EVE Search - why is ORE so backwards?

All Channels

Science and Industry

why is ORE so backwards?

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Maor Raor Red. Red Republic	Posted - 2008.04.06 10:15:00 - [31] Edited by: Maor Raor on 06/04/2008 10:17:41 Originally by: Hehulk Some sort of specialised gas mining ship would be nice. As far as I know, right now the only way to boost gas harvesters is to run gang links. Ship bonuses and such don't effect them, and barges can't mine them Yikes.. i didnt know that about gas mineing.. in that case a gas mining barge is a must.
Lougra United Forces Industrial	Posted - 2008.04.06 12:16:00 - [32] I didnt bother to read the next posts, but i can honestly say this. We dont need more mining ships. WE NEED BALANCE. It is simply unacceptable, a BC equivalent ship to have 1/6 of the shield/armor/hull without giving something in exchange. It is not acceptable when the mackinaw which is made for ice mining, to be defenceless if you fit it to mine ice. It is simply pathetic when the only thing can fitted is a CIVILIAN SHIELD BOOSTER. You know why goons has started to *****our game? Because hulk has 1600 shield and can be blown too easily. That called Effort. The effort of yours, against the effort of a character which is made within 2008! The money you spend to fit your hulk and the money the noob spend to fit a cruiser. Ir is really pathetic when a vexor blowing up macks in ice fields. Pathetic as this game is started to be. Carebear is the surname that others gives you, if you enjoy to play eve, in other way than the rest want YOU to play it.
Elektrea Happy hOur Mining and industry Brutally Clever Empire	Posted - 2008.04.06 18:18:00 - [33] Originally by: mitalla oreaki The part about more minerals being introduced will lead to lower prices is a complete and total falsehood. If EVE was a true open market that would be true. However its not , CCP controls the prices of minerals to a very strong degree. prices on minerals as a whole cannot fall due to the insurance. if the prices were to do as you say then it would be more profitable to just build ships and blow them up for the insurance. -- the insurance sets a minimum price on a ship -- the ship value sets a minimum price on the total of the minerals used This is the reason that increasing yield will do nothing other then increasing the amount of ships and possibly bringing the ship prices closer to insurance amounts. as to the increase in yield , thats something that needs to be playtested. The insurance does not set a minimum. Anyone can build and set it below the mineral cost, theres nothing stopping them? Happy HOur Minning and Industry
Rhatar Khurin Sten Industries	Posted - 2008.04.07 03:18:00 - [34] I would love to see a battleship sized ORE vessel with 4 strip miners and 2 turret slots and 2 misc high slots. _ EVE RELATED CONTENT
Tasko Pal	Posted - 2008.04.07 04:56:00 - [35] Edited by: Tasko Pal on 07/04/2008 04:59:58 I don't see any reason why ORE should make "balanced ships". They are a specialized faction and make focused mining ships and mining equipment (or at least issue the BPOs for such). Period. Let us keep in mind that there are plenty of battleships and battlecruisers with good tanks and capable of fitting mining lasers or gas harvesters. The only ship that really is missing is a high tank ice miner. Originally by: Elektrea The insurance does not set a minimum. Anyone can build and set it below the mineral cost, theres nothing stopping them? Sure, we could sell ravens for 1 isk each. But that's not the debate. In an active market, there will be buyers just below insurance cost for these ships, and one can always build and blow up their own ships. That's going to keep prices from going well below insurance costs.
Maor Raor	Posted - 2008.04.07 05:46:00 - [36] Well there is no reason that Ore has to offer ballanced ships if CCP dont feel that they should. BUT If the aim of the Devs in encourage players to take risk inorder to get better rewards, then offering a mining barge that even has a chance of surviveing an encounter would go a long way to getting the generaly risk adverse empire huggers to venture out into lowsec. And in a way i agree that Ore shouldnt be the one to offer the tanking Barges. The more i think about it the more i think that the next racial BS released by CCP should be a mining BS... chances of that happening.. nill We would do better to ask for a new brand of barge
Jacob Holland	Posted - 2008.04.07 10:16:00 - [37] 4 unbonused strip miners yield just a fraction less than the hulk's bonused strips IIRC. If you were to take an eight highslot layout and give it enough CPU to fit four strip miners (through a CPU reduction bonus) then the question is what could be fitted in the remaining highs... Turrets are out, if you give it turret hardpoints then people will simply fill them with mining lasers, which is not the aim. If we leave them as utility slots then nos, neuts or remote logistics are the primary options, with smartbombs offering the only overtly offensive option. Launcher Hardpoints don't really fit with the very Gallente, drone oriented style which ORE have always exhibited but they do open the option of moderate, long ranged firepower. So what does a mining platform need? Firepower can effectively be drawn from drones, a decent dronebay would be sufficient to remove rats after an op for example. Launchers (with defenders) would improve the tank - but more than a couple of launchers might be too much. So let's leave it at 0 hardpoints, perhaps you aim to fit with a couple of large smartbombs and a couple of large shield transfers. It would need a range bonus on those in that case - so that what you're transferring can sit well outside smartbomb range. Midslots should be sufficient for a decent sized tank, a mining platform would need to be able to tank spawns without resort to deadspace modules. The problem of course now is that both the Mackinaw and the Hulk are at risk of obsolescence... Low slots are tricky - I would have to limit it to a single low, either a mining upgrade or a cargo expander, no outdoing the hulk with extra upgrades. The reason it's difficult is that the CPU has to be sufficient to fit a solid shield and remote shield tank, there's too much risk of highsec miners fitting a substantially substandard tank for more yield. So it needs a tank, both a reasonable buffer and a decent active tank. Ideally it needs to have cap to run remote logistics well as well. If one were to make both of its ship skills logistics based then you would end up with a ship which could be used 1:4 to barges, supporting their tank effectively while tanking itself. With a small enough cargo that management would be important to discourage AFKing but plenty of options otherwise. -- Please visit your user settings to re-enable images. Originally by: cordy Respect to IAC .Your one of the few people who truly deserve to own and live in the space you are in.
Cissnei	Posted - 2008.04.07 10:51:00 - [38] an across the board increase of armor/shield/hull hp of all barges by 50% would be a better starting point than yet ANOTHER ship. or even 100% this would at least make it more difficult for those..what are you calling them now, goons? is that a corp or just a generic name....to be able to alpha strike you dead in a hulk or even a covetor with an inexpensive cruiser, and i think that's the entire point. it's far too easy for these "goons" to alpha strike and one shot people in hulks unless they give up the very point of having a hulk - higher yield - and outfit it with insanely expensive tanks. and even then it can still be one shot by many cruiser setups in a 1.0 belt from what im reading it should be impossible to one-shot kill a hulk with anything less than a battleship's full-turret alpha. everything else should have to take a few rounds from their guns/missiles/lasers to down one (of a moderately equally skilled pilot)
Maor Raor Red. Red Republic	Posted - 2008.04.07 11:26:00 - [39] As much as i think its warrented .. i cant see CCP boosting Barges HP by any %.. let alone %50 or %100.. Definitly not without giving up %50 of the yeild. Personaly id be willing to give that up but im not sure you all would agree with me on that. Give us an Ore BS Balance it via ship bonuses so that it comes in well above the retriever but but below the covetor as far as yeild but alow it to tank like BS Keep shield regen tanking off the table so the AFK cant tank bs belt spawns. 4 Strips is out of the question imo... 7 Highs - no strips *****ble so only 6 mining lazorz + one utility for a cloak or drone thing. 6 mids - belt scanner, + 5 slot active shield tank.. or maybe EW 4 lows - or less if mining up grades are an issue.. (at work so cant do the math atm) or posably Hull tanking.. doable with a massive ship bonus to Hull repping and the correct slot layout I think a Hull tank could fit the RP for a mining BS realy well. All i want is a ship i can take into lowsec that can take the punishment while not giving me carpal tunnel like current BS mining does.
Cissnei Imperial Academy	Posted - 2008.04.07 12:23:00 - [40] Edited by: Cissnei on 07/04/2008 12:26:10 that isnt the issue at all they dont care that your hulk has a slightly higher yield than a covetor they care that it's a 100-150 million isk ship with only a 9 million insurance payout, while they very nearly make money from the insurance payout of the ship they lost in the suicide one-shotting of you if they cant one-shot you, so (if you trained for it) you can at least tank them for a bit as they try to kill you giving you a chance to survive while concord kills them - that would go a long way to stopping the complaints - or at least lessening any legitimacy to them of course removing insurance payouts on ships destroyed that were used to instigate a hostile action in 0.5-1.0 space would be another incentive to slow down the whole 'bodies against the wall' thing and do you think an ORE bs would be more or less than that hulk? and you still gotta haul unless you plan to dock frequently - and i mean FREQUENTLY. what you have suggested is pretty much already in the game. having a bs with a mining bonus would just m ean faster jet can mining. that wont stop them from destroying your jet cans, but will create a logistical nightmare as you now have to have another account with a beefy transport ship to haul that can to lessen the risk of loss, or dock everytime your tiny cargohold fills.
Pwett QUANT Corp. QUANT Hegemony	Posted - 2008.04.07 12:29:00 - [41] Edited by: Pwett on 07/04/2008 12:30:45 Originally by: Asuka Smith Insurance is determined by average ship price IIRC... I might be wrong on that but I remember hearing that Insurance price is determined by an arbitrary 'value' in the ivtTypes table that hasn't changes for three years. Otherwise, the scenario is correct. The only way for there NOT to be a glut is if we were currently mining ALL the available ore in EVE. _______________ Pwett CEO, Founder, & Executor <Q> QUANT Hegemony
Jason Edwards Edwards Inc Zzz	Posted - 2008.04.07 13:35:00 - [42] Not sure about backwards... but ORE basically doesn't invent anything worth anything. Where are the mining rigs? Low grade mining laser extender implants? That's absolutely worthless... 30 days training to get covetor and 12 seconds later you fly the hulk and you ignore the covetor... what needs to be done is to shift covetor skill requirements down. mining barge lvl 4 should be for the covetor. You then have to train about a week minimum to get the covetor. Then another month to get to exhumers. Also of note. I already fly a hulk. Should there be "2 new barges and 2 new exhumers" nahhh. No point and no real place for them.
mitalla oreaki 54th Knights Templar THORN Alliance	Posted - 2008.04.07 14:26:00 - [43] I would like to remind people of another factor that is being missed in this discussion. Thats the SP needed to fly thses ships. These ships are not meant to be ships that your whole corp can jump into to assist in a mining op. These are meant to be ships for a dedicated miner. What I am proposing is... mining BS (rank 7) - requires mining barge and astrogeology 5 advanced BS (rank 9) - requires mining BS and exhumer 5 capital mining laser platform (rank 12) - requires mining BS 5 and varying secondary skills capital mining drone platform (rank 14) - requires mining BS and varying secondary skills. As for the bonus to yield. That should be implemented as a large strip miner and its T2 variant. for 2 more skills that a miner would need to learn in order to use these ships properly. I also proposed more mining drones for the medium, heavy , and sentry sizes. this is another 6 skills for both basic operation and for Tech 2 operation. So for an increase in yield and increase in tank and just all around better use of ships what i am really asking for is that the miner profession not cap out after a few months of training. With skills like these carrying a miner well over a year of dedicated training there SHOULD be an increase in yield and everything else to go with it. How would the combat community feel if all the battleships and capital ships still had the DPS output of a cruiser or battlecruiser even after all that training and investment? Also I hear people talk about other variants. That would be GREAT more T2 versions of exhumers and battleships.examples... -- hulk equivelent. remove mining bonus , add 4th high slot , increase cap and other stats to maintain either a remote rep or a gang mod. add bonuses to allow 1 gang mod. -- BS equivelent. again remove mining bonuses and add 2-3 slots. allow for 1 gang mod and a bonus to rep amount. The economy will adjust with minimal effort in the same way its adjusting to the changes in the LP store and the ability to do level 4 missions. So lets call for some more expensive and skill intensive ships. some more expensive and skill intensive lasers. and some more expensive and skill intensive drones.
Medory Caldari VIRTUAL LIFE VANGUARD Carpe Universitas	Posted - 2008.04.12 10:44:00 - [44] It would be interesting to see a cap sized ORE miner named "Veldnaught" and/or "Chribba" as an homage to one of our hardest working players.
elric gallach	Posted - 2008.04.13 13:12:00 - [45] get a black ops, stick mining lasers on it, and a cloak and go for it
Will Strafe	Posted - 2008.04.13 14:35:00 - [46] I think the problem is that mining is dragging isk out of space and into the game, as the main fuel to the economy of Eve. So increasing mining ships to tech2 and capitals would maybe make the single miner feel more advanced, but overall it would increase the ISK inflow into the galaxe by a huge amount. It doesn't matter as much if two pvp players blow each up in 20 million ISK ships or 1 billion ISK ships. But if miners gained "Capital class mining ships. these ships SHOULD have a similar impact on the economy of a corp that a capital ship has on the military might of a corp." the impact would be felt from the tutorial mission and to the furthest corner of space. And maybe not in a very desirable way for most. The overall ISK flow into the game should probably be, and I guess it is, kept at a steady rate where game developers can monitor fluxuations and plan the game ahead. TechII ninja mining ships that where cloaked or any changes like mentioned above poster would be a nice addition, some sort of gameplay advancement in mining that don't just yield +50%, but lets players utilise new tactics in the warfare of Eve economy.
mitalla oreaki	Posted - 2008.04.13 23:33:00 - [47] there are 2 BIG reasons that ninja mining is not a choice at this time. you need to look at the differences in mining and ratting to see it. 1st - a miner would need to be able to run his 3 strip miners and have a slot of a cloaking device. with the way things are now there is not point using 2 strips and a cloak. 2nd - Cargo. a ratter can carry enough ammo to be out in a belt killing bounty rats for hours and hours. a hulk has to run to a station every 20 mins to empty its cargo hold. in order to make this work any one of a bunch of changes would need to be made.... -- Vastly increase the size of the cargo to allow a miner to mine for hours and hours... but with a good hulk pulling out easily 120k m3 an hour you would need 1.2 mil m3 to make it viable... sadly this is into the capital ship range. -- you cant be running back and forth 3-4 systems every 20 mins to drop your cargo. due to the lack of agility and the sheer amount of risk involved in traveling that distance a jump drive would be needed to do it safely. again capital ship range -- a cloaked can that only the launcher could see .. possible idea but your still facing a transportation problem and the can would require a very large size to be useful. this brings the issue of who could deploy it and pick it up... All done and said the largest issue facing many miners is not getting the ore out of the rocks but getting the ore to the stations. mining in an unsafe area (either lowsec pirate space or 0.0 alliance space) is simply not an option given the current mechanics and the overall weakness of the mining ships. in a way though this is a self fulfilling prophecy. they wont upgrade mining or put any man hour into it. since mining has been the bastard step child mining basically caps out and people move on to other things keeping the population of miners to a very low percentage. since miners are such a low percentage the put a very low percentage of man hours to improve mining. when will we see a break in this cycle?
Mystic Pete	Posted - 2008.04.14 11:26:00 - [48] I like the genral idea but I think making direct comparisons with combat ships isn't helpful. Having said that I'll now make the same mistake. In the same way that most tech2 combat ships fill a specific role perhaps ORE could release a line of ships or two that fill specific mining niches or overcome specific problems miners encounter. I'm sure the mining experts out there can come up with something better but off the top of my head. Combat Barge I'm thinking something mining wise like we currently have i.e. you can put 3 strip miners on it but have a few extra highs for defensive weapons. A launcher slot or so, I guess there would be a problem with turret slots as they could be used for more strip miners but this could be tweaked to work. Other than that make it a bit tougher and maybe heavier and slower. The Recon / Stealth Miner Speaks for itself really. A barge designed to get to belts in dangerous area by use of a cloaking device. This ship would also have superb electronics systems for surveying systems, perhaps before bringing in a mining team. This would probably have less cargo space and be relativly weak. Could possibly be used to cyno in a Rorqual. The Blockade Runner This would possibly be better incorporsted in either of the two above. You get the idea a barge with a ready fitted stab. Maybe have it as the toughest option sacrificing cargo space for increase armour and / or shielding system. These ships could be OREs response to the current persecution of miners by an alliance I don't need to advertise.
Mikenche	Posted - 2008.04.14 16:38:00 - [49] Originally by: Mystic Pete Combat Barge I'm thinking something mining wise like we currently have i.e. you can put 3 strip miners on it but have a few extra highs for defensive weapons. A launcher slot or so, I guess there would be a problem with turret slots as they could be used for more strip miners but this could be tweaked to work. Other than that make it a bit tougher and maybe heavier and slower. Strips do not take turret slots. That's precisely the reason that you can't fit a Hulk with two strips and a gun, even if you were willing to sacrifice the mining yield of one strip. A comment about the insurance thing - in order to make blowing up your own ships profitable, you need to account for the insurance cost, which is 30% of the insurance value at the highest level. So to profit from buying/building and blowing up a Myrm (with the 28mil insurance value someone mentioned), the ship itself would need to cost less than 19.6mil. This does not change the fact that insurance sets a low cap for mineral prices however. And as for doubling mining yield not affecting the game significantly - I say that's bovine excrement. There is currently a good supply for almost all ship types except capital ships, and with the few T2 ships with limited supply I seriously doubt it's due to a lack of minerals. Now if the influx of minerals is doubled, where would the extra ships go? Would people just start blowing ships up twice as fast? Surely not, unless their price halves or all players' income doubles. Since there is the cap set by insurance, I think a much more likely scenario is that miners would decrease the amount spent on mining while keeping the same income, freeing up time for other activities.
Aesynil Caldari The Unit...	Posted - 2008.04.14 16:53:00 - [50] Originally by: Mikenche And as for doubling mining yield not affecting the game significantly - I say that's bovine excrement. There is currently a good supply for almost all ship types except capital ships, and with the few T2 ships with limited supply I seriously doubt it's due to a lack of minerals. Now if the influx of minerals is doubled, where would the extra ships go? Would people just start blowing ships up twice as fast? Surely not, unless their price halves or all players' income doubles. Since there is the cap set by insurance, I think a much more likely scenario is that miners would decrease the amount spent on mining while keeping the same income, freeing up time for other activities. You aren't familiar with some of the miners that I know, then...They -would- continue to mine, because rather then mining half the time to make the same profit, they'd mine the same time to make twice the profit. Except...It -would- flood the market, wildly. Mineral prices would fluctuate wildly, and in the end, I feel miners would simply get in the habit of building ships and blowing them up for insurance. For example, doubling mining yield would effectively half the cost to build a ship (Not factoring in bpo, of course, and build time). So you have a 40M raven that blows up for...90M? I forget, lol. Even with insurance, that's profit. On the other hand, if CCP carefully monitered it, factored in the increased influx of minerals, and put in a matching mineral sink (aka, bigger capital ships, more outpost content, being able to manufacture pos's yourself, things of those natures) to make it so that those minerals have somewhere to go...Maybe. I don't pretend to understand these things. But if you add billions of extra minerals, they have to be given somewhere to go.
Mikenche	Posted - 2008.04.14 17:23:00 - [51] Originally by: Aesynil Originally by: Mikenche And as for doubling mining yield not affecting the game significantly - I say that's bovine excrement. There is currently a good supply for almost all ship types except capital ships, and with the few T2 ships with limited supply I seriously doubt it's due to a lack of minerals. Now if the influx of minerals is doubled, where would the extra ships go? Would people just start blowing ships up twice as fast? Surely not, unless their price halves or all players' income doubles. Since there is the cap set by insurance, I think a much more likely scenario is that miners would decrease the amount spent on mining while keeping the same income, freeing up time for other activities. You aren't familiar with some of the miners that I know, then...They -would- continue to mine, because rather then mining half the time to make the same profit, they'd mine the same time to make twice the profit. Except...It -would- flood the market, wildly. Mineral prices would fluctuate wildly, and in the end, I feel miners would simply get in the habit of building ships and blowing them up for insurance. For example, doubling mining yield would effectively half the cost to build a ship (Not factoring in bpo, of course, and build time). So you have a 40M raven that blows up for...90M? I forget, lol. Even with insurance, that's profit. On the other hand, if CCP carefully monitered it, factored in the increased influx of minerals, and put in a matching mineral sink (aka, bigger capital ships, more outpost content, being able to manufacture pos's yourself, things of those natures) to make it so that those minerals have somewhere to go...Maybe. I don't pretend to understand these things. But if you add billions of extra minerals, they have to be given somewhere to go. True, miners could maintain a certain level of income by exploiting insurance. I forgot about that. Also, in the first few days or weeks using the shiny new ships would get double profit from selling the minerals or ships until demand runs out. I don't think either of these are in the best interests of CCP. Are there any NPC corps buying minerals for a fixed price BTW?
Qual Gallente Cornexant Research	Posted - 2008.04.15 08:04:00 - [52] Originally by: mitalla oreaki people keep asking how I can think that increasing the supply will NOT lower the price of minerals. The answer is simple CCP wont allow it to. -- The sum total of all the minerals used to make a ship can not go under the sum total of the insurance amount. Why wouldn't CCP allow this? From an ISK influx point the player mineral prices are unintresting. Players will prevent this from happening As that means they can essentially by minerals with a rebate and "sell" for uber value. CCP couldnt care less, teh problem will fix itself. "The short version: Qual is right." -Papa Smurf
W3370Pi4 Caldari	Posted - 2008.04.15 11:14:00 - [53] capital mining ship idea http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=748936
mitalla oreaki	Posted - 2008.04.15 18:09:00 - [54] i think your capital mining ship is a nice start. my major points to re-clarify ... 1- currently a miner can hit his skill limit much easier then any other pilot. 2- ship progression stops very early into character life. 3- income progression stops very early into character life. 4- the need to spend money stops very early into character life. keep in mind that these bigger ships will give the miners something to spend all these minerals on as well as give them a place to spend skill points.
Tasko Pal Heron Corporation	Posted - 2008.04.15 21:02:00 - [55] Originally by: elric gallach get a black ops, stick mining lasers on it, and a cloak and go for it A battlecruiser would be far better. About a twentieth the cost and it has more turrents. All the recon/covert ops ships are nerfed as far as mining goes with too few turrents.
Tonto Auri Vhero' Multipurpose Corp	Posted - 2008.04.16 12:52:00 - [56] Edited by: Tonto Auri on 16/04/2008 12:54:58 Ok, guys and gals. I were declined to fall into any "wheel invention" topics like this, but You made me crying ang laughing at the same time. First, mining ship with cargobay worth hours of mining - macrominer's dream. Find Veldspar moon, point lasers on it and forget... for an hour or so. Why not rent office at station, mount mining lasers in windows and mine directly to the corp hangar then? Offense on mining ships (barges)... They are fragile gallentian scrapheaps of minmatar design (c) our CEO. Remember the (F = -F) formula? That "-F" will break barge from any weapon firing, except smallest ones. More defence is probably only viable solution. I think that just doubling the shield amount will make good deal. But anyway, powergrid is weak. And please keep in mind, that industry, and especially heavy industry, were always a result of collective work. And CCP clearly indicates that they are know and support this. Mining barges are for mining, haulers are for transporting stuff, etc. If You do not likes it... sorry. Probably You better go ratting? It's a nice soloable task. Add: Originally by: W3370Pi4 capital mining ship idea http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=748936 Same as ship with 30k cargo. Basically. -- Thanks CCP for cu

Pages: 1 [2] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last 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.