EVE Search - Mining ships and EVE design philosophy.

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Mining ships and EVE design philosophy.

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 .. 14 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 6 post(s)
Mallak Azaria GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 2343	Posted - 2013.02.11 14:49:00 - [121] - Quote Pohbis wrote: I think you missed the 'standard fit for their purpose' part. There is no standard fit, it's player discretion. Miners are however, inherently lazy & greedy. It was just as easy to fit a decent tank pre-buff as it was to fit max yield/cargo. It's now even easier to fit a tank but miners still don't do it. Apparently booking your flight & accomodation to Iceland BEFORE you buy the tickets for the convention which is pretty much the only reason you wanted to go there in the first place is popular.
baltec1 Bat Country 5129	Posted - 2013.02.11 15:39:00 - [122] - Quote Pohbis wrote: baltec1 wrote: Pohbis wrote: That's really not an answer. Again, why should ships with a standard fit for their purpose be profitable to gank in hi-sec? Because the pilot of said ship decided to fit no tank. I think you missed the 'standard fit for their purpose' part. There aren't a myriad of profitable T2 fitted ships out there. And those that are, aren't required to sit in a stationary belt that anyone can warp to, to do their thing. And it's still not an answer. Key word being profitable here. It just goes to show then how daft miners can be doesn't it? They are literally the only people in this game who think they should be able to go max yeild and fit no tank and be safe from piracy.
Mortimer Civeri Aliastra Gallente Federation 386	Posted - 2013.02.11 16:24:00 - [123] - Quote Pohbis wrote: Again, why should ships with a standard fit for their purpose be profitable to gank in hi-sec? Does the Mining barge/Exhumer have a strip miner I/II fitted? If yes, then it is "fit" with its standard fitting. Everything else that is fitted is at the discretion of the pilot. "I don't know which is worse, ...that everyone has his price, or that the price is always so low." Calvin
handige harrie Hedion University Amarr Empire 35	Posted - 2013.02.11 16:47:00 - [124] - Quote Seeing the amount of whining in local in Abudban and Hek about untanked retrievers getting killed by destroyers on some days, I don't think op has a point. Mining barges still die to ganking by people in destroyers. Stop your whining, it doesn't make any sense. Baddest poster ever
baltec1 Bat Country 5131	Posted - 2013.02.11 17:29:00 - [125] - Quote handige harrie wrote: Seeing the amount of whining in local in Abudban and Hek about untanked retrievers getting killed by destroyers on some days, I don't think op has a point. Mining barges still die to ganking by people in destroyers. Stop your whining, it doesn't make any sense. Thats not the barge thats broken.
NEONOVUS Saablast Followers 331	Posted - 2013.02.11 18:55:00 - [126] - Quote baltec1 wrote: handige harrie wrote: Seeing the amount of whining in local in Abudban and Hek about untanked retrievers getting killed by destroyers on some days, I don't think op has a point. Mining barges still die to ganking by people in destroyers. Stop your whining, it doesn't make any sense. Thats not the barge thats broken. Which barge is then?
baltec1 Bat Country 5132	Posted - 2013.02.11 19:05:00 - [127] - Quote NEONOVUS wrote: Which barge is then? Only the mack.
handige harrie Hedion University Amarr Empire 35	Posted - 2013.02.11 19:33:00 - [128] - Quote baltec1 wrote: NEONOVUS wrote: Which barge is then? Only the mack. The mack is no barge, but an exhumer. Baddest poster ever
Jonah Gravenstein The Burning Lotus 5596	Posted - 2013.02.11 19:52:00 - [129] - Quote handige harrie wrote: baltec1 wrote: NEONOVUS wrote: Which barge is then? Only the mack. So the Ops problem is he can't use his 10M destroyer against a 170M Tech 2 ship. I see no problem with that, try something bigger or more smaller things and it'll work. I can't gank freighters either with a single tornado, doesn't mean freighters are imbalanced. You obviously missed the part where destroyers now roam in wolf packs so that they don't have to pick out the weakest in the herd (retrievers). I am Ohm of Borg, Resistance is Voltage/Current.
Kate stark 92	Posted - 2013.02.11 20:01:00 - [130] - Quote baltec1 wrote: NEONOVUS wrote: Which barge is then? Only the mack. i'm a miner. and this guy is correct. look at the stats of all 3 exhumers/barges and it's plain to see why it's ahead of the other two.
baltec1 Bat Country 5133	Posted - 2013.02.11 20:17:00 - [131] - Quote handige harrie wrote: baltec1 wrote: NEONOVUS wrote: Which barge is then? Only the mack. So the Ops problem is he can't use his 10M destroyer against a 170M Tech 2 ship. I see no problem with that, try something bigger or more smaller things and it'll work. I can't gank freighters either with a single tornado, doesn't mean freighters are imbalanced. No, its is now impossible to kill an untanked mack for profit. This has the knock on effect of invalidating the skiff and the hulk doesnt mine enough to make it worth sacrificing the tank and ore hold. Its an unbalanced ship. Also giving ships a tank based upon isk cost would mean the guadian vexors would have a tank around the same as a nyx.
NEONOVUS Saablast Followers 331	Posted - 2013.02.11 20:32:00 - [132] - Quote baltec1 wrote: No, its is now impossible to kill an untanked mack for profit. This has the knock on effect of invalidating the skiff and the hulk doesnt mine enough to make it worth sacrificing the tank and ore hold. Its an unbalanced ship. Also giving ships a tank based upon isk cost would mean the guadian vexors would have a tank around the same as a nyx. Well seeing as they currently sport a station tank this could only be a massive nerf. Ok now that I know where you are coming from I have a bit more agreement. The mack is overtanked, but I dont think arguing profit factor is really worth a thing when you then complain that cost should not equal tank.
Kate stark 95	Posted - 2013.02.11 20:33:00 - [133] - Quote baltec1 wrote: No, its is now impossible to kill an untanked mack for profit. This has the knock on effect of invalidating the skiff and the hulk doesnt mine enough to make it worth sacrificing the tank and ore hold. Its an unbalanced ship. just to illustrate this point, the hulk mines ~15% more than a mackinaw. consider the following: for an unbonused hulk, a flight of mining drones is the equivalent of a ~19% increase in yield, and how many miners use mining drones instead of combat drones? from my experience, few, including myself. for an unbonused hulk it's still ~11%. if people are ignoring a substantial bonus like that, it's no surprise people are ignoring a 15% yield bonus, even more so when they must sacrifice tank and yield in order to get that bonus.
baltec1 Bat Country 5133	Posted - 2013.02.11 20:40:00 - [134] - Quote NEONOVUS wrote: Well seeing as they currently sport a station tank this could only be a massive nerf. Ok now that I know where you are coming from I have a bit more agreement. The mack is overtanked, but I dont think arguing profit factor is really worth a thing when you then complain that cost should not equal tank. A gank is the only thing a miner has to worry about in high sec so if they are unprofitable to gank there will be no ganks. No ganks mean no reason to fly the skiff. The hulk however can still be ganked for profit. So in order to have a balanced barge lineup the mack needs to be on par with a hulk for tank. Gankable yet able to fit a tank to make itself unprofitable to gank. Thus we get barge balance and the smart people get rewarded and the dumb punished.
handige harrie Hedion University Amarr Empire 39	Posted - 2013.02.11 22:05:00 - [135] - Quote baltec1 wrote: No, its is now impossible to kill an untanked mack for profit. This has the knock on effect of invalidating the skiff and the hulk doesnt mine enough to make it worth sacrificing the tank and ore hold. Its an unbalanced ship. Also giving ships a tank based upon isk cost would mean the guadian vexors would have a tank around the same as a nyx. It's also not possible to make a profit ganking unfitted abaddons or Rokhs or empty freighters. For most ships it just doesn't work that way. The Skiff and Hulk were tiercided into different roles. Few of which include efficient High sec mining, this doesn't mean they are invalidated just that they are changed. Seeing as the skiff can get battleships EHP, I think it still has it's role for the uber paranoid and otherwise badly informed as even a retriever or any other Tech 1 Mining barge can tank belt rats in high sec, even an active played venture can do it, using a DPS tank. That doesn't say the Mack is balanced however, see below. It's a good thing that I never implied that having isk and ehp as the one and only balancing factor is a good thing, because that would indeed be broken. You have to take some other stuff into account. like Tech level, Cargo hold, # of fitting slots, PG/CPU/Capacitor etc. The only thing CCP can balance is stats vs. basic build cost, player market does the rest. I do however think that the Mack (and retriever) could do with less Mining yield, since sporting an above average yield, tank and supreme cargo hold is a bit too much and would balance the Exhumer line better. As it is now (used this site for EHP numbers: http://eveblog.allumis.co.uk/?p=1070): Hulk; 1 Yield. 3 Tank. 2 Cargo Hold . Mack; 2 Yield. 2 Tank 1 Cargo Hold. Skiff; 3 Yield. 1 Tank. 3 Cargo Hold. How it should be imho: Hulk; 1 Yield. 3 Tank. 2 Cargo Hold. Mack; 3 Yield. 2 Tank. 1 Cargo Hold. Skiff; 2 Yield. 1 Tank. 3 Cargo Hold. Baddest poster ever
Le Badass Zealots of Bob 54	Posted - 2013.02.11 22:33:00 - [136] - Quote Wow, 6 pages of poorly camouflaged ganker tears.
Zol Interbottom Nanotrasen Inc 165	Posted - 2013.02.11 23:04:00 - [137] - Quote Goons complaining they cant suicide gank easily anymore BWAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA Stupid forum posts become my MS-Paint art, send me some stupid posts if you see them
baltec1 Bat Country 5137	Posted - 2013.02.11 23:16:00 - [138] - Quote Zol Interbottom wrote: Goons complaining they cant suicide gank easily anymore BWAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA Le Badass wrote: Wow, 6 pages of poorly camouflaged ganker tears. Two fine examples of people who do not read a topic before they post.
baltec1 Bat Country 5137	Posted - 2013.02.11 23:21:00 - [139] - Quote handige harrie wrote: It's also not possible to make a profit ganking unfitted abaddons or Rokhs or empty freighters. For most ships it just doesn't work that way. All frigates, destroyers, cruisers, BC, T3 cruisers, recons, heavy assault ships, interdictors, haulers and even some of the battleships can be ganked for profit if they fit T2 mods with no tank.
NEONOVUS Saablast Followers 333	Posted - 2013.02.11 23:32:00 - [140] - Quote baltec1 wrote: handige harrie wrote: It's also not possible to make a profit ganking unfitted abaddons or Rokhs or empty freighters. For most ships it just doesn't work that way. All frigates, destroyers, cruisers, BC, T3 cruisers, recons, heavy assault ships, interdictors, haulers and even some of the battleships can be ganked for profit if they fit T2 mods with no tank. Dont remind people of all the horrid boosting tengus that get killed by a lone tornado that provide enough ISK for the next 10 ganks each of which provide for the next 10 until the poor nado pilot cants see his guns for all the zeroes. Also baltec it helps if you give values to your hypothetical as right now you are just saying given optimum chances we will make maximum profit. A completely useless statement. Saying something like if the value of your fit (not counting ship rig and subsystems) is 5x the cost to gank based on 11k alpha nado @ 130 mil 350 dps gankalyst @ 10 mil capable of applied 8k damage 800 DPS blastos @ 110mil capable of applied 28k damage 600 DPS Brutix gank fit @ 80 mil capable of applied 16k damage means whether we will gank you, gamble on the risk of failure, or ignore you for your tank Would be far more useful. Also are those the right values?
La Nariz GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 744	Posted - 2013.02.11 23:33:00 - [141] - Quote handige harrie wrote: Seeing the amount of whining in local in Abudban and Hek about untanked retrievers getting killed by destroyers on some days, I don't think op has a point. Mining barges still die to ganking by people in destroyers. Stop your whining, it doesn't make any sense. My point is that CCP did not follow their own design philosophy with respect to mining ships. In their effort to please the howling AFK-miner crowd they decided to hideously buff the EHP off all of the mining ships rendering one of the trade-offs, tank, pointless. Then they decided to make a double mistake by exempting the ore bay from being expanded removing another trade-off, cargo space. Due to those two horrible changes mining ships are literally the only class of ship in which you can "have your cake and eat it too." Any ship that is T2 fit with NO tank can profitable to gank, why should that not apply to mining ships? This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team.
Guttripper State War Academy Caldari State 223	Posted - 2013.02.12 01:00:00 - [142] - Quote baltec1 wrote: All frigates, destroyers, cruisers, BC, T3 cruisers, recons, heavy assault ships, interdictors, haulers and even some of the battleships can be ganked for profit if they fit T2 mods with no tank. Devil's advocate - could T2 defensive modules be a lure for potential profit, especially if they were attached to a "weak" exhumer or mining barge? Whereas it may appear as a deterrent, wouldn't a ganker consider a lone Hulk in a 0.5 or 0.6 system, even if "tricked out" for defense on the off-chance any T2 module may survive?
La Nariz GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 744	Posted - 2013.02.12 01:12:00 - [143] - Quote Guttripper wrote: baltec1 wrote: All frigates, destroyers, cruisers, BC, T3 cruisers, recons, heavy assault ships, interdictors, haulers and even some of the battleships can be ganked for profit if they fit T2 mods with no tank. Devil's advocate - could T2 defensive modules be a lure for potential profit, especially if they were attached to a "weak" exhumer or mining barge? Whereas it may appear as a deterrent, wouldn't a ganker consider a lone Hulk in a 0.5 or 0.6 system, even if "tricked out" for defense on the off-chance any T2 module may survive? As a ganker I would not do so because easier targets are common and the chance of failure is not worth the extra ~1mil from the defensive module drop. Now if they decided to use faction hardeners that's a different story. This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team.
GetSirrus Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 19	Posted - 2013.02.12 01:23:00 - [144] - Quote RubyPorto wrote: It never was profitable to gank a WELL FIT Hulk, that traded some measure of "efficiency" for tank. A pre-change T2 fit brick Hulk still mined more than any other ship in the game, and was never profitable to gank. Damage Control II Micro Auxiliary Power Core I Medium F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction Invulnerability Field II Invulnerability Field II 'Anointed' I EM Ward Reinforcement Modulated Strip Miner II, Veldspar Mining Crystal II Modulated Strip Miner II, Veldspar Mining Crystal II Modulated Strip Miner II, Veldspar Mining Crystal II Medium Ancillary Current Router I Medium Core Defence Field Extender I this is approx the deterent pre-change hulk tank. If a combat ship needed two power mods to fit a tank, plus had no remaining slots for any utilities? It would be regarded as a failfit. If as the OP posits that there is a general theme of compromise in Eve, this is not - it is a complete sacrifice. oh and prove a point: Covetor Medium Overlock rig x 2 Modulated Strip Miner II, Veldspar Mining Crystal II Modulated Strip Miner II, Veldspar Mining Crystal II Modulated Strip Miner II, Veldspar Mining Crystal II empty mid Mining Laser Upgrade x 2 this outmined a pre-change tanked hulk. fully insured hull and a third of the price.
La Nariz GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 744	Posted - 2013.02.12 01:26:00 - [145] - Quote GetSirrus wrote: RubyPorto wrote: It never was profitable to gank a WELL FIT Hulk, that traded some measure of "efficiency" for tank. A pre-change T2 fit brick Hulk still mined more than any other ship in the game, and was never profitable to gank. Damage Control II Micro Auxiliary Power Core I Medium F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction Invulnerability Field II Invulnerability Field II 'Anointed' I EM Ward Reinforcement Modulated Strip Miner II, Veldspar Mining Crystal II Modulated Strip Miner II, Veldspar Mining Crystal II Modulated Strip Miner II, Veldspar Mining Crystal II Medium Ancillary Current Router I Medium Core Defence Field Extender I this is approx the deterent pre-change hulk tank. If a combat ship needed two power mods to fit a tank, plus had no remaining slots for any utilities? It would be regarded as a failfit. If as the OP posits that there is a general theme of compromise in Eve, this is not - it is a complete sacrifice. oh and prove a point: Covetor Medium Overlock rig x 2 Modulated Strip Miner II, Veldspar Mining Crystal II Modulated Strip Miner II, Veldspar Mining Crystal II Modulated Strip Miner II, Veldspar Mining Crystal II empty mid Mining Laser Upgrade x 2 this outmined a pre-change tanked hulk. fully insured hull and a third of the price. You can at least give us the relevant numbers, EHP/Yield/cargo space. This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team.
RubyPorto SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT 2665	Posted - 2013.02.12 02:56:00 - [146] - Quote Vaerah Vahrokha wrote: RubyPorto wrote: CCP Soundwave made a howler of a statement, that he (quite rightly) never defended when he was called on it. Because, according to a simple reading of his statement, Freighters should gain more EHP the more ISK they fit into their cargo hold. Incorrect again. A simple reading of his statement would tell freighters should not be profitable to gank "per se" (that is the bare hull). Exactly what often happens for exhumers. Then by your reading, Exhumers were fine before the buff. Their bare hull was never profitable to gank. Fit with an appropriate tank fit, they were never profitable to gank. Only when Fit to mine with no tank fit, were they profitable to gank. And even then only in lower security systems. Show me a link to a profitable suicide gank of an unfit Exhumer. Before or after the buff. You say it happened often, I'm sure you can provide evidence. This is EVE - Everybody Versus Everybody. "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built and we want to keep that (infact, this is much more representative of the consensus opinion within CCP)." -CCP Solomon
RubyPorto SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT 2665	Posted - 2013.02.12 03:01:00 - [147] - Quote GetSirrus wrote: If a combat ship needed two power mods to fit a tank, plus had no remaining slots for any utilities? It would be regarded as a failfit. If as the OP posits that there is a general theme of compromise in Eve, this is not - it is a complete sacrifice. So you can't mine in that fit? Oh wait, yes you can. There are only 3 important stats for a mining ship (Tank, Yield, Cargo). There are more than 3 important stats for a combat ship. That's why comparisons to combat ships are irrelevant. I did forget about the effect of the brand-new-at-the-time CPU rigs that did allow the Covetor to eke by the Fully tanked Hulk, but it sacrifices any semblance of tank and I think you'd find you would have a hard time insuring the ~20m worth of T2 modules you'd be holding in your pinata-ey belly. Almost forgot. A 1 MLU Hulk was plenty tanky enough to be unprofitable to gank in .7 and above. (IIRC it was also right around or just below breakeven in .5). This is EVE - Everybody Versus Everybody. "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built and we want to keep that (infact, this is much more representative of the consensus opinion within CCP)." -CCP Solomon
Mallak Azaria GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 2343	Posted - 2013.02.12 03:04:00 - [148] - Quote GetSirrus wrote: If a combat ship needed two power mods to fit a tank, plus had no remaining slots for any utilities? It would be regarded as a failfit. If as the OP posits that there is a general theme of compromise in Eve, this is not - it is a complete sacrifice. So your justification for not fitting a tank was that the extra cargo & yield was worth the risk of losing a 200mil ship? In that case, you wilfully chose that path. The person fitting the tank decided it wasn't worth the risk & ultimately did better than those who were too greedy to fit a tank. Apparently booking your flight & accomodation to Iceland BEFORE you buy the tickets for the convention which is pretty much the only reason you wanted to go there in the first place is popular.
Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 614	Posted - 2013.02.12 04:13:00 - [149] - Quote Mallak Azaria wrote: GetSirrus wrote: If a combat ship needed two power mods to fit a tank, plus had no remaining slots for any utilities? It would be regarded as a failfit. If as the OP posits that there is a general theme of compromise in Eve, this is not - it is a complete sacrifice. So your justification for not fitting a tank was that the extra cargo & yield was worth the risk of losing a 200mil ship? In that case, you wilfully chose that path. The person fitting the tank decided it wasn't worth the risk & ultimately did better than those who were too greedy to fit a tank. So then having a choice but needing that choice to be tank in every slot in order to be a deterrent represents a ship with proper fittings?
RubyPorto SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT 2665	Posted - 2013.02.12 05:08:00 - [150] - Quote Tyberius Franklin wrote: Mallak Azaria wrote: GetSirrus wrote: If a combat ship needed two power mods to fit a tank, plus had no remaining slots for any utilities? It would be regarded as a failfit. If as the OP posits that there is a general theme of compromise in Eve, this is not - it is a complete sacrifice. So your justification for not fitting a tank was that the extra cargo & yield was worth the risk of losing a 200mil ship? In that case, you wilfully chose that path. The person fitting the tank decided it wasn't worth the risk & ultimately did better than those who were too greedy to fit a tank. So then having a choice but needing that choice to be tank in every slot in order to be a deterrent represents a ship with proper fittings? Wrong. A brick tanked Hulk was unprofitable to gank in every reasonable situation (everything's profitable to gank in enough Civvy gun ibises but that's idiotic). A 1 MLU Hulk was unprofitable to gank in most situations. (And on the bubble in most others, depending on market conditions.) A 2 MLU Hulk could be unprofitable to gank in many situations. All are far less profitable than a 2 MLU, No Tank, Cargo Optimized Hulk with a survey scanner and, as such, were ganked less often because it was invariably more profitable to gank the No tank Hulk next to it. This is EVE - Everybody Versus Everybody. "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built and we want to keep that (infact, this is much more representative of the consensus opinion within CCP)." -CCP Solomon

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 .. 14 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

Copyright © 2006-2025, Chribba - OMG Labs. All Rights Reserved. - perf 0,08s, ref 20250924/2001
EVE-Online™ and Eve imagery © CCP.

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.