Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Arianne Kass
Garoun Long-Term Capital Management
1
|
Posted - 2016.08.16 21:50:52 -
[91] - Quote
Thanks for doing the math. The change seem modest and straightforward. The Procurer/Skiff for low risk/low reward, Mackinaw and Hulk at an equal risk level, but the Hulk offering a yield bonus if you want to make the effort with jetcans or hauling ore.
Still too many unknowns on the Rorqual/new command ship to make up my mind.
Scenario one would be Mackinaws supported by the new command ship (dumping ore in a POS or future mining array), and scenario two would be hulks supported by a Rorqual (dumping ore in the Rorqual). A lot depending on how much bonus yield CCP will give for the latter scenario. But if the situation is safe enough for a Rorqual, why not train all miners up to a Rorqual.
Waiting for the relevant devblog.... |
Kalido Raddi
Echelon Research The Volition Cult
20
|
Posted - 2016.08.16 22:07:45 -
[92] - Quote
Interesting in a tactical sense that it's now the Hulk that has the rapid cycle time. That's a big advantage in an Ice Rush. I always use the Skiff over the Hulk for an Ice Rush, even though the Hulk had range and a slight advantage in volume. Now I suspect I'll be using a Hulk. |
Lugues Slive
Diamond Light Industries
40
|
Posted - 2016.08.16 22:19:11 -
[93] - Quote
Arianne Kass wrote:Thanks for doing the math. The change seem modest and straightforward. The Procurer/Skiff for low risk/low reward, Mackinaw and Hulk at an equal risk level, but the Hulk offering a yield bonus if you want to make the effort with jetcans or hauling ore.
Still too many unknowns on the Rorqual/new command ship to make up my mind.
Scenario one would be Mackinaws supported by the new command ship (dumping ore in a POS or future mining array), and scenario two would be hulks supported by a Rorqual (dumping ore in the Rorqual). A lot depending on how much bonus yield CCP will give for the latter scenario. But if the situation is safe enough for a Rorqual, why not train all miners up to a Rorqual.
Waiting for the relevant devblog....
That last part has been my question, if the Rorqual gets huge yield with drones, why not just run Rorquals? Huge tank, lots of dps for defense, spider tank the fleet, and possibly daisy chain invulnerability field. |
Arianne Kass
Garoun Long-Term Capital Management
1
|
Posted - 2016.08.16 22:58:59 -
[94] - Quote
Lugues Slive wrote:That last part has been my question, if the Rorqual gets huge yield with drones, why not just run Rorquals? Huge tank, lots of dps for defense, spider tank the fleet, and possibly daisy chain invulnerability field.
The picture shown by CCP doesn't have a large bubble, but tendrils enveloping each mining ship, so it probably won't extend to nearby Rorquals.
Gevlon Goblin had lots of amusing stories on his blog about MoA hotdrops vs. Goon carriers, mainly people being left to their fate to die horribly. Not seeing that whole "rescue fleet in 15 minutes" happen. Staying aligned at all times making a lot more sense. |
Syrias Bizniz
Zebra Corp Goonswarm Federation
522
|
Posted - 2016.08.16 23:44:37 -
[95] - Quote
Q: What purpose does the Mackinaw serve? The hulk pulls in more, so it's better in a fleet! A: Yes and no. The hulk is better as long as you can empty all of your own hulk's ore holds without any hulk stopping their miners. A Hulk's cargohold fills up every ~150 seconds. So if you can empty one every 10 seconds, you can run 12-15 Hulks yourself. If you have more than 15 mining chars, you have to use Mackinaws.
The Mackinaw is the ship for the guys that want more than 2 minutes between emptying the cargoholds. |
Wayne Donne
Royal Oaks Glen Oaks Oakwood Oaks Country Club All My Friends Are Ded
1
|
Posted - 2016.08.16 23:46:34 -
[96] - Quote
If the stats on sisi stay the same until release, the clear winners here are the retriever/mackinaw. |
Kalido Raddi
Echelon Research The Volition Cult
20
|
Posted - 2016.08.16 23:57:30 -
[97] - Quote
Wayne Donne wrote:If the stats on sisi stay the same until release, the clear winners here are the retriever/mackinaw.
It's still useless though; not tanky enough for solo, doesn't mine as much as a Hulk in fleets.
|
Wayne Donne
Royal Oaks Glen Oaks Oakwood Oaks Country Club All My Friends Are Ded
1
|
Posted - 2016.08.17 00:23:05 -
[98] - Quote
Kalido Raddi wrote:Wayne Donne wrote:If the stats on sisi stay the same until release, the clear winners here are the retriever/mackinaw. It's still useless though; not tanky enough for solo, doesn't mine as much as a Hulk in fleets.
In high-sec, you can get a mack to 75k tank against hybrid charges with boosts/heat. That's not bad.
|
Wayne Donne
Royal Oaks Glen Oaks Oakwood Oaks Country Club All My Friends Are Ded
1
|
Posted - 2016.08.17 00:29:24 -
[99] - Quote
Wayne Donne wrote:Kalido Raddi wrote:Wayne Donne wrote:If the stats on sisi stay the same until release, the clear winners here are the retriever/mackinaw. It's still useless though; not tanky enough for solo, doesn't mine as much as a Hulk in fleets. In high-sec, you can get a mack to 75k tank against hybrid charges with boosts/heat. That's better than i thought. If you are smart, you bookmark the other side of the belt, so any catalysts who warp in have to slow boat ~50 k to your location just to scram you.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17903
|
Posted - 2016.08.17 07:35:06 -
[100] - Quote
The hulk and mackinaw both have big issues with CPU shortage, the retriever and covetor have no ability to fit much of anything aside from mining gear. All 4 of these miners are lacking fitting options while the skiff and procurer are overtanked in their base HP.
The same mistakes that were made with the last 2 barge balances are being made again with this one. |
|
Gunrunner1775
Empire Hooligans
74
|
Posted - 2016.08.17 07:37:03 -
[101] - Quote
just messed around on test with the new stuff
love the graphics... as for fitting out the ships, tank vs yield ect
due to the current nature of the environment, the vast majority will probobly be sticking with the skiff still
as for the screams by code and other entities to nurf the skiff, i am not the least bit concerned. it was designed to tank belt rats in null sec, and will thus remain as it is,
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17904
|
Posted - 2016.08.17 08:05:44 -
[102] - Quote
Gunrunner1775 wrote:just messed around on test with the new stuff
love the graphics... as for fitting out the ships, tank vs yield ect
due to the current nature of the environment, the vast majority will probobly be sticking with the skiff still
as for the screams by code and other entities to nurf the skiff, i am not the least bit concerned. it was designed to tank belt rats in null sec, and will thus remain as it is,
The problem is that the skiff and proc overshadow the other 4 barges. They should not be getting such a massive base tank, they should be getting the fitting options to get a good tank and the other barges should be getting an equal ability to be able to actually fit things to them.
Skiff and proc should get their base hp brought back down to normal levels, keep the combat bonus to drones, get a few more slots and fitting room to open up options and allow for a decent combat fit. They are now perfect mining escorts/defence boats for both fleet work and solo.
Retriever and mackinaw both need a good deal more slots and CPU/PG so they can actually have options when fitting them. CCP need to get creative here so I would say go radical. Give them two utility highs and a small bonus to remote shield boosters. Alter the cap to compensate. Again, they need the ability to actually fit a decent setup, 1 mid and 3 lows are next to useless.
Covetor and Hulk should be the go to strip miners, they also need more fitting slots and CPU/PG to actually fit things. Again, 1 mid and 3 lows does not a good ship make. |
Gunrunner1775
Empire Hooligans
74
|
Posted - 2016.08.17 08:20:32 -
[103] - Quote
if they did as you suggest Baltec, lower the tank, and add add more cpu and more slots to the skiff / proc , then in theory, those fitting slots could be used to make the skiff mine more then the mak or hulk combined
would be right back in the same situation with everyone useing skiffs.. some fit as tank some fit for max yield, and you would never know which
their tank was ballanced around null sec - wormhole mining
they already mine worse then the others..... by serious sacrifice in yield they gain the tank,
the real question is WHY nurf the tank on the skiff??? to make it easier to gank?? game does not revolve around ganking, there be other aspects of the game,, wormhole, null sec industry ect were the tank is used |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17904
|
Posted - 2016.08.17 08:43:26 -
[104] - Quote
Gunrunner1775 wrote:if they did as you suggest Baltec, lower the tank, and add add more cpu and more slots to the skiff / proc , then in theory, those fitting slots could be used to make the skiff mine more then the mak or hulk combined
Diminishing returns on fitted mods, past 3 mining upgrade the improvement would be non existent. Just like weapon mods.
Gunrunner1775 wrote: the real question is WHY nurf the tank on the skiff??? to make it easier to gank?? game does not revolve around ganking, there be other aspects of the game,, wormhole, null sec industry ect were the tank is used
Same reason the t3 ships need a massive nerf, they invalidate the other other ships. Notice that I am not saying lower the skiff and proc to covetor levels of tank and leave them there, I am saying reduce the base tank of the skiff/proc down to the level of the other miners then buff all of them so they are all useful.
The base profile of the hulk for example is not too different from a zealot, the difference is that it is lacking in slots, CPU and powergrid. The skiff should not get its huge tank from the hull it should come from the pilot actively choosing to fit a good tank. |
Gunrunner1775
Empire Hooligans
74
|
Posted - 2016.08.17 08:44:19 -
[105] - Quote
for the most part, the miners are shield tanks,,
the only real way to ballance the tank vs yield issue
make them all armor tanks.
reduce them to only 2 midslots each (enough for an AB or mwd, and survey scanner)
give them bunch of low slots.. and now they choose, tank or yield since both armor tank and mining upgrades go in the low slot
but then again, you run into the situtation of crafty players comeing up with ways to tweek the tank or tweek the yield, and then right back were we started ... might as well have only 1 type of mining barge and 1 type of exhumer then and get rid of the others |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17904
|
Posted - 2016.08.17 08:58:48 -
[106] - Quote
Gunrunner1775 wrote:for the most part, the miners are shield tanks,,
the only real way to ballance the tank vs yield issue
make them all armor tanks.
reduce them to only 2 midslots each (enough for an AB or mwd, and survey scanner)
give them bunch of low slots.. and now they choose, tank or yield since both armor tank and mining upgrades go in the low slot
but then again, you run into the situtation of crafty players comeing up with ways to tweek the tank or tweek the yield, and then right back were we started ... might as well have only 1 type of mining barge and 1 type of exhumer then and get rid of the others
Making them armour tankers makes a lot of sense in terms of balance when it comes to fitting them. Personally I think cargo expanders should have an impact on the ore holds too simple to add more options to consider. The bays would naturally have to be altered to take that into account. |
Gunrunner1775
Empire Hooligans
74
|
Posted - 2016.08.17 09:13:18 -
[107] - Quote
if they went with the armor tank method, then for the skiff to retain its tankability / survivability in null sec - wormhole space, it would have to have significant number of low slots to fit the tank
in return this would make for nearly ungankable ships in high sec ... or... would create a skiff that would have more yield then makinaw and hulk combined.. even with dimenishing returns on the mining laser upgrades...
then everyone would be flying skiffs again... |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17904
|
Posted - 2016.08.17 09:31:17 -
[108] - Quote
Gunrunner1775 wrote:if they went with the armor tank method, then for the skiff to retain its tankability / survivability in null sec - wormhole space, it would have to have significant number of low slots to fit the tank
in return this would make for nearly ungankable ships in high sec ... or... would create a skiff that would have more yield then makinaw and hulk combined.. even with dimenishing returns on the mining laser upgrades...
then everyone would be flying skiffs again...
They used use to be more lowslot focused. The yield won't be an issue, all 4 of the other mining barges have bonuses to mining amount so putting them all on an even level in terms of ability to fit a tank will open up the options. Right now the reason why just about everyone is in the skiff and procurer is simply down to the fact the have a monster of a tank while the rest cant get close or even fit a tank at all.
To put the madness into perspective, the Iteron V gets 5 lows, 4 mids and two highs. The covetor has 3 lows, one mid, two highs on sisi. |
Gunrunner1775
Empire Hooligans
74
|
Posted - 2016.08.17 09:43:44 -
[109] - Quote
skiff has worst yield and best tank
if you nurf the tank, what do you give it in return??
almost everyone calling for nurf to skiff has been gankers because they want it easier gank in high sec, perhaps its because smart miners have chosen tank over yield and profit
the reason behind the tank on the skiff, was to allow them to survive belt rats in null sec wormhole space
should all us in wormhole space and null sec alter our play style to revolve around the crying of the 1% high sec gankers??
this is not an easy fix by any means i just do not want to see CCP bend to the 1%
Needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few |
Eternus8lux8lucis
Primus Inc. LEGIO ASTARTES ARCANUM
895
|
Posted - 2016.08.17 10:42:31 -
[110] - Quote
Kueyen wrote:And for ice harvesting, max-cycle-time-fitted (but: unrigged, since you probably need some CPU rigs to even fit the Ice Harvester Upgrade II's), all skills to V, and no boosts or : A) m³ per cycle: All: 1000m³/c » 1000m³/c (unchanged) B) ice harvesters per ship Procurer: 1 » 2 (+50%) Retriever: 2 » 2 (unchanged) Covetor: 3 » 2 (-33%) Skiff: 1 » 2 (+50%) Mackinaw: 2 » 2 (unchanged) Hulk: 3 » 2 (-33%) C) seconds per cycle Procurer: 55.90s/c » 111.79s/c (+100% time = -50% m³/s) Retriever: 101.73s/c » 81.39s/c (-20% time = +25% m³/s) Covetor: 124.22s/c » 76.30s/c (-38.575% time = +62.8% m³/s) Skiff: 45.78s/c » 91.56s/c (+100% time = -50% m³/s) Mackinaw: 91.56s/c » 73.25s/c (-20% time = +25% m³/s) Hulk: 105.58s/c » 64.85s/c (-35.575% time = +62.8% m³/s) F) m³ per second (= A*B/C) Procurer: 17.89m³/s » 17.89m³/s (unchanged) Retriever: 19.66m³/s » 24.57m³/s (+25%) Covetor: 24.15m³/s » 26.21m³/s (+8.53%) Skiff: 21.84m³/s » 21.84m³/s (unchanged) Mackinaw: 21.84m³/s » 27.30m³/s (+25%) Hulk: 28.41m³/s » 30.84m³/s (+8.53%) If the procurer and the skiff lose the 60% duration bonus why is the cycle time being multiplied by 100% instead of 60%? This would change a lot in your calculations imo.
Have you heard anything I've said?
You said it's all circling the drain, the whole universe. Right?
That's right.
Had to end sometime.
|
|
Zerzzes Markarian
Andraste.
4
|
Posted - 2016.08.17 12:14:07 -
[111] - Quote
I don't know, maybe I'm doing something wrong. I've been mining for years in high-sec with Retrievers and Macks, and haven't lost a single one. And I see quite a lot of people using them as well in Ore belts. This whole discussion is just about yield vs. tank, while for me the ore hold is the reason I'm using the Mack. Because if you factor in the warp times to POS/station when you don't have a hauler in the belt, the Mack wins. |
Kalido Raddi
Echelon Research The Volition Cult
20
|
Posted - 2016.08.17 12:23:34 -
[112] - Quote
Eternus8lux8lucis wrote:If the procurer and the skiff lose the 60% duration bonus why is the cycle time being multiplied by 100% instead of 60%? This would change a lot in your calculations imo.
If it were just a case of the Ship traits changing, then the Procurer's cycle time would increase by 150%. However, there have also been changes to the Strip Miner and Ice Harvester modules, which reduce the Ice Harvester's duration by 20%, thus keeping the overall cycle time of the Procurer identical to before.
http://i.imgur.com/CorMkCt.png |
Kueyen
Mei-Ha's Light Fleet Coordination Coalition
157
|
Posted - 2016.08.17 12:27:16 -
[113] - Quote
Eternus8lux8lucis wrote: If the procurer and the skiff lose the 60% duration bonus why is the cycle time being multiplied by 100% instead of 60%? This would change a lot in your calculations imo. The part you are missing is the -20% cycle time bonus all ice harvesters are getting (which boils down to a 25% yield over time increase, identical to the +25% yield bonus all strip miners are getting), In total, Procurers and Skiffs lose their x0.4 (-60%) cycle time role bonus, get a yield doubling from fitting 2 ice harvesters instead of one, and gain the new 0.8 (-20%) cycle time bonus of the new ice harvesters.
- new cycle time is 1 / 0.4 * 0.8 (losing the 0.4 role bonus, and gaining the 0.8 ice harvester bonus), and thus doubles
- new yield is 1 * 2 (gaining a second ice harvester), and thus doubles.
Net result: double the yield in double the time = same yield per time unit.
Also, while I rewrote this post several times, I have been ninja-ed by Kalido Raddi
Until all are free...
|
Kalido Raddi
Echelon Research The Volition Cult
20
|
Posted - 2016.08.17 12:46:26 -
[114] - Quote
Yours is more detailed :)
I'm still finding interesting things.
The Hulk still has it's crystal damage issue, although it's not quite as severe any more. It now eats Crystals only 40% faster than the Skiff (& Mackinaw) does, rather than almost 70%. Partly this is because the Skiff will eat more of them too. That part is good news for me as I make Tech2 Mining Crystals!
The Hulk is looking like the stand-out winner of this pass. It gains more of everything it was already superior in: It mines more than ever before, with a 40% better yield over time compared to the Skiff, it has an extra low slot. It also becomes the fastest cycler, which has tactical implications for competitive mining environments like Ice Rushes.
The downside is that the Hulk is going to be an awful pain to fit. Losing 40 tf (and 5 MW) is an obvious offset to the reduction in the number of Strip Miners it needs to fit, but the addition of a 3rd MLU is going to make for some very tight fits (unless the CPU requirements of Strips and Harvesters changed on SiSi - I haven't managed to log on and check yet). Mining Upgrades 5 just got a lot more worthwhile. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17906
|
Posted - 2016.08.17 13:30:20 -
[115] - Quote
Gunrunner1775 wrote:
if you nurf the tank, what do you give it in return??
Nothing, you add it into the rework of ALL the barges, giving all of them the ability to actually fit the ships. The advantage of the skiff would be the offensive ability.
Gunrunner1775 wrote: the reason behind the tank on the skiff, was to allow them to survive belt rats in null sec wormhole space
should all us in wormhole space and null sec alter our play style to revolve around the crying of the 1% high sec gankers??
The skiff wasn't made tanky for null and WH use, if that was the case it would have been tilted towards active tanking. The raw HP buff was purely for the whining highsec bears who refused to fit any tank. CCP decided to do it for them and ended up with these problem ship we have now. Null has already been forced to adapt to the wants of a minority of highsec, null can adapt again only this time all the barges should be useful, not just two.
Again I will point out, the covetor and retribution cannot fit a tank, they simply have no slots to do it and the hulk and mack are both short of CPU to make use of the slots they have. The barges are poorly balanced against eachother and against the other ships out there. |
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
3903
|
Posted - 2016.08.17 13:58:23 -
[116] - Quote
In figuring yield, there is one real world consideration. Most miners do not scan the roid and try and time their strip cycle to avoid wasting time on a depleted roid. Thus, on average, the last cycle will have wasted time, on average half a cycle. In high sec, right now, the average roid lasts 6 cycles of a Hulk, 4 cycles for a Mack, and 2 cycles for a Skiff. This is all due to the bonuses and the differing number of strips. As a result, the Hulk loses 8% yield due to wasted time, 12% for the Mack, and 25% for the Skiff. All theses values will change to 16% for all exhumers due to all having 2 strips. Thus, with this real world consideration, Skiffs get a 13% buff and Hulks get a 4% nerf.
Stay in your Skiffs, folks.
Know a Frozen fan? Check this out
Frozen fanfiction
|
Gunrunner1775
Empire Hooligans
74
|
Posted - 2016.08.17 14:49:25 -
[117] - Quote
Quote:
DEV BLOG
Ship Balancing: Mining Barges
2012-08-03 18:10 |By CCP Tallest
The goal here is to allow players to choose a barge that fits their specific play style rather than lead them on a journey from the worst barge to the best one. GÇó 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. GÇó The Retriever and Mackinaw are specifically designed for autonomy purposes, as their large ore bays allow their pilot to stay inside an asteroid belt for longer without having to dock. GÇó The Procurer and Skiff are made for protection against suicide gank, or NPCs, by giving a large enough buffer to react to incoming attacks, while paying for that with a lower mining yield.
i dont see any problems with the design concept hopefully they continue to stick with this one |
Kueyen
Mei-Ha's Light Fleet Coordination Coalition
157
|
Posted - 2016.08.17 15:35:20 -
[118] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote:In figuring yield, there is one real world consideration. Most miners do not scan the roid and try and time their strip cycle to avoid wasting time on a depleted roid. Thus, on average, the last cycle will have wasted time, on average half a cycle. In high sec, right now, the average roid lasts 6 cycles of a Hulk, 4 cycles for a Mack, and 2 cycles for a Skiff. This is all due to the bonuses and the differing number of strips. As a result, the Hulk loses 8% yield due to wasted time, 12% for the Mack, and 25% for the Skiff. All theses values will change to 16% for all exhumers due to all having 2 strips. Thus, with this real world consideration, Skiffs get a 13% buff and Hulks get a 4% nerf.
Stay in your Skiffs, folks. Not entirely correct.
I refer you back to my earlier post that shows that Mackinaw and Skiff cycles will be 41% longer than Hulk cycles, and Mack cycles will be 25% more voluminous than Hulk or Skiff cycles. Regardless of how many cycles whatever asteroid would take you to mine in a Hulk, the Skiff will take exactly as many cycles to do so (the Hulk will just do it 41% faster); the Mackinaw will however take 20% fewer cycles, and thus lose a few more percents when not properly managed.
So, not all identical as you asserted. But Skiffs did get buffed in this regard, and Hulks (and Mackinaws) nerfed. but in other regards (total yield per time), Mackinaws got significant buffs. So, if you're on your own, and pay even moderate attention, Mackinaws are decent mining vessels. If you don't pay attention at all... stay in the Skiff, I suppose.
Until all are free...
|
Kalido Raddi
Echelon Research The Volition Cult
21
|
Posted - 2016.08.17 15:52:45 -
[119] - Quote
@Kueyen: I can't get ontonSisi at the moment. Have the Grid & CPU requirements of the Strip Miners & Ice Harvesters changed with the changes to other stats? |
Kueyen
Mei-Ha's Light Fleet Coordination Coalition
157
|
Posted - 2016.08.17 17:25:52 -
[120] - Quote
Kalido Raddi wrote:@Kueyen: I can't get ontonSisi at the moment. Have the Grid & CPU requirements of the Strip Miners & Ice Harvesters changed with the changes to other stats? No changes detected. Fun fact: Sisi just went down for maintance... perhaps more changes might become apparent...
Until all are free...
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |