Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 32 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 6 post(s) |
![Mr Kronos Mr Kronos](https://images.evetech.net/characters/1821267144/portrait?size=64)
Mr Kronos
Gears of Construction Gears Confederation
1
|
Posted - 2012.06.24 10:47:00 -
[811] - Quote
The new destroyers should i could be like the current tier 3 battlecruisers; the ability to fit larger gins then there class should be; so Destroyers with medium sized guns.
Also, with all the changes to ORE ships; isnt it a good idea to make all the ORE ships at least have some sort of consistent design?
The ORE Frigate, Rorqual and Primea/Noctis, do have a simular design, maybe tweak them a bit do fit them in one line.
The current barges/exhumers dont fit the ORE looks, and also if they are going to get changed rolewise a little redesign would be nice.
e.g.: Skiff/Procurer; One big clunky chunk of metal with 1 Stripminer Retriever/Mackinaw; Chunky, 2 striplasers, but show it has a big cargohold, by attaching Rorqual containers to it or something. Covetor/Hulk: "steampunk" design, 3 striplasers, show it has moving parts/equipment pure based for best yield. (Oil platform look)
Orca: Make it more blent with ORE and DCM? :p Dunno its a strange ship, maybe split its roles to get another Orca type ship. (One as current role but without the Orebay and mining bonus. The other one with HUGE orebay, Corp hangar, Ship bay only for industrials.
In other words; redesign ORE ships, in the Style of currentt Ore frigate concept, and the Primea/Rorqual design. As those seem to fit ORE best. And offcourse add Gas harvesters, maybe some specialised ring mining ships. Specialised Ore transports.
Also dont forget to add a "crystal-bay" to the revamped miningships. |
![RubyPorto RubyPorto](https://images.evetech.net/characters/401676110/portrait?size=64)
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2045
|
Posted - 2012.06.24 10:50:00 -
[812] - Quote
Mr Kronos wrote:The new destroyers should i could be like the current tier 3 battlecruisers; the ability to fit larger gins then there class should be; so Destroyers with medium sized guns.
Destroyers are pretty much ganky enough. (Plus, they're designed to be an anti-frigate ship, and Medium guns would be... less than beneficial for that role) This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
![Mr Kronos Mr Kronos](https://images.evetech.net/characters/1821267144/portrait?size=64)
Mr Kronos
Gears of Construction Gears Confederation
1
|
Posted - 2012.06.24 12:57:00 -
[813] - Quote
You are right about that; its not a real good idea, but for some reason such class of ships would be nice. Just like a Battleship with capital turrets to engage capital ships. |
![Nagarythe Tinurandir Nagarythe Tinurandir](https://images.evetech.net/characters/1856644063/portrait?size=64)
Nagarythe Tinurandir
Catholic School for Boys
21
|
Posted - 2012.06.24 16:45:00 -
[814] - Quote
ships with ++ber-gank always seem cool. but those medium weapon destroyerswould make the mining ship revamp obsolete.
but i like the idea of a supporting dessi which is somehow able to conter cloaky ships, or provides rr for frigate roams and or is for point defence and makes the defender missiles a thing worthwhile. should be a dessi with low or none weapons though.
|
![Rip Marley Rip Marley](https://images.evetech.net/characters/1622749621/portrait?size=64)
Rip Marley
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
2
|
Posted - 2012.06.24 20:31:00 -
[815] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Rip Marley wrote:In the real world, the Destroyer was a screening ship to cover the weaknesses of larger vessels. It primary role was never that of bombardment although as is true with any ship with guns, it could and sometimes did. One of the biggest roles a destroyer plays is protecting it's larger fleetmates from the silent and stealthy submarines.
Rather then making destroyers specialized in bombarding planets....I'd like to see a destroyer model that specialized in hunting cloaked ships. I can not say what the proper mechanics would be, that would take a lot of time and theory crafting, but this seems like the best use of the destroyer line. EvE destroyers are more like the RL predecessor of Destroyers, the Torpedo boat. Small, cheap, hit's above their weight class, no tank.
Destroyers aren't THAT small. In EvE, Destroyers play the role of bully. They were meant to be a slightly larger ship than the ones they pick on. There weapons and bonuses are directly aimed at trashing small ships. My idea is simply an extension of that.
Besides, your torpedo boat comparison is would me accurate if you were talking about stealth bombers. But I believe that bombers are more accurately compared to subs. |
![RubyPorto RubyPorto](https://images.evetech.net/characters/401676110/portrait?size=64)
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2048
|
Posted - 2012.06.24 20:42:00 -
[816] - Quote
Rip Marley wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Rip Marley wrote:In the real world, the Destroyer was a screening ship to cover the weaknesses of larger vessels. It primary role was never that of bombardment although as is true with any ship with guns, it could and sometimes did. One of the biggest roles a destroyer plays is protecting it's larger fleetmates from the silent and stealthy submarines.
Rather then making destroyers specialized in bombarding planets....I'd like to see a destroyer model that specialized in hunting cloaked ships. I can not say what the proper mechanics would be, that would take a lot of time and theory crafting, but this seems like the best use of the destroyer line. EvE destroyers are more like the RL predecessor of Destroyers, the Torpedo boat. Small, cheap, hit's above their weight class, no tank. Destroyers aren't THAT small. In EvE, Destroyers play the role of bully. They were meant to be a slightly larger ship than the ones they pick on. There weapons and bonuses are directly aimed at trashing small ships. My idea is simply an extension of that. Besides, your torpedo boat comparison is would me accurate if you were talking about stealth bombers. But I believe that bombers are more accurately compared to subs.
Just because they have terms in common doesn't mean they're alike. I think stealth bombers and other Covops cloakies make a decent analogy for Subs.
RL Torpedo boats weren't all that small. I'm talking the late 19th, early 20th Century ones, not the WW2 Patrol Torpedo boat (which are more like frigates).
EvE destroyers do really have 2 roles. Their anti-frigate role and their gank role. Their ganking role is a lot like Torpedo boats (lots of offense, little to no defense), while their anti-frig role is kind of like the role of a modern destroyer (which is kind of to shoot the little things that the bigger ships have inadequate defenses against). This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
![RubyPorto RubyPorto](https://images.evetech.net/characters/401676110/portrait?size=64)
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2048
|
Posted - 2012.06.24 20:48:00 -
[817] - Quote
Mr Kronos wrote:You are right about that; its not a real good idea, but for some reason such class of ships would be nice. Just like a Battleship with capital turrets to engage capital ships.
'Kay
[Abaddon, Stealth Bomber]
Reactor Control Unit II Reactor Control Unit II Reactor Control Unit II Reactor Control Unit II Reactor Control Unit II Reactor Control Unit II Reactor Control Unit II
Warp Disruptor II Prototype 100MN MicroWarpdrive I Large Shield Extender II Target Painter II
'Limos' Citadel Cruise Launcher I Improved Cloaking Device II [Empty High slot] [Empty High slot] [Empty High slot] [Empty High slot] [Empty High slot] [Empty High slot]
Large Ancillary Current Router I Large Ancillary Current Router I Large Ancillary Current Router I
Ogre II x3
[Incursus, Oversized Guns]
Navy Micro Auxiliary Power Core Navy Micro Auxiliary Power Core Draclira's Modified Reactor Control Unit Draclira's Modified Reactor Control Unit
Dark Blood Warp Scrambler Domination Stasis Webifier [Empty Med slot]
Dual 150mm Prototype Gauss Gun, Federation Navy Antimatter Charge M Dual 150mm Prototype Gauss Gun, Federation Navy Antimatter Charge M Dual 150mm Prototype Gauss Gun, Federation Navy Antimatter Charge M
Small Ancillary Current Router II Small Ancillary Current Router II Small Ancillary Current Router I
Inherent Implants 'Squire' Engineering EG-606
This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
![Rip Marley Rip Marley](https://images.evetech.net/characters/1622749621/portrait?size=64)
Rip Marley
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
2
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 00:22:00 -
[818] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Rip Marley wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Rip Marley wrote:In the real world, the Destroyer was a screening ship to cover the weaknesses of larger vessels. It primary role was never that of bombardment although as is true with any ship with guns, it could and sometimes did. One of the biggest roles a destroyer plays is protecting it's larger fleetmates from the silent and stealthy submarines.
Rather then making destroyers specialized in bombarding planets....I'd like to see a destroyer model that specialized in hunting cloaked ships. I can not say what the proper mechanics would be, that would take a lot of time and theory crafting, but this seems like the best use of the destroyer line. EvE destroyers are more like the RL predecessor of Destroyers, the Torpedo boat. Small, cheap, hit's above their weight class, no tank. Destroyers aren't THAT small. In EvE, Destroyers play the role of bully. They were meant to be a slightly larger ship than the ones they pick on. There weapons and bonuses are directly aimed at trashing small ships. My idea is simply an extension of that. Besides, your torpedo boat comparison is would me accurate if you were talking about stealth bombers. But I believe that bombers are more accurately compared to subs. Just because they have terms in common doesn't mean they're alike. I think stealth bombers and other Covops cloakies make a decent analogy for Subs. RL Torpedo boats weren't all that small. I'm talking the late 19th, early 20th Century ones, not the WW2 Patrol Torpedo boat (which are more like frigates). EvE destroyers do really have 2 roles. Their anti-frigate role and their gank role. Their ganking role is a lot like Torpedo boats (lots of offense, little to no defense), while their anti-frig role is kind of like the role of a modern destroyer (which is kind of to shoot the little things that the bigger ships have inadequate defenses against).
Yeah, when you said Torpedo Boat I was thinking of the PT boats.....like the one that got shot out from under JFK.
If my idea were to be seriously considered and CCP did make an anti-stealth destroyer, it would be one of the new ones they were talking about.....likely a tech 2. Considering that all dedicated stealth ships are T2, it only makes sense they a ship designed to track them is also T2. Such a ship would need several bonuses, making it need to be T2 anyway.
As a result, the normal destroyers would stay roughly as they are, and as you described. |
![Vanessa Vansen Vanessa Vansen](https://images.evetech.net/characters/847506687/portrait?size=64)
Vanessa Vansen
Cybermana
40
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 04:33:00 -
[819] - Quote
The problem with T1 barges is that they all have the same bonus, but each higher tier provides another high slot and more cargohold. Hence, the Procurer is not used besides within Skiff production, since the step from Procurer to Retriever is only a few hours, and, in addition, it mines less than an Osprey.
So, one set of roles could be 1) Mercoxit Miner - since it different to all other ore -> adapt the Procurer to become more Skiff like 2) Ice Harvester - since it is ice not ore -> adapt the Retriever to become more Mackinaw like 3) Non-Mercoxit Miner - done, Covetor is already Hulk like enough Together with unifying the required skills (the same for all mining barges, and the same for all exhumers), you "just" have to choose the ship according to what you want to mine. This way the mining frigate might mine Non-Mercoxit ore than a Procurer, but it shouldn't mine more Mercoxit even though the Procurer only has one high slot.
I do prefer this set of roles to the set of roles CCP suggests: 1) It is more stable, in terms of a Mackinaw will stay the ice miner, and so on, and you may as well mine ice in groups. It does happen and you shouldn't have to change ships only because you're mining in a group or not. 2) The introduction of the mining frigate is simpler, as mentioned above. 3) It is still possible to add Ore Cargholds to Mining Barges/Exhumers, best would be to also interoduce Ore Carghold expansion modules similar to cargohold expansion modules. This way you could get your ship as you like it (yield vs. EHP vs. cargohold). In addition, you might get Orcas and Rorqual with those rigs/modules instead of cargohold expanded ones. 4) There is room for a T3 mining barge offensive module: bonus to gas, ice, mercoxit, or on-mercoxit mining devensive module: drone bay, shield resistances, shield booster, armor/cloak? xxx module: cargohold, EHP, leadership, or reduction in duration of harvester/miner (even more yield) navigation module: similar to T3 cruisers. yes including the warp bubble immunity one last module: well, no idea at the moment |
![Mr Kronos Mr Kronos](https://images.evetech.net/characters/1821267144/portrait?size=64)
Mr Kronos
Gears of Construction Gears Confederation
1
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 09:07:00 -
[820] - Quote
Last module could be the one giving you 1 2 3 or maybe 4 stripmininglasers depending on the module with drawbacks/advantages. Or ability to add an highsot to use with a mindlink or something. |
|
![kkndking1 kkndking1](https://images.evetech.net/characters/1197412556/portrait?size=64)
kkndking1
Knights Of Steel
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 13:20:00 -
[821] - Quote
the mining Barges need a ammo bay. make it so u can keep 6 sets of t2 mining crystals in it . survey scanner either need a buff or the barges need bonus for them like the orca, the survey scanner II scans out to 22.5m i want to see it out to 30-40m or a skill to boost the range. orca i would like to see the orca get a mining drone bonus as well even if its just to there speed |
![JTK Fotheringham JTK Fotheringham](https://images.evetech.net/characters/316435398/portrait?size=64)
JTK Fotheringham
Aliastra Gallente Federation
64
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 15:27:00 -
[822] - Quote
I was thinking about the T2 bonuses to merc, ice and bulk mining, and how it's not clear how these bonuses will overlap with the re-envisaged ship types.
Why not make role bonus rigs?
So you want to modify your hulk for ice mining with a larger fleet, fit some ice mining rigs.
You want your small, well tanked Ret / Mac for merc mining in an 0.0 grav site? Fit a rig that grants the current Skiff role bonus.
That way, ships can retain their basic role, as re-envisage, but you can tailor your ship to the minieral types you mine most often.
Just saying. /JTK
Stealth edit - You'll realise I don't read everything in long threads, and if this has been suggested, I'm just echoing my support. |
![Vanessa Vansen Vanessa Vansen](https://images.evetech.net/characters/847506687/portrait?size=64)
Vanessa Vansen
Cybermana
40
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 15:55:00 -
[823] - Quote
JTK Fotheringham wrote:I was thinking about the T2 bonuses to merc, ice and bulk mining, and how it's not clear how these bonuses will overlap with the re-envisaged ship types.
Why not make role bonus rigs?
So you want to modify your hulk for ice mining with a larger fleet, fit some ice mining rigs.
You want your small, well tanked Ret / Mac for merc mining in an 0.0 grav site? Fit a rig that grants the current Skiff role bonus.
That way, ships can retain their basic role, as re-envisage, but you can tailor your ship to the minieral types you mine most often.
Just saying. /JTK
Stealth edit - You'll realise I don't read everything in long threads, and if this has been suggested, I'm just echoing my support. Introducing rigs to grant that might be difficult. With the current numbers is would enable a hulk to mine mercoxit like 3 skiffs and to mine ice like 1.5 mackinaws, so you would have to change the number of high slots to compensate that.
Whatever CCP is going to change, they should thing about repacking the exhumers and mining barges with dropping all the modules AND RIGS into the hangar.
From my point of view the current roles of exhumers are fine, I wouldn't want to have to switch ships only because I mine the same thing in a group or solo.
We'll have to wait and see how CCP will adapt the ships. I'm looking forward to reading that dev blog. And please CCP make it a dev blog talking about that (and maybe mining frigates and T3 mining barges) only. |
![Steve Thomas Steve Thomas](https://images.evetech.net/characters/1194294000/portrait?size=64)
Steve Thomas
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 16:37:00 -
[824] - Quote
![Shocked](https://forums-archive.eveonline.com/Images/Emoticons/ccp_shocked.png)
unless things have seriously changed almost no-one RRs Hulks in Empire. Hell they rarely did so in low/nulsec.
|
![Deena Amaj Deena Amaj](https://images.evetech.net/characters/252086999/portrait?size=64)
Deena Amaj
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
3
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 17:21:00 -
[825] - Quote
Quote:The Vigil needs much love. Although i Hope it keeps its Minmatar love of speed..
Excuse my outrage posting but:
Thisthisthisthisthisthis.
I'd rather have the Vigil remain an untouched Virgin -- For the love of all matari gods and goddess, LEAVE THE SPEED BONUS!
My defensive suggestion would be to add a separate vigil hull with the "missile and whatever" aspects -- but the original Vigil with the Max. Speed Bonus must prevail, please *begs*
The Vigil is a fragile and rare tackling/support underdog. Please keep it that way.
confirthisposmed |
![Midori Amiiko Midori Amiiko](https://images.evetech.net/characters/843254113/portrait?size=64)
Midori Amiiko
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
12
|
Posted - 2012.06.26 07:33:00 -
[826] - Quote
I rebut two previous posts: T3 mining--having blown up an assload of Sleepers I can say that they show no signs of industrial activity. The lack of verisimilitude would be astounding. I also fail to see how the versatility provided by sub-systems would be put to good use by mining ships. I'd rather see T3 confined to combat ships. T3 frigs, yes! T3 mining barge, puh-lease!!! Caldari inty boosts--all Caldari can hang. If you don't like how slow they are, add a med extender to the mids. See how many hp you have? |
![SabuMaru ICE SabuMaru ICE](https://images.evetech.net/characters/404195201/portrait?size=64)
SabuMaru ICE
MINE THEM TO DEATH Coalition of the Unfortunate
5
|
Posted - 2012.06.26 11:04:00 -
[827] - Quote
Midori Amiiko wrote:I rebut two previous posts: T3 mining--having blown up an assload of Sleepers I can say that they show no signs of industrial activity. The lack of verisimilitude would be astounding. I also fail to see how the versatility provided by sub-systems would be put to good use by mining ships. I'd rather see T3 confined to combat ships. T3 frigs, yes! T3 mining barge, puh-lease!!! Caldari inty boosts--all Caldari can hang. If you don't like how slow they are, add a med extender to the mids. See how many hp you have?
as far as i know the 4 Fractions adapted the Sleeper Tech into the Tech3 ships this would mean that fitting within the storyline the ORE-Alliance is able to do the same
and also fitting within the philosophy of CCP this means it is possible to create T3-"industial" ships that can be used as the Swiss-Army knife of the Industrialists
looking at the roll with that ballpark i would say that the T3 would have the following possibilities - ORE-Mining - ICE-Mining - GAS-Harvesting - Ring-Harvesting ( if ever implemented ) - Mining Foreman - Transport of ORE/ICE/GAS/RING/MOON/Planetary and there products - Drone Specialization ( think Carrier ) - Interdiction Nullification - Stealth/Cloaking
|
![Adoniyah Adoniyah](https://images.evetech.net/characters/1185612800/portrait?size=64)
Adoniyah
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
13
|
Posted - 2012.06.26 11:34:00 -
[828] - Quote
You know what the best part is? You cant get the UI right and your release new ****. |
![Kayrl Bheskagor Kayrl Bheskagor](https://images.evetech.net/characters/90322146/portrait?size=64)
Kayrl Bheskagor
Hedion University Amarr Empire
9
|
Posted - 2012.06.26 17:07:00 -
[829] - Quote
With CCPs track record of late, ie incursions, war decs, the inventory and the faction warfare screw-up, plus all the crushing lag from the latest 'improvements", I'm not at all looking forward to seeing how badly they screw up the barges. |
![Headstone Carver Headstone Carver](https://images.evetech.net/characters/91441157/portrait?size=64)
Headstone Carver
Cool4Cats
1
|
Posted - 2012.06.26 17:19:00 -
[830] - Quote
looks like the vigil is gonna get ruined, was one of my favorite t1 frigs. I can kill almost any interceptor with it, with the exception of the ranis , I've even managed a couple of Slicer kills with the Vigil, but missiles ? really ? please dont make it so that every frig must have a fleet support role , some of us like frigs as a solo option. |
|
![Vanessa Vansen Vanessa Vansen](https://images.evetech.net/characters/847506687/portrait?size=64)
Vanessa Vansen
Cybermana
40
|
Posted - 2012.06.27 02:22:00 -
[831] - Quote
Quote:New ORE frig: we want this ship to replace current mining frigates as low barrier of entry vessel, but also fulfill high-end gameplay expectations by providing a very mobile platform for mining in hostile space. Lowest mining output, decent ore bay, little to no resilience. Procurer/Skiff: primarily made for self-defense. Better mining rate than the ORE frig, good ore bay, but capable of having battleship-like EHP. Retriever/Mackinaw: made for self-reliance. Has the largest ore bay, similear to the size of a jet can, second best mining output but less EHP than the procurer mining barge. Covetor/hulk: ore bay is identical to its current cargo hold, little to average EHP, but best mining output. Basically made for group operations when players have industrials and protection to back them up.
So, the smallest ship will have the best defense. From a graphic/size point of view, it seems more fitting to go like this:
Procurer/Skiff: ore bay is identical to Hulk's current cargo hold, little to average EHP, but best mining output. Basically made for group operations when players have industrials and protection to back them up. -> concentrate on mining operation and cargo - Covetor/Hulk: primarily made for self-defense. Better mining rate than the ORE frig, good ore bay, but capable of having battleship-like EHP - Retriever/Mackinaw: made for self-reliance. Has the largest ore bay, similear to the size of a jet can, second best mining output but less EHP than the procurer mining barge
Or swap Covetor/Hulk with Retriever/Mackinaw |
![Racro Arifistan Racro Arifistan](https://images.evetech.net/characters/91023734/portrait?size=64)
Racro Arifistan
13th Black Templars Heavy fleet The Butterfly Effect Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.27 11:44:00 -
[832] - Quote
The tristan will have a better use and may see more usage :)![Big smile](https://forums-archive.eveonline.com/Images/Emoticons/ccp_smile-big.png) |
![Midori Amiiko Midori Amiiko](https://images.evetech.net/characters/843254113/portrait?size=64)
Midori Amiiko
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
12
|
Posted - 2012.06.27 17:54:00 -
[833] - Quote
SabuMaru ICE wrote:Midori Amiiko wrote:I rebut two previous posts: T3 mining--having blown up an assload of Sleepers I can say that they show no signs of industrial activity. The lack of verisimilitude would be astounding. I also fail to see how the versatility provided by sub-systems would be put to good use by mining ships. I'd rather see T3 confined to combat ships. T3 frigs, yes! T3 mining barge, puh-lease!!! Caldari inty boosts--all Caldari can hang. If you don't like how slow they are, add a med extender to the mids. See how many hp you have? as far as i know the 4 Fractions adapted the Sleeper Tech into the Tech3 ships this would mean that fitting within the storyline the ORE-Alliance is able to do the same and also fitting within the philosophy of CCP this means it is possible to create T3-"industial" ships that can be used as the Swiss-Army knife of the Industrialists looking at the roll with that ballpark i would say that the T3 would have the following possibilities - ORE-Mining - ICE-Mining - GAS-Harvesting - Ring-Harvesting ( if ever implemented ) - Mining Foreman - Transport of ORE/ICE/GAS/RING/MOON/Planetary and there products - Drone Specialization ( think Carrier ) - Interdiction Nullification - Stealth/Cloaking on the other T3 variations or for some even more T2's are possible i do agree with you on that there should be more and more ships that offer new gameplay.. but also new modules to add to that as well but also other parts of this game need to evolve with that something CCP did in my opinion pretty good so far but in the end ... let them first balance the game as it is now,before adding more. we will mostly likely all want more ships ... more modules... more space... more content but lets just assist CCP with ideas and constructive criticism.. that is something that will be beneficial to all in the end
You may have convinced me...T3 is expensive so let's hope the risk/reward works out for the miners. |
![Hans Jagerblitzen Hans Jagerblitzen](https://images.evetech.net/characters/310590714/portrait?size=64)
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2606
|
Posted - 2012.06.27 18:13:00 -
[834] - Quote
Vanessa Vansen wrote: From a graphic/size point of view, it seems more fitting to go like this:
Procurer/Skiff: ore bay is identical to Hulk's current cargo hold, little to average EHP, but best mining output. Basically made for group operations when players have industrials and protection to back them up. -> concentrate on mining operation and cargo - Covetor/Hulk: primarily made for self-defense. Better mining rate than the ORE frig, good ore bay, but capable of having battleship-like EHP - Retriever/Mackinaw: made for self-reliance. Has the largest ore bay, similear to the size of a jet can, second best mining output but less EHP than the procurer mining barge
This ^^ makes the most sense. Hulk is massive, should be the tanky variety. Skiff is tiny, should be the efficient harvester. I don't give a crap how they're named, but visually that's just common sense.
I also think that they should have an item (like a midslot version of a triage or siege module, but doesnt make your ship stationary), and imparts a bonus to a particular resource being harvested.
You should be able to have bulky, tanky gas mining barges for nullsec clouds that go BOOM. You should have a lighter, faster, version that is more suited for low sec harvesting. Same with ice mining, mineral mining. I think all three material types should be able to gathered with all three barge styles, allowing miners to customize their barge for the appropriate resource and safety / efficiency level. Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
![Steve Thomas Steve Thomas](https://images.evetech.net/characters/1194294000/portrait?size=64)
Steve Thomas
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
4
|
Posted - 2012.06.27 19:47:00 -
[835] - Quote
Kayrl Bheskagor wrote:With CCPs track record of late, ie incursions, war decs, the inventory and the faction warfare screw-up, plus all the crushing lag from the latest 'improvements", I'm not at all looking forward to seeing how badly they screw up the barges. Of late?
lets go backwords in time over there list of screwups
Incarna PI (the initial release that resulted in a masive wave of scraping of Station compoents for profit) Faction warfare aka RIFTERBLOB(and yes I flew rifters at the time) moon mat processing bug that lead to the mat exploit T2 lotto
Honestly theres times I suspect that half of us stick around just to see whatthey screw up next. |
![Che Biko Che Biko](https://images.evetech.net/characters/1431146475/portrait?size=64)
Che Biko
Humanitarian Communists
96
|
Posted - 2012.06.27 20:19:00 -
[836] - Quote
I dunno about that, Hans. As far as I can tell, the size depends on the amount of mining turrets, so I would say the hulk should have the best mining yield, as that is what it visually conveys to me when I look at them: more turrets, more yield. Join in game channel/mailing list: New Eden Racing Sub-warp racing event thread: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=107164 |
![Vanessa Vansen Vanessa Vansen](https://images.evetech.net/characters/847506687/portrait?size=64)
Vanessa Vansen
Cybermana
41
|
Posted - 2012.06.28 00:11:00 -
[837] - Quote
Che Biko wrote:I dunno about that, Hans. As far as I can tell, the size depends on the amount of mining turrets, so I would say the hulk should have the best mining yield, as that is what it visually conveys to me when I look at them: more turrets, more yield.
"More turrets, more yield" this is exactly the problem CCP has to address. For Exhumers they solved it by granting special bonus for Mercoixt (Skiff) and Ice (Mackinaw) mining to compensate for missing high slots. Now, they could do the same with mining barges and end up like this: - Procurer/Skiff - Mercoxit Mining - Retriever/Mackinaw - Ice Mining - Covetor/Hulk - Non-Mercoxit Mining Together with "tiericide", i.e once you can fly a Procurer you can also fly a Retriever and a Covetor as well as once you can fly a Skiff you can also fly a Mackinaw and a Hulk, you solved that problem without having to change the number of high slots. In addition, you have room to introduce a mining frigate which could carry 5 high slots for miners (not strip miners) and to introduce a T3 mining barge to implement the ideas of CCP.
|
![MortisLegati MortisLegati](https://images.evetech.net/characters/966555518/portrait?size=64)
MortisLegati
Caldari War Materiel
12
|
Posted - 2012.06.28 00:43:00 -
[838] - Quote
Vanessa Vansen wrote: In addition, you have room to introduce a mining frigate which could carry 5 high slots for miners (not strip miners) and to introduce a T3 mining barge to implement the ideas of CCP.
It is now abundantly clear you have not read the devblog announcing the new mining frigate. I now bring into question the credence of your opinion.
|
![Vanessa Vansen Vanessa Vansen](https://images.evetech.net/characters/847506687/portrait?size=64)
Vanessa Vansen
Cybermana
41
|
Posted - 2012.06.28 01:23:00 -
[839] - Quote
MortisLegati wrote:Vanessa Vansen wrote: In addition, you have room to introduce a mining frigate which could carry 5 high slots for miners (not strip miners) and to introduce a T3 mining barge to implement the ideas of CCP.
It is now abundantly clear you have not read the devblog announcing the new mining frigate. I now bring into question the credence of your opinion.
|
![MortisLegati MortisLegati](https://images.evetech.net/characters/966555518/portrait?size=64)
MortisLegati
Caldari War Materiel
12
|
Posted - 2012.06.28 02:59:00 -
[840] - Quote
Vanessa Vansen wrote: The ORE Frigate should be able to gas mine effectively.
They could do that with just one slot; give it a 500% bonus. Three or four highslots could give a whole number that gives just slightly more than other ships. Highsec gas mining is super unprofitable right now, so a frigate that is a low ISK/low skill boat that could mine at the effectiveness of battlecruisers for gas would make a large amount of sense.
In the world of ship bonuses, (at least for mining) slots don't matter. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 32 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |