These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

The new mining barge expansion.
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Cloned S0ul
POCKOCMOC Inc.
#81 - 2012-07-09 10:49:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Cloned S0ul
To OP, good post, meny people only subscriebe eve becuse of miners hate, they become obsesed idiots with no other goals in game, CCP know this so they need another way to push miners to mining and still give fun to kamikaze.

Solution for this boost to ehp to survive alpha strike plus enough cpu/pg for dual anciliary x large shield booster for exhumers ;D
Breezly Brewin
Vril Metaphysics Society
#82 - 2012-07-09 10:50:40 UTC
for players that want to warp to belt, target a couple rocks and come back 15 mins later to dock and repeat the process it makes perfect sense. sure they will lose ships, but they were afk and really have no reason to cry about it.

and yes, with an orca support the ore bay is mostly useless, but you could do the above and drag the ore every 15 mins into the orca instead of dock when multiboxing. personally i wouldn't want to leave the orca out like that but meh. hulks and covetors currently get around 2-3 cycles before being filled depending on fit you could squeeze more with cargo or less with yield but that means "checking" to drag the ore about every 3-7 minutes.

i'm really itching to know if there will be changes to production materials to manufacture barges and exhumers. i stated earlier how i favor the covetor for being 1/5 the price of a hulk. i wonder if there will be any changes to this dynamic.
Dave stark
#83 - 2012-07-09 10:56:01 UTC
i think the materials will be adjusted, however with the covetor costing 1/5th of a hulk or whatever i think it'll be naive to think that a covetor will be able to out mine any of the exhumers considering the extra training needed to fly the exhumers, just like i think it's naive to think that the retriever will have a 27k ore bay (maybe 15-20k but not 27k).
Cloned S0ul
POCKOCMOC Inc.
#84 - 2012-07-09 10:58:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Cloned S0ul
Ok lets get some balance here want kill exhumer worth 300+mil bring here tier t3 bs or 3-4 bc, lose one or two 2mil isk worth destroyers to one hulk make no sense, bad for economy, would be nice if both side need risk like 150-250mil isk in every side while gank, because of healthy economic, why only one side need always risk more than kamikaze...
Breezly Brewin
Vril Metaphysics Society
#85 - 2012-07-09 11:02:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Breezly Brewin
Dave stark wrote:
i think the materials will be adjusted, however with the covetor costing 1/5th of a hulk or whatever i think it'll be naive to think that a covetor will be able to out mine any of the exhumers considering the extra training needed to fly the exhumers, just like i think it's naive to think that the retriever will have a 27k ore bay (maybe 15-20k but not 27k).


covetor doesn't and should not outstrip the hulk, but currently it is "within an acceptable margin" f the hulk Big smile
your'e probably right iirc i think they said it would be close to a jetcan.

edit: and if anything considering what i said about yield comparisons, perhaps the covetor should be brought "within an acceptable margin" with the hulk as far as cost is concerned
Breezly Brewin
Vril Metaphysics Society
#86 - 2012-07-09 11:09:03 UTC
Cloned S0ul wrote:
Ok lets get some balance here want kill exhumer worth 300+mil bring here tier t3 bs or 3-4 bc, lose one or two 2mil isk worth destroyers to one hulk make no sense, bad for economy, would be nice if both side need risk like 150-250mil isk in every side while gank, because of healthy economic, why only one side need always risk more than kamikaze...


can't remove the incentive to gank altogether, surely it's fun but they have to make a profit too
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#87 - 2012-07-09 11:14:46 UTC
Cloned S0ul wrote:
Ok lets get some balance here want kill exhumer worth 300+mil bring here tier t3 bs or 3-4 bc, lose one or two 2mil isk worth destroyers to one hulk make no sense
Good thing, then, that a) price is not a balancing factor to begin with, b) expensive ships being vulnerable to cheap ships is actually good design, and c) that one or two destroyers can't really kill a Hulk as it is…
Dave stark
#88 - 2012-07-09 11:18:43 UTC
Breezly Brewin wrote:
Dave stark wrote:
i think the materials will be adjusted, however with the covetor costing 1/5th of a hulk or whatever i think it'll be naive to think that a covetor will be able to out mine any of the exhumers considering the extra training needed to fly the exhumers, just like i think it's naive to think that the retriever will have a 27k ore bay (maybe 15-20k but not 27k).


covetor doesn't and should not outstrip the hulk, but currently it is "within an acceptable margin" f the hulk Big smile
your'e probably right iirc i think they said it would be close to a jetcan.

edit: and if anything considering what i said about yield comparisons, perhaps the covetor should be brought "within an acceptable margin" with the hulk as far as cost is concerned


i think the covetor, at max skill, should match the yield of a skiff at exhumer I
The Protato
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#89 - 2012-07-09 12:04:14 UTC
Rikanin wrote:
I smell trolls coming to fling their *****


You know the vernacular term for faeces only has four letters? Please don't write fake swearwords.
The Antiquarian
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#90 - 2012-07-09 14:11:34 UTC
Shogun Horowitz wrote:
What's bad about unified inventory? I like it. A lot.

Edit: and lazily, I didn't read your whole post. Did you really have to throw Goon blame in there too?

That boogeyman's been beaten to death. Kill the Goons if you don't like em. Shoot em in the face.


Yea Unified Inventory is amazing. Trust me, as a collector of everything unique and useless, this unified inventory system provides us with a powerful tool.
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#91 - 2012-07-09 14:19:51 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Dave stark wrote:
but it takes 3 seconds every 6 mins to drag 2 cycles of ore to a jetcan. are you really going to sacrifice extra yield for the sake of 3 seconds whilst also pointing a gigantic "i'm afk come and gank me" bullseye on your ship?
Considering the popularity of fits that let you avoid doing that (or, perhaps more likely, which lets you avoid dealing with canflippers), a lot of people certainly will.

Anyway, the whole upset is due to CCP choosing not to give one ship all three characteristics, but rather try to give all six (soon to be seven) mining ships a role. The miners' wish was always just a straight-up buff to the Hulk, exactly because they didn't want to have to choose.


Well, I have sided for miners for a long time.

Now that they finally got true choice of one ship per "role" (instead of having to slap something exotic together like a mining Rokh) there are really no more excuses to complain. End of.

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials
Corina Jarr
en Welle Shipping Inc.
#92 - 2012-07-09 14:23:16 UTC
rodyas wrote:
Wasn't meaning to troll, plus it sounds like most of the "constructive" posts come from people who don't mine. So consider me satisfied with how well this will turn out.

(Also sorry for so much taboo in that post, forgot about that all)

Constructive post from a miner (well, sometimes, I do a lot of things).

I love these changes.

It will make the lower barges useful. Hulks and Coveters are Corp ops (or alt ops). Macks and Retrievers will be great for solo players who want to be afk (ie gank targets v2) and good for ice mining (if CCP doesn't mess up and make ice not go in the ore bay). Skiffs and Procs will be useful for those who are smart and have been tanking their ships currently for loss of yield.

I'll be using all three types, depending on what I do.

Also, CCP seems to be bringing the yields closer together (as part of tieracide), probably by making all ships use 3 lasers, but with different bonuses. Just guessing here.

I like these changes. The max yield whiners won't change, because no matter what CCP does aside from making them immune, they will whine. But the real miners (who are here for EVE) who have so far been trying to adapt to the high ganker population (with varying success) will enjoy this change.
Dave stark
#93 - 2012-07-09 14:28:06 UTC
if you think the mercoxit and ice bonuses will remain, i think you'll be surprised.
forcing people to use ship x for job y goes against the entire point of giving each ship a unique and defined role.
Andoria Thara
Fallen Avatars
#94 - 2012-07-09 15:10:15 UTC
The only complaints I've heard so far are from nullsec miners who mine with expanded cargo (around 18k m3) while tanking with an alt.

After the changes, the Hulk will still be highest yield, but will only hold 8k m3 in the new ore bay.
Andoria Thara
Fallen Avatars
#95 - 2012-07-09 15:13:23 UTC
Dave stark wrote:
if you think the mercoxit and ice bonuses will remain, i think you'll be surprised.
forcing people to use ship x for job y goes against the entire point of giving each ship a unique and defined role.


WILL EXHUMER SHIP SPECIALIZATIONS BE AFFECTED BY SUCH CHANGES?
Most likely not, except maybe for the Skiff as mentioned above.

From a dev post: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1481903#post1481903
Dave stark
#96 - 2012-07-09 15:15:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Dave Stark
Andoria Thara wrote:
Dave stark wrote:
if you think the mercoxit and ice bonuses will remain, i think you'll be surprised.
forcing people to use ship x for job y goes against the entire point of giving each ship a unique and defined role.


WILL EXHUMER SHIP SPECIALIZATIONS BE AFFECTED BY SUCH CHANGES?
Most likely not, except maybe for the Skiff as mentioned above.

From a dev post: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1481903#post1481903


ooh, hadn't seen that. thanks.
it's also ******** on ccp's part.
Victoria Sin
Doomheim
#97 - 2012-07-09 15:18:32 UTC
Well if they were it would depend WHAT they were. At the moment I own 4 Hulks, 2 Mackinaws and 2 Skiffs (2 Hulks for high-sec and 2 for null). I use each in their different current roles (x2 characters). If they're also going to have another role, i.e. larger cargo, etc. then that gets confusing.

However I do see an opening for T3 exhumers here: where I can choose the Mercoxit bonus or the Ice bonus or the ABC bonus (or whatever) and then can fit either a small, medium or large ore hold and maybe having some tank options too. You could mix it up so that no 1 T3 could fit all roles, or all combinations of role and configuration, just like T3 cruisers today.
Andoria Thara
Fallen Avatars
#98 - 2012-07-09 15:26:48 UTC
Victoria Sin wrote:

However I do see an opening for T3 exhumers here: where I can choose the Mercoxit bonus or the Ice bonus or the ABC bonus (or whatever) and then can fit either a small, medium or large ore hold and maybe having some tank options too. You could mix it up so that no 1 T3 could fit all roles, or all combinations of role and configuration, just like T3 cruisers today.


That could work. One of the subsystems would need to be either Tank, Yield or Cargo. That would keep it in line with the changes.

Then you could swap out subsystems depending on what you wanted to do, rather than having one of each ship.
AndromacheDarkstar
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#99 - 2012-07-09 15:27:18 UTC
rodyas wrote:
Was really looking forward to this. But after thinking about how bad unified inventory turned out as well as the LP in faction warfare. Well it was those thoughts as well as the new ore holds that don't expand at all. Sure this is mostly paranoia and we shall just see how good it is after it's implementation with little to no oversight.

But what really got me is this. Us miners could have always added more armor to our ships, or shrunk bays for more ore delivery, but we never chose to. It sucks a whole lot. Even more then mining, it sucks. Lots of players have been telling and cajoling us to do this, but we have always resisted doing it.

So what I really worry about, is now CCP is just gonna force us to. Now we do have to sacrifice ore input for armor, or we have to sacrifice cargo hold for nothing. After fighting trolls for so long, CCP is just gonna doomsday our mining barges and force us to be twinks instead of miners.

Seems like the mittani and the goons have finally won. If the goons don't blow ya up, CCP will come in and make your life a hell for avoiding their missles and bullets.

Suppose we should have seen it, with CCP always wanting us to be real men, but I just never paid enough attention, while mining bored.


Holy jesus i hope this is one giant troll, if it isnt im going ot have to ask you go back and re-read that little dev blog and actually pay attention to the words this time.
stoicfaux
#100 - 2012-07-09 15:47:11 UTC
Missions runners use different ships for missions, everything from shuttles to battleships. Some mission runners prefer a massive perma-tank, others subscribe to gank-is-tank, others like to use AFK drone boats, etc..

Come Winter, miners will have the new ability to own several barge/exhumer ship types and will be given the ability to SWITCH between those ships depending on their needs at the time, e.g. afk mining, fleet ops, minimizing hauling, minimizing hulkageddon, etc.. (This new "owning and using different mining ship types" feature is explicitly stated IN THE DEVBLOG, FFS!)

Why do we need a thread on this?

Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.