These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#481 - 2016-09-17 04:05:56 UTC
Drago Shouna wrote:
Guys guys guys.

You need to understand the present Risk vs Reward scenario...

Come the November changes, we RISK a 2-3 BILLION ship, on grid....

So that the players favoured by CCP can reap the REWARDS.

It's all about killmails now, nothing else. We get absolutely nothing out of it.

It's blatantly obvious that that's the direction the game is going, I suppose what we need to be thinking about is where it's going next.


You say this yet at the same time miners are dead set against any changes to the ships to make them actually able to defend themselves.

Resa Moon
New Eden Miners Association
Interplay
#482 - 2016-09-17 07:54:48 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Drago Shouna wrote:
Guys guys guys.

You need to understand the present Risk vs Reward scenario...

Come the November changes, we RISK a 2-3 BILLION ship, on grid....

So that the players favoured by CCP can reap the REWARDS.

It's all about killmails now, nothing else. We get absolutely nothing out of it.

It's blatantly obvious that that's the direction the game is going, I suppose what we need to be thinking about is where it's going next.


You say this yet at the same time miners are dead set against any changes to the ships to make them actually able to defend themselves.



Thanks for speaking on behalf of miners.

What miners are concerned about is the reasonable relationship between risk and reward.

Seems that some folks think mining vessels should be PvP ships with a slightly expanded cargo or ore hold.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#483 - 2016-09-17 11:52:05 UTC
Resa Moon wrote:

Thanks for speaking on behalf of miners.

What miners are concerned about is the reasonable relationship between risk and reward.

Seems that some folks think mining vessels should be PvP ships with a slightly expanded cargo or ore hold.


Given you are playing a pvp based game it makes sense for mining barges to be pvp capable. We have miners here bitching about having to put assets in harms way while at the same time arguing their ships should be helpless if caught.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#484 - 2016-09-17 13:28:15 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Drago Shouna wrote:
Guys guys guys.

You need to understand the present Risk vs Reward scenario...

Come the November changes, we RISK a 2-3 BILLION ship, on grid....

So that the players favoured by CCP can reap the REWARDS.

It's all about killmails now, nothing else. We get absolutely nothing out of it.

It's blatantly obvious that that's the direction the game is going, I suppose what we need to be thinking about is where it's going next.


You say this yet at the same time miners are dead set against any changes to the ships to make them actually able to defend themselves.



The psychology here is pretty obvious. Blink

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

toyamo tokanavo
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#485 - 2016-09-17 16:49:04 UTC
What's obvious is that miners should be reasonably safe in peace time in high sec. High sec thus functions as both a sort of PvP refuge and a reasonably safe, if tedious, way to recover lowsec PvP losses.

Besides, CCP policy doesn't bother blob miners at all: they recover any loss within 20 minutes of mining. If CCP wanted to solve it, it would invent some NPC that is attracted specifically to mining blobs and does massive area damage. But they don't, and let miners be cannon fodder for lowsec player alts.

Part of the fun in mining was corp mining sessions, with slow chats and roleplay, now flying in such a session feels more like hauling PLEX through lowsec. Sure, I can fit a mosquito trap instead of mining barge, but there's no profit in that, the yield is low both in terms of ore and in terms of blown up destroyers.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#486 - 2016-09-17 21:16:38 UTC
Resa Moon wrote:

Thanks for speaking on behalf of miners.

What miners are concerned about is the reasonable relationship between risk and reward.

Seems that some folks think mining vessels should be PvP ships with a slightly expanded cargo or ore hold.

WW2 Bridge Layer
So note how Industrial vehicles during a time of war actually came with their own guns right?
We are not civilians, capsuleers are effectively military given the basically open warfare between capsuleers, even before you leave high sec. Once you leave high sec every vessel you pilot is in the middle of utterly open warfare.
And as such vessels should all be designed for being in the thick of a fight first, and then fulfilling their specialist function second. This might be mining, hauling, tackling, jamming, whatever. And how you choose to fit it will then skew it one way or another.
But yes, as a miner all mining vessels should be PvP ships with an ore hold and a specialisation. Not helpless targets. (Yes they aren't 100% helpless, only 99% helpless relative to other vessels their size and cost)
Resa Moon
New Eden Miners Association
Interplay
#487 - 2016-09-18 04:33:16 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Resa Moon wrote:

Thanks for speaking on behalf of miners.

What miners are concerned about is the reasonable relationship between risk and reward.

Seems that some folks think mining vessels should be PvP ships with a slightly expanded cargo or ore hold.


Given you are playing a pvp based game it makes sense for mining barges to be pvp capable. We have miners here bitching about having to put assets in harms way while at the same time arguing their ships should be helpless if caught.



That makes no sense. Miners aren't "bitching" about having it both ways, we're stating that we want the risk reasonable, something more reasonable than fielding a 2-billion ISK squishy target for pseudo-PvP.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#488 - 2016-09-18 04:52:51 UTC
Resa Moon wrote:



That makes no sense. Miners aren't "bitching" about having it both ways, we're stating that we want the risk reasonable, something more reasonable than fielding a 2-billion ISK squishy target for pseudo-PvP.


You just did it again.

A Rorqual with a mining fleet that can provide logi and firepower is a lot harder to kill than what we are getting.
Resa Moon
New Eden Miners Association
Interplay
#489 - 2016-09-18 05:38:57 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Resa Moon wrote:



That makes no sense. Miners aren't "bitching" about having it both ways, we're stating that we want the risk reasonable, something more reasonable than fielding a 2-billion ISK squishy target for pseudo-PvP.


You just did it again.

A Rorqual with a mining fleet that can provide logi and firepower is a lot harder to kill than what we are getting.



As did you. Harder to kill doesn't make the risk reasonable.
sirxazor
B-T-G
#490 - 2016-09-18 06:13:11 UTC
Abulurd Boniface wrote:
Morn Hylund wrote:


No wonder Eve subscriptions are dropping - and people are jumping ship for more entertaining games like Star Citizen, No Man's Sky, Elite Dangerous etc.



I wouldn't put Star Citizen in the same league as EVE. Also, NMS is 'a tad less' than what the developers promised. And when I say 'a tad less' I mean: it sucks balls. Big ones.

However, I do understand and agree with your concern and these changes are rather baffling.

Any change should reflect a necessary change for the improvement of the dynamic in the system and I don't see how removing one mining pylon on a Hulk is going to make it a better activity.

The last pass was uncomfortable at first but then I saw the sense behind it and those changes were actually quite good. It made the barges something you wanted to have instead of having ship like the Procurer that was essentially worthless.

Now we get a different set of changes, the use of which does not make a lot of sense to me.

CCP Fozzie, friend, why is this happening?

Why did you not do something that would propagate throughout the New Eden demesne in the way minerals were added to the ship-building experience as described, by myself, here: Ore acle

I support innovations, I want to support good innovations.


Yeah, I wouldn't put Star Citizen with Eve online either. Star citizen is a revolutionary game aiming at the future. EVERYONE is going to be playing a game with infinite possibilities. Why would you still play Eve (a spreadsheet game) when you can actually have the immersion you been looking for? unless you don't have the computer power to play such a game, then I would understand the need to still play EVE. A dying old dog =/
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#491 - 2016-09-18 06:26:50 UTC
Resa Moon wrote:

As did you. Harder to kill doesn't make the risk reasonable.


Of course it does.

Being able to go toe to toe with a similar sized cruiser gang is a hell of a lot better than getting slaughtered by a gang a fraction of your numbers. As it stands four of the barges are entirely helpless when caught and the other two holding the mantel of last to die simply because they have an over sized tank.

Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#492 - 2016-09-18 06:27:20 UTC
sirxazor wrote:

Yeah, I wouldn't put Star Citizen with Eve online either. Star citizen is a revolutionary game aiming at the future. EVERYONE is going to be playing a game with infinite possibilities. Why would you still play Eve (a spreadsheet game) when you can actually have the immersion you been looking for? unless you don't have the computer power to play such a game, then I would understand the need to still play EVE. A dying old dog =/

Because EVE is a cohesive game, not a vague mess of vapour-ware that doesn't link smoothly.
Because EVE has a singular vision, rather than trying to be a jack of all trades.
Because EVE is single shard.
I could go on a lot more, but your entire post is irrelevant to this thread.
Resa Moon
New Eden Miners Association
Interplay
#493 - 2016-09-18 10:22:37 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Resa Moon wrote:

As did you. Harder to kill doesn't make the risk reasonable.


Of course it does.

Being able to go toe to toe with a similar sized cruiser gang is a hell of a lot better than getting slaughtered by a gang a fraction of your numbers. As it stands four of the barges are entirely helpless when caught and the other two holding the mantel of last to die simply because they have an over sized tank.



You either miss the point or are simply trolling.

Because it might be able to go toe-to-toe with a particular gang size and composition doesn't mean the risk becomes reasonable because folks hunting for Rorqs will come with a crew to do the job and the key point is that with the Industrial Core green it will be a sitting duck, regardless of how long it has to sit.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#494 - 2016-09-18 10:52:39 UTC
Resa Moon wrote:

You either miss the point or are simply trolling.

Because it might be able to go toe-to-toe with a particular gang size and composition doesn't mean the risk becomes reasonable because folks hunting for Rorqs will come with a crew to do the job and the key point is that with the Industrial Core green it will be a sitting duck, regardless of how long it has to sit.


Seems to me you are not going to be happy until CCP give you an I-win button.

Having an even chance of success vs a similar sized gang of cruisers/hac/pirate cruisers is more than enough.
Resa Moon
New Eden Miners Association
Interplay
#495 - 2016-09-18 10:59:05 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Resa Moon wrote:

You either miss the point or are simply trolling.

Because it might be able to go toe-to-toe with a particular gang size and composition doesn't mean the risk becomes reasonable because folks hunting for Rorqs will come with a crew to do the job and the key point is that with the Industrial Core green it will be a sitting duck, regardless of how long it has to sit.


Seems to me you are not going to be happy until CCP give you an I-win button.

Having an even chance of success vs a similar sized gang of cruisers/hac/pirate cruisers is more than enough.


As if you can sit there and await an arranged fight of a particular composition.

An I-win button, no. Miners have always been at risk and that reasonable risk makes it more interesting. Unreasonable risk makes it stupid. You can't field the Rorq and predict what opposing force will appear while you're green. Pointless to posit ideal situations.
Drago Shouna
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#496 - 2016-09-18 11:08:22 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Resa Moon wrote:

Thanks for speaking on behalf of miners.

What miners are concerned about is the reasonable relationship between risk and reward.

Seems that some folks think mining vessels should be PvP ships with a slightly expanded cargo or ore hold.


Given you are playing a pvp based game it makes sense for mining barges to be pvp capable. We have miners here bitching about having to put assets in harms way while at the same time arguing their ships should be helpless if caught.



A natural follow on to that is that my Epithal, Miasmos, Providence etc should all have a rack of turrets and fighter bay then?

I'd love my freighter to have Capital sized Pulses with the ultimate in tracking speeds 8/4/6 should do it :)

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
#497 - 2016-09-18 11:20:34 UTC
Resa Moon wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Resa Moon wrote:

You either miss the point or are simply trolling.

Because it might be able to go toe-to-toe with a particular gang size and composition doesn't mean the risk becomes reasonable because folks hunting for Rorqs will come with a crew to do the job and the key point is that with the Industrial Core green it will be a sitting duck, regardless of how long it has to sit.


Seems to me you are not going to be happy until CCP give you an I-win button.

Having an even chance of success vs a similar sized gang of cruisers/hac/pirate cruisers is more than enough.


As if you can sit there and await an arranged fight of a particular composition.

An I-win button, no. Miners have always been at risk and that reasonable risk makes it more interesting. Unreasonable risk makes it stupid. You can't field the Rorq and predict what opposing force will appear while you're green. Pointless to posit ideal situations.


People are ratting in solo titans. A 3 bil rorqual is not a huge risk.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#498 - 2016-09-18 11:21:48 UTC
Drago Shouna wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Resa Moon wrote:

Thanks for speaking on behalf of miners.

What miners are concerned about is the reasonable relationship between risk and reward.

Seems that some folks think mining vessels should be PvP ships with a slightly expanded cargo or ore hold.


Given you are playing a pvp based game it makes sense for mining barges to be pvp capable. We have miners here bitching about having to put assets in harms way while at the same time arguing their ships should be helpless if caught.



A natural follow on to that is that my Epithal, Miasmos, Providence etc should all have a rack of turrets and fighter bay then?

I'd love my freighter to have Capital sized Pulses with the ultimate in tracking speeds 8/4/6 should do it :)


T1 haulers are more deadly than most think.
Atius Shinkan
Imperial Holding
#499 - 2016-09-18 12:35:33 UTC
You guys really don't make it easy for people that like and want to subscribe to this game.

Last big upgrade with the carriers was a disaster for me, and so canceled to subscriptions. This one is not so bad, but does not in any way boost the game or encourage for more gametime. In short another dissapointing "update".
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#500 - 2016-09-18 14:28:42 UTC
Amadeus Z wrote:
actually the changes force me to stop mining .... maybe stop playing as well

if you go for max yield and don't pop out drones, yer yield is simply less.





Yeah and if I don't put all DPS , tracking and application mods on my combat ship, the DPS is less. On some of them, I do put all DPS and application, but for most I have to "lose" some of my damage for tank, speed, tackle, etc.

How else should it be? Should CCP simply give you no opportunity to make any tradeoffs?

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016