These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Developer Comments on Mining Crystals and Cargo Capacity?

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Jake Rivers
New Planetary Order
#181 - 2012-07-31 22:00:02 UTC
Dave stark wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Dave stark wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Dave stark wrote:

and when the skiff or mack gets the yield of a hulk, i will. not that your comment is in any way related to the conversation.

Considering you are trying to force the hulk to overlap into another ships role by lamenting its cargo limitations instead of using the other ship makes it perfectly relevant.


how am i? i simply want my hulk to be able to hold the same amount of crystals as every other ship that uses 3 strip miners.

Didn't the covetor and the hulk have the same cargo hold size? Or is there some other ship I'm missing here?


nope, covetor is 500m3 (perfectly acceptable!) and the hulk is 350m3.

sadly when ccp halved the crystal size they also strangely reduced the hulk's cargo bay. if they'd have left the hulk's cargo bay there wouldn't really be an issue to discuss here.

however due to this inconsistency and one other inconsistency i have a feeling that the hulk will have a 500m3 cargo bay tomorrow and we can all stop arguing about this.


I am sure the reason they reduced the cargohold of the hulk to below 500m3 is so we will no longer be able to use a hulk to set up new PI bases.

Senex Legio
Dave Stark
#182 - 2012-07-31 22:01:54 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Dave stark wrote:
plan your work better all you want; your boss is still expecting you in at 9am on saturday. no, you're still not getting paid for it.
…except that no extra work is required if you plan ahead. You still have to warp back to station to deliver the ore. Make use of the time in the belt to plan what you're going after next; make use of the pit-stop to bring what you need. End result: planning → no additional work, same reward.

Quote:
sadly when ccp halved the crystal size they also strangely reduced the hulk's cargo bay.
It's not particularly strange. It's a fleet ship — the support ships in the fleet are meant to carry the crystals. If you obstinately refuse to use it for its purpose and try to use it as a solo ship, then that's almost entirely your problem.


it is strange; if they didn't want the hulk carrying more crystals why bother making the crystals take less space to begin with? seems odd to change all the numbers to not change anything?
Andoria Thara
Fallen Avatars
#183 - 2012-07-31 22:02:04 UTC
I'm enjoying having hardly any competition.

These changes are going to bring back all of those people who quit mining, those who quit playing all together due to permageddon, and invites new players to feel gankproof in highsec. The mineral market will be flooded, and mining will go from 40mil isk/hour to 20mil again.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#184 - 2012-07-31 22:03:02 UTC
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Wtih canned Exhumers the choices are much less, the need to reload is canned as well.

Some times the hull is a big part of the choice (WTB HPL Drake).
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#185 - 2012-07-31 22:03:07 UTC
Jake Rivers wrote:

I am sure the reason they reduced the cargohold of the hulk to below 500m3 is so we will no longer be able to use a hulk to set up new PI bases.


So much effort... for that??
I mean, you can setup a new PI base with an expanded frigate, what's so absurd using an expensive ship to do the same?

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials
Suddenly Forums ForumKings
Doomheim
#186 - 2012-07-31 22:04:34 UTC
Andoria Thara wrote:
I'm enjoying having hardly any competition.

These changes are going to bring back all of those people who quit mining, those who quit playing all together due to permageddon, and invites new players to feel gankproof in highsec. The mineral market will be flooded, and mining will go from 40mil isk/hour to 20mil again.


On the bright side, cheap ships!

25M ISK DRAKE HERE I COME!
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#187 - 2012-07-31 22:05:50 UTC
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Jake Rivers wrote:

I am sure the reason they reduced the cargohold of the hulk to below 500m3 is so we will no longer be able to use a hulk to set up new PI bases.


So much effort... for that??
I mean, you can setup a new PI base with an expanded frigate, what's so absurd using an expensive ship to do the same?

Asking because I genuinely don't know, which frig has a base 500m3 cargo hold?
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#188 - 2012-07-31 22:06:50 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Wtih canned Exhumers the choices are much less, the need to reload is canned as well.

Some times the hull is a big part of the choice (WTB HPL Drake).


As of now it's not a choice. The drawbacks plus the micromanagement make it quite stupid to use Hulks over Macks. Even if you both have fleet and defenders.
Unless someone wants to use bots to overcome the micromanagement part that is, but that should not be part of balancing a ship.

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#189 - 2012-07-31 22:07:58 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Jake Rivers wrote:

I am sure the reason they reduced the cargohold of the hulk to below 500m3 is so we will no longer be able to use a hulk to set up new PI bases.


So much effort... for that??
I mean, you can setup a new PI base with an expanded frigate, what's so absurd using an expensive ship to do the same?

Asking because I genuinely don't know, which frig has a base 500m3 cargo hold?


Expanded and rigged magnate. Used to be the most botted ship for indy missions, not sure if it's still able to go above 1km3.

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials
Dave Stark
#190 - 2012-07-31 22:09:38 UTC
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Jake Rivers wrote:

I am sure the reason they reduced the cargohold of the hulk to below 500m3 is so we will no longer be able to use a hulk to set up new PI bases.


So much effort... for that??
I mean, you can setup a new PI base with an expanded frigate, what's so absurd using an expensive ship to do the same?

Asking because I genuinely don't know, which frig has a base 500m3 cargo hold?


Expanded and rigged magnate. Used to be the most botted ship for indy missions, not sure if it's still able to go above 1km3.


probe gets 1k m3 with rigs and expanders.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#191 - 2012-07-31 22:12:13 UTC
Dave stark wrote:
it is strange; if they didn't want the hulk carrying more crystals why bother making the crystals take less space to begin with? seems odd to change all the numbers to not change anything?
Still not strange: so it can carry spares and/or afford some flexibility while still not having too much cargo space.

Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Asking because I genuinely don't know, which frig has a base 500m3 cargo hold?
Not base, but you can get a Magnate above that quite easily.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#192 - 2012-07-31 22:13:43 UTC
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Wtih canned Exhumers the choices are much less, the need to reload is canned as well.

Some times the hull is a big part of the choice (WTB HPL Drake).


As of now it's not a choice. The drawbacks plus the micromanagement make it quite stupid to use Hulks over Macks. Even if you both have fleet and defenders.
Unless someone wants to use bots to overcome the micromanagement part that is, but that should not be part of balancing a ship.

The use of bots is unnecessary and arguing on that point is a flawed premise. The hulk is designed to have hauler support. Return trips must be made anyways and can be used to get additional crystals. The most minor levels of effort are needed and if that really necessitates botting then maybe there is some truth to the reasoning behind the vitrolic miner hate out there.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#193 - 2012-07-31 22:14:45 UTC
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Jake Rivers wrote:

I am sure the reason they reduced the cargohold of the hulk to below 500m3 is so we will no longer be able to use a hulk to set up new PI bases.


So much effort... for that??
I mean, you can setup a new PI base with an expanded frigate, what's so absurd using an expensive ship to do the same?

Asking because I genuinely don't know, which frig has a base 500m3 cargo hold?


Expanded and rigged magnate. Used to be the most botted ship for indy missions, not sure if it's still able to go above 1km3.

Misread, was thinking you said unexpanded for some reason
Andoria Thara
Fallen Avatars
#194 - 2012-07-31 22:16:38 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
The most minor levels of effort are needed and if that really necessitates botting then maybe there is some truth to the reasoning behind the vitrolic miner hate out there.


There's a bad apple in every bunch, I see nothing wrong with the changes, other than more competition.
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#195 - 2012-07-31 22:17:46 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:

The use of bots is unnecessary and arguing on that point is a flawed premise. The hulk is designed to have hauler support. Return trips must be made anyways and can be used to get additional crystals. The most minor levels of effort are needed and if that really necessitates botting then maybe there is some truth to the reasoning behind the vitrolic miner hate out there.


See, I am an auditor. I have met every kind of people, from top famous 3rd party collateral holders to RMTers. I learned to decouple judgement and opinions from what actually happens, whether I like it or not.

Botting happens. If something stupid and bottable is introduced then it will be botted, end of. The new "mechanic" is a prime candidate to that.

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#196 - 2012-07-31 22:24:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:

The use of bots is unnecessary and arguing on that point is a flawed premise. The hulk is designed to have hauler support. Return trips must be made anyways and can be used to get additional crystals. The most minor levels of effort are needed and if that really necessitates botting then maybe there is some truth to the reasoning behind the vitrolic miner hate out there.


See, I am an auditor. I have met every kind of people, from top famous 3rd party collateral holders to RMTers. I learned to decouple judgement and opinions from what actually happens, whether I like it or not.

Botting happens. If something stupid and bottable is introduced then it will be botted, end of. The new "mechanic" is a prime candidate to that.

Those are just excuses to redirect attention away from the fact that violating the EULA is a conscious decision. This does not make mining an unreasonable burden on an actual player if done with multiboxing. Best if done in sufficient groups that can justify a dedicated hauler. Additionally if one doesn't want to invest active participation in the task to that level there are other hulls to choose from that eliminate the issue.
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#197 - 2012-07-31 22:29:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Vaerah Vahrokha
Tyberius Franklin wrote:

Those are just excuses to redirect attention away from the fact that violating the EULA is a conscious decision. This does not make mining an unreasonable burden on an actual player if done with multiboxing.


You really believe botters ever care to stop and think they have to do a conscious decision to violate the EULA? They just do it and that's it.

But hey don't take my word for it.

Let's wait say 2 weeks for the bots to adapt past the next patch and then we'll see.

I mean, they bot even now, before the menial tasks are introduced, imagine after.

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials
Suddenly Forums ForumKings
Doomheim
#198 - 2012-07-31 22:30:28 UTC
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:

Those are just excuses to redirect attention away from the fact that violating the EULA is a conscious decision. This does not make mining an unreasonable burden on an actual player if done with multiboxing.


You really believe botters ever care to stop and think they have to do a conscious decision to violate the EULA? They just do it and that's it.

But hey don't take my word for it.

Let's wait say 2 weeks for the bots to adapt past the next patch and then we'll see.


Yay for blue and grey morality.

Doesn't make you correct, however. Using bots is against the EULA.
Rented
Hunter Heavy Industries
#199 - 2012-07-31 22:30:47 UTC
If you're unable to cope with the highest-yield fleet-oriented exhumer being able to utilize 'only' 5 crystal sets on its own, your planning skills are awful and your capacity for forethought is terribly lacking.

If you honestly manage to believe this is such a drawback as to reduce the effectiveness of the hulk to below that of its peer exhumers, then by all means feel free to use one of them instead.

Mostly I see this as giving miners who aren't morons the opportunity to execute good decisions and differentiate themselves from the incredibly shortsighted ones.
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#200 - 2012-07-31 22:34:57 UTC
Andoria Thara wrote:
I'm enjoying having hardly any competition.

These changes are going to bring back all of those people who quit mining, those who quit playing all together due to permageddon, and invites new players to feel gankproof in highsec. The mineral market will be flooded, and mining will go from 40mil isk/hour to 20mil again.


1) It's not going to be the Hulks with all their drawbacks and requirement to screw you over (that is the topic of these last pages) but the other ships.

2) I don't believe for a single second that CFC / Goonswarm / Bat Contry will admit defeat. They'll just promise 50M per gank instead of 10M off their infinite trillions.

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials