Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 .. 18 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17902
|
Posted - 2016.08.17 00:00:30 -
[61] - Quote
Sargon Matrix wrote:
Does anybody have a link to these stats?
On sisi right now.
To point out, the skiff lost its 150% bonus but gained a second mining laser. The hulk has changed from the king of yield to fastest miner, the mack got the yield bonus (25% bonus to yeild plus a pair of 2% bonuses to duration. On the face of it the bonuses are not terrible. The issue is with the fitting limitations and the very high base hp of the skiff and procurer. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17902
|
Posted - 2016.08.17 00:07:30 -
[62] - Quote
Moac Tor wrote:baltec1 wrote:Moac Tor wrote: Is this including processor overclocking unit rigs?
At least one rig or one low needs a CPU mod/rig in it to actually fit it. That's not too bad then because rigs slots aren't as valuable as lows, and a T2 POU rig is good value whilst still leaving room to be able to fit 2 core defence extenders with the remaining 100 calibration or a single T2 shield rig for the T2 barges.
Its terrible. The fitting slots on the cov and ret are simply not there. On the hulk and mack you lose either yield or tank to actually use the slots given to you. Meanwhile the skiff isnt far behind in yield but is easily hitting 80K+ ehp plus gets harder hitting drones.
Its a no brainer, the skiff and proc are hands down better ships than the other barges. |
Arnold Ace Rimmsy
University of Caille Gallente Federation
2
|
Posted - 2016.08.17 00:43:28 -
[63] - Quote
I believe that the upcoming updates will see mining barges granted the ability to fit doomsday weapons along with a fighter bay with space for 50 fighters. |
Kueyen
Mei-Ha's Light Fleet Coordination Coalition
157
|
Posted - 2016.08.17 07:17:13 -
[64] - Quote
Sargon Matrix wrote:Does anybody have a link to these stats? Links to screenshots of the new stats can be found in my post in another thread, as well as analyses of mining yield changes and ice harvesting cycle time changes.
Until all are free...
|
Pandora Carrollon
Kingsman Tailors
572
|
Posted - 2016.08.17 14:50:06 -
[65] - Quote
Baltec1 has the right of it. The changes are really not good for the ships. It's basically killed off the value of the previous Two Slot barges. They should have just eliminated them and given all of us with them refunds of ISK value if they are going to do this.
It's also entirely the wrong direction to take mining. It doesn't need to be simpler, it needs to be more interactive and gun slinging. Stop treating mining like it's a break from a fight. Give the barges teeth, big ones, take away some shield and armor tank and boost structure tank. Give them more targets to be shot by and shoot at.
Be Positive GÇó Change yourself first, New Eden will come later GÇó EVE is Awesome GÇó CCP isn't the enemy GÇó Players are people too GÇó Where're the clothing blueprints GÇó Yeah, I'm still learning this game
-- Pandora's Rules to EVE by
|
Solecist Project
32191
|
Posted - 2016.08.17 14:54:32 -
[66] - Quote
Pandora Carrollon wrote:Baltec1 has the right of it. The changes are really not good for the ships. It's basically killed off the value of the previous Two Slot barges. They should have just eliminated them and given all of us with them refunds of ISK value if they are going to do this.
It's also entirely the wrong direction to take mining. It doesn't need to be simpler, it needs to be more interactive and gun slinging. Stop treating mining like it's a break from a fight. Give the barges teeth, big ones, take away some shield and armor tank and boost structure tank. Give them more targets to be shot by and shoot at. They should introduce a seperate ore line for all those clowns who mine afk to get blown up.
"That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breaths of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly pulverised by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds." -- Tippia
|
Pandora Carrollon
Kingsman Tailors
572
|
Posted - 2016.08.17 16:11:54 -
[67] - Quote
Solecist Project wrote:They should introduce a seperate ore line for all those clowns who mine afk to get blown up.
I actually have nothing against the AFK mining play style. Their money to CCP helps pay for the game just as much as mine does, and before someone comments about ISK and Plex, buying the Plex with ISK earned in game creates the market for the Plex to be purchased out of game, so it still gets purchased...
They have their place, much to the dismay of the James Worship crowd.
I don't think they should get the same level of reward that an active miner should get and they should have higher risk from NPC's as well as from folks like the JW crowd.
A different type of asteroid field that doesn't spawn NPC's and maybe has a single Concord frigate to cover a 'new' type of ore might work, so it's not a bad idea either.
I'm still a fan of the diminishing return of yield to a given mining target. It would force you to be active to get maximum return which is kind of the point.
Also, letting mining ships mount weapons would be another step in the right direction.
Be Positive GÇó Change yourself first, New Eden will come later GÇó EVE is Awesome GÇó CCP isn't the enemy GÇó Players are people too GÇó Where're the clothing blueprints GÇó Yeah, I'm still learning this game
-- Pandora's Rules to EVE by
|
Moac Tor
Cyber Core Stain Confederation
653
|
Posted - 2016.08.17 17:07:52 -
[68] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Moac Tor wrote:baltec1 wrote:Moac Tor wrote: Is this including processor overclocking unit rigs?
At least one rig or one low needs a CPU mod/rig in it to actually fit it. That's not too bad then because rigs slots aren't as valuable as lows, and a T2 POU rig is good value whilst still leaving room to be able to fit 2 core defence extenders with the remaining 100 calibration or a single T2 shield rig for the T2 barges. Its terrible. The fitting slots on the cov and ret are simply not there. On the hulk and mack you lose either yield or tank to actually use the slots given to you. Meanwhile the skiff isnt far behind in yield but is easily hitting 80K+ ehp plus gets harder hitting drones. Its a no brainer, the skiff and proc are hands down better ships than the other barges. How exactly is it terrible. Your the one complaining that barge users should have to make choices when fitting their ship, and then on the other hand you complain about having to give up a single RIG slot to fit for max yield.
Pandora Carrollon wrote:Baltec1 has the right of it. The changes are really not good for the ships. It's basically killed off the value of the previous Two Slot barges. They should have just eliminated them and given all of us with them refunds of ISK value if they are going to do this. Except that Baltec wouldn't buff any of the barges at all, but would nerf the Procurer closer to the level of the under performing retriever and covetor hulls. So it is actually completely the opposite of what you claim to want.
Modulated ECM Effects
An Alternative to Skill Trading
|
Elinarien
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
57
|
Posted - 2016.08.17 17:44:40 -
[69] - Quote
Pandora Carrollon wrote:Solecist Project wrote:They should introduce a seperate ore line for all those clowns who mine afk to get blown up. I actually have nothing against the AFK mining play style. Their money to CCP helps pay for the game just as much as mine does, and before someone comments about ISK and Plex, buying the Plex with ISK earned in game creates the market for the Plex to be purchased out of game, so it still gets purchased... They have their place, much to the dismay of the James Worship crowd. I don't think they should get the same level of reward that an active miner should get and they should have higher risk from NPC's as well as from folks like the JW crowd. A different type of asteroid field that doesn't spawn NPC's and maybe has a single Concord frigate to cover a 'new' type of ore might work, so it's not a bad idea either. I'm still a fan of the diminishing return of yield to a given mining target. It would force you to be active to get maximum return which is kind of the point. Also, letting mining ships mount weapons would be another step in the right direction.
Perhaps if you played Eve and were involved in alliance industry & logistics you'd know that such ideas are rubbish. But thankfully CCP understands the game better than you and isn't focussed solely on the evils of high sec mining to the detriment of the wider game.
Still, keep trying to suck up with to the Codies.... |
Solecist Project
32194
|
Posted - 2016.08.17 17:50:24 -
[70] - Quote
Pandora Carrollon wrote:Solecist Project wrote:They should introduce a seperate ore line for all those clowns who mine afk to get blown up. I actually have nothing against the AFK mining play style. Their money to CCP helps pay for the game just as much as mine does, and before someone comments about ISK and Plex, buying the Plex with ISK earned in game creates the market for the Plex to be purchased out of game, so it still gets purchased... They have their place, much to the dismay of the James Worship crowd. I don't think they should get the same level of reward that an active miner should get and they should have higher risk from NPC's as well as from folks like the JW crowd. A different type of asteroid field that doesn't spawn NPC's and maybe has a single Concord frigate to cover a 'new' type of ore might work, so it's not a bad idea either. I'm still a fan of the diminishing return of yield to a given mining target. It would force you to be active to get maximum return which is kind of the point. Also, letting mining ships mount weapons would be another step in the right direction. I don't care whqt they do, as long as it makes the game interesting. If they get blown up for being afk, then that makes the game more interesting. If they stop being blown up AND are afk then something is wrong!
And no, playing afk is not a playstyle. It's literally not playing!
And anyone who starts with afk cloakers now may be reminded that afk cloakers are the exception to the rule. They are afk and still manage to influence everyone around them.
You mean well, at least...
"That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breaths of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly pulverised by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds." -- Tippia
|
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17912
|
Posted - 2016.08.17 17:54:06 -
[71] - Quote
Moac Tor wrote: How exactly is it terrible. Your the one complaining that barge users should have to make choices when fitting their ship, and then on the other hand you complain about having to give up a single RIG slot to fit for max yield.
There is a difference between making choices and getting a ship with one mid and three low slots to play with.
Moac Tor wrote: Except that Baltec wouldn't buff any of the barges at all, but would nerf the Procurer closer to the level of the under performing retriever and covetor hulls. So it is actually completely the opposite of what you claim to want.
Don't lie.
I have clearly said several times in numerous threads that barges need more fitting slots, CPU and powergrid. |
Solecist Project
32194
|
Posted - 2016.08.17 17:54:11 -
[72] - Quote
Elinarien wrote: Perhaps if you played Eve and were involved in alliance industry & logistics you'd know that such ideas are rubbish. But thankfully CCP understands the game better than you and isn't focussed solely on the evils of high sec mining to the detriment of the wider game.
Still, keep trying to suck up with to the Codies....
npc forum alts have no voice worth recognizing.
If you are involved in alliance industry then post with your main or stop pretending. And learn to read, because she gave neither positive or negative reactions about code.
"That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breaths of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly pulverised by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds." -- Tippia
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
5106
|
Posted - 2016.08.17 18:08:51 -
[73] - Quote
Darth Terona wrote:lol. this is like the third time bardges have been reworked since I been here.
but the reason the new order exists still hasn't been addressed.
Its not the damn ships that need overhauling. Its mining itself.
It needs to be made more interactive.
So boters can be detected and addressed.
pitiful waste of our money chasing this ship rework.
When somebody comes up with an interesting and interactive method for mining you'll have a point. Until then you won't. I have argued that part of the positive view of the current method of mining is that it is low demand for the player. They can mine and do other things, either in game or even out if they have another screen.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Moac Tor
Cyber Core Stain Confederation
655
|
Posted - 2016.08.17 19:05:03 -
[74] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Moac Tor wrote: How exactly is it terrible. Your the one complaining that barge users should have to make choices when fitting their ship, and then on the other hand you complain about having to give up a single RIG slot to fit for max yield.
There is a difference between making choices and getting a ship with one mid and three low slots to play with. Moac Tor wrote: Except that Baltec wouldn't buff any of the barges at all, but would nerf the Procurer closer to the level of the under performing retriever and covetor hulls. So it is actually completely the opposite of what you claim to want.
Don't lie. I have clearly said several times in numerous threads that barges need more fitting slots, CPU and powergrid. Ok, so from what I have read you think the procurer is overpowered and needs to be bought down to the level of the other two hull classes. Correct me if I mistaken but that makes my original statement a pretty accurate reflection of your view.
If not then please elaborate on how you would buff the other two. And giving them more fitting options isn't a buff if it doesn't result in an increase in power.
Modulated ECM Effects
An Alternative to Skill Trading
|
Viktor Amarr
46
|
Posted - 2016.08.17 20:01:52 -
[75] - Quote
Moac Tor wrote:baltec1 wrote:Moac Tor wrote: How exactly is it terrible. Your the one complaining that barge users should have to make choices when fitting their ship, and then on the other hand you complain about having to give up a single RIG slot to fit for max yield.
There is a difference between making choices and getting a ship with one mid and three low slots to play with. Moac Tor wrote: Except that Baltec wouldn't buff any of the barges at all, but would nerf the Procurer closer to the level of the under performing retriever and covetor hulls. So it is actually completely the opposite of what you claim to want.
Don't lie. I have clearly said several times in numerous threads that barges need more fitting slots, CPU and powergrid. Ok, so from what I have read you think the procurer is overpowered and needs to be bought down to the level of the other two hull classes. Correct me if I mistaken but that makes my original statement a pretty accurate reflection of your view. If not then please elaborate on how you would buff the other two. And giving them more fitting options isn't a buff if it doesn't result in an increase in power.
It doesn't need more "power". What EVE needs is ships and game mechanics that require common sense, understanding of the game mechanics involved and initiative. THAT is how you keep people playing this game.
The Procurer, Skiff and Orehold in general are a direct result of CCP giving up on expecting miners to fit their ships intelligently and instead giving them ships that have tank and cargo right out of the box. They removed the choice to fail because over the years it became apparent that miners are incapable of making the right decisions based on understanding and initiative. As such we need to move away from shoehorned "pre-fit" ships, remove the base stats back to normal, lower the ore holds and then add extra fitting slots for miners to make their own choices (just as with almost every other ship) to give miners a CHOICE to fit as they want.
That's how you "breed" capable players, this experiment with barges as is, orehold etc is yet another example of the handholding carebear style CCP had/has been advocating for so many years now. It's with so many aspects of this game atm and it has been an ongoing change over the years, even back in 2008 it was obvious what was going to happen and in my case I predicted Incarnage and the current situation we're in, simply because it's an obvious consequence of the choices CCP has been making. That is why we have these massive coalitions in 0.0, they're not fierce pvpers they are in fact carebears who are actually detrimental to the game.
The problem isn't EVE being too harsh, it's CCP having been busy trying to cater to a more mainstream type of customer who, for obvious reasons, can't hack it in this EVE environment. HTFU. |
Moac Tor
Cyber Core Stain Confederation
655
|
Posted - 2016.08.17 20:24:49 -
[76] - Quote
Viktor Amarr wrote:Moac Tor wrote:baltec1 wrote:Moac Tor wrote: How exactly is it terrible. Your the one complaining that barge users should have to make choices when fitting their ship, and then on the other hand you complain about having to give up a single RIG slot to fit for max yield.
There is a difference between making choices and getting a ship with one mid and three low slots to play with. Moac Tor wrote: Except that Baltec wouldn't buff any of the barges at all, but would nerf the Procurer closer to the level of the under performing retriever and covetor hulls. So it is actually completely the opposite of what you claim to want.
Don't lie. I have clearly said several times in numerous threads that barges need more fitting slots, CPU and powergrid. Ok, so from what I have read you think the procurer is overpowered and needs to be bought down to the level of the other two hull classes. Correct me if I mistaken but that makes my original statement a pretty accurate reflection of your view. If not then please elaborate on how you would buff the other two. And giving them more fitting options isn't a buff if it doesn't result in an increase in power. It doesn't need more "power". What EVE needs is ships and game mechanics that require common sense, understanding of the game mechanics involved and initiative. THAT is how you keep people playing this game. The Procurer, Skiff and Orehold in general are a direct result of CCP giving up on expecting miners to fit their ships intelligently and instead giving them ships that have tank and cargo right out of the box. They removed the choice to fail because over the years it became apparent that miners are incapable of making the right decisions based on understanding and initiative. As such we need to move away from shoehorned "pre-fit" ships, remove the base stats back to normal, lower the ore holds and then add extra fitting slots for miners to make their own choices (just as with almost every other ship) to give miners a CHOICE to fit as they want. That's how you "breed" capable players, this experiment with barges as is, orehold etc is yet another example of the handholding carebear style CCP had/has been advocating for so many years now. It's with so many aspects of this game atm and it has been an ongoing change over the years, even back in 2008 it was obvious what was going to happen and in my case I predicted Incarnage and the current situation we're in, simply because it's an obvious consequence of the choices CCP has been making. That is why we have these massive coalitions in 0.0, they're not fierce pvpers they are in fact carebears who are actually detrimental to the game. The problem isn't EVE being too harsh, it's CCP having been busy trying to cater to a more mainstream type of customer who, for obvious reasons, can't hack it in this EVE environment. HTFU. I agree with flexible fitting options. I'd like to see drones play a much larger role in mining precisely so that we are given more interesting choices when fitting.
The issue being discussed though is that we currently have 3 types of barge, and after tiericide each needs to have a place in the meta. Currently the Procurer/Skiff is the only decent one. So this is precisely why either the Procurer/Skiff needs less power and the Retriever/Covetor hulls need more power. Extra fitting options are a bonus but are irrelevant if the power of the hull is such that no one uses it.
Modulated ECM Effects
An Alternative to Skill Trading
|
Ralph King-Griffin
Devils Rejects 666 The Devil's Warrior Alliance
17487
|
Posted - 2016.08.17 20:53:56 -
[77] - Quote
they're up on sisi for anyone who fancy's a look
also the mallus and executioner got a face lift, dont think the stats changed at all though
=]|[=
|
Wanda Fayne
265
|
Posted - 2016.08.17 23:34:44 -
[78] - Quote
Please tell me that at least one of these ships got a utility highslot?
your comments just confirms this whole idea is totally pathetic
-Lan Wang-
|
Kueyen
Mei-Ha's Light Fleet Coordination Coalition
157
|
Posted - 2016.08.18 00:01:18 -
[79] - Quote
Wanda Fayne wrote:Please tell me that at least one of these ships got a utility highslot? Since none of them can mount any turrets or launchers, I'm pleased to report that all of them have no less than two utility high slots!
Of course, being mining vessels, one would usually put a pair of strip miners or ice harvesters in them...
Until all are free...
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17914
|
Posted - 2016.08.18 05:06:09 -
[80] - Quote
Moac Tor wrote:
Ok, so from what I have read you think the procurer is overpowered and needs to be bought down to the level of the other two hull classes. Correct me if I mistaken but that makes my original statement a pretty accurate reflection of your view.
Lets delve into the procurer. As I don't have access to sisi I'll be using the current tranq stats.
Right now the procurer gets 32,450 ehp at all V with nothing fitted while the covetor gets 8140 ehp. To put this into perspective the thorax gets 8020 ehp, the brutix gets 23,700 and the megathron 36,890. So its safe to say the procurer is getting a battleship level tank while the covetor is getting a cruiser level tank. This is why people say the procurer is over powered, the base tank is simply far too high for a cruiser sized ship.
What I want to happen is for the procurer to drop down to cruiser level base stats like the other barges have and then we add more slots, cpu and powergrid to all the barges so they can be fitted like the thorax or any other cruiser can be. The selling point of the proc would go from having a HUGE base tank to having the ability to defend itself and other barges via the drone damage bonus.
Moac Tor wrote: If not then please elaborate on how you would buff the other two. And giving them more fitting options isn't a buff if it doesn't result in an increase in power.
It very much does give them more power, again let me demonstrate.
Take the thorax and give it 1 mid and 3 low slots, now fit it for combat. Simple answer here is you can't. With just 1 mid and 3 lows you cant fit a tank worth mentioning and if you try you have poor firepower. Fit it for damage and it vaporizes to the first thing it goes up against. This is the situation the covetor and retriever are facing with this change.
Adding slots, cpu and powergrid to the ships allows them to fit like every other ship can. You don't go mad and allow them to fit the very best of everything at the same time but you do let them fit like the thorax can, mixing tank, gank, speed and utility to their preference. It has always been mad that for a cruiser sized ship that barges cannot fit a large shield extender. |
|
Mephiztopheleze
Laphroaig Inc.
881
|
Posted - 2016.08.18 05:45:31 -
[81] - Quote
Kueyen wrote:Wanda Fayne wrote:Please tell me that at least one of these ships got a utility highslot? Since none of them can mount any turrets or launchers, I'm pleased to report that all of them have no less than two utility high slots! Of course, being mining vessels, one would usually put a pair of strip miners or ice harvesters in them...
But, if I put strip miners or ice harvesters in the high slots, where will I put the Nos and Cyno?
Occasional Resident Newbie Correspondent for TMC: http://themittani.com/search/site/mephiztopheleze
This is my Forum Main. My Combat Alt is sambo Inkura
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
2236
|
Posted - 2016.08.18 05:54:21 -
[82] - Quote
Mining ships, they don't have to be built for speed, they don't have to be built for the ability to handle weapons but they can be built at the base level to be tanky which is what CCP did with them, a cruiser is a combat ship which will be fitted for need, be it morre tank, more speed or more gank, two of those choices are not there at the base level of the Procurer and Skiff. So comparing the mining barges or the exhumers to cruisers on the basis of flexible fitting is just wrong.
Even the various drone boats which have bonuses for drones have high slots that can take guns or launchers, mining ships can fit just mining equipment, so that blows your entire argument out of the water, there is no base flexibility for mining ships in terms of fitting weapons.
When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
|
Viktor Amarr
47
|
Posted - 2016.08.18 06:09:26 -
[83] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:Mining ships, they don't have to be built for speed, they don't have to be built for the ability to handle weapons but they can be built at the base level to be tanky which is what CCP did with them, a cruiser is a combat ship which will be fitted for need, be it morre tank, more speed or more gank, two of those choices are not there at the base level of the Procurer and Skiff. So comparing the mining barges or the exhumers to cruisers on the basis of flexible fitting is just wrong.
Even the various drone boats which have bonuses for drones have high slots that can take guns or launchers, mining ships can fit just mining equipment, so that blows your entire argument out of the water, there is no base flexibility for mining ships in terms of fitting weapons.
That''s silly logic, "Mining ships can't really fit guns so they are less flexible". Normal ships can't fit strip miners either, your point?
|
Caco De'mon
New Order Logistics CODE.
44
|
Posted - 2016.08.18 06:16:20 -
[84] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:Even the various drone boats which have bonuses for drones have high slots that can take guns or launchers, mining ships can fit just mining equipment, so that blows your entire argument out of the water, there is no base flexibility for mining ships in terms of fitting weapons.
A Drone boat is still a combat ship through-and-through, it just has a specific flavor. It's core purpose is combat and there really is not secondary role. Yes, you could mine with a Tristan and still maintain its drone boat status but there is a reason you don't see many people doing that.
A mining vessel is purpose built to mine and just like in the real world, trying to add weapons to a civilian application is normally met with lots of LOLz. Of course it can be done but where as the Tristan-miner might be seen as being creative, a Retriever with a Pew-gun on it just moronic.
There should be no flexibility (in regards to weapons) on barges/exhume'ers because it's a very silly idea in the first place.
If that role is needed, then make a new class of Combat-Miner ships.
It's like WWII sure you could put a few 50 cals on a merchant ship and they might feel safer but in reality they were just are vulnerable as before. Then there are Attack-Transports that has multiple HMGs, 6" guns and 40mm Bofers....plus a crew actually trained for combat.
Maybe this post is out of place or off the mark but trying to weaponize basic miner ships is a really bad idea.
*"See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand."
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17914
|
Posted - 2016.08.18 06:16:38 -
[85] - Quote
Viktor Amarr wrote:
That''s silly logic, "Mining ships can't really fit guns so they are less flexible". Normal ships can't fit strip miners either, your point?
He does nothing but demand that barges be better able to defend themselves but here he is arguing against giving them that very ability. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17914
|
Posted - 2016.08.18 06:24:50 -
[86] - Quote
Caco De'mon wrote:Dracvlad wrote:Even the various drone boats which have bonuses for drones have high slots that can take guns or launchers, mining ships can fit just mining equipment, so that blows your entire argument out of the water, there is no base flexibility for mining ships in terms of fitting weapons. A Drone boat is still a combat ship through-and-through, it just has a specific flavor. It's core purpose is combat and there really is not secondary role. Yes, you could mine with a Tristan and still maintain its drone boat status but there is a reason you don't see many people doing that. A mining vessel is purpose built to mine and just like in the real world, trying to add weapons to a civilian application is normally met with lots of LOLz. Of course it can be done but where as the Tristan-miner might be seen as being creative, a Retriever with a Pew-gun on it just moronic. There should be no flexibility (in regards to weapons) on barges/exhume'ers because it's a very silly idea in the first place. If that role is needed, then make a new class of Combat-Miner ships.It's like WWII sure you could put a few 50 cals on a merchant ship and they might feel safer but in reality they were just are vulnerable as before. Then there are Attack-Transports that has multiple HMGs, 6" guns and 40mm Bofers....plus a crew actually trained for combat. Maybe this post is out of place or off the mark but trying to weaponize basic miner ships is a really bad idea.
Skiff and procurer have a done HP and damage bonus. |
Viktor Amarr
49
|
Posted - 2016.08.18 06:45:10 -
[87] - Quote
What this really all is is people going "waah, I want to use the fastest/biggest orehold miner but I don't like how that means I have to lose capabilities elsewhere which will get my in trouble if I AFK mine". People just want to fly their hulk but don't want to put in the effort take make that a safe thing to do, because that just takes effort and we all know how miners are allergic to that. EVE doesn't need more powerful, easy to use highest yield ships or pre-fit mining ships, it needs to breed more active players.
It's the same thing with the Venture, that thing is so overpowered that it really is THE best way to start out and make money as a true newbie. That is CCP telling new possible customers that "to make money in this game you need to do boring grinding, no pewpew no interesting space combat, GIT GRINDING and BE AFK!". |
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
2236
|
Posted - 2016.08.18 06:58:20 -
[88] - Quote
Viktor Amarr wrote:Dracvlad wrote:Mining ships, they don't have to be built for speed, they don't have to be built for the ability to handle weapons but they can be built at the base level to be tanky which is what CCP did with them, a cruiser is a combat ship which will be fitted for need, be it morre tank, more speed or more gank, two of those choices are not there at the base level of the Procurer and Skiff. So comparing the mining barges or the exhumers to cruisers on the basis of flexible fitting is just wrong.
Even the various drone boats which have bonuses for drones have high slots that can take guns or launchers, mining ships can fit just mining equipment, so that blows your entire argument out of the water, there is no base flexibility for mining ships in terms of fitting weapons. That''s silly logic, "Mining ships can't really fit guns so they are less flexible". Normal ships can't fit strip miners either, your point?
If you are going to call something silly then reply with a less then silly answer. A cruiser is a combat ship, a mining ship is not, a cruiser can be fitted various ways and has hardpoints for weapons which are very different to a hard point for a mining implement, logic would indicate taht the hardpoints for weapons systems would be a lot more sophisticated then that fitted for mining implements. The mining barges are optimised for mining, while the cruisers are optimised for their weapons systems and other aspects.
To compare a mining barge to a cruiser is just wrong.
When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
|
Solecist Project
32201
|
Posted - 2016.08.18 06:58:23 -
[89] - Quote
It's funny how a code member complains about mining ships being weaponized. Some would say it was predictable.
You do not realize how that makes you look, cocoa demon, does it? You need to state reasons why it's a bad idea. So far you haven't.
So what if they don't use it, it wouldn't matter, they got the chance to do it. It's a chance of shifting their minds... can it be you wouldn't want that?
"That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breaths of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly pulverised by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds." -- Tippia
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
2236
|
Posted - 2016.08.18 06:59:32 -
[90] - Quote
Caco De'mon wrote:Dracvlad wrote:Even the various drone boats which have bonuses for drones have high slots that can take guns or launchers, mining ships can fit just mining equipment, so that blows your entire argument out of the water, there is no base flexibility for mining ships in terms of fitting weapons. A Drone boat is still a combat ship through-and-through, it just has a specific flavor. It's core purpose is combat and there really is not secondary role. Yes, you could mine with a Tristan and still maintain its drone boat status but there is a reason you don't see many people doing that. A mining vessel is purpose built to mine and just like in the real world, trying to add weapons to a civilian application is normally met with lots of LOLz. Of course it can be done but where as the Tristan-miner might be seen as being creative, a Retriever with a Pew-gun on it just moronic. There should be no flexibility (in regards to weapons) on barges/exhume'ers because it's a very silly idea in the first place. If that role is needed, then make a new class of Combat-Miner ships.It's like WWII sure you could put a few 50 cals on a merchant ship and they might feel safer but in reality they were just are vulnerable as before. Then there are Attack-Transports that has multiple HMGs, 6" guns and 40mm Bofers....plus a crew actually trained for combat. Maybe this post is out of place or off the mark but trying to weaponize basic miner ships is a really bad idea.
Which means you agree with me, I am pointing out that comparing a mining ship to a cruiser which is a flexible combat ship is just wrong.
When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 .. 18 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |