These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Darwinism Died with Eve? How Space Ship Engineers Never Learned to Adapt - And Stopped Worrying.
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#141 - 2012-05-07 08:25:54 UTC
Andski wrote:
maybe you could turn off your macro and stop expecting to be safe

also "lol" people whining about having to be attentive


The only macro user I see here is you.

Using AutoKey for F5 on the browser amirite?

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials
Aron Croup
Incompatible Protocol
#142 - 2012-05-07 08:32:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Aron Croup
Thomas Orca wrote:
Archdaimon wrote:
Still seems like a place where sadists only wants easy mode because they can't handle a challenge when presented with one.


You see, the problem is the things you are asking for (i.e adaptability in your internet spaceships) are already doable under current mechanics. There is no need for a new ship, because the role that you wish to be filled is already filled by existing ships.


Sure you can tank a hulk so that it will survive a single catalyst or two, but that's besides the point. All hulkageddon aside I think it would be a great addition to the game to get a new mining ship that supports a different role. Lord knows there are plenty of different roles for combat ships, but on the industry side we have much fewer options. For mining I was thinking the possibilities out last night and came up with this idea.

A Tech-3 Class Mining Vessel:

Priced in the same range as other tech-3 ships, and built around the same modular design. It could have many different roles, just like normal tech-3. Here's a proposal for some subsystems:

  • Defensive - Supplemental Screening - 10% bonus to shield HP pr. level.
  • Defensive - Warfare Processor - 99% bonus to link CPU need, 5% bonus to mining links pr. level.
  • Defensive - Adaptive Shielding - 5% bonus to shield resist pr. level and 10% bonus to shield transfer pr. level.
  • Defensive - Industrial Conversion - +10% cargo hold pr. level and a 25% penalty to shield HP.


  • Electronic - Emergent locust analyser - 10% bonus to scan probes, 20% bonus to tractor beams pr. level.
  • Electronic - CPU Efficiency gate - 5% to CPU pr. level
  • Electronic - Crystal amplification - 3% to range of strip miners pr. level, and a 25% penalty to targeting range.
  • Electronic - Dissolution sequencer - 5% to targeting range and 15% to sensor strength pr. level.


  • Engineering - Identical to the other T3, so powergrid, capacitor regen, max capacitor and heat damage to modules.


  • Offensive - Industrial Flux - 3 high-slots, 3 turrets, 5% bonus to ore mining yield. Can equip strip miners
  • Offensive - Cold Flux - 3 high-slots, 3 turrets, 5% bonus to ice mining yield. Can equip ice miners
  • Offensive - Non-solid Flux - 8 high-slots, 8 turrets, 5% bonus to gas mining yield.
  • Offensive - Covert reconfiguration - 2 high-slots 2 turrets, no bonus to mining yield, can equip strip and ice miners.


  • Propulsion - Cargo Hold Optimization - 25% penalty to agility & velocity and 5% to cargo pr. level.
  • Propulsion - Fuel catalyst - 10% to afterburner pr. level.
  • Propulsion - Gravitational Capacitor - 15% to warp speed pr. level, 10% capacitor bonus to initiate warp pr. level.
  • Propulsion - Interdiction Nullifier - 5% agility pr. level and immunity to non targeted interdiction.

There's obviously more tweaking to do with the numbers for shield, armor and structure HP, base numbers for drone hold, bandwidth, cargo hold, ship velocity, etc. The idea here being you can either tank it like a tengu or go all out industrial and have a ship that's even more effective than the hulk, but also far more expensive, and therefore much more likely to be ganked.

Before you scuff this idea as just another miner whiner, consider that there will without question be stupid and careless miners flying around in ultra-high yield versions of these ships, in busy empire systems, begging to be ganked. There will also be people trying to balance tank and mining yield as much as possible, who will be harder targets, but still viable. Finally there will be the ultra-safe miners who will make this a tough nut to crack.

Give it some thought.
Shian Yang
#143 - 2012-05-07 08:34:47 UTC
Aron Croup wrote:
Give it some thought.


Greetings capsuleer,

Do you currently use a battleship class hull to mine?

Regards,

Shian Yang
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#144 - 2012-05-07 08:34:48 UTC
I offered somebody a mining permit and he told me that I have no honour :((((

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Vaju Enki
Secular Wisdom
#145 - 2012-05-07 08:39:14 UTC
I think Darwinism died with EvE carebear noobs.

The Tears Must Flow
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#146 - 2012-05-07 08:44:49 UTC
Aron Croup wrote:

Sure you can tank a hulk so that it will survive a single catalyst or two, but that's besides the point. All hulkageddon aside I think it would be a great addition to the game to get a new mining ship that supports a different role. Lord knows there are plenty of different roles for combat ships, but on the industry side we have much fewer options. For mining I was thinking the possibilities out last night and came up with this idea.

A Tech-3 Class Mining Vessel:

Priced in the same range as other tech-3 ships, and built around the same modular design. It could have many different roles, just like normal tech-3. Here's a proposal for some subsystems:

Give it some thought.


Hulks are already extremely good at their job why would any developer with a brain make a better version of them?

Also, you have to understand that once you make a ship able to survive 2 catalysts, they'll just bring in 3 and pop it anyway.

The only "buff" needed is to completely trash the whole ancient garbage mechanic and put in something like... fun. Like EvE was a game you know.

If it was any fun, people would not alt tab to watch TV and the ebil ganksta would not have 10 minutes of free time to do whatever he wants on them. I think the only similar garbage game play I have seen was botted hunters in WoW and renown leeching autokey jumpers in Warhammer Online.

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials
Aron Croup
Incompatible Protocol
#147 - 2012-05-07 08:54:56 UTC
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Aron Croup wrote:

Sure you can tank a hulk so that it will survive a single catalyst or two, but that's besides the point. All hulkageddon aside I think it would be a great addition to the game to get a new mining ship that supports a different role. Lord knows there are plenty of different roles for combat ships, but on the industry side we have much fewer options. For mining I was thinking the possibilities out last night and came up with this idea.

A Tech-3 Class Mining Vessel:

Priced in the same range as other tech-3 ships, and built around the same modular design. It could have many different roles, just like normal tech-3. Here's a proposal for some subsystems:

Give it some thought.


Hulks are already extremely good at their job why would any developer with a brain make a better version of them?

Also, you have to understand that once you make a ship able to survive 2 catalysts, they'll just bring in 3 and pop it anyway.

The only "buff" needed is to completely trash the whole ancient garbage mechanic and put in something like... fun. Like EvE was a game you know.

If it was any fun, people would not alt tab to watch TV and the ebil ganksta would not have 10 minutes of free time to do whatever he wants on them. I think the only similar garbage game play I have seen was botted hunters in WoW and renown leeching autokey jumpers in Warhammer Online.


I agree that hulks are good at their job, but they have certain limitations, one being that they have a frigate class tank. I'm not kidding, an assault frigate is better tanked than most hulk configurations.

The argument that "the hulk can already be tanked" doesn't really make much sense. That would be the same as saying there should only be one combat ship of each class, because you can just refit it for a different purpose, but that's not how EVE works! There are many combat ships that are specifically designed for tanking or ganking. The Hulk is the equivalent of a ganking ship, a high yield for highslots and a paper tank. Why not have a tank version of it? And a modular version of it? Why can't the industrialists have some freaking love in this game without combat pilots whining and moaning like it'd be the end of the world?
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#148 - 2012-05-07 08:57:25 UTC
Aron Croup wrote:
Why not have a tank version of it? And a modular version of it? Why can't the industrialists have some freaking love in this game without combat pilots whining and moaning like it'd be the end of the world?


It's called "balance." You want a ship that can mine just like a Hulk with ten times the tank. That's absolutely dumb.

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Aron Croup
Incompatible Protocol
#149 - 2012-05-07 08:58:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Aron Croup
Andski wrote:
Aron Croup wrote:
Why not have a tank version of it? And a modular version of it? Why can't the industrialists have some freaking love in this game without combat pilots whining and moaning like it'd be the end of the world?


It's called "balance." You want a ship that can mine just like a Hulk with ten times the tank. That's absolutely dumb.


[EDIT] Clarification:

I propose a ship that either has LESS yield than a hulk and MORE tank, or a ship that has a much higher cost than a hulk to achieve MORE tank with roughly the same yield. Like I said, I didn't specify any actual hitpoint values, these would have to be balanced.

The reason I thought it'd be cool with a modular design is that you can redo it for many purposes. Cloaky travel, fleet boosting, gas mining, etc. It would be perfect for wormhole operations, for instance.
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#150 - 2012-05-07 09:22:39 UTC
Aron Croup wrote:


I propose a ship that either has LESS yield than a hulk and MORE tank, or a ship that has a much higher cost than a hulk to achieve MORE tank with roughly the same yield. Like I said, I didn't specify any actual hitpoint values, these would have to be balanced.

i propose that too, it's called fitting tanking modules on your hulk
lol
Aron Croup
Incompatible Protocol
#151 - 2012-05-07 09:58:26 UTC
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
Aron Croup wrote:


I propose a ship that either has LESS yield than a hulk and MORE tank, or a ship that has a much higher cost than a hulk to achieve MORE tank with roughly the same yield. Like I said, I didn't specify any actual hitpoint values, these would have to be balanced.

i propose that too, it's called fitting tanking modules on your hulk
lol


I will refer you to my post on this very page addressing that non-argument. Combat ships have different varieties, some that tank, some that gank, some that have other useful bonuses. By your logic there should only be one frigate, cruiser, battlecruiser and battleship for each race - because you can just refit it?

It's not how everything else in EVE is done. It makes no sense that it should be the only solution for miners either. Let's have some options on the table. Why do you care? Would just mean you got to gank different kinds of ships, and you know if someone has a Tech-3 mining ship, they will try and faction fit it to get the most out of the tank... loot pinata.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#152 - 2012-05-07 11:08:22 UTC
Aron Croup wrote:


I will refer you to my post on this very page addressing that non-argument. Combat ships have different varieties, some that tank, some that gank, some that have other useful bonuses. By your logic there should only be one frigate, cruiser, battlecruiser and battleship for each race - because you can just refit it?

It's not how everything else in EVE is done. It makes no sense that it should be the only solution for miners either. Let's have some options on the table. Why do you care? Would just mean you got to gank different kinds of ships, and you know if someone has a Tech-3 mining ship, they will try and faction fit it to get the most out of the tank... loot pinata.


There are six barges, four frigates, four cruisers and two capital sized ships built for mining. There are several other battleships which can be adapted for mining too. You have a wide choice of mining ships.
Cipher Jones
The Thomas Edwards Taco Tuesday All Stars
#153 - 2012-05-07 11:17:13 UTC
Archdaimon wrote:
Disclaimer: Not a carebear blah blah, didn't lose any hulks blah blah, don't live in Hi blah blah.

Matter at Hand:

Eve is a Sandbox or tries to be as much as possible. What is not "sandboxable" is the ship designs of Eve. They are sort of given to us by magical beings deciding what we can fly and what we can't.

As with any thing in Human history when one thing failed things started to adapt. We see this in fleet doctrines or fits for ships.

What we do not see is the ship design itself change. What am I getting at?

Mining ships. It makes no sense, from any fluffy perspective that ships continuously ganked never develops and becomes able to counter that thread. Few times in history have people insisted on being so ******** as to continue doing the same mistake over and over. No place in Eve has ever been safe enough for any ship design as paper thin as an exhumer to be designed in the first place!

One should think that an Engineer had at least enough some entrepreneurial spirit as to create a mining design not popin on sight. The resource is worth it. Current ship design just plain weird.

Faq:
q) omfg omfg omfg carebear don't want suicide ganks.
a) Yes I do. But lets put some fun into it. School Yard bully only fun for so long?

q) Your a botter
a) No.

q) You just butthurt
a) Not really. I just haven't lost faith in common sense

q) Don't fly what you can't afford to lose
a) I don't

q) Have you tried mining
a) Yes

q) Why should I care?
a) Dunno, maybe you just will?

tbc

Edit:

q) But there are many other ships that doesn't make sense. How about t1 cruisers and ****?
a) Indeed. But our Engineers said they were going to do something about that in the Tiercide. Lets have those same engineers invest a bit of time on mining as well?


Last year CCP was going to implement a bunch of stuff and the player base cried and they scrapped it.

This year they came out and said they were gonna do new stuff.

What you are asking for is in the new stuff.

So what the **** is the problem, quite bluntly?


internet spaceships

are serious business sir.

and don't forget it
Aron Croup
Incompatible Protocol
#154 - 2012-05-07 11:27:43 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Aron Croup wrote:


I will refer you to my post on this very page addressing that non-argument. Combat ships have different varieties, some that tank, some that gank, some that have other useful bonuses. By your logic there should only be one frigate, cruiser, battlecruiser and battleship for each race - because you can just refit it?

It's not how everything else in EVE is done. It makes no sense that it should be the only solution for miners either. Let's have some options on the table. Why do you care? Would just mean you got to gank different kinds of ships, and you know if someone has a Tech-3 mining ship, they will try and faction fit it to get the most out of the tank... loot pinata.


There are six barges, four frigates, four cruisers and two capital sized ships built for mining. There are several other battleships which can be adapted for mining too. You have a wide choice of mining ships.


The two capital sized ships are not built for mining. They're support ships for mining fleets, not mining ships. The cruisers and frigates are entry level mining ships and are pointless after 2 weeks of skill training, leaving only the t1 and t2 mining barges, who all fit the same profile of having very little tank capability.

Instead of just instantly jumping on the "I am against miners and everything they want, say or do" bandwagon, try to give me a real reason why a tech-3 mining ship would not be a good idea? You have tech-3 combat ships, why not have a tech-3 mining ship? Hell, could be as easy as making mining subsystems for the existing tech-3 ships.
RAP ACTION HERO
#155 - 2012-05-07 11:29:34 UTC
Aron Croup wrote:
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
Aron Croup wrote:


I propose a ship that either has LESS yield than a hulk and MORE tank, or a ship that has a much higher cost than a hulk to achieve MORE tank with roughly the same yield. Like I said, I didn't specify any actual hitpoint values, these would have to be balanced.

i propose that too, it's called fitting tanking modules on your hulk
lol


I will refer you to my post on this very page addressing that non-argument. Combat ships have different varieties, some that tank, some that gank, some that have other useful bonuses. By your logic there should only be one frigate, cruiser, battlecruiser and battleship for each race - because you can just refit it?

It's not how everything else in EVE is done. It makes no sense that it should be the only solution for miners either. Let's have some options on the table. Why do you care? Would just mean you got to gank different kinds of ships, and you know if someone has a Tech-3 mining ship, they will try and faction fit it to get the most out of the tank... loot pinata.


sounds like you want a super-hulk with the same yield and cargo and the tank of a rokh

request denied.

vitoc erryday
JitaPriceChecker2
Doomheim
#156 - 2012-05-07 11:41:07 UTC
Alara IonStorm wrote:
Business 101.

Guy buys Mining Ship > Mining Ship is destroyed > Guy buys new Mining Ship.

They don't have much incentive to put money into designing something when everyone just keeps buying new current Mining Ships after getting ganked.

Like how new light bulbs burn out quicker then ones made in the 30's.


This.

Op you suck and know nothing about "modern economy" based on planned obsolescence.
Welsige
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#157 - 2012-05-07 12:02:48 UTC


OP, think with me...

Get a miner ship, tank it, arm it, buff it, make it more of a war vessel..... in the end the engeneering process would get to a Battleship.

Its easier to you to take a Rokh then and go mine.

What do you want, a Mining deathstar?

Case closed.

[b]~ 10.058 ~

Free The Mittani[/b]
Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#158 - 2012-05-07 12:24:19 UTC
Welsige wrote:


OP, think with me...

Get a miner ship, tank it, arm it, buff it, make it more of a war vessel..... in the end the engeneering process would get to a Battleship.

Its easier to you to take a Rokh then and go mine.

What do you want, a Mining deathstar?

Case closed.


This : get a BS ; fit it with mining lasers ; lought at the gankers.
Engineer did their job : the heaviest armored space ship is the BattleShip ; it is even so modular it can fit mining lasers for those who want an armored mining ship. Wow ! These engeneer are crazy effective in fact !
You said Darwin ? You should learn from him. Highsec carebear would be an endangered species ; sad days but eveolution is harsh.
Archdaimon
Merchants of the Golden Goose
#159 - 2012-05-07 13:41:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Archdaimon
Yet, if you fit the battleship with guns you'd make twice as much at half the speed?

Is that fair?

The question is really, why did so many of choose not to mine?

Might it be:

1) Low income
2) Boring game mechanic
3) High risk of ganks

in Short very low return of investment in mining. Ship design is a part of that.

The same people here whining that miners should not be invincible and demands they mine in battleship are the same people that would never put their pod in one. While at the same time complaining that mineral prices are to high.

Even at this extreme mineral prices miners have the lowest isk/h. And you ask them to make even less?

Wormholes have the best accoustics. It's known. - Sing it for me -
Xython
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#160 - 2012-05-07 13:50:13 UTC
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
Welsige wrote:


OP, think with me...

Get a miner ship, tank it, arm it, buff it, make it more of a war vessel..... in the end the engeneering process would get to a Battleship.

Its easier to you to take a Rokh then and go mine.

What do you want, a Mining deathstar?

Case closed.


This : get a BS ; fit it with mining lasers ; lought at the gankers.
Engineer did their job : the heaviest armored space ship is the BattleShip ; it is even so modular it can fit mining lasers for those who want an armored mining ship. Wow ! These engeneer are crazy effective in fact !
You said Darwin ? You should learn from him. Highsec carebear would be an endangered species ; sad days but eveolution is harsh.


While your spelling could possibly be better, you have the right idea.

I said it before in this thread, I'll say it again: The Hulk is not meant to be a solo, AFK, highsec mining ship. It's actually meant for nullsec mining ops, with a group of PVPers guarding it, perhaps scouts and bubbles on the gates into the system, et cetera.

It can certainly be used in highsec, but the idea that CCP should pander to the scrubs who wish to mine stuff while perpetually AFK and disengaged with the game (or, lets be honest, while Botting) is the worst kind of entitlement bullshit.

Why should CCP cater to a group of players who don't like their game enough to actually play it?

No, the good minerals and ice should be moved to low and null, where the sandbox can take care of anyone stupid enough to AFK or bot mine. And CCP should take a good, long hard look at harvesting in EVE -- if there's something so utterly boring and unfun that it can be done while AFK and/or with a cheap bot, then perhaps that particular part of the game should get a new coat of paint.

I do have to feel bad about those who aren't bot mining and are honestly trying to mine, however. If you're trying to be competitive with AFK Botters running glass cannon mining ships, well, you don't have much choice but to act as much like an Botter yourself.