Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 .. 19 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
14304
|
Posted - 2016.08.22 20:46:42 -
[1] - Quote
Hey folks! As we first mentioned at Fanfest this year, we have a visual revamp in the works for Mining Barges and Exhumers (along with many other ships) to continue improving EVE's amazing visuals.
This pass on the barges allowed the art team to fulfill a long-standing request from the game design team. Way back in 2012 when CCP Tallest implemented the big tiericide of mining barges the three branches of barges were changed to have similar mining yields and specific specializations (defenses, storage capacity and range/yield). At that time Tallest added role bonuses to the Procurer, Skiff, Retriever, and Mackniaw to bring their effective strip miner count up to 3. He also asked the art team to make a note that next time the Barges and Exhumers were up for a regularly scheduled visual refresh they should be unified at the same number of strip miner hardpoints. That day has now come!
To compliment the art rework we are completing a light pass on the stats and bonuses of these ships and of the strip miner modules themselves. The balance between the mining ships is in a fairly healthy state right now so we're not making any drastic changes to the relative strengths of the different barges and exhumers.
For a bit of insight into the current usage of the top 7 mining ships, here's the breakdown of mining yield by volume (last 90 days including ore, ice, and gas):
- Retriever: 23%
- Mackinaw: 22%
- Hulk: 21%
- Skiff: 14%
- Procurer: 8%
- Covetor: 7%
- Venture: 4%
- Other: 1%
Unsurprisingly the Retriever and Mackinaw are still on top (unchanged from the last time we presented these stats) due to the very high value placed on ore bay capacity among a solid chunk of miners. However we don't feel any need to reduce the power of Retrievers and Mackinaws, as their popularity isn't out of control and other alternatives have their own well-balanced strengths.
The overall mining yields of the Procurer, Skiff, Retriever, and Mackinaw remain unchanged after this pass. The Covetor and Hulk will gain a lowslot which allows some new options and the potential of greater yield (although fittings will be appropriately tight when using three MLUs).
As part of this change we are increasing the yield of all barge-sized strip miners and ice harvesters, which cancels out the changes to hardpoints and bonuses on the Barges and Exhumers. We are also providing a moderate buff to the ORE Strip Miners and ORE Ice Harvesters.
The module changes in full are:
- All Non-ORE Strip Miners: +25% volume mined per cycle
- ORE Strip Miner: +30% volume mined per cycle, -10 CPU
- All Ice Harvesters: -20% cycle time, -20% capacitor use
- ORE Ice Harvester: -16 CPU
And the ship changes:
Procurer: Removal of strip miner yield and ice harvester cycle time role bonuses +1 highslot +7 PWG +55 CPU
Skiff: Removal of strip miner yield and ice harvester cycle time role bonuses +1 highslot +8 PWG +60 CPU
Retriever: Removal of strip miner yield and ice harvester cycle time role bonuses
Mackinaw: Removal of strip miner yield and ice harvester cycle time role bonuses
Covetor: Changed skill bonus for the skill Mining Barge: 2% (was 4%) reduction in strip miner and ice harvester duration per level New role bonus: 25% reduction in strip miner and ice harvester duration and activation cost -1 highslot +1 lowslot -5 PWG -15 CPU
Hulk: Changed skill bonus for the skill Mining Barge: 2% (was 4%) reduction in strip miner and ice harvester duration per level New role bonus: 25% reduction in strip miner and ice harvester duration and activation cost -1 highslot +1 lowslot -5 PWG -40 CPU
We're very interested in your feedback and welcome you to try out the new stats (and new ship models) on SISI. Thanks!
Game Designer | Team Five-0
https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie
http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/
|
|
Anoron Secheh
Strategic Exploration and Development Corp ChaosTheory.
13
|
Posted - 2016.08.22 20:55:04 -
[2] - Quote
What about changes to the Rorqual and Orca? |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
14304
|
Posted - 2016.08.22 21:01:26 -
[3] - Quote
Anoron Secheh wrote:What about changes to the Rorqual and Orca?
Changes to the Rorqual and Orca are currently planned for November (rather than September for these mining barge changes). We'll be discussing those more as we get a bit closer.
Game Designer | Team Five-0
https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie
http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/
|
|
Morn Hylund
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
20
|
Posted - 2016.08.22 21:05:41 -
[4] - Quote
I don't get it.
It looks like you're taking away one of the Mining lasers (so more active switching by a miner to go do what is already an extremely tedious activity in Eve and reducing mining yield by a 1/3rd) - while boosting it by 25% (1/4) in other areas with perhaps more boosting in the low slots? Which comes out to about even except again - anyone mining with a Hulk has to be switching Asteroids more often??
How is this not just make mining even more a boring less lucrative activity (especially with the planned mineral price nerf changes)?
I mean come on ... First you have Citadels that are absolutely useless to defend unless you happen to have a fleet on your beck and call (so much for POS equivelency, especially for wormhole manufacturing), now you screw over mining with more ludicrous hand waving - and silly do nothing upgrades ...
No wonder Eve subscriptions are dropping - and people are jumping ship for more entertaining games like Star Citizen, No Man's Sky, Elite Dangerous etc.
Wake the F*** Up.
|
Querns
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2432
|
Posted - 2016.08.22 21:07:20 -
[5] - Quote
Will the procurer/skiff receive some more cap regen to compensate for their added strip miner/ice harvester?
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Anoron Secheh
Strategic Exploration and Development Corp ChaosTheory.
13
|
Posted - 2016.08.22 21:07:36 -
[6] - Quote
Sweet, thanks! |
Kalido Raddi
Echelon Research The Volition Cult
25
|
Posted - 2016.08.22 21:08:01 -
[7] - Quote
I think you've overdone it on the reduction to the Hulk's CPU. I understand you want to make the fit "tight", but you've actually made it impossible.
Also, could you please implement a reduction in Mining Crystal damage for the Hulk? |
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
999
|
Posted - 2016.08.22 21:12:27 -
[8] - Quote
Another look at the new updated visuals for each one, courtesy of the o7 Show.
CCP, roll that beautiful bean footage!
"Tomahawks?"
"----in' A, right?"
"Trouble is, those things cost like a million and a half each."
"----, you pay me half that and I'll hump in some c4 and blow the ---- out of it my own damn self."
|
Noxisia Arkana
Deadspace Knights Sacred Empire of Ellyssium
449
|
Posted - 2016.08.22 21:13:26 -
[9] - Quote
Looks like a pretty neutral change... while giving an increase to active mining. *shrugs* Looks good.
Are you teeing this up to see if it changes mining ship usage in the future, and if not coming back to look at the other ships? If updating art helps make these changes come about; anything on assault frigates?
Thanks for the update. |
Stralisemiai
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2016.08.22 21:18:19 -
[10] - Quote
Exciting changes - thank you for the information.
Can we have a different skins too.. Quafe ones would be nice. |
|
Rob Kaichin
Empire Assault Corp Dead Terrorists
159
|
Posted - 2016.08.22 21:18:46 -
[11] - Quote
I'm guessing the increased tank for the Hulk and Covetor with a DCU in the low is negligible at best? |
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
3906
|
Posted - 2016.08.22 21:23:33 -
[12] - Quote
I have to second the extra cap for the Skiff. My fit is just barely cap stable now. Add another strip and it will fail.
Morn: If you are using a Skiff, the extra strip means less switching, so for some of us, its a good change. Averaged across all the miners, it balances out. Also, the Hulk yield is not changing: It gets a 25% boost, and the strips get a 25% boost, together that cancels out the loss of a strip.
Know a Frozen fan? Check this out
Frozen fanfiction
|
Autism Intensifies
some random local shitlords
10
|
Posted - 2016.08.22 21:33:40 -
[13] - Quote
Skiff has same yield as a Mackinaw, same lowslots, +1 midslot, +50m-¦ dronebay, +50% drone damage, and three times? Four times? the EHP of a Mackinaw.
In return, the Mackinaw has that super cool orebay, which is really important, sooo important! (It is, but only if you multibox so many Mackinaws that you can't empty the orebays of your Skiffs or Hulks as fast as they fill up.)
CCPLS. |
Kueyen
Mei-Ha's Light Fleet Coordination Coalition
159
|
Posted - 2016.08.22 21:42:57 -
[14] - Quote
sorry for singling you out, but... Stralisemiai wrote:Exciting changes - thank you for the information. There is no way I could come up with a mechanical implementation of having 2 stripminers on every barge or exhumer that could be *less* exciting than this. For a few days, something vaguely interesting was visible on Singularity: a 25% role bonus to yield for the Retriever and the Mackinaw. Now, those vessels have NO role bonus. None. Feel free to read that as "this ship has no role".
Stralisemiai wrote:Can we have a different skins too.. Quafe ones would be nice. - Morphite Shine (red and bluish brown)
- Digmaster Blazon (yelloworange and bluegreen brown)
- Paydirt Prospector (blue and brassy brown)
- ORE Developer (already exists now, but redone as white and black)
CCP Fozzie wrote:ORE Strip Miner: +30% volume mined per cycle, -10 CPU The ORE Ice Harvester has a cycle time identical to the T2 Ice Harvester; A T2 Strip Miner with T2 crystals has a yield of 16.667% that of a T1 Stripminer. This new Ore Strip Miner, at 4% better than a T1 Strip Miner, will be going as unused as the old one. Not that any semi-intelligent human being would ever fit any on the death traps that is any non-Skiff/Procurer miner, of course, nor would they turn the latter two into gank magnets by fitting them on those...
The artwork is pretty decent, but these changes... thouroughly disappointing. Go read the ideas of Baltec1 in this thread. I don't agree with all of them, but at least there was the possibility of some excitement.
Until all are free...
|
Autism Intensifies
some random local shitlords
10
|
Posted - 2016.08.22 21:45:25 -
[15] - Quote
Give the ORE Strip Miner the Capital Gun Treat: If it's faction, it can use T2 Ammo.
Then, make it haul 3-5% more than a T2 one. |
Autism Intensifies
some random local shitlords
11
|
Posted - 2016.08.22 21:47:01 -
[16] - Quote
Morn Hylund wrote:How is this not just make mining even more a boring less lucrative activity (especially with the planned mineral price nerf changes)?
Citation needed! |
exiik Shardani
Imperial Spacedrill and Logistics
63
|
Posted - 2016.08.22 21:56:04 -
[17] - Quote
What miners wants:
- any barge or exhumer ship with utility HI-slot... There is still needed to sacrifice one strip miner :-(
- +5PG for Retri and Macki, its so boring to try fit T2 med shield extender
- ORE BAY capacity optimalization RIGS
- ORE BAY capacity extenders low slot modules
- bigger mining ship (mining BC or BS)
- any mobile structure which can be effectively use at belt by mining ships (current mobile things are not)
- more faction mining things (but not so overpriced as ORE things)
sry for my English :-(
|
Abulurd Boniface
Serene Vendetta
174
|
Posted - 2016.08.22 22:06:03 -
[18] - Quote
Morn Hylund wrote:
No wonder Eve subscriptions are dropping - and people are jumping ship for more entertaining games like Star Citizen, No Man's Sky, Elite Dangerous etc.
I wouldn't put Star Citizen in the same league as EVE. Also, NMS is 'a tad less' than what the developers promised. And when I say 'a tad less' I mean: it sucks balls. Big ones.
However, I do understand and agree with your concern and these changes are rather baffling.
Any change should reflect a necessary change for the improvement of the dynamic in the system and I don't see how removing one mining pylon on a Hulk is going to make it a better activity.
The last pass was uncomfortable at first but then I saw the sense behind it and those changes were actually quite good. It made the barges something you wanted to have instead of having ship like the Procurer that was essentially worthless.
Now we get a different set of changes, the use of which does not make a lot of sense to me.
CCP Fozzie, friend, why is this happening?
Why did you not do something that would propagate throughout the New Eden demesne in the way minerals were added to the ship-building experience as described, by myself, here: Ore acle
I support innovations, I want to support good innovations. |
XxUltradmbxX
Girl Friends Please Ignore League of Unaligned Master Pilots
7
|
Posted - 2016.08.22 22:12:16 -
[19] - Quote
why there are no modules for the medium slots (more range or less cap maybe more ore bay?) and why there are so less medium slots on the barges but procure/skiff.
pvp ships have a choice in fitting barges only have the choice on which barge you use. |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
2813
|
Posted - 2016.08.22 22:20:42 -
[20] - Quote
Thread full of angry miners, honestly who's shocked.
Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
|
|
Nicola Arman
TheDarkBlade
144
|
Posted - 2016.08.22 22:23:18 -
[21] - Quote
I want to comment. But this is it.
Abulurd Boniface wrote:Morn Hylund wrote:
No wonder Eve subscriptions are dropping - and people are jumping ship for more entertaining games like Star Citizen, No Man's Sky, Elite Dangerous etc.
I wouldn't put Star Citizen in the same league as EVE. Also, NMS is 'a tad less' than what the developers promised. And when I say 'a tad less' I mean: it sucks balls. Big ones. However, I do understand and agree with your concern and these changes are rather baffling. Any change should reflect a necessary change for the improvement of the dynamic in the system and I don't see how removing one mining pylon on a Hulk is going to make it a better activity. The last pass was uncomfortable at first but then I saw the sense behind it and those changes were actually quite good. It made the barges something you wanted to have instead of having ship like the Procurer that was essentially worthless. Now we get a different set of changes, the use of which does not make a lot of sense to me. CCP Fozzie, friend, why is this happening? Why did you not do something that would propagate throughout the New Eden demesne in the way minerals were added to the ship-building experience as described, by myself, here: Ore acleI support innovations, I want to support good innovations.
|
Echo Mande
72
|
Posted - 2016.08.22 22:27:30 -
[22] - Quote
I would like more cap on all of them to be honest.
Fittings wise I think that the Skiff and Hulk could also use some more CPU.
While it doesn't 'need' it, I think that giving the Skiff a +1 or +2 warp core stability might be something to look at. It is billed as 'for hostile environments' after all.
Please, pretty please also give the Retriever and Covetor an extra midslot and the grid/CPU to put something useful there. As things stand the only T1 barge I would use or recommend would be the Procurer because it is the only T1 barge that can in fact tank.
Wallet remarks everywhere
|
HarlyQ
harlyq syrokos investment station Goonswarm Federation
123
|
Posted - 2016.08.22 22:37:14 -
[23] - Quote
You need to add more cap to all the bargs and more cpu to the hulk. But now my plans for a procurer army is coming along nicely. |
Mark O'Helm
Fam. Zimin von Reizgenschwendt
212
|
Posted - 2016.08.22 22:48:57 -
[24] - Quote
I like the new design. But why make them equal in part of highslots? I liked that they were unique in this. Is there another reason then just to simplify the design?
"Frauenversteher wissen, was Frauen wollen.
Aber Frauen wollen keine Frauenversteher.
Weil Frauenversteher wissen, was Frauen wollen." (Ein Single)
"Wirklich coolen Leuten ist es egal, ob sie cool sind." (Einer, dem es egal ist)
|
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc
2053
|
Posted - 2016.08.22 23:04:29 -
[25] - Quote
Interesting tweaks, but the unification of the number of strip miners does have the disadvantage of reducing gameplay variety. Hulk and Covetor pilots really enjoyed the ability to be able to focus longer on three different asteroids, instead of focusing less on two or one asteroid.
Crucially, this change does not adress the main issue, which is that mining gameplay is really, REALLY boring. Sure, this is a slight stats tweak and it would be unreasonable to expect a huge content change, but you should put a mining revamp alongside the hopefully planned PvE revamp.
Signature Tanking Best Tanking
Retired [Ex-F] CEO - Eve-guides.fr
Ultimate Citadel Guide - 2016 EVE Career Chart
|
Brinjee Amatin
The Scope Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2016.08.22 23:22:28 -
[26] - Quote
Echo Mande wrote: While it doesn't 'need' it, I think that giving the Skiff a +1 or +2 warp core stability might be something to look at. It is billed as 'for hostile environments' after all.
I like this idea. Making it a bit more of a survivalist beast would provide a viable low sec solo mining alternative to Venture ninja-mining (since Prospects are too much of a liability imho), at least to the extent that it would potentially require a bit more than a weekend ganker duo to pin it down, take out the flight of dps drones, and eat through the tank. I also like the idea someone mentioned of a larger mining ship.
|
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1256
|
Posted - 2016.08.22 23:39:38 -
[27] - Quote
I skimmed it and thought you were adding neutraliser slots to procurers and skiffs, but I contained my frothy rage and read it again |
Elyia Suze Nagala
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
115
|
Posted - 2016.08.22 23:44:19 -
[28] - Quote
I'd imagine other stats will be coming soon, but I'm curious to know what the plans are on volumes and mass, etc. How are those changing. It sounds like the hulls will be quite similar, but functional different.
Again, I know the numbers will come out later, but can you give a general statement about how you plan to adjust these. |
Suitonia
24th Imperial Crusade Amarr Empire
702
|
Posted - 2016.08.22 23:47:39 -
[29] - Quote
NVM I derped
Contributer to Eve is Easy:
https://www.youtube.com/user/eveiseasy/videos
Solo PvP is possible with a 20 day old character! :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvOB4KXYk-o
|
Cassiel Seraphim
EVE University Ivy League
40
|
Posted - 2016.08.22 23:51:05 -
[30] - Quote
I'd rather see a shift towards faster cycling mining lasers, considerably faster cycling mining lasers.
So instead of buffing yield per pull, why not reduce cycle time (and cap usage) by the equivalent amount instead, so you mine the same yield/second but with more frequent and weaker pulls? It would make the gaming style less passive and annoying when mining multiple smaller asteroids for example. |
|
Kalido Raddi
Echelon Research The Volition Cult
25
|
Posted - 2016.08.23 00:04:45 -
[31] - Quote
Suitonia wrote:A small nerf to the Covetor and Hulk?
OLD Covetor 3 * 1.25 (20% Duration MBV) = 3.75
NEW Covetor 2 * 1.25 (New Strip Miner Boost) = 2.5 * 1.33 (25% Duration Role Bonus) = 3.325 * 1.11 (10% Duration MBV) = 3.69
A small loss of 0.06 effective miners. I know you can fit a mining upgrade to offset this though with the extra slot. No you can't; you don't have enough CPU ('cos CCP have decided that removing a Strip Miner means less CPU, but adding a Mining Laser Upgrade doesn't mean more CPU). |
Autism Intensifies
some random local shitlords
13
|
Posted - 2016.08.23 00:48:41 -
[32] - Quote
Suitonia wrote:A small nerf to the Covetor and Hulk?
OLD Covetor 3 * 1.25 (20% Duration MBV) = 3.75
NEW Covetor 2 * 1.25 (New Strip Miner Boost) = 2.5 * 1.33 (25% Duration Role Bonus) = 3.325 * 1.11 (10% Duration MBV) = 3.69
A small loss of 0.06 effective miners. I know you can fit a mining upgrade to offset this though with the extra slot.
It's 3.75, too. You get 3.69 because you multiply by 1.33 instead of dividing by 0.75 (you mean the same, but rounding fucks your values). Same for *1.11 instead of /0.9 |
Avon Salinder
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
11
|
Posted - 2016.08.23 01:13:33 -
[33] - Quote
These tweaks are fine, in that they are just in to compensate for the two strip miner modification.
Sometime down the road a bit, some other improvements could be useful for mining ships, some of these have already been mentioned as they're really good ideas that should happen.
* The Venture and Endurance are excellent as is, wouldn't change a thing. * The Prospect is only useful for mining gas as it has no drones to defence against belt rats. Perhaps give it the same drone bay as the venture so it can mine in ore belts too. * Make ORE strip miners worth the cost, they're pretty 'meh' at the moment. An extra 3% yield would be nice. * Consider balancing the slots on barges to 7 each: Procurer = 2/3/2 (It's already got a massive HP tank, it's a little overkill tbh). Retriever and Covetor = 2/2/3 (Yes, add a second slot but only a tiny amount of CPU, be nice to have at least a few options here such as a small shield extender + survey scanner)
Exhumers should be better able to handle dangerous space (lowsec and w-space) better than they currently do (skiff is marginally good here). Eve is a pvp game but mining ships are just content for actual combat ships: tether yourself to an asteroid and say "I am content" on the dscan, effectively. What if exhumers in general were given more survivability to encourage their use outside of their "safe" space?
Throwin' this out there: * Each exhumer loses a midslot but gains +1 warp core strength. * Mack and Hulk gain +5 PG so they can fit medium extenders. * Exhumers don't appear on d-scan (this enables the ship to mine without being obvious in-system, even when hostile combat ships are in the area - only when they warp to a site will they find the exhumer).
Finally, mining but not barge related. Plenty more work to be done here but attempting to make mining outside of HS more attractive: * Remove jaspet, Hemorphite and Hedbergite ore sites from HS - why go to lowsec when you can get LS ores in HS? * Remove the +5% and +10% asteroids from HS belts. * Put Spodumain into 0.3 and lower space.
Peace out, spacebros |
Dehval
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
59
|
Posted - 2016.08.23 01:21:07 -
[34] - Quote
Kalido Raddi wrote:Suitonia wrote:A small nerf to the Covetor and Hulk?
OLD Covetor 3 * 1.25 (20% Duration MBV) = 3.75
NEW Covetor 2 * 1.25 (New Strip Miner Boost) = 2.5 * 1.33 (25% Duration Role Bonus) = 3.325 * 1.11 (10% Duration MBV) = 3.69
A small loss of 0.06 effective miners. I know you can fit a mining upgrade to offset this though with the extra slot. No you can't; you don't have enough CPU ('cos CCP have decided that removing a Strip Miner means less CPU, but adding a Mining Laser Upgrade doesn't mean more CPU). You can. Put on a T2 CPU rig (6m) and you can fit a basic barebones (t1) tank if you don't bling. It isn't great but that is the price you pay for 9% more yield. |
Elenahina
agony unleashed Agony Empire
1034
|
Posted - 2016.08.23 01:29:25 -
[35] - Quote
Avon Salinder wrote: Finally, mining but not barge related. Plenty more work to be done here but attempting to make mining outside of HS more attractive: * Remove jaspet, Hemorphite and Hedbergite ore sites from HS - why go to lowsec when you can get LS ores in HS? * Remove the +5% and +10% asteroids from HS belts. * Put Spodumain into 0.3 and lower space.
Why on earth would miners go to lowsec at all? There is literally nothing in low sec that a mining laser can get me that I cannot get with far less risk in either high sec or null.
All your changes would do is move more mining out to nullsec (which isn't a bad thing, mind you) and the market would stabilize marginally higher to compensate for the shipping costs. Mining in lowsec is not going to happen on a large scale because it's been hunted to death. It's like trying to swim in a group of sharks. Eventually, you will get a chunk taken out of your leg.
I'd actually be curious to see stats on which type of ore is mined most in what space. I'd be willing to bet that most of the "lowsec" ores actually get mined in nullsec because, frankly, it's safer.
Eve is like an addiction; you can't quit it until it quits you.
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
3541
|
Posted - 2016.08.23 01:34:54 -
[36] - Quote
This update while a slight improvement still has the same issue as the initial one. All the stats of the barges are decided in the choice of hull, they don't have the PG/CPU to be fitting any interesting choices, you can't fit a prop mod of appropriate size without entirely filling them with fitting modules even.
If you gave them a decent cargo hold as well as the ore hold, & then treated them like a Cruiser or BC, giving them equivalent slots, PG & CPU, then you would actually be able to make fittings matter, and one hull would serve all three archetype requirements based on how players fitted it. (Cargo extenders still need a stacking penalty btw so it's not all or nothing when using them). Strip Miners could be hard-capped in number just like you cap things like AAR & Command Links so they could even have a real number of high slots.
|
Yossarian Toralen
M and M Enterpises
67
|
Posted - 2016.08.23 02:03:39 -
[37] - Quote
What is the intended outcome that will come from this change?
|
Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
5886
|
Posted - 2016.08.23 02:29:55 -
[38] - Quote
Not the change that mining needs, which is incentivizing group mining to the point that fielding defense fleets becomes worthwhile. Something that makes miners leave their system to go to a specific location in their constellation.
As a ganker I'm happy to see the Hulk and Covetor get a minor buff that might see more of them being used, but this is basically no change.
I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com
Sabriz's Rule: "Any time someone argues for a game change claiming it is a quality of life change, the change is actually a game balance change".
|
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
3906
|
Posted - 2016.08.23 02:31:44 -
[39] - Quote
Mark O'Helm wrote:I like the new design. But why make them equal in part of highslots? I liked that they were unique in this. Is there another reason then just to simplify the design? I look on it this way: First remember this is a MMORPG, where RP stands for role play. As a role player, I look at this statement about the Skiff: "Special loading algorithms allow for a +150% yield", and wonder, why does ORE not use those on the Hulk? That +150% bonus is just weird, a hack to do the tiericide, with a force fit explanation on the RP side.
I much prefer solutions to fixing game play that also flow naturally for the role player. Equalizing the turret count across all the barges does just that.
Also, remember that this change is mainly an artwork change. Its not a barge re-balance, or a mining change. Barges came up on the "revap artwork" schedule, so CCP is doing it.
Yossarian Toralen wrote:What is the intended outcome that will come from this change?
Nicer looking barges and exhumers.
Know a Frozen fan? Check this out
Frozen fanfiction
|
Resa Moon
New Eden Miners Association
15
|
Posted - 2016.08.23 02:35:04 -
[40] - Quote
Morn Hylund wrote:I don't get it.
It looks like you're taking away one of the Mining lasers with the Hulk (so more active switching by a miner to go do what is already an extremely tedious activity in Eve and reducing mining yield by a 1/3rd) - while boosting it by 25% (1/4) in other areas with perhaps more boosting in the low slots? Which comes out to about even except again - anyone mining with a Hulk has to be switching Asteroids more often??
How is this not just make mining even more a boring less lucrative activity (especially with the planned mineral price nerf changes)?
I mean come on ... First you have Citadels that are absolutely useless to defend unless you happen to have a fleet on your beck and call (so much for POS equivalency, especially for wormhole manufacturing), now you screw over mining with more ludicrous hand waving - and silly do nothing upgrades ...
No wonder Eve subscriptions are dropping - and people are jumping ship for more entertaining games like Star Citizen, No Man's Sky, Elite Dangerous etc.
Wake the F*** Up.
Exactly right regarding the Hulk and highsec asteroids - why in the world do we need even more frequent switching and ore bay emptying? Nullsec, this will be fine, but many of us use Hulks in highsec too and this will not add to the enjoyment, especially multi-boxing.
New Eden Mining Blog
|
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
3542
|
Posted - 2016.08.23 02:54:39 -
[41] - Quote
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:Not the change that mining needs, which is incentivizing group mining to the point that fielding defense fleets becomes worthwhile. Something that makes miners leave their system to go to a specific location in their constellation.
As a ganker I'm happy to see the Hulk and Covetor get a minor buff that might see more of them being used, but this is basically no change. This will never happen unless Mining earns vastly more than ratting does. To make a defence fleet worthwhile regularly you have to be able to pay the escort an equal amount to what they would have earned ratting for the same time. People might do it for the sake of pew and accept a loss once or twice, but not every day.
We could divide bounties by about 10, then mining might be worth more than ratting though.... But that's about how silly the idea of regular escort fleets actually happening in the meta is. |
FT Cold
R3d Fire Mouth Trumpet Cavalry
64
|
Posted - 2016.08.23 03:54:12 -
[42] - Quote
I don't really have a dog in this fight, but I would have thought (for sake of risk/reward and diversity) it'd look like this:
Hulk: least tank, small ore hold, highest yield, range bonus to strip miners, balanced towards fleet activity. Mack: medium tank, largest ore hold, medium yield, balanced for solo/small scale mining. Skiff: most tank, medium ore hold, lowest yield, drone damage bonus, balanced for minimum risk.
As for increasing the tank of the mack, maybe the hull cost of all barges could be reduced, and the cost of mining lasers/upgrades be increased to fill the gap on a fitted barge to help offset the cost of ganks as a measure to placate gankers.
Also, have you considered more mid-slot mining modules? Maybe they could work like tracking computers and the base range of all strip miners could be reduced slightly to compensate. Might help with forcing players to make fitting choices. Hell, you could even add 'ancillary' strip miners, with extremely short range, optimized so that non-afk miners fit with 'mining tracking computers' and hyperspatials might out-compete afk players. Warp in, mine until the ore hold is full, warp to station when ancillary modules are on cooldown and repeat, with greater yield at the cost of less tank.
Not a miner, just throwing some ideas on the table in the interest of play-style and fitting variety. |
Coralas
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
42
|
Posted - 2016.08.23 04:27:41 -
[43] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Sabriz Adoudel wrote:Not the change that mining needs, which is incentivizing group mining to the point that fielding defense fleets becomes worthwhile. Something that makes miners leave their system to go to a specific location in their constellation.
As a ganker I'm happy to see the Hulk and Covetor get a minor buff that might see more of them being used, but this is basically no change. This will never happen unless Mining earns vastly more than ratting does. To make a defence fleet worthwhile regularly you have to be able to pay the escort an equal amount to what they would have earned ratting for the same time. People might do it for the sake of pew and accept a loss once or twice, but not every day. We could divide bounties by about 10, then mining might be worth more than ratting though.... But that's about how silly the idea of regular escort fleets actually happening in the meta is.
The CCP design model for this interaction is that a durable mining ship like a procurer or a skiff puts a point on a hostile, and your ratting guards have appropriate fits to warp straight from combat anoms to the fight.
If this doesn't happen, its because your corporation has not recruited people based on cooperating to produce resources in your home (bearing in mind the game design has missteps which overly incentivise people to specialize).
Also CCP has repeatedly made it harder to rat a hull. They have raised material requirements for hulls, reduced the materials available from gun mining and removed drone minerals as a kill drop altogether, and now they are steadily providing incentives to use yet larger hulls in null PVE.
Can assure you if they dropped bounties by 90%, the price paid for ore would also drop 90%
|
Soleil Fournier
Black Serpent Technologies The-Culture
138
|
Posted - 2016.08.23 04:30:05 -
[44] - Quote
This seems like a nothing burger to me. If you're going to make changes, might as well make some bigger ones that make mining better / more interesting. These changes just seem to make things harder to fit.
Mid slot modules sound good to me too. |
Grognard Commissar
Splinter Cell Operations inPanic
10
|
Posted - 2016.08.23 05:28:25 -
[45] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Anoron Secheh wrote:What about changes to the Rorqual and Orca? Changes to the Rorqual and Orca are currently planned for November (rather than September for these mining barge changes). We'll be discussing those more as we get a bit closer. soooo... ya'll are changing the boosts *without* giving a good enough reason to have them on-grid? guess my rorq's staying in dock till november. not enough reward for my rorqual to be on-grid. ... unless the boosting changes are planned for november as well?
FT Cold wrote:
increase the probability of profitable ganking under ideal conditions. .
i think we got enough of that already. |
Barrogh Habalu
Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire
1131
|
Posted - 2016.08.23 06:30:41 -
[46] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:This will never happen unless Mining earns vastly more than ratting does. To make a defence fleet worthwhile regularly you have to be able to pay the escort an equal amount to what they would have earned ratting for the same time. No amount of tweaking will change the fact that it's always better to field extra mining ships instead of that escort and take safety measures that don't involve making people to not play the game even if they earn more ISK this way, as well as corresponding risks, which are still more likely to be justified by extra production rather than by chance that some ship will be saved by combat-shipped fleetmates.
Not to mention that balancing income that relies on market is rather hard.
Future of T3 cruisers - multi-tool they aspired to be instead of sledgehammer they have become
|
Mark O'Helm
Fam. Zimin von Reizgenschwendt
212
|
Posted - 2016.08.23 06:33:08 -
[47] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote:Mark O'Helm wrote:I like the new design. But why make them equal in part of highslots? I liked that they were unique in this. Is there another reason then just to simplify the design? I look on it this way: First remember this is a MMORPG, where RP stands for role play. As a role player, I look at this statement about the Skiff: "Special loading algorithms allow for a +150% yield", and wonder, why does ORE not use those on the Hulk? That +150% bonus is just weird, a hack to do the tiericide, with a force fit explanation on the RP side. I much prefer solutions to fixing game play that also flow naturally for the role player. Equalizing the turret count across all the barges does just that. Also, remember that this change is mainly an artwork change. Its not a barge re-balance, or a mining change. Barges came up on the "revap artwork" schedule, so CCP is doing it. If you think that +150% bonus is weird, what's about every other ship bonus in the game? Take the vexor and her 2 variations for example. They all look the same besides painting. But they have different stats. How is that possible? Why can we not upgrade a tech 1 ship to tech 2 or tech 3, when they are based on the same hull?(That is a change i would like to see.)
The 3 barges look different now, and have different sizes, shapes and stats. Why should they not have a different counts of strip miners? Now they will become the same ship, optical only different in size and not unique any more. This is wrong.
"Frauenversteher wissen, was Frauen wollen.
Aber Frauen wollen keine Frauenversteher.
Weil Frauenversteher wissen, was Frauen wollen." (Ein Single)
"Wirklich coolen Leuten ist es egal, ob sie cool sind." (Einer, dem es egal ist)
|
Lorelei Victoria Gilmore
Gilmore Mining And Manufacturing
0
|
Posted - 2016.08.23 06:49:02 -
[48] - Quote
I really like the bulkiness of the new graphical design, they now look like they cloud withstand collisions with some smaller asteroids.
Also I think that the removal of the role boni makes it easier for new players to distinguish between the roles of the Barges - I remember having to double-check the statement that the Procurer and die Retriever have similar yield, since at a first glance the Retriever clearly had double the amount of turrets. Sure, it was just a matter of looking up the Role Bonus, but this was easy for me because by then I already had some some calculations in EVE.
I do believe that now it is pretty clear that all three Barges can mine the same amount, while the Covetor gets that stuff faster, the Procurer more secure and the Retriever with less warping back to station. |
Mecatama Mk2
Dirt Cutleries Integritas Constans
47
|
Posted - 2016.08.23 07:04:48 -
[49] - Quote
Retriever, Covetor have 1 mid keep going?
if they get 2midn not makebalance issue
Rule #34 to EVEOnline.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=296094
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=367650
|
Mostlyharmlesss
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
237
|
Posted - 2016.08.23 07:22:28 -
[50] - Quote
Well, that was underwhelming. Just like the visual revamp.
Looks like you're still required to receive boosts to have any notable ISK income.
Follow me on Twitter for the latest regarding GoonSwarm Federation and our recruitment drives!
|
|
Mai Khumm
172.0.0.1
836
|
Posted - 2016.08.23 07:46:59 -
[51] - Quote
How about a little more tank and drone Bay increase?
Currently, it's stupid easy to blow a Mackinaw and Hulk, and their T1 counterparts out of the sky. It's extremely unbalanced to still have 1-2 Destroyers easily kill a Barge in a 0.6 or even a 0.7 system. The HP increase in the last balance didn't do much in the way of preventing them from dying when someone sneezes on them...
Insert trolling in 3......2...... |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
5884
|
Posted - 2016.08.23 08:36:48 -
[52] - Quote
Kueyen wrote:This new Ore Strip Miner, at 4% better than a T1 Strip Miner, will be going as unused as the old one.
Don't the ORE strip miners and ice harvesters have a range bonus?
Day 0 Advice for New Players
|
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
5884
|
Posted - 2016.08.23 08:42:58 -
[53] - Quote
New CSM, new developers dipping their toes into the mining pool. Time to push my ancient Mining is Boring blogpost about new ideas for mining itself, rather than shifting the mining barge deck chairs around on the proverbial Titanic.
And yes, I miss the days when grav sites were a thing.
Day 0 Advice for New Players
|
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
5884
|
Posted - 2016.08.23 08:52:18 -
[54] - Quote
Cassiel Seraphim wrote:I'd rather see a shift towards faster cycling mining lasers, considerably faster cycling mining lasers.
So instead of buffing yield per pull, why not reduce cycle time (and cap usage) by the equivalent amount instead, so you mine the same yield/second but with more frequent and weaker pulls? It would make the gaming style less passive and annoying when mining multiple smaller asteroids for example.
I think part of the reasoning behind higher yield but long cycles is that the attentive player can increase yield by aborting a strip harvester cycle early, or even just leaving an asteroid behind once it no longer has a full cycle's worth of ore to extract.
Day 0 Advice for New Players
|
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
3557
|
Posted - 2016.08.23 08:58:42 -
[55] - Quote
i never used a barge before but i always thought that it was cool that the larger barges had more mining lasers. Why was that changed? Maybe to easier compare large barges with smaller ones since the bonus is now similar?
how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value
|
elitatwo
Eve Minions O.U.Z.O. Alliance
1375
|
Posted - 2016.08.23 09:07:48 -
[56] - Quote
Mark O'Helm wrote:...Take the vexor and her 2 variations for example. They all look the same besides painting. But they have different stats. How is that possible? Why can we not upgrade a tech 1 ship to a tech 2 or tech 3, when they are based on the same hull?(That is a change i would like to see.)...
Read this and save it as desktop background. Then print it out 1000 times and hang in on your walls, so you can always look at it as if you were practicing for your SATs.
Eve Minions is recruiting. Learn from about pvp, learn about ships and how to fly them correctly. Small gang and solo action in high, low and nullsec and w-space alike.
We will teach you everything you need and want to know.
|
Yarosara Ruil
525
|
Posted - 2016.08.23 09:16:56 -
[57] - Quote
Maybe now I can finally convince my fellow miners to use the Procurer and not hear them moan about the lack of Highslots.
Mark O'Helm wrote: Take the vexor and her 2 variations for example. They all look the same besides painting. But they have different stats. How is that possible? Why can we not upgrade a tech 1 ship to a tech 2 or tech 3, when they are based on the same hull?(That is a change i would like to see.)
You must be new here. Last I checked, Tech 2 actually use Tech 1 ships to be produced, since they are basically overhauled Tech 1 ships with shinny new components and engines. Navy Issue ships follow the same principle as Tech 2, but they are built solely by their respective navies.
As for Tech 3, your lack of basic knowledge has been made very clear, so I'm not going to explain what's their deal. |
Moac Tor
Cyber Core Stain Confederation
686
|
Posted - 2016.08.23 09:22:29 -
[58] - Quote
I am actually surprised that the retriever and mackinaw are in the top spot with the skiff and the procurer all the way down towards the lower end. I would be interested to see figures on for instance, how much time is spent in space in the various barges rather than ore mined. I expect the top ships are used in highly optimised fleet mining setups which skew the usage results.
All in all though at a glance the changes look good and the new barge artwork looks great. Good job.
Modulated ECM Effects
An Alternative to Skill Trading
|
TigerXtrm
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
1581
|
Posted - 2016.08.23 10:14:47 -
[59] - Quote
The new barges look sexy. And the new skins look even sexier, just sad they cost 10 F*CKING dollars!
My YouTube Channel - EVE Tutorials & other game related things!
My Website - Blogs, Livestreams & Forums
|
Alexis Ford
Good Names All Gone Southern Sitizens
4
|
Posted - 2016.08.23 10:26:50 -
[60] - Quote
So the only reason to train Exhumer to 5 will be for more shild resistances only ?
Sorry but thats not EVE ... who in Highsec would ever invest 30days of training with no reason ?
If you realy want to shift the use from Mackinaw to Hulk/Skiff there should be a real benefit from it.
Excample suggestions for Exhumer: +3% CPU or/and +3% Powergrid or/and -3% of miningcrystal Damage
Increasing Orehold with each level. Mackinaw should reach the 35k with Exhumer @L5 Skiff and Hulk will recieve 1k more each Level starting with their current Orecargo Value.
shortly said ... give Hulk/Skiff some "sexiness". I the original suggested change these are mostly "choose your skin" :) |
|
Elyia Suze Nagala
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
115
|
Posted - 2016.08.23 10:28:50 -
[61] - Quote
Alexis Ford wrote:So the only reason to train Exhumer to 5 will be for more shild resistances only ?
Sorry but thats not EVE ... who in Highsec would ever invest 30days of training with no reason ?
If you realy want to shift the use from Mackinaw to Hulk/Skiff there should be a real benefit from it.
Excample suggestions for Exhumer: +3% CPU or/and +3% Powergrid or/and -3% of miningcrystal Damage
Increasing Orehold with each level. Mackinaw should reach the 35k with Exhumer @L5 Skiff and Hulk will recieve 1k more each Level starting with their current Orecargo Value.
shortly said ... give Hulk/Skiff some "sexiness". I the original suggested change these are mostly "choose your skin" :)
The Hulk still has a yield increase. And even if It were only 2% miners would still train it, because that 2% matters in the long run to most people.
I'm going to guess the Skiff will still be a "tank" barge. There in lies its role and why it won't be as "sexy". |
Gaius Clabbacus
Sister Beneficia's Home of Harmless Miners
25
|
Posted - 2016.08.23 10:29:44 -
[62] - Quote
Clear and straightforward. Skiffs and Procurers can now fit a cyno while only being half obvious about it too. |
Elyia Suze Nagala
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
115
|
Posted - 2016.08.23 10:31:07 -
[63] - Quote
Elyia Suze Nagala wrote:I'd imagine other stats will be coming soon, but I'm curious to know what the plans are on volumes and mass, etc. How are those changing. It sounds like the hulls will be quite similar, but functional different.
Again, I know the numbers will come out later, but can you give a general statement about how you plan to adjust these.
Oh I knew I was forgetting something yesterday. Velocity and agility too. How are they being altered (concerns about align times being affected). |
Alexis Ford
Good Names All Gone Southern Sitizens
4
|
Posted - 2016.08.23 10:35:46 -
[64] - Quote
Oh sorry i missread --- only the rolebonus gets deleted.
Thought the Exhumer "Mining" Bonus was affected too.
but still my suggestion stands ... make Skiff/Hulk sexy. Dont doom the Mackinaw just make the other more usable thorugh skilling (Fitting, Cargo, Crystal damage etc.) |
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
2300
|
Posted - 2016.08.23 10:38:13 -
[65] - Quote
Glad to see you are leaving the tank of the skiff and procurer where they are, we were getting concerned that all the whining by gankers would have got to you. i like having two mining lasers on the Skiff and like the look of the new models a lot.
When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17987
|
Posted - 2016.08.23 11:10:39 -
[66] - Quote
Hulk and Mack:
Cant use the slots they have due to not enough CPU, they require a mod/rig/implants to actually fit. Tank is fairly poor not becaue of the base stats but because of the lack of slots, CPU and powergrid.
Covetor and retriever:
1 mid and 3 lows does not a good ship make. Zero fitting room on them simply due to the lack of slots let alone, this makes then fodder to anything.
skiff and procuror:
Overtanked for their class (battleship base tank on a cruiser sized hull) means they effectively invalidate the other 4 barges.
All together this barge change is making all the same mistake that last two made. We need a radical rethink.
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.
T1 barges need fitting slots and CPU/PG on par with cruisers with similar potential defenses.
T2 need to have fitting slots and cpu/pg somewhere between force recons and heavy assault ships with similar potential defenses.
One of the oldest complaints about mining is how boring it is so lets inject some fun into it. Lets have mining fleets that can defend themselves rather than have miners forever relegated to prey and victims. Lets have miners able to support eachother and fend off a small gang that attacks them, let mining have actual skill involved ranther than everyone picking the skiff because it have a big base tank and mining AFK all day. Give miners content. |
Andrea Cemenotar
Elena Minasse Operations
9
|
Posted - 2016.08.23 11:30:10 -
[67] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Hulk and Mack:
Cant use the slots they have due to not enough CPU, they require a mod/rig/implants to actually fit. Tank is fairly poor not becaue of the base stats but because of the lack of slots, CPU and powergrid.
Covetor and retriever:
1 mid and 3 lows does not a good ship make. Zero fitting room on them simply due to the lack of slots let alone, this makes then fodder to anything.
skiff and procuror:
Overtanked for their class (battleship base tank on a cruiser sized hull) means they effectively invalidate the other 4 barges.
All together this barge change is making all the same mistake that last two made. We need a radical rethink.
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.
T1 barges need fitting slots and CPU/PG on par with cruisers with similar potential defenses.
T2 need to have fitting slots and cpu/pg somewhere between force recons and heavy assault ships with similar potential defenses.
One of the oldest complaints about mining is how boring it is so lets inject some fun into it. Lets have mining fleets that can defend themselves rather than have miners forever relegated to prey and victims. Lets have miners able to support eachother and fend off a small gang that attacks them, let mining have actual skill involved ranther than everyone picking the skiff because it have a big base tank and mining AFK all day. Give miners content.
personally I don't think that BB tank on cruiser sized ship is that bad - considering that ship already have severly limited offensive capabilities
as for all mining barges receiving fitting possibilities of combat cruiers.... I disagree - they are mining barges, not combat fighters - as fro miner fleets being able to defend themselves - the single barge type in a role of escort barge would be good thing actually for that... of wait we have that one already.... |
Amarisen Gream
Divine Demise
286
|
Posted - 2016.08.23 11:33:51 -
[68] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Anoron Secheh wrote:What about changes to the Rorqual and Orca? Changes to the Rorqual and Orca are currently planned for November (rather than September for these mining barge changes). We'll be discussing those more as we get a bit closer.
You're killing me Fozzie. the Orca and the Rorqual are what I wanna hear about.
Could you at least tease us with the Orca? please. pretty please.
"The Lord loosed upon them his fierce anger
All of his fury and rage.
He dispatched against them a band of Avenging Angels"
- The Scriptures, Book II, Apocalypse 10:1
DIDE- is open to new members
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17987
|
Posted - 2016.08.23 11:41:17 -
[69] - Quote
Andrea Cemenotar wrote:
personally I don't think that BB tank on cruiser sized ship is that bad - considering that ship already have severly limited offensive capabilities
It gets that tank from the base stats, under my plan you still get an 80k tank with (t2 mods) only now you have to actually fit it. There is nothing balanced with the way the skiffs tank works, no other subcap works that way.
Andrea Cemenotar wrote:
as for all mining barges receiving fitting possibilities of combat cruiers.... I disagree - they are mining barges, not combat fighters - as fro miner fleets being able to defend themselves - the single barge type in a role of escort barge would be good thing actually for that... of wait we have that one already....
We have a logi barge already? where? Also where is the escort miner?
There isn't any. The barges as they are can't defend themselves from anything right now. Hell, 4 of them either cant fit much of a defense or fit any defense at all. |
HarlyQ
harlyq syrokos investment station Goonswarm Federation
123
|
Posted - 2016.08.23 11:43:05 -
[70] - Quote
Amarisen Gream wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Anoron Secheh wrote:What about changes to the Rorqual and Orca? Changes to the Rorqual and Orca are currently planned for November (rather than September for these mining barge changes). We'll be discussing those more as we get a bit closer. You're killing me Fozzie. the Orca and the Rorqual are what I wanna hear about. Could you at least tease us with the Orca? please. pretty please. Didnt you know the orca is being completely ignored. I mean why care about a crappy ore hold crappy cargo crappy agility i mean its just a crappy ship and no one should ever bother flying it. Unless they give it an ore hold of 2million m3. |
|
Autism Intensifies
some random local shitlords
19
|
Posted - 2016.08.23 12:15:48 -
[71] - Quote
HarlyQ wrote:Amarisen Gream wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Anoron Secheh wrote:What about changes to the Rorqual and Orca? Changes to the Rorqual and Orca are currently planned for November (rather than September for these mining barge changes). We'll be discussing those more as we get a bit closer. You're killing me Fozzie. the Orca and the Rorqual are what I wanna hear about. Could you at least tease us with the Orca? please. pretty please. Didnt you know the orca is being completely ignored. I mean why care about a crappy ore hold crappy cargo crappy agility i mean its just a crappy ship and no one should ever bother flying it. Unless they give it an ore hold of 2million m3.
That's why everyone wants details on the ships and some discussion, before CCP throws it on Sisi and it's basically written in stone :V
|
Henry Plantgenet
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
104
|
Posted - 2016.08.23 12:20:41 -
[72] - Quote
Am i the only one thinking: "Hmm now i can fit two neuts on my procurer" |
Kalido Raddi
Echelon Research The Volition Cult
25
|
Posted - 2016.08.23 12:28:34 -
[73] - Quote
Dehval wrote:Kalido Raddi wrote:Suitonia wrote:A small nerf to the Covetor and Hulk?
OLD Covetor 3 * 1.25 (20% Duration MBV) = 3.75
NEW Covetor 2 * 1.25 (New Strip Miner Boost) = 2.5 * 1.33 (25% Duration Role Bonus) = 3.325 * 1.11 (10% Duration MBV) = 3.69
A small loss of 0.06 effective miners. I know you can fit a mining upgrade to offset this though with the extra slot. No you can't; you don't have enough CPU ('cos CCP have decided that removing a Strip Miner means less CPU, but adding a Mining Laser Upgrade doesn't mean more CPU). You can. Put on a T2 CPU rig (6m) and you can fit a basic barebones (t1) tank. It isn't great but that is the price you pay for 9% more yield. If you want both you are gonna have to bling, same as always. Yeah yeah, I'll fit 3 Carpo MLUs - and while I'm at it I'll buy the new Hulk SKIN that paints a gigantic bullseye on the side of the ship.
One more thing - CCPlease could you change the MU series of implants from slot 10 to slot 8 and increase the values to 5/10/15%? That would make that implant set actually possibly see some use. Currently a 5% reduction in the CPU increase caused by Mining Upgrades is laughably insignificant, especially when it sits on the same slot as 5% yield. I'd love to know the stats on how many MU-1005s are implanted compared to MX-1005s. |
Kalido Raddi
Echelon Research The Volition Cult
25
|
Posted - 2016.08.23 12:38:02 -
[74] - Quote
Echo Mande wrote:While it doesn't 'need' it, I think that giving the Skiff a +1 or +2 warp core stability might be something to look at. It is billed as 'for hostile environments' after all. I get where you are coming from, but... every Black Ops Hunter in Eve will just fit a faction scram, and the net result will be zero. |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
5884
|
Posted - 2016.08.23 12:50:09 -
[75] - Quote
Henry Plantgenet wrote:Am i the only one thinking: "Hmm now i can fit two neuts on my procurer"
No, Baltec is way ahead of you there.
Day 0 Advice for New Players
|
Penance Toralen
Compass Fox
2
|
Posted - 2016.08.23 12:52:44 -
[76] - Quote
Hello Fozzie,
Can there be tieracide applied the mining crystals as well. Does mining really need sixteen variations?
Can ORE LP Store be obtainable through missioning within high-sec. Both SOE and Thukker are.
Is CCP happy about the lack of usage for the Prospect and Endurance? |
virm pasuul
The Congregation No Handlebars.
400
|
Posted - 2016.08.23 12:54:07 -
[77] - Quote
Can anyone explain why it's better to have the same number of mining slots on every barge?
I don't really care about the stats, but making them all look exactly the same seems pointless. I like that each one looks differently and you can see at a distance from the beams which class of barge it is.
Usually change is promoted as fixing a problem or issue, or making an improvement, but there appears to be no reasoning behind this change :(
|
Zappity
Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde
2917
|
Posted - 2016.08.23 13:00:57 -
[78] - Quote
Well those are some really boring changes. I'd like to see some more interesting stuff for miners. D-scan immunity or ability decloaking ping or mining fighters or a T3 barge which can switch between yield/capacity/defence. I guess you think this stuff is covered in November.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.
|
Erroch
STK Scientific Phoenix Company Alliance
7
|
Posted - 2016.08.23 13:02:06 -
[79] - Quote
Hey Fozzie, while your team is tweaking these, can we get you all to let barges into medium FW sites?
It's something that's plagued my industrial fleets roaming through lowsec for years now.
|
Suitonia
24th Imperial Crusade Amarr Empire
702
|
Posted - 2016.08.23 13:20:47 -
[80] - Quote
Autism Intensifies wrote:Suitonia wrote:A small nerf to the Covetor and Hulk?
OLD Covetor 3 * 1.25 (20% Duration MBV) = 3.75
NEW Covetor 2 * 1.25 (New Strip Miner Boost) = 2.5 * 1.33 (25% Duration Role Bonus) = 3.325 * 1.11 (10% Duration MBV) = 3.69
A small loss of 0.06 effective miners. I know you can fit a mining upgrade to offset this though with the extra slot. It's 3.75, too. You get 3.69 because you multiply by 1.33 instead of dividing by 0.75 (you mean the same, but rounding fucks your values). Same for *1.11 instead of /0.9
Thanks for correcting me.
Contributer to Eve is Easy:
https://www.youtube.com/user/eveiseasy/videos
Solo PvP is possible with a 20 day old character! :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvOB4KXYk-o
|
|
Alexis Ford
Good Names All Gone Southern Sitizens
4
|
Posted - 2016.08.23 13:49:39 -
[81] - Quote
I also do not understand why these change of Highslots seemed neccesary.
Skiff always was the miningcrystal saver (especially in 0.0) Hulk smashed the crystals like his green angry MC namesake
Also i liked the "Lonely Skiff lance" and the "Hulk Discoqueen"
Of course there will be some new fitting options for bait Skiff / Procurer. But setting this asside ... i cant find a real reason
Except someone forgot the different amounts of Highslots during creating the new design ? *scnr* https://youtu.be/nhTD1G36vvA?t=11m20s |
Punky260
Deutsche Lichtbringer AG Fidelas Constans
2
|
Posted - 2016.08.23 14:19:52 -
[82] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: Removal of strip miner yield and ice harvester cycle time role bonuses
I don't think this will feel good for a miner flying those ships. It might make no difference in mechanics, but having a Rolebonus on your ship gives a better feeling about flying it. It might be a low bonus, but it should at least have some... |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Mercenary Coalition
3084
|
Posted - 2016.08.23 14:56:40 -
[83] - Quote
I don't know if this got answered or not, but definitely would like some extra cap regen on the skiff if it has the new strip miner.
I could honestly go with some extra CPU insteadl, which would also give me an option to fit for cap if needed. Either way works. |
Shallanna Yassavi
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
349
|
Posted - 2016.08.23 15:13:11 -
[84] - Quote
Hulk gets about 10% more yield thanks to the third low.
You detailed how much volume of ore was mined by what ships. What about ice?
A signature :o
|
Rapscallion Jones
Omnibus Solutions
87
|
Posted - 2016.08.23 16:12:12 -
[85] - Quote
I was really hoping the disparity in hold sizes of the mining frigates vs the barges/exhumers would finally be addressed. It makes zero sense how a frigate class vessel has a hold comparable in size the a cruiser class vessel. I'm not looking for anything earth-shattering, just something a little less immersion breaking.
Something along the lines of either a 5000 m3 nerf to the frigates or a 5000 m3 buff to the barges/exhumers.
This: mining dump truck vs. this: municipal dump truck
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
17912
|
Posted - 2016.08.23 16:35:28 -
[86] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:Thread full of angry miners, honestly who's shocked.
Grath, baby. Sweetheart. Jewel.
It's time to update your sig.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
|
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
2817
|
Posted - 2016.08.23 16:57:14 -
[87] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Grath Telkin wrote:Thread full of angry miners, honestly who's shocked. Grath, baby. Sweetheart. Jewel. It's time to update your sig.
Not until somebody else is more wrong than you, thats the rule. The mong before you actually sent me a mail that said "finally" when i took his wrongness down.
Dont worry though, I've got some rubes lined up right now spouting some terrible wrong crap, there might be a light at the end of the tunnel
Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
|
FT Cold
R3d Fire Mouth Trumpet Cavalry
64
|
Posted - 2016.08.23 17:11:56 -
[88] - Quote
Grognard Commissar wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:
[quote=FT Cold]
increase the probability of profitable ganking under ideal conditions. .
i think we got enough of that already.
Under the correct circumstances it is possible to make a profit ganking barges, however is is absolutely minimal and not the primary motivation for gankers. I think it would fit the central themes of EVE better to shift that from trolling to reasons of economics. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17989
|
Posted - 2016.08.23 17:24:40 -
[89] - Quote
FT Cold wrote:Grognard Commissar wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:
[quote=FT Cold]
increase the probability of profitable ganking under ideal conditions. .
i think we got enough of that already. Under the correct circumstances it is possible to make a profit ganking barges, however is is absolutely minimal and not the primary motivation for gankers. I think it would fit the central themes of EVE better to shift that from trolling to reasons of economics.
A hellstorm of outrage is heading your way. I'm getting abuse just for asking for the skiff to get its tank from actually fitting the ship rather than having CCP bake it into the hull. |
Bridget Baptist
Space Rocks Industries Solyaris Chtonium
0
|
Posted - 2016.08.23 17:48:35 -
[90] - Quote
I notice that you have intended to keep the yield of the skiff the same, however due to the fact there will be 2 ice miners running at half the speed, you have increased the hold fill time by one half cycle with then new system . Because it has a odd number of blocks of ice that will fit into it. Thanx BB |
|
Mercer Nen
Summicron Holdings
17
|
Posted - 2016.08.23 17:56:21 -
[91] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:This pass on the barges allowed the art team to fulfill a long-standing request from the game design team...
Any chance of adding some interesting gameplay to mining in the near future? Something more than just ship balancing?
Just trying to add to the not so vocal majority that is hoping for something new and interesting for individual players. I know you're looking for feedback on these changes, but as good as the new visuals are, mining gameplay is absolute purgatory. Aside from development resources, time, finances, pre-existing priorities, and ambition, there's no reason why it can't be more interesting. |
Rockstede
30plus Fidelas Constans
278
|
Posted - 2016.08.23 17:58:02 -
[92] - Quote
I have to agree with the majority here, I can't find a logical reason for most of the changes that you intend. Furthermore the barges are now all basically different variations of the same model which is a net loss imo.
The hulk having 3 miners chewing rocks was a special thing and in a full fleet, a sight to behold.
These changes are unecessary. |
FT Cold
R3d Fire Mouth Trumpet Cavalry
64
|
Posted - 2016.08.23 18:06:35 -
[93] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:FT Cold wrote:Grognard Commissar wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:
[quote=FT Cold]
increase the probability of profitable ganking under ideal conditions. .
i think we got enough of that already. Under the correct circumstances it is possible to make a profit ganking barges, however is is absolutely minimal and not the primary motivation for gankers. I think it would fit the central themes of EVE better to shift that from trolling to reasons of economics. A hellstorm of outrage is heading your way. I'm getting abuse just for asking for the skiff to get its tank from actually fitting the ship rather than having CCP bake it into the hull.
I made a similar recommendation earlier in the post. Players should be encouraged to have to think, make choices, and be punished or rewarded for how much effort they put in. We just had an affirmation of this by CCP, so let the outrage flow. |
xXxNIMRODxXx
Crusader Brewery
36
|
Posted - 2016.08.23 18:06:58 -
[94] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: Hulk: Changed skill bonus for the skill Mining Barge: 2% (was 4%) reduction in strip miner and ice harvester duration per level New role bonus: 25% reduction in strip miner and ice harvester duration and activation cost -1 highslot +1 lowslot -5 PWG -40 CPU
We're very interested in your feedback and welcome you to try out the new stats (and new ship models) on SISI. Thanks!
I don't know about the rest of the ships, but the hulk, with 3 MLUs, would not be able to fit the same tank as of now, while trying to keep a similar maxed out yield.
Specifically: we don't know yet the changes in full to the Rorqual (which has a key role for mining boost in null) as of now, testing on SiSi is quite useless as a comparison for this matter, so I'll stick to a Hulk boosted from an Orca (granted you won't change the boost bonuses on this one too): The cycle goes down to 69.9 which is lower than a Hulk boosted from a Rorqual (70.4), shorter cycle, but less yield because of the changes to strip miners and ship's hull. Unless you try to fit 3 MLUs but still, more than 1000 m3 less yield compared to what we have now, and it turns out it can't keep the same modules it can use now as tank. But not by much, just very few units of CPU missing.
Correct me if I'm wrong here, Fozzie, I can show you the incriminated fit, but even if I can care a bit less about the just a bit less yield, i would rather like to be able to avoid flushing money on different modules and less tank.
|
Cade Windstalker
543
|
Posted - 2016.08.23 18:08:29 -
[95] - Quote
Kueyen wrote:sorry for singling you out, but... Stralisemiai wrote:Exciting changes - thank you for the information. There is no way I could come up with a mechanical implementation of having 2 stripminers on every barge or exhumer that could be *less* exciting than this. For a few days, something vaguely interesting was visible on Singularity: a 25% role bonus to yield for the Retriever and the Mackinaw. Now, those vessels have NO role bonus. None. Feel free to read that as "this ship has no role".
This is pretty demonstrably false, as singled out in CCP Fozzie's original post:
Quote:Unsurprisingly the Retriever and Mackinaw are still on top (unchanged from the last time we presented these stats) due to the very high value placed on ore bay capacity among a solid chunk of miners.
Just because something doesn't have a role bonus doesn't mean it doesn't have a role. They could just as easily throw in "500% bonus to ore hold capacity" but that would be ridiculous and meaningless.
Kueyen wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:ORE Strip Miner: +30% volume mined per cycle, -10 CPU The ORE Ice Harvester has a cycle time identical to the T2 Ice Harvester; A T2 Strip Miner with T2 crystals has a yield of 16.667% that of a T1 Stripminer. This new Ore Strip Miner, at 4% better than a T1 Strip Miner, will be going as unused as the old one. Not that any semi-intelligent human being would ever fit any on the death traps that is any non-Skiff/Procurer miner, of course, nor would they turn the latter two into gank magnets by fitting them on those...
Your assumption of what people will or won't fit is pretty hilarious. Just go have a look at the killboards, people will fit all sorts of things.
It's also worth noting that the Faction Strip Miners will multiply through with other bonuses. They'll never be better than T2 with T2 crystals, but they're easier to fit and less skill intensive to train, which gives them their own niche. IMO they shouldn't be better than T2, that just creates a bad situation where you have to buy the really expensive stuff to be efficient. It's the same reason Faction and even Officer guns generally aren't as good as T2 overall. |
xXxNIMRODxXx
Crusader Brewery
36
|
Posted - 2016.08.23 19:16:47 -
[96] - Quote
HarlyQ wrote:Amarisen Gream wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Anoron Secheh wrote:What about changes to the Rorqual and Orca? Changes to the Rorqual and Orca are currently planned for November (rather than September for these mining barge changes). We'll be discussing those more as we get a bit closer. You're killing me Fozzie. the Orca and the Rorqual are what I wanna hear about. Could you at least tease us with the Orca? please. pretty please. Didnt you know the orca is being completely ignored. I mean why care about a crappy ore hold crappy cargo crappy agility i mean its just a crappy ship and no one should ever bother flying it. Unless they give it an ore hold of 2million m3.
If you don't know what to do and how to use the ships, just stfu ignorant. I'm actually concerned about the Orca's changes, as I use it as a mainstay in my fleets. |
Kitty Bear
Harbingers of Chaos Inc Black Pearl Alliance
1565
|
Posted - 2016.08.23 19:22:52 -
[97] - Quote
Elenahina wrote: I'd actually be curious to see stats on which type of ore is mined most in what space. I'd be willing to bet that most of the "lowsec" ores actually get mined in nullsec because, frankly, it's safer.
That's mostly part of the problem. There's enough of each type of space for some of the systems in them to remain safe for a little time.
There is already regional deviation on ore availability (i.e. Pyroxeres & Omber). There is already a security rating deviation on ore availability (i.e. Mercoxit, etc.).
Extending those 2 concepts to the entire ore range will then make each regional security rating important to the production chain. Low sec and it's unique ores will then become a resource that is needed by nul & hi sec entities.
Yes it's forcing content. Yes it's increasing complexity. But it does make lo-sec both useful and a place to need to be at.
tl/dr Split ores into 3 group. nul-sec only lo-sec only hi-sec only |
Gunrunner1775
Empire Hooligans
102
|
Posted - 2016.08.23 20:26:23 -
[98] - Quote
currently on Test
Hulk (no boosts, but i dont know of many hulks operateing with out orca support, so here is the raw unboosted stats from test) TANK FIT High-2x strip miner II w/ T2 crystals Med- 1x Invul field II, 1x Kin hardener II, 1x thermal harder II, 1x medium shield extender Low- 1x damage control, 1x power diagnostics, 1x reactor control unit (i needed the reactor control to fit the shield extender) Rigs= 2x shield extender II's
Shields = 5670 52/79/84/76 (fitting window shows 21k effective hitpoints vs omni)
yield = 1230 (x2) m3 / 103.3 seconds ( 24.28 m3/second - 87,423 / hour)
100% cap stable, no issues with cap
(again, no boosts)
Makinaw (no boosts) (note, its exact same fit as the hulk) TANK FIT High-2x strip miner II w/ T2 crystals Med- 1x Invul field II, 1x Kin hardener II, 1x thermal harder II, 1x medium shield extender Low- 1x damage control, 1x reactor control unit II, 1xpower diagnostics II Rigs= 2x shield extender II's
Shields = 6281 51/79/84/76 (fitting window shows 24,973 ehp vs omni)
yield = 1230 (x2) m3 / 145.8 seconds ( 16.87 m3/ second - 60,740 m3 / hour)
100% cap stable, no issues
Skiff High-2x strip miner II w/ T2 crystals Med- 2x Invul field II, 1x Kin hardener II, 1x thermal harder II, 1x medium shield extender Low- 1x damage control, 2x MLU IIs (did not need any cpu or pg stuff, and with my skills, had the room to fit 2x MLU's on it instead Rigs= 2x shield extender II's
Shields = 16,425 64/82/87/82 (fitting window shows 72,986 vs omni)
Yield = 1462 (2x) / 145.8 seconds ( 20.05 m3/second - 72,197 m3/hour)
100% cap stable, no issues
ice mineing exact same load outs, just swaped for ice harvesters (did not use the ice rig) and ice miner upgrades were applicable (note, all are 100% cap stable, no issues) Hulk = 2x bricks of ice / 86.1 seconds = 83 bricks of ice per hour Makinaw = 2 bricks / 121.5 seconds = 59 bricks of ice per hour Skiff = 2 bricks 100.6 seconds = 71 bricks per hour
summary new changes show a massive discrepency between the Mackinaw and the Skiff - recomend that Mackinaw be given slight boost in cpu/pg to be able to drop the PDU/PGU in low slot for 2 mining laser upgrades
at which point then it would have to sacrifice tank (loss of dmg control, and change in mid slots) to add 3rd mining laser upgrade thus maintaining some equality with the skiff
now players can choose between cargo or tank but have roughly equal yield |
xXxNIMRODxXx
Crusader Brewery
36
|
Posted - 2016.08.23 20:29:02 -
[99] - Quote
Kalido Raddi wrote:I think you've overdone it on the reduction to the Hulk's CPU. I understand you want to make the fit "tight", but you've actually made it impossible.
Also, could you please implement a reduction in Mining Crystal damage for the Hulk? a reduction on cap usage, if that's not already in place, I can barely keep my cap with a SMALL <----- shield booster and arkonor crystals.... PLUS why on earth does changing crystals suck your cap? |
Numerus Muvila
Core of Elements inPanic
0
|
Posted - 2016.08.23 20:44:27 -
[100] - Quote
This new Hulk is not good at all i have no Ore hold and that littel tank i had you take away for 8k m-¦ more in 1h?
Right now i have this Stats with zero Boost and 5% Imp
3684m-¦ 122,4sec 108352,94m-¦
With 3 mlu-¦s ,5%imp and zero Boost i have this stats
3328m-¦ 103,3sec 115980,63m-¦
thats are 7627,69m-¦ more but i have to turn off 1 midslot and noway i can turn him on.
I already a papertank why you have to **** the hulk more?
Skiff has Tank Mack has Orehold Hulk has ?
#givemycpuback |
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
17913
|
Posted - 2016.08.23 21:11:09 -
[101] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:Malcanis wrote:Grath Telkin wrote:Thread full of angry miners, honestly who's shocked. Grath, baby. Sweetheart. Jewel. It's time to update your sig. Not until somebody else is more wrong than you, thats the rule. The mong before you actually sent me a mail that said "finally" when i took his wrongness down. Dont worry though, I've got some rubes lined up right now spouting some terrible wrong crap, there might be a light at the end of the tunnel
K well I suppose in an infinite universe, someone, somewhere will be undocking a slowcat fleet.
You cling to that, sugarcakes.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
|
Shoppaholic
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2016.08.23 22:10:32 -
[102] - Quote
Looking on Sisi at Hulk with max skills and rorq boosts and T2 implant, no Michi (yet, although we will come to that)
A Hulk with 2 T2 lasers and T2 crystals and 3 T2 MLUs
Yield
Each laser pulls 1924m3 per cycle, with a cycle time of 59.7 secs This is an increase of 7.7% - this is a good thing for miners
Cargo
I mine with multiple chars, however this new arrangement is an issue
Previously, 2 cycles with hulks only just fits in the ore hold, nicely it might be said (there was a period where sporadic proccing made this overflow and was annoying, not the case at the moment)
Now with 2 cycles, there is plenty of room, but a 3rd cycle is out of the question, making multi-char mining quicker, which isnt a good thing, stuff we used to do in 141.6 secs now has to be done in 119.4 secs
I have avoided the Michi implant because of this nicely fit 2 cycle routine, but the new setup will allow the use of this, it doesnt mean i am not against the cycle time change
Fitting
I found with my regular fits, I was 6 CPU short compared to previous fits, possibly can work around with implant, but I had a char that had it fit nicely (had ore survey instead of hardener) - i can work with this
Range
No change
Image
I quite like the new animation of the industrial and units deplying and retracting during warp, also the fire and smoke venting seems more apparent. When I first saw it, it looked like it was chugging like a steam train
Bottom line - I like what has been done, however im concerned the cycle time change is going to be an annoyance based on the currently available ore hold. If it allowed a 3rd cycle then great, but currently max mining (minus michi) fits in the 8500m3 available after 2 cycles |
Shoppaholic
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2016.08.23 22:20:12 -
[103] - Quote
Numerus Muvila wrote:This new Hulk is not good at all i have no Ore hold and that littel tank i had you take away for 8k m-¦ more in 1h?
Right now i have this Stats with zero Boost and 5% Imp
3684m-¦ 122,4sec 108352,94m-¦
With 3 mlu-¦s ,5%imp and zero Boost i have this stats
3328m-¦ 103,3sec 115980,63m-¦
thats are 7627,69m-¦ more but i have to turn off 1 midslot and noway i can turn him on.
I already a papertank why you have to **** the hulk more?
Skiff has Tank Mack has Orehold Hulk has ?
#givemycpuback
Hulk has always been a fleet miner, with boosts where available. I have no issues with tanking on my char that can fit the extra MLU with no other changes, and gains yield in the process |
Uriam Khanid
New Machinarium Corporation
65
|
Posted - 2016.08.23 22:23:09 -
[104] - Quote
2 years ago (Kronos?/july 2014) you add ''strip miner yield and ice harvester cycle time role bonuses'' to barges and exhumers. Now you are removing them. Why?! |
xXxNIMRODxXx
Crusader Brewery
36
|
Posted - 2016.08.23 22:26:24 -
[105] - Quote
Shoppaholic wrote:Numerus Muvila wrote:This new Hulk is not good at all i have no Ore hold and that littel tank i had you take away for 8k m-¦ more in 1h?
Right now i have this Stats with zero Boost and 5% Imp
3684m-¦ 122,4sec 108352,94m-¦
With 3 mlu-¦s ,5%imp and zero Boost i have this stats
3328m-¦ 103,3sec 115980,63m-¦
thats are 7627,69m-¦ more but i have to turn off 1 midslot and noway i can turn him on.
I already a papertank why you have to **** the hulk more?
Skiff has Tank Mack has Orehold Hulk has ?
#givemycpuback Hulk has always been a fleet miner, with boosts where available. I have no issues with tanking on my char that can fit the extra MLU with no other changes, and gains yield in the process I take it you mine in hisec. Rats in nulls sec do hit pretty differently. Using a survey scanner is out of the way. You want tank, yield and be able to gtfo when baddies are around and that's all (because that's basically all you can do). My hulk on SiSi is 9 CPU short with 3 MLUs, plus with a 59.7 cycle time, it really becomes an olimpionic race to handle alts after a certain amount.
Edit:.. but we don't know yet what's it going to be with the new Rorqual, so to stick with an Orca boost just to avoid a "grey zone", you have a slightly better cycle time than an actual Rorqual (that on TQ) but less yield. |
Gunrunner1775
Empire Hooligans
102
|
Posted - 2016.08.23 22:36:09 -
[106] - Quote
Uriam Khanid wrote:2 years ago (Kronos?/july 2014) you add ''strip miner yield and ice harvester cycle time role bonuses'' to barges and exhumers. Now you are removing them. Why?!
CCP Fozzie wrote: As part of this change we are increasing the yield of all barge-sized strip miners and ice harvesters, which cancels out the changes to hardpoints and bonuses on the Barges and Exhumers
|
Shoppaholic
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2016.08.23 22:39:01 -
[107] - Quote
xXxNIMRODxXx wrote:Shoppaholic wrote:Numerus Muvila wrote:This new Hulk is not good at all i have no Ore hold and that littel tank i had you take away for 8k m-¦ more in 1h?
Right now i have this Stats with zero Boost and 5% Imp
3684m-¦ 122,4sec 108352,94m-¦
With 3 mlu-¦s ,5%imp and zero Boost i have this stats
3328m-¦ 103,3sec 115980,63m-¦
thats are 7627,69m-¦ more but i have to turn off 1 midslot and noway i can turn him on.
I already a papertank why you have to **** the hulk more?
Skiff has Tank Mack has Orehold Hulk has ?
#givemycpuback Hulk has always been a fleet miner, with boosts where available. I have no issues with tanking on my char that can fit the extra MLU with no other changes, and gains yield in the process I take it you mine in hisec. Rats in nulls sec do hit pretty differently. Using a survey scanner is out of the way. You want tank, yield and be able to gtfo when baddies are around and that's all (because that's basically all you can do). My hulk on SiSi is 9 CPU short with 3 MLUs, plus with a 59.7 cycle time, it really becomes an olimpionic race to handle alts after a certain amount.
Nope, null sec mining, however i mine with multiple chars, and sometimes with others. Rats never an issue. But yes, the lower cycle time is one aspect I dont look forward to. See previous post for extra details
Ive gone back and forth with the number of alts, after taking a hiatus, im at a lower number for now, we shall see :) |
xXxNIMRODxXx
Crusader Brewery
36
|
Posted - 2016.08.23 22:45:11 -
[108] - Quote
Shoppaholic wrote:xXxNIMRODxXx wrote:Shoppaholic wrote:Numerus Muvila wrote:This new Hulk is not good at all i have no Ore hold and that littel tank i had you take away for 8k m-¦ more in 1h?
Right now i have this Stats with zero Boost and 5% Imp
3684m-¦ 122,4sec 108352,94m-¦
With 3 mlu-¦s ,5%imp and zero Boost i have this stats
3328m-¦ 103,3sec 115980,63m-¦
thats are 7627,69m-¦ more but i have to turn off 1 midslot and noway i can turn him on.
I already a papertank why you have to **** the hulk more?
Skiff has Tank Mack has Orehold Hulk has ?
#givemycpuback Hulk has always been a fleet miner, with boosts where available. I have no issues with tanking on my char that can fit the extra MLU with no other changes, and gains yield in the process I take it you mine in hisec. Rats in nulls sec do hit pretty differently. Using a survey scanner is out of the way. You want tank, yield and be able to gtfo when baddies are around and that's all (because that's basically all you can do). My hulk on SiSi is 9 CPU short with 3 MLUs, plus with a 59.7 cycle time, it really becomes an olimpionic race to handle alts after a certain amount. Nope, null sec mining, however i mine with multiple chars, and sometimes with others. Rats never an issue. But yes, the lower cycle time is one aspect I dont look forward to. See previous post for extra details Ive gone back and forth with the number of alts, after taking a hiatus, im at a lower number for now, we shall see :) (your edit) cant really add another variable into it just yet, this is the upcoming barge changes, not rorqual changes. comparing old to new on the barge front) There are rats that hit harder than others and to withstand the dps you need to go blinky sometimes, I think you know this. Otherwise it becomes a constant warping in and out, which is really annoying. The Hulk is already a work-intensive ship, but these changes it becomes less tanky and even more job-intensive with a Rorq boost (for which future we are like Jon Snow...we know nothing) |
Shoppaholic
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2016.08.23 22:50:46 -
[109] - Quote
xXxNIMRODxXx wrote:Shoppaholic wrote:xXxNIMRODxXx wrote:Shoppaholic wrote:Numerus Muvila wrote:This new Hulk is not good at all i have no Ore hold and that littel tank i had you take away for 8k m-¦ more in 1h?
Right now i have this Stats with zero Boost and 5% Imp
3684m-¦ 122,4sec 108352,94m-¦
With 3 mlu-¦s ,5%imp and zero Boost i have this stats
3328m-¦ 103,3sec 115980,63m-¦
thats are 7627,69m-¦ more but i have to turn off 1 midslot and noway i can turn him on.
I already a papertank why you have to **** the hulk more?
Skiff has Tank Mack has Orehold Hulk has ?
#givemycpuback Hulk has always been a fleet miner, with boosts where available. I have no issues with tanking on my char that can fit the extra MLU with no other changes, and gains yield in the process I take it you mine in hisec. Rats in nulls sec do hit pretty differently. Using a survey scanner is out of the way. You want tank, yield and be able to gtfo when baddies are around and that's all (because that's basically all you can do). My hulk on SiSi is 9 CPU short with 3 MLUs, plus with a 59.7 cycle time, it really becomes an olimpionic race to handle alts after a certain amount. Nope, null sec mining, however i mine with multiple chars, and sometimes with others. Rats never an issue. But yes, the lower cycle time is one aspect I dont look forward to. See previous post for extra details Ive gone back and forth with the number of alts, after taking a hiatus, im at a lower number for now, we shall see :) (your edit) cant really add another variable into it just yet, this is the upcoming barge changes, not rorqual changes. comparing old to new on the barge front) There are rats that hit harder than others and to withstand the dps you need to go blinky sometimes, I think you know this. Otherwise it becomes a constant warping in and out, which is really annoying. The Hulk is already a work-intensive ship, but these changes it becomes less tanky and even more job-intensive with a Rorq boost (for which future we are like Jon Snow...we know nothing)
Seeing others nearby try to mine... I understand where you are coming from. Im just saying I dont have that issue. I may not be in deep null but I still get double or even triple BS spawns that seem tough, but they switch target quickly enough for it not to be an issue, and my current tank can deal with what they put out. My Rorq pilot might have shield bonuses too, but thats all part of my fleet setup
Currently my issue is with the cycle time versus cargo space, as there doesnt seem to be much synergy there. Max everything out except the Michi implant and you have 8472 after 2 cycles (convenient with a 8500 cargo space) |
Grognard Commissar
Splinter Cell Operations inPanic
10
|
Posted - 2016.08.23 23:16:16 -
[110] - Quote
Moac Tor wrote:I am actually surprised that the retriever and mackinaw are in the top spot with the skiff and the procurer all the way down towards the lower end. I would be interested to see figures on for instance, how much time is spent in space in the various barges rather than ore mined. I expect the top ships are used in highly optimised fleet mining setups which skew the usage results.
All in all though at a glance the changes look good and the new barge artwork looks great. Good job. two words: ice mining |
|
Grognard Commissar
Splinter Cell Operations inPanic
10
|
Posted - 2016.08.24 00:00:07 -
[111] - Quote
FT Cold wrote:
Under the correct circumstances it is possible to make a profit ganking barges, however is is absolutely minimal and not the primary motivation for gankers. I think it would fit the central themes of EVE better to shift that from trolling to reasons of economics.
the problem is that they don't NEED to make a profit, because CODE. gets money dumped on them by people. also, goonswarm. people kill miners just to kill things. don't care bout profit usually
baltec1 wrote:
A hellstorm of outrage is heading your way. I'm getting abuse just for asking for the skiff to get its tank from actually fitting the ship rather than having CCP bake it into the hull.
so... you want to give skiffs like 6 mid slots, and the cpu and pg to go with it? otherwise, you'll nerf it to the point where it is pointless. |
oiukhp Muvila
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2016.08.24 00:06:36 -
[112] - Quote
Nice changes. Can't wait for them to go live.
Btw, the community doesn't disappoint.
The one constant in this game is players complaining; about changes or the lack of. Changes that force them to change their game play or changes that make their detested gameplay too easy for the lame ones who enjoy it.
Don't get me wrong, I do think we should be able to give feedback, its just that some take this all a bit too serious at times.
|
Coralas
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
43
|
Posted - 2016.08.24 00:11:34 -
[113] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:
skiff and procuror:
Overtanked for their class (battleship base tank on a cruiser sized hull) means they effectively invalidate the other 4 barges.
I can fly a proteus on this account, and a skiff on one of my old ones, quite sure that the proteus can field a larger buffer and there is no comparison at all to the active tank.
ie you are campaigning to nerf what is probably no more than the 5th largest cruiser tank.
My experiences with the proc says that a proper proc has a midrack full of tackle and is hull tanked, ie it needs the stats its been given to do its true role, and generally both yield AND dps are traded off to achieve tackle with the tank moved more to hull.
Unless _mining_ is changed, imo the hulls are basically fit for purpose.
|
Grognard Commissar
Splinter Cell Operations inPanic
10
|
Posted - 2016.08.24 00:22:15 -
[114] - Quote
Coralas wrote:baltec1 wrote:
skiff and procuror:
Overtanked for their class (battleship base tank on a cruiser sized hull) means they effectively invalidate the other 4 barges.
I can fly a proteus on this account, and a skiff on one of my old ones, quite sure that the proteus can field a larger buffer and there is no comparison at all to the active tank. ie you are campaigning to nerf what is probably no more than the 5th largest cruiser tank. My experiences with the proc says that a proper proc has a midrack full of tackle and is hull tanked, ie it needs the stats its been given to do its true role, and generally both yield AND dps are traded off to achieve tackle with the tank moved more to hull. Unless _mining_ is changed, imo the hulls are basically fit for purpose. i think he just wnats to gank more miners |
FT Cold
R3d Fire Mouth Trumpet Cavalry
65
|
Posted - 2016.08.24 00:24:10 -
[115] - Quote
Grognard Commissar wrote:FT Cold wrote:
Under the correct circumstances it is possible to make a profit ganking barges, however is is absolutely minimal and not the primary motivation for gankers. I think it would fit the central themes of EVE better to shift that from trolling to reasons of economics.
the problem is that they don't NEED to make a profit, because CODE. gets money dumped on them by people. also, goonswarm. people kill miners just to kill things. don't care bout profit usually
It's not a problem that people will do things without profit motive and it's unrelated to my point. What I'm saying is that people who fly mining barges who sit afk and don't make use of widely available fitting resources should have a proportionately high risk of losing their ship. People who take the initiative and create content should be rewarded and thus should be entitled to profit on the ignorance or laziness of other players. That's game play. You win by knowing more, paying attention, and reacting faster than your opponent.
As it stands now, miners have very few choices, and if you go back a few pages and read my original post, there are a list of proposals that would give miners a variety of new play styles and reward them for being active, diligent, and intelligent about their decisions.
Read this post: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=491023&find=unread It affirms CCP's commitment to the core attributes of this game. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17992
|
Posted - 2016.08.24 00:36:03 -
[116] - Quote
Grognard Commissar wrote:
so... you want to give skiffs like 6 mid slots, and the cpu and pg to go with it? otherwise, you'll nerf it to the point where it is pointless.
I want the skiff to have a similar slot layout to a HACs and the cpu and powergrid to go with that. Same goes for the other exhumers and the barges to be similar to cruiser in terms of slots, cpu and powergrid.
This is the third attempt by CCP to balance barges under the tank, ore hold, yield mantra and it just isn't working. |
Autism Intensifies
some random local shitlords
20
|
Posted - 2016.08.24 00:51:53 -
[117] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Grognard Commissar wrote:
so... you want to give skiffs like 6 mid slots, and the cpu and pg to go with it? otherwise, you'll nerf it to the point where it is pointless.
I want the skiff to have a similar slot layout to a HACs and the cpu and powergrid to go with that. Same goes for the other exhumers and the barges to be similar to cruiser in terms of slots, cpu and powergrid. This is the third attempt by CCP to balance barges under the tank, ore hold, yield mantra and it just isn't working.
I'd love to see fitting choices on Exhumers / Barges. But with the frigate-fitting room, it's pretty much predefined what you can achieve. What is CCP afraid of if barges were to get ~800 pg and increase stripminer PG req to make it hard to fit max tank and full strips? |
Alicia Dnari
Dnari Mining and Manufacturing
5
|
Posted - 2016.08.24 00:53:59 -
[118] - Quote
Pretty new designs, thank you. But explain something I've never understood, please: what is up with the smoke-generating open flames on mining ships? In space? Is space in New Eden filled with oxygen? It's just wierd. :-) |
Autism Intensifies
some random local shitlords
20
|
Posted - 2016.08.24 01:05:37 -
[119] - Quote
Alicia Dnari wrote:Pretty new designs, thank you. But explain something I've never understood, please: what is up with the smoke-generating open flames on mining ships? In space? Is space in New Eden filled with oxygen? It's just wierd. :-)
As long as there's an oxidant available inside of the ship, there can very well be fire in space. Doesn't have to be oxygen itself, but could be something that's in the ore, gets ignited during some weird space magic, and gets extinguished by opening an airlock. Tadaaa, flames in space.
|
Coralas
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
44
|
Posted - 2016.08.24 01:14:18 -
[120] - Quote
FT Cold wrote:Grognard Commissar wrote:FT Cold wrote:
Under the correct circumstances it is possible to make a profit ganking barges, however is is absolutely minimal and not the primary motivation for gankers. I think it would fit the central themes of EVE better to shift that from trolling to reasons of economics.
the problem is that they don't NEED to make a profit, because CODE. gets money dumped on them by people. also, goonswarm. people kill miners just to kill things. don't care bout profit usually It's not a problem that people will do things without profit motive and it's unrelated to my point. What I'm saying is that people who fly mining barges who sit afk and don't make use of widely available fitting resources should have a proportionately high risk of losing their ship.
The choice of a skiff is a fitting choice.
Removing an LSE worth of hitpoints and putting a slot for the LSE isn't going to change anything, the people that chose a skiff, chose it for the tank.
The entire rest of the game has absurd microspecialization for cruisers, which enables a target caller to recognize the role of the ship he is calling out to shoot next. If you go outside the role, you get a relatively weak fit as a trade off for the surprise.
ie in the current scenario there are 5 hulks and 1 skiff in the belt, depending on what you _brought_ to attack them with, will dictate your strategy.
In the baltec scenario, there are 6 generic exhumers in the belt, that you can't tell apart without them sitting there long enough for you to shipscan all of them. IMO thats entirely against the way that the rest of EVE is designed, and dull because it promotes only 1 strategy - always bring enough firepower to kill a generic exhumer that is fully tanked. |
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17994
|
Posted - 2016.08.24 01:44:54 -
[121] - Quote
Coralas wrote:[ In the baltec scenario, there are 6 generic exhumers in the belt, that you can't tell apart without them sitting there long enough for you to shipscan all of them. IMO thats entirely against the way that the rest of EVE is designed, and dull because it promotes only 1 strategy - always bring enough firepower to kill a generic exhumer that is fully tanked.
They have different names in the overview. 3 skiffs with 2 macks would mean 3 dps and 2 logi. Its also perfectly in line with the rest of EVE to not know how people might be fitting their barges due to them having options. Just look at the thorax, it has a rather large number of ways of fitting it.
CCP fitting your ships for you is a very poor way of doing things, its basically saying you are incapable of doing it for yourself. |
FT Cold
R3d Fire Mouth Trumpet Cavalry
65
|
Posted - 2016.08.24 01:55:33 -
[122] - Quote
Coralas wrote:FT Cold wrote:Grognard Commissar wrote:FT Cold wrote:
Under the correct circumstances it is possible to make a profit ganking barges, however is is absolutely minimal and not the primary motivation for gankers. I think it would fit the central themes of EVE better to shift that from trolling to reasons of economics.
the problem is that they don't NEED to make a profit, because CODE. gets money dumped on them by people. also, goonswarm. people kill miners just to kill things. don't care bout profit usually It's not a problem that people will do things without profit motive and it's unrelated to my point. What I'm saying is that people who fly mining barges who sit afk and don't make use of widely available fitting resources should have a proportionately high risk of losing their ship. The choice of a skiff is a fitting choice.Removing an LSE worth of hitpoints and putting a slot for the LSE isn't going to change anything, the people that chose a skiff, chose it for the tank. The entire rest of the game has absurd microspecialization for cruisers, which enables a target caller to recognize the role of the ship he is calling out to shoot next. If you go outside the role, you get a relatively weak fit as a trade off for the surprise. ie in the current scenario there are 5 hulks and 1 skiff in the belt, depending on what you _brought_ to attack them with, will dictate your strategy. In the baltec scenario, there are 6 generic exhumers in the belt, that you can't tell apart without them sitting there long enough for you to shipscan all of them. IMO thats entirely against the way that the rest of EVE is designed, and dull because it promotes only 1 strategy - always bring enough firepower to kill a generic exhumer that is fully tanked.
Giving exhumers and barges proper fitting space and modules to utilize that space will give them choices. Mid slot mining upgrades would give players the ability to chose between tank and optimized mining. Different fitting space and base stats on barges will give players a degree of granularity where they can chose the layout that fits their region and play style the best.
Your analogy towards combat ships is weak. It's true some ships are shoehorned into specific fits, but for the majority of ships, there are many, many viable fitting options. Barges will never have the degree of variety that combat ships have, but it doesn't mean they shouldn't have more than they have currently.
Ship scanning counts as preparation for a potential attacker, effort that increases chances of success and reduces risk, sounds like working as intended to me. |
Gunrunner1775
Empire Hooligans
102
|
Posted - 2016.08.24 01:57:03 -
[123] - Quote
what exactly is this AFK mineing everyone keeps speaking of,
cause in my experience (and it will be even more evident with the comeing changes)
i can not even get up to use the restroom without a laser turning off or a hold getting full up (especialy if im feeling safe and mineing in a hulk, it aint happening. no such thing as AFK mineing in a Hulk) as for mack or skiff... yea, i MIGHT have enough time to get up and use the restroom if i am mineing ice... but if i am mineing regular astroids... nope, aint happening
you are non stop clicking dragging dropping nowadays
this AFK mineing you speak of , might have occured back in the day when ice mining lasers had some crazy insane timer like 15 min and with skills could get it down to 5 min ?? hell i dont remember,
previous comments on this forum by another he was commenting on how the new hulk would be crazy stupid insane fast mineing, most definatly non-stop clicking,
yea, the changes are good, slight imballance between the skiff and the mackinaw that i noticed but eh, it will work itself out in the end
as a side note... AFK means away from keyboard.... if your trying to apply that to someone that just isnt paying attention, its not the same thing (or it could be)... and the "automated" mineing that used to take place years ago, befor the banning of 3rd party programs, i have not personaly witnessed that scale of mineing in AGES.... massive fleets of 30+ miners with orca and freighter support swooping in like a swarm of locusts gobbling up everything in an entire sector
TL/DR AFK mineing does not exist... just those that pay attention and those that do not Multi-box Hulk pilots are gonna be non-stop clicking maniacs and not have time to pay attention to local as they alt tab between hulks and cans and freighters / orcas |
Gunrunner1775
Empire Hooligans
102
|
Posted - 2016.08.24 02:24:14 -
[124] - Quote
baltec1 wrote: CCP fitting your ships for you is a very poor way of doing things, its basically saying you are incapable of doing it for yourself.
coralas wrote: The choice of a skiff is a fitting choice.
Removing an LSE worth of hitpoints and putting a slot for the LSE isn't going to change anything, the people that chose a skiff, chose it for the tank.
for all of you talking about changeing up the ships to give more or less slots in low or medium or high and alteration of the CPU/PG to give more "options" for fittings
have to disagree with you here sir
first of all, yes, i am aware that this is a PvP game with PvE environment
mission running = pve mineing = pve incursions = pve
ships that perform these aspects of the game have evolved over time into very "by the book" fittings for the most part a mission running caldari raven will have extremly similtar fits no batter were you go, the variations will be only noticeable based on the relavent skills of the pilot. an incursion running nightmare will have very similar fits across the board
the so called "fleet doctrin" that is used were everyone flys the same ship (back in the day, i remember huge fleets of drakes, have later seen massive fleets of tengu's ect ect)
mineing ships.. inspite of your suggestion.. will become standarized.. based off the fittings and the cpu/pg ect, yes players would have the option to fit for different stuff (ie bait ships with ecm or what ever) but the vast majority will eventualy fall into the "by the book" mentality
so again... based off those suggestion you all keep makeing.... a skiff will still be 110k+ ehp vs kin/therm (unless your talking flat out nurf to the skiff tank. and that is an entire can of worms no one wants to open up).. and people that feel "safe" will still fit for max yield on macks and hulks and say screw the tank
does the entire mineing / industrial aspect of the game need a complete and total overhaul... YES.... but that is a project that would take many many months and i very much prefer CCP working on the stuff they are already working on as well as new content at the moment... maybe later on down the road it could be looked at... but small changes like these... i think are good |
Vailen Sere
420 Enterprises. Tactical Supremacy
19
|
Posted - 2016.08.24 02:33:11 -
[125] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
We're very interested in your feedback and welcome you to try out the new stats (and new ship models) on SISI. Thanks!
Fozzie,
None of this changes the fact mining is less lucrative and more risk than anomaly running (unless your in a skiff.. than its just less risk.)
To bring mining in a better place (in player's eyes), need to get the isk per hour closer to anomaly level. eitherwise its just not worth it unless you do it for ADM's or to build t1 ships. |
Coralas
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
44
|
Posted - 2016.08.24 02:38:11 -
[126] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Coralas wrote:[ In the baltec scenario, there are 6 generic exhumers in the belt, that you can't tell apart without them sitting there long enough for you to shipscan all of them. IMO thats entirely against the way that the rest of EVE is designed, and dull because it promotes only 1 strategy - always bring enough firepower to kill a generic exhumer that is fully tanked. They have different names in the overview. 3 skiffs with 2 macks would mean 3 dps and 2 logi. Its also perfectly in line with the rest of EVE to not know how people might be fitting their barges due to them having options. Just look at the thorax, it has a rather large number of ways of fitting it. CCP fitting your ships for you is a very poor way of doing things, its basically saying you are incapable of doing it for yourself.
Which is a recognized fact, and a game design problem CCP had to contend with, which is why the exhumers do their roles reasonably, straight out of the box.
Skiff EHP works for you every day (everyone knows what hitpoints the skiff will have at a minimum), logi will fail for you nearly every time you use it in highsec in a mining fleet, ie you are promoting a design with a role bonus that will not be used frequently, and will reliably, routinely fail to save ships when it is used.
Nothing worse than an EVE ship with a useless role bonus.
|
Abadayos
Yulai RnD
15
|
Posted - 2016.08.24 02:41:12 -
[127] - Quote
Gunrunner1775 wrote: TL/DR AFK mineing does not exist... just those that pay attention and those that do not Multi-box Hulk pilots are gonna be non-stop clicking maniacs and not have time to pay attention to local as they alt tab between hulks and cans and freighters / orcas
I hate to correct you there but in null with a decent alliance with intel, you can semi afk mine in your ships. Procurers can be left alone for 3 cycles, have a 90k tank and be pretty afk'able.
Now with these changes IU don't see the point of them. They are simply 'change for changes sake' and they don't seem to really change the mining meta at all.
Yield: Hulk AFK: Mack Tank: Skiff
Same as right now, replace exhumer with barge and there you go. Also as some have said the fittings are so tight, or apparently impossible (not tested personally, only going from what others have stated so take that as it where), that you effectively have no choice as to how you fit your mining ships. Granted right now you have no true choice, unless you go for a slight or big bling fit to fit that A type small shield booster or faction hardeners etc.
What I would like to see is new rigs that increase ore cargohold size for both mining ships and the orca/rorq (rorq really doesn't need it with 250,000m3 of space, but having the option never hurt, even with compression...hilarious loss mails would result). Have them giving an agility penalty on the capitals and maybe increase the cycle time on mining lasers for the mining ships. That way you sacrifice some yield for space (obviously reduced with skills, but that's EvE in a nutshell, rewarding specialization).
Whilst we are looking at mining barges and exhumers, why not look into mining drones. With the Rorqual having the mining fighter sized drones, why not do a rehash of the mining drones for the mining ships? They are useless right now due to slow speed and kind of crappy yield. Maybe have one of the ships have a baked in increase to mining drone yield and travel speed? Most miners I know have never used them because they are trash compared to combat drones. Maybe making them useful would promote people using them over lights/mediums, especially in a fleet where some use combats and others use mining drones.
Finally mid slots, why not have something that could reduce cap usage, increase range, increase ore cargo hold (or have that one as a low like expanded cargoholds). Giving the option to fit tank or something to boost efficiency would be good as risk/reward and all that jazz.
|
Abadayos
Yulai RnD
15
|
Posted - 2016.08.24 02:46:23 -
[128] - Quote
Coralas wrote:baltec1 wrote:Coralas wrote:[ In the baltec scenario, there are 6 generic exhumers in the belt, that you can't tell apart without them sitting there long enough for you to shipscan all of them. IMO thats entirely against the way that the rest of EVE is designed, and dull because it promotes only 1 strategy - always bring enough firepower to kill a generic exhumer that is fully tanked. They have different names in the overview. 3 skiffs with 2 macks would mean 3 dps and 2 logi. Its also perfectly in line with the rest of EVE to not know how people might be fitting their barges due to them having options. Just look at the thorax, it has a rather large number of ways of fitting it. CCP fitting your ships for you is a very poor way of doing things, its basically saying you are incapable of doing it for yourself. Which is a recognized fact, and a game design problem CCP had to contend with, which is why the exhumers do their roles reasonably, straight out of the box. Skiff EHP works for you every day (everyone knows what hitpoints the skiff will have at a minimum), logi will fail for you nearly every time you use it in highsec in a mining fleet, ie you are promoting a design with a role bonus that will not be used frequently, and will reliably, routinely fail to save ships when it is used. Nothing worse than an EVE ship with a useless role bonus.
If I had the option to have RR on a mining ship without severely hampering my minng yield, I would. However I run a small personal mining fleet so 6+ miners with rorq support, a hauler and the ability to RR, ecm (drones) and apply damage to the 2-4 man gang would prove to be interesting and fun gameplay for me as a multibox miner and potentially for the gankers and it would be hilarious if they got killed by mining ships or if they where unable to break the reps (granted you can kind of do that now with shield repair drones but hardly anyone ever carries them)
|
Coralas
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
44
|
Posted - 2016.08.24 02:55:20 -
[129] - Quote
FT Cold wrote:
Your analogy towards combat ships is weak. It's true some ships are shoehorned into specific fits, but for the majority of ships, there are many, many viable fitting options. Barges will never have the degree of variety that combat ships have, but it doesn't mean they shouldn't have more than they have currently.
You aren't ever going to put a full rack of RR on a thorax, and then shoot with an exeq. the fitting option is too weak overall and gives opposition too much time to manage it. The thorax will shoot. At most it might have _a_ module used for RR or supporting RR, but the further you go into the game (ie to t2 ships), and the more defined those roles become and the less effective role sharing or role switching is. ie you guys are all claiming the myriad variations of shooting thoraxes as anything important. its not.
Quote:
Ship scanning counts as preparation for a potential attacker, effort that increases chances of success and reduces risk, sounds like working as intended to me.
This means that when someone floats around highsec in a solo catalyst, that the belts will be full of
- venture - generic barge with potentially 25k+ hps (since one presumes there is going to be a t1 logi barge, and thus t1 barges all need to be suitable t1 logi targets). - generic exhumer with potentially 50k+ hps.
and thus the catalyst pilot will be resigned to having to either just seek ventures, or having to go to each belt and hand check each and every stupid space ship. Which is fine if you are a scout for a 50 man industrial ganking outfit, but sucks royally if you are a solo pilot.
|
Nfynity Prime
Nfynity Prime Corp
0
|
Posted - 2016.08.24 03:20:28 -
[130] - Quote
So unless I'm mistaken, now my Skiff will use twice as much cap for the strip miners and burn twice as many T2 crystals in the process, for the same amount of ore, since the cycle times, as confirmed on Singularity, are the same and the yield per cycle is 1/2 of what it was with one strip miner (per strip miner). Any plans on addressing these two issues? If not, I'll gladly keep the old design, thank you. |
|
Coralas
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
44
|
Posted - 2016.08.24 03:31:35 -
[131] - Quote
Abadayos wrote:
If I had the option to have RR on a mining ship without severely hampering my minng yield, I would. However I run a small personal mining fleet so 6+ miners with rorq support, a hauler and the ability to RR, ecm (drones) and apply damage to the 2-4 man gang would prove to be interesting and fun gameplay for me as a multibox miner and potentially for the gankers and it would be hilarious if they got killed by mining ships or if they where unable to break the reps (granted you can kind of do that now with shield repair drones but hardly anyone ever carries them)
You aren't allowed to broadcast commands anymore, as soon as they switch target, you'll be screwed unless that target has skiff scale hitpoints.
The proc works now, because you can hull tank it, and you can fit a full rack of tackle (2x webs, long point and scram) and you can pin down one of the attacking ships which forces them to commit to the attack, and kill your proc before your corps combat ships reach the battle. If they don't kill the proc in time, they lose whatever thing the proc has pinned. if they try to sit at range to avoid committing too much isk, the proc kills their pinned tackle frigate and leaves.
ie a couple of bait procs is a thing you can commit to dangling in front of a gang, a fleet of t2 mining ships, is always going to more sensible to dock it.
|
FT Cold
R3d Fire Mouth Trumpet Cavalry
65
|
Posted - 2016.08.24 03:36:19 -
[132] - Quote
Coralas wrote:FT Cold wrote:
Your analogy towards combat ships is weak. It's true some ships are shoehorned into specific fits, but for the majority of ships, there are many, many viable fitting options. Barges will never have the degree of variety that combat ships have, but it doesn't mean they shouldn't have more than they have currently.
You aren't ever going to put a full rack of RR on a thorax, and then shoot with an exeq. the fitting option is too weak overall and gives opposition too much time to manage it. The thorax will shoot. At most it might have _a_ module used for RR or supporting RR, but the further you go into the game (ie to t2 ships), and the more defined those roles become and the less effective role sharing or role switching is. ie you guys are all claiming the myriad variations of shooting thoraxes as anything important. its not. Quote:
Ship scanning counts as preparation for a potential attacker, effort that increases chances of success and reduces risk, sounds like working as intended to me.
This means that when someone floats around highsec in a solo catalyst, that the belts will be full of - venture - generic barge with potentially 25k+ hps (since one presumes there is going to be a t1 logi barge, and thus t1 barges all need to be suitable t1 logi targets). - generic exhumer with potentially 50k+ hps. and thus the catalyst pilot will be resigned to having to either just seek ventures, or having to go to each belt and hand check each and every stupid space ship. Which is fine if you are a scout for a 50 man industrial ganking outfit, but sucks royally if you are a solo pilot.
There are literally only two sensible fitting options for a skiff. Either you fit a DC or another mining laser upgrade, a ice mining rig instead of a second shield rig. Everything else is accounted for. No, you're probably not going to fit a thorax with RR modules, but there are probably something on the order of two dozen viable fits on the thorax.
As for your second comment, I don't think that you're understanding my previous posts correctly. For example, under my proposed system, one might chose to use a mackinaw. The base hull would have more powergrid and CPU than the hulk, but less than the skiff. A player might decide that he's capable of paying attention and evading potential gankers, and thus decide to fit only modules designed to increase yield. Under my proposal, lows, mids and rigs would have more potential modules to make this possible. Risk is high, because the demand on attention is high, but potential rewards are also high.
That same player might decide that the demand for attention is too high, and thus decide to trade his rigs and mid slots for tanking modules. With a maximum tank, the mackinaw would have more yield and capacity than the skiff, but less potential tank, because the limiting factor in it's fitting choices would probably need to be power grid.
Extending this to the other barges, each would have a yield range and a tank range that approaches, but does not overlap with it's neighbors. Each hull would have a degree of risk/reward baked into the hull and a limited degree of freedom to move in both directions on that spectrum. There aren't any 'generic' barges. Each has it's own set of attributes, ranges tank and yield, and special attribute.
It's fine if you don't like the idea, but you haven't really shown a reason not to adopt it, and your analogy to other combat ships is still fallacious. |
Coralas
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
44
|
Posted - 2016.08.24 05:03:39 -
[133] - Quote
FT Cold wrote: There are literally only two sensible fitting options for a skiff. Either you fit a DC or another mining laser upgrade, a ice mining rig instead of a second shield rig. Everything else is accounted for. No, you're probably not going to fit a thorax with RR modules, but there are probably something on the order of two dozen viable fits on the thorax.
DC, point, sebo, explosive drones for catalyst targets instead of hobs for npcs is a perfectly reasonable fit for a highsec unit intended to engage -10s by warping to the same belt that fleet barges are in, and its an intended role for the ship, since you can mine in the month interval between the visits from the ganker in your timezone.
Any pilot actively choosing that role is not going to lose their ship to a large group of gankers, and often as not, facing down a non -10 ganker is as much fun as a kill anyway. I enjoyed warping to the fleet barges directly and winding up between the ganker and the barge. The non -10s never actually shoot, and the ship _needs_ be able to clearly face down gankers without becoming an efficient combat cruiser in its own right, so it has to be tank centric.
Quote:
As for your second comment, I don't think that you're understanding my previous posts correctly. For example, under my proposed system, one might chose to use a mackinaw.
You added into a chain of discussion about BALTECS proposal, which was that mining fleets have inherent RR, which thus requires all mining ships protected by RR to have sufficient hitpoints to be suitable targets for RR, and thus the belts would be full of generic high hitpoint barges and exhumers as a result, thus making d-scan largely irrelevant to the solo cat pilot, it might as well say forgetaboutit and venture.
Quote:
The base hull would have more powergrid and CPU than the hulk, but less than the skiff. A player might decide that he's capable of paying attention and evading potential gankers, and thus decide to fit only modules designed to increase yield. Under my proposal, lows, mids and rigs would have more potential modules to make this possible. Risk is high, because the demand on attention is high, but potential rewards are also high.
So you first complain about not encompassing your proposal when discussing someone elses proposal, and then you give me your proposal. Possibly an error in the matrix ?
Calling my point that all thoraxes shoot is weak, is not a reasonable counter to the point. all it is weak debating.
The reason I do not like your concept is that instead of owning a skiff and a mack, I'd own 2 macks because of rigs (rigs as a whole, not CCPs finest hour in terms of making fits configurable). Then I'd have to (a) remember to be in the right mack, and (b) if there was some fleet role to perform, I'd have to explain endlessly my fit and that this fit was a nearly skiff, if I was in a skiff like role, which makes no sense, because all exhumers use the same skills, ie there is no reason to not own a skiff for all skiff like roles, and being remotely tempted to own 2 macks is bad, and then the FC would probably make me get a skiff anyway.
Its understandable when we have different weapon systems on combat ships that individuals might need to be in the alternative hulls to fulfill similar roles, but alliances even clamp down on that and require people train for and use doctrine fits anyway - ie the playerbase works hard to get rid of excess configurations, ie say one thing, but want another.
|
FT Cold
R3d Fire Mouth Trumpet Cavalry
65
|
Posted - 2016.08.24 05:37:40 -
[134] - Quote
Coralas wrote:FT Cold wrote: There are literally only two sensible fitting options for a skiff. Either you fit a DC or another mining laser upgrade, a ice mining rig instead of a second shield rig. Everything else is accounted for. No, you're probably not going to fit a thorax with RR modules, but there are probably something on the order of two dozen viable fits on the thorax.
DC, point, sebo, explosive drones for catalyst targets instead of hobs for npcs is a perfectly reasonable fit for a highsec unit intended to engage -10s by warping to the same belt that fleet barges are in, and its an intended role for the ship, since you can mine in the month interval between the visits from the ganker in your timezone. Any pilot actively choosing that role is not going to lose their ship to a large group of gankers, and often as not, facing down a non -10 ganker is as much fun as a kill anyway. I enjoyed warping to the fleet barges directly and winding up between the ganker and the barge. The non -10s never actually shoot, and the ship _needs_ be able to clearly face down gankers without becoming an efficient combat cruiser in its own right, so it has to be tank centric. Quote:
As for your second comment, I don't think that you're understanding my previous posts correctly. For example, under my proposed system, one might chose to use a mackinaw.
You added into a chain of discussion about BALTECS proposal, which was that mining fleets have inherent RR, which thus requires all mining ships protected by RR to have sufficient hitpoints to be suitable targets for RR, and thus the belts would be full of generic high hitpoint barges and exhumers as a result, thus making d-scan largely irrelevant to the solo cat pilot, it might as well say forgetaboutit and venture. Quote:
The base hull would have more powergrid and CPU than the hulk, but less than the skiff. A player might decide that he's capable of paying attention and evading potential gankers, and thus decide to fit only modules designed to increase yield. Under my proposal, lows, mids and rigs would have more potential modules to make this possible. Risk is high, because the demand on attention is high, but potential rewards are also high.
So you first complain about not encompassing your proposal when discussing someone elses proposal, and then you give me your proposal. Possibly an error in the matrix ? Calling my point that all thoraxes shoot is weak, is not a reasonable counter to the point. all it is weak debating. The reason I do not like your concept is that instead of owning a skiff and a mack, I'd own 2 macks because of rigs (rigs as a whole, not CCPs finest hour in terms of making fits configurable). Then I'd have to (a) remember to be in the right mack, and (b) if there was some fleet role to perform, I'd have to explain endlessly my fit and that this fit was a nearly skiff, if I was in a skiff like role, which makes no sense, because all exhumers use the same skills, ie there is no reason to not own a skiff for all skiff like roles, and being remotely tempted to own 2 macks is bad, and then the FC would probably make me get a skiff anyway. Its understandable when we have different weapon systems on combat ships that individuals might need to be in the alternative hulls to fulfill similar roles, but alliances even clamp down on that and require people train for and use doctrine fits anyway - ie the playerbase works hard to get rid of excess configurations, ie say one thing, but want another.
Look a little further back for my own proposal. That's the only thing I've referenced. Your argument is still based on a fallacy that you've failed to correct, but I expected as much, people with nothing tend to pound the table. You completely ignored several key points in my last argument in your attempted rebuttal that invalidate your current arguments Also and again, there's no reason at all for barges to be special snowflakes. Supers, carriers titans, and dreads were just redesigned to be fit like normal ships. |
Coralas
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
44
|
Posted - 2016.08.24 05:40:57 -
[135] - Quote
FT Cold wrote:
Look a little further back for my own proposal. That's the only thing I've referenced. Your argument is still based on a fallacy that you've failed to correct, but I expected as much, people with nothing tend to pound the table.
and this post is basically the forum equivalent of the chewbacca defense.
|
FT Cold
R3d Fire Mouth Trumpet Cavalry
65
|
Posted - 2016.08.24 05:51:28 -
[136] - Quote
Coralas wrote:FT Cold wrote:
Look a little further back for my own proposal. That's the only thing I've referenced. Your argument is still based on a fallacy that you've failed to correct, but I expected as much, people with nothing tend to pound the table.
and this post is basically the forum equivalent of the chewbacca defense.
Well, at least baltec1 was right. Didn't take long for the miners to resort to name calling. Come back with a cogent foundation for your argument I'll concede, otherwise I'll stick with my own ideas. |
Coralas
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
44
|
Posted - 2016.08.24 06:03:43 -
[137] - Quote
FT Cold wrote:Coralas wrote:FT Cold wrote:
Look a little further back for my own proposal. That's the only thing I've referenced. Your argument is still based on a fallacy that you've failed to correct, but I expected as much, people with nothing tend to pound the table.
and this post is basically the forum equivalent of the chewbacca defense. Well, at least baltec1 was right. Didn't take long for the miners to resort to name calling. Come back with a cogent foundation for your argument I'll concede, otherwise I'll stick with my own ideas.
If you want to discuss the points in my quoted post do so, if you want to dismiss the points without discussing them, then expect to be called on that dismissal.
I'm not actually calling you any names, I'm calling you out on specific actions of yours.
|
Drago Shouna
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
551
|
Posted - 2016.08.24 07:31:47 -
[138] - Quote
Moac Tor wrote:I am actually surprised that the retriever and mackinaw are in the top spot with the skiff and the procurer all the way down towards the lower end. I would be interested to see figures on for instance, how much time is spent in space in the various barges rather than ore mined. I expect the top ships are used in highly optimised fleet mining setups which skew the usage results.
All in all though at a glance the changes look good and the new barge artwork looks great. Good job.
You might be surprised that the top ships also have the largest ore holds then.
Any serious miner wants to stay on grid as long as possible, warping back and forth wastes mining time.
Solecist Project...." They refuse to play by the rules and laws of the game and use it as excuse ..."
" They don't care about how you play as long as they get to play how they want."
Welcome to EVE.
|
Drago Shouna
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
551
|
Posted - 2016.08.24 07:54:30 -
[139] - Quote
Shoppaholic wrote:Looking on Sisi at Hulk with max skills and rorq boosts and T2 implant, no Michi (yet, although we will come to that)
A Hulk with 2 T2 lasers and T2 crystals and 3 T2 MLUs
Yield
Each laser pulls 1924m3 per cycle, with a cycle time of 59.7 secs This is an increase of 7.7% - this is a good thing for miners
Cargo
I mine with multiple chars, however this new arrangement is an issue
Previously, 2 cycles with hulks only just fits in the ore hold, nicely it might be said (there was a period where sporadic proccing made this overflow and was annoying, not the case at the moment)
Now with 2 cycles, there is plenty of room, but a 3rd cycle is out of the question, making multi-char mining quicker, which isnt a good thing, stuff we used to do in 141.6 secs now has to be done in 119.4 secs
I have avoided the Michi implant because of this nicely fit 2 cycle routine, but the new setup will allow the use of this, it doesnt mean i am not against the cycle time change
Fitting
I found with my regular fits, I was 6 CPU short compared to previous fits, possibly can work around with implant, but I had a char that had it fit nicely (had ore survey instead of hardener) - i can work with this
Range
No change
Image
I quite like the new animation of the industrial and units deplying and retracting during warp, also the fire and smoke venting seems more apparent. When I first saw it, it looked like it was chugging like a steam train
Bottom line - I like what has been done, however im concerned the cycle time change is going to be an annoyance based on the currently available ore hold. If it allowed a 3rd cycle then great, but currently max mining (minus michi) fits in the 8500m3 available after 2 cycles
I agree that a 7% increase is good, but where it will fall down is in a boosted fleet where you jetcan to an Orca, you just might find yourself sat around waiting out the timer to jettison your ore more, so it could end up as a net loss or just the same.
Solecist Project...." They refuse to play by the rules and laws of the game and use it as excuse ..."
" They don't care about how you play as long as they get to play how they want."
Welcome to EVE.
|
Sylphy
TSOE Po1ice TSOE Consortium
91
|
Posted - 2016.08.24 08:16:14 -
[140] - Quote
Who at CCP championed this change? What about diversity of mining ships?
Really, all mining ships will basically be the same now. Yields, mining lasers and such. Why don't you just scrap it all and make one mining barge and on exhumer and be done with this freaking ****.
The character does not represent the views/opinions of its Corporation or Alliance.
|
|
FT Cold
R3d Fire Mouth Trumpet Cavalry
65
|
Posted - 2016.08.24 08:34:55 -
[141] - Quote
Coralas wrote:FT Cold wrote:Coralas wrote:FT Cold wrote:
Look a little further back for my own proposal. That's the only thing I've referenced. Your argument is still based on a fallacy that you've failed to correct, but I expected as much, people with nothing tend to pound the table.
and this post is basically the forum equivalent of the chewbacca defense. Well, at least baltec1 was right. Didn't take long for the miners to resort to name calling. Come back with a cogent foundation for your argument I'll concede, otherwise I'll stick with my own ideas. If you want to discuss the points in my quoted post do so, if you want to dismiss the points without discussing them, then expect to be called on that dismissal. I'm not actually calling you any names, I'm calling you out on specific actions of yours.
Well, you might have tried addressing my arguments this time, like every other reply you've failed to again. You've still failed to provide any real reason why the skiff, mack, proc, or ret should have their defenses baked into their hull or shouldn't have the same variety of fitting options available as other classes! What is fundamentally different about mining barges than other ships? Why should they be different from caps, haulers or any other ship in the game? Why do they have to be a special snowflake other than because you think that idiot proof ships are a good thing for the game?
EVE is fundamentally a game of choice and consequences. Take choice away and you don't have a game anymore. That's the problem. Current mining barges in high-sec are a microcosm of what could happen to EVE, something you've alluded to and I've quite understandably latched on to. That a ship could be confined into just a single or even just a handful of roles, especially when there exists the potential for many possible roles, robs creative players of the opportunity to reap the rewards of their forethought. There's no metagame any more, nothing can buck the trends, it's just people figuring out what ships counter what, and nothing else.
If you can't understand how these ships could be balanced to fill the roles they have now, and much more, then there's nothing I can do for you. You're either incapable of understanding, willfully ignorant, or desire to change the game in a way that's contrary to the spirit of EVE. The devs are wasting an opportunity and I've come here to voice my own opinion on the matter, not to debate with a contrarian. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17995
|
Posted - 2016.08.24 08:55:07 -
[142] - Quote
Coralas wrote:baltec1 wrote:Coralas wrote:[ In the baltec scenario, there are 6 generic exhumers in the belt, that you can't tell apart without them sitting there long enough for you to shipscan all of them. IMO thats entirely against the way that the rest of EVE is designed, and dull because it promotes only 1 strategy - always bring enough firepower to kill a generic exhumer that is fully tanked. They have different names in the overview. 3 skiffs with 2 macks would mean 3 dps and 2 logi. Its also perfectly in line with the rest of EVE to not know how people might be fitting their barges due to them having options. Just look at the thorax, it has a rather large number of ways of fitting it. CCP fitting your ships for you is a very poor way of doing things, its basically saying you are incapable of doing it for yourself. Which is a recognized fact, and a game design problem CCP had to contend with, which is why the exhumers do their roles reasonably, straight out of the box. Skiff EHP works for you every day (everyone knows what hitpoints the skiff will have at a minimum), logi will fail for you nearly every time you use it in highsec in a mining fleet, ie you are promoting a design with a role bonus that will not be used frequently, and will reliably, routinely fail to save ships when it is used. Nothing worse than an EVE ship with a useless role bonus.
Logi works fine in highsec in both pvp gangs and with very blingy incursion gangs, it will work just as well for miners. |
Drago Shouna
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
551
|
Posted - 2016.08.24 09:11:17 -
[143] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Coralas wrote:baltec1 wrote:Coralas wrote:[ In the baltec scenario, there are 6 generic exhumers in the belt, that you can't tell apart without them sitting there long enough for you to shipscan all of them. IMO thats entirely against the way that the rest of EVE is designed, and dull because it promotes only 1 strategy - always bring enough firepower to kill a generic exhumer that is fully tanked. They have different names in the overview. 3 skiffs with 2 macks would mean 3 dps and 2 logi. Its also perfectly in line with the rest of EVE to not know how people might be fitting their barges due to them having options. Just look at the thorax, it has a rather large number of ways of fitting it. CCP fitting your ships for you is a very poor way of doing things, its basically saying you are incapable of doing it for yourself. Which is a recognized fact, and a game design problem CCP had to contend with, which is why the exhumers do their roles reasonably, straight out of the box. Skiff EHP works for you every day (everyone knows what hitpoints the skiff will have at a minimum), logi will fail for you nearly every time you use it in highsec in a mining fleet, ie you are promoting a design with a role bonus that will not be used frequently, and will reliably, routinely fail to save ships when it is used. Nothing worse than an EVE ship with a useless role bonus. Logi works fine in highsec in both pvp gangs and with very blingy incursion gangs, it will work just as well for miners.
No it won't, simply because no miner would fit it. They're mining barges, stop trying to make them something they aren't.
If you don't like them as they are, don't use them, it's that easy.
ps...Are you related to Lucas Kell or Dracvlad? An alt maybe?
Solecist Project...." They refuse to play by the rules and laws of the game and use it as excuse ..."
" They don't care about how you play as long as they get to play how they want."
Welcome to EVE.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17995
|
Posted - 2016.08.24 09:25:29 -
[144] - Quote
Drago Shouna wrote:
No it won't, simply because no miner would fit it. They're mining barges, stop trying to make them something they aren't.
If you don't like them as they are, don't use them, it's that easy.
ps...Are you related to Lucas Kell or Dracvlad? An alt maybe?
So because some people might be bad every other miner should be screwed?
|
Drago Shouna
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
551
|
Posted - 2016.08.24 09:35:55 -
[145] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Drago Shouna wrote:
No it won't, simply because no miner would fit it. They're mining barges, stop trying to make them something they aren't.
If you don't like them as they are, don't use them, it's that easy.
ps...Are you related to Lucas Kell or Dracvlad? An alt maybe?
So because some people might be bad every other miner should be screwed?
I don't care, most miners won't care, we want a good mining barge, to mine with..not a sodding transformer/swiss army knife do it all barge.......
Solecist Project...." They refuse to play by the rules and laws of the game and use it as excuse ..."
" They don't care about how you play as long as they get to play how they want."
Welcome to EVE.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17995
|
Posted - 2016.08.24 09:55:35 -
[146] - Quote
Drago Shouna wrote:baltec1 wrote:Drago Shouna wrote:
No it won't, simply because no miner would fit it. They're mining barges, stop trying to make them something they aren't.
If you don't like them as they are, don't use them, it's that easy.
ps...Are you related to Lucas Kell or Dracvlad? An alt maybe?
So because some people might be bad every other miner should be screwed? I don't care, most miners won't care, we want a good mining barge, to mine with..not a sodding transformer/swiss army knife do it all barge.......
So you don't want choice? Its posts like this that are the reason why miners are considered nothing more than lambs to the slaughter, when someone from the very corp that invented the gank catalyst and brought about the mining interdictions puts forwards an idea to make barges actually able to defend themselves your response is "don't give miners the tools to protect ourselves, we might not use them!"
|
Drago Shouna
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
552
|
Posted - 2016.08.24 10:15:03 -
[147] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Drago Shouna wrote:baltec1 wrote:Drago Shouna wrote:
No it won't, simply because no miner would fit it. They're mining barges, stop trying to make them something they aren't.
If you don't like them as they are, don't use them, it's that easy.
ps...Are you related to Lucas Kell or Dracvlad? An alt maybe?
So because some people might be bad every other miner should be screwed? I don't care, most miners won't care, we want a good mining barge, to mine with..not a sodding transformer/swiss army knife do it all barge....... So you don't want choice? Its posts like this that are the reason why miners are considered nothing more than lambs to the slaughter, when someone from the very corp that invented the gank catalyst and brought about the mining interdictions puts forwards an idea to make barges actually able to defend themselves your response is "don't give miners the tools to protect ourselves, we might not use them!"
We have choices now, that's what you won't accept..
We can fit for yield or tank, or a mixture of both. We have a choice of drones to use, we have a choice of rigs to use.
We'll have other option with the changes, if a miner wants to utilise a high slot for something else that's fine too.
Ok there'll be some lol fits about, but that comes with the game.
But you're going to keep harking on about it even though you have virtually 0 support for your ideas, how many have jumped in so far screaming YES YES YES, THIS'LL SAVE US ALL? Either I ain't seen any, or my glasses need cleaning.
Solecist Project...." They refuse to play by the rules and laws of the game and use it as excuse ..."
" They don't care about how you play as long as they get to play how they want."
Welcome to EVE.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17995
|
Posted - 2016.08.24 10:20:49 -
[148] - Quote
Drago Shouna wrote:
We have choices now, that's what you won't accept..
We can fit for yield or tank, or a mixture of both. We have a choice of drones to use, we have a choice of rigs to use.
We'll have other option with the changes, if a miner wants to utilise a high slot for something else that's fine too.
Ok there'll be some lol fits about, but that comes with the game.
But you're going to keep harking on about it even though you have virtually 0 support for your ideas, how many have jumped in so far screaming YES YES YES, THIS'LL SAVE US ALL? Either I ain't seen any, or my glasses need cleaning.
Ok, give me the options the covetor has. |
dream fly
Fuxi Legion Fraternity.
0
|
Posted - 2016.08.24 10:22:06 -
[149] - Quote
I think that there whould be more fun with a little change like: we can overheat ore guns,with the time u overheat the ore guns u can get more resourse. u can stop the overheat as any time as u want, there will be a active stuff which can remove the damage when u overheat the ore guns. u can get more efficient by order when to overheat and when to eliminate the damage. maybe when u eliminate the damage u cant overheat it too.
|
Beta Maoye
133
|
Posted - 2016.08.24 11:54:28 -
[150] - Quote
I want to join the defending fleet for our Citadel with my mining barge. I would like the following changes to barges. For Procurer and Skiff: +2 missile Launcher hardpoints Role bonus: 50% to Light Missile, Heavy Missile and Heavy Assault Missile damage. 50% bouns to Drone hitpoints, damage and mining yield. |
|
Drago Shouna
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
552
|
Posted - 2016.08.24 12:22:52 -
[151] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Drago Shouna wrote:
We have choices now, that's what you won't accept..
We can fit for yield or tank, or a mixture of both. We have a choice of drones to use, we have a choice of rigs to use.
We'll have other option with the changes, if a miner wants to utilise a high slot for something else that's fine too.
Ok there'll be some lol fits about, but that comes with the game.
But you're going to keep harking on about it even though you have virtually 0 support for your ideas, how many have jumped in so far screaming YES YES YES, THIS'LL SAVE US ALL? Either I ain't seen any, or my glasses need cleaning.
Ok, give me the options the covetor has.
With the changes it'll have an extra low, so armour rigs, lows can be a choice of tank or yield, mid for a survey scanner, a flight of t2 light drones, a couple of ecm drones and salvage drones. How is adding a utility high going to help a solo miner, or even 2 slots?
No I didn't use a fitting tool. But then again I can't remember the last time I saw a Covetor mining, in HS the much better choice is the Retriever, and where I am now they are cheaper than the Covetor anyway.
Solecist Project...." They refuse to play by the rules and laws of the game and use it as excuse ..."
" They don't care about how you play as long as they get to play how they want."
Welcome to EVE.
|
Mai Khumm
172.0.0.1
837
|
Posted - 2016.08.24 12:25:02 -
[152] - Quote
Beta Maoye wrote:I want to join the defending fleet for our Citadel with my mining barge. I would like the following changes to barges. For Procurer and Skiff: +2 missile Launcher hardpoints Role bonus: 50% to Light Missile, Heavy Missile and Heavy Assault Missile damage. 50% bouns to Drone hitpoints, damage and mining yield. FYI They already have a 50% bonus to Drone HP and damage...
|
xXxNIMRODxXx
Crusader Brewery
36
|
Posted - 2016.08.24 13:41:47 -
[153] - Quote
Nfynity Prime wrote:So unless I'm mistaken, now my Skiff will use twice as much cap for the strip miners and burn twice as many T2 crystals in the process, for the same amount of ore, since the cycle times, as confirmed on Singularity, are the same and the yield per cycle is 1/2 of what it was with one strip miner (per strip miner). Any plans on addressing these two issues? If not, I'll gladly keep the old design, thank you. ^ this |
xXxNIMRODxXx
Crusader Brewery
36
|
Posted - 2016.08.24 13:49:21 -
[154] - Quote
Drago Shouna wrote:Moac Tor wrote:I am actually surprised that the retriever and mackinaw are in the top spot with the skiff and the procurer all the way down towards the lower end. I would be interested to see figures on for instance, how much time is spent in space in the various barges rather than ore mined. I expect the top ships are used in highly optimised fleet mining setups which skew the usage results.
All in all though at a glance the changes look good and the new barge artwork looks great. Good job. You might be surprised that the top ships also have the largest ore holds then. Any serious miner wants to stay on grid as long as possible, warping back and forth wastes mining time. You don't need a big ore hold with a hauler on field, yet having a tiny one makes the job very intensive and stressful. |
Coralas
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
45
|
Posted - 2016.08.24 14:51:44 -
[155] - Quote
FT Cold wrote:
Well, you might have tried addressing my arguments this time, like every other reply you've failed to again. You've still failed to provide any real reason why the skiff, mack, proc, or ret should have their defenses baked into their hull or shouldn't have the same variety of fitting options available as other classes! What is fundamentally different about mining barges than other ships? Why should they be different from caps, haulers or any other ship in the game? Why do they have to be a special snowflake other than because you think that idiot proof ships are a good thing for the game?
Ah so you do want to discuss suddenly instead the dismiss anything you don't agree with routine.
The stats are distributed over the skiffs armor and hull as well, not just in shield, ie t2 cruisers get racial tanks, and the skiff gets a mining tank because no racial tank makes sense for it. There is however ample precedent for specialist tank.
Which means that if you need a mining ship to have 5 modules projecting effects from the mids, it already can do it. it is already flexible enough, because the stats are distributed, and you can put bulkheads and hull rigs on it to preserve reasonable ehp, at the obvious (and reasonable trade off) costs of drone dps mods or yield mods.
The procurer works very well in this role with 4 effects (2 webs, point and scram). The skiff will do it better than the procurer (more ehp and a 5th effect or a drone dmg mod, its bigger drones and similar ehp), but not so much better as to become economic in loss scenarios, which is not at all atypical of CCP balancing.
As I've pointed out to other thread users, the skiff has at best the 5th best brick tank in cruiser hulls, as far as I know, all t3s can produce a bigger buffer than the skiff if bricked, even baked on its numbers are not outlandishly extravagant for an advanced cruiser, particularly one that lacks practical active local tank.
If we were going to put an extra slot on retriever / coveter mids I would not personally be against that, but they work fine without them if we presume that defense is outsourced to fleet skiffs and procs. As I've seen through experience, face offs with a skiff often successfully prevent ganks on otherwise easily ganked ships.
Quote:
EVE is fundamentally a game of choice and consequences. Take choice away and you don't have a game anymore. That's the problem. Current mining barges in high-sec are a microcosm of what could happen to EVE, something you've alluded to and I've quite understandably latched on to. That a ship could be confined into just a single or even just a handful of roles, especially when there exists the potential for many possible roles, robs creative players of the opportunity to reap the rewards of their forethought. There's no metagame any more, nothing can buck the trends, it's just people figuring out what ships counter what, and nothing else.
The mackinaw and skiff were _always_ confined to being miners. When battlehulks were a thing there was not even a drone damage mod. So you could boost your battlehulks damage if you carried a single sentry drone and sentry drone rigged it. lol.
The proc was useless, everyone skipped it, and mackinaws were specialized for ice mining, but ganking and cost of owning 2 ships meant that hulks persistently impinged on the specialist role and the skiff was specialized for mercoxit mining.
ie I don't know what eve you played, but in practice the hulk has had its role of just-do-everything-with-a-hulk diminished and every other mining ship has been given a useful role within MINING, and miner escorts have been given a useful task to do whilst waiting. It was a successful revolution in the the ships used for mining without screwing up the eve economy or the playstyle.
Quote:
If you can't understand how these ships could be balanced to fill the roles they have now, and much more, then there's nothing I can do for you. You're either incapable of understanding, willfully ignorant, or desire to change the game in a way that's contrary to the spirit of EVE. The devs are wasting an opportunity and I've come here to voice my own opinion on the matter, not to debate with a contrarian.
The three mining ships in t1 and the 3 in t2 are well balanced now, WITHIN MINING. This is plainly based on CCP observing the kinds of fleets that were formed for mining. People that don't mine, don't understand that the mack/retriever model is great for boost-only self haul fleets that are the best way for low-trust miners to "cooperate", and that getting the most out of hulks inevitably requires group hauls and more cooperation, which raises the practical difference in yield for using a hulk focused setup, but shared haulers and ore accounting is not something that works well for casual fleeting.
|
Shallanna Yassavi
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
356
|
Posted - 2016.08.24 16:46:15 -
[156] - Quote
The mining barges and exhumers get the Minmatar T1 racial tank. They all have 60% EM armor resistance, instead of the usual 50%.
A signature :o
|
Drago Shouna
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
553
|
Posted - 2016.08.24 17:05:21 -
[157] - Quote
xXxNIMRODxXx wrote:Drago Shouna wrote:Moac Tor wrote:I am actually surprised that the retriever and mackinaw are in the top spot with the skiff and the procurer all the way down towards the lower end. I would be interested to see figures on for instance, how much time is spent in space in the various barges rather than ore mined. I expect the top ships are used in highly optimised fleet mining setups which skew the usage results.
All in all though at a glance the changes look good and the new barge artwork looks great. Good job. You might be surprised that the top ships also have the largest ore holds then. Any serious miner wants to stay on grid as long as possible, warping back and forth wastes mining time. You don't need a big ore hold with a hauler on field, yet having a tiny one makes the job very intensive and stressful.
That brings up a classic conundrum of how do you work it?
A solo player in my opinion has no option in hs but to go for yield and ore capacity, or a smaller ship and a can? But he then has to go grab something to get the ore after leaving it in a belt.
Same with 2 accounts, go for 2 yield fitted ships and a can, then send one back to grab a Miasmos to move the ore all the while risking the can, or 1 ship and a hauler?
I know what you're saying and I don't disagree, I think the figures show that the Mack and Retriever are king in HS where most mining takes place, the Hulk is the obvious fleet king anywhere, but the Skiff seems to get used all over the place so I'm a bit surprised it's on the low side, maybe it shows that not a lot of mining takes place in null?
Solecist Project...." They refuse to play by the rules and laws of the game and use it as excuse ..."
" They don't care about how you play as long as they get to play how they want."
Welcome to EVE.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17996
|
Posted - 2016.08.24 18:30:41 -
[158] - Quote
Drago Shouna wrote:
With the changes it'll have an extra low, so armour rigs, lows can be a choice of tank or yield, mid for a survey scanner, a flight of t2 light drones, a couple of ecm drones and salvage drones. How is adding a utility high going to help a solo miner, or even 2 slots?
No I didn't use a fitting tool. But then again I can't remember the last time I saw a Covetor mining, in HS the much better choice is the Retriever, and where I am now they are cheaper than the Covetor anyway.
So while the procurer gets both a great tank and good yield the covetor needs to either sacrifice its yield for tank in which case the procurer is better both in tank and yield or go all yield and die to a knats fart.
That's all the hallmarks of a terrible ship and that is before we get to the part where we point out the madness of a shield tanker that has one mid slot. |
FT Cold
R3d Fire Mouth Trumpet Cavalry
65
|
Posted - 2016.08.24 19:06:55 -
[159] - Quote
Quote: Ah so you do want to discuss suddenly instead the dismiss anything you don't agree with routine.
The stats are distributed over the skiffs armor and hull as well, not just in shield, ie t2 cruisers get racial tanks, and the skiff gets a mining tank because no racial tank makes sense for it. There is however ample precedent for specialist tank.
Which means that if you need a mining ship to have 5 modules projecting effects from the mids, it already can do it. it is already flexible enough, because the stats are distributed, and you can put bulkheads and hull rigs on it to preserve reasonable ehp, at the obvious (and reasonable trade off) costs of drone dps mods or yield mods.
The procurer works very well in this role with 4 effects (2 webs, point and scram). The skiff will do it better than the procurer (more ehp and a 5th effect or a drone dmg mod, its bigger drones and similar ehp), but not so much better as to become economic in loss scenarios, which is not at all atypical of CCP balancing.
As I've pointed out to other thread users, the skiff has at best the 5th best brick tank in cruiser hulls, as far as I know, all t3s can produce a bigger buffer than the skiff if bricked, even baked on its numbers are not outlandishly extravagant for an advanced cruiser, particularly one that lacks practical active local tank.
If we were going to put an extra slot on retriever / coveter mids I would not personally be against that, but they work fine without them if we presume that defense is outsourced to fleet skiffs and procs. As I've seen through experience, face offs with a skiff often successfully prevent ganks on otherwise easily ganked ships.
The mackinaw and skiff were _always_ confined to being miners. When battlehulks were a thing there was not even a drone damage mod. So you could boost your battlehulks damage if you carried a single sentry drone and sentry drone rigged it. lol.
The proc was useless, everyone skipped it, and mackinaws were specialized for ice mining, but ganking and cost of owning 2 ships meant that hulks persistently impinged on the specialist role and the skiff was specialized for mercoxit mining.
ie I don't know what eve you played, but in practice the hulk has had its role of just-do-everything-with-a-hulk diminished and every other mining ship has been given a useful role within MINING, and miner escorts have been given a useful task to do whilst waiting. It was a successful revolution in the the ships used for mining without screwing up the eve economy or the playstyle.
First, get your facts straight before you post. The skiff has the highest native buffer of any cruiser in the game, by something like a factor of two, and this includes ships like t3cs, which are still hilariously broken. It has more native buffer than most battlecruisers and some battle ships. For 40m isk worth of c-type hardeners, you can fit it to have almost 200k ehp vs kin/therm damage. There's no reason at all for it to be baked into the hull. Instead of 10k shield, 7k armor and 7500 hull it should probably look like 2k 1.5k 1.75k, with either the grid to fit a couple of shield extenders, a rework of the slot design all together to facilitate an armor tank, or a bonus to warp core strength and the ability to fit MJDs. Either would be fine really,
Secondly, after all those words and meandering about balance within mining, you still can't address my point. I've never said anything about linear upgrading from t1-t2 barges. I don't care that mining ships are going to be mining ships. What I care about is that mining ships support the playstyles of the players who use them better. Granularity within the fitting system to manage risk/reward will help the game. The current system does it, but poorly. It could be far better than it is now.
Let me ask you this, if you were mining, and you knew that you were capable of paying attention and spotting any potential ganker, would you sacrifice your shield hardeners for more mining upgrades if they were available? If ore hold rigs existed would you use them in this scenario? Do you think that miners who don't fit tanks and don't pay attention deserve to have a higher risk of being ganked than the guy that fits tank, or the guy that pays attention? That is what I'm asking for, that people who actively play the game be rewarded for their trouble, and for that to happen barges need to change. |
oohthey ioh
Republic University Minmatar Republic
34
|
Posted - 2016.08.24 19:37:58 -
[160] - Quote
Autism Intensifies wrote:Skiff has same yield as a Mackinaw, same lowslots, +1 midslot, +50m-¦ dronebay, +50% drone damage, and three times? Four times? the EHP of a Mackinaw.
In return, the Mackinaw has that super cool orebay, which is really important, sooo important! (It is, but only if you multibox so many Mackinaws that you can't empty the orebays of your Skiffs or Hulks as fast as they fill up.)
CCPLS. or for the people who warp to statiion when full, like I do. |
|
Penance Toralen
Compass Fox
4
|
Posted - 2016.08.24 22:51:33 -
[161] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Ok, give me the options the covetor has.
Under the new fitting layout;
2x Strips + Crystals Survey MLU2 x 3
Med Mining Drone Aug2 x 2
or
2 x Strips + Crystals Survey Bulkhead2 x 2 + DCU2
Med Transverse1 x 3
(thats 22k ehp) |
Coralas
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
47
|
Posted - 2016.08.25 03:50:19 -
[162] - Quote
FT Cold wrote:
First, get your facts straight before you post. The skiff has the highest native buffer of any cruiser in the game, by something like a factor of two, and this includes ships like t3cs, which are still hilariously broken. It has more native buffer than most battlecruisers and some battle ships. For 40m isk worth of c-type hardeners, you can fit it to have almost 200k ehp vs kin/therm damage. There's no reason at all for it to be baked into the hull. Instead of 10k shield, 7k armor and 7500 hull it should probably look like 2k 1.5k 1.75k, with either the grid to fit a couple of shield extenders, a rework of the slot design all together to facilitate an armor tank, or a bonus to warp core strength and the ability to fit MJDs. Either would be fine really,
lol - Can you be any more wrong.
proteus + augmented plating + whatever you want to get 7 slots, no implants.
3x trimark II (using similar budget to your c-types - and not lootable items, always superior in a ganking scenario).
2x 1600mm rolled tungsten 1x dc II 2x kin hardener II 2x therm hardener II
760k ehp vs kin/therm from serps. If you change the hardeners to 2 explosive / 1 em and an adaptive (all t2), then you get 240k to everything at once, not _just_ antimatter. I'm sure fitting gurus can come up with even better tanks if they think about it. Even if other T3s can still only get to 200k vs everything, they still vastly outclass the skiff which is only 200k vs antimatter with bling, or 110k vs everything, and _all_ ganked skiffs are scanned for the hole before ganking.
There is a mining ship that has warp core stabilizing. There is a mining ship that fits a covops cloak. They already come with the necessary yield trade offs for those mobility features, and they have the special feature clearly written on them for casual players to see, and yes it is a reasonable presumption that the mining ship works straight out of the box without too much effort, for a casual player.
Quote:
Secondly, after all those words and meandering about balance within mining, you still can't address my point. I've never said anything about linear upgrading from t1-t2 barges. I don't care that mining ships are going to be mining ships. What I care about is that mining ships support the playstyles of the players who use them better. Granularity within the fitting system to manage risk/reward will help the game. The current system does it, but poorly. It could be far better than it is now.
This is the most absurd thing that I've heard. People that use mining ships, mine with them. The redesign was specifically to enable each of them to fill a useful role within that sphere. I've pointed out for you to understand exactly why they were redesigned as they are, why there is 3 of each, and why each of them are valid choices in the same system, mining the same stuff, under different tactical circumstances. You refit a mining ship by undocking in the right one, and since 4 of the 6 are expected to dock frequently, its not even that big an ask.
The ships do not need massive fitting flexibility because the requirements for all 3 T1 barges are the same, and they do the same thing - MINE. The requirements for all the t2 series are the same, and because you will use different rigs for different scenarios, which means in your scenario, someone owns 3 macks, and in the actual scenario, someone owns a hulk, a mack and a skiff, and gets the flexibility they need. The yield gap between a hulk in a group with a hauler and a solo skiff is more than sufficient to compensate for the risk.
if you mine exclusively in a skiff, then you lose a skiffs value in ore, every billion isk mined, when I was mining, that appears to me to be sufficient to stop mining population being exclusively skiffs, but if you keep shooting the same player, do not be suprised to find they adopt a solution that actually works.
Quote:
Let me ask you this, if you were mining, and you knew that you were capable of paying attention and spotting any potential ganker, would you sacrifice your shield hardeners for more mining upgrades if they were available? If ore hold rigs existed would you use them in this scenario? Do you think that miners who don't fit tanks and don't pay attention deserve to have a higher risk of being ganked than the guy that fits tank, or the guy that pays attention? That is what I'm asking for, that people who actively play the game be rewarded for their trouble, and for that to happen barges need to change.
Ah the way you *fit* a tank to a mining ship trading off yield is to dock your hulk/mackinaw and undock in a skiff or procurer.
We've already been through this, a yield fitted ship will want different rigs to a tank fitted ship, ergo, you would change hulls anyway. I don't know how much it will take to get this through your skull. Rigs means an individual hull is assembled for a role and left in that role.
Not only that, the way the skiff works is that if I tell everyone I've changed to a skiff because of a ganker in system, then the fleet knows I'm capable of being called on for defense, and the fleet knows that the target choice probabilities by gankers has changed, because the skiff has written on its box, "contents : 1 tank". |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
3544
|
Posted - 2016.08.25 06:35:25 -
[163] - Quote
Coralas wrote:
lol - Can you be any more wrong.
proteus + augmented plating + whatever you want to get 7 slots, no implants.
Native = before fittings. Not after. Now try again on the before fittings basis. (Though claims of the Skiff getting BS level EHP are silly, it doesn't get BS level EHP, it has cruiser level EHP, same as the other cruisers when brick tanked, BS when buffer tanked are way way higher EHP than the skiff).
Coralas wrote: The ships do not need massive fitting flexibility because the requirements for all 3 T1 barges are the same, and they do the same thing - MINE.
And that is because we do not need 3 T1 barges. Or 3 T2 barges. We only need a single T1 barge, with the ability to be fitted properly. And in terms of mining we only need a single T2 barge also. If they are given a full rack of utility highslots then you 'could' introduce speciality T2's that do different things with the utility highslots, but otherwise you only need the one exhumer also.
CCP have just stayed in the boring box of 'because there were 3 before tiericide, even though only 1 was actually any good, we are going to keep 3'. |
Drago Shouna
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
553
|
Posted - 2016.08.25 07:39:20 -
[164] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Coralas wrote:
lol - Can you be any more wrong.
proteus + augmented plating + whatever you want to get 7 slots, no implants.
Native = before fittings. Not after. Now try again on the before fittings basis. (Though claims of the Skiff getting BS level EHP are silly, it doesn't get BS level EHP, it has cruiser level EHP, same as the other cruisers when brick tanked, BS when buffer tanked are way way higher EHP than the skiff). Coralas wrote: The ships do not need massive fitting flexibility because the requirements for all 3 T1 barges are the same, and they do the same thing - MINE.
And that is because we do not need 3 T1 barges. Or 3 T2 barges. We only need a single T1 barge, with the ability to be fitted properly. And in terms of mining we only need a single T2 barge also. If they are given a full rack of utility highslots then you 'could' introduce speciality T2's that do different things with the utility highslots, but otherwise you only need the one exhumer also. CCP have just stayed in the boring box of 'because there were 3 before tiericide, even though only 1 was actually any good, we are going to keep 3'.
Rubbish, the reason for them is ore hold flexibility. You have to make a choice right now between yield, tank and hold capacity etc.
The skiff is the go to ship in null where tank is preferred, the hulk the fleet ship everywhere and the Mack in hs, yes they do go other places, that's all the flexibility they need.
They don't need a rack of utility slots, I ain't ever going to turn up at a battle with a Mack full of logi...it ain't ever going to happen.
Mining ships mine, Industrial ships haul, Logi ships provide logi support (thats why they were made) Exploration ships explore, Cov-Ops ships cloak etc etc etc, or do you want every ship in the game to be able to fill every single role?
Miners use mining ships to mine, it's what they were made for, nothing else.
I don't know where the **** you are all coming up with these weird ideas right now, but I think you need a fresh batch of whatever it is you're using
Solecist Project...." They refuse to play by the rules and laws of the game and use it as excuse ..."
" They don't care about how you play as long as they get to play how they want."
Welcome to EVE.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18000
|
Posted - 2016.08.25 08:39:11 -
[165] - Quote
Penance Toralen wrote:
Under the new fitting layout;
2x Strips + Crystals Survey MLU2 x 3
Med Mining Drone Aug2 x 2
Dies to anything, cant be used outside of highsec due to rats being able to kill it.
Penance Toralen wrote: 2 x Strips + Crystals Survey Bulkhead2 x 2 + DCU2
Med Transverse1 x 3
(thats 22k ehp)
Still cant be used outside of highsec due to rats, out classed by the procurer in every area. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18000
|
Posted - 2016.08.25 08:56:52 -
[166] - Quote
Drago Shouna wrote:Rubbish, the reason for them is ore hold flexibility. You have to make a choice right now between yield, tank and hold capacity etc. The skiff is the go to ship in null where tank is preferred, the hulk the fleet ship everywhere and the Mack in hs, yes they do go other places, that's all the flexibility they need. They don't need a rack of utility slots, I ain't ever going to turn up at a battle with a Mack full of logi...it ain't ever going to happen. Mining ships mine, Industrial ships haul, Logi ships provide logi support (thats why they were made) Exploration ships explore, Cov-Ops ships cloak etc etc etc, or do you want every ship in the game to be able to fill every single role? Miners use mining ships to mine, it's what they were made for, nothing else. I don't know where the **** you are all coming up with these weird ideas right now, but I think you need a fresh batch of whatever it is you're using
Because these ships are bad.
Im going to use a mining fleet that was caught in O-JPKH (Branch) / 2016-08-21 14:00.
The fleet consisted of 14 exhumers and a jump freighter and faced off against 12 mixed pirate cruisers, 2 sabres, 4 interceptors. The 14 exhumers all died within 2 minutes, the attackers lost nothing.
The is the reality for miners with the current and proposed changes. They cannot do anything to protect themselves and even if they had the old defense fleet that used to be in deklien (multiple titans, supers and carriers on constant standby) by the time the call for help goes out the mining fleet is dead.
Why exactly should a fleet worth 5.6 billion be so utterly helpless and easy to kill? |
Alexis Ford
Good Names All Gone Southern Sitizens
6
|
Posted - 2016.08.25 09:18:43 -
[167] - Quote
if i didnt make a mistake
The changes with T2 fitting for maxium Yield for Exhumers @All L5 Skills no Imps: 3x MLU T2 + 2x Modulated Stripminer T2
Hulk: -18,4 CPU +21,4 PG
Mackinaw: no changes
Skiff: -18,5 CPU -7 PG
After stating that Skiff and Hulk are to seldom used i cant understand : Why a CPU nerf for Hulk Why CPU + PG nerf for Skiff
I understand that its now possible to do some "special fittings" cause of the additional Highslot on Skiff and Low on Hulk. But the changes making Skiff and Hulk much more tight on fitting and reducing its main use capability.
Making something better with a nerf to its "most used fitting" is not a way to improve them beeing used more often.
please correct me if i have missed something. |
HandelsPharmi
Pharmi on CharBazaar
1819
|
Posted - 2016.08.25 09:37:24 -
[168] - Quote
changes to ship / modified with skills level 5
Mackinaw: no changes
Skiff +8 PG / + 10
Hulk -5 PG / -6,25
Using the same fitting like now, adding or removing one Ice Harvester T2 or Modulated Strip Miner changes CPU and Powergrid as follows:
CPU and Power Grid Management 5
Ice Harvester T2 = 66 CPU / 10 PG Skiff: +0 PG Hulk: +3.75 PG
Modulated Strip Miner T2 = 60 CPU / 12 PG Skiff: -2 PG Hulk: +5.75 PG |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
3544
|
Posted - 2016.08.25 10:10:26 -
[169] - Quote
Drago Shouna wrote:
Rubbish, the reason for them is ore hold flexibility. You have to make a choice right now between yield, tank and hold capacity etc.
The skiff is the go to ship in null where tank is preferred, the hulk the fleet ship everywhere and the Mack in hs, yes they do go other places, that's all the flexibility they need.
They don't need a rack of utility slots, I ain't ever going to turn up at a battle with a Mack full of logi...it ain't ever going to happen.
That's why I said you really only need 1 mining barge. If you give them a decent cargo hold (Say give them an ore hold like the Covetor/Hulk has now then say..... 2000 cargo hold if Cargo extenders stack, I keep saying they should have a stacking penalty but as they do stack think that lands them about right, basically enough that with entirely Cargo Extenders and Cargo rigs they get to at least the current Mack, maybe a bit more if tank is weaker than present), then they get the ore hold flexibility by using cargo extenders also. And you have the same yield, tank or hold capacity trade off in your low slots. But also have more options and more flexibility to tailor to your exact needs.
As for utility slots, I never suggested a logi barge. But to explain my general point. Barge. Capped at 2 strip miners but has 5 high slots, 5 medium slots, 4 low slots like a Moa (Using Moa as a shield tanker base, but basically cruiser slot layout, cruiser PG/CPU/Cap). Also has 3 Turret/Launcher slots. (Un-bonused, so the same as spare turret/launcher slots in combat ships that have no bonus, they are really utility slots with an option of weapons)
The high slots, even without going into weird roles. Mining Lasers, want to go all out max miner, run 2 Strip miners and 3 Mining lasers. General utility. Probe Launcher, Cloak, Cyno fill your three utility slots. 2 Strip Miners. Bait. 3 RLML launchers (Or the equivalent turret if they ever make them. 1 Cyno, 1 Smart bomb(Assuming outside of highsec). Maybe Strip Miner instead of Smart bomb to be more believable bait. Solo miner. 3 Weapons to fight off rats with, 2 Strip Miners.
This isn't any weird stuff. This is the sort of thing people currently do already with mining barges just with more variety. Mid slots would typically be your buffer tank, maybe a mixed buffer/active tank for null to let you live long enough to kill the rats, and a bit of tackle for bait type mining setups. Low slots would be mix of MLU's, Cargo extenders or Bulkheads.
Minor apologies to Baltec, I misread your earlier post I replied to thinking you were still on your earlier claims that miners should have escorts, because a week or two ago you were going on about that. If there was a T2 Exhumer with utility slots and bonuses to logi cap use, that could actually be a viable exhumer provided it could still fit the (currently) 2 strip miners as well. 1 basic barge, 2 or 3 specialist T2 versions would work. The other 2 T1 barges could be totally re-purposed into a true ORE combat vessel and a true ORE hauler.
Obviously I am assuming Barges should be a cruiser here. Personally I'd like to see Industrial ships classified size wise more at the BC/BS range, and some of the barges physical sizes do actually fit better into the BC class already. But easy to find an analogy for whatever class it is decided they are comparable to. |
Drago Shouna
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
553
|
Posted - 2016.08.25 10:22:11 -
[170] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Drago Shouna wrote:Rubbish, the reason for them is ore hold flexibility. You have to make a choice right now between yield, tank and hold capacity etc. The skiff is the go to ship in null where tank is preferred, the hulk the fleet ship everywhere and the Mack in hs, yes they do go other places, that's all the flexibility they need. They don't need a rack of utility slots, I ain't ever going to turn up at a battle with a Mack full of logi...it ain't ever going to happen. Mining ships mine, Industrial ships haul, Logi ships provide logi support (thats why they were made) Exploration ships explore, Cov-Ops ships cloak etc etc etc, or do you want every ship in the game to be able to fill every single role? Miners use mining ships to mine, it's what they were made for, nothing else. I don't know where the **** you are all coming up with these weird ideas right now, but I think you need a fresh batch of whatever it is you're using Because these ships are bad. Im going to use a mining fleet that was caught in O-JPKH (Branch) / 2016-08-21 14:00. The fleet consisted of 14 exhumers and a jump freighter and faced off against 12 mixed pirate cruisers, 2 sabres, 4 interceptors. The 14 exhumers all died within 2 minutes, the attackers lost nothing. This is the reality for miners with the current and proposed changes. They cannot do anything to protect themselves and even if they had the old defense fleet that used to be in deklien (multiple titans, supers and carriers on constant standby) by the time the call for help goes out the mining fleet is dead. Why exactly should a fleet worth 5.6 billion be so utterly helpless and easy to kill?
I don't dispute it, but at the end of the day you had mining barges and a freighter against a fully capable battle fleet, it was always going to be a slaughter....(why was a jump freighter on grid anyway)
Which brings it around very nicely to keeping local and intel channels open, unless someone got arrogant and overconfident? In which case they deserved what they got.
It doesn't change anything, mining ships are for mining, warships are for battle. You can show a thousand like that, it doesn't alter anything. Do you honestly think the outcome would have been any different if the barges had say 3 logi slots each?
Solecist Project...." They refuse to play by the rules and laws of the game and use it as excuse ..."
" They don't care about how you play as long as they get to play how they want."
Welcome to EVE.
|
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18000
|
Posted - 2016.08.25 10:28:12 -
[171] - Quote
Drago Shouna wrote:
I don't dispute it, but at the end of the day you had mining barges and a freighter against a fully capable battle fleet, it was always going to be a slaughter....(why was a jump freighter on grid anyway)
Which brings it around very nicely to keeping local and intel channels open, unless someone got arrogant and overconfident? In which case they deserved what they got.
It doesn't change anything, mining ships are for mining, warships are for battle. You can show a thousand like that, it doesn't alter anything. Do you honestly think the outcome would have been any different if the barges had say 3 logi slots each?
Frankly yes. if half of that number were logi, the ships themselves were able to actually fit a decent tank and it had a few combat skiffs then they could have stood a decent chance. At the very least they would have taken out a good few of them with them and bought time for help to arrive.
Miners should not be faced with just the options of running away or getting killed. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
3544
|
Posted - 2016.08.25 10:39:00 -
[172] - Quote
Drago Shouna wrote:
I don't dispute it, but at the end of the day you had mining barges and a freighter against a fully capable battle fleet, it was always going to be a slaughter....(why was a jump freighter on grid anyway)
Which brings it around very nicely to keeping local and intel channels open, unless someone got arrogant and overconfident? In which case they deserved what they got.
It doesn't change anything, mining ships are for mining, warships are for battle. You can show a thousand like that, it doesn't alter anything. Do you honestly think the outcome would have been any different if the barges had say 3 logi slots each?
You are applying modern world mechanics to an era of rampant piracy.
If you want to look at the cargo vessels of era's where piracy on the high seas was a real thing.
Viking longships. They were the cargo vessels of their age. They also were filled to the brim with raiders ready for a fight. Spanish Galleons. Some of the heaviest armed & armoured ships of their days as well. They were what was used to get treasure back to spain past all the pirates and the british.
Modern cargo vessels are only so defenceless because we live in an era where piracy is almost non existent, and what piracy does happen is a few men with guns boarding you, not other ships aiming guns at you.
EVE should be drawing it's inspirations from the eras of real piracy & raiding. Not from current industrial/modern age concepts primarily rooted in peace. |
Drago Shouna
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
553
|
Posted - 2016.08.25 10:45:17 -
[173] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Drago Shouna wrote:
Rubbish, the reason for them is ore hold flexibility. You have to make a choice right now between yield, tank and hold capacity etc.
The skiff is the go to ship in null where tank is preferred, the hulk the fleet ship everywhere and the Mack in hs, yes they do go other places, that's all the flexibility they need.
They don't need a rack of utility slots, I ain't ever going to turn up at a battle with a Mack full of logi...it ain't ever going to happen.
That's why I said you really only need 1 mining barge. If you give them a decent cargo hold (Say give them an ore hold like the Covetor/Hulk has now then say..... 2000 cargo hold if Cargo extenders stack, I keep saying they should have a stacking penalty but as they do stack think that lands them about right, basically enough that with entirely Cargo Extenders and Cargo rigs they get to at least the current Mack, maybe a bit more if tank is weaker than present), then they get the ore hold flexibility by using cargo extenders also. And you have the same yield, tank or hold capacity trade off in your low slots. But also have more options and more flexibility to tailor to your exact needs. As for utility slots, I never suggested a logi barge. But to explain my general point. Barge. Capped at 2 strip miners but has 5 high slots, 5 medium slots, 4 low slots like a Moa (Using Moa as a shield tanker base, but basically cruiser slot layout, cruiser PG/CPU/Cap). Also has 3 Turret/Launcher slots. (Un-bonused, so the same as spare turret/launcher slots in combat ships that have no bonus, they are really utility slots with an option of weapons) The high slots, even without going into weird roles. Mining Lasers, want to go all out max miner, run 2 Strip miners and 3 Mining lasers. General utility. Probe Launcher, Cloak, Cyno fill your three utility slots. 2 Strip Miners. Bait. 3 RLML launchers (Or the equivalent turret if they ever make them. 1 Cyno, 1 Smart bomb(Assuming outside of highsec). Maybe Strip Miner instead of Smart bomb to be more believable bait. Solo miner. 3 Weapons to fight off rats with, 2 Strip Miners. This isn't any weird stuff. This is the sort of thing people currently do already with mining barges just with more variety. Mid slots would typically be your buffer tank, maybe a mixed buffer/active tank for null to let you live long enough to kill the rats, and a bit of tackle for bait type mining setups. Low slots would be mix of MLU's, Cargo extenders or Bulkheads. Minor apologies to Baltec, I misread your earlier post I replied to thinking you were still on your earlier claims that miners should have escorts, because a week or two ago you were going on about that. If there was a T2 Exhumer with utility slots and bonuses to logi cap use, that could actually be a viable exhumer provided it could still fit the (currently) 2 strip miners as well. 1 basic barge, 2 or 3 specialist T2 versions would work. The other 2 T1 barges could be totally re-purposed into a true ORE combat vessel and a true ORE hauler. Obviously I am assuming Barges should be a cruiser here. Personally I'd like to see Industrial ships classified size wise more at the BC/BS range, and some of the barges physical sizes do actually fit better into the BC class already. But easy to find an analogy for whatever class it is decided they are comparable to.
Hmm, a lot of what you say makes sense :)
But it revolves a lot around ore hold extenders, if they were actually available I would probably agree (well 95%) :)
Yep some good ideas rather than just putting in utility highs which would probably get very little use.
Solecist Project...." They refuse to play by the rules and laws of the game and use it as excuse ..."
" They don't care about how you play as long as they get to play how they want."
Welcome to EVE.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18000
|
Posted - 2016.08.25 10:51:28 -
[174] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Drago Shouna wrote:
I don't dispute it, but at the end of the day you had mining barges and a freighter against a fully capable battle fleet, it was always going to be a slaughter....(why was a jump freighter on grid anyway)
Which brings it around very nicely to keeping local and intel channels open, unless someone got arrogant and overconfident? In which case they deserved what they got.
It doesn't change anything, mining ships are for mining, warships are for battle. You can show a thousand like that, it doesn't alter anything. Do you honestly think the outcome would have been any different if the barges had say 3 logi slots each?
You are applying modern world mechanics to an era of rampant piracy. If you want to look at the cargo vessels of era's where piracy on the high seas was a real thing. Viking longships. They were the cargo vessels of their age. They also were filled to the brim with raiders ready for a fight. Spanish Galleons. Some of the heaviest armed & armoured ships of their days as well. They were what was used to get treasure back to spain past all the pirates and the british. Modern cargo vessels are only so defenceless because we live in an era where piracy is almost non existent, and what piracy does happen is a few men with guns boarding you, not other ships aiming guns at you. EVE should be drawing it's inspirations from the eras of real piracy & raiding. Not from current industrial/modern age concepts primarily rooted in peace.
EVE haulers have been known to kill impressive things. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
3544
|
Posted - 2016.08.25 10:54:34 -
[175] - Quote
baltec1 wrote: EVE haulers have been known to kill impressive things.
Indeed, but usually from the other person being loltastically bad with their piloting, or going afk for 30 minutes. The fact a few silly KM's exist is also no reason to not improve haulers by giving them real slot layouts also. (& again, cargo extenders need a stacking penalty so it's not all or nothing when using them)
But yea, back on the barges topic, CCP are sticking inside the safe boring box they are already in with this update. Really it's just normalising the strip miners as part of an art update and a couple of very minor changes alongside. |
Circumstantial Evidence
352
|
Posted - 2016.08.25 12:39:47 -
[176] - Quote
Art suggestion: new fire and smoke effects are cool, but I don't think they should be displayed while docked. I imagine a huge layer of soot coating the docking bays over time. The pilot in the Astero in the bay next to mine, is complaining.
Consider connecting these effects to strip miner operation, or undocking with ore in the hold. Note that I don't think its necessary to STOP the effects when strip miners are deactivated, only to start the effects. "Internal processing and load balancing" may be continuous, once ore starts coming into the hold. |
Mai Khumm
172.0.0.1
837
|
Posted - 2016.08.25 15:27:20 -
[177] - Quote
Circumstantial Evidence wrote:Art suggestion: new fire and smoke effects are cool, but I don't think they should be displayed while docked. I imagine a huge layer of soot coating the docking bays over time. The pilot in the Astero in the bay next to mine, is complaining.
I'd actually position my ship so the Astero would get the maximum amount of soot on it as possible. |
Mark O'Helm
Fam. Zimin von Reizgenschwendt
213
|
Posted - 2016.08.25 22:57:34 -
[178] - Quote
Beta Maoye wrote:I want to join the defending fleet for our Citadel with my mining barge. I would like the following changes to barges. For Procurer and Skiff: +2 missile Launcher hardpoints Role bonus: 50% to Light Missile, Heavy Missile and Heavy Assault Missile damage. 50% bouns to Drone hitpoints, damage and mining yield. Both are already pretty good drone boats, when fitted for battle. Also they have lasers on board. Have you seen Rebel Galaxy? They making it right, by letting mining lasers also damaging ships.
"Frauenversteher wissen, was Frauen wollen.
Aber Frauen wollen keine Frauenversteher.
Weil Frauenversteher wissen, was Frauen wollen." (Ein Single)
"Wirklich coolen Leuten ist es egal, ob sie cool sind." (Einer, dem es egal ist)
|
Penance Toralen
Compass Fox
4
|
Posted - 2016.08.25 23:17:45 -
[179] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Penance Toralen wrote:
Under the new fitting layout;
2x Strips + Crystals Survey MLU2 x 3
Med Mining Drone Aug2 x 2
Dies to anything, cant be used outside of highsec due to rats being able to kill it. Penance Toralen wrote: 2 x Strips + Crystals Survey Bulkhead2 x 2 + DCU2
Med Transverse1 x 3
(thats 22k ehp)
Still cant be used outside of highsec due to rats, out classed by the procurer in every area.
The covetor has a 50m drone bay. To make the first fit work requires micro management and in high-sec space. But this is rewarding at almost 5 jetcans per hour. Recall the mining drones and use the 5 scouts to swiftly deal with any rats. No, it has deference against players or the cruiser plus rats outside of high-sec - but then I would not use this in an asteroid belt.
You asked for options - so I threw in the hull tanking fit. I do actually use this with a retriever which is a nasty surprise for gankers who make poor assumptions. But you are overlooking the range gain between procurer and covetor. I initially dismissed it when it was first listed - but really appreciate it now. But I guess you actually have to perform the activity to know the difference.
Look at this way, Eve has come four years since the tank options of the procurer/skiff were made available. Yet from CCP Fozzie's stats miners have not adopted the tank option in large numbers to seriously hamper ganking. Orehold and Yield remain the primary traits used. You are suggesting a lot of complexity into mining. Well miners have options of complexity with the expedition frigates which they have ignored - again looking at Fozzie's stats. Your suggestins are are a waste of dev effort, when there are so many other areas were players would like attention placed and rewarded.
If hulkagedden six was called tomorrow - I would doubt that there would shift in miner awareness. As much as I would like to see (merely for the hell if it), a "Procurer the Day" it would never happen. |
FT Cold
R3d Fire Mouth Trumpet Cavalry
65
|
Posted - 2016.08.26 00:29:22 -
[180] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Coralas wrote:
lol - Can you be any more wrong.
proteus + augmented plating + whatever you want to get 7 slots, no implants.
Native = before fittings. Not after. Now try again on the before fittings basis. (Though claims of the Skiff getting BS level EHP are silly, it doesn't get BS level EHP, it has cruiser level EHP, same as the other cruisers when brick tanked, BS when buffer tanked are way way higher EHP than the skiff). Coralas wrote: The ships do not need massive fitting flexibility because the requirements for all 3 T1 barges are the same, and they do the same thing - MINE.
And that is because we do not need 3 T1 barges. Or 3 T2 barges. We only need a single T1 barge, with the ability to be fitted properly. And in terms of mining we only need a single T2 barge also. If they are given a full rack of utility highslots then you 'could' introduce speciality T2's that do different things with the utility highslots, but otherwise you only need the one exhumer also. CCP have just stayed in the boring box of 'because there were 3 before tiericide, even though only 1 was actually any good, we are going to keep 3'.
Well put, I share the same sentiment. I would point out though that the skiff does in fact have native buffer close to many battleships as a way to show how much stats are simply cooked into the hull. |
|
FT Cold
R3d Fire Mouth Trumpet Cavalry
65
|
Posted - 2016.08.26 00:54:37 -
[181] - Quote
Coralas wrote:
lol - Can you be any more wrong.
proteus + augmented plating + whatever you want to get 7 slots, no implants.
3x trimark II (using similar budget to your c-types - and not lootable items, always superior in a ganking scenario).
2x 1600mm rolled tungsten 1x dc II 2x kin hardener II 2x therm hardener II
760k ehp vs kin/therm from serps. If you change the hardeners to 2 explosive / 1 em and an adaptive (all t2), then you get 240k to everything at once, not _just_ antimatter. I'm sure fitting gurus can come up with even better tanks if they think about it. Even if other T3s can still only get to 200k vs everything, they still vastly outclass the skiff which is only 200k vs antimatter with bling, or 110k vs everything, and _all_ ganked skiffs are scanned for the hole before ganking.
There is a mining ship that has warp core stabilizing. There is a mining ship that fits a covops cloak. They already come with the necessary yield trade offs for those mobility features, and they have the special feature clearly written on them for casual players to see, and yes it is a reasonable presumption that the mining ship works straight out of the box without too much effort, for a casual player.
Dead wrong. Read native EHP again, understand what it means, and how it applies to this argument.
Quote:
This is the most absurd thing that I've heard. People that use mining ships, mine with them. The redesign was specifically to enable each of them to fill a useful role within that sphere. I've pointed out for you to understand exactly why they were redesigned as they are, why there is 3 of each, and why each of them are valid choices in the same system, mining the same stuff, under different tactical circumstances. You refit a mining ship by undocking in the right one, and since 4 of the 6 are expected to dock frequently, its not even that big an ask.
The ships do not need massive fitting flexibility because the requirements for all 3 T1 barges are the same, and they do the same thing - MINE. The requirements for all the t2 series are the same, and because you will use different rigs for different scenarios, which means in your scenario, someone owns 3 macks, and in the actual scenario, someone owns a hulk, a mack and a skiff, and gets the flexibility they need. The yield gap between a hulk in a group with a hauler and a solo skiff is more than sufficient to compensate for the risk.
if you mine exclusively in a skiff, then you lose a skiffs value in ore, every billion isk mined, when I was mining, that appears to me to be sufficient to stop mining population being exclusively skiffs, but if you keep shooting the same player, do not be suprised to find they adopt a solution that actually works.
Duh. People are going to use mining ships to mine. Who's posts are you even referencing at this point? When at any time have I said that I want mining ships to be used for tasks other than mining? I'm simply asking for barges to be redesigned so that there's a greater degree of granularity and trade-offs for miners. If you want to fit for emergent game play, bait, or some other function, than so be it, the system supports it, and my proposal will too. It's been suggested here that there could be only one t1 and one t2 mining barge, and with an appropriate fitting system, it could work fine, even better than the current one. Nothing I've suggested here would impede you from ANY of the in game functions you've mentioned, which bring me to the basis of the whole shebang: why do you even care? I reference the following:
Quote:
Ah the way you *fit* a tank to a mining ship trading off yield is to dock your hulk/mackinaw and undock in a skiff or procurer.
We've already been through this, a yield fitted ship will want different rigs to a tank fitted ship, ergo, you would change hulls anyway. I don't know how much it will take to get this through your skull. Rigs means an individual hull is assembled for a role and left in that role.
Not only that, the way the skiff works is that if I tell everyone I've changed to a skiff because of a ganker in system, then the fleet knows I'm capable of being called on for defense, and the fleet knows that the target choice probabilities by gankers has changed, because the skiff has written on its box, "contents : 1 tank".
That's the problem. You want an idiot proof EVE, one that coddles miners and new players (who often get their start in mining,) a system that shields players from the true nature of eve. Players who make poor choices, who don't network, learn from available resources or other players get punished for their bad decisions. The skiff if about as idiot proof as it gets. You don't need the fit the right hardeners, you don't need a good fit, most of the time you're safe. Can they be ganked? Sure. Are they? At about a 100:1 rate with other t2 barges. That's wrong, no player, ever, should have near immunity to danger, while still reaping most of the benefits of severely more dangerous, but only slightly less lucrative options, while sporting a garbage fit just because the ship that they fly has everything they need baked into the hull.
Everyone else gets the hard lessons. Think your orthrus is a solo pwnmobile and that you can warp into two oracles and a huginn? You're going to get whats coming to you. Undock a carrier with t1 fighters and no support to fight a 100mn cruiser gang and you're in for another expensive lesson. That is EVE, this is the game we play, and no player should ever be set apart because it breaks the system, leaves players self entitled and leads to this kind of 'debate' we see on this forum every day.
|
Coralas
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
50
|
Posted - 2016.08.26 05:49:25 -
[182] - Quote
FT Cold wrote:
Dead wrong. Read native EHP again, understand what it means, and how it applies to this argument.
in my opinion, native EHP is a completely irrelevent stat, beyond its influence on fitted stats - which we've already determined is not excessive.
Nobody flies around presuming that honor tanks are fitted, its just a suprise when the target melts.
Quote:
Duh. People are going to use mining ships to mine. Who's posts are you even referencing at this point?
Yours, where you keep wanting each and every mining ship, to do each and every mining role, which is confusing, ruins d-scan as an intel tool, makes their roles within mining overlap and makes even just figuring out what people have in your own mining fleet, impossible without checking the fittings of every ship in the fleet.
Quote:
That's the problem.
You want an idiot proof EVE, one that coddles miners and new players (who often get their start in mining,) a system that shields players from the true nature of eve.
Players who make poor choices, who don't network, learn from available resources or other players get punished for their bad decisions. The skiff if about as idiot proof as it gets. You don't need the fit the right hardeners, you don't need a good fit, most of the time you're safe.
There is no logical difference from knowing the role of a module, vs knowing the role of a hull. Do you see why I think what you are saying is bizzare now ? If a miner has gotten to the point that they understand what all 6 barges are for, that is entirely equivalent knowledge to knowing what an LSE is.
Guess who fleeted with them, guess who's max leadership, implanted orca pilot sat at a safe boosting for an hour a day in their system. Guess who switched to a ****ing skiff to defend when the regular CASMA booster logged in. guess who flew that skiff to the retrievers in the fleet when gankers turned up. Guess who showed them what a skiff was for by example. Guess who discussed fittings with them, guess who discussed yields with them, guess who pointed them to cerlestes to figure out which ore is the most valuable so they spent most of their time not mining the wrong ore, guess who donated ventures to newbies if they lost them. Guess who was telling them to set the gankers to red in their overview.
Guess who was on the npc corp chat telling people about CASMA, how to get boosts, and where to be fleeted, and thus where to begin cooperating with other players. Even though I haven't mined for years, I still tell new players where to get boosts to this very day.
ie the role of fixing the knowledge of miners is not something that the slotting of exhumers solves. that role is a task for players, its a task I've done, and its a task I still do.
Quote:
Can they be ganked? Sure. Are they? At about a 100:1 rate with other t2 barges. That's wrong, no player, ever, should have near immunity to danger, while still reaping most of the benefits of severely more dangerous, but only slightly less lucrative options, while sporting a garbage fit just because the ship that they fly has everything they need baked into the hull.
Yes I see now, CCP is handing out exhumer skills on trials, putting newbies in skiffs, spawning vast amounts of plag in the starter system, undocking for them, and firing their strips for them, and they are figuring out none of the inbetween, not losing any ships on the way, and not figuring out for themselves what the skiff is for, and they are earning 50m+ an hour on trial from the getgo like I did with this character in a frigate doing combat exploration, where the only bad thing that ever happened to me was hecates being faster than me to the bloody loot.
Quote:
Everyone else gets the hard lessons. Think your orthrus is a solo pwnmobile and that you can warp into two oracles and a huginn? You're going to get whats coming to you. Undock a carrier with t1 fighters and no support to fight a 100mn cruiser gang and you're in for another expensive lesson. That is EVE, this is the game we play, and no player should ever be set apart because it breaks the system, leaves players self entitled and leads to this kind of 'debate' we see on this forum every day.
Because its fair that a destroyer kills every cruiser in the game, in the 16-25 seconds that it takes concord to drop the donuts, even if the player has gone through all the bother of learning about the ship, earning the money for the ship and the skills in a hitpointless barge, and absolutely, whatever else happens, the gankers shouldn't have to think about their fittings, because a catalyst should always automatically win. Your argument is entirely reversable. |
Brokk Witgenstein
Extreme Agony The Wraithguard.
662
|
Posted - 2016.08.26 06:07:32 -
[183] - Quote
Catalysts have no fitting options either. Rack of blasters. Magstabs. Done. |
Coralas
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
50
|
Posted - 2016.08.26 06:27:12 -
[184] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote: And that is because we do not need 3 T1 barges. Or 3 T2 barges. We only need a single T1 barge, with the ability to be fitted properly. And in terms of mining we only need a single T2 barge also. If they are given a full rack of utility highslots then you 'could' introduce speciality T2's that do different things with the utility highslots, but otherwise you only need the one exhumer also.
We've been through this already. if you make this so, then you d-scan tells you generic exhumer is in the anomoly or belt. that is all it tells you. You do this and solo cat gankers are only going to warp to ventures. The only people favoured by this is industrial scale ganking groups.
|
Coralas
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
50
|
Posted - 2016.08.26 07:07:20 -
[185] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:
Because these ships are bad.
Im going to use a mining fleet that was caught in O-JPKH (Branch) / 2016-08-21 14:00.
The fleet consisted of 14 exhumers and a jump freighter and faced off against 12 mixed pirate cruisers, 2 sabres, 4 interceptors. The 14 exhumers all died within 2 minutes, the attackers lost nothing.
This is the reality for miners with the current and proposed changes. They cannot do anything to protect themselves and even if they had the old defense fleet that used to be in deklien (multiple titans, supers and carriers on constant standby) by the time the call for help goes out the mining fleet is dead.
Why exactly should a fleet worth 5.6 billion be so utterly helpless and easy to kill?
I rented a system from your old space hitler for more than 6 months. I was the first occupied system in Vale next to a geminate exit. Which meant that pretty much I had no intel. Hulks take no longer to align than it takes me to retract drones and align a dominix. I probably warped my ratting ships to my pos 500 times without intel and without being intercepted - local is godlike intel.
If they have only 1 anomoly (the thing that screwed interceptor pilots was that I had 12 or 16 anomoly haystack with only 1 battleship needle and lots of potential d-scan overlap), then they should drag bubble the approaches from gates so that only interceptors can land directly, everything else has a long burn and share the 1 in 15 pilot roles with an anti frigate ship, which means if they were mining for 4 hours, individuals need on average do 16 minutes of picket duty. In any case, splitting that fleet to interceptors with the dictors out of range would have allowed most of the fleet to exit, or at least allowed the fleet to kill interceptors, making it not a "flawless victory".
What you are describing to me is a fleet that couldn't take precautions in a place where precautions are known to be necessary, and a fleet that cannot seem to be able to turn their own territory into homefield advantage (which surely is the point of sov, docking rights and being able to jump freighter in bulk defensive resources).
Also, any concept of a barge formation being any sort of genuine competition to a well supported pirate cruiser formation is ridiculous. You'd surely expect the apex combat cruisers to be massively superior to mining cruisers at combat. The one thing I've never ever wanted from the skiff was for it to be any sort of headsup competitor to a real combat cruiser.
|
Abadayos
Yulai RnD
16
|
Posted - 2016.08.26 07:18:59 -
[186] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Anoron Secheh wrote:What about changes to the Rorqual and Orca? Changes to the Rorqual and Orca are currently planned for November (rather than September for these mining barge changes). We'll be discussing those more as we get a bit closer.
I hate to split hairs but wouldn't balancing one without the other be pretty much useless for those that only have half the picture?
If we are to discuss balancing the mining ships, their fits, yields, actual use (tank/cargo/yield/other unknown) then all of the figures must be reasonably supplied so that a 'before and after' image can be seen by everyone and balance discussion can stem from that, rather than speculation and 'what if?' in regards to boosting, the new battle cruiser mining booster, potential changes to mining drones/introduction of fighters and the long waited for Rorqual changes.
Saying that right now (pulling numbers out of my butt) that with the current proposed changes the hulk is mining less than current, but having in the future the new mining boosts pushing it to say 5% over what it currently does (thus making the proposed change better rather than worse which is what it would look like without the full picture). Saying 'Don't worry guys, it will be fine' won't really do to make people happy because of the track record of ignoring player feedback with things (jump fatigue, fozzy sov etc).
I'm sure some of us would appreciate the bigger picture, even if it's just a rough sketch, so that we can ascertain the rough idea of how things are going to work out. other wise this is just a pointless exercise when looking at the mining meta and how it's changing rather than the single units that make the whole.
Just my thoughts however |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
3546
|
Posted - 2016.08.26 08:07:52 -
[187] - Quote
Coralas wrote:
We've been through this already. if you make this so, then you d-scan tells you generic exhumer is in the anomoly or belt. that is all it tells you. You do this and solo cat gankers are only going to warp to ventures. The only people favoured by this is industrial scale ganking groups.
I'm sorry. And how is this a bad thing that a lazy gander can no longer automatically tell from dscan who he can kill. All I'm seeing here is entitlement from too many months of perfect intel. Make some friends. Doesn't take many. |
Drago Shouna
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
553
|
Posted - 2016.08.26 08:56:10 -
[188] - Quote
"That's the problem. You want an idiot proof EVE, one that coddles miners and new players (who often get their start in mining,) a system that shields players from the true nature of eve. Players who make poor choices, who don't network, learn from available resources or other players get punished for their bad decisions. The skiff if about as idiot proof as it gets. You don't need the fit the right hardeners, you don't need a good fit, most of the time you're safe. Can they be ganked? Sure. Are they? At about a 100:1 rate with other t2 barges. That's wrong, no player, ever, should have near immunity to danger, while still reaping most of the benefits of severely more dangerous, but only slightly less lucrative options, while sporting a garbage fit just because the ship that they fly has everything they need baked into the hull.
Everyone else gets the hard lessons. Think your orthrus is a solo pwnmobile and that you can warp into two oracles and a huginn? You're going to get whats coming to you. Undock a carrier with t1 fighters and no support to fight a 100mn cruiser gang and you're in for another expensive lesson. That is EVE, this is the game we play, and no player should ever be set apart because it breaks the system, leaves players self entitled and leads to this kind of 'debate' we see on this forum every day."
Ahh, the truth is out at last..you just can't go and kill one when you want with a **** fit Catalyst...didums.
You and others are still trying to compare them to other ships, you're on about the Orthrus and Carriers, which were designed to fill a role, a SPECIFIC one.
How long does it take to train into a gank Catalyst or other Destroyer? How long for a Skiff? I'll post from Uniwiki below.
Coddles miners, lmao. New players can't even dream of flying one for months...It's not being self entitled you self entitled moron..To sit in a Skiff, a player has earned that right over a long period.
http://wiki.eveuniversity.org/Skiff
52 days just to sit in it, months and months more for the fittings and skills just for T2 crystals, then there's ice mining to train for, gas huffing to train for, drones to train for, to bring the core skills up, god knows (the info is probably out there somewhere, I got sick of counting).
http://wiki.eveuniversity.org/Catalyst
A few paltry hours, and you all expect to be able to kill a ship that takes the above amount of training....
Every miner has had the hard knocks pal, all through his or her career, we have to put up with your rubbish as well on top of it all, but don't worry, the tears from wannabe gankers is worth it.
Solecist Project...." They refuse to play by the rules and laws of the game and use it as excuse ..."
" They don't care about how you play as long as they get to play how they want."
Welcome to EVE.
|
Caleb Seremshur
Black Scorpions Inc Infensus
840
|
Posted - 2016.08.26 10:40:58 -
[189] - Quote
I think you'll discover friendo that the tears of dead miners by now are crystalising in to their own ice fields. |
Drago Shouna
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
553
|
Posted - 2016.08.26 11:30:04 -
[190] - Quote
Caleb Seremshur wrote:I think you'll discover friendo that the tears of dead miners by now are crystalising in to their own ice fields.
Agreed, but there'll never be enough for some
Solecist Project...." They refuse to play by the rules and laws of the game and use it as excuse ..."
" They don't care about how you play as long as they get to play how they want."
Welcome to EVE.
|
|
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
637
|
Posted - 2016.08.26 11:30:34 -
[191] - Quote
I'd like to see mining ships get a bonus to fit and use large smartbombs. Plus a fix to smartbombs to actually make them "smart", when used in high-sec, so that they only hit targets which are actively attacking you.
This would make it possible for mining ships, and particularly mining fleets, to mount a real defense against high-sec ganks - assuming, ofc, that the miners are (a) willing to sacrifice yield in favor of an usable offensive capability, and (b) not AFK or bots.
Please note that this suggestion is fully CODE compatible. :) |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
3546
|
Posted - 2016.08.26 12:04:05 -
[192] - Quote
Drago Shouna wrote: Ahh, the truth is out at last..you just can't go and kill one when you want with a **** fit Catalyst...didums.
Or you know, he's actually right. Mining & Industrial ships should have real fittings. The nitpicking over what the T2 versions should be specialised to is one thing, but the basic fact that mining vessels should not have hard coded stats which fittings barely alter in three different version, but one version that fittings then create three (or more) different archetypes from is something EVE desperately needs as it's what really moves miners from being purely treated as helpless prey by everyone to being taken seriously. The reason people treat miners as Helpless prey is because CCP have said so with their lack of fittings.
Also, if you are going to compare a Catalyst and a Skiff, please compare a T2 fitted Catalyst to a Skiff at least. Or you know, do the actual realistic comparison of a Catalyst to a Procurer. Which also has more than enough tank to laugh at a solo skiff, and doesn't take 52 days to get to and sit in.
and no Sizof, Smart Bombs should A: Never become what you list as it makes pipe bombs insanely overpowered and a module should not magically become worse in a different security space. and B: Will not provide a real defence anyway because ganks are currently over far too fast. And C: To do this you need to provide them with utility highs and massive PG/CPU/Cap bonuses. Or insanely overpowered Smart bomb bonuses. Oh and Utility highs anyway. 50% of Yield to fit 1 bomb that won't actually do enough damage in 20 seconds is pointless. |
Caleb Seremshur
Black Scorpions Inc Infensus
840
|
Posted - 2016.08.26 12:51:26 -
[193] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Drago Shouna wrote: Ahh, the truth is out at last..you just can't go and kill one when you want with a **** fit Catalyst...didums.
Or you know, he's actually right. Mining & Industrial ships should have real fittings. The nitpicking over what the T2 versions should be specialised to is one thing, but the basic fact that mining vessels should not have hard coded stats which fittings barely alter in three different version
I just took a second look at the OP. I don't know what kind of objectives that CCP are hoping to achieve with their mining barges but barely changing them at all isn't going to do very much.
Kicking a dead horse really. Mining and everything related to it from the AFK rock-wand, unworkable ships, mining boosts, POSmodule rorqual and compression is tardy and lame. |
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
3471
|
Posted - 2016.08.26 13:28:18 -
[194] - Quote
Coralas wrote:Nevyn Auscent wrote: And that is because we do not need 3 T1 barges. Or 3 T2 barges. We only need a single T1 barge, with the ability to be fitted properly. And in terms of mining we only need a single T2 barge also. If they are given a full rack of utility highslots then you 'could' introduce speciality T2's that do different things with the utility highslots, but otherwise you only need the one exhumer also.
We've been through this already. if you make this so, then you d-scan tells you generic exhumer is in the anomoly or belt. that is all it tells you. You do this and solo cat gankers are only going to warp to ventures. The only people favoured by this is industrial scale ganking groups.
Gankers have been scanning ships prior to attacks for a while now.
EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"
Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
|
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
3471
|
Posted - 2016.08.26 13:33:50 -
[195] - Quote
Caleb Seremshur wrote:
I just took a second look at the OP. I don't know what kind of objectives that CCP are hoping to achieve with their mining barges but barely changing them at all isn't going to do very much.
Kicking a dead horse really. Mining and everything related to it from the AFK rock-wand, unworkable ships, mining boosts, POSmodule rorqual and compression is tardy and lame.
Their objective was to update the models and give them a 'light' balance pass. Its literally right there in the op ffs.
They never said they were going to change anything...
EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"
Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
|
Kenrailae
The Scope Gallente Federation
588
|
Posted - 2016.08.26 13:38:47 -
[196] - Quote
So serious question? Since you're doing a mining barge pass, and will soon be doing some of the mining structures, and the orca and rorqual.... why is all this work being thrown into making a bad process look better, but still be just as bad?
Why are we not doing a proper re-vamp and addressing, for better or worse, alot of the long standing complaints with mining, and working forward from there?
The Law is a point of View
The NPE IS a big deal
|
Drago Shouna
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
553
|
Posted - 2016.08.26 13:45:48 -
[197] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Drago Shouna wrote: Ahh, the truth is out at last..you just can't go and kill one when you want with a **** fit Catalyst...didums.
Or you know, he's actually right. Mining & Industrial ships should have real fittings. The nitpicking over what the T2 versions should be specialised to is one thing, but the basic fact that mining vessels should not have hard coded stats which fittings barely alter in three different version, but one version that fittings then create three (or more) different archetypes from is something EVE desperately needs as it's what really moves miners from being purely treated as helpless prey by everyone to being taken seriously. The reason people treat miners as Helpless prey is because CCP have said so with their lack of fittings. Also, if you are going to compare a Catalyst and a Skiff, please compare a T2 fitted Catalyst to a Skiff at least. Or you know, do the actual realistic comparison of a Catalyst to a Procurer. Which also has more than enough tank to laugh at a solo skiff, and doesn't take 52 days to get to and sit in. and no Sizof, Smart Bombs should A: Never become what you list as it makes pipe bombs insanely overpowered and a module should not magically become worse in a different security space. and B: Will not provide a real defence anyway because ganks are currently over far too fast. And C: To do this you need to provide them with utility highs and massive PG/CPU/Cap bonuses. Or insanely overpowered Smart bomb bonuses. Oh and Utility highs anyway. 50% of Yield to fit 1 bomb that won't actually do enough damage in 20 seconds is pointless.
To get a Catalyst and fit it with T2 Blasters and ammo is a little over a week.
To get a Proc and fit it with T2 strips and just 1 type of crystal (veld) is a minimum of around 2 weeks, to train for T1 Arkonor crystals alone is 27 days..Training wise there's no comparison. (much longer with 16 crystals to train)
I haven't checked everything, this is taken from the requirements tabs with a brand new pilot I just made.
Neither have I gone into mids and lows etc, either way you try it, the barges and exhumers take a damn sight longer to train into.
But bear in mind that the gank Catalyst won't have rigs or T2 armour, to achieve it's full tank the Proc needs all that and more.
My time investment gets me a tanky ship, yours gets you a cheap, paper tank, disposable ship, as it should be.
Some suggestions in here have merit I agree, but someone crying over alleged self entitled miners needs to know what he's on about.
Solecist Project...." They refuse to play by the rules and laws of the game and use it as excuse ..."
" They don't care about how you play as long as they get to play how they want."
Welcome to EVE.
|
Neugeniko
Insight Securities
79
|
Posted - 2016.08.26 13:57:23 -
[198] - Quote
Hi guys, I thought I would punch in the new stats for the t2 ships into a my mining simulator and see what conclusions I could come up with. The mackinaw hasn't changed so I didn't bother simulating it.
The skiff showed little change for null, whether using your survey scanner to short cycle your laser or lazy mining. In high sec, lazy mining yield went up 12%. This was due to less over mining, more lasers of lower yield. I didn't simulate low sec mining but I would expect lazy mining to be a few percent better too.
The hulks I only simulated with orca support using all ore types. One hulk and a orca was 6% better due to a extra mlu. Under lazy mining conditions it was only 4% better due to losing its very low yield lasers.
Typically the t1 ships show a similar trend to the t2 version under simulation.
TLDR; Lazy high sec skiff miners rejoice.
Cheers, Neug
Indices/Mining Simulator V6.41 UPDATED*
Daily Forge Mineral Sales Summary V1.5
Neug's Prime Industrial Real Estate V1.3
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18009
|
Posted - 2016.08.26 14:19:58 -
[199] - Quote
Coralas wrote: Also, any concept of a barge formation being any sort of genuine competition to a well supported pirate cruiser formation is ridiculous. You'd surely expect the apex combat cruisers to be massively superior to mining cruisers at combat. The one thing I've never ever wanted from the skiff was for it to be any sort of headsup competitor to a real combat cruiser.
Why is it that you want to be defenseless? Miners keep on moaning about how they get treated as second class citizens, how they are continually getting killed easily and how pvp should be nerfed to make their lives easier yet when someone puts forwards a plan to provide all the defenses and options you want you turn around and demand to be helpless victims. |
Drago Shouna
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
554
|
Posted - 2016.08.26 15:10:39 -
[200] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Coralas wrote: Also, any concept of a barge formation being any sort of genuine competition to a well supported pirate cruiser formation is ridiculous. You'd surely expect the apex combat cruisers to be massively superior to mining cruisers at combat. The one thing I've never ever wanted from the skiff was for it to be any sort of headsup competitor to a real combat cruiser.
Why is it that you want to be defenseless? Miners keep on moaning about how they get treated as second class citizens, how they are continually getting killed easily and how pvp should be nerfed to make their lives easier yet when someone puts forwards a plan to provide all the defenses and options you want you turn around and demand to be helpless victims.
I haven't seen one post like that, what I have seen is players saying ganking should have more consequences other than losing a cheap ship and taking a 15 min tea break.
How would utility slots possibly help a solo miner anywhere?
Give me an extra 5 turret slots and the power grid and cpu needed to run them and I'd go for it.
Solecist Project...." They refuse to play by the rules and laws of the game and use it as excuse ..."
" They don't care about how you play as long as they get to play how they want."
Welcome to EVE.
|
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18009
|
Posted - 2016.08.26 15:23:52 -
[201] - Quote
Drago Shouna wrote:
I haven't seen one post like that, what I have seen is players saying ganking should have more consequences other than losing a cheap ship and taking a 15 min tea break.
As I said, nerf pvp.
Drago Shouna wrote: How would utility slots possibly help a solo miner anywhere?
Neuts, smartbobs, cyno, probe launcher and for when you are in a group, RR support (hence my calling for a remote shield rep role bonus for the mack and retribution to go with those two utility highs) |
Kenrailae
The Scope Gallente Federation
593
|
Posted - 2016.08.26 15:26:16 -
[202] - Quote
See Baltec? They don't WANT to use the tools.....
The Law is a point of View
The NPE IS a big deal
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
3546
|
Posted - 2016.08.26 15:33:11 -
[203] - Quote
Kenrailae wrote:See Baltec? They don't WANT to use the tools..... No, Drago doesn't want to use the tools because it's Baltec arguing and Drago can't refrain from disagreeing. Drago != miner collective hive mind. |
Kenrailae
The Scope Gallente Federation
594
|
Posted - 2016.08.26 15:42:30 -
[204] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Kenrailae wrote:See Baltec? They don't WANT to use the tools..... No, Drago doesn't want to use the tools because it's Baltec arguing and Drago can't refrain from disagreeing. Drago != miner collective hive mind.
He's not the only miner that feels that way
The Law is a point of View
The NPE IS a big deal
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18009
|
Posted - 2016.08.26 15:45:00 -
[205] - Quote
Kenrailae wrote:
He's not the only miner that feels that way
Those miners can choose to not use the new tools then. Miners as a whole should not be screwed over just because some vocal minority wan't to die to anything that catches them. |
Kenrailae
The Scope Gallente Federation
594
|
Posted - 2016.08.26 15:49:54 -
[206] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Kenrailae wrote:
He's not the only miner that feels that way
Those miners can choose to not use the new tools then. Miners as a whole should not be screwed over just because some vocal minority wan't to die to anything that catches them.
Sounds great on paper. Until now you have ships with fitting and bonuses which have nothing to do with mining and the miners are all 'THis is useless and more broken then ever, CCP you have to fix it' for the next 3 years.
The Law is a point of View
The NPE IS a big deal
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18009
|
Posted - 2016.08.26 15:59:58 -
[207] - Quote
Kenrailae wrote: Sounds great on paper. Until now you have ships with fitting and bonuses which have nothing to do with mining and the miners are all 'THis is useless and more broken then ever, CCP you have to fix it' for the next 3 years.
I would say having logi, DPS and the ability to fit a tank in your mining fleet will be far from useless and will have everything to do with running a successful mining operation.
Again I have to ask why is it that you want to be helpless? |
Kenrailae
The Scope Gallente Federation
594
|
Posted - 2016.08.26 16:06:47 -
[208] - Quote
I don't. I'm not. People I play with are not. We use the tools that we have, and are able to massively reduce our risks.
The catch is, we're willing to use the tools at hand.
The mining fleet you used as an example a few posts ago, did it have defense? Did it have logistics? Did it have scouts? Or did it forego ALL the tools that are available already, and just YOLO hope it worked out?
It's sounds great to have a multirole, able to do all this mining fleet on paper. The reality is, miners are not willing to use the tools at hand because they 100% of the time choose yield over everything else. Why do you expect this behavior to change because you make the tools shinier?
2 alts in scythes is all it takes to make most high sec mining fleets for all intents and purposes gank proof.
So I'll ask again, WHY do you think this 100% yield 100% of the time mentality will change because you make the tools shinier?
The Law is a point of View
The NPE IS a big deal
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
2908
|
Posted - 2016.08.26 17:00:58 -
[209] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Kenrailae wrote: Sounds great on paper. Until now you have ships with fitting and bonuses which have nothing to do with mining and the miners are all 'THis is useless and more broken then ever, CCP you have to fix it' for the next 3 years.
I would say having logi, DPS and the ability to fit a tank in your mining fleet will be far from useless and will have everything to do with running a successful mining operation. Again I have to ask why is it that you want to be helpless?
or we can just do what decent groups do now and have other ships built for those roles do that and keep our miners spect to mining
if you cant lower you m3 to put a pilot into a basi for RR or a falcon for e-war that's your choice.
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Drago Shouna
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
554
|
Posted - 2016.08.26 17:37:15 -
[210] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Kenrailae wrote:See Baltec? They don't WANT to use the tools..... No, Drago doesn't want to use the tools because it's Baltec arguing and Drago can't refrain from disagreeing. Drago != miner collective hive mind.
Not quite, and as for hive mind..nope. (you obviously missed the post where I said a suggestion had merit)
Baltec and a couple of others presume that all miners need these utility slots for what, smartbombs, probe launchers etc and that all miners are just suicide jockeys without them?
I just don't see this thread inundated with hard done by miners crying out for joy at the suggestion. You'd have thought that might be a big hint.
Why is it so hard to see that miners just want to do what their name says? Mine.
If we die we die, hopefully we've earned more than enough to cover the replacement, a bit like gankers hoping to loot enough to make it worthwhile
Solecist Project...." They refuse to play by the rules and laws of the game and use it as excuse ..."
" They don't care about how you play as long as they get to play how they want."
Welcome to EVE.
|
|
Khan Wrenth
Ore Oppression Prevention and Salvation
659
|
Posted - 2016.08.26 17:57:40 -
[211] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:baltec1 wrote:Kenrailae wrote: Sounds great on paper. Until now you have ships with fitting and bonuses which have nothing to do with mining and the miners are all 'THis is useless and more broken then ever, CCP you have to fix it' for the next 3 years.
I would say having logi, DPS and the ability to fit a tank in your mining fleet will be far from useless and will have everything to do with running a successful mining operation. Again I have to ask why is it that you want to be helpless? or we can just do what decent groups do now and have other ships built for those roles do that and keep our miners spect to mining if you cant lower you m3 to put a pilot into a basi for RR or a falcon for e-war that's your choice. There's two problems. 1: You are entirely correct: using the current tools and systems at their disposal, miners are as completely safe as anybody can be in EvE. 2: That logic means they don't need skiffs or tank. Even if they're out in null...if they're not willing to lower M3 to field a few combat ships to take care of rats...
Let's discuss overhauling the way we get intel in EvE.
|
Drago Shouna
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
554
|
Posted - 2016.08.26 18:20:16 -
[212] - Quote
Khan Wrenth wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:baltec1 wrote:Kenrailae wrote: Sounds great on paper. Until now you have ships with fitting and bonuses which have nothing to do with mining and the miners are all 'THis is useless and more broken then ever, CCP you have to fix it' for the next 3 years.
I would say having logi, DPS and the ability to fit a tank in your mining fleet will be far from useless and will have everything to do with running a successful mining operation. Again I have to ask why is it that you want to be helpless? or we can just do what decent groups do now and have other ships built for those roles do that and keep our miners spect to mining if you cant lower you m3 to put a pilot into a basi for RR or a falcon for e-war that's your choice. There's two problems. 1: You are entirely correct: using the current tools and systems at their disposal, miners are as completely safe as anybody can be in EvE. 2: That logic means they don't need skiffs or tank. Even if they're out in null...if they're not willing to lower M3 to field a few combat ships to take care of rats...
You can't field a few combat ships as a solo player, even if you have 2 miners you aren't going to halve your income "just in case" and we've already seen in this thread a large fleet that didn't bother.
Anyway back on subject.....
I just logged one of my miners on to the test server to check the new skiff.
On my "old" skiff I mined 1 block of ice per 45.8s. That is 687s... 11m 45s
On the new one each harvester mines 1 block per 91.6s. That is 732.8s...12m 21.3s to fill it as you need 1 harvester doing 1 cycle to get 15 blocks.
The new one is going to be 36s slower
Solecist Project...." They refuse to play by the rules and laws of the game and use it as excuse ..."
" They don't care about how you play as long as they get to play how they want."
Welcome to EVE.
|
Mai Khumm
172.0.0.1
839
|
Posted - 2016.08.26 19:51:09 -
[213] - Quote
Kenrailae wrote:So serious question? Since you're doing a mining barge pass, and will soon be doing some of the mining structures, and the orca and rorqual.... why is all this work being thrown into making a bad process look better, but still be just as bad?
Why are we not doing a proper re-vamp and addressing, for better or worse, alot of the long standing complaints with mining, and working forward from there? These "balances" are based entirely around the new Industrial structures that are coming out soonGäó (I'm expecting a delay in the release.)
So, basically nerf industrial ships into the ground to make these new toys that'll be released soonGäó actually worth the time and money... |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18012
|
Posted - 2016.08.26 20:14:30 -
[214] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
or we can just do what decent groups do now and have other ships built for those roles do that and keep our miners spect to mining
if you cant lower you m3 to put a pilot into a basi for RR or a falcon for e-war that's your choice.
Its not the fact you lower your M3 per hour its the fact that you have people sitting with the miners doing nothing and earning nothing. This is why nobody flys logi in a mining fleet or parks a combat fleet with them, they have nothing to do. Giving the ability to the miners themselves means the defense and the logi are the very people who are mining.
Drago Shouna wrote:
I just don't see this thread inundated with hard done by miners crying out for joy at the suggestion. You'd have thought that might be a big hint.
More support than for the current CCP plan. |
Kenrailae
The Scope Gallente Federation
604
|
Posted - 2016.08.26 20:19:56 -
[215] - Quote
Mai Khumm wrote:Kenrailae wrote:So serious question? Since you're doing a mining barge pass, and will soon be doing some of the mining structures, and the orca and rorqual.... why is all this work being thrown into making a bad process look better, but still be just as bad?
Why are we not doing a proper re-vamp and addressing, for better or worse, alot of the long standing complaints with mining, and working forward from there? These "balances" are based entirely around the new Industrial structures that are coming out soonGäó (I'm expecting a delay in the release.) So, basically nerf industrial ships into the ground to make these new toys that'll be released soonGäó actually worth the time and money...
These 'balances' are mostly just a model replacement. They still don't do anything to address the bad/gameplay/mechanics of mining in general.
The Law is a point of View
The NPE IS a big deal
|
Mai Khumm
172.0.0.1
840
|
Posted - 2016.08.26 20:41:59 -
[216] - Quote
Kenrailae wrote:Mai Khumm wrote:Kenrailae wrote:So serious question? Since you're doing a mining barge pass, and will soon be doing some of the mining structures, and the orca and rorqual.... why is all this work being thrown into making a bad process look better, but still be just as bad?
Why are we not doing a proper re-vamp and addressing, for better or worse, alot of the long standing complaints with mining, and working forward from there? These "balances" are based entirely around the new Industrial structures that are coming out soonGäó (I'm expecting a delay in the release.) So, basically nerf industrial ships into the ground to make these new toys that'll be released soonGäó actually worth the time and money... These 'balances' are mostly just a model replacement. They still don't do anything to address the bad/gameplay/mechanics of mining in general. Well, I did say Industrial Ships, not only Barges...otherwise I would've said so!
Of course this round of of balances are based entirely around the new ship models. The only thng they do in reality is slightly raise the Killmail value and cost to run the Procurer and Skiff whilst lowering the Killmail value and cost to run a Covetor and Hulk. As I said earlier in this thread, they could use an actual buff in their EHP so they're not easy to kill.
Also, unless you actually have a decent idea of how to change the game play of shooting a rock that won't completely break the game, (mainly the market...thus game) then by all means. |
Uriam Khanid
New Machinarium Corporation
69
|
Posted - 2016.08.26 20:43:44 -
[217] - Quote
Gunrunner1775 wrote:Uriam Khanid wrote:2 years ago (Kronos?/july 2014) you add ''strip miner yield and ice harvester cycle time role bonuses'' to barges and exhumers. Now you are removing them. Why?! CCP Fozzie wrote: As part of this change we are increasing the yield of all barge-sized strip miners and ice harvesters, which cancels out the changes to hardpoints and bonuses on the Barges and Exhumers
???? what the hell is it??? little (just small) explanation: CCP return what they remove 2 years ago. |
Kenrailae
The Scope Gallente Federation
604
|
Posted - 2016.08.26 21:01:41 -
[218] - Quote
Mai Khumm wrote: Well, I did say Industrial Ships, not only Barges...otherwise I would've said so!
Of course this round of of balances are based entirely around the new ship models. The only thng they do in reality is slightly raise the Killmail value and cost to run the Procurer and Skiff whilst lowering the Killmail value and cost to run a Covetor and Hulk. As I said earlier in this thread, they could use an actual buff in their EHP so they're not easy to kill.
Also, unless you actually have a decent idea of how to change the game play of shooting a rock that won't completely break the game, (mainly the market...thus game) then by all means.
There are lots of ideas. Ideas aren't the bottleneck. There are also people who are paid I'm sure a not unattractive salary to address these issues. The bottleneck is getting things moving where those people start looking at the problems with current mining mechanics, and start considering/adapting the plethora of ideas out there. Yeah I have some thoughts, but I don't claim they are the only way to do it.
Question is still out there: Why is so much effort being put into making a bad process look shinier, while also not addressing some of the problems in that process, be it by using my super plus extra awesome mining idea or that guy over there's?
The Law is a point of View
The NPE IS a big deal
|
Mortimer Civeri
Aliastra Gallente Federation
514
|
Posted - 2016.08.26 21:09:47 -
[219] - Quote
As someone who mines, I can tell you that the changes CCP wants to put forth is not going to do squat. The Retriever / Mackinaw will still be #1 and #2 and maybe swap places. The Hulk will still be #3, and the Skiff / Procurer will still be #4 and #5. Why, is because, ore hold, trumps yeild, trumps tank. Ore hold means you can be at the coal-face longer without having to zip back and forth wasting time not mining.
Yield is a secondary concern, yield can almost make up for the time zipping back and forth not mining. The Hulk, King of yeild only manages the #3 spot because its tiny ore hold hampers it except in large industrial concerns with a large number of players. You will note I said players not characters. The single player highsec corp with 10 to 15 characters out mining wants to ALT-TAB as little as possible. This means the Retriever and Mackinaw reign even though the Hulks would out pace them in yeild. To much fiddling with timing to jetison ore and coordinating ore haulers make the Hulk a multi player fleet ship.
Tank is an afterthought for most miners. On the rare time you do get ganked you are only out about one hours worth of mining if you are flying a single Retriever. A single player, running ten mining characters, can make up a ganked Retriever in just over six minutes. A Skiff or Procurer doesn't have the ore bay of the Retriever or Mackinaw so the drawback of having to juggle ALT-TAB'ing doesn't ovecome the greater protection the hulls provide.
I'm sorry, but CCP, baltec1, and many other 'helpful' individuals in this thread, totaly miss the mark on what actual miners want in a mining platform.
"I don't know which is worse, ...that everyone has his price, or that the price is always so low." Calvin
|
Drago Shouna
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
554
|
Posted - 2016.08.26 21:12:51 -
[220] - Quote
Uriam Khanid wrote:Gunrunner1775 wrote:Uriam Khanid wrote:2 years ago (Kronos?/july 2014) you add ''strip miner yield and ice harvester cycle time role bonuses'' to barges and exhumers. Now you are removing them. Why?! CCP Fozzie wrote: As part of this change we are increasing the yield of all barge-sized strip miners and ice harvesters, which cancels out the changes to hardpoints and bonuses on the Barges and Exhumers ???? what the hell is it??? little (just small) explanation: CCP return what they remove 2 years ago.
Well how I just worked it out above, it's a nerf to Ice mining at least. The yield is exactly the same, but the new version needs an extra 91s to fill a skiff.
I haven't done the ore timings/yield yet but I'll get to them.
Solecist Project...." They refuse to play by the rules and laws of the game and use it as excuse ..."
" They don't care about how you play as long as they get to play how they want."
Welcome to EVE.
|
|
Mai Khumm
172.0.0.1
840
|
Posted - 2016.08.26 21:26:36 -
[221] - Quote
Kenrailae wrote:There are lots of ideas. Ideas aren't the bottleneck. There are also people who are paid I'm sure a not unattractive salary to address these issues. The bottleneck is getting things moving where those people start looking at the problems with current mining mechanics, and start considering/adapting the plethora of ideas out there. Yeah I have some thoughts, but I don't claim they are the only way to do it.
Question is still out there: Why is so much effort being put into making a bad process look shinier, while also not addressing some of the problems in that process, be it by using my super plus extra awesome mining idea or that guy over there's?
EDIT: Unless when those structures are launched, mining barges and industrial ships are just going to be completely obsolete and 0 point whatsoever in flying them, those same bad mining mechanics are still going to exist. To fix these issues, you must have a decent solution that won't break the game. I actually believe that CCP isn't going to kill off Mining barges with the new industrial structures. It'll compliment them if anything!
I'm leaning on 2-3 Industrial structures, 1-2 will be dedicated towards construction and reprocessing whilst the other will be for Moon Goo. Which is easy to figure out! Seeing how CCP is going to be removing POSs, and with that...the ONLY way to acquire Moon Goo....thus T2 manufacturing. So, what structure that we're aware of that can take over that role? Maybe something to do with Drilling in a Platform...form!
I highly doubt CCP will release an asteroid belt vacuum cleaner structure... |
Mark O'Helm
Fam. Zimin von Reizgenschwendt
214
|
Posted - 2016.08.26 23:26:08 -
[222] - Quote
Drago Shouna wrote:Uriam Khanid wrote:Gunrunner1775 wrote:Uriam Khanid wrote:2 years ago (Kronos?/july 2014) you add ''strip miner yield and ice harvester cycle time role bonuses'' to barges and exhumers. Now you are removing them. Why?! CCP Fozzie wrote: As part of this change we are increasing the yield of all barge-sized strip miners and ice harvesters, which cancels out the changes to hardpoints and bonuses on the Barges and Exhumers ???? what the hell is it??? little (just small) explanation: CCP return what they remove 2 years ago. Well how I just worked it out above, it's a nerf to Ice mining at least. The yield is exactly the same, but the new version needs an extra 91s to fill a skiff. I haven't done the ore timings/yield yet but I'll get to them. I tried it on sisi. My skiff will be 0.02 sec faster per block ice.
"Frauenversteher wissen, was Frauen wollen.
Aber Frauen wollen keine Frauenversteher.
Weil Frauenversteher wissen, was Frauen wollen." (Ein Single)
"Wirklich coolen Leuten ist es egal, ob sie cool sind." (Einer, dem es egal ist)
|
LTC Vuvovich
LTC Vuvovich Corporation
51
|
Posted - 2016.08.27 00:55:33 -
[223] - Quote
Hahahaha....
As career-mining goes and from my personal point of view... wouldn't it be easier CCP if you just decided to erase half of all the ice and asteroids belts in existence from everywhere...? I mean why don't you just **** it all up completely? If there is too much mining going on and the markets are just too fuckin glut with ores, minerals and the like... seems to me there is either too many peeps mining or... there is just simply too much **** out there to be mined. Take your freakin pick. Why have you allowed mining asteroids and ice to continue on in this game anyway? You've done just about everything you can think of to control & curtail mining as a whole, and you have belittled every player whom has ever trained both direct and indirectly related mining skills to Level 5. (A fact which any Rorqual pilot could attest to)
It is so typical of you CCP... nerf the **** that really matters and beef up or adjust a lot of crap that has no real positive impact on mining. Oh sure... kudos to the art department... Barges and Exhumers are going to look awesome...but what good is a pretty ship if it cant mine worth a ****. I am also at a loss trying to figure out how you could even think of allowing any mining vessel's capabilities to ever come close to those of a Hulk's capabilities. Back in the day... when I first started mining seriously... nothing... could out mine a Hulk and I do not believe anything should. The Hulk is SUPPOSED to be mother of ALL mining vessels... so why cant you just leave it that way CCP? I believe CCP that it is high time that you return some of the respect that you've taken away from miner's and their mining vessels.
So please CCP... spare me and could we just dispense with all the fanfare and hoopalah, cuz I'm getting to the point I am like... ' Thank you sir may I have another?'
Regrettably Yours, LTC Vuvovich |
FT Cold
R3d Fire Mouth Trumpet Cavalry
67
|
Posted - 2016.08.27 01:09:53 -
[224] - Quote
Coralas wrote:
in my opinion, native EHP is a completely irrelevent stat, beyond its influence on fitted stats - which we've already determined is not excessive.
It's relevant in two contexts, only one of which I've pointed out, and I've already given ample evidence to support my claim which you've been unable to refute. Another issue is that for other ships that wish to fit buffer tanks, there's a secondary trade-off unrelated to the fitting cost of the modules, which is the sig radius and agility penalties associated with extenders and plates respectively. This relates to my prior points about the skiff being immune to fitting trade-offs that other ships are subject to.
Quote:Nobody flies around presuming that honor tanks are fitted, its just a suprise when the target melts.
Also wrong. Prepared gankers either ship scan their targets to determine the feasibility of an attack, or bring more dps than the maximum possible tank of the ship they're targeting.
Quote: Yours, where you keep wanting each and every mining ship, to do each and every mining role, which is confusing, ruins d-scan as an intel tool, makes their roles within mining overlap and makes even just figuring out what people have in your own mining fleet, impossible without checking the fittings of every ship in the fleet.
Wrong again. Several times now you've stated this, and in all of which you're inventing a narrative that I've not advocated. In fact, I've advocated that each ship have a range of possible values and that care should be taken to ensure that they don't overlap, or at least, overlap as minimally as possible. If you desire that members of your fleet adhere to a specific fitting doctrine, then it's your prerogative and burden to ensure that they comply. Just like combat fleets in every other class of ship.
Quote:There is no logical difference from knowing the role of a module, vs knowing the role of a hull. Do you see why I think what you are saying is bizzare now ? If a miner has gotten to the point that they understand what all 6 barges are for, that is entirely equivalent knowledge to knowing what an LSE is.
The role of other ships is in large place determined by the modules that are fitted to it. A pocket rocket rail rax has a different role to a dual rep thorax, which is different than a plated dual web thorax. Much of pvp is understanding the potential of every ship you encounter and knowing how modules affect the the stats of a ship and thus its role is critical to this understanding. For mining barges, a large part of this is absent and it's not unreasonable to expect that they conform to the norms of other ships.
Quote:Guess who fleeted with them, guess who's max leadership, implanted orca pilot sat at a safe boosting for an hour a day in their system. Guess who switched to a ****ing skiff to defend when the regular CASMA booster logged in. guess who flew that skiff to the retrievers in the fleet when gankers turned up. Guess who showed them what a skiff was for by example. Guess who discussed fittings with them, guess who discussed yields with them, guess who pointed them to cerlestes to figure out which ore is the most valuable so they spent most of their time not mining the wrong ore, guess who donated ventures to newbies if they lost them. Guess who was telling them to set the gankers to red in their overview.
Guess who was on the npc corp chat telling people about CASMA, how to get boosts, and where to be fleeted, and thus where to begin cooperating with other players. Even though I haven't mined for years, I still tell new players where to get boosts to this very day.
ie the role of fixing the knowledge of miners is not something that the slotting of exhumers solves. that role is a task for players, its a task I've done, and its a task I still do.
Yes I see now, CCP is handing out exhumer skills on trials, putting newbies in skiffs, spawning vast amounts of plag in the starter system, undocking for them, and firing their strips for them, and they are figuring out none of the inbetween, not losing any ships on the way, and not figuring out for themselves what the skiff is for, and they are earning 50m+ an hour on trial from the getgo like I did with this character in a frigate doing combat exploration, where the only bad thing that ever happened to me was hecates being faster than me to the bloody loot.
Because its fair that a destroyer kills every cruiser in the game, in the 16-25 seconds that it takes concord to drop the donuts, even if the player has gone through all the bother of learning about the ship, earning the money for the ship and the skills in a hitpointless barge, and absolutely, whatever else happens, the gankers shouldn't have to think about their fittings, because a catalyst should always automatically win. Your argument is entirely reversable.
I'm happy that you're taking the time to help and teach other players how to mine. Taking initiative and making content grows the game for everyone and I don't think that your contributions are wasted. However, many highsec players, and miners in particular, have shown themselves over the years to be unwilling to conform to what the rest of the game base endures. Fitting a boat is one of those things.
You also need to understand that I'm not asking for miners to get nothing in return for this. More available mining upgrades will serve to reward those that are the best in their craft and to enable the people that are passionate about it to have deeper, more meaningful game play. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
2910
|
Posted - 2016.08.27 04:59:51 -
[225] - Quote
Khan Wrenth wrote: 2: That logic means they don't need skiffs or tank. Even if they're out in null...if they're not willing to lower M3 to field a few combat ships to take care of rats...
well no skiffs still make seance as no amount of a defense fleet can help you if you are alphaed off immediately (this is something a small blops gang can do to macks/hulks)
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
2910
|
Posted - 2016.08.27 05:08:47 -
[226] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
or we can just do what decent groups do now and have other ships built for those roles do that and keep our miners spect to mining
if you cant lower you m3 to put a pilot into a basi for RR or a falcon for e-war that's your choice.
Its not the fact you lower your M3 per hour its the fact that you have people sitting with the miners doing nothing and earning nothing. This is why nobody flys logi in a mining fleet or parks a combat fleet with them, they have nothing to do. Giving the ability to the miners themselves means the defense and the logi are the very people who are mining.
what do you mean? we have managed it plenty
for example
having them in belt while we are running anoms
or having them fit with a cyno while we are doing a blops op
I suppose with the latter they could be attacked while we jumped at another target but we have yet to have that issue
there are plenty of things security can do to keep busy and make isk w/o having to sit in the belt picking their nose
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Kalido Raddi
Echelon Research The Volition Cult
30
|
Posted - 2016.08.27 05:34:07 -
[227] - Quote
Mortimer Civeri wrote:As someone who mines, I can tell you that the changes CCP wants to put forth is not going to do squat. The Retriever / Mackinaw will still be #1 and #2 and maybe swap places. The Hulk will still be #3, and the Skiff / Procurer will still be #4 and #5. Why, is because, ore hold, trumps yeild, trumps tank. Ore hold means you can be at the coal-face longer without having to zip back and forth wasting time not mining.
Yield is a secondary concern, yield can almost make up for the time zipping back and forth not mining. The Hulk, King of yeild only manages the #3 spot because its tiny ore hold hampers it except in large industrial concerns with a large number of players. You will note I said players not characters. The single player highsec corp with 10 to 15 characters out mining wants to ALT-TAB as little as possible. This means the Retriever and Mackinaw reign even though the Hulks would out pace them in yeild. To much fiddling with timing to jetison ore and coordinating ore haulers make the Hulk a multi player fleet ship.
Tank is an afterthought for most miners. On the rare time you do get ganked you are only out about one hours worth of mining if you are flying a single Retriever. A single player, running ten mining characters, can make up a ganked Retriever in just over six minutes. A Skiff or Procurer doesn't have the ore bay of the Retriever or Mackinaw so the drawback of having to juggle ALT-TAB'ing doesn't ovecome the greater protection the hulls provide.
I'm sorry, but CCP, baltec1, and many other 'helpful' individuals in this thread, totaly miss the mark on what actual miners want in a mining platform.
The Mackinaw is trash, flown by people who don't understand Mining. It sacrifices all the benefits of the Skiff for the luxury of only Jetcanning or transferring Ore half as often.
Personally I suspect that most Mackinaw pilots are AFK or even botting.
Under the current TQ implementation, 3 Hulks and a DST outperforms 4 Mackinaw, as the Hulks *never* have to dock up to deliver Ore. On SiSi, 3 Hulks and a DST is equal to 4.2 Mackinaw pilots, and the Hulks still never dock. Who spends more time zipping back and forth not mining now?
In addition, you put Remote Shield Boosters on your DST, so not only does the three Hulk & DST combination mine more than 4 Macks, it also tanks better.
As for "Tank is an afterthought for most miners" - no. Really, no. Battleship rats hit quite hard. Rat Dreadnoughts are terrifyingly dangerous. Tank is the difference between a lossmail and a warpout.
Hulk for mining gangs. Skiff for solo. Mackinaw if you don't understand what you are doing.
The only thing that's really going to change with this is that the Hulk will become the premier tool for Ice Rushes, as it will be the ship with the best cycle time. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18016
|
Posted - 2016.08.27 06:00:05 -
[228] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
what do you mean? we have managed it plenty
It has never been managed. Even at the height of the Imperium/CFCs power nobody guarded mining fleets because it was both boring and unworkable. Again I will point out an entire mining fleet of 14 exhumers will be killed in just 2 minutes by a similar sized gang of cruisers.
Right now you are arguing for your entire profession to be helpless in EVE, that you are so incompetent at EVE that CCP has to pre fit your ships for you and that you outright refuse to have any skill involved in mining rewarded. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
3547
|
Posted - 2016.08.27 06:32:49 -
[229] - Quote
baltec1 wrote: It has never been managed. Even at the height of the Imperium/CFCs power nobody guarded mining fleets because it was both boring and unworkable. Again I will point out an entire mining fleet of 14 exhumers will be killed in just 2 minutes by a similar sized gang of cruisers.
Right now you are arguing for your entire profession to be helpless in EVE, that you are so incompetent at EVE that CCP has to pre fit your ships for you and that you outright refuse to have any skill involved in mining rewarded.
I think you are making a big assumption that these people actually regularly do mining rather than afk boosting in highsec or manufacturing on stuff other people bring in. I'm sure betting they don't spend all day guarding mining fleets on grid though. |
Nasar Vyron
S0utherN Comfort Test Alliance Please Ignore
141
|
Posted - 2016.08.27 06:52:11 -
[230] - Quote
Scrap the idea of these do-nothing changes. Making the hulls resemble each other even more only makes the problem worse! How about.....
Remove Mining Laser and Ice Mining Upgrades entirely! Bake whatever bonuses CCP feels is justified for each into the hull or strip miners/mining lasers themselves.
Remove the tank per level bonuses on all barges/exhumers and give them the CPU and PG and adjust slot layouts to fit the replacement tank or whatever else they so desire. I would suggest reducing low slots to 2 tho across the board...
Alter Expanded cargoholds to also modify ore holds if they exist -OR- Add a new expanded ore hold mod that can only be fit to barges/exhumers (to prevent shenanigans with the Miasmos) possibly by reducing agility/increasing mass to compensate.
Add pinpointing ore scanners (midslot-think painter, but not able to stack effects) to increase yield for scanning ship on targeted/scanned roid while active. Possibly T1:5%/T2:10%/ORE:12% yield, ~5 second cycle, and ~50GJ activation. Make this effect boolean, it's happening or it's not and only for the ship using the module.
Give the Procurer/Skiff agility per level bonuses while giving the Covetor/Hulk cap usage bonus for the new scanners.
Allow Skiff/Hulk to keep cycle time bonuses.
Lastly, remove the Retriever and Mackinaw. Convert them in either direction.
Now if someone wants to tank, they have to give up yield as it shares the same slots. If they want to fit for yield then they have to give up cap stability and tank. If they want to sit in belt longer, they now give up the ability to quickly warp out or fit stabs. And remember if they fit stabs, they are reducing their already pitiful lock range and scan res, the trade-off already exists there.
The TLDR here is remove all these ridiculous baked in bonuses and modules any miner in their right mind will feel obligated to fit. Give options through altered fittings not baked in hull stats. Add new modules to allow the remaining hull/hulls to mimic to some degree what we see today but with strong trade-offs. |
|
Kenrailae
The Scope Gallente Federation
608
|
Posted - 2016.08.27 07:03:40 -
[231] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:baltec1 wrote: It has never been managed. Even at the height of the Imperium/CFCs power nobody guarded mining fleets because it was both boring and unworkable. Again I will point out an entire mining fleet of 14 exhumers will be killed in just 2 minutes by a similar sized gang of cruisers.
Right now you are arguing for your entire profession to be helpless in EVE, that you are so incompetent at EVE that CCP has to pre fit your ships for you and that you outright refuse to have any skill involved in mining rewarded.
I think you are making a big assumption that these people actually regularly do mining rather than afk boosting in highsec or manufacturing on stuff other people bring in. I'm sure betting they don't spend all day guarding mining fleets on grid though.
No, you're right, we don't spend all day mining. But when we DO mine, we DO keep characters on grid in combat/logistics ships. We DO keep cyno's burning while we do the 3 jumps from Igno to Jita, or use webbing alts where necessary, or keep ships nearby ready to act if needed. We also accept it as the cost of business because every barge we don't lose is one more we don't have to replace, and losing 1 or 2 people of yield is far and away a better bargain than losing barges for stupid reasons. You guys keep going on about a fleet of 14 unsupported exhumers getting roflstomped. Well it should have. it ignored every tool in the book for doing anything to keep itself alive. In Eve, the price of that is dying. Always has been. Mining fleets don't need special treatment swiss army knives. They need to use the tools at hand, to do the job they were designed to do.
You keep asking why we're choosing to be helpless. I'll answer you for the final time, then if you ask again, I'll have to re-assess my opinion of your intelligence: We are not helpless. We use the tools we have and protect out stuff. The exact same thing we've been telling 'Oh I got ganked nerf ganking threads' for years. That is the cost of business. We do not require ships that can do everything under the sun and in the ocean too. Ships like that will only become a future problem that we'll still be talking about in 3 years because now they can't be fit for max yield with all these 'useless' high slots and whatnot.
You want to fix the problem with mining?
Let's start by talking about the Bzzzzzzzzttttttttttttttt for hours on end.
The Law is a point of View
The NPE IS a big deal
|
Drago Shouna
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
555
|
Posted - 2016.08.27 07:15:03 -
[232] - Quote
Kalido Raddi wrote:Mortimer Civeri wrote:As someone who mines, I can tell you that the changes CCP wants to put forth is not going to do squat. The Retriever / Mackinaw will still be #1 and #2 and maybe swap places. The Hulk will still be #3, and the Skiff / Procurer will still be #4 and #5. Why, is because, ore hold, trumps yeild, trumps tank. Ore hold means you can be at the coal-face longer without having to zip back and forth wasting time not mining.
Yield is a secondary concern, yield can almost make up for the time zipping back and forth not mining. The Hulk, King of yeild only manages the #3 spot because its tiny ore hold hampers it except in large industrial concerns with a large number of players. You will note I said players not characters. The single player highsec corp with 10 to 15 characters out mining wants to ALT-TAB as little as possible. This means the Retriever and Mackinaw reign even though the Hulks would out pace them in yeild. To much fiddling with timing to jetison ore and coordinating ore haulers make the Hulk a multi player fleet ship.
Tank is an afterthought for most miners. On the rare time you do get ganked you are only out about one hours worth of mining if you are flying a single Retriever. A single player, running ten mining characters, can make up a ganked Retriever in just over six minutes. A Skiff or Procurer doesn't have the ore bay of the Retriever or Mackinaw so the drawback of having to juggle ALT-TAB'ing doesn't ovecome the greater protection the hulls provide.
I'm sorry, but CCP, baltec1, and many other 'helpful' individuals in this thread, totaly miss the mark on what actual miners want in a mining platform. The Mackinaw is trash, flown by people who don't understand Mining. It sacrifices all the benefits of the Skiff for the luxury of only Jetcanning or transferring Ore half as often. Personally I suspect that most Mackinaw pilots are AFK or even botting. Under the current TQ implementation, 3 Hulks and a DST outperforms 4 Mackinaw, as the Hulks *never* have to dock up to deliver Ore. On SiSi, 3 Hulks and a DST is equal to 4.2 Mackinaw pilots, and the Hulks still never dock. Who spends more time zipping back and forth not mining now? In addition, you put Remote Shield Boosters on your DST, so not only does the three Hulk & DST combination mine more than 4 Macks, it also tanks better. As for "Tank is an afterthought for most miners" - no. Really, no. Battleship rats hit quite hard. Rat Dreadnoughts are terrifyingly dangerous. Tank is the difference between a lossmail and a warpout. Hulk for mining gangs. Skiff for solo. Mackinaw if you don't understand what you are doing. The only thing that's really going to change with this is that the Hulk will become the premier tool for Ice Rushes, as it will be the ship with the best cycle time.
Your quote about the Mack is pure rubbish, there's a reason it's top of the list.
You presume everyone has 4/5/6/7 accounts, whatever, not everyone has a full blown fleet. For solo guys in HS the Mack makes perfect sense, even for someone with 2 accounts it makes sense.
To base your post around everyone having 4 accounts is just wrong. Trust me, if you mined in Null, your Hulks would be docking. You put a DST on grid in null? Look at the guy in this thread who did that...boom. Hell, you'd be better off with a Miasmos to haul the ore back.
Solecist Project...." They refuse to play by the rules and laws of the game and use it as excuse ..."
" They don't care about how you play as long as they get to play how they want."
Welcome to EVE.
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
2911
|
Posted - 2016.08.27 07:15:11 -
[233] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
what do you mean? we have managed it plenty
It has never been managed. Even at the height of the Imperium/CFCs power nobody guarded mining fleets because it was both boring and unworkable. Again I will point out an entire mining fleet of 14 exhumers will be killed in just 2 minutes by a similar sized gang of cruisers. Right now you are arguing for your entire profession to be helpless in EVE, that you are so incompetent at EVE that CCP has to pre fit your ships for you and that you outright refuse to have any skill involved in mining rewarded.
I'm sorry if the CFC could never manage that but try dropping on an active fleet in Provi you have about 45 seconds from when your cyno de-cloaks to the first responders showing up on grid. (something that will be made irrelevant with the rorqu changes
put your miners at the end of the pipe go run anoms further down and have the miners keep an eye on the probe scanner for potential WHs
what you want is akin to letting haulers hold there own against attackers
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Jayla May
Bedlam Corp.
0
|
Posted - 2016.08.27 07:15:42 -
[234] - Quote
Wait...what is this again? did CCP call this a revamp? These changes... how will they effect the market value of the ships.
-The ore that is mined will be more valuable due to the devaluation of barges and profit margin to go into the negative.
-Every ship must be built in EVE online. If you make it harder for the producers to make the things that other people need to use to kill other stuff, your essentially shooting the mining business in the foot and telling us industrialists to walk it off.
-Like This only makes sense if CCP values what CODE and James 315 stand for. And that is for bot aspirant behavior to become less noticable.
-However, If a miner does not look like a well tuned mining machine going through cycles and coming back to chew through a belt, than the thousand of hours used to mine ores, refine minerals and turn those minerals into ships, ammo, modules and cold hard profitable isk is for nothing.
-The devaluation of the miner's opinion had gone too far.
~ Complete Mining Corporations and Alliances that fleet huge mining operations will stop and the effect will be felt galaxy wide. -This means capital construction yards would no longer have materials to supply null sec wars, code would run out of miners to kill, and every corporation would lose billions in ISK because the best kind of [ORE] product is an Unsold [ORE] product.
-I invite you to the Fall 2016 Miner Strike(day Zero start). And watch as the economy collapses into turmoil.This is my vision. Spread the word. .JM #minerstrike2016 |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18017
|
Posted - 2016.08.27 07:54:05 -
[235] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
I'm sorry if the CFC could never manage that but try dropping on an active fleet in Provi you have about 45 seconds from when your cyno de-cloaks to the first responders showing up on grid. (something that will be made irrelevant with the rorqu changes
The CFC in Dek had by far the best response times and firepower, they could dump a supercap fleet on your head fast enough to save ratting ishtars. The problem with the mining fleets is that they are so squishy they even by the time the call for help has gone out half of the fleet is well on way to being dead. A single solo bomber will rip apart 4 of the 6 barges before help can arrive.
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: put your miners at the end of the pipe go run anoms further down and have the miners keep an eye on the probe scanner for potential WHs
what you want is akin to letting haulers hold there own against attackers
And what exactly is wrong with miners being responsible for their own defense? Everyone keeps on saying mining is boring, well no wonder if all they can do is chew on rocks or run away. |
TheSmokingHertog
Julia's Interstellar Trade Emperium
420
|
Posted - 2016.08.27 08:06:00 -
[236] - Quote
When do we get the Tech II Orca?
"Dogma is kind of like quantum physics, observing the dogma state will change it." ~ CCP Prism X
"Schrödinger's Missile. I dig it." ~ Makari Aeron
-= "Brain in a Box on Singularity" - April 2015 =-
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18017
|
Posted - 2016.08.27 08:06:33 -
[237] - Quote
Kenrailae wrote: You keep asking why we're choosing to be helpless. I'll answer you for the final time, then if you ask again, I'll have to re-assess my opinion of your reading comprehension: We are not helpless. We use the tools we have and protect our stuff. The exact same thing we've been telling 'Oh I got ganked nerf ganking threads' for years. That is the cost of business. We do not require ships that can do everything under the sun and in the ocean too. Ships like that will only become a future problem that we'll still be talking about in 3 years because now they can't be fit for max yield with all these 'useless' high slots and whatnot.
You want to fix the problem with mining?
Let's start by talking about the Bzzzzzzzzttttttttttttttt for hours on end.
You have no tools to use. Two of the ships have literally no fitting options. All miners are doing is whining for more and more nerfs to keep them safe rather than demanding the ability to keep themselves safe. These ships are bad and promote the very attitude you are showing which is one of complete disconnection to the rest of the game. You are not having to make choices that everyone else has to make when fitting your ships, you are not working together because the ships simply do not promote working together. You do not actively look to join groups outside of highsec because you think null and lowsec organisations look down on you and you are right they do, but that is because as miners you have no understanding of basic game mechanics simply because the mining barges don't allow for you to learn them.
In six months time we will bright right back here with a 4th attempt at a barge rebalance. |
TheSmokingHertog
Julia's Interstellar Trade Emperium
420
|
Posted - 2016.08.27 08:11:04 -
[238] - Quote
Pls look @ the Mastery pages of the Mining ships too, a lot of stuff in those tabs does not belong in them.
"Dogma is kind of like quantum physics, observing the dogma state will change it." ~ CCP Prism X
"Schrödinger's Missile. I dig it." ~ Makari Aeron
-= "Brain in a Box on Singularity" - April 2015 =-
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
2911
|
Posted - 2016.08.27 08:38:04 -
[239] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
I'm sorry if the CFC could never manage that but try dropping on an active fleet in Provi you have about 45 seconds from when your cyno de-cloaks to the first responders showing up on grid. (something that will be made irrelevant with the rorqu changes
The CFC in Dek had by far the best response times and firepower, they could dump a supercap fleet on your head fast enough to save ratting ishtars. The problem with the mining fleets is that they are so squishy they even by the time the call for help has gone out half of the fleet is well on way to being dead. A single solo bomber will rip apart 4 of the 6 barges before help can arrive.
even if that were true (it maybe if you are not using skiffs)
it will no longer be an issue once the rorqu changes hit
Citadel worm hole tax
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18017
|
Posted - 2016.08.27 08:53:29 -
[240] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
even if that were true (it maybe if you are not using skiffs)
it will no longer be an issue once the rorqu changes hit
It will in highsec, and every time you don't have a rorqual. These ships should not have to rely on a capital to actually work. |
|
Drago Shouna
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
556
|
Posted - 2016.08.27 08:56:07 -
[241] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Kenrailae wrote: You keep asking why we're choosing to be helpless. I'll answer you for the final time, then if you ask again, I'll have to re-assess my opinion of your reading comprehension: We are not helpless. We use the tools we have and protect our stuff. The exact same thing we've been telling 'Oh I got ganked nerf ganking threads' for years. That is the cost of business. We do not require ships that can do everything under the sun and in the ocean too. Ships like that will only become a future problem that we'll still be talking about in 3 years because now they can't be fit for max yield with all these 'useless' high slots and whatnot.
You want to fix the problem with mining?
Let's start by talking about the Bzzzzzzzzttttttttttttttt for hours on end.
You have no tools to use. Two of the ships have literally no fitting options. All miners are doing is whining for more and more nerfs to keep them safe rather than demanding the ability to keep themselves safe. These ships are bad and promote the very attitude you are showing which is one of complete disconnection to the rest of the game. You are not having to make choices that everyone else has to make when fitting your ships, you are not working together because the ships simply do not promote working together. You do not actively look to join groups outside of highsec because you think null and lowsec organisations look down on you and you are right they do, but that is because as miners you have no understanding of basic game mechanics simply because the mining barges don't allow for you to learn them. In six months time we will bright right back here with a 4th attempt at a barge rebalance.
Where's the whining threads from miners? Where's the demand for others to be nerfed? Where's the thread demanding more protection via more high slots?
You, by this very post presume all miners are in HS. I'm in Null......Along with a lot of others.
You also presume that all that miners do is mine, you couldn't be more wrong if you tried.
The last couple of days have been spent manufacturing Frigates, Destroyers and Industrials for the corp along with a bit of mining. Last night was spent in a defence fleet chasing a couple of annoying reds, and podding them.
Stop presuming you know about miners, you know nothing.
Solecist Project...." They refuse to play by the rules and laws of the game and use it as excuse ..."
" They don't care about how you play as long as they get to play how they want."
Welcome to EVE.
|
Kenrailae
The Scope Gallente Federation
610
|
Posted - 2016.08.27 08:56:47 -
[242] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:
You have no tools to use. Two of the ships have literally no fitting options. All miners are doing is whining for more and more nerfs to keep them safe rather than demanding the ability to keep themselves safe. These ships are bad and promote the very attitude you are showing which is one of complete disconnection to the rest of the game. You are not having to make choices that everyone else has to make when fitting your ships, you are not working together because the ships simply do not promote working together. You do not actively look to join groups outside of highsec because you think null and lowsec organisations look down on you and you are right they do, but that is because as miners you have no understanding of basic game mechanics simply because the mining barges don't allow for you to learn them.
In six months time we will bright right back here with a 4th attempt at a barge rebalance.
Tools that are in game:
Scythe Scimitar Basilisk Osprey Any frigate through battleship Command ships Orca's Haulers
To name a few.
Tools that get used: All of the above. Refusal to acknowledge the existence of a tool does not make the tool magically not exist.
You are also looking quite the fool by suggesting that the only thing people in this thread who are telling you your idea won't work because it doesn't address the actual problems only sit and mine all day, and not.... maybe have low/null PVP mains with industrial alts. Further, you're devaluing your own understanding of the game by sitting on that pedestal and saying you understand it so much better than everyone else, a guy who has said that he can't be bothered to sit and do mining, or be part of the defense of mining because he has other things to do with his time, and because it's too boring and too do nothing for him to do it. Miners still go at it and enjoy it because they either socialize or just enjoy that slow paced game play. Who is better qualified to speak on the subject of mining?
baltec1 wrote:Are you willing to sit in a belt earning nothing for several hours with nothing to do? I know I'm not, I have limited time to play and spending it baby sitting miners rather than enjoying myself isn't good gameplay. At least this way the people mining can do the protecting at the same time.
Pg 13, Barge info thread in General discussion
Mining ships are at their best when working together, in a fleet, with other ships. Nearly everything about them is designed to work as a fleet, though yes a couple have provisions for solo work as well. But like everything in Eve, they can be used solo or together. A PVP fleet doesn't just pick one ship class and yolo around, because it does not work. A mining fleet also does not work when using just one ship class.
You also keep going on with this 'but people aren't doing anything' argument. Well.... that's what mining is. Sitting for hours doing nothing or next to. Occasionally locking an asteroid, and moving a pile of ore. Far and away it's a sit and do nothing activity. Both PVP and mining fleets also are subject to downtime. The difference is a PVP fleet either spends it sitting in station, on a titan or sov wanding doing nothing while waiting, where a mining fleet spends it in a belt between rat spawns, ganks and orca empty's.
You suggest that not changing them will result in doing this again in 6 months, I'm telling you for fact that doing it your way will do the same, because the core problem will still exist, and miners will still choose 100% yield over every other feature, and your ships will not be able to meet that. You understand the common theme yeah? Mining mechanics.
Mining in Eve is a horrid mechanic. You want to fix this problem? Then we need to push a complete redo for mining, not these continuous, 'Oh well it didn't work this way, let's try doing the same thing this way and see if it works!' There are pages of them buried in F and I.
But as a self proclaimed individual who can't be bothered with mining because the game play is so bad, I'm not sure you're qualified to continue speaking on the subject of what exactly mining needs, as you're trying to force a PVP'ers mindset on it. You want to keep talking about the mechanics of mining? Okay. But please stop suggesting you know what mining barges need. You do not.
EDIT: Dammit Drago, stop stealing my words!
The Law is a point of View
The NPE IS a big deal
|
Pesadel0
the muppets Spartan Republic
124
|
Posted - 2016.08.27 09:10:08 -
[243] - Quote
I agree with baltec , make them harder do kill and able to kill stuff. I do love the skiff usually 10 of them with their drones bonus can deal with small stuff and rapes frigs . |
Kenrailae
The Scope Gallente Federation
610
|
Posted - 2016.08.27 09:14:32 -
[244] - Quote
Pesadel0 wrote:I agree with baltec , make them harder do kill and able to kill stuff. I do love the skiff usually 10 of them with their drones bonus can deal with small stuff and rapes frigs .
So you would fit remote shield transfers and smartbombs to your mining barges?
Or do you just want more shield HP/resists and drone bonuses?
The Law is a point of View
The NPE IS a big deal
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18017
|
Posted - 2016.08.27 09:16:53 -
[245] - Quote
Drago Shouna wrote:
Where's the whining threads from miners? Where's the demand for others to be nerfed?
Every week somewhere on these forums someone makes a nerf ganking thread or turns another thread into one.
Drago Shouna wrote: You, by this very post presume all miners are in HS. I'm in Null......Along with a lot of others.
You also presume that all that miners do is mine, you couldn't be more wrong if you tried.
The last couple of days have been spent manufacturing Frigates, Destroyers and Industrials for the corp along with a bit of mining. Last night was spent in a defence fleet chasing a couple of annoying reds, and podding them.
Stop presuming you know about miners, you know nothing.
We have had 10 years of more or less the exact same posts from miners bitching about how boring it is while at the same time demanding ever more CCP provided safety. Miners have garnered a reputation as the most useless players in EVE. I say alter the bargers so not only are they all useful but can also defend themselves. Your response? No don't give us options!
Right now you are calling for miners to be left in their current ****** position while someone from the corp that brought about the mining interdictions is trying to help them with better fitting options, ability to defend themselves and provide more content. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
2912
|
Posted - 2016.08.27 11:27:17 -
[246] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
even if that were true (it maybe if you are not using skiffs)
it will no longer be an issue once the rorqu changes hit
It will in highsec, and every time you don't have a rorqual. These ships should not have to rely on a capital to actually work.
if you can't tank to last 26seconds in HS you failed or were outnumbered between RR on the haulers and fitting a command ship with shield links it's not hard to pull off.
in low and null skiffs and procs can last more than long enough now for a response fleet to show up.
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Splatacus
Cordata Enterprises
5
|
Posted - 2016.08.27 12:07:43 -
[247] - Quote
Yossarian Toralen wrote:What is the intended outcome that will come from this change?
Yes, I was wondering about this as well, what exactly is the problem being addressed?
|
Mark O'Helm
Fam. Zimin von Reizgenschwendt
218
|
Posted - 2016.08.27 12:26:50 -
[248] - Quote
Splatacus wrote:Yossarian Toralen wrote:What is the intended outcome that will come from this change?
Yes, I was wondering about this as well, what exactly is the problem being addressed? My guess: to make the barges easier to compare and so make your decision, wich one to fly easier.
"Frauenversteher wissen, was Frauen wollen.
Aber Frauen wollen keine Frauenversteher.
Weil Frauenversteher wissen, was Frauen wollen." (Ein Single)
"Wirklich coolen Leuten ist es egal, ob sie cool sind." (Einer, dem es egal ist)
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
2912
|
Posted - 2016.08.27 12:28:36 -
[249] - Quote
Splatacus wrote:Yossarian Toralen wrote:What is the intended outcome that will come from this change?
Yes, I was wondering about this as well, what exactly is the problem being addressed?
its just a small balance pass. i think the largest goal is to make it easier for a new player to pick the right one (hence all have 2 lasers now)
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Kalido Raddi
Echelon Research The Volition Cult
31
|
Posted - 2016.08.27 14:09:02 -
[250] - Quote
Drago Shouna wrote:Your quote about the Mack is pure rubbish, there's a reason it's top of the list.
You presume everyone has 4/5/6/7 accounts, whatever, not everyone has a full blown fleet. For solo guys in HS the Mack makes perfect sense, even for someone with 2 accounts it makes sense.
To base your post around everyone having 4 accounts is just wrong. Trust me, if you mined in Null, your Hulks would be docking. You put a DST on grid in null? Look at the guy in this thread who did that...boom. Hell, you'd be better off with a Miasmos to haul the ore back.
Yeah, there's a reason why the Mackinaw is top of the list; AFK miners in HighSec.
And yeah, pretty much everyone does have multiple accounts. They Plex themselves several times over if you're doing it right.
I mine in Null. I only dock for Reds - and everybody does that. And yes, I put a DST on grid in Null. Why the hell not? |
|
Mai Khumm
172.0.0.1
840
|
Posted - 2016.08.27 14:10:01 -
[251] - Quote
TheSmokingHertog wrote:When do we get the Tech II Orca? Never... Whatever you do with a T2 Orca, it's already available with another ship!
Im expecting the Orca to be nerfed into uselessness...they already made the Rorqual completely useless! |
Mai Khumm
172.0.0.1
840
|
Posted - 2016.08.27 14:34:08 -
[252] - Quote
Kenrailae wrote:Pesadel0 wrote:I agree with baltec , make them harder do kill and able to kill stuff. I do love the skiff usually 10 of them with their drones bonus can deal with small stuff and rapes frigs . So do you mean being able to fit remote shield transfers and smartbombs to your mining barges? Or do you just want more shield HP/resists and drone bonuses? EDIT What do you mean, make them harder to kill and able to kill stuff? worded poorly Apply the Drone Bonus of the Proc/Skiff across the line of barges.
Even out the EHP of the ships, currently I can (with some creative fitting) get a Skiff to around 120k EHP overheated and implants. Apply the same tank fit to Hulk, you have 21k...ish EHP. This is using T2 fitting, Genolution 1-4, and +4 CPU (I think it's the CPU implant...at work, can't exactly pull up my client ATM.)
Just enough EHP to survive a gank in a 0.5 of 2-3 cats, and the drone damage to discourage the non-dedicated groups! |
Kenrailae
The Scope Gallente Federation
614
|
Posted - 2016.08.27 15:13:51 -
[253] - Quote
Mai Khumm wrote:Kenrailae wrote:Pesadel0 wrote:I agree with baltec , make them harder do kill and able to kill stuff. I do love the skiff usually 10 of them with their drones bonus can deal with small stuff and rapes frigs . So do you mean being able to fit remote shield transfers and smartbombs to your mining barges? Or do you just want more shield HP/resists and drone bonuses? EDIT What do you mean, make them harder to kill and able to kill stuff? worded poorly Apply the Drone Bonus of the Proc/Skiff across the line of barges. Even out the EHP of the ships, currently I can (with some creative fitting) get a Skiff to around 120k EHP overheated and implants. Apply the same tank fit to Hulk, you have 21k...ish EHP. This is using T2 fitting, Genolution 1-4, and +4 CPU (I think it's the CPU implant...at work, can't exactly pull up my client ATM.) Just enough EHP to survive a gank in a 0.5 of 2-3 cats, and the drone damage to discourage the non-dedicated groups!
So more tank, more drones/drone damage, and don't mess with max yield.....?
The Law is a point of View
The NPE IS a big deal
|
Mai Khumm
172.0.0.1
840
|
Posted - 2016.08.27 15:35:01 -
[254] - Quote
Kenrailae wrote:So more tank, more drones/drone damage, and don't mess with max yield.....?
Let's be honest here...minus LP and drops, everything comes from a rock ripped out by a mining lazer. If you **** with those numbers, you kinda **** the economy...
Increase yield, market crashes...decrease yield, market inflates. |
Henricks
9
|
Posted - 2016.08.27 16:14:41 -
[255] - Quote
Bottom line is, CCP is nerfing the Hulks by 626m3, dose not sound like much, by look at It this way:
lets say it's time for you're corp to mine, at this time you're Hulk get 1412x3 that 4236 for each Hulk,
Now lets look at CCPs new Idea of the Hulk: 1805*2=3610-4236=626
626(less ore)x20(Miners)=15,520 less from the corp fleet of miners. Which would you like to mine with 3610 or 4236 per Hulk.
my two sense |
Lugh Crow-Slave
2913
|
Posted - 2016.08.27 17:08:03 -
[256] - Quote
Henricks wrote:Bottom line is, CCP is nerfing the Hulks by 626m3, dose not sound like much, by look at It this way:
lets say it's time for you're corp to mine, at this time you're Hulk get 1412x3 that 4236 for each Hulk,
Now lets look at CCPs new Idea of the Hulk: 1805*2=3610-4236=626
626(less ore)x20(Miners)=15,520 less from the corp fleet of miners. Which would you like to mine with 3610 or 4236 per Hulk.
my two sense
either way the market will adjust
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Drago Shouna
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
556
|
Posted - 2016.08.27 17:08:33 -
[257] - Quote
Kalido Raddi wrote:Drago Shouna wrote:Your quote about the Mack is pure rubbish, there's a reason it's top of the list.
You presume everyone has 4/5/6/7 accounts, whatever, not everyone has a full blown fleet. For solo guys in HS the Mack makes perfect sense, even for someone with 2 accounts it makes sense.
To base your post around everyone having 4 accounts is just wrong. Trust me, if you mined in Null, your Hulks would be docking. You put a DST on grid in null? Look at the guy in this thread who did that...boom. Hell, you'd be better off with a Miasmos to haul the ore back.
Yeah, there's a reason why the Mackinaw is top of the list; AFK miners in HighSec. And yeah, pretty much everyone does have multiple accounts. They Plex themselves several times over if you're doing it right. I mine in Null. I only dock for Reds - and everybody does that. And yes, I put a DST on grid in Null. Why the hell not?
I mine in null too, but I do it because I enjoy it, never done it to plex...that just makes it a job, you see I can do what I want, when I want instead of worrying about the next batch of plex I need to get, practically forcing you to log on. I have 3 accs, I just sub them with cash. BTW, with the changes coming your plex just got a touch harder as you need to mine for that much longer.
The Mack might well be used semi afk in HS, so what, I used mine the other day in Null keeping an eye on local and the intel channels.
As for the DST, yeah it's your ship use it as you see fit, I'll continue to use one that's 200x cheaper and can hold more..63k m3.(a touch more using the cargo hold)
Solecist Project...." They refuse to play by the rules and laws of the game and use it as excuse ..."
" They don't care about how you play as long as they get to play how they want."
Welcome to EVE.
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
2913
|
Posted - 2016.08.27 17:14:10 -
[258] - Quote
Drago Shouna wrote:As for the DST, yeah it's your ship use it as you see fit, I'll continue to use one that's 200x cheaper and can hold more..63k m3.(a touch more using the cargo hold)
... did you just imply that a dst could not hold more than 63k
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Brokk Witgenstein
Extreme Agony The Wraithguard.
665
|
Posted - 2016.08.27 17:42:27 -
[259] - Quote
If it's not failfit he's right, no? Or did you have a bigger DST than the rest of us? |
Lugh Crow-Slave
2913
|
Posted - 2016.08.27 17:45:47 -
[260] - Quote
Brokk Witgenstein wrote:If it's not failfit he's right, no? Or did you have a bigger DST than the rest of us?
... you mean like a bastard naked that gets 67.5k now i may not of graduated the 5th grade but i'm pretty sure 67>63
Citadel worm hole tax
|
|
Brokk Witgenstein
Extreme Agony The Wraithguard.
665
|
Posted - 2016.08.27 18:17:10 -
[261] - Quote
Oh. I thought you meant something substantial. Carry on pls. |
Drago Shouna
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
557
|
Posted - 2016.08.27 18:20:31 -
[262] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Brokk Witgenstein wrote:If it's not failfit he's right, no? Or did you have a bigger DST than the rest of us? ... you mean like a bustard naked that gets 67.5k now i may not of graduated the 5th grade but i'm pretty sure 67>63 the smallest one unfit gets 65.6k
Uniwiki :)
Only checked the Occator as well.
The Fleet Hangar size is increased by the Transport Ships skill to 62,500 m-¦ (at level 5). And yeah, with the cargo hold it holds more. Still costs 200x more though.
Solecist Project...." They refuse to play by the rules and laws of the game and use it as excuse ..."
" They don't care about how you play as long as they get to play how they want."
Welcome to EVE.
|
Kalido Raddi
Echelon Research The Volition Cult
32
|
Posted - 2016.08.27 18:35:35 -
[263] - Quote
The Bustard is both capable of carrying more Ore, capable of tanking anom rats all the way down to -1.0, has the fitting to run remote shield reps to keep your Hulks on grid even if they are being beaten on by the aforementioned rats, and has a Fleet Hangar that you can set access to in order to permit your Hulks to dump Ore directly into the DST.
It's definitely superior to the Miasmos in every way... well, except cost. But if I've got 3 250mil+ Hulks on grid, what's against having a DST of similar value there? |
Edward Perry
Signs of Life
21
|
Posted - 2016.08.27 21:19:02 -
[264] - Quote
Not a fan, from my perspective you just shuffled around the numbers seems like a lot of work for no gain.
I agree with some of the other comments, you need to add some PVP defence or abilities to the mining barges and exhumers.
I loose ships in WH because my opponents cloak (outside of descan range) warp to the anomalies and pop a bubble. The ships are dead before anyone can react. They have no hope to warp off fast enough, they have no speed to get outside a bubble and defense is crap even the skiff can't take on multiple ships with its drones.
They are just death traps, the only saving grace is that I can mine and replace them.
But still these ships are not PVP how about giving them what they need to avoid it too (or at least a way of a good pilot to escape or go undetects)
Like if your close enough to a roid you're not detectable on dscan ,
How about Roids block you on LOS on the overview. If you can't see them then they don't show up on the overview.
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
2913
|
Posted - 2016.08.27 23:52:29 -
[265] - Quote
Lol why the hell are you mining in a WH after the moved the sites from sigs to anoms? THAT is what needs to be fixed before that you had all you needed as an atentive pilot to make it out
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
3548
|
Posted - 2016.08.28 01:05:16 -
[266] - Quote
Kalido Raddi wrote: Yeah, there's a reason why the Mackinaw is top of the list; AFK miners in HighSec.
And yeah, pretty much everyone does have multiple accounts. They Plex themselves several times over if you're doing it right.
Totally false. The average number of accounts per player is approx 1.5. Figures released by CCP directly, this is not infered or any sort of guesswork. Given there are people out there with 10 cyno alts or 272 SP Extractor alts, this actually means that 80-90% of players must have only a single account. (Yes the 80-90% is inferred, now please reveal how many alts you have and therefore how many solo account players are needed to offset you to create the 1.5 figure before complaining about it.)
And AFK mining in highsec simply doesn't exist. The only place AFK mining can exist is null/WH's, because it's the only place with large enough ore rocks to actually go afk. Glancing away from screen for 5-10 seconds is not AFK. It's what everyone does.
As for Lugh. Seriously 'LOL you mine in a WH' is your argument. Go back to kindergarten and learn how to behave. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
2913
|
Posted - 2016.08.28 01:15:45 -
[267] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote: As for Lugh. Seriously 'LOL you mine in a WH' is your argument. Go back to kindergarten and learn how to behave.
... my argument was that the ore anoms need to be put back into sigs (at the very least in WH)
you seem to ommited a key word WHY do you mine in a WH
the ore is worse than null and the risk is much higher. you are far better off finding a close null hole and mining there than mining in a WH site where you have 0 warning if a hostile until they have uncloaked in scram range
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Khan Wrenth
Ore Oppression Prevention and Salvation
659
|
Posted - 2016.08.28 01:42:38 -
[268] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Lol why the hell are you mining in a WH after the moved the sites from sigs to anoms? THAT is what needs to be fixed before that you had all you needed as an atentive pilot to make it out That sounds like a really good idea!
When CCP changed mining sites to anoms, didn't they reason it was because miners shouldn't have to skill probing and appropriate frigates to get access to ores? Well, if you're in a wormhole, you're probing already!
If CCP changed *just* wormhole-space ore sites to sigs to require scanning, that would be an amazing change to make wormholes a little more different than k-space. Miners there would theoretically have a bit more of a heads-up, and give different incentives to mining in womholes verses null.
Let's discuss overhauling the way we get intel in EvE.
|
Scuzzy Logic
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
154
|
Posted - 2016.08.28 02:03:12 -
[269] - Quote
Could we FINALLY get a gas mining hull?
Also, it seems as though the Tank / Capacity / Yield specialization has made the Hulk a bit left behind.
Also, am I the only one irked that we STILL don't have a way to use all 3 ''hardpoints'' on the Venture hull?
At least give the Endurance a visual update to hide the redundant 2 slots.
Also, on a purely personal standpoint, I actually liked the Skiff's single beam... |
Lugh Crow-Slave
2913
|
Posted - 2016.08.28 02:19:27 -
[270] - Quote
Scuzzy Logic wrote:Could we FINALLY get a gas mining hull?
Also, am I the only one irked that we STILL don't have a way to use all 3 ''hardpoints'' on the Venture hull?
At least give the Endurance a visual update to hide the redundant 2 slots.
Also, on a purely personal standpoint, I actually liked the Skiff's single beam...
you mean like the venture and prospect?
that third spot is for the probe launcher
why should the endurance get that treatment no other t2 ship does
the duel beam opens up so many more options
Khan Wrenth wrote: If CCP changed *just* wormhole-space ore sites to sigs to require scanning, that would be an amazing change to make wormholes a little more different than k-space. Miners there would theoretically have a bit more of a heads-up, and give different incentives to mining in womholes verses null.
we have been asking for this since the move to anom was announced all the way back then. mining ore in wh used to have a good mix of risk reward. sure you were not going to find 5-10% ores and you had no local but you could find all types of ore in large quantities and still had D-scan.
hell i would even let them keep ore anoms if they also added ore sigs if they reeaaaly want ore anoms in wh
Citadel worm hole tax
|
|
Scuzzy Logic
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
154
|
Posted - 2016.08.28 02:45:46 -
[271] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Scuzzy Logic wrote:Could we FINALLY get a gas mining hull?
Also, am I the only one irked that we STILL don't have a way to use all 3 ''hardpoints'' on the Venture hull?
At least give the Endurance a visual update to hide the redundant 2 slots.
Also, on a purely personal standpoint, I actually liked the Skiff's single beam... you mean like the venture and prospect? that third spot is for the probe launcher why should the endurance get that treatment no other t2 ship does the duel beam opens up so many more options
The probe launcher doesn't have a model, Jimbo.
Quote: treatment no other t2 ship does
What is the Onyx?
Also, how is homogenizing a 1/2/3 beam model to 2 across the board ''opening options''?
In the case of the Endurance, it's even more flagrant than the Prospect: the cloak and the probe launcher leaves only a single beam on the rack just looking lonely.
Honestly, I'm still not over the fact you train Gas Cloud Harvesting V only to never actually use more than 2 of them at a time... Also, the fact that they both have so much more inside room than barges bigger than them just hurts my head.
Finally, if they would take the 10 minutes in 3DS Max to squish and extend the Venture model's rack, would it kill CCP to make a third variant with a 5-long rack and 5 hardpoints for all our gas huffing needs?
-EDIT-
Now that I think about it, the Prospect could use some shifting of one of its slots to a high so we don't have to refit to use both of its hardpoints, a cloak and a bonused probe launcher.
The Endurance should have a high moved elsewhere, to give it, err, Endurance? Since it only needs one for the cloak and 1 for its lonely ice beam. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
3549
|
Posted - 2016.08.28 04:47:53 -
[272] - Quote
Khan Wrenth wrote: That sounds like a really good idea!
When CCP changed mining sites to anoms, didn't they reason it was because miners shouldn't have to skill probing and appropriate frigates to get access to ores? Well, if you're in a wormhole, you're probing already!
If CCP changed *just* wormhole-space ore sites to sigs to require scanning, that would be an amazing change to make wormholes a little more different than k-space. Miners there would theoretically have a bit more of a heads-up, and give different incentives to mining in womholes verses null.
No, they changed it because mining barges DON'T HAVE UTILITY SLOTS. Oh hey look, like mentioned earlier that's another reason to give them real fittings so they can actually fit things like that. So that you 'could' (Not that I think it's a good move actually to turn all the anoms to sigs, because Sigs are too easy to warp to safety from to your citadel which can't be easily bubble camped as soon as you see combat probes, but that's a different story) have mining sigs without miners having to undock, probe, save bookmark, redock, change vessels, mine, and then delete bookmark afterwards. |
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine In Tea We Trust
1479
|
Posted - 2016.08.28 05:02:03 -
[273] - Quote
And there was me thinking that only having one beam to look after was one of the advantages of the procurer/skiff. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
2913
|
Posted - 2016.08.28 05:43:15 -
[274] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Khan Wrenth wrote: That sounds like a really good idea!
When CCP changed mining sites to anoms, didn't they reason it was because miners shouldn't have to skill probing and appropriate frigates to get access to ores? Well, if you're in a wormhole, you're probing already!
If CCP changed *just* wormhole-space ore sites to sigs to require scanning, that would be an amazing change to make wormholes a little more different than k-space. Miners there would theoretically have a bit more of a heads-up, and give different incentives to mining in womholes verses null.
No, they changed it because mining barges DON'T HAVE UTILITY SLOTS. Oh hey look, like mentioned earlier that's another reason to give them real fittings so they can actually fit things like that. So that you 'could' (Not that I think it's a good move actually to turn all the anoms to sigs, because Sigs are too easy to warp to safety from to your citadel which can't be easily bubble camped as soon as you see combat probes, but that's a different story) have mining sigs without miners having to undock, probe, save bookmark, redock, change vessels, mine, and then delete bookmark afterwards.
you never lived in a wh did you....
its much more team oriented back when they were sigs the miners a lot of the time were not the ones scanning them down they would be scanned down and BMed by ppl looking for holes/relic/data sites. they also were not all that safe as most skilled pilots in a fast ship could still probe you down and warp to you in the time it took you to see the probes align and warp. The difference was you had a chance if you were faster you could get out. now with them at anoms the only chance you have is if they entered from a WH in range of the site de-cloaked and re-cloaked in the same tick you scanned. Otherwise they warp to the anom cloaked at range asses the situation, warp out, warp back and you only know they are there once you are scrammed
also news flash if you really wanted to prob in your barge you could just do what ventures do and use a mobile depo rather than all your warping back and forth
Citadel worm hole tax
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18026
|
Posted - 2016.08.28 08:10:33 -
[275] - Quote
Khan Wrenth wrote: When CCP changed mining sites to anoms, didn't they reason it was because miners shouldn't have to skill probing and appropriate frigates to get access to ores? Well, if you're in a wormhole, you're probing already!
If only there was a barge that could fit one in a utility high.
See this is the problem I keep on going on about. Miners have by far the most simplified and dumbed down gameplay in EVE. Even their ships come pre fitted with little to no options. The ships are the core of the problem, if we fix them so that they each have a role to play and are able to stand their ground vs a similar sized gang of cruisers then CCP can change up mining itself. They can bring about ore sites that need to be probed down, ice sites such as comets that need to be probed down, give the rorqual the ability to bridge mining vessels so mining fleets could roam around looking for these sites.
I simply do not understand why some of you here are so dead set against miners being able to defend themselves and having actual fun content. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
2915
|
Posted - 2016.08.28 09:21:14 -
[276] - Quote
... whats wrong with the venture/prospect/endurance utility highs? or a mobile depot
Citadel worm hole tax
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18026
|
Posted - 2016.08.28 09:54:32 -
[277] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:... whats wrong with the venture/prospect/endurance utility highs? or a mobile depot
If its good for them why is it not good for the mack? |
Lando Tarsadan
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
24
|
Posted - 2016.08.28 10:08:43 -
[278] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Khan Wrenth wrote: When CCP changed mining sites to anoms, didn't they reason it was because miners shouldn't have to skill probing and appropriate frigates to get access to ores? Well, if you're in a wormhole, you're probing already!
If only there was a barge that could fit one in a utility high. See this is the problem I keep on going on about. Miners have by far the most simplified and dumbed down gameplay in EVE. Even their ships come pre fitted with little to no options. The ships are the core of the problem, if we fix them so that they each have a role to play and are able to stand their ground vs a similar sized gang of cruisers then CCP can change up mining itself. They can bring about ore sites that need to be probed down, ice sites such as comets that need to be probed down, give the rorqual the ability to bridge mining vessels so mining fleets could roam around looking for these sites. I simply do not understand why some of you here are so dead set against miners being able to defend themselves and having actual fun content.
The utility on the endurance is one of the reasons I'm considering using it from time to time. I loose out on the yield big time but if in places where the chances of getting jumped is high then it is nice to use em.
I would actually love the barges to be something else than just about a copy fit from everyone whom takes mining just a little serious. The frigs do give that option. why did ore change their mind with the barges ? |
Lugh Crow-Slave
2915
|
Posted - 2016.08.28 10:27:42 -
[279] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:... whats wrong with the venture/prospect/endurance utility highs? or a mobile depot If its good for them why is it not good for the mack?
cov ops frigs get a probe bonus why not blops and recons?
Citadel worm hole tax
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18026
|
Posted - 2016.08.28 10:51:38 -
[280] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:baltec1 wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:... whats wrong with the venture/prospect/endurance utility highs? or a mobile depot If its good for them why is it not good for the mack? cov ops frigs get a probe bonus why not blops and recons?
Problem with your argument is all of those ships have the CPU, PG and slots to fit a wide range of fitting on them. Once again I point out you are arguing for very poor ships for miners. |
|
Sofi Starlight
Drekar Inferno DRONE WALKERS
0
|
Posted - 2016.08.28 11:48:54 -
[281] - Quote
Kalido Raddi wrote:I think you've overdone it on the reduction to the Hulk's CPU. I understand you want to make the fit "tight", but you've actually made it impossible.
Also, could you please implement a reduction in Mining Crystal damage for the Hulk?
I completely agree, The Hulk is the tightest fit if this comes in to effect, its just silly. Making the Hulk difficult to fit only hurts regions that need the paper deference is required.
Fix this, give miners some GOOOOD leeway they are NOT all pro pvp fitters. Don't missunderstand im not saying its a PvP ship. Im saying ppl cant even fit for Defending against ratts for a short while.
[Hulk, Minimum T2 Hulk] *Lowslot Mining Laser Upgrade II Mining Laser Upgrade II Mining Laser Upgrade II
*Midslot Small Shield Booster II Medium Shield Extender II EM Ward Amplifier II Sensor Booster II
*Highslot Modulated Strip Miner II Modulated Strip Miner II
*Rigs Medium Mercoxit Mining Crystal Optimization I Medium Anti-Thermal Screen Reinforcer I
*Drones Hobgoblin II x5 Mining Drone II x5
A T2 Yeald optimised hulk that can hold on a moment from rats. while the defending fleet DEFEND! Super Officer fit is expensive & difficult to come by for mining ships taken in to Acount local: Market / Industry / Moons / None Ore Nullsec = No-Missions items. |
Khan Wrenth
Ore Oppression Prevention and Salvation
661
|
Posted - 2016.08.28 12:12:25 -
[282] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:... whats wrong with the venture/prospect/endurance utility highs? or a mobile depot Speaking strictly on the theme of wormhole sig mining, what's wrong with re-shipping? We're talking about very adventurous people living out in nowhere, banded together to survive some of the harshest conditions EvE has to offer. I *think* they'd bring a few extra ships somehow.
Besides, every time I hear about wormhole corps discussed on the forums here, the common thread (har har, a PUN!) discussed is that when you're in a wormhole corp, it is *every* pilot's responsibility to do at least some probing. Also, probing skills aren't that difficult to attain, right? Handful of skills to level 3 (should be enough to scan a sig, right?), preferred racial frigate to 3. Is that really so much of a burden? I don't have time to math and map out a thing for a newbie character, but we're talking about 2 days of training time or thereabouts, right?
Let's discuss overhauling the way we get intel in EvE.
|
Rock Jezebel
The Scope Gallente Federation
3
|
Posted - 2016.08.28 12:16:47 -
[283] - Quote
So I recently reactivated and may be a little out of touch with the game, but these changes seems like a wash. The hulk comes out a little ahead because of the extra low slot and possibly extra capacitor from only having 2 lasers, while the skiff capacitor gets hurt a little bit by having an extra laser to power. I don't see either of these changes making a huge splash because which ship you fly is more determined by where you mine and how much you want to micromanage you fleet.
I do want to make sure my information is correct, so I'm going to lay out what I think I know about mining ships in eve as they currently stand:
Venture - Good for newer players, good at gas with good skills. Gets outclassed by barges, but cheap and easy to replace.
Prospect - Good for wormhole gas sites after rats are cleared, but lack of anti-rat drones holds it back from widespread use.
Endurance - This is a blank for me, don't really know.
Covetor - fairly useless. Too easy to gank in high and the window for use in null is minimal because of poor tank.
Procurer - Good high sec choice because it's unlikely to get ganked. Works for newer miners in null before they max out skills to kill and tank rats.
Retriever - Decent high sec choice because of large ore hold, but poor tank. Meh in null because of poor tank.
Skiff - Decent in high sec because of large tank. Easy to step into null because of easy tanking and good drone damage.
Mack - Average in high sec because it's easy to gank. With good skills can be good in null because it has enough tank for rats and large hold.
Hulk - bad in high sec because of terrible buffer tank. Can excel in null, but requires excellent skills and a fleet designed to accommodate it (dedicated haulers, enormous freight containers in site, etc). Requires active tank and some expensive mods to stand up to null rats, and requires a lot of micromanaging to keep the ore hold empty.
Are these still accurate? |
Lugh Crow-Slave
2915
|
Posted - 2016.08.28 12:23:33 -
[284] - Quote
Khan Wrenth wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:... whats wrong with the venture/prospect/endurance utility highs? or a mobile depot Speaking strictly on the theme of wormhole sig mining, what's wrong with re-shipping? We're talking about very adventurous people living out in nowhere, banded together to survive some of the harshest conditions EvE has to offer. I *think* they'd bring a few extra ships somehow. Besides, every time I hear about wormhole corps discussed on the forums here, the common thread (har har, a PUN!) discussed is that when you're in a wormhole corp, it is *every* pilot's responsibility to do at least some probing. Also, probing skills aren't that difficult to attain, right? Handful of skills to level 3 (should be enough to scan a sig, right?), preferred racial frigate to 3. Is that really so much of a burden? I don't have time to math and map out a thing for a newbie character, but we're talking about 2 days of training time or thereabouts, right?
Aye but the guy I was talking to could not stand the idea he may have to reship so I was showing alternatives
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Khan Wrenth
Ore Oppression Prevention and Salvation
661
|
Posted - 2016.08.28 12:37:17 -
[285] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Aye but the guy I was talking to could not stand the idea he may have to reship so I was showing alternatives Duly noted.
Let's discuss overhauling the way we get intel in EvE.
|
Ded Akara
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2016.08.28 13:27:02 -
[286] - Quote
So do these changes mean skiff yield isn't reduced after all? Dev said skiff yield stays same.
But according to that barge thread in general discussion this worked out to be a yield nerf for skiff. |
Drago Shouna
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
559
|
Posted - 2016.08.28 13:39:31 -
[287] - Quote
Ded Akara wrote:So do these changes mean skiff yield isn't reduced after all? Dev said skiff yield stays same.
But according to that barge thread in general discussion this worked out to be a yield nerf for skiff.
It's a yield nerf for both the Skiff and Hulk at least, I haven't checked the others.
Solecist Project...." They refuse to play by the rules and laws of the game and use it as excuse ..."
" They don't care about how you play as long as they get to play how they want."
Welcome to EVE.
|
Ded Akara
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2016.08.28 14:07:55 -
[288] - Quote
Drago Shouna wrote:Ded Akara wrote:So do these changes mean skiff yield isn't reduced after all? Dev said skiff yield stays same.
But according to that barge thread in general discussion this worked out to be a yield nerf for skiff. It's a yield nerf for both the Skiff and Hulk at least, I haven't checked the others.
I'm confused because the dev wrote in the OP
'The overall mining yields of the Procurer, Skiff, Retriever, and Mackinaw remain unchanged after this pass. The Covetor and Hulk will gain a lowslot which allows some new options and the potential of greater yield (although fittings will be appropriately tight when using three MLUs).'
How much of a yield nerf is it to ice mining for the skiff? From what i can see mackinkaw and skiff will have identical cycle times now due to same bonuses to mining and same harvester slots. |
Drago Shouna
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
559
|
Posted - 2016.08.28 14:15:36 -
[289] - Quote
Ded Akara wrote:Drago Shouna wrote:Ded Akara wrote:So do these changes mean skiff yield isn't reduced after all? Dev said skiff yield stays same.
But according to that barge thread in general discussion this worked out to be a yield nerf for skiff. It's a yield nerf for both the Skiff and Hulk at least, I haven't checked the others. I'm confused because the dev wrote in the OP 'The overall mining yields of the Procurer, Skiff, Retriever, and Mackinaw remain unchanged after this pass. The Covetor and Hulk will gain a lowslot which allows some new options and the potential of greater yield (although fittings will be appropriately tight when using three MLUs).'How much of a yield nerf is it to ice mining for the skiff? From what i can see mackinkaw and skiff will have identical cycle times now due to same bonuses to mining and same harvester slots.
To the skiff its around a 45s nerf to a full load due to having an uneven number to fill it. On the new skiff it needs 91s for the 15th block.
I said earlier in the thread that it's probably going to be better to warp to station/pos whatever after the 14th.
Solecist Project...." They refuse to play by the rules and laws of the game and use it as excuse ..."
" They don't care about how you play as long as they get to play how they want."
Welcome to EVE.
|
Ben Ishikela
78
|
Posted - 2016.08.28 23:51:52 -
[290] - Quote
What happened to moving asteroids and tracking?
Ideas are like Seeds. I'd chop fullgrown trees to start a fire.
|
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
2915
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 01:38:06 -
[291] - Quote
Ben Ishikela wrote:What happened to moving asteroids and tracking?
... this is just a small balance pas....
i'm assuming ccp wanted to make them easier to understand by making it so each had the same number of miners
everything else is just things they touched on quickly while they were at it
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Albert Spear
Non scholae sed vitae
73
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 02:18:52 -
[292] - Quote
In a word - "BORING"
2 mining lasers (ice harvesters) per ship - so what. Small number of slots to fit with
It will come down to 1 or 2 fits for players who don't have max skills and 1 or 2 fits for players with max skills (and for a few who are dedicated and have implants - 1 or 2 more fits).
Mining is already boring, now most of the variation (not that there was a huge amount) is gone.
go plinking for small 'roads - a hulk let you plink 3 go after larger roads and with competition - why a skiff was your friend, sucking the juice right out in a hurry, before your competition could.
Now I can dump all but 1 or 2 barges and be happy - no thinking required on fits or the best type of vessel to bring, because they will all be pretty much the same. Solo mining - skiff or mac, fleet mining skiff, safe mining - mac, ice harvesting - mac, dangerous mining - skiff.
Everything else is a waste of isk to own now.
Nice - less choice, less diversity, fewer decisions.
Again in a word "BORING"
...NEXT...
Oh and the art work is also "BORING"...sorry I don't like it. Nothing at all industrial or sexy about the new ships, nothing about the animations that makes me think "gee these could really exist someday"
Want to get me excited?
1,2,3, and 4 usable high slots for mining lasers - all bonuses for volume on the lasers (yes the ore laser and T2 ore lasers should be better than regular)
modules for tracking, lock on, laser power (e.g. range), crystal damage, etc. for the mid-slots
An all drone ship that can use Heavy mining drones and has the drone bay to carry 10 of them - 1 set in use and 1 set spare, heavy mining drones are specialized beasts - you want to mine veld, you buy the right drone.
Open up the slot counts to cruiser numbers and dump many of the tank bonuses, you want a tankie ship, fit it that way. You want maximum yield - likewise fit it that way.
Create a module to make 'better/longer lasting' jet cans - but you have to fit the module to get them - you trade off for one or the other
You want off D-Scan - trade one of your high slots for a stealth module that is not quiet cloaking - it lets you mine and move while off of D-scan but shows you on the grid if they come on grid.
Then give me tug that can round up jet cans and mining cans and tow them into a POS/station whatever.
Based on the number of high slots - give me very different mass/velocity/flight characteristics - that I can modify with fitting the ship.
Sorry Fonzie - this is the worst re-balancing ever, because it takes choice and brains out of fitting. |
Khan Wrenth
Ore Oppression Prevention and Salvation
661
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 03:32:28 -
[293] - Quote
This isn't a rebalancing. It's a handful of tweaks. The players are discussing potential mining overhauls while the topic is, well, topical.
It's like the Proteus tweak from a bit ago. It wasn't a T3C rebalance, it was a quick tweak to make it closer to what they wanted, while the full overhaul/rebalance is slated to come later. Soon*TM
Let's discuss overhauling the way we get intel in EvE.
|
Drago Shouna
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
559
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 07:05:40 -
[294] - Quote
Sofi Starlight wrote:Kalido Raddi wrote:I think you've overdone it on the reduction to the Hulk's CPU. I understand you want to make the fit "tight", but you've actually made it impossible.
Also, could you please implement a reduction in Mining Crystal damage for the Hulk? I completely agree, The Hulk is the tightest fit if this comes in to effect, its just silly. Making the Hulk difficult to fit only hurts regions that need the paper deference is required. Fix this, give miners some GOOOOD leeway they are NOT all pro pvp fitters. Don't missunderstand im not saying its a PvP ship. Im saying ppl cant even fit for Defending against ratts for a short while. [Hulk, Minimum T2 Hulk] *Lowslot Mining Laser Upgrade II Mining Laser Upgrade II Mining Laser Upgrade II *Midslot Small Shield Booster II Medium Shield Extender II EM Ward Amplifier II Sensor Booster II *Highslot Modulated Strip Miner II Modulated Strip Miner II *Rigs Medium Mercoxit Mining Crystal Optimization I Medium Anti-Thermal Screen Reinforcer I *Drones Hobgoblin II x5 Mining Drone II x5 A T2 Yeald optimised hulk that can hold on a moment from rats. while the defending fleet DEFEND! Super Officer fit is expensive & difficult to come by for mining ships taken in to Acount local: Market / Industry / Moons / None Ore Nullsec = No-Missions items.
Where's the survey scanner, and why have you got a sebo fitted to a mining ship?
Anyone mining without a scanner is just crazy. Whole cycles wasted on rocks with only a couple of m3 left? No thanks.
Solecist Project...." They refuse to play by the rules and laws of the game and use it as excuse ..."
" They don't care about how you play as long as they get to play how they want."
Welcome to EVE.
|
TheVirus32
Trois Etoiles The Volition Cult
14
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 07:27:36 -
[295] - Quote
Wow... Is this a joke?...
When the game is about to receive some tweaks there's always a corpmate or two on teamspeak ranting because it's taking the game in a direction they don't like... But there's always a very real purpose to the patch...
INTRODUCING THE PATCH THAT PATCHES NOTHING! \o/
If you wanted a visual rework then do just that, a visual rework... Who asked you to tweak stuff just so that we can have better-looking barges? If I pay for a paintjob on a car I don't expect the mechanic to tweak my engine and remove a tire "cuz it matches zee kolor" o_O ...
Even in the upcoming updates page you had your webmaster write that the barges would become more efficient, please define "more efficient". Because unless you're expecting the new skins to be such works of art that people will be glued to their screen mining while pondering on the meaning of life I don't see ONE bit of improvement.
I'm a nullsec ratter ("le nullbear in hiz natural environment") so I couldn't care less about the impact on the game of a few visual tweaks (hint: they ammount to zero), but knowing that dev money goes into such convoluted BS when there are so many things in this game that are in dire need of some dev'love has a tendancy to make me one pretty unhappy customer...
It's almost as if you didn't even try to pretend that you care anymore at this point CCP +¦_o... Even communication-wise, you've become as talkative as a sedated pineapple... |
Sylphy
TSOE Po1ice TSOE Consortium
93
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 07:32:14 -
[296] - Quote
Drago Shouna wrote:Where's the survey scanner, and why have you got a sebo fitted to a mining ship?
Anyone mining without a scanner is just crazy. Whole cycles wasted on rocks with only a couple of m3 left? No thanks.
Not everyone mines in high-sec where asteroid sizes are 20 cycles or less in size.
The character does not represent the views/opinions of its Corporation or Alliance.
|
Chopper Rollins
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1521
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 07:54:31 -
[297] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:Thread full of angry miners, honestly who's shocked. lol what do you know about mining?
AAAAAnd we're back, cosmetic changes are really good, keeping the roles is better, tank, yield rate and capacity. Some of the whines about cpu/grid sound justified, but seem to stem from the nerfs to afk mining which i am deadset all for.
Goggles. Making me look good. Making you look good.
|
Drago Shouna
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
559
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 08:51:36 -
[298] - Quote
Sylphy wrote:Drago Shouna wrote:Where's the survey scanner, and why have you got a sebo fitted to a mining ship?
Anyone mining without a scanner is just crazy. Whole cycles wasted on rocks with only a couple of m3 left? No thanks. Not everyone mines in high-sec where asteroid sizes are 20 cycles or less in size. And I'm logging onto the test server later to see the difference. To see how deep whatever team that thought this up has deep-sixed us again. Stop making your dellusions of grandeur a reality. It's really not helping the game.
I'm not in HS...But mining without a scanner is still stupid...
Solecist Project...." They refuse to play by the rules and laws of the game and use it as excuse ..."
" They don't care about how you play as long as they get to play how they want."
Welcome to EVE.
|
Abadayos
Yulai RnD
17
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 13:17:00 -
[299] - Quote
Drago Shouna wrote:Sylphy wrote:Drago Shouna wrote:Where's the survey scanner, and why have you got a sebo fitted to a mining ship?
Anyone mining without a scanner is just crazy. Whole cycles wasted on rocks with only a couple of m3 left? No thanks. Not everyone mines in high-sec where asteroid sizes are 20 cycles or less in size. And I'm logging onto the test server later to see the difference. To see how deep whatever team that thought this up has deep-sixed us again. Stop making your dellusions of grandeur a reality. It's really not helping the game. I'm not in HS...But mining without a scanner is still stupid...
I've been mining in null for the better part of 14 months and only once had a scanner on my ship, and that was at the start when I didn't know the rough size of the rocks. Now I just spread out my miners on different rocks. The 'lost cycles' don't really matter that much as it's only a 93 second cycle time. Sure you loose 'isk per hour' but when your in null, that loss is made up with triple BS spawns you kill or just taken as the cost of doing business with 7+ miners, you expect some inefficiency for being human.
I would rather the tank on my ships so that I don't need to worry about triple 1.8 mill BS spawns or annoying solo hunters. Loss of efficiency vs loss of a ship + potentially pod is a good trade IMO.
|
HandelsPharmi
Pharmi on CharBazaar
1819
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 13:28:45 -
[300] - Quote
A Ore Strip Miner costs around 150M ISK. Fitting one to a Skiff is maybe the risk worth. But fitting two is a little bit insane.
Are you planning to reduce the prices for the modules? Maybe half them? |
|
Caleb Seremshur
Black Scorpions Inc Infensus
840
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 16:56:33 -
[301] - Quote
HandelsPharmi wrote:A Ore Strip Miner costs around 150M ISK. Fitting one to a Skiff is maybe the risk worth. But fitting two is a little bit insane.
Are you planning to reduce the prices for the modules? Maybe half them?
Come on man seriously how many people run these things, and of those that do, how many die? It's no secret that there are huge botting networks running miners 24/7... you think that as soon as you enter local these things don't just run away to their safe? |
Scuzzy Logic
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
155
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 18:46:04 -
[302] - Quote
Indirectly related, but can we get the tentative specs on the Porpoise now that we're getting a new mining hull?
https://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/command-bursts/
Quote: Porpoise (NEW)
Can fit two Command Burst modules
+1% bonus to Mining Foreman Burst Strength and Duration per skill level
|
Regan Rotineque
The Scope Gallente Federation
419
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 19:57:48 -
[303] - Quote
Okay here we go :)
Likes: 1 - New Art - cool 2 - New Skins - cool variety is the spice of life 3 - 2 Strips - cool
Dislikes: 1 - New Skins - why do they all have to be so dark? I mean I LOVE the changed ORE Developement one but the rest are all too darkish. When can i get my all white orca? or my bright red skiff ?
2 - Ore lasers and strippers - why can't these be better than t2 ? or at least have crystal options ? maybe a set of ORE mining crystals ?
3 - Please make the Proc/Skiff class have an even number ore hold so that your not wasting a strip now.
Would like to have seen:
1 - ore cargo expanders and or ore cargo rigs - you could balance the overall ore holds downwards and then provide a new fitting so people can make choices. Some may make their mack even larger and forgo a tank....which for gankers is gravy.
2 - Rainbow crystals :) we have colors for the laser beams lets bring them to the mining profession - i want my rainbow fleet. (adjusts pink feather boa)
3 - More faction ORE type fittings - ORE faction MLU's , ORE mining Crystals etc... and have ORE stations in high sec so people can actually get and use these types of things.
That's it for now :)
Cheers ~R~
|
Ria Nieyli
45937
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 02:27:59 -
[304] - Quote
And now I'm wondering what range of FW plexes the Procurer can fit into, because of reasons. Med/large?
"slang" is shortened language for "shortened language"
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
17928
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 08:28:24 -
[305] - Quote
Ria Nieyli wrote:And now I'm wondering what range of FW plexes the Procurer can fit into, because of reasons. Med/large?
Barges are medium hulls.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
|
Abadayos
Yulai RnD
17
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 11:42:04 -
[306] - Quote
Yes we can, in the next dev blog as was stated in the dev blog you linked |
HandelsPharmi
Pharmi on CharBazaar
1819
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 12:08:45 -
[307] - Quote
T2 fitted Rorqual = +102,38 % range / -43,88 cycle time or volatility T2 fitted Orca = +75.47 % / -32,34 % cycle time or volatility |
Anthar Thebess
1625
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 12:22:26 -
[308] - Quote
Make all ORE miners use much, much less cap per activation, like 1/4th of the current value. This will make them unique - and desired.
Free Rorqual ore and ship bay - allow all ships, and all cargo. It will be still worst than JF or carrier, but will offer new possibilities, including to reship all miners to PVP ship - as rorqual will be sitting on the belt.
Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists
Show your support to The Cause!
|
Sylphy
TSOE Po1ice TSOE Consortium
95
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 13:18:22 -
[309] - Quote
Anthar Thebess wrote:like mining supercarriers.
My mining titan agrees.
The character does not represent the views/opinions of its Corporation or Alliance.
|
Avon Salinder
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
13
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 13:57:53 -
[310] - Quote
I like these improvements in general, but I feel a little differently about the popularity of the various ships at this time. The procurer & skiff are really tough (120k HP from a skiff!) but the others are sorely lacking in survivability in any security level of space. My suggestion is to adjust the numbers a little more as noted below, chasing the "balance dragon" as it were:
Procurer: -3000 structure hit points (armour and shield are plenty at this point, contrasts with the retriever's bonus) Mining Barge Bonuses (per level): 2% reduced strip miner & ice harvester duration 10% bonus to drone hitpoints, damage & mining yield * Moved the role bonus to a per level bonus and added mining drone yield bonus to make up a little for its 2 low slot layout).
Retriever: 20000 ore hold (flat amount, bringing it down a bit to make the other ships in class a bit more attractive) +1500 structure hit points (along with the hull bonus, provides extra toughness in a way that makes a damage control much more interesting) +1 mid slot (and a tiny bit of cpu, enough to mount a survey scanner and a small extender perhaps) Mining Barge Bonuses (per level): 2% reduced strip miner & ice harvester duration +10% structure hitpoints (tougher, balance with less ore capacity in a way that makes you consider a DC over a mining upgrade)
Covetor +1000 ore hold (nice even number for ice mining with two harvesters) +1000 shield hit points (it's just too wafer thin at this point, plus yield is slightly less on covetor) +1 mid slot (and a tiny bit of cpu, enough to mount a survey scanner and a small extender perhaps) Mining Barge Bonuses (per level): 5% reduced strip miner & ice harvester duration and capacitor use(folded role bonus into here, overall a bit less yield for covetor but more with the hulk, overall same end result. +10% agility per level (it survives by getting the hell out of there, builds on current better than average agility).
Skiff: -3000 structure hit points Exhumer bonuses (per level): 2% reduced strip miner & ice harvester duration 5% bonus to ship shield hitpoints Role Bonus: 20% bonus to all shield resistances (Similar to what you did with the heavy dictors).
Mackinaw: 20000 ore hold +2000 structure hit points Exhumer bonuses (per level): 2% reduced strip miner & ice harvester duration 10% ore hold capacity (overall a bit less than current, balanced with extra toughness) Role Bonus: 20% bonus to all shield resistances
Hulk: +2000 ore hold (10000m3 is more manageable than 8, can almost consider this a soloable ship) +1500 shield hit points Exhumer bonuses (per level): 5% reduced strip miner & ice harvester duration (total amount is same as current) 5% bonus to strip miner and ice harvester range (more useful on exhumer than barge) Role Bonus: 20% bonus to all shield resistances
Food for thought :) |
|
Dor Cadmon
New Artisian and Mercenary Association
2
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 15:39:25 -
[311] - Quote
This is not meant to be a doom and gloom statement but of fact.
Since you made the minng barge changes and now these rorq nerf changes miners in my community have already started unsubbing.
No one who comes from the current mining community is going to like the new on grid rorq.
And my piece of feed back on the skiff I saw on test server was why does it look so dark and dirty? And why does it have exhaust coming out of it like its venting into an atmosphere.
CCP do you play test the mining or just assume you know what its all about because its starring at rocks?
You may gain new subs out of this change but this will be the straw that breaks the camel's back for a lot us.
Also have you ever heard of the idea if its not broke dont fix it? I have not seen any valid reason to update the miners other than you had it on your plate to do so.
this is irritating a lot of people! |
Nikos Stromboli
Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 20:59:27 -
[312] - Quote
As an Ice Harvesting Skiff pilot, my biggest problem is the odd ore bay the Skiff will have, despite having an even number of lasers. This means either I'll either have to leave the belt without being full, or suffer a halved mining rate for the last cycle.
The Skiff ore bay should be increased to 16k to compensate. |
Kenrailae
The Scope Gallente Federation
617
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 21:39:08 -
[313] - Quote
Nikos Stromboli wrote:As an Ice Harvesting Skiff pilot, my biggest problem is the odd ore bay the Skiff will have, despite having an even number of lasers. This means either I'll either have to leave the belt without being full, or suffer a halved mining rate for the last cycle.
The Skiff ore bay should be increased to 16k to compensate.
That actually seems like a valid complaint, in terms of things to complain about with this excuse of a 'patch'
The Law is a point of View
The NPE IS a big deal
|
Ria Nieyli
45942
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 23:23:12 -
[314] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Ria Nieyli wrote:And now I'm wondering what range of FW plexes the Procurer can fit into, because of reasons. Med/large? Barges are medium hulls.
I should have expected it. With the current state of FW, could be useful in some cases.
"slang" is shortened language for "shortened language"
|
Kalido Raddi
Echelon Research The Volition Cult
34
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 05:11:11 -
[315] - Quote
Nikos Stromboli wrote:As an Ice Harvesting Skiff pilot, my biggest problem is the odd ore bay the Skiff will have, despite having an even number of lasers. This means either I'll either have to leave the belt without being full, or suffer a halved mining rate for the last cycle.
The Skiff ore bay should be increased to 16k to compensate.
Frankly, when I use a Skiff for Ice (quite frequent), I usually jetcan. But this is a valid point, and it's not an unreasonable solution. |
Avon Salinder
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
13
|
Posted - 2016.09.01 06:14:33 -
[316] - Quote
Just to put barge/exhumer usage into a better frame of reference, when you group them by role (resilience, yield & capacity) you get a better idea of how they're being used:
Retriever/Mackinaw: 45% Hulk/Covetor: 28% Skiff/Procurer: 22%
Capacity is the clear winner here. |
RiotRick
Alpha Republic - Transcenders of Space and Time Solyaris Chtonium
17
|
Posted - 2016.09.01 06:21:07 -
[317] - Quote
All these changes make sense except procurers having no capability to fit a cyno. This is truly a game breaking experience for certain groups. Procurers and battle barges should continue to be a viable playable experience.
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey folks! As we first mentioned at Fanfest this year, we have a visual revamp in the works for Mining Barges and Exhumers (along with many other ships) to continue improving EVE's amazing visuals. This pass on the barges allowed the art team to fulfill a long-standing request from the game design team. Way back in 2012 when CCP Tallest implemented the big tiericide of mining barges the three branches of barges were changed to have similar mining yields and specific specializations (defenses, storage capacity and range/yield). At that time Tallest added role bonuses to the Procurer, Skiff, Retriever, and Mackinaw to bring their effective strip miner count into the same general range. He also asked the art team to make a note that next time the Barges and Exhumers were up for a regularly scheduled visual refresh they should be unified at the same number of strip miner hardpoints. That day has now come! To compliment the art rework we are completing a light pass on the stats and bonuses of these ships and of the strip miner modules themselves. The balance between the mining ships is in a fairly healthy state right now so we're not making any drastic changes to the relative strengths of the different barges and exhumers. For a bit of insight into the current usage of the top 7 mining ships, here's the breakdown of mining yield by volume (last 90 days including ore, ice, and gas): - Retriever: 23%
- Mackinaw: 22%
- Hulk: 21%
- Skiff: 14%
- Procurer: 8%
- Covetor: 7%
- Venture: 4%
- Other: 1%
Unsurprisingly the Retriever and Mackinaw are still on top (unchanged from the last time we presented these stats) due to the very high value placed on ore bay capacity among a solid chunk of miners. However we don't feel any need to reduce the power of Retrievers and Mackinaws, as their popularity isn't out of control and other alternatives have their own well-balanced strengths. The overall mining yields of the Procurer, Skiff, Retriever, and Mackinaw remain unchanged after this pass. The Covetor and Hulk will gain a lowslot which allows some new options and the potential of greater yield (although fittings will be appropriately tight when using three MLUs).As part of this change we are increasing the yield of all barge-sized strip miners and ice harvesters, which cancels out the changes to hardpoints and bonuses on the Barges and Exhumers. We are also providing a moderate buff to the ORE Strip Miners and ORE Ice Harvesters. The module changes in full are: - All Non-ORE Strip Miners: +25% volume mined per cycle
- ORE Strip Miner: +30% volume mined per cycle, -10 CPU
- All Ice Harvesters: -20% cycle time, -20% capacitor use
- ORE Ice Harvester: -16 CPU
And the ship changes: Procurer:Removal of strip miner yield and ice harvester cycle time role bonuses +1 highslot +7 PWG +55 CPU Skiff:Removal of strip miner yield and ice harvester cycle time role bonuses +1 highslot +8 PWG +60 CPU Retriever:Removal of strip miner yield and ice harvester cycle time role bonuses Mackinaw:Removal of strip miner yield and ice harvester cycle time role bonuses Covetor:Changed skill bonus for the skill Mining Barge: 2% (was 4%) reduction in strip miner and ice harvester duration per level New role bonus: 25% reduction in strip miner and ice harvester duration and activation cost -1 highslot +1 lowslot -5 PWG -15 CPU Hulk:Changed skill bonus for the skill Mining Barge: 2% (was 4%) reduction in strip miner and ice harvester duration per level New role bonus: 25% reduction in strip miner and ice harvester duration and activation cost -1 highslot +1 lowslot -5 PWG -40 CPU We're very interested in your feedback and welcome you to try out the new stats (and new ship models) on SISI. Thanks!
|
Brokk Witgenstein
Extreme Agony
684
|
Posted - 2016.09.01 07:38:28 -
[318] - Quote
Where did you read you can't fit a cyno? It's even getting 55CPU extra for that web and longpoint, and the second high allows for a neut/nos? |
Asa Takamoto
Alpha Republic - Transcenders of Space and Time Solyaris Chtonium
0
|
Posted - 2016.09.01 08:35:09 -
[319] - Quote
Brokk Witgenstein wrote:Where did you read you can't fit a cyno? It's even getting 55CPU extra for that web and longpoint, and the second high allows for a neut/nos?
We used SiSi. It gives you a error message saying "you can't fit a cynosural field generator I to procurer".
Also CCP gotta be consequent either we're playing in the sandbox and there's no intended usage or it's not a sandbox and everything need to go intended use. I'm looking at you wormholers ;) |
Brokk Witgenstein
Extreme Agony
687
|
Posted - 2016.09.01 09:18:16 -
[320] - Quote
Yeah. Just saw the screenshot on reddit. This sucks balls man.
SAVE OUR CYNO! |
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
3556
|
Posted - 2016.09.01 09:40:35 -
[321] - Quote
Asa Takamoto wrote:
We used SiSi. It gives you a error message saying "you can't fit a cynosural field generator I to procurer".
Also CCP gotta be consequent either we're playing in the sandbox and there's no intended usage or it's not a sandbox and everything need to go intended use. I'm looking at you wormholers ;)
Are alpha clones on sisi also, and if so was that interfering. |
HandelsPharmi
Pharmi on CharBazaar
1819
|
Posted - 2016.09.01 10:15:46 -
[322] - Quote
Procurer = Mining Barge And as far as I have seen, it is NOT possible to fly one as Alpha. |
Penance Toralen
Compass Fox
7
|
Posted - 2016.09.01 13:00:06 -
[323] - Quote
Hello CCP Fozzie,
From testing on Sisi comparing into a triple MLU2 Covetor with MX-1005 implant and maxing skills.
- Strip Miner I; 1434m3 per 121.5 to 18km
- ORE Strip Miner; 1487m3 per 121.5 to 21km
- Mod. Strip MIner II + Arkonor Mining Crystal II; 1673 per 121.5 to 18km
I am not seeing a lot incentive to spend on module for a mere 53m3 gain per cycle. When the tech2 beats it hands down for yield. Most miners will not balk at skilling mining to L5, the requirement difference. Range has never been a primary attraction - how many pilots the Harvester Implant Set?
Also can something change about the MU series of implants. The net gain in testing the MU-1005 nets me 2 CPU from a triple MLU2. (trying to squeeze more fitting a hulk) It's about as handy as a hip-pocket on a sleeve. Maybe it is a left over from the grand days of mining Rokhs. |
Alexander Eisenhower
Fusion Enterprises Ltd Badfellas Inc.
39
|
Posted - 2016.09.01 13:33:40 -
[324] - Quote
Too bad they didn't all go to single beam. If I finish 1 bolder in a day I feel like I really did something. |
TheSmokingHertog
Julia's Interstellar Trade Emperium
422
|
Posted - 2016.09.01 16:51:33 -
[325] - Quote
Its nice we have a whopping 2 dev posts in here! (lets not forget the op)
"Dogma is kind of like quantum physics, observing the dogma state will change it." ~ CCP Prism X
"Schrödinger's Missile. I dig it." ~ Makari Aeron
-= "Brain in a Box on Singularity" - April 2015 =-
|
AL1CA
Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde
0
|
Posted - 2016.09.01 17:14:58 -
[326] - Quote
I like the graphics but like that each ship looked different from the others why did that have to change |
Sarafine
DNS Requiem Short Bus Syndicate
0
|
Posted - 2016.09.01 20:23:01 -
[327] - Quote
I only have one question.
Why are you "fixing" something that is not broken?
I can understand changing the look of the mining ships, Which honestly looked fine to begin with. But completely Raping the mining barges uniqueness and Versatility by changing their stats, fitting and role bonuses is absolute bull. This paired with the "great" new boosting mechanic makes me sick.
CCPlease don't do it. I understand you are trying to make the game "new and Shiny" to try to bring players in... But remember this the reason you have so many players leaving is because you keep changing the game to coddle the stupid and simpleminded. But don't worry its not like you guys have a good trackrecord of making good development choices or anything so I would not worry about it too much.
I hope you really consider what will happen to the game once you bring these changes into effect. Good job as always CCP, I hope this all works out for you.
PS. Just think when you have people who stop mining because the boosts become too expensive to maintain and the mining ships get raped, What will happen to the industrial side of eve... And what will happen to the price of ships and other player made commodities? If it is too costly to mine = no ore. no ore = no minerals. no minerals = no ships. no ships = people quitting. people quitting = less revenue for CCP.... Oh well. |
Brokk Witgenstein
Extreme Agony
699
|
Posted - 2016.09.01 21:43:42 -
[328] - Quote
Well, for one I would get a decent price for my ore because right now I simply can't compete to the influx of cheap AFK veldspar ;-) |
d0cTeR9
Serenity Cartel GoonSwarm
374
|
Posted - 2016.09.01 23:23:23 -
[329] - Quote
About time.
Been around since the beginning.
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
2964
|
Posted - 2016.09.02 06:30:00 -
[330] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Asa Takamoto wrote:
We used SiSi. It gives you a error message saying "you can't fit a cynosural field generator I to procurer".
Also CCP gotta be consequent either we're playing in the sandbox and there's no intended usage or it's not a sandbox and everything need to go intended use. I'm looking at you wormholers ;)
Are alpha clones on sisi also, and if so was that interfering.
I just went and looked and you can fit cynos to procs on sisi
hell if you want you can fit two
Citadel worm hole tax
|
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
2964
|
Posted - 2016.09.02 06:42:00 -
[331] - Quote
Sarafine wrote:
PS. Just think when you have people who stop mining because the boosts become too expensive to maintain and the mining ships get raped, What will happen to the industrial side of eve... And what will happen to the price of ships and other player made commodities? If it is too costly to mine = no ore. no ore = no minerals. no minerals = no ships. no ships = people quitting. people quitting = less revenue for CCP.... Oh well.
that's not how economics work
if the cost to produce goes up then the price of the goods goes up. When everything is dependent on minerals there is no ceiling to the cost so it will never be to costly to mine
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Rock Jezebel
The Scope Gallente Federation
4
|
Posted - 2016.09.03 03:06:49 -
[332] - Quote
Just another comment from a noob, but it would be nice if the mining laser cycle time was much lower. Active tank setups are sketch because of the large capacitor hit, even if the overall fit would be stable. |
Amarak Valerii
1
|
Posted - 2016.09.03 10:56:38 -
[333] - Quote
Not sure if posting in the right place, but: can you overhaul the graphic effects for the mining lasers.
the old effect seemed like the asteroids(dust clouds) were actually being dragged to you ship whereas the current ones can be best described by a line.
Think for yourself. Don't be sheep!
|
Ded Akara
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2016.09.03 14:48:54 -
[334] - Quote
I inspected the new exhumer changes on the test server.
So the mackinkaw no longer has a role bonus? It looks very odd. Hulk and Skiff both have the role bonus attribute and the mackinkaw does not, like it's out of place and missing something.
So,
Hulk gets extra mining range, extra addiitional mining yield from basic bonuses and 25% yield boost from role bonus.
Skiff gets shield HP and small yield bonus from basic bonuses and 50% drone damage/hp from role bonus. (not to mention BS level hitpoints).
Mackinaw gets ore hold capacity and small yield bonus from basic bonuses and NO ROLE BONUS.
This only highlights how much the Mackinkaw sucks. Hulk now mines 30% faster than the Mack whist the Skiff mines faster than the Mackinkaw because the Skiff is free to fit 3x harvester/mining upgrades and still able to fit a sick T2 tank and not worry about ganking. The mackinkaw can only achieve this yield the skiff has if the mackinkaw fits 3x harvester/mining upgrades, but to do this, the mackinkaw has virtually no CPU left to fit some tank to the mid slots. |
Rock Jezebel
The Scope Gallente Federation
4
|
Posted - 2016.09.04 20:43:10 -
[335] - Quote
Ded Akara wrote:I inspected the new exhumer changes on the test server.
So the mackinkaw no longer has a role bonus? It looks very odd. Hulk and Skiff both have the role bonus attribute and the mackinkaw does not, like it's out of place and missing something.
So,
Hulk gets extra mining range, extra addiitional mining yield from basic bonuses and 25% yield boost from role bonus.
Skiff gets shield HP and small yield bonus from basic bonuses and 50% drone damage/hp from role bonus. (not to mention BS level hitpoints).
Mackinaw gets ore hold capacity and small yield bonus from basic bonuses and NO ROLE BONUS.
This only highlights how much the Mackinkaw sucks. Hulk now mines 30% faster than the Mack whist the Skiff mines faster than the Mackinkaw because the Skiff is free to fit 3x harvester/mining upgrades and still able to fit a sick T2 tank and not worry about ganking. The mackinkaw can only achieve this yield the skiff has if the mackinkaw fits 3x harvester/mining upgrades, but to do this, the mackinkaw has virtually no CPU left to fit some tank to the mid slots.
The triple mining upgrade fit mackinkaw with a 3% cpu implant has only 51.9 cpu left with all mid slots empty. That's enough CPU to fit 1 T2 harder and leave the other 3 slots empty. It's not even enough CPU for 2 faction hardeners, still leaving 2 slots empty.
Meanwhile the triple mining upgrade fit skiff can fit a full T2 tank, using all of its midslots. When you consider the skiff also has 3 times more shield, armor and structure hitpoints than the Mackinkaw and is also able to fit a full tank on a yield fit you can see why the Skiff is the far superior ship. (imbalanced).
Solution? Well the obvious solution is to give the Mackinkaw a good CPU boost so it can actually use it's slots without having to fit a co-processor. Alternatively you can decrease the CPU on the Skiff. Or a bit of both.
As far as the role bonus goes, the mack doesn't need to spell it out because it's rolled into the stats of the ship. It would be silly to have a 22400 ore hold and a role bonus of +25% ore hold, just so people could count bonuses.
And the skiff isn't the superior ship, just the more versatile one. The mack is the better mining ship, and I'll point to the fact that it and it's T1 counterpart account for almost half the ore mining in the game. The ore hold really is that much of a bonus.
The ship that struggles to fit a tank is the hulk, and I am more interested in making it a better choice out of the 3 than making the most efficient miner even better. |
Ezra Endashi
LightningStrikesTwice Elemental Tide
13
|
Posted - 2016.09.04 22:07:43 -
[336] - Quote
It looks like I'll have to buy another Aoede Mining Laser Upgrade. And it's so damn expensive. CCP can you do anything about that price? |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
2670
|
Posted - 2016.09.05 01:02:04 -
[337] - Quote
Asa Takamoto wrote:Brokk Witgenstein wrote:Where did you read you can't fit a cyno? It's even getting 55CPU extra for that web and longpoint, and the second high allows for a neut/nos? We used SiSi. It gives you a error message saying "you can't fit a cynosural field generator I to procurer". Also CCP gotta be consequent either we're playing in the sandbox and there's no intended usage or it's not a sandbox and everything need to go intended use. I'm looking at you wormholers ;)
That really sucks.
CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.
|
Avon Salinder
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
13
|
Posted - 2016.09.05 07:14:16 -
[338] - Quote
Regan Rotineque wrote: 2 - Ore lasers and strippers - why can't these be better than t2 ? or at least have crystal options ? maybe a set of ORE mining crystals ? More faction ORE type fittings - ORE faction MLU's , ORE mining Crystals etc... ore cargo expanders and or ore cargo rigs. Have ORE stations in high sec so people can actually get and use these types of things.
I was just thinking today that ORE ore bay expanders would be a great addition too. Trade yield for ore capacity.
I suspect all of the above might be coming in november - remember, the september release is only to go with the new model designs, in a recent o7 show one of the devs mentioned 'new modules, new effects' etc as well, so more on the way.
|
Regan Rotineque
The Scope Gallente Federation
440
|
Posted - 2016.09.05 08:15:45 -
[339] - Quote
Avon Salinder wrote:Regan Rotineque wrote: 2 - Ore lasers and strippers - why can't these be better than t2 ? or at least have crystal options ? maybe a set of ORE mining crystals ? More faction ORE type fittings - ORE faction MLU's , ORE mining Crystals etc... ore cargo expanders and or ore cargo rigs. Have ORE stations in high sec so people can actually get and use these types of things.
I was just thinking today that ore bay expanders would be a great addition too. Trade yield for ore capacity. I suspect all of the above might be coming in november - remember, the september release is only to go with the new model designs, in a recent o7 show one of the devs mentioned 'new modules, new effects' etc as well, so more on the way.
One can hope
Would be nice to have a dev update inthis thread to confirm these are final changes for sept. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3005
|
Posted - 2016.09.05 09:03:02 -
[340] - Quote
Rock Jezebel wrote:Just another comment from a noob, but it would be nice if the mining laser cycle time was much lower. Active tank setups are sketch because of the large capacitor hit, even if the overall fit would be stable.
I don't think they are built to active tank not all ships are. Even if cap wasn't an issue if find most barges can get better survivability buffer/passive tanked
Citadel worm hole tax
|
|
Dominic Jacara
THE GOLDEN KNIGHTS Elemental Tide
6
|
Posted - 2016.09.05 09:05:12 -
[341] - Quote
I suspect that a lot of people will, like me, have fitted their Skiff for the single high slot for a mining laser and taken their power grid and CPU usage close to the max to fit the best combination of other modules for yield and tank. Even with the increase in powergrid and CPU proposed in this change I don't have enough capacity to use the extra high slot for a second mining laser. So I either have to ignore this change and carry on as before with an empty high slot, or try to find a change in the fit of everything else to accommodate an extra laser. Ah well, another session with EFT beckons. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3005
|
Posted - 2016.09.05 09:57:33 -
[342] - Quote
you will simply need to chose between max shield tank and max yield I see no issue with that choice for a proc/skiff the "best" combination will just be different now generally when i use them i do just go max tank with no mining upgrades at all
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Ded Akara
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
3
|
Posted - 2016.09.05 14:51:28 -
[343] - Quote
Rock Jezebel wrote:Ded Akara wrote:I inspected the new exhumer changes on the test server.
So the mackinkaw no longer has a role bonus? It looks very odd. Hulk and Skiff both have the role bonus attribute and the mackinkaw does not, like it's out of place and missing something.
So,
Hulk gets extra mining range, extra addiitional mining yield from basic bonuses and 25% yield boost from role bonus.
Skiff gets shield HP and small yield bonus from basic bonuses and 50% drone damage/hp from role bonus. (not to mention BS level hitpoints).
Mackinaw gets ore hold capacity and small yield bonus from basic bonuses and NO ROLE BONUS.
This only highlights how much the Mackinkaw sucks. Hulk now mines 30% faster than the Mack whist the Skiff mines faster than the Mackinkaw because the Skiff is free to fit 3x harvester/mining upgrades and still able to fit a sick T2 tank and not worry about ganking. The mackinkaw can only achieve this yield the skiff has if the mackinkaw fits 3x harvester/mining upgrades, but to do this, the mackinkaw has virtually no CPU left to fit some tank to the mid slots.
The triple mining upgrade fit mackinkaw with a 3% cpu implant has only 51.9 cpu left with all mid slots empty. That's enough CPU to fit 1 T2 harder and leave the other 3 slots empty. It's not even enough CPU for 2 faction hardeners, still leaving 2 slots empty.
Meanwhile the triple mining upgrade fit skiff can fit a full T2 tank, using all of its midslots. When you consider the skiff also has 3 times more shield, armor and structure hitpoints than the Mackinkaw and is also able to fit a full tank on a yield fit you can see why the Skiff is the far superior ship. (imbalanced).
Solution? Well the obvious solution is to give the Mackinkaw a good CPU boost so it can actually use it's slots without having to fit a co-processor. Alternatively you can decrease the CPU on the Skiff. Or a bit of both. As far as the role bonus goes, the mack doesn't need to spell it out because it's rolled into the stats of the ship. It would be silly to have a 22400 ore hold and a role bonus of +25% ore hold, just so people could count bonuses. And the skiff isn't the superior ship, just the more versatile one. The mack is the better mining ship, and I'll point to the fact that it and it's T1 counterpart account for almost half the ore mining in the game. The ore hold really is that much of a bonus. The ship that struggles to fit a tank is the hulk, and I am more interested in making it a better choice out of the 3 than making the most efficient miner even better.
If we're going to look at that way the skiff should lose it's drone damage role bonus too. Because the skiff has 3 times higher base HP than the mackinkaw and if the cargo hold of the mackinkaw is to be the role bonus of the mackinkaw, then the huge HP of the skiff should be the role bonus of the skiff. |
Penance Toralen
Compass Fox
9
|
Posted - 2016.09.05 23:06:11 -
[344] - Quote
Dominic Jacara wrote:I suspect that a lot of people will, like me, have fitted their Skiff for the single high slot for a mining laser and taken their power grid and CPU usage close to the max to fit the best combination of other modules for yield and tank. Even with the increase in powergrid and CPU proposed in this change I don't have enough capacity to use the extra high slot for a second mining laser. So I either have to ignore this change and carry on as before with an empty high slot, or try to find a change in the fit of everything else to accommodate an extra laser. Ah well, another session with EFT beckons.
I did not have any problem fitting two medium shield extenders, three tech2 invuls, two strips (stock, ORE and tech2) and triple MLU2 on Sisi. (Core Defence and Ice rig). Sorry, I do not recall the actual numbers - and with a grain of salt, my skills are maxed. (including mining upgrades to 5) |
Rock Jezebel
The Scope Gallente Federation
5
|
Posted - 2016.09.06 00:22:40 -
[345] - Quote
Ded Akara wrote:If we're going to look at that way the skiff should lose it's drone damage role bonus too. Because the skiff has 3 times higher base HP than the mackinkaw and if the cargo hold of the mackinkaw is to be the role bonus of the mackinkaw, then the huge HP of the skiff should be the role bonus of the skiff.
The metrics simply don't support your argument. The mack is boss because it has an ore hold that is 133% larger than 2nd place. I'm not going to defend the skiff having a drone bonus, I always thought that was odd, but asking for buffs to the most used exhumer because of a characteristic of the least used exhumer doesn't make sense. |
Rubber Maid
Alpha Republic - Transcenders of Space and Time Solyaris Chtonium
6
|
Posted - 2016.09.06 03:24:50 -
[346] - Quote
+1 for procurer buff! |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3014
|
Posted - 2016.09.06 11:51:12 -
[347] - Quote
Rock Jezebel wrote:Ded Akara wrote:If we're going to look at that way the skiff should lose it's drone damage role bonus too. Because the skiff has 3 times higher base HP than the mackinkaw and if the cargo hold of the mackinkaw is to be the role bonus of the mackinkaw, then the huge HP of the skiff should be the role bonus of the skiff. The metrics simply don't support your argument. The mack is boss because it has an ore hold that is 133% larger than 2nd place. I'm not going to defend the skiff having a drone bonus, I always thought that was odd, but asking for buffs to the most used exhumer because of a characteristic of the least used exhumer doesn't make sense.
why is the idea of the barge whos main selling point is self defense having a dps bonus odd?
Citadel worm hole tax
|
msb4u
Mine 'N' Refine Yulai Federation
0
|
Posted - 2016.09.06 22:19:07 -
[348] - Quote
From first day of putting mining barges and exhumers in game u'r ignoring time needed for training some ship and gave advantage of using low skills ships. How can u compare training time-yield of skiff, mackinaw, hulk skiff almost same as mackinaw, hulk can make barely more than mackinaw yield skiff +150% 1 laser +150% = same as 2,5 lasers mackinaw +25% 2 lasers +25% = same like 2,5 lasers more training same yield ?? hulk +0% 3 lasers +0% = stays 3 lasers
same % with barges
now u'll change them on 2 lasers for all, that's just dust in eyes instead to make players interested for long skilling with some better yield on top ship still nothing, not mentioning that top ship have lowest resist, now u'll even reduce cpu that much it won't be interesting at all why to skill for it, when u cant put somewhat resist on it if i want to use 3x MLU have to give up on all resist ?? are u crazy, no doubt,
YOU ARE
some smart ass off u'r will say, train skills on 5 let u know smartass, allready have all skills for hulk cpu, pwergrid, shield, armo, hull on lvl 5
WHEN YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO DON'T DO-CHANGE ANYTHING |
Gary Webb
The Walking Deads V. O. I. D.
24
|
Posted - 2016.09.07 01:24:57 -
[349] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:Thread full of angry miners, honestly who's shocked.
And I wonder just where you think all those big shiny titans and supers PL loves to throw around come from.... I've always wanted to meet the titan fairy.
2016 confirmed- Miners are titan faries. |
Penance Toralen
Compass Fox
9
|
Posted - 2016.09.07 02:57:27 -
[350] - Quote
msb4u wrote: skiff +150% 1 laser +150% = same as 2,5 lasers mackinaw +25% 2 lasers +25% = same like 2,5 lasers more training same yield ?? hulk +0% 3 lasers +0% = stays 3 lasers
I will start off by asking, did you actually bother to go into Sisi and try it for yourself?
It is just not only the hulls but also the Strips with receive a 25% increase.
So; 2 strips x 1.25 = 2.5 strips in yield. Which means you are not losing anything and do not require additional training.
The only difference I can point to is the Covetor/Hulk.
Current Time reduction:
4% per level, which takes 180 down to 144sec. Or 180 / 144 = 1.25 increase
3 strips x 1.25 = 3.75
The proposed changes are:
2% per level, which takes 180 down to 162sec. Or 180 / 162 = 1.111r increase
2 strips x 1.25 (flat hull bonus) x 1.25 (strip increase) x 1.111 = 3.472
The trade-off is supposed to be the additional low slot which allows for another MLU.
3.75 x 1.18 = 4.425 (using MLU2 at 1.09 each) 3.472 x 1.27 = 4.409
Achieving near parity with the pre-pass values. (anybody is welcome to de-bunk my short-hand maths). |
|
Al Nomadi
Morawins
13
|
Posted - 2016.09.07 14:55:58 -
[351] - Quote
I wonder if BPO for all 3 barges will stay the same. Now Procurer's BPO is much more cheapier, than covetor's one. Do you think it will be like that even after changes? |
Jalxan
Spoopy Newbies Brave Collective
38
|
Posted - 2016.09.07 19:16:45 -
[352] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Anoron Secheh wrote:What about changes to the Rorqual and Orca? Changes to the Rorqual and Orca are currently planned for November (rather than September for these mining barge changes). We'll be discussing those more as we get a bit closer.
Please please please please please don't change too much. It's currently an amazing ship. Buffing or nerfing things could seriously hurt the benefits the ship provides in a variety of roles.
The Rorqual, on the other hand, I don't have a lot of experience with, but if what I hear about it is true, then, yes, it deserves a rework. If the Rorqual could gain a lot of the Orca's versatility, while keeping the parts that allow it to condense ore, then it would likely suffer a lot less as a result. |
Avon Salinder
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
14
|
Posted - 2016.09.07 23:59:19 -
[353] - Quote
Orca speculation!
I think the orca will just get a few tweaks. I've flown one on and off since first release and I reckon it's one of the best non-combat ships in the game, so I doubt it'd be tweaked much. Having said that, people have asked for a 4th high slot so we could mount all three mining links as well as a tractor beam, but ccp said the capacitor reduction link wasn't worth using anyway (and wasn't used much as a result). With the new 'crystal damage reduction' link I think we'll finally see that 4th high slot.
The ore bay is bit small by today's standards too, so that might get boosted - possibly by replacing the cargo hold bonus with a 20% ore bay size increase per level. Pure conjecture of course.
With both rorqual and orca working on-grid, it'd be nice to have a little extra speed. They weren't originally designed to move around very fast, but now an extra 20m/s base speed would be helpful.
Finally, since the rorqual gets to be on grid with high-powered excavator drones, the orca might get a couple of those too. On current numbers in TQ 1 excavator would pull in 700m3 with max skills, and being regular, albeit very large drones (not fighters) they'll have a maximum of 5 at once so that'd be 3500m3 mined per minute. Pretty impressive! As they require 200tf to operate the rorqual would have to get 1000tf to fly a full set of these little monsters.
Orca *might* get the same treatment, but be limited to one or two of them. The side effect of this would be the ability to launch a full set of heavy drones too, which would give it a nice punch. But I guess we'll find out soon enough |
Regan Rotineque
The Scope Gallente Federation
442
|
Posted - 2016.09.08 06:07:40 -
[354] - Quote
Avon Salinder wrote:Orca speculation! I think the orca will just get a few tweaks. I've flown one on and off since first release and I reckon it's one of the best non-combat ships in the game, so I doubt it'd be tweaked much. Having said that, people have asked for a 4th high slot so we could mount all three mining links as well as a tractor beam, but ccp said the capacitor reduction link wasn't worth using anyway (and wasn't used much as a result). With the new 'crystal damage reduction' link I think we'll finally see that 4th high slot. The ore bay is bit small by today's standards too, so that might get boosted - possibly by replacing the cargo hold bonus with a 20% ore bay size increase per level. Pure conjecture of course. With both rorqual and orca working on-grid, it'd be nice to have a little extra speed. They weren't originally designed to move around very fast, but now an extra 20m/s base speed would be helpful. Finally, since the rorqual gets to be on grid with high-powered excavator drones, the orca might get a couple of those too. On current numbers in TQ 1 excavator would pull in 700m3 with max skills, and being regular, albeit very large drones (not fighters) they'll have a maximum of 5 at once so that'd be 3500m3 mined per minute. Pretty impressive! As they require 200tf to operate the rorqual would have to get 1000tf to fly a full set of these little monsters. Orca *might* get the same treatment, but be limited to one or two of them. The side effect of this would be the ability to launch a full set of heavy drones too, which would give it a nice punch. But I guess we'll find out soon enough
I am looking very forward to seeing what the orca changes will be. I hope CCP gives something to the them to deeply encourage them to be on grid in low/null. They wont have the panic button, but improvements to speed, align time and ore hold size would be greatly appreciated. |
Seth Sothel
Rubblebelt Raiders
0
|
Posted - 2016.09.08 14:41:37 -
[355] - Quote
My son came up with an interesting idea for the Rorqual. Ive seen tons of suggestions, some good, some terrible but here's his. Since CCP clearly would like to see the Rorqs out in the belts doing what they're designed for but no one wants to risk them, the idea is not to give the Rorq a big offense/defensive buff that would break it. Instead, make the aggressors think twice as to whether they actually want to RISK THEIR ships. Either by a Role Bonus or by a fitted module, give a bonus to its mining fleet that the exhumers can field an extra 5 drones each for defense. THis would only apply to combat drones so mining doesnt get broken. When a few ships roll onto a Rorq with 5 exhumers, it would make the challenge of facing 50 drones (plus the Rorqs). 5 might be too many, might drop it to maybe 3 but the idea is to have the gankers have to think twice about tackling the group. |
HandelsPharmi
Pharmi on CharBazaar
1820
|
Posted - 2016.09.08 15:08:30 -
[356] - Quote
Seth Sothel wrote:My son came up with an interesting idea for the Rorqual. Ive seen tons of suggestions, some good, some terrible but here's his. Since CCP clearly would like to see the Rorqs out in the belts doing what they're designed for but no one wants to risk them, the idea is not to give the Rorq a big offense/defensive buff that would break it. Instead, make the aggressors think twice as to whether they actually want to RISK THEIR ships. Either by a Role Bonus or by a fitted module, give a bonus to its mining fleet that the exhumers can field an extra 5 drones each for defense. THis would only apply to combat drones so mining doesnt get broken. When a few ships roll onto a Rorq with 5 exhumers, it would make the challenge of facing 50 drones (plus the Rorqs). 5 might be too many, might drop it to maybe 3 but the idea is to have the gankers have to think twice about tackling the group.
Three stealth bombers later, or even one single smartbomb-BS and a few seconds later all your drones are gone.
Neither the Exhumers nor the Rorqual have unlimited drone bays. |
Kalido Raddi
Echelon Research The Volition Cult
46
|
Posted - 2016.09.08 17:01:21 -
[357] - Quote
Also, plus Drones stopped being a thing a long time ago, for good reason. Add +20% damage, not +1 Drone. |
Abadayos
Yulai RnD
18
|
Posted - 2016.09.08 22:46:39 -
[358] - Quote
Any more news regarding these proposed changes? Are the numbers now set in stone and we are just waiting or are you guys changing some numbers around/testing some new idea?
We simply need more information |
Dieter Ottenbach
Ottenbach Industries LTD
0
|
Posted - 2016.09.09 04:15:33 -
[359] - Quote
Even if you can mine as much, in as much time, losing a turret on the Hulk just sucks in idea. Hell, why not finish it off and give it an undistinguished name too - like the "Rottweiler". That seems to compare adequately with the "Retriever" etc. It no longer seems to be "The Hulk" for some reason. Seems a bit neutered without 3 turrets . . . .
Taking stuff away that has been worked for/earned is bad PR too. I don't get what the goal is of trying to make all ships the same anyway. What does that achieve? But if it truly is about the number - having 2 vs 3 turrets - then they should just make all the ships have 3 hardpoints - instead of reducing the "Hulk". These ships were not setup at the beginning to be even in terms of cost or skill training to operate (if memory serves), so this is just odd, and feels like a demotion.
Besides, from another perspective, this kind of change just adds to the pile of "old" and "outdated" or "misleading" information piling up out there about strategies for playing Eve, - while in the end it seems trivial in terms of it's actual implications to the overall ecosystem.
But I'm just reiterating what others in the thread have said earlier in one form or another. And after-all, I'm just here for the pretty Nebulae and stimulating electro music, while eating cookies and drinking beer.........
Developing an aneurysm over losing a fictional turret on a fictional ship while mining a fictional asteroid is just not something I'm going to do. If, in the end, it seems like participation is a series of let downs, I think it would be time to let the subscription go and focus on accomplishing things in real life more.
Cheers, D.O. |
Rivka
Wind And Flame Stellar Eclipse
4
|
Posted - 2016.09.09 05:07:06 -
[360] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
The overall mining yields of the Procurer, Skiff, Retriever, and Mackinaw remain unchanged after this pass. The Covetor and Hulk will gain a lowslot which allows some new options and the potential of greater yield (although fittings will be appropriately tight when using three MLUs).
Could CCP please post a ranking of which ships will be better for what?
Which ships will have the best yields for : Ice Harvesting? Gas Harvesting? etc ... |
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3052
|
Posted - 2016.09.09 05:37:53 -
[361] - Quote
Rivka wrote:[quote=CCP Fozzie] Which ships will have the best yields for : Ice Harvesting? Gas Harvesting? etc ...
aaaand this person doesn't know what they are talking about
as for ice harvesting yield it will be the hulk
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Tsukino Stareine
Art Of Explosions 404 Hole Not Found
1783
|
Posted - 2016.09.09 05:52:14 -
[362] - Quote
Isn't that something you're meant to figure out yourself? |
MrB99
Astral Mining
0
|
Posted - 2016.09.09 09:23:53 -
[363] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: We're very interested in your feedback !
The Hulk, Mack, Covetor, and Retriever are expensive ships that are relatively high skill yet are largely useless in high sec mining because they can be predictably and trivially ganked by a single player with 2 low skill toons in cheap catalysts. The proposed changes do not offer any obvious restoration of balance and unpredictability in the game and that's actually more important to me than any of the tweaks of specs or slots that are proposed. The Procurer and Skiff are currently the only reasonable ships to fly in the current environment.
The changes favoring using ORE mining modules will put more ISK at risk and should have some way to protect the juicy potential killmail they represent to a commensurate degree.
Suicide ganking players are now upping their game starting to routinely fly 6-8 accounts which make ganking skiffs and procs trivial. The on-grid fleet boosting function changes (which make sense for adding interest to low and null sec PVP) demand that any ship providing mining bonuses also be put at risk into this gank-friendly and gank-predictable environment. Mining is supposed to be a viable gameplay and career path in High, Low, Null and W-space.
Some folks in the threads have proposed miners fly additional accounts with Logi. The experience of the people I've flown with has found that an ineffective defense strategy and that ECM has been the only viable defense and then only if you are paying super close attention and able to lock and activate in the short window between the start of the attack and CONCORD arrival. It's viability degrades as the solo or duo miner is attacked by a swarm of suicide ships.
There are plenty of changes that could restore balance. CCP can nerf the cat and thrasher, make them more expensive to build so the economics change (isk of purchasing gank config = isk of mining config), buff the mining ships, or change their specs so there are fitting options that can counter the multiboxing gankers. CONCORD has been dealing with gankers a couple years now, why haven't they gotten better at their job -- are all our taxes just buying coffee and donuts? NPC players pay more taxes than everyone else, CONCORD could be made more responsive when they're in distress rather than 100% predictable for gankers as they are today. There could be some mechanic that allows a miner to buy or earn "VIP status" with CONCORD adding improvement or unpredictability to CONCORD response time. Right now I don't see the proposed changes offering miners a viable set of counters that allow flying each of the mining ships in the current ganking-prevalent environment in high sec. That's worth a closer look. Everything in Eve is supposed to have a counter, right?
It would be sad to have no change to the current status quo of the ganker/miner dynamic in this iteration of changing all the mining ships.
--
OTHER TOPICS
--
Putting mining boosters on grid adds risk, and today it's a manual process for them to get paid for their contribution. It would be nice if there was a mechanic that could automate sharing the reward of a fleet's mining efforts so we could retire some of the manual accounting and out-of-band spreadsheets this requires today. Fleets have a way to do this for missions but not for mining. Online poker lets the house take a part of each round, an optionally-on setting could enable something similar to happen for each cycle you're boosted in a fleet.
It would also be nice to have a mechanic that supported ore buys in the belt which are also common but not supported by any game mechanic (something and as simple as an equivalent of the station trade button in a new public shared "trade" hold in selected ships would do this -- say the orca and transport ships).
--
MTUs are a problem in public fleets. They collect the owners and all fleet members cans, making jetcan mining not possible. The fleet boss has the unenviable job of arbitrating "you stole my can" arguments if anyone launches an MTU. It would be nice if the MTU could have a new mode that only collected the owners cans or a checkbox in the create-fleet options that optionally introduced this behavior.
--
Fozzie: It would also be nice in this iteration to have improvement in gameplay for day-trippers exporting ice from shattered wormholes. I hear they were your invention (love 'em!). It would be nice to have a way to do compression in the hole (can't take a rorq, or plant a POS or Citadel) or have a ship that has more cargo capacity than a Miasmos that can fit in and out of the exit. It would be nice to have a module that could add compression to ships, or a Mobile Depot like unit that could do ice and ore compression. I trip out to unload every 12 or 15 ice (or even every 60 ice) is very inefficient at clearing the shattered belts. It would be nice if that could be made better.
Thanks for listening. |
Ralend
The Brave Dojo Brave Collective
0
|
Posted - 2016.09.09 11:33:13 -
[364] - Quote
You think you could make the Procurer and Skiff a little less better at mining and a bit more better at combat? Proc Fleets in nullsec is the only way to mine, imo |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3055
|
Posted - 2016.09.09 12:21:09 -
[365] - Quote
Ralend wrote:You think you could make the Procurer and Skiff a little less better at mining and a bit more better at combat? Proc Fleets in nullsec is the only way to mine, imo
O.o you are already doing 377 dps with over 102k tank on a meh t2 fit in a skiff what more do you want O.o
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Abadayos
Yulai RnD
18
|
Posted - 2016.09.09 12:48:48 -
[366] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Ralend wrote:You think you could make the Procurer and Skiff a little less better at mining and a bit more better at combat? Proc Fleets in nullsec is the only way to mine, imo O.o you are already doing 377 dps with over 102k tank on a meh t2 fit in a skiff what more do you want O.o
just give it a shark hood ornament with a friggin' laser beam and be done with it I guess.... |
Ralend
The Brave Dojo Brave Collective
0
|
Posted - 2016.09.09 13:42:59 -
[367] - Quote
Abadayos wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Ralend wrote:You think you could make the Procurer and Skiff a little less better at mining and a bit more better at combat? Proc Fleets in nullsec is the only way to mine, imo O.o you are already doing 377 dps with over 102k tank on a meh t2 fit in a skiff what more do you want O.o just give it a shark hood ornament with a friggin' laser beam and be done with it I guess....
I'll take more drone bandwidth, but now that you mention it, a DD Hood Ornament would be better
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3055
|
Posted - 2016.09.09 14:42:59 -
[368] - Quote
if anything was going to be changed i would take drone space over bandwidth if you are in a fleet you have plenty of damage but one bad sb an things can go south
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Warlord Balrog
303rd X-SOLDIER
5
|
Posted - 2016.09.09 16:02:44 -
[369] - Quote
Kalido Raddi wrote:Suitonia wrote:A small nerf to the Covetor and Hulk?
OLD Covetor 3 * 1.25 (20% Duration MBV) = 3.75
NEW Covetor 2 * 1.25 (New Strip Miner Boost) = 2.5 * 1.33 (25% Duration Role Bonus) = 3.325 * 1.11 (10% Duration MBV) = 3.69
A small loss of 0.06 effective miners. I know you can fit a mining upgrade to offset this though with the extra slot. No you can't; you don't have enough CPU ('cos CCP have decided that removing a Strip Miner means less CPU, but adding a Mining Laser Upgrade doesn't mean more CPU).
Zainou 'Gypsy' CPU Management EE-603 Genolution Core Augmentation CA-2 And if you don't have it to 5 yet, CPU Management
And if that isn't enough to please you, perhaps you should give up a T2 extender or Amplifier for a meta. If you're still not pleased, use the skiff or anti-ganking utility. |
Warlord Balrog
303rd X-SOLDIER
5
|
Posted - 2016.09.09 16:08:51 -
[370] - Quote
Avon Salinder wrote: Finally, mining but not barge related. Plenty more work to be done here but attempting to make mining outside of HS more attractive: * Remove jaspet, Hemorphite and Hedbergite ore sites from HS - why go to lowsec when you can get LS ores in HS? * Remove the +5% and +10% asteroids from HS belts. * Put Spodumain into 0.3 and lower space.
Peace out, spacebros
I agree with this IF HS and LS ores get removed from NULL to force pirates calling HS goodies too OP to supply us with ISK since they can't mine in our space. We don't have moon mining, nor do we have lucrative rats so if you want to take our ore too, you best give up moon goo or lose out on juicy trit, pyerite and provide us some of the ISK we would lose in the process.
|
|
Warlord Balrog
303rd X-SOLDIER
5
|
Posted - 2016.09.09 16:40:31 -
[371] - Quote
Drago Shouna wrote:Moac Tor wrote:I am actually surprised that the retriever and mackinaw are in the top spot with the skiff and the procurer all the way down towards the lower end. I would be interested to see figures on for instance, how much time is spent in space in the various barges rather than ore mined. I expect the top ships are used in highly optimised fleet mining setups which skew the usage results.
All in all though at a glance the changes look good and the new barge artwork looks great. Good job. You might be surprised that the top ships also have the largest ore holds then. Any serious miner wants to stay on grid as long as possible, warping back and forth wastes mining time.
A few years ago the lines were quite clear. You could have:
a) Major yield with Orca boost and Freighter hauling the groups load -- aka Hulks; b) Personal fleet with decent bays for multiboxing and probably Orca and Freighter too -- aka Skiffs; or c) Solo miner who cowers every time a scout or destroyer enters belt, at most has an alt with an iteron 5 -- aka Mackinaws
Now the lines are so blurred, you got a Mack within 10% yield as a Hulk, yet a Hulk has what...8% of the hold of the Mack and 50% the EHP as the Skiff?
I'll buy 10 billion stocks of Mackinaws, O.R.E..make me rich!
And for the record, good old days when Osprey was the cruiser miner and people often used a badger or Iteron 1 with a T1 Miner and expanders for AFK mining to avoid can flipping before ganking became an issue that it is as of late. Having less training time for barges/exhumers and the tank the skiff has, you all should stop complaining over every little tid-bit change to them and be happy you're not earning 25m3/s with a 12k m3 hold or worse.
Finally my response to the multiboxers out there with trouble managing their cycles. I have two words for you all: structured cycles. Let me explain...a cycle time is roughly 120 seconds, and you have 4 alts. 120/4=30 seconds, it takes what... 7 seconds to alt+tab (or click) and drag ore to the Orca/Rorq? Ok, try this:
Miner 1: F1 (through F3) You: 1.........2..........3.........4.............5................6...........30 Miner 2: F1 (through F3) ...see the pattern yet?
Now I do realize that depleted asteroids would be your next through. That's simple to fix honestly, survey scanner!
As for the fitting complaints. If you really can't figure it out:
Skiff [Anti-gank] 2x T2 Ice/Strips 1x Survey 1x T2 LSE 1x T2 Inv Field 1x 1x T2 DCU 2x MLU2/IHU2
Hulk[Fleet ops] 2x T2 Ice/Strips 1x Survey 1x T2 Inv 1x Meta 4 MSE 1x T2 DCU 2x MLU2/IHU2
If you can't fit it, try working on CORE skills, ask more experienced pilots for help, or join a teaching corp, rather than forum troll skills. |
Blitz Hacker
Caldari Capsuleer Coalition Rote Kapelle
11
|
Posted - 2016.09.09 18:02:46 -
[372] - Quote
Yossarian Toralen wrote:What is the intended outcome that will come from this change?
Pissing off miners and making sure no one uses a hulk ever by the looks :P |
DiDDleR
Skunkdogz Corporation
0
|
Posted - 2016.09.09 18:18:58 -
[373] - Quote
I welcome the skin changes to the mining vessels but why mess with the hardpoints and bonuses if the final stats are unchanged?
ORE modules will still not be of any use outside collectors pieces unless they can provide some bonus over T2 modules and T2 crystals.
The Skiff and the Procurer were unique in having only one turret hardpoint and IMO putting two turret hardpoints on is a tweak too far.
|
SSA Ketty
Interstella Trade Order
0
|
Posted - 2016.09.09 18:20:30 -
[374] - Quote
Probably being stupid here but not seeing the difference between barges and exhumers, unless exhumers skill bonus remain the same?! |
kalaschnikov1
Militek Industries The Illuminated Miner's
0
|
Posted - 2016.09.09 18:54:50 -
[375] - Quote
Looks like my happy days with Skiff mining are over! Now 2 times more crystals and twice the amount of messing with asteroids targeting with nothing in return Thu!!! I was happy with my Skiff in 2 years! Why destroy it now? I don't want second strip miner with nothing in return!!! If so many changes happens so rapidly i think maybe it's time to find another game :( |
Avon Salinder
Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire
14
|
Posted - 2016.09.10 03:51:35 -
[376] - Quote
MrB99 wrote: The Procurer and Skiff are currently the only reasonable ships to fly in the current environment.
Excellent post, and I'd go one step further to say that all industrial ships should be tougher. The overhauls that brought us modern DSTs and the procurer/skiff showed us this is the way to go, even if it's just a lot more structure points on ships like the mammoth or bestower which are ridiculously weak.
And yes, the destroyer rebalance that turned them into cheap throwaway suicide machines was ill-conceived. Nerfing them to some degree would help the situation as well, either by a price increase, or adjusting their slot arrangements (-2 high slots, +1 mid and low) to make them more rounded ships in general (think 'heavy frigates' instead of glass cannons). |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3059
|
Posted - 2016.09.10 03:54:35 -
[377] - Quote
Avon Salinder wrote: The Procurer and Skiff are currently the only reasonable ships to fly in the current environment.
yet it is not even close to the most used...
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
18020
|
Posted - 2016.09.10 16:00:09 -
[378] - Quote
MrB99 wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: We're very interested in your feedback !
The Hulk, Mack, Covetor, and Retriever are expensive ships that are relatively high skill yet are largely useless in high sec mining because they can be predictably and trivially ganked by a single player with 2 low skill toons in cheap catalysts.
I'm pretty sure that a properly fitted Mack can tank 2 low-skilled catalysts.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
|
Jalxan
Spoopy Newbies Brave Collective
38
|
Posted - 2016.09.10 19:31:11 -
[379] - Quote
Regan Rotineque wrote:I am looking very forward to seeing what the orca changes will be. I hope CCP gives something to the them to deeply encourage them to be on grid in low/null. They wont have the panic button, but improvements to speed, align time and ore hold size would be greatly appreciated.
Align time isn't an issue; like the Bowhead, the Orca can fit a 500mn Microwarpdrive, which reduces align time from a dead stop to 10 seconds. Rather, I'd LOVE to see an increase to powergrid instead, because currently I have to choose between running links or the microwarpdrive. Sure, I can turn off the links and turn on the MWD fairly easily, but it's a huge hassle, and, in the case of a gank, possibly fatal.
Also, regarding the Ore hold size, I don't want to see a buff, because buffing it will likely mean nerfing the cargohold. That cargohold is by far the MOST important part of the ship. I don't always use the Ore Hold, but I ROUTINELY use the Cargohold, Fleet Hangar AND Ship Maintenance Bay. Besides, with rigs and cargohold expanders, I can easily get this ship's cargohold to 100,000m3. If this was changed, even if they increased the Ore Hold by 50,000m3, and nerfed the Cargohold by one-half, you'd be losing tens of thousands of m3.
This is why I think the Orca should be kept as is. If there were any improvements I'd recommend, it's a larger powergrid to support the MWD, and an extra highslot, in the case a new link is added to the game. Adding much else would make it too good at its job. |
Avon Salinder
Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire
15
|
Posted - 2016.09.11 00:41:45 -
[380] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:MrB99 wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: We're very interested in your feedback !
The Hulk, Mack, Covetor, and Retriever are expensive ships that are relatively high skill yet are largely useless in high sec mining because they can be predictably and trivially ganked by a single player with 2 low skill toons in cheap catalysts. I'm pretty sure that a properly fitted Mack can tank 2 low-skilled catalysts. I ran some tests on this recently and I can confirm this is correct. A Mack will not however, survive three medium-skill (level 4 skill) catalysts in .6 or .5 space, even with kin/therm resists, level 5 skill (for 20% native shield resists) and a DC (barring lucky ecm drone use perhaps). Given the immense survivability gulf between the skiff/proc and the next toughest (the mack), to say nothing of the retriever, covetor and hulk, some improvements in this area would be welcome.
Essentially, fitting a DC makes very little difference to most mining ships so why sacrifice yield when you'll probably get ganked anyway? I'd like to see valid fitting choices beyond the cookie-cutter max-yield fits for mining ships where sacrificing yield for toughness (or other desirable qualities) makes a real difference. |
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3078
|
Posted - 2016.09.11 05:44:17 -
[381] - Quote
Avon Salinder wrote: I ran some tests on this recently and I can confirm this is correct. A Mack will not however, survive three medium-skill (level 4 skill) catalysts in .6 or .5 space, even with kin/therm resists, level 5 skill (for 20% native shield resists) and a DC (barring lucky ecm drone use perhaps). Given the immense survivability gulf between the skiff/proc and the next toughest (the mack), to say nothing of the retriever, covetor and hulk, some improvements in this area would be welcome.
Curiously, the skiff can fit for max yield and also almost max tank (everything but the DCU) without requiring fitting rigs or mods, with pg and cpu to spare, whereas the mack, even when not fit for max yield struggles with cpu and pg issues.
Essentially, fitting a DC makes very little difference to most mining ships so why sacrifice yield when you'll probably get ganked anyway? I'd like to see valid fitting choices beyond the cookie-cutter max-yield fits for mining ships where sacrificing yield for toughness (or other desirable qualities) makes a real difference.
P.S. final point - large ore capacity simply promotes afk game styles in an area of the game rife with this 'playing' style. Back before the barge rebalance, the best ship was the hulk, when fit with cargo rigs etc could carry 13000(ish) m3 and that was adequate. Any improvements to durability of the mack/retriever would come with reduced ore bay, as I think they're a bit too generous as is.
why should your solo mack be able to fend off 3 other ships on its own? if you want that use the barge specked for it
and if you don't want the ore hold then again... don't use the mac that is no reason to nerf the hold for ppl willing to use it
BLOPS Hauler
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
3566
|
Posted - 2016.09.11 06:53:36 -
[382] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
why should your solo mack be able to fend off 3 other ships on its own? if you want that use the barge specked for it
and if you don't want the ore hold then again... don't use the mac that is no reason to nerf the hold for ppl willing to use it
But it can't. Being able to last the tiny timer on a suicide gank is not 'fending off 3 other ships on it's own'. It's surviving 10-20 seconds before the super hotdrop arrives to defend you. Regardless of the rest of the argument lets not use fake benchmarks to try and make a point. |
Brokk Witgenstein
Extreme Agony
753
|
Posted - 2016.09.11 07:17:17 -
[383] - Quote
This is a very good point. Balancing ships against each other should not include third parties (such as concord), especially when there's three wholly different world to consider as well. |
Chris Kelvin
State War Academy Caldari State
11
|
Posted - 2016.09.11 08:12:49 -
[384] - Quote
Altrue wrote:Interesting tweaks, but the unification of the number of strip miners does have the disadvantage of reducing gameplay variety. Hulk and Covetor pilots really enjoyed the ability to be able to focus longer on three different asteroids, instead of focusing less on two or one asteroid.
Crucially, this change does not adress the main issue, which is that mining gameplay is really, REALLY boring. Sure, this is a slight stats tweak and it would be unreasonable to expect a huge content change, but you should put a mining revamp alongside the hopefully planned PvE revamp.
I'm sorry, had to laugh... no, wait, still laughing at "PVE revamp". Oooooohhhhhhh, that's precious!!! OK first of all, CCP has selective hearing on this one. That is to say, CCP doesn't listen, AT ALL, especially and most frustratingly, that fantastic Fozzie!! For example, he thinks he knows what people who do missions actually want so, we get - that's right ladies and gentlemen - Burner missions!!!!
Just fabulous!!! And what did we get, you ask? A pvp simulator for people who like pvp as much as Shaq likes free throws. And when stats came out that only about 20% of the time those mission were being accepted, it was touted as some sort of success. Really?? Somehow, 80% of people mashing the reject button was a success for pve (by the way, making them optional was the only thing he got right!!). When asked about it, he said it was only for people who were interested in particularly difficult content designed to hone pvp skills. OK fine; but then, don't imply you've done anything to improve or add to the pve aspect of the game!!!
Listen, I don't wish to curb your enthusiasm or stop you from asking CCP for additions/improvements to pve. On the contrary, I wish more people would speak up for pve (I know I feel like I'm screaming in a wind tunnel most of the time, like now) and hound CCP for more missions and more pve content. In fact, I don't understand why the pvp community has such an aversion to this idea; I mean, at the end of the day, the more people doing pve, the more content opportunities for pvp exist. It's a win for everyone including CCP.
The problem is that when we ask for pve we get things like burner missions or industry teams (what a farce that was!!!). CCP and especially Fozzie are so lazer focused on balance and nerfing, that it blinds them to the costs of alienating a good portion of players (mostly paying, as opposed to plexing, subscribers). These Barge changes are case-in-point, he says that the Hulk is going to get a gain in mining yield but, conveniently forgets to tell you that you'll have to get a 100 million plus isk CPU implant and use civilian modules in the mids to get that yield gain thus, rendering your hulk either a juicy gank target (not that it wasn't before but, these changes practically serve it up on a plate) or consigning it to your hangar storage until the next "balance" pass.
I know changes impact every other aspect of this game but, really what's the point here? There's no real driver except, the art changes. That is to say nothing was imbalanced or wrong with the barges, this was done only because they felt the need and as is typical the pve community is left shaking their head wondering why nobody is listening. Don't p!ss on me and call it rain Fozz and don't tell me the hulk is improved when you've turned it into a gank target!!!! On the off chance that you do read this and, have been wondering why some individuals post some really angry stuff directed at you, it might be because they feel like you do these kinds of things with the intent to ruin their play style and run them out of the game. On it's face that's a ridiculous statement but, when people invest years into this game only to have it restricted or severely limited, it feels much bigger emotionally than it actually is; consequently, people over-react and tend to lash out.
I'm still upset about the loss of that turret slot on my Myrmidon and could you please reconsider the weapons timer for marauders? I mean really, talk about throwing the baby out with the bath water... that changed was aimed at capitol ships to prevent them from re-fitting during actual combat and you went and applied it to all ships. I get what you were doing but, anyone with any skill is going to shoot my mobile depot thus, preventing any possibility of combat refit. Now, with this stupid weapons timer, I have to wait just to fit a salvager or cargo expander after the mission is over. It was half the reason I trained into marauders to make missions just a bit more efficient and you had to go ruin it because you want capitol ships to blow up faster and more often. Congrats, great work, mission accomplished!! Now could you please put your nerf bat away ...forever? |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
18021
|
Posted - 2016.09.11 08:22:36 -
[385] - Quote
Avon Salinder wrote:Malcanis wrote:MrB99 wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: We're very interested in your feedback !
The Hulk, Mack, Covetor, and Retriever are expensive ships that are relatively high skill yet are largely useless in high sec mining because they can be predictably and trivially ganked by a single player with 2 low skill toons in cheap catalysts. I'm pretty sure that a properly fitted Mack can tank 2 low-skilled catalysts. I ran some tests on this recently and I can confirm this is correct. A Mack will not however, survive three medium-skill (level 4 skill) catalysts in .6 or .5 space, even with kin/therm resists, level 5 skill (for 20% native shield resists) and a DC (barring lucky ecm drone use perhaps). Given the immense survivability gulf between the skiff/proc and the next toughest (the mack), to say nothing of the retriever, covetor and hulk, some improvements in this area would be welcome. Curiously, the skiff can fit for max yield and also almost max tank (everything but the DCU) without requiring fitting rigs or mods, with pg and cpu to spare, whereas the mack, even when not fit for max yield struggles with cpu and pg issues. Essentially, fitting a DC makes very little difference to most mining ships so why sacrifice yield when you'll probably get ganked anyway? I'd like to see valid fitting choices beyond the cookie-cutter max-yield fits for mining ships where sacrificing yield for toughness (or other desirable qualities) makes a real difference. P.S. final point - large ore capacity simply promotes afk game styles in an area of the game rife with this 'playing' style. Back before the barge rebalance, the best ship was the hulk, when fit with cargo rigs etc could carry 13000(ish) m3 and that was adequate. Any improvements to durability of the mack/retriever would come with reduced ore bay, as I think they're a bit too generous as is.
If a bunch of EHP to survive gankers is the most important characteristic you want on your mining barge, then the Skiff is the exhumer you should be flying. If the Mackinaw can tank that well, then what's the point of the Skiff?
When I did some mining over last winter, I used Macks specifically because of the large ore hold - not all of us are 10-account multiboxers who can afford a dedicated hauler - and the tank was good enough for me to tank normal anomaly spawns for long enough that 2 flights of Vespas to kill off the rats. I had no great difficulty in fitting for yield; C-type shield hardeners are not expensive and save a bunch of CPU.
Each of the mining barge/exhumers has one characteristic that it does clearly better than the others. Pick your priority, pay your money and fly your ship.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3078
|
Posted - 2016.09.11 09:17:01 -
[386] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
why should your solo mack be able to fend off 3 other ships on its own? if you want that use the barge specked for it
and if you don't want the ore hold then again... don't use the mac that is no reason to nerf the hold for ppl willing to use it
But it can't. Being able to last the tiny timer on a suicide gank is not 'fending off 3 other ships on it's own'. It's surviving 10-20 seconds before the super hotdrop arrives to defend you. Regardless of the rest of the argument lets not use fake benchmarks to try and make a point.
... could also be your friends doesn't need to be concord
BLOPS Hauler
|
Avon Salinder
Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire
17
|
Posted - 2016.09.11 11:47:06 -
[387] - Quote
Malcanis wrote: If a bunch of EHP to survive gankers is the most important characteristic you want on your mining barge, then the Skiff is the exhumer you should be flying. If the Mackinaw can tank that well, then what's the point of the Skiff?
I do fly the skiff, I can't stand any ship that has tinfoil for armour given the current state of affairs. I never said the mack should become the same as the skiff either, some people on these forums seem to enjoy putting words into other people's mouths.
Earlier in the thread I posted ideas for adjusting stats on some of those ships, so you can check those out if you wish. TL;DR Skiff stays roughly as-is, mack and retriever lose a little capacity in favour of structure points (because hull tanking is for pros) and the covetor/hulk get more agility to gtfo as needed.
Malcanis wrote: Each of the mining barge/exhumers has one characteristic that it does clearly better than the others. Pick your priority, pay your money and fly your ship.
And there's always room for improvement within those styles, so I've made some suggestions along the lines of narrowing the gulf between the barge hulls somewhat. The skiff doesn't need to lose its status as the badass mining ship you don't want to tangle with just because the mack gets a couple of thousand extra hit points, they're still 30,000+ apart, and the skiff gets the damage bonus too. Anyway, the devs seem pretty happy with the mining ships at the moment regardless so I doubt much will come of this, but it's fun to think of new ways of doing things. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3079
|
Posted - 2016.09.11 12:15:45 -
[388] - Quote
again why should i lose cargo hold just because YOU don't like the tank. there are plenty of ppl flying hulks and macks so its not like the tinfoil is scaring them off
BLOPS Hauler
|
Avon Salinder
Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire
17
|
Posted - 2016.09.11 12:22:02 -
[389] - Quote
Because it's a choice between "all of the hitpoints" and "you're content for other people". But you're right, the usage stats mean people enjoying their afk mining because it's not an engaging or interesting mechanic, which is a whole other topic. Peace out. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3079
|
Posted - 2016.09.11 12:37:33 -
[390] - Quote
the more multi role ships become the more overlap there is and nothing but issues come out of it, in the best case there is a clear loser out of a group. In the worst case there is a clear winner. look at freighters they all do the same role and they used to each have clear adv but now they are much closer together and you can see the Ob has the best mix of tank agi and hold. But when each ship specs in one area there is no clear winner or lose as each has a situation they shine in
BLOPS Hauler
|
|
Piu Forte
W.A.S.P Curatores Veritatis Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2016.09.11 14:35:12 -
[391] - Quote
No CSM no Dev team no GMsuperman can save the game. EVE now is next to LOL and before WOT ( LOL-EVE-WOT the best 3 pay to win games ) , and you talk about hi slots, CPU and whatever. CCP has to find the game first.....and...OH ! just a minute...is there new skins ???? YEAH !!!!!
|
Amadeus Z
VM Labs Quo Vadis.
0
|
Posted - 2016.09.11 14:48:24 -
[392] - Quote
Hey Devs,
There are things, that could have done better. Hulk and Mack full yield fit is not able to fit all meds which is pretty annoying. I do not see a reason, why Stripminers could not get grouped like weapons. I see absolutely no mining drone boni, what is disturbing as well. At least exhumers should have mining drone boni, cause that is the top of the notch mining ship range.
And what's really poor, that the mining beast of the game has the smallest hold? Even fricking mining frigates have more. Please let me know, what the reason for this "2-cycles-and-it's-full-hold" are. If those Exhumers have nearly the same yield, they should have nearly the same hold - there is no argument against that. IMHO the Hulk deserves a 25,000 m3 hold.
From the stats I checked on SiSi, I see no reason to field a Mack anymore. Just for the hold? Nope. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3079
|
Posted - 2016.09.11 15:53:51 -
[393] - Quote
full yeild should force you to give up tank so that is reasonable.
mining drones are an artifact of a time past and are slowly going the way of TSB
reason hulk has low hold is to force you to need a hauler in order to balance its mining rate
good for you but for many the hold will still make it the go to ship
BLOPS Hauler
|
Amadeus Z
VM Labs Quo Vadis.
0
|
Posted - 2016.09.11 16:51:00 -
[394] - Quote
actually the changes force me to stop mining .... maybe stop playing as well
if you go for max yield and don't pop out drones, yer yield is simply less.
|
Tsukino Stareine
Art Of Explosions 404 Hole Not Found
1830
|
Posted - 2016.09.11 17:42:35 -
[395] - Quote
Amadeus Z wrote:Hey Devs,
There are things, that could have done better. Hulk and Mack full yield fit is not able to fit all meds which is pretty annoying. I do not see a reason, why Stripminers could not get grouped like weapons. I see absolutely no mining drone boni, what is disturbing as well. At least exhumers should have mining drone boni, cause that is the top of the notch mining ship range.
And what's really poor, that the mining beast of the game has the smallest hold? Even fricking mining frigates have more. Please let me know, what the reason for this "2-cycles-and-it's-full-hold" are. If those Exhumers have nearly the same yield, they should have nearly the same hold - there is no argument against that. IMHO the Hulk deserves a 25,000 m3 hold.
From the stats I checked on SiSi, I see no reason to field a Mack anymore. Just for the hold? Nope.
From Merriam Webster:
Definition of Boni plural Boni or Bonis 1 : a people of African ancestry descended from runaway slaves and inhabiting the interior of French Guiana 2 : a member of the Boni people
Please stop, these African people have nothing to do with the BONUSES of your ship
Art of Explosions
|
May Arethusa
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
214
|
Posted - 2016.09.11 18:50:55 -
[396] - Quote
I totally misread this.
I mean... yeah, GG CCP. As long as they keep derping into low-sec infrequently I don't care how many lasers they've got fitted. |
Nikos Stromboli
Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire
9
|
Posted - 2016.09.11 21:56:49 -
[397] - Quote
I haven't seen any dev responses for a while, so I will restate the concern I noted earlier in this thread.
By and large I can accept these changes.
However, the current 15k ore bay on the Skiff is not conducive to a smooth transition from 1 laser to 2, particularly for ice harvesting.
As this stands, Skiff pilots will have to leave the ice belt before their bay is full (@ 14k) in order to not waste a (longer) laser cycle, which is effectively a nerf to Skiff ice harvesting.
I would recommend increasing the Skiff's ore bay to 16k to compensate for the additional laser. |
MrB99
Astral Mining
7
|
Posted - 2016.09.11 21:57:10 -
[398] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:[quote=Avon Salinder] why should your solo mack be able to fend off 3 other ships on its own?
IMHO - the Retriever and Mack should be spec'ed to perform their announced and described roles (or those roles should be changed), which are successful solo mining **with the skillsets miners typically train or are requirements for the ships. I think there is a place in the game for players who want to solo mine. Miners don't train the same skills as PVP'ers and said skills are and should not be pre-requisites for flying mining ships.
When the Mack and Retriever were designed for solo mining, solo mining had 2 requirements 1. Balance between mining yield and ore they can carry so you didn't have to fly to the station every 2 cycles to unload or need a hauler. They could do their job with the player flying 1 account. 2. You needed to be able to defend against rats in the areas of space they're intended to fly.
Both ships do fine at achieving these requirements. They can die from rats, but not if the player is paying attention to the game.
Gameplay has changed (in high sec).
CCP didn't change the requirements, but players did. These ships need to deal with 3 requirements now to successfully fly solo:
1. Balance between mining yield and amount of ore they can carry so you're not continually unloading. 2. Defend against rats 3. Have some counter to the new challenge of suicide ganking [or change the game to eliminate this gameplay as happens with tournament rules when there is unbalanced gameplay]. Whether the (typically) one player doing the ganking threatens the miner with 1, 2, 3, or 6 ships is irrelevant. If my mining ship needs to be buffed to passively handle 5000 DPS to have an even playing field, I don't care. Right now the ganker destroys the mining ship 90+% of the time, waits 15min and does it again in a completely predictable manner with impunity and 100% known risk and that should be changed. Right now there's not a scenario where the miner out thinks, out smarts, out fits, or out plays the ganker and wins. The miner's a nail and the ganker is a hammer. Splat.
If you look on the killboards at the fit's people are using - many are now "it' doesn't matter cause if I get ganked i'm gonna die anyhow" fits. Shooter vs a fish in a barrel. Boring. Annoying. If there are no solutions that can win, there's no point geeking out on fits. (Yes there are miners who geek out on fits.) This has none of the theorycrafting fun of the Alliance tournament where there are 5 or 10 fits that *might win* depending on what the other team brings. The gankers have few fits that always win, and the miners have no fits that win. If there were "I can get decent mining yield and I'll die 50% of the time or less if I'm paying attention and don't need lightening fast muscle memory and reaction times fits" people would use them. It's not like miners like loosing their 50M-200M ISK ships any more than anyone else in the game. It's not like they're being outsmarted when the results are so predictable. There's an arms race and the mining shipbuilders need to respond. IF ORE is too slow, big and bureaucratic to respond to the market need where's the new upstart stealth-mode corporation wanting to break into the mining market?? Don't any Eve venture capitalists see an opportunity here?
The Hulk and Covetor gave you higher yields but with their small ore capacity assume you're flying a second account as a hauler. They also have tools to defend against rats, but no tools to defend against the suicide ganking defense requirement.
Mining ships are not currently spec'ed for PVP, yet they are expected to participate in PVP and that should be changed.
If the miner is afk watching Netflix, ignores an visual and audio alarm that a threat is near - and the ganker gets him, fine. ...but if he is there give him a viable counter. Give him an alarm if someone he's marked -10 appears in Local. Give him a FoF smartbomb that's if trained to lvl 5 and activated kills the ganker group every time, and trained to lvl 3 wins half the time. (Skills are invisible to a ship scanner, so the ganker doesn't know what the result will be in advance.) If you gave the miner gank-defense-drones, deployables or mines that auto-locked and started attempting to jam the aggressors after their first round is shot. If you gave him a FOF savvy AOE jamming module that was allowed in high sec (so one player can deal with so many new targets to lock), then you've created a situation where either side could win, and the negligent (or unlucky) side looses. FOF is a bigger new issue with boosters having to be on-grid and miners clumped around them - let FoF address-book status of people around you affect gameplay + or -. Don't expect the miner to have PVP response times, he's not the player who is an adrenaline junkie and F1 masher (his world is 30sec to 300 sec cycles) -- give him a local Tiedie module that makes the PVP gameplay at the same reaction time as his other gameplay. Remember he's the defender. Make the ganker adjust to and wait for ******-speed PVP since he wants to play that rather than normal-speed PVP in lowsec. If the miner wants an adrenaline rush and to click dscan all the time, he's in w-space mining the good stuff.
If this was the real world, not a game, entrepreneurs and engineers would have long ago solved this problem. They'd have a proximity alarm to alert the miner of pirates. Nobody would be clicking dscan all the time. The mining ship would auto deploy chaff or other defenses at the first sign of aggression. They'd have an auto warp to safespot feature. ...and they'd probably leave behind a mine that damages or destroys the aggressor. ...and the Navy would be monitoring local and get better helping the civilians at each interdiction attempt. Your ships AI would be gloating about how it saved you before u got to the bridge. |
MrB99
Astral Mining
7
|
Posted - 2016.09.11 22:07:42 -
[399] - Quote
PS. Dorking around with the ship specs for each ship so there exist 5-10 fits for each where the miners could neutralize the common gank scenarios, and still mine decently, thereby giving the miners a challenge and forcing the gankers to invent new fits and strategies is a Fozzie-worthy challenge. :-) Then it's the miner's job to go theorycraft and find them. |
Caleb Seremshur
Black Scorpions Inc Circle-Of-Two
860
|
Posted - 2016.09.12 00:10:04 -
[400] - Quote
I never realised that mining was a highsec intended activity. It's almost as if nullsec didn't have ore and that the ore in nullsec isn't safer to mine and more valuable. Jee willickers. |
|
Penance Toralen
Compass Fox
9
|
Posted - 2016.09.12 01:22:24 -
[401] - Quote
MrB99 wrote:Mining ships are not currently spec'ed for PVP, yet they are expected to participate in PVP and that should be changed.
And just what do you think the Procurer or the Skiff are for? |
Shallanna Yassavi
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
396
|
Posted - 2016.09.12 01:48:53 -
[402] - Quote
One thing which might be interesting on a proc or skiff is a target spectrum breaker: If there are 20 cats trying to lock on, a bunch of them won't complete the lock. The barge would have to trade a tank mod for it, making it more vulnerable to things like Vexors and Talos, or maybe Rupture or autoNado or Oracle if the barge is nice enough to leave a resist hole. The other flavors of barges won't have enough hitpoints for that to matter. Nobody's going to bring 20 cats to kill a hulk.
A signature :o
|
MrB99
Astral Mining
10
|
Posted - 2016.09.12 02:08:27 -
[403] - Quote
Penance Toralen wrote:MrB99 wrote:Mining ships are not currently spec'ed for PVP, yet they are expected to participate in PVP and that should be changed. And just what do you think the Procurer or the Skiff are for?
The quote is from a post about the Mack, Retriever, Covetor and Hulk which are indeed not spec'ed for PVP.
Suicide ganking has become much more prevalent since the last mining ship rebalance in 2012, full time gameplay for players, and due to this change in gameplay by players it may be time that all mining ships need "protection against suicide ganks" as a standard built-in feature where in 2012 it was a niche feature and it needs to scale across the line of mining ships to match today's gameplay. Miners have lived with 4 years where 4 of the 6 mining ships were trivially gankable and maybe the gankers lives have been made easy and inexpensive long enough.
The Proc and Skiff are survivable in 2:1 engagements but the game is moving on to 5:1 to 10:1 engagements - where the mining ship always looses if engaged.
https://zkillboard.com/kill/56044326/ [Proc 5:1] https://zkillboard.com/kill/55930400/ [Skiff 5:1] https://zkillboard.com/kill/55951746/ [Skiff 10:1]
Ship Balancing: Mining Barges [2012 changes] https://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/ship-balancing-mining-barges/
In the past CCP has certainly nerfed the gameplay of players who's lives were "too easy" -- just ask mission runners who miss when the Ishtar and Tengu were awesome ships. It's not unreasonable to ask whether the current state of suicide ganking is one of those scenarios. The answer might be yes. |
Caleb Seremshur
Black Scorpions Inc Circle-Of-Two
861
|
Posted - 2016.09.12 08:46:36 -
[404] - Quote
Ok so you feel its unfair when 10 people coordinate to kill a ship that might as well be unarmed, that your ship gets killed.
|
HarlyQ
harlyq syrokos investment station Goonswarm Federation
125
|
Posted - 2016.09.12 09:31:38 -
[405] - Quote
MrB99 wrote:Penance Toralen wrote:MrB99 wrote:Mining ships are not currently spec'ed for PVP, yet they are expected to participate in PVP and that should be changed. And just what do you think the Procurer or the Skiff are for? The quote is from a post about the Mack, Retriever, Covetor and Hulk which are indeed not spec'ed for PVP. Suicide ganking has become much more prevalent since the last mining ship rebalance in 2012, full time gameplay for players, and due to this change in gameplay by players it may be time that all mining ships need "protection against suicide ganks" as a standard built-in feature where in 2012 it was a niche feature and it needs to scale across the line of mining ships to match today's gameplay. Miners have lived with 4 years where 4 of the 6 mining ships were trivially gankable and maybe the gankers lives have been made easy and inexpensive long enough. The Proc and Skiff are survivable in 2:1 engagements but the game is moving on to 5:1 to 10:1 engagements - where the mining ship always looses if engaged. https://zkillboard.com/kill/56044326/ [Proc 5:1] https://zkillboard.com/kill/55930400/ [Skiff 5:1] https://zkillboard.com/kill/55951746/ [Skiff 10:1] Ship Balancing: Mining Barges [2012 changes] https://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/ship-balancing-mining-barges/ In the past CCP has certainly nerfed the gameplay of players who's lives were "too easy" -- just ask mission runners who miss when the Ishtar and Tengu were awesome ships. It's not unreasonable to ask whether the current state of suicide ganking is one of those scenarios. The answer might be yes. Its to bad you choose to live someplace where you dont get the chance to fight back. Maybe you should think about moving to 0.0 where you can mine and fight off gangs at the same time. |
MrB99
Astral Mining
10
|
Posted - 2016.09.12 09:44:42 -
[406] - Quote
Caleb Seremshur wrote:Ok so you feel its unfair when 10 people coordinate to kill a ship that might as well be unarmed, that your ship gets killed.
The examples I pointed to are not 10 people enjoying coordinated small-gang hunting gameplay. This is typicaly one player vs one player -- just one is multiboxing to get an advantage.
In the 10:1 scenario they are 1 person, flying 11 or more accounts, rarely 2 players. They loose 20-25 mil in ships (10 x 2mil) to kill 200mil in ships. It's even cheaper for them in a 5:1 gank.
Their gameplay is:
1. Hunt thru space for targets that can't defend themselves. 2. Fly cloaked fleeted alt near miner. 3. Fleet-warp squad to cloaked alt 4. Lock 1 target, click "fire grouped weapons" on each of your 10 windows. The mental load of doing this is not particularly high, unlike real PVP. 5. Miner dies. Suicide ships die. 6. Fleet warp out suicide PODs. 7. Gloat in local what great pilots they are.
The solo miner's gameplay is
1. 2-10 ships descend on you, go flashy red and start firing, interrupting your preferred gameplay. 2. Try and unlock your rocks so you can then go lock a ship attacking you. 3. Wait for lock. Wait more for lock. 4. Tell your drones to hit attack or jam a ship if you're not using mining drones. 5. Know you have no chance and that concord will be too late. Die. 6. Try and focus to warp out your POD so at least you don't loose your implants. 7. Depending what ship you lost, realize you probably have 1,000 minutes or more of mining to rebuy your ship. 8. If you were doing other similar style gameplay while mining - like updating your market orders, contracts, industry jobs, PI, reading forums, researching new fits, working on your training queue, chances are good you're not trigger-focused enough to react in time and so throw up your hands having lost your ship or ship and pod. Your normal gameplay rhythm is based on how long you can do other tasks until you have to unload cause your ore/cargo hold is full.
If you notice it happening and try to defend yourself you get an adrenaline rush for disappointment as you die and count your loss in your head.
Totally different than the positive adrenaline rush that makes real PVP addictive. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3087
|
Posted - 2016.09.12 10:38:02 -
[407] - Quote
MrB99 wrote:Penance Toralen wrote:MrB99 wrote:Mining ships are not currently spec'ed for PVP, yet they are expected to participate in PVP and that should be changed. And just what do you think the Procurer or the Skiff are for? The quote is from a post about the Mack, Retriever, Covetor and Hulk which are indeed not spec'ed for PVP.
But they are spec'ed for pvp they are just not spec'ed for combat
and there is no need for them to be if you want protection you can
A. fly a skiff/proc
B. work with a fleet
BLOPS Hauler
|
Caleb Seremshur
Black Scorpions Inc Circle-Of-Two
861
|
Posted - 2016.09.12 11:46:50 -
[408] - Quote
M8 you can't seriously be suggesting that you, a crab, a cow, a grazing herd animal that refuses to defend itself has any platform to stand on when it gets killed by its natural predators.
Miners form part of the food chain: the bottom. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
18022
|
Posted - 2016.09.12 12:00:13 -
[409] - Quote
Amadeus Z wrote:Hey Devs,
There are things, that could have done better. Hulk and Mack full yield fit is not able to fit all meds which is pretty annoying. I do not see a reason, why Stripminers could not get grouped like weapons. I see absolutely no mining drone boni, what is disturbing as well. At least exhumers should have mining drone boni, cause that is the top of the notch mining ship range.
And what's really poor, that the mining beast of the game has the smallest hold? Even fricking mining frigates have more. Please let me know, what the reason for this "2-cycles-and-it's-full-hold" are. If those Exhumers have nearly the same yield, they should have nearly the same hold - there is no argument against that. IMHO the Hulk deserves a 25,000 m3 hold.
From the stats I checked on SiSi, I see no reason to field a Mack anymore. Just for the hold? Nope.
I assure you that you can fit a Mack for yield and fill the mids, but you might need to compromise on how they're filled.
But if yield is your absolute priority, then you should be using a Hulk.
While you may not see a reason to.use the Mack, it's far more popular that the Hulk. Maybe think about why.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
|
Warlord Balrog
303rd X-SOLDIER
6
|
Posted - 2016.09.12 12:04:20 -
[410] - Quote
Caleb Seremshur wrote:M8 you can't seriously be suggesting that you, a crab, a cow, a grazing herd animal that refuses to defend itself has any platform to stand on when it gets killed by its natural predators.
Miners form part of the food chain: the bottom.
Really? What source provided your ship? The ship fairy? Ya know, it's times like this I wish all miners would wake up, realize we're EVE's backbone and protest by unsubbing for a few months. Forcing you weak and pathetic so-called PvPers to fight against ships with a snowball's chance in hell of doing anything other than saying "Oh well, there goes 300+ million" and try to save one's pod.
Seriously, can I have a hit of that bong/crackpipe you're OBVIOUSLY hitting?
Vote NO to being a suffering slave 2016, turn in your mining related skills and ships for production and station trading....Let's unite and teach the so-called 'real players' a lesson in life once and for all. |
|
Caleb Seremshur
Black Scorpions Inc Circle-Of-Two
861
|
Posted - 2016.09.12 12:39:44 -
[411] - Quote
hahahahahaha you think mining and manufacturing makes you some sort of protected class? No mate, you are advocating immunity for the least interactive mechanic of ship related gameplay. Even links takes more work because you still need to d-scan so you don't get rolled. |
Caleb Seremshur
Black Scorpions Inc Circle-Of-Two
861
|
Posted - 2016.09.12 13:49:16 -
[412] - Quote
I really cannot get over how deranged and entitled what you said is. There are nullsec corporations that regularly run their own mining ops with PVP characters contributing if able to. Even the most rudimentary mining frigate can still put forward materials for building ships.
This has got to be trolling for sure, the clarion call for miners to unionise and stop doing the thing they live off is just laughable. B-5R proved something also - there is so much surplus material lying around that even trillions of isk worth of damage done can be floated on the open market, totally ignoring the thousands of potential supers worth of minerals already set aside for the task in the first case. |
Bora Bor
The Forsaken Squad Red Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2016.09.12 20:30:32 -
[413] - Quote
and than the available versions of shovels are bad??? why to break what normally works and what all are happy with? - I very much do not like the idea to all barges on 2 lasers!!! a sediment - in a fire chamber!!! |
Harrissaran
Blind Leading the Blind
0
|
Posted - 2016.09.12 20:38:10 -
[414] - Quote
Well you can drop max mining cycle efficiency by doing away with mining upgrades and fitting a semi decent tank... what I miss are the volume of ore you can carry..... :/ |
BOP B OTCTABKE
ANGELGARD. ACADEMY RED University
0
|
Posted - 2016.09.12 20:54:16 -
[415] - Quote
-º-é-+ -+-¦ -ê-+-Å-+-¦? -P-ü-é-¦-¦-î-é-¦ -+-+-+-¦-é-ï -¦ -+-+-¦-+-¦! -ƒ-â-ü-é-î -¦-â-¦-¦-é -¦-¦-¦ -¦-ü-é-î -ü-¦-¦-ç-¦-ü! |
Daniel Jackson
Shore Leave Inc.
190
|
Posted - 2016.09.12 21:42:20 -
[416] - Quote
can u give us a break down basicaly sayign how much ice and ore it mines per houre like you did in a old devblog when u made mining barge changes
I Vote YES! for Downloadable HI-RES Textures!!!!
|
Kusum Fawn
Perkone Caldari State
562
|
Posted - 2016.09.12 21:43:07 -
[417] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Nevyn Auscent wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
why should your solo mack be able to fend off 3 other ships on its own? if you want that use the barge specked for it
and if you don't want the ore hold then again... don't use the mac that is no reason to nerf the hold for ppl willing to use it
But it can't. Being able to last the tiny timer on a suicide gank is not 'fending off 3 other ships on it's own'. It's surviving 10-20 seconds before the super hotdrop arrives to defend you. Regardless of the rest of the argument lets not use fake benchmarks to try and make a point. ... could also be your friends doesn't need to be concord
im kind of curious about friends that are willing to sit around for 4 hours every day (or however long people are infact mining) and have reactions times faster then concord. give it 30 seconds even,
I know you are implying something something nullsec protected pipes, but wh still exist, and unless you are specifically baiting in a proc, i dont think ive ever seen any sort of response fleet arrive faster then concord.
Its not possible to please all the people all the time, but it sure as hell is possible to Displease all the people, most of the time.
|
Brokk Witgenstein
Extreme Agony
759
|
Posted - 2016.09.12 21:55:45 -
[418] - Quote
Kusum Fawn wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Nevyn Auscent wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: why should your solo mack be able to fend off 3 other ships on its own?
But it can't. Being able to last the tiny timer on a suicide gank is not 'fending off 3 other ships on it's own'. It's surviving 10-20 seconds before the super hotdrop arrives to defend you. ... could also be your friends doesn't need to be concord im kind of curious about friends that are willing to sit around for 4 hours every day (or however long people are infact mining) and have reactions times faster then concord. give it 30 seconds even, I know you are implying something something nullsec protected pipes, but wh still exist, and unless you are specifically baiting in a proc, i dont think ive ever seen any sort of response fleet arrive faster then concord.
That's because "have friends" is just the party line. It never happens in-game but it sounds great and it can be used to deadlock threads like there is no tomorrow
Before taking an argument on face value, always check if the one(s) posting it knows what he or she is talking about- it'll be a real eyeopener [giggle] |
Tina Mori
Maniacal Miners INC LEEKSWARM FEDERATION
16
|
Posted - 2016.09.12 22:23:02 -
[419] - Quote
Caleb Seremshur wrote:I never realised that mining was a highsec intended activity. It's almost as if nullsec didn't have ore and that the ore in nullsec isn't safer to mine and more valuable. Jee willickers.
It is all a case of Market availability
There are all those Hisec trade hubs, ie Jita, Dodixie, etc
Now, show me where all the great Nullsec hubs are
With nowhere to use all that Nullsec ore, maybe now you mayunderstand why people mine in Hisec
Btw, you try getting all that lovely Ore/Minerals back to the hubs, without your freighter being ganked
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
3572
|
Posted - 2016.09.12 22:29:01 -
[420] - Quote
Tina Mori wrote: It is all a case of Market availability
There are all those Hisec trade hubs, ie Jita, Dodixie, etc
Now, show me where all the great Nullsec hubs are
With nowhere to use all that Nullsec ore, maybe now you may understand why people mine in Hisec
Btw, you try getting all that lovely Ore/Minerals back to the hubs, without your freighter being ganked
Except for you know, those lovely Dev blogs showing how much mining actually goes on in Null sec areas. Hint, it's actually about as much as goes on in high sec. Though hard to separate entirely as some of those regions cover multiple sec status regions. But there is plenty of mining in null, despite your claims otherwise. |
|
Tina Mori
Maniacal Miners INC LEEKSWARM FEDERATION
16
|
Posted - 2016.09.12 22:39:35 -
[421] - Quote
I never said there was no mining
I just mentioned a lack of markets to trade the winnings of all that mining
So what if there are many Hisec miners?
What I don`t understand is all the abuse they get, as they provide all the raw materials for everything built in Hisec. Just don`t say you never buy anything in Hisec, but instead you buy everything from all those wonderful sources in Nullsec..... |
Admiral Zander
Void Protectorate The Dominion Empire
1
|
Posted - 2016.09.12 23:16:48 -
[422] - Quote
Caleb Seremshur wrote:Ok so you feel its unfair when 10 people coordinate to kill a ship that might as well be unarmed, that your ship gets killed.
The Problem is when you are mining in HS. HS is Supposed to be High Security, (of course based on the security level.), but there is a way to lower the security by gankers if they Redirect Attention of The Police elsewhere and then gank you while they are busy elsewhere. I see this happen all the time. They are abusing the AI of the NPCs.
Also. If we Spend so much more on a Mackinaw or a Hulk, and We have lower Ore Hold capacity, Shouldn't we in turn get More Tank? these Larger, More Expensive Ships Requiring Hauling Support, should not be so easy to pop.
A Small ship should not be able to come in and Blap a heavy Industrial Ship within a few seconds.
Despite all you gangkers out there thinking this is fair, we should at least have a fighting chance to Survive. Hulks and Mackinaws are Useless till this is Fixed. |
Abadayos
Yulai RnD
18
|
Posted - 2016.09.12 23:45:20 -
[423] - Quote
So CCP Fozzie...you ask for our input yet when we give it, it goes ignored completely? The changes proposed have not been modified/changed or anything since the announcement on 8/22.
Not saying any of the proposed ideas here are good or bad, it just makes it look like the 'we appreciate your feedback' is more of a platitude that our feedback is wanted, welcome and taken n board. Seems that you just wanted to community to think their feedback is wanted where as in reality it's not and just ignored.
Now with the change all I'm doing is throwing on a new mining laser and getting more crystals for my skiffs and calling it a day, but damn..some back and forth would be nice |
HindSight Pergatory
Blackstone Holdings Sev3rance
21
|
Posted - 2016.09.13 01:07:04 -
[424] - Quote
Rob Kaichin wrote:I'm guessing the increased tank for the Hulk and Covetor with a DCU in the low is negligible at best?
A DCU on a Hulk.... why.. just.. why.. youre already flying a paper airplane in space.. youre going to put some scotch tape on it hoping it will survive something IN that space? you may as well put a warp stab in it while youre at it.. just put the MLU like they designed the extra Low for and watch it go pop like any other day... |
HindSight Pergatory
Blackstone Holdings Sev3rance
21
|
Posted - 2016.09.13 01:09:06 -
[425] - Quote
This is an absolute waste of time and resources. These mining ships are used as evenly as you can expect or even hope for. Fix the things that NEED TO BE FIXED. Ever heard the term, "If it aint broke dont fix it" ? Well.. I have a better one for you...
" If it aint broke DONT BREAK IT "
|
Warlord Balrog
303rd X-SOLDIER
6
|
Posted - 2016.09.13 01:14:14 -
[426] - Quote
HindSight Pergatory wrote:This is an absolute waste of time and resources. These mining ships are used as evenly as you can expect or even hope for. Fix the things that NEED TO BE FIXED. Ever heard the term, "If it aint broke dont fix it" ? Well.. I have a better one for you...
" If it aint broke DONT BREAK IT "
Problem is they broke it when they started handing out T2 guns against miners who only wield knives. The Skiff's yield is close enough to the other ships that the tank makes up for missing that precious few m3/cycle. Just glad people haven't figured this out and swore off the rest of the barge/exhumers or CCP might have done something heinous...like break the Skiff by nerfing it. |
Caleb Seremshur
Black Scorpions Inc Circle-Of-Two
862
|
Posted - 2016.09.13 01:34:54 -
[427] - Quote
Tina Mori wrote:Caleb Seremshur wrote:I never realised that mining was a highsec intended activity. It's almost as if nullsec didn't have ore and that the ore in nullsec isn't safer to mine and more valuable. Jee willickers. It is all a case of Market availability There are all those Hisec trade hubs, ie Jita, Dodixie, etc Now, show me where all the great Nullsec hubs are With nowhere to use all that Nullsec ore, maybe now you mayunderstand why people mine in Hisec Btw, you try getting all that lovely Ore/Minerals back to the hubs, without your freighter being ganked
Your understanding of the game is incredibly shallow if you don't think that it's possible to make it to highsec without being shafted. Jumpfreighters and wormholes being just 2 examples of how to do it, compressed ore being another way of moving more at once.
But now I know you're just being facetious, there's just no way anyone who does mining can be this delusional about how things work out there. |
Caleb Seremshur
Black Scorpions Inc Circle-Of-Two
862
|
Posted - 2016.09.13 01:55:32 -
[428] - Quote
Abadayos wrote:So CCP Fozzie...you ask for our input yet when we give it, it goes ignored completely? The changes proposed have not been modified/changed or anything since the announcement on 8/22.
Not saying any of the proposed ideas here are good or bad, it just makes it look like the 'we appreciate your feedback' is more of a platitude that our feedback is wanted, welcome and taken n board. Seems that you just wanted to community to think their feedback is wanted where as in reality it's not and just ignored. The request for feedback is not a guarantee of its implementation. If you want to make a case for a change to these proposals to be made, then provide something more substantial than the tantrums I am seeing.
Quote:A Small ship should not be able to come in and Blap a heavy Industrial Ship within a few seconds.
Despite all you gangkers out there thinking this is fair, we should at least have a fighting chance to Survive. Hulks and Mackinaws are Useless till this is Fixed.
A main battletank weighing 22 tons should not be able to destroy a 300 ton excavator by your definition of balance, but, I'd bet my bottom dollar on the MBT killing a PC3000 any day of the week. Try using one of those alts you run as a combat ship? The increased survival of your mining barges will eventually pay off the money that your alt isn't making. Or run your mining fleet as a group of overtanked procurers using an even blend of drones so you hit all the weakspots.
Quote:I never said there was no mining I just mentioned a lack of markets to trade the winnings of all that mining So what if there are many Hisec miners? What I don`t understand is all the abuse they get, as they provide all the raw materials for everything built in Hisec. Just don`t say you never buy anything in Hisec, but instead you buy everything from all those wonderful sources in Nullsec.....
Its not the highsec miners that are the problem, its the entitled whining from working class evangalists like you pontificating to the rest of society about how valuable your minimum wage job is. There's a reason why mining is frequently used with bots, because it's a simplistic task that's easily automated, just like checkouts and factory production lines.
Let's be clear: highsec miners are the bottom feeders, the guys at the bottom of the heap doing perhaps the single least impactful occupation in EVE. The only thing you've got going for yourselves is how many highsec miners there are but again the call for your associates to unionise and """punish""" the rest of the game has been made before and never worked out. Too fractitious you are. You will never be anything but the people the rest of the game steps and stamps on.
As for the jackals that constitute CODE, who knows, they serve a useful purpose of thinning the herd of its weakest members. |
Don'tcallme Francis
United Tactical Operations and Manufacturing United Systems of Aridia
0
|
Posted - 2016.09.13 04:15:49 -
[429] - Quote
Caleb Seremshur wrote:[quote=Abadayos] Its not the highsec miners that are the problem, its the entitled whining from working class evangalists like you pontificating to the rest of society about how valuable your minimum wage job is. There's a reason why mining is frequently used with bots, because it's a simplistic task that's easily automated, just like checkouts and factory production lines.
It's a computer game. Everything is automated. It's not like back in the day when we had to fly real spaceships uphill through the snow. You youngsters act so entitled. Get off my lawn. |
Tsukino Stareine
Art Of Explosions 404 Hole Not Found
1857
|
Posted - 2016.09.13 04:24:31 -
[430] - Quote
In the end it boils down to the one fact: mining is mind-numbingly boring. So much so that people can only do it without going insane by afking.
If mining was an exciting activity that required tons of player interaction, you would never see a hulk getting ganked even if it only had enough HP to fend off a reasonably fit ibis.
Art of Explosions
|
|
TheSmokingHertog
Julia's Interstellar Trade Emperium
423
|
Posted - 2016.09.13 04:47:37 -
[431] - Quote
So, between announcement and release we get a whole 1! developer response...
"Dogma is kind of like quantum physics, observing the dogma state will change it." ~ CCP Prism X
"Schrödinger's Missile. I dig it." ~ Makari Aeron
-= "Brain in a Box on Singularity" - April 2015 =-
|
Penance Toralen
Compass Fox
9
|
Posted - 2016.09.13 05:58:21 -
[432] - Quote
TheSmokingHertog wrote:So, between announcement and release we get a whole 1! developer response...
Feedback was requested, testing/feedback was supplied, I am not concerned, Carebear Illuminati has the matter in hand, isn't that right James?
|
Divine Entervention
Brand Newbros Test Alliance Please Ignore
849
|
Posted - 2016.09.13 09:24:05 -
[433] - Quote
This patch regarding the mining changes reminds me of this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ognDSKtzKuU
|
Cpt BusterRoids
i420 Inc
3
|
Posted - 2016.09.13 09:28:48 -
[434] - Quote
Once again Eve Devs take a big poop on something that did not need changing .. So hulk has 2 mining lasers now ? How stupid are you morons, people like to mine 3 different things at once sometimes. Do you ever even ask players that actually mine what they think of your ****** ideas before you employ them? Why have you not fixed rorqual yet then ? You all need to review your work ethics because it sucks all you do is busy nonsense work that does not help EVE. Just wow you all suck at what you do, this exactly why EVE is in toilet with number of active pilots. So keep pooping on game eventually you will have no job. |
mana waikato
Taiha Battalion
0
|
Posted - 2016.09.13 09:46:15 -
[435] - Quote
Any plan's to look at the Endurance and other ORE mining frigates in the future ?? Maybe with lavish mining bonuses and fluffy dice in the bridge window :) .... |
Ampoliros Ni-Dunes
CreoDron Test and Evaluation Command
1
|
Posted - 2016.09.13 11:18:58 -
[436] - Quote
Whatever the Game Design Team will do with the designs and differentiating the barges/exhumers hulls visually (according to the o7show redesign video), they can't compete with 1/2/3 strip miiner. That was uniqueifying perfectly.
Ok, let them roll out already. |
imgoingtodye
Negative or Positive
0
|
Posted - 2016.09.13 12:43:21 -
[437] - Quote
I hate to say it but I did enjoy seeing the extra laser on the hulk.. |
Rexxen Darkbrew
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2016.09.13 12:49:29 -
[438] - Quote
Just been checking out the changes, I thought the change was supposed to be yield neutral??
Now even according to your own charts, The Skiff one of the least played of MB's but now mines less m3 and cost double to operate due to crystal burn rate.
Yeah you really seem like you want to even out the playing field, It will be nothing but a mack fest now..// /sigh |
Faelune
Tous Pour Un
18
|
Posted - 2016.09.13 13:12:02 -
[439] - Quote
I don't understand the tweak on the skiff and probably on the procurer I didn't check.
What does the meaning behind this gift to the gankers in pack inside the high sec?
Why do we have already to choose now between a mini harvester with a full defense or a full harvester with a mini defense equivalent to a Procurer from the last week fiiting near to full Tech2 (around 55 000 hp)?
And why don't we have some alternative clearly publicize about the capacity given with the second turrets to be a remoter or a vampirizer or a lead link without bonus to compensate the loss of all active shielding to hold our Hp to near 80 000 points?
|
Captain Campion
Captain Campion Corporation 1
27
|
Posted - 2016.09.13 13:12:12 -
[440] - Quote
Love the new Procurer model, brilliant, thanks CCP.
Looks like there's some skins too but it's not clear how to get them? |
|
Ares Splinter
Bank Of Zion The Volition Cult
0
|
Posted - 2016.09.13 13:16:09 -
[441] - Quote
I still do not understand people head bother to spend their time on mine they are being cheated again and again for all the training time they spend on getting into a hulk one mach .. debliver not rewarded for their work on an equal footing with the likes of ratter they have bad vildk+Ñr for their mac which is totally unusable out of 00 because they can not handle rats .. honest CCP wake up and make something more out of this .. |
Faelune
Tous Pour Un
18
|
Posted - 2016.09.13 13:28:55 -
[442] - Quote
The only miners alone anywhere that have a way to escape earlier from a pack are only the Venture's family. And not all the time it succeed |
Raw Figmo
Patriotic Tendencies Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2016.09.13 13:29:08 -
[443] - Quote
Bootsing bonus are not working on the skiffs. They are working on the Mac's. Anyone else seeing this. |
Vincent Pelletier
Pelletier Imports and Exports
26
|
Posted - 2016.09.13 13:47:59 -
[444] - Quote
Resa Moon wrote:[this will not add to the enjoyment
You mean that it won't help you AFK as much.
|
Faelune
Tous Pour Un
18
|
Posted - 2016.09.13 14:23:24 -
[445] - Quote
At this time Skiff is useless because a mass of 55 000 hp a yield about 1300 cubic meter per cycle with strip miner tech2 and a tech 1 lens and expensive at the beginning. With nothing to retaliate or escape who match the cost in ganking occurence And yesterday it was 2700 cubic meter per cycle on a skiff with this fitting for a mass of 78 000hp. So I jump off of this coffin to jump in my Venture. And it goes better. |
Jonmar Nasgar
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2016.09.13 15:32:08 -
[446] - Quote
First things first.... Grammar nazi's may want to skip this post.... Lots of red lines under a boatload of the words in this post LOL... Also the 3 periods and whatnot are not for you... They are for me... I cant see CHIT... This makes it easier on me...
CCP Fozzie wrote:
We're very interested in your feedback and welcome you to try out the new stats (and new ship models) on SISI. Thanks!
Hey CCP... Want to say I havent tried it yet, but I am almost 100% certain I am not going to like all the Barges and Exhumers having the same amount of High Slots... when I am running multiple miners on multiple moniters I can already see me getting confused every now and then on who is who LOL...
I never post here but wanted to tell you why I never mine (or do anything else) in Low or Null... Hope you dont mind me puttin it here... just take it down if ya do mind...
My Play style for Games is mostly Solo... And the API System gives out to much info...
That pretty much sums it up... Cant even look at Low or Null without Joining a large Alliance that requires too much for my Play Style and RL interruptions... (Can it be done? yes!!! --- is it worth the hassle currently to Solo Low Or Null??? Not ATM for me!!!)
Also I only just started this third account... So my two main accounts that I have toons on that are capable of going to Low or Null and joining a large alliance for survivability and Isk making purposes dont do so due to the requirements by ALL Low or Null sec corps for an API that includes ALL of my toons info on each account that joins their Corp/Alliance... And that gives them Access to every account and toon that has had interactions with each other...
Why on earth would I ever join in on the PEW PEW or Industry in Low or Null when I have to give my API out that includes very Gankable mining toons and (not so easily gankable) Pew Pew toons that are not even in the Low or Null sec Corp/Alliance??? Why on Earth would I give out OpSec level Info to a bunch of PvPers and Ganking Players who wouldn't think twice about tracking down my toons that aren't in the Low or Null sec Corp and inflating their killmails with with ridiculously easy Ganks???
There are currently no other Space Games that come close to providing the Playability of Eve for my Playstyle... Tried em... They suck... They suck big ones...
I would have been in Low or Null having a blast long ago if it weren't for the fact that I will NEVER give out info on my toons that are not in your Corp/Alliance until AFTER I know you and where you live in RL... Without OpSec you have nothing... Giving out a full API leaves my other care bare and pew pew toons with no Opsec... Sure, my WH'ing toons dont give a rats hiney whether you have their API or Not, It's full time war in WH's anyway... My CareBear toons do though... My WH toons only interact with their Corp/Alliance Mates once or twice a week at most... and even then it's only if I happen to be on and there are dangerous peeps or stupids about...
If I was forced to interact more I would probably have to drop my accounts... My playtime and style dont support it at the moment... (Ya cant force someone to play on Thursdays who is 50 miles from a computer on Thursdays) (( Yes thats an analogy )) Although when I am capable of Interacting you can bet your hiney I'll have someone in a BS or Repper running with a bunch of folks who dont require an API...
Havent decided yet whether this will be my Low/Null sec toon, or whether he will join the other 6 toon slots on the other 2 accounts and be forever linked to them through Comms and trading and whatnot... Right now he is all alone and has no connections to them... He is a viable candidate currently.... but the first time I share an Overview through Evemail with him or ANY other interaction he will be forever linked to them through the API and no longer be a viable candidate for Low or Null sec operations with PvP and/or Industrial corps that require a full API...
Anywhose it CCP... To sum it up, my main (not only, just the main) reason for staying out of Low or Null sec Corps (and therefore staying out of Low and Null) on my main accounts is the API that gives away my OpSec on a couple of sometimes profitable CareBare toons and my Pew Pew toons...
Not asking for any changes or anything... Just providing Feedback that I hope may be helpful... I bet there are many more peeps who never post here, with the common sense to NEVER give up OpSec on ALL of their toons on EVERY account that has interacted with their other accounts, just so one or two Toons can join a Low or Null Sec Corp... Thanks for all the hard work on the best SpaceGame out today for my PlayStyle....
Oh yeah... I love building things... Like a place to live, a castle to call home, ships, modules, and whatnot... To bad us semi solo playstyle peeps have no way to defend our homes and efforts without dropping 500 bucks on PLEX and hiring Mercs.... Or playing in a manner that is contrary to what is "fun" or sometimes even possible for us due to interruptions in RL...
Keep up the great work... Just remember what it would be like if a bunch of us got together and came and rearranged your offices and workspaces to our liking, not yours, every 6 or 8 weeks or so... That would indeed suck wouldnt it... It's the same for us players... Keep that in mind as you put so much hard work and effort (which is appreciated by me most of the time) into updating EVE so often :) :) :)
IMO EVE is the best Space game out ATM.... As soon as someone makes a Space Game with a comparable amount of open world building and creating like Eve has, where it isnt so ridiculously easy for old timers or overwhelming numbers to come along and destroy everything you have built, that will change...
|
Faelune
Tous Pour Un
18
|
Posted - 2016.09.13 15:48:21 -
[447] - Quote
I really think the skiff like it is now is a gift for gankers to replenish. But I dispise this with this depicture. Gankers I see them like old hunters in their camo suits and their dogs and riflles sit on a camping chair next to a table and some bad beers wine or vodkas standing for the flight of birds under an apple tree. some slothery bunch of slow life |
Bob Forrest
Beyond New Frontier The Amish Mafia
3
|
Posted - 2016.09.13 16:07:01 -
[448] - Quote
I loved to mine with only one laser and different crystals, simply because it's quite uncomplicated to warp in a belt, orbit a rock or my mtu and mine what is there and only switch the crystal if nothing of that type is in reach anymore...now i will have to switch crystals a lot more or always have a set of two crystals of the same type to hit a single rock...i really don't like what you did to the proc/skiff...makes me even think of never mine again... |
Admiral Zander
Void Protectorate The Dominion Empire
4
|
Posted - 2016.09.13 16:45:16 -
[449] - Quote
Quote:Thanks for nerfing my Hulk again.
My Math Was Wrong. I retract that statement. |
Bob Forrest
Beyond New Frontier The Amish Mafia
4
|
Posted - 2016.09.13 16:51:32 -
[450] - Quote
all angry miners should unite and gather somewhere to commit sucide in their barges and exhumers! i'd be willing to! who is with me? |
|
Admiral Zander
Void Protectorate The Dominion Empire
4
|
Posted - 2016.09.13 16:52:23 -
[451] - Quote
Bob Forrest wrote:all angry miners should unite and gather somewhere to commit sucide in their barges and exhumers! i'd be willing to! who is with me? Spoken like a true Ganker |
Bob Forrest
Beyond New Frontier The Amish Mafia
4
|
Posted - 2016.09.13 16:55:15 -
[452] - Quote
Admiral Zander wrote:Bob Forrest wrote:all angry miners should unite and gather somewhere to commit sucide in their barges and exhumers! i'd be willing to! who is with me? Spoken like a true Ganker i'm a pacifist, even in eve, only rats and code are exceptions :) |
Admiral Zander
Void Protectorate The Dominion Empire
3
|
Posted - 2016.09.13 17:08:26 -
[453] - Quote
love the new Designs and Skins. Thanks CCP |
Hark'ma
Arbiters of the Void Advent of Fate
8
|
Posted - 2016.09.13 17:18:11 -
[454] - Quote
Why can't you guys just leave the effin' Sandbox alone and quit pissing with stuff? Leave the damn mining boosts as off-grid and quit changing things in the game. There is better things to work on instead of fkn' with things that weren't broken to begin with.
Quit pissing in the sandbox CCP. |
Captain JeanLuke Picard
Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde
0
|
Posted - 2016.09.13 19:19:40 -
[455] - Quote
Love the new animations but seems a bit overused though on all 3 barges and exhumers it's the same just more "blue spinning wheels", would have been more fitting if the retriever had more ore compactors, the covetor had more flames and proc looked more tanky with less of the other 2 graphics. Also the middle blue spinning wheel thing doesn't match up to the number of mining lasers which seems really off to me...I don't like the change of number of mining lasers on all barges to 2 each, I really liked the way it was before, it makes procs economical saving on crystals and easier to calculate maximize yield/cycles , with the retriever it was a good afk miner, just hit 2 big roids, and with covetor it was a fleet miner where you were constantly trying to maximize your 3 lasers for yield/cycle. I don't like the new 2 mining lasers system, defeated the original purpose. Retriever seems a little more cap stable now, skiffs feels a bit gimpier, stuggles with cpu and capacitor bank so I guess that's to make it more gankable, neut them out quicker. Haven't even tried covetor for a long time, doesn't seem like many people fleet mine anyway, was a super gimpy ship before can't imagine one low slot is going to encourage many miners to bait themselves in it much more. |
Falcon GB
LightningStrikesTwice Elemental Tide
0
|
Posted - 2016.09.13 20:41:52 -
[456] - Quote
Mackinaw: Removal of strip miner yield and ice harvester cycle time role bonuses
If thats all you've done to the Mack why does my fit no longer work? Gone from Cap stable to no cap at all.. Please CCP can we concentrate on fixing things that are actually broke instead of breaking things that work!!!! And by the way.. why the hell did you mutilate the Executioner hull with it's lovely Amarrian curves and turn it into the hideous looking thing that looks like it was designed in Minecraft????? |
Axure Abbacus
Pentex Subsidiaries Corp
35
|
Posted - 2016.09.14 01:58:28 -
[457] - Quote
The addition of the smoke and flames are a nice touch but they appear active when i added an advanced cloak to the fit. I hope this is just a glitch on my computer because right now I have a cloaked Procurer belching smoke and flame.
|
Dieter Ottenbach
Ottenbach Industries LTD
0
|
Posted - 2016.09.14 02:29:06 -
[458] - Quote
Hmmm. To play devil's advocate, it seems to me that with all the talk of how easy it is to gank the barges, inexpensively etc etc (even profitable), perhaps it's just as well that many miners just switch to being gankers (until the "rebalance" plays itself out). Each account on EVE comes with three characters afterall. If it's time to stop mining and start ganking, so be it. It's just a game folks..... |
Warlord Balrog
303rd X-SOLDIER
7
|
Posted - 2016.09.14 02:36:52 -
[459] - Quote
Dieter Ottenbach wrote:Hmmm. To play devil's advocate, it seems to me that with all the talk of how easy it is to gank the barges, inexpensively etc etc (even profitable), perhaps it's just as well that many miners just switch to being gankers (until the "rebalance" plays itself out). Each account on EVE comes with three characters afterall. If it's time to stop mining and start ganking, so be it. It's just a game folks.....
Or use the minerals you've been mining and selling to those who gank you and manufacture/invent. Eventually they'll have to learn how to reactivate mining lasers on many characters efficiently, to which they all claim is easy.
Another great option is just don't undock a barge and they'll all unsub, since there'll be no paper planes to throw fireballs at. Force them to learn how to PvP instead of just shooting one volley on 5-20 accounts. Who knows maybe they'll learn how to socialize or learn what real teamwork is! :) |
Enlightened Xax
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2016.09.14 04:19:23 -
[460] - Quote
I think this change totally sucked the big one! Nerfing the Hulk and Covetor for the matter, just makes the boring but necessary task of mining even lamer. For all the training that had to go into being able to fly a Hulk and make it just rip the roids, this patch just made all that worthless. The whole point of training to fly the hulk was for the 3 mining lasers, who cares about the low ore hold. The reason the Hulk usage was low is because not everyone would train up to use them. Make the time spent on this game training worth something! |
|
Resa Moon
New Eden Miners Association
22
|
Posted - 2016.09.14 05:51:05 -
[461] - Quote
Vincent Pelletier wrote:Resa Moon wrote:[this will not add to the enjoyment You mean that it won't help you AFK as much.
Multi-boxing miners don't AFK.
New Eden Mining Blog
|
Dieter Ottenbach
Ottenbach Industries LTD
0
|
Posted - 2016.09.14 07:05:11 -
[462] - Quote
Well, I've been cautiously optimistic about the artwork changes until now, and - seeing it first hand today as deployed - it's pretty good work. The lighting on the top of the hulk around the drum-hatch type things is the obvious draw-in here (and probably the justification for why the third turret had to go in the minds of the devs). If one looks closely around the hatches you can see the blue gasses glowing as they seep out which is cool.
The artwork change overall for the barge, wasn't as vivid or drastic color change as I had hoped for - the anticipation I had was for the "yellow" as seen with the Venture (which looks really cool btw) and is more like a "caution" yellow - the barges kind of still look more like a "yam" than a "bee" but oh-well. And of course kudos on the rocket afterburner and fire bursts/smoke effects - good work using the graphics capabilities there. These new physical graphics effects are nice to finally see on the barges.
As for mining yield on the hulk, as promised there seems to be a small boost (assuming the exchange of the 3rd strip miner for one new MLU). I'm getting almost +3 m^3/sec/ship without doing any other upgrades on the character/ship, and the ranges are now boosted by +3 km. Curiously, I'm wondering if the Survey Scanner could get a corresponding boost in range - (seems appropriate)? And yeah, as promised the CPU is tight (about what I calculated it would be from Fozzie's post).
One seeming bug I found almost right away, when viewing my own ship in space the camera doesn't seem to pivot with the center of the ship - the center of the camera pivot seems to be based on the front end of the ship. I don't remember it being that way previously. I'm sure that small nit has probably been noted already elsewhere in the appropriate queue.
Anything missed? D.O.
|
Razor Azaph
Event Horizon Expeditionaries Apocalypse Now.
0
|
Posted - 2016.09.14 09:35:28 -
[463] - Quote
I don't see the point of the upgrade / downgrade / nothing has really changed.
How about a real change, such as allowing miners to defend themselves using their mining lasers? It would be like defending yourself with a chainsaw, not the best weapon, hard to control, clumbsy, BUT awesome damage when it connects with it's target.
If a laser can crunch rocks, why can't we use it to shread an attacking ganker? |
Warlord Balrog
303rd X-SOLDIER
10
|
Posted - 2016.09.14 09:52:41 -
[464] - Quote
Resa Moon wrote:Vincent Pelletier wrote:Resa Moon wrote:[this will not add to the enjoyment You mean that it won't help you AFK as much. Multi-boxing miners don't AFK.
Technically we could, just not longer than our cycle time. So for skiffs ice mining we had less than 7 minutes before we had to dump 2 loads into the orca, switch to the Orca pilot and move it to another bay, then do 2 more... all before the 15th cycle ends.
Assuming you had to pick a new youtube video, click the next email, or read patch notes for another game. These you could do. Now on the other hand, if you were a ganker, you warp the fleet into the belt, CTRL+Click your hard working victim, hit F1 on each pilot and after about 20 seconds click dock and go AFK for the remainder of your timer until the next vicitim is chosen. Seems to me if you want to be AFK and turn a profit you have to be a ganker or ratter.
"EVE - The pirate life isn't yours yet?" |
Zorn Cosby
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
13
|
Posted - 2016.09.14 14:17:33 -
[465] - Quote
So how is this supposed to improve gameplay?
This should be the FIRST question that devs should ask themselves before changing ANYTHING in the game. If devs are not asking this question, then management is doing a very poor job in providing oversight of the project. For this set of changes, and for a disturbing number of others, it is very hard to see that there is ANY overall management or oversight of this project/game.
In what way does this change improve gameplay at all? It increases the number of clicks necessary to mine effectively (not a plus), requires new fits to generally yield less with greater risk (since CCP did not adequately ensure that PG and CPU and cap recharge were sufficient to retain current yield without reducing the use of defensive modules to yield the same or less while mining), and it reduces the variance among ships (wow, let's just homogenize ships shall we, so that everyone gets closer to the same).
Making mining more fiddly is not improved gameplay. Increasing clicks is not better gameplay. Increasing risk without increased reward is not necessarily better gameplay.
I am dreading the changes to the Orca/mining fleet bonuses in November, I believe that this current change is a small taste of the pointless changes to be implemented which ignore gameplay as the PRIMARY focus. One thing for sure, my accounts will not get renewed until after I see the impacts on mining and mining fleets. Unfortunately the impacts really do appear (for miners at least) be to fairly hugely detrimental in outcomes and makes the whole process more fiddly with zero improvements for the player. As a multi-account player that has been questioning my financial commitment to the game, these sets of changes may just push me over the edge to let my accounts lapse.
Please CCP, enlighten us. Tell your player base exactly what purpose these changes were supposed to make and how they were beneficial to the game and players? I cannot see any, none at all. |
Elenahina
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
1189
|
Posted - 2016.09.14 15:39:36 -
[466] - Quote
FT Cold wrote:
Players should be encouraged to have to think, make choices, and be punished or rewarded for how much effort they put in.
We few, we proud, we aged bitter vets are slowly being replaced by the "I want it nao!" crew of keyboard monkeys who don't want to do any of those things.
They barely suffer consequences in real life. Why would they have to suffer them in a game?
Eve is like an addiction; you can't quit it until it quits you.
Also, iderno
|
Enlightened Xax
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
2
|
Posted - 2016.09.14 16:11:21 -
[467] - Quote
Zorn Cosby wrote:So how is this supposed to improve gameplay?
Please CCP, enlighten us. Tell your player base exactly what purpose these changes were supposed to make and how they were beneficial to the game and players? I cannot see any, none at all.
I agree, how is this supposed to improve the game play? With so many other posts figuring the mining output is about the same as before, then why make the change. Just for the added graphics? How many people fly around zoomed all the way into their ship, just to see the graphics? When you are zoomed out all the way, those really are not that important. So basically, you just made some changes to the mining barges that did not need to be changed.
Having multiple accounts, and paying multiple subscriptions each month is seeming more like a down side with crap changes like these. |
Drago Shouna
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
594
|
Posted - 2016.09.14 17:55:08 -
[468] - Quote
Guys guys guys.
You need to understand the present Risk vs Reward scenario...
Come the November changes, we RISK a 2-3 BILLION ship, on grid....
So that the players favoured by CCP can reap the REWARDS.
It's all about killmails now, nothing else. We get absolutely nothing out of it.
It's blatantly obvious that that's the direction the game is going, I suppose what we need to be thinking about is where it's going next.
Solecist Project...." They refuse to play by the rules and laws of the game and use it as excuse ..."
" They don't care about how you play as long as they get to play how they want."
Welcome to EVE.
|
Orlyonok
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2016.09.14 19:31:53 -
[469] - Quote
Interesting. It seems some multiboxers view this change as hostile. I prefer to view it as favoring active mining.
I have used multiple accounts in a minor way, as in running a miasmos to make a procurer more effective, and I am glad most of the 50-ship skiff fleets that would destroy an ice anomaly in 5 minutes are gone. Oh, yes the procurer still has its tank, but is now more expensive to outfit.
I still see multiboxers with fleets of 23 Macks blowing away an ice belt that folk in null have a jump brige to, in like 10 minutes, leaving the scraps they can't be bothered to clean up for the rest. I still remember talking to such multiboxers who are all proud they never pay real money for their multiple accounts, just PLEX.
So those who seem to be threatened by this cosmetic change (surely not substantive) could leave EVE with their multiple accounts and not affect the game with regard to revenue. There would be more ore and ice for more miners if they did, which is neither a good nor a bad thing.
But many do have a valid point, mining is boring enough that I look at those huge multiboxed fleets and wonder why anyone would go to all that trouble to NOT play the game he is probably not contributing any real money to. I see the same thing in rookie help where I contribute some time. Many questions are about how to automate not only targeting but shooting so their ship will move on to the next target without their intervention. Did someone forget this is a game where you gain pleasure by participating?
So, anyway, I am a casual, not an angry, miner. The changes seem cosmetic to me except my procurer will not have as large a loss mining a barely-present rock (I choose to tank instead of scan). More important, the balance between opportunistic PvP and the miners is maintained, with a delicious mix of braggadocio on both sides and stubborn clinging to maximize "profits" One side plays the role of protection racket criminals who are indignant that people treat them like criminals, and the other stiff-necked miners married to "more" so thoroughly that their non-play is entertaining. CCP seeks to maintain balance and somehow resists the push to popularize the game, which would open it to the exploiters among player and produce alike.
And I am impressed by the artistic license that allows a spaceship to imitate a fire-belching dragon, even thought it suggests a terrible waste of energy and resources which would likely be recycled in a space environment.
|
Orlyonok
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2016.09.14 19:51:09 -
[470] - Quote
Razor Azaph wrote:I don't see the point of the upgrade / downgrade / nothing has really changed.
How about a real change, such as allowing miners to defend themselves using their mining lasers? It would be like defending yourself with a chainsaw, not the best weapon, hard to control, clumbsy, BUT awesome damage when it connects with it's target.
If a laser can crunch rocks, why can't we use it to shread an attacking ganker?
LoL. The beam vaporizes some rock and accessory beams guide the vapors and condensates to the ship where further processing occurs. It is a lossy process but it essentially slowly drills a hole in a rock, with maybe enough modulation to make it wider than the beam.
The Amarr laser weapon has no guide beams so it does thernmal and em damage to a structure where the convection and kinetic components of expanding gas play a role in the damage. The energy levels employed are vastly different. The mining laser apparatus does not have the aplomb of the Amarr laser, and the Amarr laser lacks the finesse of the mining laser.
But I suppose miners might be accused next of bringing a chainsaw to a gunfight. That would be hilarious. |
|
Dieter Ottenbach
Ottenbach Industries LTD
0
|
Posted - 2016.09.14 20:06:44 -
[471] - Quote
I'm not certain of how people are coming up with "more clicks" result. If that could be explained I would appreciate that. You don't have to click the strip miner every time it cycles, hence with shorter cycle times you are actually saving time (in theory) during mining because it is a more efficient extraction of material from the asteroid. If you are trying to maintain a standard of "short cycling" by stopping a strip miner half way through it's cycle, I re-iterate, you don't have to do that. (on the other hand, in case you were never aware, a strip miner always completes it's cycle even if it has already extracted all the ore from an asteroid, this is where the wasted time comes from, in the event you choose not to short the cycle). So my suggestion is, if you are concerned about the number of clicks, then just don't short the cycle anymore.
Until someone can sufficiently explain why this modification is resulting in more clicks, I'm assuming that complaint is poppycock, or that person has a seriously flawed personal mining method, which they might need to think about more.
** and I will re-iterate, just to make it clear again, if you are thinking it is more clicks because you are choosing to short each cycle, that's not correct, because it remains your choice of how often and when to short each cycle. |
Warlord Balrog
303rd X-SOLDIER
11
|
Posted - 2016.09.14 21:49:57 -
[472] - Quote
Dieter Ottenbach wrote:I'm not certain of how people are coming up with "more clicks" result. If that could be explained I would appreciate that. You don't have to click the strip miner every time it cycles, hence with shorter cycle times you are actually saving time (in theory) during mining because it is a more efficient extraction of material from the asteroid. If you are trying to maintain a standard of "short cycling" by stopping a strip miner half way through it's cycle, I re-iterate, you don't have to do that. (on the other hand, in case you were never aware, a strip miner always completes it's cycle even if it has already extracted all the ore from an asteroid, this is where the wasted time comes from, in the event you choose not to short the cycle). So my suggestion is, if you are concerned about the number of clicks, then just don't short the cycle anymore.
Until someone can sufficiently explain why this modification is resulting in more clicks, I'm assuming that complaint is poppycock, or that person has a seriously flawed personal mining method, which they might need to think about more.
** and I will re-iterate, just to make it clear again, if you are thinking it is more clicks because you are choosing to short each cycle, that's not correct, because it remains your choice of how often and when to short each cycle.
Allow me to explain a few things that a rookie might mistake:
When we say "more clicks" what we mean is two separate points: 1) With one less strip on the Hulk and an extra on the Skiff, that means F1-click next-F2 as apposed to F1 (another click)....move on after depletion 2) With faster cycle times, you deplete that asteroid faster...Which means clicking the next rock faster. Hence, more clicking. This is both good and bad. -Good: You don't waste 180+ seconds for the cycle to mine that last whopping 5 m3 from the roid because you're too lazy to scan and see it's almost gone to 'short-cycle'/avoid it all together and move on. -Bad: Well, really it's only bad if you expect mining to be a 100% AFK activity, have kids, doing laundry, cooking, wife aggro, or any other thing that drives you away from your keyboard. -Worse: Trying to solo mine against a fleet. You might get a few cycles in before they tear ALL of the roids right out from under you. Atleast with 160+second cycles you had a chance to 'short cycle' them once in a while.
With this known, just imagine: D-Scanning on the booster Hauling in a transport or freighter (depending on the size of your fleet) Controlling two 2min30s cycle time strip miners on multiple clients (Let's say....4 to be modest) * Alternatively if you use the silly little frigates, ~45 second cycle times
And being efficient is even harder than most think. You don't want to compete by mining the same thing as someone else but cut your cycle before they can) nor would you want to put all your strips on one roid--unless it's a >100 iceberg! Generally speaking, if you control multiple miners you'll want one mining veld, another on pyrox, and another on scord so you don't even step on your own toes. So, go ahead, give it a shot!
If anyone is wondering how much things changed since the patch (I only have the partial skiff data due to a power failure): -= Old =- ORE Skiff 1x 3192 m3 / 89.6 sec = 35.625 m3/second ICE Skiff 1 / 30 sec = 30 seconds per cube
-= New =- ORE Skiff 2x 1571 m3 / 117.1 sec = 26.831 m3/second ICE Skiff 2 cubes / ?? sec = ?? seconds per cube
Personally, I'm waiting on extractors reasonably priced to extract Orca, boosting, and mining skills and move on. I only reply here because of my vast experience (albeit I forget percentages and exact numbers occasionally). But if you have questions EVEMail within the next year, likely I'll have forgotten anything about mining by then.
As for the 20+ crews that I see going around. Those are the types of people C0DE SHOULD have been going after! Not the solo or mini-me fleets that are everywhere. Oh well, such is life with an unregulated game...and that's what makes EVE interesting! |
MrB99
Astral Mining
12
|
Posted - 2016.09.14 21:54:04 -
[473] - Quote
Warlord Balrog wrote:wife aggro
Priceless... |
Mac Powers
Imperial Klingon Empire Corporation
0
|
Posted - 2016.09.14 22:04:59 -
[474] - Quote
Less strip miners is a bad thing i dont care what anyone says. |
Dieter Ottenbach
Ottenbach Industries LTD
1
|
Posted - 2016.09.14 22:37:33 -
[475] - Quote
Quote:1) With one less strip on the Hulk and an extra on the Skiff, that means F1-click next-F2 as apposed to F1 (another click)....move on after depletion
I don't use the Skiff, I have only the Hulk so now I don't have a third turret to click. That counts for something. Additionally, I use a scanner to select the asteroids I want to mine (avoiding ones with less than a full cycle to begin with).
In your second item I would point out you admit, it is actually both good and bad. And I'm agreeing with that, that's why I don't see it as more "clicks". I'd have to change to a new asteroid (once the current one is depleated) in any case (regardless) so I don't see the "total clicks" increasing. I might agree that you might find the mining to be more efficient (and hence more clicking in a shorter time period) because you are finding out you have to refocus to the new asteroid sooner, but by the same token you are speeding up the whole mining process by the same amount.
On the other hand, I agree if the main goal is AFK mining, then yeah - you've got less time now between clicks (potentially). Less time between clicks doesn't equate to "more clicking" strictly but your point stands in the context of AFK. I don't have any activities I try to do between clicks ..... even if I did - the shortness of duration between clicking 3 strip miners on multiple accounts prevented any real AFK - even before these changes.
|
Resa Moon
New Eden Miners Association
23
|
Posted - 2016.09.15 05:31:13 -
[476] - Quote
Warlord Balrog wrote:Resa Moon wrote:Vincent Pelletier wrote:Resa Moon wrote:[this will not add to the enjoyment You mean that it won't help you AFK as much. Multi-boxing miners don't AFK. Technically we could, just not longer than our cycle time. So for skiffs ice mining we had less than 7 minutes before we had to dump 2 loads into the orca, switch to the Orca pilot and move it to another bay, then do 2 more... all before the 15th cycle ends. Assuming you had to pick a new youtube video, click the next email, or read patch notes for another game. These you could do. Now on the other hand, if you were a ganker, you warp the fleet into the belt, CTRL+Click your hard working victim, hit F1 on each pilot and after about 20 seconds click dock and go AFK for the remainder of your timer until the next vicitim is chosen. Seems to me if you want to be AFK and turn a profit you have to be a ganker or ratter. "EVE - The pirate life isn't yours yet?"
Ice is the slowest - try ore with Hulks, but even with ice good multi-boxers won't AFK not only because of the cycle time and housekeeping required, but because of the competition, the bumping and the gank attempts. Efficient multi-boxing requires attention unless you don't mind losing assets or being inefficient.
Ice mining can be a very competitive activity.
New Eden Mining Blog
|
Gary Webb
The Walking Deads V. O. I. D.
24
|
Posted - 2016.09.15 05:35:36 -
[477] - Quote
....why does one crystal degrade faster than the others? This throws off jet can timing and cycle times.
CCP, was it your intention to jack up the operations of large scale fleets to reduce actual efficiency? Because that seems to be all you've accomplished with this pass
|
Penance Toralen
Compass Fox
9
|
Posted - 2016.09.15 06:09:13 -
[478] - Quote
Gary Webb wrote:....why does one crystal degrade faster than the others? This throws off jet can timing and cycle times.
CCP, was it your intention to jack up the operations of large scale fleets to reduce actual efficiency? Because that seems to be all you've accomplished with this pass
The forth coming balance passes to mining fleet boosts, one of options will be a link that reduces crystal degrade. |
Gary Webb
The Walking Deads V. O. I. D.
24
|
Posted - 2016.09.15 19:13:06 -
[479] - Quote
Penance Toralen wrote:Gary Webb wrote:....why does one crystal degrade faster than the others? This throws off jet can timing and cycle times.
CCP, was it your intention to jack up the operations of large scale fleets to reduce actual efficiency? Because that seems to be all you've accomplished with this pass
The forth coming balance passes to mining fleet boosts, one of options will be a link that reduces crystal degrade.
but each crystal would still degrade at different rates, albeit slower |
Thane Kuvora
Crossfire Mining and Manufacturing
8
|
Posted - 2016.09.16 12:52:31 -
[480] - Quote
Don't like that you are messing with my Hulk. Nerfing it somewhat. It's better with 3 high slots. Why take away PWG and CPU? The extra low slot doesn't make up for what you lose. It's a rubbish trade off. |
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18052
|
Posted - 2016.09.17 04:05:56 -
[481] - Quote
Drago Shouna wrote:Guys guys guys.
You need to understand the present Risk vs Reward scenario...
Come the November changes, we RISK a 2-3 BILLION ship, on grid....
So that the players favoured by CCP can reap the REWARDS.
It's all about killmails now, nothing else. We get absolutely nothing out of it.
It's blatantly obvious that that's the direction the game is going, I suppose what we need to be thinking about is where it's going next.
You say this yet at the same time miners are dead set against any changes to the ships to make them actually able to defend themselves.
|
Resa Moon
New Eden Miners Association
25
|
Posted - 2016.09.17 07:54:48 -
[482] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Drago Shouna wrote:Guys guys guys.
You need to understand the present Risk vs Reward scenario...
Come the November changes, we RISK a 2-3 BILLION ship, on grid....
So that the players favoured by CCP can reap the REWARDS.
It's all about killmails now, nothing else. We get absolutely nothing out of it.
It's blatantly obvious that that's the direction the game is going, I suppose what we need to be thinking about is where it's going next. You say this yet at the same time miners are dead set against any changes to the ships to make them actually able to defend themselves.
Thanks for speaking on behalf of miners.
What miners are concerned about is the reasonable relationship between risk and reward.
Seems that some folks think mining vessels should be PvP ships with a slightly expanded cargo or ore hold.
New Eden Mining Blog
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18057
|
Posted - 2016.09.17 11:52:05 -
[483] - Quote
Resa Moon wrote: Thanks for speaking on behalf of miners.
What miners are concerned about is the reasonable relationship between risk and reward.
Seems that some folks think mining vessels should be PvP ships with a slightly expanded cargo or ore hold.
Given you are playing a pvp based game it makes sense for mining barges to be pvp capable. We have miners here bitching about having to put assets in harms way while at the same time arguing their ships should be helpless if caught. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
18041
|
Posted - 2016.09.17 13:28:15 -
[484] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Drago Shouna wrote:Guys guys guys.
You need to understand the present Risk vs Reward scenario...
Come the November changes, we RISK a 2-3 BILLION ship, on grid....
So that the players favoured by CCP can reap the REWARDS.
It's all about killmails now, nothing else. We get absolutely nothing out of it.
It's blatantly obvious that that's the direction the game is going, I suppose what we need to be thinking about is where it's going next. You say this yet at the same time miners are dead set against any changes to the ships to make them actually able to defend themselves.
The psychology here is pretty obvious.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
|
toyamo tokanavo
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2016.09.17 16:49:04 -
[485] - Quote
What's obvious is that miners should be reasonably safe in peace time in high sec. High sec thus functions as both a sort of PvP refuge and a reasonably safe, if tedious, way to recover lowsec PvP losses.
Besides, CCP policy doesn't bother blob miners at all: they recover any loss within 20 minutes of mining. If CCP wanted to solve it, it would invent some NPC that is attracted specifically to mining blobs and does massive area damage. But they don't, and let miners be cannon fodder for lowsec player alts.
Part of the fun in mining was corp mining sessions, with slow chats and roleplay, now flying in such a session feels more like hauling PLEX through lowsec. Sure, I can fit a mosquito trap instead of mining barge, but there's no profit in that, the yield is low both in terms of ore and in terms of blown up destroyers. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
3586
|
Posted - 2016.09.17 21:16:38 -
[486] - Quote
Resa Moon wrote: Thanks for speaking on behalf of miners.
What miners are concerned about is the reasonable relationship between risk and reward.
Seems that some folks think mining vessels should be PvP ships with a slightly expanded cargo or ore hold.
WW2 Bridge Layer So note how Industrial vehicles during a time of war actually came with their own guns right? We are not civilians, capsuleers are effectively military given the basically open warfare between capsuleers, even before you leave high sec. Once you leave high sec every vessel you pilot is in the middle of utterly open warfare. And as such vessels should all be designed for being in the thick of a fight first, and then fulfilling their specialist function second. This might be mining, hauling, tackling, jamming, whatever. And how you choose to fit it will then skew it one way or another. But yes, as a miner all mining vessels should be PvP ships with an ore hold and a specialisation. Not helpless targets. (Yes they aren't 100% helpless, only 99% helpless relative to other vessels their size and cost) |
Resa Moon
New Eden Miners Association
25
|
Posted - 2016.09.18 04:33:16 -
[487] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Resa Moon wrote: Thanks for speaking on behalf of miners.
What miners are concerned about is the reasonable relationship between risk and reward.
Seems that some folks think mining vessels should be PvP ships with a slightly expanded cargo or ore hold.
Given you are playing a pvp based game it makes sense for mining barges to be pvp capable. We have miners here bitching about having to put assets in harms way while at the same time arguing their ships should be helpless if caught.
That makes no sense. Miners aren't "bitching" about having it both ways, we're stating that we want the risk reasonable, something more reasonable than fielding a 2-billion ISK squishy target for pseudo-PvP.
New Eden Mining Blog
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18065
|
Posted - 2016.09.18 04:52:51 -
[488] - Quote
Resa Moon wrote:
That makes no sense. Miners aren't "bitching" about having it both ways, we're stating that we want the risk reasonable, something more reasonable than fielding a 2-billion ISK squishy target for pseudo-PvP.
You just did it again.
A Rorqual with a mining fleet that can provide logi and firepower is a lot harder to kill than what we are getting. |
Resa Moon
New Eden Miners Association
25
|
Posted - 2016.09.18 05:38:57 -
[489] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Resa Moon wrote:
That makes no sense. Miners aren't "bitching" about having it both ways, we're stating that we want the risk reasonable, something more reasonable than fielding a 2-billion ISK squishy target for pseudo-PvP.
You just did it again. A Rorqual with a mining fleet that can provide logi and firepower is a lot harder to kill than what we are getting.
As did you. Harder to kill doesn't make the risk reasonable.
New Eden Mining Blog
|
sirxazor
B-T-G
0
|
Posted - 2016.09.18 06:13:11 -
[490] - Quote
Abulurd Boniface wrote:Morn Hylund wrote:
No wonder Eve subscriptions are dropping - and people are jumping ship for more entertaining games like Star Citizen, No Man's Sky, Elite Dangerous etc.
I wouldn't put Star Citizen in the same league as EVE. Also, NMS is 'a tad less' than what the developers promised. And when I say 'a tad less' I mean: it sucks balls. Big ones. However, I do understand and agree with your concern and these changes are rather baffling. Any change should reflect a necessary change for the improvement of the dynamic in the system and I don't see how removing one mining pylon on a Hulk is going to make it a better activity. The last pass was uncomfortable at first but then I saw the sense behind it and those changes were actually quite good. It made the barges something you wanted to have instead of having ship like the Procurer that was essentially worthless. Now we get a different set of changes, the use of which does not make a lot of sense to me. CCP Fozzie, friend, why is this happening? Why did you not do something that would propagate throughout the New Eden demesne in the way minerals were added to the ship-building experience as described, by myself, here: Ore acleI support innovations, I want to support good innovations.
Yeah, I wouldn't put Star Citizen with Eve online either. Star citizen is a revolutionary game aiming at the future. EVERYONE is going to be playing a game with infinite possibilities. Why would you still play Eve (a spreadsheet game) when you can actually have the immersion you been looking for? unless you don't have the computer power to play such a game, then I would understand the need to still play EVE. A dying old dog =/ |
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18065
|
Posted - 2016.09.18 06:26:50 -
[491] - Quote
Resa Moon wrote: As did you. Harder to kill doesn't make the risk reasonable.
Of course it does.
Being able to go toe to toe with a similar sized cruiser gang is a hell of a lot better than getting slaughtered by a gang a fraction of your numbers. As it stands four of the barges are entirely helpless when caught and the other two holding the mantel of last to die simply because they have an over sized tank.
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
3586
|
Posted - 2016.09.18 06:27:20 -
[492] - Quote
sirxazor wrote: Yeah, I wouldn't put Star Citizen with Eve online either. Star citizen is a revolutionary game aiming at the future. EVERYONE is going to be playing a game with infinite possibilities. Why would you still play Eve (a spreadsheet game) when you can actually have the immersion you been looking for? unless you don't have the computer power to play such a game, then I would understand the need to still play EVE. A dying old dog =/
Because EVE is a cohesive game, not a vague mess of vapour-ware that doesn't link smoothly. Because EVE has a singular vision, rather than trying to be a jack of all trades. Because EVE is single shard. I could go on a lot more, but your entire post is irrelevant to this thread. |
Resa Moon
New Eden Miners Association
25
|
Posted - 2016.09.18 10:22:37 -
[493] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Resa Moon wrote: As did you. Harder to kill doesn't make the risk reasonable.
Of course it does. Being able to go toe to toe with a similar sized cruiser gang is a hell of a lot better than getting slaughtered by a gang a fraction of your numbers. As it stands four of the barges are entirely helpless when caught and the other two holding the mantel of last to die simply because they have an over sized tank.
You either miss the point or are simply trolling.
Because it might be able to go toe-to-toe with a particular gang size and composition doesn't mean the risk becomes reasonable because folks hunting for Rorqs will come with a crew to do the job and the key point is that with the Industrial Core green it will be a sitting duck, regardless of how long it has to sit.
New Eden Mining Blog
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18073
|
Posted - 2016.09.18 10:52:39 -
[494] - Quote
Resa Moon wrote: You either miss the point or are simply trolling.
Because it might be able to go toe-to-toe with a particular gang size and composition doesn't mean the risk becomes reasonable because folks hunting for Rorqs will come with a crew to do the job and the key point is that with the Industrial Core green it will be a sitting duck, regardless of how long it has to sit.
Seems to me you are not going to be happy until CCP give you an I-win button.
Having an even chance of success vs a similar sized gang of cruisers/hac/pirate cruisers is more than enough. |
Resa Moon
New Eden Miners Association
26
|
Posted - 2016.09.18 10:59:05 -
[495] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Resa Moon wrote: You either miss the point or are simply trolling.
Because it might be able to go toe-to-toe with a particular gang size and composition doesn't mean the risk becomes reasonable because folks hunting for Rorqs will come with a crew to do the job and the key point is that with the Industrial Core green it will be a sitting duck, regardless of how long it has to sit.
Seems to me you are not going to be happy until CCP give you an I-win button. Having an even chance of success vs a similar sized gang of cruisers/hac/pirate cruisers is more than enough.
As if you can sit there and await an arranged fight of a particular composition.
An I-win button, no. Miners have always been at risk and that reasonable risk makes it more interesting. Unreasonable risk makes it stupid. You can't field the Rorq and predict what opposing force will appear while you're green. Pointless to posit ideal situations.
New Eden Mining Blog
|
Drago Shouna
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
601
|
Posted - 2016.09.18 11:08:22 -
[496] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Resa Moon wrote: Thanks for speaking on behalf of miners.
What miners are concerned about is the reasonable relationship between risk and reward.
Seems that some folks think mining vessels should be PvP ships with a slightly expanded cargo or ore hold.
Given you are playing a pvp based game it makes sense for mining barges to be pvp capable. We have miners here bitching about having to put assets in harms way while at the same time arguing their ships should be helpless if caught.
A natural follow on to that is that my Epithal, Miasmos, Providence etc should all have a rack of turrets and fighter bay then?
I'd love my freighter to have Capital sized Pulses with the ultimate in tracking speeds 8/4/6 should do it :)
Solecist Project...." They refuse to play by the rules and laws of the game and use it as excuse ..."
" They don't care about how you play as long as they get to play how they want."
Welcome to EVE.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18074
|
Posted - 2016.09.18 11:20:34 -
[497] - Quote
Resa Moon wrote:baltec1 wrote:Resa Moon wrote: You either miss the point or are simply trolling.
Because it might be able to go toe-to-toe with a particular gang size and composition doesn't mean the risk becomes reasonable because folks hunting for Rorqs will come with a crew to do the job and the key point is that with the Industrial Core green it will be a sitting duck, regardless of how long it has to sit.
Seems to me you are not going to be happy until CCP give you an I-win button. Having an even chance of success vs a similar sized gang of cruisers/hac/pirate cruisers is more than enough. As if you can sit there and await an arranged fight of a particular composition. An I-win button, no. Miners have always been at risk and that reasonable risk makes it more interesting. Unreasonable risk makes it stupid. You can't field the Rorq and predict what opposing force will appear while you're green. Pointless to posit ideal situations.
People are ratting in solo titans. A 3 bil rorqual is not a huge risk. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18074
|
Posted - 2016.09.18 11:21:48 -
[498] - Quote
Drago Shouna wrote:baltec1 wrote:Resa Moon wrote: Thanks for speaking on behalf of miners.
What miners are concerned about is the reasonable relationship between risk and reward.
Seems that some folks think mining vessels should be PvP ships with a slightly expanded cargo or ore hold.
Given you are playing a pvp based game it makes sense for mining barges to be pvp capable. We have miners here bitching about having to put assets in harms way while at the same time arguing their ships should be helpless if caught. A natural follow on to that is that my Epithal, Miasmos, Providence etc should all have a rack of turrets and fighter bay then? I'd love my freighter to have Capital sized Pulses with the ultimate in tracking speeds 8/4/6 should do it :)
T1 haulers are more deadly than most think. |
Atius Shinkan
Imperial Holding
5
|
Posted - 2016.09.18 12:35:33 -
[499] - Quote
You guys really don't make it easy for people that like and want to subscribe to this game.
Last big upgrade with the carriers was a disaster for me, and so canceled to subscriptions. This one is not so bad, but does not in any way boost the game or encourage for more gametime. In short another dissapointing "update". |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
18049
|
Posted - 2016.09.18 14:28:42 -
[500] - Quote
Amadeus Z wrote:actually the changes force me to stop mining .... maybe stop playing as well
if you go for max yield and don't pop out drones, yer yield is simply less.
Yeah and if I don't put all DPS , tracking and application mods on my combat ship, the DPS is less. On some of them, I do put all DPS and application, but for most I have to "lose" some of my damage for tank, speed, tackle, etc.
How else should it be? Should CCP simply give you no opportunity to make any tradeoffs?
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
|
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
18049
|
Posted - 2016.09.18 14:32:29 -
[501] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Resa Moon wrote:baltec1 wrote:Resa Moon wrote: You either miss the point or are simply trolling.
Because it might be able to go toe-to-toe with a particular gang size and composition doesn't mean the risk becomes reasonable because folks hunting for Rorqs will come with a crew to do the job and the key point is that with the Industrial Core green it will be a sitting duck, regardless of how long it has to sit.
Seems to me you are not going to be happy until CCP give you an I-win button. Having an even chance of success vs a similar sized gang of cruisers/hac/pirate cruisers is more than enough. As if you can sit there and await an arranged fight of a particular composition. An I-win button, no. Miners have always been at risk and that reasonable risk makes it more interesting. Unreasonable risk makes it stupid. You can't field the Rorq and predict what opposing force will appear while you're green. Pointless to posit ideal situations. People are ratting in solo titans. A 3 bil rorqual is not a huge risk.
Ratting titans don't have to immobolise themselves, and also can't be tackled with a single long point.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18074
|
Posted - 2016.09.18 14:46:19 -
[502] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:
Ratting titans don't have to immobolise themselves, and also can't be tackled with a single long point.
They do when the fire the doomsday and if you are going after a titan then bubbles are going to be involved. |
Alexis Ford
Good Names All Gone Southern Sitizens
15
|
Posted - 2016.09.18 16:05:29 -
[503] - Quote
So ratting titans have no guns to shoot back ? Even now as you can fit High angel guns against subcap ships ? And you have to get a Booster on Grid to get more than 40% dps ?
Please stop comparing things that are NOT compareable.
And sorry .. as a member of PL talking about risking a ratting titan (with 30+ SC ready in the backhand.) 99,9% of eve doesnt have this luxury. And Titan Doomsday ratting is ******** - with a cooldowntimer 10 times longer than the Anom needs to finish. thats not a "we risk something" thats "haha i am bored to death" and for showing off.
But these are MINING Ships ... for Mining ... and thats all they can "good". Mininglaser cant shoot someone (wuhu ... idea for "attack crystal" incoming :D )
Maybe we realy should change the method offensive weapons are working.
If you Undock your guns will be set to damage against NPCs or Normal ships. All Damage will be limited to 40% of your actuall stats ... you have to bring a booster with you. But depending on how much you want to risk you can get bacck to your 100% DPS (against Npc OR others). Sadly it will be a Capital Noctis ... 1 Year of training ... at least 3bil cost ... can only pickup your loot ... and has to be immobile to give you the 100% DPS.
Then only 2 good Anoms in system ... so if someone comes in system he does not need to search you. All anoms stays on the same spot for 3 days straight except you and 17 Friends fight against the NPCs for at least 12hours straight.
Suddenly you would be in the Miningship position ... you have defense capabilities but they are very weak. you can only do damage with drones (for droneboats these get limited).
Carrier, SC ... they can fight back ... and they got realy good at this. Rorqual, Hulk, Mackinaw ... no Guns ... weak damage ... and thin as paper except the Rorqual If you never planned to use them for mining or trade in 50% of yield a SECOND time (Boost and Ship) they are helpless against attackers
like a Rattingship with only "PVP guns" as mentioned above ... usless in the Anom ... but you are well prepared No isk gain but you are prepared.
Please get me straight ... i am NOT wanting to have Miningships to be a 1click Win button. But as long as we do not know how powerfull the changes for Rorqual/Orca will get we have to asume it will get hard as hell to get the Miningboost only slightly near to that what it was for years.
yes i did ratting in 0.0 with support and intel and collapsing WHs etc. i did Mining in HS in 0.0 .. mission running ... incursion ... Big coallition PVP ... Gatecamps ... bomberops ... scouting etc.
i fully understand Risk vers. Isk --- but there never was such a huge "possible" Nerf down to 40%DPS or ISK in PVE with such high Riskincrease to level it out to 100-110% again. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
18051
|
Posted - 2016.09.18 16:41:51 -
[504] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Malcanis wrote:
Ratting titans don't have to immobolise themselves, and also can't be tackled with a single long point.
They do when the fire the doomsday and if you are going after a titan then bubbles are going to be involved.
RATTING Titans don't have to immobilise themselves.
And raising the bar to "multiple dictors & hictors" significantly increases the threshold of attack compared to what is needed vs a rorqual. It's not that I don't agree with your basic viewpoint here (that it's fine for Rorquals to be on grid) but let's not discredit that argument by being dishonest about it.
There is simply no need to couple the mining leadership boost function of the Rorqual with the Industrial Core. Let the Core serve some other function rather than hobbling the Rorqual's command boosting function with a restriction that no other boosting ship suffers.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18085
|
Posted - 2016.09.19 05:37:13 -
[505] - Quote
Alexis Ford wrote:So ratting titans have no guns to shoot back ? Even now as you can fit High angel guns against subcap ships ? And you have to get a Booster on Grid to get more than 40% dps ?
Please stop comparing things that are NOT compareable.
When you go titan hunting you bring the firepower to render it dead in fast order. Its entirely comparable because we have people running around in titan ratting away while you are terrified about putting out a 3 billion isk ship.
Alexis Ford wrote: And sorry .. as a member of PL talking about risking a ratting titan (with 30+ SC ready in the backhand.) 99,9% of eve doesnt have this luxury. And Titan Doomsday ratting is ******** - with a cooldowntimer 10 times longer than the Anom needs to finish. thats not a "we risk something" thats "haha i am bored to death" and for showing off.
Wrong again.
These things are popping up all over the place. |
Resa Moon
New Eden Miners Association
27
|
Posted - 2016.09.19 08:15:08 -
[506] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Alexis Ford wrote:So ratting titans have no guns to shoot back ? Even now as you can fit High angel guns against subcap ships ? And you have to get a Booster on Grid to get more than 40% dps ?
Please stop comparing things that are NOT compareable.
When you go titan hunting you bring the firepower to render it dead in fast order. Its entirely comparable because we have people running around in titan ratting away while you are terrified about putting out a 3 billion isk ship. Alexis Ford wrote: And sorry .. as a member of PL talking about risking a ratting titan (with 30+ SC ready in the backhand.) 99,9% of eve doesnt have this luxury. And Titan Doomsday ratting is ******** - with a cooldowntimer 10 times longer than the Anom needs to finish. thats not a "we risk something" thats "haha i am bored to death" and for showing off.
Wrong again. These things are popping up all over the place.
Because some folks are ratting in a Titan without adequate precautions, it makes putting a Rorq in a belt or anom and going green with the Core a reasonable risk.
Very poor thinking/trolling.
New Eden Mining Blog
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18088
|
Posted - 2016.09.19 12:15:12 -
[507] - Quote
Resa Moon wrote:baltec1 wrote:Alexis Ford wrote:So ratting titans have no guns to shoot back ? Even now as you can fit High angel guns against subcap ships ? And you have to get a Booster on Grid to get more than 40% dps ?
Please stop comparing things that are NOT compareable.
When you go titan hunting you bring the firepower to render it dead in fast order. Its entirely comparable because we have people running around in titan ratting away while you are terrified about putting out a 3 billion isk ship. Alexis Ford wrote: And sorry .. as a member of PL talking about risking a ratting titan (with 30+ SC ready in the backhand.) 99,9% of eve doesnt have this luxury. And Titan Doomsday ratting is ******** - with a cooldowntimer 10 times longer than the Anom needs to finish. thats not a "we risk something" thats "haha i am bored to death" and for showing off.
Wrong again. These things are popping up all over the place. Because some folks are ratting in a Titan without adequate precautions, it makes putting a Rorq in a belt or anom and going green with the Core a reasonable risk. Very poor thinking/trolling.
CCP have yet to show us the details on the rorqual changes. |
Nick Bison
Bad Wolf. Circle-Of-Two
328
|
Posted - 2016.09.19 13:52:50 -
[508] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:baltec1 wrote:Malcanis wrote:
Ratting titans don't have to immobolise themselves, and also can't be tackled with a single long point.
They do when the fire the doomsday and if you are going after a titan then bubbles are going to be involved. RATTING Titans don't have to immobilise themselves. And raising the bar to "multiple dictors & hictors" significantly increases the threshold of attack compared to what is needed vs a rorqual. It's not that I don't agree with your basic viewpoint here (that it's fine for Rorquals to be on grid) but let's not discredit that argument by being dishonest about it. There is simply no need to couple the mining leadership boost function of the Rorqual with the Industrial Core. Let the Core serve some other function rather than hobbling the Rorqual's command boosting function with a restriction that no other boosting ship suffers.
I think Malcanis hit the nail on the head here. Separating the mining bonus from the industrial core (green) would resolve most of my misgivings on using my Rorqs in the mining sites. The industrial core can still be used for compression and possibly something else however, with the proliferation of compression arrays and some citadels that can compress, perhaps some new uses could be found.
Nothing clever at this time.
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
3590
|
Posted - 2016.09.19 20:06:09 -
[509] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:
CCP have yet to show us the details on the rorqual changes.
The details they showed us in the boosting blog say that you will have to immobile yourself with the core to get boosts worth risking the rorqual. Hence we have seen the detail that is relevant. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18121
|
Posted - 2016.09.20 18:50:49 -
[510] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:baltec1 wrote:
CCP have yet to show us the details on the rorqual changes.
The details they showed us in the boosting blog say that you will have to immobile yourself with the core to get boosts worth risking the rorqual. Hence we have seen the detail that is relevant.
I don't have much faith in this going well, just look at these barge changes. But I'm holding fire till I see the package. |
|
Demortis
Peoples Resource Center and Training... Peoples United Republic Empire
5
|
Posted - 2016.09.21 15:50:45 -
[511] - Quote
Whatever you guys are smokin is messing with your logi systems please stop LOL. I'm watching the member count drop daily and people doing mass exodus of game please get into rehab and fix yourself's. I love eve and I have seen it grow to a jugernaught and now without indies like myself your gonna see your weekly averages fall like they have the last few weeks. Soon I can see it being like logging into singularity numbers and then your bosses will just shut the servers down completely. Hmmm then maybe the free public will start popping up again like before and we can all go free omega's in other peoples servers. I can see not many of you guys are thinking to much about the future and more about what slap stick you can create today to wreak the system. GL out there finding other work for crashers is not easy. |
Iskra Vohonick
Vohonick Industrial and Professional Services
0
|
Posted - 2016.09.22 03:22:31 -
[512] - Quote
This change is so wrong in so many points of view I cannot cover them all; the major ones are as follows:
As a critique on the art I object to the fuming, polluting and belching of energy and material if the artists would read the story line they would know that this would not be permitted or tolerated in a society that recycles everything. It's dirty and ugly. Plus hey the graphics are all the same now you can't tell which one you are flying. Saving space on the server?.
On the arbitrary redistribution of wealth these ships cost differently players worked hard to chose the best match for themselves and their game style, this effort has been rendered meaningless. What are we communists?
Now let talk about the empty 50,000 M3 volume and 10,000,000kg mass. since the Covetor is now missing it's rite-ful 3rd mining rig what has gone in it's place? nothing yet it's weight and mass remains the same. Even science cries out foul
This is called a senseless injustice why did it take 4 years to come to pass? Cause it should never have happened.
I call on you to rollback this change and restore the configuration of the crafts. Let us boys and girls play the cards as they are dealt.
Iskra
|
Kuda Timberline
Alea Iacta Est Universal Blades of Grass
9
|
Posted - 2016.09.22 16:13:01 -
[513] - Quote
I've had a little bit of time to play around with the exhumers now and I'd like to leave my feedback on these changes.
I say this in jest... but I'm a little curious if anyone at CCP has ever sat in an exhumer? I'm calling this the #MiningNerf2016
I'll start with first impressions... upon first logging into the game i opened my hanger to find that the thumbnail for both the Mack and the Hulk now look exactly alike. I'm inclined to agree with another poster in this thread... is CCP trying to save server space by dumbing down the look of exhumers? (I know this isn't the case, but dang, can we get a unique thumbnail?
Next issue is fitting in general... Is the Hulk meant to leave Hi-Sec anymore? Why are we not allowed to fit a tank that can withstand a minor brush w/ null sec rats? I've got perfect fitting skills and I've been unable to find a viable fitting for the hulk... Some of the fits I've tried I'm not even using all the mid slots and I'm using a survey scanner (which doesn't take much pwr or CPU). They've essentially turned the Hulk and the Mack into useless machines. After horsing around for a few hours I literally destroyed my rigs, repackaged my Hulk & Skiff, and sold em on market. Welcome to Skiff Mining Online...
Additionally I'm a bit confused by the additional lazor on the Skiff? Were these ships not expensive enough for Code. to gank before so now we had to make them harder to fit and add the additional cost of another lazor? This is only a buff to gankers and yet another nerf for miners.
I'd like to list the nerfs we miners have seen in the past few years (I'm sure there are more, but these are the ones I've thought of off the top of my head)
Circus reprocessing nerf (Thanks for making Scrapmetal V uselss) Removal of team (these teams gave a bonus to reprocessing... CCP removed them w/o an alternative) Reallocation of minerals included in ore. This was mostly just a buff for Null sec. Mining boosts soon to be removed. (CCP hasn't fully nuked these yet.. but I can hear them drooling over it)
Maybe CCP could take a few min to make sure a 1.2M isk Catalyst is more balanced with 25M isk barges too.
The state of mining is just absurd and I realize part of this is CCP's attempt to raise mineral prices so that people have to buy a PLEX to purchase a doctrine ship... This is something they need to happen so they can justify the new Free-to-play model.
With 10ISK trit imagine the number of PLEX they will sell?
Kuda Timberline
Co-host Capstable Podcast
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18152
|
Posted - 2016.09.22 16:59:26 -
[514] - Quote
Kuda Timberline wrote: Additionally I'm a bit confused by the additional lazor on the Skiff? Were these ships not expensive enough for Code. to gank before so now we had to make them harder to fit and add the additional cost of another lazor? This is only a buff to gankers and yet another nerf for miners.
An extra laster will do nothing to make you worth ganking. Its impossible to turn a profit ganking skiffs.
Kuda Timberline wrote: I'd like to list the nerfs we miners have seen in the past few years (I'm sure there are more, but these are the ones I've thought of off the top of my head)
Circus reprocessing nerf (Thanks for making Scrapmetal V uselss) Removal of team (these teams gave a bonus to reprocessing... CCP removed them w/o an alternative) Reallocation of minerals included in ore. This was mostly just a buff for Null sec. Mining boosts soon to be removed. (CCP hasn't fully nuked these yet.. but I can hear them drooling over it)
Maybe CCP could take a few min to make sure a 1.2M isk Catalyst is more balanced with 25M isk barges too.
Go look at the nerfs made to ganking over the years, they dwarf the nerfs made to mining by a long way. Oddly enough, the nerfs to ganking have made it worse for miners as it used to be a case of gank miners for profit. Now after yeas of nerfs its impossible to turn a profit so every miner no matter how they fit is game for gankers.
Kuda Timberline wrote: The state of mining is just absurd and I realize part of this is CCP's attempt to raise mineral prices so that people have to buy a PLEX to purchase a doctrine ship... This is something they need to happen so they can justify the new Free-to-play model.
With 10ISK trit imagine the number of PLEX they will sell?
Actually this mantra keeps prices of minerals low. If you want higher mineral prices (and thus higher earnings as a miner) then we need to return to what we had 6 years ago. |
Brinjee Amatin
The Scope Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2016.09.22 18:09:52 -
[515] - Quote
Kuda Timberline wrote:Next issue is fitting in general... Is the Hulk meant to leave Hi-Sec anymore? Why are we not allowed to fit a tank that can withstand a minor brush w/ null sec rats? I've got perfect fitting skills and I've been unable to find a viable fitting for the hulk... Some of the fits I've tried I'm not even using all the mid slots and I'm using a survey scanner (which doesn't take much pwr or CPU). They've essentially turned the Hulk and the Mack into useless machines. After horsing around for a few hours I literally destroyed my rigs, repackaged my Hulk & Skiff, and sold em on market. Welcome to Skiff Mining Online...
I noticed the same thing with the new Hulk - its CPU and Power Grid can't support a full fit. Whether you're optimizing for yield or tank, you're going to have empty slots. It's disappointing because I was looking for a high-yield high-attention (i.e. not afk) solo option that wasn't an automatic free kill even in high sec.
Someone on reddit posted this very expensive option, which is probably self-defeating in the end:
2x mod strips t2 gistum c-type passive hardener x2 pithi c-type small shield booster survey t2 3x MLU II CPU rig and shield rig. fits with 3% cpu implant and tanks gurista spawns just fine
|
Cade Windstalker
556
|
Posted - 2016.09.22 19:49:29 -
[516] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:baltec1 wrote:Malcanis wrote:
Ratting titans don't have to immobolise themselves, and also can't be tackled with a single long point.
They do when the fire the doomsday and if you are going after a titan then bubbles are going to be involved. RATTING Titans don't have to immobilise themselves. And raising the bar to "multiple dictors & hictors" significantly increases the threshold of attack compared to what is needed vs a rorqual. It's not that I don't agree with your basic viewpoint here (that it's fine for Rorquals to be on grid) but let's not discredit that argument by being dishonest about it. There is simply no need to couple the mining leadership boost function of the Rorqual with the Industrial Core. Let the Core serve some other function rather than hobbling the Rorqual's command boosting function with a restriction that no other boosting ship suffers.
The Rorqual is going to be a great booster without the mining core though. You just get the option to deploy the core and get a significant boost on top of that or leave it alone and be a bit safer. I don't really see a problem with that sort of risk/reward dynamic.
I'd also point out that we still haven't seen final stats for the Rorqual, the Industrial Core, or basically anything except these mining ships, so jumping to conclusions about what is or isn't balanced on a ship we're basically pulling stats out of our anatomy for seems a bit premature. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
18075
|
Posted - 2016.09.22 19:54:42 -
[517] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Kuda Timberline wrote: Additionally I'm a bit confused by the additional lazor on the Skiff? Were these ships not expensive enough for Code. to gank before so now we had to make them harder to fit and add the additional cost of another lazor? This is only a buff to gankers and yet another nerf for miners.
An extra laster will do nothing to make you worth ganking. Its impossible to turn a profit ganking skiffs. Kuda Timberline wrote: I'd like to list the nerfs we miners have seen in the past few years (I'm sure there are more, but these are the ones I've thought of off the top of my head)
Circus reprocessing nerf (Thanks for making Scrapmetal V uselss) Removal of team (these teams gave a bonus to reprocessing... CCP removed them w/o an alternative) Reallocation of minerals included in ore. This was mostly just a buff for Null sec. Mining boosts soon to be removed. (CCP hasn't fully nuked these yet.. but I can hear them drooling over it)
Maybe CCP could take a few min to make sure a 1.2M isk Catalyst is more balanced with 25M isk barges too.
Go look at the nerfs made to ganking over the years, they dwarf the nerfs made to mining by a long way. Oddly enough, the nerfs to ganking have made it worse for miners as it used to be a case of gank miners for profit. Now after yeas of nerfs its impossible to turn a profit so every miner no matter how they fit is game for gankers. Kuda Timberline wrote: The state of mining is just absurd and I realize part of this is CCP's attempt to raise mineral prices so that people have to buy a PLEX to purchase a doctrine ship... This is something they need to happen so they can justify the new Free-to-play model.
With 10ISK trit imagine the number of PLEX they will sell?
Actually this mantra keeps prices of minerals low. If you want higher mineral prices (and thus higher earnings as a miner) then we need to return to what we had 6 years ago.
I think you mean 9 years ago. 6 years ago, gun-mining was at its height and mineral prices were in the dumpster.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18158
|
Posted - 2016.09.22 20:40:12 -
[518] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:
I think you mean 9 years ago. 6 years ago, gun-mining was at its height and mineral prices were in the dumpster.
I was more thinking of the ice interdictions. They proved that injecting a lot of violence into mining meant ice prices rose rapidly and the smart miners made bank. |
Penance Toralen
Compass Fox
10
|
Posted - 2016.09.22 22:25:05 -
[519] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:An extra laster will do nothing to make you worth ganking. Its impossible to turn a profit ganking skiffs.
CCP Soundwave: Sucide Ganking is not intended to be profitable. Sounds like working as intended then.
|
EA Leguard
PROSPERO Corporation MinTek Conglomerate
1
|
Posted - 2016.09.23 03:26:18 -
[520] - Quote
I am a self-chosen Miner! Knowing that here is my opinion on the new mining barge / exhumer changes!
THEY SUCK! Because you have to spend more time mining despite the extra strip miner! You took away the bonuses for using mining barges making them almost worthless. Now it takes twice as long to get the same amount of ore! This leaves miners exposed to gankers "like CODE"! I feel like CCP is trying to get rid of miners all together. I say this because CCP nerfed Miners and Industrialists before. Now it takes 8 times longer to get the same amount of ore before the first nerf happened! I think that CCP needs to reverse the changes made to mining barges and then leave them alone! They weren't broke so don't fix them!
My prediction for the future if CCP doesn't reverse the recent changes to Mining Barges / Exhumers!
1. Miners will stop mining!
2. Prices will rise until everything becomes unaffordable!
3. Players will quit and/or leave in Masses!
4. CCP will be forced to discontinue Eve due to loss of income (aka Paying Players!) |
|
TheSmokingHertog
Julia's Interstellar Trade Emperium
429
|
Posted - 2016.09.23 03:43:52 -
[521] - Quote
EA Leguard wrote:I am a self-chosen Miner! Knowing that here is my opinion on the new mining barge / exhumer changes!
THEY SUCK! Because you have to spend more time mining despite the extra strip miner! You took away the bonuses for using mining barges making them almost worthless. Now it takes twice as long to get the same amount of ore! This leaves miners exposed to gankers "like CODE"! I feel like CCP is trying to get rid of miners all together. I say this because CCP nerfed Miners and Industrialists before. Now it takes 8 times longer to get the same amount of ore before the first nerf happened! I think that CCP needs to reverse the changes made to mining barges and then leave them alone! They weren't broke so don't fix them!
My prediction for the future if CCP doesn't reverse the recent changes to Mining Barges / Exhumers!
1. Miners will stop mining!
2. Prices will rise until everything becomes unaffordable!
3. Players will quit and/or leave in Masses!
4. CCP will be forced to discontinue Eve due to loss of income (aka Paying Players!)
When resource prices rise, mining becomes interesting again... lol.
"Dogma is kind of like quantum physics, observing the dogma state will change it." ~ CCP Prism X
"Schrödinger's Missile. I dig it." ~ Makari Aeron
-= "Brain in a Box on Singularity" - April 2015 =-
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18161
|
Posted - 2016.09.23 10:23:58 -
[522] - Quote
Penance Toralen wrote:baltec1 wrote:An extra laster will do nothing to make you worth ganking. Its impossible to turn a profit ganking skiffs.
CCP Soundwave: Sucide Ganking is not intended to be profitable. Sounds like working as intended then.
By making ganking not profitable he turned it from pirates targeting the bad miners to gankers targeting every miner. So you are less safe not more. Plus a lot of content got thrown out the window. |
Cade Windstalker
558
|
Posted - 2016.09.23 14:32:21 -
[523] - Quote
EA Leguard wrote:I am a self-chosen Miner! Knowing that here is my opinion on the new mining barge / exhumer changes!
THEY SUCK! Because you have to spend more time mining despite the extra strip miner! You took away the bonuses for using mining barges making them almost worthless. Now it takes twice as long to get the same amount of ore! This leaves miners exposed to gankers "like CODE"! I feel like CCP is trying to get rid of miners all together. I say this because CCP nerfed Miners and Industrialists before. Now it takes 8 times longer to get the same amount of ore before the first nerf happened! I think that CCP needs to reverse the changes made to mining barges and then leave them alone! They weren't broke so don't fix them!
My prediction for the future if CCP doesn't reverse the recent changes to Mining Barges / Exhumers!
1. Miners will stop mining!
2. Prices will rise until everything becomes unaffordable!
3. Players will quit and/or leave in Masses!
4. CCP will be forced to discontinue Eve due to loss of income (aka Paying Players!)
You're bad at math, mining yields haven't changed because they adjusted the base yield of the mining lasers and the turret counts of the ships.
I'm sure all of the miners who can do math are happy this change is getting those who can't out of the market. More ISK for them! |
Tex Steele
Lone Star Steele
36
|
Posted - 2016.09.25 16:27:15 -
[524] - Quote
You want Feedback? Why? You NEVER LISTEN to us anyway, and just do your own thing, regardless.
I HAven't played much lately, and today, you can imagine my SHOCK when I boarded my HULK to find that it's image has changed to a short stubby, procurer- like thing from the elegant clean-lined ship that it was.
AND to find that I'm missing a strip miner. NOw it's not much better than a mack or procurer, and still has a small Ore bay.
ARE YOU FREAKING KIDDING ME??????????
You claim at one point here that the bonuses added in counter the loss of the strip miner. +30% on 2 miners = 60%. Loss of one miner = -100%. NET LOSS of 40% yield. How is that "balanced"?
Please tell me how this is a Good thing again?
You people are INSANE - I've played for 6 years and you have slowly and surely destroyed the HULK and our ability to mine efficiently.
Would you please do something GOOD for miners for a change??????
Just when I felt like seriously returning to play this game with multiple accounts and characters and was getting over being extremely angry with CCP over some stupid changes, you do this.
Are you really trying to drive away all the old players who PAY cash money for their accounts???? No loyalty to people who have stuck with you for this long. NOT HAPPY with changing my HULK yet again.
You asked for feedback. IS this CLEAR ENOUGH for you???? |
Ncc 1709
Fusion Enterprises Ltd Badfellas Inc.
303
|
Posted - 2016.09.25 20:05:08 -
[525] - Quote
hulk has 7.4% more yield now than it had before the patch... you guys need to learn how to calculate your ore per second... |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18200
|
Posted - 2016.09.26 08:36:26 -
[526] - Quote
Ncc 1709 wrote:hulk has 7.4% more yield now than it had before the patch... you guys need to learn how to calculate your ore per second...
You need a fitting mod/rig to actually use all of the midslots though. |
QaVaToS
Federation of United Planets
4
|
Posted - 2016.09.27 11:14:17 -
[527] - Quote
Why do all the time to cut some and raise others? It is impossible to raise all and no one to cut? This is not a PvP ships, miners and so people are suffering) |
Mariko Musashi Hareka
Kaishin.
0
|
Posted - 2016.09.27 14:37:43 -
[528] - Quote
Ncc 1709 wrote:hulk has 7.4% more yield now than it had before the patch... you guys need to learn how to calculate your ore per second...
I did and found that I'm getting less now then I was before patch you might want to make sure youre using the same fittings as you were before patch before saying your getting more because if you have to add more fittings to get more then its not an equal comparison |
HandelsPharmi
Pharmi on CharBazaar
1821
|
Posted - 2016.09.27 15:12:54 -
[529] - Quote
Mariko Musashi Hareka wrote:Ncc 1709 wrote:hulk has 7.4% more yield now than it had before the patch... you guys need to learn how to calculate your ore per second... I did and found that I'm getting less now then I was before patch you might want to make sure youre using the same fittings as you were before patch before saying your getting more because if you have to add more fittings to get more then its not an equal comparison
He had probably fitted ORE Strip miners before the patch...
But I totally agree with you, if you compare equal fittings, the yield should be the same. |
MrQuisno
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2016.09.28 12:49:45 -
[530] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Anoron Secheh wrote:What about changes to the Rorqual and Orca? Changes to the Rorqual and Orca are currently planned for November (rather than September for these mining barge changes). We'll be discussing those more as we get a bit closer.
Any updates on orca ? |
|
Argyle Henderson
Yumping Amok Apocalypse Now.
0
|
Posted - 2016.09.29 07:02:14 -
[531] - Quote
So this November patch....I have an idea on the name.
GANKERS DELIGHT
oNCE AGAIN ccp SCREWS OVER THE non pvp players.
Not everyone is here for pew pew. nor should they be made to pvp.
|
Ncc 1709
Fusion Enterprises Ltd Badfellas Inc.
303
|
Posted - 2016.09.29 10:09:46 -
[532] - Quote
no ore strips...
simple math...
Max yield setup, T2 strips with crystals No implants
Without fleet boosts
pre patch
yield 1170 m3 per lazer per 122.4s
equals 31.2 m3/s
post patch
yeild 1593.5 per 103.3s
30.8 m3/s
With fleet boosts
Pre patch yield 1344 m3 per lazer per 70.7s
57m3/s
post patch yield 1833 m3 per lazer per 59.7s
61.4m3/s
so if your mining without boosts, you do yield worse than pre patch. if you use rorq boosts, you yield better.
As for fit. i actually have a better tank fitted now than i did before the patch. poke me in game if you want it |
Mariko Musashi Hareka
Kaishin.
0
|
Posted - 2016.09.29 13:15:48 -
[533] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:EA Leguard wrote:I am a self-chosen Miner! Knowing that here is my opinion on the new mining barge / exhumer changes!
THEY SUCK! Because you have to spend more time mining despite the extra strip miner! You took away the bonuses for using mining barges making them almost worthless. Now it takes twice as long to get the same amount of ore! This leaves miners exposed to gankers "like CODE"! I feel like CCP is trying to get rid of miners all together. I say this because CCP nerfed Miners and Industrialists before. Now it takes 8 times longer to get the same amount of ore before the first nerf happened! I think that CCP needs to reverse the changes made to mining barges and then leave them alone! They weren't broke so don't fix them!
My prediction for the future if CCP doesn't reverse the recent changes to Mining Barges / Exhumers!
1. Miners will stop mining!
2. Prices will rise until everything becomes unaffordable!
3. Players will quit and/or leave in Masses!
4. CCP will be forced to discontinue Eve due to loss of income (aka Paying Players!) You're bad at math, mining yields haven't changed because they adjusted the base yield of the mining lasers and the turret counts of the ships. I'm sure all of the miners who can do math are happy this change is getting those who can't out of the market. More ISK for them!
Actually you are wrong mining yields are less then what they were before the change yes you could mine more with an extra mining upgrade but was supposed to be the same afterwards and its not so there we are back to being lied to. Would not surprise me that they totally screw up the rorqual |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1991
|
Posted - 2016.09.29 18:18:37 -
[534] - Quote
Mariko Musashi Hareka wrote:Cade Windstalker wrote:EA Leguard wrote:I am a self-chosen Miner! Knowing that here is my opinion on the new mining barge / exhumer changes!
THEY SUCK! Because you have to spend more time mining despite the extra strip miner! You took away the bonuses for using mining barges making them almost worthless. Now it takes twice as long to get the same amount of ore! This leaves miners exposed to gankers "like CODE"! I feel like CCP is trying to get rid of miners all together. I say this because CCP nerfed Miners and Industrialists before. Now it takes 8 times longer to get the same amount of ore before the first nerf happened! I think that CCP needs to reverse the changes made to mining barges and then leave them alone! They weren't broke so don't fix them!
My prediction for the future if CCP doesn't reverse the recent changes to Mining Barges / Exhumers!
1. Miners will stop mining!
2. Prices will rise until everything becomes unaffordable!
3. Players will quit and/or leave in Masses!
4. CCP will be forced to discontinue Eve due to loss of income (aka Paying Players!) You're bad at math, mining yields haven't changed because they adjusted the base yield of the mining lasers and the turret counts of the ships. I'm sure all of the miners who can do math are happy this change is getting those who can't out of the market. More ISK for them! Actually you are wrong mining yields are less then what they were before the change yes you could mine more with an extra mining upgrade but was supposed to be the same afterwards and its not so there we are back to being lied to. Would not surprise me that they totally screw up the rorqual Mine is the same as what it was. If your yield changed show where it changed. So far the instances I've seen have worked out as stated.
|
Mariko Musashi Hareka
Kaishin.
0
|
Posted - 2016.09.29 20:15:22 -
[535] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Mariko Musashi Hareka wrote:Cade Windstalker wrote:EA Leguard wrote:I am a self-chosen Miner! Knowing that here is my opinion on the new mining barge / exhumer changes!
THEY SUCK! Because you have to spend more time mining despite the extra strip miner! You took away the bonuses for using mining barges making them almost worthless. Now it takes twice as long to get the same amount of ore! This leaves miners exposed to gankers "like CODE"! I feel like CCP is trying to get rid of miners all together. I say this because CCP nerfed Miners and Industrialists before. Now it takes 8 times longer to get the same amount of ore before the first nerf happened! I think that CCP needs to reverse the changes made to mining barges and then leave them alone! They weren't broke so don't fix them!
My prediction for the future if CCP doesn't reverse the recent changes to Mining Barges / Exhumers!
1. Miners will stop mining!
2. Prices will rise until everything becomes unaffordable!
3. Players will quit and/or leave in Masses!
4. CCP will be forced to discontinue Eve due to loss of income (aka Paying Players!) You're bad at math, mining yields haven't changed because they adjusted the base yield of the mining lasers and the turret counts of the ships. I'm sure all of the miners who can do math are happy this change is getting those who can't out of the market. More ISK for them! Actually you are wrong mining yields are less then what they were before the change yes you could mine more with an extra mining upgrade but was supposed to be the same afterwards and its not so there we are back to being lied to. Would not surprise me that they totally screw up the rorqual Mine is the same as what it was. If your yield changed show where it changed. So far the instances I've seen have worked out as stated. Specifically what ship do you use? pre change hulk with 3 modulated strip miner IIs t1 crystals 1 t2 mining upgrade with rorq max boosts was 1180 m3 per laser = 3540 m3 per 73 secs cycle = 48.5 m3 per sec per hulk
post change same hulk same fittings with rorq max boosts is 1370 m3 per laser = 2740 m3 per 60 secs cycle = 45.7 m3 per sec per hulk
So I'm getting 10,080 m3 less per hour per hulk and with 4 hulks that's lil over 40k m3 I'm losing
Now I could get more yield if I added a 2nd mining upgrade but that's not the point is we were supposed to be mining the same amount even after the change |
Penance Toralen
Compass Fox
11
|
Posted - 2016.09.30 01:11:52 -
[536] - Quote
Mariko Musashi Hareka wrote:So I'm getting 10,080 m3 less per hour per hulk and with 4 hulks that's lil over 40k m3 I'm losing
Now I could get more yield if I added a 2nd mining upgrade but that's not the point is we were supposed to be mining the same amount even after the change
That's the whole point, the extra low slot with a MLU2 restores polarity of yield before and after. I tend to agree with you; other ship balances with the high slot bonuses were not linked to potential weapon upgrades in low slots. But I will side with CCP Fozzie because it would be power-creep not have set the ship bonuses are they currently are.
But at the end of the day - where were you and just about every other miner who whinges now when this was originally posted back on the 22nd Sept? The opportunity for feedback is now past. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1991
|
Posted - 2016.09.30 02:48:24 -
[537] - Quote
Mariko Musashi Hareka wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Mariko Musashi Hareka wrote:Cade Windstalker wrote:EA Leguard wrote:I am a self-chosen Miner! Knowing that here is my opinion on the new mining barge / exhumer changes!
THEY SUCK! Because you have to spend more time mining despite the extra strip miner! You took away the bonuses for using mining barges making them almost worthless. Now it takes twice as long to get the same amount of ore! This leaves miners exposed to gankers "like CODE"! I feel like CCP is trying to get rid of miners all together. I say this because CCP nerfed Miners and Industrialists before. Now it takes 8 times longer to get the same amount of ore before the first nerf happened! I think that CCP needs to reverse the changes made to mining barges and then leave them alone! They weren't broke so don't fix them!
My prediction for the future if CCP doesn't reverse the recent changes to Mining Barges / Exhumers!
1. Miners will stop mining!
2. Prices will rise until everything becomes unaffordable!
3. Players will quit and/or leave in Masses!
4. CCP will be forced to discontinue Eve due to loss of income (aka Paying Players!) You're bad at math, mining yields haven't changed because they adjusted the base yield of the mining lasers and the turret counts of the ships. I'm sure all of the miners who can do math are happy this change is getting those who can't out of the market. More ISK for them! Actually you are wrong mining yields are less then what they were before the change yes you could mine more with an extra mining upgrade but was supposed to be the same afterwards and its not so there we are back to being lied to. Would not surprise me that they totally screw up the rorqual Mine is the same as what it was. If your yield changed show where it changed. So far the instances I've seen have worked out as stated. Specifically what ship do you use? pre change hulk with 3 modulated strip miner IIs t1 crystals 1 t2 mining upgrade with rorq max boosts was 1180 m3 per laser = 3540 m3 per 73 secs cycle = 48.5 m3 per sec per hulk post change same hulk same fittings with rorq max boosts is 1370 m3 per laser = 2740 m3 per 60 secs cycle = 45.7 m3 per sec per hulk So I'm getting 10,080 m3 less per hour per hulk and with 4 hulks that's lil over 40k m3 I'm losing Now I could get more yield if I added a 2nd mining upgrade but that's not the point is we were supposed to be mining the same amount even after the change Ok, maybe I should have specified, or perhaps not assumed you meant one of the ships that were stated as not changing (proc/ret/skiff/mack), that you should demonstrate where those changed. Hulk/Cov did change yes, but that was clear by the op I would have thought (hence the question about the ship as I had some doubts despite you saying the yields should have been unchanged). |
elitatwo
Eve Minions O.U.Z.O. Alliance
1426
|
Posted - 2016.09.30 05:09:14 -
[538] - Quote
Argyle Henderson wrote:So this November patch....I have an idea on the name.
GANKERS DELIGHT
oNCE AGAIN ccp SCREWS OVER THE non pvp players.
Not everyone is here for pew pew. nor should they be made to pvp.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111111111111111111eleven
Mining pvp is the worst kind of pvp. The only thing is that no guns are involved. You "shoot" the rock that nobody else can "shoot" and hereby doing pvp - as in you compete with other players "shooting" the rock.
What you "shoot" is yours and you took it from someone else.
If that doesn't scream player versus player, you need help from a professional.
Eve Minions is recruiting. Learn from about pvp, learn about ships and how to fly them correctly. Small gang and solo action in high, low and nullsec and w-space alike.
We will teach you everything you need and want to know.
|
Drago Shouna
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
612
|
Posted - 2016.09.30 07:14:10 -
[539] - Quote
Penance Toralen wrote:Mariko Musashi Hareka wrote:So I'm getting 10,080 m3 less per hour per hulk and with 4 hulks that's lil over 40k m3 I'm losing
Now I could get more yield if I added a 2nd mining upgrade but that's not the point is we were supposed to be mining the same amount even after the change That's the whole point, the extra low slot with a MLU2 restores polarity of yield before and after. I tend to agree with you; other ship balances with the high slot bonuses were not linked to potential weapon upgrades in low slots. But I will side with CCP Fozzie because it would be power-creep not have set the ship bonuses are they currently are. But at the end of the day - where were you and just about every other miner who whinges now when this was originally posted back on the 22nd Sept? The opportunity for feedback is now past.
Any opportunity for feedback that would even stand a remote chance of being listened to passed by on the 21st Sept..
Solecist Project...." They refuse to play by the rules and laws of the game and use it as excuse ..."
" They don't care about how you play as long as they get to play how they want."
Welcome to EVE.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18227
|
Posted - 2016.10.01 12:36:26 -
[540] - Quote
Drago Shouna wrote:Penance Toralen wrote:Mariko Musashi Hareka wrote:So I'm getting 10,080 m3 less per hour per hulk and with 4 hulks that's lil over 40k m3 I'm losing
Now I could get more yield if I added a 2nd mining upgrade but that's not the point is we were supposed to be mining the same amount even after the change That's the whole point, the extra low slot with a MLU2 restores polarity of yield before and after. I tend to agree with you; other ship balances with the high slot bonuses were not linked to potential weapon upgrades in low slots. But I will side with CCP Fozzie because it would be power-creep not have set the ship bonuses are they currently are. But at the end of the day - where were you and just about every other miner who whinges now when this was originally posted back on the 22nd Sept? The opportunity for feedback is now past. Any opportunity for feedback that would even stand a remote chance of being listened to passed by on the 21st Sept..
Feedback hasn't been listened to for 5 years so... |
|
Zhul Chembull
Booze and Blues inc. Soviet-Union
105
|
Posted - 2016.10.02 17:36:03 -
[541] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Drago Shouna wrote:Penance Toralen wrote:Mariko Musashi Hareka wrote:So I'm getting 10,080 m3 less per hour per hulk and with 4 hulks that's lil over 40k m3 I'm losing
Now I could get more yield if I added a 2nd mining upgrade but that's not the point is we were supposed to be mining the same amount even after the change That's the whole point, the extra low slot with a MLU2 restores polarity of yield before and after. I tend to agree with you; other ship balances with the high slot bonuses were not linked to potential weapon upgrades in low slots. But I will side with CCP Fozzie because it would be power-creep not have set the ship bonuses are they currently are. But at the end of the day - where were you and just about every other miner who whinges now when this was originally posted back on the 22nd Sept? The opportunity for feedback is now past. Any opportunity for feedback that would even stand a remote chance of being listened to passed by on the 21st Sept.. Feedback hasn't been listened to for 5 years so...
Yes, they do what they want. This whole mining changes are not too bad, they make no sense, but not too bad. What is going to be a debacle is this whole new boost system where we have to click for the boosts. There is nothing fun and exciting clicking on my command ship to give boosts. Tedious mechanics dont make for funner game play. |
Tattoo Bob Onren
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2016.10.02 22:03:08 -
[542] - Quote
Ok guys
I have big trouble in the EVE universe. I have multiple players who are absolutely furious their HULKS now only have two strip miners. The spreadsheets and data seem to back up there claim it is now better to mine with the Venture instead of the costly exhumers?
I lost a few players when they made it more profitable to sell ore verse refine it. ( Who wants all that hassle, defending a giant space station flying around in NULL/WH space. ) Most of them conclude it is CCP's way to force people like us to fleet up the giant alliances.
Well guess what. Most of the miners I have already cancelled the account. As they put it they have real life bosses and the last thing they want to do is be yelled at by some twenty something issuing CTA and surrender the ORE here, log on here! Nuts to that. If they want grief they work overtime in real life for real money! CCP been doing a good job lately making the game more playable via technical improvements., well done CCP. I am certain there is sheet that contrast and compares the mining changes ship to ship. Can someone be useful and link that ASAP!
I would like to move away from people opinions and assurances and get some raw facts!
|
Penance Toralen
Compass Fox
11
|
Posted - 2016.10.03 04:13:27 -
[543] - Quote
Tattoo Bob Onren wrote:Ok guys
I have big trouble in the EVE universe. I have multiple players who are absolutely furious their HULKS now only have two strip miners. The spreadsheets and data seem to back up there claim it is now better to mine with the Venture instead of the costly exhumers?
I lost a few players when they made it more profitable to sell ore verse refine it. ( Who wants all that hassle, defending a giant space station flying around in NULL/WH space. ) Most of them conclude it is CCP's way to force people like us to fleet up the giant alliances.
Well guess what. Most of the miners I have already cancelled the account. As they put it they have real life bosses and the last thing they want to do is be yelled at by some twenty something issuing CTA and surrender the ORE here, log on here! Nuts to that. If they want grief they work overtime in real life for real money! CCP been doing a good job lately making the game more playable via technical improvements., well done CCP. I am certain there is sheet that contrast and compares the mining changes ship to ship. Can someone be useful and link that ASAP!
I would like to move away from people opinions and assurances and get some raw facts!
Did they even both to check or just rage quit? In change for the high-slot, there is another low slot for a MLU and strips were buffed to meet the difference. Any miner worth the name should know how long it takes a fit a jetcan on the preferred fit. So they should before and after to be able to compare.
But since you want numbers: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6626486#post6626486 |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
3620
|
Posted - 2016.10.03 04:18:18 -
[544] - Quote
Tattoo Bob Onren wrote:Ok guys
I have big trouble in the EVE universe. I have multiple players who are absolutely furious their HULKS now only have two strip miners. The spreadsheets and data seem to back up there claim it is now better to mine with the Venture instead of the costly exhumers?
I lost a few players when they made it more profitable to sell ore verse refine it. ( Who wants all that hassle, defending a giant space station flying around in NULL/WH space. ) Most of them conclude it is CCP's way to force people like us to fleet up the giant alliances.
Well guess what. Most of the miners I have already cancelled the account. As they put it they have real life bosses and the last thing they want to do is be yelled at by some twenty something issuing CTA and surrender the ORE here, log on here! Nuts to that. If they want grief they work overtime in real life for real money! CCP been doing a good job lately making the game more playable via technical improvements., well done CCP. I am certain there is sheet that contrast and compares the mining changes ship to ship. Can someone be useful and link that ASAP!
I would like to move away from people opinions and assurances and get some raw facts!
They are using an old spreadsheet. That's the only possible explanation if they believe a venture mines more than a hulk.
However the argument about RL Bosses is going to apply regardless. |
Drago Shouna
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
616
|
Posted - 2016.10.03 08:24:15 -
[545] - Quote
Penance Toralen wrote:Tattoo Bob Onren wrote:Ok guys
I have big trouble in the EVE universe. I have multiple players who are absolutely furious their HULKS now only have two strip miners. The spreadsheets and data seem to back up there claim it is now better to mine with the Venture instead of the costly exhumers?
I lost a few players when they made it more profitable to sell ore verse refine it. ( Who wants all that hassle, defending a giant space station flying around in NULL/WH space. ) Most of them conclude it is CCP's way to force people like us to fleet up the giant alliances.
Well guess what. Most of the miners I have already cancelled the account. As they put it they have real life bosses and the last thing they want to do is be yelled at by some twenty something issuing CTA and surrender the ORE here, log on here! Nuts to that. If they want grief they work overtime in real life for real money! CCP been doing a good job lately making the game more playable via technical improvements., well done CCP. I am certain there is sheet that contrast and compares the mining changes ship to ship. Can someone be useful and link that ASAP!
I would like to move away from people opinions and assurances and get some raw facts!
Did they even both to check or just rage quit? In change for the high-slot, there is another low slot for a MLU and strips were buffed to meet the difference. Any miner worth the name should know how long it takes a fit a jetcan on the preferred fit. So they should before and after to be able to compare. But since you want numbers: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6626486#post6626486
How exactly do you fit a jetcan to a Hulk?
Solecist Project...." They refuse to play by the rules and laws of the game and use it as excuse ..."
" They don't care about how you play as long as they get to play how they want."
Welcome to EVE.
|
Brokk Witgenstein
Extreme Agony
834
|
Posted - 2016.10.03 08:27:50 -
[546] - Quote
He meant 'fill', obviously ..... |
Eric Lemmonte
Aliastra Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2016.10.03 19:28:51 -
[547] - Quote
HarlyQ wrote: Didnt you know the orca is being completely ignored. I mean why care about a crappy ore hold crappy cargo crappy agility i mean its just a crappy ship and no one should ever bother flying it. Unless they give it an ore hold of 2million m3.
I really feel like they need to drop the maintenance bay on the Orca to something negligible and boost the ore bay substantially. Maybe a 2-3000 maintenance bay just to have one and an ore bay in the hundreds of thousands. Somewhere around 2-300km3 range would be perfect.
I hope they don't lower it's tank when they make on-grid boosts a thing. I get a fair 400kehp with 2kehp/s rep on mine. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18256
|
Posted - 2016.10.04 09:40:12 -
[548] - Quote
Tattoo Bob Onren wrote:
I would like to move away from people opinions and assurances and get some raw facts!
Assuming we are putting 2x Modulated strip miner II fitted with veldspar mining crystal II on all 3 exhumers and fitting 2x Mining laser upgrade II with all skills to V (
Yield per second is as follows;
Hulk 28.4 Mackinaw 20 Skiff 20 Covetor 24 Retriever 18.04 Procurer 17.92 |
Kueyen
Mei-Ha's Light Fleet Coordination Coalition
166
|
Posted - 2016.10.04 18:27:00 -
[549] - Quote
Eric Lemmonte wrote:HarlyQ wrote: Didnt you know the orca is being completely ignored. I mean why care about a crappy ore hold crappy cargo crappy agility i mean its just a crappy ship and no one should ever bother flying it. Unless they give it an ore hold of 2million m3.
I really feel like they need to drop the maintenance bay on the Orca to something negligible and boost the ore bay substantially. Maybe a 2-3000 maintenance bay just to have one and an ore bay in the hundreds of thousands. Somewhere around 2-300km3 range would be perfect. I hope they don't lower it's tank when they make on-grid boosts a thing. I get a fair 400kehp with 2kehp/s rep on mine. Done (well, not entirely, but still very commendable)
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey folks! This will be the specific feedback thread for the Orca revamp coming this November. You can check out the dev blog here for the whole context.Other feedback threads are available for the Porpoise, Rorqual, and the mining foreman gameplay as a whole. ORCAIndustrial Command Ships bonuses (per skill level):5% bonus to ship cargo capacity and ore hold 3% bonus to Mining Foreman Burst Strength and Duration 1% bonus to Shield Command Burst Strength and Duration 10% bonus to drone hitpoints, damage and mining yield -10% reduction in drone ice harvesting cycle time Role bonus:100% bonus to drone mining yield -25% reduction in drone ice harvesting cycle time 100% bonus to drone damage 400% bonus to Remote Shield Booster optimal range 90% reduction to effective distance traveled for jump fatigue Can fit three Command Burst modules 50% bonus to Command Burst Area of Effect Range 250% bonus to Tractor Beam range 100% bonus to Tractor Beam velocity 500% bonus to Survey Scanner range Slot layout: 6H (+3), 5M (+1), 2L Fittings: 1200 PWG (+240), 550 CPU (+120) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 30,000 (+19,250) / 7000 (+100) / 45,000 (-1000) Base shield resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 0 / 20 / 40 / 50 Base armor resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 50 / 35 / 35 / 10 Capacitor (amount / recharge / cap per second) : 8000 (+3800) / 1200s (+400) / 6.67 (+1.42) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 60 / 0.26 (+0.1) / 150,000,000 (-100,000,000) / 54.07s (-1.38) Warp Speed: 2 au/s Drones (bandwidth / bay): 50 / 200 (+125) Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 70km (+10) / 75 / 7 (+5) Sensor strength: 30 Magnetometric (+15) Signature radius: 1000 Cargo Hold: 30,000m3 Ore Hold: 150,000m3 (+100,000)Fleet Hangar: 40,000m3 Ship Maintenance Bay: 400,000m3 Cost: ~700m isk Max Yield: ~1400m3 per minute + drone travel time Max DPS: ~800 dps
Until all are free...
|
Eric Lemmonte
Aliastra Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2016.10.04 18:47:12 -
[550] - Quote
Yeah push in the right direction. I still feel 150 is too small for a ship that massive. |
|
Darrien
Ouroboros Logistics
7
|
Posted - 2016.10.04 19:19:13 -
[551] - Quote
Eric Lemmonte wrote:Yeah push in the right direction. I still feel 150 is too small for a ship that massive.
187500 is more than enough for a ship that's supposed to stay in the field, buff, and be serviced by haulers ( 2.8 trips for a Miasmos / DST ) |
Eilos Faringen
Extraordinarii The Volition Cult
2
|
Posted - 2016.10.10 14:34:04 -
[552] - Quote
DONT TAKE AWAY THE PROC/SKIFF'S NEW STRIP MINER! imo it gives more defensively minded miners a better output with the defenses of the Proc/Skiff hull.
The Amarr Empire said im absolutly NUTS.................
look into my eyes...peer into my very soul.....
http://comic.naver.com/webtoon/detail.nhn?titleId=350217&no=31&weekday=tue/
|
13kr1d1
Hedion University Amarr Empire
189
|
Posted - 2016.10.11 19:29:34 -
[553] - Quote
TigerXtrm wrote:The new barges look sexy. And the new skins look even sexier, just sad they cost 10 F*CKING dollars!
Uh, no. I preferred the old ones. Procurer was my fav, I called it my space cadillac.
Eilos Faringen wrote:DONT TAKE AWAY THE PROC/SKIFF'S NEW STRIP MINER! imo it gives more defensively minded miners a better output with the defenses of the Proc/Skiff hull.
you could still do that with 1 strip miner on a proc, since it has that 150% bonus.
I think its sad that they're genericizing the game by trying to make everything all look cookie cutter.
Don't kid yourselves. Even the dirtiest pirates from the birth of EVE have been carebears. They use alts to bring them goods at cheap prices and safely, rather than live with consequences of their in game actions on their main, from concord to prices
|
Ryder Lenberg
Lenberg Mining
4
|
Posted - 2016.11.27 19:45:48 -
[554] - Quote
in my view, nerfing mining ships like this, cutting off from 3 to 2 strip lasers, will make it alot more tedious to get the quantities needed, to make mining worth it..
this will encourage bot miners, and AFK miners.... and that is all ready a pain in the ass....
and also ruins player mining business branch... (and WE that live on the mining business, are the base foundation for all other stuff like modules, ships, guns, ammo, structures, etc... No Ore/minerals, no fun those who don't mine.)
then the change on Orca!? What the F* are you doing!? Requirements, that is almost nowhere to be found!? or at a price tag like buying a entire planet!
|
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
3615
|
Posted - 2016.11.27 20:16:50 -
[555] - Quote
Ryder Lenberg wrote:
this will encourage bot miners, and AFK miners.... and that is all ready a pain in the ass....
It does the exact opposite...
EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"
Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
|
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
6026
|
Posted - 2016.11.29 01:06:51 -
[556] - Quote
I really really like that the yield bonuses are now cycle time rather than quantity based.
I dislike that the Hulk can not fit T2 tank without a co-processor. Using difference in yield as the baseline, the hulk's tank should be Gàö the skiff's :P
The reduced tank is something I can cope with, spending a few extra ISKies on deadspace amps to allow more CPU for that third MLU (on the hulks piloted by all-5 capsuleers) :D GǪ though I will never make that ISK back thanks to super rorquals crashing the minerals market ;)
Mining these days is certainly not boring anymore, though you achieved that by raising the paranoia level of flying a loot pi+¦ata, rather than by making mining intellectually stimulating.
Day 0 Advice for New Players
|
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
6026
|
Posted - 2016.11.29 01:20:37 -
[557] - Quote
Darrien wrote:Eric Lemmonte wrote:Yeah push in the right direction. I still feel 150 is too small for a ship that massive. 187500m3 is more than enough for a ship that's supposed to stay in the field, buff, and be serviced by haulers ( 2.8 trips for a Miasmos / DST )
This!
The revisions to the Orca make it really amazing to work with. The ore bay is excellent for the role, meaning one exhumer pilot can switch to the Miasmos in the SMB and do three unloading runs, even picking up new crystals and burst charges, and then get back to filling up that capacious hold.
If you need more ore hauling capacity, look to a freighter or ore compression. Though it would be nice to have something in-between the 200k capacity of the Orca and the 700k capacity of freighters. A dedicated ore hauler with 400k capacity, that would need sufficient speed and agility that six runs with a Miasmos wouldn't be faster ;)
Day 0 Advice for New Players
|
Chinaa Star
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2017.01.08 10:01:40 -
[558] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote:I have to second the extra cap for the Skiff. My fit is just barely cap stable now. Add another strip and it will fail.
Morn: If you are using a Skiff, the extra strip means less switching, so for some of us, its a good change. Averaged across all the miners, it balances out. Also, the Hulk yield is not changing: It gets a 25% boost, and the strips get a 25% boost, together that cancels out the loss of a strip.
Actually your wrong. I don't see any useful bonuses in my Hulk's ship attributes/description of the ship. In fact all exhumers have same exact stats now. Makes owning a hulk seem like I wasted my 200million Isk. Thanks CCP for ruining the game. All I do is mine and now I can't do it anymore. |
Chinaa Star
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2017.01.08 10:32:36 -
[559] - Quote
Penance Toralen wrote:msb4u wrote: skiff +150% 1 laser +150% = same as 2,5 lasers mackinaw +25% 2 lasers +25% = same like 2,5 lasers more training same yield ?? hulk +0% 3 lasers +0% = stays 3 lasers
I will start off by asking, did you actually bother to go into Sisi and try it for yourself? It is just not only the hulls but also the Strips with receive a 25% increase. So; 2 strips x 1.25 = 2.5 strips in yield. Which means you are not losing anything and do not require additional training. The only difference I can point to is the Covetor/Hulk. Current Time reduction: 4% per level, which takes 180 down to 144sec. Or 180 / 144 = 1.25 increase 3 strips x 1.25 = 3.75 The proposed changes are: 2% per level, which takes 180 down to 162sec. Or 180 / 162 = 1.111r increase 2 strips x 1.25 (flat hull bonus) x 1.25 (strip increase) x 1.111 = 3.472 The trade-off is supposed to be the additional low slot which allows for another MLU. 3.75 x 1.18 = 4.425 (using MLU2 at 1.09 each) 3.472 x 1.27 = 4.409 Achieving near parity with the pre-pass values. (anybody is welcome to de-bunk my short-hand maths).
So then where is the improvement, all I see in your math is all these mining ships are now equal. The Hulk should be notably the cream of the crop. It should have the at least 25% more yield than any other mining ship. It should have the most mining strips and most low and medium slots. Geez I played for a ship that 300% more costly than these other lower level ships only now to be the exact same ship. CCP might as well just have one mining ship and call it the Hulk. If we want to upgrade that ship it comes at a price for the proper upgrade skills as well as the adaptors to upgrade the ship.
We should do away with this whole ship type/name system that causes trade offs when going from ship to another of the same class of ship. For Example Destroyers: There should be entry level destroyer, then 2 or 3 higher linear leveled destroyers. I hate this ships that look similar but have trade offs. All ship categories should increase in abilities and skills in a completely vertically linear fashion, not this zigzag scheme that happens. |
Owen Levanth
Sagittarius Unlimited Exploration
506
|
Posted - 2017.01.08 15:42:26 -
[560] - Quote
Chinaa Star wrote:[quote=Penance Toralen][quote=msb4u]
We should do away with this whole ship type/name system that causes trade offs when going from ship to another of the same class of ship. For Example Destroyers: There should be entry level destroyer, then 2 or 3 higher linear leveled destroyers. I hate this ships that look similar but have trade offs. All ship categories should increase in abilities and skills in a completely vertically linear fashion, not this zigzag scheme that happens.
This doesn't work in a multiplayer game, or it would end with more and more people using only the good ships and leaving everything slightly worse in the dust.
A developer however wants (ideally) all ships to be used, at least somewhat. If all ships would just get better and better, you'd also never have a reason to go back and fly your favourite ship. Think about this: What if the best ship in a category looks really, really repulsive to you? With the current system you can go to another ship and learn how to fly that one best. In your system, you would heavily gimp yourself if you insist of flying the other, sub-optimal ships.
Overall, I think letting ships grow completely linear in power like you suggest doesn't even work that well in single player games: That's why in Rebel Galaxy for example, you can very well beat the game in one of the starter ships, if it is equipped well.
Sure, you can just buy one powerful ship after another, but you don't have to. (Also the ships all have their quirks, they aren't truly getting better in a purely linear way.) |
|
Matthias Ancaladron
Wrath of Angels
110
|
Posted - 2017.02.12 10:05:34 -
[561] - Quote
Is there ever gonna be skins for these ships that don't have an ugly banana yellow trim? Yellow and blue are one of the worst color combinations. Back when i played a long time ago they were grayish/purple iirc maybe burgundy sort of? Why change them to yellow and make them big ugly eye sores.
Even the skins for them don't get rid of all the nasty yellow |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 .. 19 :: [one page] |