These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#321 - 2016-09-01 09:40:35 UTC
Asa Takamoto wrote:


We used SiSi. It gives you a error message saying "you can't fit a cynosural field generator I to procurer".


Also CCP gotta be consequent either we're playing in the sandbox and there's no intended usage or it's not a sandbox and everything need to go intended use. I'm looking at you wormholers ;)

Are alpha clones on sisi also, and if so was that interfering.
HandelsPharmi
Pharmi on CharBazaar
#322 - 2016-09-01 10:15:46 UTC  |  Edited by: HandelsPharmi
Procurer = Mining Barge
And as far as I have seen, it is NOT possible to fly one as Alpha.

Therefore, no Alpha Clone has been used to test this.
Penance Toralen
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#323 - 2016-09-01 13:00:06 UTC
Hello CCP Fozzie,

From testing on Sisi comparing into a triple MLU2 Covetor with MX-1005 implant and maxing skills.

  • Strip Miner I; 1434m3 per 121.5 to 18km
  • ORE Strip Miner; 1487m3 per 121.5 to 21km
  • Mod. Strip MIner II + Arkonor Mining Crystal II; 1673 per 121.5 to 18km


I am not seeing a lot incentive to spend on module for a mere 53m3 gain per cycle. When the tech2 beats it hands down for yield. Most miners will not balk at skilling mining to L5, the requirement difference. Range has never been a primary attraction - how many pilots the Harvester Implant Set?

Also can something change about the MU series of implants. The net gain in testing the MU-1005 nets me 2 CPU from a triple MLU2. (trying to squeeze more fitting a hulk) It's about as handy as a hip-pocket on a sleeve. Maybe it is a left over from the grand days of mining Rokhs.
Alexander Eisenhower
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#324 - 2016-09-01 13:33:40 UTC
Too bad they didn't all go to single beam. If I finish 1 bolder in a day I feel like I really did something. Shocked
TheSmokingHertog
Julia's Interstellar Trade Emperium
#325 - 2016-09-01 16:51:33 UTC
Its nice we have a whopping 2 dev posts in here! (lets not forget the op)

"Dogma is kind of like quantum physics, observing the dogma state will change it." ~ CCP Prism X

"Schrödinger's Missile. I dig it." ~ Makari Aeron

-= "Brain in a Box on Singularity" - April 2015 =-
AL1CA
Procurator Volatilis
Domain Research and Mining Inst. Logistics
#326 - 2016-09-01 17:14:58 UTC
I like the graphics but like that each ship looked different from the others why did that have to change Question
Sarafine
State War Academy
Caldari State
#327 - 2016-09-01 20:23:01 UTC
I only have one question.

Why are you "fixing" something that is not broken?

I can understand changing the look of the mining ships, Which honestly looked fine to begin with. But completely Raping the mining barges uniqueness and Versatility by changing their stats, fitting and role bonuses is absolute bull. This paired with the "great" new boosting mechanic makes me sick.

CCPlease don't do it. I understand you are trying to make the game "new and Shiny" to try to bring players in... But remember this the reason you have so many players leaving is because you keep changing the game to coddle the stupid and simpleminded. But don't worry its not like you guys have a good trackrecord of making good development choices or anything so I would not worry about it too much.

I hope you really consider what will happen to the game once you bring these changes into effect. Good job as always CCP, I hope this all works out for you.


PS. Just think when you have people who stop mining because the boosts become too expensive to maintain and the mining ships get raped, What will happen to the industrial side of eve... And what will happen to the price of ships and other player made commodities? If it is too costly to mine = no ore. no ore = no minerals. no minerals = no ships. no ships = people quitting. people quitting = less revenue for CCP.... Oh well.
Brokk Witgenstein
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#328 - 2016-09-01 21:43:42 UTC
Well, for one I would get a decent price for my ore because right now I simply can't compete to the influx of cheap AFK veldspar ;-)
d0cTeR9
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#329 - 2016-09-01 23:23:23 UTC
About time.

Been around since the beginning.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#330 - 2016-09-02 06:30:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Lugh Crow-Slave
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Asa Takamoto wrote:


We used SiSi. It gives you a error message saying "you can't fit a cynosural field generator I to procurer".


Also CCP gotta be consequent either we're playing in the sandbox and there's no intended usage or it's not a sandbox and everything need to go intended use. I'm looking at you wormholers ;)

Are alpha clones on sisi also, and if so was that interfering.



I just went and looked and you can fit cynos to procs on sisi

hell if you want you can fit two IDK why you would want to but boom knock yourself out

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Lugh Crow-Slave
#331 - 2016-09-02 06:42:00 UTC
Sarafine wrote:



PS. Just think when you have people who stop mining because the boosts become too expensive to maintain and the mining ships get raped, What will happen to the industrial side of eve... And what will happen to the price of ships and other player made commodities? If it is too costly to mine = no ore. no ore = no minerals. no minerals = no ships. no ships = people quitting. people quitting = less revenue for CCP.... Oh well.


that's not how economics work


if the cost to produce goes up then the price of the goods goes up. When everything is dependent on minerals there is no ceiling to the cost so it will never be to costly to mine

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Rock Jezebel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#332 - 2016-09-03 03:06:49 UTC
Just another comment from a noob, but it would be nice if the mining laser cycle time was much lower. Active tank setups are sketch because of the large capacitor hit, even if the overall fit would be stable.
Amarak Valerii
#333 - 2016-09-03 10:56:38 UTC
Not sure if posting in the right place, but: can you overhaul the graphic effects for the mining lasers.

the old effect seemed like the asteroids(dust clouds) were actually being dragged to you ship whereas the current ones can be best described by a line.

Think for yourself. Don't be sheep!
Ded Akara
Doomheim
#334 - 2016-09-03 14:48:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Ded Akara
I inspected the new exhumer changes on the test server.

So the mackinkaw no longer has a role bonus? It looks very odd. Hulk and Skiff both have the role bonus attribute and the mackinkaw does not, like it's out of place and missing something.

So,

Hulk gets extra mining range, extra addiitional mining yield from basic bonuses and 25% yield boost from role bonus.

Skiff gets shield HP and small yield bonus from basic bonuses and 50% drone damage/hp from role bonus. (not to mention BS level hitpoints).

Mackinaw gets ore hold capacity and small yield bonus from basic bonuses and NO ROLE BONUS.

This only highlights how much the Mackinkaw sucks. Hulk now mines 30% faster than the Mack whist the Skiff mines faster than the Mackinkaw because the Skiff is free to fit 3x harvester/mining upgrades and still able to fit a sick T2 tank and not worry about ganking. The mackinkaw can only achieve this yield the skiff has if the mackinkaw fits 3x harvester/mining upgrades, but to do this, the mackinkaw has virtually no CPU left to fit some tank to the mid slots.

The triple mining upgrade fit mackinkaw with a 3% cpu implant has only 51.9 cpu left with all mid slots empty. That's enough CPU to fit 1 T2 harder and leave the other 3 slots empty. It's not even enough CPU for 2 faction hardeners, still leaving 2 slots empty.

Meanwhile the triple mining upgrade fit skiff can fit a full T2 tank, using all of its midslots. When you consider the skiff also has 3 times more shield, armor and structure hitpoints than the Mackinkaw and is also able to fit a full tank on a yield fit you can see why the Skiff is the far superior ship. (imbalanced).

Solution? Well the obvious solution is to give the Mackinkaw a good CPU boost so it can actually use it's slots without having to fit a co-processor. Alternatively you can decrease the CPU on the Skiff. Or a bit of both.
Rock Jezebel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#335 - 2016-09-04 20:43:10 UTC
Ded Akara wrote:
I inspected the new exhumer changes on the test server.

So the mackinkaw no longer has a role bonus? It looks very odd. Hulk and Skiff both have the role bonus attribute and the mackinkaw does not, like it's out of place and missing something.

So,

Hulk gets extra mining range, extra addiitional mining yield from basic bonuses and 25% yield boost from role bonus.

Skiff gets shield HP and small yield bonus from basic bonuses and 50% drone damage/hp from role bonus. (not to mention BS level hitpoints).

Mackinaw gets ore hold capacity and small yield bonus from basic bonuses and NO ROLE BONUS.

This only highlights how much the Mackinkaw sucks. Hulk now mines 30% faster than the Mack whist the Skiff mines faster than the Mackinkaw because the Skiff is free to fit 3x harvester/mining upgrades and still able to fit a sick T2 tank and not worry about ganking. The mackinkaw can only achieve this yield the skiff has if the mackinkaw fits 3x harvester/mining upgrades, but to do this, the mackinkaw has virtually no CPU left to fit some tank to the mid slots.

The triple mining upgrade fit mackinkaw with a 3% cpu implant has only 51.9 cpu left with all mid slots empty. That's enough CPU to fit 1 T2 harder and leave the other 3 slots empty. It's not even enough CPU for 2 faction hardeners, still leaving 2 slots empty.

Meanwhile the triple mining upgrade fit skiff can fit a full T2 tank, using all of its midslots. When you consider the skiff also has 3 times more shield, armor and structure hitpoints than the Mackinkaw and is also able to fit a full tank on a yield fit you can see why the Skiff is the far superior ship. (imbalanced).

Solution? Well the obvious solution is to give the Mackinkaw a good CPU boost so it can actually use it's slots without having to fit a co-processor. Alternatively you can decrease the CPU on the Skiff. Or a bit of both.


As far as the role bonus goes, the mack doesn't need to spell it out because it's rolled into the stats of the ship. It would be silly to have a 22400 ore hold and a role bonus of +25% ore hold, just so people could count bonuses.

And the skiff isn't the superior ship, just the more versatile one. The mack is the better mining ship, and I'll point to the fact that it and it's T1 counterpart account for almost half the ore mining in the game. The ore hold really is that much of a bonus.

The ship that struggles to fit a tank is the hulk, and I am more interested in making it a better choice out of the 3 than making the most efficient miner even better.
Ezra Endashi
Absolute Order
Absolute Honor
#336 - 2016-09-04 22:07:43 UTC
It looks like I'll have to buy another Aoede Mining Laser Upgrade. And it's so damn expensive. CCP can you do anything about that price?
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#337 - 2016-09-05 01:02:04 UTC
Asa Takamoto wrote:
Brokk Witgenstein wrote:
Where did you read you can't fit a cyno? It's even getting 55CPU extra for that web and longpoint, and the second high allows for a neut/nos?


We used SiSi. It gives you a error message saying "you can't fit a cynosural field generator I to procurer".


Also CCP gotta be consequent either we're playing in the sandbox and there's no intended usage or it's not a sandbox and everything need to go intended use. I'm looking at you wormholers ;)


That really sucks.

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

Avon Salinder
#338 - 2016-09-05 07:14:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Avon Salinder
Regan Rotineque wrote:

2 - Ore lasers and strippers - why can't these be better than t2 ? or at least have crystal options ? maybe a set of ORE mining crystals ? More faction ORE type fittings - ORE faction MLU's , ORE mining Crystals etc... ore cargo expanders and or ore cargo rigs. Have ORE stations in high sec so people can actually get and use these types of things.

I was just thinking today that ore bay expanders would be a great addition too. Trade yield for ore capacity.

I suspect all of the above might be coming in november - remember, the september release is only to go with the new model designs, in a recent o7 show one of the devs mentioned 'new modules, new effects' etc as well, so more on the way.
Regan Rotineque
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#339 - 2016-09-05 08:15:45 UTC
Avon Salinder wrote:
Regan Rotineque wrote:

2 - Ore lasers and strippers - why can't these be better than t2 ? or at least have crystal options ? maybe a set of ORE mining crystals ? More faction ORE type fittings - ORE faction MLU's , ORE mining Crystals etc... ore cargo expanders and or ore cargo rigs. Have ORE stations in high sec so people can actually get and use these types of things.

I was just thinking today that ore bay expanders would be a great addition too. Trade yield for ore capacity.

I suspect all of the above might be coming in november - remember, the september release is only to go with the new model designs, in a recent o7 show one of the devs mentioned 'new modules, new effects' etc as well, so more on the way.


One can hope

Would be nice to have a dev update inthis thread to confirm these are final changes for sept.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#340 - 2016-09-05 09:03:02 UTC
Rock Jezebel wrote:
Just another comment from a noob, but it would be nice if the mining laser cycle time was much lower. Active tank setups are sketch because of the large capacitor hit, even if the overall fit would be stable.



I don't think they are built to active tank not all ships are. Even if cap wasn't an issue if find most barges can get better survivability buffer/passive tanked

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble