Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
manus
WESCORP 2.0
0
|
Posted - 2017.04.10 17:02:48 -
[1] - Quote
Hi. Currently mining in my Exchumer. Would CCP make some modules that expand ore hold? |
Bjorn Tyrson
EVE University Ivy League
501
|
Posted - 2017.04.10 17:17:33 -
[2] - Quote
A mackinaw has an ore hold of up to 35,000 m3 how long do you really want to be able to mine afk? |
manus
WESCORP 2.0
0
|
Posted - 2017.04.10 17:32:47 -
[3] - Quote
i dont think its possible to be able to mine afk. i have to constantly babysit the strip miners. maybe i am missing something. anyhow, a module that maybe does +5% ore hold but reduces maybe drone space and cargohold + structural hitpoints etc. seem like a fair tradeoff. Of course this is just off the top of my head and people who actually know how to balance may have a better idea. |
Bjorn Tyrson
EVE University Ivy League
501
|
Posted - 2017.04.10 17:50:37 -
[4] - Quote
As I said. The mackinaw ore hold is massive. If you need more than that then use a hauler alt for pickups or switch to an orca or rorqual |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
3593
|
Posted - 2017.04.10 18:21:34 -
[5] - Quote
Why do you want your current hold nerfed and then force you to chose between ore hold or mining efficiency?
If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
|
Ageanal Olerie
Aliastra Gallente Federation
54
|
Posted - 2017.04.10 20:03:58 -
[6] - Quote
It's a shame that cargo expanders do not work on a ship's primary cargo type hold.
I'd like to see cargo expanders work on your ship's primary cargo type. Or have specialized cargo expanders for things like Ore hold, the specialized gallente industrials, fleet hanger, etc...
|
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
3295
|
Posted - 2017.04.10 20:23:57 -
[7] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:Why do you want your current hold nerfed and then force you to chose between ore hold or mining efficiency?
Hey OP, answer this one. It's pretty important. |
Alderson Point
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
45
|
Posted - 2017.04.10 20:57:47 -
[8] - Quote
The ore holds are arguably the main balance feature of mining barges, altering that balance would have consequences. You might not like the consequences, really not like them at all. |
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
3868
|
Posted - 2017.04.10 21:54:13 -
[9] - Quote
Lol yeah just like freighters, you're gonna get a nerf before you can fit expanders. And you realise barges used to have normal bays that could be expanded right?
The whole reason miners wanted ore bays instead of expandable bays was so they didn't have to choose between tank, yield and space. CCP thought it'd also be a good way to balance the barges against eachother and barges against haulers.
https://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/ship-balancing-mining-barges/
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
|
Max Deveron
Deveron Shipyards and Technology
299
|
Posted - 2017.04.10 23:59:31 -
[10] - Quote
No dude,
You do not need more space, quit using hulks or covetors and get Proc/SKiff or Retty/Mack.
Or like others already said get a hauler acct, or jetcan or something or upgrade to an Orca or Rorq.
other than those options, you can ..........well you know what to do. |
|
Ageanal Olerie
Aliastra Gallente Federation
54
|
Posted - 2017.04.11 02:29:23 -
[11] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:Why do you want your current hold nerfed and then force you to chose between ore hold or mining efficiency? Hey OP, answer this one. It's pretty important.
Why do you want him to answer something he never implied?
At any rate, when you have expanders (which would add to existing capacity) you are necessarily giving up something else you could fit into those (presumably low) slots. Be that extra tank, mining laser upgrades, etc...
And who's to say someone doesn't simply prefer the look of a particular ship but would rather it had a larger ore capacity.
|
grgjegb gergerg
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
15
|
Posted - 2017.04.11 02:44:13 -
[12] - Quote
Hahaha. No.
Remember back when jetcan mining was the main go-to? No ORE ships, just faction frigate/cruisers with mining bonuses?
It's fine now. Compared to mining in an old Bantam or something, every other option now is a huge amount better. |
Bjorn Tyrson
EVE University Ivy League
505
|
Posted - 2017.04.11 03:19:13 -
[13] - Quote
grgjegb gergerg wrote:Hahaha. No.
Remember back when jetcan mining was the main go-to? No ORE ships, just faction frigate/cruisers with mining bonuses?
It's fine now. Compared to mining in an old Bantam or something, every other option now is a huge amount better.
Battleship mining best mining. |
Matthias Ancaladron
Wrath of Angels Solitaire.
259
|
Posted - 2017.04.11 09:24:53 -
[14] - Quote
Support, just alter expanders to provide a percentage for every hold. Not just cargo. |
Max Deveron
Deveron Shipyards and Technology
299
|
Posted - 2017.04.11 15:00:25 -
[15] - Quote
Matthias Ancaladron wrote:Support, just alter expanders to provide a percentage for every hold. Not just cargo.
Uhm yeah, how about no..... an the reason for that is the way CCP balances things like freighters.
To get the same space we have now they will nerf the size down so that using expanders will get us the same space we already have now when using them.
Some of you need to learn your history.
no, no ,no
Did I say NO, i think i did. |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
2882
|
Posted - 2017.04.11 15:13:09 -
[16] - Quote
No.
CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.
|
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
3872
|
Posted - 2017.04.11 15:33:13 -
[17] - Quote
Ageanal Olerie wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:Why do you want your current hold nerfed and then force you to chose between ore hold or mining efficiency? Hey OP, answer this one. It's pretty important. Why do you want him to answer something he never implied?.
OP asked for freighters with fittings a long time ago. We told him that freighters would be nerfed if they did. And guess what? they got nerfed.
Now he's asking for the same thing on barges. What do you think's gonna happen? That you're gonna get expanders on a barge with 35km3 hold?
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
|
manus
WESCORP 2.0
2
|
Posted - 2017.04.11 22:34:09 -
[18] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:Why do you want your current hold nerfed and then force you to chose between ore hold or mining efficiency?
Convenience. |
manus
WESCORP 2.0
2
|
Posted - 2017.04.11 22:35:14 -
[19] - Quote
Alderson Point wrote:The ore holds are arguably the main balance feature of mining barges, altering that balance would have consequences. You might not like the consequences, really not like them at all.
What excactly would be imbalanced about increasing the ore hold? Im genuinely curious. It seems more like a QoL improvement |
manus
WESCORP 2.0
2
|
Posted - 2017.04.11 22:35:59 -
[20] - Quote
Max Deveron wrote:You do not need more space,
That is not up to you to decide. |
|
manus
WESCORP 2.0
2
|
Posted - 2017.04.11 22:38:47 -
[21] - Quote
Matthias Ancaladron wrote:Support, just alter expanders to provide a percentage for every hold. Not just cargo.
I dont agree. Adding a specific Ore Hold increase module gives players greater flexiblility, but it also gives devs greater flexibility when it comes to balancing. |
manus
WESCORP 2.0
2
|
Posted - 2017.04.11 22:41:14 -
[22] - Quote
Max Deveron wrote:Matthias Ancaladron wrote:Support, just alter expanders to provide a percentage for every hold. Not just cargo. Uhm yeah, how about no..... an the reason for that is the way CCP balances things like freighters. To get the same space we have now they will nerf the size down so that using expanders will get us the same space we already have now when using them. Some of you need to learn your history. no, no ,no Did I say NO, i think i did.
The current size of Ore Holds are completely arbitrary as far as i can tell. It wouldnt change the game much if the end result was a buff to ore hold sizes. But it would increase QoL for miners. But it comes with a trade off course, as usual. |
Krysenth
Saints Of Havoc Rate My Ticks
9
|
Posted - 2017.04.11 23:40:43 -
[23] - Quote
It's not a QoL change when it's completely unnecessary. If you are filling up 35k m3 so quickly you deem it "babysitting" then you are well and truly already afk mining. If you're mining that much in the first place, then plan ahead by using hauler toons, EFCs, rorqual compression, jetcanning, etc. We already have all the solutions necessary. |
manus
WESCORP 2.0
2
|
Posted - 2017.04.11 23:53:13 -
[24] - Quote
Are you suggesting i buy a rorqual? You cant be serious. Expandable ore holds is a neat "middle groound", altho its much more casual than getting a rorqual. Dont forget the casual players. Besides its an insult to the game when ships have attributes tlike ore holds that cannot be altered with fittings. |
Max Deveron
Deveron Shipyards and Technology
303
|
Posted - 2017.04.12 02:23:58 -
[25] - Quote
manus wrote:Are you suggesting i buy a rorqual? You cant be serious. Expandable ore holds is a neat "middle groound", altho its much more casual than getting a rorqual. Dont forget the casual players. Besides its an insult to the game when ships have attributes tlike ore holds that cannot be altered with fittings.
If you are in nullsec, then yes get a Rorqual, or even a porpoise or orca.
And no expnadable ore holds is not a neat middle ground.
Casual Players? They dont normally need an orca, and they can jetcan mine or run back and forth to a station, they do not play enough to need such a suggestion such as yours.
Insult? the only insult here is you trying to push this. If you are multiboxing so much then you definitley do not need this change.
And as to your reply to me earlier......
This would not be a QoL change for miners, I go mining sometimes, I know. A QoL change would be letting us fit guns on our barges and exhumers if we wished to. Your stupid quest to get our stuff nerfed into the ground is just that, stupid.
Now shut up and go away, quit posting on the forums you ninny. |
Matthias Ancaladron
Wrath of Angels Solitaire.
262
|
Posted - 2017.04.12 04:13:18 -
[26] - Quote
Max Deveron wrote:Matthias Ancaladron wrote:Support, just alter expanders to provide a percentage for every hold. Not just cargo. Uhm yeah, how about no..... an the reason for that is the way CCP balances things like freighters. To get the same space we have now they will nerf the size down so that using expanders will get us the same space we already have now when using them. Some of you need to learn your history. no, no ,no . Did I say NO, i think i did. Or they could just not do that since its uneeded and is simpler. Op didn't say nerf orehold and add ore expanders. He said add to ore expanders thats it. Don't read into it more than that. Mining ships need low slots for mining upgrade. It's. a balanced trade off.
Yield or ore space. Anyone who uses these would automatically be losing out on yield in favor of ore space. It's perfectly fine like op asked. Ore holds stay as they are. Expanders are changed so they do more. If someone wants more space they can trade off. |
mkint
1713
|
Posted - 2017.04.12 04:16:39 -
[27] - Quote
Working as intended. You'll need stronger arguments than "Waaaahhh!" if you want to persuade anyone with any authority.
Maxim 6. If violence wasnGÇÖt your last resort, you failed to resort to enough of it.
|
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors Shadow Cartel
11628
|
Posted - 2017.04.12 04:39:19 -
[28] - Quote
Isn't part of the reason why mining barges were balanced the way they were because people felt they had to there were "no choices" between tank, mining yield, and cargobay size?
If memory serves me right, before the mining rebalance all mining barges did not have Ore bays. This allowed them to use cargohold expanders to increase their ore holding capacity.
Unfortunately, doing this came at the cost of tank and/or mining yield.
But people fitted for capacity and yield (and little to no tank) because one would not be "efficient" unless they fit for capacity or yield. And then said people would then complain about the "lack of tank" on their barges (hence why we have the barges we have now).
I don't think the OP knows what he is asking for. There is a reason the barges are the way they are.
One is SUPPOSED to choose between tank, yield, or ore capacity.
This disrupts that paradigm and will only result in more complaint about balance down the road.
Matthias Ancaladron wrote:Or they could just not do that since its uneeded and is simpler. Op didn't say nerf orehold and add ore expanders. He said add to ore expanders thats it. Don't read into it more than that. You can read as much or as little as you want. History has shown that CCP doesn't give "straight buffs."
If they add a module that increases ore capacity, you can bet hard money they will nerf native ore capacity for ships.
It happened with Freighters. It happened with drone-centric ships when drone modules were added. It happened when new capital modules were added.
What the Op may be asking for be simple... but how it realistically will be implemented will not be.
How did you Veterans start?
|
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
3597
|
Posted - 2017.04.12 04:49:14 -
[29] - Quote
manus wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:Why do you want your current hold nerfed and then force you to chose between ore hold or mining efficiency? Convenience. What's convenient about nerfing the current sizes to gain roughly the same capacity after you put 3 expandeds in the low slots?
Some rough theory crafting: New Base hold 14,000 With ship bonus 17,500 3 expanded ore hold (27.5% each, same as an expanded cargo hold) 36,271
If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
|
manus
WESCORP 2.0
2
|
Posted - 2017.04.15 08:17:32 -
[30] - Quote
The current level 4 mining mission im doing requires 44800m3 ore hold, but afaik no barge can keep that much.
For example my mackinaw has 35000m3 ore hold with my skills. Also why does skills affect the size of the ore hold? Makes no sense
Anyway, 35000m3. In order to be able to fit all the ore needed for this level 4 mission, it just needs an increase of 30% from modules. Would that be so bad? Im sacrificing possibly Yield and/or Tank.
To the people who think that Ore hold size needs to be nerfed when introducing Ore Hold increasing modules, get a grip. The ore hold sizes are arbitrary and do not affect PVP or PVE. If we could increase them by 30% or more with modules what excactly would be the harm? |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |