nice thing to add
|
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
561
|
Posted - 2012.07.10 06:23:00 -
[875] - Quote
Infinite Force wrote:Urgg Boolean wrote:Many people are suggesting a lot of interesting ideas, but nobody can predict what the Devs will really do. That being said, many players in this thread seem to be directly and/or indirectly suggesting T3 ORE ships. It sure seems like a T3 mining vessel would solve the "tiericide" issues by being massively flexible, and offering capabilities based upon loadout/build/skills. I seriously doubt we will get a T3 ORE ship. That being said, I give two thumbs up for the proposed rethinking/balancing of mining ships.
So, I encourage the Dev Team to give the specs to the fellow who wrote EFT so we can be working out builds for these new ORE ships well before release. I support giving out the proposed specs so that we can see the EFT, PyFA and EveHQ fits (even though I doubt they'd do it). You should also be able to go on SiSi around that time and start fitting for cheap too. +1 to T3 ORE ships +1 to releasing specs well ahead of time and LISTENING to subsequent feedback
CCP will never release T3 ORE ships, becuase of hulkageddon and all the suicide attacks on miners. Even in the dev blog, they said they are only designing new mining ships to deal with hulkageddon and suiciders. T3s would cost too much when lost, and be a high gank target.
If anything, this expansaion is only nice, since it might be cheaper to die while mining. I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
SabuMaru ICE
MINE THEM TO DEATH Coalition of the Unfortunate
5
|
Posted - 2012.07.10 07:19:00 -
[876] - Quote
rodyas wrote:Infinite Force wrote:Urgg Boolean wrote:Many people are suggesting a lot of interesting ideas, but nobody can predict what the Devs will really do. That being said, many players in this thread seem to be directly and/or indirectly suggesting T3 ORE ships. It sure seems like a T3 mining vessel would solve the "tiericide" issues by being massively flexible, and offering capabilities based upon loadout/build/skills. I seriously doubt we will get a T3 ORE ship. That being said, I give two thumbs up for the proposed rethinking/balancing of mining ships.
So, I encourage the Dev Team to give the specs to the fellow who wrote EFT so we can be working out builds for these new ORE ships well before release. I support giving out the proposed specs so that we can see the EFT, PyFA and EveHQ fits (even though I doubt they'd do it). You should also be able to go on SiSi around that time and start fitting for cheap too. +1 to T3 ORE ships +1 to releasing specs well ahead of time and LISTENING to subsequent feedback CCP will never release T3 ORE ships, becuase of hulkageddon and all the suicide attacks on miners. Even in the dev blog, they said they are only designing new mining ships to deal with hulkageddon and suiciders. T3s would cost too much when lost, and be a high gank target. If anything, this expansion is only nice, since it might be cheaper to die while mining.
i've bin mining for a long time now and even during Hulkageddon. and even the current Exhumers are capable of withstanding some gun fire without sacrificing Yield. T3's would indeed be a bigger target for gankers, but according to CCP they will never hand us a ship with more yield then the Hulk, that means that a T3 would have :
- Better Tank
- More Storage Space
- Build-in Booster
- Cloaking
- increased warp strength
- interdiction nullification
- more mining drones
- better mining drones
- etc etc
i think there are so many possibilities and we should not just look at the T3 for just mining ... but for the Whole range of Industrial / Manufacturing / Mining / Hauling as just a T3 miner would be boring and not add any deveristy
|
DeltaV
4 Marketeers Rura-Penthe
0
|
Posted - 2012.07.10 13:47:00 -
[877] - Quote
Quote: u mean a high sec version of an Rorqual ?
that should be a T2 varriant then but without the boosts
compressing is something that is very hard to get Economicaly Viable imo as u need large volumes of high end ORE not sure if a change in that Fuel usage would be a nice thing to add
For hi sec miners it probably wouldnt be viable although solo miners would be able to mine longer (not as much time lost hauling). Where it does become viable is low sec and wormholes where there are alot of high end ores.Its also a matter of time management.
Lets face it unless you have a large fleet mining you wont be bringing in enough ore to keep a Rorqual running so you end up with someone compressing every now and then or doing the lot after you have finished the op.Also it would give you something to do while you wait for roids to pop.
As for an Orca being a ganking target.That like most things in EVE is a matter of "RISK vs REWARD". |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2644
|
Posted - 2012.07.10 14:43:00 -
[878] - Quote
Darkdood wrote:Just spit balling here...
Hypothetically if you gave the new mining frigate 5 high slots for mining lasers couldn't you just use a fancy version of the same artwork to make a T2 mining frigate that is specialized for gas mining?
Isn't all gas mining in 0.0 and WH's anyway? By default a dangerous job. So the ships needs to be lite and fast with maybe a point or two in warp core stability?
All you need is a Blockade Runner to haul your gas out etc etc.
....ummmmm gas clouds go BOOM. You need a bit of tank to survive the explosions created by mining, not to mention the fact that Gas has *massive* volume per unit, you'd be warping to a station or other drop point so many times if you were limited by a frigate cargo yield that it wouldn't be a very efficient gas miner.
When I'm mining gas for boosters, I usually bastardize a battlecruiser with a goofy mix of tank and cargo expanders, along with the 5 gas harverster II's. Even than I'm still warping to the drop point constantly.
I'm having a hard time envisioning a frigate well-suited for this, that isn't obscenely disproportionate in terms of tank / cargo for its size.
Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
Krystyn
Serenity Rising LLC Vanguard.
92
|
Posted - 2012.07.11 11:13:00 -
[879] - Quote
MortisLegati wrote:Cloned S0ul wrote:More yield will let miners make more ISK. This is a common fallacy. More supply drives down profit since minerals are based around a supply/demand market. If every miner suddenly doubled their mineral production, mineral prices would nearly half. It would do nothing but make ships cheaper, in reality.
So wouldn't cheaper ships be a good thing for the game. Might increase PVP a bit if it wasn't so expensive to get blown up... Isn't that one of CCP's stated goals is to increase PVP... So why have the last several major patches been going the other way.
Anyways I do support improvements to the mining system. I just hope they are improvements not silly pointless changes.
which btw how are we supposed to get to our ore holds? Please tell me it will be in the right click menu!! |
Krystyn
Serenity Rising LLC Vanguard.
92
|
Posted - 2012.07.11 11:16:00 -
[880] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Darkdood wrote:Just spit balling here...
Hypothetically if you gave the new mining frigate 5 high slots for mining lasers couldn't you just use a fancy version of the same artwork to make a T2 mining frigate that is specialized for gas mining?
Isn't all gas mining in 0.0 and WH's anyway? By default a dangerous job. So the ships needs to be lite and fast with maybe a point or two in warp core stability?
All you need is a Blockade Runner to haul your gas out etc etc. ....ummmmm gas clouds go BOOM. You need a bit of tank to survive the explosions created by mining, not to mention the fact that Gas has *massive* volume per unit, you'd be warping to a station or other drop point so many times if you were limited by a frigate cargo yield that it wouldn't be a very efficient gas miner. When I'm mining gas for boosters, I usually bastardize a battlecruiser with a goofy mix of tank and cargo expanders, along with the 5 gas harverster II's. Even than I'm still warping to the drop point constantly. I'm having a hard time envisioning a frigate well-suited for this, that isn't obscenely disproportionate in terms of tank / cargo for its size.
The answer would be a decent sized Gas Hold...and gas clouds don't go boom that's the deep core mining stuff But the original question still remains why not make a dedicated gas mining ship? |
|
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
564
|
Posted - 2012.07.11 11:47:00 -
[881] - Quote
SabuMaru ICE wrote:i've bin mining for a long time now and even during Hulkageddon. and even the current Exhumers are capable of withstanding some gun fire without sacrificing Yield. T3's would indeed be a bigger target for gankers, but according to CCP they will never hand us a ship with more yield then the Hulk, that means that a T3 would have :
- Better Tank
- More Storage Space
- Build-in Booster
- Cloaking
- increased warp strength
- interdiction nullification
- more mining drones
- better mining drones
- etc etc
i think there are so many possibilities and we should not just look at the T3 for just mining ... but for the Whole range of Industrial / Manufacturing / Mining / Hauling as just a T3 miner would be boring and not add any deveristy
Well the main thing I suppose with the mining T3 is will they be better then these new mining ships. Like the tengu is pretty stellar as well as current T3 are better boosters then BCs. I was mostly afraid, CCP wouldn't overbuff T3 mining ships, but if they did they would be worth it. Lets say they took that list, and it formed a soloable hulk. That would be worth it.
Those are fun options, but if CCP designs the T3 like it is a gallente ship, it will suck, but if they take those options and create it like a minmitar ship it will be awesome. That is the main point I was going for. I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
Osirus Bayne
Sunrise Donkey HORSE-KILLERS
0
|
Posted - 2012.07.11 15:15:00 -
[882] - Quote
I like the new changes to the mining barges specifically.
I am not sure, that it will solve the ganking issue in high sec though.
I would suggest a slight modification to the current security status levels. Anyone can get ganked in 1.0 just as easy as in 0.5 atm which seems a little wrong IMO.
Why even have a sec status rating for these systems. You might as well just give it 3 statuses.
2.0 High sec 1.0 low sec 0.0 null sec
With the current system why not add advanced aggression from Concord and belt patrols for 1.0-0.8 space. You try and lock someone, you get a warning....you choose to actually lock them, Concord attacks you.
0.7-0.5 you can lock them, but you fire and you get Concorded. No belt patrols, but still patrols at gates and Stations.
0.4-0.1 Concord will respond eventually, so time for the ganker to retreat.
Null sec....well stays null sec.
The above are just a basic layout to make the security system actually mean more in the game. Just an idea. It does need to be looked at though and I would welcome any change at all. My idea is just an example. |
Zyress
The Fabulous Thunderbirds
112
|
Posted - 2012.07.11 18:54:00 -
[883] - Quote
Any chance I can trade in my Hulk on a Procurer? |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2652
|
Posted - 2012.07.11 19:21:00 -
[884] - Quote
Krystyn wrote: The answer would be a decent sized Gas Hold...and gas clouds don't go boom that's the deep core mining stuff
Oh yes. Yes they do.
I'd most certainly feel safer in a ship built for the job. Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
JC Anderson
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
669
|
Posted - 2012.07.12 15:19:00 -
[885] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Krystyn wrote: The answer would be a decent sized Gas Hold...and gas clouds don't go boom that's the deep core mining stuff
Oh yes. Yes they do. I'd most certainly feel safer in a ship built for the job.
That was comical. |
Hussain
Azure Horizon Federate Militia
4
|
Posted - 2012.07.12 19:33:00 -
[886] - Quote
Honestly I think this is all wrong.
Devs keep buffing small ships wich is cool but...
What about larger ships having effective ways of dealing with smaller ships ?
And i meen by that a ship normally fitted to fight others of its size having the possibility of dealing whit one smaller ship without much trouble.
Small scale combat (and even larger one may argue) is about controlling range, all things been equal the smaller ship will do that and if its very hard to get to them outside scram/web range as I think today is unless you are specially equiped to do that larger ships will be more of a liability than an asset as smaller ships get buffed and buffed.
My rant, my 2 cents...
Peace
|
Yoshiki Oda
Club Bear
3
|
Posted - 2012.07.13 05:23:00 -
[887] - Quote
Hussain wrote:Honestly I think this is all wrong.
Devs keep buffing small ships wich is cool but...
What about larger ships having effective ways of dealing with smaller ships ?
And i meen by that a ship normally fitted to fight others of its size having the possibility of dealing whit one smaller ship without much trouble.
Small scale combat (and even larger one may argue) is about controlling range, all things been equal the smaller ship will do that and if its very hard to get to them outside scram/web range as I think today is unless you are specially equiped to do that larger ships will be more of a liability than an asset as smaller ships get buffed and buffed.
My rant, my 2 cents...
Peace
Um... you understand all ships are being rebalanced? Did you even read the post you are commenting on? |
Hussain
Azure Horizon Federate Militia
4
|
Posted - 2012.07.13 12:08:00 -
[888] - Quote
Yoshiki Oda wrote:Hussain wrote:Honestly I think this is all wrong.
Devs keep buffing small ships wich is cool but...
What about larger ships having effective ways of dealing with smaller ships ?
And i meen by that a ship normally fitted to fight others of its size having the possibility of dealing whit one smaller ship without much trouble.
Small scale combat (and even larger one may argue) is about controlling range, all things been equal the smaller ship will do that and if its very hard to get to them outside scram/web range as I think today is unless you are specially equiped to do that larger ships will be more of a liability than an asset as smaller ships get buffed and buffed.
My rant, my 2 cents...
Peace
Um... you understand all ships are being rebalanced? Did you even read the post you are commenting on?
More than you know as its not a problem from today. it all started back arround 2008 with the speed nerf.
Just commenting on a trend that only seems to continue.
Check last capital rebalancing and drones for instance. |
Shopie Charante
The Scope Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.07.14 13:00:00 -
[889] - Quote
Im liking the changes to the mining barges and the new mining frig looks awsome, the tec 1 frig changes look sweet too cant wait to test them on the live server
But... Yes there had to be a BUT didnt there...
Dont now about anyone else but i think the barges could use a new model to go with the changes as the ones we have now are going to look lets say "Out of place" with the new changes, Maybe somthink bigger and longer and alot more... Stylish.
Ive got an idea of the way they could look but im not good at doing art so there is no chance of me posting an image |
Shopie Charante
The Scope Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.07.14 13:05:00 -
[890] - Quote
Archinquisitor wrote:Before making ADDITIONAL destroyers, consider upgrading one racial frigate each to destroyer, as we have so many frigates already, some without a proper role.
Urm... all i can say is...
LOL YOU DIDNT READ IT AT ALL DID YOU! |
|
Shopie Charante
The Scope Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.07.14 13:07:00 -
[891] - Quote
Hussain wrote:Honestly I think this is all wrong.
Devs keep buffing small ships wich is cool but...
What about larger ships having effective ways of dealing with smaller ships ?
And i meen by that a ship normally fitted to fight others of its size having the possibility of dealing whit one smaller ship without much trouble.
Small scale combat (and even larger one may argue) is about controlling range, all things been equal the smaller ship will do that and if its very hard to get to them outside scram/web range as I think today is unless you are specially equiped to do that larger ships will be more of a liability than an asset as smaller ships get buffed and buffed.
My rant, my 2 cents...
Peace
Lets say your doing a faction warfare and both sides have frigats. Would both sides have trouble with them? Your not seeing the bigger picture, its not all about you. |
YuuKnow
361
|
Posted - 2012.07.15 00:25:00 -
[892] - Quote
I like the changes.
Don't forget to put more ship-hull redesigns in the winter expansion as well.
yk |
Hawgr
Sanctum Infinitas
8
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 01:21:00 -
[893] - Quote
CCP Veritas wrote:I'm going to fly so many Bantams...
Please do, Back in the early days of eve, We'd see ya all flying in New Eden!! There wasn't as much Stupid and Idiotic screw up compared to now!!
So once again, Please come and play the game a bit !!
|
Barbara Nichole
Cryogenic Consultancy Black Sun Alliance
277
|
Posted - 2012.07.19 17:28:00 -
[894] - Quote
Quote:ARE WE RECEIVING A DEDICATED GAS MINING SHIP? A point that needs to be taken into consideration GÇô if that is possible we will integrate it into the Skiff,
Skiff?! really? It has one, count em - one, high slot! a dedicated gas miner has to be better than or equal to 5 t2 gas harvesters - which we currently have to fit to battleships in order to mine gas. Since more gas harvesting is done in WH's, the ship should be able to handle sleepers (perhaps with help) (T3 hull?) while doing it's thing.
Anyway.. I hope "Skiff" isn;t the finally outcome. [IMG]http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a208/DawnFrostbringer/consultsig.jpg[/IMG] |
Ronce
Scorpius Federation Kleinrock Group
0
|
Posted - 2012.07.20 04:01:00 -
[895] - Quote
I'm really wondering what the thought process is behind leaving the 250+million isk ship alone in it's ability to protect itself and get further ganked in HS by jerks out for kicks, and the 10 million isk piece of censored words go here battleship type ehp. I'd fit that sucker with drones and whatever guns I could and go suicide gank battleships in l4's. |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
574
|
Posted - 2012.07.20 06:21:00 -
[896] - Quote
Don't worry too much about that 250+ million ship, its getting nerfed too. I suppose those, with the tech patch they are doing, the hulk price should go down. But then I wil propably use it more often to solo if that is the case. I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
JamesCLK
Lone Star Exploration Lone Star Partners
189
|
Posted - 2012.07.20 13:36:00 -
[897] - Quote
Barbara Nichole wrote:Quote:ARE WE RECEIVING A DEDICATED GAS MINING SHIP? A point that needs to be taken into consideration GÇô if that is possible we will integrate it into the Skiff, Skiff?! really? It has one, count em - one, high slot! a dedicated gas miner has to be better than or equal to 5 t2 gas harvesters - which we currently have to fit to battleships in order to mine gas. Since more gas harvesting is done in WH's, the ship should be able to handle sleepers (perhaps with help) (T3 hull?) while doing it's thing. Anyway.. I hope "Skiff" isn;t the finally outcome.
New 'Gas-Strip-Mining-turrets-that-Skiffs-get-huge-bonuses-for' anyone? The Skiff/Procurer would be the perfect barge for something as hazardous as gas mining. |
Droxlyn
TOHA Heavy Industries TOHA Conglomerate
87
|
Posted - 2012.07.24 02:34:00 -
[898] - Quote
New threads of note: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=136222&find=unread Initial mining barge changes are on the test server and https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=136126&find=unread Mining barge changes [now with feedback]
Drox |
Jake Rivers
Senex Legio Get Off My Lawn
79
|
Posted - 2012.07.24 18:11:00 -
[899] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Hey folks, thanks for the feedback, here are some answers for you.
- WHAT'S HAPPENING WITH THE HULK AFTER THE CHANGE? Exact modifications are still vague, but the plan is to quite reduce its cargo hold and add an ore bay of the same size than the removed cargo hold. That means cargo expanders and rigs wonGÇÖt affect the ore bay at all, requiring players to unload ore more frequently. This is by design, as we want the Hulk to be moved into a fleet purpose that has to rely on others to make proper use of its best mining output. That also means we will not be introducing items that affect the ore bay size.
Hope that clears some confusion.
Is there plans to reduce the size of mining crystals so one will be able to fit a suitable set of crystals in the hold of the hulk when mining multiple types of are? The current size of 500m3 is sorely inadequate if one is going to mine 4 or more different ore types. |
Urgg Boolean
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
186
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 00:49:00 -
[900] - Quote
Barbara Nichole wrote:Quote:ARE WE RECEIVING A DEDICATED GAS MINING SHIP? A point that needs to be taken into consideration GÇô if that is possible we will integrate it into the Skiff, Skiff?! really? It has one, count em - one, high slot! a dedicated gas miner has to be better than or equal to 5 t2 gas harvesters - which we currently have to fit to battleships in order to mine gas. Since more gas harvesting is done in WH's, the ship should be able to handle sleepers (perhaps with help) (T3 hull?) while doing it's thing. Anyway.. I hope "Skiff" isn;t the finally outcome. Well, with only one mount point for a harvester means it would have to be a Medussa style head - one unit with multiple suction heads on flexible hoses that whip about in the gas cloud.
It's doable, but I doubt it.
The idea of a dedicated gas harvester is pretty cool. |
|
vorminar
Vindicator Corporation Strategic Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 12:19:00 -
[901] - Quote
some nice idea's with the mining stuff going on there are barges going to get a graphics overhaul to bring them up to the same standard of looks as the frig though?
btw keep up the good work
|
vorminar
Vindicator Corporation Strategic Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 12:23:00 -
[902] - Quote
Jake Rivers wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:Hey folks, thanks for the feedback, here are some answers for you.
- WHAT'S HAPPENING WITH THE HULK AFTER THE CHANGE? Exact modifications are still vague, but the plan is to quite reduce its cargo hold and add an ore bay of the same size than the removed cargo hold. That means cargo expanders and rigs wonGÇÖt affect the ore bay at all, requiring players to unload ore more frequently. This is by design, as we want the Hulk to be moved into a fleet purpose that has to rely on others to make proper use of its best mining output. That also means we will not be introducing items that affect the ore bay size.
Hope that clears some confusion. Is there plans to reduce the size of mining crystals so one will be able to fit a suitable set of crystals in the hold of the hulk when mining multiple types of are? The current size of 500m3 is sorely inadequate if one is going to mine 4 or more different ore types.
i think the new part of the cargo hold is for ore only and it will have a separate (normal) cargo hold as well |
SabuMaru ICE
MINE THEM TO DEATH Coalition of the Unfortunate
5
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 13:11:00 -
[903] - Quote
vorminar wrote: i think the new part of the cargo hold is for ore only and it will have a separate (normal) cargo hold as well
on SiSi some of the changes are already LIVE and i can tell u yes there are a cargo hold (500M3) and an OREhold ( mack has biggest @ 25.000m3 )
nice one is ...
A skiff can have over 140.000 EHP ... new king of 0.0 ?
Hulk has same yield as it has now, so say 100% stats are at the moment :
Hulk: Fleet Miner - 100% Yield - 7.500m3 OREhold - ~15.000 EHP max - 25m3 Drone ( 5drones) - 500m3 normal
Mackinaw Solo Specialist - 75% Yield - 25.000 m3 OREhold - ~30.000 EHP - 20m3 Drone ( 4drones) - 500m3 normal
Skiff King of 0.0 - 75% Yield - 20.000m3 OREhold - 100.000+ EHP (easily ) - 15m3 Drone ( 3drones) - 500m3 normal
ICE and MEROX bonus are from RIG's |
vorminar
Vindicator Corporation Strategic Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 16:08:00 -
[904] - Quote
hmm hope the hulks ore carrying capability are raised any more bonus's to it and ill do more than that in 1 hit |
Spc One
The Chodak Void Alliance
69
|
Posted - 2012.07.29 07:49:00 -
[905] - Quote
Mackinaw has super small capacitor. Only 500 units, really ?
I suggest you increase it to 1000. It is a cruiser sized vessel anyway so it should have more than 500. Either increase capacitor or decrease capacitor use for miners even more.
Also i'd like to have a sound notification of my cargohold being full. Because i get sound notification when asteroid delpeats and when my capacitor is empy, but not when my cargohold is full or if i somehow overload a ship's cargohold and can't undock. |
Urgg Boolean
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
189
|
Posted - 2012.07.29 12:08:00 -
[906] - Quote
SabuMaru ICE wrote: - snip - stats are at the moment :
Hulk: Fleet Miner - 100% Yield - 7.500m3 OREhold - ~15.000 EHP max - 25m3 Drone ( 5drones) - 500m3 normal
Mackinaw Solo Specialist - 75% Yield - 25.000 m3 OREhold - ~30.000 EHP - 20m3 Drone ( 4drones) - 500m3 normal
Skiff King of 0.0 - 75% Yield - 20.000m3 OREhold - 100.000+ EHP (easily ) - 15m3 Drone ( 3drones) - 500m3 normal - snip - Drone Bay size: I was just on SiSI and the Hulk and Mac still have 50m3 drone space, Skiff 15m3.
I may have missed some proposal of drone bay size. I hope they are not planning what SabuMaru posted, this would be bad.
The Hulk might make sense as you could deploy a full flight of mining drones and, if in fleet as intended, you won't need the protection from ratz. On a Mack, it would be a disaster. On a Skiff, only 3 light drones just seems stupid. What are you supposed to do with only three drones?
Also, I said the day the new ORE ships went onto SiSi that the mack is seriously cap and CPU constrained. This needs some review. I'm okay with difficult fittings, and I understand that the constraints are there to force a choice between tank and yield. But the Mack is just impossible at this point. It can't fit a fully active 4-mid-slot buffer+resist tank. You have to use a passive component somewhere. This seems to defeat it's intended role as a soloist.
|
Drumar Rotineque
AirHogs Zulu People
9
|
Posted - 2012.07.29 13:32:00 -
[907] - Quote
Kor'o Yr'Y'eldi wrote:Wenron wrote:One technical note:
Damping - reducing an effect, or, in the world of controls, minimizing overshoot.
Dampening - getting something wet.
There, I've finally said it. This has been annoying me for a looooooong time.
*IRL mechanical engineer* Thank god someone else noticed that.
I've been loling about that since I started playing! |
Kaycerra
Black Lotus Heavy Industries Ethereal Dawn
15
|
Posted - 2012.07.29 17:04:00 -
[908] - Quote
SabuMaru ICE wrote:vorminar wrote: i think the new part of the cargo hold is for ore only and it will have a separate (normal) cargo hold as well
on SiSi some of the changes are already LIVE and i can tell u yes there are a cargo hold (500M3) and an OREhold ( mack has biggest @ 25.000m3 ) nice one is ... A skiff can have over 140.000 EHP ... new king of 0.0 ? Hulk has same yield as it has now, so say 100% stats are at the moment : Hulk: Fleet Miner- 100% Yield - 7.500m3 OREhold - ~15.000 EHP max - 25m3 Drone ( 5drones) - 500m3 normal Mackinaw Solo Specialist- 75% Yield - 25.000 m3 OREhold - ~30.000 EHP - 20m3 Drone ( 4drones) - 500m3 normal Skiff King of 0.0- 75% Yield - 20.000m3 OREhold - 100.000+ EHP (easily ) - 15m3 Drone ( 3drones) - 500m3 normal ICE and MEROX bonus are from RIG's
Nope.
We've already had someone outline the difference in yields, https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=138155&find=unread
And they are not 100/75/75. They are: Hulk 100%, Mackinaw 86%, Skiff 79%. Additionally, Ice bonuses also come from the ship, and its inherent ability to fit ice miners. The hulk will mine ice the fastest.
Furthermore, yes, the skiff gets a big buffer, but it does NOT get a massive active tank, which is what is important for solo mining in 0.0. Additionally, yield is still king, in 0.0. Buffer is not very useful in 0.0. Its pretty near impossible to get caught by pvpers, with your scouts up, as long as you warp off once you see them next door, or warp out of your hidden belt with a bubble on the gate the moment they enter system.
The REAL roles are:
Hulk: Max Yield, Fleet Miner, 0.0 only, best with a hauler Mackinaw: Haul it yourself king, Good balance for not getting ganked as often in highsec, nice middleground. Skiff: Empire Publord Miner: Mediocre yield, but what do bots care about yield when they can't be easily ganked anymore? |
Annie Freemont
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2012.07.29 22:44:00 -
[909] - Quote
What was the reason why the hulk lost 500m3 from the capacity of 8000m3? The ship is the largest of the barges, yet only has 500m3 more capacity than the hull it comes from. Yes, I am an alt.
|
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University Ivy League
1100
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 13:11:00 -
[910] - Quote
If the barges/exhumers are going to see such a large increase in their ore bay, then the Orca needs its ore bay raised as well.
Orca - ore bay is currently 50k m3
That should be raised to at least 100k m3 and possibly into the 200k m3 range. |
|
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University Ivy League
1100
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 13:16:00 -
[911] - Quote
Annie Freemont wrote:What was the reason why the hulk lost 500m3 from the capacity of 8000m3? The ship is the largest of the barges, yet only has 500m3 more capacity than the hull it comes from.
The bigger problem with the 500 m3 cargo bay is trying to carry T2 mining crystals, each of which is 50 m3.
The cargo bay sizes should be (# of strip miner slots x 500 m3) for each hull. That allows you to carry 9 or 10 T2 mining crystals for each strip miner, which gives you spares, alternate ore crystals.
Or cut the size of T2 mining crystals down to 10 or 15 m3 per unit instead of 50 m3. |
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
476
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 13:46:00 -
[912] - Quote
Drone bays are too small, what are miners supposed to do with 3x scout drones? Wait until hisec rats die of boredom?
Last time I flew a unskilled miner, her 5x T1 drones were taking way long to kill rats in a 0.6 system. I think that 25 m2 should be the minimum for ships intended to solo. "We want your help to convince management to develop Incarna into 3rd person shooter dungeon raiding with friendly fire in nullsec space..."
Seriously, Team Avatar? |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
4371
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 13:49:00 -
[913] - Quote
Annie Freemont wrote:What was the reason why the hulk lost 500m3 from the capacity of 8000m3? The ship is the largest of the barges, yet only has 500m3 more capacity than the hull it comes from.
The New Hulk is intended to work in a fleet with hauler support. Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Bugsy VanHalen
Society of lost Souls
148
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 16:25:00 -
[914] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
WHAT'S HAPPENING WITH THE HULK AFTER THE CHANGE? Exact modifications are still vague, but the plan is to quite reduce its cargo hold and add an ore bay of the same size than the removed cargo hold. That means cargo expanders and rigs wonGÇÖt affect the ore bay at all, requiring players to unload ore more frequently. This is by design, as we want the Hulk to be moved into a fleet purpose that has to rely on others to make proper use of its best mining output. That also means we will not be introducing items that affect the ore bay size.
I really like this idea. Will this"HULKS will be used best in fleets" initiative also carry some changes to the HULKS fleet support ships.
For example what about increasing the size of the ore hold in the ORCA and Roqual. Since the hulk will be able to hold even less than it does now(with cargo expanders as many miners choose to fit it) The modified ore/cargo size may not allow them to keep mining without jet canning until the hauler returns. larger ORE holds in these ships would off set that.
How about a new mining support industrial. pure hauler ship(even freighter size) with massive ore hold that can be loaded in space unlike the current freighter. Give it a small regular cargo hold for hauling supplies for the fleet but mostly it is used for hauling the massive amounts of ore generated by a decent size HULK fleet. Even just a new standard industrial T1 ORE ship with a 50,000m3 ore hold would help with logistics. Warping the ORCA back and fourth makes it hard to manage fleet boosts. rather than using 2 ORCA's.
I see it as a standard fleet of HULKS supported by an ORCA and a ore hauler could operate in high sec. While Larger null sec fleet with Roqual support using a ORCA as a hauler. either way the ORCA could greatly befit from a larger ore hold. 50,000m3 is small considering you can expand the normal cargo easily to 89,000m3. Even completely remove the ORCA's normal cargo hold. Give it a 100,000m3 ore hold and 60,000 corp hanger up from 40,000m3 corp hanger capacity. A little less total capacity than it has now but would also be freeing up the rig slots from cargo expanders. |
Bugsy VanHalen
Society of lost Souls
148
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 17:08:00 -
[915] - Quote
Scrapyard Bob wrote:If the barges/exhumers are going to see such a large increase in their ore bay, then the Orca needs its ore bay raised as well.
Orca - ore bay is currently 50k m3
That should be raised to at least 100k m3 and possibly into the 200k m3 range.
Rorqual's ore bay should probably be boosted from 250k up to 400-500k m3. yeah, yeah,
This is a no brainer. If HULKS are to be significantly more efficient in fleets that the fleet support ships absolutely need to be able to collect what they are putting out. HULK fleets generally have 3-10 HULKs. There are larger fleets but a single ORCA should easily support 4-6 HULKS.
I also agree that the absolute minimum drone bay size has to be 25m3. I mean come on. Even the huge ehp procurer will eventually be whittled down by rats with only 3 light drones for defense. This is not a protect me while AFK issue. You should not be forced to warp off when ATK because belt rats spawned and you have no way of killing them. You need to be able to kill the rats to continue mining, not just tank through a suicide gank. The procurer/skiff is suposed to be the high EHP ship which can solo mine in null?? It should have at least 25m3 drone bay, 5 light drones. But really should be much much more. 5 light drones is not near enough defense even for just rats in null sec. while the Retriever/Mack should have at least 50m3 to put out 5 lights, or 5 mining drones or give up the mining drones to bring 5 medium drones. The Covetor/HULK being the highest yield should also have the room to bring 5 mining drones and 5 light drones. If they add medium and heavy mining drones than the hulk should have 125m3 drone bay to put out 5 heavy mining drones. This is not just about defense, you need to keep mining drones as an option while still bring some combat drones for defense. the smallest drone hold should actually be 50m3 so you could choose between bringing 5 light drones and 5 mining drones, or 5 medium drones. The high EHP barges/exhumers should be able to bring larger drones for better defense. While the high yield barges/exhumers should be able to bring the right drones to max out yield. I am sure I read somewhere about medium and large mining drones being added. What ships would use these if Exhumers can't? Are they supposed to be for mining with a carrier? |
El'ismhur Khunsiu
Aries Engineering Quasar Generation
0
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 06:08:00 -
[916] - Quote
Scrapyard Bob wrote:If the barges/exhumers are going to see such a large increase in their ore bay, then the Orca needs its ore bay raised as well.
Orca - ore bay is currently 50k m3
That should be raised to at least 100k m3 and possibly into the 200k m3 range.
Rorqual's ore bay should probably be boosted from 250k up to 400-500k m3.
Yes completly true. We need to increase the ore bay for orca and rorqual.
|
Mechael
Ouroboros Executor Collective
198
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 06:51:00 -
[917] - Quote
El'ismhur Khunsiu wrote:Scrapyard Bob wrote:If the barges/exhumers are going to see such a large increase in their ore bay, then the Orca needs its ore bay raised as well.
Orca - ore bay is currently 50k m3
That should be raised to at least 100k m3 and possibly into the 200k m3 range.
Rorqual's ore bay should probably be boosted from 250k up to 400-500k m3. Yes completly true. We need to increase the ore bay for orca and rorqual.
If you give a mouse a cookie ...
Decrease the regular cargo capacity if you're going to increase the ore bay on the orca/rorq. Corp hangars are fine as they are. Whether or not you win the game matters not. -áIt's if you bought it. |
Blastcaps Madullier
Celestial Horizon Corp. Ethereal Dawn
76
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 11:16:00 -
[918] - Quote
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:Drone bays are too small, what are miners supposed to do with 3x scout drones? Wait until hisec rats die of boredom? Last time I flew a unskilled miner, her 5x T1 drones were taking way long to kill rats in a 0.6 system. I think that 25 m2 should be the minimum for ships intended to solo.
Get T2 drones they make a hell of a differance.
and I really hope that was a typo on drone bay size of the hulk on sisi, hope it's still 50M3 and NOT 25M3 |
Infinite Force
Hammer Of Light Covenant of the Phoenix Alliance
114
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 15:57:00 -
[919] - Quote
Scrapyard Bob wrote:Annie Freemont wrote:What was the reason why the hulk lost 500m3 from the capacity of 8000m3? The ship is the largest of the barges, yet only has 500m3 more capacity than the hull it comes from. The bigger problem with the 500 m3 cargo bay is trying to carry T2 mining crystals, each of which is 50 m3. The cargo bay sizes should be (# of strip miner slots x 500 m3) for each hull. That allows you to carry 9 or 10 T2 mining crystals for each strip miner, which gives you spares, alternate ore crystals. Or cut the size of T2 mining crystals down to 10 or 15 m3 per unit instead of 50 m3. Crystal sizes are currently 15 & 25 m3 each - 1/2 the size of what they used to be. However, it's still not properly balanced. There are two other threads - one in the Test Server feedback and one in S&I that are currently discussing these changes too.
I haven't looked today (at the time of this posting) to see if any further updates have been made on SiSi. HROLT CEO Live Free; Die Proud
Hammer Mineral Compression -á- The only way to go! |
Harvey James
Prospero's Sight
7
|
Posted - 2012.08.01 23:04:00 -
[920] - Quote
anyone else notice the retriever only has 1 midslot when mac has 4? |
|
Merritoff
Zod's Minions
11
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 01:40:00 -
[921] - Quote
I am assuming that the Mining Drone bonus will eventually be removed from Vexor and Arbitrator cruisers? Plus the updates that in recently history, mining drones are given bonus by the Drone Navigation module. Can there be mining drone bonuses on the Barges now?
The Mining Upgrades skill only operates when Mining Upgrade modules are installed. In the current climate, not using rig, mid and low slots for defense is an invitation to disaster. Can this skill be modified to the same behavior as Weapon Upgrades? |
Overs
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
11
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 13:27:00 -
[922] - Quote
Why not buff ore yields for the higher end minerals instead of mining ship buffs? For example instead of processing 333 units of Veldspar into 1000 units of tritanium, change the refining rules so that 250 units of Veldspar refine into 1000 units of tritanium, or have 333 units of Veldspar process into 1250 units of tritanium.
Also why not exclude the MLU cpu penalty from exhumers and mining barges or have it not apply to strip miners? |
Overs
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
11
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 14:48:00 -
[923] - Quote
The procurer with the faction battleship tank is stupid. Why not make it more of a ninja miner?
Procurer (Ninja Miner)
I think the advantages of this ship should be expressed in speed and agility. Also the procurer could have added defensive capability with 2-4 turret hardpoints and the extra fitting (cpu, cap, grid, and extra high slots) to handle medium turrets.
Mining Barge skill bonus per level: 5% bonus to agility (and/or velocity) 12.5% reduction to strip miner and ice harvester duration
role bonus: 2% bonus to cpu penalty of Mining Laser Upgrades per level in mining barge (perhaps for all exhumers and mining barges)
Attribute Changes Structure Hitpoints: 1,250 HP
inertia modifier: I don't know the formula for this but I think these ships should be at least as agile as a cruiser. I imagine something like 0.525x
Ore Hold Capacity: 4,000 m3
Armor Hitpoints: 1,250 HP
Shield Capacity: 1,550 HP
Max Velocity: 170 m/sec |
Harvey James
Prospero's Sight
7
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 19:13:00 -
[924] - Quote
CCP Tallest if you're reading this how come retriever and coveter have only 1 mid-slot each when there t2 variant has 4? |
Chi Quan
Bibkor Enterprises
2
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 21:10:00 -
[925] - Quote
oops, ignore pls -- Please like me, I'm an attention w*ore. |
Smohq Anmirorz
State War Academy Caldari State
30
|
Posted - 2012.08.08 05:48:00 -
[926] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium,
This is how your dev blog is structured:
Opening paragraph ending with "we want to speed things up and deliver the following for winter."
Bolded heading about 'A' stuff about 'A'
Bolded heading about 'B' stuff about 'B'
Bolded heading about 'C' stuff about 'C'
The conclusion from this structure is that 'A', 'B' and 'C' are all changes that are going to happen this winter. Please be more careful in the future as I had planned on these coming after December 21st, not August 8th. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1664
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 05:08:00 -
[927] - Quote
The changes to the attack frigates are simply amazing. New players are now more able to "explore" (for the lack of a better word) fast tackling in a more viable ship than the traditional tackling frigates (i.e. the Rifter) and decide whether training interceptors will be a goal for specialization. Mad props.
Sadly, this is a bit of a stealth-nerf to the Rifter. The Rifter was the symbol of the motto of "every ship is dangerous." It was a cornerstone of GoonFleet propaganda since 2006. It is effectively a symbol of this game - a game where even a new player can absolutely and irreversibly ruin your day. See the LEGO Rifter.
http://i.imgur.com/Dhd8o.jpg
:( EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
XxRTEKxX
Fenrir's Dogs of War Union 0f Revolution
3
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 05:37:00 -
[928] - Quote
so when is the mining frig coming out? |
Kragma sonofShippon
Spaceboobs
0
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 07:35:00 -
[929] - Quote
This is just the latest attempt of CCP to tell us how to play the game. The developers should be required to create a new toon every year. And not join there same corps etc. They seem to have forgotten how to play the game. Most people in Hulks don't mine in groups. You should get rid of the Hulk now. There is now reason for it. My wife thanks you. This change is the straw that broke the camels back. My 3 toons time will end in 3-5 days. While I have more than enough isk to buy plexes. I won't. It time to find another game to play one where hopefully they won't screw things up every 3-6 months. Your Grade for 2012. Graphics - A, Missile change -A, Changes -F, and no your average isn't a C. |
Calshim
Top Hats and Monocle's
0
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 13:11:00 -
[930] - Quote
Ok don't care about the other ships ... only the Hulk that I use !!!!
Before = Cargo bay 17580 or there abouts can't remember exact figure.
Now = ORE Bay 8500
In which REALITY IS THIS BETTER ?
IF IT AIN'T BROKE DON'T FIX IT !!!!
Thanks for not refering to that before breaking the Hulk.
*shakes head*
|
|
chandraboy
RED PAW Brothers of Apocrypha.
0
|
Posted - 2012.08.11 02:48:00 -
[931] - Quote
this update sucks you know what you have taken 50 percent of my capacity to my hulk there is no more reason to mine any more and since that is all i have time for becauae im busi in real life this my push me wo quit with all my paid toons this change is unfiar to thos of us who do not mine afk shame on you ccp this change SUCKS SUCKS SUCKS |
MIkhail Illiad
Selective Pressure Rote Kapelle
39
|
Posted - 2012.08.13 12:57:00 -
[932] - Quote
Seeing how it still hasn't been addressed and my curiosity is getting the better of me.
"The Maulus improvement consists of having a look at sensor dampening, which was nerfed too heavily in the past"
/me is intrigued
Can I get a bit more information on this rogue sentence that appeared in the devblog with regards to the t1 EAF changes, or if it has already been answered could someone point me in the direction of said words if I've derped and missed them. There once was an interesting signature here... It has long since disapeared.-á |
Kayron Garr
Black Pearl's
0
|
Posted - 2012.08.13 19:39:00 -
[933] - Quote
The ORE Frig is a nice idea, but where i can find the ship and the BPO/ BPC at these days? After the fight is before the fight. Your next opponent is waiting for your weakest moment. Be on your guard!
|
Recoil IV
Knights of the Posing Meat
11
|
Posted - 2012.08.15 12:03:00 -
[934] - Quote
Ribikoka wrote:Dont forget to add +1 mid slot to coercer. That's why i missed some Rupture kills :P
dont forget to add 1 slot for each destroyers |
Recoil IV
Knights of the Posing Meat
11
|
Posted - 2012.08.15 12:08:00 -
[935] - Quote
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:Drone bays are too small, what are miners supposed to do with 3x scout drones? Wait until hisec rats die of boredom? Last time I flew a unskilled miner, her 5x T1 drones were taking way long to kill rats in a 0.6 system. I think that 25 m2 should be the minimum for ships intended to solo.
you might aswell ask for more dps for pvp/pve ships claiming your target would die of boredom before you would kill |
Idris Helion
University of Caille Gallente Federation
29
|
Posted - 2012.08.16 14:08:00 -
[936] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:CCP Tallest if you're reading this how come retriever and coveter have only 1 mid-slot each when there t2 variant has 4? also patch notes say covetor has 50 drone bay/bandwidth for a barge i assume a typo?
T1 mining ships are for hisec and deep-blue use. T2 hulls are for more dangerous situations, and hence have more tanking ability. T1 hulls also require significantly lower skills to use effectively.
50m3 drone bay means you can carry 5 mining drones and 5 combat drones and use whatever set fits your situation without having to re-dock. The retriever only as 25m3, so you have to choose. I'd expect the Covetor to be a step up. |
ergherhdfgh
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
42
|
Posted - 2012.09.01 19:51:00 -
[937] - Quote
I think that the O.R.E. frigs are long over due. It never made sense to me that each race had it's own mining bonused frig and cruiser when Outer Ring Excavators was already making BPOs for barges and then eventually industrials.
As far as ship balancing goes it seems to me that you guys are way too focused on PvP. It's not that focusing on PvP is a bad thing but you seem to have done only that. I hear nothing of any consideration for any non-pvp use. Even the mining ship changes you seem to have focused on the PvP aspects almost strictly.
80+% of the people that play this game stick in high sec most of the time. PvE activities like missioning are a staple of this game. Not only do many veterans use PvE to fund their PvP habbits but noobs pretty much have to take their first losses against NPCs while working their way up through missions and learning the basic concepts of how to fit a ship. I will say it probably took me 2 years before I became good at fitting a ship and I only PvE which means I don't know how to fit a ship for any activity involving PvP and it might take me a year or better of doing PvP to learn that.
The above paragraphing being said you should keep in mind not only PvE uses but some type of progression for new players. Some examples of what I mean is that if a certain ship almost never gets used in PvP but gets used often in PvE that ship should not be considered lacking just because it's PvP uses are few. On the other hand a ship like the drake that gets used heavily in both PvE and PvP in my book is a bit of a failure.
My first toon was a minmatar. I struggled a long time with matar ships before I learned more about this game. First off guns in general are not noob friendly you basically have to fly a missile boat early on. If you focus on gunnery you can do ok in couple weeks maybe but your first week in game pretty much you have to use missiles as they are more low skill point friendly. Also the matar ships in general are not at all noob friendly but up until now they have been the 1 v 1 PvP ship of choice. If you balance all of these ships for PvP what are you going to do about all the many ways that tech 1 Matar ships suck in PvE?
Also it is just a simple fact that the resistance based bonus of the Caldari and Amarr is better for PvP. It's arguable if the boost amount bonus of the Matar and Galente ships is better for PvE and the Drake is a perfect example of what I mean. Maybe if you gave Matar/Gal ships a bonus for rep amount and hitpoints that might balance things but I'm not really sure how you could balance ships the same for everything.
In general if you make every race's version of a ship that fits a specific role exactly balanced you take away the variety and flavor that makes this game interesting and fun. Marauders are the perfect example of what I mean. They all have almost identical stats and all have boost amount bonuses. There's no Gallente drone bonused Marauder. Yes it kind of pissed me off that the Drake was so good at so many things but after I figured out how hard core Matar ships suck for noob missioning pilots I was sure glad the drake was there and just cross trained into it and ran many level 3 missions in it and worked my way into level 4's with that ship.
The one thing you must keep in mind is that no one is locked into any race. Cross training races is no big deal especially early on. If like me you are born Matar and realize how bad they suck in missions it does not take long to get into drake and become a mission running machine. DO NOT make all of these ships the same. DO NOT create roles and then give every race a ship to fill that specific role identically. If you do so you will destroy this game. Everybody should be able to stick to a race and do everything but each race needs to have strengths and weaknesses and if you want to be the best at everything you should have to crosstrain all the races.
I don't have any issue with one race being better at missioning and another race being ideal for solo PvP while a thrid race might be the best at nothing but be second best at almost everything. Just make sure that strengths are offset with weaknesses.
Examples of this are:
Amarr ship are highest DPS in game typically with awesome tanks which should make them unbeatable for PvP except they are heavy and slow and short on mids also rely totally on cap for DPS and are very susceptible to cap warfare. Further their damage is limited to EM/Therm.
Minmatar ships have paper thin tanks and often the crappiest dps of any other gun boat. Their tracking is usually lowest of the 3 gun types and almost all of their DPS is done deep into falloff so even the crap dps numbers in EFT are a gross over exaggeration of what you actually get. To compensate they are typically the fastest ships in game and have huge falloffs and their dps is immune to cap warfare. This allows the matar ships to dictate range and control the fight which usually leads to a win in 1 v 1s but lacking in fleet fights were webs and many ships exist. If you doubt me on this jump into a hurricane and go on a fleet roam and see who dies first. Hint: unless there is another hurricane in the group it's probably going to be you.
So you guys do things like speed up Galente ships so they can compete with Matar ships in 1 v 1s but fail to do anything to change the stats with the matar ships that make them substandard in every other situation.
As a note I've left faction ships like the machariel and cynabal as well as the T2 BS/Marauder with the falloff bonuses out of this as faction ships are a whole different deal and I've already expressed my distaste with the over homogenization of the Marauders. |
ergherhdfgh
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
42
|
Posted - 2012.09.01 20:05:00 -
[938] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:The changes to the attack frigates are simply amazing. New players are now more able to "explore" (for the lack of a better word) fast tackling in a more viable ship than the traditional tackling frigates (i.e. the Rifter) and decide whether training interceptors will be a goal for specialization. Mad props. Sadly, this is a bit of a stealth-nerf to the Rifter. The Rifter was the symbol of the motto of "every ship is dangerous." It was a cornerstone of GoonFleet propaganda since 2006. It is effectively a symbol of this game - a game where even a new player can absolutely and irreversibly ruin your day. See the LEGO Rifter. http://i.imgur.com/Dhd8o.jpg:(
I agree you can get to level 4 frig and level 4 small projectiles in no time. The rifter remaining the cheap brawler and T1 frig of choice for 1 v 1 is not a problem.
|
Dan Carter Murray
117
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 07:34:00 -
[939] - Quote
Drop 200 pg and 50 cpu from all minimatar cruisers
Add 100 pg and 20 cpu to all amarr cruisers
Drop 1 low slot on all minimatar cruisers
Add 1 low slot on all amarr cruisers
Add damage bonus to t1 omen
Add 10 m3 to all amarr cruiser drone bays.
Change tracking penalty from -75% on aurora to -10%
Do the same with scorch
Cruiser rebalancing completed. |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 32 :: [one page] |