These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

New dev blog: Ship balancing summer update

First post First post
Author
Maul555
Xen Investments
Xen Combine
#621 - 2012-06-17 17:04:08 UTC
People still use mining cruisers on ore? Hell, even my gas mining cruiser isn't one of the "mining cruisers"...

What/where are you people mining that this makes sense anymore? Just low skilled players? Just people needing to mine some crap to get a mission over with?
Nagarythe Tinurandir
Einheit X-6
Ushra'Khan
#622 - 2012-06-17 17:11:29 UTC
Maul555 wrote:
People still use mining cruisers on ore? Hell, even my gas mining cruiser isn't one of the "mining cruisers"...

What/where are you people mining that this makes sense anymore? Just low skilled players? Just people needing to mine some crap to get a mission over with?


i do it sometimes for fun in a mining op. since the scythe can mount two missile launchers, its perfectly fine against rats, while mining like a bad t1 strip. then the other guys can keep their mining drones out. but it is no serious mining, by no means.
Inspiration
#623 - 2012-06-17 17:24:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Inspiration
Tippia wrote:
Inspiration wrote:
This means we need answers on the following:

1. Does the regular cargo hold remain the same size?
2. When the ore hold fills up, does the ore/ice continue to accumulate in the cargo hold?
If you dig around in the dev responses you'll find the answers:

1. No.
2. No.
Quote:
I ask this because a popular fit for hulks is to use two cargo hold extender rigs, adding 2580 m3 on top of the base 8000 m3 of storage. This storage (minus max 1000 m3 for spare mining crystals) , is significantly bigger then the base cargo hold and the new ore hold for the hulk and might actually constitute a nerf if the answer to question 2 is a no.
Actually, it's kind of a buff. If you need a lot of cargo space, you'll have at least two and probably four other ships to choose between. Since you no longer have any need, reason (or ability to) expand the Hulk's ore-holding capabilities and ruining its survivability, what with it being a group mining ship and all and you're meant to have an Orca at hand to handle all the storage, you can now spend all those rig and low slots on making it a tougher ship to destroy (which is further improved by being in the mining fleet with all the support ships you can bring to bear on that problem).


You obviously never have seriously mined, or when you did, did so in really horrible setups and with horrible skills that your experience does not really reflect the situation your describing. Else you would not be able to write such fantasy.

You are missing the fact that in a well set up fleet, each hulk pulls so much that it needs more temporary storage to function properly. 8000 m3 sounds like a lot to an unexperienced or low skilled miner, but it is not much when you add the bonuses of a fleet, have maxed skills and an implant to boost mining yield. And lets not forget drones!

I am serious!

Inspiration
#624 - 2012-06-17 17:30:50 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
Inspiration wrote:
So, mined ore and ice goes to the new special purpose ore hold automatically.

This means we need answers on the following:

1. Does the regular cargo hold remain the same size?
2. When the ore hold fills up, does the ore/ice continue to accumulate in the cargo hold?

I ask this because a popular fit for hulks is to use two cargo hold extender rigs, adding 2580 m3 on top of the base 8000 m3 of storage. This storage (minus max 1000 m3 for spare mining crystals) , is significantly bigger then the base cargo hold and the new ore hold for the hulk and might actually constitute a nerf if the answer to question 2 is a no.

CCP can you answer the above questions?


Look at what they mentioned for the Mackinaw/Retriever. And how it's a massive buff for the people you're talking about.


You know very well from the other tread, that I am NOT talking about those people. Seeing you post here, makes me convinced you are quite clueless or just plain trolling!

I am serious!

RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#625 - 2012-06-17 17:52:12 UTC
Inspiration wrote:

You know very well from the other tread, that I am NOT talking about those people. Seeing you post here, makes me convinced you are quite clueless or just plain trolling!


Who are you talking about then? Who really, really needs the extra 30s of cargohold? And if they really, really need it, why don't they use one of the other options?

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon

Maul555
Xen Investments
Xen Combine
#626 - 2012-06-17 17:58:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Maul555
RubyPorto wrote:
Inspiration wrote:

You know very well from the other tread, that I am NOT talking about those people. Seeing you post here, makes me convinced you are quite clueless or just plain trolling!


Who are you talking about then? Who really, really needs the extra 30s of cargohold? And if they really, really need it, why don't they use one of the other options?



Well, I am not sure what "30's" of cargohold is, as I have never encountered such a thing... But I will tell you that a lot of miners definatly use that extra space. My standard hulk highsec config is 2 cargo rigs, with a cargo mod, and a mining laser upgrade, with a tank in the mids, and a mining implant in the head, while recieving mining boosts from an orca. You might be suprised just how quickly a cargo hold can fill up when you get destracted for a couple of minutes, and turn your head to see all your lasers shut down.

While we may have no NEED for the extra space, we definitely want it, and can use it to make our lives a bit more relaxing. It is a fitting option. I have decided to sacrifice survivability for time, and I have given gankers an opportunity in the process. With this new change coming up, I am going to put pretty hefty tanks on all my hulks, the miners will up their game, and I will have less time.

Edit: in before someone tells me to just use the new mackinaw instead
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#627 - 2012-06-17 18:06:47 UTC
Maul555 wrote:
just use the new mackinaw instead

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon

Lili Lu
#628 - 2012-06-17 18:43:19 UTC
DeMichael Crimson wrote:
Lili Lu wrote:
DeMichael Crimson wrote:
If the Tormentor has been changed already, then what mining ship is now being given to new players doing the Amarr Career Agent missions? Also, someone forgot to update the Evelopedia. http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Tormentor

Apparently the answer is it doesn't matter. You're just an idiot, see, if it does. You see that your character will lag behind for a week or two til it trains mining cruiser and mining drones for the Arbitrator, doesn't matter. You stupidly rolled a new amarr indusrialist character. Much like the 3 charisma Achura days. Who cares about a long period of imbalance in character generation and advancement?

As for the wiki, it's been like that forever. Low priority update for that. It's not like new players would go there for any information.

And so it goes ~ . . .


Apparently all you can do is post personal attacks towards other players, if continued it will be reported.

Look, you need to take that chip off your shoulder. You couldn't even recognize the sarcasm that was directed at CCP and not at you. And the use of that sarcasm to support your position. So let me make it clear and without any comedy, I support your position AttentionAttention

You need to settle down and not let your suspicions that everyone is out to get you color you ability to comprehend what appears on the page. Recognize a supportive post.Smile
Inspiration
#629 - 2012-06-17 18:44:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Inspiration
RubyPorto wrote:
Inspiration wrote:

You know very well from the other tread, that I am NOT talking about those people. Seeing you post here, makes me convinced you are quite clueless or just plain trolling!


Who are you talking about then? Who really, really needs the extra 30s of cargohold? And if they really, really need it, why don't they use one of the other options?


The specific role of the hulk among the alternatives is the low strength tank, max mining fit in a fleet:

This implies (for high sec anyway):

* Orca with fleet mining bonuses
* Fit for maximum yield (2 x T2 MLU)
* Use of mining drones instead of combat drones.
* At least 1 mining drone rig, to maximize output.
* Likely using 1 mining implant giving 5% bonus to make the most of this all.

Then you mine per minute 2761m3 without drones and 3084m3 with drones on a rock nearby.

With 8000 m3 as storage to buffer the output form this, you can store just under 2 minutes and 35 seconds before the modules shut off and the drones start to idle. Given the cycle time of the modules is 2 minutes and 1-2 seconds, you cannot even store the output of 4 strip miners before modules start stopping.

That means the lack of extra space, makes it extremely cumbersome to mine, every two minutes (tops) you got to empty your ore hold. The extra 15% storage, previously by using rigs was no luxury!

As some already mentioned in this thread, the bonuses from an Rorqual are even stronger. Which somewhat balances as in low/null you really need to tank the hulk and use the lows and rig slots to help with that, which subsequently lowers the amount of m3 per minute.

Tanking the hulk heavily in high sec is just a fools errant as you get ganged just the same and loose ridiculous amount of ore per minute in doing so! Thus we can conclude that is not the hulks role, we get new alternatives to deal with that!

So where does this really leave the Hulk if it needs to have a role?

In need of a bigger ore bay, i would say 14-15k would suffice, but I would be grateful with 12k too, even while we still need a little more to store two mining cycles. 8k is really not enough for its designated role to be practical.

I am serious!

RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#630 - 2012-06-17 19:03:21 UTC
Inspiration wrote:

So where does this really leave the Hulk if it needs to have a role?

In need of a bigger ore bay, i would say 14-15k would suffice, but I would be grateful with 12k too. 8k is really not enough for its designated role to be practical.


I've mined under Orca and Rorq boosts (in null, you still use 2x MLUIIs, you've just always had to use the rigs to tank rats). Moving things once a cycle (time your move right, and you have a 4 minute break [move right before cycle 2 ends, and right after] between activity) is not a big deal.

It has a role. That of best yield. Achieving that takes some effort. To reduce the effort needed, you can stop using mining drones, accept your lasers running dry on occasion, or use the Mackinaw which will be designed with less effort as a goal. All of these effort reducing changes sacrifice varying amounts of yield.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon

Maul555
Xen Investments
Xen Combine
#631 - 2012-06-17 19:08:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Maul555
I am still wondering if the Devs realize that they will be rendering thousands of cargo rigs across new eden useless. And if they are working on a scheme to address that problem, or just tell us to go pound sand. Either way, it would be nice to know. (yeah, I know it's still really early in the process)
Lili Lu
#632 - 2012-06-17 19:36:01 UTC
None ofthe Above wrote:
Lili Lu wrote:
None ofthe Above wrote:
Honestly largely agree with Tarryn here, but wish he hadn't started out calling people fools, that's a sure way to have a less than productive conversation. Its a valid point that common heavily used things do not mean overpowered. Are clothes over powered since everyone uses them? Doorknobs? Drake is an example of a ship that works, much like the Rifter is. It should be largely left alone in the rebalance, IMHO.

So of course it's ok to have one "ship that works." Everyone should roll or train Caldari right? And ffs, overpowered has different meanings. Is it so hard not to always interpret it as meaning "it kills everything else"? Of course drakes aren't that. But for the isk, for the sp, for the range of roles it can fill, for the range of other ship classes requiring more isk or sp with which it is able to compete or best, YES it is OP.

So how do you propose to balance that situation? Would you buff all the other battlecruisers? What does that do to the utility of Cruisers? Especially now that CCP is trying to buff them up so they are not just a wave as you fly by on the train to BC. To my mind it's a simple matter to cut the hp of the tier 2 back to the same as the tier 1 and deal with the slots and bonuses later during the comprehensive balancing.

Also, btw, it's not just null sec drake blobs. You should remember people have alts and other accounts. Blink Drakes are everywhere, in every kind of pve and pvp. This is why the stats are so skewed so heavily to them. The stats would not be so if more ships "worked" as you say, like they do. But everything can't be buffed and accomplish balance.


Enhance your calm, Citizen Lu. . . . I fly drakes, other races BCs, among other things. I know the strengths and weaknesses. . . .

All of the Tier 2 BCs are pretty decent and more or less on par with the drake. Harbinger a little less then the Drake and Cane. Myrm got nerfed a little hard a ways back, but its still quite serviceable. All the tier 3s are good ships, if you don't mind flying in a glass cannon. (Might consider adding small drone bays to the non gallente Tier 3s, the Talos's drone bay is what makes it solo-able.) I honestly think the Hurricane is every bit as good as the Drake, although with slightly different strengths and weaknesses. Not too many ships can flip from shield to armor like the Cane, very flexible, and who doesn't like projectiles?

. . .So slight buffs to Harby and a mild un-nerf to the Myrm. Much love to the former Tier 1s, serious buffs to put them on par.

This is exactly the pattern used so far when the test frigs where brought roughly on par with the Rifter. As near as I can tell, that's the plan for the rest of the frigs. As for your question about cruisers, they'll get rebalanced first, so they will likely gain some ground on the BCs before this all happens.

Your suggestion of making them all glass cannons, well damn. Sure lets nerf all ships younger pilots can fly so they die in droves to older more experienced pilots. I am sure that will make EVE grow ever more. It doesn't make sense to you that a ship designer might put a bit more tank on a Battelcruiser than a Cruiser?

Drake is one of the few ships that the Caldari have that work. Caldari are not overpowered though, just check the FW map for confirmation. No one says roll Caldari if you want to own the battlefield *cough*winmatar*cough*. They have a slight edge in PVE, but that's doable in any race.

TL;DR: Stay Calm. Drake not OP.

Lol, you think that was an angry post? I assure you I was quite calm when I wrote it. Much as I am now sitting on the patio in a nice summer breeze with the laptop, the dog, and a glass of ice waterSmile

To your points- I've flown them all too (not on Lili though). I've repped Drakes in a scimi on Lili. So my "Jihad" is . . not one. Sorry to disappoint you. And, you've got nothing on me as far as flying all BCs.Smile

My point about BCs is that the stats clearly demonstrate that one is much better than the others. The Drake. It doesn't get to be tops on kills for all ships (by a factor of 2 or 3!) per the EVE-Kill stats month after month for years now because EVE players are stupid. Some though don't want to lose the ease and advantage of the Drake.

Noone presently, and I doubt anyone will be, flying Harbinger fleets into battle against BSs in serious sov wars. And small gang fights the same applies, an overabundance of Drakes. In pve Harbingers are not regularly running level 4s, as are Drakes (of course there are better tools for that job though). One of the devs has a twitter feed. He tweeted about one day's module activations. HML IIs were tops, and iirc 4x the second place module which iirc was 800mm ac II. Third was salvager I, which I am more confident I recall correctlyP. A shield cane has nowhere near the same ehp and range as the Drake. Anyway, the stats don't support your position that any of tier 2 are "on par with the Drake."

Problem with buffing BCs up to Drake level is it leaves Cruisers as a worthless ship class. Ytterbium has already stated they are concerned about and are buffing Cruisers. It appears CCP's plan is to alter BCs down to tier 1 levels, for the very reason that Cruisers should not be easy fodder for BCs. But even the present stats would leave BCs beefier than a buffed Cruiser and not glass cannons. How does it help noobs to leave BCs way better than Cruisers?

As for FW you are overestimating the success Gallente. It is a quite even match atm. Which actually says more about the Gallente side as the NPC Caldari are more difficult to pve, and will continue to be even after the removal of the npc ecm. As for your Caldari plea, take a number. Seen any Amarr cruisers other than the Arby? Only fools fly the present Omen. Conversely, Caldari is much much better for pve and always has been.
Inspiration
#633 - 2012-06-17 19:40:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Inspiration
RubyPorto wrote:
Inspiration wrote:

So where does this really leave the Hulk if it needs to have a role?

In need of a bigger ore bay, i would say 14-15k would suffice, but I would be grateful with 12k too. 8k is really not enough for its designated role to be practical.


I've mined under Orca and Rorq boosts (in null, you still use 2x MLUIIs, you've just always had to use the rigs to tank rats). Moving things once a cycle (time your move right, and you have a 4 minute break [move right before cycle 2 ends, and right after] between activity) is not a big deal.

It has a role. That of best yield. Achieving that takes some effort. To reduce the effort needed, you can stop using mining drones, accept your lasers running dry on occasion, or use the Mackinaw which will be designed with less effort as a goal. All of these effort reducing changes sacrifice varying amounts of yield.


If the mackinaw mines within 15% (assumption) and can be left alone for 10 minutes, virtually everyone will use that ship instead! All I want is the Hulk be practical (like it is now with rigs). That you can in theory time it right and have a 4 minute window is kind of irrelevant as you still have to develop RSI just to operate the ship under normal conditions. The gap between having over 10 minute storage (plus 2 minutes for a cycle as you say) and a buffer tank versus mining 15% more and having no tank and getting possibly medical issues due to much less storage (which is not even comparable) makes that an easy choice.

I am fine with specific roles and all the boosts to the other ships, but do not nerf the hulk in a sick way. Defending it is just not being critical and it is obvious (especially after my explanation) that it is too weak in an essential area as things stand now. There is a reason why people fitted cargo extenders and rigs to hulks as it is!

I am serious!

Inspiration
#634 - 2012-06-17 19:42:58 UTC
Maul555 wrote:
I am still wondering if the Devs realize that they will be rendering thousands of cargo rigs across new eden useless. And if they are working on a scheme to address that problem, or just tell us to go pound sand. Either way, it would be nice to know. (yeah, I know it's still really early in the process)


I am quite sure they will not reimburse rigs because ship specifications change. They never did before and I see not why they would start doing it now!

I am serious!

RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#635 - 2012-06-17 19:50:54 UTC
Inspiration wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
Inspiration wrote:

So where does this really leave the Hulk if it needs to have a role?

In need of a bigger ore bay, i would say 14-15k would suffice, but I would be grateful with 12k too. 8k is really not enough for its designated role to be practical.


I've mined under Orca and Rorq boosts (in null, you still use 2x MLUIIs, you've just always had to use the rigs to tank rats). Moving things once a cycle (time your move right, and you have a 4 minute break [move right before cycle 2 ends, and right after] between activity) is not a big deal.

It has a role. That of best yield. Achieving that takes some effort. To reduce the effort needed, you can stop using mining drones, accept your lasers running dry on occasion, or use the Mackinaw which will be designed with less effort as a goal. All of these effort reducing changes sacrifice varying amounts of yield.


If the mackinaw mines within 15% (assumption) and can be left alone for 10 minutes, virtually everyone will use that ship instead! All I want is the Hulk be practical (like it is now with rigs). That you can in theory time it right and have a 4 minute window is kind of irrelevant as you still have to develop RSI just to operate the ship under normal conditions. The gap between having over 10 minute storage (plus 2 minutes for a cycle as you say) and a buffer tank versus mining 15% more and having no tank and getting possibly medical issues due to much less storage (which is not even comparable) makes that an easy choice.

I am fine with specific roles and all the boosts to the other ships, but do not nerf the hulk in a sick way. Defending it is just not being critical and it is obvious (especially after my explanation) that it is too weak in an essential area as things stand now. There is a reason why people fitted cargo extenders and rigs to hulks as it is!


If that choice is easy for you, great, make that choice. Some other people have never had a problem with a Hulk's base cargo hold and are fine with looking at the screen for 30s every 4m.

And since when are 2 click-drags every 4m an RSI inducing pain? I suppose inventors no longer have wrists, or do they have to take their medical bills out of their invention profits?

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon

Inspiration
#636 - 2012-06-17 20:10:51 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
If that choice is easy for you, great, make that choice. Some other people have never had a problem with a Hulk's base cargo hold and are fine with looking at the screen for 30s every 4m.

And since when are 2 click-drags every 4m an RSI inducing pain? I suppose inventors no longer have wrists, or do they have to take their medical bills out of their invention profits?


Now you are just twisting words, making unrealistic / practically unworkable assumptions and end with plain trolling. You are clearly not worth my time arguing with, it has been going on for to long anyway! Always ending "it is your choice", which is totally irrelevant when it comes to balancing. Might just as well skip the whole exercise of balancing and keep repeating that dull line over and over...it is that stupid a remark!

I am serious!

Dorian Wylde
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#637 - 2012-06-17 20:21:48 UTC
DeMichael Crimson wrote:

Also just exactly how does the ORE Frigate provide a mobile platform for mining in hostile space when it has little to no resilience? Talk about a statement that contradicts itself.



It's a frigate, meaning it has a fast align time to get out if hostiles drop in.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#638 - 2012-06-17 20:38:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Inspiration wrote:
You obviously never have seriously mined, or when you did, did so in really horrible setups and with horrible skills that your experience does not really reflect the situation your describing.
You are obviously pulling stuff out of your ass to use as an argument since you have nothing else to bring to the table.

Quote:
You are missing the fact that in a well set up fleet, each hulk pulls so much that it needs more temporary storage to function properly.
No, I'm not missing the fact that a Hulk doesn't need more than 8000m³ as a buffer, because it is quite impossible to mine more than 4,000m³ per minute (which is what's required to overrun that buffer). And with a bit of clever parking, you won't even need that buffer to begin with — just dump the stuff directly into the nearby Orca or other external buffer storage.

Quote:
If the mackinaw mines within 15% (assumption) and can be left alone for 10 minutes, virtually everyone will use that ship instead! All I want is the Hulk be practical (like it is now with rigs)
It will be practical, just not for the slow-paced usage you're aiming for. There will be other ships that serve that niche. Just get out of the “Hulk = best, must use Hulk” mindset and you'll be fine, because that mindset will no longer reflect reality — there will no longer be a “best” ship, but rather each ship will be the best one for a particular purpose.

Oh, and…
Quote:
Tanking the hulk heavily in high sec is just a fools errant as you get ganged just the same and loose ridiculous amount of ore per minute in doing so!
Tanking the Hulk in highsec ensures that it won't be ganked because it'll cost too much to attack it. With these changes, that cost will increase further since there will now be no loot (or at least a reduction in loot) to recoup the cost.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#639 - 2012-06-17 20:48:50 UTC
Inspiration wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
If that choice is easy for you, great, make that choice. Some other people have never had a problem with a Hulk's base cargo hold and are fine with looking at the screen for 30s every 4m.

And since when are 2 click-drags every 4m an RSI inducing pain? I suppose inventors no longer have wrists, or do they have to take their medical bills out of their invention profits?


Now you are just twisting words, making unrealistic / practically unworkable assumptions and end with plain trolling. You are clearly not worth my time arguing with, it has been going on for to long anyway! Always ending "it is your choice", which is totally irrelevant when it comes to balancing. Might just as well skip the whole exercise of balancing and keep repeating that dull line over and over...it is that stupid a remark!


Each ship will have a Niche. The Hulk will support a fast paced, frenzy of effort to produce a stupendous yield.
The Mackinaw will support a slow paced, easy mining experience.
The Skiff will support a relaxed experience, secure in the knowledge that ganking you's gonna be a pain.


You're asking for the Hulk to cut into the Mackinaw's shtick.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon

Mechael
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#640 - 2012-06-17 21:09:31 UTC
Katy Ling wrote:
it's good to see new and exciting balances on the frigates, where there's more viable frigates than the rifter. Big smile

perhaps the developers have they're mind already set in things they want to develop and the bonus they want to give to frigates, but i would like to point out some things and why :

i think that we could make good use of Logistic frigates.

there are plenty of situations that i remember they could be useful.

1) - LVL 1 - 2 missions
- granted a frigate / cruiser with a good tank could cover not needing logi, but it would still be nice.

2) - complexes that only allow frigates

3) - Frigate Roaming gangs
yes scimitars are better, but frigates warp at 6 A.U instead of the scimitar 3.75 A.U. , so it would confere more mobility to a frigate roaming gang, at expense of less tank.

those frigates would be able to fit 4 small / or 2 medium repair / cap transference modules

4) some deadspace logistic modules need a rebalance (less cap activation use), as they spend an insane cap amount, to be of any use to a frigate. (remote armour / shield / capacitor transference) - they use 90 - 120 capacitor compared with the T2 version that uses around 50-60


this is just an idea on how to give some sense to a poorly used section of frigates and modules that seem to have no role or purpose, and could make small roaming gangs more fun and cheap, as well as providing a step on logistics career.





Agreed. Logi frig would be win. So would a leadership bonus frig.

Whether or not you win the game matters not.  It's if you bought it.