These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
123Next pageLast page
 

BLOPs ore hauler?

Author
Lugh Crow-Slave
#1 - 2016-09-10 07:23:43 UTC
I'm going to be honest i haven't talked this out much before hand.


With the prospect we can now bridge a mining fleet out to a field in ls or null sec opening up a new form of mining. the problem is the only options you have to get the ore back is to bridge the prospects to and from the belts or use a BR. do to the low cargo of a BR the amount you need per prospect makes it more profitable just to put that man power into HS hulks. Using the prospects to go back and forth is to slow as they need to wait out the fatigue again making that man power better spent mining in HS as that is simply more isk/hr particularly when you start to factor in the iso and ozone cost for either option. however an ore transport ship with as little as 30km3 ore hold would make these fleets viable.

basically i'm just sad that a more exciting option to mining is just not a good investment back on time spent. My corp still does it to break up the monotony but i think a ship like this would get more board miners out of HS even if its only for a few hrs

tl;dr
Problem: when the prospect came out it inadvertently teased at a new form of game-play and while it is fun it is not profitable because not all the tools are there.

Solution: add in a Bridgeable ore hauler to make blops mining profitable.
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Mercenary Coalition
#2 - 2016-09-10 09:00:35 UTC
I was about to suggest to put up a small POS with compression array, but they are going to go the way of the dodo soon. And Rorquals do not have the range of the BLOPS. And a Citadel just to compress ninja-mined ore is too bulky and time-intensive.

A small personal compression structure could be interesting, but it would potentially undermine the need for citadels, Rorquals on site and drilling/industry platforms. Guess I am out of arguments.

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.

Vincent Pelletier
Pelletier Imports and Exports
#3 - 2016-09-10 09:07:37 UTC
30k Covops hauler would be very overpowered because it has many uses other than hauling ore for a blops mining OP.


I don't mine so I don't pretend to have a solution.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#4 - 2016-09-10 09:09:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Lugh Crow-Slave
it would only have an ore hold and it does not need to have cov ops cloak just able to take a cov ops bridge so i'm not sure what else it would infringe on or break can you elaborate?
Vincent Pelletier
Pelletier Imports and Exports
#5 - 2016-09-10 09:14:00 UTC
I misread the ore hold bit.

With that in mind it could revitalise more than just blops mining, it could help mining in low sec as well. Not a bad idea.
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#6 - 2016-09-10 11:32:36 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
it would only have an ore hold and it does not need to have cov ops cloak just able to take a cov ops bridge so i'm not sure what else it would infringe on or break can you elaborate?


So, you would have a Kryos with the ability to use covert cynos that cannot fit a covert operations cloak? It seems like a very niche ship, but if there is a use for it, then by all means go for it.

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

Lugh Crow-Slave
#7 - 2016-09-10 11:48:47 UTC
I don't think it really needs much more to be useful maybe a tractor bonus (keeping prospects far apart is a good idea with these ops for cloaky reasons)
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
#8 - 2016-09-10 13:38:09 UTC
Not a fan of the tractor range bonus, the T2 tractor could cover a 40k diameter circle from a central point since the concern stated is keeping the prospects far enough apart to cloak I do not see any need for greater range. I would counter that with a bonus to tractor speed.

Overall I like the concept, it is not likely to get high sec miners out of high sec but I really do not care about that part, It would give the low and nul miners options other than going to high sec and that would not be a bad thing.
Zan Shiro
Alternative Enterprises
#9 - 2016-09-10 14:15:13 UTC
Would a balance caveat of a marked increase to mass be agreeable? I can see this idea and its looking like fleshed out it be nicet. Just needs some kind of "downside". So mass to make the blop work the bridge harder moving that mass seems reasonable to me. Would fall in line with them being bigger to carry more.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#10 - 2016-09-10 14:20:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Lugh Crow-Slave
Zan Shiro wrote:
Would a balance caveat of a marked increase to mass be agreeable? I can see this idea and its looking like fleshed out it be nicet. Just needs some kind of "downside". So mass to make the blop work the bridge harder moving that mass seems reasonable to me. Would fall in line with them being bigger to carry more.



would depend if it gets too expensive that the mining doesn't cover it and if its agi gets to low that it still cant keep up with the rate the miners mine we will be right back where we started(remember its not just belt to station. minimum its bridge, warp to station warp back to bridge, bridge and thats assuming your dumb enough to put one of the blops in the site.) but in theory an added cost to bridge should not be an issue.

if that were the case it would need a small standard cargo hold to haul its own fuel other wise we are right back to needing the BR making the ship redundant
Zan Shiro
Alternative Enterprises
#11 - 2016-09-10 14:42:50 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:

would depend if it gets too expensive that the mining doesn't cover it and if its agi gets to low that it still cant keep up with the rate the miners mine we will be right back where we started(remember its not just belt to station. minimum its bridge, warp to station warp back to bridge, bridge and thats assuming your dumb enough to put one of the blops in the site.) but in theory an added cost to bridge should not be an issue.

if that were the case it would need a small standard cargo hold to haul its own fuel other wise we are right back to needing the BR making the ship redundant



Fair enough. I wasn't looking for oversized plated down brick tank of doom armour bs mass. Just a little to cover the added size and maybe some, but not too much, logistics headaches. You know, create the chance for oh crap miscalculated fuel, rush to get some and hope no roams swings by stuff. Kind of like when a carrier pilot didn't bring enough fuel. Makes the night fun for all sides sometimes. And not have it SSDD moving x ships, know the fuel needed since old hat, yawn, bridge up jump jump jump.

With this stuff going to empire and currently living their sure as hell don't want massive headaches becoming massive price spikes lol.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#12 - 2016-09-10 14:55:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Lugh Crow-Slave
yeah higher than adv mass would not be a problem in that case and would make sense considering BRs already have reduced mass compared to recons and you could probably even go a bit over recon to around 21 where recons are 16-17 basicly a little over 2x a BR
Christopher Mabata
Sentinel Incorporium
#13 - 2016-09-10 17:29:05 UTC
I would support this idea, its not like the other threads asking for haulers that do everything but specialized bays on a blockade runner, even as simple as an ore bay would be diverse, role specific and of course content and economic benefits accompany them as well.

My only question, and pardon me as i did just wake up and may have missed something is how to implement this idea. Would it be another ship entirely? Or perhaps just a slot that you fill with a certain module or subsystem that removes standard cargo in place of specialized cargo? And if option 2 how many specialized bays should be permitted?

♣ Small Gang PVP, Large Fleet PVP, Black Ops, Incursions, Trade, and Industry ♣ 70% Lethal / 30% Super-Snuggly / 110% No idea what im doing ♣

This Message Brought to you by a sweet and sour bittervet

Lugh Crow-Slave
#14 - 2016-09-10 17:41:15 UTC
I would assume the easiest and cleanest way would just be a new ship... if t3s have taught us anything its that ccp can't balance modular ships. also with a modular bridge capable ship like this it would kind of make BRs pointless :/
Sitting Bull Lakota
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
#15 - 2016-09-11 17:29:15 UTC
Another primae hull! \o/

Role bonus to jump fatigue for back and forths?
Lugh Crow-Slave
#16 - 2016-09-11 17:34:08 UTC
It would have to have the reduction or it would be unable to keep up with hauling. depending on the cargo hold it was given however it could probably work with the 75% reduction rather than 90%
Caldari 5
D.I.L.L.I.G.A.F. S.A.S
Affirmative.
#17 - 2016-09-12 07:45:17 UTC
FT Diomedes wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
it would only have an ore hold and it does not need to have cov ops cloak just able to take a cov ops bridge so i'm not sure what else it would infringe on or break can you elaborate?


So, you would have a Kryos with the ability to use covert cynos that cannot fit a covert operations cloak? It seems like a very niche ship, but if there is a use for it, then by all means go for it.

Isn't it the Miasmos that has the Ore Bay in the T1 Haulers?

Thus making this new ship logically a T2 version of the Miasmos?
Lugh Crow-Slave
#18 - 2016-09-12 09:23:54 UTC
Caldari 5 wrote:
FT Diomedes wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
it would only have an ore hold and it does not need to have cov ops cloak just able to take a cov ops bridge so i'm not sure what else it would infringe on or break can you elaborate?


So, you would have a Kryos with the ability to use covert cynos that cannot fit a covert operations cloak? It seems like a very niche ship, but if there is a use for it, then by all means go for it.

Isn't it the Miasmos that has the Ore Bay in the T1 Haulers?

Thus making this new ship logically a T2 version of the Miasmos?


could also be a t2 noc if we wanted to make it part of the ORE line
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
#19 - 2016-09-12 11:13:57 UTC
I think you should be able to conduct covert ops mining operations in a large scale like you imagine.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#20 - 2016-09-12 11:15:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Lugh Crow-Slave
well currently you can its just the cost and manpower make it less profitable than AFK in HS thats the issue i would like to see fixed


currently it takes a minimum of 3 people to support 2 miners add 1 more per every 2 mienrs (main reason it is not proffitable) with this if it was given 30k you could support 5 miners with three ships and every 5 miners you would add 1 ship while it would still probably not be profitable to mine with only 5 miners at 10 you would now start making more over HS. ofc the more you add the more likely you are to draw attention.


after doing some math i will have to redact my earlier statement saying that if it had the 75% fatigue reduction of blops it would be fine this is wrong it would need the BRs 90% to keep up with the miners or it would not be able to support much more than the BR
123Next pageLast page