These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

EVE Online: Inferno 1.2 to be deployed on August 8

First post First post
Author
Inspiration
#401 - 2012-07-28 10:29:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Inspiration
Jett0 wrote:
Inspiration wrote:
Otherwise, as things stand, there hardly ever will be a sane reason to use a Hulk, given the advantages the Mackinaw has over the Hulk.


The way a miner friend of mine put it, the Hulk becomes worse for solo mining but better for fleet mining.


I wonder what makes him say this as the only thing improved on the Hulk is a bit of EHP. All other metrics have gone down, including yield, crystal storage and not at least the ore storage. It is even worse in signature size i think, so takes more damage from bigger rats...but I have to re-check this as I can't be sure form memory.

To sum it up, it is worse off in every category but a bit of EHP and then not even a whole lot of EHP unless a Damage Control II is fitted.In which case, the extra mining output is clearly degraded to a point, the Mackinaw starts to make more sense with all its advantages, even the Skiff becomes e more sensible option then.

I wonder where the delusion originated from that making a ship more vulnerable then it's alternatives, will make it an ideal fleet ship. Sure it mines 15% more then a like fitted Mackinaw, but in practice for micro management reasons this gap will be quite a bit smaller and the clear Advantages of the Mackinaw make more sense in fleet scenario's.

No mining ship will work indefinably when solo in a hostile environment, not even combat ships do, which kind of makes the fleet angle irrelevant really. And logistics wise, all mining ships need logistical backing for serious mining, anywhere, which comes from a fleet.

In my book, the new Hulk is actually the best no-backup, no fleet bonus, high sec solo mining ship. As only then does it's small ore hold and like crystal storage not matter much and will it have a clear sensible mining amount advantage over the Mackinaw. In all other situations it is the dumb choice.

I am serious!

Jett0
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#402 - 2012-07-28 10:52:21 UTC
mkint wrote:
Do you use your show-info windows the same way you use inventory windows?


In my case, yes. But I see your point. Separate options would be better.


CCP Arrow, thanks for the reply. If you're still following:

Several devs have said that making certain features optional is impossible. I assume they're thinking from more of a codebase standpoint. The fact is, Uni-Inv is already kind of "half-optional" because of the tree minimize button. With that in mind, the following would be a good start to marrying the old and the new.

  • Bring back all station Neocom buttons and right-click options. Don't worry about redundant functions. The new Neocom is customizable, and right-click is assumed to have most if not all functions for an object anyway.

  • The tree would be minimized by default, with the exception of the actual Neocom Inventory button.

  • Opening a container/inventory would always be its own window by default. If we want to use a single window, we can expand the tree view on a current one.

  • The tree view would scroll when dragging an object near the top or bottom.

  • The current container would never change unless you actually left-click it in the tree view.

  • Each inventory type (wreck, cargo, station, etc.) will have a reference for window position and size. If you open a container, then move it, the referenced dimensions change accordingly. However, if you expand the tree and change the active container, the reference becomes null. This way, you can't accidently change any window settings that you didn't start with. In addition, the Inventory button would have its own referenced set apart from the others.

Occasionally plays sober

Lin-Young Borovskova
Doomheim
#403 - 2012-07-28 12:20:25 UTC
<3 new Angel V3, the old one was ok but a little bit "old", this new V3 is simply awesome, thx

brb

Scaugh
Bank Robbers
#404 - 2012-07-28 12:38:18 UTC
CCP Affinity wrote:
Callidus Dux wrote:

*snip*
Furthermore it is annoying that the window for a wreck changes to the ship's cargo hold after looting. It must close itself. The seperate looting window must close itself after looting.


I have filed a defect on this after talking with CCP Arrow



This is the single biggest pain the rear end feature of the clickfest that is the new and unimproved UI X
Nalha Saldana
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#405 - 2012-07-28 13:00:46 UTC
CCP Punkturis wrote:
Reginald Zebranky wrote:
CCP Punkturis wrote:
[...] because I at least have been making some changes to saved fittings).


Oh God! are the saved-fittings changes coming in this patch?
I love you.
I love you sooooo much!

Any chance the load-saved-fittings bugs have been fixed too?
When modules or drones glitch during fitting-loading it is ever so irritating.




yes they are! Big smile
do you think I should write a micro dev blog on it next week when I get back from vacation so everybody notices?

I don't know what but you're talking about, unfortunately, but I can take a look on Monday if there's already a bug report on it?

<3 u too random man on the internet Blink


Are all the bugs with T3s and saved fits with different subsystems fixed? Thats just soooo broken atm.
CCP Punkturis
C C P
C C P Alliance
#406 - 2012-07-28 13:35:51 UTC
Nalha Saldana wrote:
CCP Punkturis wrote:
Reginald Zebranky wrote:
CCP Punkturis wrote:
[...] because I at least have been making some changes to saved fittings).


Oh God! are the saved-fittings changes coming in this patch?
I love you.
I love you sooooo much!

Any chance the load-saved-fittings bugs have been fixed too?
When modules or drones glitch during fitting-loading it is ever so irritating.




yes they are! Big smile
do you think I should write a micro dev blog on it next week when I get back from vacation so everybody notices?

I don't know what but you're talking about, unfortunately, but I can take a look on Monday if there's already a bug report on it?

<3 u too random man on the internet Blink


Are all the bugs with T3s and saved fits with different subsystems fixed? Thats just soooo broken atm.


I don't know which bugs you are talking about either.. maybe you can give me a better description of what's broken and then I can look into it on Monday and see if it's been bug reported and/or fixed yet

(I've been on vacation for 4 weeks so I don't know what's been happening at the office for a while)

♥ EVE Brogrammer ♥ Team Five 0 ♥ @CCP_Punkturis

Salpun
Global Telstar Federation Offices
SLYCE Pirates
#407 - 2012-07-28 13:43:55 UTC
CCP Punkturis wrote:
Nalha Saldana wrote:
CCP Punkturis wrote:
Reginald Zebranky wrote:
CCP Punkturis wrote:
[...] because I at least have been making some changes to saved fittings).


Oh God! are the saved-fittings changes coming in this patch?
I love you.
I love you sooooo much!

Any chance the load-saved-fittings bugs have been fixed too?
When modules or drones glitch during fitting-loading it is ever so irritating.




yes they are! Big smile
do you think I should write a micro dev blog on it next week when I get back from vacation so everybody notices?

I don't know what but you're talking about, unfortunately, but I can take a look on Monday if there's already a bug report on it?

<3 u too random man on the internet Blink


Are all the bugs with T3s and saved fits with different subsystems fixed? Thats just soooo broken atm.


I don't know which bugs you are talking about either.. maybe you can give me a better description of what's broken and then I can look into it on Monday and see if it's been bug reported and/or fixed yet

(I've been on vacation for 4 weeks so I don't know what's been happening at the office for a while)


Still not fixed on Sisi. A bug with CPU and Power grid checks does not allow subsystems to online in some instances
BR 133243, 133235

If i dont know something about EVE. I check https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/ISK_The_Guide

See you around the universe.

Salpun
Global Telstar Federation Offices
SLYCE Pirates
#408 - 2012-07-28 13:46:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Salpun
For those with this issue create a new saved fitting which seems to work but the original saved fitting does not.

New bug report on the issue #141617

If i dont know something about EVE. I check https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/ISK_The_Guide

See you around the universe.

Inspiration
#409 - 2012-07-28 14:55:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Inspiration
Inspiration wrote:
*snip*
Post Constructive Feedback in the right Forum or do not post.

Fixed your insulting and off topic post
ISD Dosnix


Pretty mad after loosing a major post (again) at CCP's hands in the form of bad forum design and/or code...and in full my right to be. Your reply is all but constructive itself and humanly translates to:

* I don't understand;
* I don't really care much either;
* Make no fuss on my turf or shut up.

It's insulting to me, exactly the thing you blame me for!
And since when are hard critics insulting?

I will post under bugs too, but I really want you to understand this!

I am serious!

ISD TYPE40
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#410 - 2012-07-28 15:28:16 UTC
Thread cleaned of trolling and personal attacks. Please keep your posting relevant and respectful, thank you. Smile




Trolling and personal attacks removed - ISD Type40.

[b]ISD Type40 Lt. Commander Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department[/b]

Lord Vyper
Eternity INC.
Goonswarm Federation
#411 - 2012-07-28 16:47:41 UTC
Inspiration wrote:
Jett0 wrote:
Inspiration wrote:
Otherwise, as things stand, there hardly ever will be a sane reason to use a Hulk, given the advantages the Mackinaw has over the Hulk.


The way a miner friend of mine put it, the Hulk becomes worse for solo mining but better for fleet mining.


I wonder what makes him say this as the only thing improved on the Hulk is a bit of EHP. All other metrics have gone down, including yield, crystal storage and not at least the ore storage. It is even worse in signature size i think, so takes more damage from bigger rats...but I have to re-check this as I can't be sure form memory.

To sum it up, it is worse off in every category but a bit of EHP and then not even a whole lot of EHP unless a Damage Control II is fitted.In which case, the extra mining output is clearly degraded to a point, the Mackinaw starts to make more sense with all its advantages, even the Skiff becomes e more sensible option then.

I wonder where the delusion originated from that making a ship more vulnerable then it's alternatives, will make it an ideal fleet ship. Sure it mines 15% more then a like fitted Mackinaw, but in practice for micro management reasons this gap will be quite a bit smaller and the clear Advantages of the Mackinaw make more sense in fleet scenario's.

No mining ship will work indefinably when solo in a hostile environment, not even combat ships do, which kind of makes the fleet angle irrelevant really. And logistics wise, all mining ships need logistical backing for serious mining, anywhere, which comes from a fleet.

In my book, the new Hulk is actually the best no-backup, no fleet bonus, high sec solo mining ship. As only then does it's small ore hold and like crystal storage not matter much and will it have a clear sensible mining amount advantage over the Mackinaw. In all other situations it is the dumb choice.


15% multiplies out in a fleet quite well. And will give you considerably more output in a fleet than a group of mack's in equal number. For corps that want to get the most mining done in the fastest time such as probed sites or valuable pockets this is the best option. 3 mining lasers allows you to pull from 3 roids instead of 2 which can be very useful. In your book is an opinion and only that. Everyone has their own strategies on how to min/max. If you have secure space be it high, low or nullsec the hulk will still be your best option for eating roids. 10 hulks vs 10 mack's 150% output difference at a minimum. If your worried about being attacked the other options begin to have more appeal, but if not the hulk is still best option number wise.
Cyprus Amaro
Tortuga Coalition 102
#412 - 2012-07-28 16:48:06 UTC
Inspiration wrote:

In my book, the new Hulk is actually the best no-backup, no fleet bonus, high sec solo mining ship. As only then does it's small ore hold and like crystal storage not matter much and will it have a clear sensible mining amount advantage over the Mackinaw. In all other situations it is the dumb choice.


I'm thinking the new Mac will be the best solo, unsupported ship. It will have better shield and armor tanks than the Hulk and an Ore hold 3 times the size. Sure, the Mac won't have quite the yield, but that is made up quickly by having to fly back and forth to the station a lot less often.

One of my toons does a lot of solo mining now in a Hulk. I may switch to a Mac for that in the future.
Salpun
Global Telstar Federation Offices
SLYCE Pirates
#413 - 2012-07-28 17:57:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Salpun
CCP Arrow wrote:
Thanks everyone for your feedback regarding the Shift discussion. As pointed out here, there already is a setting in the Esc Menu related to reverting Shift behavior, so it might make sense to have this behavior tied with that setting. Hopefully those that already use that setting will also want the Inventory Shift function to be reverted.

Jett0 wrote:
Is it possible to base the behavior on whether or not the index tree is expanded? For example, if it's minimized (like when you're looting in space), the button text changes to "Loot / Close." This would allow you to solve both scenarios while being clear on function.


Interesting point, this would solve it very gracefully. I have added it to our Iteration plan, thank you.

Any update on the Orca corp inventory being openable from right click again. BR#141624
Thanks

If i dont know something about EVE. I check https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/ISK_The_Guide

See you around the universe.

Inspiration
#414 - 2012-07-28 18:14:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Inspiration
Lord Vyper wrote:
15% multiplies out in a fleet quite well. And will give you considerably more output in a fleet than a group of mack's in equal number. For corps that want to get the most mining done in the fastest time such as probed sites or valuable pockets this is the best option. 3 mining lasers allows you to pull from 3 roids instead of 2 which can be very useful. In your book is an opinion and only that. Everyone has their own strategies on how to min/max. If you have secure space be it high, low or nullsec the hulk will still be your best option for eating roids. 10 hulks vs 10 mack's 150% output difference at a minimum. If your worried about being attacked the other options begin to have more appeal, but if not the hulk is still best option number wise.


The 15.5% more mining (theoretical number in a perfect world), you will never get, not even close to. And 10 Hulks vs 10 Mackinaws in this perfect numerical world is still just 15% more, not magically 150%!

Explained I already did that the fleet factor is irrelevant (not to mention bogus), but when choosing the max yield per minute setups a fleet will hurt the hulk in a negative way as its small ore hold will block yield if not emptied rapidly and consistently. And be honest, when speaking of fleet mining we nearly always talk about some guy controlling 3 or more accounts, maybe with a buddy or two doing the same. Not at all, the one player per ship in a fleet of many, most people seem to fantasize about. Micromanagement will be a limiting factor here, especially in a fleet!

Then there is the situation that there IS a risk of getting killed (lets assume high sec for now). In a hulk you likely will not risk a second 5% implant. In a Mackinaw you suddenly can...if you are a dedicated miner, else price wise it wont make sense. The theoretical yield advantage per minute of the Hulk with a DC II + MLU over a Mackinaw with 3 MLU (yes new version has 3 low slots) then shrinks to just 6%. At this point the hulk still is a far cry from the EHP of the Mackinaw and still has to work with the ore hold limitation, be it less of an issue now its yield per minute dropped a bit.

The difference between theory and practice will most likely be even smaller as no one can mine perfectly, but doing so is a hell of a lot easier with the Mackinaw! The ore hold issue is of more concern then the mining an already depleted rock issue which will only be detected at the end of a cycle (unless you active scan and intervene..which is easier with less rocks to keep track of).

My plea to change the Hulk's Exhumer bonus form a 3% more ore yield per level to a 3% reduced cycle time and energy use per level (as it works with ice) actually addresses both issues in one easy change. The ore hold is less critical (stores two cycles) and the smaller yield per cycle means less of the cycle time is wasted, reducing the need to micromanage so many rocks.

As is, I doubt many will find a small 6% difference enough justification to choose the Hulk over the Mackinaw. Well, not if they actually ran the numbers as I just did and start to weight the pro's and cons. There will be exceptions, as always, due to personal preference or just failing at math, but there is a LOT of benefit to using a Mackinaw here.

And when you don't like to mine with drones, and many never use them, the lesser drone capability of the Skiff matters less and it will become more attractive. Yield wise however, the gap is bigger, thus the Mackinaw will be viewed as a sweet compromise by many I expect.

I am serious!

Inspiration
#415 - 2012-07-28 18:44:53 UTC
Cyprus Amaro wrote:
Inspiration wrote:

In my book, the new Hulk is actually the best no-backup, no fleet bonus, high sec solo mining ship. As only then does it's small ore hold and like crystal storage not matter much and will it have a clear sensible mining amount advantage over the Mackinaw. In all other situations it is the dumb choice.


I'm thinking the new Mac will be the best solo, unsupported ship. It will have better shield and armor tanks than the Hulk and an Ore hold 3 times the size. Sure, the Mac won't have quite the yield, but that is made up quickly by having to fly back and forth to the station a lot less often.

One of my toons does a lot of solo mining now in a Hulk. I may switch to a Mac for that in the future.


Not sure if docking every 31.5k m3 to empty ore bay is as effective as mining 190k m3 in Jetcans and then switching to an Orca for pickup. If you own an alt on the same account, you can even have the Orca at the same belt, you just log off for a sec and log the other character in to scoop up. Drop off at station, warp back to belt and repeat.

But not everyone has a second character however, but since mining bonuses and logistics are so important to the profession, joining an industrial corporation is the best thing to do in such a situation. All that time spend doing logistics on your own to sell the ore at good profit, could have been spend mining with bonuses instead with much of the time consuming/costly work being handled for you.

It is one of the reasons the logic applied to the re-balance doesn't really stick that well to the practical in-game considerations you have to make. Most of the effectiveness of an miner does not so much come from his ship and trained skills, but from:

* Teaming up / multi-boxing for bonuses and scale advantages
* Limit the waste of setup time by having perfect warp in bookmarks at belts (also affect drone effectiveness)
* Working form lush locations,where risks are minimal and fitting for max yield makes more sense.
* Scanning and active toggling strip miners on/off based on the numbers from the scan result.
* Setting up a good logistics plan, involving mineral compression for easy and efficient hauling.
* Mine the right mix or ores, based on both how you can compress the minerals form the ore and the current mineral prices.

These things matter much more then if you get 15.5% theoretical better yield per minute. It is weird to see one mining ship as a fleet sheep and the rest as for solo mining. The real distinctions simply don't run along those lines.

I am serious!

Salpun
Global Telstar Federation Offices
SLYCE Pirates
#416 - 2012-07-28 18:51:48 UTC


Not sure if docking every 31.5k m3 to empty ore bay is as effective as mining 190k m3 in Jetcans and then switching to an Orca for pickup. If you own an alt on the same account, you can even have the Orca at the same belt, you just log off for a sec and log the other character in to scoop up. Drop off at station, warp back to belt and repeat.

But not everyone has a second character however, but since mining bonuses and logistics are so important to the profession, joining an industrial corporation is the best thing to do in such a situation. All that time spend doing logistics on your own to sell the ore at good profit, could have been spend mining with bonuses instead with much of the time consuming/costly work being handled for you.[

This reason alone is the reason we will never have quick change characters selection under the same log in screenTwisted

If i dont know something about EVE. I check https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/ISK_The_Guide

See you around the universe.

Selvedar Miromme
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#417 - 2012-07-28 20:43:33 UTC
hmm... so far my only complaint about the Unified Inventory is that it doesn't automatically close when i undock... and it is a bit laggy.

other than that, not too bad.

thanks.
El'essar Viocragh
Meltdown Luftfahrttechnik
#418 - 2012-07-28 22:19:20 UTC  |  Edited by: El'essar Viocragh
Jett0 wrote:
Inspiration wrote:
Otherwise, as things stand, there hardly ever will be a sane reason to use a Hulk, given the advantages the Mackinaw has over the Hulk.


The way a miner friend of mine put it, the Hulk becomes worse for solo mining but better for fleet mining.


No, group mining in general takes a nerf with 1.2.

Currently a tank fitted hulk (em ward amp II, 2x SSE II, Inv II, DC II, PDS II, MATSR I, MCDFE I) has shield resists of 79 / 78 / 78 / 79 and ingame EHP of 23'003 without any gang modifiers. The same fit on Sisi currently achieves 24'119 EHP which looks like a small boost, especially since a lot of those EHP moved from hull and armor over to shields.

But since exhumers lost their built-in 7.5% bonus, this fit now has shield resists of 75 / 73 / 73 / 78, meaning remote rep from properly set up teamplay now has to counter the damage from an average resist of 74,75% instead of 78.5%. In other words, 25.25% incoming damage instead of 21.5%, a 17% increase of damage taken.

This is the case for all three exhumers, it is just most clearly visible on the hulk since it is the only one that got nil in return, making the new version all-around plain worse than the current. Who would have thought we'd see an exhumer nerf?

CCP::2012 has no interest in risk (or comparable loss) for suicide gankers, or rewards for smart and proper teamplay with player interaction.
All it wants are SOMA fed masses of Epsilons keeping the world state^W^W^Weconomy running.
Cyprus Amaro
Tortuga Coalition 102
#419 - 2012-07-28 22:29:10 UTC
Inspiration wrote:
Cyprus Amaro wrote:
Inspiration wrote:

In my book, the new Hulk is actually the best no-backup, no fleet bonus, high sec solo mining ship. As only then does it's small ore hold and like crystal storage not matter much and will it have a clear sensible mining amount advantage over the Mackinaw. In all other situations it is the dumb choice.


I'm thinking the new Mac will be the best solo, unsupported ship. It will have better shield and armor tanks than the Hulk and an Ore hold 3 times the size. Sure, the Mac won't have quite the yield, but that is made up quickly by having to fly back and forth to the station a lot less often.

One of my toons does a lot of solo mining now in a Hulk. I may switch to a Mac for that in the future.


Not sure if docking every 31.5k m3 to empty ore bay is as effective as mining 190k m3 in Jetcans and then switching to an Orca for pickup. If you own an alt on the same account, you can even have the Orca at the same belt, you just log off for a sec and log the other character in to scoop up. Drop off at station, warp back to belt and repeat.

But not everyone has a second character however, but since mining bonuses and logistics are so important to the profession, joining an industrial corporation is the best thing to do in such a situation. All that time spend doing logistics on your own to sell the ore at good profit, could have been spend mining with bonuses instead with much of the time consuming/costly work being handled for you.


Your point is a good one and I actually have 3 toons. 1 flies a Hulk and refines high-sec ore at 100%. Another flies an Orca and Hulk as well as drives an Itty V. Then there is this one I'm training up as a combat pilot.

My Corp does hi-sec mining ops as well as wh operations. Other times I mine with my three toons (2 hulks and a hauler). However, there are times when it is impractical for me to dual box or run two accounts so I'll mine solo. Not as efficient, but still produces some ISK. The new Mac may work well for that.
Lord Vyper
Eternity INC.
Goonswarm Federation
#420 - 2012-07-28 22:35:44 UTC
Inspiration wrote:
Lord Vyper wrote:
15% multiplies out in a fleet quite well. And will give you considerably more output in a fleet than a group of mack's in equal number. For corps that want to get the most mining done in the fastest time such as probed sites or valuable pockets this is the best option. 3 mining lasers allows you to pull from 3 roids instead of 2 which can be very useful. In your book is an opinion and only that. Everyone has their own strategies on how to min/max. If you have secure space be it high, low or nullsec the hulk will still be your best option for eating roids. 10 hulks vs 10 mack's 150% output difference at a minimum. If your worried about being attacked the other options begin to have more appeal, but if not the hulk is still best option number wise.


The 15.5% more mining (theoretical number in a perfect world), you will never get, not even close to. And 10 Hulks vs 10 Mackinaws in this perfect numerical world is still just 15% more, not magically 150%!

Explained I already did that the fleet factor is irrelevant (not to mention bogus), but when choosing the max yield per minute setups a fleet will hurt the hulk in a negative way as its small ore hold will block yield if not emptied rapidly and consistently. And be honest, when speaking of fleet mining we nearly always talk about some guy controlling 3 or more accounts, maybe with a buddy or two doing the same. Not at all, the one player per ship in a fleet of many, most people seem to fantasize about. Micromanagement will be a limiting factor here, especially in a fleet!



Math its your friend. 15% x 10 = 150%. Its a per ship difference meaning that every ship of that type that you add will increase the gap between the 2 fleets.This is a total yield calculation between 2 fleets. Even using your 6% number which is ridiculous number you pulled out of ur arse for the sake of trying to win an argument its still 60% more yield in a group of 10 vs 10. In smaller groups which is quite possible that gap is decreased significantly and does give more reasons to use a tankier ship with larger holds for the sake of convenience and laziness. I don't assume to know what CCP is thinking but the new redesigned hulk looks to reward the attentive human miner and punish the macro multiboxing AFKer. I am all for this. And as for fleet bonuses they are multiplicative not additive. So the gap does INCREASE as you gain more ships not decrease. You sir are a politician not a mathematician. I'm all for constructive discussion but the amount of arrogance you are displaying in your posts is unacceptable. Roleplaying kills people in Eve.