These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Test Server Feedback

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Mining barge changes [now with feedback]

Author
Dave Stark
#361 - 2012-07-28 05:39:15 UTC
Janet Patton wrote:
Obviously if you want to mine everything in sight, you should be using tech I strip miners. You can also use tech 1 crystals in your tech II strip miners which take up less space then the tech II variant.

Specific ore and max yield or general all around rock cruncher. You have the pick. It really does seem like it's by design.

Maybe it's just my play style, but I never carry spare crystals on me. I can fill up several jet cans of the same ore before switching over to my hauler. If I need to change out crystals I do it at the station when I switch. This is part of the balance and sacrifice the most of the game follows when configuring your ship.



no, once again there's never been an issue carrying such a volume of crystals nor did any on even remotely think it was out of balance.

the hulk is designed to be the max yield ship, yet it can't be because of this glaring oversight that ccp :almost: fixed.

clearly you don't mine in high sec very much, from 1 warp in spot on a belt i can often clear all of 1 type of ore before i even fill a jetcan, swapping crystals is a must in that kind of situation.

why are we now having to sacrifice things that were never before even remotely an issue? if they want us to mine less, reduce the amount that strips mine; don't do it by making t2 strips a pain in the ass to use by not letting us carry ammunition for them. just imagine how much all the combat pilots would complain if you reduced all of the combat ships cargo holds to 50m3 so they had to pick between being able to reload, or being able to change damage type. they'd be just as annoyed at such a change.
Sigras
Conglomo
#362 - 2012-07-28 05:51:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Sigras
Dave stark wrote:
no, once again there's never been an issue carrying such a volume of crystals nor did any on even remotely think it was out of balance.

the hulk is designed to be the max yield ship, yet it can't be because of this glaring oversight that ccp :almost: fixed.

It can get max yield, it just cant get max yield on all the types of ore simultaneously without doing some fleet logistics. This is by design. Now you have to use team work in an MMO . . . what a novel ideaRoll

Dave stark wrote:
clearly you don't mine in high sec very much, from 1 warp in spot on a belt i can often clear all of 1 type of ore before i even fill a jetcan, swapping crystals is a must in that kind of situation.

Yes, but can you strip 5 different kinds of ore without needing a hauler? because thats how many different kinds of crystals you can fit in the hulk

Dave stark wrote:
why are we now having to sacrifice things that were never before even remotely an issue? if they want us to mine less, reduce the amount that strips mine; don't do it by making t2 strips a pain in the ass to use by not letting us carry ammunition for them. just imagine how much all the combat pilots would complain if you reduced all of the combat ships cargo holds to 50m3 so they had to pick between being able to reload, or being able to change damage type. they'd be just as annoyed at such a change.


yes, its called a nerf. before the hulk was the undisputed king of mining, period. whether you wanted to be solo or fleet, high sec or 0.0 it didnt matter cause the hulk mined the most of any type of ore it wanted and had the best tank. The mackinaw edged it out in ice mining a bit but there was basically no reason to use the skiff.

Now you actually have a choice to make, do i want max yield or versatility? do I want to max yield for fleets or autonomy?

Sid Meier once said
Sid Meier wrote:
A game is a series of interesting choices.

Guess what? CCP just added another interesting choice that you get to make.
Dave Stark
#363 - 2012-07-28 06:07:10 UTC
Sigras wrote:
Dave stark wrote:
no, once again there's never been an issue carrying such a volume of crystals nor did any on even remotely think it was out of balance.

the hulk is designed to be the max yield ship, yet it can't be because of this glaring oversight that ccp :almost: fixed.

It can get max yield, it just cant get max yield on all the types of ore simultaneously without doing some fleet logistics. This is by design. Now you have to use team work in an MMO . . . what a novel ideaRoll

Dave stark wrote:
clearly you don't mine in high sec very much, from 1 warp in spot on a belt i can often clear all of 1 type of ore before i even fill a jetcan, swapping crystals is a must in that kind of situation.

Yes, but can you strip 5 different kinds of ore without needing a hauler? because thats how many different kinds of crystals you can fit in the hulk

Dave stark wrote:
why are we now having to sacrifice things that were never before even remotely an issue? if they want us to mine less, reduce the amount that strips mine; don't do it by making t2 strips a pain in the ass to use by not letting us carry ammunition for them. just imagine how much all the combat pilots would complain if you reduced all of the combat ships cargo holds to 50m3 so they had to pick between being able to reload, or being able to change damage type. they'd be just as annoyed at such a change.


yes, its called a nerf. before the hulk was the undisputed king of mining, period. whether you wanted to be solo or fleet, high sec or 0.0 it didnt matter cause the hulk mined the most of any type of ore it wanted and had the best tank. The mackinaw edged it out in ice mining a bit but there was basically no reason to use the skiff.

Now you actually have a choice to make, do i want max yield or versatility? do I want to max yield for fleets or autonomy?

Sid Meier once said
Sid Meier wrote:
A game is a series of interesting choices.

Guess what? CCP just added another interesting choice that you have to make.


again it it shouldn't need a fleet to work as a ship. it was never an issue before that it could do it; why should it be so now? you shouldn't have to be in a fleet just to use modules that you've been using for the last god knows how long. are there other ships that require a fleet to work besides fleet booster modules? i can't think of any.

can i strip 5 different kinds of ore without needing a hauler? i don't know, can i scan mining sites from the station the second i log in?

yes, it is a nerf, after they said they wanted to keep the hulk as it was. the hulk was only the king of mining because it had cargo, tank, and yield. it had everything, not just good mining capabilities.
and yes, there was a reason to use a skiff, but only in 0.0.

even if you do want max yield you won't get it from the max yield ship if you can't carry a sufficient stock of crystals (which was never an issue before and has only been made an issue by ccp's terrible allocation of cargo on the new hulk which has had several perfectly acceptable solutions posted).

i appreciate that you should only get the best out of a hulk when in a fleet, you shouldn't require a fleet for it to do the minimum though. your noctis is there to salvage and haul loot, not to drop off reloads for your raven. same thing here, your fleet haulers should be there to haul your ore, not your crystals.
Dave Stark
#364 - 2012-07-28 06:08:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Dave Stark
Sigras wrote:
Sid Meier wrote:
A game is a series of interesting choices.

Guess what? CCP just added another interesting choice that you get to make.


no they didn't add an interesting choice at all.

they simply said "**** you, you can't carry a full compliment of crystals any more." that's not a choice, that's an insult.

a choice would be giving us exactly enough cargo space for 1 set of every crystal and saying "right, you can have a crystal for every occasion, or you can take a subset of crystals and have enough to reload if you run out" THAT is a choice.
Sigras
Conglomo
#365 - 2012-07-28 06:30:24 UTC
Dave stark wrote:
again it it shouldn't need a fleet to work as a ship. it was never an issue before that it could do it; why should it be so now? you shouldn't have to be in a fleet just to use modules that you've been using for the last god knows how long. are there other ships that require a fleet to work besides fleet booster modules? i can't think of any.


It doesnt require a fleet to mine, it requires a fleet to mine all of the minerals without docking.

youre getting your desieres confused with utility, saying that the ship doesnt work at all without a fleet is moronic. The ship still mines ore, in fact it still mines 5 different types of ore without needing any support.

Dave stark wrote:
can i strip 5 different kinds of ore without needing a hauler? i don't know, can i scan mining sites from the station the second i log in?


so what youre saying is that youre not willing to do any prep work before mining, you just want to mindlessly go into a belt with all the crystals and mine anything that happens to be there because you cant be asked to prepare for what might be in the belt? Im so sorry that CCP has nerfed your lazy way of life.

Dave stark wrote:
yes, it is a nerf, after they said they wanted to keep the hulk as it was. the hulk was only the king of mining because it had cargo, tank, and yield. it had everything, not just good mining capabilities.
and yes, there was a reason to use a skiff, but only in 0.0.


I dont recall them saying that they wanted to keep the hulk the way it was, just that they wanted to keep the hulk and the biggest yield ship, and perhaps that they wanted to keep the yield similar, but this is off topic.

By your own admission the hulk had it all, cargo, tank and yield, it had everything. Guess what happens to a PvP ship when it "has everything"? It gets nerfed because it is overpowered.

And saying there was a reason to use the skiff is really kinda ignorant . . . especially in 0.0 where the +2 warp scramble strength means nothing. The only place that the skiff may have had a home is low sec because it has a fast (relativly) warp out time and +2 scramble strength.

Dave stark wrote:
even if you do want max yield you won't get it from the max yield ship if you can't carry a sufficient stock of crystals (which was never an issue before and has only been made an issue by ccp's terrible allocation of cargo on the new hulk which has had several perfectly acceptable solutions posted).


so your definition of "sufficient stock" is 200 cycles (the average life of a crystal) of every crystal in the game? you realize thats more than 100 hours worth of mining, thatd be like me asking for my tempest to hold 674,151 rounds? I would say 100 hours is way more than "sufficient"

Dave stark wrote:
i appreciate that you should only get the best out of a hulk when in a fleet, you shouldn't require a fleet for it to do the minimum though. your noctis is there to salvage and haul loot, not to drop off reloads for your raven. same thing here, your fleet haulers should be there to haul your ore, not your crystals.

Again, your hulk can go into a belt and mine 5 different types of ore just fine without a fleet. The fact that this isnt what YOU want to do is YOUR problem
Stefan1978
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#366 - 2012-07-28 06:37:19 UTC
Next Step should be a Crystal Hangar! So you can made it 1.000-1.000.000.000.000m3

So we Not Need normal Cargo, isn t it?
Sigras
Conglomo
#367 - 2012-07-28 06:37:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Sigras
Dave stark wrote:
Sigras wrote:
Sid Meier wrote:
A game is a series of interesting choices.

Guess what? CCP just added another interesting choice that you get to make.


no they didn't add an interesting choice at all.

they simply said "**** you, you can't carry a full compliment of crystals any more." that's not a choice, that's an insult.

a choice would be giving us exactly enough cargo space for 1 set of every crystal and saying "right, you can have a crystal for every occasion, or you can take a subset of crystals and have enough to reload if you run out" THAT is a choice.


you realize that a crystal only breaks once every 200 cycles on average right? you realize that even with perfect fleet boost thats still like 6 hours right? you realize that giving a ship 1 of each crystal is saying "there is no more choice any more, just load 1 of each crystal and youre good for your whole mining op"


The way it will be august 9th
On the one hand, we have a hulk, great mining yield, but cant hold more than 5 sets of crystals

On the other hand, we have a skiff, great tank, worse mining yield than the hulk but holds one set of each crystal in the game

Pick one (note the word pick denotes an interesting choice)

The way it used to be
On the one hand we have a hulk . . . that is all folks


Which one of the two examples above is the more interesting choice?
Haffsol
#368 - 2012-07-28 06:42:35 UTC
with all due respect, I think you guys made your point about some of you feel screwed by the cargo bay affair. Now can you stop it please? It's maybe 15 of the 19 pages so far in the thread you keep on hammering on the whine button. We all are sorry, CCP must be desolate, everybody will send you love to overcome this, but I guess the main changes we would like to read about in such discussions are about roles, tank, peculiarities, strategies to mine more efficiently, which ship to use here, which one to use there, how many catalysts do gankers need to blow up my hulk, some gem from the fitting masters about some exotic fit......
Dave Stark
#369 - 2012-07-28 06:52:15 UTC
Sigras wrote:
stuff

the ship doesn't work without a fleet. if i can't carry enough crystals to mine with it; i won't use it because other ships can carry enough crystals. it's role is the highest yield ship; that can't be fulfilled without a fleet. why is the hulk the only ship that should be subject to this unnecessary constraint?
great 5 ores, so which 10 ores are we removing?

yeah because having to scan down a grav site to begin with isn't prep, right?
it's hardly lazy, before i did prepare; i made sure i had enough crystals. now i can't make sure i have enough crystals BECAUSE THERE'S NO ROOM FOR THEM.

the hulk did get nerfed because it had it all; you can't give it the max cargo yield now, you can't give it the biggest tank now; and as you see we're also struggling to keep it with the highest yield due to the crystal issue.
you're also a moron. the skiff was never good in low sec because it's yield was **** while mining ****** ores. nobody with half a brain mines in low sec let alone with a ship outmined by a goddamn t1 cruiser. your stupidity is astounding; it was only used in 0.0 because that's where you find mercoxit. it's a mercoxit dedicated mining ship. the fact that you call me ignorant without even knowing what a ship's purpose is really undermines any credibility you had.

my definition of sufficient stock is 1 set of crystals for each ore. that's no worse than a raven pilot taking 1k of each type of torp for his raven so he can swap damage types. it's hardly unreasonable is it?
it's not like i want to go back to the days where i could take 5+ sets of crystals for all ores and STILL have room for ore.

quite right, it is my problem that's why i've suggested several fixes for the issue that would have been both easier on ccp's half and made a lot more sense than what they've done now. however i'm guessing due to your vehement ignorance and inability to accept that this is an issue that you've never mined a day in your life.
Dave Stark
#370 - 2012-07-28 06:57:38 UTC
Haffsol wrote:
with all due respect, I think you guys made your point about some of you feel screwed by the cargo bay affair. Now can you stop it please? It's maybe 15 of the 19 pages so far in the thread you keep on hammering on the whine button. We all are sorry, CCP must be desolate, everybody will send you love to overcome this, but I guess the main changes we would like to read about in such discussions are about roles, tank, peculiarities, strategies to mine more efficiently, which ship to use here, which one to use there, how many catalysts do gankers need to blow up my hulk, some gem from the fitting masters about some exotic fit......


oh i'm sorry, did our discussion of a problem interrupt your oh so insightful contribution?
Dave Stark
#371 - 2012-07-28 07:17:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Dave Stark
also a quick comment on downgrading to t1 strips on the hulk; that puts the mackinaw at a higher yield, tank, and cargo capacity. hence we go back to the situation we're in now. except we're all flying mackinaws.

4136 m3 yield on a t2 strip mackinaw vs 4096m3 yield on a hulk per cycle.
Sigras
Conglomo
#372 - 2012-07-28 07:17:46 UTC
Dave stark wrote:
Sigras wrote:
stuff

the ship doesn't work without a fleet. if i can't carry enough crystals to mine with it; i won't use it because other ships can carry enough crystals. it's role is the highest yield ship; that can't be fulfilled without a fleet. why is the hulk the only ship that should be subject to this unnecessary constraint?
great 5 ores, so which 10 ores are we removing?

you can carry enough crystals to mine with it, just not ALL the ores. It has max yield on the ores it chooses to mine just fine, the fact that it is no longer a one stop ship for all ores is a good thing.

Dave stark wrote:
you're also a moron. the skiff was never good in low sec because it's yield was **** while mining ****** ores. nobody with half a brain mines in low sec let alone with a ship outmined by a goddamn t1 cruiser. your stupidity is astounding; it was only used in 0.0 because that's where you find mercoxit. it's a mercoxit dedicated mining ship. the fact that you call me ignorant without even knowing what a ship's purpose is really undermines any credibility you had.


Had you done any mining of mercoxit at all you would know that the skiff was no better at it than the hulk, the 60% bonus barely edged out the hulk at mining mercoxit, and the fact that it couldnt tank the rats out there was a huge deterrant. Also the gas cloud bonus is negligable because the DCSM has a range of 25 and the gas cloud has a range of 5, so you were never in any danger there either . . . im sorry, who just blew their credibility?

Dave stark wrote:
my definition of sufficient stock is 1 set of crystals for each ore. that's no worse than a raven pilot taking 1k of each type of torp for his raven so he can swap damage types. it's hardly unreasonable is it?
it's not like i want to go back to the days where i could take 5+ sets of crystals for all ores and STILL have room for ore.


You have to realize that each crystal lasts for 6 hours, in a raven each torp lasts 3 seconds, I understand that you can strip a belt in less than 6 hours (depending on the size of the grav belt)

since we are talking about grav belts, in the smallest grav belt (a level 1) the smallest ore types are Veldspar (40,600 m^3), Pyroxeres (63,000 m^3), Plagioclase (72,800 m^3), Gneiss (175,000 m^3), and Omber (180,000 m^3)

If you pick those 5 ores to mine, im pretty sure you'll need a hauler to come out and pick up some of your ore . . . and you know what? you could tell him to bring some different types of crystals with him as long as hes coming out.

Dave stark wrote:
quite right, it is my problem that's why i've suggested several fixes for the issue that would have been both easier on ccp's half and made a lot more sense than what they've done now. however i'm guessing due to your vehement ignorance and inability to accept that this is an issue that you've never mined a day in your life.


Ive found that when two people are arguing, the person who is right argues about the problem, the person who is wrong attacks the other person's character . . . just saying

That being said, I have capital industrial ships 5 and mining director 5, ive done a few mining ops in my day.
Haffsol
#373 - 2012-07-28 07:18:54 UTC
Quote:
oh i'm sorry, did our discussion of a problem interrupt your oh so insightful contribution?

no you interrupted the insightful contribution of the OP, probably the only one who posted stuff which is in topic and worth reading. Then you (generic "you") started trolling the thread, it was page 3. Yesterday they gave you some love reducing the crystal volume, but it looks like you just can't stop it.

So I feel like my contribution could be very much appreciated by many. I repeat the question: can you stop it please?
Sigras
Conglomo
#374 - 2012-07-28 07:19:19 UTC
Dave stark wrote:
also a quick comment on downgrading to t1 strips on the hulk; that puts the mackinaw at a higher yield, tank, and cargo capacity. hence we go back to the situation we're in now. except we're all flying mackinaws.

you mean except those of us who are smart enough to organize our own logistics chain and have our haulers not waste their trips to the belt.

My fleet will still be mining in hulks thank you.
Dave Stark
#375 - 2012-07-28 07:20:39 UTC
Sigras wrote:
Dave stark wrote:
also a quick comment on downgrading to t1 strips on the hulk; that puts the mackinaw at a higher yield, tank, and cargo capacity. hence we go back to the situation we're in now. except we're all flying mackinaws.

you mean except those of us who are smart enough to organize our own logistics chain and have our haulers not waste their trips to the belt.

My fleet will still be mining in hulks thank you.


once again; the hulk should not be a case of "only works in fleets". it should be "works best in fleets"
Dave Stark
#376 - 2012-07-28 07:22:14 UTC
Haffsol wrote:
Quote:
oh i'm sorry, did our discussion of a problem interrupt your oh so insightful contribution?

no you interrupted the insightful contribution of the OP, probably the only one who posted stuff which is in topic and worth reading. Then you (generic "you") started trolling the thread, it was page 3. Yesterday they gave you some love reducing the crystal volume, but it looks like you just can't stop it.

So I feel like my contribution could be very much appreciated by many. I repeat the question: can you stop it please?


yeah, they reduced the crystal size, along with the cargo bay size; that's why there's still an issue here.

no, i won't stop discussing issues with ships on the forum designed for feedback about ship changes.
Stefan1978
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#377 - 2012-07-28 07:24:27 UTC
News from Sisi? Hulk Cargo has changed.

Yes,.....it is now not 500 it is now 350m³ gggrrrr are they just Id..ots?

Icerole on Mack is back.

No Crystalhangar till now.


Buy Stripminer I now, it will be the Future!!!!! :-( Think about to relog next year.
Dave Stark
#378 - 2012-07-28 07:25:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Dave Stark
Sigras wrote:
Had you done any mining of mercoxit at all you would know that the skiff was no better at it than the hulk, the 60% bonus barely edged out the hulk at mining mercoxit, and the fact that it couldnt tank the rats out there was a huge deterrant. Also the gas cloud bonus is negligable because the DCSM has a range of 25 and the gas cloud has a range of 5, so you were never in any danger there either . . . im sorry, who just blew their credibility?


considering you think a 16% mining yield difference is "no better", you just blew your credibility i believe.
for context; that's akin to an additional 2 MLU IIs.

edit:missclicking on excel is awesome
Sigras
Conglomo
#379 - 2012-07-28 07:27:11 UTC
Dave stark wrote:
Sigras wrote:
Dave stark wrote:
also a quick comment on downgrading to t1 strips on the hulk; that puts the mackinaw at a higher yield, tank, and cargo capacity. hence we go back to the situation we're in now. except we're all flying mackinaws.

you mean except those of us who are smart enough to organize our own logistics chain and have our haulers not waste their trips to the belt.

My fleet will still be mining in hulks thank you.


once again; the hulk should not be a case of "only works in fleets". it should be "works best in fleets"

I think the process of communication has broken down . . . seriously it "works" if when you target an asterroid and turn the lasers on, you get ore when the cycle finishes. Everything else is gravy.

Now I understand that it doesnt do everything that you want it to do, but neither do ANY of my PvP ships, do they not "work" either?

What is your definition of "works"
Droxlyn
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#380 - 2012-07-28 07:34:41 UTC
Sigras wrote:

What is your definition of "works"


Not taking away something that we could do before.