These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Dave Stark
#161 - 2012-08-04 07:45:37 UTC
Sofia Wolf wrote:
The way you describe it pilot B is solo miner so he should be using Mackinaw or Retriever instead of Hulk.


except, as is common in null, you have an open fleet to join to give you bonuses even if you're solo mining.
Zloco Crendraven
BALKAN EXPRESS
Shadow Cartel
#162 - 2012-08-04 08:14:37 UTC
No new ORE mining frig in this patch?

BALEX, bringing piracy on a whole new level.

Dave Stark
#163 - 2012-08-04 08:16:11 UTC
Zloco Crendraven wrote:
No new ORE mining frig in this patch?


no.
Ruareve
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#164 - 2012-08-04 08:48:04 UTC
Overall I like the idea of where the barges are going. Having options is good, having each be useful in it's own way is good. I do have a few concerns though with regards to the latest changes.

1. Sig radius increase is not factored into EHP's but there is a definite effect on the ability of a ship to mitigate damage just from sig size. Increasing overall EHP while increasing sig radius can result in a negative or neutral balance.

2. The idea of one ship being the weakest because it's a fleet based vessel instead of a solo ship is somewhat ludicrous. A fleet in high sec can not protect a low EHP ship from being alpha'ed or taken down by a few small, cheap ships. When an unarmed ship costs upwards of 250mil isk there should be sufficient defenses so that a 40mil ship can't simply one shot the more expensive ship. The exhumers are slow, fat, have limited slots compared to combat ships, and have no real offensive PVP capability. Given all of these weaknesses it seems only fair to ensure sufficient defenses to require some risk/loss to those that would prey on miners. I'm not saying exhumers should be super tanked, but I think they should easily be able to get 50k ehp at the low end and 120k or so on the high end. *Easily in this case is being able to fit both mining modules and tank modules without having to go all tank just to stand a chance of surviving in high sec.*

3. Requiring rigs to determine ore/ice/gas mining seems a bit expensive. I think rigs should be used for yield or range and modules determine what type of bonus the turrets get. I don't like the idea of having to get different barges to mine different targets but I guess it's similar to combat ships having to swap rigs to change from active or passive tanks. I think the main difference is the cost of barges vs. the cost of most combat ships. T1 ships swap rigs but typically T2 ships, the ones costing the same as exhumers, stick with specific rigs and rarely swap them around.

Yet another blog about Eve- http://ruar-eve.blogspot.com/

Joost Caldari
Joost Inventor Labs
#165 - 2012-08-04 09:21:50 UTC
Ruareve wrote:

3. Requiring rigs to determine ore/ice/gas mining seems a bit expensive. I think rigs should be used for yield or range and modules determine what type of bonus the turrets get. I don't like the idea of having to get different barges to mine different targets but I guess it's similar to combat ships having to swap rigs to change from active or passive tanks. I think the main difference is the cost of barges vs. the cost of most combat ships. T1 ships swap rigs but typically T2 ships, the ones costing the same as exhumers, stick with specific rigs and rarely swap them around.


I agree... Not being able to unfit rigs will mean that the majority of miners will end up with double (minority with a third for gas mining and a forth for mercoxit) mining ships. Now how does that encourage group activities? Not everybody might be able to afford multiple barges, which might mean individuals will specialise in specifc activities. Not sure how this will work out! The future will tell.
Dave Stark
#166 - 2012-08-04 09:31:43 UTC
Joost Caldari wrote:
Ruareve wrote:

3. Requiring rigs to determine ore/ice/gas mining seems a bit expensive. I think rigs should be used for yield or range and modules determine what type of bonus the turrets get. I don't like the idea of having to get different barges to mine different targets but I guess it's similar to combat ships having to swap rigs to change from active or passive tanks. I think the main difference is the cost of barges vs. the cost of most combat ships. T1 ships swap rigs but typically T2 ships, the ones costing the same as exhumers, stick with specific rigs and rarely swap them around.


I agree... Not being able to unfit rigs will mean that the majority of miners will end up with double (minority with a third for gas mining and a forth for mercoxit) mining ships. Now how does that encourage group activities? Not everybody might be able to afford multiple barges, which might mean individuals will specialise in specifc activities. Not sure how this will work out! The future will tell.


the mercoxit rig is what, 14% yield or some thing... a mercoxit asteroid is often left until last along with spod anyway, so you'll probably have all the miners mining and with that many people on it then it'll pop fairly fast, i doubt the rigs will see much use anyway.

it's a bigger issue for ice though, i'll admit.
Jagoff Haverford
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#167 - 2012-08-04 09:34:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Jagoff Haverford
Sofia Wolf wrote:
The way you describe it pilot B is solo miner so he should be using Mackinaw or Retriever instead of Hulk.
That's clearly where CCP is going with this, I agree. But again, why should this limitation apply only to those who mine in 0.0 and wormhole space? Those in Empire are completely unaffected by this cargohold problem, and can continue to use the ship with the highest output. They can stay in their NPC corps and solo mine in a Hulk as much as they every did, with no need to think about things prior to undocking.

And Miner B isn't really solo. His Alliance has a fleet going at all times, with boosts coming from an off-grid Rorqual that, for reasons of safety in 0.0 space, is never going to visit the belt to drop off crystals for anybody.

In any event, how about one final idea before I simply shut up about this forever? I would gladly use a rig on my grav site Hulk that increased cargo capacity by 2,000 m3 at the expense of a much larger amount -- call it 3,000 as a starting figure -- of ore bay space. That would give players a choice, make the Hulk far more viable in 0.0 space, and probably sell more Hulks at the same time. The actual numbers probably need to be adjusted a bit here, but the overall concept could work.

Edit: I created a "Features and Ideas" post about the proposed rig here.
Carola Kessler
Lost Sisters Of New Eden
#168 - 2012-08-04 10:19:32 UTC
Jagoff Haverford wrote:
[quote=Sofia Wolf]

And Miner B isn't really solo. His Alliance has a fleet going at all times, with boosts coming from an off-grid Rorqual that, for reasons of safety in 0.0 space, is never going to visit the belt to drop off crystals for anybody.




Regarding your Rorqual Comment, this will change too, since in the CSM minutes has been stated at page 133 Offgrid boosts will get removed, so i'm pretty sure will Rorqual Offgrid boost getting affected by this removal in the Future too, meants the Rorqal will have to be in the belt or somewhere on the Gridd in INDUCORE Mode to give maximum Boost.......Lets see how this will went if this change hits TQ as well. Evil

Sincerly

Carola Kessler Evil
Dave Stark
#169 - 2012-08-04 10:26:31 UTC
Carola Kessler wrote:
Jagoff Haverford wrote:
[quote=Sofia Wolf]

And Miner B isn't really solo. His Alliance has a fleet going at all times, with boosts coming from an off-grid Rorqual that, for reasons of safety in 0.0 space, is never going to visit the belt to drop off crystals for anybody.




Regarding your Rorqual Comment, this will change too, since in the CSM minutes has been stated at page 133 Offgrid boosts will get removed, so i'm pretty sure will Rorqual Offgrid boost getting affected by this removal in the Future too, meants the Rorqal will have to be in the belt or somewhere on the Gridd in INDUCORE Mode to give maximum Boost.......Lets see how this will went if this change hits TQ as well. Evil

Sincerly

Carola Kessler Evil


there's no way people are going to put some thing as expensive and vulnerable as a rorq on grid for boosts. you're gonna have orcas that are perma aligned, which will be drifting away from the mining ships which means re-supplying crystals is going to be an absolute pain in the bollock.

these changes get worse, and worse.
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#170 - 2012-08-04 11:01:13 UTC
CCP Tallest wrote:

They might not make it any more exciting


I suggest this will be the focus of a future expansion. Making a most boring profession equally profitable for all ships, does not really mean it's the improvement that miners are waiting for since many years.


Ogogov wrote:
All the barges are getting their tanks adjusted to favor shields rather than structure hit points


Meanwhile, Gallente combat ships still favor structure hit points. HURRRRRRR.[/quote]

Because Gallente ships have 2 low slots... oh wait.
Freibuis
Legion of Lost Souls
#171 - 2012-08-04 11:01:19 UTC
Quote:
The barges are primarily mining ships, which means that regardless of what else they do, they have to be good at mining. The difference between the lowest and highest mining output was way too much, so the first thing we did was to bring the mining outputs of the different barges closer together. Hulk is still the king of yield, but the others are not so far behind as to be redundant.


I like what I am hearing, but!!!!!!

So let me get this right, since there is almost no out put difference between a hulk and a retriever (since outputs now are closer then pre this patch) why would you spend 264M Isk when you can buy the almost the same ship for 13M isk

are we going to see a re balance in price? are we going to see inputs for the retriever more to compensate the fact that it will be better then it is now?


Jagoff Haverford
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#172 - 2012-08-04 11:03:22 UTC
Carola Kessler wrote:
... in the CSM minutes has been stated at page 133...
How on earth did you stay awake through 133 pages of that stream of transcripted diarrhea to find this one nugget of useful information? I am deeply impressed.
Dave Stark
#173 - 2012-08-04 11:10:04 UTC
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
CCP Tallest wrote:

They might not make it any more exciting


I suggest this will be the focus of a future expansion. Making a most boring profession equally profitable for all ships, does not really mean it's the improvement that miners are waiting for since many years.


let's look at the whole sentence
Quote:
They might not make it any more exciting, but at least miners will have to make some meaningful decisions before they undock.


crystals aren't a meaningful choice, at all. choice of ship is meaningful, however crystals are not.

even more so when it only causes an issue for 1 role rather than all of them. the worst part is it makes mining less interesting, it's really that simple. nobody wants to waste time faffing around with crystals that's why we just put all of them in our cargo bay and off we went and it was fine until ccp decided in their infinite stupidity to make it an issue.
Jimmy Watson
Section 5
#174 - 2012-08-04 11:12:29 UTC
Well I don't like it......I don't like it at all!!

Page 9 on a mining dev blog and NO Chribba?

Isn't anyone else getting worried......WTFIC! (where the **** is chribba)
Dave Stark
#175 - 2012-08-04 11:15:17 UTC
Jimmy Watson wrote:
Well I don't like it......I don't like it at all!!

Page 9 on a mining dev blog and NO Chribba?

Isn't anyone else getting worried......WTFIC! (where the **** is chribba)


he mines in a dread, exhumers aren't on his radar :P
Duvida
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#176 - 2012-08-04 11:17:36 UTC
Chribba! Oh Chrrrriiiiibbbbaaaa..... !

Oh, I had a question too, will the size of the packaged ships remain the same? (If I missed it in the notes, it was because I was looking for Chribba) P
suun Leeh
Perkone
Caldari State
#177 - 2012-08-04 11:33:12 UTC
Ok so maybe im missing something. :

The hulk will now have a cargo hold m3 space of 350m3 and is suppose to hold 4 sets of mining crystals

This is where i am having a proble understanding how that is possible.
A T1 veldspar mining crystal is 30 m3
1 set is 30m3x3=90m3x4 sets =360m3? 360 does not equal 350 and that is just the t1.
Now if we do t2
A t2 veldspar mining crystal is 50m3
1 set 50m3x3=150m3 x 4 sets well thats is 600m3

Are the sizes of the mining crystals being changed? or am i just completely whacky?
Dave Stark
#178 - 2012-08-04 11:35:38 UTC
suun Leeh wrote:
Ok so maybe im missing something. :

The hulk will now have a cargo hold m3 space of 350m3 and is suppose to hold 4 sets of mining crystals

This is where i am having a proble understanding how that is possible.
A T1 veldspar mining crystal is 30 m3
1 set is 30m3x3=90m3x4 sets =360m3? 360 does not equal 350 and that is just the t1.
Now if we do t2
A t2 veldspar mining crystal is 50m3
1 set 50m3x3=150m3 x 4 sets well thats is 600m3

Are the sizes of the mining crystals being changed? or am i just completely whacky?


they are counting a set of crystals already loaded in the strips.
also crystals are 15m3 and 25m3 for t1 and t2 respectively.
Octoven
Noir Holdings
#179 - 2012-08-04 11:47:51 UTC
Overall good changes, barges definitely needed revamped but one major issue I have is on SISI currently, the hulk and mackinaw are dead even in terms of mining ice, the hulk doesnt win in that regard mainly because the mack has a better tank.

However, how many miners do you see out in the ice fields mining solo? Typically mining ice is for POS fuels and typically there is more than one individual involved in said structure's fueling such as a whole corporation. Most of the time I don't see macks out mining ice anymore, I see hulks and orcas and this is BEFORE the change even has happened. The mackinaw is great for solo mining in the ore fields but even then most of the people who do that as well will use a retriever simply because its cheaper.

Even if mackinaws start showing up a bit more in ore belts, by making the hulk superior in ore AND ice you pretty much kill the need for even needing the mackinaw in the ice fields. To be honest, I think the way SISI has it set up now is fine. Leave the hulk and mack equal in regards to ice or at the very least make ice bonuses to be slightly more than the cov but less than the hulk. Its no longer just an ice vessel I agree, but these new changes based on the last minute decision on CCP's part pretty much eliminate macks out of ice belts period.
Sofia Wolf
Ubuntu Inc.
The Fourth District
#180 - 2012-08-04 11:49:42 UTC
Jagoff Haverford wrote:
Sofia Wolf wrote:
The way you describe it pilot B is solo miner so he should be using Mackinaw or Retriever instead of Hulk.
That's clearly where CCP is going with this, I agree. But again, why should this limitation apply only to those who mine in 0.0 and wormhole space? Those in Empire are completely unaffected by this cargohold problem, and can continue to use the ship with the highest output. They can stay in their NPC corps and solo mine in a Hulk as much as they every did, with no need to think about things prior to undocking....

here.


You have a point there but I personalty would still prefer Mackinaw to Hulk for high sec solo mining because I don’t risk someone stealing/fliping my ore canister.

Jessica Danikov > EVE is your real life. the rest is fantasy. caught in a corporation. no escape from banality. open up yours eyes, peer through pod good and seeeeeee. I'm just a poor pilot, I need no sympathy. because I'm easy scam, easy go, little isk, little know. anyway the solar wind blows...