These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Cyprus Amaro
Tortuga Coalition 102
#421 - 2012-07-28 22:42:12 UTC
El'essar Viocragh 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.


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 t2 base resists, 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.


You have a much better understanding of this than I do. I appreciate your analysis above.

El'essar Viocragh
Meltdown Luftfahrttechnik
#422 - 2012-07-28 22:48:43 UTC  |  Edited by: El'essar Viocragh
Lord Vyper wrote:
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.

And yet, the percentual difference between the two fleets stays 15%.

The 150% is the absolute amount of additional ore mined by the hulk fleet over the mackinaw fleet relative to a single mackinaw's yield (i.e. the 10 hulks get 1.5 mackinaws for free).

PS: Math just unfriended you.

PPS: why are you talking about a 15% difference, when the Hulk has two 15% bonuses and the Mackinaw has one 5% bonus, making the difference 27.25% on sisi?
Lord Vyper
Eternity INC.
Goonswarm Federation
#423 - 2012-07-28 22:57:49 UTC
El'essar Viocragh wrote:
Lord Vyper wrote:
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.

And yet, the percentual difference between the two fleets stays 15%.

The 150% is the absolute amount of additional ore mined by the hulk fleet over the mackinaw fleet relative to a single mackinaw's yield (i.e. the 10 hulks get 1.5 mackinaws for free).

PS: Math just unfriended you.


I was reffering to the amount of ore mined Thank you for proving my point.
Octoven
Noir Holdings
#424 - 2012-07-28 23:03:25 UTC
CCP Affinity wrote:
Jarin Arenos wrote:
CCP Affinity wrote:
Octoven wrote:
Will be a nice little patch; however, could you have a talk with the graphics department? I do NOT see CCP's sudden die hard addiction to camo skins. Honestly, do you see any trees, shrubs, or bushes in space to blend in with?? IMHO they are ass ugly. Take the CNR for example. Granted, the raven looks like a cancerous deformed ship, but now with tech camo it looks like it is a sickly cancerous deformed ship with leprosy or something. Its nice CCP wants to make them stand out but damn.

At least go with some black hulls with variation in trim colors and crap like that. Just seems ******** to have a ship painted in camo in a space environment.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dazzle_camouflage

So what you're saying is that camo ships should have a smaller sig radius stat to represent the greater difficulty in automatic identification and targeting?



I was just joking/bad posting.. I will try and remember not to do that again


Yeah, the only thing I received from that link is that WWI is where they were most widely used and less often than in WWII and the closer we got to modern age, the more it was phased out which may imply the military saw how useless or pointless they were?
Dio Chrysostom
The Star Of Marx
#425 - 2012-07-28 23:41:15 UTC
I have read some of the various general complaints in relation, or even not in relation to this particular thread and I want those who posted them to know that a majority of players that mater agree with you on things like the crappy new inventory systems and new paint colors. The reason there are not more of us complaining is because we have canceled our subs started to move over to new games that are actually hard to play and the reason your seeing all the negativity about your complaints is because a majority of players that browse, and troll, the forums are indy players here to see what the next planned reach around CCP is going to give them will be. While also getting to see the next way eve is going to become a safer easier place so they can finaly be the best ever no matter how easy it is. Just remember miners when everyone is the best, everyone is just mediocre. CCP I am only sad it took me 3 years to realize how pathetic you guys where, at least I didnt pay real money to play for the last 1.5 years of it.
Lord Vyper
Eternity INC.
Goonswarm Federation
#426 - 2012-07-28 23:44:08 UTC
El'essar Viocragh wrote:
Lord Vyper wrote:
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.

And yet, the percentual difference between the two fleets stays 15%.

The 150% is the absolute amount of additional ore mined by the hulk fleet over the mackinaw fleet relative to a single mackinaw's yield (i.e. the 10 hulks get 1.5 mackinaws for free).

PS: Math just unfriended you.

PPS: why are you talking about a 15% difference, when the Hulk has two 15% bonuses and the Mackinaw has one 1% bonus, making the difference 27.25% on sisi?


I was working off the numbers Inspiration was trying to use to justify him/her opinion that Hulks will be useless. The mack actually has another bonus on it plus 50% yield. You bring up a valid point I havent crunched out the raw bonuses for myself. I will do so now.
El'essar Viocragh
Meltdown Luftfahrttechnik
#427 - 2012-07-28 23:50:03 UTC
Well, the 50% are just the 3 strip miners without the art departent having to make a new model.

And the mack bonus should read 5% of course, since I stated the hulk bonus as total and not per level aswell.

Jett0
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#428 - 2012-07-28 23:51:02 UTC
Math wrote:
Screw you too, Jett0

I'm trying to calculate the ore benefits, but I keep coming up with zero. Maybe you guys can check my equation:
(Hulk yield) * 3 + (Orca bay) - (Hauler time) + (Refining) + (# of friends) - (Multiboxing) + (Falcon)


I have no credibility on mining, but based on interesting arguments from both sides, I'd say these new stats will be a success. Much better than Skiff < Mack < Hulk.

Occasionally plays sober

Jonuts
The Arrow Project
#429 - 2012-07-28 23:55:15 UTC
Jett0 wrote:
Jonuts wrote:
Some good things, with asterisks!


To clarify, I'll emphasize the word "recently." There was the initial rage, which died down a bit as they pushed the weekly update devblogs. Then they stopped, and a few wondered if they were "done" with Unified Inventory. My point is, if the devs don't have time for a full devblog, even a small one would be nice to let us know important features and fixes are being worked on.

For example, you know what I'd like to see? A post/blog with "Yes, we're still looking at making low-sec/mercenaries/piracy awesome like you wanted, but other things have priority right now. No idea when we'll come back to it."

Your points about the test server feedback are entirely valid, but that's a different issue. If the hand-wave attitude you mention is true, that tells me they need to make Singularity easier to access and get more players on it. You might counter that with "or they could just listen to the feedback in the first place," but I have a feeling they've had players complain about test features before that released just fine (no proof, mind you, just MMO communities in general).

Lots of feedback from a few players at best proves that a few players are very passionate about that feature/change. Trying to take that feedback and turn it into a cross-section of the entire population is a practice that forms entire university majors.

When they make mistakes like this, I just remind myself that Incarna gave us Crucible. Big smile


You're right, in that no matter what feature you add in, there will be people complaining. They could write code that would give players a blow job, and someone would complain "My girlfriend does it better". The difference here was, simply put, ALL feedback was negative. Had plenty of folks that said "Cool concept, execution needs work". Also had quite a few folks that said "Die in a fire", just in nicer terms since no one was pissed off yet. Unanimous negative feedback isn't a 'sign' that you're doing it wrong, it's proof positive that you're doing it wrong. Seriously, the best comments about the Unified Inventory basically boiled down to "it's not ready yet".


Lord Vyper wrote:

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.


You seem to be missing the distinction between an actual number (Such as 15) and a percentage (15%). Lets pretend that ship A mines 100 per minute, and ship B has the 15% advantage, and mines 115 per minute. Fleet A has 10 Ship A's in it. Fleet B and 10 ship B's in it.

Fleet A mining: 100 x 10 = 1000
Fleet B Mining: 115 x 10 = 1150
Fleet B mines 150 more than Fleet A. That is, however, only a 15% increase. It doesn't matter how many ships there are. As long as Fleet A and Fleet B have the same number, the increase will only be 15%. The gap slowly gets bigger in REAL numbers, but percentage wise, remains constant. So yes, math is our friend, but perhaps you should apologize to math and buy it a slice of cake? It certainly isn't your friend.
Lord Vyper
Eternity INC.
Goonswarm Federation
#430 - 2012-07-29 00:10:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Lord Vyper
Your right was using my finger instead of my abacus when I was writing this my apologies to math. I was thinking about total ore mined over extended periods of time and explaining it with percentages. Its 90 degrees here today I brain farted. I concede my failure to argue my point correctly. Anyways my point was that Hulks will still have a huge advantage assuming your using a decent fleet size and running bonuses like cycle time from the Orca. The only time you will be losing out is if you are multiboxing and not paying attention to your ore hold, but this is no different than things are now. So I can't comprehend how that can be used as an excuse to dislike a ships bonuses.

Anyone know what is the total bonus difference between the ships assuming you fit the Mack with 3 mining 2 upgrades and the Hulk with 2? How are stacking penalties assessed?
El'essar Viocragh
Meltdown Luftfahrttechnik
#431 - 2012-07-29 00:33:51 UTC  |  Edited by: El'essar Viocragh
I found the 15% :) The Hulk has a 15% ship bonus yield advantage in ice mining over the mack. The 27.25% i stated earlier is for ore.

As for the differences after fittings, for ore the 3 MLU Mack has +29.7%, 2 MLU Hulk has 55.43% for +25.73 percentage points, ignoring the +50% on the Mack since that only equals the 2 strip miners vs 3 strip miners.

For ice the hulk should be at 67.09% cycle time and the mack at 75.59% for -8.5 percentage points.

[Edit]
Also, a current 1 iHU Mack without gang effects mines 4k m3 ice every 303.93 seconds for 789.65 m3/minute. A new hulk, which mines more ice than the new Mack, also with 1 iHU, mines 3k m3 ice every 259.35 seconds for 694,04 m3/minute. That's a whopping -12.2%. What a coincidence that the new rigs have -12% cycle time as bonus.

Looks like those will be mandatory to get the same yield as currently.
Lord Vyper
Eternity INC.
Goonswarm Federation
#432 - 2012-07-29 01:12:56 UTC
Thanks for doing the math.
Lair Osen
#433 - 2012-07-29 01:54:47 UTC
Are there actually new mining rigs which people have mentioned a few times?
And what happened to that Mining Frigate??

BTW I like the new Uni Inv, it makes it a lot easier for me to move stuff around and sort through all the stuff i have lying around my hangars, though i admit it is a little bit more laggy.

Lord Vyper
Eternity INC.
Goonswarm Federation
#434 - 2012-07-29 01:59:23 UTC
Lair Osen wrote:
Are there actually new mining rigs which people have mentioned a few times?
And what happened to that Mining Frigate??

BTW I like the new Uni Inv, it makes it a lot easier for me to move stuff around and sort through all the stuff i have lying around my hangars, though i admit it is a little bit more laggy.



Theres new rigs 12% cycle reduction to ice harvesters and a mercoxite one for 16% increase in mining amount. both listed on sisi under electronic rigs - medium. Both the blueprint and the module are seeded.
Jett0
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#435 - 2012-07-29 02:41:38 UTC
Jonuts wrote:
You're right, in that no matter what feature you add in, there will be people complaining. They could write code that would give players a blow job, and someone would complain "My girlfriend does it better". The difference here was, simply put, ALL feedback was negative. Had plenty of folks that said "Cool concept, execution needs work". Also had quite a few folks that said "Die in a fire", just in nicer terms since no one was pissed off yet. Unanimous negative feedback isn't a 'sign' that you're doing it wrong, it's proof positive that you're doing it wrong. Seriously, the best comments about the Unified Inventory basically boiled down to "it's not ready yet".


Good summary.

And because you made me laugh, here's for you:

CCP Interrogative New Survey for the Advancement of New Eden wrote:
Please provide your feedback on this feature:

  • I luv u 4ever CCP!
  • Cool concept, execution needs work
  • Die in a fire
  • My girlfriend does it better

Occasionally plays sober

Inspiration
#436 - 2012-07-29 07:42:05 UTC
Lord Vyper wrote:
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.


Do you think you will qualify for any job that requires people interaction and/or math skills?

You are blaming me to pull numbers out of my arse and not being able to understand percentages, yet claim that you yourself are for a constructive argument. One word about you on all these issues:

Delusional!

I am serious!

Smilingmonk
Nuts and Vindictive
#437 - 2012-07-29 15:35:30 UTC
The UI does suck horribly. the NEW UI makes for more work to use and can be confusing if you are in a hurry to loot something or wanting to shift windows and find something fast. I still use the same number of windows that I used before, I just have to click A LOT MORE to open them and arrange them consistently between my accounts. It was a solution to a problem that was imagined only in the minds of the few, the smug, the powerful when the real solution was simply tweaking the existing UI with some of the new features and fixing the POS inventory system which has needed attention forever!

Having said that, as a lot of other people have, are there ANY plans to update the design of some of the ships, ESPECIALLY THE BUTT UGLY RUPTURE, into a realistic space ship rather than just a lazy attempt at meshing different geometry together to come up with something that looks like a kid threw a plastic pirate ship and a squirt gun in a camp fire and watched them melt together?

On the bright side, some of the other ships look fantastic and many of the other features are spot on.

Unfortunately, one or two "awe *****" like those mentioned above wipe out thousands of "attaboys".
Annie Freemont
Doomheim
#438 - 2012-07-29 17:02:20 UTC
Dio Chrysostom wrote:
I have read some of the various general complaints in relation, or even not in relation to this particular thread and I want those who posted them to know that a majority of players that mater agree with you on things like the crappy new inventory systems and new paint colors. The reason there are not more of us complaining is because we have canceled our subs started to move over to new games that are actually hard to play and the reason your seeing all the negativity about your complaints is because a majority of players that browse, and troll, the forums are indy players here to see what the next planned reach around CCP is going to give them will be. While also getting to see the next way eve is going to become a safer easier place so they can finaly be the best ever no matter how easy it is. Just remember miners when everyone is the best, everyone is just mediocre. CCP I am only sad it took me 3 years to realize how pathetic you guys where, at least I didnt pay real money to play for the last 1.5 years of it.



Umad Bro?

Yes, I am an alt.

Jonuts
The Arrow Project
#439 - 2012-07-29 23:01:04 UTC
Lord Vyper wrote:
Your right was using my finger instead of my abacus when I was writing this my apologies to math.


WTF? Someone manned the **** up and admitted their mistake on the internet? The end is nigh! The Horsemen ride again! Run for your lives!!!!

Oh, and gotta give you props for manning up instead of pretending you're right :)


Jett0 wrote:


And because you made me laugh, here's for you:

CCP Interrogative New Survey for the Advancement of New Eden wrote:
Please provide your feedback on this feature:

  • I luv u 4ever CCP!
  • Cool concept, execution needs work
  • Die in a fire
  • My girlfriend does it better




I <3 you. No homo.
Jett0
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#440 - 2012-07-30 00:09:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Jett0
Jonuts wrote:
I <3 you. No homo.


You didn't say "mate," so you're good.

Edit:

Jonuts wrote:
Lord Vyper wrote:
Your right was using my finger instead of my abacus when I was writing this my apologies to math.


WTF? Someone manned the **** up and admitted their mistake on the internet? The end is nigh! The Horsemen ride again! Run for your lives!!!!

Oh, and gotta give you props for manning up instead of pretending you're right :)


Logic and maturity in MY General Discussion? Get out.

On topic, is it just me or do the hanger and CQ switch faster on the test server?

Occasionally plays sober