|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Caleb Seremshur
The Atomic Fallout Kids
831
   |
Posted - 2016.08.07 09:59:20 -
[1] - Quote
Something came to mind, haven't yet checked if it has been proposed before but I'm sure it has *years ago*.
So the orehold optimiser is designed for mining/ice/gas extractors obviously. It expands the ships ore hold the same way the cargo hold optimiser rig does.
Ok so some basic stats off the top of my head for the sake of discussion:
Small ore hold optimiser: designed for Venture hulls. Adds 1000m3 of ore hold space, removes 10% of agility. (-5% with skills). Build cost consumes 1x small cargohold optimiser, a handful of t2 salvage mats, modest sum of t1 salvage mats.
Medium ore hold optimiser: Designed for barges and exhumers. Adds 1500m3 of ore hold space, removes 10% agility (-5% with skills). Build cost 1x medium cargohold optimiser, handful of t2 salvage mats, etc.
Capital ore hold optimiser: Designed for Rorqual/Orca. Adds 75,000m3 of ore hold space. No penalties. Build costs follows from smaller sizes.
Perhaps to keep the design simpler no offering of t2 rigs of this type to be made. Won't suit every ship, will greatly benefit some more than others. At a base cost of several million, the choices between these and other rigs becomes another layer of choice for the discerning solo miner or deep space mining crews.
Discuss |
Caleb Seremshur
The Atomic Fallout Kids
832
|
Posted - 2016.08.08 02:58:59 -
[2] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:March rabbit wrote:why not? Some people could find use for this Did you not read my post? This is EXACTLY how it worked before and miners whined so hard CCP gave barges an all out buff of tank, yield and special ore bays that meant they never had to sacrifice anything for capacity. This change puts us back to square one. Miners obviously cannot be trusted with meaningful choices.
Der ccplease gib me barge shield boostr that rep sheld and armr and hull 100% each cycle!!!!!!
No. That's even close friendo. As mentioned above it inhibits tanks and makes them stay in space longer. For the purposes of staying alive this rig would be a detriment to health. |
Caleb Seremshur
The Atomic Fallout Kids
832
|
Posted - 2016.08.08 05:37:02 -
[3] - Quote
ShahFluffers wrote:
Which was the point behind giving barges an Ore Bay in the first place.
People complained that they had to choose between tanking their ships or having max cargo capacity (which increases time spent in the belt and thus makes things more efficient).
So they were given Ore Bays which were relatively larger than the previous general cargobays. In return, mods or rigs could not make said Ore Bays larger.
Now... if cargo rigs and/or mods are also going to affect specialized bays on top of regular cargo holds, you may as well convert everything back into a "general" cargobay for simplicity's sake.
I'm going to propose a radical counter-point to your post.
CCP did nothing wrong. Other than not allow you to fit your ship for more storage over tank.
The player chooses to fit tank or capacity. Do you have any salient point why this shouldn't be done? In the current game?
|
Caleb Seremshur
The Atomic Fallout Kids
832
|
Posted - 2016.08.08 11:15:39 -
[4] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Caleb Seremshur wrote:
I'm going to propose a radical counter-point to your post.
CCP did nothing wrong. Other than not allow you to fit your ship for more storage over tank.
The player chooses to fit tank or capacity. Do you have any salient point why this shouldn't be done? In the current game?
Miners whined on the forums for years because their untanked, cargo expanded ships were too easy to kill. Eventually CCP gave in and changed the ships to give the miners what they wanted. Pre fitted ships with zero options or choices to be made which has resulted in the procurer and skiff being the only logical choice.
But that's not an argument. If you want to mention specific ships as being the hands-down best choice then you will need to post some more info like location said mining is performed, the format (fleet, jetcan, solo) and the relative levels of risk as determined by rat spawns and likelihood of hostile player interaction.
This history lesson doesn't prove anything. So what if miners whined to get ships dedicated to their craft? They're whining now about being ganked constantly. If the ganking dropped they'd unsub and whine the game was boring then too. Or not. Historical complaints include industry being impossible to make money from, ore being worth more than the minerals they create and the lack of mining ships larger than barges/exhumers. Now they're getting capital mining drones (whatever that's going to mean) and the whining there hasn't visibly started yet probably only because noone has actually tried them out.
I don't really remember pre-change mining ships. Someone enlighten me. Someone enlighten me how it's even relevant to the idea of having hold-specific cargo extenders. Is there some high level design mantra to only have an extremely specific amount of specialty ore holds? And the comment about procurer/skiff - what is your point? They have too much tank?
smh tbh fam I expected more from you baltec. |
Caleb Seremshur
The Atomic Fallout Kids
832
|
Posted - 2016.08.09 07:47:33 -
[5] - Quote
Sobaan Tali wrote:Ore-hold Optimizer Rigs?
Isn't putting "Ore-hold" with anything like "Extenders" or "Expanders" (or what you have) and the likes a bit of an oxymoron given why ore-holds were added in the first place?
Why did they review BLOPs jump fatigue timers if jump fatigue was specifically introduced to counteract the veracity of the things bridged ships did?
We could go at this all day. Why you people are fighting against the idea of having your procurers/skiffs loaded for ore-hold instead of EHP I don't know. Because you fallaciously believe that when an option is given it MUST be taken? |
Caleb Seremshur
The Atomic Fallout Kids
832
|
Posted - 2016.08.09 09:19:14 -
[6] - Quote
Tabyll Altol wrote:
Maybe the size of the Ore bay-¦s are so big on purpose. So that you need more attention for a Hulk thank a Mackinaw ?
- 1 No for the idea.
U wot mate?
Maybe ASB's have a bigger capacity than comparably sized cap injectors because they require more attention than midslot boosters?
Also again the difference between ships designed for use with an orca vs ships 'designed' for much less sophisticated operations perhaps involving just a barge on its own.
Do you know anything about debate? |
Caleb Seremshur
The Atomic Fallout Kids
832
|
Posted - 2016.08.10 03:39:01 -
[7] - Quote
ShahFluffers wrote:Chronos Thiesant wrote:Now that's the history lesson over, let's get to your idea. Every time CCP has brought out modules to increase a certain stat (eg. Cargo), they nerf the base stats so that you must use the new modules to have the same cargo you had before. Freighter EHP is a good example of this. Quoting for emphasis. The DEVs rarely give straight buffs to any ship unless it outright sucks in all ways.
The precedence you both are citing is quite a bit different. Freighters previously had no slots whatsoever. I would need to go back and look at the freighter rebalance thread itself to see if the introduction of slots to freighters:
1. Precipitated in a nerf to EHP
2. Precipitated in a nerf to align time
3. Precipitated in a nerf to cargo hold size
All at the same time. Also worth mentioning that freighter/jumpfreighter cargo holds are general storage with no limits on what fits inside. So for me at least without knowing all of the relevant info it seems a bit of a joke to compare the two things on a like for like basis. Maybe you're right I don't know but we will find out. |
|
|
| |
|