These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Mining ships and EVE design philosophy.

First post First post
Author
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#241 - 2013-02-14 01:14:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Vaerah Vahrokha
La Nariz wrote:
Directly from the devblog about the skiff:
http://community.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&nbid=73098 wrote:
The Procurer and Skiff are made for protection against suicide gank, or NPCs, by giving a large enough buffer to react to incoming attacks, while paying for that with a lower mining yield.


Yes the skiff is intended for tank, yes the mackinaw is intended for cargo hold, and yes the hulk is intended for yield. That is what CCP intended with the ship specializations. Your opinions on the suitability of the ships for highsec is against what CCP's choices for the ships specializations.


It's not against. The blog above just says the simple truth: in order to kill a Skiff you would have to field a considerable, teamwork force. This is the "protection against suicide gank" and also the "large enough buffer to react".

A Mack can be killed by a lone ship and won't have a large enough buffer to react. What changes is just that instead of using 1-2 4M ships to solo kill it, now you need 1-2 proper ships to solo kill it.


Another thing I still noticed that wooshed high above you, Ruby Porto and even Baltec1 is that as I said 5 times, the Mack is not even the most widespread ship. Players are already smart enough to fly a large majority of throwaway Retrievers. So what are you going to achieve by enticing more players to switch to Retrievers? After all the yield is just slightly lower and - the super utmost important factor, ore hold - is the same and provides the same 45 minutes of AFK-dom.

Edit: and considering how bad is the salvage off a Retriever, by making them even more prominent, you achieve to get less valuable loot as well.

Edit2: anyway keep trying finding a way to get T2 ships popped, I calculated I earn about 3-4 times more if this happens vs if it won't happen. Pirate
Kate stark
#242 - 2013-02-14 09:56:06 UTC
uh, VV, the ore hold isn't the same between the mack and ret, there's a (iirc) 7.5k m3 difference which is less than two cycles i think, which is under 4 mins of mining in a boosted fleet, and 6 mins in a non boosted fleet. too early in the morning for me to do the proper maths but there is a difference.

Yay, this account hasn't had its signature banned. or its account, if you're reading this.

CCP Eterne
C C P
C C P Alliance
#243 - 2013-02-14 10:29:20 UTC
I've deleted some trolling from this thread.

EVE Online/DUST 514 Community Representative ※ EVE Illuminati ※ Fiction Adept

@CCP_Eterne ※ @EVE_LiveEvents

Joran Dravius
Doomheim
#244 - 2013-02-14 11:42:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Joran Dravius
Agnar Volta wrote:
You are like deer hunters complaining that they can't use silencers in their rifles. How much more of a edge do you need?

Silencers aren't actually useful against deer. Contrary to what Hollywood would like you to believe, they don't turn the sound of your gun into a soft little 'phut'. At best, they make it harder to tell the range and direction you shot from. Bows use string silencers because deer are fast enough to turn a lethal shot into a non-lethal, but nonetheless extremely painful one if they get a chance to dodge. This isn't good for either the hunter or the deer. Guns don't have this problem, though neither weapon is getting a second shot whether they're "silenced" or not.

This is what a "silenced" gun sounds like. Don't believe everything you see on TV.
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#245 - 2013-02-14 13:26:22 UTC
Kate stark wrote:
uh, VV, the ore hold isn't the same between the mack and ret, there's a (iirc) 7.5k m3 difference which is less than two cycles i think, which is under 4 mins of mining in a boosted fleet, and 6 mins in a non boosted fleet. too early in the morning for me to do the proper maths but there is a difference.


... a difference that is insignificant. What counts infact is the double factor of AFK-ability (Retriever smaller hold still allows for it) and minimal belt => station and vice versa added logistics costs.
Kate stark
#246 - 2013-02-14 14:10:39 UTC
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Kate stark wrote:
uh, VV, the ore hold isn't the same between the mack and ret, there's a (iirc) 7.5k m3 difference which is less than two cycles i think, which is under 4 mins of mining in a boosted fleet, and 6 mins in a non boosted fleet. too early in the morning for me to do the proper maths but there is a difference.


... a difference that is insignificant. What counts infact is the double factor of AFK-ability (Retriever smaller hold still allows for it) and minimal belt => station and vice versa added logistics costs.


agreed, an insignificant difference, but one that should be noted for the sake of completeness.

Yay, this account hasn't had its signature banned. or its account, if you're reading this.

Le Badass
Empire Assault Corp
Dead Terrorists
#247 - 2013-02-14 14:22:26 UTC
Joran Dravius wrote:

This is what a "silenced" gun sounds like. Don't believe everything you see on TV.


Dear lord, the video following the one you linked is so damn funny :D
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#248 - 2013-02-14 15:25:34 UTC
La Nariz wrote:
The idea is that your ship can specialize, that you must make trade offs to excel in a specific area. For example if you want to be an amazingly tough tank your damage will suffer and if you want to be a speed demon your tank will suffer. Perhaps you prefer to be a generalist in which you can do many things but you are also average, you don't do a lot of damage and you cannot absorb a lot of damage. This philosophy is followed fairly well through all ship types except for one, the mining ships. Why is that the case?

With the recent EHP changes to mining barges they no longer follow this philosophy. Miners are no longer required to fit a tank at the expense of other factors in order to ensure their safety.


Fail

Mining barges are still paper airplanes. I think maybe you mean exhumers, which can actually fit a tank.

There is still a trade off:
still a trade off. Hulk = max yield. Mack=big holds. Skiff=max tank.

Sure, the hulk and mack are no longer paper airplanes when fit for max yield, but that does not mean they are not trading the even better tank of the skiff for their other advantages.

The hulk and mack were too easy to suicide gank, so CCP upped their base EHP. Go whine about it somewhere else.
Kate stark
#249 - 2013-02-14 15:31:32 UTC
LHA Tarawa wrote:
La Nariz wrote:
The idea is that your ship can specialize, that you must make trade offs to excel in a specific area. For example if you want to be an amazingly tough tank your damage will suffer and if you want to be a speed demon your tank will suffer. Perhaps you prefer to be a generalist in which you can do many things but you are also average, you don't do a lot of damage and you cannot absorb a lot of damage. This philosophy is followed fairly well through all ship types except for one, the mining ships. Why is that the case?

With the recent EHP changes to mining barges they no longer follow this philosophy. Miners are no longer required to fit a tank at the expense of other factors in order to ensure their safety.


Fail

Mining barges are still paper airplanes. I think maybe you mean exhumers, which can actually fit a tank.

There is still a trade off:
still a trade off. Hulk = max yield. Mack=big holds. Skiff=max tank.

Sure, the hulk and mack are no longer paper airplanes when fit for max yield, but that does not mean they are not trading the even better tank of the skiff for their other advantages.

The hulk and mack were too easy to suicide gank, so CCP upped their base EHP. Go whine about it somewhere else.


but the higher tank of the skiff is irrelevant, so they aren't trading anything, they've just got high yield/cargo and don't sacrifice anything for it.

Yay, this account hasn't had its signature banned. or its account, if you're reading this.

Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#250 - 2013-02-14 15:33:40 UTC
LHA Tarawa wrote:
The hulk and mack were too easy to suicide gank.


Because miners weren't intelligent enough to fit a tank which made them unprofitable to gank.

This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.

LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#251 - 2013-02-14 17:17:26 UTC
Kate stark wrote:

but the higher tank of the skiff is irrelevant, so they aren't trading anything, they've just got high yield/cargo and don't sacrifice anything for it.


How is stronger tank irrelevant when the point of the OP is that the tank of the exhumers?


Or, is the point ONLY about suicide ganking of exhumers?

Now, even without sacrificing yield, exhumer base tank is too strong to profitably suicide gank them... whaaaaaaaa.... I want to profitably suicide gank exhumers and now I can't... whaaaaaaa....
Ana Vyr
Vyral Technologies
#252 - 2013-02-14 17:36:56 UTC
I lost a tanked Mac in. 0.5 system shortly after the mining ship changes.....pair of blaster catalysts got me, so I think this talk of how its not worth ganking anymore is the usual propaganda by the gankers.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#253 - 2013-02-14 17:42:42 UTC
LHA Tarawa wrote:


The hulk and mack were too easy to suicide gank, so CCP upped their base EHP. Go whine about it somewhere else.


If a heavy assault ship pilot didnt fit a tank he was just as easy to kill. The miners made themselves easy and profitable targets by not fitting any tank at all. They made the choice to be easy prey in exchange for max yeild/cargo. It didnt even take much to make them unprofitable to gank.
Kate stark
#254 - 2013-02-14 17:43:11 UTC
LHA Tarawa wrote:
Kate stark wrote:

but the higher tank of the skiff is irrelevant, so they aren't trading anything, they've just got high yield/cargo and don't sacrifice anything for it.


How is stronger tank irrelevant when the point of the OP is that the tank of the exhumers?


Or, is the point ONLY about suicide ganking of exhumers?

Now, even without sacrificing yield, exhumer base tank is too strong to profitably suicide gank them... whaaaaaaaa.... I want to profitably suicide gank exhumers and now I can't... whaaaaaaa....


of course tank is only relevant to suicide ganking.
because tank is irrelevant if you aren't getting ganked. these aren't combat ships.

as for the rest of your post, what are you talking about?

Yay, this account hasn't had its signature banned. or its account, if you're reading this.

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#255 - 2013-02-14 17:43:50 UTC
Ana Vyr wrote:
I lost a tanked Mac in. 0.5 system shortly after the mining ship changes.....pair of blaster catalysts got me, so I think this talk of how its not worth ganking anymore is the usual propaganda by the gankers.


Key word there is just after the changes. Right now exhumer kills are at an all time record low.
Kate stark
#256 - 2013-02-14 17:44:03 UTC
Ana Vyr wrote:
I lost a tanked Mac in. 0.5 system shortly after the mining ship changes.....pair of blaster catalysts got me, so I think this talk of how its not worth ganking anymore is the usual propaganda by the gankers.


you assume you were ganked for profit. never assume things.

Yay, this account hasn't had its signature banned. or its account, if you're reading this.

LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#257 - 2013-02-14 17:59:30 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Eterne
Kate stark wrote:

of course tank is only relevant to suicide ganking.
because tank is irrelevant if you aren't getting ganked. these aren't combat ships.


So no one ever mines outside high sec? And rats never attack exhumers?


Kate stark wrote:

as for the rest of your post, what are you talking about?



I'm talking about how this is nothing but suicide gankers whining... whaaaaa, whaaaaa, whaaaaa... exhumers have to be super easy to suicide gank, or eve is dying.... whaaaaaaaaa.

Go PVP someone that is ready and looking for a fight instead of thinking of all the carebears as easy, profitable, targets. *snipped personal attack* Cry babies, idiots that can't win real PVP, so only want to PVP against ships that can't shoot back!
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#258 - 2013-02-14 18:00:20 UTC
baltec1 wrote:

Key word there is just after the changes. Right now exhumer kills are at an all time record low.


WORKING AS INTENDED.

End of thread.
Din Chao
#259 - 2013-02-14 18:14:44 UTC
LHA Tarawa wrote:
End of thread.

Oh yeah?
Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#260 - 2013-02-14 18:39:01 UTC
LHA Tarawa wrote:
Kate stark wrote:

of course tank is only relevant to suicide ganking.
because tank is irrelevant if you aren't getting ganked. these aren't combat ships.


So no one ever mines outside high sec? And rats never attack exhumers?


Kate stark wrote:

as for the rest of your post, what are you talking about?



I'm talking about how this is nothing but suicide gankers whining... whaaaaa, whaaaaa, whaaaaa... exhumers have to be super easy to suicide gank, or eve is dying.... whaaaaaaaaa.

Go PVP someone that is ready and looking for a fight instead of thinking of all the carebears as easy, profitable, targets. Unless, of course, that you suck so badly at PVP that you can't fight other PVPers and win, so have to grow your epeen by suicide ganking carebears,... Cry babies, idiots that can't win real PVP, so only want to PVP against ships that can't shoot back!

Look at the angry NPC alt. Looks like the truth hurts.

This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.