These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Initial mining barge changes are on the test server
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Dave Stark
#201 - 2012-07-26 14:26:49 UTC
Pisov viet wrote:


actually when you consider a hulk already reaches 17k m3, the skiff ore bay isn't large at all. and the mackinaw's been trimmed to just over 31k m3.

And the hulk achieved that at the cost of all their rig slots and lowslots, leaving few mids for tanking.
Skiff does that with high maneuvrability, huge tank and at half the price.
[/quote]

but the skiff's non-mercoxit mining yield was a bigger joke than why did the chicken cross the road.
Sudhana
Universal Exports
#202 - 2012-07-26 15:45:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Sudhana
Whatever Implementation of CCP on mining Barges/Exhumers, Poor miners just have to endure with them.

May I request CCP dev to mine in game as a "normal" character for at least one month - a few hours every day.
Perhaps then you will truly understand the needs of a miner in eve.

May you & your loved ones be well & happy. With respect, Sudhana
Infinite Force
#203 - 2012-07-26 15:56:06 UTC
Dave stark wrote:
Jacob Holland wrote:
I would therefore suggest:

Increase the PG on the Hulk and Mack by three megawatts, one for each additional slot they have over their T1 counterparts.

Reduce Mining crystal volume tenfold (to 5m3) to allow a reasonable number of ore types and the use of a can to manage the singletons.
or
Increase the cargobay to allow a large can as well as "active" sets of crystals.

I have no options for the icemining and Merc rigs...


more power grid will never be looked down upon.

the crystal volume isn't the issue; the awfully designed split between cargo and ore hold is. ~5.6k is as big as the ore bay needs to be. hence there's no reason for the hulk not to have a 2.4k cargo hold for crystals. ideally i'd like to see 5750 ore / 2250 cargo.
increasing the cargo bay to accommodate a GSC would reduce the ore bay to a size insufficient to hold a full cycle of ore.

More PowerGrid is always good.

On the storage issue, I again beg to differ.

There are 3 storage issues that are intertwined with each other and need to be properly addressed (balanced) with ALL the Barges / Exhumers in terms of storage:

1. Crystals. Crystals were originally designed when these ships had hugely expandable cargoholds. This is no longer the case. They need to be reduced in size. As was previously suggested, 5m3 is an excellent size number.

2. Cargohold. Cargoholds need to be at least big enough to hold T2 crystals for 3 Ore types + 1 Spare (Barges) or 5 Ore types + 2 Spares (Exhumers). At 50m3 per T2 crystal, you're looking at a 300 - 2,250 range. At 5 m3 per crystal, the largest cargohold of 500m3 is very adequate and has enough room for containers to sort new / used crystals.

3. Ore hold. Ore holds need to hold 2 fully boosted, T2 strip yield cycles as a baseline. This has nothing to do with being AFK or solo mining. It has everything to do with these being specialized ships and filling their roles properly. The Ore hold has received the most attention so far as I can tell. And it looks like 4 of the 6 ships have adequate OH's.

The arguments of "it's just a temporary spot between the ship & hauler" carry no weight as CCP could just as easily 'auto-jettison" it to space bypassing those specialized holds all together.

In a fully boosted fleet, you are constantly moving Ore - even with a 2 cycle hold - either to a hauler or a can. This only allows you the advantage of waiting for that hauler to make a return trip if the others around you fill up the hauler before you do.

One could also make the argument that you must stagger your strips (with more than 1) and you must jetcan mine because your Ore hold is barely adequate to hold 1 strip worth of Ore. But again, this really holds no weight and completely, again, breaks the purpose of these ships.

Considering how long it has taken CCP to address the issue of rebalancing these ships, and that they will likely never revisit it again, yeah, we're going to make sure that it's a well implemented update.


Sudhana wrote:
Whatever Implementation of CCP on mining Barges/Exhumers, Poor miners just have to endure with them.

May I request CCP dev to mine in game as a "normal" character for at least one month - a few hours every day.
Perhaps then you will truly understand the needs of a miner in eve.

This. However, given that this update is les than 2 weeks away ......

HROLT CEO Live Free; Die Proud

http://tinyurl.com/95zmyzw - The only way to go!
Victoria Sin
Doomheim
#204 - 2012-07-26 15:56:56 UTC
Just been messing around on SiSi. Skiff looks great. Not only can you fit a full tank with one MLU (tight without high end PG implant with 2), it's fast so it can speed tank. Hulk is pretty much the same as it was. Still the highest yield, but minimal tank.
Dave Stark
#205 - 2012-07-26 16:03:51 UTC
Infinite Force wrote:
Dave stark wrote:
Jacob Holland wrote:
I would therefore suggest:

Increase the PG on the Hulk and Mack by three megawatts, one for each additional slot they have over their T1 counterparts.

Reduce Mining crystal volume tenfold (to 5m3) to allow a reasonable number of ore types and the use of a can to manage the singletons.
or
Increase the cargobay to allow a large can as well as "active" sets of crystals.

I have no options for the icemining and Merc rigs...


more power grid will never be looked down upon.

the crystal volume isn't the issue; the awfully designed split between cargo and ore hold is. ~5.6k is as big as the ore bay needs to be. hence there's no reason for the hulk not to have a 2.4k cargo hold for crystals. ideally i'd like to see 5750 ore / 2250 cargo.
increasing the cargo bay to accommodate a GSC would reduce the ore bay to a size insufficient to hold a full cycle of ore.

More PowerGrid is always good.

On the storage issue, I again beg to differ.

There are 3 storage issues that are intertwined with each other and need to be properly addressed (balanced) with ALL the Barges / Exhumers in terms of storage:

1. Crystals. Crystals were originally designed when these ships had hugely expandable cargoholds. This is no longer the case. They need to be reduced in size. As was previously suggested, 5m3 is an excellent size number.

2. Cargohold. Cargoholds need to be at least big enough to hold T2 crystals for 3 Ore types + 1 Spare (Barges) or 5 Ore types + 2 Spares (Exhumers). At 50m3 per T2 crystal, you're looking at a 300 - 2,250 range. At 5 m3 per crystal, the largest cargohold of 500m3 is very adequate and has enough room for containers to sort new / used crystals.

3. Ore hold. Ore holds need to hold 2 fully boosted, T2 strip yield cycles as a baseline. This has nothing to do with being AFK or solo mining. It has everything to do with these being specialized ships and filling their roles properly. The Ore hold has received the most attention so far as I can tell. And it looks like 4 of the 6 ships have adequate OH's.

The arguments of "it's just a temporary spot between the ship & hauler" carry no weight as CCP could just as easily 'auto-jettison" it to space bypassing those specialized holds all together.

In a fully boosted fleet, you are constantly moving Ore - even with a 2 cycle hold - either to a hauler or a can. This only allows you the advantage of waiting for that hauler to make a return trip if the others around you fill up the hauler before you do.

One could also make the argument that you must stagger your strips (with more than 1) and you must jetcan mine because your Ore hold is barely adequate to hold 1 strip worth of Ore. But again, this really holds no weight and completely, again, breaks the purpose of these ships.

Considering how long it has taken CCP to address the issue of rebalancing these ships, and that they will likely never revisit it again, yeah, we're going to make sure that it's a well implemented update.


Sudhana wrote:
Whatever Implementation of CCP on mining Barges/Exhumers, Poor miners just have to endure with them.

May I request CCP dev to mine in game as a "normal" character for at least one month - a few hours every day.
Perhaps then you will truly understand the needs of a miner in eve.

This. However, given that this update is les than 2 weeks away ......


2) actually, it's not that we had bigger cargo holds, it was because we could choose how much cargo space we wanted to dedicate to crystals. now that choice has been made for us.

3) 2 cycles is more ore than a hulk can carry even with a 0m3 cargo bay, hence 1 cycle is sufficient and allows enough room for all the desired crystals at their current 50m3 size.

whether you move ore to a corp hangar in an industrial capital ship or to a jetcan is irrelevant. you're still moving ore; the location of the ore doesn't matter. unless you have 2 orcas in your mining fleet some where, some one's gonna be jetcanning ore unless ccp get around to fixing the corp hangars in the orca (my alt in the same corp can't see the hangars, for example. and you don't want to be dishing out roles to every one and their alts. it gets tedious if nothing else)
Korsiri
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#206 - 2012-07-26 16:37:37 UTC
appreciate your work!
Infinite Force
#207 - 2012-07-26 17:56:40 UTC
Dave stark wrote:
2) actually, it's not that we had bigger cargo holds, it was because we could choose how much cargo space we wanted to dedicate to crystals. now that choice has been made for us.

So because they're taking away the sandbox from us in one respect (crystal storage spae), they need to open up another sandbox area to us (smaller crystals).

Dave stark wrote:
3) 2 cycles is more ore than a hulk can carry even with a 0m3 cargo bay, hence 1 cycle is sufficient and allows enough room for all the desired crystals at their current 50m3 size.

Hardly. The 'role' that's being forced upon us (per above) by restricting the number of crystals I can carry is that the choice of what I can mine at any given time is being removed. There's no real & compelling reason to carry more than 2 spare crystals anyhow since they do last a long time - however - there is abundant reasoning to hold multiple Ore crystal types (& spares, of course). The primary reasoning being that in any op, you will never be mining just 1 type of Ore - and in some cases, the rocks will pop fast enough that "crystal haulers" wouldn't be able to resupply 50 mining ships without significant downtime - all detremental to a fleets' operational efficiency.

Dave stark wrote:
whether you move ore to a corp hangar in an industrial capital ship or to a jetcan is irrelevant. you're still moving ore; the location of the ore doesn't matter. unless you have 2 orcas in your mining fleet some where, some one's gonna be jetcanning ore unless ccp get around to fixing the corp hangars in the orca (my alt in the same corp can't see the hangars, for example. and you don't want to be dishing out roles to every one and their alts. it gets tedious if nothing else)

Agreed that someone is going to jetcan regardless if your hold is 5k or 50k.

Reducing crystal sizes removes quite a few issues - including the Orca issue. CCP is updating the ships - might as well, make it easier on everyone and reduce crystal sizes.

HROLT CEO Live Free; Die Proud

http://tinyurl.com/95zmyzw - The only way to go!
Dynast
Room for Improvement
Good Sax
#208 - 2012-07-26 20:42:00 UTC
Pipa Porto wrote:
That's not really on point, but they really couldn't be botted well. PVP has elements of unpredictability that just don't exist in PVE. Computers don't deal with the unpredictable nearly as well as humans do. They can't improvise for something unplanned. That's not a problem with PVE because there's nothing unpredictable about it, and you can plan for all possible human interaction (neut in Local in null, canflipper in High, probes on DScan in WH -> Dock/POS).

Fleets:
First, Text to Speech isn't that good at the moment.
Second, a Bot wouldn't likely be able to lose a fight gracefully (E&E, etc). A Bot fleet would be a win-or-whelp fleet.
Third, knowing when it's worth using Cap Boosters, when it's safe to pulse your MWD (wrong time and you're stranded trying to align), what to do if the FC goes down, etc. (How do you think a Bot would handle "Target Tackle").

Suicide Ganking requires finding likely targets, which I suppose you could bot, but it would take a fair bit more complicated bot than a PVE one.

Gate Camping really requires a good decloaker if you want to be good at it, which requires manual piloting, which I doubt a bot can do well. A botted gate camp also probably couldn't identify bait and when (and how) to run away.

Anyway, even if botting was efficient at running PVP, that would reinforce my point. A Mining bot is not more efficient at mining than a Human. A mission/ratting bot is more efficient at missioning/ratting than a Human. Therefor, in competition with bots, Miners have a leg up compared to missioners/ratters.

In point of fact, all of this is currently automatable with various tools available on 60 to 90 day licenses that I am obviously not going to link. It requires the participation of the FC, as they'll need to use a tool to issue commands rather than voice comms, but it's certainly not technically complex to make such things work. There will be welps of course, points where pilot initiative could have altered outcomes, but I wouldn't be surprised to see the rate of these comparable to (or less than) the rate of human screwups costing ships.

It's worth noting here that botted groups in other PvP games (such as Shadowbane) have sometimes been more effective than the same number of human players. The ability to coordinate actions to a 50-100ms level rather than the more typical 2-5 second human response-to-request time can be devestating.

On the topic of mining, I think you may be overestimating the collective desire for more complex and taxing mining. Most of the people I've known who mined at one time or another (myself included) did not enjoy it as a competitive or aggressive money-making practice, but as a relaxing, non-taxing activity to make money while doing other things (hanging out, other games, other entertainment media, etc). I think it's a good thing for a game like EVE, which tends toward the regimented and intense on the PvP side, to have more relaxing PvE.
Pipa Porto
#209 - 2012-07-26 22:40:49 UTC
Dynast wrote:
It's worth noting here that botted groups in other PvP games (such as Shadowbane) have sometimes been more effective than the same number of human players. The ability to coordinate actions to a 50-100ms level rather than the more typical 2-5 second human response-to-request time can be devestating.


EVE doesn't recognize actions faster than 1s because the server "beats" at 1 HZ. Battleship fights are even slower because of lock time, etc.

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto
Dynast
Room for Improvement
Good Sax
#210 - 2012-07-27 00:01:02 UTC
Pipa Porto wrote:
Dynast wrote:
It's worth noting here that botted groups in other PvP games (such as Shadowbane) have sometimes been more effective than the same number of human players. The ability to coordinate actions to a 50-100ms level rather than the more typical 2-5 second human response-to-request time can be devestating.


EVE doesn't recognize actions faster than 1s because the server "beats" at 1 HZ. Battleship fights are even slower because of lock time, etc.

True, but keep in mind that the advantage is the tight synchronization and the removal of the "what? Did you say Oin or Sun?" factor. A human fleet is limited by the time it takes the FC to convey his commands, added to the time it takes the pilots to understand and act on his commands, and the percentage of pilots who **** up and do something else, or delay acting because they think they know better than the FC what they should be doing. The human delays in fleet actions are substantially larger than the delays imposed by the server heartbeat. And when it comes to cycling modules, particularly guns, it's not the cycle time that counts, it's that the activation times be as close as possible when you're trying to break reps.
Denidil
Cascades Mountain Operatives
#211 - 2012-07-27 15:30:20 UTC
new batch of changes.. analyzing.

http://pastebin.com/fnuau8HH



skill requirements to fly updated for all ships

Procurer: 3 more midslots (4 total now), 25 drone capacity and bandwidth

Retriever: base orehold 22500, +5% per barge level

Hulk: Base Resit change, suspect a typo! 100/50/60/80 (from 62.5/35/37.5/50) - resist bonus change from 3.0% to 7.5%/level

Mackinaw: Same resists as Hulk now

Skiff: 50m3/50mbit drone, same resists as other exhumers and same resist bonus

rigging costs ice and mercoxit role rigs increased to 250


looks like i need to go update my pyfa again and refigure all the tanking numbers.



it doesn't look like this dump has actually gone live yet. (retriver still has 1 mid) .. however something has gone live

T1 laser crystals: 15m3
T2 laser crystals: 25m3

Tedium and difficulty are not the same thing, if you don't realize this then STFU about game design.
Denidil
Cascades Mountain Operatives
#212 - 2012-07-27 15:41:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Denidil
these resists changes are BAAAAD

max ehp hulk went from 49.3k to 35.9k on the same fit.

[edit]
pyfa isn't handling the resist bonus correctly. trying to correct

Tedium and difficulty are not the same thing, if you don't realize this then STFU about game design.
stoicfaux
#213 - 2012-07-27 15:43:30 UTC  |  Edited by: stoicfaux
edit: Deleted. The poster didn't mean what I thought they meant.

Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
stoicfaux
#214 - 2012-07-27 15:46:33 UTC
Denidil wrote:
these resists changes are BAAAAD

max ehp hulk went from 49.3k to 35.9k on the same fit.

Then fly a Skiff instead of a Hulk. It's the main point of the mining ship changes.

Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat
Working Stiffs
#215 - 2012-07-27 15:49:33 UTC
Denidil wrote:
these resists changes are BAAAAD

max ehp hulk went from 49.3k to 35.9k on the same fit.

Just a quick look at a Hulk, and it seemed the structure was significantly reduced to about 2/3 of current.
Denidil
Cascades Mountain Operatives
#216 - 2012-07-27 15:57:14 UTC
pyfa isn't applying the resist bonuses.. i'm trying to see if i can fix that.

Tedium and difficulty are not the same thing, if you don't realize this then STFU about game design.
Infinite Force
#217 - 2012-07-27 15:58:13 UTC
Tau Cabalander wrote:
Denidil wrote:
these resists changes are BAAAAD

max ehp hulk went from 49.3k to 35.9k on the same fit.

Just a quick look at a Hulk, and it seemed the structure was significantly reduced to about 2/3 of current.

That would be BAAAAD (to quote Denidil)...

HROLT CEO Live Free; Die Proud

http://tinyurl.com/95zmyzw - The only way to go!
Denidil
Cascades Mountain Operatives
#218 - 2012-07-27 16:05:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Denidil
looks like i need to do manual comparisons in game between live and test now to compare tanking stats

[edit]
test server confirmed - overall hulk resistances are lower.. but i'm level 4 .. but sisi is showing 25% EM for level 4 not 30% for level 4.. so something isn't right

Tedium and difficulty are not the same thing, if you don't realize this then STFU about game design.
Dave Stark
#219 - 2012-07-27 16:17:32 UTC
Denidil wrote:
looks like i need to do manual comparisons in game between live and test now to compare tanking stats

[edit]
test server confirmed - overall hulk resistances are lower.. but i'm level 4 .. but sisi is showing 25% EM for level 4 not 30% for level 4.. so something isn't right


double confirmed, also exhumer 4 on sisi, 25% EM resistance with no fittings. it's not just you.
Denidil
Cascades Mountain Operatives
#220 - 2012-07-27 16:21:37 UTC
actually resistances are based on mining barge, not exhumers.. so it is really really wrong. i bugreported

Tedium and difficulty are not the same thing, if you don't realize this then STFU about game design.