Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 .. 18 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Nitshe Razvedka
1239
|
Posted - 2016.08.18 15:35:33 -
[181] - Quote
Dracvlad is on the money.
Miners need Concord and Tank.
Can't peel it back any further.
Thieving pirates discuss INTEGRITY; Anarchist gankers give us LAWS; and Whoring merc's cry then blow off clients with INSULTS.
Up is down and down is up in the C&P Forum.
|
Solecist Project
32206
|
Posted - 2016.08.18 15:36:12 -
[182] - Quote
Okay so now it's established that someone feels like he's big brother ... ... and needs to protect people from their own responsibilities.
That fits very well to the rest.
I, for one, am all for teaching people instead of protecting them from themselves ... ... and I have faith that a shift away from telling people to tank ... ... towards telling people to be combat ready ... ... is actually a good thing.
Anyone making a thread in F&I that goes towards more self responsiblity for miners has my vote.
(hint hint)
"That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breaths of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly pulverised by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds." -- Tippia
|
Pandora Carrollon
Kingsman Tailors
576
|
Posted - 2016.08.18 15:38:39 -
[183] - Quote
baltech-
I think Drav is having issues with your focus on the mining fleet in your plan.
Drav-
Being specific in CCP's 'desires' for the various mining barges without citing those desires in some official CCP document is not helping your case. It's letting people just beat the living tar out of you and dismiss your opinion. You should either cite or drop the claim and move on in either case. Just some friendly advice there.
I have no particular problem with baltech's plan, it's another idea of how to deal with the issues that exist and will continue to exist despite the changes CCP is making.
Perhaps we can all agree that the upcoming changes fall short of changes we'd actually like to see in mining? Perhaps if we all agree the new changes are more hurtful than helpful we can decide to try and stop them from making the transition from SISI to TQ?
ARE we all agreed there or does someone like the changes to the barges on SISI? If so, please help us understand the general benefit to the barges because I'm not seeing it right now.
Be Positive GÇó Change yourself first, New Eden will come later GÇó EVE is Awesome GÇó CCP isn't the enemy GÇó Players are people too GÇó Where're the clothing blueprints GÇó Yeah, I'm still learning this game
-- Pandora's Rules to EVE by
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
2257
|
Posted - 2016.08.18 15:39:29 -
[184] - Quote
Solecist Project wrote:Okay so now it's established that someone feels like he's big brother ... ... and needs to protect people from their own responsibilities.
That fits very well to the rest.
I, for one, am all for teaching people instead of protecting them from themselves ... ... and I have faith that a shift away from telling people to tank ... ... towards telling people to be combat ready ... ... is actually a good thing.
Anyone making a thread in F&I that goes towards more self responsiblity for miners has my vote.
(hint hint)
Well you know jack about mining and ganking, it really shows.
When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
|
Solecist Project
32206
|
Posted - 2016.08.18 15:47:50 -
[185] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:Solecist Project wrote:Okay so now it's established that someone feels like he's big brother ... ... and needs to protect people from their own responsibilities.
That fits very well to the rest.
I, for one, am all for teaching people instead of protecting them from themselves ... ... and I have faith that a shift away from telling people to tank ... ... towards telling people to be combat ready ... ... is actually a good thing.
Anyone making a thread in F&I that goes towards more self responsiblity for miners has my vote.
(hint hint) Well you know jack about mining and ganking, it really shows. Damn ... I guess that mining fleet of three covetors and an orca I have, with links, is nothing. And I guess having been a pretty well known ganker in 2012 and actually innovating ganking is nothing either.
My bad ... I guess I'll go home now.
And lol, that reply really shows how you're struggling.
"That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breaths of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly pulverised by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds." -- Tippia
|
Nitshe Razvedka
1239
|
Posted - 2016.08.18 15:47:57 -
[186] - Quote
Big difference between teaching and permanently feeding people to the wolves.
Thieving pirates discuss INTEGRITY; Anarchist gankers give us LAWS; and Whoring merc's cry then blow off clients with INSULTS.
Up is down and down is up in the C&P Forum.
|
Solecist Project
32206
|
Posted - 2016.08.18 15:51:34 -
[187] - Quote
Anyway, people in this thread should stop arguing nonsensically with these trolls who have issues. All that matters is creating a thread in F&I and writing down the idea.
What these people here think is irrelevant. All that matters is that devs see it and think about.
"That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breaths of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly pulverised by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds." -- Tippia
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
2257
|
Posted - 2016.08.18 15:57:30 -
[188] - Quote
Pandora Carrollon wrote:baltech-
I think Drav is having issues with your focus on the mining fleet in your plan.
Drav-
Being specific in CCP's 'desires' for the various mining barges without citing those desires in some official CCP document is not helping your case. It's letting people just beat the living tar out of you and dismiss your opinion. You should either cite or drop the claim and move on in either case. Just some friendly advice there.
I have no particular problem with baltech's plan, it's another idea of how to deal with the issues that exist and will continue to exist despite the changes CCP is making.
Perhaps we can all agree that the upcoming changes fall short of changes we'd actually like to see in mining? Perhaps if we all agree the new changes are more hurtful than helpful we can decide to try and stop them from making the transition from SISI to TQ?
ARE we all agreed there or does someone like the changes to the barges on SISI? If so, please help us understand the general benefit to the barges because I'm not seeing it right now.
What the hell are you talking about, you can't even get player names correct.
Nope, he can have what he wants as long as CCP work on that with the coveter and hulk, they are the fleet mining ships and that is fine. I keep saying it and baltec1 keeps going on about the base ehp of the Skiff.
Go and read what CCP did when they balanced this ships. And then see how people use them. And its not friendly advice, its totally incorrect condescending advice from someone who has no clue.
Nope, I will not agree with that statement, so far its just getting them on SISI, the real changes have not yet been detailed and if you think any of these changes so far shown are hurtful in anyway I have to question your knowledge further. They are incomplete and not the final ones, but having two strip miner slots on all ships is great, adding a low to the hulk is great and increasing the yeidl on mining lasars is also great, so it gets rid of that stupid 150% bonus on a single mining laser.
The twin mining lasers on the Skiff is something I like.
So far I like what I see, but anyone who has been in this game knows that the initial pass on SIS normally means nothing and is subject to change. So stop giving advice and making grandiose statements showing a lack of basic knowledge and that is friendly advice.
When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
2257
|
Posted - 2016.08.18 15:59:45 -
[189] - Quote
Solecist Project wrote:Dracvlad wrote:Solecist Project wrote:Okay so now it's established that someone feels like he's big brother ... ... and needs to protect people from their own responsibilities.
That fits very well to the rest.
I, for one, am all for teaching people instead of protecting them from themselves ... ... and I have faith that a shift away from telling people to tank ... ... towards telling people to be combat ready ... ... is actually a good thing.
Anyone making a thread in F&I that goes towards more self responsiblity for miners has my vote.
(hint hint) Well you know jack about mining and ganking, it really shows. Damn ... I guess that mining fleet of three covetors and an orca I have, with links, is nothing. And I guess having been a pretty well known ganker in 2012 and actually innovating ganking is nothing either. My bad ... I guess I'll go home now. And lol, that reply really shows how you're struggling.
3 coveters, lol.
I have not seen you actively ganking.
When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17945
|
Posted - 2016.08.18 16:03:07 -
[190] - Quote
Sarah Flynt wrote:baltec1 wrote:Sarah Flynt wrote:baltec1 wrote:March rabbit wrote: - providing logi support to person with LE means you get suspect flag. This means that using machs as logi in high-sec will lead to suicide gank bait and loss of hulks and machs too. Skiffs will do their best and kill lone suicider and that's it.
Fly as part of a corp/alliance and be in a fleet and this is a not a thing. That doesn't prevent the suspect flagging. As soon as you rep somebody who is in a LE with somebody else, you get suspect flagged, regardless of same corp/alliance/fleet/whatever. So don't be and idiot and get LE. This plan will give people options to defend themselves, not cure stupidity. Yep, put Procurers/Skiffs in your fleet, because according to you "they are now perfect mining escorts/defence boats for both fleet work and solo" but don't you dare to shoot back if attacked because that would give you a LE which in turn makes all your Mack-logis go suspect. That makes perfect sense.
It does when you can beat them. If fleeting up is too risky for you then don't. Fit a solo skiff, or fit up a tanked hulk with warp core stabs. There key thing is that there is a lot of options under my plan that you simply do not have with what is on sisi. And your very specific issue doesn't exist outside of highsec. |
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17945
|
Posted - 2016.08.18 16:06:28 -
[191] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:Go and read what CCP did when they balanced this ships. And then see how people use them. And its not friendly advice, its totally incorrect condescending advice from someone who has no clue.
This is the third attempt at trying to balance barges under the mantra of one tank one cargo one yield. Its not working, you can't balance them like that. We need a new approach otherwise we will be seeing a 4th balance pass. |
Nitshe Razvedka
1240
|
Posted - 2016.08.18 16:08:45 -
[192] - Quote
Such a little drama queen sol, don't agree with the strongest rational pragmatic proposal, by one of the most experienced in this field - Dracvlad.
Typical play the troll card again. Do you use the card on your mum upstairs.
Thieving pirates discuss INTEGRITY; Anarchist gankers give us LAWS; and Whoring merc's cry then blow off clients with INSULTS.
Up is down and down is up in the C&P Forum.
|
Gunrunner1775
Empire Hooligans
76
|
Posted - 2016.08.18 16:33:05 -
[193] - Quote
all i hear is "lower the tank on the skiff" from the alot of folks
to make it easier to gank??
what?? you cant get a dozen catalysts together to gank a skiff?? thats too much work and effort for you?? do all miners have to be gankable by a solo catalyst?? seems pretty lazy on your part |
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
2258
|
Posted - 2016.08.18 16:35:43 -
[194] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Dracvlad wrote:Go and read what CCP did when they balanced this ships. And then see how people use them. And its not friendly advice, its totally incorrect condescending advice from someone who has no clue. This is the third attempt at trying to balance barges under the mantra of one tank one cargo one yield. Its not working, you can't balance them like that. We need a new approach otherwise we will be seeing a 4th balance pass.
From the catastrophic point before the previous balance past this current steup was a success, it gave people options to get in a ship with a meaningful tank and yet it also enabled people to make choices on yield and on ease of use and on mining bonuses. Yeah it is not perfect, but its very much on the right track.
CODE and their flunkies seem to be active and killing people who fit for yield in the lessor tanked ships and even those in the higher tanked ships who have fitted for yield, while people who want a tank to be hard to kill can do that.
I went from refusing to mine because all of the ships had the tank of a wet paper bag to being able to get in a ship that enabled me to be hard to kill and that is a huge success.
In ice systems CODE have been successful so that people are tending to use Skiffs and Procurers, but it wa amazing to watch the lazy entitled CODE players gon on about everyone using Skiffs and Procurers in the systems taht they kept gamking people and yet where I mine where CODE fear to tread I see Hulks, Macs Retreivers and most amazingly of all a coveter, but that was a Goon, much to my amusement.
So CCP are on the right track, as I keep pointing out they have to have a ship that can take the Kusions plus three dual boxers in terms of a tank. The Skiff as it is does that with a tank fitted to it, not the max tank but not far off it.
Your suggestions for 0.0 mining are interesting, however the coveter and hulk need to be adjusted better for that and they need a lot of work. You just have a boner in terms of the skiffs base EHP, it offends you and it colours your whole thinking. There will be people in hisec who will do what you suggested, but the solo players that want to be hard to kill deserve to have the Skiff, period.
When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
|
Gunrunner1775
Empire Hooligans
77
|
Posted - 2016.08.18 16:43:10 -
[195] - Quote
Quote:
DEV BLOG
Ship Balancing: Mining Barges
2012-08-03 18:10 |By CCP Tallest
The goal here is to allow players to choose a barge that fits their specific play style rather than lead them on a journey from the worst barge to the best one. GÇó The Covetor and Hulk cater to group mining operations due to their large mining capability, low EHP and storage, forcing them to rely on others to haul and resupply them with mining crystals. GÇó The Retriever and Mackinaw are specifically designed for autonomy purposes, as their large ore bays allow their pilot to stay inside an asteroid belt for longer without having to dock. GÇó The Procurer and Skiff are made for protection against suicide gank, or NPCs, by giving a large enough buffer to react to incoming attacks, while paying for that with a lower mining yield.
GÇó The Procurer and Skiff are made for protection against suicide gank, or NPCs, by giving a large enough buffer to react to incoming attacks, while paying for that with a lower mining yield.
looks like its doing its job |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17945
|
Posted - 2016.08.18 16:53:20 -
[196] - Quote
Gunrunner1775 wrote:all i hear is "lower the tank on the skiff" from the alot of folks
to make it easier to gank??
what?? you cant get a dozen catalysts together to gank a skiff?? thats too much work and effort for you?? do all miners have to be gankable by a solo catalyst?? seems pretty lazy on your part
Try reading the rest of it. |
Gunrunner1775
Empire Hooligans
81
|
Posted - 2016.08.18 16:56:58 -
[197] - Quote
well, a few options
we could go back to the old days were 1 ship is specilized in mining astroids, one is for ice and one is for mercocite, make them all same base tank
catch is,, that tank has to be enough to tank a null sec rat... or are you gonna make a mining ship that is for null sec only with uber tank and not useable in high sec????
another option
complete and total overhaul of the tank... make the ships Armor tank instead of shield tank lots of low slots... then players have choice of tank or yield (since both armor tank and mining laser upgrades are low slot)
but then we are right back were we started because the majority will fit out max tank ,and then we have nothing but skiffs running around with low yield and max tank
if CCP goes the path of nurfing the tank on the skiff to make it no longer viable option for mining and protection from gankers, i forsee that the majority of astroid miners will go back to what we did years ago... mining in a battleship (yes, we did mine in Rokhs and Dominix and bannana boats back in the day) as for ice miners.. they will use the ice mining frigate instead... (its fast and nimble and can escape vast majority of ganks )
"other in game entites" will *****.. "they are mining in battleships, we cant gank them" .... majority of miners in high sec, will almost always go for max tank and sacrifice yield / profits for the tank
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17945
|
Posted - 2016.08.18 17:01:40 -
[198] - Quote
Gunrunner1775 wrote:well, a few options
we could go back to the old days were 1 ship is specilized in mining astroids, one is for ice and one is for mercocite, make them all same base tank
catch is,, that tank has to be enough to tank a null sec rat... or are you gonna make a mining ship that is for null sec only with uber tank and not useable in high sec????
another option
complete and total overhaul of the tank... make the ships Armor tank instead of shield tank lots of low slots... then players have choice of tank or yield (since both armor tank and mining laser upgrades are low slot)
but then we are right back were we started because the majority will fit out max tank ,and then we have nothing but skiffs running around with low yield and max tank
if CCP goes the path of nurfing the tank on the skiff to make it no longer viable option for mining and protection from gankers, i forsee that the majority of astroid miners will go back to what we did years ago... mining in a battleship (yes, we did mine in Rokhs and Dominix and bannana boats back in the day) as for ice miners.. they will use the ice mining frigate instead... (its fast and nimble and can escape vast majority of ganks )
"other in game entites" will *****.. "they are mining in battleships, we cant gank them" .... majority of miners in high sec, will almost always go for max tank and sacrifice yield / profits for the tank
Read this
|
Elinarien
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
57
|
Posted - 2016.08.18 17:02:51 -
[199] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Gunrunner1775 wrote:all i hear is "lower the tank on the skiff" from the alot of folks
to make it easier to gank??
what?? you cant get a dozen catalysts together to gank a skiff?? thats too much work and effort for you?? do all miners have to be gankable by a solo catalyst?? seems pretty lazy on your part Try reading the rest of it.
In your opinion,
1. What would be the max EHP of a Skiff and how would that be achieved?
2. What would you consider to be an appropriate yield be in m3 per 180 secs with that tank? |
Kueyen
Mei-Ha's Light Fleet Coordination Coalition
158
|
Posted - 2016.08.18 17:03:10 -
[200] - Quote
Batlec1, one issue I've not seen you address in your proposal is the problem that, if you give Barges and Exhumers more fitting options in return for lowered base stats, and *if* you allow (and I'm not sure you would) them to reach the same levels of tankiness the Procurer and Skiff do now through modules, these modules now become lootable. That would add to the profitability of suicide ganks and giving gankers even more incentive to go after vessels that through the very nature of their usage (having to sit still for hours on end) can never hope to enter fair combat against similarly-valued opponents.
Unless, of course, that is your hidden agenda: get the primary gank-proof barge and exhumer nerfed, and increase ganker payouts...
It's the same problem with faction mining modules: even if I were willing to risk several hundred million isk worth of modules to my exhumer, I would only be providing the next ganker a rich buffet in my wreck, attracting them like bears to honey. And thus those modules go entirely unused.
While I'm out and about faction mining modules: why are ORE Ice Harvesters longer-ranged versions of T2 Ice Harvesters, but ORE Stripminers only longer-ranged versions of T1 Stripminers?
Until all are free...
|
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17945
|
Posted - 2016.08.18 17:07:27 -
[201] - Quote
Elinarien wrote:
1. What would be the max EHP of a Skiff and how would that be achieved?
80-90k
T2 mods, much in the same way the eagle and cerb are set up. I could get higher results using cheap bling mods and thats omni resists so if you tank vs the most common gankers you will wind up with higher numbers. Important thing to note here is the fact you could finally fit large shield extenders under my plan.
Elinarien wrote: 2. What would you consider to be an appropriate yield be in m3 per 180 secs with that tank?
As its a shield tank the question would be it depends on if you go max yield (3 MTU) mad damage (3 DDU) a mix of both or cargo. A 3 MTU skiff would drag in the same as a 3 MTU mack. The hulk would have the 25% higher bonus. |
Sarah Flynt
Federation Interstellar Resources Silent Infinity
240
|
Posted - 2016.08.18 17:08:07 -
[202] - Quote
Pandora Carrollon wrote:I have no particular problem with baltech's plan, it's another idea of how to deal with the issues that exist and will continue to exist despite the changes CCP is making. Me neither, except for the whole remote rep thing, which wasn't really thought through wrt. highsec. I agree with his base concept however. Everything except for the Procurer/Skiff is in a horrible place. If he thinks basetank on Proc/Skiff should be lower in exchange for more slots and fitting I'm totally okay with that if I can still achieve the same result as today with these additional fitting options. I'm against lowering the tank (after fitting) as Procurer/Skiff have enabled new gameplay in other spaces than highsec that wasn't there before: you can now decide (without being a fool) to stay on grid and put up a real fight against larger targets than a single frig, depending on what's incoming. In turn an attacker has to decide if he really wants to fight several Procurers/Skiffs as that can turn sideways pretty quickly (especially with potential recons on the grid that he can't see on dscan ).
As for the other barges/exhumers: fitting options are laughable at best. I can't even remember when I last saw a Covetor in the field because they're so bad (not only highsec, nullsec as well). Macks/Hulks have 4 mid slots and it's a challenge to find something usable for all 4 slots without plastering lowslots/rigs with fitting mods/rigs or go deadspace right away. With NPC caps that can show up at any time in null that's even more problematic now than it was before as they also need much longer to warp out than Procurers/Skiffs.
With what's currently on SiSi: the model itself looks cool but using basically the same model for all 3 ships is not cool. I'd have wished that their roles are somehow reflected in the model: proc/skiff looking much more like a tank and retriever/mack with visible additional oreholds. As for the stats: combined with the mining mod changes there isn't really much change at all, except for the yield of the Retriever/Mack. Certainly not what I had hoped for and expecially not the "significant overhaul" that's being advertized on the updates page.
Sick of High-Sec gankers? Join the public channel Anti-ganking and the dedicated intel channel Gank-Intel !
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17945
|
Posted - 2016.08.18 17:10:27 -
[203] - Quote
Kueyen wrote:Batlec1, one issue I've not seen you address in your proposal is the problem that, if you give Barges and Exhumers more fitting options in return for lowered base stats, and *if* you allow (and I'm not sure you would) them to reach the same levels of tankiness the Procurer and Skiff do now through modules, these modules now become lootable. That would add to the profitability of suicide ganks and giving gankers even more incentive to go after vessels that through the very nature of their usage (having to sit still for hours on end) can never hope to enter fair combat against similarly-valued opponents.
The exhumers would have HAC likes tanks, the T1 barges would have cruiser level tanks. They will be as profitable to gank as those combat ships which is not at all.
Kueyen wrote: It's the same problem with faction mining modules: even if I were willing to risk several hundred million isk worth of modules to my exhumer, I would only be providing the next ganker a rich buffet in my wreck, attracting them like bears to honey. And thus those modules go entirely unused.
While I'm out and about faction mining modules: why are ORE Ice Harvesters longer-ranged versions of T2 Ice Harvesters, but ORE Stripminers only longer-ranged versions of T1 Stripminers?
Honestly the ore gear could do with being looked at. |
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
2261
|
Posted - 2016.08.18 17:18:23 -
[204] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Elinarien wrote:
1. What would be the max EHP of a Skiff and how would that be achieved?
80-90k T2 mods, much in the same way the eagle and cerb are set up. I could get higher results using cheap bling mods and thats omni resists so if you tank vs the most common gankers you will wind up with higher numbers. Important thing to note here is the fact you could finally fit large shield extenders under my plan. Elinarien wrote: 2. What would you consider to be an appropriate yield be in m3 per 180 secs with that tank?
As its a shield tank the question would be it depends on if you go max yield (3 MTU) mad damage (3 DDU) a mix of both or cargo. A 3 MTU skiff would drag in the same as a 3 MTU mack. The hulk would have the 25% higher bonus.
That is a too low a tank, set to be within a Kusion, I knew that was what you were after, pretty damn obvious...
When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
|
Gunrunner1775
Empire Hooligans
81
|
Posted - 2016.08.18 17:19:49 -
[205] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Skiff and proc should get their base hp brought back down to normal levels, keep the combat bonus to drones, get a few more slots and fitting room to open up options and allow for a decent combat fit. They are now perfect mining escorts/defence boats for both fleet work and solo.
Retriever and mackinaw both need a good deal more slots and CPU/PG so they can actually have options when fitting them. CCP need to get creative here so I would say go radical. Give them two utility highs and a small bonus to remote shield boosters. Alter the cap to compensate. Again, they need the ability to actually fit a decent setup, 1 mid and 3 lows are next to useless.
Covetor and Hulk should be the go to strip miners, they also need more fitting slots and CPU/PG to actually fit things.
I would also alter the cargo expanders to also impact the ore hold and reduce the hold on barges to compensate. All barges would be able to hold at least two cycles as a base with the option of improving that if they so wish.
this is what im seeing in your post: skiff - proc = lower the base tank, add more slots... results, right back were we started .. miners will fill those slots with tanky stuff, not offensive stuff.. and "other entities" will again ***** and complain that its too tanky... leave the skiff alone, its doing the job it was designed to do..
retr - makinaw = add more slots / more cpu/pg.. again, folks will fit tank... actualy, in theory, this possibility could result in tank almost as good as the skiff.. cause again, folks will fit tank tank tank
cov - hulk = same thing as the ret/mak
i only looked at the hulk / mak / skiff on test.... and if i recall correctly, the hulk / mak was 2high / 4medium / 3low, the skiff was 2high/6medium/3low playing around with both the mak and the hulk... i could fit tank OR yield,, not both, and not realy a middle ground either, the tank is still insufficient for any dangerous mining
i did not mess with any of the T1 mining barges. from my observation and talking with people that fly them, they strictly use them as a throw away ship, fit bare minimum on it for max yield, and dont care if it gets ganked or not
the issue for fitting the ship and ballanceing between tank and yield . is the tank is shield tank goes in mid slots, and the yield boosting modules go in low slot... yea, would like to see a few more mid slots on the T1 mining barges to have the option to fit a tank OR fit for yield |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17945
|
Posted - 2016.08.18 17:21:19 -
[206] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:
That is a too low a tank, set to be within a Kusion, I knew that was what you were after, pretty damn obvious...
If its enough for HACs when fighting several hundred people its enough for you vs highsec gankers. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17945
|
Posted - 2016.08.18 17:25:51 -
[207] - Quote
Gunrunner1775 wrote: the issue for fitting the ship and ballanceing between tank and yield . is the tank is shield tank goes in mid slots, and the yield boosting modules go in low slot... yea, would like to see a few more mid slots on the T1 mining barges to have the option to fit a tank OR fit for yield
Thats where I got crafty. Ore holds would be reduced to only allow 2-3 cycles, in return cargo expanders would impact the ore hold. This means you fit yield, cargo, damage (in the case of the skiff and proc) or utility such as warp core stabs, nanofibers etc. I would have gone with making them armour tankers but the instant hit from shield reps seems a better plan. |
Gunrunner1775
Empire Hooligans
81
|
Posted - 2016.08.18 17:36:52 -
[208] - Quote
i had thought of the cruiser thing.... give them the speed /agility / signature radius of a cruiser or HAC
but these ships are technicaly battlecruiser sized (mak has a signature rateing of 250, hulk is 200,... vs say a cerberus 195 or cyclone and hurricane both at 250), they also got almost as much volumn as the battlecruisers
they shoudl all have the speed / agility /signature radius ... and tank of battlecruisers
then give 1 yield bonus, 1 gets cargo bonus, and 1 gets "offensive" bonus with drones |
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
2261
|
Posted - 2016.08.18 17:38:06 -
[209] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Dracvlad wrote:
That is a too low a tank, set to be within a Kusion, I knew that was what you were after, pretty damn obvious...
If its enough for HACs when fighting several hundred people its enough for you vs highsec gankers.
Its a mining ship not a HAC in a fleet battle, bluntly that level of tank enables multi boxer solo gankers to kill every single mining ship no matter the tank.. From my perspective that is too low.
And the 2 to 3 cycles, wow you really hate solo miners don't you.
When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17945
|
Posted - 2016.08.18 17:42:17 -
[210] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:
Its a mining ship not a HAC n a fleet battle, bluntly that level of tank enables multi boxer solo gankers to kill every single mining ship no matter the tank.. From my perspective that is too low.
Using your logic even the veldnought can be killed. They have more than enough tank.
Dracvlad wrote: And the 2 to 3 cycles, wow you really hate solo miners don't you.
So fit cargo expanders. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 .. 18 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |