These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page123Next page
 

Please never add the T3 mining ship

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Drake Doe
88Th Tax Haven
#21 - 2013-04-27 15:20:32 UTC
By the way, the yield difference between the T3 and the hulk should be the dps and tank difference between the tengu and Cerberus

"The homogenization of EVE began when Gallente and Caldari started sharing a weapon system."---Vermaak Doe-- "Ohh squabbles ohh I love my dust trolls like watching an episode of Maury with less " Is he my Dad " but more of " My Neighbor took a dump on my lawn " good episode! pops more corn" ---Evernub--
DataRunner Attor
Doomheim
#22 - 2013-04-27 15:59:28 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Arronicus wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Benny Therios wrote:
Actually, on second thoughts, some variety might be nice.


you mean 6 ships for 1 job isn't already enough? (7 if you count the venture)

oh wait, people only use the retriever because mining ship balance is ****.
remind me again why t3s would be better than just fixing the current lineup?


"1 job"
"Ice mining, Mercoxit harvesting, General Ore harvesting, Gas cloud harvesting"
"High yield strong active tank low cargo low buffer, Huge buffer low yield medium cargo weak active tank, medium buffer, medium yield massive cargo medium active tank"

It's 4 jobs, and a variety of ships with different reasons to use them. The fact that all of them get used (retrievers and skiffs primarily in highsec, hulks are the miner of choice in 0.0), suggests that they all fit their roles well. t3 would be better than 'fixing' the current lineup, because the current lineup isn't broken, and t3 might bring interesting new possbilities, like something sturdier than a venture for gas harvesting.


1 job, mining.
also you don't gas harvest in mining ships.

there's a variety of ships with no reason to use at least half of them, as evident by ccp's own figures pointing out that the hulk, mackinaw, and retriever mine over 80% of ALL ore in the game. (except mercoxit, that's 75%)
hell, the mack and retriever mine over 50% of all high sec ore on their own.
and no, the skiff doesn't really get used, mining less than 5% of any given high sec ore. (and less than 10% of any given ore, regardless of security, mercoxit excluded)

not all of the ships get used at all, which is why the rebalance failed horribly and mining barges/exhumers need balancing before they even consider the irrelevant and borderline pointless addition of t3 mining ships. if you think it's acceptable to have ships mining less than 5% of all the ore in the game and that it's "balanced" then i don't know what to say to you.

however i will accept the gas mining ship line needs a t2 variant, something that can survive gas explosions or whatever (i don't gas mine, it takes too much effort to find gas sites) as i hear that's a common issue.



I'm still trying to figure out where you get these numbers from, cause none of these numbers from what I see are correct in anyway. From all the mining corps I've seen, they generally follow this rule of thumb, mining barges for high sec, exhumes for low/null sec mining operations. Hulks are normally left alone from roaming mining ops due to the simple fact that they are design in mind that you are going to live in that system and you have more the one hulk AND you have a small logistic fleet to back you up, and take that ore off your hands. Though many find the skiff a great eception to the high sec low sec rule of thumb when mine due to the fact that it a tanky little bugger.

Here what the rebalanced did my not so friendly person. The rebalance gave them actual roles, these roles now take time for people to figure out how to work in their new meta on how they will exploited these ships to their fullest positional.

Back to what I was saying though is that many of these numbers you are getting are either limited only to your corp, or are just out right wrong and you are just pulling numbers out of your arse to support your argument.

I myself would happily accept T3 mining vessels as long as it allows us to set them up very much like a cruiser, I would love a bubble dodging miner =)

“Point out to me a person who has been harmed by an AFK cloaker and I will point out a person who has no business playing this game.”
Dave Stark
#23 - 2013-04-27 16:22:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Dave Stark
DataRunner Attor wrote:
I'm still trying to figure out where you get these numbers from, cause none of these numbers from what I see are correct in anyway. From all the mining corps I've seen, they generally follow this rule of thumb, mining barges for high sec, exhumes for low/null sec mining operations. Hulks are normally left alone from roaming mining ops due to the simple fact that they are design in mind that you are going to live in that system and you have more the one hulk AND you have a small logistic fleet to back you up, and take that ore off your hands. Though many find the skiff a great eception to the high sec low sec rule of thumb when mine due to the fact that it a tanky little bugger.

Here what the rebalanced did my not so friendly person. The rebalance gave them actual roles, these roles now take time for people to figure out how to work in their new meta on how they will exploited these ships to their fullest positional.

Back to what I was saying though is that many of these numbers you are getting are either limited only to your corp, or are just out right wrong and you are just pulling numbers out of your arse to support your argument.

I myself would happily accept T3 mining vessels as long as it allows us to set them up very much like a cruiser, I would love a bubble dodging miner =)


my numbers are from the dev blogs.

sure the rebalance gave them roles, doesn't mean the roles actually existed.
DataRunner Attor
Doomheim
#24 - 2013-04-27 16:42:07 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
DataRunner Attor wrote:
I'm still trying to figure out where you get these numbers from, cause none of these numbers from what I see are correct in anyway. From all the mining corps I've seen, they generally follow this rule of thumb, mining barges for high sec, exhumes for low/null sec mining operations. Hulks are normally left alone from roaming mining ops due to the simple fact that they are design in mind that you are going to live in that system and you have more the one hulk AND you have a small logistic fleet to back you up, and take that ore off your hands. Though many find the skiff a great eception to the high sec low sec rule of thumb when mine due to the fact that it a tanky little bugger.

Here what the rebalanced did my not so friendly person. The rebalance gave them actual roles, these roles now take time for people to figure out how to work in their new meta on how they will exploited these ships to their fullest positional.

Back to what I was saying though is that many of these numbers you are getting are either limited only to your corp, or are just out right wrong and you are just pulling numbers out of your arse to support your argument.

I myself would happily accept T3 mining vessels as long as it allows us to set them up very much like a cruiser, I would love a bubble dodging miner =)


my numbers are from the dev blogs.

sure the rebalance gave them roles, doesn't mean the roles actually existed.



and not anywhere in the recent dev blogs do I see the numbers on how you post them.

“Point out to me a person who has been harmed by an AFK cloaker and I will point out a person who has no business playing this game.”
Dave Stark
#25 - 2013-04-27 16:47:37 UTC
DataRunner Attor wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
DataRunner Attor wrote:
I'm still trying to figure out where you get these numbers from, cause none of these numbers from what I see are correct in anyway. From all the mining corps I've seen, they generally follow this rule of thumb, mining barges for high sec, exhumes for low/null sec mining operations. Hulks are normally left alone from roaming mining ops due to the simple fact that they are design in mind that you are going to live in that system and you have more the one hulk AND you have a small logistic fleet to back you up, and take that ore off your hands. Though many find the skiff a great eception to the high sec low sec rule of thumb when mine due to the fact that it a tanky little bugger.

Here what the rebalanced did my not so friendly person. The rebalance gave them actual roles, these roles now take time for people to figure out how to work in their new meta on how they will exploited these ships to their fullest positional.

Back to what I was saying though is that many of these numbers you are getting are either limited only to your corp, or are just out right wrong and you are just pulling numbers out of your arse to support your argument.

I myself would happily accept T3 mining vessels as long as it allows us to set them up very much like a cruiser, I would love a bubble dodging miner =)


my numbers are from the dev blogs.

sure the rebalance gave them roles, doesn't mean the roles actually existed.



and not anywhere in the recent dev blogs do I see the numbers on how you post them.


then perhaps you should look harder.
DataRunner Attor
Doomheim
#26 - 2013-04-27 16:49:25 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:


then perhaps you should look harder.



perhaps you should provide links so I don't have to scroll back 5 years to find said dev blog. of course if it is five years old then the information would be kinda out of date, and debunk-able.

“Point out to me a person who has been harmed by an AFK cloaker and I will point out a person who has no business playing this game.”
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#27 - 2013-04-27 17:53:44 UTC
Lost True wrote:
Because i don't want to choose between SP loss and lower efficiency.
Who ever said tech 3 has higher efficiency than tech 2? Someone hasn't been reading his updates.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Dave Stark
#28 - 2013-04-27 18:19:57 UTC
DataRunner Attor wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:


then perhaps you should look harder.



perhaps you should provide links so I don't have to scroll back 5 years to find said dev blog. of course if it is five years old then the information would be kinda out of date, and debunk-able.


if you don't want to look for it, that's your call. my point still stands.
Marcus Harikari
#29 - 2013-04-27 19:36:41 UTC
Ckra Trald wrote:
miner gets ganked

loses mining skill

quits game

not before spamming the forums with rage of course

this sounds epic!!!
DataRunner Attor
Doomheim
#30 - 2013-04-27 22:11:41 UTC  |  Edited by: DataRunner Attor
Dave Stark wrote:
DataRunner Attor wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:


then perhaps you should look harder.



perhaps you should provide links so I don't have to scroll back 5 years to find said dev blog. of course if it is five years old then the information would be kinda out of date, and debunk-able.


if you don't want to look for it, that's your call. my point still stands.



Thats the thing, I did look silly boyo, and I didn't find any Dev blogs after the rebalance(and slightly before) that applied your numbers at all. Which means in the college sense, you have no evidence supporting your claims. Unless someone, you or someone else that can find the dev blog or combination of dev blogs, and link them for supporting evidence, other wise you just look like someone that pulling something out of their arse.

“Point out to me a person who has been harmed by an AFK cloaker and I will point out a person who has no business playing this game.”
Dave Stark
#31 - 2013-04-27 22:17:24 UTC
DataRunner Attor wrote:
Thats the thing, I did look silly boyo, and I didn't find any Dev blogs after the rebalance(and slightly before) that applied your numbers at all. Which means in the college sense, you have no evidence supporting your claims. Unless someone, you or someone else that can find the dev blog or combination of dev blogs, and link them for supporting evidence, other wise you just look like someone that pulling something out of their arse.


then you didn't look very hard. the evidence is there.

i've linked it several times in my posting history, feel free to check there if the easily accessible dev blogs are defeating you.
DataRunner Attor
Doomheim
#32 - 2013-04-27 22:35:50 UTC
Marcus Harikari wrote:
Ckra Trald wrote:
miner gets ganked

loses mining skill

quits game

not before spamming the forums with rage of course

this sounds epic!!!



It would sound more epic if people understood that the loss of /mining/ skills is actually just the lost of one level in a random subsystem, I honestly don't set that great of penalty unless of course you are one of those that enjoy losing t3 ships in the hundreds, though how would someone beable to support that habit has me at a loss.

“Point out to me a person who has been harmed by an AFK cloaker and I will point out a person who has no business playing this game.”
Suzanne Winters
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#33 - 2013-04-27 23:05:19 UTC
I entirely disagree with you, Dave Stark. I use a Hulk, a Mackinaw, a Retriever, a Covetor and a Venture extensively, and I've seriously looked at skiffs and procurer's as well for my low sec operations. The Venture is a master of ninja-mining, getting me in and out of null safely, whilst the covetor and hulk get heavy work outs when my corp runs a mining ops, or for those times I need a quick chunk of veldspar. I also use them for mining missions. Retriever, and now Mackinaw, are my tools of choice for solo-mining.
I think tehre's room for a t3 mining ship, or perhaps even mining ships DESIGNED purely for gas mining. Mining in this game isn't just '1 job'. We do a lot of things, often very differently to each other and to the other things we do, and have to take everything from market prices to nearest lowsec system into account.

Director of Administration, Passionate Enterprises
Tsobai Hashimoto
State War Academy
Caldari State
#34 - 2013-04-27 23:32:06 UTC
Lost True wrote:
Savnire Jacitu wrote:
CCP please a mining titan.

But... There is the one already, isn't it? Chribba has it, just make it available to everyone Big smile

Well... I don't mind some expensive ships for mining, it's okay that i can lost some ISK.
It's just the idea of SP losing is rotten. It was so when i first heard of it and it's so now. Although i've flied the strategic cruisers earlier (it's was a no-brainer in our corp) without losing any training time.
Of course, i can understand why CCP don't mind adding more SP sinks... And why many people jealous about a 150+ SP chars, even if they doesn't get much advantage in game



CCP agrees the SP loss was a bad idea, they also have said SP loss after podding isnt great...........i'd expect them both to be changed one day......T3 SP loss sooner, with T3 rebalance......

they are going to make them weaker and the excuse to justify it will be the SP pen removed
Dave Stark
#35 - 2013-04-28 07:26:40 UTC
Suzanne Winters wrote:
I entirely disagree with you, Dave Stark. I use a Hulk, a Mackinaw, a Retriever, a Covetor and a Venture extensively, and I've seriously looked at skiffs and procurer's as well for my low sec operations. The Venture is a master of ninja-mining, getting me in and out of null safely, whilst the covetor and hulk get heavy work outs when my corp runs a mining ops, or for those times I need a quick chunk of veldspar. I also use them for mining missions. Retriever, and now Mackinaw, are my tools of choice for solo-mining.
I think tehre's room for a t3 mining ship, or perhaps even mining ships DESIGNED purely for gas mining. Mining in this game isn't just '1 job'. We do a lot of things, often very differently to each other and to the other things we do, and have to take everything from market prices to nearest lowsec system into account.


yeah, disagreeing with me doesn't stop it being true. not to mention i already pointed out, the majority of your little list of ships you use, are the only ships that see extensive use. those being the hulk, mackinaw, and retriever.

yeah the venture is master of ninja time wasting. let's look at the numbers. low sec ores. it mines between 1-3% of all low sec ores, and 0-1% of all null sec ores. then again, those numbers don't matter it's intended for new players and gas harvesting (49-82% of all gas harvesting done by the venture, impressive)

i agree there's room for another gas harvesting ship, there's room for that (most likely a tech 2 variant of the venture).

as for tech 3, i'm only really against it because mining barges/exhumers honestly need fixing before ccp consider wasting resources on it before they've fixed what they already have. not to mention combat ships have things to offer in ways of variety, styles of combat whether it be brawling or kiting. less combat based roles like boosting or scanning, etc. mining ships just have mining. there's no real "role" these t3s could fill, especially since the t2s already have a hard time filling their own role (hi i'm a skiff and i'm basically a hangar decoration).
Arronicus
State War Academy
Caldari State
#36 - 2013-04-28 08:10:52 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Arronicus wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Benny Therios wrote:
Actually, on second thoughts, some variety might be nice.


you mean 6 ships for 1 job isn't already enough? (7 if you count the venture)

oh wait, people only use the retriever because mining ship balance is ****.
remind me again why t3s would be better than just fixing the current lineup?


"1 job"
"Ice mining, Mercoxit harvesting, General Ore harvesting, Gas cloud harvesting"
"High yield strong active tank low cargo low buffer, Huge buffer low yield medium cargo weak active tank, medium buffer, medium yield massive cargo medium active tank"

It's 4 jobs, and a variety of ships with different reasons to use them. The fact that all of them get used (retrievers and skiffs primarily in highsec, hulks are the miner of choice in 0.0), suggests that they all fit their roles well. t3 would be better than 'fixing' the current lineup, because the current lineup isn't broken, and t3 might bring interesting new possbilities, like something sturdier than a venture for gas harvesting.


1 job, mining.
also you don't gas harvest in mining ships.



Venture is a mining ship, but it also has the highest yield of any ship in the game for gas mining ships. Care to rethink your case?
Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris
Republic Military Tax Avoiders
#37 - 2013-04-28 08:42:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris
Arronicus wrote:

Venture is a mining ship, but it also has the highest yield of any ship in the game for gas mining ships. Care to rethink your case?

Venture is best gas mining ship if you count yield and ore hold, but in case of double gas cloud explosion - venture is not the best ship to survive them. Only dual MSE fits work (barely) for venture. Cruiser-sized gas harvesting ship will be fine as long as it doesnt have warp core stabilizers integrated into hull. T3 might fill that role.

Opinions are like assholes. Everybody got one and everyone thinks everyone else's stinks.
Dave Stark
#38 - 2013-04-28 09:35:25 UTC
Arronicus wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Arronicus wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Benny Therios wrote:
Actually, on second thoughts, some variety might be nice.


you mean 6 ships for 1 job isn't already enough? (7 if you count the venture)

oh wait, people only use the retriever because mining ship balance is ****.
remind me again why t3s would be better than just fixing the current lineup?


"1 job"
"Ice mining, Mercoxit harvesting, General Ore harvesting, Gas cloud harvesting"
"High yield strong active tank low cargo low buffer, Huge buffer low yield medium cargo weak active tank, medium buffer, medium yield massive cargo medium active tank"

It's 4 jobs, and a variety of ships with different reasons to use them. The fact that all of them get used (retrievers and skiffs primarily in highsec, hulks are the miner of choice in 0.0), suggests that they all fit their roles well. t3 would be better than 'fixing' the current lineup, because the current lineup isn't broken, and t3 might bring interesting new possbilities, like something sturdier than a venture for gas harvesting.


1 job, mining.
also you don't gas harvest in mining ships.



Venture is a mining ship, but it also has the highest yield of any ship in the game for gas mining ships. Care to rethink your case?


ok, you didn't until recently.
and you still don't in barges/exhumers.

semantics.
Dave Stark
#39 - 2013-04-28 09:36:19 UTC
Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris wrote:
Arronicus wrote:

Venture is a mining ship, but it also has the highest yield of any ship in the game for gas mining ships. Care to rethink your case?

Venture is best gas mining ship if you count yield and ore hold, but in case of double gas cloud explosion - venture is not the best ship to survive them. Only dual MSE fits work (barely) for venture. Cruiser-sized gas harvesting ship will be fine as long as it doesnt have warp core stabilizers integrated into hull. T3 might fill that role.


or just be sensible and make a t2 venture instead of skipping a whole tier.
Skia Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
#40 - 2013-04-28 10:11:34 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Benny Therios wrote:
Actually, on second thoughts, some variety might be nice.

you mean 6 ships for 1 job isn't already enough? (7 if you count the venture)

On that logic, 12 battleships is a massive overkill for 1 job (exploding other ships) not to say about BC and others. Which is false. Means your logic is flawed.

As for original post. I have no idea where you've heard of T3 mining ships, but they will appear eventually. (EVE is going to last forever, right?)
Resistance is futile.
But I'd like to see ring mining first.
Previous page123Next page