These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
12Next page
 

Siege miner
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Mark Androcius
#1 - 2015-02-03 17:15:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Mark Androcius
I've got an idea for a T3 miner (not that I particularly like mining or anything).

The Siege miner.

Can fit 6 strip miners.


Normal mode:
50% loss in yield when not in siege mode (to make it worse then the Hulk).
+2 Warp core strength.
Immune to warp bubbles.


Siege mode:

Can't move.
Massive bonus to shield resistances.
Massive bonus to shield recharge rate.
5% bonus to strip miner yield (per level of Siege Miner skill)


It takes 180 seconds for the ship to go back into normal mode, after deactivating siege mode.


Skill requirements:

Exhumer level 5
Siege Miner level 1
Tactical Shield Manipulation 5


Would love to see it have its own animation when going in and out of siege mode.
It would basically be very hard to kill in siege mode, meaning that ganking one would actually be an achievement, in stead of something to improve your killboard numbers cheaply.

It would be a small capital sized ship (in terms of size, not class).
Cannot go into high sec.


Let me know what you think,


Mark

https://androcius.wordpress.com
Anhenka
The New Federation
Sigma Grindset
#2 - 2015-02-03 17:25:09 UTC
I think that my crystal ball tells me that proposals for ships that can mine far more than a hulk tend to die in a fire.

-1, you already have the tools to mine rapidly with boosted hulks, allowing blue blob nullsec groups to strip entire anom belts rapidly with a few people using capital miners is a definite -1 from me.
shimiku
Zircron Industries
#3 - 2015-02-03 17:25:10 UTC
kinda want this because then all high sec ores is going to be cheaper
Mark Androcius
#4 - 2015-02-03 17:32:10 UTC
Anhenka wrote:
I think that my crystal ball tells me that proposals for ships that can mine far more than a hulk tend to die in a fire.

-1, you already have the tools to mine rapidly with boosted hulks, allowing blue blob nullsec groups to strip entire anom belts rapidly with a few people using capital miners is a definite -1 from me.


Most null sec alliances actually import their high sec ores.
This would actually help make them less dependent on high sec space, which I do believe was a goal for CCP at some point, with them changing the composition of ore about 2 years back for example.

https://androcius.wordpress.com
Celthric Kanerian
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#5 - 2015-02-03 17:58:21 UTC
Looks like an anti-CODE. mining ship to me...
Sh00ter McGavin
Barr None
#6 - 2015-02-03 18:34:25 UTC
Anhenka wrote:
I think that my crystal ball tells me that proposals for ships that can mine far more than a hulk tend to die in a fire.

-1, you already have the tools to mine rapidly with boosted hulks, allowing blue blob nullsec groups to strip entire anom belts rapidly with a few people using capital miners is a definite -1 from me.


null sec groups import, just like Mark said. If this had a siege mode that could not function in hi sec, it would be perfect for null sec mining operations.

According to CCP, the current advantages that transports and freighters enjoy, ie, longer jump range and significantly reduced jump fatigue, are going away. If this is the case, SOMETHING needs to be done to allow null sec entities to supply their own ships almost as effectively as they do now. Less ships will have zero affect on the blue donut, since other null sec entities would also have less ships with which to attack. However, I digress. Unless CCP significantly alters the current distribution of moon materials, most ships in null sec fleets will be t1 once jump fatigue affects all ships equally. Giving null sec entities a ship with which to fill that basic resource gap is one way to fix this inevitable issue.

I like this idea, however, I think it should be a regular size, T3 exhumer. Capital would be too much, I think. I think aiming for a yield roughly 20% more than what a hulk can produce would be about right.
Kiddoomer
The Red Sequence
#7 - 2015-02-03 18:47:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Kiddoomer
I'm not against a big mining ship with a "mining mode", seems like a interesting gameplay for mining.

But massive shield tank and regen, and immobility (so no bumping possible ?) are a no for me. bonus to tank yes, like every other mining ship, but massive, even if the ship is big will make it too strong for highsec against gankers outside of wardec, so no risk involved.

Putting away other miners in highsec is already not that easy to do, and nullsec already have safe system and fleet to defend their miners.

A bigger yield than a squishy cruiser only efficient in a dedicated group is bad for balance.

The good thing is I think that a mining ship with lot of mining lasers will make it very annoying for other miners in belt. Maybe this could make more conflict in highsec between industrial corporations ?

In the name of Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen : “Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.”
Sh00ter McGavin
Barr None
#8 - 2015-02-03 19:02:31 UTC
Kiddoomer wrote:
I'm not against a big mining ship with a "mining mode", seems like a interesting gameplay for mining.

But massive shield tank and regen, and immobility (so no bumping possible ?) are a no for me. bonus to tank yes, like every other mining ship, but massive, even if the ship is big will make it too strong for highsec against gankers outside of wardec, so no risk involved.

Putting away other miners in highsec is already not that easy to do, and nullsec already have safe system and fleet to defend their miners.

A bigger yield than a squishy cruiser only efficient in a dedicated group is bad for balance.

The good thing is I think that a mining ship with lot of mining lasers will make it very annoying for other miners in belt. Maybe this could make more conflict in highsec between industrial corporations ?



Which is why the siege mode should NOT work in hi sec. For specifically that reason. It should be something that is for extremely dangerous mining operations. Wormholes, null sec, maybe low sec.
Anhenka
The New Federation
Sigma Grindset
#9 - 2015-02-03 19:26:22 UTC
Sh00ter McGavin wrote:

According to CCP, the current advantages that transports and freighters enjoy, ie, longer jump range and significantly reduced jump fatigue, are going away. If this is the case, SOMETHING needs to be done to allow null sec entities to supply their own ships almost as effectively as they do now. Less ships will have zero affect on the blue donut, since other null sec entities would also have less ships with which to attack. However, I digress. Unless CCP significantly alters the current distribution of moon materials, most ships in null sec fleets will be t1 once jump fatigue affects all ships equally. Giving null sec entities a ship with which to fill that basic resource gap is one way to fix this inevitable issue.

I like this idea, however, I think it should be a regular size, T3 exhumer. Capital would be too much, I think. I think aiming for a yield roughly 20% more than what a hulk can produce would be about right.


CCP has stated that if the JF bonuses go away, it will be as part of a full revamp of nullsec industry. It's not like they are going to yank them away before then, so saying "We need this because it will help nullsec be independent of high once the JF changes go through" is silly since we have no notice of what the comprehensive overhaul will look like.

I wouldn't care about another sub with a 20% increase and lowish tank. It's not a huge deal. But a 100% increase over hulk, a massive ore bay (in comparison to the hulk), massive tank, bubble immunity, and natural warp core stabs like the OP?

No.
Tiddle Jr
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#10 - 2015-02-03 21:32:50 UTC
The idea is not new and not fresh.

Not sure if i got it right - T3 hull with siege module, if so than i would say no.

"The message is that there are known knowns. There are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say there are things that we now know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know" - CCP
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
#11 - 2015-02-03 21:35:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Alvatore DiMarco
I don't see "cannot be used in highsec" anywhere in this proposal. As such, it gets a definite -1 from me.

You do not get to have a gank-proof mining ship unless it mines slower and holds less than a Skiff.
Murkar Omaristos
The Alabaster Albatross
Unreasonable Bastards
#12 - 2015-02-03 21:44:34 UTC
-1, sry. Skiff does not need triage to be tanky.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#13 - 2015-02-03 22:37:12 UTC
i like the idea keep it mining less than a hulk out side of this siege mod and then make it unable to mine when you are in it as well as have it massively reduce your mass so you can be bumped.


this would mean you could tank long enough for back up to get there but not much else when in siege and the added ability to be an easy bump doesn't make it an "i win" button in hs

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#14 - 2015-02-04 03:43:20 UTC
So let me get this straight, you want a ship that can mine almost as fast as a Covetor while not in siege mode? What's the siege mode for?

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."
elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
#15 - 2015-02-04 04:25:06 UTC
I'd still want shattered ice miners for the Prospect

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever
Dun'Gal
Myriad Contractors Inc.
#16 - 2015-02-04 04:45:06 UTC
Riiiiight...... this idea, no. No need for me to point out why, because it's been highlighted but I will add... +2 warp strength and bubble immunity??????
Lugh Crow-Slave
#17 - 2015-02-04 05:30:59 UTC
elitatwo wrote:
I'd still want shattered ice miners for the Prospect


CCP said the were working on this in some form

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Mark Androcius
#18 - 2015-02-04 07:42:25 UTC
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:
I don't see "cannot be used in highsec" anywhere in this proposal. As such, it gets a definite -1 from me.

You do not get to have a gank-proof mining ship unless it mines slower and holds less than a Skiff.


Fixed

https://androcius.wordpress.com
Petrified
Old and Petrified Syndication
#19 - 2015-02-04 09:33:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Petrified
Mark Androcius wrote:

+2 Warp core strength.
Immune to warp bubbles.

Everything except this.

And as for the Hulk being the king... well, maybe what it really needs is a siege mode. In which case the T3 idea is unnecessary.

And... good point about high sec: Siege mode cannot be used in High Sec.

Cloaking is the closest thing to a "Pause Game" button one can get while in space.

Support better localization for the Japanese Community.
Amak Boma
Dragon Factory
xX SERENITY Xx
#20 - 2015-02-04 10:50:46 UTC
i have better idea


instead of siege / triage / bastion for barges . how about heavy duty module?

heavy duty would be fitted on exhumers. and would be much more balanced. not anti code. as s single catalyst wont be able kill it but 2 - 4 will do it r 5 thrashers.
it gives

+ can lock etra 5 targets
+10 to mining yield
-10% reduction strip miners cycle
10% less chance for pollution gas clouds when mining meroxit
-25% scan resolution penalty
- 25% tracking speed penalty
-25% sensor strenghts
- 25% armor resistances
- heavy duty module cycle would be lasting 15 minutes so you are immobile for cycle duration
+20% shield booster bonus
+10% shield resistance bonus
+10% drone hitpoints and damage
-25% drone microwarp velocity penalty
- immobile for 15minutes
-unable to warp for 5 minutes after module turned is fof
special role bonus - medium interdiction
targetting with this module on criminal ships or pods causes warp scramble on targetted hostile ship
12Next page