These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[September] Mining Barge and Exhumer tweaks

First post
Author
FT Cold
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#141 - 2016-08-24 08:34:55 UTC  |  Edited by: FT Cold
Coralas wrote:
FT Cold wrote:
Coralas wrote:
FT Cold wrote:


Look a little further back for my own proposal. That's the only thing I've referenced. Your argument is still based on a fallacy that you've failed to correct, but I expected as much, people with nothing tend to pound the table.


and this post is basically the forum equivalent of the chewbacca defense.




Well, at least baltec1 was right. Didn't take long for the miners to resort to name calling. Come back with a cogent foundation for your argument I'll concede, otherwise I'll stick with my own ideas.


If you want to discuss the points in my quoted post do so, if you want to dismiss the points without discussing them, then expect to be called on that dismissal.

I'm not actually calling you any names, I'm calling you out on specific actions of yours.


Well, you might have tried addressing my arguments this time, like every other reply you've failed to again. You've still failed to provide any real reason why the skiff, mack, proc, or ret should have their defenses baked into their hull or shouldn't have the same variety of fitting options available as other classes! What is fundamentally different about mining barges than other ships? Why should they be different from caps, haulers or any other ship in the game? Why do they have to be a special snowflake other than because you think that idiot proof ships are a good thing for the game?

EVE is fundamentally a game of choice and consequences. Take choice away and you don't have a game anymore. That's the problem. Current mining barges in high-sec are a microcosm of what could happen to EVE, something you've alluded to and I've quite understandably latched on to. That a ship could be confined into just a single or even just a handful of roles, especially when there exists the potential for many possible roles, robs creative players of the opportunity to reap the rewards of their forethought. There's no metagame any more, nothing can buck the trends, it's just people figuring out what ships counter what, and nothing else.

If you can't understand how these ships could be balanced to fill the roles they have now, and much more, then there's nothing I can do for you. You're either incapable of understanding, willfully ignorant, or desire to change the game in a way that's contrary to the spirit of EVE. The devs are wasting an opportunity and I've come here to voice my own opinion on the matter, not to debate with a contrarian.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#142 - 2016-08-24 08:55:07 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Coralas wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Coralas wrote:
[
In the baltec scenario, there are 6 generic exhumers in the belt, that you can't tell apart without them sitting there long enough for you to shipscan all of them. IMO thats entirely against the way that the rest of EVE is designed, and dull because it promotes only 1 strategy - always bring enough firepower to kill a generic exhumer that is fully tanked.


They have different names in the overview. 3 skiffs with 2 macks would mean 3 dps and 2 logi. Its also perfectly in line with the rest of EVE to not know how people might be fitting their barges due to them having options. Just look at the thorax, it has a rather large number of ways of fitting it.

CCP fitting your ships for you is a very poor way of doing things, its basically saying you are incapable of doing it for yourself.


Which is a recognized fact, and a game design problem CCP had to contend with, which is why the exhumers do their roles reasonably, straight out of the box.

Skiff EHP works for you every day (everyone knows what hitpoints the skiff will have at a minimum), logi will fail for you nearly every time you use it in highsec in a mining fleet, ie you are promoting a design with a role bonus that will not be used frequently, and will reliably, routinely fail to save ships when it is used.

Nothing worse than an EVE ship with a useless role bonus.


Logi works fine in highsec in both pvp gangs and with very blingy incursion gangs, it will work just as well for miners.

I am honestly not understanding why miners feel they need CCP to fit their ships for them and have so few options and are quite happy with these poor quality ships that don't compliment each other.
Drago Shouna
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#143 - 2016-08-24 09:11:17 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Coralas wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Coralas wrote:
[
In the baltec scenario, there are 6 generic exhumers in the belt, that you can't tell apart without them sitting there long enough for you to shipscan all of them. IMO thats entirely against the way that the rest of EVE is designed, and dull because it promotes only 1 strategy - always bring enough firepower to kill a generic exhumer that is fully tanked.


They have different names in the overview. 3 skiffs with 2 macks would mean 3 dps and 2 logi. Its also perfectly in line with the rest of EVE to not know how people might be fitting their barges due to them having options. Just look at the thorax, it has a rather large number of ways of fitting it.

CCP fitting your ships for you is a very poor way of doing things, its basically saying you are incapable of doing it for yourself.


Which is a recognized fact, and a game design problem CCP had to contend with, which is why the exhumers do their roles reasonably, straight out of the box.

Skiff EHP works for you every day (everyone knows what hitpoints the skiff will have at a minimum), logi will fail for you nearly every time you use it in highsec in a mining fleet, ie you are promoting a design with a role bonus that will not be used frequently, and will reliably, routinely fail to save ships when it is used.

Nothing worse than an EVE ship with a useless role bonus.


Logi works fine in highsec in both pvp gangs and with very blingy incursion gangs, it will work just as well for miners.



No it won't, simply because no miner would fit it. They're mining barges, stop trying to make them something they aren't.

If you don't like them as they are, don't use them, it's that easy.

ps...Are you related to Lucas Kell or Dracvlad? An alt maybe?

Solecist Project...." They refuse to play by the rules and laws of the game and use it as excuse ..." " They don't care about how you play as long as they get to play how they want."

Welcome to EVE.

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#144 - 2016-08-24 09:25:29 UTC
Drago Shouna wrote:



No it won't, simply because no miner would fit it. They're mining barges, stop trying to make them something they aren't.

If you don't like them as they are, don't use them, it's that easy.

ps...Are you related to Lucas Kell or Dracvlad? An alt maybe?


So because some people might be bad every other miner should be screwed?

Drago Shouna
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#145 - 2016-08-24 09:35:55 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Drago Shouna wrote:



No it won't, simply because no miner would fit it. They're mining barges, stop trying to make them something they aren't.

If you don't like them as they are, don't use them, it's that easy.

ps...Are you related to Lucas Kell or Dracvlad? An alt maybe?


So because some people might be bad every other miner should be screwed?



I don't care, most miners won't care, we want a good mining barge, to mine with..not a sodding transformer/swiss army knife do it all barge.......

Solecist Project...." They refuse to play by the rules and laws of the game and use it as excuse ..." " They don't care about how you play as long as they get to play how they want."

Welcome to EVE.

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#146 - 2016-08-24 09:55:35 UTC
Drago Shouna wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Drago Shouna wrote:



No it won't, simply because no miner would fit it. They're mining barges, stop trying to make them something they aren't.

If you don't like them as they are, don't use them, it's that easy.

ps...Are you related to Lucas Kell or Dracvlad? An alt maybe?


So because some people might be bad every other miner should be screwed?



I don't care, most miners won't care, we want a good mining barge, to mine with..not a sodding transformer/swiss army knife do it all barge.......


So you don't want choice? Its posts like this that are the reason why miners are considered nothing more than lambs to the slaughter, when someone from the very corp that invented the gank catalyst and brought about the mining interdictions puts forwards an idea to make barges actually able to defend themselves your response is "don't give miners the tools to protect ourselves, we might not use them!"



Drago Shouna
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#147 - 2016-08-24 10:15:03 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Drago Shouna wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Drago Shouna wrote:



No it won't, simply because no miner would fit it. They're mining barges, stop trying to make them something they aren't.

If you don't like them as they are, don't use them, it's that easy.

ps...Are you related to Lucas Kell or Dracvlad? An alt maybe?


So because some people might be bad every other miner should be screwed?



I don't care, most miners won't care, we want a good mining barge, to mine with..not a sodding transformer/swiss army knife do it all barge.......


So you don't want choice? Its posts like this that are the reason why miners are considered nothing more than lambs to the slaughter, when someone from the very corp that invented the gank catalyst and brought about the mining interdictions puts forwards an idea to make barges actually able to defend themselves your response is "don't give miners the tools to protect ourselves, we might not use them!"






We have choices now, that's what you won't accept..

We can fit for yield or tank, or a mixture of both. We have a choice of drones to use, we have a choice of rigs to use.

We'll have other option with the changes, if a miner wants to utilise a high slot for something else that's fine too.

Ok there'll be some lol fits about, but that comes with the game.

But you're going to keep harking on about it even though you have virtually 0 support for your ideas, how many have jumped in so far screaming YES YES YES, THIS'LL SAVE US ALL? Either I ain't seen any, or my glasses need cleaning.

Solecist Project...." They refuse to play by the rules and laws of the game and use it as excuse ..." " They don't care about how you play as long as they get to play how they want."

Welcome to EVE.

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#148 - 2016-08-24 10:20:49 UTC
Drago Shouna wrote:



We have choices now, that's what you won't accept..

We can fit for yield or tank, or a mixture of both. We have a choice of drones to use, we have a choice of rigs to use.

We'll have other option with the changes, if a miner wants to utilise a high slot for something else that's fine too.

Ok there'll be some lol fits about, but that comes with the game.

But you're going to keep harking on about it even though you have virtually 0 support for your ideas, how many have jumped in so far screaming YES YES YES, THIS'LL SAVE US ALL? Either I ain't seen any, or my glasses need cleaning.


Ok, give me the options the covetor has.
dream fly
Fuxi Legion
Fraternity.
#149 - 2016-08-24 10:22:06 UTC
I think that there whould be more fun with a little change like:
we can overheat ore guns,with the time u overheat the ore guns u can get more resourse.
u can stop the overheat as any time as u want,
there will be a active stuff which can remove the damage when u overheat the ore guns.
u can get more efficient by order when to overheat and when to eliminate the damage.
maybe when u eliminate the damage u cant overheat it too.

Beta Maoye
#150 - 2016-08-24 11:54:28 UTC
I want to join the defending fleet for our Citadel with my mining barge. I would like the following changes to barges.
For Procurer and Skiff:
+2 missile Launcher hardpoints
Role bonus: 50% to Light Missile, Heavy Missile and Heavy Assault Missile damage. 50% bouns to Drone hitpoints, damage and mining yield.
Drago Shouna
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#151 - 2016-08-24 12:22:52 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Drago Shouna wrote:



We have choices now, that's what you won't accept..

We can fit for yield or tank, or a mixture of both. We have a choice of drones to use, we have a choice of rigs to use.

We'll have other option with the changes, if a miner wants to utilise a high slot for something else that's fine too.

Ok there'll be some lol fits about, but that comes with the game.

But you're going to keep harking on about it even though you have virtually 0 support for your ideas, how many have jumped in so far screaming YES YES YES, THIS'LL SAVE US ALL? Either I ain't seen any, or my glasses need cleaning.


Ok, give me the options the covetor has.



With the changes it'll have an extra low, so armour rigs, lows can be a choice of tank or yield, mid for a survey scanner, a flight of t2 light drones, a couple of ecm drones and salvage drones. How is adding a utility high going to help a solo miner, or even 2 slots?

No I didn't use a fitting tool. But then again I can't remember the last time I saw a Covetor mining, in HS the much better choice is the Retriever, and where I am now they are cheaper than the Covetor anyway.

Solecist Project...." They refuse to play by the rules and laws of the game and use it as excuse ..." " They don't care about how you play as long as they get to play how they want."

Welcome to EVE.

Mai Khumm
172.0.0.1
#152 - 2016-08-24 12:25:02 UTC
Beta Maoye wrote:
I want to join the defending fleet for our Citadel with my mining barge. I would like the following changes to barges.
For Procurer and Skiff:
+2 missile Launcher hardpoints
Role bonus: 50% to Light Missile, Heavy Missile and Heavy Assault Missile damage. 50% bouns to Drone hitpoints, damage and mining yield.

FYI
They already have a 50% bonus to Drone HP and damage...
xXxNIMRODxXx
ChemiKals
Goonswarm Federation
#153 - 2016-08-24 13:41:47 UTC
Nfynity Prime wrote:
So unless I'm mistaken, now my Skiff will use twice as much cap for the strip miners and burn twice as many T2 crystals in the process, for the same amount of ore, since the cycle times, as confirmed on Singularity, are the same and the yield per cycle is 1/2 of what it was with one strip miner (per strip miner). Any plans on addressing these two issues? If not, I'll gladly keep the old design, thank you.

^ this
xXxNIMRODxXx
ChemiKals
Goonswarm Federation
#154 - 2016-08-24 13:49:21 UTC
Drago Shouna wrote:
Moac Tor wrote:
I am actually surprised that the retriever and mackinaw are in the top spot with the skiff and the procurer all the way down towards the lower end. I would be interested to see figures on for instance, how much time is spent in space in the various barges rather than ore mined. I expect the top ships are used in highly optimised fleet mining setups which skew the usage results.

All in all though at a glance the changes look good and the new barge artwork looks great. Good job.



You might be surprised that the top ships also have the largest ore holds then.

Any serious miner wants to stay on grid as long as possible, warping back and forth wastes mining time.

You don't need a big ore hold with a hauler on field, yet having a tiny one makes the job very intensive and stressful.
Coralas
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#155 - 2016-08-24 14:51:44 UTC
FT Cold wrote:


Well, you might have tried addressing my arguments this time, like every other reply you've failed to again. You've still failed to provide any real reason why the skiff, mack, proc, or ret should have their defenses baked into their hull or shouldn't have the same variety of fitting options available as other classes! What is fundamentally different about mining barges than other ships? Why should they be different from caps, haulers or any other ship in the game? Why do they have to be a special snowflake other than because you think that idiot proof ships are a good thing for the game?



Ah so you do want to discuss suddenly instead the dismiss anything you don't agree with routine.

The stats are distributed over the skiffs armor and hull as well, not just in shield, ie t2 cruisers get racial tanks, and the skiff gets a mining tank because no racial tank makes sense for it. There is however ample precedent for specialist tank.

Which means that if you need a mining ship to have 5 modules projecting effects from the mids, it already can do it. it is already flexible enough, because the stats are distributed, and you can put bulkheads and hull rigs on it to preserve reasonable ehp, at the obvious (and reasonable trade off) costs of drone dps mods or yield mods.

The procurer works very well in this role with 4 effects (2 webs, point and scram). The skiff will do it better than the procurer (more ehp and a 5th effect or a drone dmg mod, its bigger drones and similar ehp), but not so much better as to become economic in loss scenarios, which is not at all atypical of CCP balancing.

As I've pointed out to other thread users, the skiff has at best the 5th best brick tank in cruiser hulls, as far as I know, all t3s can produce a bigger buffer than the skiff if bricked, even baked on its numbers are not outlandishly extravagant for an advanced cruiser, particularly one that lacks practical active local tank.

If we were going to put an extra slot on retriever / coveter mids I would not personally be against that, but they work fine without them if we presume that defense is outsourced to fleet skiffs and procs. As I've seen through experience, face offs with a skiff often successfully prevent ganks on otherwise easily ganked ships.

Quote:


EVE is fundamentally a game of choice and consequences. Take choice away and you don't have a game anymore. That's the problem. Current mining barges in high-sec are a microcosm of what could happen to EVE, something you've alluded to and I've quite understandably latched on to. That a ship could be confined into just a single or even just a handful of roles, especially when there exists the potential for many possible roles, robs creative players of the opportunity to reap the rewards of their forethought. There's no metagame any more, nothing can buck the trends, it's just people figuring out what ships counter what, and nothing else.



The mackinaw and skiff were _always_ confined to being miners. When battlehulks were a thing there was not even a drone damage mod. So you could boost your battlehulks damage if you carried a single sentry drone and sentry drone rigged it. lol.

The proc was useless, everyone skipped it, and mackinaws were specialized for ice mining, but ganking and cost of owning 2 ships meant that hulks persistently impinged on the specialist role and the skiff was specialized for mercoxit mining.

ie I don't know what eve you played, but in practice the hulk has had its role of just-do-everything-with-a-hulk diminished and every other mining ship has been given a useful role within MINING, and miner escorts have been given a useful task to do whilst waiting. It was a successful revolution in the the ships used for mining without screwing up the eve economy or the playstyle.

Quote:


If you can't understand how these ships could be balanced to fill the roles they have now, and much more, then there's nothing I can do for you. You're either incapable of understanding, willfully ignorant, or desire to change the game in a way that's contrary to the spirit of EVE. The devs are wasting an opportunity and I've come here to voice my own opinion on the matter, not to debate with a contrarian.


The three mining ships in t1 and the 3 in t2 are well balanced now, WITHIN MINING. This is plainly based on CCP observing the kinds of fleets that were formed for mining. People that don't mine, don't understand that the mack/retriever model is great for boost-only self haul fleets that are the best way for low-trust miners to "cooperate", and that getting the most out of hulks inevitably requires group hauls and more cooperation, which raises the practical difference in yield for using a hulk focused setup, but shared haulers and ore accounting is not something that works well for casual fleeting.

Shallanna Yassavi
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#156 - 2016-08-24 16:46:15 UTC
The mining barges and exhumers get the Minmatar T1 racial tank. They all have 60% EM armor resistance, instead of the usual 50%.

A signature :o

Drago Shouna
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#157 - 2016-08-24 17:05:21 UTC
xXxNIMRODxXx wrote:
Drago Shouna wrote:
Moac Tor wrote:
I am actually surprised that the retriever and mackinaw are in the top spot with the skiff and the procurer all the way down towards the lower end. I would be interested to see figures on for instance, how much time is spent in space in the various barges rather than ore mined. I expect the top ships are used in highly optimised fleet mining setups which skew the usage results.

All in all though at a glance the changes look good and the new barge artwork looks great. Good job.



You might be surprised that the top ships also have the largest ore holds then.

Any serious miner wants to stay on grid as long as possible, warping back and forth wastes mining time.

You don't need a big ore hold with a hauler on field, yet having a tiny one makes the job very intensive and stressful.


That brings up a classic conundrum of how do you work it?

A solo player in my opinion has no option in hs but to go for yield and ore capacity, or a smaller ship and a can? But he then has to go grab something to get the ore after leaving it in a belt.

Same with 2 accounts, go for 2 yield fitted ships and a can, then send one back to grab a Miasmos to move the ore all the while risking the can, or 1 ship and a hauler?

I know what you're saying and I don't disagree, I think the figures show that the Mack and Retriever are king in HS where most mining takes place, the Hulk is the obvious fleet king anywhere, but the Skiff seems to get used all over the place so I'm a bit surprised it's on the low side, maybe it shows that not a lot of mining takes place in null?

Solecist Project...." They refuse to play by the rules and laws of the game and use it as excuse ..." " They don't care about how you play as long as they get to play how they want."

Welcome to EVE.

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#158 - 2016-08-24 18:30:41 UTC
Drago Shouna wrote:



With the changes it'll have an extra low, so armour rigs, lows can be a choice of tank or yield, mid for a survey scanner, a flight of t2 light drones, a couple of ecm drones and salvage drones. How is adding a utility high going to help a solo miner, or even 2 slots?

No I didn't use a fitting tool. But then again I can't remember the last time I saw a Covetor mining, in HS the much better choice is the Retriever, and where I am now they are cheaper than the Covetor anyway.


So while the procurer gets both a great tank and good yield the covetor needs to either sacrifice its yield for tank in which case the procurer is better both in tank and yield or go all yield and die to a knats fart.

That's all the hallmarks of a terrible ship and that is before we get to the part where we point out the madness of a shield tanker that has one mid slot.
FT Cold
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#159 - 2016-08-24 19:06:55 UTC  |  Edited by: FT Cold
Quote:

Ah so you do want to discuss suddenly instead the dismiss anything you don't agree with routine.

The stats are distributed over the skiffs armor and hull as well, not just in shield, ie t2 cruisers get racial tanks, and the skiff gets a mining tank because no racial tank makes sense for it. There is however ample precedent for specialist tank.

Which means that if you need a mining ship to have 5 modules projecting effects from the mids, it already can do it. it is already flexible enough, because the stats are distributed, and you can put bulkheads and hull rigs on it to preserve reasonable ehp, at the obvious (and reasonable trade off) costs of drone dps mods or yield mods.

The procurer works very well in this role with 4 effects (2 webs, point and scram). The skiff will do it better than the procurer (more ehp and a 5th effect or a drone dmg mod, its bigger drones and similar ehp), but not so much better as to become economic in loss scenarios, which is not at all atypical of CCP balancing.

As I've pointed out to other thread users, the skiff has at best the 5th best brick tank in cruiser hulls, as far as I know, all t3s can produce a bigger buffer than the skiff if bricked, even baked on its numbers are not outlandishly extravagant for an advanced cruiser, particularly one that lacks practical active local tank.

If we were going to put an extra slot on retriever / coveter mids I would not personally be against that, but they work fine without them if we presume that defense is outsourced to fleet skiffs and procs. As I've seen through experience, face offs with a skiff often successfully prevent ganks on otherwise easily ganked ships.


The mackinaw and skiff were _always_ confined to being miners. When battlehulks were a thing there was not even a drone damage mod. So you could boost your battlehulks damage if you carried a single sentry drone and sentry drone rigged it. lol.

The proc was useless, everyone skipped it, and mackinaws were specialized for ice mining, but ganking and cost of owning 2 ships meant that hulks persistently impinged on the specialist role and the skiff was specialized for mercoxit mining.

ie I don't know what eve you played, but in practice the hulk has had its role of just-do-everything-with-a-hulk diminished and every other mining ship has been given a useful role within MINING, and miner escorts have been given a useful task to do whilst waiting. It was a successful revolution in the the ships used for mining without screwing up the eve economy or the playstyle.




First, get your facts straight before you post. The skiff has the highest native buffer of any cruiser in the game, by something like a factor of two, and this includes ships like t3cs, which are still hilariously broken. It has more native buffer than most battlecruisers and some battle ships. For 40m isk worth of c-type hardeners, you can fit it to have almost 200k ehp vs kin/therm damage. There's no reason at all for it to be baked into the hull. Instead of 10k shield, 7k armor and 7500 hull it should probably look like 2k 1.5k 1.75k, with either the grid to fit a couple of shield extenders, a rework of the slot design all together to facilitate an armor tank, or a bonus to warp core strength and the ability to fit MJDs. Either would be fine really,

Secondly, after all those words and meandering about balance within mining, you still can't address my point. I've never said anything about linear upgrading from t1-t2 barges. I don't care that mining ships are going to be mining ships. What I care about is that mining ships support the playstyles of the players who use them better. Granularity within the fitting system to manage risk/reward will help the game. The current system does it, but poorly. It could be far better than it is now.

Let me ask you this, if you were mining, and you knew that you were capable of paying attention and spotting any potential ganker, would you sacrifice your shield hardeners for more mining upgrades if they were available? If ore hold rigs existed would you use them in this scenario? Do you think that miners who don't fit tanks and don't pay attention deserve to have a higher risk of being ganked than the guy that fits tank, or the guy that pays attention? That is what I'm asking for, that people who actively play the game be rewarded for their trouble, and for that to happen barges need to change.
oohthey ioh
Doomheim
#160 - 2016-08-24 19:37:58 UTC
Autism Intensifies wrote:
Skiff has same yield as a Mackinaw, same lowslots, +1 midslot, +50m³ dronebay, +50% drone damage, and three times? Four times? the EHP of a Mackinaw.

In return, the Mackinaw has that super cool orebay, which is really important, sooo important! (It is, but only if you multibox so many Mackinaws that you can't empty the orebays of your Skiffs or Hulks as fast as they fill up.)

CCPLS.

or for the people who warp to statiion when full, like I do.