Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 36 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 6 post(s) |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor Cosmic Consortium
5142
|
Posted - 2014.04.02 00:31:00 -
[121] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Maennas Vaer wrote:If the Hulk/Covetor are getting optimal range bonuses, please, please, PLEASE fix the gimped range on the survey scanner! fit it to your orca; et voila!
Well, to be honest I'd love to see an ORE covops frigate: no weapons, but gets a bonus to survey scanner range. Of course this would be accompanied by moving all "static belts" to anomalies, and moving all "ore sites" back to grav sites. Thus you have one team member probing down grav sites, surveying the ore content, and reporting the best ore body back to fleet.
But this thread is about the barges and exhumers, not the future of mining ;)
Day 0 advice for new players: Day 0 Advice for New Players |
AnarConn
Avalon's Retirement Greater Western Co-Prosperity Sphere
6
|
Posted - 2014.04.02 00:35:00 -
[122] - Quote
i fail to get the joke here fozzie, ur just repeating the task that u did when u initialy changed the exhumers to spread the usage, u did a pisspoor job then and a even worse job now, ppl wont change ships jsut cuz u want em or even force em, u gotta put into the equation that ppl use a ship that will best suit the many hours they will spend in it and still get a measureable income, and finaly lets not forget the horrid hulk, cant even hold 2 cycles worth (if ur very skilled) and in so u pretty much gotta stop then restart just cuz the can timer dont match up with ur mining cycle timer... ur really making a mess of things it wouldnt supprise me much if u see a increase of ppl stopping to resub when this hits TQ due to this fubar changes u come up with, hell i know of a few already that consider calling it quits cuz its jsut not worth all the hassle it is, plex prices going up, mineral prices pretty much the same, basicly u gotta do a lot more to get to the same point as before, why would anyone put up with that s*** ? oh and thats even before u get to refining which also will be nerfed.. good one i give it a 9/10 on disaster ranking |
GreasyCarl Semah
A Game as Old as Empire
84
|
Posted - 2014.04.02 01:11:00 -
[123] - Quote
When I first read this I thought it had to be an April Fool's joke like what Blizzard puts out. I guess it isn't. I can't believe you guys are focused on fixing problems that don't really exist. There are plenty of things in this game that need dev attention more than exhumers. |
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
2700
|
Posted - 2014.04.02 01:26:00 -
[124] - Quote
I note you are adding 30 tf cpu to the skiff. I assume this is to allow the extra MLU. But a MLU takes 40 tf plus the added load on the strip itself. If you already have one MLU (a typical fit for a Skiff) that adds another 7 tf for a total of 47 tf. Please consider a bigger cpu boost. http://vincentoneve.wordpress.com/ |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1058
|
Posted - 2014.04.02 02:15:00 -
[125] - Quote
The real rub on the Proc for me is that I'd need to play around to see how much of that EHP I can get back on my current proc setup with the missing mid.
Edit: Actually, nevermind, a RF bulkhead should do the job nicely in conjunction with a DCU II suppose |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
1201
|
Posted - 2014.04.02 02:59:00 -
[126] - Quote
Brewlar Kuvakei wrote:How about reducing all barge tanks abck down to sensible levels again, like you know when eve was good and not this brainless dross? Where going afk, botting or ISboxing was frowned upon and punished hard. You really are just milking this game dry now. Sure, as long as Barges & Exhumers get the equivalent slot layouts of Cruisers & HAC's to balance it out. So they can choose to fit tank if they want rather than the current inability due to lack of slots. Frigates get more slots to play with.
Also the Covetor/Hulk should have an ore bay equivalent to the Procurer/Skiff, still not super large like the Retriever/Mack, but large enough to hold 2 minutes worth of mining at least. |
Jose Montalvo
TSOE Po1ice TSOE Consortium
5
|
Posted - 2014.04.02 05:35:00 -
[127] - Quote
Nice improvement and congrats on this much needed buff to the work horses of the industry side of eve. Was thinking, since you wanna improve the abilities and range of the hulk and covetor, why not give a little love to the survey scanners ranges so they can be in par with the new targeting range of 35km and the new strip miner range of this two great mining vessels. Let us know if it is possible for the summer expansion, thx and keep up the good work.... |
Kariea Ternen
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.02 06:11:00 -
[128] - Quote
Give the procurer back it's mid slot it needs tank to survive lowsec and ganks and it's pretty much a shield ship, I don't see why you'd want to nerf it, nevermind an extra low slot for a DDA. |
Dave Stark
4847
|
Posted - 2014.04.02 07:01:00 -
[129] - Quote
i sincerely hope ccp reads this page and the previous page of feedback.
these changes really do fall wide of the mark, especially considering what they are intending.
trading a mid for a low on the procurer is simply a bad deal. people who mine in a procurer do so because they don't want to replace their ship every few hours when a bored 1 month old catalyst pilot walks in to their mining system. if the idea was to balance the yield between the two lowest yield ships... i would have been better done by removing a low from the mack/ret and giving them a mid instead. reducing the mack/ret's yield removes the appeal of "afk" mining.
and on a second point; it encourages the use of the hulk/cov as the gap between them and the other barges would increase. while we're at encouraging the use of the hulk/cov if we're standardising all of the non-primary stats a ship has then the hulk/cov needs an ore bay on par with at least the procurer, and a tank equal that of a mack/ret. being able to use the higher yield ships will also discourage 'afk' mining.
the very simple fact is that currently you have two choices; mine 'afk' because **** it... unless you're losing a retriever every ~hour or so, you're still making isk so who gives a ****? alternatively the other choice is, be a bit less afk and don't worry about replacing ships because you won't get blown up.
there's no room for a third option of "constantly be monitoring your ****** tiny ore hold ship that's got less tank than a wet paper towel because it has a laughably higher yield". the gap between the cov/hulk and other barges is too small, coupled with how inconvenient it is to use (small cargo capacity, small ore bay capacity, absurdly low ehp) means it isn't a viable prospect in the slightest now that people have turned ganking in to a full time activity and the reward for the increased risk of using those two ships simply isn't there. |
Lord ShadowMajere
Forsaken Reavers Backwater Aristocrats
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.02 07:07:00 -
[130] - Quote
This changes nothing, I rather have my corp mates still fielding anything but a Covetor/Hulk. The minor difference between the mack and the hulk with yield vs Ore holds and tank make fleet operations better with Survivability. By the time PVP pilots get locks on opposition Hulks and Covetors are already wrecks. I am all for making Skilled pilots Function better, this is eve, this is how it should be. But this changes nothing on the landscape except for more low end exhumers will be in use Vs the higher ends. The original Setup for Exhumers and Barges back in the day was great. You saved up, Had a clear goal.. you wanted into the hulk. That was everyones Goal. Now most players see no reason to go past a makinaw. You are telling newer players there is no reason to get in the later ships even for fleet operation, the small differences between yield vs survivability vs Hot drops is negligible compared to larger Ore bays and Tank. |
|
Eternus8lux8lucis
Journies End
233
|
Posted - 2014.04.02 07:22:00 -
[131] - Quote
Im liking everything but the lost mid slot on the procurer for the low. Keep the 4 mids on that. Strength isnt measured in numbers but in force of will. For if one motived willful individual stands many will fall around him that are weak.
http://tinyurl.com/YarrFace |
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
2527
|
Posted - 2014.04.02 07:24:00 -
[132] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:Tau Cabalander wrote:"Barge Yield With MLUs" column applied to Hulk made me laugh.
It is too expensive of a ship to not tank. Covetor is more sensible. Eventually the ship balancing team might actually try mining. Maybe even on Tranquility (preferably in systems policed by CODE). Then they might understand the issues.
I would also very much like to see one of the number crunchers post the comparative performance of these ships for players with the pertinent skills at Level IV, as opposed to V. Just exactly how is the newer, lesser skilled player affected by these changes?
BTW, given the group that this dev was in before he was plucked to join CCP, there is ZERO chance he ever has mined.
Most people viewed Orwell's writings as a warning. The harper regime and the goons treat them as a guidebook. |
Sintiar Loffwagea
The Scope Gallente Federation
4
|
Posted - 2014.04.02 07:55:00 -
[133] - Quote
at this change it's less yield and consume more mining crystals and so if use tech 2 mining crystals it's more isk need per yield base . |
Virtutis Sahasranama
Interstellar Hollistic Agency Brothers of Tangra
5
|
Posted - 2014.04.02 08:21:00 -
[134] - Quote
Ok I posted earlier, but no one has yet confirmed or responded so I am going to post my formulas here that way if I am making a mistake please point it out to me. I am not factoring fleet boosts as this should not matter (boosting the cycle time would not suddenly make one better than the other given equal boosts).
The table on the OP has the Mack mining ice slightly faster at high levels after than before. If I plug in the Mack right now I get:
78.787 =250*(0.75)*(0.667)*(0.88)*(0.91)*(0.91)*(0.91)*(0.95)
That is, base cycle (Ice Harvester Skill at 5)(Exhumer role bonus)(Ice rig)(IHU x 3)(Exhumers skill bonus at 5)
After change I get: 80.671 =250*(0.75)*(0.8)*(0.88)*(0.91)*(0.91)*(0.91)*(0.9)*(0.9)
That is Base cycle (Ice harvester skill at 5)(Exhumer role bonus)(Ice rig)(IHU x 3)(Barge skill bonus at 5)(Exhumer skill bonus at 5)
Which is close to 2 seconds longer cycle time after changes than before at max level. For someone not at max level, the disparity is higher - 4 seconds at Exhumers 3 for example. I am not seeing how the Mack on the OP is better after the change than before...am I missing a bonus in my calcs? |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
348
|
Posted - 2014.04.02 08:35:00 -
[135] - Quote
Not at all, because this is the income nerf to mining that was said not to happen with the Reprocessing changes. Only one thing bothers me ... Rise said in regard to the Nestor, that CCP is not happy with its price. And now they nerf reprocessing and mining, which will inevitably result in higher prices for all the things. Hypocrisy at its best, eh?
Btw... do I see a stealth Gank nerf here as well? If the Mack is not better than the Skiff any longer (and it's T1 counter parts), why should I use a Mack when I can use a Skiff and make it a lot harder for gankers to get get me? |
Dave Stark
4849
|
Posted - 2014.04.02 08:45:00 -
[136] - Quote
Virtutis Sahasranama wrote:am I missing a bonus in my calcs? double check exhumer role bonus |
Meilandra Vanderganken
Aliastra Gallente Federation
109
|
Posted - 2014.04.02 09:01:00 -
[137] - Quote
Underwhelming, the slightest nerf in Ret/Mack yield is not going to push ppl into using something else.
Those slight nerfs/buffs won't get you anywhere, for ppl to start using a Hulk it'd have to have at least twice the yield of it's counterparts I imagine. More Hulks (without any buff to tank) would lead to more pew, be it in the form of ganking or in the form of ore stealing/attacking MTU's dropped to scoop up the huge ammount of jetcans the Hulk would be spewing out.
Also, I think I will have to start PVP'ing in my Skiff now, that could be fun actually :) |
Dave Stark
4849
|
Posted - 2014.04.02 09:01:00 -
[138] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:Rise said in regard to the Nestor, that CCP is not happy with its price. And now they nerf reprocessing and mining, which will inevitably result in higher prices for all the things. Hypocrisy at its best, eh?
they mean higher in a relative sense, not an absolute sense. |
loyalanon
The Conference Elite CODE.
212
|
Posted - 2014.04.02 10:12:00 -
[139] - Quote
I like it, as it makes miners easier to pvp with the shield resistance bonus on exhumers swapped to exhumer skill level.
The only thing missing if I might add as an addition is a compulsory 10million isk mining permit module built into the ship if the user is using the barge or exhumer in high sec. It would check to see if the permit was purchased from an authorized new order agent, and ensure the user was actively playing the game at the keyboard and the user was following the code.
Each year the barge survived the permit would renew and automatically debit 10mil from the users wallet to ensure that the permit is up to date.
Any violation of the code in anyway would self destruct the users mining vessel and drop smart bombing probes which would also smart bomb the users escape pod.
Other then the above looks good. |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
348
|
Posted - 2014.04.02 10:48:00 -
[140] - Quote
ROFL
Loyal, you are 1 day late, sorry to shatter your hopes. |
|
Gawain Edmond
Angry Mustellid
56
|
Posted - 2014.04.02 11:16:00 -
[141] - Quote
GreasyCarl Semah wrote:When I first read this I thought it had to be an April Fool's joke like what Blizzard puts out. I guess it isn't. I can't believe you guys are focused on fixing problems that don't really exist. There are plenty of things in this game that need dev attention more than exhumers.
but it must be an april fools it's a pants on head stupid idea not as good as the time they said interbus was going to be moving players stuff around high sec though |
Shuka Ra
Weed Whackers
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.02 12:37:00 -
[142] - Quote
Obviously the brain child of a non-miner.
Sandbox - remember that? Who thinks it would be cooler if more people mine ice? Not the majority of miners - ore miners.
Fossie - get the feeling you have to come up with this junk to keep your job or make your job seem worthwhile. Give it a rest. |
WouldYouEver HaveSexWith aGoat
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
29
|
Posted - 2014.04.02 12:47:00 -
[143] - Quote
I love the changes, but there is one change that absolutely kills me:
- Ore bonuses will be change from higher amounts to lower cycle times.
GAH! This does nothing but nerfs AFK mining. While that is fine in theory, the problem is the same nerf does not apply to ice mining, which is already a far more AFKable activity. This change as such promotes more ice mining and less ore mining due to the increased tedium associated.
We already have a problem with ice mining being too AFKable and thus ore mining being very much a secondary option for most miners. Please reconsider this change. |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
348
|
Posted - 2014.04.02 13:00:00 -
[144] - Quote
So what? What's your problem with AFK-mining? There's also AFK-ratting, AFK-PVPing, AFK-Hauling, AFK-sitting-in-station, AFK-cloaking, AFK-market-trading, etc pp.
Why should the most basic activity of all activities in EVE, the activity that keeps the economy running and provides you with your toys, be less AFK-able than other activities? Why should this incredibly repetitive and monotonous activity require perma-presence of the player? You should, instead, be grateful that someone else does this activity so that you don't need to mine the minerals for each and every ship that you want to fly. It would make some sense, but the flood of tears would exceed biblical dimensions. |
valthyr
No Code of Conduct Fluffeh Bunneh Murder Squad
15
|
Posted - 2014.04.02 13:17:00 -
[145] - Quote
Fozzie, It seems that you completely missed the mark on the Procurer. As Most of the other people have posted agree removing the midslot in exchange for an extra low slot is a bad deal. While I can agree that the ability to fit another MLU would be nice I would much rather have the tank that is provided by the 4th mid slot. |
NEONOVUS
Diabolically Sexy Eureka-Secret Science R Us
817
|
Posted - 2014.04.02 13:20:00 -
[146] - Quote
I would say drop the equivalence buff on the retriever and mackinaw by 5%
This way the order for yield goes Covetor>Procurer>retriever and the orehold goes retriever>Procurer>Covetor and tank goes Procurer>retriever>Covetor
But this stillleads to an issue We just swapped Procurer for retriever Thus I propose that the covetor and Procurer swap places in orehold
This way if we assign points for places, everyone comes out equal in the matrix and thus descisions are based on the situation and not always better |
Tor Norman
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
124
|
Posted - 2014.04.02 13:57:00 -
[147] - Quote
Given the hulk's rather poor PG, how come it's still going to have 4 mids going forward? I'm struggling to think of hulk fits that make full use of 4 mids. 2, sure. 3, at a stretch but 4 seems too much.
I'm no miner, so forgive me if I've missed something obvious. WTF did I just read? |
Dave Stark
4852
|
Posted - 2014.04.02 14:00:00 -
[148] - Quote
Tor Norman wrote:Given the hulk's rather poor PG, how come it's still going to have 4 mids going forward? I'm struggling to think of hulk fits that make full use of 4 mids. 2, sure. 3, at a stretch but 4 seems too much.
I'm no miner, so forgive me if I've missed something obvious.
no you've not missed anything. filling the mids without sacrificing the lows is difficult indeed.
and as soon as you start sacrificing lows, the other ships all immediately become more attractive prospects. |
Goldensaver
Lom Corporation Brothers of Tangra
387
|
Posted - 2014.04.02 14:08:00 -
[149] - Quote
Alright, a couple things and my opinions on these changes.
Procurer changes: liking the extra yield, loving the speed and locking range increase. I already use these due to the align time and cost, not to mention the tank allowing them to frighten off an Interceptor or two. Especially if they're dumb enough to get in range of my scram and web. The increased drone damage and bay are awesome, really liking the changes overall... except for the lost mid. Now instead of 2x Invuln/web/scram I'll have to run a different setup. No big deal though. All's good. Definitely liking the increased speed though.
Skiff changes: **** yes. Increased drone damage and HP, an extra low slot, enough CPU to use it, more locking range, and more yield. What's not to love? Can't complain at all.
Retriever/Mackinaw changes: I don't use them myself, so can't be bothered to comment too much, but a highsec mining nerf indirectly buffs nullsec mining, so I am okay with this (I think).
Covetor/Hulk changes: the range is nice, the increase to speed is alright, and the 1s buff to align time is cool. Still too damn slow to align to use though, and if caught it doesn't stand a chance against a 'ceptor, let alone the gang following behind him (if you even live that long.)
Overall changes: on the note of yield versus cycle time, I do like the cycle time more as it means less missed cycles, but I don't like how the changes impact crystal use/damage and capacitor use.
I just really want to draw attention to the increased crystal damage thanks to cycle time, and the increased capacitor use. Is this an intentional change?
Other than that, these changes are a buff to my style of play, so no complaints. |
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs
3363
|
Posted - 2014.04.02 14:09:00 -
[150] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Maennas Vaer wrote:If the Hulk/Covetor are getting optimal range bonuses, please, please, PLEASE fix the gimped range on the survey scanner! fit it to your orca; et voila! ... and now you have a gimped Orca instead.
I've long been an advocate of an extra mid-slot on the Orca for a scanner. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 36 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |