|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 6 post(s) |

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
202
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 20:42:00 -
[1] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Haifisch Zahne wrote: However, I will point out that I and many others wasted a lot of time training Destroyer and Battlecruiser to Lever V because of the announced changes when my neural map was just horrible for it. Something on the order of around 20 days. Wasted. Thanks.
Just thought I'd point out that those two skills are some of the most useful in the entire game. You'd be hard pressed to convince everyone it was a waste of time. Go forth and pwn, you've got a lot of options now!! So very true. I put 2 characters training plans on hold to train BC V just in case as the original blog was unclear on the time frame. I regret nothing. |

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
202
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 20:47:00 -
[2] - Quote
Hungry Eyes wrote:Denidil wrote:Hungry Eyes wrote:i think it's really disheartening that you guys arent touching the heart of the game (BC's and cruisers) until next year. why are you dragging your feet like this? balance the damn drake already, bring T3's in line, buff command ships, give HAC's a freaking role... i mean what are you doing? who gives a **** about t1 frigs? because they're trying to do it right - balance from the ground up and you don't have to go back and rebalance later it's not ground up. frigs are an entirely different beast from cruisers and bc's. unless your talking modules, which we're not. Frigates are pretty much the ground here, that's where you start and what everyone can fly. Granted you fly them differently than other, heavier ship classes, but prioritizing larger ship classes, especially in the case of T2 cruisers which generally need a bit of a buff, only further exasperates the problems with frigates and risks pushing even some good frigates into obsolescence. |

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
203
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 01:57:00 -
[3] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Delhaven wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:Mining output: first and most visible balancing factor, plan is to increase all barge mining output to be within an acceptable margin of the Hulk, not miles behind as it is currently. I like it. CCP is making the mining ships to fit play styles: if you want to mine in relative safety, you fly a Procurer/Skiff. If you like to solo mine, you fly a Retriever/Mackinaw. If you want maximum output, you fly in a group with a Covetor/Hulk. So, pure yield becomes less of a factor than how you like to play. If they end up being close enough in how much ore they pull in, I'll happily take a reduced-worry mining ship with a battleship tank. I'm really curious to see the actual specs when they come out. Then why aren't you mining in a Rokh right now? It offers yield in between that of a Covetor and a Hulk. But the bay size is terrible. For the rare amount of mining I do, occasional grav site mining, the new Retriever/Mackinaw seems a much better prospect for the hold size alone. |

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
203
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 02:16:00 -
[4] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Delhaven wrote:This.
Right now, it makes the most sense to either mine in a Covetor, which is cheap and pays for itself in a couple of hours, or mine in a Hulk that isn't a fail fit (i.e. something with cargo expanders or rigs). You can get enough tank on a Hulk to survive a solo ganker now; most people just don't because it doesn't fit their play styles. The options CCP is putting forward gives people more of choice in that way.
Fixing mining to make it less mind-numbing and repetitive seems like a better idea to me than fixing ships, but this'll do.
Since when is "I WANT MAX YIELD WITH NO RISK NOR EFFORT" a play style? Or "I WANT TO PLAY A GAME AFK?" If it wasn't a "playstyle" I'd imagine the goons responsible for counting exhumer/barge deaths for payouts wouldn't have much to do.
Edit: And the near 2 trillion in losses makes it appear that it indeed is a prominent play style |

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
203
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 02:19:00 -
[5] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:I can't help but admire that art work on the new mining frigate. I know people have said it a thousand times by now, but I really want to stress how amazing it looks.
Great job! +1 |

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
203
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 20:52:00 -
[6] - Quote
Yonis Kador wrote: The conversion to a fixed-size ore bay seems to be designed to combat afk mining. Afk mining contributes very little to player-generated content. It's full-on aversion. It's not-even-looking-at-the-screen aversion. But why make the ore bays so small? The vast majority of hulks in game use cargo expanders and have had somewhere ~18K m3 to play with and now will have to deal with a much smaller fixed volume?
Single-players industrialists won't be docking after every mining cycle so this cargo cap reduction will probably increase the frequency of jetcan mining imo. Reduced onboard storage = more jetcans? (Good news pvp'ers.)
Actually it would appear that solo/AFK mining is getting a potential boost. It's just that the hulk won't/shouldn't be the ship of choice for it anymore. |

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
203
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 22:14:00 -
[7] - Quote
Yonis Kador wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Yonis Kador wrote: The conversion to a fixed-size ore bay seems to be designed to combat afk mining. Afk mining contributes very little to player-generated content. It's full-on aversion. It's not-even-looking-at-the-screen aversion. But why make the ore bays so small? The vast majority of hulks in game use cargo expanders and have had somewhere ~18K m3 to play with and now will have to deal with a much smaller fixed volume?
Single-players industrialists won't be docking after every mining cycle so this cargo cap reduction will probably increase the frequency of jetcan mining imo. Reduced onboard storage = more jetcans? (Good news pvp'ers.)
Actually it would appear that solo/AFK mining is getting a potential boost. It's just that the hulk won't/shouldn't be the ship of choice for it anymore. The only thing getting a boost is player options, Ty. The Hulk still delivers max yield. Because they are the most-efficient extractors, people are going to use them. But now that reasonable alternatives exist (slightly lower yield, better tank) flying the max-yield ship in high-sec may present increased risk. I agree that increasing the size of the target on high-sec Hulks is a boost. But what it boosts and who it benefits is another matter entirely. YK It's true that for flat yield the Hulk will reign, but considering an AFK miners goal is to minimize the need for interaction it will no longer be the best choice as it will not have the best hold. This is where the current mid tiers will shine should the plan stated be followed. This is the boost I am referring to, and depending on how similar ore yields end up it could outweigh the comparative raw yield bonus of the hulk, especially when combined with greater tankability. |

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
204
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 03:12:00 -
[8] - Quote
Joseph O'Neil wrote:Quote:WHAT'S HAPPENING WITH THE HULK AFTER THE CHANGE? Exact modifications are still vague, but the plan is to quite reduce its cargo hold and add an ore bay of the same size than the removed cargo hold. That means cargo expanders and rigs wonGÇÖt affect the ore bay at all, requiring players to unload ore more frequently. This is by design, as we want the Hulk to be moved into a fleet purpose that has to rely on others to make proper use of its best mining output. That also means we will not be introducing items that affect the ore bay size. THIS IS A BAD IDEA. I know the whole point is to group up and play with others, and I often do for missions and such. However, when it comes to mining, more often then not (95% of the time), I find myself mining on my alt alone in her Hulk. No Orca support (cause my Hulk pilot is the Orca pilot), and therefor I fit cargo expanders to minimize the amount of times I need to return to the station to empty. Is this change really necessary? I mean, unless the Mackinaw is improved, it will never be as effective for mining Ore solo as the Hulk is now, due to the additional striper and the following bonus: Exhumers Skill Bonus: 3% better yield for Strip Miners per level So I ask, CCP, what do plan to do to address this issue that some of us might have with this change. If we've grown accustomed to mining solo with the hulk, are you saying that you don't want us mining alone anymore? Or is it that you just want us to be less efficient and less productive from an isk/hour perspective? The idea is that you trade a part of that yield for being more self sufficient. If you are not using a hulk while mining solo it means they did it right. That said the true measure of success will be how much the Machinaw/Retriever/Skiff/Procurer are buffed, but even then for pure yield the hulk should be better.
Time to adapt and change tactics. The more people that switch ships, the better the job CCP probably did. |
|
|
|