EVE Search - ORE Battleship

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

ORE Battleship

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Scythi Magellen Marmite Archaeologists 7	Posted - 2014.01.28 17:02:00 - [61] - Quote Riot Girl wrote: Which brings me back to my previous question. If it has comparable tank and less yield than a barge, then what is for? Why bother ganking them in the first place? You get more items dropped and consequently more valuable items ganking bigger ships.
Riot Girl You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack 2619	Posted - 2014.01.28 17:09:00 - [62] - Quote Because miners need to be ganked, that's just the way of the universe. You can't argue with that. Oh god.
Lephia DeGrande Luxembourg Space Union 204	Posted - 2014.01.28 18:24:00 - [63] - Quote Then you cant argue about a BS Mining Ship.
Nikk Narrel Moonlit Bonsai 3921	Posted - 2014.01.28 18:39:00 - [64] - Quote Riot Girl wrote: Which brings me back to my previous question. If it has comparable tank and less yield than a barge, then what is for? Good question. I think this is the best answer I have for it. An option that confronts PvP outside of high sec space, and fights back as an option most probable to it's best profit / survivability ratio. The threat of hostilities is shown to result in ships docking up to avoid risk, which this ship could withstand and therefore remain active in the field. For each hour it would remain active, that it's cousins remain docked, it justifies the skill and other costs needed to bring it into the belt. Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence So Local Chat vanished, now what?
Nikk Narrel Moonlit Bonsai 3921	Posted - 2014.01.28 18:41:00 - [65] - Quote Riot Girl wrote: Because miners need to be ganked, that's just the way of the universe. You can't argue with that. By the same logic, gankers need to be ambushed by combat ready forces who happen to mine. The coin has two sides. Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence So Local Chat vanished, now what?
Daichi Yamato Xero Security and Technologies 1020	Posted - 2014.01.28 19:56:00 - [66] - Quote Riot Girl wrote: Which brings me back to my previous question. If it has comparable tank and less yield than a barge, then what is for? using offensive strength rather than defensive as a means to defend itself. taking the skiff in hi-sec as an example. tough and unlikely to be fruitful in a suicide gank. but take ten of those same skiffs and put them in null or WH and they become an (relatively) easy target for a small gang. now consider a mining BS that can wield respectable DPS with a slightly lower mining yield. In hi-sec it provides no real benefit over a skiff. but in hostile space, the DPS that ten of these can bring to bear acts as a deterrent to small gangs. Maybe it will behave much like the mining domi's and rokhs of old, but why not allow it to use strip miners rather than inefficient mining lasers and drones. especially when its intended area of use contains the largest of ores. In WH's they might be a nice option since u dnt always know when someone is in system. u dnt have the luxury of locals free intel and may only be aware ur under attack when ur enemies uncloak on grid. by which point its too late to run. its time to fight. no? There are no vets in EVE. Only varying levels of Noobery.
James Nikolas Tesla Onslaught Inc RISE of LEGION 30	Posted - 2014.01.28 20:08:00 - [67] - Quote Daichi Yamato wrote: Riot Girl wrote: Which brings me back to my previous question. If it has comparable tank and less yield than a barge, then what is for? using offensive strength rather than defensive as a means to defend itself. taking the skiff in hi-sec as an example. tough and unlikely to be fruitful in a suicide gank. but take ten of those same skiffs and put them in null or WH and they become an (relatively) easy target for a small gang. now consider a mining BS that can wield respectable DPS with a slightly lower mining yield. In hi-sec it provides no real benefit over a skiff. but in hostile space, the DPS that ten of these can bring to bear acts as a deterrent to small gangs. Maybe it will behave much like the mining domi's and rokhs of old, but why not allow it to use strip miners rather than inefficient mining lasers and drones. especially when its intended area of use contains the largest of ores. In WH's they might be a nice option since u dnt always know when someone is in system. u dnt have the luxury of locals free intel and may only be aware ur under attack when ur enemies uncloak on grid. by which point its too late to run. its time to fight. no? I agree 1/27/14 A hell of a good day to be a miner! Please help me with my ORE Battleship. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=315675
James Nikolas Tesla Onslaught Inc RISE of LEGION 30	Posted - 2014.01.28 20:12:00 - [68] - Quote With the time I have been thinking, I think I should give it the PG/CPU/Capacitor of a BS so you can fit it to be a BS. It will also have enough of a Cap Recharge Rate to handle some Strip Miners and some extra equipment. Now all I need to do is research some battleships and try to come up with some numbers. 1/27/14 A hell of a good day to be a miner! Please help me with my ORE Battleship. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=315675
Nikk Narrel Moonlit Bonsai 3925	Posted - 2014.01.28 20:23:00 - [69] - Quote James Nikolas Tesla wrote: With the time I have been thinking, I think I should give it the PG/CPU/Capacitor of a BS so you can fit it to be a BS. It will also have enough of a Cap Recharge Rate to handle some Strip Miners and some extra equipment. Now all I need to do is research some battleships and try to come up with some numbers. I would suggest this: Give it solid battleship stats, tanking & DPS. Give it a yield equivalent below exhumers / barges. Make it use 4 (four) modulated strip miners to get even close to a barge / exhumer yield. Obviously this incorporates the ability to mount 4 of them. Why 4 strip miners? So that there is a range of trade off between yield and DPS. Max yield fitted, this should compromise DPS so that it requires more than one of these working together to fight off threats. If they choose to fit for max DPS, they should still be able to fit 2 (two) modulated strip miners. This would cut their potential yield in half, but put them on par with any typical BS fit for DPS. Again, I recommend the only obstacle to these being on roams is a horrible align / warp speed. Having that ore bay makes these as slow as any exhumer or Orca, and trying to nano out the penalty should defeat the purpose of using it at all. Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence So Local Chat vanished, now what?
Sorjat Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 62	Posted - 2014.01.28 20:37:00 - [70] - Quote Very interesting thread. Similar threads about mining ships have been expressed before but I'll take a stab at answering this question: Riot Girl said: I said it needs to have potential to be profitable, or to at least minimize losses significantly. The problem is, if there is no incentive for people to gank these ships, then the miners will be left alone to mine AFK all day long. Also: Which brings me back to my previous question. If it has comparable tank and less yield than a barge, then what is for? ++++ I mine High and W-space with Venture's and Barges. This concept of the 'armed miner' is for those folks who like to mine alone (or small groups) in bad places. If you were a member of a mining corp you wouldn't need/want this ship because its neither a very good miner nor a very good combat ship. There are better ships available for those specific tasks, assuming you have folks who will fill them. This would also be true of the null Corps for the same reason. As for high sec mining I wouldn't want it. Yes high sec gankers exist but that threat is mitigated by using a teaspoon of intelligence. I would not trade the mining yield and ore capacity of the barges/exhumers for the negligible threat posed by the high-sec suicide ganks. I never recommend low-sec mining under any circumstances solo as the risk/reward calculation is definitely adverse for the miner. There is simply too much pirate activity for low reward. I am not an expert on null as I tend to avoid it. Potentially, mining in a 'largely empty' area can be very lucrative... the problem is that for those of us with limited play time the effort it takes to get there. (Flying scouts, taking roundabout routes, etc.) Then assuming you get there to your ideal asteroid belt you then have to deal with belt rats in an unarmed ship makes it not worth the effort. Having an ORE battleship as the thread author suggests would change the equation here. This is where it could have its most potential value. It could definitely draw out players into null where there are none now. It would definitely have potential in W-space as well and could speed up mining operations particularly if it had scan bonuses and could take out sleepers... I suspect the devs would never throw that in so most likely you will remain in a dedicated combat vessel for taking out the NPCs in W-space. ++++ I also have another suggestion about fits and the ship's potential role. It could also act as a mining command ship without the docking bay, huge cargo capacity and clone vat that you see in the Orca and Rorqual. For small group miners, both those ships are a significant outlay of ISK/risk and not necessarily readily available. Now combat command ships are battlecruiser size vessels so I don't see why an Ore Battleship can't be an ORE command vessel. So to answer your question Riot Girl. - This ship would draw mining players out of high sec and try their luck in W, low and null space. - It could potentially be the 'poor miner's' command ship for those of us who can't afford an Orca or Rorqual.

Senarian Tyme Serenity Rising LLC Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive 76	Posted - 2014.01.28 20:41:00 - [71] - Quote Instead of going to all the hassle of making a new mining BS for ORE, maybe it would be better to just slightly tweak existing hardware. The orca afterall uses large rigs so is in the general weightclass of a BS. Add 2x turrets to the orca Add a siege mode to the orca. Create a new costlier ORE faction Strip miner which has greatly reduced fitting requirements so it can be fit to the orca, and only let it be used on orcas. The ORE Strip miners would have 2x the usual yield of a strip miner. Activating the mining siege would boost range, yield/cycle time, but pin the orca in spot for 3 minutes at a time (think mining links combined into a self boost., no tank bonuses) The ORE Strip miners and ORE Siege module would only be available from LP stores out in ORE space, so the price for them would remain rather high throughout HS, making them a more appealing target. It would also create more drive for people to attempt ot utilize ORE space to cash in on the supply. Of course creating such a solo mining ship completely kills the need for retrievers and mackinaws........... so it wont ever happen.
Daichi Yamato Xero Security and Technologies 1023	Posted - 2014.01.28 21:06:00 - [72] - Quote Senarian Tyme wrote: brain fart? u say it would be simpler to rework the orca than create a new concept, then mention that the reworked orca would need an entirely new module that would completely change the way it works and would make the orca and overpowered mining machine that obsoletes existing ships with its 200k ehp tank and much larger capacity. precisely what we were trying to avoid. nah...i think we were closer to getting somewhere with a new concept and ship lol. as for the way this BS could have the potential for mining and damage: drones? its simple, easy and doesnt affect other mods on the ship. with 2 highslots for strip miners, a 125mbit drone bandwidth with a 10% drone damage bonus per level puts it to about 500dps. then add a 5% yield to strip miners per level and u've got something that mines about (a little less than) as much as a barge but can deal moderate damage to targets of varying sizes. encourage an armour tank over a shield tank with slot layout and pilots will be balancing dps/agility/yield/tank all with their low slots. leading to meaningful choices. There are no vets in EVE. Only varying levels of Noobery.
James Nikolas Tesla Onslaught Inc RISE of LEGION 30	Posted - 2014.01.28 23:43:00 - [73] - Quote I like what Nikk Narrel and Sorjat have both said and it got me thinking of the four high slots and reducing it to 2 Turret Hardpoints. To give it DPS along the lines of a BS, add a Role Bonus +100% Damage of Large Turrets so the two turrets are more like four. Also have the ability to fit Mining Command Links for a "Poor Miner's Command Ship" This would keep the ship's versatility as you would have to choose between different fits of Strip Miners, Guns, and Command Links. And yes, it would make it a fun ganking target. Daichi Yamato, You said to increase the Bandwidth to 125mbps so we would have to Increase the Drone Bay to 125m^3. With the things I mentioned above, would it be possible to further increase the Drone Bay capacity without making it OP? If I did increase the Drone Bay, it would only go to 150 or 175m^3 maximum. 1/27/14 A hell of a good day to be a miner! Please help me with my ORE Battleship. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=315675
James Nikolas Tesla Onslaught Inc RISE of LEGION 30	Posted - 2014.01.28 23:48:00 - [74] - Quote I updated the OP. 1/27/14 A hell of a good day to be a miner! Please help me with my ORE Battleship. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=315675
Nikk Narrel Moonlit Bonsai 3927	Posted - 2014.01.29 01:07:00 - [75] - Quote James Nikolas Tesla wrote: I like what Nikk Narrel and Sorjat have both said and it got me thinking of the four high slots and reducing it to 2 Turret Hardpoints. To give it DPS along the lines of a BS, add a Role Bonus +100% Damage of Large Turrets so the two turrets are more like four. Also have the ability to fit Mining Command Links for a "Poor Miner's Command Ship" This would keep the ship's versatility as you would have to choose between different fits of Strip Miners, Guns, and Command Links. And yes, it would make it a fun ganking target. Daichi Yamato, You said to increase the Bandwidth to 125mbps so we would have to Increase the Drone Bay to 125m^3. With the things I mentioned above, would it be possible to further increase the Drone Bay capacity without making it OP? If I did increase the Drone Bay, it would only go to 150 or 175m^3 maximum. I was actually thinking this as the details: 6 high slot, 4 turret hard points. No slots for utilities without losing yield and or DPS. Using 4 slots for modulated deep core miners, only 2 slots left for turrets. High yield / low DPS. Using all 4 turret hard points, only 2 slots for modulated deep core miners. High DPS/ low yield. Apply damage modifiers to the turrets so that with using all 4 the DPS is comparable to typical fit regular T1 BS. Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence So Local Chat vanished, now what?
James Nikolas Tesla Onslaught Inc RISE of LEGION 30	Posted - 2014.01.29 01:11:00 - [76] - Quote Nikk Narrel wrote: James Nikolas Tesla wrote: I like what Nikk Narrel and Sorjat have both said and it got me thinking of the four high slots and reducing it to 2 Turret Hardpoints. To give it DPS along the lines of a BS, add a Role Bonus +100% Damage of Large Turrets so the two turrets are more like four. Also have the ability to fit Mining Command Links for a "Poor Miner's Command Ship" This would keep the ship's versatility as you would have to choose between different fits of Strip Miners, Guns, and Command Links. And yes, it would make it a fun ganking target. Daichi Yamato, You said to increase the Bandwidth to 125mbps so we would have to Increase the Drone Bay to 125m^3. With the things I mentioned above, would it be possible to further increase the Drone Bay capacity without making it OP? If I did increase the Drone Bay, it would only go to 150 or 175m^3 maximum. I was actually thinking this as the details: 6 high slot, 4 turret hard points. No slots for utilities without losing yield and or DPS. Using 4 slots for modulated deep core miners, only 2 slots left for turrets. High yield / low DPS. Using all 4 turret hard points, only 2 slots for modulated deep core miners. High DPS/ low yield. Apply damage modifiers to the turrets so that with using all 4 the DPS is comparable to typical fit regular T1 BS. But what is stopping miners from fitting 6 Strip Miners and basically making a tri-bred ship? Yield of a Hulk, Ore Hold comparable to a Mack, and comparable tank to a Procurer. 1/27/14 A hell of a good day to be a miner! Please help me with my ORE Battleship. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=315675
Edwin McAlister Interstellar Engineering and Electronics INC 23	Posted - 2014.01.29 03:00:00 - [77] - Quote while I would love to see something like this, I really would fact is that barges / exhumers are the battlecruiser/ battleship class of miners... a cruiser type is more what I would like to see, an upgrade of the venture but im game for a true battleship sized roid sucking machine with battlecruiser tank / dps at the same time Covetor / Hulk (same stats) Mass = 40,000,000 kg Volume = 200,000 m3 509 M long axis Naga: Mass = 15,000,000 kg Volume = 252,000 m3 614 M Long axis Rokh: Mass = 105,300,000 kg Volume = 486,000 m3 1025 M Long axis
My Little Pyongyang State War Academy Caldari State 21	Posted - 2014.01.29 03:45:00 - [78] - Quote Riot Girl wrote: Because miners need to be ganked, that's just the way of the universe. You can't argue with that. I may disagree with a lot of your posts, but damn I love this one.
My Little Pyongyang State War Academy Caldari State 21	Posted - 2014.01.29 03:52:00 - [79] - Quote James Nikolas Tesla wrote: I've been thinking of this idea for quite some time and have beat out some rough numbers for a versatile battleship hull of ORE design that can be used for mining, mining fleet defence, or somewhere in between. Name: Bulwark (Suggestions Welcome) H - 4 M - 5 L - 5 Turret Hardpoints - 2 Cargo Hold - 500 Ore Hold - 20,000 m^3 Drone Bay - 125 m^3 Drone Bandwidth - 125 mbps Shield - 3500 Armor - 4500 Structure - 4000 Rig Size - Large Velocity - 60 m/s PG - (Battleship Powergrid) CPU - (Battleship CPU) Capacitor - (Battleship Capacitor) Cap Recharge - Cap Recharge Rate - 8 gj/s Lock Range - 50 km Role Bonus 100% increase in large turret damage 50% increase in large turret optimal and falloff range Can fit Mining Foreman Links. Exhumers Skill Bonus 10% Increased scan range for Survey Scanners per level 20% Increased range of Strip Miners per level 5% increase of mining crystal effectiveness per level. Skill Requirements: Exhumers III and its prerequisite skills Any ideas for suggestions/changes are welcome. I don't like the current iteration of this idea. Your efficiency for mining should be slightly lower than a skiff, perhaps make it so that it is restricted to one strip miner and has three turret hardpoints. That gives it 6 effective hardpoints, making its dps respectable but less than combat battleships who typically have hull bonuses to make their turrets worth much more than 6. The drone bandwidth would also allow you to field a flight of heavies or senties which might be a little strong but perhaps not. The ore is ridiculous in size. It should be large enough to fit a single cycle of the strips at max skills and with implants. That gives you plenty of time to jetcan or move otherwise free up your ore hold for another cycle, this isn't like rokh mining with the hand cramping pain that was a full rack of miner IIs, you don't need a bigger hold than one cycle gives you. To review: Less mining power than a skiff Less dps than a combat battleship Ore hold only large enough for one cycle I would accept this as a new ship, and it might even be useful. The EHP values I don't even want to look at, but they shouldn't be excessive.
Meyr SiN Corp Black Core Alliance 293	Posted - 2014.01.29 04:02:00 - [80] - Quote Riot Girl wrote: Because miners need to be ganked, that's just the way of the universe. You can't argue with that. Gankers already have every single one of their tear-stained whiney-assed wish list items handed to them on a silver platter by devs who hate hisec with a passion, and you now demand that every damned ship in the game be profitable for you to gank? Get off your lazy ass and go work for a living. Go build something. Go make something. Go EARN your ISK, instead of expecting people like me to just give you everything you want. In short, stop proving the truth in my long-stated opinion that gankers and (bad) pirates are the whiniest, most tear-filled, cowardly, and lazy Eve players that exist. (Yes, there actually ARE some GOOD pirates out there. Their adventures make good reading, they don't complain that the Decon station needs to be rotated, they honor ransomes, they don't complain that they can't catch a stabbed T1 industrial, and they're willing to PVP! Not be little Noob-Corp Catalyst-flying ++ber-leet tear harvester unwilling to actually risk anything.)

Daichi Yamato Xero Security and Technologies 1023	Posted - 2014.01.29 04:05:00 - [81] - Quote lol'd There are no vets in EVE. Only varying levels of Noobery.
My Little Pyongyang State War Academy Caldari State 21	Posted - 2014.01.29 04:06:00 - [82] - Quote Meyr wrote: Riot Girl wrote: Because miners need to be ganked, that's just the way of the universe. You can't argue with that. WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH Sounds like baby needs a nap.
Nikk Narrel Moonlit Bonsai 3928	Posted - 2014.01.29 04:07:00 - [83] - Quote James Nikolas Tesla wrote: Nikk Narrel wrote: James Nikolas Tesla wrote: I like what Nikk Narrel and Sorjat have both said and it got me thinking of the four high slots and reducing it to 2 Turret Hardpoints. To give it DPS along the lines of a BS, add a Role Bonus +100% Damage of Large Turrets so the two turrets are more like four. Also have the ability to fit Mining Command Links for a "Poor Miner's Command Ship" This would keep the ship's versatility as you would have to choose between different fits of Strip Miners, Guns, and Command Links. And yes, it would make it a fun ganking target. Daichi Yamato, You said to increase the Bandwidth to 125mbps so we would have to Increase the Drone Bay to 125m^3. With the things I mentioned above, would it be possible to further increase the Drone Bay capacity without making it OP? If I did increase the Drone Bay, it would only go to 150 or 175m^3 maximum. I was actually thinking this as the details: 6 high slot, 4 turret hard points. No slots for utilities without losing yield and or DPS. Using 4 slots for modulated deep core miners, only 2 slots left for turrets. High yield / low DPS. Using all 4 turret hard points, only 2 slots for modulated deep core miners. High DPS/ low yield. Apply damage modifiers to the turrets so that with using all 4 the DPS is comparable to typical fit regular T1 BS. But what is stopping miners from fitting 6 Strip Miners and basically making a tri-bred ship? Yield of a Hulk, Ore Hold comparable to a Mack, and comparable tank to a Procurer. Currently the strip miners are flagged to only operate on barges and exhumers. Like we have an allocation for turrets or launchers, specifically to limit how many of each could be fitted if any, they would need strip miner hard points to limit this. As an example: You can already pimp out an unbonused BS mounting modulated deep core miner II's, 7 of them with Best skills giving 835 yield vs a hulk's 1,547. (Veldspar as ore in example, Rokh as the BS) Even with 7 out of 8 slots mounting a miner, the yield is below reasonable, has no DPS, and trivial ability to carry ore to justify use mining. I should have addressed the hardpoint spec needed here before, my bad. Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence So Local Chat vanished, now what?
Edwin McAlister Interstellar Engineering and Electronics INC 23	Posted - 2014.01.29 04:08:00 - [84] - Quote is there any logical economic / game play balance reason why there can not be a battleship sized version the 3 existing miner types that is better... a battleship hulk that mines more, a battleship mak that holds ect ect?? figuring 10%-20% more or is it only about the gankability of said ships? the ability to suicide gank another player is not a game balance factor and all decisions should not be revolved around that factor alone I want to see reasons why in the bigger picture of things... will it drive the economy up or down or maintain a form of balance, would it drastically alter the state of the game....
James Nikolas Tesla Onslaught Inc RISE of LEGION 32	Posted - 2014.01.29 04:09:00 - [85] - Quote The only thing to make a mining vessel gankproof is to have something the gankers don't have, a brain. 1/27/14 A hell of a good day to be a miner! Please help me with my ORE Battleship. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=315675
James Nikolas Tesla Onslaught Inc RISE of LEGION 32	Posted - 2014.01.29 04:13:00 - [86] - Quote Edwin McAlister wrote: is there any logical economic / game play balance reason why there can not be a battleship sized version the 3 existing miner types that is better... a battleship hulk that mines more, a battleship mak that holds ect ect?? figuring 10%-20% more or is it only about the gankability of said ships? the ability to suicide gank another player is not a game balance factor and all decisions should not be revolved around that factor alone I want to see reasons why in the bigger picture of things... will it drive the economy up or down or maintain a form of balance, would it drastically alter the state of the game.... I am focusing on a mining ship that will give miners the ability to bite back while having some versatility on whether or not you want to sacrifice some damage to increase mining yield or to fit a Foreman Link or some other combination of high slots. 1/27/14 A hell of a good day to be a miner! Please help me with my ORE Battleship. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=315675
James Nikolas Tesla Onslaught Inc RISE of LEGION 32	Posted - 2014.01.29 04:18:00 - [87] - Quote Nikk Narrel wrote: Currently the strip miners are flagged to only operate on barges and exhumers. Like we have an allocation for turrets or launchers, specifically to limit how many of each could be fitted if any, they would need strip miner hard points to limit this. As an example: You can already pimp out an unbonused BS mounting modulated deep core miner II's, 7 of them with Best skills giving 835 yield vs a hulk's 1,547. (Veldspar as ore in example, Rokh as the BS) Even with 7 out of 8 slots mounting a miner, the yield is below reasonable, has no DPS, and trivial ability to carry ore to justify use mining. I should have addressed the hardpoint spec needed here before, my bad. I don't know how difficult it would be to limit the amount of SM's on a barge and I don't want to force the Devs to program in a whole new set of Strip Miner Hardpoints for just one ship. Unless they changes SM's to occupy a turret hardpoint like the miners do, then I don't really feel safe adding any more high slots. 1/27/14 A hell of a good day to be a miner! Please help me with my ORE Battleship. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=315675
My Little Pyongyang State War Academy Caldari State 22	Posted - 2014.01.29 04:34:00 - [88] - Quote Edwin McAlister wrote: is there any logical economic / game play balance reason why there can not be a battleship sized version the 3 existing miner types that is better... a battleship hulk that mines more, a battleship mak that holds ect ect?? figuring 10%-20% more or is it only about the gankability of said ships? the ability to suicide gank another player is not a game balance factor and all decisions should not be revolved around that factor alone I want to see reasons why in the bigger picture of things... will it drive the economy up or down or maintain a form of balance, would it drastically alter the state of the game.... Well for starters, they have stated that they don't want anything more powerful than the hulk in terms of yield. I don't know where, it's probably everywhere. So more yield than a hulk is already a no no. Secondly, if you look at the trend between the three classes of current mining ships you'll see that they always trade off something for something else. Usually trading off the primary fuction for utility. The procurer/skiff has the highest EHP and in consequence has the second highest capacity and lowest yield. The retriever/mackinaw has the highest cargohold but second highest yield and second highest EHP. The hulk is max yield but sacrificing everything else. Yield is the primary function of a mining ship, so they sacrifice yield to get secondary utility. What you propose gains yield and sacrifices nothing in fact it gains in all areas except cargo. it is very clear that they do not want people mining freely in high sec, which is why these ships aren't indestructible. The hardest ones to kill have the lowest yield, so if you want to get more ore per hour you need to do it in a riskier ship. I don't have statistics (but I'm sure CCP does) but yes I believe it would very likely hurt the economy. Something like this would be excessively cost-inefficient to gank, most groups just would not be able to afford it and allowing mass mining freely like that does hurt the economy. Not only from botting but from multiboxing too. Not being able to explode them stops us from disrupting the supply driving prices down. It's not healthy for the economy. Could be an overestimation of how much high sec mining affects the economy when nullbear miners are mining in almost complete safety on vastly superior ore with much larger roid sizes.
James Nikolas Tesla Onslaught Inc RISE of LEGION 32	Posted - 2014.01.29 04:38:00 - [89] - Quote PG - 15,000 CPU - 500 Capacitor - 5,000 How about these numbers? 1/27/14 A hell of a good day to be a miner! Please help me with my ORE Battleship. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=315675
My Little Pyongyang State War Academy Caldari State 22	Posted - 2014.01.29 04:49:00 - [90] - Quote James Nikolas Tesla wrote: PG - 15,000 CPU - 500 Capacitor - 5,000 How about these numbers? I think you should focus less on numbers are more about the high level detail of the ship. Leave the numbers to CCP if they end up making it. Number of turrets, what the role bonus is maybe, but no hard numbers and not for the rest of the stuff either. Capacitor, fitting require testing, leave that to CCP (to not do, release on TQ anyway and then tweak after it's been abused for a few days/months/years/still going). You want a battleship that can mine a respectable amount and still fight back, yes?



Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

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.