EVE Information Portal

CCP seems really attached to those specialties.

also to add to my previeus post :



this also in the Blog

which means that Yield will change in an upwards direction
which will increase the risk of a market collapse due to increased resources becoming availble

ALSO
on Fanfest CCP posted abot money sinks and inflation
this will just add to that again imo
als lower prices means lower taxes

they also removed drone alloys and t1-modules from loot. so there are fewer minerals to begin with and overall more gear to be produced. even if noone would by t1 and for t2, t1 is still needed to build t2.
i guess, there will be need for some more minerals. maybe the prices will go down a bit but they are quite high atm.

secondly, as MortisLegati mentioned already, they plan to buff only the mining ships which are worse than the hulk atm.
so while there will be some more minerals coming from the buffed "noobs" the max yield per character does not change.
regarding the big picture, there will not be a big change.

I'm not only talking about Yield increase/balance only
with an increase tank there is a different risk reward situation

and its not that i'm crying .. screaming or what so ever
i'm just stating a possible outcome. atm mining is one of the least effective means of making ISK
its a long slow process that in some cases is boring to say the least

EXAMPLE
currently an Hulk with a good boost is capable of creating an income of 20-30 Mil isk per Hour
but that takes at least 2 characters. compare this with a Lvl 4 Mission runner that can earn close to if not more then a 100 Mil Isk per hour. in both cases you need at least 2 players but the difference is about a 333%-500% in income per hour
and that difference is not explained by the investment that is needed in time/skill/activity

if the market will decrease both parties will be effected that is true but the mission runner the least of that


as i understand from the CCP fan-fest video's and there Blogs is that they want to make Mining more interesting
but if the Reward for it is not on par with the other way's of creating Isk then aren't they actually decreasing the value of being a miner ?


keep in mind i want to exchange idea's about this possibility and not dictated the way the game is balanced
i'm trying to look at the bigger picture and not just the miners them selfs

Both make a point, and are connected
as i look at this market trend overview
most of the mineral market is in a decline at the moment (decreasing demand )
with the highsec minerals going up slightly ( increasing demand )
( this might be because of the drone changes )



the overview in my opinion shows that the minerals that are harder/riskier to get are starting to lose there value
if the balance comes into play there is a risk for a further decline in that aspect . where in the end the market will stabilize around a lower value fort he low/0.0 sec minerals
this means that a Miner will lose there income and will eventually be "forced" into missioning for instance as that will be the only way to keep his income or back to high sec to mine there


 

hulkageddon, when prolonged well have an upwards force as no one will have the minerals stored up for a "year of hell"
that means that miners will have to take higher risks and will want to be rewarded appropiatly

with the balance this risk will be reduced. Hulkageddon might even not be viable in highsec
meaning prices will drop for the high sec minerals

this added with an increase of high sec miners as lowsec and 0.0 sec might have a lower profit margin
will then decrease them even further

you do have a point about it being hard to predict without some solid numbers
but i think its part of our jobs to express concerns and if possible give solutions
also i'm bored at work .. so theory crafting

at the end i have fixed feelings about the balancing
and are trying to figure out if the other items that will be rebalanced might have an positive upswing in the end

Can the Mackinaw keep it's Ice yield bonus and can its Ore-hold be a multiple of 4 pretty please?? Something like 28,000 m3

-That's not the whole idea for tiericide. The tiericide portion that applies most directly to barges was the elimination of stepped requirements and overall statistics gain between ships with lower and ships with higher skill requirements. By giving barges all the same requirement and allowing it to be a decision between different yield/tank/cargo stat combinations, skill-wise, the tiers are gone.

-This defeats the entire purpose of the 'conversion' to ore bays on some ships (notably the Hulk; they don't want you using it as a solo ship without gimping your effectiveness, it's part of tiericide, elsewise it would lead everyone straight to hulk(what they're stating they're trying to get rid of)). They want people to choose between (extra) tank and yield, not tank/yield/cargo between the barges



I have literally no idea where you're going with this, since by homogenizing each ship type between T1 and T2 causes a 'tier' again, rather than a Generalization>Specialization, which, for industrial ships, implies operating on a different level (apples and oranges) than its peers within its tech level. (Personally, I feel the Hulk disrupts this to some extent but at the same time I feel it fits snugly.)



Honestly, I feel like people hover over this in their heads far too much when they think of 'make yields closer to the hulk/covetor'. Strip miners not multiplying the yield can be explained through a multitude of different reasons without making a complete overhaul to the mining ship lineup (think manufacturing here). It makes sense, still, to keep the same number of highslots as we have, if even just to maintain visual uniqueness.



This would make some significant bit of sense if it applied solely to exhumers, but it's never stated. (Basically, you're saying that the same 'specialization' could be maintained between T1-T2 by doing the same anti-tiering as was operated through their Tech 1 variants.(Yet, by maintaining the same T2 yield bonus as the hulk, you've literally created a 'tier' between T1 and T2; no specialization beyond the option to be able to mine merx and ice.(I'm going to avoid saying gas, because...)))

Is probably the one thing I could say the current philosophy put forth by the changes as they've been designed will agree with.

I'm really speaking from what I can pull from through meditation on the general philosophy the team tasked with making the mining changes is operating under. It's folly to try to turn a developer's head away from a particular way of doing things unless there's a valid reason (something's majorly ****** with the way they're doing things, etc) to scrap it and go with an entirely new set of balance calculations/arguments (back to the drawing board).

They were talking about pushing yields closer together between the smaller and larger barges. The most obvious way they would do that would be to give a large multiplier to yield on ships with fewer turrets. It kind of makes me think of a stacking penalty for strips .

"No" to the barge plans as they are now.

Removing the few racial minig frigates and cruisers is the wrong way:
Thus, miners only have ships of one faction while ships of all races and factions are available to combat pilots.

Instead, every race should get it's own full range of mining ships.

All ORE ships could then become the miner's equivalent to prirate faction ships. Reworking these is a good idea, though.

Confirming that Moas have long been known to auto-destruct if launched with mining lasers.

Now that Dessies and BCs have come along the racial lineups all have reasonable options for someone who wants to mine their way up the ladder, so it isn't like the "old days" when Caldari pilots looked at Gallente pilots and became physically ill. None of these options require built-in bonuses... the ships with those bonuses are certainly nice stepping-stones or cheap options when you don't mine often and rarely in the same place, but their removal isn't going to suddenly screw everyone over.

Additionally, the ORE ships in a lot of ways already ARE the equivalent to pirate ships, without the whole "buying them with LP" bit. They're the bigger, better, weirder, balance-bending entries in the list of "ships that break rocks," from a faction that's ALL about breaking rocks. Hence, their utter lack of any intentional offensive capabilities (anomaly-running Rorquals notwithstanding)... much like the pirate ships are generally wholly unsuitable to anyone not interested in blowing things up (as they tend to work off the same "double your guns" bonus style they tacked on to turn things like the Osprey into a part-time mining vessel).

Basically,

No.