These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page123Next page
 

Expanded Orehold - Updated

Author
manus
RENSCORP
#21 - 2017-04-11 22:38:47 UTC
Matthias Ancaladron wrote:
Support, just alter expanders to provide a percentage for every hold. Not just cargo.


I dont agree. Adding a specific Ore Hold increase module gives players greater flexiblility, but it also gives devs greater flexibility when it comes to balancing.
manus
RENSCORP
#22 - 2017-04-11 22:41:14 UTC  |  Edited by: manus
Max Deveron wrote:
Matthias Ancaladron wrote:
Support, just alter expanders to provide a percentage for every hold. Not just cargo.


Uhm yeah, how about no.....
an the reason for that is the way CCP balances things like freighters.

To get the same space we have now they will nerf the size down so that using expanders will get us the same space we already have now when using them.

Some of you need to learn your history.

no, no ,no

Did I say NO, i think i did.


The current size of Ore Holds are completely arbitrary as far as i can tell. It wouldnt change the game much if the end result was a buff to ore hold sizes. But it would increase QoL for miners. But it comes with a trade off course, as usual.
Krysenth
Saints Of Havoc
#23 - 2017-04-11 23:40:43 UTC
It's not a QoL change when it's completely unnecessary. If you are filling up 35k m3 so quickly you deem it "babysitting" then you are well and truly already afk mining. If you're mining that much in the first place, then plan ahead by using hauler toons, EFCs, rorqual compression, jetcanning, etc. We already have all the solutions necessary.
manus
RENSCORP
#24 - 2017-04-11 23:53:13 UTC  |  Edited by: manus
Are you suggesting i buy a rorqual? You cant be serious. Expandable ore holds is a neat "middle groound", altho its much more casual than getting a rorqual. Dont forget the casual players. Besides its an insult to the game when ships have attributes tlike ore holds that cannot be altered with fittings.
Max Deveron
Deveron Shipyards and Technology
#25 - 2017-04-12 02:23:58 UTC
manus wrote:
Are you suggesting i buy a rorqual? You cant be serious. Expandable ore holds is a neat "middle groound", altho its much more casual than getting a rorqual. Dont forget the casual players. Besides its an insult to the game when ships have attributes tlike ore holds that cannot be altered with fittings.



If you are in nullsec, then yes get a Rorqual, or even a porpoise or orca.

And no expnadable ore holds is not a neat middle ground.

Casual Players? They dont normally need an orca, and they can jetcan mine or run back and forth to a station, they do not play enough to need such a suggestion such as yours.

Insult? the only insult here is you trying to push this.
If you are multiboxing so much then you definitley do not need this change.

And as to your reply to me earlier......

This would not be a QoL change for miners, I go mining sometimes, I know.
A QoL change would be letting us fit guns on our barges and exhumers if we wished to.
Your stupid quest to get our stuff nerfed into the ground is just that, stupid.

Now shut up and go away, quit posting on the forums you ninny.
Matthias Ancaladron
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#26 - 2017-04-12 04:13:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Matthias Ancaladron
Max Deveron wrote:
Matthias Ancaladron wrote:
Support, just alter expanders to provide a percentage for every hold. Not just cargo.


Uhm yeah, how about no.....
an the reason for that is the way CCP balances things like freighters.

To get the same space we have now they will nerf the size down so that using expanders will get us the same space we already have now when using them.

Some of you need to learn your history.

no, no ,no
.
Did I say NO, i think i did.

Or they could just not do that since its uneeded and is simpler.
Op didn't say nerf orehold and add ore expanders.
He said add to ore expanders thats it. Don't read into it more than that.
Mining ships need low slots for mining upgrade.
It's. a balanced trade off.

Yield or ore space. Anyone who uses these would automatically be losing out on yield in favor of ore space.
It's perfectly fine like op asked.
Ore holds stay as they are. Expanders are changed so they do more. If someone wants more space they can trade off.
Personally I go yield if I mine. I like jetcanning still, that how I mined 7 years ago. Just fill up a few cand and come back with a transport ships.
But I don't blame someone for wanting more capacity. That's his choice if we wants to sit all day trying to fill up a big hold.

Youre adding conditions where there are none
mkint
#27 - 2017-04-12 04:16:39 UTC
Working as intended. You'll need stronger arguments than "Waaaahhh!" if you want to persuade anyone with any authority.

Maxim 6. If violence wasn’t your last resort, you failed to resort to enough of it.

ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#28 - 2017-04-12 04:39:19 UTC  |  Edited by: ShahFluffers
Isn't part of the reason why mining barges were balanced the way they were because people felt they had "no choices" between tank, mining yield, and cargobay size?


If memory serves me right, before the mining rebalance all mining barges did not have Ore bays. This allowed them to use cargohold expanders to increase their ore holding capacity.

Unfortunately, doing this came at the cost of tank and/or mining yield.

But people fitted for capacity and yield (and little to no tank) because one would not be "efficient" unless they fit for capacity or yield.
And then said people would then complain about the "lack of tank" on their barges (hence why we have the barges we have now).


I don't think the OP knows what he is asking for.
There is a reason the barges are the way they are.

One is SUPPOSED to choose between tank, yield, or ore capacity.

This disrupts that paradigm and will only result in more complaint about balance down the road.

Matthias Ancaladron wrote:
Or they could just not do that since its uneeded and is simpler.
Op didn't say nerf orehold and add ore expanders.
He said add to ore expanders thats it. Don't read into it more than that.

You can read as much or as little as you want.
History has shown that CCP doesn't give "straight buffs."

If they add a module that increases ore capacity, you can bet hard money they will nerf native ore capacity for ships.

It happened with Freighters.
It happened with drone-centric ships when drone modules were added.
It happened when new capital modules were added.

What the Op may be asking for be simple... but how it realistically will be implemented will not be.
Omnathious Deninard
Ministry of Silly Walks.
The Gurlstas Associates
#29 - 2017-04-12 04:49:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Omnathious Deninard
manus wrote:
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
Why do you want your current hold nerfed and then force you to chose between ore hold or mining efficiency?


Convenience.

What's convenient about nerfing the current sizes to gain roughly the same capacity after you put 3 expandeds in the low slots?

Some rough theory crafting:
New Base hold 14,000
With ship bonus 17,500
3 expanded ore hold (27.5% each, same as an expanded cargo hold) 36,271

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.

manus
RENSCORP
#30 - 2017-04-15 08:17:32 UTC  |  Edited by: manus
The current level 4 mining mission im doing requires 44800m3 ore hold, but afaik no barge can keep that much.

For example my mackinaw has 35000m3 ore hold with my skills. Also why does skills affect the size of the ore hold? Makes no sense

Anyway, 35000m3. In order to be able to fit all the ore needed for this level 4 mission, it just needs an increase of 30% from modules. Would that be so bad? Im sacrificing possibly Yield and/or Tank.


To the people who think that Ore hold size needs to be nerfed when introducing Ore Hold increasing modules, get a grip. The ore hold sizes are arbitrary and do not affect PVP or PVE. If we could increase them by 30% or more with modules what excactly would be the harm?
Wander Prian
Nosferatu Security Foundation
#31 - 2017-04-15 08:38:03 UTC
manus wrote:
The current level 4 mining mission im doing requires 44800m3 ore hold, but afaik no barge can keep that much.

For example my mackinaw has 35000m3 ore hold with my skills. Also why does skills affect the size of the ore hold? Makes no sense

Anyway, 35000m3. In order to be able to fit all the ore needed for this level 4 mission, it just needs an increase of 30% from modules. Would that be so bad? Im sacrificing possibly Yield and/or Tank.


To the people who think that Ore hold size needs to be nerfed when introducing Ore Hold increasing modules, get a grip. The ore hold sizes are arbitrary and do not affect PVP or PVE. If we could increase them by 30% or more with modules what excactly would be the harm?

You're post just proved it does affect PVE. Making the ore-bays layer would allow you to finish the mission faster, allowing you to run more missions quicker, meaning you make more isk.

Wormholer for life.

manus
RENSCORP
#32 - 2017-04-15 08:39:09 UTC  |  Edited by: manus
Thanks for the input captain Obvious. But thats not what i meant by PVE. In fact nobody uses PVE to refer to mining. So why dont you go back to your wormhole with your definitions?
Wander Prian
Nosferatu Security Foundation
#33 - 2017-04-15 09:04:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Wander Prian
manus wrote:
Thanks for the input captain Obvious. But thats not what i meant by PVE. In fact nobody uses PVE to refer to mining. So why dont you go back to your wormhole with your definitions?


I'm just reading your post. It's not my fault you made that idiotic comment. The bigger impact the change would have is on the economy. There would be more minerals flowing into the market, meaning that prices would drop. Your change would make miners makes less isk due to more availability of minerals causing the prices to drop.

Wormholer for life.

Max Deveron
Deveron Shipyards and Technology
#34 - 2017-04-15 15:56:16 UTC
manus wrote:


To the people who think that Ore hold size needs to be nerfed when introducing Ore Hold increasing modules, get a grip. The ore hold sizes are arbitrary and do not affect PVP or PVE. If we could increase them by 30% or more with modules what excactly would be the harm?



Nobody is thinking it 'needs' to be dufus, we are telling you exactly what CCP "will" do, because that is what they have always done in the past.

Freighters comes to mind on this point.
Sitting Bull Lakota
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
#35 - 2017-04-16 00:24:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Sitting Bull Lakota
I for one would love to see expander modules and rigs that trade hull strength for more ore hold m3.

I detest the logic that lead to standardized, safe4bears, ore holds that no longer force pilots to choose between efficiency and hull integrity.

Let me mine in an oversized, wet, cardboard box if I want!
You can't force me to be safe!
Cade Windstalker
#36 - 2017-04-16 02:15:32 UTC
Sitting Bull Lakota wrote:
I for one would love to see expander modules and rigs that trade hull strength for more ore hold m3.

I detest the logic that lead to standardized, safe4bears, ore holds that no longer force pilots to choose between efficiency and hull integrity.

Let me mine in an oversized, wet, cardboard box if I want!
You can't force me to be safe!


You do pick between tank, ore hold, and yield, you just do it when you pick the hull and then the fitting is secondary.

The reason there aren't rigs or modules for or hold is because there's nothing there that would be a good trade-off except for an AFK player, and AFK play isn't something CCP wants to encourage. Low slot? You're losing yield, there's no good reason to ever do that. Mid slot? You're losing tank, and that turns the mid-slot layout of the Hulk and Skiffs into a potential balance problem for the Mackinaw.

You could still do rigs, but Mining Ships are shield tanked and the standard trade off for cargo space is rigs, making that something of a non-tradeoff in most cases since your other options are a little more tank, more drone yield that is becoming increasingly non-optimal to take advantage of, or a Higgs anchor. Of those options the others win for most players most of the time outside of someone who is mostly or entirely AFK.
manus
RENSCORP
#37 - 2017-04-17 13:22:56 UTC  |  Edited by: manus
Cade Windstalker wrote:
The reason there aren't rigs or modules for or hold is because there's nothing there that would be a good trade-off except for an AFK player, and AFK play isn't something CCP wants to encourage..


If this is true. They are doing it completely wrong. In order to "punish" afk play, they compromise in the fundamental part of the game that makes it interesting. So the end result is yes they punish AFK play, but they also punish "legit" play by making the ships less flexible. It takes away from the enjoyment when CCP creates a ship with static attributes that cannot be changed by players. Its such a fundamental part of the game they cripple, just because they dont like AFK play. Besides, what difference does it make if an "AFK" miner, is able to get 10.000m3 larger Ore hold or more? I dont think more people will start AFK mining because of that. Mining just dont appeal to some people no matter what. Besides, IF more people starting AFK mining and more ore would enter the market, prices would fall, and isk/hour would even out. But seriously the change would be insignifcant. Its not like everyone will start mining just because barges get 10,000m3 larger ore holds. So please stop with the none sense. End of they its a QoL improvement more than anything.
Cade Windstalker
#38 - 2017-04-17 14:33:49 UTC
manus wrote:
Cade Windstalker wrote:
The reason there aren't rigs or modules for or hold is because there's nothing there that would be a good trade-off except for an AFK player, and AFK play isn't something CCP wants to encourage..


If this is true. They are doing it completely wrong. In order to "punish" afk play, they compromise in the fundamental part of the game that makes it interesting. So the end result is yes they punish AFK play, but they also punish "legit" play by making the ships less flexible. It takes away from the enjoyment when CCP creates a ship with static attributes that cannot be changed by players. Its such a fundamental part of the game they cripple, just because they dont like AFK play. Besides, what difference does it make if an "AFK" miner, is able to get 10.000m3 larger Ore hold or more? I dont think more people will start AFK mining because of that. Mining just dont appeal to some people no matter what. Besides, IF more people starting AFK mining and more ore would enter the market, prices would fall, and isk/hour would even out. But seriously the change would be insignifcant. Its not like everyone will start mining just because barges get 10,000m3 larger ore holds. So please stop with the none sense. End of they its a QoL improvement more than anything.


You seem to be missing the point here, in spectacular fashion.

AFK play is not something CCP wants to encourage. It's not playing the game it's deriving benefit from not playing the game, and as you yourself point out here it has impact on players who are actually playing by increasing the supply of goods and/or ISK and that impacts prices. Whether it's ore prices impacted by AFK mining or the ISK Supply impacted by AFK ratting.

As to tradeoffs, there would need to be an absolutely ridiculous bonus to ore-hold size for swapping a low from yield or ore hold size to be worthwhile for a player who isn't AFK. Even for rigs an actually present player would get more benefit out of a warp speed rig than an increase in ore hold size the majority of the time and that's assuming they're docking up constantly when their ore bay gets full rather than having an Orca or something similar to do the hauling.

There just aren't any interesting stats to trade off with here besides those that are objectively more valuable for the vast majority of legitimate use-cases or conflict with existing patterns of design and module use.

The main use of such a module would be by AFK miners, and as stated above CCP have good reason not to incentivize AFK play.
manus
RENSCORP
#39 - 2017-04-17 16:27:22 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
AFK play is not something CCP wants to encourage.


What do you mean by AFK play? Do you consider mining AFK play?
Dark Lord Trump
Pandemic Horde Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#40 - 2017-04-17 16:45:04 UTC
manus wrote:
Cade Windstalker wrote:
AFK play is not something CCP wants to encourage.


What do you mean by AFK play? Do you consider mining AFK play?

AFK play means you're doing stuff while not actually at the keyboard. If I'm in a Skiff and watching for hostiles while mining, that's at keyboard, even if I watch Netflix while I mine. AFK play would be firing up a Retriever's mining lasers and then tabbing out to play another game. Mining and ratting can be AFK play, but they don't have to be.

I'm going to build a big wall that will keep the Gallente out, and they're going to pay for it!

Previous page123Next page