These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Fix the Hulk(ageddon)
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#41 - 2015-03-24 21:37:20 UTC
Since this is a necro'ed discussion again....

The correct solution is actually to give one of the barges Cruiser or BC numbers of slots (14 or 17 for the T1's) depending on if you want to call them Cruiser or BC size. Make a module (which has a stacking penalty or fixed bonus only) which adds to ore hold (could be cargo extenders which should have stacking penalty anyway). And then give it cruiser/bc level base EHP & PG/CPU.
Put a hard cap on the strip miners that can be fitted just like Command Links. (Could even allow Command processors to increase this if you really wanted ala utterly untanked 5 strip miners).

And then turn the other two barges into alternative Ore ships. Like the often demanded Ore Transport and Ore Combat ship.
Then players actually would have to make serious choices fitting their barges. Currently there is so much in the base stats and so few fitting slots & so little PG/CPU that you can't make any meaningful choices other than picking a hull. Having the majority of the stats be in the modules makes choices more meaningful and removes this silly trinary balancing that is going on.
PJRiddick
CherryHill
#42 - 2015-03-30 18:41:36 UTC
Regardless of all the chatter, the skiff right now is top dog in the fight, it mines as well as the hulk, and has 3 times the tank, The mac is slower and has somewhat of a better hold but then theres the hulk,..WTF,...it has crap for a tank, and crap for a hold. now heres the punch line to the joke, The skiff is first in the skills tree,...and easier to get, I think. I really didnt look at the skills, since i can fly a hulk, and the skiff is in that tree family, im assuming the skill set is not as long to get the skiff.
If you were to do anything, heres how i would do it

SKIFF cut the mining bonuses by about 30%, tank by about half

Mac The bonuses are good for the mining amount, Tank is good, ide like to see it tank a bit better

HULK, Give it the tank that the skiff has, leave the mining amount as is, and double its hold.

IF YOUR WORRIED ABOUT MACROS,...move the belts every day on respawn,...500KM,...thats is all it will take. You all are doing it to the ice,...Just dont have the belts have to be scanned,...just move them a bit every day,..that should throw a wrench in the works for macros.

and as far as gankers go, just flying a hulk is just asking for a gank.....IMO
Kueyen
Angharradh's Aegis
#43 - 2015-03-30 19:27:02 UTC
PJRiddick wrote:
it mines as well as the hulk
Enough of these lies:

Max skill, max-yield-fitted comparison (base # of strip miners * mining barge bonus * exhumer bonus * role bonus * MLU2 bonus)

  • Skiff:
    • 1 * (1/(1-5*0.02)) * (1/(1-5*0.02)) * (1+1.50) * (1.09 ^ 3) = 3.997 effective strip miners.
  • Mackinaw:
    • 2 * (1/(1-5*0.02)) * (1/(1-5*0.02)) * (1+0.25) * (1.09 ^ 3) = 3.997 effective strip miners.
  • Hulk:
    • 3 * (1/(1-5*0.04)) * (1/(1-5*0.03)) * (1+0.00) * (1.09 ^ 2) = 5.242 effective strip miners.

Hulks have a yield that is 31.14% better than that of Skiffs or Mackinaws. And that's fine.

Until all are free...
Maldiro Selkurk
Radiation Sickness
#44 - 2015-03-30 23:17:42 UTC
Extreme wrote:
When CCP, 2.5 years ago, made new roles for Skiff, Mack and Hulk they "forgot" to take a look at the build requierements/ the total cost of build vs time to build vs market demand vs profit per ship.


This is really unbalanced and should be reviewed by CCP.


The Hulk cost way more to build, takes way longer to build but meanwhile there is way less market demand vs the Mack.
You can produce 50 Macks a month vs 21 Hulks a month.
Profit for a Mack is around 70M isk vs 8M isk for a Hulk.


So even if the mining / cargo outcome is ok to some, CCP really have to look over the cost to build/ time to build.
8M profit for a Hulk while only 21 can be produced a month vs a Mack 70M profit while able to produce 50 and then also take into notice the number of sales per day 50 hulks vs 200 Macks tells me there is something broken here!


CCP doesnt need to change anything. You find low profits building hulks, dont build them. If many industrialists feel as you do and stop building them the price will rise until industrialists again see profits they like and start making them again.

Yawn,  I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
Celthric Kanerian
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#45 - 2015-03-30 23:35:28 UTC
The stupidity and ignorance of this post hurts my brain...
PJRiddick
CherryHill
#46 - 2015-04-06 16:36:35 UTC
Kueyen wrote:
PJRiddick wrote:
it mines as well as the hulk
Enough of these lies:

Max skill, max-yield-fitted comparison (base # of strip miners * mining barge bonus * exhumer bonus * role bonus * MLU2 bonus)

  • Skiff:
    • 1 * (1/(1-5*0.02)) * (1/(1-5*0.02)) * (1+1.50) * (1.09 ^ 3) = 3.997 effective strip miners.
  • Mackinaw:
    • 2 * (1/(1-5*0.02)) * (1/(1-5*0.02)) * (1+0.25) * (1.09 ^ 3) = 3.997 effective strip miners.
  • Hulk:
    • 3 * (1/(1-5*0.04)) * (1/(1-5*0.03)) * (1+0.00) * (1.09 ^ 2) = 5.242 effective strip miners.

Hulks have a yield that is 31.14% better than that of Skiffs or Mackinaws. And that's fine.


=-=-=-

Its not the output of the hulk VS the SKIFF that im disputing, its the tank. Heres my *****, When im in belt, and 3 CATS can come in on me and gank me before they can get concorded,VS a SKIFF with a max tank and strip II running crystals, and gankers wont even look at you because they know that they are not going to break you before CONCORD has them for lunch,...****, The SKIFF has more tank or at least as much tank as the ORCA!,...now how balanced is that?
Thats the point of this argument.

In my book, the HULK being the KING of the MINERS, BIG BAD HULK, should have the tank of the skiff, and the skiff, the tank of the Hulk, as it sits NOW!

The way it is now, Is just,...just,...WRONG

I say to CCP again,..~-=+>UNINSTALL<+=-~
PJRiddick
CherryHill
#47 - 2015-04-06 16:41:11 UTC
OH and one more thing before i go,.
With the Skiff, Im getting as much out of the skiff with T-II crystals and ONE strip as i did with 3 T-II strips and crystals on the hulk. So what gives with that then?

And yet the tank on the skiff is as much as the orca or a BS,...
Balancing is just an art form, but to the layman, Its all smoke and mirrors.

~-=+>xXx<+=-~
Fly safe and eat your vegetables
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#48 - 2015-04-06 16:51:37 UTC
does the word 'balance' just pass over your head riddick?

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
LuckyQuarter
Eden Dominion Coalition
Scary Wormhole People
#49 - 2015-04-06 17:10:05 UTC
Skiff sacrifices a lot in order to get its tank. Only 1 strip miner...missed cycles make it much slower. It doesn't have the yield bonuses of the hulk either.

Skiff is supposed to be the exhumer with average mining rate, average ore hold, and great tank.
Mac has big ore hold, average mining rate, and average tank.
Hulk has excellent mining rate, small ore hold, and small tank.

I'd be fine with giving the hulk a bigger ore hold or slightly faster mining rate, but otherwise I think the ships are balanced pretty well.

If there is an issue, it is that there isn't a growth plan for miners past the hulk....I'd like to see a BS or t3 type miner...and, the prospect doesn't count!
PJRiddick
CherryHill
#50 - 2015-04-06 17:53:24 UTC
now theres an idea,..T-III miners!,..

Bonuses in Low sec!

CCP,...are you listening!
Tiddle Jr
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#51 - 2015-04-07 00:10:53 UTC
Extreme wrote:
When CCP, 2.5 years ago, made new roles for Skiff, Mack and Hulk they "forgot" to take a look at the build requierements/ the total cost of build vs time to build vs market demand vs profit per ship.


This is really unbalanced and should be reviewed by CCP.


The Hulk cost way more to build, takes way longer to build but meanwhile there is way less market demand vs the Mack.
You can produce 50 Macks a month vs 21 Hulks a month.
Profit for a Mack is around 70M isk vs 8M isk for a Hulk.


So even if the mining / cargo outcome is ok to some, CCP really have to look over the cost to build/ time to build.
8M profit for a Hulk while only 21 can be produced a month vs a Mack 70M profit while able to produce 50 and then also take into notice the number of sales per day 50 hulks vs 200 Macks tells me there is something broken here!


I'm not even sure if someone biulding t2 mining barges from blanket bpo. So your math on build cost is not correct.

"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
Tiddle Jr
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#52 - 2015-04-07 00:14:08 UTC
elitatwo wrote:
Unsuccessful At Everything wrote:
Hulk is king of the miners. They just require you to be at the computer and use and orca and/or other support to haul.

Mack just became popular because of the uberoreholds and the buffed tank which made them better for AFK miners.

If anything, the SKIFF needs to be fixed and have its yield reduced. To have good yield AND battleship tank AND drone bonus is just bad design that sends the wrong message to its 'entitled' pilots.


Noooes..

The idea was that all barges and exhumers would mine more or less the same amount of ore per time, so you wouldn't be "yield punished" by choosing one over the over three.

If anything we would need a gas harvester module.


The purpose of the rebalance in regard of Hulk and Covetor make those main choice for mining gangs with maxed yield but as a trade of that both have smallest ore hold.

"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
Tiddle Jr
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#53 - 2015-04-07 00:18:39 UTC
And regarding the hulkageddon event, from the very specific show not officially scheduled but very well known and expected by community it sadly turned into a routine operations when those New Order and later CODE appeared in masses.

"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
admiral root
Red Galaxy
#54 - 2015-04-07 00:29:03 UTC
PJRiddick wrote:
In my book, the HULK being the KING of the MINERS, BIG BAD HULK, should have the tank of the skiff, and the skiff, the tank of the Hulk, as it sits NOW!


At which point the yields would also need to be swapped, so what exactly is the point?

No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#55 - 2015-04-07 00:50:18 UTC
Celthric Kanerian wrote:
The stupidity and ignorance of this post hurts my brain...

If it makes you feel any better it's probably intentional
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#56 - 2015-04-07 00:53:08 UTC
Same as always, get rid of two of the barges, turn them into a hauler and a combat cruiser for ORE.
And give the third barge REAL fittings, like PG & CPU of a Cruiser or BC, and the same number of slots.

Then let fittings decide everything rather than hard baked stats.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#57 - 2015-04-07 04:49:29 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Since this is a necro'ed discussion again....

The correct solution is actually to give one of the barges Cruiser or BC numbers of slots (14 or 17 for the T1's) depending on if you want to call them Cruiser or BC size. Make a module (which has a stacking penalty or fixed bonus only) which adds to ore hold (could be cargo extenders which should have stacking penalty anyway). And then give it cruiser/bc level base EHP & PG/CPU.
Put a hard cap on the strip miners that can be fitted just like Command Links. (Could even allow Command processors to increase this if you really wanted ala utterly untanked 5 strip miners).

And then turn the other two barges into alternative Ore ships. Like the often demanded Ore Transport and Ore Combat ship.
Then players actually would have to make serious choices fitting their barges. Currently there is so much in the base stats and so few fitting slots & so little PG/CPU that you can't make any meaningful choices other than picking a hull. Having the majority of the stats be in the modules makes choices more meaningful and removes this silly trinary balancing that is going on.


Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Same as always, get rid of two of the barges, turn them into a hauler and a combat cruiser for ORE.
And give the third barge REAL fittings, like PG & CPU of a Cruiser or BC, and the same number of slots.

Then let fittings decide everything rather than hard baked stats.


If I didn't know better, I'd say you were me.

CCP should hire us to fix this mess.
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Then let fittings decide everything rather than hard baked stats.

It's so obvious, yet they can't seem to see it. Or perhaps the problem is that they are catering to simple folk who can't be bothered to fit a ship, so they require hard-coded stats with almost no wiggle room so they can't accidentally do it wrong. Retrievers with too much EHP to be suicide ganked by a catalyst when they don't have any modules installed? Come on, seriously.

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."
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#58 - 2015-04-07 06:14:31 UTC
Well. Nothing says 1 catalyst is the level to balance at to be fair. It's just people got used to that being the level for so long that when it changed to need two it felt odd. But you need two to gang most bc's and all bs also. At least. So it depends what class of ship CCP consider a barge to be size equivalent to.
But it's not that miners can't handle fittings. A lot of people asked for real fittings when they got changed also. Just because there were three barges they kept three barges. To avoid a hugely messy bpo and hull change over.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#59 - 2015-04-07 06:26:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Reaver Glitterstim
My point was more that its EHP with a perfect tank fitting is barely higher than its base EHP. The damage control module makes a lot more difference than everything else put together.

I don't think a catalyst should be able to gank a properly-tanked barge, not by any stretch. It's way too cheap. But a properly fit catalyst should be able to take apart an undefended cruiser of any sort, as they are a rather high damage ship. If it had proper fitting room and a catalyst couldn't take it out undefended, it might take more than two tornadoes to kill it with a proper tank. Now the gank ships begin to cost a lot more than the target.

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."
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#60 - 2015-04-07 06:51:35 UTC
Yea. Agree on the fittings barely making a difference being a huge issue.