These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

New dev blog: Ship Balancing: Mining Barges

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
nardaq
Orion Expeditions
#121 - 2012-08-03 22:12:48 UTC
guess we gotta have more hassle to change to ICE and MERC
no more quick dock up/ SMA and swap ship and resume Evil will be fun for multi boxers

instead change the role for the skiff/mack/hulk u should introduce new type ORE ships or something....


and i still think its crap to have only 4 sets in the hold
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
#122 - 2012-08-03 22:19:00 UTC
Jita Bloodtear wrote:
corestwo wrote:

If you want to feel superior because you caught ccp out on a little mistake, be my guest, but their numbers are accurate for a reasonable set of assumptions.

lol wow, why are you so bitter towards me? I don't think this is the first time you've insulted me. Reasonable set of assumptions are that max mining yield based on perfect conditions = max mining yield based on perfect conditions. I was attempting to clarify misinformation which would have a massive impact on nullsec ice miners.


there are about three nullsec ice miners outside IRC so orca bonuses for "max ice yield" is a perfectly reasonable assumption.

This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

fofofo
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#123 - 2012-08-03 22:34:41 UTC
Madner Kami wrote:
The blog implies it, but I really want the answer spelled out:

You guys thought about redirecting the yield to the ore hold by default, instead of the cargohold, right?



I've seen it said somewhere.

and as they're not saying that ore intake is being cut by a third (350m3 cargo hold, 1000m3 strip miner (on a hulk. On a skiff, it'd be a 3000m3 strip) ), it's as close to explicit as you can get without it out and out said.

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
Tarryn Nightstorm
Hellstar Towing and Recovery
#124 - 2012-08-03 22:36:40 UTC
Madam Isk wrote:
Will existing hulks get their rig's "refunded"? [...]


I highly doubt it.

And why should they?

Things have been nerfed/buffed before, and no-one, AFAIK, ever got any "refunds" of anything based on same.

Adjust, and adapt, or GTFO.

Star Wars: the Old Republic may not be EVE. But I'll take the sound of dual blaster-pistols over "NURVV CLAOKING NAOW!!!11oneone!!" any day of the week.
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
#125 - 2012-08-03 22:43:25 UTC
Hmm... if GoonSwarm members are in favor of these changes, there has to be something fundamentally wrong.

For some odd reason, I just can't buy into the idea that the instigators of the Gallente Ice Interdiction and co-sponsors of Hulkageddon would be supporting any sort of buff to miners, unless it makes them better targets for high-sec ganking.

And, ofc, you always have to question corestwo's interest in these changes - there must be an opportunity to rake in a substantial amount of ISK hidden in here somewhere. Manipulating market speculation on Skiffs, perhaps? :)
Tarryn Nightstorm
Hellstar Towing and Recovery
#126 - 2012-08-03 22:47:04 UTC
Sizeof Void wrote:
Hmm... if GoonSwarm members are in favor of these changes, there has to be something fundamentally wrong.

For some odd reason, I just can't buy into the idea that the instigators of the Gallente Ice Interdiction and co-sponsors of Hulkageddon would be supporting any sort of buff to miners, unless it makes them better targets for high-sec ganking.

And, ofc, you always have to question corestwo's interest in these changes - there must be an opportunity to rake in a substantial amount of ISK hidden in here somewhere. Manipulating market speculation on Skiffs, perhaps? :)


You know, you could also stop whining and try to get in on some of that action yourself.

And that's coming from someone who detests Goons, although I suspect my reasons are rather different than most bleating, victim-card waving fluffy little carebears.

Star Wars: the Old Republic may not be EVE. But I'll take the sound of dual blaster-pistols over "NURVV CLAOKING NAOW!!!11oneone!!" any day of the week.
CCP Masterplan
C C P
C C P Alliance
#127 - 2012-08-03 22:52:11 UTC
Madner Kami wrote:
The blog implies it, but I really want the answer spelled out:

You guys thought about redirecting the yield to the ore hold by default, instead of the cargohold, right?


From here:
If a ship has an ore bay, incoming ore from modules/drones will always go in to the ore bay.
If a ship does not have an ore bay, incoming ore from modules/drones will always go in to the cargo bay.
If the appropriate bay is full, the module/drone will deactivate as normal, and excess ore is lost.

"This one time, on patch day..."

@ccp_masterplan  |  Team Five-0: Rewriting the law
Madam Isk
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#128 - 2012-08-03 23:01:18 UTC
Tarryn Nightstorm wrote:
Madam Isk wrote:
Will existing hulks get their rig's "refunded"? [...]


I highly doubt it.

And why should they?

Things have been nerfed/buffed before, and no-one, AFAIK, ever got any "refunds" of anything based on same.

Adjust, and adapt, or GTFO.


By refunded I simply mean unequipped from the ship much like they did with excess drones when they nerfed super carriers drone bays. They also refunded the SP for learning skills when they removed them in case you haven't been paying attention. Seems pretty reasonable to me.
Jake Rivers
New Planetary Order
#129 - 2012-08-03 23:08:24 UTC
So CCP Masterplan, why do you think there should only be 13 crystals in the hulk? Is this just tailored for the high sec miners?

I know you guys must of discussed this in detail, but really how does this make a group mining fleet more interactive by adding tasks that no one in the fleet will want to do?

I like my hulks and will continue to use them, but I can't understand why we can't have a bigger selection.

I do plan out my mining activities, I even go as far as to make a list of what I am going to hit so I can sort out what to bring with my little fleet of 3 hulks, but even the best laid plans go to hell when unknown variables come into play. IE: used crystals/other people hitting the same target rocks and some rocks already partially depleted, just to name a few.

When I get home from work and want to do something, I like to get down to it. Not have to interrupt things 20 minutes after I get settled in. This already happens enough when neuts enter the system you are mining in, why should there be more things to go wrong?

Senex Legio
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
#130 - 2012-08-03 23:12:15 UTC
Tarryn Nightstorm wrote:
Sizeof Void wrote:
Hmm... if GoonSwarm members are in favor of these changes, there has to be something fundamentally wrong.

For some odd reason, I just can't buy into the idea that the instigators of the Gallente Ice Interdiction and co-sponsors of Hulkageddon would be supporting any sort of buff to miners, unless it makes them better targets for high-sec ganking.

And, ofc, you always have to question corestwo's interest in these changes - there must be an opportunity to rake in a substantial amount of ISK hidden in here somewhere. Manipulating market speculation on Skiffs, perhaps? :)

You know, you could also stop whining and try to get in on some of that action yourself.

And that's coming from someone who detests Goons, although I suspect my reasons are rather different than most bleating, victim-card waving fluffy little carebears.

Who is whining? I am just making an observation.

And, this is coming from someone who does *not* detest the Goons - although I admit that I enjoy taking the opposing side in some forum debates that they are involved in. For the most part, the Goons are just playing the game (and meta-game), like everyone else - albeit ofttimes better than most. And, I've actually benefited quite nicely from past Goon activities, so I always like to keep an eye on their upcoming shenanigans.... :)

You seem to be a bit angry, though.... lol.
Draconus Lofwyr
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#131 - 2012-08-03 23:16:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Draconus Lofwyr
will existing cargo rigs be removed and deployed in either cargo bay or hangar as these are no longer useful with an ore hold?

Also, will the ORE frig be ready and available when the existing mioning frigs loose their bonuses? or will they just have to deal till you eventually get around to it?
Belshazzar Babylon
Doomheim
#132 - 2012-08-03 23:22:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Belshazzar Babylon
Draconus Lofwyr wrote:
will existing cargo rigs be removed and deployed in either cargo bay or hangar as these are no longer useful with an ore hold?



Can't tell if serious or trolling What?
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
#133 - 2012-08-03 23:29:57 UTC  |  Edited by: corestwo
Sizeof Void wrote:
Hmm... if GoonSwarm members are in favor of these changes, there has to be something fundamentally wrong.

For some odd reason, I just can't buy into the idea that the instigators of the Gallente Ice Interdiction and co-sponsors of Hulkageddon would be supporting any sort of buff to miners, unless it makes them better targets for high-sec ganking.

And, ofc, you always have to question corestwo's interest in these changes - there must be an opportunity to rake in a substantial amount of ISK hidden in here somewhere. Manipulating market speculation on Skiffs, perhaps? :)


Much like goons were able to acknowledge that Tech really was over the top and needed the nerf (although CCP's nerf is a bit extreme), we're able (though perhaps not quite as willing) to admit that hulks and other miners really were too squishy. I/we support these changes because it leaves hulks beefier, but not by too much, as was the case with CCP's first pass.


And as to the hidden opportunity, yes it exists, unless the material changes on sisi are a total fakeout.

This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

fofofo
Kaycerra
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#134 - 2012-08-03 23:51:31 UTC
First
Denidil
Cascades Mountain Operatives
#135 - 2012-08-04 00:04:32 UTC
corestwo wrote:
Sizeof Void wrote:
Hmm... if GoonSwarm members are in favor of these changes, there has to be something fundamentally wrong.

For some odd reason, I just can't buy into the idea that the instigators of the Gallente Ice Interdiction and co-sponsors of Hulkageddon would be supporting any sort of buff to miners, unless it makes them better targets for high-sec ganking.

And, ofc, you always have to question corestwo's interest in these changes - there must be an opportunity to rake in a substantial amount of ISK hidden in here somewhere. Manipulating market speculation on Skiffs, perhaps? :)


Much like goons were able to acknowledge that Tech really was over the top and needed the nerf (although CCP's nerf is a bit extreme), we're able (though perhaps not quite as willing) to admit that hulks and other miners really were too squishy. I/we support these changes because it leaves hulks beefier, but not by too much, as was the case with CCP's first pass.


And as to the hidden opportunity, yes it exists, unless the material changes on sisi are a total fakeout.



building now then refining after patch isn't going to net you minerals btw.. they added the new minerals as "extra items" which don't reprocess back out.

Tedium and difficulty are not the same thing, if you don't realize this then STFU about game design.
Jeremy Soikutsu
Kite Co. Space Trucking
#136 - 2012-08-04 00:12:37 UTC
corestwo wrote:
there are about three nullsec ice miners outside IRC

Come on man, I'm sure there are at least 5. And why don't we count mang?

"Of course you would choose the fun, but you don't lead a relevant entity which has allies." - Colonel Xaven
Mortimer Civeri
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#137 - 2012-08-04 00:12:55 UTC
Denidil wrote:
corestwo wrote:
Sizeof Void wrote:
Hmm... if GoonSwarm members are in favor of these changes, there has to be something fundamentally wrong.

For some odd reason, I just can't buy into the idea that the instigators of the Gallente Ice Interdiction and co-sponsors of Hulkageddon would be supporting any sort of buff to miners, unless it makes them better targets for high-sec ganking.

And, ofc, you always have to question corestwo's interest in these changes - there must be an opportunity to rake in a substantial amount of ISK hidden in here somewhere. Manipulating market speculation on Skiffs, perhaps? :)


Much like goons were able to acknowledge that Tech really was over the top and needed the nerf (although CCP's nerf is a bit extreme), we're able (though perhaps not quite as willing) to admit that hulks and other miners really were too squishy. I/we support these changes because it leaves hulks beefier, but not by too much, as was the case with CCP's first pass.


And as to the hidden opportunity, yes it exists, unless the material changes on sisi are a total fakeout.



building now then refining after patch isn't going to net you minerals btw.. they added the new minerals as "extra items" which don't reprocess back out.

It is to late now, but the resale value of the changed barges will be significantly increased after the patch. There is more than one way to capitalise on the increased mineral requirements when the change hits.

"I don't know which is worse, ...that everyone has his price, or that the price is always so low." Calvin
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
#138 - 2012-08-04 00:32:32 UTC
Denidil wrote:
corestwo wrote:
Sizeof Void wrote:
Hmm... if GoonSwarm members are in favor of these changes, there has to be something fundamentally wrong.

For some odd reason, I just can't buy into the idea that the instigators of the Gallente Ice Interdiction and co-sponsors of Hulkageddon would be supporting any sort of buff to miners, unless it makes them better targets for high-sec ganking.

And, ofc, you always have to question corestwo's interest in these changes - there must be an opportunity to rake in a substantial amount of ISK hidden in here somewhere. Manipulating market speculation on Skiffs, perhaps? :)


Much like goons were able to acknowledge that Tech really was over the top and needed the nerf (although CCP's nerf is a bit extreme), we're able (though perhaps not quite as willing) to admit that hulks and other miners really were too squishy. I/we support these changes because it leaves hulks beefier, but not by too much, as was the case with CCP's first pass.


And as to the hidden opportunity, yes it exists, unless the material changes on sisi are a total fakeout.



building now then refining after patch isn't going to net you minerals btw.. they added the new minerals as "extra items" which don't reprocess back out.


well **** I just lost a lot of isk then.


Or maybe it doesn't matter because increased mineral prices still mean that I'll be able to sell the things at the significantly higher post-patch going rate. Roll

This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

fofofo
MotherMoon
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#139 - 2012-08-04 00:38:06 UTC
pure win.

But what about cost to build? Should I be buying up skiffs to resell at triple the price or what? You've never been clear the plan here guys.

http://dl.eve-files.com/media/1206/scimi.jpg
MotherMoon
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#140 - 2012-08-04 00:41:56 UTC
Dave stark wrote:
Denidil wrote:
MezriDax wrote:
Glad I got rid of my Mackinaws last week :) I should have offloaded the Skiff as well *sigh* btw, great job screwing over miners.... again.


do you work hard to be that dumb?


you're such an angry person.


I agree with him. the new mining ships are getting massive buffs. In fact selling them was stupid as ****. Becuase they are going to up 3-4 times in price.

http://dl.eve-files.com/media/1206/scimi.jpg