EVE General Discussion

In my case, yes. But I see your point. Separate options would be better.


CCP Arrow, thanks for the reply. If you're still following:

Several devs have said that making certain features optional is impossible. I assume they're thinking from more of a codebase standpoint. The fact is, Uni-Inv is already kind of "half-optional" because of the tree minimize button. With that in mind, the following would be a good start to marrying the old and the new.

• Bring back all station Neocom buttons and right-click options. Don't worry about redundant functions. The new Neocom is customizable, and right-click is assumed to have most if not all functions for an object anyway.


• The tree would be minimized by default, with the exception of the actual Neocom Inventory button.


• Opening a container/inventory would always be its own window by default. If we want to use a single window, we can expand the tree view on a current one.


• The tree view would scroll when dragging an object near the top or bottom.


• The current container would never change unless you actually left-click it in the tree view.


• Each inventory type (wreck, cargo, station, etc.) will have a reference for window position and size. If you open a container, then move it, the referenced dimensions change accordingly. However, if you expand the tree and change the active container, the reference becomes null. This way, you can't accidently change any window settings that you didn't start with. In addition, the Inventory button would have its own referenced set apart from the others.

This is the single biggest pain the rear end feature of the clickfest that is the new and unimproved UI

I don't know which bugs you are talking about either.. maybe you can give me a better description of what's broken and then I can look into it on Monday and see if it's been bug reported and/or fixed yet

(I've been on vacation for 4 weeks so I don't know what's been happening at the office for a while)

For those with this issue create a new saved fitting which seems to work but the original saved fitting does not.

New bug report on the issue #141617

Thread cleaned of trolling and personal attacks. Please keep your posting relevant and respectful, thank you.




Trolling and personal attacks removed - ISD Type40.

I'm thinking the new Mac will be the best solo, unsupported ship. It will have better shield and armor tanks than the Hulk and an Ore hold 3 times the size. Sure, the Mac won't have quite the yield, but that is made up quickly by having to fly back and forth to the station a lot less often.

One of my toons does a lot of solo mining now in a Hulk. I may switch to a Mac for that in the future.

The 15.5% more mining (theoretical number in a perfect world), you will never get, not even close to. And 10 Hulks vs 10 Mackinaws in this perfect numerical world is still just 15% more, not magically 150%!

Explained I already did that the fleet factor is irrelevant (not to mention bogus), but when choosing the max yield per minute setups a fleet will hurt the hulk in a negative way as its small ore hold will block yield if not emptied rapidly and consistently. And be honest, when speaking of fleet mining we nearly always talk about some guy controlling 3 or more accounts, maybe with a buddy or two doing the same. Not at all, the one player per ship in a fleet of many, most people seem to fantasize about. Micromanagement will be a limiting factor here, especially in a fleet!

Then there is the situation that there IS a risk of getting killed (lets assume high sec for now). In a hulk you likely will not risk a second 5% implant. In a Mackinaw you suddenly can...if you are a dedicated miner, else price wise it wont make sense. The theoretical yield advantage per minute of the Hulk with a DC II + MLU over a Mackinaw with 3 MLU (yes new version has 3 low slots) then shrinks to just 6%. At this point the hulk still is a far cry from the EHP of the Mackinaw and still has to work with the ore hold limitation, be it less of an issue now its yield per minute dropped a bit.

The difference between theory and practice will most likely be even smaller as no one can mine perfectly, but doing so is a hell of a lot easier with the Mackinaw! The ore hold issue is of more concern then the mining an already depleted rock issue which will only be detected at the end of a cycle (unless you active scan and intervene..which is easier with less rocks to keep track of).

My plea to change the Hulk's Exhumer bonus form a 3% more ore yield per level to a 3% reduced cycle time and energy use per level (as it works with ice) actually addresses both issues in one easy change. The ore hold is less critical (stores two cycles) and the smaller yield per cycle means less of the cycle time is wasted, reducing the need to micromanage so many rocks.

As is, I doubt many will find a small 6% difference enough justification to choose the Hulk over the Mackinaw. Well, not if they actually ran the numbers as I just did and start to weight the pro's and cons. There will be exceptions, as always, due to personal preference or just failing at math, but there is a LOT of benefit to using a Mackinaw here.

And when you don't like to mine with drones, and many never use them, the lesser drone capability of the Skiff matters less and it will become more attractive. Yield wise however, the gap is bigger, thus the Mackinaw will be viewed as a sweet compromise by many I expect.

Not sure if docking every 31.5k m3 to empty ore bay is as effective as mining 190k m3 in Jetcans and then switching to an Orca for pickup. If you own an alt on the same account, you can even have the Orca at the same belt, you just log off for a sec and log the other character in to scoop up. Drop off at station, warp back to belt and repeat.

But not everyone has a second character however, but since mining bonuses and logistics are so important to the profession, joining an industrial corporation is the best thing to do in such a situation. All that time spend doing logistics on your own to sell the ore at good profit, could have been spend mining with bonuses instead with much of the time consuming/costly work being handled for you.[

---

This reason alone is the reason we will never have quick change characters selection under the same log in screen

No, group mining in general takes a nerf with 1.2.

Currently a tank fitted hulk (em ward amp II, 2x SSE II, Inv II, DC II, PDS II, MATSR I, MCDFE I) has shield resists of 79 / 78 / 78 / 79 and ingame EHP of 23'003 without any gang modifiers. The same fit on Sisi currently achieves 24'119 EHP which looks like a small boost, especially since a lot of those EHP moved from hull and armor over to shields.

But since exhumers lost their built-in 7.5% bonus, this fit now has shield resists of 75 / 73 / 73 / 78, meaning remote rep from properly set up teamplay now has to counter the damage from an average resist of 74,75% instead of 78.5%. In other words, 25.25% incoming damage instead of 21.5%, a 17% increase of damage taken.

This is the case for all three exhumers, it is just most clearly visible on the hulk since it is the only one that got nil in return, making the new version all-around plain worse than the current. Who would have thought we'd see an exhumer nerf?

CCP::2012 has no interest in risk (or comparable loss) for suicide gankers, or rewards for smart and proper teamplay with player interaction.
All it wants are SOMA fed masses of Epsilons keeping the world state^W^W^Weconomy running.

Math its your friend. 15% x 10 = 150%. Its a per ship difference meaning that every ship of that type that you add will increase the gap between the 2 fleets.This is a total yield calculation between 2 fleets. Even using your 6% number which is ridiculous number you pulled out of ur arse for the sake of trying to win an argument its still 60% more yield in a group of 10 vs 10. In smaller groups which is quite possible that gap is decreased significantly and does give more reasons to use a tankier ship with larger holds for the sake of convenience and laziness. I don't assume to know what CCP is thinking but the new redesigned hulk looks to reward the attentive human miner and punish the macro multiboxing AFKer. I am all for this. And as for fleet bonuses they are multiplicative not additive. So the gap does INCREASE as you gain more ships not decrease. You sir are a politician not a mathematician. I'm all for constructive discussion but the amount of arrogance you are displaying in your posts is unacceptable. Roleplaying kills people in Eve.