These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE Information Portal

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

New dev blog: Ship balancing summer update

First post First post
Author
Selissa Shadoe
#281 - 2012-06-14 17:07:59 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Maul555 wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Selissa Shadoe wrote:


So, you support a Hulk nerf? I don't, I think that's going about it the wrong way.

Amusingly your sig has the quote '“If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡ you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.”' .. which is what a lot of industrial/miner ppl on here are trying to do :)


How is this a hulk nerf?



If you use expanded cargo holds, and/or cargo rigs on a hulk, then this is looking like a big operational nerf/headache. I would love to get some clarification on hulk bay changes and the forcing of mined ore into ore bays.


So you have to empty the hold a bit more. These things are ment to be used in goups you know. Worst case is you just warp to the station and back a bit more but then again, a smart miners fits a tank and does this anyway. If you want a massive hold then use a retriver/mack.


Yea, maybe that's it.. There's going to be something like a fire-sale on Hulks after the patch. Fire up the Mack blueprints, everyone.

"Whether suicide ganking or doing anything in eve, there are exorbitant amounts of people in the game and on the forums that are complete jerks." - Spikeflach

Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#282 - 2012-06-14 17:08:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Nicolo da'Vicenza
Scrapyard Bob wrote:
Skiff - very specialized, has a very weak tank and hardly any PG. But it's also very specialized so I'm not sure this matters much. Could probably use 1-2 more mids and 1-2 more lows and a bit more PG.

Actually a skiff's tank can be fit nearly identically to a hulk's due to the reduction in PG reqs thanks to only one strip miner fitted,and is actually better at tanking then a hulk in my experience since it has less then half the sig radius of a hulk and the speed of a cruiser; just set it to orbit a jetcan at 500m and shrug off 5-6 BS at once.

Skiffs are pretty sweet except for that they require exhumers V to yield equally to a hulk, and only work on mercoxit
Maul555
Xen Investments
#283 - 2012-06-14 17:08:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Maul555
baltec1 wrote:
Maul555 wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Selissa Shadoe wrote:


So, you support a Hulk nerf? I don't, I think that's going about it the wrong way.

Amusingly your sig has the quote '“If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡ you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.”' .. which is what a lot of industrial/miner ppl on here are trying to do :)


How is this a hulk nerf?



If you use expanded cargo holds, and/or cargo rigs on a hulk, then this is looking like a big operational nerf/headache. I would love to get some clarification on hulk bay changes and the forcing of mined ore into ore bays.


So you have to empty the hold a bit more. These things are ment to be used in goups you know. Worst case is you just warp to the station and back a bit more but then again, a smart miners fits a tank and does this anyway. If you want a massive hold then use a retriver/mack.



No, they are meant to be used as I like. In this case, I usualy mine alone. Anyways, mining in groups doesnt change the problem I am pointing out. you have to empty the ore much more often if this change goes thru. Mining in a big group only changes it from 1 guy emptying a bay more often, to a group of miners emptying bays more often.

And what do you think about all of thoes cargo rigs that are about to be useless and must be stripped out of all the hulks in new eden? They are there for ore space... not cargo runs! They will still have some uses in some applications, but for me, it will be worthless, and I will just rip them out and put a bigger tank on. I mine with an orca, and this new change will only make my multi-boxing harder. I choose to mine because its a semi-afk activity in highsec. This change will effectively remove ore mining from the list of available semi-afk activities, unless I go with a mackinaw, as tippia pointed out. But having to go with a mackinaw for ore mining just means that CCP broke something IMHO.
Dren Nas
The Omega Syndicate
#284 - 2012-06-14 17:09:19 UTC
Dear CCP,

TYVM for attempting to address the issues with ORE barges; however, I wish there were more variations of t2 battleships. There are tons of cruisers, but only 2 types of t2 BS. I'd love to see heavy logistics or super heavy interdictors one day
Javajunky
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#285 - 2012-06-14 17:11:23 UTC
This isn't the first time I've mentioned it, but it's a good time to iterate...

How about some Mining Op love? Allow hulks in range of the rorq/orca an ability to directly deposit ore to the ore holds?

Lots of solo miner love and no one thought - how could we make it cooler for the mining ops?

Java
Ila Gant
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#286 - 2012-06-14 17:12:05 UTC
Maul555 wrote:
If you use expanded cargo holds, and/or cargo rigs on a hulk, then this is looking like a big operational nerf/headache.

If you use expanded cargo holds on a Hulk then you're already doing it wrong. In hi-sec, you should be fitting a tank on that Hulk and have a buddy (or alt) haul, in low-sec you should be fitting MLUs and have a buddy (or alt haul), and have your corp/alliance secure the space or monitor the gates. Better you should be in a fleet with an Orca or Rorqual that can tractor your yield and hold it for you.

If you're trying to go completely solo, no hauler, then you're doing it wrong.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#287 - 2012-06-14 17:12:20 UTC
Maul555 wrote:



No, they are meant to be used as I like. In this case, I usualy mine alone. Anyways, mining in groups doesnt change the problem I am pointing out. you have to empty the ore much more often if this change goes thru. Mining in a big group only changes it from 1 guy emptying a bay more often, to a group of miners emptying bays more often.


I want my megathrons turrets to hit frigates. Because thats what I want them to do.

As for the rest, christ suck it up. You have to empty your hold slightly more than you used to. Its not the end of the world.
Selaya Ataru
Phalanx Solutions
#288 - 2012-06-14 17:12:25 UTC
J3ssica Alba wrote:
inb4 ganker tear flood over skiff EHP


Since the skiff will have a low yield and most miner will still fly Hulks for max profit the ganker can be quite happy with this.
Though it is a good change to give miners the choice to fly either supertanks or high yield ships without having to train caldari BS
Temmu Guerra
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#289 - 2012-06-14 17:12:34 UTC
My mining fleet says thank you for the changes to the cargo holds on the hulks and such.

Now can we start talking about capital mining ships Bear
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#290 - 2012-06-14 17:12:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Maul555 wrote:
No, they are meant to be used as I like.
…except that the whole point of tiercide and of this change is that each ship will have a well-defined role.

The new role defined for the Hulk/Covetor is group mining. You can use it any way you like, but if you push it outside its role, it will be bad at it. This is no different than trying to use a HIC for remote reps and trying to use Logistics for tackling — it can be done, but it's the wrong ships for the wrong tasks. If you want to mine alone, a Retreiever/Mack will suit your purpose far better.

Basically, everyone needs to get the idea of “Hulk = best miner” out of their heads, because the differentiation between ships will no longer work like that.
Swearte Widfarend
Ever Vigilant Fountain Defenders
#291 - 2012-06-14 17:13:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Swearte Widfarend
Tippia wrote:
Maul555 wrote:
Tippia, please... read it again
Quote:

Covetor/hulk: ore bay is identical to its current cargo hold, little to average EHP, but best mining output. Basically made for group operations when players have industrials and protection to back them up.
Yes, please do. What does it say about its new cargo hold?

Nothing. It says that the ore bay will have the same size as its current cargo hold. What the new cargo hold size will be isn't mentioned, and leaving it the same size as it is right now, with the same kind of expansion capabilities it has, breaks the design philosophy mentioned earlier about not letting them compete with industrials.

So, new ore bay = old cargo hold; new cargo hold = who knows, probably enough space for a couple of crystals.

How does providing the option to expand the size of an ore bay break the "design philosophy mentioned earlier"?


Tippia wrote:
Selissa Shadoe wrote:
So, you support a Hulk nerf?
What nerf? It's a role change. Hell, it's not really even that — it's a role clarification.


Losing up to 20% of the Ore capacity isn't a nerf? Geez I wonder what counts as one in your book then...

Base Hulk Cargo is 8km3. With Expander Rigs, it goes to a little over 9km3. Fully Expanded it's over 10km3. So 20% nerf to Hulk capacity.

Democracy is only as good as the despot managing the voting booth.

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#292 - 2012-06-14 17:15:38 UTC
Swearte Widfarend wrote:
How does providing the option to expand the size of an ore bay break the "design philosophy mentioned earlier"?
The option to expand the cargo holds would break the philosophy of not having them compete with industrials, if those cargo holds were to remain the same size they are today.
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#293 - 2012-06-14 17:16:02 UTC
yeah im not sure why anyone thinks we'd be upset about this: the people who would fly the tanked barges are flying battleships right now

this just gives us new reasons to mock our victims

hell they'll probably take a skiff and fit it for max yield and in doing so make it still paper thin

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#294 - 2012-06-14 17:16:42 UTC
Swearte Widfarend wrote:

How does providing the option to expand the size of an ore bay break the "design philosophy mentioned earlier"?


You put the hauling hauler out of work and reduce jetcans which also puts can flippers out of work. We cant do thatStraight
Maul555
Xen Investments
#295 - 2012-06-14 17:18:56 UTC
So if I want to semi-afk mine ore in highsec, I have to use a mackinaw now. and its my problem? mining ore in a mackinaw? that just seems pants on head ********.

also I can mine in a cargo expanded hulk and not be called stupid. Thanks guys... I know gankers exist. My problem, not yours. If i want more lasers cycles before I have to empty the hold, why shouldn't I still be able to fit for that?
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#296 - 2012-06-14 17:20:19 UTC
Weaselior wrote:
yeah im not sure why anyone thinks we'd be upset about this: the people who would fly the tanked barges are flying battleships right now

this just gives us new reasons to mock our victims

hell they'll probably take a skiff and fit it for max yield and in doing so make it still paper thin

this reminds me: CCP please make it possible to fit a skiff for max yield and utterly ruin the tank

you know you'll enjoy the killmails as much as I will

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#297 - 2012-06-14 17:21:29 UTC
Maul555 wrote:
So if I want to semi-afk mine ore in highsec, I have to use a mackinaw now. and its my problem? mining ore in a mackinaw? that just seems pants on head ********.

also I can mine in a cargo expanded hulk and not be called stupid. Thanks guys... I know gankers exist. My problem, not yours. If i want more lasers cycles before I have to empty the hold, why shouldn't I still be able to fit for that?


Face it, you now have to make choices. You people whined for the barges to be "fixed" and now they have. The rest is up to you.
Maul555
Xen Investments
#298 - 2012-06-14 17:22:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Maul555
If ccp adds ore hold expanders and rigs, this would fix all the problems I can see. also add a lot more options to orcas...
Lili Lu
#299 - 2012-06-14 17:23:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Lili Lu
PinkKnife wrote:
There is a lot of reading fail in this thread, and a lot of misinformation on how things work.
Peta Michalek wrote:

Seriously?

So let me get this straight.

T1 frigates.destroyers to be released this winter;
T1 BCs/BS one update after that(summer 2013)
T2 frigs/destroyers after that(winter 2013)
T2 BCs/BS after that (summer 2014)
T3 and/or faction ships at the end(winter 2014)

Two and half years long balance plan?


They started with frigates because there are the most of them, and they have to start from the ground up to set the power and ability levels. If you rebalance a drake now, but then buff the frigates and cruisers later, you then have to go back and re-rebalance the drake so that it fits nicely in line with the changes.

Yes, We are impatient and want the ships we fly most often new and shiny. But that doesn't exactly work out well.

Also, It isn't just rebalancing. The roles defined by frigates will be reflected in new ships in other hull sizes. Look to see new support battleships, and other T2 variants down the line.

Also, Ship balance team is not all of CCP. Ship balance doesn't work on artwork, doesn't work on UI stuff, doesn't work on modules and balance within. Just because the tiercide changes are taking a while, doesn't mean you won't see other updates in the mean time. I.e. Inferno saw new frigate changes, and a whole crap ton of other gameplay changes as well.


That said, onto the dev blog:

The current changes to the mining barges is not a final list, They said they would look at barge EHP, stop whining about the gankability of Hulks, when they have already said they will address it. You're just shouting at the people who are giving you want you want and making yourself look bad for failing to read.

I like it. With the exception to the idea of every racing having drone boats. This is a gallente weapon predominantly, and should be stuck on amarr/gallente ships near exclusively. Give us SOME reason to fly gal for once. Racial homoginization is bad, and drones are very much a gallente racial characteristic. Drone bays on some ships are fine, just make sure that the Gallente version has a better bay/better bandwidth.

I disagree about the pace. They do need to get faster at this. They've already been hinting at it for a year. Then we got 5 frigs changed.What? Now we are looking at more years of waiting for the big problem areas to get addressed.Sad

For frigates racial homogenization is no big deal as long as the camel's nose under the tent syndrome doesn't take hold. With only 4 racial tech I cruisers, one being logi, one being ewar, it doesn't lend itself to each race having a drone boat or a missile boat. ANd then with only 3 BCs and 3 BSs there is little danger of homogenization up the chain.

A caldari drone frig and a Gallente missile frig is not a big deal. If it manages to avoid future whines on the forums for a Caldari drone Cruiser or BS or a Gallente missile cruiser or BS by providing experience and knowledge of other weapon systems, and inducing racial cross training to an individually preferred type it would be a positive. Too many posts are of the variety of "my weapon system sucks but his weapon system (with which I have no experience) sure looks better . . ."
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#300 - 2012-06-14 17:24:28 UTC
Maul555 wrote:
If ccp adds ore hold expanders and rigs, this would fix a lot of problems. also add a lot more options to orcas...


They arn't