EVE Search - Expanded ore hold rigs

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Expanded ore hold rigs

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Ncc 1709 Fusion Enterprises Ltd Shadow of xXDEATHXx 166	Posted - 2015.04.08 15:25:17 - [1] - Quote most people will instantly dismiss theses. but rig will expand the ore hold of the ship its fitted to by 20% Drawback of the rig is a 20% reduction to shield hp or even 10% reduction in shield, armor and structure hp meaning if the lazy ones want more space, they lose even more hp, making them easier to gank easier to kill means more wrecks, more content and higher prices.
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 1043	Posted - 2015.04.08 15:29:39 - [2] - Quote Why stop at ore, why not "dedicated bay" rig to encompass them all?
Ncc 1709 Fusion Enterprises Ltd Shadow of xXDEATHXx 166	Posted - 2015.04.08 15:35:20 - [3] - Quote all bay rig would be exploited I believe by ship maintence bays
Anhenka Infinite Point Nulli Secunda 1366	Posted - 2015.04.08 15:35:34 - [4] - Quote So that we can have Skiff with 22k m3 cargo hold, and still 60K EHP? 50k m3 Mackinaws Or Miasmos with 109k m3 ore hold? How about No. Let's face it, this is a flat up buff to everyone who does not live in highsec and thus have to worry about surprise catalysts. Oooh I forgot about the Rorqual. 432k m3 Ore hold right there.
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 1043	Posted - 2015.04.08 15:41:46 - [5] - Quote Ncc 1709 wrote: all bay rig would be exploited I believe by ship maintence bays I assumed they were a different class, if you mean the ones assembled ships go in.
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 1043	Posted - 2015.04.08 15:42:33 - [6] - Quote Anhenka wrote: So that we can have Skiff with 22k m3 cargo hold, and still 60K EHP? 50k m3 Mackinaws Or Miasmos with 109k m3 ore hold? How about No. Let's face it, this is a flat up buff to everyone who does not live in highsec and thus have to worry about surprise catalysts. Oooh I forgot about the Rorqual. 432k m3 Ore hold right there. What's wrong with a non high sec mining buff?
Black Pedro Yammerschooner 835	Posted - 2015.04.08 15:44:56 - [7] - Quote Ncc 1709 wrote: most people will instantly dismiss theses. but rig will expand the ore hold of the ship its fitted to by 20% Drawback of the rig is a 20% reduction to shield hp or even 10% reduction in shield, armor and structure hp meaning if the lazy ones want more space, they lose even more hp, making them easier to gank easier to kill means more wrecks, more content and higher prices. -1 No, there are nowhere near enough gankers to balance the effect the increase in efficiency will have on the economy. Every bot fleet and multiboxer will have these installed in Skiffs/Procurers and dump even more ore on the market which is the last thing we need with the coming crash in highsec ore prices due to the nullsec ore changes.
Xe'Cara'eos A Big Enough Lever 245	Posted - 2015.04.08 15:50:42 - [8] - Quote Anhenka wrote: [Stuff] Let's face it, this is a flat up buff to everyone who does not live in highsec and thus have to worry about surprise catalysts. [stuff] yes, yes it is..... and therefore I THOROUGHLY support it, how much mining gets done outside of HS? and I think the rig bonus should be 10% to ore bay the drawback should be -20% shield, -10% armour, -10% hull HP and yes, can we have similar variants for PI, mineral, and ammo bay? For posting an idea into F&I: come up with idea, try and think how people could abuse this, try to fix your idea - loop the process until you can't see how it could be abused, then post to the forums to let us figure out how to abuse it..... If your idea can be abused, it [u]WILL[/u] be.
Anhenka Infinite Point Nulli Secunda 1366	Posted - 2015.04.08 16:04:52 - [9] - Quote Xe'Cara'eos wrote: Anhenka wrote: [Stuff] Let's face it, this is a flat up buff to everyone who does not live in highsec and thus have to worry about surprise catalysts. [stuff] yes, yes it is..... and therefore I THOROUGHLY support it, how much mining gets done outside of HS? and I think the rig bonus should be 10% to ore bay the drawback should be -20% shield, -10% armour, -10% hull HP and yes, can we have similar variants for PI, mineral, and ammo bay? Quite a lot of mining gets done in nullsec. The main problem with nullsec mining is that you rapidly run into the point where mining highends nets little more than the highsec ores, and if you are going to mine highse ores you might as well be in highsec. But with the incoming ore composition changes, the highend ores will have a spread of mineral types roughly that which is required for mass production, instead of needing to import massive amounts of tritanium from highsec. I expect massive increases int he volume of ore mined in nullsec. So nullsec already has higher reprocessing, higher yield with Rorqual boosts than anything you can get in highsec, soon to be an all in one place in the correct ratios supply of minerals through respawning anoms, better ice, and depending on the alliance, higly controleld space where you can mine in yield fit mackinaws more safely than highsec. I can't honestly say I think nullsec mining needs any buffs at this time. TLDR: I don't see a need to let miners be even lazier than they already are.
Xe'Cara'eos A Big Enough Lever 246	Posted - 2015.04.08 16:13:46 - [10] - Quote Anhenka wrote: Xe'Cara'eos wrote: Anhenka wrote: [Stuff] Let's face it, this is a flat up buff to everyone who does not live in highsec and thus have to worry about surprise catalysts. [stuff] yes, yes it is..... and therefore I THOROUGHLY support it, how much mining gets done outside of HS? [stuff] [stuff] TLDR: I don't see a need to let miners be even lazier than they already are. fair enough, but what about lowsec and J-space? For posting an idea into F&I: come up with idea, try and think how people could abuse this, try to fix your idea - loop the process until you can't see how it could be abused, then post to the forums to let us figure out how to abuse it..... If your idea can be abused, it [u]WILL[/u] be.

Anhenka Infinite Point Nulli Secunda 1366	Posted - 2015.04.08 16:20:48 - [11] - Quote Xe'Cara'eos wrote: Anhenka wrote: Xe'Cara'eos wrote: Anhenka wrote: [Stuff] Let's face it, this is a flat up buff to everyone who does not live in highsec and thus have to worry about surprise catalysts. [stuff] yes, yes it is..... and therefore I THOROUGHLY support it, how much mining gets done outside of HS? [stuff] [stuff] TLDR: I don't see a need to let miners be even lazier than they already are. fair enough, but what about lowsec and J-space? Lowsec mining exists? J-Space miners are rare like unicorns in a brothel. Really the only reason you bothered mining before was because it was less hassle than bringing in three bajillion hauler runs of ore in order to build dreads or carriers in class 1-4 WH's. But with the highsec compression structure, you can haul in all the minerals required for dreads or carriers in a few trips max. Between ore anomalies not requiring a scanner anymore, and the lack of local, mining in WH's is incredibly rare and for the most part only briefly done by people who quickly learn not to bother. I lived in WH space for 6 months last year, and I only saw three times in which someone was mining. Well three times when I scanned into the hole. Zero when I left :P TLDR: As long as Ore sites are anomalies, lowsec and J-space can be safely ignored because fuckall mining happens there.
Harvey James The Sengoku Legacy 1118	Posted - 2015.04.08 16:53:48 - [12] - Quote i think they didn't add rigs too allow people too actually shield tank, that being ORE's main form of tank. Tech 3's need to be multi-role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists. ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name.. remove drone assist, nerf sentries, -3 slots for droneboats Nerf web strength, Make the blaster eagle worth using
Soldarius Kosher Nostra The 99 Percent 1240	Posted - 2015.04.08 17:14:45 - [13] - Quote Increasing ore hold size will not suddenly destroy the economy. Yes, it could potentially increase overall efficiency by reducing the amount of time spent moving back and forth from the belt the the POS/station. But it is balanced by the reduction in tank, and thus risk. Better yet, just change cargo rigs to effect specialized bays. http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
Agondray Avenger Mercenaries VOID Intergalactic Forces 295	Posted - 2015.04.08 17:21:37 - [14] - Quote -1 because all things that effect cargo increase amount or armor increase amount effect speed, not shield. ill like to see the market destroyed, let you all complain about how things aren't built or supplied, and for all clients to be limited to 1 client on a computer. "Sarcasm is the Recourse of a weak mind." -Dr. Smith
Quintessen Messengers of Judah 495	Posted - 2015.04.08 19:14:39 - [15] - Quote I agree these are long overdue. Also I'd like to see more specialized bays. For example, I'd love to see an ammo and charges bay which would be the only place to load ammo and charges from. That would allow CCP to balance the various bays by ship purpose. Though I imagine if these rigs came we also might see a general decrease in specialized ore hold sizes to compensate, much like when freighters became fittable.
Omnathious Deninard Novis Initiis 2789	Posted - 2015.04.08 20:16:16 - [16] - Quote All of the specialized holds were designed with no ability to expand in mind, so unless you want the holds to be nerfed so you can buff them up to slightly higher than currently I would not ask for expanders. See freighters as an example. Roleplaying Trinkets for Explorers and Collectors
SilentAsTheGrave Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 180	Posted - 2015.04.08 20:38:34 - [17] - Quote A miners defense against bad guys has less to do with shields, armor or structure and more to do with agility. Basically the best defense is to warp of to safety. What I'm saying is your drawback for the ore hold rig is not a drawback that matters. Change it to an agility nerf and you might gain a bit more support. Buddy Program: If you sign up with my buddy invite link and subscribe with a valid payment method - I will give you 95% of the going rate for PLEX!
Zura Namee The Milkmen 26	Posted - 2015.04.08 21:15:56 - [18] - Quote SilentAsTheGrave wrote: A miners defense against bad guys has less to do with shields, armor or structure and more to do with agility. Basically the best defense is to warp of to safety. What I'm saying is your drawback for the ore hold rig is not a drawback that matters. Change it to an agility nerf and you might gain a bit more support. Damage control goes a long way when your hunter is expecting anti-tank mods
Lienzo Amanuensis 78	Posted - 2015.04.08 22:30:09 - [19] - Quote While I think many aspects of mining need improvement, diminishing the importance of a miasmos or other mining support craft is a dead end goal. The fleet role of any barge should be to liberate ore from its majestically drifting captors. What happens after that should be governed by the efficiency of fleet organization and investments. To that end, I'd like to see barges have resource discovery roles. It would be lovely to see some expanded utility for scanning or finding rocks. A simplistic example might be boosting yield by continuously running an ore scanner on a rock, with a bonus to scanner yield boost. Not very entertaining, but a step in a logical direction. The sooner CCP starts thinking about ships as having "deep space" roles even within a single solar system, the sooner it will come clear what is needed from them, and how to turn them into good game content.
Daichi Yamato Xero Security and Technologies 2440	Posted - 2015.04.09 00:39:32 - [20] - Quote the very reason they were given specific ore bays was to stop this kind of thing and FORCE miners to fit tank because they were so ******* dumb they couldnt figure it out for themselves. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided" "So it will be up to a pilot to remain vigilant wherever they may be flying and be ready for anything at any time"

John Hand 14	Posted - 2015.04.09 02:38:37 - [21] - Quote Any buff to mining or production is overall, a GOOD thing. "but the market will be flooded", Last I checked that is a good thing to have happen when it comes to Materials, means CHEAPER ships. Cheaper ships, means you can PvP more and have to Rat less to feed the PvP god. Cheaper ships, means more ships being killed, which raises demand for ships, and the cycle continues. The better Null sec can mine, the more ships alliances can produce in "house" regions, meaning less resilience on High sec, which is what the entire aim of the new nullsec mining rework is about. I would think this rig would be good, but should be limited to only ONE rig per a ship, much like how a Higgs anchor is limited to one. A 20% buff to Ore holds would go a long way to fixing a few things on the Hulk when it comes to ICE mining (thing is like 500m3 short for a full 3 cycles, and it gets annoying). The easier life is for Industrialists, the better life for PvPers gets, you CANNOT have one without the other.
Anhenka Infinite Point Nulli Secunda 1368	Posted - 2015.04.09 03:25:45 - [22] - Quote John Hand wrote: Any buff to mining or production is overall, a GOOD thing. "but the market will be flooded", Last I checked that is a good thing to have happen when it comes to Materials, means CHEAPER ships. Blanket statements that would frame every potential proposed idea positively are bad. BC need a buff: An idea with broad consensus. BC need turbocharged microwarp drives so they can do 10km/sec and instablap titans : bad, despite falling under the above good idea. Just because PvP needs ships, and ships need production does not mean that all ideas that benefit producers are good ideas. Remember drone poop? The greatest mineral faucet in the history of EVE, upon which most of the games production relied upon? The mechanic that was removed because it had extremely toxic effects on the in game economy? Each idea must stand on its own qualifications. "It helps ______, and that makes the idea good" is not a valid reason.
Black Pedro Yammerschooner 835	Posted - 2015.04.09 05:32:05 - [23] - Quote John Hand wrote: Any buff to mining or production is overall, a GOOD thing. "but the market will be flooded", Last I checked that is a good thing to have happen when it comes to Materials, means CHEAPER Cheaper ships, means you can PvP more and have to Rat less to feed the PvP god. Cheaper ships, means more ships being killed, which raises demand for ships, and the cycle continues. Of course this is wrong. If flooded markets are so great why not just take your idea to the extreme and seed ore on the markets for 0.01 ISK or just add a new Jove structure in every belt that gives miners infinite ore for free? Cheap ships for everyone! followed shortly by no more industry at all as every quickly aquires everything they would ever need for next to nothing. PvP becomes inconsequential and the game is a now a sandbox in name only. CCP has people whose primary job is to not let that happen to the economy. They will not lightly add a module that is a significant across the board buff to mining efficiency.
Xe'Cara'eos A Big Enough Lever 250	Posted - 2015.04.09 11:39:18 - [24] - Quote actually - a module I'd love to see from the point of view of J-space is a low-slot module to expand PI hold, simply because everyone now fits epithals with a full rack of fagstabs.... For posting an idea into F&I: come up with idea, try and think how people could abuse this, try to fix your idea - loop the process until you can't see how it could be abused, then post to the forums to let us figure out how to abuse it..... If your idea can be abused, it [u]WILL[/u] be.
Tabyll Altol Breaking.Bad Circle-Of-Two 85	Posted - 2015.04.09 13:59:43 - [25] - Quote Ncc 1709 wrote: most people will instantly dismiss theses. but rig will expand the ore hold of the ship its fitted to by 20% Drawback of the rig is a 20% reduction to shield hp or even 10% reduction in shield, armor and structure hp meaning if the lazy ones want more space, they lose even more hp, making them easier to gank easier to kill means more wrecks, more content and higher prices. Do you really think your the first with this idea or are you just to lazy to use the search function ? -1 vote 4 close --> repost
erg cz Tribal Core 192	Posted - 2015.04.09 14:27:07 - [26] - Quote -1. If you want to boost active miners - support this suggestion. Your suggestion will just support afk miners - they can stay in belt longer.
Ncc 1709 Fusion Enterprises Ltd Shadow of xXDEATHXx 166	Posted - 2015.04.09 15:37:22 - [27] - Quote well. a simple modification then. 20% more ore bay 20% reduction in yield how does that sound?
John Hand 14	Posted - 2015.04.10 09:55:14 - [28] - Quote Anhenka wrote: Remember drone poop? . Sure do, I started null sec living with IRC out in Cobalt Edge, and life was good. Ships were cheap, carriers were super cheap (750mil for a thanny) the whole of the EvE economy was cheaper, and Trit was at TWO ISK. A PLAYER run economy has its own checks and balances built right into the system, buffing mining and procuection, would drive the prices of ships down till it hit its new equilibrium, very possibly back down to the good ol days of Drone Goo. The module in question being proposed does NOTHING to boost mining Yield or Time, it just buffs the ability to HOLD more ore before having to Dump it into an Orca/Roqual/Jet Can/Anchored Can. So no change would happen to...well...anything really, just would make mining life just a little bit...better/easier. No major profits, no massive "OMG I just one cycled Spodzilla!" just a Quality of Life buff.


Pages: [1] :: 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.