These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
28 PagesPrevious page12345Next pageLast page
 

[September] Mining Barge and Exhumer tweaks

First post
Author
#41 - 2016-08-23 02:54:39 UTC
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:
Not the change that mining needs, which is incentivizing group mining to the point that fielding defense fleets becomes worthwhile. Something that makes miners leave their system to go to a specific location in their constellation.

As a ganker I'm happy to see the Hulk and Covetor get a minor buff that might see more of them being used, but this is basically no change.

This will never happen unless Mining earns vastly more than ratting does. To make a defence fleet worthwhile regularly you have to be able to pay the escort an equal amount to what they would have earned ratting for the same time.
People might do it for the sake of pew and accept a loss once or twice, but not every day.

We could divide bounties by about 10, then mining might be worth more than ratting though....
But that's about how silly the idea of regular escort fleets actually happening in the meta is.
Mouth Trumpet Cavalry
#42 - 2016-08-23 03:54:12 UTC  |  Edited by: FT Cold
I don't really have a dog in this fight, but I would have thought (for sake of risk/reward and diversity) the changes might look like this:

All of the barges need to have their fitting and base hull/armor/shield re-balanced so that they need to be fitted like other subcaps(i.e. fitted shield extenders etc instead of implicit buffer.) Players that fit well and pay attention should be rewarded, and should be offered different fitting options to support varied play style. Hull cost should be reduced, but the cost of strip miners and other mining upgrades should be increased to increase the probability of profitable ganking under ideal conditions.

Hulk: least tank, small ore hold, highest yield, range bonus to strip miners, balanced towards high risk, high reward play(fleet, orca/hauler on grid, jet can mining.) Fitting should be most restrictive to balance highly rewarding yield and scaleability vs other barges. Should be profitable and relatively easy to gank.

Mack: medium tank, largest ore hold, medium yield, balanced for solo/small scale mining and varied playstyles. Probably needs it's yield increased a little to help compete with the skiff, the hold alone doesn't really seem to cut it. Moderate fitting to allow enough tank to dissuade casual gankers (though not a determined group) when fit for maximum tank. Should be moderate difficulty to gank, but still profitable to gank when untanked in lower security highsec.

Skiff: most tank, medium ore hold, lowest yield, drone damage bonus, balanced for minimum risk/isk per hour solo or fleet. Largest fitting space to facilitate tank. Should be difficult to gank when fit with a good tank, but moderate when untanked. A more radical option might be to simply reduce to tank to only slightly higher than the mackinaw, but increase it's agility and maybe give it a secondary bonus to warp core strength or the ability to fit MJDs so that it remains a low risk mining ship, but is much more so for players who pay attention.

Also, have you considered more mid-slot mining modules? Maybe they could work like tracking computers and the base range of all strip miners could be reduced slightly to compensate. These mining tracking computers might even have a secondary bonus, to further incentivize their use, such as the chance for a mining cycle to generate a block of compressed ore of a certain type. You could consider adding secondary bonuses to survey scanners as well. Ore hold rigs would be a good substitution for tanking/ice mining rigs. Anything would be better than the status quo of mandatory shield resist modules.

Hell, you could even add 'ancillary' strip miners, with extremely short range, optimized so that non-afk miners fit with 'mining tracking computers' and hyperspatials or ore hold rigs might out-compete afk players. For them to work, players would need to utilize a high risk, high reward fit to reap the optimal benefits. Very large mining bonus, with a cooldown similar to the reloads of AAR or ASBs, possibly unaffected by mining boosts to facilitate small scale mining. Warp in, mine until the ore hold is full, warp to station when ancillary modules are on cooldown and repeat, with greater yield at the cost of less tank. Maybe 'mining bastion modules' that force you to stay on grid for a short time, but are only useable in low, null or wh space could be fun for people in t1 barges.

Not a miner, just throwing some ideas on the table in the interest of new play-styles and fitting variety.
Gallente Federation
#43 - 2016-08-23 04:27:41 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:
Not the change that mining needs, which is incentivizing group mining to the point that fielding defense fleets becomes worthwhile. Something that makes miners leave their system to go to a specific location in their constellation.

As a ganker I'm happy to see the Hulk and Covetor get a minor buff that might see more of them being used, but this is basically no change.

This will never happen unless Mining earns vastly more than ratting does. To make a defence fleet worthwhile regularly you have to be able to pay the escort an equal amount to what they would have earned ratting for the same time.
People might do it for the sake of pew and accept a loss once or twice, but not every day.

We could divide bounties by about 10, then mining might be worth more than ratting though....
But that's about how silly the idea of regular escort fleets actually happening in the meta is.


The CCP design model for this interaction is that a durable mining ship like a procurer or a skiff puts a point on a hostile, and your ratting guards have appropriate fits to warp straight from combat anoms to the fight.

If this doesn't happen, its because your corporation has not recruited people based on cooperating to produce resources in your home (bearing in mind the game design has missteps which overly incentivise people to specialize).

Also CCP has repeatedly made it harder to rat a hull. They have raised material requirements for hulls, reduced the materials available from gun mining and removed drone minerals as a kill drop altogether, and now they are steadily providing incentives to use yet larger hulls in null PVE.

Can assure you if they dropped bounties by 90%, the price paid for ore would also drop 90%
The-Culture
#44 - 2016-08-23 04:30:05 UTC
This seems like a nothing burger to me. If you're going to make changes, might as well make some bigger ones that make mining better / more interesting. These changes just seem to make things harder to fit.

Mid slot modules sound good to me too.
Goonswarm Federation
#45 - 2016-08-23 05:28:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Grognard Commissar
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.

soooo... ya'll are changing the boosts *without* giving a good enough reason to have them on-grid? guess my rorq's staying in dock till november. not enough reward for my rorqual to be on-grid.
... unless the boosting changes are planned for november as well?

FT Cold wrote:


increase the probability of profitable ganking under ideal conditions.
.

i think we got enough of that already.
Amarr Empire
#46 - 2016-08-23 06:30:41 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
This will never happen unless Mining earns vastly more than ratting does. To make a defence fleet worthwhile regularly you have to be able to pay the escort an equal amount to what they would have earned ratting for the same time.

No amount of tweaking will change the fact that it's always better to field extra mining ships instead of that escort and take safety measures that don't involve making people to not play the game even if they earn more ISK this way, as well as corresponding risks, which are still more likely to be justified by extra production rather than by chance that some ship will be saved by combat-shipped fleetmates.

Not to mention that balancing income that relies on market is rather hard.
Gallente Federation
#47 - 2016-08-23 06:33:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Mark O'Helm
Vincent Athena wrote:
Mark O'Helm wrote:
I like the new design.
But why make them equal in part of highslots? I liked that they were unique in this.
Is there another reason then just to simplify the design?

I look on it this way:
First remember this is a MMORPG, where RP stands for role play. As a role player, I look at this statement about the Skiff: "Special loading algorithms allow for a +150% yield", and wonder, why does ORE not use those on the Hulk? That +150% bonus is just weird, a hack to do the tiericide, with a force fit explanation on the RP side.

I much prefer solutions to fixing game play that also flow naturally for the role player. Equalizing the turret count across all the barges does just that.

Also, remember that this change is mainly an artwork change. Its not a barge re-balance, or a mining change. Barges came up on the "revap artwork" schedule, so CCP is doing it.

If you think that +150% bonus is weird, what about every other ship bonus in the game?
Take the vexor and her 2 variations for example. They all look the same besides painting. But they have different stats. How is that possible? Why can we not upgrade a tech 1 ship to a tech 2 or tech 3, when they are based on the same hull?(That is a change i would like to see.)

The 3 barges look different now, and have different sizes, shapes and stats. Why should they not have a different count of strip miners?
Now they will become the same ship, optical only different in size and not unique any more. This is wrong.

"Frauenversteher wissen, was Frauen wollen. Aber Frauen wollen keine Frauenversteher. Weil Frauenversteher wissen, was Frauen wollen." (Ein Single)

"Wirklich coolen Leuten ist es egal, ob sie cool sind." (Einer, dem es egal ist)

#48 - 2016-08-23 06:49:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Lorelei Victoria Gilmore
I really like the bulkiness of the new graphical design, they now look like they cloud withstand collisions with some smaller asteroids.

I also think that the removal of the role boni makes it easier for new players to distinguish between the roles of the Barges - I remember having to double-check the statement that the Procurer and die Retriever have similar yield, since at a first glance the Retriever clearly had double the amount of turrets. Sure, it was just a matter of looking up the Role Bonus, but this was easy for me because by then I already had some some calculations in EVE.

I do believe that now it is clearer now that all three Barges can mine the same amount per cycle, while the Covetor gets that stuff faster, the Procurer more secure and the Retriever with less warping back to station.
NullSechnaya Sholupen
#49 - 2016-08-23 07:04:48 UTC
Retriever, Covetor have 1 mid keep going?

if they get 2midn not makebalance issue

Rule #34 to EVEOnline. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=296094 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=367650

Goonswarm Federation
#50 - 2016-08-23 07:22:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Mostlyharmlesss
Well, that was underwhelming. Just like the visual revamp.

Looks like you're still required to receive boosts to have any notable ISK income.

Follow me on Twitter for the latest regarding GoonSwarm Federation and our recruitment drives!

#51 - 2016-08-23 07:46:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Mai Khumm
How about a little more tank and drone Bay increase?

Currently, it's stupid easy to blow a Mackinaw and Hulk, and their T1 counterparts out of the sky. It's extremely unbalanced to still have 1-2 Destroyers easily kill a Barge in a 0.6 or even a 0.7 system. The HP increase in the last balance didn't do much in the way of preventing them from dying when someone sneezes on them...



Insert trolling in 3......2......
#52 - 2016-08-23 08:36:48 UTC
Kueyen wrote:
This new Ore Strip Miner, at 4% better than a T1 Strip Miner, will be going as unused as the old one.


Don't the ORE strip miners and ice harvesters have a range bonus?
#53 - 2016-08-23 08:42:58 UTC
New CSM, new developers dipping their toes into the mining pool. Time to push my ancient Mining is Boring blogpost about new ideas for mining itself, rather than shifting the mining barge deck chairs around on the proverbial Titanic.

And yes, I miss the days when grav sites were a thing.
#54 - 2016-08-23 08:52:18 UTC
Cassiel Seraphim wrote:
I'd rather see a shift towards faster cycling mining lasers, considerably faster cycling mining lasers.

So instead of buffing yield per pull, why not reduce cycle time (and cap usage) by the equivalent amount instead, so you mine the same yield/second but with more frequent and weaker pulls? It would make the gaming style less passive and annoying when mining multiple smaller asteroids for example.


I think part of the reasoning behind higher yield but long cycles is that the attentive player can increase yield by aborting a strip harvester cycle early, or even just leaving an asteroid behind once it no longer has a full cycle's worth of ore to extract.
#55 - 2016-08-23 08:58:42 UTC
i never used a barge before but i always thought that it was cool that the larger barges had more mining lasers. Why was that changed? Maybe to easier compare large barges with smaller ones since the bonus is now similar?

how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value

O.U.Z.O. Alliance
#56 - 2016-08-23 09:07:48 UTC
Mark O'Helm wrote:
...Take the vexor and her 2 variations for example. They all look the same besides painting. But they have different stats. How is that possible? Why can we not upgrade a tech 1 ship to a tech 2 or tech 3, when they are based on the same hull?(That is a change i would like to see.)...


Read this and save it as desktop background.
Then print it out 1000 times and hang in on your walls, so you can always look at it as if you were practicing for your SATs.

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever

Haighare Pirates
#57 - 2016-08-23 09:16:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Yarosara Ruil
Maybe now I can finally convince my fellow miners to use the Procurer and not hear them moan about the lack of Highslots.

Mark O'Helm wrote:

Take the vexor and her 2 variations for example. They all look the same besides painting. But they have different stats. How is that possible? Why can we not upgrade a tech 1 ship to a tech 2 or tech 3, when they are based on the same hull?(That is a change i would like to see.)


You must be new here. Last I checked, Tech 2 actually use Tech 1 ships to be produced, since they are basically overhauled Tech 1 ships with shinny new components and engines. Navy Issue ships follow the same principle as Tech 2, but they are built solely by their respective navies.

As for Tech 3, your lack of basic knowledge has been made very clear, so I'm not going to explain what's their deal.
Stain Confederation
#58 - 2016-08-23 09:22:29 UTC
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.
Goonswarm Federation
#59 - 2016-08-23 10:14:47 UTC
The new barges look sexy. And the new skins look even sexier, just sad they cost 10 F*CKING dollars!

My YouTube Channel - EVE Tutorials & other game related things!

My Website - Blogs, Livestreams & Forums

#60 - 2016-08-23 10:26:50 UTC
So the only reason to train Exhumer to 5 will be for more shild resistances only ?

Sorry but thats not EVE ... who in Highsec would ever invest 30days of training with no reason ?

If you realy want to shift the use from Mackinaw to Hulk/Skiff there should be a real benefit from it.

Excample suggestions for Exhumer:
+3% CPU or/and
+3% Powergrid or/and
-3% of miningcrystal Damage

Increasing Orehold with each level.
Mackinaw should reach the 35k with Exhumer @L5
Skiff and Hulk will recieve 1k more each Level starting with their current Orecargo Value.

shortly said ... give Hulk/Skiff some "sexiness".
I the original suggested change these are mostly "choose your skin" :)
28 PagesPrevious page12345Next pageLast page
Forum Jump