These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Science & Industry

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Paving the way to the next nerf: hulks
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Celgar Thurn
Department 10
#221 - 2012-07-10 13:27:33 UTC
Jin Tall wrote:
You used the word nerf, when you should have used the word buff.


It would seem like a buff at first glance but if you read between the lines you will see it is a nerf at least in some ways. The most worrying aspect is the statement regarding reducing the current EHP levels on Hulks & Covetors. At the moment suicide gank attempts by destroyers can be defeated but a reduction in EHP wwould make those attacks harder or maybe impossible to survive.

I also do not like the dumbing-down aspect of reducing skill requirements to fly mining vessels. This idea has not been applied to any other vessels as far as I know but this could become the slippery slope to 'WOWing' our beloved EVE Online. Sad
Pipa Porto
#222 - 2012-07-10 17:31:34 UTC
Celgar Thurn wrote:
Jin Tall wrote:
You used the word nerf, when you should have used the word buff.


It would seem like a buff at first glance but if you read between the lines you will see it is a nerf at least in some ways. The most worrying aspect is the statement regarding reducing the current EHP levels on Hulks & Covetors. At the moment suicide gank attempts by destroyers can be defeated but a reduction in EHP wwould make those attacks harder or maybe impossible to survive.

I also do not like the dumbing-down aspect of reducing skill requirements to fly mining vessels. This idea has not been applied to any other vessels as far as I know but this could become the slippery slope to 'WOWing' our beloved EVE Online. Sad


Except that now you'll have a ship designed for operations where you're too lazy to actively avoid ganks.

The Procurer/Skiff of Tomorrow will be filling in for the Tanked Hulk of Today.

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto
Dave stark
#223 - 2012-07-10 18:58:19 UTC
Pipa Porto wrote:
Celgar Thurn wrote:
Jin Tall wrote:
You used the word nerf, when you should have used the word buff.


It would seem like a buff at first glance but if you read between the lines you will see it is a nerf at least in some ways. The most worrying aspect is the statement regarding reducing the current EHP levels on Hulks & Covetors. At the moment suicide gank attempts by destroyers can be defeated but a reduction in EHP wwould make those attacks harder or maybe impossible to survive.

I also do not like the dumbing-down aspect of reducing skill requirements to fly mining vessels. This idea has not been applied to any other vessels as far as I know but this could become the slippery slope to 'WOWing' our beloved EVE Online. Sad


Except that now you'll have a ship designed for operations where you're too lazy to actively avoid ganks.

The Procurer/Skiff of Tomorrow will be filling in for the Tanked Hulk of Today.


unless you want to mine ice.
Pipa Porto
#224 - 2012-07-10 19:23:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Pipa Porto
Dave stark wrote:
Pipa Porto wrote:
Celgar Thurn wrote:
Jin Tall wrote:
You used the word nerf, when you should have used the word buff.


It would seem like a buff at first glance but if you read between the lines you will see it is a nerf at least in some ways. The most worrying aspect is the statement regarding reducing the current EHP levels on Hulks & Covetors. At the moment suicide gank attempts by destroyers can be defeated but a reduction in EHP wwould make those attacks harder or maybe impossible to survive.

I also do not like the dumbing-down aspect of reducing skill requirements to fly mining vessels. This idea has not been applied to any other vessels as far as I know but this could become the slippery slope to 'WOWing' our beloved EVE Online. Sad


Except that now you'll have a ship designed for operations where you're too lazy to actively avoid ganks.

The Procurer/Skiff of Tomorrow will be filling in for the Tanked Hulk of Today.


unless you want to mine ice.


Keeping the Ice/Merx bonuses the way they are is a boneheaded move on CCP's part. No argument there.

However, a Procurer/Skiff will still be capable of mining Ice.

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto
Dave stark
#225 - 2012-07-10 19:28:48 UTC
Pipa Porto wrote:
Dave stark wrote:
Pipa Porto wrote:
Celgar Thurn wrote:
Jin Tall wrote:
You used the word nerf, when you should have used the word buff.


It would seem like a buff at first glance but if you read between the lines you will see it is a nerf at least in some ways. The most worrying aspect is the statement regarding reducing the current EHP levels on Hulks & Covetors. At the moment suicide gank attempts by destroyers can be defeated but a reduction in EHP wwould make those attacks harder or maybe impossible to survive.

I also do not like the dumbing-down aspect of reducing skill requirements to fly mining vessels. This idea has not been applied to any other vessels as far as I know but this could become the slippery slope to 'WOWing' our beloved EVE Online. Sad


Except that now you'll have a ship designed for operations where you're too lazy to actively avoid ganks.

The Procurer/Skiff of Tomorrow will be filling in for the Tanked Hulk of Today.


unless you want to mine ice.


Keeping the Ice/Merx bonuses the way they are is a boneheaded move on CCP's part. No argument there.

However, a Procurer/Skiff will still be capable of mining Ice.


agreed entirely.

however that's like saying a ferox can mine because you can strap miner IIs on it. you can mine in it, but why would you when there are dedicated mining ships?
Pipa Porto
#226 - 2012-07-10 19:35:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Pipa Porto
Dave stark wrote:
Pipa Porto wrote:
Dave stark wrote:
Pipa Porto wrote:
Celgar Thurn wrote:


It would seem like a buff at first glance but if you read between the lines you will see it is a nerf at least in some ways. The most worrying aspect is the statement regarding reducing the current EHP levels on Hulks & Covetors. At the moment suicide gank attempts by destroyers can be defeated but a reduction in EHP wwould make those attacks harder or maybe impossible to survive.

I also do not like the dumbing-down aspect of reducing skill requirements to fly mining vessels. This idea has not been applied to any other vessels as far as I know but this could become the slippery slope to 'WOWing' our beloved EVE Online. Sad


Except that now you'll have a ship designed for operations where you're too lazy to actively avoid ganks.

The Procurer/Skiff of Tomorrow will be filling in for the Tanked Hulk of Today.


unless you want to mine ice.


Keeping the Ice/Merx bonuses the way they are is a boneheaded move on CCP's part. No argument there.

However, a Procurer/Skiff will still be capable of mining Ice.


agreed entirely.

however that's like saying a ferox can mine because you can strap miner IIs on it. you can mine in it, but why would you when there are dedicated mining ships?


The job of the Ice miner is to get Ice from the Belts to the Station, the rate that you get Ice from the belts to your Cargo is not especially relevant. If the Bonused ship is too flimsy to adequately perform the job because of the way you mine (Macks can fit Webs pretty easy), then maybe the metaphorical Ferox might be the right ship for the job in your situation.

This brings us back to the whole gank v. tank debate. With the mechanics as they are right now, a Tanked Hulk mines less than an MLU Hulk and less Ice than a Mack, but it's safer because the tank defeats most/all profitable ganks. Soon it will be a Procurer mines less than a Hulk and mines less Ice than a Mack, but it's safer because the tank... yadda yadda yadda.

Just because it's boneheaded for CCP to leave the bonuses doesn't mean you can't deal with it, and it doesn't mean that you're forced to do anything.

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto
Dave stark
#227 - 2012-07-10 19:44:07 UTC
Pipa Porto wrote:


The job of the Ice miner is to get Ice from the Belts to the Station, the rate that you get Ice from the belts to your Cargo is not especially relevant. If the Bonused ship is too flimsy to adequately perform the job because of the way you mine (Macks can fit Webs pretty easy), then maybe the metaphorical Ferox might be the right ship for the job in your situation.

This brings us back to the whole gank v. tank debate. With the mechanics as they are right now, a Tanked Hulk mines less than an MLU Hulk and less Ice than a Mack, but it's safer because the tank defeats most/all profitable ganks. Soon it will be a Procurer mines less than a Hulk and mines less Ice than a Mack, but it's safer because the tank... yadda yadda yadda.

Just because it's boneheaded to leave the bonuses doesn't mean you can't deal with it, and it doesn't mean that you're forced to do anything.


oh totally, however in the light of "we want to have each ship have a defined role" it seems backwards to say "you have all these lovely new ships, but if you want to mine ice the mackinaw is the only ship to use unless you want to take a big hit on yield".

i appreciate that they want ships to be unique and special, however in this case i think throwing 3 high slots on all the ships (easiest way to bring the yields closer to each other) then make certain ships better at certain things via bonuses?

even still, the changes that have been announced so far are very very welcome.
Pipa Porto
#228 - 2012-07-10 19:53:01 UTC
Dave stark wrote:
Pipa Porto wrote:


The job of the Ice miner is to get Ice from the Belts to the Station, the rate that you get Ice from the belts to your Cargo is not especially relevant. If the Bonused ship is too flimsy to adequately perform the job because of the way you mine (Macks can fit Webs pretty easy), then maybe the metaphorical Ferox might be the right ship for the job in your situation.

This brings us back to the whole gank v. tank debate. With the mechanics as they are right now, a Tanked Hulk mines less than an MLU Hulk and less Ice than a Mack, but it's safer because the tank defeats most/all profitable ganks. Soon it will be a Procurer mines less than a Hulk and mines less Ice than a Mack, but it's safer because the tank... yadda yadda yadda.

Just because it's boneheaded to leave the bonuses doesn't mean you can't deal with it, and it doesn't mean that you're forced to do anything.


oh totally, however in the light of "we want to have each ship have a defined role" it seems backwards to say "you have all these lovely new ships, but if you want to mine ice the mackinaw is the only ship to use unless you want to take a big hit on yield".

i appreciate that they want ships to be unique and special, however in this case i think throwing 3 high slots on all the ships (easiest way to bring the yields closer to each other) then make certain ships better at certain things via bonuses?

even still, the changes that have been announced so far are very very welcome.


Sounds like we're shooting right past each other in agreeing.

Shall we start brainstorming ways to uncouple the Ice/Merx bonuses from the ships they're sitting on?

I got one suggestion, delete the bonuses. Lol Yield will drop, but prices will soar to compensate (as a Cap pilot, this would make me Sad).
Another suggestion (that would require mechanical work Cry) would be to move the bonuses to Crystals (or maybe some sort of ship script), so that a Merx/Ice crystal Hulk will mine as much as a Skiff/Mack (respectively) does now. That way it's easy, no matter what you want to mine, the roles are the same, Hulk for Yield, Mack for cargo, and Skiff for tank.

I think what CCP is doing is hedging their bets, since they're not sure how popular the new Skiff/Mack will be. Leaving the bonuses at least ensures some small market for those ships in case they don't quite buff the yield enough (or miners keep being thick and never bother switching from the Hulk).

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto
Dave stark
#229 - 2012-07-10 19:59:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Dave Stark
Pipa Porto wrote:
Dave stark wrote:
Pipa Porto wrote:


The job of the Ice miner is to get Ice from the Belts to the Station, the rate that you get Ice from the belts to your Cargo is not especially relevant. If the Bonused ship is too flimsy to adequately perform the job because of the way you mine (Macks can fit Webs pretty easy), then maybe the metaphorical Ferox might be the right ship for the job in your situation.

This brings us back to the whole gank v. tank debate. With the mechanics as they are right now, a Tanked Hulk mines less than an MLU Hulk and less Ice than a Mack, but it's safer because the tank defeats most/all profitable ganks. Soon it will be a Procurer mines less than a Hulk and mines less Ice than a Mack, but it's safer because the tank... yadda yadda yadda.

Just because it's boneheaded to leave the bonuses doesn't mean you can't deal with it, and it doesn't mean that you're forced to do anything.


oh totally, however in the light of "we want to have each ship have a defined role" it seems backwards to say "you have all these lovely new ships, but if you want to mine ice the mackinaw is the only ship to use unless you want to take a big hit on yield".

i appreciate that they want ships to be unique and special, however in this case i think throwing 3 high slots on all the ships (easiest way to bring the yields closer to each other) then make certain ships better at certain things via bonuses?

even still, the changes that have been announced so far are very very welcome.


Sounds like we're shooting right past each other in agreeing.

Shall we start brainstorming ways to uncouple the Ice/Merx bonuses from the ships they're sitting on?

I got one suggestion, delete the bonuses. Lol Yield will drop, but prices will soar to compensate (as a Cap pilot, this would make me Sad).
Another suggestion (that would require mechanical work Cry) would be to move the bonuses to Crystals (or maybe some sort of ship script), so that a Merx/Ice crystal Hulk will mine as much as a Skiff/Mack (respectively) does now. That way it's easy, no matter what you want to mine, the roles are the same, Hulk for Yield, Mack for cargo, and Skiff for tank.

I think what CCP is doing is hedging their bets, since they're not sure how popular the new Skiff/Mack will be. Leaving the bonuses at least ensures some small market for those ships in case they don't quite buff the yield enough (or miners keep being thick and never bother switching from the Hulk).


my first thought was basically 3 high slots on all of the ships, scrap all the bonuses, and now all the ships have identical yield.

from here we can add bonuses to yield where needed. for example, the skiff doesn't need any yield bonuses at all and can be the baseline, give it bonuses to shield resistances, or whatever per level of exhumer skill.

then for the mackinaw we can just go with say, 3% mining yield and 3% reduction in ice mining cycle timer whatsit. to give it more yield than the skiff. also maybe increase the ore bay with exhumer level too? give it 20k base, then like what, 1500 m3 per level, so at exhumer 5 it gets 20k + 2250*5 = 20k + 7500 = 27.5k ore bay

then for the hulk just give it straight up yield bonuses of say 5% ore yield and reduction in cycle timer per level to put it ahead of the other two.

that's a simple and dirty way of doing it i guess. although that kinda makes the ships all "the same" in terms of slot layouts but i don't really see that as such a bad thing on mining ships.
Pipa Porto
#230 - 2012-07-10 20:23:28 UTC
Dave stark wrote:
Pipa Porto wrote:
Dave stark wrote:
Pipa Porto wrote:


The job of the Ice miner is to get Ice from the Belts to the Station, the rate that you get Ice from the belts to your Cargo is not especially relevant. If the Bonused ship is too flimsy to adequately perform the job because of the way you mine (Macks can fit Webs pretty easy), then maybe the metaphorical Ferox might be the right ship for the job in your situation.

This brings us back to the whole gank v. tank debate. With the mechanics as they are right now, a Tanked Hulk mines less than an MLU Hulk and less Ice than a Mack, but it's safer because the tank defeats most/all profitable ganks. Soon it will be a Procurer mines less than a Hulk and mines less Ice than a Mack, but it's safer because the tank... yadda yadda yadda.

Just because it's boneheaded to leave the bonuses doesn't mean you can't deal with it, and it doesn't mean that you're forced to do anything.


oh totally, however in the light of "we want to have each ship have a defined role" it seems backwards to say "you have all these lovely new ships, but if you want to mine ice the mackinaw is the only ship to use unless you want to take a big hit on yield".

i appreciate that they want ships to be unique and special, however in this case i think throwing 3 high slots on all the ships (easiest way to bring the yields closer to each other) then make certain ships better at certain things via bonuses?

even still, the changes that have been announced so far are very very welcome.


Sounds like we're shooting right past each other in agreeing.

Shall we start brainstorming ways to uncouple the Ice/Merx bonuses from the ships they're sitting on?

I got one suggestion, delete the bonuses. Lol Yield will drop, but prices will soar to compensate (as a Cap pilot, this would make me Sad).
Another suggestion (that would require mechanical work Cry) would be to move the bonuses to Crystals (or maybe some sort of ship script), so that a Merx/Ice crystal Hulk will mine as much as a Skiff/Mack (respectively) does now. That way it's easy, no matter what you want to mine, the roles are the same, Hulk for Yield, Mack for cargo, and Skiff for tank.

I think what CCP is doing is hedging their bets, since they're not sure how popular the new Skiff/Mack will be. Leaving the bonuses at least ensures some small market for those ships in case they don't quite buff the yield enough (or miners keep being thick and never bother switching from the Hulk).


my first thought was basically 3 high slots on all of the ships, scrap all the bonuses, and now all the ships have identical yield.

from here we can add bonuses to yield where needed. for example, the skiff doesn't need any yield bonuses at all and can be the baseline, give it bonuses to shield resistances, or whatever per level of exhumer skill.

then for the mackinaw we can just go with say, 3% mining yield and 3% reduction in ice mining cycle timer whatsit. to give it more yield than the skiff. also maybe increase the ore bay with exhumer level too? give it 20k base, then like what, 1500 m3 per level, so at exhumer 5 it gets 20k + 2250*5 = 20k + 7500 = 27.5k ore bay

then for the hulk just give it straight up yield bonuses of say 5% ore yield and reduction in cycle timer per level to put it ahead of the other two.

that's a simple and dirty way of doing it i guess. although that kinda makes the ships all "the same" in terms of slot layouts but i don't really see that as such a bad thing on mining ships.


You can always alter the mid/low numbers, give the Procurer plenty of Grid/Cpu to fit a Tank, but only one low, etc. Honestly, I think the Skiff and Mack should mine almost(or exactly) identical amounts, and mine (when fit with MLUs) more than a Hulk without MLUs, so that they do represent a viable yield option.

Ideally I want to see something like 100k* EHP from a brick (no MLU) Skiff, and like 40-50k from an MLU Skiff (probably not worth ganking, but requiring you to actually fill your mids)
Something like 20-30k on a brick Mack (profitable to gank? Yep, use a Skiff), and like 8-15k (one Catalyst worth) on an MLU Mack
And something like 20-30k on a brick Hulk (y u no Skiff?), and 8-15k (again, one Catalyst, because :Skiff:)

With active tanks (spend some isk if you want MLUs to go with it), I hope that all could tank Null rats, but meh, as long as the Skiff can easily tank them, that's fine by me.

Yield, like I said should put the MLU Skiff/Mack right above the Non-MLU Hulk, otherwise people will try to tank their new Hulks because [silly] and then cry when they die anyway.

That means that none of them are especially suited for AFKing in dangerous places (I don't see a reason to reward AFK people Roll), but the Skiff would let you do a similar semi-AFK to today's Cargo Hulk, and the Mack would let you easily get by without a hauler.

But like I said, I think CCP is hedging by leaving the bonuses in place, so I don't expect them to go anywhere.

*All numbers are pulled right from my [Flamethrower Nozzle Deleted]

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto
Dave stark
#231 - 2012-07-10 20:29:53 UTC
well whatever happens, a game like this is constantly changing so if ganking ice miners is an issue because the skiff's ice yield just doesn't stand up to the mack's (which, at the moment it definitely doesn't) then they can spread around the bonuses or remove them, or whatever.
Pipa Porto
#232 - 2012-07-10 20:42:44 UTC
Dave stark wrote:
well whatever happens, a game like this is constantly changing so if ganking ice miners is an issue because the skiff's ice yield just doesn't stand up to the mack's (which, at the moment it definitely doesn't) then they can spread around the bonuses or remove them, or whatever.


I'm kind of hoping that they just add High slots and fitting and forget to change the numbers on the bonuses...

Dirt cheap Ice would be nice.

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto
Dave stark
#233 - 2012-07-10 20:45:27 UTC
Pipa Porto wrote:
Dave stark wrote:
well whatever happens, a game like this is constantly changing so if ganking ice miners is an issue because the skiff's ice yield just doesn't stand up to the mack's (which, at the moment it definitely doesn't) then they can spread around the bonuses or remove them, or whatever.


I'm kind of hoping that they just add High slots and fitting and forget to change the numbers on the bonuses...

Dirt cheap Ice would be nice.


oh god an extra high slot on the mack with it's current ice bonus would be hilarious.
Pipa Porto
#234 - 2012-07-10 21:09:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Pipa Porto
Dave stark wrote:
Pipa Porto wrote:
Dave stark wrote:
well whatever happens, a game like this is constantly changing so if ganking ice miners is an issue because the skiff's ice yield just doesn't stand up to the mack's (which, at the moment it definitely doesn't) then they can spread around the bonuses or remove them, or whatever.


I'm kind of hoping that they just add High slots and fitting and forget to change the numbers on the bonuses...

Dirt cheap Ice would be nice.


oh god an extra high slot on the mack with it's current ice bonus would be hilarious.


10m says CCP forgets to change the bonuses before the new barges hit SiSi (there's a good chance they won't listen to the SiSi testers either, but I'm not willing to bet on that) or otherwise greatly boosts the Ice output of Macks (who knows how they're buffing yield).

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto
Dave stark
#235 - 2012-07-10 21:21:00 UTC
Pipa Porto wrote:
Dave stark wrote:
Pipa Porto wrote:
Dave stark wrote:
well whatever happens, a game like this is constantly changing so if ganking ice miners is an issue because the skiff's ice yield just doesn't stand up to the mack's (which, at the moment it definitely doesn't) then they can spread around the bonuses or remove them, or whatever.


I'm kind of hoping that they just add High slots and fitting and forget to change the numbers on the bonuses...

Dirt cheap Ice would be nice.


oh god an extra high slot on the mack with it's current ice bonus would be hilarious.


10m says CCP forgets to change the bonuses before the new barges hit SiSi (there's a good chance they won't listen to the SiSi testers either, but I'm not willing to bet on that) or otherwise greatly boosts the Ice output of Macks (who knows how they're buffing yield).


20m says they forget both the mack and the skiff and mercoxit yields will be rediculous also.
Pipa Porto
#236 - 2012-07-10 21:26:25 UTC
Dave stark wrote:
Pipa Porto wrote:
Dave stark wrote:
Pipa Porto wrote:
Dave stark wrote:
well whatever happens, a game like this is constantly changing so if ganking ice miners is an issue because the skiff's ice yield just doesn't stand up to the mack's (which, at the moment it definitely doesn't) then they can spread around the bonuses or remove them, or whatever.


I'm kind of hoping that they just add High slots and fitting and forget to change the numbers on the bonuses...

Dirt cheap Ice would be nice.


oh god an extra high slot on the mack with it's current ice bonus would be hilarious.


10m says CCP forgets to change the bonuses before the new barges hit SiSi (there's a good chance they won't listen to the SiSi testers either, but I'm not willing to bet on that) or otherwise greatly boosts the Ice output of Macks (who knows how they're buffing yield).


20m says they forget both the mack and the skiff and mercoxit yields will be rediculous also.


So neither of us is willing to take the other side of the bet... Twisted

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto
Dave stark
#237 - 2012-07-10 21:29:00 UTC
Pipa Porto wrote:
So neither of us is willing to take the other side of the bet... Twisted


the odds aren't in my favour :P
Pipa Porto
#238 - 2012-07-10 21:33:34 UTC
Dave stark wrote:
Pipa Porto wrote:
So neither of us is willing to take the other side of the bet... Twisted


the odds aren't in my favour :P


Says something about our confidence in CCP, doesn't it.

Either way, I'll be happy. Either they get it right, and Ice stays the same price, or they get it wrong and I get to jump around FREE!

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto
Zhul Chembull
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#239 - 2012-07-11 00:43:53 UTC
Nerf bat plain and simple. Not necessarily a bad thing, trit and py will be dirt cheap for manufacturing. The afk guys will supply my demands sufficiently. High end minerals will still be needed very much however. Markets rise, markets fall. It is too bad some of us spent so much time training hulk V, but hey mechanics change. Either way, I will adapt. If it is no longer profitable to mine, I will no longer mine. Easy stuff really folks.
Dave stark
#240 - 2012-07-11 12:04:15 UTC
nerf, you people keep using that word... i don't think it means what you think it means.