These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

So, Barge Info?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Solecist Project
#241 - 2016-08-19 16:57:30 UTC
Brokk Witgenstein wrote:
baltec1 wrote:

So you are saying all t2 cruisers and most battlecruisers have too little tank? Because all of them can be killed by the same number of catalysts. Add a few more cats and you are killing battleships and pvp t3 cruisers. Escalate more and you can wipe out a dreadnought.


Q: Then why don't you?
A1: Because they shoot back.
A2: Because they don't loiter in predictable locations: you have to probe them or tackle them quickly when they pass by.
A3: Because of gate/stationguns.
A4: Because of :reasons:

Which one is it?

Whether through fitting options or straight built into the hull, that tank is essential.

I have to admit that while i notice the mild passive aggressiveness ...
... i'm kind of lost on this post of yours.

What are you trying to say?

That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breathe of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly PULVERISED by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds. - Tippia
Brokk Witgenstein
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#242 - 2016-08-19 17:12:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Brokk Witgenstein
What I'm trying to say, is that the discussion around EHP tends to ignore the second half of the equation. A ship's combat worth = EHP x DPS. A ship with 80k EHP, 200 DPS is equivalent to a 40k, 400 DPS ship.

Comparing Zealots and battleships to barges is plain wrong. I get that they're supposed to be less combat-ready than a warship, but if DPS=150, then tank has to go up.

As I illustrated by saying that 8 catalysts will NOT gank a battleship, because the battleship will simply shoot them all before its tank caves in.


Edit: and when I say "tank has to go up" I obviously mean: it's good as it is -- it doesn't need to go down. Procurers and Skiffs are twice as expensive than a T1/T2 cruiser respectively, they're in a good place. Retrievers, Covetors etc are sub-par. VERY sub in fact.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#243 - 2016-08-19 17:21:01 UTC
Brokk Witgenstein wrote:
What I'm trying to say, is that the discussion around EHP tends to ignore the second half of the equation. A ship's combat worth = EHP x DPS. A ship with 80k EHP, 200 DPS is equivalent to a 40k, 400 DPS ship.

Comparing Zealots and battleships to barges is plain wrong. I get that they're supposed to be less combat-ready than a warship, but if DPS=150, then tank has to go up.

As I illustrated by saying that 8 catalysts will NOT gank a battleship, because the battleship will simply shoot them all before its tank caves in.


I wouldn't be too sure about that
Brokk Witgenstein
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#244 - 2016-08-19 17:22:06 UTC
AHAHAHA LOOOOL

+1 Sir - it deserved to die Lol
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#245 - 2016-08-19 18:15:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Dracvlad
baltec1 wrote:
Brokk Witgenstein wrote:
What I'm trying to say, is that the discussion around EHP tends to ignore the second half of the equation. A ship's combat worth = EHP x DPS. A ship with 80k EHP, 200 DPS is equivalent to a 40k, 400 DPS ship.

Comparing Zealots and battleships to barges is plain wrong. I get that they're supposed to be less combat-ready than a warship, but if DPS=150, then tank has to go up.

As I illustrated by saying that 8 catalysts will NOT gank a battleship, because the battleship will simply shoot them all before its tank caves in.


I wouldn't be too sure about that


Actually my opinion is that the base EHP of Battleshsips are too low and I have felt that for some time.

Quote:
So you are saying all t2 cruisers and most battlecruisers have too little tank? Because all of them can be killed by the same number of catalysts. Add a few more cats and you are killing battleships and pvp t3 cruisers. Escalate more and you can wipe out a dreadnought.

What you want is for CCP to make you safe rather than have the tools to do it for yourself, thats not good game balance.


The Balance I am after is having at least one mining ship that is a challenge to gank and that is the Skiff and to the lessor extent the Procurer, if CCP goes to the level you have requested then that means that there are no options to get into something really tanky other than sticking mining lasers onto a triple plated Domi. As I keep pointing out the mining ships are designed to mine, not for speed or agility, not to equip offensive weapons, this means that their tank can be better than cruisers and I totally reject any comparison with cruisers and HAC's, T3's or even BC's. My point of view is that the existing level of the Skiff is perfectly fine and if CCP reduces it then they are showing yet again that they don't care about hisec miners and their balance and making it a challenge for gankers.

Your fleet concept only works in null sec and low sec, it does not work in hisec.

EDIT: And your comment of asking CCP to give me the tools to enable me to be safe, damn right I want to be able to chose to tank a ship to be safe, you getting it down to the level you want would destroy that, so at that point I will be mining in a triple plated Domi.

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#246 - 2016-08-19 18:45:05 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:


Actually my opinion is that the base EHP of Battleshsips are too low and I have felt that for some time.


Thats because you are bad at this game.
Utremi Fasolasi
La Dolce Vita
#247 - 2016-08-19 19:13:18 UTC
Brigadine Ferathine wrote:
Moac Tor wrote:
I don't see why the barges need to be changed at all given they were tiericided successfully only recently. Maybe the Covetor / Retriever class barges could do with a little increase in EHP so they can't be ganked by a lone catalyst, but other than that the fundamental concept that was laid out in the original tiericide is fine.

The retriever was the real issue for me. It cant even handle basic rats. It has no slots for a tank and has no base HP so it dies if anything sneezes on it.



Bulkheads in the lows and hull tank rigs boost it up quite a bit.
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#248 - 2016-08-19 19:13:36 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:


Actually my opinion is that the base EHP of Battleshsips are too low and I have felt that for some time.


Thats because you are bad at this game.



Well I don't get the rules changed to win mate...

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp
Brokk Witgenstein
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#249 - 2016-08-19 19:19:29 UTC
Utremi Fasolasi wrote:
Brigadine Ferathine wrote:

The retriever was the real issue for me. It cant even handle basic rats. It has no slots for a tank and has no base HP so it dies if anything sneezes on it.

Bulkheads in the lows and hull tank rigs boost it up quite a bit.

It is peculiar though. A shieldtanker (as are all ORE ships) with no mids to speak of ... I may disagree on a lot of things with Baltec but as for fitting options he does have a point.
Lugues Slive
Diamond Light Industries
gold fever
#250 - 2016-08-19 19:33:04 UTC
Brokk Witgenstein wrote:
I don't think I'm too happy with the kinds of barges the way they are now. They could easily be made into one hull with fitting options- for example using a Procurer as a baseline model. On that I have to agree with Baltec. There is of course the issue that, as someone else pointed out, there are no useful midslot modules that affect mining, and an expanded cargohold does not expand the orehold. These are however technicalities that can be worked out.

Now, adding such fitting options would of course obsolete the current lineup. Why? Because there is in fact only one relevant bonus a mining ship can receive: a yield bonus. And also because all three of them are roughly equivalent to two cruisers (or half a battlecruiser) -- it's not like one of them is a nimble destroyer-like miner and the other's a battlecruiser-style command ship miner. All three of them happen to be in the heavy-cruiser-almost-BC ballpark.

I am happy with the distinction between ninja mining frigates and barges; but rather than having a three-of-the-same lineup, perhaps we should repurpose one to be an armed platform which also happens to mine (some). The latter could be achieved by giving it a massive bonus to mining drones, freeing up (unbonused?) highslots with turret / launcher hardpoints to slap anything you like on there. More like a generic SOCT cruiser with an orehold than anything else, really.

As for the third one, I have some ideas but they feel like I'm trying to "invent" something just because there are three.

I doubt however CCP is going to do something outrageous like adding some combat capability to transports or barges. The tears would flood the old continent. Already some are flipping a gasket when a ship that costs two cruisers has a heavy cruiser's tank with a frigate's DPS.

Yet there it is: roll the current lineup into 1 model, and give us a Combat miner please.


What I was thinking along these lines is to add an ore bay expander that gives a fixed increase instead of %, make the MLU penalty be armor hp, and convert barges to armor tanks.

Fittings would be 2 high, 2-3 mid, and a ton of low.

That way you can choose to increase tank, drone dps, hold, or yield as you want. And as a side note MLU do not suffer diminishing returns at the moment.
Solecist Project
#251 - 2016-08-19 20:00:42 UTC
Brokk Witgenstein wrote:
As I illustrated by saying that 8 catalysts will NOT gank a battleship, because the battleship will simply shoot them all before its tank caves in.

i really don't know how many cats it takes at minimum, but suiciding a battleship in a 0.5 ...
... there's simply not enough time to kill a meaningfull amount, plus moving cats will be hard to hit.

It seems really unreasonable to me to assume that a bs would take down it's gankers in a 15-20 second window.
And by "it's gankers" i mean an amount that actually increases its chance of survival, so most likely at least two.
I mean, always bring at least one more than needed if you can, just to be sure. Right?

And even if it's the exact a,ount, we'd fit afterburners to avoid tracking ...
... or the final solution in this regard: sensor dampeners.


No way a BS has a chance unless the tank is bigger than accounted for...
... and i doubt the same for cruisers, but they might have a higher chance of succeeding.

Please correct me if i'm missing something.

That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breathe of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly PULVERISED by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds. - Tippia
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#252 - 2016-08-19 22:50:24 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:

Those other abilities are not desired


It already has the drone damage bonus, it already has the dronebay. I'm asking to add a few more slots, more CPU and powergrid and for it to tank like a HAC.

It will be the same ship for what you want it for only rather than have a huge base tank you have to fit one.


Perhaps a silly question...will it still fit at least 1 strip miner or something?

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#253 - 2016-08-19 23:02:56 UTC
Kueyen wrote:
Batlec1, one issue I've not seen you address in your proposal is the problem that, if you give Barges and Exhumers more fitting options in return for lowered base stats, and *if* you allow (and I'm not sure you would) them to reach the same levels of tankiness the Procurer and Skiff do now through modules, these modules now become lootable. That would add to the profitability of suicide ganks and giving gankers even more incentive to go after vessels that through the very nature of their usage (having to sit still for hours on end) can never hope to enter fair combat against similarly-valued opponents.

Unless, of course, that is your hidden agenda: get the primary gank-proof barge and exhumer nerfed, and increase ganker payouts...

It's the same problem with faction mining modules: even if I were willing to risk several hundred million isk worth of modules to my exhumer, I would only be providing the next ganker a rich buffet in my wreck, attracting them like bears to honey. And thus those modules go entirely unused.

While I'm out and about faction mining modules: why are ORE Ice Harvesters longer-ranged versions of T2 Ice Harvesters, but ORE Stripminers only longer-ranged versions of T1 Stripminers?


He is only talking about lowering the base EHP on the procuror and skiff, which is pretty substantial, and also giving them more fitting slots so that they can be more versatile based on the situation.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Dirty Forum Alt
Forum Alts Anonymous
#254 - 2016-08-19 23:06:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Dirty Forum Alt
Rather than transforming mining ships into full-fledged combat vessels (more than they already are) it might be simpler to just re-introduce the old regular ships w/ mining bonuses... In addition to the previous frigate/cruiser levels they could introduce a new class of Heavy Assault Cruiser or battleship with the ability to fit strip miners - to make it so there would at least be a chance some miners might fly them.

Of course, the fact that these ships already existed and were transformed into logistics ships instead probably indicates this is not a direction CCP is interested in going...

The dead swans lay in the stagnant pool. They lay. They rotted. They turned Around occasionally. Bits of flesh dropped off them from Time to time. And sank into the pool's mire. They also smelt a great deal.

Paula Nancy Millstone Jennings (Sussex)
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#255 - 2016-08-19 23:19:15 UTC
I get where baltec1 is going with this. To make mining interesting give them some real options in terms of fighting back.

So:

Covetor/Hulk are the dedicated mining ships. Some boosts to slots to allow for fitting more tank so they aren't just made of wet tissue paper.

Retreiver/Mackinaw are geared towards logistics ships, but can still mine.

Procuror/Skiff take on the primary combat roll, but again can still mine.

The reason I say they still mine is otherwise the whole exercise is pointless because then I'd say we can have that already but with,

Covetor/Hulk are the dedicated mining ships. Some boosts to slots to allow for fitting more tank so they aren't just made of wet tissue paper.

Actual logistics ships.

Actual combat ships.

That is, we are now back to having a standing fleet sitting around doing nothing while the mining ships gobble up the rocks. We already know that is a non-starter. Nobody is going to want to log in to sit and hope for a gank attempt or a gang comes by (for HS/NS respectively).

I further understand that baltec1 is suggesting that with more slots and PG and CPU these ships will all have more fitting options so that solo play is not completely nerfed out of existence.

I'll say this, interesting idea. However, not sure how many HS miners would want this. Seems that the dominant view expressed by the champions of HS mining is simply: more tank so we can be gank proof in all the ships.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#256 - 2016-08-20 07:07:52 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:

Those other abilities are not desired


It already has the drone damage bonus, it already has the dronebay. I'm asking to add a few more slots, more CPU and powergrid and for it to tank like a HAC.

It will be the same ship for what you want it for only rather than have a huge base tank you have to fit one.


Perhaps a silly question...will it still fit at least 1 strip miner or something?


I would keep the two CCP have decided to fit on it.
March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#257 - 2016-08-20 07:43:51 UTC  |  Edited by: March rabbit
Teckos Pech wrote:

I'll say this, interesting idea. However, not sure how many HS miners would want this. Seems that the dominant view expressed by the champions of HS mining is simply: more tank so we can be gank proof in all the ships.

Idea is interesting for sure. The only thing needs to be worked on: workaround for logistics to be usable against attackers and not deal with suspect flag. Else this will only lead to death of the whole fleets.

Just to clarify:
- fleet is sitting on belt, working on roids, paying attention to surroundings
- suicider comes in, attacks one hulk
- logistics starts to work and all ships get suspect flag (suicider has LE with target)
- more ships warping to belt and killing all the logistics

- at the same time defenders (skiffs) are sitting still and doing nothing: they cannot join party because they will be CONCORDed

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
Kenrailae
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#258 - 2016-08-20 07:53:46 UTC
You already have mining corps that 100% refuse to take the most simple precautions of even a single logistics cruiser to keep their ships alive through the half hearted ganks..... why in the heck do you think they'd want to give up those slots for anything but more mining yield?



A fully fit scythe is what? 40 mil? 20 mil if you make it cheap? a fraction of the cost of a Hulk.



You guys mention 'nobody wants to sit in a logi cruiser and hope for a gank,' but there are alot of roles in Eve that people don't want to do, that have to be done. Fueling towers and citadels. It's not fun. But it has to be done. Logi cruisers or other pre-emptive measures for a fleet of miners are the same sort of deal. Sure, it's not 'fun' per say, but it's part of the game, and needs done.









The Law is a point of View

The NPE IS a big deal
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#259 - 2016-08-20 08:03:29 UTC
Kenrailae wrote:
You already have mining corps that 100% refuse to take the most simple precautions of even a single logistics cruiser to keep their ships alive through the half hearted ganks..... why in the heck do you think they'd want to give up those slots for anything but more mining yield?



A fully fit scythe is what? 40 mil? 20 mil if you make it cheap? a fraction of the cost of a Hulk.



You guys mention 'nobody wants to sit in a logi cruiser and hope for a gank,' but there are alot of roles in Eve that people don't want to do, that have to be done. Fueling towers and citadels. It's not fun. But it has to be done. Logi cruisers or other pre-emptive measures for a fleet of miners are the same sort of deal. Sure, it's not 'fun' per say, but it's part of the game, and needs done.











Are you willing to sit in a belt earning nothing for several hours with nothing to do? I know I'm not, I have limited time to play and spending it baby sitting miners rather than enjoying myself isn't good gameplay. At least this way the people mining can do the protecting at the same time.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#260 - 2016-08-20 08:06:17 UTC
March rabbit wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:

I'll say this, interesting idea. However, not sure how many HS miners would want this. Seems that the dominant view expressed by the champions of HS mining is simply: more tank so we can be gank proof in all the ships.

Idea is interesting for sure. The only thing needs to be worked on: workaround for logistics to be usable against attackers and not deal with suspect flag. Else this will only lead to death of the whole fleets.

Just to clarify:
- fleet is sitting on belt, working on roids, paying attention to surroundings
- suicider comes in, attacks one hulk
- logistics starts to work and all ships get suspect flag (suicider has LE with target)
- more ships warping to belt and killing all the logistics

- at the same time defenders (skiffs) are sitting still and doing nothing: they cannot join party because they will be CONCORDed


Thats more of an issue with the way crimewatch was set up. Incursion runners, pvp gangs and mission groups have the same problem.