These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Test Server Feedback

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Mining barge changes [now with feedback]
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Arctos Canis
Ice Wolves
#141 - 2012-07-25 10:33:33 UTC
So since everyone is pissed off about cargo hold rigs T2's and that they are fitted and useless. Here is a thought :) u can make them that cargo hold rig would give boost to ore hold capacity too. And everyone lived happily ever after... :) cuz it makes more room for crystals in cargo holds and ore hold boosted can fit two cycles in it.
(P.S. got lots of ships stuff with that situation too, removing them to item hangar for players after patch is an option ppl mentioned, but its not happening I presume do to incredible effort needed from CCP)
Jagoff Haverford
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#142 - 2012-07-25 11:38:58 UTC
Please make the Hulk's cargo hold bigger. At 500m, it can hold only 10 crystals... and those crystals have to handle 3 lasers. It's not even enough space to handle a full set of crystals for 3 different kinds of ore, let alone spares for when a crystal goes pop.

A Skiff, meanwhile, can hold enough crystals in its hold for 7 different kinds of ore.

Since it's crystal needs are 3 times higher than a Skiff, the Hulk should be able to care 3 times more crystals than the Skiff, or 1,050m. At the very least, the Hulk should be able to carry a number of crystals that can be evening divided by 3.

An even better solution, though, might be to make the mining crystals take up less space. I would imagine that they were set at 50m apiece at about the same time that the original mining barge cargoholds were being created. The idea, back then, was to make these crystals bulky enough that players would need to balance their crystal needs with their ability to carry ore.

Now that crystals and ore aren't competing for space, do crystals really need to stay at 50m apiece?
Gimboid
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#143 - 2012-07-25 12:33:54 UTC
Change makes Ice mining more Macro/Bot Friendly and harder for legitimate mining players.

Please consider increasing the base cycle time on all Ice Harvests, and increase the refined material yields. If the math looks the way it does now a player taking part in a legitimate fleet mining operation will have to **** into a bottle to avoid missing cycles.
Gevlin
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#144 - 2012-07-25 13:01:28 UTC
cargo size of the Hulk is more than large enough as it is meant to have support, as it is the Min max vessel, to work in a group

the cargo size of the Mach/Retirever is another story as this is meant to be the AFK mining ship. its cargo should be atleast 400m3 to fit 2 sets of reloads as it the lazy mans ship. Just my opinion. but this is not a strong suggestion.

the Procurer/skiff should be fine it only has 1 strip Miner so 3 reloads should be plenty for the day or so.



Though from what I am reading and the justifications behind them. I am thinking CCP may have made a good balance.
I am seeing - people complaining about the AFK feature being nerfed out for their Min/Max hulk. Which is what the Retriver/ Mach is... the afk Mining ship. Now people have their cake and eat it too. It is nice.

Someday I will have the time to play. For now it is mining afk in High sec. In Cheap ships
Nagarythe Tinurandir
Einheit X-6
#145 - 2012-07-25 13:29:57 UTC
Gimboid wrote:
Change makes Ice mining more Macro/Bot Friendly and harder for legitimate mining players.

Please consider increasing the base cycle time on all Ice Harvests, and increase the refined material yields. If the math looks the way it does now a player taking part in a legitimate fleet mining operation will have to **** into a bottle to avoid missing cycles.


how is increasing cycle time and refining yield less bot friendly and better for "legitimate" players?
make ice mining even more boring, with 10 minutes cycle time will push even more people into botting.
make ice miners cycle as fast as normal strips and adjust ice volume and stuff to get the ice product yield per hour to be as high as it is now. give people something to do...
Draconyx
Oort Cloud Industries
The OORT Cloud
#146 - 2012-07-25 13:36:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Draconyx
Not bad BUT

Hulk and Covetor Ore holds need to be increased so that 2 cycles can be done before you have to empty.

Here is the break down using only T1 strips, T2 Upgrades, 3% implant and without fleet bonuses.

Cycles Before Full (CBF)

Hulk (4096.59 m^3/cycle) = 1 CBF
Covetor (3717.12 m^3/cycle) = 1 CBF
Mackinaw (3545.20 m^3/cycle) = 10 CBF
Retriever ( 3376.34 m^3/cycle) = 8 CBF
Skiff ( 3252.48 m^3/cycle) = 5 CBF
Procure (3097.60 m^3/cycle)r = 4 CBF

The ore hold should be based on Fleet bonuses + T2 + max yield implants.

PS - Option if you don't want to add it in for solo miners then how about adding in the bonus to one of the Command links so that you have to be in a fleet with links to get it. That works as well.
Jake Rivers
New Planetary Order
#147 - 2012-07-25 13:36:49 UTC
Mortimer Civeri wrote:
500m3 is all you need for crystals. That will give you enough space for 10 T2 crystals, or 16 T1. T2 crystals in a Hulk/Covetor can be configured for 3 sets plus 1 spare crystal of your most important type, or two sets plus two spare of each set. T1 crystals can have 4 sets with a spare for each, or three sets with a full replacement for one set and two spare crystals for the other two sets.

This bullspit about, "I NEED A FULL SET OF EVERY ORE TYPE CRYSTAL IN MY HOLD OMG!!!!!1" is hogwash. Any competent miner is only going to go after a few ore types ( the ones that have high ISK/m3 ) anyway. Miner/Producers, are going to mine the highest ISK/m3 ore they can and sell what they don't use to buy the minerals that they do need, so again limiting the range of ores to just a few which can be easily covered by a limited crystal set in a 500m3 cargo hold.


If you ever take up mining (and I don't mean in high sec), feel free to comment.

Even in the current setup there is no way to lug around enough crystals for every ore out there, but having crystals loaded in the bay to handle 5-6 types of ore is not uncommon at all, and it usually means you loose 1-2k cargohold just for this.

Senex Legio
Nagarythe Tinurandir
Einheit X-6
#148 - 2012-07-25 14:05:47 UTC
Jake Rivers wrote:
Mortimer Civeri wrote:
500m3 is all you need for crystals. That will give you enough space for 10 T2 crystals, or 16 T1. T2 crystals in a Hulk/Covetor can be configured for 3 sets plus 1 spare crystal of your most important type, or two sets plus two spare of each set. T1 crystals can have 4 sets with a spare for each, or three sets with a full replacement for one set and two spare crystals for the other two sets.

This bullspit about, "I NEED A FULL SET OF EVERY ORE TYPE CRYSTAL IN MY HOLD OMG!!!!!1" is hogwash. Any competent miner is only going to go after a few ore types ( the ones that have high ISK/m3 ) anyway. Miner/Producers, are going to mine the highest ISK/m3 ore they can and sell what they don't use to buy the minerals that they do need, so again limiting the range of ores to just a few which can be easily covered by a limited crystal set in a 500m3 cargo hold.


If you ever take up mining (and I don't mean in high sec), feel free to comment.

Even in the current setup there is no way to lug around enough crystals for every ore out there, but having crystals loaded in the bay to handle 5-6 types of ore is not uncommon at all, and it usually means you loose 1-2k cargohold just for this.


i also think 500m³ is more than enough and i am mining in 0.0
changing habits isnt always bad :)
Unit757
North Point
#149 - 2012-07-25 14:12:33 UTC
Draconyx wrote:
Not bad BUT

Hulk and Covetor Ore holds need to be increased so that 2 cycles can be done before you have to empty.

Here is the break down using only T1 strips, T2 Upgrades, 3% implant and without fleet bonuses.

Cycles Before Full (CBF)

Hulk (4096.59 m^3/cycle) = 1 CBF
Covetor (3717.12 m^3/cycle) = 1 CBF
Mackinaw (3545.20 m^3/cycle) = 10 CBF
Retriever ( 3376.34 m^3/cycle) = 8 CBF
Skiff ( 3252.48 m^3/cycle) = 5 CBF
Procure (3097.60 m^3/cycle)r = 4 CBF

The ore hold should be based on Fleet bonuses + T2 + max yield implants.

PS - Option if you don't want to add it in for solo miners then how about adding in the bonus to one of the Command links so that you have to be in a fleet with links to get it. That works as well.


The hulk is not mean't to hold more then one cycle, it is a transition point for ore between space, and the orca/rorq. If you want a ship to hold more then one cycle, use a machinaw or skiff.
Gimboid
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#150 - 2012-07-25 14:17:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Gimboid
Nagarythe Tinurandir wrote:
Gimboid wrote:
Change makes Ice mining more Macro/Bot Friendly and harder for legitimate mining players.

Please consider increasing the base cycle time on all Ice Harvests, and increase the refined material yields. If the math looks the way it does now a player taking part in a legitimate fleet mining operation will have to **** into a bottle to avoid missing cycles.


how is increasing cycle time and refining yield less bot friendly and better for "legitimate" players?
make ice mining even more boring, with 10 minutes cycle time will push even more people into botting.
make ice miners cycle as fast as normal strips and adjust ice volume and stuff to get the ice product yield per hour to be as high as it is now. give people something to do...


Be realistic here. Our ice-mining fleets get more enjoyment out of talking **** to eachother on voice chat and making fun of each other than the mining itself.

At the moment, I can just about get up, go for a toilet break and make a new drink before all my cycles screw up and I loose them (which means, I loose ISK and ice is wasted). With the above changes, cycle times will be even faster, than means a legitimate player wanting to mine ice will have trouble going to the bathroom without coming back to find their cargohold full and more ISK loss.

This is "bot friendly" because bots don't need to take toilet breaks. So if the cycle times get too fast, it emppowers automated play more than short cycles hinder it. Really the minute the patch goes live and these bots are mining 10% faster, they will adjust their bot scripts to drag their ore 10% more often, no negative impact on them what so ever.
Jake Rivers
New Planetary Order
#151 - 2012-07-25 14:20:45 UTC
Nagarythe Tinurandir wrote:
Jake Rivers wrote:
Mortimer Civeri wrote:
500m3 is all you need for crystals. That will give you enough space for 10 T2 crystals, or 16 T1. T2 crystals in a Hulk/Covetor can be configured for 3 sets plus 1 spare crystal of your most important type, or two sets plus two spare of each set. T1 crystals can have 4 sets with a spare for each, or three sets with a full replacement for one set and two spare crystals for the other two sets.

This bullspit about, "I NEED A FULL SET OF EVERY ORE TYPE CRYSTAL IN MY HOLD OMG!!!!!1" is hogwash. Any competent miner is only going to go after a few ore types ( the ones that have high ISK/m3 ) anyway. Miner/Producers, are going to mine the highest ISK/m3 ore they can and sell what they don't use to buy the minerals that they do need, so again limiting the range of ores to just a few which can be easily covered by a limited crystal set in a 500m3 cargo hold.


If you ever take up mining (and I don't mean in high sec), feel free to comment.

Even in the current setup there is no way to lug around enough crystals for every ore out there, but having crystals loaded in the bay to handle 5-6 types of ore is not uncommon at all, and it usually means you loose 1-2k cargohold just for this.


i also think 500m³ is more than enough and i am mining in 0.0
changing habits isnt always bad :)


If you only cherry pick ABCs sure its plenty.

Senex Legio
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#152 - 2012-07-25 14:28:42 UTC
These are now far too easy to both tank and get max yeild.
Dave Stark
#153 - 2012-07-25 14:36:55 UTC
Jake Rivers wrote:
Nagarythe Tinurandir wrote:
Jake Rivers wrote:
Mortimer Civeri wrote:
500m3 is all you need for crystals. That will give you enough space for 10 T2 crystals, or 16 T1. T2 crystals in a Hulk/Covetor can be configured for 3 sets plus 1 spare crystal of your most important type, or two sets plus two spare of each set. T1 crystals can have 4 sets with a spare for each, or three sets with a full replacement for one set and two spare crystals for the other two sets.

This bullspit about, "I NEED A FULL SET OF EVERY ORE TYPE CRYSTAL IN MY HOLD OMG!!!!!1" is hogwash. Any competent miner is only going to go after a few ore types ( the ones that have high ISK/m3 ) anyway. Miner/Producers, are going to mine the highest ISK/m3 ore they can and sell what they don't use to buy the minerals that they do need, so again limiting the range of ores to just a few which can be easily covered by a limited crystal set in a 500m3 cargo hold.


If you ever take up mining (and I don't mean in high sec), feel free to comment.

Even in the current setup there is no way to lug around enough crystals for every ore out there, but having crystals loaded in the bay to handle 5-6 types of ore is not uncommon at all, and it usually means you loose 1-2k cargohold just for this.


i also think 500m³ is more than enough and i am mining in 0.0
changing habits isnt always bad :)


If you only cherry pick ABCs sure its plenty.


you mean cherry pick As, since BC ores are worth **** all now. if you're just mining arkonor and nothing but of course 500m3 is sufficient.
Dave Stark
#154 - 2012-07-25 14:37:28 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
These are now far too easy to both tank and get max yeild.


actually that's impossible because both max yield and tank do not belong to one ship. unlike the current situation.
Nagarythe Tinurandir
Einheit X-6
#155 - 2012-07-25 14:51:26 UTC
Jake Rivers wrote:

{....}
If you only cherry pick ABCs sure its plenty.


havent touched acb. but i mine in a fleet with purpose and concept.
5 minutes of preparation and 500m³ is all you need on crystals when serious mining is on.

Gimboid wrote:

Be realistic here. Our ice-mining fleets get more enjoyment out of talking **** to eachother on voice chat and making fun of each other than the mining itself.

At the moment, I can just about get up, go for a toilet break and make a new drink before all my cycles screw up and I loose them (which means, I loose ISK and ice is wasted). With the above changes, cycle times will be even faster, than means a legitimate player wanting to mine ice will have trouble going to the bathroom without coming back to find their cargohold full and more ISK loss.

This is "bot friendly" because bots don't need to take toilet breaks. So if the cycle times get too fast, it emppowers automated play more than short cycles hinder it. Really the minute the patch goes live and these bots are mining 10% faster, they will adjust their bot scripts to drag their ore 10% more often, no negative impact on them what so ever.


to be realistic: mining in its current form in generelly isnt very exciting.
voice chat surely helps :)
i can accept your statement as an opinion one can have but i do not agree.
from my point of view longer cycles will male it only more boring than it is right now. potentionally more ice bots.
faster cycles at least gives you something to do. (with still enough time to watch an episode on the side, go to the bathroom'n'stuff. unless you have this big session ahead of you... XD)

the bot problem needs a out pof the box solution. but i guess botting is nothing you can fix with a new gamemechanic.
Dave Stark
#156 - 2012-07-25 14:55:04 UTC
hasn't it already been established that the hulk mines ~25% better than the skiff/mack... if you're losing more than 25% of your time at the keyboard to being in the toilet you should see a doctor, or more than 25% of your time doing other things you aren't really playing the game anyway...

just a thought.
Gimboid
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#157 - 2012-07-25 15:10:49 UTC
Nagarythe Tinurandir wrote:
to be realistic: mining in its current form in generelly isnt very exciting.
voice chat surely helps :)
i can accept your statement as an opinion one can have but i do not agree.
from my point of view longer cycles will male it only more boring than it is right now. potentionally more ice bots.
faster cycles at least gives you something to do. (with still enough time to watch an episode on the side, go to the bathroom'n'stuff. unless you have this big session ahead of you... XD)

the bot problem needs a out pof the box solution. but i guess botting is nothing you can fix with a new gamemechanic.


I run 3 (soon 4) accounts, which makes mining interesting enough for me, my two perfect ice miners with my mains Orca bonus have 187 second cycles, so that's litterally 3 minutes.

With the current mackinaw you can't let 2 full cycles complete as this will fill your cargohold and shut off the miners, having you come back to find 2 blocks of ice lost forever and missed however much of your new cycle.

To be an optimal miner with the current patch details I'll need to swap out my Mackinaws for Hulks, which will mine only 3 blocks per cycle, but with the new rig giving a further 12% bonus and the overall revamp I'm worried that I litterally won't be able to go to the bathroom without the cycles getting screwed up, which from my opinion empowers bot users, because they don't make mistakes and miss cycles, so they are more effecient miners than real players, will mine more volume and make more isk.

I'm not asking for a huge change here, the default cycle time on a Ice Harvester is 600/500 for T1/T2 respectively, I'm talking about upping that on each by say 30-40 seconds, and then adjusting the refinement yield on the ice to match is, so that the total goods earned /hour is no different, but more managable for a real player like myself.
Arctos Canis
Ice Wolves
#158 - 2012-07-25 15:16:16 UTC
So everyone is just raging here about the 500m3 in hulks cargo hold :) but no one is even remotely raging about nerfed ice mining outputs and profit drops per same time spent mining it :) as mack looses ice mining barge role, after patche rest wont gonna compare to it. I wounder how is that so?
Dave Stark
#159 - 2012-07-25 15:20:12 UTC
Arctos Canis wrote:
So everyone is just raging here about the 500m3 in hulks cargo hold :) but no one is even remotely raging about nerfed ice mining outputs and profit drops per same time spent mining it :) as mack looses ice mining barge role, after patche rest wont gonna compare to it. I wounder how is that so?


the hulk was never that far behind the mackinaw anyway, not to mention ice is the most afkable mining out there, it's really not an issue. especially since we've also got new ice mining rigs.
Urgg Boolean
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#160 - 2012-07-25 15:27:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Urgg Boolean
Had time to get onto SiSI and have some feedback. I have not really flown Mackinaws before, but that was my focus in SiSi.

Before the Mack info: that issue with screen dimming on my lap top is back. It was gone for so long, but apparently it's back with the latest patch in SiSi.

MACK:
1) cap constrained
- using toons with varying skill sets, cap depletes in 3 mins using an active buffer/resist tank filling all mid slots
- I used an anti-EM rig plus passive thermic amp plus 3X invul = stable @ 4% worst case
- used a Power DIag in a low to get stable @ ~11%
- cap still depletes if I cycle strippers more than once per full cycle
2) CPU constrained
- with above semi-active tank, a CPU booster was needed.
- forget an MLU as it pushes CPU beyond limits
- can use MLU with full passive tank, but it's that same purpose defeating issue of more tank/less yield or vice versa.
3) target constrained
- only 4 target locks - maybe this is normal for a Mack, but it seems way too wimpy. I could live with 5, and 6 would be great.
- 27K targeting range unbuffed by fleet booster
- can't target BS Ratz in 0.0 as they orbit at 29K+. Must wait for Ratz to get close enough in hi sec.
- can't have 4 roidz targeted cuz you must leave an open target slot for ratz
5) Good News :
- the buffer/resist tank described above easily handled two rat BSs and 3 frigs. Not even a problem.
- Hammerheads X10 (two ships in fleet) took out BSs fine, although slowly - tank about 75% after first BS torched, 85% while killing 2nd BS.
- config: between 48K and 53K EHP depending on toon/skills (in fleet without Orca, in-game, not EFT guessing)
- all resists in the high 80s
- fairly wimpy shield at ~5.5-7K depending on toon/skills

LOWS
CPU Booster thingy II (may or may not need - but it's close any way you slice it)
PDU II
DCU II

MIDS
Thermic Amp II
Invuln II X 3

HIGHs
Strippers I X2

RIGS
anti-EM I
Shield Extender I

This was a quickie loadout for testing. I'd love to see people's fits for the Mack to get an idea of balancing tank/yield with all the constraints listed above. Hopefully, somone has devised a more optimal loadout...