|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
3541
|
Posted - 2016.08.23 01:34:54 -
[1] - Quote
This update while a slight improvement still has the same issue as the initial one. All the stats of the barges are decided in the choice of hull, they don't have the PG/CPU to be fitting any interesting choices, you can't fit a prop mod of appropriate size without entirely filling them with fitting modules even.
If you gave them a decent cargo hold as well as the ore hold, & then treated them like a Cruiser or BC, giving them equivalent slots, PG & CPU, then you would actually be able to make fittings matter, and one hull would serve all three archetype requirements based on how players fitted it. (Cargo extenders still need a stacking penalty btw so it's not all or nothing when using them). Strip Miners could be hard-capped in number just like you cap things like AAR & Command Links so they could even have a real number of high slots.
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
3542
|
Posted - 2016.08.23 02:54:39 -
[2] - Quote
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:Not the change that mining needs, which is incentivizing group mining to the point that fielding defense fleets becomes worthwhile. Something that makes miners leave their system to go to a specific location in their constellation.
As a ganker I'm happy to see the Hulk and Covetor get a minor buff that might see more of them being used, but this is basically no change. This will never happen unless Mining earns vastly more than ratting does. To make a defence fleet worthwhile regularly you have to be able to pay the escort an equal amount to what they would have earned ratting for the same time. People might do it for the sake of pew and accept a loss once or twice, but not every day.
We could divide bounties by about 10, then mining might be worth more than ratting though.... But that's about how silly the idea of regular escort fleets actually happening in the meta is. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
3544
|
Posted - 2016.08.25 06:35:25 -
[3] - Quote
Coralas wrote:
lol - Can you be any more wrong.
proteus + augmented plating + whatever you want to get 7 slots, no implants.
Native = before fittings. Not after. Now try again on the before fittings basis. (Though claims of the Skiff getting BS level EHP are silly, it doesn't get BS level EHP, it has cruiser level EHP, same as the other cruisers when brick tanked, BS when buffer tanked are way way higher EHP than the skiff).
Coralas wrote: The ships do not need massive fitting flexibility because the requirements for all 3 T1 barges are the same, and they do the same thing - MINE.
And that is because we do not need 3 T1 barges. Or 3 T2 barges. We only need a single T1 barge, with the ability to be fitted properly. And in terms of mining we only need a single T2 barge also. If they are given a full rack of utility highslots then you 'could' introduce speciality T2's that do different things with the utility highslots, but otherwise you only need the one exhumer also.
CCP have just stayed in the boring box of 'because there were 3 before tiericide, even though only 1 was actually any good, we are going to keep 3'. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
3544
|
Posted - 2016.08.25 10:10:26 -
[4] - Quote
Drago Shouna wrote:
Rubbish, the reason for them is ore hold flexibility. You have to make a choice right now between yield, tank and hold capacity etc.
The skiff is the go to ship in null where tank is preferred, the hulk the fleet ship everywhere and the Mack in hs, yes they do go other places, that's all the flexibility they need.
They don't need a rack of utility slots, I ain't ever going to turn up at a battle with a Mack full of logi...it ain't ever going to happen.
That's why I said you really only need 1 mining barge. If you give them a decent cargo hold (Say give them an ore hold like the Covetor/Hulk has now then say..... 2000 cargo hold if Cargo extenders stack, I keep saying they should have a stacking penalty but as they do stack think that lands them about right, basically enough that with entirely Cargo Extenders and Cargo rigs they get to at least the current Mack, maybe a bit more if tank is weaker than present), then they get the ore hold flexibility by using cargo extenders also. And you have the same yield, tank or hold capacity trade off in your low slots. But also have more options and more flexibility to tailor to your exact needs.
As for utility slots, I never suggested a logi barge. But to explain my general point. Barge. Capped at 2 strip miners but has 5 high slots, 5 medium slots, 4 low slots like a Moa (Using Moa as a shield tanker base, but basically cruiser slot layout, cruiser PG/CPU/Cap). Also has 3 Turret/Launcher slots. (Un-bonused, so the same as spare turret/launcher slots in combat ships that have no bonus, they are really utility slots with an option of weapons)
The high slots, even without going into weird roles. Mining Lasers, want to go all out max miner, run 2 Strip miners and 3 Mining lasers. General utility. Probe Launcher, Cloak, Cyno fill your three utility slots. 2 Strip Miners. Bait. 3 RLML launchers (Or the equivalent turret if they ever make them. 1 Cyno, 1 Smart bomb(Assuming outside of highsec). Maybe Strip Miner instead of Smart bomb to be more believable bait. Solo miner. 3 Weapons to fight off rats with, 2 Strip Miners.
This isn't any weird stuff. This is the sort of thing people currently do already with mining barges just with more variety. Mid slots would typically be your buffer tank, maybe a mixed buffer/active tank for null to let you live long enough to kill the rats, and a bit of tackle for bait type mining setups. Low slots would be mix of MLU's, Cargo extenders or Bulkheads.
Minor apologies to Baltec, I misread your earlier post I replied to thinking you were still on your earlier claims that miners should have escorts, because a week or two ago you were going on about that. If there was a T2 Exhumer with utility slots and bonuses to logi cap use, that could actually be a viable exhumer provided it could still fit the (currently) 2 strip miners as well. 1 basic barge, 2 or 3 specialist T2 versions would work. The other 2 T1 barges could be totally re-purposed into a true ORE combat vessel and a true ORE hauler.
Obviously I am assuming Barges should be a cruiser here. Personally I'd like to see Industrial ships classified size wise more at the BC/BS range, and some of the barges physical sizes do actually fit better into the BC class already. But easy to find an analogy for whatever class it is decided they are comparable to. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
3544
|
Posted - 2016.08.25 10:39:00 -
[5] - Quote
Drago Shouna wrote:
I don't dispute it, but at the end of the day you had mining barges and a freighter against a fully capable battle fleet, it was always going to be a slaughter....(why was a jump freighter on grid anyway)
Which brings it around very nicely to keeping local and intel channels open, unless someone got arrogant and overconfident? In which case they deserved what they got.
It doesn't change anything, mining ships are for mining, warships are for battle. You can show a thousand like that, it doesn't alter anything. Do you honestly think the outcome would have been any different if the barges had say 3 logi slots each?
You are applying modern world mechanics to an era of rampant piracy.
If you want to look at the cargo vessels of era's where piracy on the high seas was a real thing.
Viking longships. They were the cargo vessels of their age. They also were filled to the brim with raiders ready for a fight. Spanish Galleons. Some of the heaviest armed & armoured ships of their days as well. They were what was used to get treasure back to spain past all the pirates and the british.
Modern cargo vessels are only so defenceless because we live in an era where piracy is almost non existent, and what piracy does happen is a few men with guns boarding you, not other ships aiming guns at you.
EVE should be drawing it's inspirations from the eras of real piracy & raiding. Not from current industrial/modern age concepts primarily rooted in peace. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
3544
|
Posted - 2016.08.25 10:54:34 -
[6] - Quote
baltec1 wrote: EVE haulers have been known to kill impressive things.
Indeed, but usually from the other person being loltastically bad with their piloting, or going afk for 30 minutes. The fact a few silly KM's exist is also no reason to not improve haulers by giving them real slot layouts also. (& again, cargo extenders need a stacking penalty so it's not all or nothing when using them)
But yea, back on the barges topic, CCP are sticking inside the safe boring box they are already in with this update. Really it's just normalising the strip miners as part of an art update and a couple of very minor changes alongside. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
3546
|
Posted - 2016.08.26 08:07:52 -
[7] - Quote
Coralas wrote:
We've been through this already. if you make this so, then you d-scan tells you generic exhumer is in the anomoly or belt. that is all it tells you. You do this and solo cat gankers are only going to warp to ventures. The only people favoured by this is industrial scale ganking groups.
I'm sorry. And how is this a bad thing that a lazy gander can no longer automatically tell from dscan who he can kill. All I'm seeing here is entitlement from too many months of perfect intel. Make some friends. Doesn't take many. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
3546
|
Posted - 2016.08.26 12:04:05 -
[8] - Quote
Drago Shouna wrote: Ahh, the truth is out at last..you just can't go and kill one when you want with a **** fit Catalyst...didums.
Or you know, he's actually right. Mining & Industrial ships should have real fittings. The nitpicking over what the T2 versions should be specialised to is one thing, but the basic fact that mining vessels should not have hard coded stats which fittings barely alter in three different version, but one version that fittings then create three (or more) different archetypes from is something EVE desperately needs as it's what really moves miners from being purely treated as helpless prey by everyone to being taken seriously. The reason people treat miners as Helpless prey is because CCP have said so with their lack of fittings.
Also, if you are going to compare a Catalyst and a Skiff, please compare a T2 fitted Catalyst to a Skiff at least. Or you know, do the actual realistic comparison of a Catalyst to a Procurer. Which also has more than enough tank to laugh at a solo skiff, and doesn't take 52 days to get to and sit in.
and no Sizof, Smart Bombs should A: Never become what you list as it makes pipe bombs insanely overpowered and a module should not magically become worse in a different security space. and B: Will not provide a real defence anyway because ganks are currently over far too fast. And C: To do this you need to provide them with utility highs and massive PG/CPU/Cap bonuses. Or insanely overpowered Smart bomb bonuses. Oh and Utility highs anyway. 50% of Yield to fit 1 bomb that won't actually do enough damage in 20 seconds is pointless. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
3546
|
Posted - 2016.08.26 15:33:11 -
[9] - Quote
Kenrailae wrote:See Baltec? They don't WANT to use the tools..... No, Drago doesn't want to use the tools because it's Baltec arguing and Drago can't refrain from disagreeing. Drago != miner collective hive mind. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
3547
|
Posted - 2016.08.27 06:32:49 -
[10] - Quote
baltec1 wrote: It has never been managed. Even at the height of the Imperium/CFCs power nobody guarded mining fleets because it was both boring and unworkable. Again I will point out an entire mining fleet of 14 exhumers will be killed in just 2 minutes by a similar sized gang of cruisers.
Right now you are arguing for your entire profession to be helpless in EVE, that you are so incompetent at EVE that CCP has to pre fit your ships for you and that you outright refuse to have any skill involved in mining rewarded.
I think you are making a big assumption that these people actually regularly do mining rather than afk boosting in highsec or manufacturing on stuff other people bring in. I'm sure betting they don't spend all day guarding mining fleets on grid though. |
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
3548
|
Posted - 2016.08.28 01:05:16 -
[11] - Quote
Kalido Raddi wrote: Yeah, there's a reason why the Mackinaw is top of the list; AFK miners in HighSec.
And yeah, pretty much everyone does have multiple accounts. They Plex themselves several times over if you're doing it right.
Totally false. The average number of accounts per player is approx 1.5. Figures released by CCP directly, this is not infered or any sort of guesswork. Given there are people out there with 10 cyno alts or 272 SP Extractor alts, this actually means that 80-90% of players must have only a single account. (Yes the 80-90% is inferred, now please reveal how many alts you have and therefore how many solo account players are needed to offset you to create the 1.5 figure before complaining about it.)
And AFK mining in highsec simply doesn't exist. The only place AFK mining can exist is null/WH's, because it's the only place with large enough ore rocks to actually go afk. Glancing away from screen for 5-10 seconds is not AFK. It's what everyone does.
As for Lugh. Seriously 'LOL you mine in a WH' is your argument. Go back to kindergarten and learn how to behave. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
3549
|
Posted - 2016.08.28 04:47:53 -
[12] - Quote
Khan Wrenth wrote: That sounds like a really good idea!
When CCP changed mining sites to anoms, didn't they reason it was because miners shouldn't have to skill probing and appropriate frigates to get access to ores? Well, if you're in a wormhole, you're probing already!
If CCP changed *just* wormhole-space ore sites to sigs to require scanning, that would be an amazing change to make wormholes a little more different than k-space. Miners there would theoretically have a bit more of a heads-up, and give different incentives to mining in womholes verses null.
No, they changed it because mining barges DON'T HAVE UTILITY SLOTS. Oh hey look, like mentioned earlier that's another reason to give them real fittings so they can actually fit things like that. So that you 'could' (Not that I think it's a good move actually to turn all the anoms to sigs, because Sigs are too easy to warp to safety from to your citadel which can't be easily bubble camped as soon as you see combat probes, but that's a different story) have mining sigs without miners having to undock, probe, save bookmark, redock, change vessels, mine, and then delete bookmark afterwards. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
3556
|
Posted - 2016.09.01 09:40:35 -
[13] - Quote
Asa Takamoto wrote:
We used SiSi. It gives you a error message saying "you can't fit a cynosural field generator I to procurer".
Also CCP gotta be consequent either we're playing in the sandbox and there's no intended usage or it's not a sandbox and everything need to go intended use. I'm looking at you wormholers ;)
Are alpha clones on sisi also, and if so was that interfering. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
3566
|
Posted - 2016.09.11 06:53:36 -
[14] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
why should your solo mack be able to fend off 3 other ships on its own? if you want that use the barge specked for it
and if you don't want the ore hold then again... don't use the mac that is no reason to nerf the hold for ppl willing to use it
But it can't. Being able to last the tiny timer on a suicide gank is not 'fending off 3 other ships on it's own'. It's surviving 10-20 seconds before the super hotdrop arrives to defend you. Regardless of the rest of the argument lets not use fake benchmarks to try and make a point. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
3572
|
Posted - 2016.09.12 22:29:01 -
[15] - Quote
Tina Mori wrote: It is all a case of Market availability
There are all those Hisec trade hubs, ie Jita, Dodixie, etc
Now, show me where all the great Nullsec hubs are
With nowhere to use all that Nullsec ore, maybe now you may understand why people mine in Hisec
Btw, you try getting all that lovely Ore/Minerals back to the hubs, without your freighter being ganked
Except for you know, those lovely Dev blogs showing how much mining actually goes on in Null sec areas. Hint, it's actually about as much as goes on in high sec. Though hard to separate entirely as some of those regions cover multiple sec status regions. But there is plenty of mining in null, despite your claims otherwise. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
3586
|
Posted - 2016.09.17 21:16:38 -
[16] - Quote
Resa Moon wrote: Thanks for speaking on behalf of miners.
What miners are concerned about is the reasonable relationship between risk and reward.
Seems that some folks think mining vessels should be PvP ships with a slightly expanded cargo or ore hold.
WW2 Bridge Layer So note how Industrial vehicles during a time of war actually came with their own guns right? We are not civilians, capsuleers are effectively military given the basically open warfare between capsuleers, even before you leave high sec. Once you leave high sec every vessel you pilot is in the middle of utterly open warfare. And as such vessels should all be designed for being in the thick of a fight first, and then fulfilling their specialist function second. This might be mining, hauling, tackling, jamming, whatever. And how you choose to fit it will then skew it one way or another. But yes, as a miner all mining vessels should be PvP ships with an ore hold and a specialisation. Not helpless targets. (Yes they aren't 100% helpless, only 99% helpless relative to other vessels their size and cost) |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
3586
|
Posted - 2016.09.18 06:27:20 -
[17] - Quote
sirxazor wrote: Yeah, I wouldn't put Star Citizen with Eve online either. Star citizen is a revolutionary game aiming at the future. EVERYONE is going to be playing a game with infinite possibilities. Why would you still play Eve (a spreadsheet game) when you can actually have the immersion you been looking for? unless you don't have the computer power to play such a game, then I would understand the need to still play EVE. A dying old dog =/
Because EVE is a cohesive game, not a vague mess of vapour-ware that doesn't link smoothly. Because EVE has a singular vision, rather than trying to be a jack of all trades. Because EVE is single shard. I could go on a lot more, but your entire post is irrelevant to this thread. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
3590
|
Posted - 2016.09.19 20:06:09 -
[18] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:
CCP have yet to show us the details on the rorqual changes.
The details they showed us in the boosting blog say that you will have to immobile yourself with the core to get boosts worth risking the rorqual. Hence we have seen the detail that is relevant. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
3620
|
Posted - 2016.10.03 04:18:18 -
[19] - Quote
Tattoo Bob Onren wrote:Ok guys
I have big trouble in the EVE universe. I have multiple players who are absolutely furious their HULKS now only have two strip miners. The spreadsheets and data seem to back up there claim it is now better to mine with the Venture instead of the costly exhumers?
I lost a few players when they made it more profitable to sell ore verse refine it. ( Who wants all that hassle, defending a giant space station flying around in NULL/WH space. ) Most of them conclude it is CCP's way to force people like us to fleet up the giant alliances.
Well guess what. Most of the miners I have already cancelled the account. As they put it they have real life bosses and the last thing they want to do is be yelled at by some twenty something issuing CTA and surrender the ORE here, log on here! Nuts to that. If they want grief they work overtime in real life for real money! CCP been doing a good job lately making the game more playable via technical improvements., well done CCP. I am certain there is sheet that contrast and compares the mining changes ship to ship. Can someone be useful and link that ASAP!
I would like to move away from people opinions and assurances and get some raw facts!
They are using an old spreadsheet. That's the only possible explanation if they believe a venture mines more than a hulk.
However the argument about RL Bosses is going to apply regardless. |
|
|
|