These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

The Turtle Mining Solution
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
mxzf
Shovel Bros
#41 - 2012-04-21 03:41:15 UTC
Corina Jarr wrote:
I love how the Rokh is almost the only BS ever suggested for mining.Lol


Are the others any use, or too many issues?


There are a couple that work, but the Rokh's massive CPU and 8 turrets make it the best of the mining BSes. Apoc also used to be used before the Rokh was in the game IIRC.
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#42 - 2012-04-21 04:02:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Nicolo da'Vicenza
Corina Jarr wrote:
I love how the Rokh is almost the only BS ever suggested for mining.Lol


Are the others any use, or too many issues?

yeah, the Rokh has 700 CPU compared to the next highest CPU the Mael's 640, and Miner IIs take up 80 CPU each. In short, the rest of them have cpu fitting issues.

So if I slapped on 8 Miners with two MLUs + a DCU and some co-processors with harvester drones with T2 tanking mods, I'd be mining (unbonused) 1200 ore per minute, but I'd have 191K EHP and passive tanking 203 dps. Which is better then a retriever. That's about 20 tornadoes to suicide gank it. I could swap some modules around and drop 70K EHP for an extra 100 ore per minute as well.

But I'd still be making less then the 2000 (unbonused) ore per minute that a 6K EHP Hulk that forswore every tanking mod in exchange for cargospace and yield, and runs the risk of getting popped by a random catalyst.
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#43 - 2012-04-21 18:11:41 UTC
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
Corina Jarr wrote:
I love how the Rokh is almost the only BS ever suggested for mining.Lol


Are the others any use, or too many issues?

yeah, the Rokh has 700 CPU compared to the next highest CPU the Mael's 640, and Miner IIs take up 80 CPU each. In short, the rest of them have cpu fitting issues.

So if I slapped on 8 Miners with two MLUs + a DCU and some co-processors with harvester drones with T2 tanking mods, I'd be mining (unbonused) 1200 ore per minute, but I'd have 191K EHP and passive tanking 203 dps. Which is better then a retriever. That's about 20 tornadoes to suicide gank it. I could swap some modules around and drop 70K EHP for an extra 100 ore per minute as well.

But I'd still be making less then the 2000 (unbonused) ore per minute that a 6K EHP Hulk that forswore every tanking mod in exchange for cargospace and yield, and runs the risk of getting popped by a random catalyst.



Well, perhaps they should specifically design a bs or something similar with high EHP and designed to fit a full rack of t2 miners.
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#44 - 2012-04-22 06:02:46 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:
Well, perhaps they should specifically design a bs or something similar with high EHP and designed to fit a full rack of t2 miners.


That's called a Hulk :)

Day 0 Advice for New Players
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#45 - 2012-04-22 06:05:34 UTC
As for a "Turtle", give the Dominix a mining drone bonus in addition to the existing drone bonuses, and introduce medium & heavy mining drones. A Dominix fitted with mining lasers and drone navigation computers should be able to produce a healthy quantity of ore over time!

Day 0 Advice for New Players
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#46 - 2012-04-22 06:05:36 UTC
Mara Rinn wrote:
Joe Risalo wrote:
Well, perhaps they should specifically design a bs or something similar with high EHP and designed to fit a full rack of t2 miners.


That's called a Hulk :)


except the hulk has crap for ehp and doesn't fit a full rack of t2 miners, but instead has easily alpha'd ehp and 3 strip miners.

Did you even read my post, or did you just feel like saying hulk??Roll
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#47 - 2012-04-22 06:07:37 UTC
Mara Rinn wrote:
As for a "Turtle", give the Dominix a mining drone bonus in addition to the existing drone bonuses, and introduce medium & heavy mining drones. A Dominix fitted with mining lasers and drone navigation computers should be able to produce a healthy quantity of ore over time!


no No NO.

If you introduced heavy or even medium mining drones than carriers would **** asteroid belts as if you simply created ships that could swallow and process asteroids whole.

Terrible idea.
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#48 - 2012-04-22 06:26:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Mara Rinn
Joe Risalo wrote:
If you introduced heavy or even medium mining drones than carriers would **** asteroid belts as if you simply created ships that could swallow and process asteroids whole.


5 x Mining Drone II will produce about as much ore/hr as a single Miner II, unless the mining ship is parked right on top of the rock the drones are mining. Thus 5 x Heavy Mining Drone II would produce about as much ore/hr as 5 x Miner II, or approximately half as much as a Strip Miner I. It seems to me that your concerns about carriers running rampant and stripping the belts of the universe are misplaced. Of course I could be wrong :)

It could be possible to introduce new highslot modules which improve the capacity of mining drones, and when the medium and heavy mining drones are introduced simply ensure that to achieve yield from a carrier equivalent to a T1 fitted Hulk, the carrier would have to sacrifice drone control, logistics and triage capabilities in order to fit the enhanced mining drone control unit.

Day 0 Advice for New Players
Rico Minali
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#49 - 2012-04-22 07:21:52 UTC
Why is it so hard for miners to actually defend tehir ships? I mean come on guys is it really better to fly a solo untanked ship and get a little more yield or is it better to fly in a gang, a properly defended mining op, tank your ships, use rep drones and spider tank, have a cap stable repping ship (BS ideally due to th enumber of reppers you can put on) perma rep the hulks etc.

TBH miners just refuse to do this, I just dont understand what is wrong with them.

Trust me, I almost know what I'm doing.
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#50 - 2012-04-22 07:41:39 UTC
Rico Minali wrote:
a properly defended mining op


Lol

Picture this: you have 5 super tank hulks (30k EHP each), two buffer tanked Basilisks (30k EHP each), and a bunch of Dominixes with drones out. Your gank squad has enough firepower to get 30k damage off in one salvo between you. Do you (a) shoot through the Basilisks and then lose your ships to CONCORD, or (b) blow up a Hulk before the Basilisks can get any reps on?

There is no point attacking the "defenders" since the Hulks are right there in plain sight, waiting (no, begging!) to be shot. There is no "defending" a mining op in hisec. In null sec you can do better as long as your intel channel is full of people who are actually awake and not busy ratting.

Why is it so hard for armchair PvPers to get over this "defend your Hulks" nonsense? You just have to learn that there is no tanking an alpha strike, which is why it's such a popular tactic.

Day 0 Advice for New Players
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#51 - 2012-04-22 07:50:20 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
Corina Jarr wrote:
I love how the Rokh is almost the only BS ever suggested for mining.Lol


Are the others any use, or too many issues?

yeah, the Rokh has 700 CPU compared to the next highest CPU the Mael's 640, and Miner IIs take up 80 CPU each. In short, the rest of them have cpu fitting issues.

So if I slapped on 8 Miners with two MLUs + a DCU and some co-processors with harvester drones with T2 tanking mods, I'd be mining (unbonused) 1200 ore per minute, but I'd have 191K EHP and passive tanking 203 dps. Which is better then a retriever. That's about 20 tornadoes to suicide gank it. I could swap some modules around and drop 70K EHP for an extra 100 ore per minute as well.

But I'd still be making less then the 2000 (unbonused) ore per minute that a 6K EHP Hulk that forswore every tanking mod in exchange for cargospace and yield, and runs the risk of getting popped by a random catalyst.



Well, perhaps they should specifically design a bs or something similar with high EHP and designed to fit a full rack of t2 miners.

I think they should just lower the cpu reqs of non-strip Miners IIs from 80 to 70, and increase yield by 10-15%

They'd still make considerably less then a 6k EHP greed hulk, but it wouldn't be such a steep drop from 'mining barge' to 'non-mining barge'
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#52 - 2012-04-22 10:48:45 UTC
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
Joe Risalo wrote:
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
Corina Jarr wrote:
I love how the Rokh is almost the only BS ever suggested for mining.Lol


Are the others any use, or too many issues?

yeah, the Rokh has 700 CPU compared to the next highest CPU the Mael's 640, and Miner IIs take up 80 CPU each. In short, the rest of them have cpu fitting issues.

So if I slapped on 8 Miners with two MLUs + a DCU and some co-processors with harvester drones with T2 tanking mods, I'd be mining (unbonused) 1200 ore per minute, but I'd have 191K EHP and passive tanking 203 dps. Which is better then a retriever. That's about 20 tornadoes to suicide gank it. I could swap some modules around and drop 70K EHP for an extra 100 ore per minute as well.

But I'd still be making less then the 2000 (unbonused) ore per minute that a 6K EHP Hulk that forswore every tanking mod in exchange for cargospace and yield, and runs the risk of getting popped by a random catalyst.



Well, perhaps they should specifically design a bs or something similar with high EHP and designed to fit a full rack of t2 miners.

I think they should just lower the cpu reqs of non-strip Miners IIs from 80 to 70, and increase yield by 10-15%

They'd still make considerably less then a 6k EHP greed hulk, but it wouldn't be such a steep drop from 'mining barge' to 'non-mining barge'


That I can agree with, though, I'm not sir if lower the CPU from 80 to 70 would be low enough, but it might do it.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#53 - 2012-04-23 14:20:48 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Ahhh, but I am also achieving a personal interest with this design.

I believe this mining craft would function for players. Needing skills and patient techniques is a price tradeoff, being less convenient in some ways.

Bots, on the other hand, would be placed in a more difficult position. This craft would be more survivable than a Hulk, but without the little drones, it may as well not bother undocking.

And a bot should not be able to manage and protect drones as well or as readily as a live player.

A single smart bomb will pop all of them.
MushroomMushroom wrote:
Also, don't delude yourself into thinking bots wouldn't be quickly changed to manage drones. Drone taking damage? recall... All dead? dock, reload...

Heh, I do hope they try to go to the trouble of tweaking their little programs, in an attempt to protect their drones.

In High-Sec, where this is referred to frequently, they would have their drones out. They have two choices:
1. Wait till a possible ganker gets on grid, then recall drones.
2. Pull drones as soon as anyone unknown enters system.

In the case of 1, to achieve best mining results, they need to be within 1Km of the asteroid. If they are not, recall also would take too long.
Bookmark the asteroid.
Warp to asteroid, fire smartbomb immediately. Drones are wrecks before recall can be initiated.
Alternately, mine right next to em, and watch them 'not mine', as they automatically react to any foreign presence.

If they do nothing defensive, send in a light disposable frigate to pop the drones.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#54 - 2012-04-23 16:25:04 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Ahhh, but I am also achieving a personal interest with this design.

I believe this mining craft would function for players. Needing skills and patient techniques is a price tradeoff, being less convenient in some ways.

Bots, on the other hand, would be placed in a more difficult position. This craft would be more survivable than a Hulk, but without the little drones, it may as well not bother undocking.

And a bot should not be able to manage and protect drones as well or as readily as a live player.

A single smart bomb will pop all of them.
MushroomMushroom wrote:
Also, don't delude yourself into thinking bots wouldn't be quickly changed to manage drones. Drone taking damage? recall... All dead? dock, reload...

Heh, I do hope they try to go to the trouble of tweaking their little programs, in an attempt to protect their drones.

In High-Sec, where this is referred to frequently, they would have their drones out. They have two choices:
1. Wait till a possible ganker gets on grid, then recall drones.
2. Pull drones as soon as anyone unknown enters system.

In the case of 1, to achieve best mining results, they need to be within 1Km of the asteroid. If they are not, recall also would take too long.
Bookmark the asteroid.
Warp to asteroid, fire smartbomb immediately. Drones are wrecks before recall can be initiated.
Alternately, mine right next to em, and watch them 'not mine', as they automatically react to any foreign presence.

If they do nothing defensive, send in a light disposable frigate to pop the drones.


I don't know that suicide ganking drones would be a good idea for gankers.. They gank hulks cause they can do it for much less isk than what their target loses.

Even with just one frig taking down 5 t2 mining drones, it's not that cost effective for the ganker... So i'm pretty sure that wouldn't happen.
Plus, they gank hulks cause they know it's something that is a trauma to the player that loses that ship. However, losing a fleet of 5 t2 mining drones is really not but annoying.
The players won't be mad they lost the isk, they'll be mad they now have to fly somewhere and buy some more. However, if they have a crap ton at the station, then all is well and good.

About all this would cause is mining drones to actually become popular, and for their prices to go up.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#55 - 2012-04-23 16:48:20 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:
I don't know that suicide ganking drones would be a good idea for gankers.. They gank hulks cause they can do it for much less isk than what their target loses.

Even with just one frig taking down 5 t2 mining drones, it's not that cost effective for the ganker... So i'm pretty sure that wouldn't happen.
Plus, they gank hulks cause they know it's something that is a trauma to the player that loses that ship. However, losing a fleet of 5 t2 mining drones is really not but annoying.
The players won't be mad they lost the isk, they'll be mad they now have to fly somewhere and buy some more. However, if they have a crap ton at the station, then all is well and good.

About all this would cause is mining drones to actually become popular, and for their prices to go up.

Whenever a player loses a ship, it can be traumatic.
The turtle helps the player avoid this.

Whenever a bot loses a ship, it is secondary to the fact that production stopped. The bot is focused on results, namely the continual uninterrupted income from their automated accounts. Losing the income, whether it is due to a hulk becoming the pinata du jour or losing it's drones, the effect is the same. Losing Hulks has not stopped botting so far. It does, however, set the bar higher as to what it takes to interrupt what the bot does care about, that income.
The turtle doesn't help at all, and in fact makes the loss of production more likely and easier to achieve for gankers.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Buzzy Warstl
Quantum Flux Foundry
#56 - 2012-04-23 16:55:57 UTC
So bots will continue to use hulks and covetors (whichever maximizes their profit) and only players would opt for something like the Turtle (which sounds more and more like an Orca with mining bonuses).

http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm Richard Bartle: Players who suit MUDs
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#57 - 2012-04-23 16:56:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Joe Risalo
Nikk Narrel wrote:

Whenever a player loses a ship, it can be traumatic.
The turtle helps the player avoid this.

Whenever a bot loses a ship, it is secondary to the fact that production stopped. The bot is focused on results, namely the continual uninterrupted income from their automated accounts. Losing the income, whether it is due to a hulk becoming the pinata du jour or losing it's drones, the effect is the same. Losing Hulks has not stopped botting so far. It does, however, set the bar higher as to what it takes to interrupt what the bot does care about, that income.
The turtle doesn't help at all, and in fact makes the loss of production more likely and easier to achieve for gankers.


The problem I am seeing that you and others keep bringing up is the assumption that addressing bots in on the players.

It is CCP's responsponsibility to address bots, and they've been doing quite well at it lately. They've taken out two major bot creating groups that I'm aware of and have also taken several bots out of the game, and scared others into flying straight.

So, instead of trying to balance a ship around bots, how about we focus on the core player base and design a ship that is better for us, and not even consider the bots which are against the rules, thus, shouldn't be our problem
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#58 - 2012-04-23 17:15:54 UTC
Buzzy Warstl wrote:
So bots will continue to use hulks and covetors (whichever maximizes their profit) and only players would opt for something like the Turtle (which sounds more and more like an Orca with mining bonuses).

Orca? Wow, I can't even guess where you saw that connection.

The concept for this: Take the Hulk, if you prefer that starting base. (I never specified any)

Take away all turret and launcher hardpoints. (It is not intended to fight, so it's outer hull is focused on defense alone)

Give it the same effective defensive prowess as the Marauder class. (Tough ships, supposedly the hardest to kill sub-caps)

Make it rely on fragile mining drones, meaning players have to be smart, or need to run back for replacements often.

Joe Risalo wrote:
The problem I am seeing that you and others keep bringing up is the assumption that addressing bots in on the players.

It is CCP's responsponsibility to address bots, and they've been doing quite well at it lately. They've taken out two major bot creating groups that I'm aware of and have also taken several bots out of the game, and scared others into flying straight.

So, instead of trying to balance a ship around bots, how about we focus on the core player base and design a ship that is better for us, and not even consider the bots which are against the rules, thus, shouldn't be our problem

The assumption you are making, seems to be that this is the centerpiece of this ship's intended design.

Not at all.

In fact, it wasn't until I had designed the boat that I noticed how a bot could only use it by accepting the same limits the players would deal with. The nice part was that by isolating ship survival from ship production, I made life more difficult for bots by the same mechanism it made it more involved for players.

What I am pointing out is not a new tactic to fight botting.
I am pointing out this ship won't help them over the existing Hulk, unlike live players, who may find a benefit.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#59 - 2012-04-23 17:23:15 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:


Joe Risalo wrote:
The problem I am seeing that you and others keep bringing up is the assumption that addressing bots in on the players.

It is CCP's responsponsibility to address bots, and they've been doing quite well at it lately. They've taken out two major bot creating groups that I'm aware of and have also taken several bots out of the game, and scared others into flying straight.

So, instead of trying to balance a ship around bots, how about we focus on the core player base and design a ship that is better for us, and not even consider the bots which are against the rules, thus, shouldn't be our problem

The assumption you are making, seems to be that this is the centerpiece of this ship's intended design.

Not at all.

In fact, it wasn't until I had designed the boat that I noticed how a bot could only use it by accepting the same limits the players would deal with. The nice part was that by isolating ship survival from ship production, I made life more difficult for bots by the same mechanism it made it more involved for players.

What I am pointing out is not a new tactic to fight botting.
I am pointing out this ship won't help them over the existing Hulk, unlike live players, who may find a benefit.


No NO NO, that comment wasn't specifically for you. What I was saying is that everyone who keeps knocking down the idea because it make macro mining so much safer need to quit doing so.

Your ship design shouldn't have to factor in the possible use by bots. All you need to do is assume that only live players are going to be using this ship, and balance it from there. I was saying don't worry about bots being in these ships because that's not your concern.
You're suggesting a ship for the players, not the bots, but if bots use them, well, that's CCP's problem and not yours or anyone else's.
Buzzy Warstl
Quantum Flux Foundry
#60 - 2012-04-23 18:52:38 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Buzzy Warstl wrote:
So bots will continue to use hulks and covetors (whichever maximizes their profit) and only players would opt for something like the Turtle (which sounds more and more like an Orca with mining bonuses).

Orca? Wow, I can't even guess where you saw that connection.

Highsec capable ship
Big tank
Good cargo capacity (though the Turtle would obviously trade most of the cargo capacity for the mining bonus...)

http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm Richard Bartle: Players who suit MUDs