|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 6 post(s) |
Darkblad
Hilfe is like Free Entertainment
163
|
Posted - 2014.04.03 10:19:00 -
[1] - Quote
Can you confirm if I did the math right in this Google Sheet? Highwall/MX-100X Implants are not part of the calculator there. EVE Infolinks -+-áOld and new-áPortraits |
Darkblad
Hilfe is like Free Entertainment
163
|
Posted - 2014.04.04 18:42:00 -
[2] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:we ever going to see a tech II mining frig? I think, we can Prospect that soon (no Gäó) EVE Infolinks -+-áOld and new-áPortraits |
Darkblad
Hilfe is like Free Entertainment
163
|
Posted - 2014.04.05 19:57:00 -
[3] - Quote
Fabulous Rod wrote:Why don't you clueless morons just buff the Hulks yield instead of nerfing the Mackinaw. The 1% bonus to yield per exhumer skill on the hulk is a joke. Do you really expect people to want to spend 30 days training for 1% more yield? Read again
CCP Fozzie wrote:MACKINAW
Mining Barge Bonus per level: +5% Ore Hold capacity -2% Strip Miner and Ice Harvester duration
Exhumer Bonus per level: +4% Shield resistances -2% Strip Miner and Ice Harvester duration
Role Bonuses: +25% Bonus to Strip Miner yield -20% Ice Harvester duration and capacitor use
Slot layout: 2H
HULK Mining Barge Bonus per level: +5% Strip Miner and Ice Harvester optimal range -3% Strip Miner and Ice Harvester duration
Exhumer Bonus per level: +4% Shield resistances -2% Strip Miner and Ice Harvester duration
Slot layout: 3H Mackinaw 2 x 1.25 = 2.5 Hulk 3 x 1 = 3 Plus Mining Barge Skill bonus difference. Before considering skills, the Hulk (and Covetor) already match THEIR role (highest yield ships).The only difference in skill based bonus is 1 % more reduction of cycle per Mining Barge Skill level (which you already have maxed when boarding the Hulk). Feel free to call yourself a clueless moron for the 30 days you saved. EVE Infolinks -+-áOld and new-áPortraits |
Darkblad
Hilfe is like Free Entertainment
164
|
Posted - 2014.04.07 09:47:00 -
[4] - Quote
Potions Master wrote:Don't know if this was answered already, but currently, skiffs and procurers have 200% role bonus to ore yield. After this, you have the procurer and skiff listed as +150%. Isn't this a nerf, or is the increased speed of mining enough to make up for that 50% loss?
Also noticed the retriever dropped to +25% instead of it's current 50%...
Covetor's and Hulk aren't getting any role bonuses at all...
Might be easier to see how this all works out if you put up a comparison chart based on m3 instead of 'strip miners'... Role bonus will change effective miner/harvester count from 3 for all to three for Cov/Hulk (no role bonus required) and 2.5 for the remaining barges/exhumers. Intended nerf. EVE Infolinks -+-áOld and new-áPortraits |
Darkblad
Hilfe is like Free Entertainment
164
|
Posted - 2014.04.07 10:47:00 -
[5] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1os33ZVJKyRfG3GY3taX0Se25dlTbNOoCLHprP7WoRKQ/edit#gid=205270633
You can compare the m3/minute of each of the barges at max skill, max yield fit. . (Ignoring player skills other than ship skills. but those will apply evenly) Nice. I've created a sheet to fool around with. To change skills and such, a copy (google drive or xlsx download) is required, as usual. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AgZ5pxoOlog1dG9ERG41aVh6am1IYm1MTVNvVExSSVE
EVE Infolinks -+-áOld and new-áPortraits |
Darkblad
Hilfe is like Free Entertainment
164
|
Posted - 2014.04.08 05:31:00 -
[6] - Quote
Potions Master wrote:Darkblad wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1os33ZVJKyRfG3GY3taX0Se25dlTbNOoCLHprP7WoRKQ/edit#gid=205270633
You can compare the m3/minute of each of the barges at max skill, max yield fit. . (Ignoring player skills other than ship skills. but those will apply evenly) Nice. I've created a sheet to fool around with. To change skills and such, a copy (google drive or xlsx download) is required, as usual. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AgZ5pxoOlog1dG9ERG41aVh6am1IYm1MTVNvVExSSVE Does this take into account the boost pilot's skill with the Orca and Rorqual? I don't see a place to specify that... (also missing the mining implants, some folks might want that too) Sadly not. Implants (Highwall and Michi's) plus Boost skills (which would affect Cycle Time) are not included - yet EVE Infolinks -+-áOld and new-áPortraits |
Darkblad
Hilfe is like Free Entertainment
168
|
Posted - 2014.04.10 16:37:00 -
[7] - Quote
Atum wrote:Nikk Narrel wrote:The hulk is notably less tanked, because it is NOT intended to be solo to the same degree a mack or skiff would be. Could someone please point out to me where and why the "Hulks are not intended to be solo / Hulks are only meant for fleets" meme got started? The latest iteration of that meme can be found here:
CCP Fozzie wrote:The Covetor and Hulk remain the kings of yield, at the expense of tank and ore hold capacity. Their abilities in large scale group mining will be further improved through the addition of a 5% per level bonus to mining laser and ice harvester optimal range. Edit: And back then, when those Ore Holds got added to the ORE Ships, the Devlog stated
CCP Eterne wrote:The Covetor and Hulk cater to group mining operations due to their large mining capability, low EHP and storage, forcing them to rely on others to haul and resupply them with mining crystals. EVE Infolinks -+-áOld and new-áPortraits |
Darkblad
Hilfe is like Free Entertainment
169
|
Posted - 2014.04.10 17:17:00 -
[8] - Quote
Atum wrote:So why is CCP forcing hulk pilots to do this, when the majority of miners I know prefer to either work alone, or in groups no larger than three or four others ? Maybe they do so, because Miners have make a decision: Rely only on yourself (no Hulk/Covetor) or on others (Someone that hands you the Crystals, e.g. from the Industrial Command Ship's Cargo. With CCP directly stating that their opinion about Covetor/Hulk is that they do want them to be dependant on support suggests this. EVE Infolinks -+-áOld and new-áPortraits |
Darkblad
Hilfe is like Free Entertainment
170
|
Posted - 2014.04.10 18:17:00 -
[9] - Quote
Atum wrote:Ok, but then why is CCP forcing fleet activity onto hulk pilots, when no other class is forced to operate in this way to perform its primary function? This time, you may read Fozzie's inital post again by yourself (hint: use "crown" as a keyword). An in case your point with "no other class" is not limited to mining vessels: there's other ships that are kind of useless for solo activities. Some of them are a bit larger (around 15km), but that doesn't matter.
EVE Infolinks -+-áOld and new-áPortraits |
Darkblad
Hilfe is like Free Entertainment
170
|
Posted - 2014.04.10 20:11:00 -
[10] - Quote
Somehow ... when the Skiff is to be put on par with the Mackinaw regarding yield, why not put the Mackinaw on par with the Hulk regarding tank? Sounds just fair, doesn't it?
Not that most actual mining pilots (at least those that DO lose ships in highsec) actually care the least for their AFK income vessel's tank. EVE Infolinks -+-áOld and new-áPortraits |
|
Darkblad
Hilfe is like Free Entertainment
173
|
Posted - 2014.04.10 21:20:00 -
[11] - Quote
Nikk Narrel wrote:I don't see a positive reason for this.
The Mack would be matched for yield by the skiff, and it's tank dropped to be equal to the hulks?
It sounds like you are trying to make people gamble about whether a hostile player or NPC is going to show up. In many areas, the NPC's are quite effective with DPS, so the Mack would no longer be viable if those were anticipated.
Not really that effective (still looking @ highsec and passive tank only). With the right skillset, even a (current) Retriever can stand some time of NPCs pounding on its shields. Also, for myself I'd also like to see the Mackinaw remain the same tankwise. It just feels a bit ... weird that this part of "give those ship only advantages in their own role" appears to be left out in this case. EVE Infolinks -+-áOld and new-áPortraits |
Darkblad
Hilfe is like Free Entertainment
173
|
Posted - 2014.04.11 11:09:00 -
[12] - Quote
My Calculator Sheet (create/download a copy) got updated with the Hulk/Covetor Traits and Procurer Lowslot Changes EVE Infolinks -+-áOld and new-áPortraits |
Darkblad
Hilfe is like Free Entertainment
173
|
Posted - 2014.04.11 23:22:00 -
[13] - Quote
Potions Master wrote:[Quote=Atum]Also, any thoughts on adding a tech 2 version of the Venture? Maybe trading it's +2 warp core strength for covops ability and a little more ore/gas hold (5.5k?) (Can call it the 'Ninja' class :P) I still Prospect some news regarding a T2 Mining frigate, given the look into the Magic Crystal Ball (spells SDE).
EVE Infolinks -+-áOld and new-áPortraits |
Darkblad
Hilfe is like Free Entertainment
178
|
Posted - 2014.04.12 19:36:00 -
[14] - Quote
For those unhappy with the lack of graphs (and tables) in this topic:
Mackinaw (and Skiff) against Hulk Yield over time comparison Yield per Minute and percentage comparison of the ships.
Ships equipped with Modulated Strip Miner II and T2 Crystals, maximum number of MLU II possible (2 for Hulk, 3 for Skiff/Mackinaw) EVE Infolinks -+-áOld and new-áPortraits |
Darkblad
Hilfe is like Free Entertainment
182
|
Posted - 2014.04.13 20:39:00 -
[15] - Quote
Vaellend wrote:pls dont forget the SURVEY Scanner!!!
pls give the Survey Scanner some adapted range to nowdays barges strip miner range
thanks!! You did notice that?
CCP Fozzie wrote::Updated to the second iteration on April 11th, thanks for the feedback so far: [...] We are implementing the following updates to the plan thanks to your feedback and dicusssion:
To ensure that the Covetor and Hulk can make use of their extra mining range in group situations, we are changing the Mining Laser Field Enhancement gang link to apply its range bonus to Survey Scanners in addition to its current function. [...]
EVE Infolinks -+-áOld and new-áPortraits |
Darkblad
Hilfe is like Free Entertainment
182
|
Posted - 2014.04.13 21:05:00 -
[16] - Quote
Tau Cabalander wrote:The proposed role bonuses reduce the recharge time by: 1 - (1 - Mining Barge 5 * 5%) * (1 - Exhumers 5 * 3%) = 36.25%
The Hulk will probably not have enough capacitor for the next activation cycle. It's actually 4 % reduction per Mining Barge level for the Hulk, so the (recharge time) reduction is 32%. But other than that I agree that this might have some impact on capacitor. 540GJ every 122,4seconds.
But:
Today, a Hulk with maximum boost from an Orca (except Capacitor Ganglink) has a Cycle Time of 121.78seconds, close enough for comparison. I've taken this fitting
Not permanently cycling the Survey Scanner and deactivating the CCC Rig drains that Hulk's after approx. 3minutes, today CCC Rig active and you're stable at 39%. So you should be fine once the Fleet boost gets Harvester Capacitor Efficiency I/II added (as you wold today already). EVE Infolinks -+-áOld and new-áPortraits |
Darkblad
Hilfe is like Free Entertainment
182
|
Posted - 2014.04.13 21:13:00 -
[17] - Quote
Atum wrote:Darkblad wrote:Not permanently cycling the Survey Scanner and deactivating the CCC Rig drains that Hulk's after approx. 3minutes, today CCC Rig active and you're stable at 39%. Except in the case of veld (and maybe scord), why would you be constantly running your SS anyways? It's not as if the rocks melt *that* fast. Snapshots every 4-5 cycles have always been sufficient for me on low-ends, and maybe every 10 on higher. I just stated that to make clear why there's a red x-mark in the screenshot, in case someone wonders. No one should keep that one permanently active with the scanner's current mechanics (<- trigger for links to threads about survey scanner changes to appear) EVE Infolinks -+-áOld and new-áPortraits |
Darkblad
Hilfe is like Free Entertainment
184
|
Posted - 2014.04.14 19:40:00 -
[18] - Quote
Sintiar Loffwagea wrote:CCP Fozzie . did u forget something like mining crystals . u that about rebalance skill with reduction cycle time that make mining crystals crack faster and it's will make miner that flying Covetor and Hulk tearing with this problem . anyways it's should make crystal more life cycle .
Covetor and Hulk should have more ore cargo that will make it's popular . Agreed on the durability issue, but the reduction of the crystal's volume by 60% (resulting in 10m3 for T2) will enable you to load 35 crystals into those ships' cargo, 11 sets of three plus 20m3 for lossmail decoration. EVE Infolinks -+-áOld and new-áPortraits |
Darkblad
Hilfe is like Free Entertainment
194
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 12:06:00 -
[19] - Quote
Lidia Caderu wrote:So you basically reduced Procurer's bonus from 200% to 150% ??? WHY?
EDIT: It would be good to increase bonus to mining time at least to 3 %, and reduce a bit ice mining time role bonus to compensate. The Role Bonus gets reduced for the Procurer (and Skiff) for it to be on par with Retriever (Mackinaw) Yield, before fitting and skills. Results in 2.5 Strip Miners. As a result, the Covetor/Hulk define their role as Yield Queens further, like intended:
CCP Fozzie wrote:We'll be keeping the basic role breakdown that the 2012 balance created, but adjusting the bonuses quite significantly within that framework The impact this has on yield w/ skills and fitting can be seen in a sheet updated by Steve Ronuken for this post: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1os33ZVJKyRfG3GY3taX0Se25dlTbNOoCLHprP7WoRKQ EVE Infolinks -+-áOld and new-áPortraits |
Darkblad
Hilfe is like Free Entertainment
194
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 08:43:00 -
[20] - Quote
Goldensaver wrote:Edit: and by later, it would appear I intended to say as soon as I finished making this post. Find the results here.Please tell me if there's anything wrong in my spreadsheet. I'm afraid to say I'm too lazy to implement too much function -- such as for implants -- due to laziness, but this gives a baseline and any implant effects would apply to both before and after equally for no net change. Hell, to even add any skills but barges/exhumers was kinda pointless, but who cares. I did it anyways. Looks fine. I compared the yield per minute summer/current using my sheet and percentages match. You can use a copy of my yield calculator sheet to get yield/min with implant and fleet boost bonuses.
EVE Infolinks -+-áOld and new-áPortraits |
|
Darkblad
Hilfe is like Free Entertainment
231
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 20:01:00 -
[21] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Grenn Putubi wrote:[...] I also have to question the shift to duration bonuses without considering how that's going to affect barge cap use. Depending on your skills the Hulk may already be riding the line on cap stability, if the duration on the miners gets even smaller it could mean that players may not be able to create a stable fit for fleet activty without the gang link that reduces cap use. Today very few fleets run with that gang link because it's a slot better used for a tanking link, after these changes that module may become a necesity for fleet ops to ensure their miners don't run dry on cap. There's no stacking penalty (as far as I'm aware) with the time reduction. So it'll have a similar effect. One benefit is if you're not paying attention to roid content, you'll lose less yield (shorter, lower yield cycles, with similar yield overall) Cap stability is a concern (stagger your lasers) but until I try them out, I can't say how much. I did some best guesswork in EFT on on the capacitor topic some posts ago in this thread. It's not that bad - on paper.
EVE Infolinks -+-áOld and new-áPortraits |
Darkblad
Hilfe is like Free Entertainment
235
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 20:55:00 -
[22] - Quote
Lidia Caderu wrote:I have a proposition. How about to restrict number Mining Laser upgrade Modules to one per ship. I think it will greatly increase survivability of barges Also one more proposition, how about to separate barges and make separate ships for Ore and for Ice? 4 of each type. 8 in total. Limiting the maximum number of MLU won't make people fit a tank. And Retriever/Covetor will pop no matter what you put in their low slots. And special special ships for Ice is sooo 2012 EVE Infolinks -+-áOld and new-áPortraits |
Darkblad
Hilfe is like Free Entertainment
235
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 06:21:00 -
[23] - Quote
Atum wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Darkblad wrote:Limiting the maximum number of MLU won't make people fit a tank. yes it will, as there's nothing else to put in those slots. No, it won't. I could see inertial damps and warp stabs being popular options for a free low slot. Or just be left empty, as it's currently very common. Taking a look at zKillboard reveals the number of Exhumers with lacking/no fitting (except MLU). EVE Infolinks -+-áOld and new-áPortraits |
Darkblad
Hilfe is like Free Entertainment
235
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 06:48:00 -
[24] - Quote
Erutpar Ambient wrote: So by reducing the usable cap on a hulk you reduce it's potential tank even further than what it has been.
What is the ideology behind the current theory for mining vessels?
Why do mining barges/exhumers all have to be so fragile? Is the idea to have them susceptible to rats?
The current theory appears to be that you can choose what you prefer. Yield, comfort (more time staring at walls) or stability. The three variations of mining ships do that pretty well already and those roles are now enforced. The Procurer is by no means fragile.
Erutpar Ambient wrote:Outside of combat ships, these are the only ships that are forced to sit, completely exposed, out in the middle of space to perform their intended function. Why would ORE design ships for dangerous space that were completely flimsy? It doesn't even make sense that they have such low survivability. You mean the only ones next to haulers, logistics (and their T1 variations), T1 scanning frigates? But ok, logistics usually have a fleet protecting them.
Erutpar Ambient wrote:Why can't the covetor and hulk have much greater survivability at the expense of their drone bay? Not their role. Read the description of the Procurer/Skiff. Makes it pretty much "3. Any industry feature must be easily understandable and visible to our player base."
Erutpar Ambient wrote:And actually on a related not with my last point. I know that even with the mining capacitor usage link, a covetor can barely run 3 Mercoxit crystal modulated stripminers even when you spread the cycles to almost exactly 1/3 of a cycle apart. Does this mean a covetor will now be completely unable to accomplish this task? Mercoxit mining is pretty advanced. Better use an advanced ship for that task. "Back in the day" there was only one ORE ship capable of mining mercoxit (in a useful manner), but being able to do that now doesn't mean that it makes sense. EVE Infolinks -+-áOld and new-áPortraits |
Darkblad
Hilfe is like Free Entertainment
235
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 10:58:00 -
[25] - Quote
After fiddling with the files that add Kronos attributes to EFT, all I can say is: I like it how the Hulk equipped with a 34k eHP fitting still yields more than a Mackinaw where we have to drop a lot of tank to equip 3 x MLUs EVE Infolinks -+-áOld and new-áPortraits |
Darkblad
Hilfe is like Free Entertainment
235
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 11:03:00 -
[26] - Quote
Zeera Tomb-Raider wrote:howe do you defend the risk reward system then,it make no sens at all,1000% or more in disadvantage to the miner vs ganker in hostale space.
How exactly does this relate to what I wrote? EVE Infolinks -+-áOld and new-áPortraits |
Darkblad
Hilfe is like Free Entertainment
236
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 06:57:00 -
[27] - Quote
Darkblad wrote:Erutpar Ambient wrote:And actually on a related not with my last point. I know that even with the mining capacitor usage link, a covetor can barely run 3 Mercoxit crystal modulated stripminers even when you spread the cycles to almost exactly 1/3 of a cycle apart. Does this mean a covetor will now be completely unable to accomplish this task? Mercoxit mining is pretty advanced. Better use an advanced ship for that task. "Back in the day" there was only one ORE ship capable of mining mercoxit (in a useful manner), but being able to do that now doesn't mean that it makes sense. Update: actually I had no trouble with a Covetor's capacitor when testing this on Sisi. 3 x Modulated Deep Core Strip Miners with Mercoxit Crystals on a Covetor w/ Mining Barge skill trained to 5, no Capacitor Modules/Rigs. Start the third laser a little later and just let them roll. You do have capacitor skills @ 5, right?
So even though Mercoxit Mining is advanced Mining, you still can do it with T1 Ships, when you get your core ship skills in order. EVE Infolinks -+-áOld and new-áPortraits |
Darkblad
Hilfe is like Free Entertainment
236
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 07:08:00 -
[28] - Quote
Darkblad wrote:Darkblad wrote:Erutpar Ambient wrote:And actually on a related not with my last point. I know that even with the mining capacitor usage link, a covetor can barely run 3 Mercoxit crystal modulated stripminers even when you spread the cycles to almost exactly 1/3 of a cycle apart. Does this mean a covetor will now be completely unable to accomplish this task? Mercoxit mining is pretty advanced. Better use an advanced ship for that task. "Back in the day" there was only one ORE ship capable of mining mercoxit (in a useful manner), but being able to do that now doesn't mean that it makes sense. Update: actually I had no trouble with a Covetor's capacitor when testing this on Sisi. 3 x Modulated Deep Core Strip Miners with Mercoxit Crystals on a Covetor w/ Mining Barge skill trained to 5, no Capacitor Modules/Rigs. Start the third laser a little later and just let them roll. You do have capacitor skills @ 5, right? So even though Mercoxit Mining is advanced Mining, you still can do it with T1 Ships, when you get your core ship skills in order. And with Orca boost, including Capacitor Efficiency Ganglink you even can activate all three lasers simultaneosly. EVE Infolinks -+-áOld and new-áPortraits |
Darkblad
Hilfe is like Free Entertainment
236
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 07:37:00 -
[29] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Darkblad wrote:Atum wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Darkblad wrote:Limiting the maximum number of MLU won't make people fit a tank. yes it will, as there's nothing else to put in those slots. No, it won't. I could see inertial damps and warp stabs being popular options for a free low slot. Or just be left empty, as it's currently very common. Taking a look at zKillboard reveals the number of Exhumers with lacking/no fitting (except MLU). EDIT: This doesn't represent all but still a good portion of common Mackinaw fittings yeah, those empty slots are as i pointed out earlier... the limiting factor on most fits for exhumers are a lack of fittings (which has been addressed) although, that fit just wasn't even trying... This kill is in good company, there's tons of such fittings on the receiving end of mining ship kills. Survivability isn't the preferred attribute of Highsec Miners, it's comfort, then yield. This kill analysis hints that (highsec at the bottom). Those who care for survivability (and don't appear on zKillboard due to that preference) already have the option of choosing Procurer/Skiff - with Skiff getting yield equal to Mackinaw with Kronos, raising the incentive to choose them.
Obviously, CCP wants survivability (against player attacks) something that only applies to Procurer/Skiff. Miners in general don't care for survivability when mining in Highsec.
Also: You already can limit yourself to just one (or no) MLU, there's no need to brute force this. Let the players decide what they prefer; Yield or (a bit of) survivability. Or other creative choices. EVE Infolinks -+-áOld and new-áPortraits |
Darkblad
Hilfe is like Free Entertainment
245
|
Posted - 2014.05.30 06:01:00 -
[30] - Quote
The initial change was to give the Procurer a third low slot, bringing its yield on par with the Retriever. This only got changed after 19 pages of discussion in this thread (here's the announcement post by Fozzy).
CCP Fozzie wrote:Swapping the low back to a mid for the Procurer. As many of your correctly pointed out, watering down the Procurer's area of specialty to give it more yield just watered down its distinctiveness and value. EVE Infolinks -+-áOld and new-áPortraits |
|
Darkblad
Hilfe is like Free Entertainment
246
|
Posted - 2014.05.31 00:45:00 -
[31] - Quote
Navigation Boy wrote:Raising the EHP at the expense of yield is counter-productive. You can raise the EHP to value ratio massively just by switching to a tech I ship, and make yourself almost completely safe from ganking. Sounds like a decent plan (between week 52/13 and 17/14), just choose the right T1 hull.
EVE Infolinks -+-áOld and new-áPortraits |
Darkblad
Hilfe is like Free Entertainment
250
|
Posted - 2014.06.03 19:14:00 -
[32] - Quote
Warp Range
Completely unrelated to mining yield or tank, there's another change to the mining barges/exhumers. The warpCapacitorNeed Attribute (invisible in the client) got changed to be equal to that of procurer/skiff.
A comparison table (created by Ing Harm) shows the impact of this change
"alle Berechnungen ohne Skills oder Imps" = "values without skills or implants"
While I'm pretty sure that a change was intended (yet not communicated) I'm suprised by the amount of warp range reduction. As a practical test I warped with a Retriever, starting with full capacitor (skills @ 5).
Distance of destination: 85,3 AU First stop after 41,7 AU (43,6 AU remaining) Second stop after 35,8 AU (7,8 AU remaining)
EVE Infolinks -+-áOld and new-áPortraits |
Darkblad
Hilfe is like Free Entertainment
250
|
Posted - 2014.06.03 20:24:00 -
[33] - Quote
Milla Goodpussy wrote:Darkblad wrote:Warp RangeCompletely unrelated to mining yield or tank, there's another change to the mining barges/exhumers. The warpCapacitorNeed Attribute (invisible in the client) got changed to be equal to that of procurer/skiff. A comparison table (created by Ing Harm) shows the impact of this change "alle Berechnungen ohne Skills oder Imps" = "values without skills or implants" While I'm pretty sure that a change was intended (yet not communicated) I'm suprised by the amount of warp range reduction. As a practical test I warped with a Retriever, starting with full capacitor (skills @ 5). Distance of destination: 85,3 AU First stop after 41,7 AU (43,6 AU remaining) Second stop after 35,8 AU (7,8 AU remaining) but I swear I read somewhere that ccp would inform the community of all changes being made. I admit that my search for some note regarding this may have been not too thorough (did a search on "warp" in posts by CCP Fozzie in the features&ideas forum section), but the first time I took notice of this change was when someone asked a DEV to conform the change of said warpCapNeed in a chat channel (german help) - which he did (after querying CCP Fozzie iirc)
EVE Infolinks -+-áOld and new-áPortraits |
Darkblad
Hilfe is like Free Entertainment
250
|
Posted - 2014.06.04 05:47:00 -
[34] - Quote
CCP Fozzie's answer to Scarlett LaBlanc's quote of this:
CCP Fozzie wrote:Scarlett LaBlanc wrote:Darkblad wrote:Warp RangeCompletely unrelated to mining yield or tank, there's another change to the mining barges/exhumers. The warpCapacitorNeed Attribute (invisible in the client) got changed to be equal to that of procurer/skiff. A comparison table (created by Ing Harm) shows the impact of this change "alle Berechnungen ohne Skills oder Imps" = "values without skills or implants" While I'm pretty sure that a change was intended (yet not communicated) I'm suprised by the amount of warp range reduction. As a practical test I warped with a Retriever, starting with full capacitor (skills @ 5). Distance of destination: 85,3 AU First stop after 41,7 AU (43,6 AU remaining) Second stop after 35,8 AU (7,8 AU remaining) Found this in another forum, in regard to Retriever capacitor capacity. was the change intended or is it a bug? It was a change that hit a bit harder than we intended. We're re-adjusting the warp capacitor usage of the barges and exhumers in a quick release either tomorrow or Thursday. So there's some hope EVE Infolinks -+-áOld and new-áPortraits |
Darkblad
Hilfe is like free Entertainment
250
|
Posted - 2014.06.05 05:32:00 -
[35] - Quote
Apackof12Ninjas wrote:Someone please correct me if I'm wrong but I thought the Ice mining time on the mackinaw was supposed to be left alone and only its Ore yield slightly nerfed.
Pre-patch I was getting 44.2 seconds with full rorq bonus's and Post patch I am getting 45.2.
Is this intentional?
I thought Ice mining in the mack was gonna be getting better not worse if anything. WellCCP Fozzie wrote:The Retriever and Mackinaw keep the solo and low-attention mining crown thanks to their untouched massive ore bays. They'll be getting a slight decrease to their yield to help moderate their strength, as the previous round of balancing underestimated how much players value ore hold size. no specific "ore yield, but not ice yield" there EVE Infolinks -+-áOld and new-áPortraits |
Darkblad
Hilfe is like free Entertainment
250
|
Posted - 2014.06.05 12:33:00 -
[36] - Quote
marly cortez wrote:Truth is most miners I know are so secretive about were and when they mine they would be happy if no one ever knew they were online at all
[...]
So simply put, there are two types of people involved here, those that really should leave EVE and go play a generic FPS on the an Xbox, and those that just wish to log in for a few hours mine some roids and log off again I wonder who picked the wrong type of game here. But go on, tell those following the MMO option to leave so that MSO players can stay, unharmed. Or even. EVE Infolinks -+-áOld and new-áPortraits |
Darkblad
Hilfe is like free Entertainment
250
|
Posted - 2014.06.05 15:55:00 -
[37] - Quote
a single catalyst? yes EVE Infolinks -+-áOld and new-áPortraits |
Darkblad
Hilfe is like free Entertainment
269
|
Posted - 2014.06.16 05:38:00 -
[38] - Quote
Smugest Sniper wrote:Three techniques I have discovered for mining in any dangerous space are so wonderfully hilarious.
-Mining in cosmic signatures like relic sites that MUST be scanned down -Using empty combat sites or decayed but not exploded sites that need combat probes to find you -using scattered belt configurations to stay out of harms way and warp out quickly if someone does come to a belt you are in, also using 'bounce rocks' to quickly reposition in a non uniform belt Another nice addition would be: Mining Signatures that are on the move. You'll have to be on the move to keep yourself in range of the resources, which, as a side effect, requires hostiles to consider you being at a (slightly) position once they combat probed you. Just like CCP wanted from the beginning. EVE Infolinks -+-áOld and new-áPortraits |
Darkblad
Hilfe is like free Entertainment
420
|
Posted - 2014.08.13 16:36:00 -
[39] - Quote
Monumental Inscriptionist wrote:ITs funny because you can tell who the industrialists are and who the weak minded griefing gankers are, posting in these threads.... Industrialists want to actually be able to deplete asteroids efficiently and with reasonable expectations of ship balances / rebalances
Griefers want every possible change made to bring the slow moving, cumbersome, defenseless boosters out of their skill trained and paid for shielded POS's to create more bully targets in systems..
Go to low sec and fight something that shoots back, whiners... without these industrialists.. you have no ship to fly... It's funny because even those Industrialists are split into several groups. Those who are aware of the PvP part of EVE and those who don't. EVE Infolinks -+-áOld and new-áPortraits |
Darkblad
Hilfe is like free Entertainment
424
|
Posted - 2014.08.14 05:15:00 -
[40] - Quote
Christopher Mabata wrote:Why is a Kronos Change forum headlining F&I right before Hyperion? That's because this change happened with Kronos. People just continue to share their thoughts about it. EVE Infolinks -+-áOld and new-áPortraits |
|
Darkblad
Hilfe is like free Entertainment
424
|
Posted - 2014.08.14 05:27:00 -
[41] - Quote
Sentamon wrote:CCP greatly overestimated the importance of cargo space when people can bring orcas, freighers, industrials, and mtus, to mining ops. I even see people solo with Skiff by running ore to stations, the tank is just that good. In Highsec, I still see Mackinaw/Retriever and Hulk/Covetor in the Belts and Ice Anomalies. Certainly way more Skiff/Procurer than before. But the whole point of this change was to raise the incentive for people to choose. It's not a bad idea to prefer the tanky version over the comfortable version, be it solo or with Orca/Hauler support, when highsec suicide ganking is a risk to be aware of. The gankers still find enough targets. (around 1200 victims a week is similar to weekly numbers pre Kronos, and it's summer) EVE Infolinks -+-áOld and new-áPortraits |
Darkblad
Hilfe is like free Entertainment
425
|
Posted - 2014.08.14 07:05:00 -
[42] - Quote
Pelorios wrote:Suicide Ganking in an emergent activity in this game much like jet-can group mining was an emergent activity during the first years of EvE.
After 10 years do you really believe that it will ever go away? It would be a culture shock.It would irrevocably challenge the right of this MMO to call itself a PVP. That's what people believe it seems.
Sad or no, that was CCP's choice. There are a thousand ways they could have dealt with it. They choose not to.
Imagine this scenario: the temptation to use large-haul barges/exhumers is removed. But then, suicide gankers continue. They now hunt Procurer and Skiffs. Just for the thrill of it.
Maybe i am wrong, but in this thread, does it state anywhere that CCP's intention with the changes was to protect miners in high sec?
I believe no. The OP does speak in generalities which we could infer pretty much anything from, but there is one phrase that i would argue that if CCP was ever even secretly hoping to reduce suicide ganking they were rather naive, in this case.
"The Retriever and Mackinaw keep the solo and low-attention mining crown..." Yeah sure i get the least attention when mining in Ret or Mack..
Thank you though. If your facts are correct I am sure someone will benefit from this. I absolutely hope that CCP themselves will never apply anything that removes illegal aggression (with the chance an actual victim at the end, be it mining ship or any other target). That's what the criminal timer and the race against (CONCORD spawn) time should continue to handle. And that's also not what CCP Fozzie stated as intention of the change. Players themselves should decide wether they are an easy target (Retriever) or challenging one (Skiff). And the Kronos Release changes here made it a bit more attractive to choose the Skiff over the Mackinaw.
Non consensual PvP is part of EVE, people should consider that or go here. EVE Infolinks -+-áOld and new-áPortraits |
Darkblad
Hilfe is like free Entertainment
425
|
Posted - 2014.08.14 07:48:00 -
[43] - Quote
Pelorios wrote:So the point of your original post here today, was? uhm, telling Sentamon that there's not only Skiffs to be found in belts, that there's still soft targets out there to get killed. That this type of PvP still is possible. So pretty much the ingame context for your own statement in that regards:
Pelorios wrote:After 10 years do you really believe that it will ever go away? It would be a culture shock.It would irrevocably challenge the right of this MMO to call itself a PVP. That's what people believe it seems. *looking confused now* EVE Infolinks -+-áOld and new-áPortraits |
Darkblad
578
|
Posted - 2014.08.14 07:48:55 -
[44] - Quote
Pelorios wrote:So the point of your original post here today, was? uhm, telling Sentamon that there's not only Skiffs to be found in belts, that there's still soft targets out there to get killed. That this type of PvP still is possible. So pretty much the ingame context for your own statement in that regards:
Pelorios wrote:After 10 years do you really believe that it will ever go away? It would be a culture shock.It would irrevocably challenge the right of this MMO to call itself a PVP. That's what people believe it seems. *looking confused now*
In hiatus, indefinitely
|
|
|
|