These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Dominic Jacara
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#341 - 2016-09-05 09:05:12 UTC
I suspect that a lot of people will, like me, have fitted their Skiff for the single high slot for a mining laser and taken their power grid and CPU usage close to the max to fit the best combination of other modules for yield and tank. Even with the increase in powergrid and CPU proposed in this change I don't have enough capacity to use the extra high slot for a second mining laser. So I either have to ignore this change and carry on as before with an empty high slot, or try to find a change in the fit of everything else to accommodate an extra laser. Ah well, another session with EFT beckons.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#342 - 2016-09-05 09:57:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Lugh Crow-Slave
you will simply need to chose between max shield tank and max yield I see no issue with that choice for a proc/skiff the "best" combination will just be different now generally when i use them i do just go max tank with no mining upgrades at all

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Ded Akara
Doomheim
#343 - 2016-09-05 14:51:28 UTC
Rock Jezebel wrote:
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.


If we're going to look at that way the skiff should lose it's drone damage role bonus too. Because the skiff has 3 times higher base HP than the mackinkaw and if the cargo hold of the mackinkaw is to be the role bonus of the mackinkaw, then the huge HP of the skiff should be the role bonus of the skiff.
Penance Toralen
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#344 - 2016-09-05 23:06:11 UTC
Dominic Jacara wrote:
I suspect that a lot of people will, like me, have fitted their Skiff for the single high slot for a mining laser and taken their power grid and CPU usage close to the max to fit the best combination of other modules for yield and tank. Even with the increase in powergrid and CPU proposed in this change I don't have enough capacity to use the extra high slot for a second mining laser. So I either have to ignore this change and carry on as before with an empty high slot, or try to find a change in the fit of everything else to accommodate an extra laser. Ah well, another session with EFT beckons.



I did not have any problem fitting two medium shield extenders, three tech2 invuls, two strips (stock, ORE and tech2) and triple MLU2 on Sisi. (Core Defence and Ice rig). Sorry, I do not recall the actual numbers - and with a grain of salt, my skills are maxed. (including mining upgrades to 5)
Rock Jezebel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#345 - 2016-09-06 00:22:40 UTC
Ded Akara wrote:
If we're going to look at that way the skiff should lose it's drone damage role bonus too. Because the skiff has 3 times higher base HP than the mackinkaw and if the cargo hold of the mackinkaw is to be the role bonus of the mackinkaw, then the huge HP of the skiff should be the role bonus of the skiff.


The metrics simply don't support your argument. The mack is boss because it has an ore hold that is 133% larger than 2nd place. I'm not going to defend the skiff having a drone bonus, I always thought that was odd, but asking for buffs to the most used exhumer because of a characteristic of the least used exhumer doesn't make sense.
Rubber Maid
Alpha Republic - Transcenders of Space and Time
Solyaris Chtonium
#346 - 2016-09-06 03:24:50 UTC
+1 for procurer buff!
Lugh Crow-Slave
#347 - 2016-09-06 11:51:12 UTC
Rock Jezebel wrote:
Ded Akara wrote:
If we're going to look at that way the skiff should lose it's drone damage role bonus too. Because the skiff has 3 times higher base HP than the mackinkaw and if the cargo hold of the mackinkaw is to be the role bonus of the mackinkaw, then the huge HP of the skiff should be the role bonus of the skiff.


The metrics simply don't support your argument. The mack is boss because it has an ore hold that is 133% larger than 2nd place. I'm not going to defend the skiff having a drone bonus, I always thought that was odd, but asking for buffs to the most used exhumer because of a characteristic of the least used exhumer doesn't make sense.


why is the idea of the barge whos main selling point is self defense having a dps bonus odd?

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
msb4u
Modded corp
#348 - 2016-09-06 22:19:07 UTC
From first day of putting mining barges and exhumers in game u'r ignoring time needed for training some ship and gave advantage of using low skills ships.
How can u compare training time-yield of skiff, mackinaw, hulk
skiff almost same as mackinaw, hulk can make barely more than mackinaw
yield
skiff +150% 1 laser +150% = same as 2,5 lasers
mackinaw +25% 2 lasers +25% = same like 2,5 lasers more training same yield ??
hulk +0% 3 lasers +0% = stays 3 lasers

same % with barges

now u'll change them on 2 lasers for all, that's just dust in eyes
instead to make players interested for long skilling with some better yield on top ship
still nothing, not mentioning that top ship have lowest resist, now u'll even
reduce cpu that much it won't be interesting at all
why to skill for it, when u cant put somewhat resist on it
if i want to use 3x MLU have to give up on all resist ??
are u crazy, no doubt,

YOU ARE

some smart ass off u'r will say, train skills on 5
let u know smartass, allready have all skills for hulk cpu, pwergrid, shield, armo, hull on lvl 5

WHEN YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO
DON'T DO-CHANGE ANYTHING
Gary Webb
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#349 - 2016-09-07 01:24:57 UTC
Grath Telkin wrote:
Thread full of angry miners, honestly who's shocked.


And I wonder just where you think all those big shiny titans and supers PL loves to throw around come from.... I've always wanted to meet the titan fairy.


2016 confirmed- Miners are titan faries.
Penance Toralen
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#350 - 2016-09-07 02:57:27 UTC
msb4u wrote:

skiff +150% 1 laser +150% = same as 2,5 lasers
mackinaw +25% 2 lasers +25% = same like 2,5 lasers more training same yield ??
hulk +0% 3 lasers +0% = stays 3 lasers



I will start off by asking, did you actually bother to go into Sisi and try it for yourself?

It is just not only the hulls but also the Strips with receive a 25% increase.

So; 2 strips x 1.25 = 2.5 strips in yield. Which means you are not losing anything and do not require additional training.

The only difference I can point to is the Covetor/Hulk.

Current Time reduction:

4% per level, which takes 180 down to 144sec. Or 180 / 144 = 1.25 increase

3 strips x 1.25 = 3.75

The proposed changes are:

2% per level, which takes 180 down to 162sec. Or 180 / 162 = 1.111r increase

2 strips x 1.25 (flat hull bonus) x 1.25 (strip increase) x 1.111 = 3.472

The trade-off is supposed to be the additional low slot which allows for another MLU.

3.75 x 1.18 = 4.425 (using MLU2 at 1.09 each)
3.472 x 1.27 = 4.409

Achieving near parity with the pre-pass values. (anybody is welcome to de-bunk my short-hand maths).
Al Nomadi
Morawins
#351 - 2016-09-07 14:55:58 UTC
I wonder if BPO for all 3 barges will stay the same. Now Procurer's BPO is much more cheapier, than covetor's one. Do you think it will be like that even after changes?
Jalxan
EVE University
Ivy League
#352 - 2016-09-07 19:16:45 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Anoron Secheh wrote:
What about changes to the Rorqual and Orca?


Changes to the Rorqual and Orca are currently planned for November (rather than September for these mining barge changes). We'll be discussing those more as we get a bit closer.


Please please please please please don't change too much. It's currently an amazing ship. Buffing or nerfing things could seriously hurt the benefits the ship provides in a variety of roles.

The Rorqual, on the other hand, I don't have a lot of experience with, but if what I hear about it is true, then, yes, it deserves a rework. If the Rorqual could gain a lot of the Orca's versatility, while keeping the parts that allow it to condense ore, then it would likely suffer a lot less as a result.
Avon Salinder
#353 - 2016-09-07 23:59:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Avon Salinder
Orca speculation!

I think the orca will just get a few tweaks. I've flown one on and off since first release and I reckon it's one of the best non-combat ships in the game, so I doubt it'd be tweaked much. Having said that, people have asked for a 4th high slot so we could mount all three mining links as well as a tractor beam, but ccp said the capacitor reduction link wasn't worth using anyway (and wasn't used much as a result). With the new 'crystal damage reduction' link I think we'll finally see that 4th high slot.

The ore bay is bit small by today's standards too, so that might get boosted - possibly by replacing the cargo hold bonus with a 20% ore bay size increase per level. Pure conjecture of course.

With both rorqual and orca working on-grid, it'd be nice to have a little extra speed. They weren't originally designed to move around very fast, but now an extra 20m/s base speed would be helpful.

Finally, since the rorqual gets to be on grid with high-powered excavator drones, the orca might get a couple of those too. On current numbers in TQ 1 excavator would pull in 700m3 with max skills, and being regular, albeit very large drones (not fighters) they'll have a maximum of 5 at once so that'd be 3500m3 mined per minute. Pretty impressive! As they require 200tf to operate the rorqual would have to get 1000tf to fly a full set of these little monsters.

Orca *might* get the same treatment, but be limited to one or two of them. The side effect of this would be the ability to launch a full set of heavy drones too, which would give it a nice punch. But I guess we'll find out soon enough Lol
Regan Rotineque
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#354 - 2016-09-08 06:07:40 UTC
Avon Salinder wrote:
Orca speculation!

I think the orca will just get a few tweaks. I've flown one on and off since first release and I reckon it's one of the best non-combat ships in the game, so I doubt it'd be tweaked much. Having said that, people have asked for a 4th high slot so we could mount all three mining links as well as a tractor beam, but ccp said the capacitor reduction link wasn't worth using anyway (and wasn't used much as a result). With the new 'crystal damage reduction' link I think we'll finally see that 4th high slot.

The ore bay is bit small by today's standards too, so that might get boosted - possibly by replacing the cargo hold bonus with a 20% ore bay size increase per level. Pure conjecture of course.

With both rorqual and orca working on-grid, it'd be nice to have a little extra speed. They weren't originally designed to move around very fast, but now an extra 20m/s base speed would be helpful.

Finally, since the rorqual gets to be on grid with high-powered excavator drones, the orca might get a couple of those too. On current numbers in TQ 1 excavator would pull in 700m3 with max skills, and being regular, albeit very large drones (not fighters) they'll have a maximum of 5 at once so that'd be 3500m3 mined per minute. Pretty impressive! As they require 200tf to operate the rorqual would have to get 1000tf to fly a full set of these little monsters.

Orca *might* get the same treatment, but be limited to one or two of them. The side effect of this would be the ability to launch a full set of heavy drones too, which would give it a nice punch. But I guess we'll find out soon enough Lol



I am looking very forward to seeing what the orca changes will be. I hope CCP gives something to the them to deeply encourage them to be on grid in low/null. They wont have the panic button, but improvements to speed, align time and ore hold size would be greatly appreciated.
Seth Sothel
Rubblebelt Raiders
#355 - 2016-09-08 14:41:37 UTC
My son came up with an interesting idea for the Rorqual. Ive seen tons of suggestions, some good, some terrible but here's his. Since CCP clearly would like to see the Rorqs out in the belts doing what they're designed for but no one wants to risk them, the idea is not to give the Rorq a big offense/defensive buff that would break it. Instead, make the aggressors think twice as to whether they actually want to RISK THEIR ships. Either by a Role Bonus or by a fitted module, give a bonus to its mining fleet that the exhumers can field an extra 5 drones each for defense. THis would only apply to combat drones so mining doesnt get broken. When a few ships roll onto a Rorq with 5 exhumers, it would make the challenge of facing 50 drones (plus the Rorqs). 5 might be too many, might drop it to maybe 3 but the idea is to have the gankers have to think twice about tackling the group.
HandelsPharmi
Pharmi on CharBazaar
#356 - 2016-09-08 15:08:30 UTC
Seth Sothel wrote:
My son came up with an interesting idea for the Rorqual. Ive seen tons of suggestions, some good, some terrible but here's his. Since CCP clearly would like to see the Rorqs out in the belts doing what they're designed for but no one wants to risk them, the idea is not to give the Rorq a big offense/defensive buff that would break it. Instead, make the aggressors think twice as to whether they actually want to RISK THEIR ships. Either by a Role Bonus or by a fitted module, give a bonus to its mining fleet that the exhumers can field an extra 5 drones each for defense. THis would only apply to combat drones so mining doesnt get broken. When a few ships roll onto a Rorq with 5 exhumers, it would make the challenge of facing 50 drones (plus the Rorqs). 5 might be too many, might drop it to maybe 3 but the idea is to have the gankers have to think twice about tackling the group.



Three stealth bombers later, or even one single smartbomb-BS and a few seconds later all your drones are gone.

Neither the Exhumers nor the Rorqual have unlimited drone bays.
Kalido Raddi
Crown Mineworks
#357 - 2016-09-08 17:01:21 UTC
Also, plus Drones stopped being a thing a long time ago, for good reason. Add +20% damage, not +1 Drone.
Abadayos
Zebra Corp
Goonswarm Federation
#358 - 2016-09-08 22:46:39 UTC
Any more news regarding these proposed changes? Are the numbers now set in stone and we are just waiting or are you guys changing some numbers around/testing some new idea?

We simply need more information
Dieter Ottenbach
Ottenbach Industries LTD
#359 - 2016-09-09 04:15:33 UTC
Even if you can mine as much, in as much time, losing a turret on the Hulk just sucks in idea. Hell, why not finish it off and give it an undistinguished name too - like the "Rottweiler". That seems to compare adequately with the "Retriever" etc. It no longer seems to be "The Hulk" for some reason. Seems a bit neutered without 3 turrets . . . .

Taking stuff away that has been worked for/earned is bad PR too. I don't get what the goal is of trying to make all ships the same anyway. What does that achieve? But if it truly is about the number - having 2 vs 3 turrets - then they should just make all the ships have 3 hardpoints - instead of reducing the "Hulk". These ships were not setup at the beginning to be even in terms of cost or skill training to operate (if memory serves), so this is just odd, and feels like a demotion.

Besides, from another perspective, this kind of change just adds to the pile of "old" and "outdated" or "misleading" information piling up out there about strategies for playing Eve, - while in the end it seems trivial in terms of it's actual implications to the overall ecosystem.

But I'm just reiterating what others in the thread have said earlier in one form or another. And after-all, I'm just here for the pretty Nebulae and stimulating electro music, while eating cookies and drinking beer.........

Developing an aneurysm over losing a fictional turret on a fictional ship while mining a fictional asteroid is just not something I'm going to do. If, in the end, it seems like participation is a series of let downs, I think it would be time to let the subscription go and focus on accomplishing things in real life more.

Cheers,
D.O.
Rivka
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#360 - 2016-09-09 05:07:06 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:


The overall mining yields of the Procurer, Skiff, Retriever, and Mackinaw remain unchanged after this pass. The Covetor and Hulk will gain a lowslot which allows some new options and the potential of greater yield (although fittings will be appropriately tight when using three MLUs).


Could CCP please post a ranking of which ships will be better for what?

Which ships will have the best yields for : Ice Harvesting? Gas Harvesting? etc ...