Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 3 post(s) |
RainReaper
RRN Assembly INC
78
|
Posted - 2016.10.20 22:58:12 -
[211] - Quote
Je'ron wrote:Apparently CCP is still not sure what to make off this ship. On Sisi you can find it on the market under Ships /Captial ships /Capital Industrial Ships / ORE.
Very strange. If one would consider it a sub cap Command ship, it should be a T2 and place it as Ships / Industrial ships /Advanced Industrial ships /Command ships / ORE they ahvent even started developing its stats yet dude. it litteraly ahve the same stats and slot layout as the Noctis. hopefully next week they will start puting in all of the mining command ship changes. but until then we wait lol |
Cade Windstalker
595
|
Posted - 2016.10.21 02:53:09 -
[212] - Quote
Je'ron wrote:Apparently CCP is still not sure what to make off this ship. On Sisi you can find it on the market under Ships /Captial ships /Capital Industrial Ships / ORE.
Very strange. If one would consider it a sub cap Command ship, it should be a T2 and place it as Ships / Industrial ships /Advanced Industrial ships /Command ships / ORE
It's a T1 hull though, and doesn't require the Command Ships skill. |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
5952
|
Posted - 2016.10.21 07:38:20 -
[213] - Quote
What I see so far is a Miasmos with tractor beams, RR and long survey scanner range. I can stow it in the SMB of the orca, haul it out to survey the field, tag the rocks, then switch to Skiff and mine. Then when the orca starts to fill the rest of the fleet keeps doing what they're doing, and I haul ore back to base with the Porpoise. It won't be quite as efficient as the Miasmos (slower warp speed, higher align time) but it brings other abilities to the table.
It would be really awesome if some of the ORE command ships could have skirmish warfare instead of shield boosts. But that's just my skittish nature speaking :D
Day 0 Advice for New Players
|
Cade Windstalker
595
|
Posted - 2016.10.21 13:59:29 -
[214] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:What I see so far is a Miasmos with tractor beams, RR and long survey scanner range. I can stow it in the SMB of the orca, haul it out to survey the field, tag the rocks, then switch to Skiff and mine. Then when the orca starts to fill the rest of the fleet keeps doing what they're doing, and I haul ore back to base with the Porpoise. It won't be quite as efficient as the Miasmos (slower warp speed, higher align time) but it brings other abilities to the table.
It would be really awesome if some of the ORE command ships could have skirmish warfare instead of shield boosts. But that's just my skittish nature speaking :D
That's actually a thought, it'd be pretty neat if the Porpoise got a bonus to Shield and Skirmish so it still has the potential to see some use as something other than a wormhole booster or a poor man's Orca. |
Cyclone Organic
Aurea Ducklings
0
|
Posted - 2016.10.21 18:30:35 -
[215] - Quote
Isler Twy'Lar wrote:
I think the benefit of the Porpoise is that it's less expensive than an Orca. So you can fly it somewhere other than Highsec without fear of losing as much isk.
It might be a good point. And what I am talking about is that CCP should design a similar progression line of industrial command burst as any other types of roles, like mining barges vs exhumers, T1 logistics cruiser vs T2 specialized logistics ship and capital Force Auxiliary class. This way, a step-by-step skill progression, can provide a strong positive reinforcement for players who want to develop a career in industrial leadership. |
Goati
State War Academy Caldari State
14
|
Posted - 2016.10.22 10:56:46 -
[216] - Quote
Does anyone else find it stupid that Porpoise does not get the 50% bonus to command burst range, that all other command burst vessels get? (apart from the destroyer)
Even T1 battlecruisers get the 50% command burst range bonus, even though they can only fit 1 command burst.
The Porpoise is supposed to be equivalent to a T1 battlecruiser, is primarily a command booster (can fit 2x command bursts) and yet it does not gain the 50% bonus to command burst range.
This ruins the Porpoise for me, people simply won't use the porpoise for bursts if the max burst range is going to be much smaller than the size of a belt. (which it is without the 50% range bonus). |
marly cortez
Mercurialis Inc. The Bastion
177
|
Posted - 2016.10.22 15:02:11 -
[217] - Quote
Looking at the stats for this ship the only comment that comes to mind is 'Large Stationary Target'. |
Isler Twy'Lar
Federation Navy 3rd Fleet Wrong Hole.
8
|
Posted - 2016.10.23 20:26:35 -
[218] - Quote
Penance Toralen wrote:Rain6637 wrote:I feel like I'm already toeing the boundary of candid feedback and toxic, so I'll stop here at what I hope will be seen as a suggestion.
Penance you have a point about people who will accept what's given to them. I guess that includes me in this case. I enjoy boosting for the RP and that includes mining. The looming thing absent from these threads are actual miners. Who are largely not engaged at this level of the game. QQP Quant called them "traditionalists" in his 2014 Fanfest Presentation. Easily evident from comments of discovery by miners after the fact that the Hulk lost a mining strip. A mere handful come to comment post update. A tiny fraction of a real number of miners. Those that have shrugged their shoulders at the update, rolled up their sleeves and undocked in a new ship.To an activity that remains unchanged. It would have been great to see a new hull for the Porpoise. The Attack Battlecruiser designs were sourced from a Deviant Art competition. Prehaps sometime in the future this is possible. All said, I have not decided whether I will get the BPO or just merely just have a hull- but I will have one in the hanger regardless. It would be nice to have an official/sanctioned mass test on Sisi with Endurances and Porpoises in Shattered.
I am a miner and am chomping at the bit to get into the test server and try it out. I wish they would get it on there. |
Cade Windstalker
597
|
Posted - 2016.10.24 11:12:22 -
[219] - Quote
Goati wrote:Drake is a better mining gang boost ship than the Porpoise. Why? Because Drake and all other BC's get a 50% range bonus to command bursts, which means a Drake can give 43km radius boosts, but a Porpoise only gives 29km radius boosts.
Does anyone else find it stupid that Porpoise does not get the 50% bonus to command burst range, that all other command burst vessels get? (apart from the destroyer)
Even T1 battlecruisers get the 50% command burst range bonus, even though they can only fit 1 command burst.
The Porpoise is supposed to be equivalent to a battlecruiser, is primarily a command booster (can fit 2x command bursts) and yet it does not gain the 50% bonus to command burst range.
This ruins the Porpoise for me, people simply won't use the porpoise for bursts if the max burst range is going to be much smaller than the size of a belt. (which it is without the 50% range bonus).
Command ships give an even bigger radius, but this is about the Porpoise not receiving battlecruiser range bonus to bursts, even though it direly needs it, and it's a command battlecruiser after all - why wouldn't it receive the 50% range bonus that all battlecruisers receive?
This really shouldn't be a breaking thing for you or anyone else, you can easily position the Porpoise centrally so that you can hit all of your mining ships while they stay in range of their rocks on the vast majority of belts. For the ones where that doesn't work you should probably be bringing an Orca anyways.
I'll agree that it makes a bit of sense for the Porpoise to have the range bonus, but it also makes sense for there to be a progression in range from the Porpoise up through to the Rorqual, since the ability to spread the fleet out more makes them less vulnerable to ganks. |
Goati
State War Academy Caldari State
16
|
Posted - 2016.10.24 12:21:21 -
[220] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Goati wrote:Drake is a better mining gang boost ship than the Porpoise. Why? Because Drake and all other BC's get a 50% range bonus to command bursts, which means a Drake can give 43km radius boosts, but a Porpoise only gives 29km radius boosts.
Does anyone else find it stupid that Porpoise does not get the 50% bonus to command burst range, that all other command burst vessels get? (apart from the destroyer)
Even T1 battlecruisers get the 50% command burst range bonus, even though they can only fit 1 command burst.
The Porpoise is supposed to be equivalent to a battlecruiser, is primarily a command booster (can fit 2x command bursts) and yet it does not gain the 50% bonus to command burst range.
This ruins the Porpoise for me, people simply won't use the porpoise for bursts if the max burst range is going to be much smaller than the size of a belt. (which it is without the 50% range bonus).
Command ships give an even bigger radius, but this is about the Porpoise not receiving battlecruiser range bonus to bursts, even though it direly needs it, and it's a command battlecruiser after all - why wouldn't it receive the 50% range bonus that all battlecruisers receive? This really shouldn't be a breaking thing for you or anyone else, you can easily position the Porpoise centrally so that you can hit all of your mining ships while they stay in range of their rocks on the vast majority of belts. For the ones where that doesn't work you should probably be bringing an Orca anyways. I'll agree that it makes a bit of sense for the Porpoise to have the range bonus, but it also makes sense for there to be a progression in range from the Porpoise up through to the Rorqual, since the ability to spread the fleet out more makes them less vulnerable to ganks.
If there should be progression as you say, then the progression should be the same as it is with battlecruisers to command ships. Battlecruisers get 50% burst range bonus, and command ships gets 100% burst range bonus. The Orca could get a boost to be above 50% if need be.
The Porpoise should get the 50% range bonus, as it is a battlecruiser after all - it's very stupid for an 'industrial command battlecruiser' to not get a 50% burst range bonus, when the Drake for example, a combat battlecruiser not even specialised in bursts, does get the 50% range bonus. In fact, this is completely ridicluous.
CCP, why does a 'mining command ship' specialised in command bursts not receive the 50% range to bursts, when a combat battlecruiser, not even specialised in bursts, does receive a 50% range bonus? |
|
Cade Windstalker
597
|
Posted - 2016.10.24 13:03:45 -
[221] - Quote
Goati wrote:If there should be progression as you say, then the progression should be the same as it is with battlecruisers to command ships. Battlecruisers get 50% burst range bonus, and command ships gets 100% burst range bonus. The Orca could get a boost to be above 50% if need be.
The Porpoise should get the 50% range bonus, as it is a battlecruiser after all - it's very stupid for an 'industrial command battlecruiser' to not get a 50% burst range bonus, when the Drake for example, a combat battlecruiser not even specialised in bursts, does get the 50% range bonus. In fact, this is completely ridicluous.
CCP, why does a 'mining command ship' specialised in command bursts not receive the 50% range to bursts, when a combat battlecruiser, not even specialised in bursts, does receive a 50% range bonus?
We have that, with the Orca(50% range) to the Rorqual(50% range, with another 100% or 200% range on the Industrial Core)
I think the issue here is you're equating the Porpoise to the BC slot when the Orca serves more closely to that boosting slot in the mining progression chain with the Porpoise filling the role more closely aligned to the Command Destroyer in terms of being the lowest tier on the chain.
There's nothing that says that the Porpoise needs to fit the role of a "Mining BC" just because of its size. |
Goati
State War Academy Caldari State
16
|
Posted - 2016.10.24 14:29:27 -
[222] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Goati wrote:If there should be progression as you say, then the progression should be the same as it is with battlecruisers to command ships. Battlecruisers get 50% burst range bonus, and command ships gets 100% burst range bonus. The Orca could get a boost to be above 50% if need be.
The Porpoise should get the 50% range bonus, as it is a battlecruiser after all - it's very stupid for an 'industrial command battlecruiser' to not get a 50% burst range bonus, when the Drake for example, a combat battlecruiser not even specialised in bursts, does get the 50% range bonus. In fact, this is completely ridicluous.
CCP, why does a 'mining command ship' specialised in command bursts not receive the 50% range to bursts, when a combat battlecruiser, not even specialised in bursts, does receive a 50% range bonus? We have that, with the Orca(50% range) to the Rorqual(50% range, with another 100% or 200% range on the Industrial Core) I think the issue here is you're equating the Porpoise to the BC slot when the Orca serves more closely to that boosting slot in the mining progression chain with the Porpoise filling the role more closely aligned to the Command Destroyer in terms of being the lowest tier on the chain. There's nothing that says that the Porpoise needs to fit the role of a "Mining BC" just because of its size.
The Porpoise IS a command battlecruiser. The Orca most certainly is nowhere near the level of battlecruiser, it's so large and slow, it's basically just a smaller Rorqual designed for hi-sec use. |
Cade Windstalker
597
|
Posted - 2016.10.24 19:29:40 -
[223] - Quote
Goati wrote:The Porpoise IS a command battlecruiser. The Orca most certainly is nowhere near the level of battlecruiser, it's so large and slow, it's basically just a smaller Rorqual designed for hi-sec use.
You're still equating size with boosting performance.
Mining ships are not combat ships and don't need to be balanced along the same lines. If you feel that the range bonus is more valuable than the mining amount bonus then you've already got that option in the form of a Combat BC. If you just want both then CCP have made their value judgement on that combination of bonuses pretty clear with how they distributed them between the Porpoise, Orca, and Rorqual. |
Erasmus Grant
Immortal Wanderers Zaibatsu Mercantile
31
|
Posted - 2016.10.24 20:38:33 -
[224] - Quote
I would like to see Porpose to get the use of medium micro jumpdrive or cloaking bonus to that of BlOps |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
3676
|
Posted - 2016.10.24 21:01:21 -
[225] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:
You're still equating size with boosting performance.
Mining ships are not combat ships and don't need to be balanced along the same lines. If you feel that the range bonus is more valuable than the mining amount bonus then you've already got that option in the form of a Combat BC. If you just want both then CCP have made their value judgement on that combination of bonuses pretty clear with how they distributed them between the Porpoise, Orca, and Rorqual.
Actually they do need balancing along the same lines as combat ships. Just instead of DPS bonuses they get mining/hauling bonuses. But otherwise they should be balanced along the same lines as combat ships.
The fact that they haven't been till now is why we have such a cultural bias treating miners as second class citizens of EVE, because CCP themselves have been treating them as second class citizens and not allowing them to actually fit their ships with any variety. Compare the number of slots, PG & CPU to an equivalent size/cost Combat ship. If the answer is not 'Basically the same' then there is an issue, and Industrialists will continue to get mistreated.
And yes, giving them the same means people will come up with some combat uses for them, And? Why is this a bad thing if someone decided that a proper fittable freighter made a great pipe bombing ship. Who cares, it's out in space at risk doing stuff.
So yes it should have the range bonus. And it should have the same fitting options. |
Erasmus Grant
Immortal Wanderers Zaibatsu Mercantile
31
|
Posted - 2016.10.24 21:14:16 -
[226] - Quote
The range is kinda garbage. Considering the size of belts. I do love the 3.61 AU/s though
I would love for some fits to be PM'd to me. |
Isler Twy'Lar
Federation Navy 3rd Fleet Wrong Hole.
8
|
Posted - 2016.10.24 21:21:35 -
[227] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Goati wrote:The Porpoise IS a command battlecruiser. The Orca most certainly is nowhere near the level of battlecruiser, it's so large and slow, it's basically just a smaller Rorqual designed for hi-sec use. You're still equating size with boosting performance. Mining ships are not combat ships and don't need to be balanced along the same lines. If you feel that the range bonus is more valuable than the mining amount bonus then you've already got that option in the form of a Combat BC. If you just want both then CCP have made their value judgement on that combination of bonuses pretty clear with how they distributed them between the Porpoise, Orca, and Rorqual.
So give the range bonus to mining bursts only. |
Isler Twy'Lar
Federation Navy 3rd Fleet Wrong Hole.
8
|
Posted - 2016.10.24 21:27:13 -
[228] - Quote
Erasmus Grant wrote:The range is kinda garbage. Considering the size of belts. I do love the 3.61 AU/s though
Fozzie said Fleet Hangar of 5k, but my Porpoise only has 2k with max skills
I would love for some fits to be PM'd to me.
Are they on the test server now? |
PopeUrban
El Expedicion Flames of Exile
162
|
Posted - 2016.10.24 21:39:58 -
[229] - Quote
Erasmus Grant wrote:I would like to see Porpose to get the use of medium micro jumpdrive or cloaking bonus to that of BlOps
This is a hilarious and not all that inappropriate idea.
It would give it a unique role that would go well with the t2 mining frigs for "blops ninja mining" fleets.
I support giving the porpoise covops cloaking, and perhaps a role bonus that made its boosts more effective on expedition frigs. it would give the ship a use byond "That thing you get when you can't get an Orca" without removing its progression based utility.
You could use it with a blops BS and some expedition frigs to give people interesting options. |
Penance Toralen
Compass Fox
19
|
Posted - 2016.10.24 21:57:20 -
[230] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Goati wrote:The Porpoise IS a command battlecruiser. The Orca most certainly is nowhere near the level of battlecruiser, it's so large and slow, it's basically just a smaller Rorqual designed for hi-sec use. You're still equating size with boosting performance. Mining ships are not combat ships and don't need to be balanced along the same lines. If you feel that the range bonus is more valuable than the mining amount bonus then you've already got that option in the form of a Combat BC. If you just want both then CCP have made their value judgement on that combination of bonuses pretty clear with how they distributed them between the Porpoise, Orca, and Rorqual.
I disagree with segregation for industrial ships. At the beginning of the game the Osprey was a prime mining hull. There was certainly no need the balance its defence. Why should it now be a consideration? Will mining ships face less aggression because of their non-combat role? (CCP once thought so when mining barges were original released with a single mid slot and a shield tank intention. The playerbase has long since proven otherwise). If Industralists are treated the same as a target then they deserve to be treated the same for the scale of ability to face combat. |
|
PopeUrban
El Expedicion Flames of Exile
164
|
Posted - 2016.10.25 00:15:31 -
[231] - Quote
Penance Toralen wrote:Cade Windstalker wrote:Goati wrote:The Porpoise IS a command battlecruiser. The Orca most certainly is nowhere near the level of battlecruiser, it's so large and slow, it's basically just a smaller Rorqual designed for hi-sec use. You're still equating size with boosting performance. Mining ships are not combat ships and don't need to be balanced along the same lines. If you feel that the range bonus is more valuable than the mining amount bonus then you've already got that option in the form of a Combat BC. If you just want both then CCP have made their value judgement on that combination of bonuses pretty clear with how they distributed them between the Porpoise, Orca, and Rorqual. I disagree with segregation for industrial ships. At the beginning of the game the Osprey was a prime mining hull. There was certainly no need the balance its defence. Why should it now be a consideration? Will mining ships face less aggression because of their non-combat role? (CCP once thought so when mining barges were original released with a single mid slot and a shield tank intention. The playerbase has long since proven otherwise). If Industralists are treated the same as a target then they deserve to be treated the same for the scale of ability to face combat.
Mining hulls are not treated the same as a target.
They are not combat ships. They are targets of opportunity. Their entire job is to create objective context for combat ships by being the primary source of minerals that the economy needs.
They do not, nor should they obey the same balancing metrics as combat ships because they have a completely separate design intent.
Also keep in mind CCP hasn't stated exactly what the new drilling platform structures actually DO, and the only image we have of one is anchored IN a belt. If drilling platforms are actually capable of drilling a belt from a fixed position, perhaps requiring a player to occupy and run it like structure weapons, it drastically changes the overall employment and intent of mining ships and possibly the overall utility of mining boosts.
We could very well be on our way to an EVE where mining with a spaceship is one of two options for resource gathering, the other being hauling industrials to deploy, anchor, and unanchor tankier fixed platforms for the length of an op. |
Penance Toralen
Compass Fox
20
|
Posted - 2016.10.25 01:51:03 -
[232] - Quote
PopeUrban wrote:Penance Toralen wrote:Cade Windstalker wrote:Goati wrote:The Porpoise IS a command battlecruiser. The Orca most certainly is nowhere near the level of battlecruiser, it's so large and slow, it's basically just a smaller Rorqual designed for hi-sec use. You're still equating size with boosting performance. Mining ships are not combat ships and don't need to be balanced along the same lines. If you feel that the range bonus is more valuable than the mining amount bonus then you've already got that option in the form of a Combat BC. If you just want both then CCP have made their value judgement on that combination of bonuses pretty clear with how they distributed them between the Porpoise, Orca, and Rorqual. I disagree with segregation for industrial ships. At the beginning of the game the Osprey was a prime mining hull. There was certainly no need the balance its defence. Why should it now be a consideration? Will mining ships face less aggression because of their non-combat role? (CCP once thought so when mining barges were original released with a single mid slot and a shield tank intention. The playerbase has long since proven otherwise). If Industralists are treated the same as a target then they deserve to be treated the same for the scale of ability to face combat. Mining hulls are not treated the same as a target. They are not combat ships. They are targets of opportunity. Their entire job is to create objective context for combat ships by being the primary source of minerals that the economy needs. They do not, nor should they obey the same balancing metrics as combat ships because they have a completely separate design intent. Also keep in mind CCP hasn't stated exactly what the new drilling platform structures actually DO, and the only image we have of one is anchored IN a belt. If drilling platforms are actually capable of drilling a belt from a fixed position, perhaps requiring a player to occupy and run it like structure weapons, it drastically changes the overall employment and intent of mining ships and possibly the overall utility of mining boosts. We could very well be on our way to an EVE where mining with a spaceship is one of two options for resource gathering, the other being hauling industrials to deploy, anchor, and unanchor tankier fixed platforms for the length of an op.
I would challenge you to point out any dev-blog which backs the convention that a sub-set of the playerbase is reserved to be for specific aggression. I'll double down and challenge CCP back this. Be honest and consider - how many people would continue with Industry or even Eve with the realisation that they are segregated BY DESIGN into the role of "the target".
The conceptisation that Industrials should be weaker is a player desire. CCP has intended otherwise when the Procurer and Skiff were given solid tanking options and drone bonuses. When the Prospect and Endurance were given cloaking bonuses. |
AL1CA
Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde
0
|
Posted - 2016.10.25 02:24:56 -
[233] - Quote
1.just got off singularity and the fleet hanger for the porpoise is only 2k m3 not what you posted did you change that and not tell us 2. not sure if needs to be here or on burst but why are the mining burst creating a weapons timer you will not be able to dock and get back to the fleet in time to give boosts again is this planed for or mistake |
Isler Twy'Lar
Federation Navy 3rd Fleet Wrong Hole.
8
|
Posted - 2016.10.25 03:14:29 -
[234] - Quote
Penance Toralen wrote:PopeUrban wrote:Penance Toralen wrote:Cade Windstalker wrote:Goati wrote:The Porpoise IS a command battlecruiser. The Orca most certainly is nowhere near the level of battlecruiser, it's so large and slow, it's basically just a smaller Rorqual designed for hi-sec use. You're still equating size with boosting performance. Mining ships are not combat ships and don't need to be balanced along the same lines. If you feel that the range bonus is more valuable than the mining amount bonus then you've already got that option in the form of a Combat BC. If you just want both then CCP have made their value judgement on that combination of bonuses pretty clear with how they distributed them between the Porpoise, Orca, and Rorqual. I disagree with segregation for industrial ships. At the beginning of the game the Osprey was a prime mining hull. There was certainly no need the balance its defence. Why should it now be a consideration? Will mining ships face less aggression because of their non-combat role? (CCP once thought so when mining barges were original released with a single mid slot and a shield tank intention. The playerbase has long since proven otherwise). If Industralists are treated the same as a target then they deserve to be treated the same for the scale of ability to face combat. Mining hulls are not treated the same as a target. They are not combat ships. They are targets of opportunity. Their entire job is to create objective context for combat ships by being the primary source of minerals that the economy needs. They do not, nor should they obey the same balancing metrics as combat ships because they have a completely separate design intent. Also keep in mind CCP hasn't stated exactly what the new drilling platform structures actually DO, and the only image we have of one is anchored IN a belt. If drilling platforms are actually capable of drilling a belt from a fixed position, perhaps requiring a player to occupy and run it like structure weapons, it drastically changes the overall employment and intent of mining ships and possibly the overall utility of mining boosts. We could very well be on our way to an EVE where mining with a spaceship is one of two options for resource gathering, the other being hauling industrials to deploy, anchor, and unanchor tankier fixed platforms for the length of an op. I would challenge you to point out any dev-blog which backs the convention that a sub-set of the playerbase is reserved to be for specific aggression. I'll double down and challenge CCP back this. Be honest and consider - how many people would continue with Industry or even Eve with the realisation that they are segregated BY DESIGN into the role of "the target". The conceptisation that Industrials should be weaker is a player desire. CCP has intended otherwise when the Procurer and Skiff were given solid tanking options and drone bonuses. When the Prospect and Endurance were given cloaking bonuses.
The funny thing is that many players in Eve see other players as "content" and are actually against balance because they just want easy kills. If you want proof of this, all you have to do is look at how many players are out there using game mechanics to trick inexperienced players into fights that they have no hope of surviving. These types of players don't want industrialists to be anything other than easy targets.
Btw, this is also why Eve is and will always be a niche game with a low population. |
PopeUrban
El Expedicion Flames of Exile
166
|
Posted - 2016.10.26 02:22:05 -
[235] - Quote
Penance Toralen wrote:PopeUrban wrote:Penance Toralen wrote:Cade Windstalker wrote:Goati wrote:The Porpoise IS a command battlecruiser. The Orca most certainly is nowhere near the level of battlecruiser, it's so large and slow, it's basically just a smaller Rorqual designed for hi-sec use. You're still equating size with boosting performance. Mining ships are not combat ships and don't need to be balanced along the same lines. If you feel that the range bonus is more valuable than the mining amount bonus then you've already got that option in the form of a Combat BC. If you just want both then CCP have made their value judgement on that combination of bonuses pretty clear with how they distributed them between the Porpoise, Orca, and Rorqual. I disagree with segregation for industrial ships. At the beginning of the game the Osprey was a prime mining hull. There was certainly no need the balance its defence. Why should it now be a consideration? Will mining ships face less aggression because of their non-combat role? (CCP once thought so when mining barges were original released with a single mid slot and a shield tank intention. The playerbase has long since proven otherwise). If Industralists are treated the same as a target then they deserve to be treated the same for the scale of ability to face combat. Mining hulls are not treated the same as a target. They are not combat ships. They are targets of opportunity. Their entire job is to create objective context for combat ships by being the primary source of minerals that the economy needs. They do not, nor should they obey the same balancing metrics as combat ships because they have a completely separate design intent. Also keep in mind CCP hasn't stated exactly what the new drilling platform structures actually DO, and the only image we have of one is anchored IN a belt. If drilling platforms are actually capable of drilling a belt from a fixed position, perhaps requiring a player to occupy and run it like structure weapons, it drastically changes the overall employment and intent of mining ships and possibly the overall utility of mining boosts. We could very well be on our way to an EVE where mining with a spaceship is one of two options for resource gathering, the other being hauling industrials to deploy, anchor, and unanchor tankier fixed platforms for the length of an op. I would challenge you to point out any dev-blog which backs the convention that a sub-set of the playerbase is reserved to be for specific aggression. I'll double down and challenge CCP back this. Be honest and consider - how many people would continue with Industry or even Eve with the realisation that they are segregated BY DESIGN into the role of "the target". The conceptisation that Industrials should be weaker is a player desire. CCP has intended otherwise when the Procurer and Skiff were given solid tanking options and drone bonuses. When the Prospect and Endurance were given cloaking bonuses.
The design intent is quite clear. Mining ships are bonused primarily for mining. That is their function. The fact that more rewarding ore is found in lower security space makes it pretty clear that the entire point of mining as a spaceship activity exists, primarily, to provide long term objective context for fighting.
You know, because you need those minerals to replace ships, and because the primary value of everything in the game revolves around mineral value, making mining ships the underpin of the entire entropy-based economic model.
Yes, mining ships are designed as targets for combat ships because of their intrinsic value as economic engines. This is why they aren't as good at combat as... ships designed for combat. Just like logi ships shouldn't be great at combat, or hacking ships, etc.
Different ships have different roles and different jobs, and thus different places in the implied overall metagame. The job of a mining ship is to present a target by being forced to remain visible and immobile for long stretches of time, and it is rewarded for this role by being extremely efficient at generating value for itself while doing so.
I'm not arguing they should be useless, or untankable, but the current list of changes makes sense. Mining ships are roughly able to fit enough DPS alongside mining gear to engage at -1 on their threat/size scale, with the smallest ships being primarily bonused for not fighting at all (and in stead being agile, warp stabbed, and cloak tanked) |
Lady Gwendolyn Antollare
Federal Logistics Initiative Conglomerate United Interests
10
|
Posted - 2016.10.26 19:11:28 -
[236] - Quote
Fleet Hangar on Porpoise listed at 5000m3 but is only 2000m3 on SISI currently. 2000m3 is not large enough to hold 1 cycle of a hulk it needs to be much larger.
Nerfing Hisec has never fixed Losec or Nullsec
|
Isler Twy'Lar
Federation Navy 3rd Fleet Wrong Hole.
10
|
Posted - 2016.10.26 20:51:06 -
[237] - Quote
Lady Gwendolyn Antollare wrote:Fleet Hangar on Porpoise listed at 5000m3 but is only 2000m3 on SISI currently. 2000m3 is not large enough to hold 1 cycle of a hulk it needs to be much larger.
I sm hoping they meant 20,000 m3. <.< |
Lady Gwendolyn Antollare
Federal Logistics Initiative Conglomerate United Interests
11
|
Posted - 2016.10.26 22:56:30 -
[238] - Quote
Isler Twy'Lar wrote:Lady Gwendolyn Antollare wrote:Fleet Hangar on Porpoise listed at 5000m3 but is only 2000m3 on SISI currently. 2000m3 is not large enough to hold 1 cycle of a hulk it needs to be much larger. I sm hoping they meant 20,000 m3. <.<
Doesn't seem like it, Maybe CCP decided that the Porpoise is not a mining support ship (unlike the orca) and is designed to be used as a boosting ship only and ships in it's fleet are either trip mine or jet can for a Miasmos to pickup.
The ore hold will only hold 50,000 m3 or 62,500m3 maxed out with skills.
Nerfing Hisec has never fixed Losec or Nullsec
|
PopeUrban
El Expedicion Flames of Exile
167
|
Posted - 2016.10.26 23:10:40 -
[239] - Quote
Lady Gwendolyn Antollare wrote:Isler Twy'Lar wrote:Lady Gwendolyn Antollare wrote:Fleet Hangar on Porpoise listed at 5000m3 but is only 2000m3 on SISI currently. 2000m3 is not large enough to hold 1 cycle of a hulk it needs to be much larger. I sm hoping they meant 20,000 m3. <.< Doesn't seem like it, Maybe CCP decided that the Porpoise is not a mining support ship (unlike the orca) and is designed to be used as a boosting ship only and ships in it's fleet are either trip mine or jet can for a Miasmos to pickup. The ore hold will only hold 50,000 m3 or 62,500m3 maxed out with skills.
I think with the command bursts being the only way to get boosts its pretty important to have smaller cheaper boosting ships.
Where before you could get a small boost just by having the skill on the FC, now you have to fit a module, so having dedicated cheap platforms for those modules is pretty important even if they don't offer the same range of utility as their larger brethren. |
Penance Toralen
Compass Fox
25
|
Posted - 2016.10.27 01:55:39 -
[240] - Quote
Lady Gwendolyn Antollare wrote:Isler Twy'Lar wrote:Lady Gwendolyn Antollare wrote:Fleet Hangar on Porpoise listed at 5000m3 but is only 2000m3 on SISI currently. 2000m3 is not large enough to hold 1 cycle of a hulk it needs to be much larger. I sm hoping they meant 20,000 m3. <.< Doesn't seem like it, Maybe CCP decided that the Porpoise is not a mining support ship (unlike the orca) and is designed to be used as a boosting ship only and ships in it's fleet are either trip mine or jet can for a Miasmos to pickup. The ore hold will only hold 50,000 m3 or 62,500m3 maxed out with skills.
But 50k was the original size for the Orca. So for a ship capable of transversing a frigate only wormhole it is certainly a significant gain. If you are feeding Hulks into a Porpoise - it is overworking the ship. A solid Hulk pilot could fill a jetcan in 13 minutes. So two hulks will fill a max Porpoise in around 15 minutes. (even sooner if the Porpoise has mining drones). Then what, dock up to empty or start jetcanning?
I do see the point, particularly as it was the original spec. But if you can get exhumers on the field, I would be asking why you have not stepped up a Orca.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |