|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Celgar Thurn
Department 10
46
   |
Posted - 2012.06.21 14:46:00 -
[1] - Quote
Very nice to see someone from EON magazine asking for viewpoints within the EVE forums. I don't think I have seen anyone from EON in the forums before.  I recently splashed out on a four issue subscription of EON magazine and found issue 27 a very good read indeed. *shameless plug* 
Onto the matter in question several people have already mentioned space for a tractor beam on the Orca. Most orca pilots would like to have a tractor beam but they would also like to have the three mining links. Alternatively in these dangerous times skills permitting they would drop the mining cpu link and put the shield resists link on in its place. On large mining ops a tractor beam would potentially be very useful to haul jet cans in and clear rat wrecks as well. If CCP dropped their current mining plan and just added a specific high slot on the Orca to only be used for a tractor beam that would be very nice
I have a number of issues with the latest dev blog that covers mining vessels:
1) The skill requirement reduction is nothing more than dumbing down of EVE Online. EVE is renouned for its complexity and steep learning curve. Infact this is one of EVE's most appealing assets. A game for adults and mature people and it should stay like that.
2) I am completely in favour of more 'eye candy' as long as is not detrimental to the game or slow down the mechanics. But the new ORE mining frigate looks more like an Interbus ship than something from ORE. Mining vessels should be industrial looking - grimy even. 'Mining in hostile space' but with 'little to no resilience' therefore the new perceived additional role for this vessel makes no sense whatsoever.
3) Procurer/Skiff. 'capable of having battleship-like EHP'. I can see where this is coming from and why pilots would like a much stronger vessel to mine in nul sec with. But you would still need the logistics and set-up to get the ore/minerals out of nul and into high sec so I don't see the need for this personally.
4) Retriever/Mackinaw. 'second best mining output'. less EHP than the (new) procurer'.
5) Covetor/Hulk. 'identical cargo hold' and 'little to average EHP'. No problem with keeping the cargo hold capacity the same. After all increasing cargo hold capacity is the last thing professional miners want as it reduces mineral prices and therefore profit.The second quote from CCP suggests they want to make Hulks & Covetors weaker and more prone to being ganked than they already are. This is the worst and most worrying aspect of CCP's plan to supposedly make the mining career a more attractive and financially viable option. And it is where the dev blog comes crashing down.
One of the mining dev blogs headline statements is 'Resilience'. It says our mining vessels should have 'proper EHP' and should 'not be one-shot by anything'. Well if they go ahead with this plan then Covetors and Hulks will indeed become closer to reaching 'one-shot' levels of EHP.
The mining dev blog is yet another of the recent dev blogs to be poorly thought out and I hope you can maybe help those involved see the errors in this plan. |
Celgar Thurn
Department 10
46
|
Posted - 2012.06.24 09:43:00 -
[2] - Quote
Jita Bloodtear wrote:I haven't gone through this entire thread yet, but obviously specifics on intended changes to skiffs, mackinaws, hulks.
Will skiffs, mackinaws, hulks each be able to mine everything (gas clouds, mercoxit, ice, ore)?
Are mackinaws going to become worse at ice mining?
Are hulks going to become better at ice mining than mackinaws?
Need rorqual changes:
There are some much needed changes to rorquals to allow low/nullsec ice mining to be more agreeable than the highsec botting alternative.
- Rorquals need for compressed ice blocks to be 1/10th their size, and to compress at 10x their current rate.
- Ice compression in a rorqual is terribly slow, allowing a rorqual to only keep up with 4 mackinaws. (By contrast, rorquals are able to keep up with 20+ ore miners in terms of compression)
- Only a small fraction of compressed ice types are smaller in compressed form than their refined products.
Are there any plans to add a decent source of low-end minerals to low/nullsec?
Requests for changes to mining often ask for changes that will result in significant increases to yield throughout New Eden. These kind of changes are NOT required even after recent iterations such as removal of drone compounds etc. Mineral prices,in terms of high sec ores at least, have reached a level where imo mining is now an economically viable career.
The number one concern with the proposed changes to mining is the idea to reduce EHP on Covetors & Mackinaws. I'm not a suicide ganker but I personally feel that EHP on Covetors and Hulks is about right atm and does not need to increase either. If you are not afk and have fitted some tank then you will be relatively safe. New Eden is about risk and I think even speaking as a miner it is about right atm. If miners feel the need to fly something more sturdy and the changes for the Procurer go through then they will something more to their taste to mine in.
Provided this change to Covetors and Hulks can be quashed then the new dev blog won't completely ruin where mining is atm. |
Celgar Thurn
Department 10
46
|
Posted - 2012.06.24 14:58:00 -
[3] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:Celgar Thurn wrote:Requests for changes to mining often ask for changes that will result in significant increases to yield throughout New Eden. These kind of changes are NOT required even after recent iterations such as removal of drone compounds etc. Mineral prices,in terms of high sec ores at least, have reached a level where imo mining is now an economically viable career. The number one concern with the proposed changes to mining is the idea to reduce EHP on Covetors & Mackinaws. I'm not a suicide ganker but I personally feel that EHP on Covetors and Hulks is about right atm and does not need to increase either. If you are not afk and have fitted some tank then you will be relatively safe. New Eden is about risk and I think even speaking as a miner it is about right atm. If miners feel the need to fly something more sturdy and the changes for the Procurer go through then they will something more to their taste to mine in. Provided this change to Covetors and Hulks can be quashed then the new dev blog won't completely ruin where mining is atm. minerals in high sec are getting crazy. pyrox (high sec ore) is worth more per m3 than crokite (0.0 ore), yes, granted abm ores are still the top 3 ores per m3 (not that it means much for mercoxit but whatever roll with it). i just don't think high sec ores should be more profitable than null sec ores, it just feels wrong. like meeting a cute chick just to slide your hand down and finding some thing that makes you jealous. where do people keep getting the idea hulks/macks are getting less ehp? what have i missed? nowhere does it say they will be reducing the ehp of anything, infact "Resilience: another point is to give some of them proper EHP not to be one-shot by anything that even remotely sneezes on them." says the direct opposite.
|
Celgar Thurn
Department 10
47
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 12:55:00 -
[4] - Quote
Yes. Pyroxeres is widely available in Amarr, Ammatar, & Caldari high sec systems. Minmatar & Gallente get Plagioclase instead.
I can only go by what is written in the dev blog so until CCP clarify further what they intend to do to mining it does appear that Hulks & Coveters will get a decrease in EHP. The idea being that Hulks & Covetors will fleet up with haulers & combat vessels to 'protect' them. A wholly unsatisfactory turn of events and we as mere pilots in New Eden have little sway in what will happen. |
|
|
| |
|