These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Forum Index

EVE Forums » EVE Gameplay Center » Science & Industry » Initial mining barge changes are on the test server

Topic is locked indefinitely.

First pagePrevious page1718192021Next pageLast page

Initial mining barge changes are on the test server
Author

Previous Topic Next Topic

Pipa Porto

Likes received: 1,548

#361 - 2012-07-30 10:43:00 UTC

Herr Hammer Draken wrote:

Pipa Porto wrote:

Jorma Morkkis wrote:

Pipa Porto wrote:

You should not be able to make Isk AFK without risk. The AFK Sentryboat in a PLEX ("AFK" Mission ships are nowhere near as AFK as Ice mining in the new Mack is) make less Isk/hr than a Mack, and will lose several hours of profit if he gets bumped away from his sentries.

And why is that a problem?

If I miss a cycle AFK mining ice I can only blame myself, I can't blame that Retriever pilot 80km from me.
If the player is AFK then the player is AFK. How hard it is to understand something simple as that?
Away from frigging keyboard.

I'm talking about the Dead Drones costing him replacement cash. Not missing cycles.

Again, making ISK AFK without risk is bad game design. The Sentryboat makes a pittance compared to the AFK Mack (current SISI build) and runs the risk of losing money on the project if he gets bumped in the first few hours of the session.

Yes. I know what AFK means. "AFK" Mission ships allow you to alt-tab away for a little bit, but you have to keep an eye out for spawns. They don't allow you to actually leave your computer without risk.

The current SISI Mack build costs too much to gank, so it won't be ganked by me, so sitting it in an Ice belt and wandering away for 45m at a time is perfectly viable and safe from me. That's not good game design from me. Why would CCP be interested in making miners safe from me, be good game design?

Fixed

Nope.

Find the killmails of properly tanked Hulks that were significantly unprofitable to gank. Then we'll talk about Tank not providing safety.

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto

Herr Hammer Draken

Likes received: 234

#362 - 2012-07-30 11:04:05 UTC

Pipa Porto wrote:

Herr Hammer Draken wrote:

Pipa Porto wrote:

Jorma Morkkis wrote:

Pipa Porto wrote:

Fixed

Nope.

Find the killmails of properly tanked Hulks that were significantly unprofitable to gank. Then we'll talk about Tank not providing safety.

You are hugely overstating the issue. Not all of the kills end up in killmails in fact most of the type of kills that are not about profit will not have kill mails.

Herr Hammer Draken "The Amarr Prophet"


Pipa Porto Likes received: 1,548	#363 - 2012-07-30 11:07:50 UTC Herr Hammer Draken wrote: You are hugely overstating the issue. Not all of the kills end up in killmails in fact most of the type of kills that are not about profit will not have kill mails. Why? What evidence do you have to suggest that non-profit gankers are less likely to upload their kills? EvE: Everyone vs Everyone -RubyPorto

Celgar Thurn

Department 10

Likes received: 187

#364 - 2012-07-30 11:25:07 UTC

Carlton Foster wrote:

Steve Ronuken wrote:

Sounds like there are some plans (at least high level ones) to make mining more of a mini game. which I'm all for. People who pay attention make more isk.

Do you have a source on that?

See the mining article from page 30 onwards in issue 28 of the magnificent EON magazine .Or failing that watch the pre-final commentary for this years alliance tournament with the English 'head-honcho' guy from CCP.(Apologies for not remembering his proper name Oops

Herr Hammer Draken

Likes received: 234

#365 - 2012-07-30 11:36:08 UTC

Pipa Porto wrote:

Herr Hammer Draken wrote:

You are hugely overstating the issue. Not all of the kills end up in killmails in fact most of the type of kills that are not about profit will not have kill mails.

Why? What evidence do you have to suggest that non-profit gankers are less likely to upload their kills?

I know of 17 hulks killed last month that were all not profitable and none of them have kill mails posted.
And I can not post any more info than that about those. The motivation had nothing to do with ganking for profit.

Herr Hammer Draken "The Amarr Prophet"

Celgar Thurn

Department 10

Likes received: 187

#366 - 2012-07-30 11:40:02 UTC

Dave stark wrote:

Pipa Porto wrote:

Dave stark wrote:

for those that don't know, the hulk is getting another 2%/level yield bonus which means even with t1 strips it's going to outmine any other ship and will fill an orca give or take 60 mins in optimal conditions.

YAY! Cheap Minerals!

Miners realize that a higher average yield means they just have to do more hauling for the same income, right?

you do realise what ever happens with prices; miners don't give a **** because as mineral prices goes down so does the prices of things we want to buy. you're mining and hauling for the same amount of time no matter what our minerals are worth.

isk value and isk/hour is largely irrelevant.

I don't know where you're coming from with this one 'Dave' Attention

Or whether you are a 'proper' miner? Pipa hits the nail on the head regarding buying stuff in that you are more likely to be buying items constructed with 'moon goo' derived items. So you are just shooting yourself in the foot with your comment.

The main problem with the mining ships rebalancing is indeed that it will increase yield from dumbing down the skill reqs, increasing the obtainable yield, and therefore resulting in a fall in price of minerals. This is bad news for the professional mining community all round to my mind. Just when we have reached good price levels a spanner has been thrown into the machine. Sad

Pipa Porto

Likes received: 1,548

#367 - 2012-07-30 11:49:11 UTC

Herr Hammer Draken wrote:

Pipa Porto wrote:

Herr Hammer Draken wrote:

You are hugely overstating the issue. Not all of the kills end up in killmails in fact most of the type of kills that are not about profit will not have kill mails.

Why? What evidence do you have to suggest that non-profit gankers are less likely to upload their kills?

9000 kills posted. 17 not posted.

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto

Celgar Thurn

Department 10

Likes received: 187

#368 - 2012-07-30 11:57:48 UTC

Pipa Porto wrote:

Jorma Morkkis wrote:

Pipa Porto wrote:

Where in the world did I say that? Quote and Link.

No link needed.

That's better than those mythical Incursion runners and AFK Dominix pilots make.

Why would you want to lose best risk free income in the hisec?

Again, your ISK estimate is laughably wrong.

It takes some time to set up a gank, so there is no way to do it 4 times an hour on one character.
You need an alt to scoop loot, so you can't profit at all with one character.
You need an alt in an orca once you go -5, so you can't gank at all with one character.
You need at least 2 meta fit Catalysts to kill an untanked Hulk, so you can't gank at all with one character in a meta fit catalyst.

Stop lying.

I don't think all gankers do it for the profit. There are a lot of mentally deficient pilots out there. Lol

I don't know for sure but I think one meta fit catalyst could take down a 2 MLU untanked Hulk atm. I do know, from a defensive point of view Blink

, that one T2 fit catalyst cannot take down a 1 MLU with some tank Hulk atm.

Celgar Thurn

Department 10

Likes received: 187

#369 - 2012-07-30 12:02:06 UTC

Dave stark wrote:

Droxlyn wrote:

Dave stark wrote:

i just don't see the point in having an ore bay bigger than 1 cycle if it's not going to be able to fit 2 cycles of ore. there's no reason the hulk shouldn't have an ore bay equal to the skiff's.

I did some math on the yields for a Hulk and 2 cycles without MLU2s and no fleet support will take almost 8k m3 space. So, after your first cycle, you make a little room in your ore hold by moving some to your cargo hold and fill up at the end of the second cycle. That seems to be the logic for 7500 m3 instead of 5500 m3.

The other two ships get about 11.74 and 5.47 cycles before their holds fill up without fleet and MLU support. (8 and 4 with)

Drox

mining in a hulk without fitting 2 mlus... doing it oh so wrong. worst justification ever for ******** cargo size.

Not sure why you are giving mining advice. Anyone using two MLU atm with the GSF 'ship insurance' scheme still running is looking to lose their ship.

Pipa Porto

Likes received: 1,548

#370 - 2012-07-30 12:03:01 UTC

Celgar Thurn wrote:

Pipa Porto wrote:

Jorma Morkkis wrote:

Pipa Porto wrote:

Where in the world did I say that? Quote and Link.

No link needed.

That's better than those mythical Incursion runners and AFK Dominix pilots make.

Why would you want to lose best risk free income in the hisec?

I don't think all gankers do it for the profit. There are a lot of mentally deficient pilots out there. Lol

I don't know for sure but I think one meta fit catalyst could take down a 2 MLU untanked Hulk atm. I do know, from a defensive point of view Blink

, that one T2 fit catalyst cannot take down a 1 MLU with some tank Hulk atm.

Nope. Meta 4 with OH and a .5 system is some 600 Damage short of an untanked Hulk. 200 short with Cargo rigs.

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto

Celgar Thurn

Department 10

Likes received: 187

#371 - 2012-07-30 12:14:02 UTC

Dave stark wrote:

Haffsol wrote:

Quote:

The Mack gets a base 50% bonus to mining now. (making 2 strips the equivalent of 3) Just like the retriever

will it always have the 2x bonus on ice blocks mined in a cycle and the trick that if you stop your cycle at 51% you still get the 2 blocks? I don't get who's king of ice mining and which are the new rigs you're talking about.

mackinaw is losing the 2x bonus on ice blocks, it's now a cycle time reduction in order to make the mackinaw's 2 strips equal the hulk's 3 strips. however, the hulk gets better yield bonuses per level of exhumer than the other barges do. hence why the hulk is the new king of ice mining in terms of blocks/hour.

at exhumer 1 there's almost no reason to fly a hulk. at exhumer 5 there's lots of reasons.

Hmm. I'm getting confused now. Does this mean the Mackinaw is largely a redundant ship now then if the Hulk gets better yield when mining ice?

Celgar Thurn

Department 10

Likes received: 187

#372 - 2012-07-30 12:38:07 UTC

Tau Cabalander wrote:

Denidil wrote:

Tau Cabalander wrote:

Denidil wrote:

Dave stark wrote:

with all due respect, any hulk fit without mlu IIs are pointless.

if you're sacrificing those to fit a tank on a hulk you may as well just mine in a mlu'd skiff, odds are you'll have both more ehp and yield.

you are correct.

Well, a Hulk has a bonus of 30% and a Skiff has a bonus of 5%. So you need to fit at least 3 MLU to match a Hulk, and the Skiff has 2 low slots (unless that was changed, as I don't see it on pastebin).

read what we were saying

dual MLU skiff vs non-MLU'ed hulk

I did. I even quoted it. Please explain assuming I'm clueless, as I apparently am.

No MLU Hulk: 30% bonus. Dual MLU Skiff: 23% bonus.

That's a 7% cost for durability and a larger ore hold. If the size of the hold is the issue, then of course Dave stark's comment should have mentioned that (i.e, when mining solo) , rather than being an apparent blanket statement.

But if I'm still missing something, please enlighten me. I'm trying to understand these "new" ships, just like everyone else.

I'm with you Tau. It is indeed very confusing. Smile

Celgar Thurn

Department 10

Likes received: 187

#373 - 2012-07-30 12:55:39 UTC

Pisov viet wrote:

Tassian Marrix wrote:

Dominika Brumarova wrote:

Pisov viet wrote:

Some of the changes are good (Procurer/Skiff's HP, Retriever/Mackinaw's cargo hold, the mining yield buff for both ship lines and the mercoxit and Ice rigs). But the unilateral buff of mining barge and exhumers EHP is a terrible thing to do.

Not only is it devaluating the Skiff buff (why bother with it when a hulk can easily reach over 40k EHP?), but it is also making the life of afk-miners and bots much easier, all while not adressing the structural issues of the mining profession: boring, poor and lacking improvement.

What the game need is not brick-tanked barge able to survive to multiple suicide tornadoes. These always existed, they're battleships (and now, skiffs). a 25000m3 ore hold is an amusing gimmick, but ultimately reward peoples who play eve afk.

Your regular miner, that poor **** who was paying attention, who had friends with him, who knew what the hell he was doing, will be left untouched by these changes. His hulk's yield will remain the same, and even going into big scary low/nullsec wont improve his condition much. In the current (and, apparently, future) state, he's still a poor **** who play a role so un-challenging that a bot can fill it, and be just as efficient as he is.

Mining dont need a 100k EHP mining barge, nor a barge able to mine 30 minutes without requiring a single click, mining need a ship, or a mechanism, that makes a human better than a script.

The best post in whole topic. Pure truth!

But it is not all truth. Mining did need a ship that could effectively haul for itself and it did need a ship with a solid tank. Now that we will be getting those they can work to fix the second problem of mining being a super boring activity.

Yes, mining needed a sturdy ship, and a ship with a large cargo. But that's not really what is happening there. We're getting, really, 3 sturdy ships (two on the level of a battlecruiser, one on the level of battleships -with the size and speed of a cruiser-), and 2 ships with a large cargo bay (17500 for the skiff, 37500 for the mackinaw). And both these ships actually reach about, apparently, 80% of the yield of a hulk.

As I said before, and I cant emphasize that enough, it means that the miner who was careful enough to not get ganked, who used orca support to drop his mineral, wont gain anything from this update. The players who were doing good wont see their situation improve, but instead the value of their yield diminush, as "bad" miners get a safer and easier life and flood the market.

I suspect an ulterior motive 'Pisov' but I totally and utterly agree with your second paragraph. The professional mining community is indeed being shafted by the mining vessel 'rebalancing'. No good will come from these unnecessary and unhelpful changes. Unfortunately too many posts from pilots who can't fit their ships properly have brought this ********* upon us.

Celgar Thurn

Department 10

Likes received: 187

#374 - 2012-07-30 13:05:56 UTC

Dave stark wrote:

i definitely agree that the barges are stepping on each other's toes in terms of their unique roles. there's no need for the skiff to have an ore bay as large as it is, that's for certain.

i think the hulk/mack did need tank buffs however else they simply wouldn't be viable in 0.0 space where the rats would tear them to shreds without deadspace/faction modules. however in keeping them 0.0 sec viable they also become unprofitable to gank which renders the skiff redundant in high sec. either way some of the ships will never see a use in some parts of space.

Who uses Mackinaw & Hulk in low or nul sec???? Roll

Covetor is the ship to use there at present pre-'rebalancing'.

Jorma Morkkis

State War Academy

Caldari State

Likes received: 455

#375 - 2012-07-30 14:23:26 UTC | Edited by: Jorma Morkkis

Pipa Porto wrote:

You need at least 2 meta fit Catalysts to kill an untanked Hulk, so you can't gank at all with one character in a meta fit catalyst.

Catalyst: 500+ dps
vs.
[Hulk, 9,15k EHP]

[Empty Low slot]
[Empty Low slot]

[Empty Med slot]
[Empty Med slot]
[Empty Med slot]
[Empty Med slot]

Modulated Strip Miner II, Veldspar Mining Crystal II
Modulated Strip Miner II, Veldspar Mining Crystal II
Modulated Strip Miner II, Veldspar Mining Crystal II

[Empty Rig slot]
[Empty Rig slot]

Fight!

500 * 20 = 10k
10k > 9,15k

Charlie Jacobson

Likes received: 336

#376 - 2012-07-30 14:31:26 UTC | Edited by: Charlie Jacobson

Jorma Morkkis wrote:

Pipa Porto wrote:

You need at least 2 meta fit Catalysts to kill an untanked Hulk, so you can't gank at all with one character in a meta fit catalyst.

I don't think "untanked" in this case means having nothing but strip miners. You can either fit it with MLUs for extra yield and whatever tank will still fit after that, or you can sacrifice some yield for more tank instead.

I support James 315 and the New Order of Highsec

Dave Stark

Likes received: 7,950

#377 - 2012-07-30 14:58:42 UTC

Celgar Thurn wrote:

Hmm. I'm getting confused now. Does this mean the Mackinaw is largely a redundant ship now then if the Hulk gets better yield when mining ice?

yes, the hulk mines anything better than any one. that's it's new role.

Celgar Thurn wrote:

Who uses Mackinaw & Hulk in low or nul sec???? Roll

Covetor is the ship to use there at present pre-'rebalancing'.

every one does. nobody uses a covetor because it can't tank the rats.

Pipa Porto

Likes received: 1,548

#378 - 2012-07-30 19:15:18 UTC | Edited by: Pipa Porto

Charlie Jacobson wrote:

Jorma Morkkis wrote:

Pipa Porto wrote:

You need at least 2 meta fit Catalysts to kill an untanked Hulk, so you can't gank at all with one character in a meta fit catalyst.

Actually I did mean it.

For some reason, at the time, my Pyfa was showing an untanked Hulk having just over 10k EHP vs AM. Not quite sure why.

So, an untanked Hulk can be killed by a Meta Catalyst with perfect skills. Doesn't explain why you'd ever want to intentionally fit no tank on a Hulk. Especially when you can do this fit and have 20k EHP.

[Hulk, Hisec Mininh]

Mining Laser Upgrade II
Mining Laser Upgrade II

Small F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction
Limited Adaptive Invulnerability Field I
Limited Adaptive Invulnerability Field I
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II

Modulated Strip Miner II, Veldspar Mining Crystal II
Modulated Strip Miner II, Veldspar Mining Crystal II
Modulated Strip Miner II, Veldspar Mining Crystal II

Medium Processor Overclocking Unit I
Medium Processor Overclocking Unit I

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto

Tau Cabalander

Retirement Retreat

Working Stiffs

Likes received: 6,913

#379 - 2012-08-04 07:45:39 UTC | Edited by: Tau Cabalander

Best fleet Hulk I can come up with on SiSi (includes Siege Warfare booster). Requires a 4% power implant when using T2 strips (5% implant is more common so cheaper though).

Because of the resist reduction, I just can't see going with 3x invuls anymore.

http://dl.eve-files.com/media/corp/TauCabalander/New-EHP-Hulk.png

I've not been able to fit a 3x MLU Mackinaw that was more EHP and didn't have resist holes. If anyone has, I'd like to see the fit. I've tried previously mentioned fits; they might be outdated. Keep in mind in-game EHP is calculated based on damage to lowest resist, unlike EFT.

[Hulk, EHP]
Micro Auxiliary Power Core II
Internal Force Field Array I

Medium F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction
Thermic Dissipation Field II
EM Ward Field II
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II

Modulated Strip Miner II, Veldspar Mining Crystal II
Modulated Strip Miner II, Veldspar Mining Crystal II
Modulated Strip Miner II, Veldspar Mining Crystal II

Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
Medium Core Defense Field Extender I

Hobgoblin II x5
Mining Drone II x5

Pipa Porto

Likes received: 1,548

#380 - 2012-08-04 08:32:00 UTC | Edited by: Pipa Porto

Tau Cabalander wrote:

To Help out:

EM EHP: 48,867 EHP
Therm: 56,334 EHP
Kin: 41387 EHP
EXP: 48,878 EHP

Doing damage patterns armed with that is trivial. Just a weighted average. By the way, is that Heated?

Gives 48860 EHP against Void.

Guess CCP didn't want the Skiff to be a viable ship after all.

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto

First pagePrevious page1718192021Next pageLast page