EVE Search - Sticky:[November] Introducing the Porpoise

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center

Sticky:[November] Introducing the Porpoise

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 3 post(s)

CCP Fozzie C C P C C P Alliance 14484	Posted - 2016.10.04 13:55:37 - [1] - Quote Hey folks! This will be the specific feedback thread for the new Porpoise-class Industrial Command Ship coming this November. You can check out the dev blog here for the whole context. Other feedback threads are available for the Orca, Rorqual, and the mining foreman gameplay as a whole. The Porpoise is the new Industrial Command Ship being added in our November expansion. It is intended to fill the cheaper and more mobile slot in the mining foreman ship progression path. Despite its low cost, the Porpoise is more than capable of fulfilling all three mining foreman pillars. PORPOISE Industrial Command Ships bonuses (per skill level): 5% bonus to ship cargo capacity and ore hold 2% bonus to Mining Foreman Burst Strength and Duration 10% bonus to drone hitpoints, damage and mining yield -10% reduction in drone ice harvesting cycle time Role bonus: 50% bonus to drone mining yield 400% bonus to Remote Shield Booster optimal range 90% reduction in powergrid requirements for Mining Foreman Burst modules 90% reduction to effective distance traveled for jump fatigue Can fit two Command Burst modules 100% bonus to Tractor Beam range 50% bonus to Tractor Beam velocity 300% bonus to Survey Scanner range Slot layout: 4H, 4M, 2L Fittings: 420 PWG, 350 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 6000 / 3000 / 8000 Base shield resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 0 / 20 / 40 / 50 Base armor resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 50 / 35 / 35 / 10 Capacitor (amount / recharge / cap per second) : 3500 / 875s / 4 Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 100 / 1.5 / 4,500,000 / 9.36s Warp Speed: 2.7 au/s Drones (bandwidth / bay): 50 / 125 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 50km / 90 / 5 Sensor strength: 20 Magnetometric Signature radius: 300 Cargo Hold: 500m3 Ore Hold: 50,000m3 Fleet Hangar: 5000m3 Cost: ~50-60m isk Max Mining Yield: ~980m3 per minute + drone travel time Max DPS: ~400 dps Let us know what you think! Game Designer \| Team Five-0 Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie


CCP Fozzie C C P C C P Alliance 14484	Posted - 2016.10.04 13:55:48 - [2] - Quote Reserved Game Designer \| Team Five-0 Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie

Geoffrey Boothroyd The State Guard 2	Posted - 2016.10.04 17:41:35 - [3] - Quote Waitasec. There's a reduction to Ice Cycle time for teh drones? So mining drones are going to be usable on Ice? Also: What about mission miners? Having a command ship IN a mission.... almost better to have another mining ship
Owen Levanth Sagittarius Unlimited Exploration 463	Posted - 2016.10.04 17:42:17 - [4] - Quote Looks nice. Makes me think that I'll get one for my industry-alt even though her one-man company probably won't get much use out of it. But you really nailed the aesthetics with this ship.
Ydnari Estrale Frontiers 428	Posted - 2016.10.04 17:44:52 - [5] - Quote How about the industry information, is this an inventable T2 from the Noctis, or a T1 hull with its own BPO? --
Owen Levanth Sagittarius Unlimited Exploration 463	Posted - 2016.10.04 17:45:23 - [6] - Quote Geoffrey Boothroyd wrote: Waitasec. There's a reduction to Ice Cycle time for teh drones? So mining drones are going to be usable on Ice? Also: What about mission miners? Having a command ship IN a mission.... almost better to have another mining ship We get tons of new drones, my friend. You really should read the dev blog.

CCP Fozzie C C P C C P Alliance 14486	Posted - 2016.10.04 17:46:26 - [7] - Quote Ydnari wrote: How about the industry information, is this an inventable T2 from the Noctis, or a T1 hull with its own BPO? T1 hull with a BPO sold by ORE. Game Designer \| Team Five-0 Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie

Leeloo Killik Everyone vs Everything THE R0NIN 71	Posted - 2016.10.04 17:50:20 - [8] - Quote Does Orca have a better mining output than a barge? Will we see Orcas being used as a default high sec mining plafrorm?
Amak Boma Dragon Factory Peoples United Republic Empire 207	Posted - 2016.10.04 17:50:34 - [9] - Quote i want to be first to lose one. but yes the stats are seem ok. but why not let it fit mining lasers?
Kismeteer Bat Country Pandemic Legion 887	Posted - 2016.10.04 17:52:00 - [10] - Quote What will be the skills to fly this ship, how many days is it expected to take to train a character to get in and then fly it well?

Jack Haakaari School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 1	Posted - 2016.10.04 17:52:05 - [11] - Quote Will we get Drone Mining Amplifiers like the Drone Damage Amps? Is Industrial Command I the only skill it needs? What would it's mining output be compared to a basic barge?
Altrue Exploration Frontier inc Tactical-Retreat 2078	Posted - 2016.10.04 17:54:29 - [12] - Quote I like this. I looks like a noctis, but its tank sure isn't the same! It's more expensive and way more skill intensive than a Procurer, but I could see some people chosing this as a "half bling" option between a Procurer and a Skiff. Don't know if it's intended or not, but I don't see this being bad tbh. Signature Tanking Best Tanking [Ex-F] CEO - Eve-guides.fr Ultimate Citadel Guide - 2016 EVE Career Chart
Icarus Narcissus Pathway to the Next 29	Posted - 2016.10.04 18:29:05 - [13] - Quote I would love to see gas mining drones -- especially for this ship in wormhole space. I think they'd see a lot more use here than on Orcas/Rorquals thanks to their low mass.
Soldarius O C C U P Y Test Alliance Please Ignore 1533	Posted - 2016.10.04 18:34:23 - [14] - Quote 10% bonus to drone hitpoints, damage and mining yield 50Mb bandwidth, 125m3 drone bay. :notbad: http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
Sal Askiras Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 16	Posted - 2016.10.04 18:34:42 - [15] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: Ydnari wrote: How about the industry information, is this an inventable T2 from the Noctis, or a T1 hull with its own BPO? T1 hull with a BPO sold by ORE. Any hints on price of BPO?
Sizeof Void Ninja Suicide Squadron 637	Posted - 2016.10.04 18:35:39 - [16] - Quote Nice, but I think it needs to be able to fit a smarter version of smartbombs, instead of drone bonuses. The smarter smartbombs should only hit targets which are red to you, and thus usable in high sec. The primary killers of mining ships are player ganks, which usually rely on close range, high alpha damage, no tank, cheap ships - and typically more than one of them, operating in a coordinated attack. The battle is usually over in less than 15 seconds, with little time to respond by the defending miner. Thus, the nature of a gank attack does not lend itself well to being defended against by drones. Smartbombs would be a better defense, if made more safely usable in high sec.
Althalus Stenory Flying Blacksmiths 64	Posted - 2016.10.04 18:37:42 - [17] - Quote still that ugly hull ... in game since the primae, but still as ugly as always... Tell the designers with spare time (as they did for intys and frigs...) to redesign it please! ^^ Anyway, the bonus look good, i'm waiting to see some on killboard :p
Joten Koldani Alcoholocaust. Test Alliance Please Ignore 0	Posted - 2016.10.04 18:43:02 - [18] - Quote But can it mine gas?
Atan Auden Gallasen Order Sons of Tangra 10	Posted - 2016.10.04 18:56:27 - [19] - Quote Please change the hull design it looks ugly and are you ccp so poor so you cant make a good looking new design for that ship.
Drago Shouna Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire 622	Posted - 2016.10.04 19:05:26 - [20] - Quote Admit it....it's a rebadged Noctis =ƒÿë Stats look good though... Solecist Project...." They refuse to play by the rules and laws of the game and use it as excuse ..." " They don't care about how you play as long as they get to play how they want." Welcome to EVE.

Bienator II madmen of the skies 3586	Posted - 2016.10.04 19:08:36 - [21] - Quote what is the reason you would use a barge over this ship? how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 3621	Posted - 2016.10.04 19:09:14 - [22] - Quote Again you've missed the mark CCP by nerfing the fitting options. If this thing is a BC (Which it's raw hull EHP suggests) it should have a slot layout something like 7/6/4. Even if it is considered a cruiser for fitting and a BC for handling because of industry it should still have 5/5/4. It should have some built in weapon options for the highs, unbonused of course but that's fine, 3/4 turret/launcher hardpoints. And it's PG/CPU should be more around 1250/500. So it can actually fit things like Prop mods. Also it will never have the cap to actually use Shield Transfers for more than about 15-30 seconds. It might have very slightly more cap than an osprey, but 1/4 the recharge speed. It also has no bonuses to cap use (Compared to -25%), no bonus to amount repped (Compared to +200%), and no fall off bonuses (Compared to 430% falloff bonuses). You need to stop treating industrial vessels as a second class line of ships and give them actual fittings comparable to other ships of their size, otherwise miners will continue to feel targeted and players will continue to treat them as second class citizens since you make them so.
Samsara Nolte Random Thinking Union Random Thinking 63	Posted - 2016.10.04 19:10:35 - [23] - Quote As was asked before - Is the Porpoise able to fit gas harvester ? - it has 4 High Slots but it is nowhere to find if those highslot-¦s are turret slots. This is a really important question, because wormholer usually are mining more gas than ore and if this ship has to be on grid to boost but can-¦t mine gas it is not totally usesless but it comes close. pretty much the same argument regarding the Rorqual can be used here for gas mining ... it has to be worth it to place on grid. Not done my math but if it can-¦t mine there probably have to be around 5+ ships able to gas harvest before it is rewarding to use this ship ... and since it will be a lot easier to catch than ventures and prospects there has to be a reason to do so. Oh - and why aren-¦t there any drones to mine gas ?
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 3621	Posted - 2016.10.04 19:12:18 - [24] - Quote Bienator II wrote: what is the reason you would use a barge over this ship? Volume mined.
Jack Haakaari School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 1	Posted - 2016.10.04 19:13:54 - [25] - Quote Joten Koldani wrote: But can it mine gas? gas mining command ship would bejavascript:if (typeof posting=='undefined'\|\|posting!=true) {posting=true;__doPostBack('forum$ctl00$PostReply','');} fun
Allan 'Gopher' Green Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 1	Posted - 2016.10.04 19:27:36 - [26] - Quote Fleet Hangar: 5000m3 I feel this is a bit small, as even the smallest barge hold can hold 12,000m3. it will be a continuous chore to keep moving ore out of the fleet hangar, with the fleet queuing up trying to dump their ore( only 2 barges will stress the 5,000 limit). I think 20,000m3 would be more suited, without over doing it ( still 50% of pre update Orca).
Vincenzo Arbosa Locust Assets 79	Posted - 2016.10.04 19:52:06 - [27] - Quote I like the look. I've always been a fan of the industrial-looking Noctis though. Icarus Narcissus wrote: I would love to see gas mining drones -- especially for this ship in wormhole space. I think they'd see a lot more use here than on Orcas/Rorquals thanks to their low mass. Yes. This would be excellent. Add another skill tree like the ice drones. `"Leave the gun. Take the cannoli."-á`
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 3624	Posted - 2016.10.04 19:53:41 - [28] - Quote Allan 'Gopher' Green wrote: Fleet Hangar: 5000m3 I feel this is a bit small, as even the smallest barge hold can hold 12,000m3. it will be a continuous chore to keep moving ore out of the fleet hangar, with the fleet queuing up trying to dump their ore( only 2 barges will stress the 5,000 limit). I think 20,000m3 would be more suited, without over doing it ( still 50% of pre update Orca). If you are running a significant number of barges the orca is actually the tool you want. The Porpoise is more suited to working with a small fleet of ventures.
Do Little Virgin Plc Evictus. 414	Posted - 2016.10.04 19:57:29 - [29] - Quote Ore hold on the Porpoise is 50,000 M3 per the devblog same as the current Orca. Cargo Hold: 500 m3 Ore Hold: 50,000 m3 Fleet Hangar: 5,000 m3 This seems reasonable for a small mining op where you can easily fly to a Station/Citadel and unload.
Lugh Crow-Slave 3231	Posted - 2016.10.04 20:06:15 - [30] - Quote i think 980 m/3 a min is a bit high that puts it right next to a proc but with a huge hold. I don't see why i would use a proc or a ret when i could just use this BLOPS Hauler

Goati State War Academy Caldari State 1	Posted - 2016.10.04 20:06:26 - [31] - Quote 3 things important things. 1. The mining drone bonuses are to yield, meaning they are useless for ice mining drones. Is this intentional or an oversight? I am guessing intentional, as the Orca has a drone yield bonus and a drone ice cycling bonus. 2. I'm dissapointed by the low number of slots. 2 low slots and 4 mid for a battlecruiser is a joke. This ship will be too easily suicide ganked. 3. If the yield is as good as a barge, why would anyone mine in a barge when they can just use a porpoise with it's mega size 50k m3 ore hold? Better to use a porpoise and go afk.
HandelsPharmi Pharmi on CharBazaar 1823	Posted - 2016.10.04 20:10:58 - [32] - Quote Wow, this ship will replace the Mackinaw. Bigger ore hangar, ice harvester drones... perfect
Allan 'Gopher' Green Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 1	Posted - 2016.10.04 20:13:08 - [33] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: Allan 'Gopher' Green wrote: Fleet Hangar: 5000m3 I feel this is a bit small, as even the smallest barge hold can hold 12,000m3. it will be a continuous chore to keep moving ore out of the fleet hangar, with the fleet queuing up trying to dump their ore( only 2 barges will stress the 5,000 limit). I think 20,000m3 would be more suited, without over doing it ( still 50% of pre update Orca). If you are running a significant number of barges the orca is actually the tool you want. The Porpoise is more suited to working with a small fleet of ventures. for newer players training the skills for an Orca takes a long time so i think the porpoise will see action with barges ( also a lot cheaper to loose a porpoise). However I do accept the point you make although even two ventures hold double the Fleet hangar capacity. cargo hold and ore hold capacity I have no issue with, its just the fleet hangar for logistic purposes.
Elenahina agony unleashed Agony Empire 1277	Posted - 2016.10.04 20:13:58 - [34] - Quote Goati wrote: 3. If the yield is as good as a barge, why would anyone mine in a barge when they can just use a porpoise with it's mega size 50k m3 ore hold? Better to use a porpoise and go afk. Personally, I am looking forward to the gleeful laughing of CORE agents as they pop AFK porpoise pilots left right and center. Eve is like an addiction; you can't quit it until it quits you. Also, iderno
Knitram Relik Atomic Amish 63	Posted - 2016.10.04 20:24:46 - [35] - Quote Am I missing something? I thought strip miners could only be fit on barges/exhumers. Why does everyone think they can mine with this? [WTS] - Signature. 500 mil ISK
Allan 'Gopher' Green Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 1	Posted - 2016.10.04 20:30:08 - [36] - Quote Knitram Relik wrote: Am I missing something? I thought strip miners could only be fit on barges/exhumers. Why does everyone think they can mine with this? New and improved mining drones. Max Mining Yield: ~980m3 per minute + drone travel time
Blastil Aideron Robotics 121	Posted - 2016.10.04 20:36:40 - [37] - Quote looking at this right off the bat, I'm going to say I'm excited for the porpoise and I'm not even an industrialist. A logi ship with slightly reduced range, but an extra 400 ish DPS from drones? Ill allow it. I'm seeing it now: Gila fleets backed by porpoises.
Aliana Heartborne Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 26	Posted - 2016.10.04 20:43:49 - [38] - Quote Allan 'Gopher' Green wrote: Nevyn Auscent wrote: Allan 'Gopher' Green wrote: Fleet Hangar: 5000m3 I feel this is a bit small, as even the smallest barge hold can hold 12,000m3. it will be a continuous chore to keep moving ore out of the fleet hangar, with the fleet queuing up trying to dump their ore( only 2 barges will stress the 5,000 limit). I think 20,000m3 would be more suited, without over doing it ( still 50% of pre update Orca). If you are running a significant number of barges the orca is actually the tool you want. The Porpoise is more suited to working with a small fleet of ventures. for newer players training the skills for an Orca takes a long time so i think the porpoise will see action with barges ( also a lot cheaper to loose a porpoise). However I do accept the point you make although even two ventures hold double the Fleet hangar capacity. cargo hold and ore hold capacity I have no issue with, its just the fleet hangar for logistic purposes. Except porpoise has the same 18 day skilltime, because industrial command ships. It's just a cheap alternative, not entrylevel in terms of skill
Lugh Crow-Slave 3231	Posted - 2016.10.04 20:51:27 - [39] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: Bienator II wrote: what is the reason you would use a barge over this ship? Volume mined. according to the blog its barley 2m/s less than a proc so not that much :/ BLOPS Hauler
XxUltradmbxX Girl Friends Please Ignore League of Unaligned Master Pilots 14	Posted - 2016.10.04 21:00:22 - [40] - Quote is Max Mining Yield with rigs and harvester drones ? or empty max skilled hull with t2 drones?

Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 3627	Posted - 2016.10.04 21:00:29 - [41] - Quote Aliana Heartborne wrote: Except porpoise has the same 18 day skilltime, because industrial command ships. It's just a cheap alternative, not entrylevel in terms of skill 18 days is pretty entry level, lets be serious here. That's also 18 days from a brand new clone, not from the point they start training towards it. Sure it's not a day 1 ship, but 18 days is entry level to an advanced profession.
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 3627	Posted - 2016.10.04 21:01:19 - [42] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: according to the blog its barley 2m/s less than a proc so not that much :/ Did you fit your Proc out with Faction mining gear for literal max yield regardless of cost? Including using mining drones? Because I'm pretty sure CCP's figures need the new Faction mining drones to get that yield. Not simply the T2's.
13kr1d1 Hedion University Amarr Empire 176	Posted - 2016.10.04 21:03:23 - [43] - Quote The benefits of being in groups should always come from character trained skills and a fleet booster. That'd make it more intuitive, as it'd reflect real life to a large degree. Industrial command ships hould never have been given bonuses to improve people's mining abilities. So what good are they then, you ask? They need, and often do have, other, unique bonuses that can improve the operation without being a drag. In fact, isn't the one of the Orca's strong suits the tractor nonsense? The porpoise isn't needed. People need to start using the noctis to tractor jetcans of bunches of people in a belt into one spot for a hauler to have easy pickup. A lot of the things the orca can do can be filled by other things, like you buy a simple MTU and stick it somewhere on the hauler flight plan, and it does the can grabbing from those covetors or hulks, etc. We don't need the porpoise, it doesn't have a purpose. People just need to stop being scared and go out there and mine with a fleet booster in regular ships. Either the orca or the pose will be redundant. Invulnerability on a timer is crazy dumb. That's NOT the right way to deal with the 5 minute Transformers! time. Nothing wrong with a sizable group of people unhappy with content letting their sub lapse for a week to demonstrate this. I think it is in everyone's interest to send a message, rather than let enough straws build up to break the camel for good.
13kr1d1 Hedion University Amarr Empire 176	Posted - 2016.10.04 21:14:55 - [44] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: according to the blog its barley 2m/s less than a proc so not that much :/ Did you fit your Proc out with Faction mining gear for literal max yield regardless of cost? Including using mining drones? Because I'm pretty sure CCP's figures need the new Faction mining drones to get that yield. Not simply the T2's. That's one of my points: People need to stop crying that they can't fit all the mining rigs and modules they can get to max their yield. If you're having a problem with being attacked, put a tank or some dps mods on for god's sake. As for the Orca, that ship model looks more like a specialized gas hauler, maybe for hauling highly compressed, and thus dangerous, gas around. It doesn't look like a mining op command ship. Rorq does, and noctis/porp does, but orca... nah. Nothing wrong with a sizable group of people unhappy with content letting their sub lapse for a week to demonstrate this. I think it is in everyone's interest to send a message, rather than let enough straws build up to break the camel for good.
PopeUrban El Expedicion Flames of Exile 119	Posted - 2016.10.04 21:17:25 - [45] - Quote I really like everything about this guy. We just picked up brand new EVE players, and three of them just want to mine for a living. Being able to tell them I can afford to buy them a boosting ship, and that one of them can start using it inside of a month feels good man. I like that as a command platform it mines by proxy via drones, just thematically, and the name makes me giggle. The mining drones changes as a whole are just great in terms of options even on existing ships. Probably the most excited I've been about an industry ship since the venture. Having interesting options makes it much easier to get people excited to do all that rock huffing that needs done.
Aliana Heartborne Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 26	Posted - 2016.10.04 21:52:09 - [46] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: Aliana Heartborne wrote: Except porpoise has the same 18 day skilltime, because industrial command ships. It's just a cheap alternative, not entrylevel in terms of skill 18 days is pretty entry level, lets be serious here. That's also 18 days from a brand new clone, not from the point they start training towards it. Sure it's not a day 1 ship, but 18 days is entry level to an advanced profession. Well Orca is exactly the same skilltime to fly, and with its buff unless you do shenanigans i dont see why you would choose the porpoise over it:P
PopeUrban El Expedicion Flames of Exile 119	Posted - 2016.10.04 22:10:24 - [47] - Quote Aliana Heartborne wrote: Nevyn Auscent wrote: Aliana Heartborne wrote: Except porpoise has the same 18 day skilltime, because industrial command ships. It's just a cheap alternative, not entrylevel in terms of skill 18 days is pretty entry level, lets be serious here. That's also 18 days from a brand new clone, not from the point they start training towards it. Sure it's not a day 1 ship, but 18 days is entry level to an advanced profession. Well Orca is exactly the same skilltime to fly, and with its buff unless you do shenanigans i dont see why you would choose the porpoise over it:P Cost and progression. The same reason the venture exists even though it does an objectively worse job than barges. It means more people have access to fleet boosts, that there's early game potential for new players to choose roles that can last them throughout their careers. So, in stead of being forced early on from venture>barge>orca, where your playstyle completely changes at the orca, you can have people go venture>porpoise>orca, where even new broke people learn much earlier how to manage fleets and due to on grid boosting have a lot more incentive to fleet up. Those kinds of considerations are crucial for the future of EVE and the NPE because having a game in which people feel like their only path to success is joining an established entity turns off a lot of folks. Cheaper versions of ships allow newer players to experiment more, and a cheaper fleet booster encourages those players to start skilling toward EVE's most important ship sooner as well; friendship.
13kr1d1 Hedion University Amarr Empire 177	Posted - 2016.10.04 22:11:22 - [48] - Quote Aliana Heartborne wrote: Nevyn Auscent wrote: Aliana Heartborne wrote: Except porpoise has the same 18 day skilltime, because industrial command ships. It's just a cheap alternative, not entrylevel in terms of skill 18 days is pretty entry level, lets be serious here. That's also 18 days from a brand new clone, not from the point they start training towards it. Sure it's not a day 1 ship, but 18 days is entry level to an advanced profession. Well Orca is exactly the same skilltime to fly, and with its buff unless you do shenanigans i dont see why you would choose the porpoise over it:P Only reason I can see is risk vs reward. Don't fly what u cant lose. Nothing wrong with a sizable group of people unhappy with content letting their sub lapse for a week to demonstrate this. I think it is in everyone's interest to send a message, rather than let enough straws build up to break the camel for good.
Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 1991	Posted - 2016.10.04 22:23:41 - [49] - Quote 13kr1d1 wrote: The benefits of being in groups should always come from character trained skills and a fleet booster. That'd make it more intuitive, as it'd reflect real life to a large degree. Industrial command ships hould never have been given bonuses to improve people's mining abilities. So what good are they then, you ask? They need, and often do have, other, unique bonuses that can improve the operation without being a drag. In fact, isn't the one of the Orca's strong suits the tractor nonsense? The porpoise isn't needed. People need to start using the noctis to tractor jetcans of bunches of people in a belt into one spot for a hauler to have easy pickup. A lot of the things the orca can do can be filled by other things, like you buy a simple MTU and stick it somewhere on the hauler flight plan, and it does the can grabbing from those covetors or hulks, etc. We don't need the porpoise, it doesn't have a purpose. People just need to stop being scared and go out there and mine with a fleet booster in regular ships. Either the orca or the pose will be redundant. Noctis + Hauler = Porpoise. What you stated people should do is pretty much half of what it does. The other half being providing boosts. The Orca is a better version of that sure, but stating one will make the other redundant is like suggesting no one would fly a Thorax because they have the skills for a Deimos. Or for that matter Barge vs Exhumer. Barges get plenty of use despite being inferior Exhumers in part because of functional similarity alongside strong cost difference.
RainReaper RRN Assembly INC 44	Posted - 2016.10.04 23:08:51 - [50] - Quote While I like the Porpoise and its stats and the fact that it is allowed into frigate size wh space the one complaint I have is... Did you really have to reuse the noctis model? I was kinda hoping for a new hull but oh well...

FreeBirth Praetorian Black Guard 0	Posted - 2016.10.04 23:23:35 - [51] - Quote Great yet another wee ship that has a bigger hold than a Hulk Tnx CCP
Penance Toralen Compass Fox 11	Posted - 2016.10.05 00:10:02 - [52] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: Ydnari wrote: How about the industry information, is this an inventable T2 from the Noctis, or a T1 hull with its own BPO? T1 hull with a BPO sold by ORE. Hello CCP Fozzie As someone who has actually done the trip to Outer Ring, and survived. I will ask you why ORE is exclusive to null-sec when SOE hulls and modules are available within high-sec?
Petrified Old and Petrified Syndication TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance 425	Posted - 2016.10.05 00:18:59 - [53] - Quote I like it. I would prefer a model that looked more fitting, something streamlined like a Porpoise, but I've always liked that hull in general anyways. Cloaking is the closest thing to a "Pause Game" button one can get while in space.
Petrified Old and Petrified Syndication TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance 425	Posted - 2016.10.05 00:25:18 - [54] - Quote Penance Toralen wrote: CCP Fozzie wrote: Ydnari wrote: How about the industry information, is this an inventable T2 from the Noctis, or a T1 hull with its own BPO? T1 hull with a BPO sold by ORE. Hello CCP Fozzie As someone who has actually done the trip to Outer Ring, and survived. I will ask you why ORE is exclusive to null-sec when SOE hulls and modules are available within high-sec? Maybe since ORE is part of Upwell, more locations for the ORE BPOs will be made available. But considering Every ORE BPO originates from ORE stations in the outer ring, there really does not seem to be any valid reason for them to change the location apart from the association with Upwell. Cloaking is the closest thing to a "Pause Game" button one can get while in space.
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 3631	Posted - 2016.10.05 00:32:37 - [55] - Quote Petrified wrote: Maybe since ORE is part of Upwell, more locations for the ORE BPOs will be made available. But considering Every ORE BPO originates from ORE stations in the outer ring, there really does not seem to be any valid reason for them to change the location apart from the association with Upwell. I believe the original intent was to create fights over who controlled the space around it in order to control the BPO's. But since that obviously didn't work as a fight creator there is no reason to keep ORE so region locked, so they could easily seed a few more ORE (or Upwell) agents around who sell BPO's.
Kenrailae Syndicate Enterprise Northern Coalition. 634	Posted - 2016.10.05 01:23:03 - [56] - Quote You forgot to add that you realized the current 1 mid slot barges were a joke and you were giving the reti and covetor the 2nd and third mids they should have had to begin with, right Fozzie? The Law is a point of View The NPE IS a big deal
Applejack Daniel's Friendship is Murder 0	Posted - 2016.10.05 01:54:40 - [57] - Quote 90 scan res? The Naglfar has 85, did you forget a digit there somewhere or is there some reason this ship needs the lock time of a dreadnought? Oh! The mining operation is under attack, just hold on for 20 seconds while I lock up that frigate.
Morgan Johnstone Star Tide Industries Lin Kuei Kokuryukai. 54	Posted - 2016.10.05 02:07:22 - [58] - Quote I'm blind so i might have missed it, what are the skill differences between this ship and the Orca? With such a drastic price difference I believe the skills needed will be much lower as well. Morgan Johnstone Disabled Players Union
Lugh Crow-Slave 3233	Posted - 2016.10.05 02:49:44 - [59] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: according to the blog its barley 2m/s less than a proc so not that much :/ Did you fit your Proc out with Faction mining gear for literal max yield regardless of cost? Including using mining drones? Because I'm pretty sure CCP's figures need the new Faction mining drones to get that yield. Not simply the T2's. that widens the gap a little but not by much and considering there has been nothing said about mods to buff drones the difference between a faction (harvester) fit and t2 will not be that high making the standard still close to a proc. harvester drones are not all that better than T2 do to them taking 2x the bandwidth. but i'm not all that worried i'm sure if we start seeing fleets of these it will be nerffed BLOPS Hauler
Lugh Crow-Slave 3233	Posted - 2016.10.05 02:52:00 - [60] - Quote Morgan Johnstone wrote: With such a drastic price difference I believe the skills needed will be much lower as well. lol what do price and skill have to do with each other? dread is more SP than a t2B but cost about the same carriers cost the same as a dread but need much more SP faction ships cost more than T2 but are lower sp BLOPS Hauler

Lugh Crow-Slave 3233	Posted - 2016.10.05 02:55:30 - [61] - Quote RainReaper wrote: While I like the Porpoise and its stats and the fact that it is allowed into frigate size wh space the one complaint I have is... Did you really have to reuse the noctis model? I was kinda hoping for a new hull but oh well... so was I but considering the art team is no doubt having most of their time taken up by the new structures (both the ones coming out at the same time as well as the later ones) BLOPS Hauler
Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 1991	Posted - 2016.10.05 02:55:56 - [62] - Quote Morgan Johnstone wrote: I'm blind so i might have missed it, what are the skill differences between this ship and the Orca? With such a drastic price difference I believe the skills needed will be much lower as well. Boost strength Can only use 2 command bursts Tractor range and speed Cargo hold of 500 vs 37.5k No SMB 5k vs 40k fleet hangar EHP But that doesn't really mean much since it's up against the new Orca. Edit: missread and missed that you were asking about skill differences specifically It draws benefit from the same skill so probably not going to be a difference there barring another change.
Morgan Agrivar Divine Bovine Security Services 575	Posted - 2016.10.05 03:44:09 - [63] - Quote Blastil wrote: looking at this right off the bat, I'm going to say I'm excited for the porpoise and I'm not even an industrialist. A logi ship with slightly reduced range, but an extra 400 ish DPS from drones? Ill allow it. I'm seeing it now: Gila fleets backed by porpoises. Or mining Vexors... shudder This would cure me of the fear... CCP Explorer liked you forum post. Now my life is complete...
13kr1d1 Hedion University Amarr Empire 177	Posted - 2016.10.05 04:48:07 - [64] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: RainReaper wrote: While I like the Porpoise and its stats and the fact that it is allowed into frigate size wh space the one complaint I have is... Did you really have to reuse the noctis model? I was kinda hoping for a new hull but oh well... so was I but considering the art team is no doubt having most of their time taken up by the new structures (both the ones coming out at the same time as well as the later ones) No excuse. If its their job, they can crank out something quickly day after day. You might take 10 hours to draw a few boxes and flowers, but good artists can get an almost payworthy sketch crapped out in 30 minutes. This is what design progression looks like. http://www.startrek.com/article/designing-the-defiant I'd flip a sigil upside down, split the carapace part down the middle and open it up, Add some crab legs to the existing ruts on the sides that curl downward toward the split area, Add a high neck bridge on the back that looks like an aircraft carrier sort and call it a day.. if I was that lazy. Nothing wrong with a sizable group of people unhappy with content letting their sub lapse for a week to demonstrate this. I think it is in everyone's interest to send a message, rather than let enough straws build up to break the camel for good.
May'n Nome WiNGSPAN Delivery Services WiNGSPAN Delivery Network 31	Posted - 2016.10.05 05:01:22 - [65] - Quote First off, reading over the Porpoise gives me hope as one of the things I started doing in EVE besides Exploration was Mining. I find it a great way to relax and get into a state of mind where I can play (as well as check my business stuff and wake up in the morning watching Youtube/Crunchyroll/Netflix/Twitch). The hope is that Mining can become a more more engaging activity for the fleet and get the skills for the most important Ship of all; Friendship. That said, I do agree...we need more of the ORE BPOs available to the public. A few more stations with them in Low and 0.5 High Sec perhaps? *"Threefold is the time's pace: the future comes not in haste, the present is gone arrow fast, eternally still remains the past."*
13kr1d1 Hedion University Amarr Empire 177	Posted - 2016.10.05 07:06:47 - [66] - Quote May'n Nome wrote: First off, reading over the Porpoise gives me hope as one of the things I started doing in EVE besides Exploration was Mining. I find it a great way to relax and get into a state of mind where I can play (as well as check my business stuff and wake up in the morning watching Youtube/Crunchyroll/Netflix/Twitch). The hope is that Mining can become a more more engaging activity for the fleet and get the skills for the most important Ship of all; Friendship. That said, I do agree...we need more of the ORE BPOs available to the public. A few more stations with them in Low and 0.5 High Sec perhaps? Or you could buy them from other players willing to ship thme out there, or create a buy order or contract, etc. You know, if you care about player economy and interaction, which you seem to do in the same breath you claim it was easier to get BPO's without any help. I'd rather they have a sort of mobile mining platform that is player controlled. Think of it like the battleship or dread version of the mining sector. this theoretical mining platform is an wide and flat thing, like that one stealth bomber but without the crab legs. It moves and aligns like or worse than a basic impel. But it has room for six strip miners. These 6 strip miners have penalties to yield, but they will gather 50% more volume than any of the other ships. Being so slow and helpless of a target, it needs a group for protection. So its definitely a corp asset. What makes this idea great is it can get the roids that have 1/4th or less of the maximum ores left in it, so it can work on those roids that would be inefficient to waste mining time on for ore ships with higher yield per laser. It improves efficiency of people working together on a mechanical level, not even a balance based level, like most ship tweaks are, it itself is a nice boost of income that is dangerous and not profitable without support (aka a corp) . That's what good game changes should be like most of the time, improving the mechanical aspect of gameplay through cooperative gameplay without actually touching any buffs or nerfs. Nothing wrong with a sizable group of people unhappy with content letting their sub lapse for a week to demonstrate this. I think it is in everyone's interest to send a message, rather than let enough straws build up to break the camel for good.
Cora Namoor Anson Astrometrics And Assembly 7	Posted - 2016.10.05 07:46:37 - [67] - Quote Only criticism I have is... all the ships in this update are getting larger holds. We have a new Ore Industrial hull. Anyone remember the Primae? Anyone? Runs about 8 mil out classed by the Epithal 45:1 @ 1/2 the price. Anyway we could have a dev "sneak" in and modify a few stats to make it relevant? Say a Command Center Hold 1k + 1k per lvl of Ore Industrial and base 40k PI Hold +10% per lvl in Ore Industrial. Same as Epithal but dedicated Command Center Hold for seeding a system and still has the utility to haul it afterwards. Saves you hauling 2 ships thru a wh to start a PI chain. Maybe add the Porpoise wh mass bonus and it still keeps its low sig stat. Makes the ship useful?!? Yes? No?
13kr1d1 Hedion University Amarr Empire 177	Posted - 2016.10.05 08:30:17 - [68] - Quote Cora Namoor wrote: Only criticism I have is... all the ships in this update are getting larger holds. We have a new Ore Industrial hull. Anyone remember the Primae? Anyone? Runs about 8 mil out classed by the Epithal 45:1 @ 1/2 the price. Anyway we could have a dev "sneak" in and modify a few stats to make it relevant? Say a Command Center Hold 1k + 1k per lvl of Ore Industrial and base 40k PI Hold +10% per lvl in Ore Industrial. Same as Epithal but dedicated Command Center Hold for seeding a system and still has the utility to haul it afterwards. Saves you hauling 2 ships thru a wh to start a PI chain. Maybe add the Porpoise wh mass bonus and it still keeps its low sig stat. Makes the ship useful?!? Yes? No? On the subject of relevancy, bestower is pretty awful. Sure it can hold the most cargo but then you're a huge gank target with that paper armor. The sigil outclasses it in every other way, and its kind of ironic that the bestower, which is the variant of the impel has such terrible fitting specs and armor, while the sigil excels in fitting specs, armor, speed, and basically everything BUT hold. Most people should rather cargohold expand a sigil than try to tank a bestower. Nothing wrong with a sizable group of people unhappy with content letting their sub lapse for a week to demonstrate this. I think it is in everyone's interest to send a message, rather than let enough straws build up to break the camel for good.
Pelea Ming Space Dandies 345	Posted - 2016.10.05 08:48:50 - [69] - Quote ok, I know my greivance isn't particularly relevant to this specific thread, BUT... wtf do the mining bursts share the same duration as combat bursts? Mining fleets take up a MUCH longer amount of game play/time then combat does, even in blop fleets, mining burst duration should share a significantly longer duration per 'shot fired' to match! At a measely 2 minutes of activation (assuming decent skill levels and such), when your mining fleet is banging rocks for 2 hours (and that's a SHORT mining fleet).... Am I the only one here who feels that miners are getting shortchanged on this?!?
MrB99 Astral Mining 14	Posted - 2016.10.05 08:54:51 - [70] - Quote First impressions: Thanks for an Industrial Command Ship that can get into the smaller sized shattered wormholes. I'd concur with the comments that since it has to be on-grid to boost it would be nice if the porpoise could contribute to a gas mining op -- either with drones or high-slot gas mining modules. Gas mining should get equal treatment feature-wize with ore and ice. (The tooltips for the gas mining modules could also be brought up to have the same info as ice/ore do so you can see the benefit of fleet boost. Now they omit cycle time and mining amount.) I'd also concur with the comments that 5000 is small for a fleet hold. If you mine ice and have to drag to the ore hold every 5 ice that's a lot of dragging. Especially if the ships that are loading you fit 10-25 ice. It would be nice if it had a module that could compress ice in the WH or there was some way to do that. Otherwise it basically hauls as much as a Miasmos and less than a DST (which means you're flying out of the WH to unload and breaking boost pretty often). You can't put a POS, Citadel or Rorq in the smaller shattered wh's to compress ice.

Pelea Ming Space Dandies 345	Posted - 2016.10.05 08:59:07 - [71] - Quote Also, the Orca now needs more then 3 high slots if we're going to actually bother to fit RSB to them as well as the Bursts.
Pelea Ming Space Dandies 345	Posted - 2016.10.05 10:36:22 - [72] - Quote Also, as the Noctis did receive a mention (in the role of support tractor beams), I'd like to make a point... Specifically, to judge by the sell order prices spiking, it's looking like Noctis purchases are falling off... most likely due to how much more of a viable option to the single account player the MTU represents. Can we expect a rebalancing of the Noctis in the future to address these apparently obvious short-comings?
Quazided Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 0	Posted - 2016.10.05 11:17:27 - [73] - Quote Waited weeks to see a new ship design for the porpoise...... Clicked on the news link excitedly...... Saw the fugly Noctis with a skin job....... Left disappointed......
Lugh Crow-Slave 3233	Posted - 2016.10.05 11:19:20 - [74] - Quote Pelea Ming wrote: ok, I know my greivance isn't particularly relevant to this specific thread, BUT... wtf do the mining bursts share the same duration as combat bursts? Mining fleets take up a MUCH longer amount of game play/time then combat does, even in blop fleets, mining burst duration should share a significantly longer duration per 'shot fired' to match! At a measely 2 minutes of activation (assuming decent skill levels and such), when your mining fleet is banging rocks for 2 hours (and that's a SHORT mining fleet).... Am I the only one here who feels that miners are getting shortchanged on this?!? I'm confused how does the length per boost have anything to do with the duration of the mining operation? its there to make sure you need to be in belt (cant just warp in boost warp off) you will have enough ammo in the link to run for five hours Pelea Ming wrote: Also, the Orca now needs more then 6 high slots if we're going to actually bother to fit RSB to them as well as the Bursts. (and that's assuming we ignore putting on a Tractor!) why? right now orcas only run 3 links (two mining one shield) after this you now have 3 more to put reps in. (no one is going to use tractors, no one has since the mtu) BLOPS Hauler
Elenahina agony unleashed Agony Empire 1280	Posted - 2016.10.05 11:40:21 - [75] - Quote Pelea Ming wrote: Also, the Orca now needs more then 6 high slots if we're going to actually bother to fit RSB to them as well as the Bursts. (and that's assuming we ignore putting on a Tractor!) Or you could, you know, make an informed decision about which matters the most to you and fit for that, as opposed to trying to fit the entire swiss army knife at the same time. Eve is like an addiction; you can't quit it until it quits you. Also, iderno
Pelea Ming Space Dandies 345	Posted - 2016.10.05 12:18:59 - [76] - Quote just the fact that it becomes a much more sizeable isk sink to be constantly running through the ammo for mining bursts when everyone's on grid for hours at a time vs combat where it's typically resolved in just a few minutes. This is why I feel that mining bursts should (very reasonably imo) have a much longer duration for their effects.
Pelea Ming Space Dandies 345	Posted - 2016.10.05 12:20:11 - [77] - Quote as for more HS for the Orca... ok, that was more troll then being serious, I should behave better >.>
Steve Ronuken Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM 6201	Posted - 2016.10.05 13:16:32 - [78] - Quote Pelea Ming wrote: just the fact that it becomes a much more sizeable isk sink to be constantly running through the ammo for mining bursts when everyone's on grid for hours at a time vs combat where it's typically resolved in just a few minutes. This is why I feel that mining bursts should (very reasonably imo) have a much longer duration for their effects. 500 charges will cost around 125k isk, take up 5m3 of space, and last for about 8 hours (oh noes! you'll need to reload at about the 5 hour mark!) if 125k isk is a major isk sink for you, you're doing it wrong. Woo! CSM XI! Fuzzwork Enterprises Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
Pelea Ming Space Dandies 345	Posted - 2016.10.05 13:41:42 - [79] - Quote I'd be perfectly willing to pay more for the charges if I got a longer time period of use out of each one!
Obil Que Star Explorers Reckoning Star Alliance 452	Posted - 2016.10.05 14:57:28 - [80] - Quote MrB99 wrote: First impressions: Thanks for an Industrial Command Ship that can get into the smaller sized shattered wormholes. I'd concur with the comments that since it has to be on-grid to boost it would be nice if the porpoise could contribute to a gas mining op -- either with drones or high-slot gas mining modules. Gas mining should get equal treatment feature-wize with ore and ice. (The tooltips for the gas mining modules could also be brought up to have the same info as ice/ore do so you can see the benefit of fleet boost. Now they omit cycle time and mining amount.) I'd also concur with the comments that 5000 is small for a fleet hold. If you mine ice and have to drag to the ore hold every 5 ice that's a lot of dragging. Especially if the ships that are loading you fit 10-25 ice. It would be nice if it had a module that could compress ice in the WH or there was some way to do that. Otherwise it basically hauls as much as a Miasmos and less than a DST (which means you're flying out of the WH to unload and breaking boost pretty often). You can't put a POS, Citadel or Rorq in the smaller shattered wh's to compress ice. I also love the idea of it going into a small shattered Except it is a shield boosting ship designed to allow it to go into small shattered holes where they get roughly a 50% reduction in shield resistances because of the Wolf-Rayet effect. Seems very counter-intuitive...

Shamsher Bahadur Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde 0	Posted - 2016.10.05 16:49:07 - [81] - Quote The only issue I have is a superficial one, i.e, the porpoise looks too much like the noctis and does not conform with the standard mining color scheme of ORE ships. I hope that the hull is redesigned to a new shape as soon as can be implemented as the noctis hull is quite popular and does not stand for mining
Claire -58x Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic 0	Posted - 2016.10.05 17:05:55 - [82] - Quote Gas mining drones? If not gas harvesting mod slots? Mining drone amplifier mods? Is it possible to pick a different, as in new and pretty designed, hull :-/
Ju0ZaS Reikoku Pandemic Legion 107	Posted - 2016.10.05 18:38:28 - [83] - Quote Another Primae/Noctis hull. CCP is bad at making unique ship hulls. As with most t2 hulls too, just change the paint on an existing one, slap another name and call it a day. =/ Are you going to fight me or do you expect to bore me to death with your forum pvp?
Denngarr B'tarn Cripple Creek Serrice Council. 5	Posted - 2016.10.05 18:53:44 - [84] - Quote Any chance of getting a Rig or Mid slot / high slot module that allows us to compress in the ore hold? I know we have that on the Industrial Core in the Rorq, but I'd like something (maybe with charges) that allows us to compress ore in a Porpoise or Orca and keep the ship out on grid longer.
Eternus8lux8lucis Primus Inc. LEGIO ASTARTES ARCANUM 1025	Posted - 2016.10.05 19:05:16 - [85] - Quote Two things. Lock time is horrible and speed is sh*t. Other than that I love this thing in every way and itd have a lot of interesting uses. 200m/s at least. Scan res needs to be in the base 400mm range. Let me play with this thing at least instead of prenerfing into the ground!! 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.
PopeUrban El Expedicion Flames of Exile 124	Posted - 2016.10.05 21:15:40 - [86] - Quote Denngarr B'tarn wrote: Any chance of getting a Rig or Mid slot / high slot module that allows us to compress in the ore hold? I know we have that on the Industrial Core in the Rorq, but I'd like something (maybe with charges) that allows us to compress ore in a Porpoise or Orca and keep the ship out on grid longer. I kinda like the idea of a mini-compressor with the cost of consumable charges, but there whould be an opportunity cost to it that impacts other meaningful functionality. Like, make it a highslot so you'd have to trade off a tractor or something
Mole Guy Band of Builders Inc. Silent Infinity 454	Posted - 2016.10.05 22:02:22 - [87] - Quote love the concept and the use of the primae hull. ship has cool stats. not a ton of ore hold, but for a solo miner, you dont need t2 strippers and crystals to burn out. target roid, and kill. nice for a cruiser sized ship
Flash E Gordon P A I R A D I C E Evictus. 1	Posted - 2016.10.05 22:40:40 - [88] - Quote Well I have noticed once it's in full mining mode, There's not crap for offense or defense. Being a null MIner, I would prefer a lil less cargo space and a bit more of a deterrant but then again Your not building ships for null Flash
Decaneos Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 145	Posted - 2016.10.06 00:59:49 - [89] - Quote Well the same can be said for any mining ship, risk vs reward again.
Phopptimus Prime Solar Deliberative Games of Divinity 14	Posted - 2016.10.06 01:53:18 - [90] - Quote Hasbro did the thing to me in the 80's where they repainted an old thing and called it a new thing and then resold it to me. Didn't enjoy it when they did it to me with the Transformers, don't like it with the Noctis/Porpoise. If it's going to be a different t1 BPO, then it should be a different ship. Once the ship model is Naturalized(de-colored) to put on the BPO icon it will be damn near identical to the Noctis... That won't be confusing at all. I realize it's too late to change but consider this a whoopsie and fix it at some point please. Doesn't make sense to have the Porpoise be a t2 invent off the Noctis as none of the other mining director/foreman ships are t2... i get that... but ugh Take some cargo pods from the Orca/Rorq, slap the spiny glowy core from the Prowler on it somewhere, add some grindy/pistony/fire'y bits and keep the front/hind quarters of the current noctis.... Tada. Love what you've done with the stats and the story of the Porpoise, Orca and Roraqal.. just disappointed in this one thing.

Brokk Witgenstein Extreme Agony 836	Posted - 2016.10.06 02:09:40 - [91] - Quote Oh waw. A logi battlecruiser with some real nice damage output; should run the numbers on that but Blaster Ferox + Porpoise fleet has potential! Edit: why is everyone else in this thread talking about mining???
Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 1993	Posted - 2016.10.06 03:02:45 - [92] - Quote +1 on the wishing for a new hull design bandwagon.
Darth Bex Boundless Exploration 34	Posted - 2016.10.06 03:52:08 - [93] - Quote I made a thread in the ideas discussion on the need for a hauler that could traverse frigate sized wormholes with a 5,000 m3 hold only to be shouted down by all and sundry. A year later the Porpoise is coming and I'm feeling pretty vindicated. That aside, this is a great addition for W-Space in particular. It adds a degree of utility that didn't previously exist and at such an affordable price I hope to see plenty of them providing on grid boosts for their mining fleets. WP CCP Disciple of Bob
Rhaegon Aesir Biomass Party 0	Posted - 2016.10.06 10:50:50 - [94] - Quote If you're going to give us ice mining drones, is there a reason not to give gas mining drones too ? I really like the idea of thrones porpoise for wormhole space. With its dps drones and remote rep capability it would nicely augment a small fleet of tanky ventures or prospects...except that it doesn't seem to have any gas mining capability. So the porpoise can mine ice with its fleet, it can mine ore with its fleet, but if it wants to support a gas mining fleet...it cant do anything except sit there and provide boosts. And let's be real here, in wormholes gas mining is far more common than ice or ore mining. Please CCP, don't forget us wormholers again :(
Marox Calendale Human League Eleven Signs Network 85	Posted - 2016.10.06 10:52:01 - [95] - Quote Joten Koldani wrote: But can it mine gas? That is the great question. With its ability to jump threw small size wormholes it would be perfect for gas harvesting fleets. But with only 4 High Slots it would harvest less gas in any configuration than a Gnosis. An additional Role Bonus like Venture and Prospect have would be perfect though.
Daichi Yamato Xero Security and Technologies 3556	Posted - 2016.10.06 11:07:08 - [96] - Quote Icarus Narcissus wrote: I would love to see gas mining drones -- especially for this ship in wormhole space. I think they'd see a lot more use here than on Orcas/Rorquals thanks to their low mass. This is a good suggestion. Either gas mining drones unique to the porpoise or give the porpoise a couple of turrets and a bonus to gas mining (or one with a big bonus) 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" Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
Duran Predur Bionesis Technologies 1	Posted - 2016.10.06 11:40:15 - [97] - Quote Applejack Daniel's wrote: 90 scan res? The Naglfar has 85, did you forget a digit there somewhere or is there some reason this ship needs the lock time of a dreadnought? Oh! The mining operation is under attack, just hold on for 20 seconds while I lock up that frigate. Prelock those of your fleetmates who will need your shield boosting, assist your fighting drones to a relatively fastlocking barge/exhumer. Dont need high scanres if you plan to face a dangerous situation!
Brown Pathfinder Its a good day to die 12	Posted - 2016.10.06 11:40:37 - [98] - Quote Love the bonuses! Only complaints from a first look is it needs more cargo and ore space. Will go and test it out when I get home Would be fun to see how it fairs vs non k-space combat scenarios.
Malthuras 2	Posted - 2016.10.06 11:48:36 - [99] - Quote I'm very interested to see the porpoise, but please for the love of wormholers out there (and low sec harvesters too) add gas mining drones. I can understand why you don't want to add turret slots (because mining drones and strip miners are OP on the porpoise) so please give us something else. Its kinda disheartening to see ore and ice get all the attention while gas remains the black sheep of the harvesting world.
StaticViolence Contra Ratio DARKNESS. 0	Posted - 2016.10.06 17:57:26 - [100] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: PORPOISE Industrial Command Ships bonuses (per skill level): Shouldn't it use the ORE Industrial skill instead of Industrial Command Ship? Seems like it should have a similar skill requirement to the noctis (since they're the same hull), not the orca (since its the next tier of ship hull in the line).

Goati State War Academy Caldari State 8	Posted - 2016.10.06 18:26:00 - [101] - Quote StaticViolence wrote: CCP Fozzie wrote: PORPOISE Industrial Command Ships bonuses (per skill level): Shouldn't it use the ORE Industrial skill instead of Industrial Command Ship? Seems like it should have a similar skill requirement to the noctis (since they're the same hull), not the orca (since its the next tier of ship hull in the line). It's an industrial command ship, so why?
Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 1995	Posted - 2016.10.06 18:52:33 - [102] - Quote Marox Calendale wrote: Joten Koldani wrote: But can it mine gas? That is the great question. With its ability to jump threw small size wormholes it would be perfect for gas harvesting fleets. But with only 4 High Slots it would harvest less gas in any configuration than a Gnosis. An additional Role Bonus like Venture and Prospect have would be perfect though. The answer is no.
Penance Toralen Compass Fox 13	Posted - 2016.10.06 21:54:04 - [103] - Quote CCP Fozzie, Will the Medium Micro Jump Drive be able to be fit a on Porpoise?
Jahnto THE GWG 0	Posted - 2016.10.07 01:06:49 - [104] - Quote I would like clarification on the boost duration for this. The ship skill gives 2% duration bonus and the mining foreman skill gives 10%... so I could end up with a +60% or so duration to my mining boost, on a module that cycles every minute. So my reward for training the skill is that I can burn more charges than needed auto-firing it, or save a little isk & manually click a button every minute 30 or so. That does not feel like a reward for skill investment. If it's going to remain this way please add an adjustment to the burst module so I can increase my cycles time if desired so that it matches my skill. Also gas mining drones or a bonused turret are a great idea
Andrew Indy POS Party Ember Sands 159	Posted - 2016.10.07 02:34:51 - [105] - Quote Jahnto wrote: I would like clarification on the boost duration for this. The ship skill gives 2% duration bonus and the mining foreman skill gives 10%... so I could end up with a +60% or so duration to my mining boost, on a module that cycles every minute. So my reward for training the skill is that I can burn more charges than needed auto-firing it, or save a little isk & manually click a button every minute 30 or so. That does not feel like a reward for skill investment. If it's going to remain this way please add an adjustment to the burst module so I can increase my cycles time if desired so that it matches my skill. Also gas mining drones or a bonused turret are a great idea Pretty sure that it means a longer boost duration but that the module will still fire at the same rate. IE, standard is 1minute cycle and 1 minute duration , with skills you might have a 1:30 duration but the same fire rate. For combat ships that means you can head in and out of booster range without a huge penalty, mining ships you might have more time to drop ore off at a station ect.
13kr1d1 Hedion University Amarr Empire 177	Posted - 2016.10.07 04:38:22 - [106] - Quote CCP needs to stop trying to make things work by Power Creeping new ships into the game and start making jobs and companies and corporations for all things from industry to mining work like they do for PvP. In PvP, you must have a second person to double your capability. Who knows, your effective capability might be even more than double because of the tangible multiplication of being able to have one person with scram while you're full ganking mods like damage and support (painters, etc). There are many tangible benefits to mining in corps or groups already, for the ability to be in a large wolf pack with protective drones in lowsec to get that ice, or to be able to hang out ina 0.5 with everyone except one guy fitted for pure mining. Mining drones, mining lasers, mining drone upgrades, the works, all set up in ventures or covetors, while one guy in a procurer, probably fleet booster with the leadership SKILLS, provides even more mining bonuses on top, can mine himself instead of doing nothing but wait with his eyes glazed over like a pair of donuts waiting for gankers or rats to go attack, and so on. This single procurer with its drones can protect anyone in the mining fleet from rats in 0.5 space while some hauler grabs the goods in some bestower or something and drops it off at the station and so on. Im just saying what tangible benefits already exist from one angle for people to go into corps. There should be other benefits in industry and so on just like mining and PvP, where more means better efficiencty and thus better reward. I think most people are starry eyed over the notion of going it alone and thumbing their nose at corps. Its on both sides a mentality problem of players and a problem CCP has with trying to add more FLOWN OBJECTS to make mining as a corp more enticing, rather than making mining more enticing as a corp purely through game mechanics. For instance, what if instead of the ore being automatically picked up, it is pulled onto the surface of a roid to get scooped, and the mining lasers simply cut it out for it to be ready. What if those mining lasers work better when they are supplemented by others? Say you have two strip miners hitting the same rock, or two mining laers, etc. Both lasers' yields improve by 20%, creating a multiplicative effect that actually encourages corporation work. Sure, that idea is kinda weird and crappy, but it is the baseline of what ideas really aught to be with respect to corporations, and mining in particular. CCP wants to change mining for what reason? Are people complaining its worthless to corp right now? Its not. Are people complaining their ISK/work rate is too awful? Refuse to sell unless prices are better. Look, in real life, corporations work because they can afford to pay people a fraction of the total value of the product, because people have to eat. There's a buyer's market for corps as they related to hirees. There's always more people alive than jobs available, so there's alwasy going to be homeless or jobless. In such a real lief scenario, people will go work in The Jungle for 5 cents and a chance of losing a finger, because there's immediate incentives to go to work even for such awful pay: hunger. You can't exist in the real world if you don't join a "corp of the real world", so that's how corporations can afford to be in business, by paying its workers a low wage. The other aspect is what we call "corporation assets". Mining barges should be seen as them, but due to the nature of eve, how any player can own their own such assets, and how it only takes one player for these assets to work, then anyone can thumb their nose at corporations as an attitude again saying "why should I be part of your corp when I can own my own industry"? Again, we need ways in which collectives are better than singles. Eve per the mining aspect would be like some person with their brain hooked up to automated processes that dig up the ore, drive the trucks to haul it around, sort it, etc etc, all with a single person's brain power. You definitely don't need to hire mine workers IRL if that were the case, and everyone could own their own mine because it'd be "easy", or again, "why should I work for you when I can keep all the profits myself"./ In Eve, there's no Hunger Incentive to work, or to get yourself into a corporation. It has to therefore be ALLURING. There has to be an opporunity cost to NOT joining a corporation, and adding more bling ships with better "powers" is not going to solve that, as it hasn't already with orcas. They want to go down to even smaller "corporation" ships now with that porpoise, but really, the need to start working on ideas how to make things multiplacatively better simply by virtue of other players grouping together, like how PvP works. There's no bonuses one player applies to another with a ship in PvP unless its a command ship with links, but even so, 2 or 3 people in a small gang is better than 1 . CCP should just introduce a multi-player platform for mining so that people have to dock up with it or actually put their pod in it and control their own grid of mining lasers, while the owner of the ship flies it and has their own lasers to use, or something. Nothing wrong with a sizable group of people unhappy with content letting their sub lapse for a week to demonstrate this. I think it is in everyone's interest to send a message, rather than let enough straws build up to break the camel for good.
13kr1d1 Hedion University Amarr Empire 177	Posted - 2016.10.07 04:40:24 - [107] - Quote Andrew Indy wrote: Jahnto wrote: I would like clarification on the boost duration for this. The ship skill gives 2% duration bonus and the mining foreman skill gives 10%... so I could end up with a +60% or so duration to my mining boost, on a module that cycles every minute. So my reward for training the skill is that I can burn more charges than needed auto-firing it, or save a little isk & manually click a button every minute 30 or so. That does not feel like a reward for skill investment. If it's going to remain this way please add an adjustment to the burst module so I can increase my cycles time if desired so that it matches my skill. Also gas mining drones or a bonused turret are a great idea Pretty sure that it means a longer boost duration but that the module will still fire at the same rate. IE, standard is 1minute cycle and 1 minute duration , with skills you might have a 1:30 duration but the same fire rate. For combat ships that means you can head in and out of booster range without a huge penalty, mining ships you might have more time to drop ore off at a station ect. No. Just No. If your mining ship are modded and rig specced for speed to drop off, you're doing it wrong. If they're not, and you're sending them back to station instead of jetcanning with covetors to take maximum advantage of their speed mining, so they can stay in the belt mining as long as possible while someone ELSE with bad skills but an industrial hauls the ore back, then you're STILL doing it wrong. Even ventures do best when they can jetcan mine because you're talking about 2 or 3 minutes not working those lasers. Nothing wrong with a sizable group of people unhappy with content letting their sub lapse for a week to demonstrate this. I think it is in everyone's interest to send a message, rather than let enough straws build up to break the camel for good.
13kr1d1 Hedion University Amarr Empire 177	Posted - 2016.10.07 04:43:12 - [108] - Quote Goati wrote: StaticViolence wrote: CCP Fozzie wrote: PORPOISE Industrial Command Ships bonuses (per skill level): Shouldn't it use the ORE Industrial skill instead of Industrial Command Ship? Seems like it should have a similar skill requirement to the noctis (since they're the same hull), not the orca (since its the next tier of ship hull in the line). It's an industrial command ship, so why? Correction, it is a mining command ship. What other Industry are you planning to use this for? Nothing wrong with a sizable group of people unhappy with content letting their sub lapse for a week to demonstrate this. I think it is in everyone's interest to send a message, rather than let enough straws build up to break the camel for good.
13kr1d1 Hedion University Amarr Empire 177	Posted - 2016.10.07 04:50:17 - [109] - Quote Pelea Ming wrote: ok, I know my greivance isn't particularly relevant to this specific thread, BUT... wtf do the mining bursts share the same duration as combat bursts? Mining fleets take up a MUCH longer amount of game play/time then combat does, even in blop fleets, mining burst duration should share a significantly longer duration per 'shot fired' to match! At a measely 2 minutes of activation (assuming decent skill levels and such), when your mining fleet is banging rocks for 2 hours (and that's a SHORT mining fleet).... Am I the only one here who feels that miners are getting shortchanged on this?!? I didnt even know about these burst things, this is getting really dumb. talk about a game being watered down with generic MMO or even single player game concepts. These changes are reminding me to not resub. Nothing wrong with a sizable group of people unhappy with content letting their sub lapse for a week to demonstrate this. I think it is in everyone's interest to send a message, rather than let enough straws build up to break the camel for good.
Marox Calendale Human League Eleven Signs Network 86	Posted - 2016.10.07 08:38:39 - [110] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: Check out the specific feedback threads for the Porpoise, Orca, and Rorqual. This thread will be the general purpose feedback thread for everything that doesn't fit into the others. Thanks in advance for all your constructive feedback! :Edit: A couple quick answers to questions we see coming up multiple times: We're not planning on changing the restrictions on what ships are allowed into the Rorq SMB at this time. The concern with removing the restrictions is that it would become too powerful combined with the increased jump range. The mining foreman ships won't have any ability to mine gas or mercoxit at this time. You'll want to use other ships for mining those substances. I am ok with that for orca and rorqual, but you really should think about any possibility for the porpoise to harvest gas. If not, you won´t see this ship used very often. In HS the Orca will still dominate the mining fleets and everywhere else it will be the rorqual. The porpoise then will not be more than a training ship for mining noobs. Most of them will probably skill directly to orca and get one from their corp. But with the ability of huffing gas, this ship would be really ideal to boost gas harvesting fleets in any kind of space. Have a look at the venture before prospect was released. How long did young miners use it until they switched to any barge? And how often was it used in any kind of dangerous space to harvest gas? The porpoise is being made to support gas harvesting fleets. You know it! But without the ability to harvest gas by itself, Gnosis will still be the first choice for that role.

FT Diomedes The Graduates 2712	Posted - 2016.10.07 14:37:18 - [111] - Quote Penance Toralen wrote: CCP Fozzie, Will the Medium Micro Jump Drive be able to be fit a on Porpoise? This is an excellent question. CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.
Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 1997	Posted - 2016.10.07 18:20:00 - [112] - Quote 13kr1d1 wrote: I didnt even know about these burst things, this is getting really dumb. talk about a game being watered down with generic MMO or even single player game concepts. These changes are reminding me to not resub. I think we've taken the word generic to a point where it lacks any usable meaning. If you have a legit gripe I'd suggest not using it since it's neither descriptive nor useful on it's own. It's even worse when combined with other broad generalities (or do you actually mean to liken multiplayer boosting on a more interactive level to a "generic" or "single player" concept?).
Earthling Hibou Alzhara Industries 0	Posted - 2016.10.07 22:16:41 - [113] - Quote Love this new ship and how it fits in with the new mechanics! Orca has dominated this role because it was the ONLY sensible option. I would argue "this role" has suffered as a result and so we'll only see how it really plays out once the options are out there. It's like if Exhumers existed but not Barges, then Barges were added. Everyone would point out how only a fool would give up the yield and other bonuses, but in reality there are LOTS of reasons to use barges even once you've trained exhumers. With the new bonuses-only-in-belt system using an Orca will suddenly be a MUCH riskier affair. Sure rich corps in safe spots will be fine to use them, but many players corps will probably find that offering a few Porpoises for corp use is a much lower risk than Orcas and gives a large chunk of the bonuses. For people in unsafe spots this is even more true, and Orca will probably be reserved for larger ops where the bonuses will be multiplied by more barges/exhumers. Love that it's both a booster AND a mining ship, with the same praise extended to Orca/Rorqal. In all cases this is 1000% more appealing to me as a newbie miner than the old system, where I would be training towards a situation where I NO LONGER DO THE THING I LIKE, WHICH IS MINING. I was planning to quit EVE because of this (other careers don't excite me personally), but these updates make me want to keep playing and work towards mining FC role :D TL;DR: New system promoting active mining is AWESOME, Porpoise is a great runway for new players into mining FC and this almost-quitter is pumped for the non-multiboxing-mandatory future of mining :)
Darryn Lowe Golden Duck Frigate Mining Corp 48	Posted - 2016.10.08 00:02:04 - [114] - Quote Can the Porpoise be used on the free accounts? Due to being made redundant and having to take a lower paid job I'm not in a position to spend money on Eve for two players but if the Porpoise can be flown under the free account then it makes sense for it to exist. You can run a mining op on free accounts and still make some nice ISK for a low level op.
Daniel Jackson Shore Leave Inc. 190	Posted - 2016.10.08 00:10:10 - [115] - Quote wish they made a new design for it, it looks like the noctis before they recolored it I Vote YES! for Downloadable HI-RES Textures!!!!
Earthling Hibou Alzhara Industries 0	Posted - 2016.10.08 00:12:08 - [116] - Quote Darryn Lowe wrote: Can the Porpoise be used on the free accounts?. No. Several important skills are unavailable to alphas, who can't even use barges.
Darryn Lowe Golden Duck Frigate Mining Corp 48	Posted - 2016.10.08 00:35:29 - [117] - Quote Earthling Hibou wrote: Darryn Lowe wrote: Can the Porpoise be used on the free accounts?. No. Several important skills are unavailable to alphas, who can't even use barges. Stink. Oh well I guess the character I need to pay for is my Orca pilot.
Zurdook The Pleiadians 0	Posted - 2016.10.08 02:10:27 - [118] - Quote Ore Hold: 50,000m3 is only useful if u dig alone, TRIPLE IT
Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 1997	Posted - 2016.10.08 02:50:59 - [119] - Quote Zurdook wrote: Ore Hold: 50,000m3 is only useful if u dig alone, TRIPLE IT Buy an Orca.
Vivianne Athonille Athonille Logistics and Provisions 25	Posted - 2016.10.08 04:36:31 - [120] - Quote FT Diomedes wrote: Penance Toralen wrote: CCP Fozzie, Will the Medium Micro Jump Drive be able to be fit a on Porpoise? This is an excellent question. It is indeed an excellent question. Once upon a time I even flew an Eos to provide mining boosts while having tank and drone damage, and the MMJD was a great tool to have on hand. Among other things, it made crossing to the far side of a belt trivial. Have the barges warp off, jump the Eos 100km, warp the barges back to the Eos.

Darth Bex Boundless Exploration 35	Posted - 2016.10.08 05:25:35 - [121] - Quote Zurdook wrote: Ore Hold: 50,000m3 is only useful if u dig alone, TRIPLE IT It can fit through a frigate sized wormhole ffs. 50K is extremely generous. Disciple of Bob
PhosGate Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 2	Posted - 2016.10.08 09:46:03 - [122] - Quote So just to add my opinion on the hull....really wish this was a new design instead of a skinned Noctis, hope that at some point in the future this is adjusted even if it is just ripping the top and the bottom off an Orca and smashing them together. Since there is no thread about the upcoming augmented mining drones: how about changing them to sentient mining drones, tone them down a bit if need be and add them to the loot table for drone anomolies. Having a chance for a one run BPC for a sentient mining drone as well as the abysmal chance for standard drops from these sites would go a long way to improving these unrated sites instead of just adding a dice roll to the BPC type in the drone regions. As for the Porpoise. Not sure how this will play out as a booster but overall seems like a good ship. Looks to be the absolute perfect solo L3 mission ship for clearing, loot and salvaging as well as mining. Find a 0.9 L3 agent, roll until you get a good mining mission. At site drop a Gecko and a mobile tractor, lock the Gecko and put a deadspace shield rep on it go afk for 10 minutes. Pull Gecko and drop mining drones give each one its own roid go afk for 30 minutes. finally run a trio of salvagers on the wrecks scoop all and warp back to station. should be good for about 25mil an hour. Not bad for personal snowflake, good concord response time and super slim chance of rats afkness. I'm sure that is not what this ship is intended for but sometimes I just want to watch some tele.
Brown Pathfinder Its a good day to die 13	Posted - 2016.10.08 11:14:45 - [123] - Quote When will the new ships and new stats go live on the test server? I only saw the new command burst modules and ammo for those but orca still had the old stats and no porpoise Also orca seems broken you can only run 1 link now on the test server.
Elenahina Agony Unleashed Agony Empire 1299	Posted - 2016.10.08 12:20:16 - [124] - Quote Brown Pathfinder wrote: When will the new ships and new stats go live on the test server? I think we'd all like to know that. Eve is like an addiction; you can't quit it until it quits you. Also, iderno
Scuzzy Logic Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 156	Posted - 2016.10.09 06:40:50 - [125] - Quote Would it be too much to ask for one of these command ships to be able to harvest gas properly?
13kr1d1 Hedion University Amarr Empire 178	Posted - 2016.10.09 08:13:08 - [126] - Quote Zurdook wrote: Ore Hold: 50,000m3 is only useful if u dig alone, TRIPLE IT Just no. Its a command ship, meant to boost other ships. While I don't like this concept beyond actual command skills like mining foreman, and some ship with fleet booster, if it makes other people more efficient, its own ore hold needs to be crap. They have to just build an actual CHEAP ore-only half-freighter. Needs something like 800k m3, Can Compress, and has some module slots for speed, defense, or whatever. I'd be down for ORE conversions based on T1 freighter hulls with better agility and warp speed. Scuzzy Logic wrote: Would it be too much to ask for one of these command ships to be able to harvest gas properly? Maybe if you want to huff gas you should buy a frigate that does it. A command ship is for boosts and minimal protection. Don't kid yourselves. Even the dirtiest pirates from the birth of EVE have been carebears. They use alts to bring them goods at cheap prices and safely, rather than live with consequences of their in game actions on their main, from concord to prices
13kr1d1 Hedion University Amarr Empire 178	Posted - 2016.10.09 08:16:52 - [127] - Quote Darryn Lowe wrote: Can the Porpoise be used on the free accounts? Due to being made redundant and having to take a lower paid job I'm not in a position to spend money on Eve for two players but if the Porpoise can be flown under the free account then it makes sense for it to exist. You can run a mining op on free accounts and still make some nice ISK for a low level op. Earthling Hibou wrote: Darryn Lowe wrote: Can the Porpoise be used on the free accounts?. No. Several important skills are unavailable to alphas, who can't even use barges. Its true. You won't be able to game the system. The horror. If you want to play with a free account, load up that alpha with a mining frig and go to town with a mining op that owns a porpoise or orca. The names are still terrible. Don't kid yourselves. Even the dirtiest pirates from the birth of EVE have been carebears. They use alts to bring them goods at cheap prices and safely, rather than live with consequences of their in game actions on their main, from concord to prices
13kr1d1 Hedion University Amarr Empire 178	Posted - 2016.10.09 08:18:06 - [128] - Quote Vivianne Athonille wrote: FT Diomedes wrote: Penance Toralen wrote: CCP Fozzie, Will the Medium Micro Jump Drive be able to be fit a on Porpoise? This is an excellent question. It is indeed an excellent question. Once upon a time I even flew an Eos to provide mining boosts while having tank and drone damage, and the MMJD was a great tool to have on hand. Among other things, it made crossing to the far side of a belt trivial. Have the barges warp off, jump the Eos 100km, warp the barges back to the Eos. Since you can warp to any asteroid that is about 100km or more away totally on your own, you wasted your time. I was just doing that tonight in a reti Don't kid yourselves. Even the dirtiest pirates from the birth of EVE have been carebears. They use alts to bring them goods at cheap prices and safely, rather than live with consequences of their in game actions on their main, from concord to prices
Darth Bex Boundless Exploration 37	Posted - 2016.10.09 08:56:26 - [129] - Quote 13kr1d1 wrote: Since you can warp to any asteroid that is about 100km or more away totally on your own, you wasted your time. I was just doing that tonight in a reti Try 150. Disciple of Bob
FT Diomedes The Graduates 2717	Posted - 2016.10.09 20:48:53 - [130] - Quote 13kr1d1 wrote: Vivianne Athonille wrote: FT Diomedes wrote: Penance Toralen wrote: CCP Fozzie, Will the Medium Micro Jump Drive be able to be fit a on Porpoise? This is an excellent question. It is indeed an excellent question. Once upon a time I even flew an Eos to provide mining boosts while having tank and drone damage, and the MMJD was a great tool to have on hand. Among other things, it made crossing to the far side of a belt trivial. Have the barges warp off, jump the Eos 100km, warp the barges back to the Eos. Since you can warp to any asteroid that is about 100km or more away totally on your own, you wasted your time. I was just doing that tonight in a reti Please learn basic game mechanics before you start commenting. CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

hercule veridic Guardians of Toutatis Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2016.10.09 23:20:39 - [131] - Quote yes but why we lose the old bonus that he avaits there on hexumers
Penance Toralen Compass Fox 16	Posted - 2016.10.10 03:06:50 - [132] - Quote Reflecting on this from the barge update post; CCPFozzie wrote: For a bit of insight into the current usage of the top 7 mining ships, here's the breakdown of mining yield by volume (last 90 days including ore, ice, and gas): Retriever: 23% Mackinaw: 22% Hulk: 21% Skiff: 14% Procurer: 8% Covetor: 7% Venture: 4% Other: 1% I would take it that the Prospect and Endurance really have not been embraced by harvesters. Now with the addition of the Porpoise for even more Shattered Wormhole mining. Will there be changes around the introduction of Porpoise to further incentualise this area of play?
Regan Rotineque The Scope Gallente Federation 465	Posted - 2016.10.10 04:45:56 - [133] - Quote This is an interesting little ship. One of the problems that I have with it is that it basically takes the same amount of time to train for as the orca. And the Orca is by far the better booster. Now that being said this sized hull is far more maneuverable and has the nice feature of being relatively cheap. But I think that overall most people are still going to end up in the Orca. The boosts and overall dps/ehp and cargo/ore hold sizes outweight most of the negatives. I think that adding some sort of specialization to the hull might be warranted. The ship is potentially small enough and fast enough to use in WH's. One of the main reasons to go into a WH is not for the rocks, but for the gas clouds. I think some sort of bonus to gas would provide this ship with a niche and ensure that it is actually being used. either by allowing it to directly mine the gas or giving it a bonus to its boosts for gas or even being able to fit gas dones. Otherwise I think this hull will end up like the primae, nice to own for a collector but not really used that much. I hope im wrong, but i just dont see this ship being the go to ship for miners.
Darryn Lowe Golden Duck Frigate Mining Corp 48	Posted - 2016.10.10 05:43:50 - [134] - Quote Penance Toralen wrote: Reflecting on this from the barge update post; CCPFozzie wrote: For a bit of insight into the current usage of the top 7 mining ships, here's the breakdown of mining yield by volume (last 90 days including ore, ice, and gas): Retriever: 23% Mackinaw: 22% Hulk: 21% Skiff: 14% Procurer: 8% Covetor: 7% Venture: 4% Other: 1% I would take it that the Prospect and Endurance really have not been embraced by harvesters. Now with the addition of the Porpoise for even more Shattered Wormhole mining. Will there be changes around the introduction of Porpoise to further incentualise this area of play? My favourite ship is the Endurance. It's a brilliant ship and even though I have level 5 Mastery over every single mining ship the one I use the most is the Endurance. It's only slightly slower than a Skiff with the same hold. A fantastic ice miner.
Vivianne Athonille Athonille Logistics and Provisions 25	Posted - 2016.10.10 11:12:55 - [135] - Quote What about including a minimum Ship Maintenance Bay (as was done with the Nestor) to support refits? Seems to be the only thing still missing when compared to the Orca and Rorqual.
Tiddle Jr Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 890	Posted - 2016.10.10 18:12:29 - [136] - Quote Does skills layout already available for this ship? just checked on SiSi and couldn't find it. "The message is that there are known knowns. There are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say there are things that we now know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know" - CCP
Scuzzy Logic Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 156	Posted - 2016.10.11 00:27:10 - [137] - Quote 13kr1d1 wrote: Scuzzy Logic wrote: Would it be too much to ask for one of these command ships to be able to harvest gas properly? Maybe if you want to huff gas you should buy a frigate that does it. A command ship is for boosts and minimal protection. The problem with this analogy is that the Orca and Rorqal are extremely efficient at having about a third to half the yield of a mining barge, while the poor gas huffers are stuck at the Venture levels of harvesting. Not to mention that, despite the Gas Cloud Harvesting skill giving us the ability to use 5 GCH, we have yet to have had a ship with 5 hardpoints and an ore hold. Not even bonused hardpoints, just 5. I'd kill for a Miasmos with 5 hardpoints. Also, Thile, the porpoise can provide additional yield AND protection for a mining group or an ice mining group, it cnnot assist a gas mining group with its yield directly. This could be resolved with gas drones, I guess...
Scuzzy Logic Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 156	Posted - 2016.10.11 00:30:00 - [138] - Quote Regan Rotineque wrote: This is an interesting little ship. One of the problems that I have with it is that it basically takes the same amount of time to train for as the orca. And the Orca is by far the better booster. Now that being said this sized hull is far more maneuverable and has the nice feature of being relatively cheap. But I think that overall most people are still going to end up in the Orca. The boosts and overall dps/ehp and cargo/ore hold sizes outweight most of the negatives. I think that adding some sort of specialization to the hull might be warranted. The ship is potentially small enough and fast enough to use in WH's. One of the main reasons to go into a WH is not for the rocks, but for the gas clouds. I think some sort of bonus to gas would provide this ship with a niche and ensure that it is actually being used. either by allowing it to directly mine the gas or giving it a bonus to its boosts for gas or even being able to fit gas dones. Otherwise I think this hull will end up like the primae, nice to own for a collector but not really used that much. I hope im wrong, but i just dont see this ship being the go to ship for miners. MY THOUGHTS EXACTLY, but as soon as you mention Gas Clouds or Wormholes I think the devs plug up their ears and go LALALALALA like they did for the market collapse after the removal of drone poo...
Scuzzy Logic Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 156	Posted - 2016.10.11 00:36:45 - [139] - Quote Rhaegon Aesir wrote: If you're going to give us ice mining drones, is there a reason not to give gas mining drones too ? I really like the idea of thrones porpoise for wormhole space. With its dps drones and remote rep capability it would nicely augment a small fleet of tanky ventures or prospects...except that it doesn't seem to have any gas mining capability. So the porpoise can mine ice with its fleet, it can mine ore with its fleet, but if it wants to support a gas mining fleet...it cant do anything except sit there and provide boosts. And let's be real here, in wormholes gas mining is far more common than ice or ore mining. Please CCP, don't forget us wormholers again :( CCP hates both gas and wormholes. They forgot to add reactions to their new fancy research platform, or so it seems. But yeah, GIVE THE GAS GUYS EQUAL TREATMENT, CCP!
Scuzzy Logic Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 156	Posted - 2016.10.11 00:40:16 - [140] - Quote Tyberius Franklin wrote: 13kr1d1 wrote: The benefits of being in groups should always come from character trained skills and a fleet booster. That'd make it more intuitive, as it'd reflect real life to a large degree. Industrial command ships hould never have been given bonuses to improve people's mining abilities. So what good are they then, you ask? They need, and often do have, other, unique bonuses that can improve the operation without being a drag. In fact, isn't the one of the Orca's strong suits the tractor nonsense? The porpoise isn't needed. People need to start using the noctis to tractor jetcans of bunches of people in a belt into one spot for a hauler to have easy pickup. A lot of the things the orca can do can be filled by other things, like you buy a simple MTU and stick it somewhere on the hauler flight plan, and it does the can grabbing from those covetors or hulks, etc. We don't need the porpoise, it doesn't have a purpose. People just need to stop being scared and go out there and mine with a fleet booster in regular ships. Either the orca or the pose will be redundant. Noctis + Hauler = Porpoise. What you stated people should do is pretty much half of what it does. The other half being providing boosts. The Orca is a better version of that sure, but stating one will make the other redundant is like suggesting no one would fly a Thorax because they have the skills for a Deimos. Or for that matter Barge vs Exhumer. Barges get plenty of use despite being inferior Exhumers in part because of functional similarity alongside strong cost difference. Now that I REALLY THINK about it, why are the Noctis bonuses not just slapped on the Porpoise and the two ships merged as one? Doesn't seem like it would be broken, IMHO, especially considering the poor Noctis is usually outperformed by the much cheaper destroyers.

Scuzzy Logic Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 156	Posted - 2016.10.11 00:44:15 - [141] - Quote Samsara Nolte wrote: As was asked before - Is the Porpoise able to fit gas harvester ? - it has 4 High Slots but it is nowhere to find if those highslot-¦s are turret slots. This is a really important question, because wormholer usually are mining more gas than ore and if this ship has to be on grid to boost but can-¦t mine gas it is not totally usesless but it comes close. pretty much the same argument regarding the Rorqual can be used here for gas mining ... it has to be worth it to place on grid. Not done my math but if it can-¦t mine there probably have to be around 5+ ships able to gas harvest before it is rewarding to use this ship ... and since it will be a lot easier to catch than ventures and prospects there has to be a reason to do so. Oh - and why aren-¦t there any drones to mine gas ? Because CCP hates gas miners. Please, CCP, 5 highs, 5 hardpoints, give us our mama huffer. Gas harvesting drones would have to look very silly, like a huge balloon with thrusters... Actually, I'd love to see those.
Scuzzy Logic Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 156	Posted - 2016.10.11 00:46:09 - [142] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: Allan 'Gopher' Green wrote: Fleet Hangar: 5000m3 I feel this is a bit small, as even the smallest barge hold can hold 12,000m3. it will be a continuous chore to keep moving ore out of the fleet hangar, with the fleet queuing up trying to dump their ore( only 2 barges will stress the 5,000 limit). I think 20,000m3 would be more suited, without over doing it ( still 50% of pre update Orca). If you are running a significant number of barges the orca is actually the tool you want. The Porpoise is more suited to working with a small fleet of ventures. AND YET IT CAN'T HELP WITH GAS CLOUD HARVESTING!!! [/rant] Okay, Scuzzy, okay, calm your ****, CCP is reasonable... sometimes...
Scuzzy Logic Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 156	Posted - 2016.10.11 00:53:06 - [143] - Quote HandelsPharmi wrote: Wow, this ship will replace the Mackinaw. Bigger ore hangar, ice harvester drones... perfect Nah, the Orca will replace the mack for this purpose. I can see the highsec belts now, looking like beehives. However, this thing is likely going to completely ANNIHILATE the niche of the Endurance as the ice-WH ship. I guess it's time I switched my Invention to the Prospect...
Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 2000	Posted - 2016.10.11 01:20:31 - [144] - Quote Scuzzy Logic wrote: Tyberius Franklin wrote: 13kr1d1 wrote: The benefits of being in groups should always come from character trained skills and a fleet booster. That'd make it more intuitive, as it'd reflect real life to a large degree. Industrial command ships hould never have been given bonuses to improve people's mining abilities. So what good are they then, you ask? They need, and often do have, other, unique bonuses that can improve the operation without being a drag. In fact, isn't the one of the Orca's strong suits the tractor nonsense? The porpoise isn't needed. People need to start using the noctis to tractor jetcans of bunches of people in a belt into one spot for a hauler to have easy pickup. A lot of the things the orca can do can be filled by other things, like you buy a simple MTU and stick it somewhere on the hauler flight plan, and it does the can grabbing from those covetors or hulks, etc. We don't need the porpoise, it doesn't have a purpose. People just need to stop being scared and go out there and mine with a fleet booster in regular ships. Either the orca or the pose will be redundant. Noctis + Hauler = Porpoise. What you stated people should do is pretty much half of what it does. The other half being providing boosts. The Orca is a better version of that sure, but stating one will make the other redundant is like suggesting no one would fly a Thorax because they have the skills for a Deimos. Or for that matter Barge vs Exhumer. Barges get plenty of use despite being inferior Exhumers in part because of functional similarity alongside strong cost difference. Now that I REALLY THINK about it, why are the Noctis bonuses not just slapped on the Porpoise and the two ships merged as one? Doesn't seem like it would be broken, IMHO, especially considering the poor Noctis is usually outperformed by the much cheaper destroyers. Depends on what you mean by performance. I get more out of dropping MTU's in missions then mopping up with the noctis then I can with a salvage destroyer. Also 96km tractor beams and the salvage bonus just seems to work better for me. The ONLY issue with the ship is the cost created by making the ship itself a BC.
Mara Rinn Cosmic Goo Convertor 5933	Posted - 2016.10.12 06:15:57 - [145] - Quote Scuzzy Logic wrote: CCP hates both gas and wormholes. They forgot to add reactions to their new fancy research platform, or so it seems. But yeah, GIVE THE GAS GUYS EQUAL TREATMENT, CCP! Haven't CCP already said that there is another structure coming, which will do most of the stuff a POS can do that is not alreadt done by citadels or ECs? Patience, padawan. Day 0 Advice for New Players
Mara Rinn Cosmic Goo Convertor 5933	Posted - 2016.10.12 06:22:27 - [146] - Quote Pelea Ming wrote: ok, I know my greivance isn't particularly relevant to this specific thread, BUT... wtf do the mining bursts share the same duration as combat bursts? Mining fleets take up a MUCH longer amount of game play/time then combat does, even in blop fleets, mining burst duration should share a significantly longer duration per 'shot fired' to match! At a measely 2 minutes of activation (assuming decent skill levels and such), when your mining fleet is banging rocks for 2 hours (and that's a SHORT mining fleet).... Am I the only one here who feels that miners are getting shortchanged on this?!? Especially given that one cycle of a combat weapon in at most 14 seconds while a boosted strip miner comes down as low as 96 seconds. Day 0 Advice for New Players
Meka Illat Schwartz Corp. 0	Posted - 2016.10.12 06:37:58 - [147] - Quote when with the new super drones be on the test sever?
Ferigan Damadil Innovation and Excavation Inc. 1	Posted - 2016.10.12 08:00:56 - [148] - Quote I do like the stats, but I hate the visuals. I did not care much about the Noctis either, but hey, okay, it's a salvage ship aka a garbage can. Please give your newest ship a little love and a good design job.
Rain6637 NulzSec 34269	Posted - 2016.10.12 08:23:46 - [149] - Quote the noctis model seriously Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Elithiel en Gravonere KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 5	Posted - 2016.10.12 08:24:33 - [150] - Quote I'm liking the new ship, but I hear also what the others are saying regarding exploration types (who incidentally, also mine in wormholes). The mining in wormholes has always been problematic, this new ship, if it can fit a cloak, could in theory serve a purpose as an expedition frigate fleet support vessel (fleet booster). Perhaps we could have a variant of it, for expedition frigates? That'd be just swell!

Rain6637 NulzSec 34269	Posted - 2016.10.12 08:29:55 - [151] - Quote hhhhhhhah you can't even give it ORE colors because that's taken by the Primae, which was handed out for free at one point as a subscription bonus How excited do you really expect people to be over a Noctis SKIN. You couldn't help reusing a years-old hull for a new ship class? Come onnnn Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Morgan Agrivar Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 583	Posted - 2016.10.12 09:18:56 - [152] - Quote When do I get to shoot at one? November 8th? Gotta put that on a calendar... This would cure me of the fear... CCP Explorer liked you forum post. Now my life is complete...
HandelsPharmi Pharmi on CharBazaar 1824	Posted - 2016.10.12 09:59:28 - [153] - Quote Rain6637 wrote: hhhhhhhah you can't even give it ORE colors because that's taken by the Primae, which was handed out for free at one point as a subscription bonus How excited do you really expect people to be over a Noctis SKIN. You couldn't help reusing a years-old hull for a new ship class? Come onnnn It is great for the scammers in Jita, who are offering a "cheap" Noctis or Porpois and selling you a Primea...
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 3658	Posted - 2016.10.12 10:16:03 - [154] - Quote HandelsPharmi wrote: It is great for the scammers in Jita, who are offering a "cheap" Noctis or Porpois and selling you a Primea... Except for the whole thing where markets & contracts show items by name, not by picture.....
Whelm CRA Haven 3	Posted - 2016.10.12 15:25:54 - [155] - Quote Rain6637 wrote: hhhhhhhah you can't even give it ORE colors because that's taken by the Primae, which was handed out for free at one point as a subscription bonus How excited do you really expect people to be over a Noctis SKIN. You couldn't help reusing a years-old hull for a new ship class? Come onnnn Noticed both the Noctis and the Primae have a new skin listed. a while/pink combo
Rain6637 NulzSec 34270	Posted - 2016.10.12 17:13:45 - [156] - Quote I get that a T2 Noctis has some traits that are in-line with command industrials, like the tractor bonus. My issue is with the model being reused. Perhaps I should back up and explain my confusion. "Porpoise" sounds like a sleek, quick ship. Being the smallest of the command industrials line, it would make sense that the Porpoise would look and act like a sleek ship. The Noctis is not a sleek or quick ship. It won't become the backbone of a new OP kiting doctrine, it's a ship for miners and they deserve this. The Porpoise was announced but the design of it was a big mystery until now. The lack of information about its looks made me think it was something new, or else why not just say it would use the Noctis model? Were you holding off on bad news? So yeah, I had some anticipation here, and I feel let down. What I expect would happen is that a new ship model was created to replace the Noctis hull. This way you'd get a new ship like people expect would happen, and you can get rid of the choked chicken Noctis already. What more of an occasion would you be waiting for? Somewhat more bothersome is the pace of new and updated ships. Is this too much to expect? Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Cade Windstalker 571	Posted - 2016.10.12 23:37:50 - [157] - Quote Rain6637 wrote: I get that a T2 Noctis has some traits that are in-line with command industrials, like the tractor bonus. My issue is with the model being reused. Perhaps I should back up and explain my confusion. "Porpoise" sounds like a sleek, quick ship. Being the smallest of the command industrials line, it would make sense that the Porpoise would look and act like a sleek ship. The Noctis is not a sleek or quick ship. It won't become the backbone of a new OP kiting doctrine, it's a ship for miners and they deserve this. The Porpoise was announced but the design of it was a big mystery until now. The lack of information about its looks made me think it was something new, or else why not just say it would use the Noctis model? Were you holding off on bad news? So yeah, I had some anticipation here, and I feel let down. What I expect would happen is that a new ship model was created to replace the Noctis hull. This way you'd get a new ship like people expect would happen, and you can get rid of the choked chicken Noctis already. What more of an occasion would you be waiting for? Somewhat more bothersome is the pace of new and updated ships. Is this too much to expect? The Porpoise is actually a T1 hull, not T2, it just uses the same model as the Noctis. I'd also like to point out that the Noctis model is actually original to the Primae special edition ship. It was used for the Noctis in response to the players going "WTF this thing looks awesome and you used it for this crappy thing!?!?" As to expectations, and this is all based on personal experience with development and my own opinion, while I understand the desire for the Porpoise to have its own model (I was hoping for something similar myself) I'm not really surprised it doesn't have one. The art pipeline is probably the most heavily loaded thing at CCP right now. It's dealing with new structures, hull revamps both large and small, new and revamped effects, and a backlog of features that probably stretches to 2020 (anyone else remember CCP talking about all active modules having a presence on the hull?). So yeah, not really surprised CCP didn't have room for a new hull. I hope they'll give us one eventually but in the meantime I think using the Noctis hull is fine.
Rain6637 NulzSec 34271	Posted - 2016.10.13 00:14:18 - [158] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: Rain6637 wrote: I get that a T2 Noctis has some traits that are in-line with command industrials, like the tractor bonus. My issue is with the model being reused. Perhaps I should back up and explain my confusion. "Porpoise" sounds like a sleek, quick ship. Being the smallest of the command industrials line, it would make sense that the Porpoise would look and act like a sleek ship. The Noctis is not a sleek or quick ship. It won't become the backbone of a new OP kiting doctrine, it's a ship for miners and they deserve this. The Porpoise was announced but the design of it was a big mystery until now. The lack of information about its looks made me think it was something new, or else why not just say it would use the Noctis model? Were you holding off on bad news? So yeah, I had some anticipation here, and I feel let down. What I expect would happen is that a new ship model was created to replace the Noctis hull. This way you'd get a new ship like people expect would happen, and you can get rid of the choked chicken Noctis already. What more of an occasion would you be waiting for? Somewhat more bothersome is the pace of new and updated ships. Is this too much to expect? The Porpoise is actually a T1 hull, not T2, it just uses the same model as the Noctis. I'd also like to point out that the Noctis model is actually original to the Primae special edition ship. It was used for the Noctis in response to the players going "WTF this thing looks awesome and you used it for this crappy thing!?!?" As to expectations, and this is all based on personal experience with development and my own opinion, while I understand the desire for the Porpoise to have its own model (I was hoping for something similar myself) I'm not really surprised it doesn't have one. The art pipeline is probably the most heavily loaded thing at CCP right now. It's dealing with new structures, hull revamps both large and small, new and revamped effects, and a backlog of features that probably stretches to 2020 (anyone else remember CCP talking about all active modules having a presence on the hull?). So yeah, not really surprised CCP didn't have room for a new hull. I hope they'll give us one eventually but in the meantime I think using the Noctis hull is fine. So outsource it. You're not asking for a block of game programming, it's a model and textures. CCP hasn't had a problem with using firms like Massive Black for what seems like most of DUST's art direction. Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Rain6637 NulzSec 34271	Posted - 2016.10.13 00:17:56 - [159] - Quote Come to think of it, if they're doing the modelling internally that's probably a mistake. They have artists yes but to CCP their value is in their ability to integrate assets into the game. if assets are built outside CCP already and this is the pace we get I don't know what to say. Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Cade Windstalker 571	Posted - 2016.10.13 00:51:31 - [160] - Quote Outsourcing of art assets is a pretty big Catch-22, and it only really works (at least from what I've heard, so this is by no means definitive) if you're going to be working with the same people for a long time. This helps keep the style and direction consistent and cuts down on the need for pieces to be re-done or tweaked in-house to meet quality/reqs. If you outsource things you're getting people who haven't worked with the rest of your team, may or may not be familiar with your IP, and likely don't have nearly the same kind of investment in the lore of the game or its current look. Case and point, there was a recent piece on Star Citizen's ongoing development which went into a fair amount of detail on rumored issues they've had with how spread out development is and their early decision to do a lot of work through contractors. Based on what we've heard since (the single player delay), and my own experiences, everything in that story checks out as plausible. Plus on top of that if CCP could afford to hire an entire contract team for art, and it's going to be a long term/open ended contract, then there's no reason not to just hire more artists. If it's short term then the incentive to outsource for art and go through the problems of integrating them and getting them spun up is a decent incentive against bothering. Personally the only time I think outsourcing like you're talking about makes sense is when you have a decent sized medium-term need but know demand is going to drop off heavily after a fixed period, OR you've made a decision to go with contract entirely for art and very little in-house and the relationship with the contractor is going to be for the life of the project.

Penance Toralen Compass Fox 19	Posted - 2016.10.13 01:18:23 - [161] - Quote Rain6637 wrote: hhhhhhhah you can't even give it ORE colors because that's taken by the Primae, which was handed out for free at one point as a subscription bonus How excited do you really expect people to be over a Noctis SKIN. You couldn't help reusing a years-old hull for a new ship class? Come onnnn Contrary to the Big Lie of miners having influence over CCP ("one more nerf"), miners are actually a complacent lot happy to accept a sow's ear.
Rain6637 NulzSec 34271	Posted - 2016.10.13 03:11:04 - [162] - Quote I feel like I'm already toeing the boundary of candid feedback and toxic, so I'll stop here at what I hope will be seen as a suggestion. Penance you have a point about people who will accept what's given to them. I guess that includes me in this case. I enjoy boosting for the RP and that includes mining. Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Cade Windstalker 571	Posted - 2016.10.13 04:15:59 - [163] - Quote Rain6637 wrote: I feel like I'm already toeing the boundary of candid feedback and toxic, so I'll stop here at what I hope will be seen as a suggestion. Penance you have a point about people who will accept what's given to them. I guess that includes me in this case. I enjoy boosting for the RP and that includes mining. For what it's worth I think Miners have more of a case for getting nice ship models (like the industrial update we just got) because they actually spend a decent amount of time staring at their ships. Most combat pilots see ships as O, X, or V surrounded by window frames. I just kind of understand where CCP's art pipeline is (clogged with Citadels) so when something gets pushed back or pushed out without a new model I'm likely to be understanding. I really do wish the Porpoise had its own model, or at least a more interesting one, but I don't think CCP should delay this update to wait on art assets.
Rain6637 NulzSec 34271	Posted - 2016.10.13 05:42:57 - [164] - Quote All I'm hearing is excuses right now. Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Penance Toralen Compass Fox 19	Posted - 2016.10.13 06:47:22 - [165] - Quote Rain6637 wrote: I feel like I'm already toeing the boundary of candid feedback and toxic, so I'll stop here at what I hope will be seen as a suggestion. Penance you have a point about people who will accept what's given to them. I guess that includes me in this case. I enjoy boosting for the RP and that includes mining. The looming thing absent from these threads are actual miners. Who are largely not engaged at this level of the game. QQP Quant called them "traditionalists" in his 2014 Fanfest Presentation. Easily evident from comments of discovery by miners after the fact that the Hulk lost a mining strip. A mere handful come to comment post update. A tiny fraction of a real number of miners. Those that have shrugged their shoulders at the update, rolled up their sleeves and undocked in a new ship.To an activity that remains unchanged. It would have been great to see a new hull for the Porpoise. The Attack Battlecruiser designs were sourced from a Deviant Art competition. Prehaps sometime in the future this is possible. All said, I have not decided whether I will get the BPO or just merely just have a hull- but I will have one in the hanger regardless. It would be nice to have an official/sanctioned mass test on Sisi with Endurances and Porpoises in Shattered.
FT Diomedes The Graduates 2741	Posted - 2016.10.13 09:44:55 - [166] - Quote Yes, it would be nice to see a new model for the Porpoise. I'm sure if I play Eve for another ten years I will eventually see one. CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.
Cade Windstalker 571	Posted - 2016.10.13 13:14:52 - [167] - Quote Penance Toralen wrote: The looming thing absent from these threads are actual miners. Who are largely not engaged at this level of the game. QQP Quant called them "traditionalists" in his 2014 Fanfest Presentation. Easily evident from comments of discovery by miners after the fact that the Hulk lost a mining strip. A mere handful come to comment post update. A tiny fraction of a real number of miners. Those that have shrugged their shoulders at the update, rolled up their sleeves and undocked in a new ship.To an activity that remains unchanged. It would have been great to see a new hull for the Porpoise. The Attack Battlecruiser designs were sourced from a Deviant Art competition. Prehaps sometime in the future this is possible. All said, I have not decided whether I will get the BPO or just merely just have a hull- but I will have one in the hanger regardless. It would be nice to have an official/sanctioned mass test on Sisi with Endurances and Porpoises in Shattered. I don't think we're seeing more or less participation from miners in these threads than we do from combat pilots, there are just more combat pilots than miners so their tiny fraction is more people than the miner's tiny fraction. Every time CCP puts out a dev blog saying "we're changing a thing!" after a thread was up for a month there's suddenly a rush of people to the forums looking to comment (or more often speak out against) whatever is changing. This lack of widespread engagement is part of why the CSM is so important and needs to be representative of the game as a whole, because we really can't count on the majority of players being engaged in its development. Rain6637 wrote: All I'm hearing is excuses right now. "We don't have the room in the art pipeline right now" isn't an excuse, it's a reason. What, exactly, would the community as a whole like to give up in exchange for a mining boosting ship model? Pay more money so CCP can hire more art team? Or does a ship rework or something similar get pushed off to fit the new model into the pipeline?
Rain6637 NulzSec 34271	Posted - 2016.10.13 13:19:21 - [168] - Quote I think it's pretty obvious to say the pace is what it is because difficulties. I guess you could say I just expect more. Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Cade Windstalker 571	Posted - 2016.10.13 13:34:27 - [169] - Quote Rain6637 wrote: I think it's pretty obvious to say the pace is what it is because difficulties. I guess you could say I just expect more. The pace is what it is because doing a game right is time consuming, pretty much by definition. The only time the pace is what most players consider "good" or "fast" is during early development before release, and that almost inevitably results in a lot of bugs and tech debt that the devs then have to fix. The only reason they go with that sort of pace early on is because they need to release the game and get it out making money. Basically I've never seen a game where the players are going "yeah, I'm satisfied with the pace of development", which suggests that the problem is in players' expectations, not with every dev in the industry.
Rain6637 NulzSec 34271	Posted - 2016.10.13 13:41:57 - [170] - Quote k Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)

Darth Bex Boundless Exploration 40	Posted - 2016.10.13 23:35:21 - [171] - Quote On the test server at the moment the Porpoise is appearing with 2 mids and 4 lows, I'm guessing that's just an error that will be corrected before testing is permitted? Disciple of Bob
RainReaper RRN Assembly INC 65	Posted - 2016.10.13 23:57:33 - [172] - Quote HOLY HEK! So uh. whats with all the shiny little lights moving around the porpoise hull? i also noticed the lights on the orca and rorqual as well! also THERE IS A TON OF DIFRENT SKINS FOR EM. like minmatar/amarr/gallente/caldari as well as skins for all of the pirate factions! and they are all called (industry livery skin)whats up with that???
Andrea Cemenotar Elena Minasse Operations 31	Posted - 2016.10.14 09:34:03 - [173] - Quote welp as for me the only thing I'd actually need with this is noctis hull model being "updated to fit more with new ore hulls" other than that ships seems ok
Omar Little Consider Phlebas... 0	Posted - 2016.10.14 14:28:02 - [174] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: Ydnari wrote: How about the industry information, is this an inventable T2 from the Noctis, or a T1 hull with its own BPO? T1 hull with a BPO sold by ORE.
Cade Windstalker 574	Posted - 2016.10.14 15:55:32 - [175] - Quote Omar Little wrote: CCP Fozzie wrote: Ydnari wrote: How about the industry information, is this an inventable T2 from the Noctis, or a T1 hull with its own BPO? T1 hull with a BPO sold by ORE. Care to elaborate a little? Lol. The Porpoise is supposed to be the introductory Boosting ship for mining. Making it T2 doesn't make sense in that context. It's basically a mining BC.
Darryn Lowe Golden Duck Frigate Mining Corp 50	Posted - 2016.10.14 20:42:28 - [176] - Quote Why are people railing on the Noctis hull? I like it. I love that spinning thing that doesn't make any sense to exist. :-) The speed though. I think the Orca moves faster than that thing.
Rain6637 NulzSec 34278	Posted - 2016.10.14 20:54:58 - [177] - Quote There is a distinction to be made here. The Noctis hull is cool. Salvage is an important gameplay mechanic and in the right situations it brings in a lot of ISK. The look of the Noctis has always fit its role. With the upcoming expansion there are very nice, awesome, amazing additions to the game like Industrial complexes, and leadership boosting is also undergoing a fundamental change. The small mining booster ship is also completely new. The Noctis hull is cool, but reusing it for this occasion of A Bunch Of Cool Things seems underwhelming. What's in a ship model, though. Right? It's only the most identifiable object that represents the player's existence in the game. When this is a new expansion and a new ship, does it feel completely right that your super cool new game piece is basically a Player B outfit Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Kenrailae Syndicate Enterprise Northern Coalition. 637	Posted - 2016.10.14 21:15:11 - [178] - Quote I was always player 1. Oldest sibling perk. The Law is a point of View The NPE IS a big deal
Cade Windstalker 582	Posted - 2016.10.15 01:28:57 - [179] - Quote Rain6637 wrote: There is a distinction to be made here. The Noctis hull is cool. Salvage is an important gameplay mechanic and in the right situations it brings in a lot of ISK. The look of the Noctis has always fit its role. With the upcoming expansion there are very nice, awesome, amazing additions to the game like Industrial complexes, and leadership boosting is also undergoing a fundamental change. The small mining booster ship is also completely new. The Noctis hull is cool, but reusing it for this occasion of A Bunch Of Cool Things seems underwhelming. What's in a ship model, though. Right? It's only the most identifiable object that represents the player's existence in the game. When this is a new expansion and a new ship, does it feel completely right that your super cool new game piece is basically a Player B outfit Okay, should they put off the mining revamp until they have another ship model done? It's not even like the Porpoise is a terribly important ship either, it's a newbie-friendly mining booster. Most older players will use an Orca or Rorqual.
RainReaper RRN Assembly INC 71	Posted - 2016.10.15 01:34:54 - [180] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: Rain6637 wrote: There is a distinction to be made here. The Noctis hull is cool. Salvage is an important gameplay mechanic and in the right situations it brings in a lot of ISK. The look of the Noctis has always fit its role. With the upcoming expansion there are very nice, awesome, amazing additions to the game like Industrial complexes, and leadership boosting is also undergoing a fundamental change. The small mining booster ship is also completely new. The Noctis hull is cool, but reusing it for this occasion of A Bunch Of Cool Things seems underwhelming. What's in a ship model, though. Right? It's only the most identifiable object that represents the player's existence in the game. When this is a new expansion and a new ship, does it feel completely right that your super cool new game piece is basically a Player B outfit Okay, should they put off the mining revamp until they have another ship model done? It's not even like the Porpoise is a terribly important ship either, it's a newbie-friendly mining booster. Most older players will use an Orca or Rorqual. I do belive you are missing one important aspect of the porpoise. the fact that it can pass trough frigate only wormholes. imagine a battlecruiser like ship in a wormhole where only frigates should be allowed. with powered up drones to take on any small frigate gangs that might apear to try and gank some endurances or prospects. and if you have 3 you could spider tank a little thanks to the porpoises enhanced remote shield bonuses. people will think twice about attacking a well prepared wormhole mining fleet lol. altough i guess bombers might be a bit of a problem... but hey. there needs to be a paper for your rock somewhere lol

Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 3667	Posted - 2016.10.15 04:45:04 - [181] - Quote RainReaper wrote: I do belive you are missing one important aspect of the porpoise. the fact that it can pass trough frigate only wormholes. imagine a battlecruiser like ship in a wormhole where only frigates should be allowed. with powered up drones to take on any small frigate gangs that might apear to try and gank some endurances or prospects. and if you have 3 you could spider tank a little thanks to the porpoises enhanced remote shield bonuses. people will think twice about attacking a well prepared wormhole mining fleet lol. altough i guess bombers might be a bit of a problem... but hey. there needs to be a paper for your rock somewhere lol so yeah for new players you got a cheap highsec mining op boosting ship and for the veterans we got a ship that can be used to harvest frigate only wormholes of their sweet ABC ore :p Yeah, the BC that fits in Frigate WH's is a bit silly. And could easily have been solved by giving the Prospect or Endurance a single boosting slot with no bonuses to give a Frigate WH booster if needed. Or they could have just left that area of space with no boosters. Heck, remember the Prospect can fit fleet boosts also, it might not get bonuses to them but it can fit them. So you can take a combat booster through frigate WH's.
Darth Bex Boundless Exploration 40	Posted - 2016.10.15 10:28:56 - [182] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: Heck, remember the Prospect can fit fleet boosts also, it might not get bonuses to them but it can fit them. So you can take a combat booster through frigate WH's. That's what Command Destroyers are for. It's not like over sized ships fitting through wormholes too small for their class doesn't have precedent. The Nestor is the only Battleship that can enter a C1 and Interdictors have been squeezing through Frigate sized wormhole since they spawned. No point getting bogged down in the details. As it stands, it makes for a useful booster/hauler to navigate those small apertures and is sorely needed in W-Space in particular. Disciple of Bob
Owen Levanth Sagittarius Unlimited Exploration 485	Posted - 2016.10.15 11:59:49 - [183] - Quote Darth Bex wrote: Nevyn Auscent wrote: Heck, remember the Prospect can fit fleet boosts also, it might not get bonuses to them but it can fit them. So you can take a combat booster through frigate WH's. That's what Command Destroyers are for. It's not like over sized ships fitting through wormholes too small for their class doesn't have precedent. The Nestor is the only Battleship that can enter a C1 and Interdictors have been squeezing through Frigate sized wormhole since they spawned. No point getting bogged down in the details. As it stands, it makes for a useful booster/hauler to navigate those small apertures and is sorely needed in W-Space in particular. In fact, if you are smart with your fitting, you can even squeeze Heavy Interdictors through frigate-sized holes.
Darth Bex Boundless Exploration 40	Posted - 2016.10.15 12:30:00 - [184] - Quote Owen Levanth wrote: In fact, if you are smart with your fitting, you can even squeeze Heavy Interdictors through frigate-sized holes. You must know I meant Heavy Interdictors, surely? There's nothing clever about it, you just fit a single warp disruption field generator. Disciple of Bob
Chan'aar State War Academy Caldari State 46	Posted - 2016.10.15 13:45:49 - [185] - Quote When will this be on SISI for testing? The current fitting simulation indicates the ship can only have one command burst fitted, I guess it is not fully authored yet.
Rain6637 NulzSec 34285	Posted - 2016.10.15 14:18:19 - [186] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: Okay, should they put off the mining revamp until they have another ship model done? It's not even like the Porpoise is a terribly important ship either, it's a newbie-friendly mining booster. Most older players will use an Orca or Rorqual. No, Cade, that's an exaggeration and it is ridiculous and I didn't say that. My point was if they're running into deadlines while modelling things internally, that's probably room for improvement. There is a difference between games companies and art firms. When you own the IP, you can forego some things and concentrate on developing the IP. Modelling new ships and structures in-house is one of them. Modelling in-house is what a lot of companies do, but there's another difference with CCP from most games companies: they're on an island, and expecting artists to move to Iceland will severely limit the capabilities of the company (if they insist on doing everything in-house and that house is in Iceland). A ship and texture can be modelled anywhere in the world. There is a lot of talent out there and it would not only save time to take advantage of that but it would also improve the game and our experience. Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Owen Levanth Sagittarius Unlimited Exploration 487	Posted - 2016.10.15 14:21:56 - [187] - Quote Darth Bex wrote: Owen Levanth wrote: In fact, if you are smart with your fitting, you can even squeeze Heavy Interdictors through frigate-sized holes. You must know I meant Heavy Interdictors, surely? Of course not, if I had known I wouldn't have wasted time on writing a post. Sorry, I just assumed you didn't know about Heavy Interdictors.
Goati State War Academy Caldari State 12	Posted - 2016.10.15 15:38:39 - [188] - Quote The porpoise is on the test server and it's significantly gimped compared to what was advertised. 25m3 drone hold, 25m3 bandwidth 3k structure 2k armor 1.7k shields. Gonna be useless with such low EHP. Hopefully it's just code copied from the noctis and the stats arn't updated yet. I'm thinking so[/quote]
Goati State War Academy Caldari State 12	Posted - 2016.10.15 15:39:33 - [189] - Quote double post
Penance Toralen Compass Fox 19	Posted - 2016.10.15 18:56:41 - [190] - Quote Goati wrote: The porpoise is on the test server and it's significantly gimped compared to what was advertised. 25m3 drone hold, 25m3 bandwidth 3k structure 2k armor 1.7k shields. Gonna be useless with such low EHP. Hopefully it's just code copied from the noctis and the stats arn't updated yet. I'm thinking so [/quote] It's the noctis renamed. The layout currently is 8/2/3.

Alana Packham Wardec Solutions 16	Posted - 2016.10.16 12:21:00 - [191] - Quote As it has the new command burst thingies this is no use at all in hi as it will just be bumped out of range. Code don't even need to lose a few ships ganking it, just takes 1 bloke to push it along out of range and it is totally pointless and useless, same as the new orca. Fit anchors on mining command ships! CCP sells cheap multiple accounts, they want them. Every Multi-Accounter has weaknesses, look for them before crying 'It's not fair'.
Echo Mande 86	Posted - 2016.10.16 14:00:26 - [192] - Quote Alana Packham wrote: Fit anchors on mining command ships! Which is precisely why I've suggested allowing the Orca (but not the Porpoise) to use the Industrial Cores, with slight modifications to their effects (half or less fuel usage, burst strength bonus and drone bonuses). IMO the Porpoise is tailor made for mobile roaming ops (lowsec), fill-and-go ops and low end operators without the skill to use the Orca. Using an Orca IMO means you've got a hauler alt available so the Orca can stay on station with the miners. Wallet remarks everywhere
Kaivarian Coste Maut Merchant Navy 89	Posted - 2016.10.16 15:33:07 - [193] - Quote This ship looks interesting, and will definitely be an asset for low sec / WH ice miners (yes they do exist!). But what's the minimum fleet size to make a Porpoise worthwhile (e.g. 2 Endurances + a Porpoise vs 3 Endurances: which would be better?).
Thomas Lot Astrocomical Warped Intentions 68	Posted - 2016.10.16 15:43:15 - [194] - Quote I am reposting this in the feedback thread. I posted it earlier in the 'Ships/Modules' thread as well. I am working in nul under a fully boosted rorqual system. Using a Prospect with T2 mining crystals and max skills. I am pulling very close to 2500 m3/min ore. In the dev blog covering the introduction of the mining boost changes, the Porpoise is said to be able to achieve comparable mining rate of a mining barge. Maybe the developers are referring to a raw, unboosted mining barge with no Orca or Rorqual support. This is not really a fair comparison. The mining drones are not going to be affected by the boost mechanics and therefore will only achieve about half the mining rate of a mining barge under boosted operations. Factor in the pitifully slow movement of mining drones and that number decreases to as much as a fourth of the yield of a barge. Many dedicated miners may be very disappointed with this aspect of the Ascension mining mechanic.
RainReaper RRN Assembly INC 75	Posted - 2016.10.16 16:04:49 - [195] - Quote Kaivarian Coste wrote: This ship looks interesting, and will definitely be an asset for low sec / WH ice miners (yes they do exist!). But what's the minimum fleet size to make a Porpoise worthwhile (e.g. 2 Endurances + a Porpoise vs 3 Endurances: which would be better?). edit: looking at the "COMMAND BURSTS AND THE NEW WORLD OF FLEET BOOSTING" dev blog, it shows that a "Mining Laser Optimization" command burst will reduce the cycle of a ice harvester (or laser?) by up to 57%. So this is more than half. Basically an Endurance + Porpoise is better than two Endurances? Id say 1 porpois and then 1 endurance/prospect atleast. you need tor emember that the porpoise got boosted attack drones and mining drones., while not as good as an orca they will ahve around the same mining ability as a barge. wich beats the yield of any mining frigate lol. and they can also fight back against hostile frigates that will show up in the frigate only wormholes. and heck if you bring mutiple ones you can spdier tank them. they do have remote shield booster range bonuses.
RainReaper RRN Assembly INC 75	Posted - 2016.10.16 16:07:23 - [196] - Quote Thomas Lot wrote: I am reposting this in the feedback thread. I posted it earlier in the 'Ships/Modules' thread as well. I am working in nul under a fully boosted rorqual system. Using a Prospect with T2 mining crystals and max skills. I am pulling very close to 2500 m3/min ore. In the dev blog covering the introduction of the mining boost changes, the Porpoise is said to be able to achieve comparable mining rate of a mining barge. Maybe the developers are referring to a raw, unboosted mining barge with no Orca or Rorqual support. This is not really a fair comparison. The mining drones are not going to be affected by the boost mechanics and therefore will only achieve about half the mining rate of a mining barge under boosted operations. Factor in the pitifully slow movement of mining drones and that number decreases to as much as a fourth of the yield of a barge. Many dedicated miners may be very disappointed with this aspect of the Ascension mining mechanic. I dont think your using it the right way here. its main usage is the fact that it can access frigate only wormholes. and it costs the same as a battlecruiser to build. making it exelent for new players who want to boost in highsec and cant afford an orca. and again. in frigate only wormholes its the only one that can give boosts to a fleet as well as bring logi to the fleet. the area it will truly shine is wormhole space.
Mole Guy Band of Builders Inc. Silent Infinity 456	Posted - 2016.10.16 19:19:28 - [197] - Quote what about mining boosts and those belts that are 1300km wide? some of the roids are 100km apart which means we will have to boost a miner and they warp to it. on the drone miners, especially the rorqual, we siege and strip a roid, then wait 5 minutes to move to a new roid to siege again. any chance to shrink those fields since we dont have system wide boosts anymore?
Amak Boma Dragon Factory Peoples United Republic Empire 207	Posted - 2016.10.17 09:54:30 - [198] - Quote perfect for rolling frigate holes?
Cade Windstalker 583	Posted - 2016.10.17 14:32:42 - [199] - Quote Echo Mande wrote: Alana Packham wrote: Fit anchors on mining command ships! Which is precisely why I've suggested allowing the Orca (but not the Porpoise) to use the Industrial Cores, with slight modifications to their effects (half or less fuel usage, burst strength bonus and drone bonuses). IMO the Porpoise is tailor made for mobile roaming ops (lowsec or with mining frigates), fill-and-go ops and low end operators without the skill to use the Orca. Using an Orca IMO means you've got a hauler alt available so the Orca can stay on station with the miners. If that's your only reason for letting them use the Core then what you actually want is some kind of active anchor module that lets the ship become basically bump immune while it's cycling. No need to mess with the balance of the ships by giving it bonuses on top of that.
Chan'aar State War Academy Caldari State 47	Posted - 2016.10.17 17:12:09 - [200] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: If that's your only reason for letting them use the Core then what you actually want is some kind of active anchor module that lets the ship become basically bump immune while it's cycling. No need to mess with the balance of the ships by giving it bonuses on top of that. Would be suitable, although I'm sure someone will be along to explain how it could be exploited.

Cade Windstalker 589	Posted - 2016.10.17 18:54:50 - [201] - Quote Chan'aar wrote: Cade Windstalker wrote: If that's your only reason for letting them use the Core then what you actually want is some kind of active anchor module that lets the ship become basically bump immune while it's cycling. No need to mess with the balance of the ships by giving it bonuses on top of that. Would be suitable, although I'm sure someone will be along to explain how it could be exploited. I'm not saying I necessarily think it's a good idea, but it's better than giving the Orca a full mini-core which there's no real reason not to use in High Sec, which has the potential to create a lot of imbalances for no reason.
Primary This Rifter SniggWaffe WAFFLES. 1213	Posted - 2016.10.18 16:18:51 - [202] - Quote I honestly don't see the porpoise.
Chan'aar State War Academy Caldari State 51	Posted - 2016.10.18 19:53:13 - [203] - Quote Primary This Rifter wrote: I honestly don't see the porpoise. Ba-dum tish
RainReaper RRN Assembly INC 77	Posted - 2016.10.18 20:04:09 - [204] - Quote Primary This Rifter wrote: I honestly don't see the porpoise. The Porpoise is to have a cheap ship for new people to use as well as haveing a ship that can enter frigate only wormhole space and help lead mining ops. I think thats a good enough porpoise seing as wormholers have been beging for a ship that can enter frigate only wormholes to boost endurances and prospects during mining ops.
Cyclone Organic Aurea Ducklings 0	Posted - 2016.10.18 20:47:19 - [205] - Quote I would strongly recommend that it is necessary to lower the skill requirement for porpoise. Currently It is just a cheaper alternative to Orca with reasonable deduction of bonus effect. However, I would like to see it also serves as the term of entry-level skill for mining leadership. How about remove the requirement of Industrial Command ship and put it down to ORE industry ship? Then players will have a step-by-step progression line.
Jenna Kyriel Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 11	Posted - 2016.10.18 21:08:12 - [206] - Quote 4 medium and 2 low slots. Is meant to do industry. Okay look, this thing will be suicide ganked. Easily. Often. It needs far better options for defenses than this, I'd say 4/4/5 at the very least, because if anything will be coming for your minion ops, a pack if kids with disposable alts in Alpha-fit T1 dessies will, and that 'fight' will be over in 10 seconds of less and CONCORD won't save you. If you want mining ops to be defended better, kindly DEFEND THEM BETTER, don't just SAY you will then give the gank-happy folks out there more targets to salivate over.
Cade Windstalker 589	Posted - 2016.10.18 21:30:26 - [207] - Quote Jenna Kyriel wrote: 4 medium and 2 low slots. Is meant to do industry. Okay look, this thing will be suicide ganked. Easily. Often. It needs far better options for defenses than this, I'd say 4/4/5 at the very least, because if anything will be coming for your minion ops, a pack if kids with disposable alts in Alpha-fit T1 dessies will, and that 'fight' will be over in 10 seconds of less and CONCORD won't save you. If you want mining ops to be defended better, kindly DEFEND THEM BETTER, don't just SAY you will then give the gank-happy folks out there more targets to salivate over. Why does it need 3 more low slots to tank well enough? It's going to shield tank, not strap Bulkheads into every available low that doesn't have a DCU 2, and if you'll recall from the discussion about Command Bursts the co-procs are turning into Rigs. Besides which, if you're in High Sec this thing is probably a stepping stone at best in most cases, and you'll be upgrading to an Orca, which would require a few hundred "Kids in Alpha-fit T1 Dessies" to gank. Cyclone Organic wrote: I would strongly recommend that it is necessary to lower the skill requirement for porpoise. Currently It is just a cheaper alternative to Orca with reasonable deduction of bonus effect. But I personally don't see it make too much sense. Just thinking about that, you are leading a mining fleet, your team members want to have a better bonus. And you are making suggestion or even decision of the choice between Orca and porpoise. You will tell them these two ships have the same skill requirements. So the only difference is the price-benefit comparison. I personally believe it is a good idea to raise some money by all team members to have an Orca because of its better performance in the long run. An Orca is not really too expensive for a corporation. For example, for a tiny mining corp with 5 high sec miners who plays about 4 hours per day (probably underestimated), on Plagioclase, they can make a profit around 6 m ISK per 30 minutes- person * 5 person * 2 * 24 = 1440000000 ISK per day. Therefore, I would like to see it also serves as the term of entry-level skill for mining leadership. How about remove the requirement of Industrial Command ship and put it down to ORE industry ship? Then players will have a step-by-step progression line. So, here's my take on this thing. It's cheaper, it's faster, and it can enter C1 Wormholes. You won't use it in High Sec except for a few niche cases. What this thing is for is Newbie's First Low/Null Mining Op and for supporting mining expeditions into Wormholes. It's faster, so it can escape more easily than an Orca, and it has a decent ore bay so it can haul stuff back. It also brings RR to the table, which makes it, or a pair, decent support for a small fleet of Skiffs. As for the skills issue, it's not much of a train to Industrial Command Ships compared to Ore Industrial. The biggest hurdle is probably Mining Director which you need to boost a fleet anyways. Other than that it's Spaceship Command and Ore Industrial to 3, plus the cost of the book, none of which is significant.
Penance Toralen Compass Fox 19	Posted - 2016.10.18 21:56:19 - [208] - Quote Jenna Kyriel wrote: 4 medium and 2 low slots. Is meant to do industry. Okay look, this thing will be suicide ganked. Easily. Often. It needs far better options for defenses than this, I'd say 4/4/5 at the very least, because if anything will be coming for your minion ops, a pack if kids with disposable alts in Alpha-fit T1 dessies will, and that 'fight' will be over in 10 seconds of less and CONCORD won't save you. If you want mining ops to be defended better, kindly DEFEND THEM BETTER, don't just SAY you will then give the gank-happy folks out there more targets to salivate over. It is awkward since it is not yet on Sisi, So far the porpoise has similar CPU and grid to the caldari cruisers. LSE and three shield resists to suit would be a good start. Plus a DCU2. The trade-off of drone rigs vs shield rigs is intended. But it should manage at least 20k plus eHP. Then consider this. If you are sharing a belt with another booster, be it an Orca or Porpoise. Then start a dialogue. They both should have Remote Shield Boosters fitted. They cover each other with RR. I have not idea if a LRSB will fit. I have yet to see an answer to question about access to the Micro Jump Drive for the Porpoise. It's the "get of ~~bumping~~ jail card".
Isler Twy'Lar Federation Navy 3rd Fleet Wrong Hole. 8	Posted - 2016.10.20 17:06:33 - [209] - Quote Cyclone Organic wrote: I would strongly recommend that it is necessary to lower the skill requirement for porpoise. Currently It is just a cheaper alternative to Orca with reasonable deduction of bonus effect. But I personally don't see it make too much sense. Just thinking about that, you are leading a mining fleet, your team members want to have a better bonus. And you are making suggestion or even decision of the choice between Orca and porpoise. You will tell them these two ships have the same skill requirements. So the only difference is the price-benefit comparison. I personally believe it is a good idea to raise some money by all team members to have an Orca because of its better performance in the long run. An Orca is not really too expensive for a corporation. For example, for a tiny mining corp with 5 high sec miners who plays about 4 hours per day (probably underestimated), on Plagioclase, they can make a profit around 6 m ISK per 30 minutes- person * 5 person * 2 * 24 = 1440000000 ISK per day. Therefore, I would like to see it also serves as the term of entry-level skill for mining leadership. How about remove the requirement of Industrial Command ship and put it down to ORE industry ship? Then players will have a step-by-step progression line. I think the benefit of the Porpoise is that it's less expensive than an Orca. So you can fly it somewhere other than Highsec without fear of losing as much isk.
Je'ron The Happy Shooters 3	Posted - 2016.10.20 22:55:11 - [210] - Quote Apparently CCP is still not sure what to make off this ship. On Sisi you can find it on the market under Ships /Captial ships /Capital Industrial Ships / ORE. Very strange. If one would consider it a sub cap Command ship, it should be a T2 and place it as Ships / Industrial ships /Advanced Industrial ships /Command ships / ORE

RainReaper RRN Assembly INC 78	Posted - 2016.10.20 22:58:12 - [211] - Quote Je'ron wrote: Apparently CCP is still not sure what to make off this ship. On Sisi you can find it on the market under Ships /Captial ships /Capital Industrial Ships / ORE. Very strange. If one would consider it a sub cap Command ship, it should be a T2 and place it as Ships / Industrial ships /Advanced Industrial ships /Command ships / ORE they ahvent even started developing its stats yet dude. it litteraly ahve the same stats and slot layout as the Noctis. hopefully next week they will start puting in all of the mining command ship changes. but until then we wait lol
Cade Windstalker 595	Posted - 2016.10.21 02:53:09 - [212] - Quote Je'ron wrote: Apparently CCP is still not sure what to make off this ship. On Sisi you can find it on the market under Ships /Captial ships /Capital Industrial Ships / ORE. Very strange. If one would consider it a sub cap Command ship, it should be a T2 and place it as Ships / Industrial ships /Advanced Industrial ships /Command ships / ORE It's a T1 hull though, and doesn't require the Command Ships skill.
Mara Rinn Cosmic Goo Convertor 5952	Posted - 2016.10.21 07:38:20 - [213] - Quote What I see so far is a Miasmos with tractor beams, RR and long survey scanner range. I can stow it in the SMB of the orca, haul it out to survey the field, tag the rocks, then switch to Skiff and mine. Then when the orca starts to fill the rest of the fleet keeps doing what they're doing, and I haul ore back to base with the Porpoise. It won't be quite as efficient as the Miasmos (slower warp speed, higher align time) but it brings other abilities to the table. It would be really awesome if some of the ORE command ships could have skirmish warfare instead of shield boosts. But that's just my skittish nature speaking :D Day 0 Advice for New Players
Cade Windstalker 595	Posted - 2016.10.21 13:59:29 - [214] - Quote Mara Rinn wrote: What I see so far is a Miasmos with tractor beams, RR and long survey scanner range. I can stow it in the SMB of the orca, haul it out to survey the field, tag the rocks, then switch to Skiff and mine. Then when the orca starts to fill the rest of the fleet keeps doing what they're doing, and I haul ore back to base with the Porpoise. It won't be quite as efficient as the Miasmos (slower warp speed, higher align time) but it brings other abilities to the table. It would be really awesome if some of the ORE command ships could have skirmish warfare instead of shield boosts. But that's just my skittish nature speaking :D That's actually a thought, it'd be pretty neat if the Porpoise got a bonus to Shield and Skirmish so it still has the potential to see some use as something other than a wormhole booster or a poor man's Orca.
Cyclone Organic Aurea Ducklings 0	Posted - 2016.10.21 18:30:35 - [215] - Quote Isler Twy'Lar wrote: I think the benefit of the Porpoise is that it's less expensive than an Orca. So you can fly it somewhere other than Highsec without fear of losing as much isk. It might be a good point. And what I am talking about is that CCP should design a similar progression line of industrial command burst as any other types of roles, like mining barges vs exhumers, T1 logistics cruiser vs T2 specialized logistics ship and capital Force Auxiliary class. This way, a step-by-step skill progression, can provide a strong positive reinforcement for players who want to develop a career in industrial leadership.
Goati State War Academy Caldari State 14	Posted - 2016.10.22 10:56:46 - [216] - Quote Does anyone else find it stupid that Porpoise does not get the 50% bonus to command burst range, that all other command burst vessels get? (apart from the destroyer) Even T1 battlecruisers get the 50% command burst range bonus, even though they can only fit 1 command burst. The Porpoise is supposed to be equivalent to a T1 battlecruiser, is primarily a command booster (can fit 2x command bursts) and yet it does not gain the 50% bonus to command burst range. This ruins the Porpoise for me, people simply won't use the porpoise for bursts if the max burst range is going to be much smaller than the size of a belt. (which it is without the 50% range bonus).
marly cortez Mercurialis Inc. The Bastion 177	Posted - 2016.10.22 15:02:11 - [217] - Quote Looking at the stats for this ship the only comment that comes to mind is 'Large Stationary Target'.
Isler Twy'Lar Federation Navy 3rd Fleet Wrong Hole. 8	Posted - 2016.10.23 20:26:35 - [218] - Quote Penance Toralen wrote: Rain6637 wrote: I feel like I'm already toeing the boundary of candid feedback and toxic, so I'll stop here at what I hope will be seen as a suggestion. Penance you have a point about people who will accept what's given to them. I guess that includes me in this case. I enjoy boosting for the RP and that includes mining. The looming thing absent from these threads are actual miners. Who are largely not engaged at this level of the game. QQP Quant called them "traditionalists" in his 2014 Fanfest Presentation. Easily evident from comments of discovery by miners after the fact that the Hulk lost a mining strip. A mere handful come to comment post update. A tiny fraction of a real number of miners. Those that have shrugged their shoulders at the update, rolled up their sleeves and undocked in a new ship.To an activity that remains unchanged. It would have been great to see a new hull for the Porpoise. The Attack Battlecruiser designs were sourced from a Deviant Art competition. Prehaps sometime in the future this is possible. All said, I have not decided whether I will get the BPO or just merely just have a hull- but I will have one in the hanger regardless. It would be nice to have an official/sanctioned mass test on Sisi with Endurances and Porpoises in Shattered. I am a miner and am chomping at the bit to get into the test server and try it out. I wish they would get it on there.
Cade Windstalker 597	Posted - 2016.10.24 11:12:22 - [219] - Quote Goati wrote: Drake is a better mining gang boost ship than the Porpoise. Why? Because Drake and all other BC's get a 50% range bonus to command bursts, which means a Drake can give 43km radius boosts, but a Porpoise only gives 29km radius boosts. Does anyone else find it stupid that Porpoise does not get the 50% bonus to command burst range, that all other command burst vessels get? (apart from the destroyer) Even T1 battlecruisers get the 50% command burst range bonus, even though they can only fit 1 command burst. The Porpoise is supposed to be equivalent to a battlecruiser, is primarily a command booster (can fit 2x command bursts) and yet it does not gain the 50% bonus to command burst range. This ruins the Porpoise for me, people simply won't use the porpoise for bursts if the max burst range is going to be much smaller than the size of a belt. (which it is without the 50% range bonus). Command ships give an even bigger radius, but this is about the Porpoise not receiving battlecruiser range bonus to bursts, even though it direly needs it, and it's a command battlecruiser after all - why wouldn't it receive the 50% range bonus that all battlecruisers receive? This really shouldn't be a breaking thing for you or anyone else, you can easily position the Porpoise centrally so that you can hit all of your mining ships while they stay in range of their rocks on the vast majority of belts. For the ones where that doesn't work you should probably be bringing an Orca anyways. I'll agree that it makes a bit of sense for the Porpoise to have the range bonus, but it also makes sense for there to be a progression in range from the Porpoise up through to the Rorqual, since the ability to spread the fleet out more makes them less vulnerable to ganks.
Goati State War Academy Caldari State 16	Posted - 2016.10.24 12:21:21 - [220] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: Goati wrote: Drake is a better mining gang boost ship than the Porpoise. Why? Because Drake and all other BC's get a 50% range bonus to command bursts, which means a Drake can give 43km radius boosts, but a Porpoise only gives 29km radius boosts. Does anyone else find it stupid that Porpoise does not get the 50% bonus to command burst range, that all other command burst vessels get? (apart from the destroyer) Even T1 battlecruisers get the 50% command burst range bonus, even though they can only fit 1 command burst. The Porpoise is supposed to be equivalent to a battlecruiser, is primarily a command booster (can fit 2x command bursts) and yet it does not gain the 50% bonus to command burst range. This ruins the Porpoise for me, people simply won't use the porpoise for bursts if the max burst range is going to be much smaller than the size of a belt. (which it is without the 50% range bonus). Command ships give an even bigger radius, but this is about the Porpoise not receiving battlecruiser range bonus to bursts, even though it direly needs it, and it's a command battlecruiser after all - why wouldn't it receive the 50% range bonus that all battlecruisers receive? This really shouldn't be a breaking thing for you or anyone else, you can easily position the Porpoise centrally so that you can hit all of your mining ships while they stay in range of their rocks on the vast majority of belts. For the ones where that doesn't work you should probably be bringing an Orca anyways. I'll agree that it makes a bit of sense for the Porpoise to have the range bonus, but it also makes sense for there to be a progression in range from the Porpoise up through to the Rorqual, since the ability to spread the fleet out more makes them less vulnerable to ganks. If there should be progression as you say, then the progression should be the same as it is with battlecruisers to command ships. Battlecruisers get 50% burst range bonus, and command ships gets 100% burst range bonus. The Orca could get a boost to be above 50% if need be. The Porpoise should get the 50% range bonus, as it is a battlecruiser after all - it's very stupid for an 'industrial command battlecruiser' to not get a 50% burst range bonus, when the Drake for example, a combat battlecruiser not even specialised in bursts, does get the 50% range bonus. In fact, this is completely ridicluous. CCP, why does a 'mining command ship' specialised in command bursts not receive the 50% range to bursts, when a combat battlecruiser, not even specialised in bursts, does receive a 50% range bonus?

Cade Windstalker 597	Posted - 2016.10.24 13:03:45 - [221] - Quote Goati wrote: If there should be progression as you say, then the progression should be the same as it is with battlecruisers to command ships. Battlecruisers get 50% burst range bonus, and command ships gets 100% burst range bonus. The Orca could get a boost to be above 50% if need be. The Porpoise should get the 50% range bonus, as it is a battlecruiser after all - it's very stupid for an 'industrial command battlecruiser' to not get a 50% burst range bonus, when the Drake for example, a combat battlecruiser not even specialised in bursts, does get the 50% range bonus. In fact, this is completely ridicluous. CCP, why does a 'mining command ship' specialised in command bursts not receive the 50% range to bursts, when a combat battlecruiser, not even specialised in bursts, does receive a 50% range bonus? We have that, with the Orca(50% range) to the Rorqual(50% range, with another 100% or 200% range on the Industrial Core) I think the issue here is you're equating the Porpoise to the BC slot when the Orca serves more closely to that boosting slot in the mining progression chain with the Porpoise filling the role more closely aligned to the Command Destroyer in terms of being the lowest tier on the chain. There's nothing that says that the Porpoise needs to fit the role of a "Mining BC" just because of its size.
Goati State War Academy Caldari State 16	Posted - 2016.10.24 14:29:27 - [222] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: Goati wrote: If there should be progression as you say, then the progression should be the same as it is with battlecruisers to command ships. Battlecruisers get 50% burst range bonus, and command ships gets 100% burst range bonus. The Orca could get a boost to be above 50% if need be. The Porpoise should get the 50% range bonus, as it is a battlecruiser after all - it's very stupid for an 'industrial command battlecruiser' to not get a 50% burst range bonus, when the Drake for example, a combat battlecruiser not even specialised in bursts, does get the 50% range bonus. In fact, this is completely ridicluous. CCP, why does a 'mining command ship' specialised in command bursts not receive the 50% range to bursts, when a combat battlecruiser, not even specialised in bursts, does receive a 50% range bonus? We have that, with the Orca(50% range) to the Rorqual(50% range, with another 100% or 200% range on the Industrial Core) I think the issue here is you're equating the Porpoise to the BC slot when the Orca serves more closely to that boosting slot in the mining progression chain with the Porpoise filling the role more closely aligned to the Command Destroyer in terms of being the lowest tier on the chain. There's nothing that says that the Porpoise needs to fit the role of a "Mining BC" just because of its size. The Porpoise IS a command battlecruiser. The Orca most certainly is nowhere near the level of battlecruiser, it's so large and slow, it's basically just a smaller Rorqual designed for hi-sec use.
Cade Windstalker 597	Posted - 2016.10.24 19:29:40 - [223] - Quote Goati wrote: The Porpoise IS a command battlecruiser. The Orca most certainly is nowhere near the level of battlecruiser, it's so large and slow, it's basically just a smaller Rorqual designed for hi-sec use. You're still equating size with boosting performance. Mining ships are not combat ships and don't need to be balanced along the same lines. If you feel that the range bonus is more valuable than the mining amount bonus then you've already got that option in the form of a Combat BC. If you just want both then CCP have made their value judgement on that combination of bonuses pretty clear with how they distributed them between the Porpoise, Orca, and Rorqual.
Erasmus Grant Immortal Wanderers Zaibatsu Mercantile 31	Posted - 2016.10.24 20:38:33 - [224] - Quote I would like to see Porpose to get the use of medium micro jumpdrive or cloaking bonus to that of BlOps
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 3676	Posted - 2016.10.24 21:01:21 - [225] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: You're still equating size with boosting performance. Mining ships are not combat ships and don't need to be balanced along the same lines. If you feel that the range bonus is more valuable than the mining amount bonus then you've already got that option in the form of a Combat BC. If you just want both then CCP have made their value judgement on that combination of bonuses pretty clear with how they distributed them between the Porpoise, Orca, and Rorqual. Actually they do need balancing along the same lines as combat ships. Just instead of DPS bonuses they get mining/hauling bonuses. But otherwise they should be balanced along the same lines as combat ships. The fact that they haven't been till now is why we have such a cultural bias treating miners as second class citizens of EVE, because CCP themselves have been treating them as second class citizens and not allowing them to actually fit their ships with any variety. Compare the number of slots, PG & CPU to an equivalent size/cost Combat ship. If the answer is not 'Basically the same' then there is an issue, and Industrialists will continue to get mistreated. And yes, giving them the same means people will come up with some combat uses for them, And? Why is this a bad thing if someone decided that a proper fittable freighter made a great pipe bombing ship. Who cares, it's out in space at risk doing stuff. So yes it should have the range bonus. And it should have the same fitting options.
Erasmus Grant Immortal Wanderers Zaibatsu Mercantile 31	Posted - 2016.10.24 21:14:16 - [226] - Quote The range is kinda garbage. Considering the size of belts. I do love the 3.61 AU/s though I would love for some fits to be PM'd to me.
Isler Twy'Lar Federation Navy 3rd Fleet Wrong Hole. 8	Posted - 2016.10.24 21:21:35 - [227] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: Goati wrote: The Porpoise IS a command battlecruiser. The Orca most certainly is nowhere near the level of battlecruiser, it's so large and slow, it's basically just a smaller Rorqual designed for hi-sec use. You're still equating size with boosting performance. Mining ships are not combat ships and don't need to be balanced along the same lines. If you feel that the range bonus is more valuable than the mining amount bonus then you've already got that option in the form of a Combat BC. If you just want both then CCP have made their value judgement on that combination of bonuses pretty clear with how they distributed them between the Porpoise, Orca, and Rorqual. So give the range bonus to mining bursts only.
Isler Twy'Lar Federation Navy 3rd Fleet Wrong Hole. 8	Posted - 2016.10.24 21:27:13 - [228] - Quote Erasmus Grant wrote: The range is kinda garbage. Considering the size of belts. I do love the 3.61 AU/s though Fozzie said Fleet Hangar of 5k, but my Porpoise only has 2k with max skills I would love for some fits to be PM'd to me. Are they on the test server now?
PopeUrban El Expedicion Flames of Exile 162	Posted - 2016.10.24 21:39:58 - [229] - Quote Erasmus Grant wrote: I would like to see Porpose to get the use of medium micro jumpdrive or cloaking bonus to that of BlOps This is a hilarious and not all that inappropriate idea. It would give it a unique role that would go well with the t2 mining frigs for "blops ninja mining" fleets. I support giving the porpoise covops cloaking, and perhaps a role bonus that made its boosts more effective on expedition frigs. it would give the ship a use byond "That thing you get when you can't get an Orca" without removing its progression based utility. You could use it with a blops BS and some expedition frigs to give people interesting options.
Penance Toralen Compass Fox 19	Posted - 2016.10.24 21:57:20 - [230] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: Goati wrote: The Porpoise IS a command battlecruiser. The Orca most certainly is nowhere near the level of battlecruiser, it's so large and slow, it's basically just a smaller Rorqual designed for hi-sec use. You're still equating size with boosting performance. Mining ships are not combat ships and don't need to be balanced along the same lines. If you feel that the range bonus is more valuable than the mining amount bonus then you've already got that option in the form of a Combat BC. If you just want both then CCP have made their value judgement on that combination of bonuses pretty clear with how they distributed them between the Porpoise, Orca, and Rorqual. I disagree with segregation for industrial ships. At the beginning of the game the Osprey was a prime mining hull. There was certainly no need the balance its defence. Why should it now be a consideration? Will mining ships face less aggression because of their non-combat role? (CCP once thought so when mining barges were original released with a single mid slot and a shield tank intention. The playerbase has long since proven otherwise). If Industralists are treated the same as a target then they deserve to be treated the same for the scale of ability to face combat.

PopeUrban El Expedicion Flames of Exile 164	Posted - 2016.10.25 00:15:31 - [231] - Quote Penance Toralen wrote: Cade Windstalker wrote: Goati wrote: The Porpoise IS a command battlecruiser. The Orca most certainly is nowhere near the level of battlecruiser, it's so large and slow, it's basically just a smaller Rorqual designed for hi-sec use. You're still equating size with boosting performance. Mining ships are not combat ships and don't need to be balanced along the same lines. If you feel that the range bonus is more valuable than the mining amount bonus then you've already got that option in the form of a Combat BC. If you just want both then CCP have made their value judgement on that combination of bonuses pretty clear with how they distributed them between the Porpoise, Orca, and Rorqual. I disagree with segregation for industrial ships. At the beginning of the game the Osprey was a prime mining hull. There was certainly no need the balance its defence. Why should it now be a consideration? Will mining ships face less aggression because of their non-combat role? (CCP once thought so when mining barges were original released with a single mid slot and a shield tank intention. The playerbase has long since proven otherwise). If Industralists are treated the same as a target then they deserve to be treated the same for the scale of ability to face combat. Mining hulls are not treated the same as a target. They are not combat ships. They are targets of opportunity. Their entire job is to create objective context for combat ships by being the primary source of minerals that the economy needs. They do not, nor should they obey the same balancing metrics as combat ships because they have a completely separate design intent. Also keep in mind CCP hasn't stated exactly what the new drilling platform structures actually DO, and the only image we have of one is anchored IN a belt. If drilling platforms are actually capable of drilling a belt from a fixed position, perhaps requiring a player to occupy and run it like structure weapons, it drastically changes the overall employment and intent of mining ships and possibly the overall utility of mining boosts. We could very well be on our way to an EVE where mining with a spaceship is one of two options for resource gathering, the other being hauling industrials to deploy, anchor, and unanchor tankier fixed platforms for the length of an op.
Penance Toralen Compass Fox 20	Posted - 2016.10.25 01:51:03 - [232] - Quote PopeUrban wrote: Penance Toralen wrote: Cade Windstalker wrote: Goati wrote: The Porpoise IS a command battlecruiser. The Orca most certainly is nowhere near the level of battlecruiser, it's so large and slow, it's basically just a smaller Rorqual designed for hi-sec use. You're still equating size with boosting performance. Mining ships are not combat ships and don't need to be balanced along the same lines. If you feel that the range bonus is more valuable than the mining amount bonus then you've already got that option in the form of a Combat BC. If you just want both then CCP have made their value judgement on that combination of bonuses pretty clear with how they distributed them between the Porpoise, Orca, and Rorqual. I disagree with segregation for industrial ships. At the beginning of the game the Osprey was a prime mining hull. There was certainly no need the balance its defence. Why should it now be a consideration? Will mining ships face less aggression because of their non-combat role? (CCP once thought so when mining barges were original released with a single mid slot and a shield tank intention. The playerbase has long since proven otherwise). If Industralists are treated the same as a target then they deserve to be treated the same for the scale of ability to face combat. Mining hulls are not treated the same as a target. They are not combat ships. They are targets of opportunity. Their entire job is to create objective context for combat ships by being the primary source of minerals that the economy needs. They do not, nor should they obey the same balancing metrics as combat ships because they have a completely separate design intent. Also keep in mind CCP hasn't stated exactly what the new drilling platform structures actually DO, and the only image we have of one is anchored IN a belt. If drilling platforms are actually capable of drilling a belt from a fixed position, perhaps requiring a player to occupy and run it like structure weapons, it drastically changes the overall employment and intent of mining ships and possibly the overall utility of mining boosts. We could very well be on our way to an EVE where mining with a spaceship is one of two options for resource gathering, the other being hauling industrials to deploy, anchor, and unanchor tankier fixed platforms for the length of an op. I would challenge you to point out any dev-blog which backs the convention that a sub-set of the playerbase is reserved to be for specific aggression. I'll double down and challenge CCP back this. Be honest and consider - how many people would continue with Industry or even Eve with the realisation that they are segregated BY DESIGN into the role of "the target". The conceptisation that Industrials should be weaker is a player desire. CCP has intended otherwise when the Procurer and Skiff were given solid tanking options and drone bonuses. When the Prospect and Endurance were given cloaking bonuses.
AL1CA Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde 0	Posted - 2016.10.25 02:24:56 - [233] - Quote 1.just got off singularity and the fleet hanger for the porpoise is only 2k m3 not what you posted did you change that and not tell us 2. not sure if needs to be here or on burst but why are the mining burst creating a weapons timer you will not be able to dock and get back to the fleet in time to give boosts again is this planed for or mistake
Isler Twy'Lar Federation Navy 3rd Fleet Wrong Hole. 8	Posted - 2016.10.25 03:14:29 - [234] - Quote Penance Toralen wrote: PopeUrban wrote: Penance Toralen wrote: Cade Windstalker wrote: Goati wrote: The Porpoise IS a command battlecruiser. The Orca most certainly is nowhere near the level of battlecruiser, it's so large and slow, it's basically just a smaller Rorqual designed for hi-sec use. You're still equating size with boosting performance. Mining ships are not combat ships and don't need to be balanced along the same lines. If you feel that the range bonus is more valuable than the mining amount bonus then you've already got that option in the form of a Combat BC. If you just want both then CCP have made their value judgement on that combination of bonuses pretty clear with how they distributed them between the Porpoise, Orca, and Rorqual. I disagree with segregation for industrial ships. At the beginning of the game the Osprey was a prime mining hull. There was certainly no need the balance its defence. Why should it now be a consideration? Will mining ships face less aggression because of their non-combat role? (CCP once thought so when mining barges were original released with a single mid slot and a shield tank intention. The playerbase has long since proven otherwise). If Industralists are treated the same as a target then they deserve to be treated the same for the scale of ability to face combat. Mining hulls are not treated the same as a target. They are not combat ships. They are targets of opportunity. Their entire job is to create objective context for combat ships by being the primary source of minerals that the economy needs. They do not, nor should they obey the same balancing metrics as combat ships because they have a completely separate design intent. Also keep in mind CCP hasn't stated exactly what the new drilling platform structures actually DO, and the only image we have of one is anchored IN a belt. If drilling platforms are actually capable of drilling a belt from a fixed position, perhaps requiring a player to occupy and run it like structure weapons, it drastically changes the overall employment and intent of mining ships and possibly the overall utility of mining boosts. We could very well be on our way to an EVE where mining with a spaceship is one of two options for resource gathering, the other being hauling industrials to deploy, anchor, and unanchor tankier fixed platforms for the length of an op. I would challenge you to point out any dev-blog which backs the convention that a sub-set of the playerbase is reserved to be for specific aggression. I'll double down and challenge CCP back this. Be honest and consider - how many people would continue with Industry or even Eve with the realisation that they are segregated BY DESIGN into the role of "the target". The conceptisation that Industrials should be weaker is a player desire. CCP has intended otherwise when the Procurer and Skiff were given solid tanking options and drone bonuses. When the Prospect and Endurance were given cloaking bonuses. The funny thing is that many players in Eve see other players as "content" and are actually against balance because they just want easy kills. If you want proof of this, all you have to do is look at how many players are out there using game mechanics to trick inexperienced players into fights that they have no hope of surviving. These types of players don't want industrialists to be anything other than easy targets. Btw, this is also why Eve is and will always be a niche game with a low population.
PopeUrban El Expedicion Flames of Exile 166	Posted - 2016.10.26 02:22:05 - [235] - Quote Penance Toralen wrote: PopeUrban wrote: Penance Toralen wrote: Cade Windstalker wrote: Goati wrote: The Porpoise IS a command battlecruiser. The Orca most certainly is nowhere near the level of battlecruiser, it's so large and slow, it's basically just a smaller Rorqual designed for hi-sec use. You're still equating size with boosting performance. Mining ships are not combat ships and don't need to be balanced along the same lines. If you feel that the range bonus is more valuable than the mining amount bonus then you've already got that option in the form of a Combat BC. If you just want both then CCP have made their value judgement on that combination of bonuses pretty clear with how they distributed them between the Porpoise, Orca, and Rorqual. I disagree with segregation for industrial ships. At the beginning of the game the Osprey was a prime mining hull. There was certainly no need the balance its defence. Why should it now be a consideration? Will mining ships face less aggression because of their non-combat role? (CCP once thought so when mining barges were original released with a single mid slot and a shield tank intention. The playerbase has long since proven otherwise). If Industralists are treated the same as a target then they deserve to be treated the same for the scale of ability to face combat. Mining hulls are not treated the same as a target. They are not combat ships. They are targets of opportunity. Their entire job is to create objective context for combat ships by being the primary source of minerals that the economy needs. They do not, nor should they obey the same balancing metrics as combat ships because they have a completely separate design intent. Also keep in mind CCP hasn't stated exactly what the new drilling platform structures actually DO, and the only image we have of one is anchored IN a belt. If drilling platforms are actually capable of drilling a belt from a fixed position, perhaps requiring a player to occupy and run it like structure weapons, it drastically changes the overall employment and intent of mining ships and possibly the overall utility of mining boosts. We could very well be on our way to an EVE where mining with a spaceship is one of two options for resource gathering, the other being hauling industrials to deploy, anchor, and unanchor tankier fixed platforms for the length of an op. I would challenge you to point out any dev-blog which backs the convention that a sub-set of the playerbase is reserved to be for specific aggression. I'll double down and challenge CCP back this. Be honest and consider - how many people would continue with Industry or even Eve with the realisation that they are segregated BY DESIGN into the role of "the target". The conceptisation that Industrials should be weaker is a player desire. CCP has intended otherwise when the Procurer and Skiff were given solid tanking options and drone bonuses. When the Prospect and Endurance were given cloaking bonuses. The design intent is quite clear. Mining ships are bonused primarily for mining. That is their function. The fact that more rewarding ore is found in lower security space makes it pretty clear that the entire point of mining as a spaceship activity exists, primarily, to provide long term objective context for fighting. You know, because you need those minerals to replace ships, and because the primary value of everything in the game revolves around mineral value, making mining ships the underpin of the entire entropy-based economic model. Yes, mining ships are designed as targets for combat ships because of their intrinsic value as economic engines. This is why they aren't as good at combat as... ships designed for combat. Just like logi ships shouldn't be great at combat, or hacking ships, etc. Different ships have different roles and different jobs, and thus different places in the implied overall metagame. The job of a mining ship is to present a target by being forced to remain visible and immobile for long stretches of time, and it is rewarded for this role by being extremely efficient at generating value for itself while doing so. I'm not arguing they should be useless, or untankable, but the current list of changes makes sense. Mining ships are roughly able to fit enough DPS alongside mining gear to engage at -1 on their threat/size scale, with the smallest ships being primarily bonused for not fighting at all (and in stead being agile, warp stabbed, and cloak tanked)
Lady Gwendolyn Antollare Federal Logistics Initiative Conglomerate United Interests 10	Posted - 2016.10.26 19:11:28 - [236] - Quote Fleet Hangar on Porpoise listed at 5000m3 but is only 2000m3 on SISI currently. 2000m3 is not large enough to hold 1 cycle of a hulk it needs to be much larger. Nerfing Hisec has never fixed Losec or Nullsec
Isler Twy'Lar Federation Navy 3rd Fleet Wrong Hole. 10	Posted - 2016.10.26 20:51:06 - [237] - Quote Lady Gwendolyn Antollare wrote: Fleet Hangar on Porpoise listed at 5000m3 but is only 2000m3 on SISI currently. 2000m3 is not large enough to hold 1 cycle of a hulk it needs to be much larger. I sm hoping they meant 20,000 m3. <.<
Lady Gwendolyn Antollare Federal Logistics Initiative Conglomerate United Interests 11	Posted - 2016.10.26 22:56:30 - [238] - Quote Isler Twy'Lar wrote: Lady Gwendolyn Antollare wrote: Fleet Hangar on Porpoise listed at 5000m3 but is only 2000m3 on SISI currently. 2000m3 is not large enough to hold 1 cycle of a hulk it needs to be much larger. I sm hoping they meant 20,000 m3. <.< Doesn't seem like it, Maybe CCP decided that the Porpoise is not a mining support ship (unlike the orca) and is designed to be used as a boosting ship only and ships in it's fleet are either trip mine or jet can for a Miasmos to pickup. The ore hold will only hold 50,000 m3 or 62,500m3 maxed out with skills. Nerfing Hisec has never fixed Losec or Nullsec
PopeUrban El Expedicion Flames of Exile 167	Posted - 2016.10.26 23:10:40 - [239] - Quote Lady Gwendolyn Antollare wrote: Isler Twy'Lar wrote: Lady Gwendolyn Antollare wrote: Fleet Hangar on Porpoise listed at 5000m3 but is only 2000m3 on SISI currently. 2000m3 is not large enough to hold 1 cycle of a hulk it needs to be much larger. I sm hoping they meant 20,000 m3. <.< Doesn't seem like it, Maybe CCP decided that the Porpoise is not a mining support ship (unlike the orca) and is designed to be used as a boosting ship only and ships in it's fleet are either trip mine or jet can for a Miasmos to pickup. The ore hold will only hold 50,000 m3 or 62,500m3 maxed out with skills. I think with the command bursts being the only way to get boosts its pretty important to have smaller cheaper boosting ships. Where before you could get a small boost just by having the skill on the FC, now you have to fit a module, so having dedicated cheap platforms for those modules is pretty important even if they don't offer the same range of utility as their larger brethren.
Penance Toralen Compass Fox 25	Posted - 2016.10.27 01:55:39 - [240] - Quote Lady Gwendolyn Antollare wrote: Isler Twy'Lar wrote: Lady Gwendolyn Antollare wrote: Fleet Hangar on Porpoise listed at 5000m3 but is only 2000m3 on SISI currently. 2000m3 is not large enough to hold 1 cycle of a hulk it needs to be much larger. I sm hoping they meant 20,000 m3. <.< Doesn't seem like it, Maybe CCP decided that the Porpoise is not a mining support ship (unlike the orca) and is designed to be used as a boosting ship only and ships in it's fleet are either trip mine or jet can for a Miasmos to pickup. The ore hold will only hold 50,000 m3 or 62,500m3 maxed out with skills. But 50k was the original size for the Orca. So for a ship capable of transversing a frigate only wormhole it is certainly a significant gain. If you are feeding Hulks into a Porpoise - it is overworking the ship. A solid Hulk pilot could fill a jetcan in 13 minutes. So two hulks will fill a max Porpoise in around 15 minutes. (even sooner if the Porpoise has mining drones). Then what, dock up to empty or start jetcanning? I do see the point, particularly as it was the original spec. But if you can get exhumers on the field, I would be asking why you have not stepped up a Orca.

Cade Windstalker 598	Posted - 2016.10.28 19:41:36 - [241] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: Actually they do need balancing along the same lines as combat ships. Just instead of DPS bonuses they get mining/hauling bonuses. But otherwise they should be balanced along the same lines as combat ships. The fact that they haven't been till now is why we have such a cultural bias treating miners as second class citizens of EVE, because CCP themselves have been treating them as second class citizens and not allowing them to actually fit their ships with any variety. Compare the number of slots, PG & CPU to an equivalent size/cost Combat ship. If the answer is not 'Basically the same' then there is an issue, and Industrialists will continue to get mistreated. And yes, giving them the same means people will come up with some combat uses for them, And? Why is this a bad thing if someone decided that a proper fittable freighter made a great pipe bombing ship. Who cares, it's out in space at risk doing stuff. So yes it should have the range bonus. And it should have the same fitting options. This is just flawed logic. They're different hulls with different roles and different requirements. That something is about the size of a BC doesn't mean it should automatically fit BC class tank, deal BC class DPS, have BC level speed, or anything else, because size is not a determining parameter for anything except how easy a ship is to hit relative to its transversal. If this were the case the Skiff wouldn't tank half as well as it does, just as an example. So no, Mining Ships != Combat Ships of the same hull size. You're trading the ability to fight for the ability to mine ore, hold tons of the stuff, and do whatever else is specific to that hull, just like a Combat BC trades it's ability to mine well for moar dakka. Penance Toralen wrote: I disagree with segregation for industrial ships. At the beginning of the game the Osprey was a prime mining hull. There was certainly no need the balance its defence. Why should it now be a consideration? Will mining ships face less aggression because of their non-combat role? (CCP once thought so when mining barges were original released with a single mid slot and a shield tank intention. The playerbase has long since proven otherwise). If Industralists are treated the same as a target then they deserve to be treated the same for the scale of ability to face combat. I never said industrial ships were or should be "segregated". If CCP want to introduce a combat-miner then great, but there should be trade-offs for that. As for the "ability to face combat" thing, that's entirely a matter of ship choice, fitting, and tactics as it is with anything else. It also doesn't have any bearing on whether or not the Porpoise should get a range bonus on its Command Bursts. Mining ships aren't expected to move much, and they won't willingly be spread out to the same extent that you'll find in a combat engagement. The exception is extremely large belts, but simply making all Command Bursts big enough to cover the entire belt removes that as a consideration on where to mine and what boosting ship to bring. In effect it makes the game simpler and easier, by removing a potential problem a player might have to think there way around.
Nick Bison Bad Wolf. Circle-Of-Two 329	Posted - 2016.10.30 01:48:48 - [242] - Quote I can see this being a boon to WH folk who day-mine gas outside their home hole. Good boosts, fair tank and not too big to cause issues. Nothing clever at this time.
Cmdr Clawhammer WYNX Industries Worlds United Fedo Force 3	Posted - 2016.11.01 10:44:04 - [243] - Quote In short, how much ships can i boost with the Porpoise and how much Cycle Time and Mining Yield Boost do i get maxxed out? Thx!
Cade Windstalker 599	Posted - 2016.11.01 13:58:15 - [244] - Quote Cmdr Clawhammer wrote: In short, how much ships can i boost with the Porpoise and how much Cycle Time and Mining Yield Boost do i get maxxed out? Thx! The answer to your first question is in the dev blog, which is: all the ships you can fit in your fleet and within burst range. (so, 255 if you pack them in really tight) The answer to your second question is a lot of math, but the simple answer is 10% more than the max value from pure skills and the link itself.
Cmdr Clawhammer WYNX Industries Worlds United Fedo Force 3	Posted - 2016.11.01 14:24:21 - [245] - Quote Thanks :)
Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 2005	Posted - 2016.11.01 18:49:49 - [246] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: Nevyn Auscent wrote: Actually they do need balancing along the same lines as combat ships. Just instead of DPS bonuses they get mining/hauling bonuses. But otherwise they should be balanced along the same lines as combat ships. The fact that they haven't been till now is why we have such a cultural bias treating miners as second class citizens of EVE, because CCP themselves have been treating them as second class citizens and not allowing them to actually fit their ships with any variety. Compare the number of slots, PG & CPU to an equivalent size/cost Combat ship. If the answer is not 'Basically the same' then there is an issue, and Industrialists will continue to get mistreated. And yes, giving them the same means people will come up with some combat uses for them, And? Why is this a bad thing if someone decided that a proper fittable freighter made a great pipe bombing ship. Who cares, it's out in space at risk doing stuff. So yes it should have the range bonus. And it should have the same fitting options. This is just flawed logic. They're different hulls with different roles and different requirements. That something is about the size of a BC doesn't mean it should automatically fit BC class tank, deal BC class DPS, have BC level speed, or anything else, because size is not a determining parameter for anything except how easy a ship is to hit relative to its transversal. If this were the case the Skiff wouldn't tank half as well as it does, just as an example. So no, Mining Ships != Combat Ships of the same hull size. You're trading the ability to fight for the ability to mine ore, hold tons of the stuff, and do whatever else is specific to that hull, just like a Combat BC trades it's ability to mine well for moar dakka. Actually no, the skiff is fine tank wise when fitted. Look at a max tank skiff then look at a max tank onyx or broadsword. Yes, they need more slots to do the same but I can't think that anyone would complain if the skiff was in the same situation as another cruiser sized ship with a role revolving around strong tank. And the support of a combat ships ability to fight typically revolves around the ability to fit and have bonuses to weapons or offensive mods. Fitting room/slots alone do not a combat ship make. They just ensure the hull is actually somewhat flexible rather than overly restricted.
Eternus8lux8lucis Primus Inc. LEGIO ASTARTES ARCANUM 1055	Posted - 2016.11.02 06:35:40 - [247] - Quote Im curious what the packaged and unpackaged m3 will be on the porpoise? Will it be in the BC m3 range, noctis m3 range? 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.
Cade Windstalker 600	Posted - 2016.11.02 14:12:14 - [248] - Quote Tyberius Franklin wrote: Actually no, the skiff is fine tank wise when fitted. Look at a max tank skiff then look at a max tank onyx or broadsword. Yes, they need more slots to do the same but I can't think that anyone would complain if the skiff was in the same situation as another cruiser sized ship with a role revolving around strong tank. And the support of a combat ships ability to fight typically revolves around the ability to fit and have bonuses to weapons or offensive mods. Fitting room/slots alone do not a combat ship make. They just ensure the hull is actually somewhat flexible rather than overly restricted. Now you're comparing to a T2 ship class that is specifically designed to be brick tanked and generally out-tanks even T2 Battleships. That's just proving my point that hull size is not a primary determiner of ship performance, it's the role the ship is intended to fill and how CCP thinks it should perform within that role. Thus we have the Porpoise with an effect bonus and the Orca with both an effect and range bonus. Similarly we have the T1 Battlecruisers with no bonus to effect strength but with a bonus to effect range. There's nothing weird here about the Porpoise not having a bonus to effect range, it makes perfect sense. If you want to argue that the bonus to magnitude should be replaced by a bonus to range then fine make your case for that, but personally I don't see that as particularly viable except in very niche and very non-ideal cases, since the fleet would have to be quite small for the extra mining potential to be worth the loss of yield from the 10% increase, and quite spread out on top of that. So, essentially you're looking for a case where you have a small number of ships mining on opposite sides of a large belt from each other. For any normal case the 10% extra yield is going to be more valuable or you're going to have enough value on grid that the Orca is a reasonable choice to get both range and yield.
Morgan Agrivar Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 631	Posted - 2016.11.02 21:01:53 - [249] - Quote I am more concerned what sound a Porpoise will make when it explodes in a brilliant flash of light... YC 117 New Eden Capsuleer's Writing Contest Submission - "Heartache"
Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 2005	Posted - 2016.11.02 22:13:30 - [250] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: Now you're comparing to a T2 ship class that is specifically designed to be brick tanked and generally out-tanks even T2 Battleships. Well, yes, I don't think there's a better comparison role for role than looking at specific specialties. The error would be looking at a non-tank centric ship role and comparing the skiff t that. Also no, HICs don't tend to outtank tank oriented T2 BSs (marauders) on even some of the T1 tank oriented ones. Cade Windstalker wrote: That's just proving my point that hull size is not a primary determiner of ship performance, it's the role the ship is intended to fill and how CCP thinks it should perform within that role. Thus we have the Porpoise with an effect bonus and the Orca with both an effect and range bonus. Similarly we have the T1 Battlecruisers with no bonus to effect strength but with a bonus to effect range. There's nothing weird here about the Porpoise not having a bonus to effect range, it makes perfect sense. If you want to argue that the bonus to magnitude should be replaced by a bonus to range then fine make your case for that, but personally I don't see that as particularly viable except in very niche and very non-ideal cases, since the fleet would have to be quite small for the extra mining potential to be worth the loss of yield from the 10% increase, and quite spread out on top of that. So, essentially you're looking for a case where you have a small number of ships mining on opposite sides of a large belt from each other. For any normal case the 10% extra yield is going to be more valuable or you're going to have enough value on grid that the Orca is a reasonable choice to get both range and yield. Well, the point I put forth wasn't about the specific bonus so much as general fitting restrictions placed on industrial ships so I'm actually not really sure where your focus on that stems from here. But on that specific point, size isn't even an argument with regard to that ability. you already pointed to the parallel and I agree. what I disagree with and was also pointed out by Nevyn Auscent is that the general way industrial ships work fitting wise could easily allow for the ships to work more closely to the slot and PG/CPU counts of other ships in their size class because they really aren't out of place when you consider equivalent function.

Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 3703	Posted - 2016.11.03 02:11:37 - [251] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: Now you're comparing to a T2 ship class that is specifically designed to be brick tanked and generally out-tanks even T2 Battleships. That's just proving my point that hull size is not a primary determiner of ship performance, it's the role the ship is intended to fill and how CCP thinks it should perform within that role. So comparing a T2 Ship designed to be tanked heavily (Skiff) to a T2 ship that is designed to be tanked heavily (HIC) is wrong? Uh what. They are equivalent heavy tank designs, and the Skiff doesn't even come close to out tanking a battleship. So thank you for making the opposite point than you intended. Tyberious nicely framed the rest of my point, and at no point have I ever advocated for any change to the ships bonuses, just for a change in the fitting capabilities and some unbonused slots for turrets or launchers. & yes, just because it's BC sized doesn't mean it 'needs' BC stats, but those should be the default starting point and then modify slightly from there. For example ABC's don't magically lose half their slots just because they fit large guns.
Penance Toralen Compass Fox 25	Posted - 2016.11.03 06:25:47 - [252] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: As for the "ability to face combat" thing, that's entirely a matter of ship choice, fitting, and tactics as it is with anything else. It also doesn't have any bearing on whether or not the Porpoise should get a range bonus on its Command Bursts. Mining ships aren't expected to move much, and they won't willingly be spread out to the same extent that you'll find in a combat engagement. The exception is extremely large belts, but simply making all Command Bursts big enough to cover the entire belt removes that as a consideration on where to mine and what boosting ship to bring. In effect it makes the game simpler and easier, by removing a potential problem a player might have to think there way around. Then let's talk about that. This ship just has four mids to fit a tank. Compared to battlecruisers and commands which commonly have 6 slots for tanking. So what about prop mod or utility like a Survey Scanner? (to which actually gets a bonus for). That's a tough compromise. Then also velocity and agility are also low-tier. But then on top of this, it is also gimped with a range bonus. (I would like a leather ship skin that has stitches). How much "compromise" is necessary? Are we talking about a step or two down OR please go to back of the bus, miner. As for "not moving" I will point to The Higgs Anchor Rig, it allows mining ships to move over a asteroid belt slowly, yet aligned at a speed sufficient to warp instantly. CCP Fozzie wrote: We expect that this will have a few somewhat niche uses right away for miners and residents of wormholes (especially lower-class holes) and that players can come up with more creative ways to use it over time.
Raw Matters Brilliant Starfire 50	Posted - 2016.11.10 13:37:01 - [253] - Quote As much as I like the idea of a mini-Orca, I don't see much of a role for this ship. The Orca is far superior in every way except for the price-tag, but nowadays everyone can just insert 20Gé¼ to get enough money for an Orca + fitting in no time, so that is just another incentive to buy a Plex. Essentially this leaves the Porpoise with no Purpose (haha, the pun!), similar to what the old T1 frigates were like: you use them if you lack the (RL-)money. This ship needs a more defined role if you want to see people flying it, and there are enough roles still open. My favorite would be to reduce the dps and give it a covert ops instead, which would be just the perfect addition for the cloaky miner ships we got earlier. Or at least some bonus to cloaking like the black ops get, but then I wouldn't know how to maneuver this thing through 0.0 with that align time. Also upping the cargo to 1000m-¦ would be a good thing to have, so that the player has at least the option to fit in some expanded cargo holds. Essentially the ship as it is right now is a nice first try, but it won't find much use.
RainReaper RRN Assembly INC 84	Posted - 2016.11.10 15:31:44 - [254] - Quote Raw Matters wrote: As much as I like the idea of a mini-Orca, I don't see much of a role for this ship. The Orca is far superior in every way except for the price-tag, but nowadays everyone can just insert 20Gé¼ to get enough money for an Orca + fitting in no time, so that is just another incentive to buy a Plex. Essentially this leaves the Porpoise with no Purpose (haha, the pun!), similar to what the old T1 frigates were like: you use them if you lack the (RL-)money. This ship needs a more defined role if you want to see people flying it, and there are enough roles still open. My favorite would be to reduce the dps and give it a covert ops instead, which would be just the perfect addition for the cloaky miner ships we got earlier. Or at least some bonus to cloaking like the black ops get, but then I wouldn't know how to maneuver this thing through 0.0 with that align time. Also upping the cargo to 1000m-¦ would be a good thing to have, so that the player has at least the option to fit in some expanded cargo holds. Essentially the ship as it is right now is a nice first try, but it won't find much use. Lol. this thing is the perfect thing to use in wormhole space. it can enter frigate only wormholes, so you can bring 2-3 into a frig only shattered wormhole with some endurance/prospects and have accual mining ops. and because it is so cheap it can be brought into fleet low sec ops where a loss wouldent be a devastating 800m isk loss and instead just a 50-60m isk loss. its purpoise (i can pun to!) is to be a cheaper ship than the orca and being a good entry point for new players who want to learn about fleet boosting. and also having frig only wormhole access.
Raw Matters Brilliant Starfire 50	Posted - 2016.11.10 16:05:46 - [255] - Quote RainReaper wrote: Lol. this thing is the perfect thing to use in wormhole space. it can enter frigate only wormholes, so you can bring 2-3 into a frig only shattered wormhole with some endurance/prospects and have accual mining ops. and because it is so cheap it can be brought into fleet low sec ops where a loss wouldent be a devastating 800m isk loss and instead just a 50-60m isk loss. its purpoise (i can pun to!) is to be a cheaper ship than the orca and being a good entry point for new players who want to learn about fleet boosting. and also having frig only wormhole access. If the best thing about it is that it's explosion isn't so expensive, then it is not that much of a good ship. Yes you can push that into a C1 WH, but that's hardly worth the risk considering the low amount of ore you can find there. As soon as ore gets into reasonable levels of quantity you can already push an Orca through. Since the Porpoise can only hold the content of 2 retrievers, while the orca can hold about 10 retrievers worth of cargo, you in all cases want the Orca for most mining missions. Otherwise you will have to have a ship hauling ore back and forth, and then things get annoying and complicated. Also the Orca can store combat ships in case you get attacked, while the Portoise cannot. Aside from WH space however the use-case of the Porpoise once again boils down to "cheap enough to loose it", which is barely a reason to use it. Now add a CovOps into that and suddenly this ship becomes a lot more useful, because once reds warp in, you can instantly hit the cloak button and then warp away to safety. If you don't have any cloak bonus the reds know where you are, trying to crawl away at 20 m/s, and the ship becomes a guaranteed loss. If I had to plan a mining ops and would have to choose between a guaranteed 50m isk loss in case of an attack, that can't even hold enough ore to cover that loss on it's own, or a ship that is a lot more expensive but also durable and allows my miners to switch to combat ships and comes with 5 times the cargo... Well chances are good that I pick the Orca.
RainReaper RRN Assembly INC 84	Posted - 2016.11.10 16:20:51 - [256] - Quote Raw Matters wrote: RainReaper wrote: Lol. this thing is the perfect thing to use in wormhole space. it can enter frigate only wormholes, so you can bring 2-3 into a frig only shattered wormhole with some endurance/prospects and have accual mining ops. and because it is so cheap it can be brought into fleet low sec ops where a loss wouldent be a devastating 800m isk loss and instead just a 50-60m isk loss. its purpoise (i can pun to!) is to be a cheaper ship than the orca and being a good entry point for new players who want to learn about fleet boosting. and also having frig only wormhole access. If the best thing about it is that it's explosion isn't so expensive, then it is not that much of a good ship. Yes you can push that into a C1 WH, but that's hardly worth the risk considering the low amount of ore you can find there. As soon as ore gets into reasonable levels of quantity you can already push an Orca through. Since the Porpoise can only hold the content of 2 retrievers, while the orca can hold about 10 retrievers worth of cargo, you in all cases want the Orca for most mining missions. Otherwise you will have to have a ship hauling ore back and forth, and then things get annoying and complicated. Also the Orca can store combat ships in case you get attacked, while the Portoise cannot. Aside from WH space however the use-case of the Porpoise once again boils down to "cheap enough to loose it", which is barely a reason to use it. Now add a CovOps into that and suddenly this ship becomes a lot more useful, because once reds warp in, you can instantly hit the cloak button and then warp away to safety. If you don't have any cloak bonus the reds know where you are, trying to crawl away at 20 m/s, and the ship becomes a guaranteed loss. If I had to plan a mining ops and would have to choose between a guaranteed 50m isk loss in case of an attack, that can't even hold enough ore to cover that loss on it's own, or a ship that is a lot more expensive but also durable and allows my miners to switch to combat ships and comes with 5 times the cargo... Well chances are good that I pick the Orca. Att this point its down to opinions i guess. you say the porpoise isent good. i personaly see that it have worth in its roles of being cheap and being able to enter frig only wormholes and i think im not the only one who thinks that. but yes if you cant see a reason to use one then you dont have a reason to use it lol. it wasent made for the ones who wont use it but rather the ones that will use it.
Cade Windstalker 605	Posted - 2016.11.10 20:40:35 - [257] - Quote Tyberius Franklin wrote: Well, yes, I don't think there's a better comparison role for role than looking at specific specialties. The error would be looking at a non-tank centric ship role and comparing the skiff t that. Also no, HICs don't tend to outtank tank oriented T2 BSs (marauders) on even some of the T1 tank oriented ones (when fitted the way one typically makes a tanked skiff). A Marauder is not a tank oriented ship in the same way that a Skiff or a HIC is, it doesn't have the resists or brick-for-its-size tank that the Skiff or a HIC has. They get something like that with the Bastion module but that's at a significant trade off. You would also need to brick tank a Battleship to hit the same levels of tank you get on a HIC fit. In general it's going to tank about as well as a HIC, which proves my point about size not dictating performance. Tyberius Franklin wrote: Well, the point I put forth wasn't about the specific bonus so much as general fitting restrictions placed on industrial ships so I'm actually not really sure where your focus on that stems from here. I recommend you go back and read the chain of discussion you jumped into then. Start here or scroll up a bit if you want to read Goati's original post instead of my quote of it for some reason. Tyberius Franklin wrote: But on that specific point, size isn't even an argument with regard to that ability. you already pointed to the parallel and I agree. what I disagree with and was also pointed out by Nevyn Auscent is that the general way industrial ships work fitting wise could easily allow for the ships to work more closely to the slot and PG/CPU counts of other ships in their size class because they really aren't out of place when you consider equivalent function. Possibly, but that's its own topic and well outside the scope of the introduction of this new hull or the general changes to Mining Support vessels. That would be an entire rework of all mining hulls and would introduce some pretty significant balance issues. If a ship has slots it should have the fitting to reasonably use them. Even discounting the high slots on a BC or Cruiser if you gave all mining ships mid and low slots to roughly match a Combat BC that's an extra 2 slots each. That's pretty much a straight buff to max mining yield, tank, and basically the ships in every way. I believe part of the reason for the original limited slot layout was that it effectively constrains how high mining yields can get and how tanky you can be while mining. Even if you, somehow, only give these ships enough CPU and PG to add tank in those extra slots you're still giving them a pretty significant buff and I just don't see a good reason for that right now.
Cade Windstalker 605	Posted - 2016.11.10 20:46:03 - [258] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: So comparing a T2 Ship designed to be tanked heavily (Skiff) to a T2 ship that is designed to be tanked heavily (HIC) is wrong? Uh what. They are equivalent heavy tank designs, and the Skiff doesn't even come close to out tanking a battleship. So thank you for making the opposite point than you intended. You seem to have miss-read what I wrote. I was saying that HICs generally out-tank battleships, not that Skiffs do. Nevyn Auscent wrote: Tyberious nicely framed the rest of my point, and at no point have I ever advocated for any change to the ships bonuses, just for a change in the fitting capabilities and some unbonused slots for turrets or launchers. & yes, just because it's BC sized doesn't mean it 'needs' BC stats, but those should be the default starting point and then modify slightly from there. For example ABC's don't magically lose half their slots just because they fit large guns. You're still using the logic that BC size means BC stats and fittings, and that's just not the case. In fact it hasn't been the case for most of Eve's history. For example Industrials are about the size and speed of a BC but they don't get anywhere near the fittings of a BC because they're designed to haul stuff. For the rest of my point about limiting mining ship fittings see my response to Tyberious.
Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 2005	Posted - 2016.11.10 21:36:33 - [259] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: A Marauder is not a tank oriented ship in the same way that a Skiff or a HIC is, it doesn't have the resists or brick-for-its-size tank that the Skiff or a HIC has. They get something like that with the Bastion module but that's at a significant trade off. You would also need to brick tank a Battleship to hit the same levels of tank you get on a HIC fit. In general it's going to tank about as well as a HIC, which proves my point about size not dictating performance. For a BS a marauder is actually about as close as you get in raw HP, former tier 3 BSs coming shortly behind (or ahead in the case of the pair with resist bonuses). BSs don't actually have a true equivalent class, but in terms of HP their still the subcap kings. As a side note, the skiff and onyx got around ~130k EHP fully bricked. Rokh got just over 200k, Raven ~176k, Golem 195k (without bastion). Fully bricked vs fully bricked gives ~50% raw HP benefit to the BSs. That's on top of the advantages of their inherent module use granting them greater DPS and range per their role. As stated prior, both the HICs and the Skiff are designed to tank outside of their class, and so so in the same size envelope with similar results. That means there's nothing to reign in (save the base HP in exchange for room to fir it decently), nor is there any idea that class conventions for balancing around size AND role are not being applied. Cade Windstalker wrote: I recommend you go back and read the chain of discussion you jumped into then. Start here or scroll up a bit if you want to read Goati's original post instead of my quote of it for some reason. Sure, lets do that looking for the relevant bits being discussed: Nevyn Auscent wrote: Actually they do need balancing along the same lines as combat ships. Just instead of DPS bonuses they get mining/hauling bonuses. But otherwise they should be balanced along the same lines as combat ships. The fact that they haven't been till now is why we have such a cultural bias treating miners as second class citizens of EVE, because CCP themselves have been treating them as second class citizens and not allowing them to actually fit their ships with any variety. Compare the number of slots, PG & CPU to an equivalent size/cost Combat ship. If the answer is not 'Basically the same' then there is an issue, and Industrialists will continue to get mistreated. And yes, giving them the same means people will come up with some combat uses for them, And? Why is this a bad thing if someone decided that a proper fittable freighter made a great pipe bombing ship. Who cares, it's out in space at risk doing stuff. So yes it should have the range bonus. And it should have the same fitting options. If you want to suggest the ONLY point here is about the bonus and not any comment about how industrial ships are balanced vs similarly sized combat ships then please present your reasoning. As it stands I'm not aware of any good reason not to address the content of the post and your counterclaim. Cade Windstalker wrote: Possibly, but that's its own topic and well outside the scope of the introduction of this new hull or the general changes to Mining Support vessels. That would be an entire rework of all mining hulls and would introduce some pretty significant balance issues. If a ship has slots it should have the fitting to reasonably use them. Even discounting the high slots on a BC or Cruiser if you gave all mining ships mid and low slots to roughly match a Combat BC that's an extra 2 slots each. That's pretty much a straight buff to max mining yield, tank, and basically the ships in every way. I believe part of the reason for the original limited slot layout was that it effectively constrains how high mining yields can get and how tanky you can be while mining. Even if you, somehow, only give these ships enough CPU and PG to add tank in those extra slots you're still giving them a pretty significant buff and I just don't see a good reason for that right now. How is the introduction of a ship that has all of the limitations and failings of industrial ships not relevant to the limitations and failings of industrial ships? This is just as good a place to bring it up as any because the philosophy directly affects the hull in question. Yes, it's a greater issue than just this hull, but it applies to this hull so here we are. As a aide note regarding the idea of a pure buff, you're making a bit of an assumption there. The complaint has 2 parts: 1) The limited slots and fitting pigeonhole the ships too much, which 2) Necessitates baking too much of their ideal function into the stats to make them work. A 6 mid/4 low skiff with room to fit could (and should) easily be a 15k unfitted EHP ship instead of 35K. Adding 2 lows does potentially increase yields, but again, stats baked into mods because the ships using the can't stack them deeply.
Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 2005	Posted - 2016.11.10 21:58:29 - [260] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: You seem to have miss-read what I wrote. I was saying that HICs generally out-tank battleships, not that Skiffs do. Using T2 tank mods on a brick fit there is only a small difference between a skiff and onyx in the onyx's favor. Fitting for combat vs yield (while maintaining a DC on the skiff) only changes that slightly, and depending on the fit may favor the skiff. If one out tanks BSs, they both do. Cade Windstalker wrote: You're still using the logic that BC size means BC stats and fittings, and that's just not the case. In fact it hasn't been the case for most of Eve's history. For example Industrials are about the size and speed of a BC but they don't get anywhere near the fittings of a BC because they're designed to haul stuff. For the rest of my point about limiting mining ship fittings see my response to Tyberious. Yes, that's the issue were trying to address here. Another stat comparison for reference as well. DSTs are actually pretty decent considering their lack of hardpoints. ~130k max EHP, 26.9k base and roughly half the sig of a ~140k EHP brick fitted or 24.9k base drake.

elitatwo Eve Minions O.U.Z.O. Alliance 1459	Posted - 2016.11.10 22:07:59 - [261] - Quote Penance Toralen wrote: Cade Windstalker wrote: As for the "ability to face combat" ... Then let's talk about that. This ship just has four mids to fit a tank.... Ouuh, you are looking at the wrong place. You only need 2-3 modules for a proper tank. One mid-slot and both lows. If you want to push it, you need one mid-slot and 2 high-slots and another Porpoise for tanking. Eve Minions is recruiting. Learn from about pvp, learn about ships and how to fly them. This is the law
Penance Toralen Compass Fox 25	Posted - 2016.11.10 22:19:00 - [262] - Quote Raw Matters wrote: RainReaper wrote: Lol. this thing is the perfect thing to use in wormhole space. it can enter frigate only wormholes, so you can bring 2-3 into a frig only shattered wormhole with some endurance/prospects and have accual mining ops. and because it is so cheap it can be brought into fleet low sec ops where a loss wouldent be a devastating 800m isk loss and instead just a 50-60m isk loss. its purpoise (i can pun to!) is to be a cheaper ship than the orca and being a good entry point for new players who want to learn about fleet boosting. and also having frig only wormhole access. If the best thing about it is that it's explosion isn't so expensive, then it is not that much of a good ship. Yes you can push that into a C1 WH, but that's hardly worth the risk considering the low amount of ore you can find there. As soon as ore gets into reasonable levels of quantity you can already push an Orca through. Since the Porpoise can only hold the content of 2 retrievers, while the orca can hold about 10 retrievers worth of cargo, you in all cases want the Orca for most mining missions. Otherwise you will have to have a ship hauling ore back and forth, and then things get annoying and complicated. Also the Orca can store combat ships in case you get attacked, while the Portoise cannot. Aside from WH space however the use-case of the Porpoise once again boils down to "cheap enough to loose it", which is barely a reason to use it. Now add a CovOps into that and suddenly this ship becomes a lot more useful, because once reds warp in, you can instantly hit the cloak button and then warp away to safety. If you don't have any cloak bonus the reds know where you are, trying to crawl away at 20 m/s, and the ship becomes a guaranteed loss. If I had to plan a mining ops and would have to choose between a guaranteed 50m isk loss in case of an attack, that can't even hold enough ore to cover that loss on it's own, or a ship that is a lot more expensive but also durable and allows my miners to switch to combat ships and comes with 5 times the cargo... Well chances are good that I pick the Orca. The key point is "Frigate Only". It is a area which previously has not permitted hauling logistics. With its RR capability and reasonable drone bay it is a modest yet effective against sleepers. Because the Prospect only has its cloak for defense. (Endurances are only good for ice, ventures out gas/ore mine them). Shattered Wormholes are not effected by mass passage, plus the Prospects can double as scouts.
Feng Yotosashi Yamato Inc. 0	Posted - 2016.11.12 18:29:04 - [263] - Quote About time we had something that at least ressembles a dedicated ninja-booster ship, but to be honest it felt short on my expectations. With such a low value (~40-50 million is a bit too low IMO), it surely fits in the risk/value window where you can take the ship along sneaky mining ops in hostile systems. At first glance, cargo AND fleet hangar capacity looks fine too. But I'd rather have a "half-Orca" (~half an Orca's price but lower mining boost, lower cargo capacity, etc) that came with truly COOL stuff for ninja industrialists like the abillity to fit Covert Ops Cloaking Device, scanning modules, improved mobility, maybe Covert Jump Portal, and things like that. Things that improved the time and effort it takes to get to the ore, and that is core to a ninja miner's experience. Hell, it would be fair if a ship like that was just about the same price or even more than an Orca, but it would certainly be funnier to fly too. In time, the major letdown for me is the design... a green Noctis*? That's all? Nothing against the Noctis itself, but come on, CCP, you guys have been releasing awesome ship designs lately, specially for Caldari ships, why not on this one.
Feng Yotosashi Yamato Inc. 0	Posted - 2016.11.12 18:41:09 - [264] - Quote Quazided wrote: Waited weeks to see a new ship design for the porpoise...... Clicked on the news link excitedly...... Saw the fugly Noctis with a skin job....... Left disappointed...... Same here.
Petrified Old and Petrified Syndication TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance 428	Posted - 2016.11.12 22:21:47 - [265] - Quote Feng Yotosashi wrote: Quazided wrote: Waited weeks to see a new ship design for the porpoise...... Clicked on the news link excitedly...... Saw the fugly Noctis with a skin job....... Left disappointed...... Same here. We can hope that they do a redesign like they have for other ships (griffin, blackbird, etc ) sooner rather than later. I understand they can get stretched with regards to working the designs in to the game so using the Noctis hull at present may just be a temporary placeholder until they have the time to make a proper design. But like I said before: a streamlined, porpoise-like ship would be very appropriate. At least lose the extensions on the Noctis while keeping the industrial design (fitting in with the Orca and Bowhead being industrial in appearance) - just more streamlined. Cloaking is the closest thing to a "Pause Game" button one can get while in space.
Raw Matters Brilliant Starfire 51	Posted - 2016.11.13 01:14:48 - [266] - Quote Penance Toralen wrote: The key point is "Frigate Only". The WHs with 5m mass top are extremely rare, but I agree: for these you now have a basic ore hauler. This is definitely a good thing, but then why leave the Porpoise in that niche? A few changes and it can actually be a good ship for more than a single, rare purpose.
Swirlar Delainen Technologies Ocean's Night 0	Posted - 2016.11.13 20:36:11 - [267] - Quote Thank you CCP, this ship is a needed addition to the fleet. The orca has become too expensive to field in dangerous environments, while this cruiser is essentially expendable.
David Asanari AmPro 6	Posted - 2016.11.15 20:01:15 - [268] - Quote Does anyone know what's the BPO price for Porpoise at ORE NPC stations?
Penance Toralen Compass Fox 28	Posted - 2016.11.20 11:18:19 - [269] - Quote David Asanari wrote: Does anyone know what's the BPO price for Porpoise at ORE NPC stations? 600,000,000
Cade Windstalker 609	Posted - 2016.11.20 19:22:22 - [270] - Quote Feng Yotosashi wrote: About time we had something that at least ressembles a dedicated ninja-booster ship, but to be honest it felt short on my expectations. With such a low value (~40-50 million is a bit too low IMO), it surely fits in the risk/value window where you can take the ship along sneaky mining ops in hostile systems. At first glance, cargo AND fleet hangar capacity looks fine too. But I'd rather have a "half-Orca" (~half an Orca's price but lower mining boost, lower cargo capacity, etc) that came with truly COOL stuff for ninja industrialists like the abillity to fit Covert Ops Cloaking Device, scanning modules, improved mobility, maybe Covert Jump Portal, and things like that. Things that improved the time and effort it takes to get to the ore, and that is core to a ninja miner's experience. Hell, it would be fair if a ship like that was just about the same price or even more than an Orca, but it would certainly be funnier to fly too. In time, the major letdown for me is the design... a green Noctis? That's all? Nothing against the Noctis itself, but come on, CCP, you guys have been releasing awesome ship designs lately, specially for Caldari ships, why not on this one. I don't think this ship is specifically intended for ninja-mining, it's just a cheaper boosting option. Nothing CCP has said regarding this ship suggests that it was going to meet your expectations here. If there's a reasonable use-case for a cloaky mining booster then that might be an interesting T2 extension for the hull but I doubt we'll see a covert jump portal generator, since mining ships wouldn't be able to use it and a regular jump portal on a cheap ship would have a pretty massive impact on force projection in other areas of the game. Raw Matters wrote:* Penance Toralen wrote: The key point is "Frigate Only". The WHs with 5m mass top are extremely rare, but I agree: for these you now have a basic ore hauler. This is definitely a good thing, but then why leave the Porpoise in that niche? A few changes and it can actually be a good ship for more than a single, rare purpose. Because that's not the niche it's intended to fill, it's just a niche it can fill that other hulls can't. This is, first and foremost, intended as a cheaper boosting hull. Whether that's for newer miners who don't feel comfortable with an Orca's cost or for higher risk mining operations. That "a few changes" line feels like it could just as accurately be ended with "a few changes and it could be really OP for the cost" or just completely invalidate the Orca as a boosting ship for the cost. Personally I think it's fine if the boosting starter ship is more niche and that seems to be CCP's intent here.

Cade Windstalker 609	Posted - 2016.11.20 19:38:32 - [271] - Quote Tyberius Franklin wrote: For a BS a marauder is actually about as close as you get in raw HP, former tier 3 BSs coming shortly behind (or ahead in the case of the pair with resist bonuses). BSs don't actually have a true equivalent class, but in terms of HP their still the subcap kings. No BSes don't, which further makes your attempted comparison less relevant. Also they tend to have lower raw HP values as a balance to their slightly better base resists, being geared more towards active tank than raw EHP. Tyberius Franklin wrote: As a side note, the skiff trails the onyx at around ~125k vs 150k EHP fully bricked. Rokh got just over 200k, Raven ~176k, Golem 195k (without bastion). Fully bricked vs fully bricked gives ~10%-50% raw HP benefit to the BSs. That's on top of the advantages of their inherent module use granting them greater DPS and range per their role. As stated prior, both the HICs and the Skiff are designed to tank outside of their class, and so so in the same size envelope with similar results. That means there's nothing to reign in (save the base HP in exchange for room to fir it decently), nor is there any idea that class conventions for balancing around size AND role are not being applied. Full brick tanks aren't really an instructive comparison here. A Battleship has more slots and fitting space so of course you can fit more tank onto it. If you fit the ships how they're actually flown though then the HICs come out ahead, especially after overheating. Most Battleships don't pass 100k in commonly flown fits, while most HICs easily pass that. My point here is that there is no hard convention here regarding ship size and expected EHP values beyond those inherent in the speed vs raw hitpoints trade off that is inherent in Eve tanking. T1 and T2 Cruiser hulls range from 10k EHP for a reasonable fit to pushing 150k on a HIC or some bait tanked fits. Those are all for combat ships though, mining ships serve a different purpose and are therefore balanced along different lines, something I've said several times during this discussion thread, which is where the original size vs balancing issue came up. Tyberius Franklin wrote: If you want to suggest the ONLY point here is about the bonus and not any comment about how industrial ships are balanced vs similarly sized combat ships then please present your reasoning. As it stands I'm not aware of any good reason not to address the content of the post and your counterclaim. As I said in response to the original post, and to you several times now, mining ships are not combat ships. They have different balance concerns and are designed to fill different roles. They make different trade-offs for different bonuses and it's absurd to claim that they should be balanced to the same standard or perform at the same level as a combat hull. It's not like we're talking about a purely horizontal change here either, anything you could do to make them perform more like combat ships would be a raw buff to mining capability, whether it's more slots, more fitting, or just more raw HP. Tyberius Franklin wrote: How is the introduction of a ship that has all of the limitations and failings of industrial ships not relevant to the limitations and failings of industrial ships? This is just as good a place to bring it up as any because the philosophy directly affects the hull in question. Yes, it's a greater issue than just this hull, but it applies to this hull so here we are. As a aide note regarding the idea of a pure buff, you're making a bit of an assumption there. The complaint has 2 parts: 1) The limited slots and fitting pigeonhole the ships too much, which 2) Necessitates baking too much of their ideal function into the stats to make them work. A 6 mid/4 low skiff with room to fit could (and should) easily be a 15k unfitted EHP ship instead of 35K. Adding 2 lows does potentially increase yields, but again, stats baked into mods because the ships using the can't stack them deeply. You're saying these design decisions are an issue, but CCP have made it pretty clear through the last three rounds of tweaking these hulls have received that it's an intentional design decision on their part. Mining hulls making certain trade-offs to be able to mine which could be summed up as "they're mining ships, not combat ships." It's also not a question of whether the changes you're proposing would be a buff or not, they absolutely would, and that's something CCP is very wary of since mining is the underpinning of the entire Eve economy. Any buffs or nerfs to mining affect the entire economy and thus the entire game. Lastly there's nothing wrong with a lot of the function being baked into the hulls. The same thing happens with plenty of other hulls in choices about their capacitor, raw HP, resists, and other raw stats. That's why we have different classes of ships instead of a few hulls and a ton of modules. You may have an issue with this but it's the general design path Eve has gone down and it's worked just fine. You and others making these arguments aren't really presenting any case for changing this beyond vague allusions to more flexible hulls (when past experience has shown that this would largely just be used to min-max existing ship roles) and a seeming personal objection to this design philosophy, which while fair isn't going to change the minds of the design team that originally made the decision.
Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 2009	Posted - 2016.11.21 21:17:04 - [272] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: No BSes don't, which further makes your attempted comparison less relevant. Also they tend to have lower raw HP values as a balance to their slightly better base resists, being geared more towards active tank than raw EHP. Yes, they do. I provided numbers backing that up. Cade Windstalker wrote: Full brick tanks aren't really an instructive comparison here. A Battleship has more slots and fitting space so of course you can fit more tank onto it. If you fit the ships how they're actually flown though then the HICs come out ahead, especially after overheating. Most Battleships don't pass 100k in commonly flown fits, while most HICs easily pass that. My point here is that there is no hard convention here regarding ship size and expected EHP values beyond those inherent in the speed vs raw hitpoints trade off that is inherent in Eve tanking. T1 and T2 Cruiser hulls range from 10k EHP for a reasonable fit to pushing 150k on a HIC or some bait tanked fits. Those are all for combat ships though, mining ships serve a different purpose and are therefore balanced along different lines, something I've said several times during this discussion thread, which is where the original size vs balancing issue came up. Even leaving max tank aside, tankier BSs still meet or exceed the tanks of HICs for a number of purposes. One really common one is incursions and there you have significant emphasis on DPS, tracking and webbing as well on single hulls. A HIC falls short of the same HP when fit with that variety of utility. Cade Windstalker wrote: As I said in response to the original post, and to you several times now, mining ships are not combat ships. They have different balance concerns and are designed to fill different roles. They make different trade-offs for different bonuses and it's absurd to claim that they should be balanced to the same standard or perform at the same level as a combat hull. It's not like we're talking about a purely horizontal change here either, anything you could do to make them perform more like combat ships would be a raw buff to mining capability, whether it's more slots, more fitting, or just more raw HP. As has been responded, no one is trying to make mining ships combat ships. Increasing the mid/low slot count does not a combat ship make, especially when base stats are reduced to account for the increased fitting capacity which should be the case. Whatever you are trying to argue against here isn't what's being asked. If it's possible to make a 6 mid onyx that gets ~100k EHP purpose fitted it possible to do the same with a skiff without buffing it. As stated already you just rebalance the base stats accordingly. I'm not sure if ignoring that is intentional at this point as it was explicitly stated in the post you're responding to. Cade Windstalker wrote: You're saying these design decisions are an issue, but CCP have made it pretty clear through the last three rounds of tweaking these hulls have received that it's an intentional design decision on their part. Mining hulls making certain trade-offs to be able to mine which could be summed up as "they're mining ships, not combat ships." It's also not a question of whether the changes you're proposing would be a buff or not, they absolutely would, and that's something CCP is very wary of since mining is the underpinning of the entire Eve economy. Any buffs or nerfs to mining affect the entire economy and thus the entire game. Lastly there's nothing wrong with a lot of the function being baked into the hulls. The same thing happens with plenty of other hulls in choices about their capacitor, raw HP, resists, and other raw stats. That's why we have different classes of ships instead of a few hulls and a ton of modules. You may have an issue with this but it's the general design path Eve has gone down and it's worked just fine. You and others making these arguments aren't really presenting any case for changing this beyond vague allusions to more flexible hulls (when past experience has shown that this would largely just be used to min-max existing ship roles) and a seeming personal objection to this design philosophy, which while fair isn't going to change the minds of the design team that originally made the decision. And we're stating we disagree with that direction because there is nothing mining specific about these limitations. There never has been. And frankly, that same argument suggests the skiff and proc shouldn't exist because at one point in time no mining ship could have that level of tank and yet mining worked just fine. Even still their introduction failed to become a specific boost to mining itself. Your logic is making a number of assumptions that just don't hold under any reasonable scrutiny, especially when the opposite of those positions is being suggested here. Also you're either missing or glossing over the point of hull flexibility due to the capacity to ignore some or all of a ships bonuses to create something not directly intended with a hull that's at the same time not an imbalance just because the hull is not constrained to the design intent. With that in mind, why is mining specifically a task which needs such a consideration when the designers at all points have full control to limit the upper end of mining itself within those hulls? What possible scenario comes up that leaves mining unbalanceable?
Cade Windstalker 609	Posted - 2016.11.22 04:28:06 - [273] - Quote Tyberius Franklin wrote: Yes, they do. I provided numbers backing that up. Marauders aren't a true tank class, they're never used as such except for PvE where their active tank is extremely strong, and even then they need a specific module to beat regular BS tank. On top of that the numbers you provided for other hulls are all extremely unrealistic tank fits that never get used outside of extremely niche circumstances. In comparison a HIC is frequently fit to be extremely tanky since staying alive and running a bubble are generally the extent of its jobs. Tyberius Franklin wrote: Even leaving max tank aside, tankier BSs still meet or exceed the tanks of HICs for a number of purposes. One really common one is incursions and there you have significant emphasis on DPS, tracking and webbing as well on single hulls. A HIC falls short of the same HP when fit with that variety of utility. First off most Incursion fits cap out around 100k EHP before fleet boosts. The only ones that go above that do so almost entirely due to the high base HP values for Pirate BSes. Lastly in order to hit that level of tank and mount any kind of utility they need to be faction fit, at which point with a comparable level of fitting the HIC will have significantly higher EHP. Tyberius Franklin wrote: As has been responded, no one is trying to make mining ships combat ships. Increasing the mid/low slot count does not a combat ship make, especially when base stats are reduced to account for the increased fitting capacity which should be the case. Whatever you are trying to argue against here isn't what's being asked. If it's possible to make a 6 mid onyx that gets ~100k EHP purpose fitted it possible to do the same with a skiff without buffing it. As stated already you just rebalance the base stats accordingly. I'm not sure if ignoring that is intentional at this point as it was explicitly stated in the post you're responding to. I think I may be making some assumptions that you're missing here, so let me spell those out for you. If you add slots to the ships then you need to add fittings to make them usable. If you add fittings to mining ships you buff base yield and probably also durability and gank resistance for a given mining yield. Even if you reduce base stats somewhere, which for mining yield you would have to do on the mining lasers, then you're still giving a net buff to the ships. The end point here is that you're advocating for a change that isn't necessary since mining ships are more or less where CCP want them. What you're saying is that you want CCP to give you more slots, but re-balance around those slots so the ships stay more or less where they are, which is a giant waste of CCP's time that could be better spent doing something far less niche and pointless. Tyberius Franklin wrote: And we're stating we disagree with that direction because there is nothing mining specific about these limitations. There never has been. And frankly, that same argument suggests the skiff and proc shouldn't exist because at one point in time no mining ship could have that level of tank and yet mining worked just fine. Even still their introduction failed to become a specific boost to mining itself. Your logic is making a number of assumptions that just don't hold under any reasonable scrutiny, especially when the opposite of those positions is being suggested here. You're taking my words and twisting them hilariously out of context here. When the Skiff was introduced there was basically one option for mining, which was the Hulk. It won in tank and mining amount so that's what everyone used. When they tiericided the mining ships the Skiff didn't become something weird, it basically became a very tank-fit Hulk and a bit more. It wasn't particularly breaking the mold, it was just taking an old hull that no one used and giving it a role. Also I'm really not seeing the assumptions you're referring to here. Tyberius Franklin wrote: Also you're either missing or glossing over the point of hull flexibility due to the capacity to ignore some or all of a ships bonuses to create something not directly intended with a hull that's at the same time not an imbalance just because the hull is not constrained to the design intent. With that in mind, why is mining specifically a task which needs such a consideration when the designers at all points have full control to limit the upper end of mining itself within those hulls? What possible scenario comes up that leaves mining unbalanceable? Quite simply mining is raw economic activity, so if they get something wrong here the effects are greater than if they screw something up in the PvP space. On top of that there's just not any particular incentive on the designer's part to complicate their design space here, which is what you're proposing, on the off chance that it opens up some niche lol-fit options for players. The mining ships work fine as they are and those lol-fits already exist. CCP doesn't need to make more work for themselves so and spend a lot of time and effort balancing around extra mids just to get back to a point they were already at.
Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 2010	Posted - 2016.11.22 19:50:42 - [274] - Quote "Marauders aren't a true tank class, they're never used as such except for PvE where their active tank is extremely strong, and even then they need a specific module to beat regular BS tank." - Incorrect, aside from passive resist bonused BSs Marauders do tend to have more EHP in similar fits. That's before bastion. "On top of that the numbers you provided for other hulls are all extremely unrealistic tank fits that never get used outside of extremely niche circumstances. In comparison a HIC is frequently fit to be extremely tanky since staying alive and running a bubble are generally the extent of its jobs." - I provided all around peaks concentrating first on primary tank layer. They all come down proportionally with similar levels of utility. The only exception you might have in HIC vs BS specifically is that one utility is shifted to a high, eliminating that mods need to reduce a tank slot. And realistically high EHP is generally part of a BSs job as compensation for sig and speed loss compared to lower classes. "First off most Incursion fits cap out around 100k EHP before fleet boosts. The only ones that go above that do so almost entirely due to the high base HP values for Pirate BSes. Lastly in order to hit that level of tank and mount any kind of utility they need to be faction fit, at which point with a comparable level of fitting the HIC will have significantly higher EHP." - Not true. 100k EHP is a typical minimum even among groups that allow non-pirate BSs. And that's still before boost and without requiring faction mods. Starter Hyperions don't require faction fitting to hit those numbers and those don't even have an EHP centric bonus. That's a shield hype too. Not even the intended primary tank layer. Cade Windstalker wrote: I think I may be making some assumptions that you're missing here, so let me spell those out for you. If you add slots to the ships then you need to add fittings to make them usable. If you add fittings to mining ships you buff base yield and probably also durability and gank resistance for a given mining yield. Even if you reduce base stats somewhere, which for mining yield you would have to do on the mining lasers, then you're still giving a net buff to the ships. The end point here is that you're advocating for a change that isn't necessary since mining ships are more or less where CCP want them. What you're saying is that you want CCP to give you more slots, but re-balance around those slots so the ships stay more or less where they are, which is a giant waste of CCP's time that could be better spent doing something far less niche and pointless. Again, that's if you only buff slot could and CPU/PG without a corresponding reduction to the base hull capabilities. We aren't asking for the skiff to be turned into a 30k EHP base, 200k EHP peak monster with 6 mids and some fitting room. We're asking for a 15k EHP base, which means nerfing the base stats, and the fitting slots and room to better tailor the ship to a specific purpose which all in all will likely drop the EHP on builds since the peak is the same. And realistically adding mids with tank capabilities ending up where they are now overall won't affect yield in the least since no midslot mods affect that. Cade Windstalker wrote: You're taking my words and twisting them hilariously out of context here. When the Skiff was introduced there was basically one option for mining, which was the Hulk. It won in tank and mining amount so that's what everyone used. When they tiericided the mining ships the Skiff didn't become something weird, it basically became a very tank-fit Hulk and a bit more. It wasn't particularly breaking the mold, it was just taking an old hull that no one used and giving it a role. Also I'm really not seeing the assumptions you're referring to here. Yes, the skiff did become and remains something wierd compared to pre-tiericide mining. While true the hulk was the peak mining ship, even fully tanked it came to 1/2 to 1/3 of the skiffs tank now. The selection of ships changed to introduce an EHP behemoth compared to all prior options. The things is, both designs were representative of some design intent. That should make it clear that intent in malleable. Really the argument of current intent is a non-argument, unless coupled with maybe the idea that resources are best spent elsewhere. Even then that doesn't address the merit or lack thereof in the idea. Cade Windstalker wrote: Quite simply mining is raw economic activity, so if they get something wrong here the effects are greater than if they screw something up in the PvP space. On top of that there's just not any particular incentive on the designer's part to complicate their design space here, which is what you're proposing, on the off chance that it opens up some niche lol-fit options for players. The mining ships work fine as they are and those lol-fits already exist. CCP doesn't need to make more work for themselves so and spend a lot of time and effort balancing around extra mids just to get back to a point they were already at. Possible yes, probable? No, not unless you go beyond the request into something silly. IE: A 6 mid skiff with more PG/CPU, and of course the base EHP reduction, could make a better trap fit with utility, but won't actually change peak yields or outtank the current version. And really I'm not sure why anyone would fear for the economy with mining ships able to fit mass appropriate MWDs. Those too have no yield effect. Now if you gave it say, 5 lows you might have room for concern, but with mining mods in the slots they are you limit damage potential by looking at where you can get gains without imbalancing or buffing the ships in their core capacity.
Cade Windstalker 609	Posted - 2016.11.23 16:02:11 - [275] - Quote Tyberius Franklin wrote: Incorrect, aside from passive resist bonused BSs Marauders do tend to have more EHP in similar fits. That's before bastion. I stand somewhat corrected on that, I was thinking of a past version of the Marauders. That said they barely edge out a few ships on base HP and even get beaten out by a few T1 hulls. Calling them at all tank focused compared to something like the Skiff or the HIC class is ridiculous. For example the actually tank focused T1 Rokh is almost even with the T2 Golem even before taking into account its resist bonus. Tyberius Franklin wrote: And realistically high EHP is generally part of a BSs job as compensation for sig and speed loss compared to lower classes. Not true. 100k EHP is a typical minimum even among groups that allow non-pirate BSs. And that's still before boost and without requiring faction mods. Starter Hyperions don't require faction fitting to hit those numbers and those don't even have an EHP centric bonus. That's a shield hype too. Not even the intended primary tank layer. First off, a PvP fleet BS will rarely if ever get close to 100k EHP. It's just not needed. Beyond that your Incursion information is half accurate at best. First off, Gallente ships can generally tank Shield about as well as Armor, they don't really have a "Primary tank layer" they just have a slight bias towards Armor in slot layout. Beyond that I said that they couldn't hit those EHP numbers without faction fittings and maintain any reasonable degree of utility. A Hyperion fitted out with entirely T2 tank is going to be a block of shields and guns and not much else. In order to get large EHP values and utility modules you either need an armor fit (at which point you're trading heavily on DPS instead of utility) or faction mods. Tyberius Franklin wrote: Again, that's if you only buff slot could and CPU/PG without a corresponding reduction to the base hull capabilities. We aren't asking for the skiff to be turned into a 30k EHP base, 200k EHP peak monster with 6 mids and some fitting room. We're asking for a 15k EHP base, which means nerfing the base stats, and the fitting slots and room to better tailor the ship to a specific purpose which all in all will likely drop the EHP on builds since the peak is the same. And realistically adding mids with tank capabilities ending up where they are now overall won't affect yield in the least since no midslot mods affect that. I covered that in my comment that you just quoted, it's covered under "Even if you reduce base stats somewhere..." and goes from there. Mining ships are, quite intentionally, very fitting crunched. They have trouble fitting a large tank and maxing out their mining capacity. If you add slots you make it much easier to min-max things and get both tank and mining yield. There is no way around this, when you add fitting space and slots to a ship the space of possible outcomes for the ship expands. Even if you only add mid slots you're expanding the likely end result mining yield for a given tank since if it's reasonably possible to hit the old tank and yield with T2 then you can throw on some cheap faction and get a net buff to both, especially since fitting-focused faction is really cheap, for little cost or risk, because the extra fittings are very very useful on a mining ship. Besides that you've completely ignored my point about essentially asking CCP to add two slots to everything and rebalance back to the point we're already at. There's no point in them spending the time to do that unless there's an actual need to shake up the mining fitting space. A desire for sillier gank-miner fits is far to niche to fit that requirement. Tyberius Franklin wrote: Yes, the skiff did become and remains something wierd compared to pre-tiericide mining. While true the hulk was the peak mining ship, even fully tanked it came to 1/2 to 1/3 of the skiffs tank now. The selection of ships changed to introduce an EHP behemoth compared to all prior options. The things is, both designs were representative of some design intent. That should make it clear that intent in malleable. Really the argument of current intent is a non-argument, unless coupled with maybe the idea that resources are best spent elsewhere. Even then that doesn't address the merit or lack thereof in the idea. That was something of the point here. Give miners a high-tank and very hard to gank option at the expense of their yield. That gives miners something to retreat to to avoid suicide ganks so if those ganks become too much of an issue to the point that mining in a Hulk is no longer profitable everyone just runs Skiffs and the gankers run out of viable targets. In response we've gotten bumping but that's something else entirely and isn't a problem with any of the ships it's a core design issue in the game that needs its own solution. While design intent is certainly malleable you need to provide an argument in favor of changing it, and no one pushing this idea of more slots has done that, you've just suggested that more slots and fitting options is an inherently good enough thing that it makes it's own argument, and that's just not the case. More fitting options comes at the cost of making the design space harder to balance in addition to the cost of making the change and balancing around it. I'd quote your last bit here but there's not much point, everything there is already covered elsewhere. I'll just reiterate that I specified mining yield for a given EHP as a concern here, and you seem to have completely ignored that in favor of the idea that more fitting options on a ship is this inherent golden shining dream that the designers should aspire to at the expense of all else, which is patently ridiculous. Also just because you can't think of a specific issue with an idea doesn't make it good, you also need a specific benefit, and you don't have one here.
Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 2013	Posted - 2016.11.23 22:20:32 - [276] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: I stand somewhat corrected on that, I was thinking of a past version of the Marauders. That said they barely edge out a few ships on base HP and even get beaten out by a few T1 hulls. Calling them at all tank focused compared to something like the Skiff or the HIC class is ridiculous. For example the actually tank focused T1 Rokh is almost even with the T2 Golem even before taking into account its resist bonus. And there was a reason "closest to" was used as a descriptor there, but were descending into semantics at this point. Either way, aside from EHP enhancing bonused boats they typically come out on top. Cade Windstalker wrote: First off, a PvP fleet BS will rarely if ever get close to 100k EHP. It's just not needed. Beyond that your Incursion information is half accurate at best. First off, Gallente ships can generally tank Shield about as well as Armor, they don't really have a "Primary tank layer" they just have a slight bias towards Armor in slot layout. Beyond that I said that they couldn't hit those EHP numbers without faction fittings and maintain any reasonable degree of utility. A Hyperion fitted out with entirely T2 tank is going to be a block of shields and guns and not much else. In order to get large EHP values and utility modules you either need an armor fit (at which point you're trading heavily on DPS instead of utility) or faction mods. And I addressed the issue of utility as well. You aren't getting > 100K EHP HICs in 2 races with utility and without faction. The Phobos won't get that without a damage sacrifice BSs don't have to make. The Devoted has the same issue to a lesser extent. Cade Windstalker wrote: I covered that in my comment that you just quoted, it's covered under "Even if you reduce base stats somewhere..." and goes from there. Mining ships are, quite intentionally, very fitting crunched. They have trouble fitting a large tank and maxing out their mining capacity. If you add slots you make it much easier to min-max things and get both tank and mining yield. There is no way around this, when you add fitting space and slots to a ship the space of possible outcomes for the ship expands. Even if you only add mid slots you're expanding the likely end result mining yield for a given tank since if it's reasonably possible to hit the old tank and yield with T2 then you can throw on some cheap faction and get a net buff to both, especially since fitting-focused faction is really cheap, for little cost or risk, because the extra fittings are very very useful on a mining ship. Besides that you've completely ignored my point about essentially asking CCP to add two slots to everything and rebalance back to the point we're already at. There's no point in them spending the time to do that unless there's an actual need to shake up the mining fitting space. A desire for sillier gank-miner fits is far to niche to fit that requirement. No, the point isn't to be where we're already at because undeniably there are more options open when the fitting room exists. Looking at the peaks and determining hothing changed is an oversimplification. And no, not all of the ships have that issue of not being able to devote resources to both. Again, you have the behemoths that are the Skiff and Proc in terms of what they can do comparatively. Then Mack isn't so bad but the Hulk has probably been shafted a couple times IMHO. Especially the latest run which nerfed yield and gave a lowslot, but didn't do jack to make it useful. Cade Windstalker wrote: That was something of the point here. Give miners a high-tank and very hard to gank option at the expense of their yield. That gives miners something to retreat to to avoid suicide ganks so if those ganks become too much of an issue to the point that mining in a Hulk is no longer profitable everyone just runs Skiffs and the gankers run out of viable targets. In response we've gotten bumping but that's something else entirely and isn't a problem with any of the ships it's a core design issue in the game that needs its own solution. While design intent is certainly malleable you need to provide an argument in favor of changing it, and no one pushing this idea of more slots has done that, you've just suggested that more slots and fitting options is an inherently good enough thing that it makes it's own argument, and that's just not the case. More fitting options comes at the cost of making the design space harder to balance in addition to the cost of making the change and balancing around it. I'd quote your last bit here but there's not much point, everything there is already covered elsewhere. I'll just reiterate that I specified mining yield for a given EHP as a concern here, and you seem to have completely ignored that in favor of the idea that more fitting options on a ship is this inherent golden shining dream that the designers should aspire to at the expense of all else, which is patently ridiculous. Also just because you can't think of a specific issue with an idea doesn't make it good, you also need a specific benefit, and you don't have one here. We already provided reason. We want to do more with the ships in general. We'd like to use more of the size appropriate mods and be able to use even mining related utilities without throwing away significant portions of tank on the more limited ships. But with 4 mids on a shield tank fitting utility is a significant and disproportionate use of resources. And no, I haven't ignored yield:EHP so much as recognized it doesn't exist as such. The Mack and Skiff have the same yield envelope, but one is far greater in tank. There is no straightforward equivalency there. The accusation is also explicitly false even if we did by that logic as I actually spelled out the methods of ensuring that those numbers remained the same despite the enhanced fitting.
elitatwo Eve Minions O.U.Z.O. Alliance 1491	Posted - 2016.11.23 22:50:37 - [277] - Quote Just leaving one observation on the Porpoise here: One damage control unit and one t2 bulkhead + 3 t2 hull rigs and one adaptive invulnerability field II gives that ship approximately 79.000ehp. Looks like fitting is not your strong suit. Eve Minions is recruiting. This is the law of ship progression! Aura sound-clips: Aura forever
Cade Windstalker 609	Posted - 2016.11.24 07:12:59 - [278] - Quote Tyberius Franklin wrote: And there was a reason "closest to" was used as a descriptor there, but were descending into semantics at this point. Either way, aside from EHP enhancing bonused boats they typically come out on top. Yes, because larger ships tend to have more raw HP to make up for their lack of ability to mitigate damage and/or risk in other ways, but it's by no means universal. Carriers and Dreadnoughts tank far more than Freighters, Cruisers tank more than Industrials, and Battlecruisers tank more than Mining Barges and Exhumers, except for the tank focused ones. That's because those ships are intended to be squishy as a balance parameter. Tyberius Franklin wrote: And I addressed the issue of utility as well. You aren't getting > 100K EHP HICs in 2 races with utility and without faction. The Phobos won't get that without a damage sacrifice BSs don't have to make. The Devoted has the same issue to a lesser extent. You're getting all the utility the ship needs, and it's a commonly used PvP fit. The closest you could come up with for a BS equivalent was a single use role PvE fit that's very nearly all tank and nothing else. You're the one who brought Utility into it when you brought up Incursion ships, I just set you straight on that point. Tyberius Franklin wrote: No, the point isn't to be where we're already at because undeniably there are more options open when the fitting room exists. Looking at the peaks and determining hothing changed is an oversimplification. And no, not all of the ships have that issue of not being able to devote resources to both. Again, you have the behemoths that are the Skiff and Proc in terms of what they can do comparatively. Then Mack isn't so bad but the Hulk has probably been shafted a couple times IMHO. Especially the latest run which nerfed yield and gave a lowslot, but didn't do jack to make it useful. The Skiff and Procurers are tank focused ships intentionally and by design, their trade off in fitting is that you're not sitting in a Hulk and mining more than you could in the tankier hull. Also the last round of changes did not nerf the Hulk's yield. There were like three different people who spelled out the math on that one, the Hulk's max theoretical mining yield actually went up by a percent or two on the high end. I'm also not suggesting nothing is going to change here, I'm saying that the end goal from CCP's perspective with any theoretical rebalance of mining ship slots is going to be to change the mining ecosystem as little as possible, but no change is impossible because you're adding slots and fittings to make those slots usable, and that's drastically increasing the likelihood that something will end up broken, either in favor of the gankers or against them in all likelihood. Tyberius Franklin wrote: We already provided reason. We want to do more with the ships in general. We'd like to use more of the size appropriate mods and be able to use even mining related utilities without throwing away significant portions of tank on the more limited ships. But with 4 mids on a shield tank fitting utility is a significant and disproportionate use of resources. And no, I haven't ignored yield:EHP so much as recognized it doesn't exist as such. The Mack and Skiff have the same yield envelope, but one is far greater in tank. There is no straightforward equivalency there. The accusation is also explicitly false even if we did by that logic as I actually spelled out the methods of ensuring that those numbers remained the same despite the enhanced fitting. I've already gone over why mining ships are so fitting constrained, so even with additional slots you're not going to get what you want unless they completely rebalance everything dealing with mining ships, modules, and their fittings, and that's fantastically unrealistic to be requesting just so you can maybe do some silly things with the hulls. The alternative is a bunch of weird glued on fitting bonuses for specific modules, like prop mods, but that's not really good design, would draw complaints from the general populous about the balance of the hulls, and be seen as a general buff to mining ships (which wouldn't be inaccurate). You're just not understanding the trade-offs inherent in these hulls I think. There isn't just yield vs EHP at work here, but that is always the primary tradeoff for a miner. The Mack trades EHP and yield for a massive ore bay, the Skiff trades yield and ore storage for Tank, and the Hulk trades tank and ore storage for raw yield. Each of these individual ships has a set of fittings that give it various ratios of EHP to Ore Yield though, so yes Yield:EHP very much does exist as a balance parameter, as does the ratio of the EHP to the value of various gank ships. You have spelled out nothing reasonable or concrete that would accomplish what you're suggesting, you've just hand waved around vague talk about changing base stats, which still shifts the EHP to Yield curve because there is no single change you can make to a base hull that is equivalent to two additional slots and fittings to use them. It just doesn't work that way, that's why base stats and slot layouts are separate balance parameters rather than every ship getting 24 slots and being tweaked solely on base stats. The TLDR here is pretty much that balancing does not work how you seem to think it works, and your desires for these hulls are unrealistic because they are tangential at best to CCP's primary balance concerns in this design space.
Sergeant Pepper Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 0	Posted - 2016.11.25 19:25:03 - [279] - Quote Hi there, what about the announcement that the porpoise will fit in small wormholes? I have tried it out and i am not able to bring the porpoise in a C13. Bug? Works as designed? Thank you...
Owen Levanth Sagittarius Unlimited Exploration 499	Posted - 2016.11.25 20:07:57 - [280] - Quote Sergeant Pepper wrote: Hi there, what about the announcement that the porpoise will fit in small wormholes? I have tried it out and i am not able to bring the porpoise in a C13. Bug? Works as designed? Thank you... What do you have fitted? And do you have propulsion-modules active when trying to go through? Please remember stuff like armor mods will add mass to your ship. The Porpoise is 4,5 million kg, which is below the 5 million kg mass limit for frigate-sized holes. If you have nothing mass-enlarging fitted and still can't go through, it's a bug.

Gulmuk Control-Space DARKNESS. 6	Posted - 2016.11.27 01:44:20 - [281] - Quote I think y'all dropped the ball on this one. I didn't see where you stated ~980m3 ore yield with max skills till after I got the Porpoise... I just turned around and docked it up... Waste of isk to purchase. The ship is pointless. Boost range is way too low. ~35km vs ~150 in the rorq. WHAT? Not even 1/3 of the rorq... The mining amount is just laughable... I mean you give the rorq the ability to mine ~30,000m3 per cycle with max skills, but the Porpoise again doesn't even get a third of that? Pathetic!!! For those of us without an alt miner, the ONLY decision is to get a rorqual anymore... It's like mining with a 8 man fleet in just one ship... Rorq on the way!!!
elitatwo Eve Minions O.U.Z.O. Alliance 1504	Posted - 2016.11.27 02:32:54 - [282] - Quote Okay then by all means, tell us how you squeezed your rorqual into a c13 hole. Eve Minions is recruiting. This is the law of ship progression! Aura sound-clips: Aura forever
Steve Ronuken Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM 6265	Posted - 2016.11.27 18:43:36 - [283] - Quote elitatwo wrote: Okay then by all means, tell us how you squeezed your rorqual into a c13 hole. This is one of the most important points. It's also a _significantly_ lower investment. around 85 million, against 2.4 billion. Woo! CSM XI! Fuzzwork Enterprises Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
Cade Windstalker 612	Posted - 2016.11.28 14:48:07 - [284] - Quote Gulmuk wrote: I think y'all dropped the ball on this one. I didn't see where you stated ~980m3 ore yield with max skills till after I got the Porpoise... I just turned around and docked it up... Waste of isk to purchase. The ship is pointless. Boost range is way too low. ~35km vs ~150 in the rorq. WHAT? Not even 1/3 of the rorq... The mining amount is just laughable... I mean you give the rorq the ability to mine ~30,000m3 per cycle with max skills, but the Porpoise again doesn't even get a third of that? Pathetic!!! For those of us without an alt miner, the ONLY decision is to get a rorqual anymore... It's like mining with a 8 man fleet in just one ship... Rorq on the way!!! What's laughable is expecting a 60m T1 subcap boosting ship to mine more than an Exhumer, let alone 1/3rd of a Rorqual when the Rorqual costs 3B and has to field another 5B or so in mining drones to mine that much. Seriously did you not even look at the ship before buying it?!?! Just because you don't want to use this ship (or an Orca, apparently) don't say it's pointless without thinking at all. elitatwo wrote: Okay then by all means, tell us how you squeezed your rorqual into a c13 hole. Lots of lube? I mean, you could build one in there, but.... yeah, lol.
BigFoot No Limit Fire Wolf Nova Pheonix Coallation 0	Posted - 2016.12.05 16:27:05 - [285] - Quote I've just got a Porpoise, and I'm pleased. I've got some skills to max yet, but even with T1 drones the yield is good, fleet boosting is very good, its useful for hauling ore and salvaging. I love the drone capacity especially. It'll pay for itself in no time, so I think the guys have got it spot on this time. BF
DrysonBennington Eagle's Talon's 305	Posted - 2016.12.26 00:04:35 - [286] - Quote The first upgrade to the Porpoise is to have its four high slots replaced with a single strip miner slot.
Cade Windstalker 675	Posted - 2016.12.28 15:07:50 - [287] - Quote DrysonBennington wrote: The first upgrade to the Porpoise is to have its four high slots replaced with a single strip miner slot as well as giving it a small ore, ice and gas compression bay. None of the other boosting ships get mining lasers, there's no reason for this one to. Also "compression bay" is... not something that exists? Those jobs are A. instantaneous and B. can now be done in a Citadel. Also you've provided zero justification for why these things are balanced or necessary on a 60m ISK ship whose primary value is in its cheap boosting capability.


Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 :: [one 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.