These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Buzzy Warstl
Quantum Flux Foundry
#501 - 2012-08-14 20:37:51 UTC
Atum wrote:
Buzzy Warstl wrote:
And if you are mining in 0.0 in anything but a fully boosted fleet with haulers and guards you are already giving up the yield, so WTF is the problem here? Upset that there's now a ship better suited to the task?

You're late to the show, but in an earlier message (most likely ten pages back, if not more), I made the observation that every 0.0 miner I know already either fleets up with an off-grid booster, and/or multiboxes. They just don't all sit at the same asteroid field and circle-jerk (sing cumbaya, whatever). The rorq or orca sits in a pos (sometimes afk, especially if it's a deployed rorq) while the miners run around doing their thing. The multiboxing variant is often a max-yield hulk protected+boosted by a BC or command ship with gang links and a mining foreman chipped pilot who busies themselves chaining rats. In the first case, you're now penalizing the hulk pilot for .... what reason? They're part of a fleet, they're being social, they're just not all in the same field with ships that have "KILL ME!!! I'M SLOWER THAN FROZEN MOLASSES!!!" written all over them. In the second case, you're forcing an artificial limitation on efficiency for.... why? Maybe the BC/Command ship starts carrying crystals, so instead of limiting the crystal storage in the hulk, you're limiting the ammo/salvage storage in the fighter. Either way, you've nerfed what had previously been a perfectly functional system for no reason, and made miners' lives harder instead of easier.

Yeah, yeah, HTFU, adapt or die, whatever. If CCP wants war, they can't keep kicking the feet out from underneath the people who provide the materials for it. Eventually there'll be nothing left to fight with, and nobody (aside from botters) left who wants to do the grunt work of harvesting the materials for replacement.

So swap crystals when you drop your load at the Orca/Rorq, or have the hauler drop them off for you.

You are crying about something that only requires a small procedural change like it is the end of the freakin world here.

It isn't.

On the other hand, if it's because you *can't* change your procedure, one might begin to wonder why not...

http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm Richard Bartle: Players who suit MUDs
Atum
Eclipse Industrials
Quantum Forge
#502 - 2012-08-14 20:57:53 UTC
Buzzy Warstl wrote:
So swap crystals when you drop your load at the Orca/Rorq, or have the hauler drop them off for you.

You are crying about something that only requires a small procedural change like it is the end of the freakin world here.

It isn't.

On the other hand, if it's because you *can't* change your procedure, one might begin to wonder why not...

I *LOVE* your implication that I must be a botter, but I invite you to add all of my characters to your watch list (and thankfully, unlike Chribba, I only have six). You'll find that my play time is pretty much nil (RL work is soaring, but that makes me a tired puppy). Whatever... I can tell you're not a mining primary, and there's nothing wrong with that. However, your statement "swap crystals when you drop your load" goes against everything a hardcore miner does. They do NOT leave the belts unless forced to by a hostile entity, belt depletion, or crystal depletion. Hostile entities are something nobody can do anything about, and I've sat in a (cloaked) buzzard and watched as a dramiel taunted me in local and popped jetcans representing nearly two hours of mining output a couple of times. Le'sigh, but that's multiboxing life in 0.0. Belt depletion is generally not a problem, since most belts only take two or three warp-ins, and require an entire day (solo, anyways) to mine out. Crystal depletion, pre-change, was also not too much of a problem, as you could hold three or four of every T2 type and be comfortable knowing you were ready for whatever happened to be out there.

After the change, however... you've got space for 14 T2 crystals (assuming you're not using cargo rigs), plus three more in the lasers. CCP Tallest *claims* a crystal ought to last 5ish hours, but I've never seen it. Regardless, that's 17 crystals against 15 ore types. Now you're stuck with either gimping your output by using the wrong (or no) crystal against a rock, or gimping your output by not carrying all the different crystal types. Either way, you're gimped, and that's a *NERF* against both what had been a perfectly functioning system, AND the notion that the hulk is the "king" of output.
Atum
Eclipse Industrials
Quantum Forge
#503 - 2012-08-14 21:05:06 UTC
Atum wrote:
Crystal depletion, pre-change, was also not too much of a problem, as you could hold three or four of every T2 type and be comfortable knowing you were ready for whatever happened to be out there.

I wanted to separate this out for special attention... carrying that many crystals also represented a nice anti-botting "feature," as it required *ACTIVE* participation and management of the laser cycles to prevent cargo hold overflow, the bane of miners everwhere Evil
Buzzy Warstl
Quantum Flux Foundry
#504 - 2012-08-14 21:12:16 UTC
Atum wrote:
Buzzy Warstl wrote:
So swap crystals when you drop your load at the Orca/Rorq, or have the hauler drop them off for you.

You are crying about something that only requires a small procedural change like it is the end of the freakin world here.

It isn't.

On the other hand, if it's because you *can't* change your procedure, one might begin to wonder why not...

I *LOVE* your implication that I must be a botter, but I invite you to add all of my characters to your watch list (and thankfully, unlike Chribba, I only have six). You'll find that my play time is pretty much nil (RL work is soaring, but that makes me a tired puppy). Whatever... I can tell you're not a mining primary, and there's nothing wrong with that. However, your statement "swap crystals when you drop your load" goes against everything a hardcore miner does.

If you aren't leaving the belt, you have a hauler.

Either you go to a ship that can carry crystals for you, or such a ship comes to you regularly enough to deal with the issue.

The inflexibilty of thought required to not see this and simply adjust your procedures accordingly is mind-boggling.

http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm Richard Bartle: Players who suit MUDs
Idris Helion
Doomheim
#505 - 2012-08-15 03:18:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Idris Helion
Infinite Force wrote:
The feedback was not listened to in general, so is it any wonder why the Mack is now "king of the Barges"?



Except it's not...or at least it shouldn't be. The Hulk was clearly superior in nearly any role prior to the patch, so it made sense for miners to use it regardless of the use-case. But now, each barge/exhumer hull has a well-defined role -- that doesn't mean miners will use different hulls, but using a "one size fits all" approach now will hurt miners in some critical area: yield, ore capacity, or tank. Yeah, lots of miners jumped into the Mack (including me), but I think that gankers are going to come up with strategies to efficiently kill Macks, and that will bring miners out of their trance: lose a couple of expensive hulls to gankers and all of a sudden a Skiff is looking pretty good, lower yield notwithstanding.

The novelty will wear off the new mining boats pretty soon, and good miners will start focusing on the strengths and weaknesses of the hulls.

The Mack/Retriever's role is a solo/small-gang mining boat. The preponderance of the hull in hisec just means that most miners in hisec are solo miners (or dual-box with an alt), and simply mentally replaced the Hulk with the Mack without thinking much about what the change would mean. For example, if you're mining with a Mack in a fleet that already has haulers, an Orca, and/or a Rorqual, you're leaving a lot of yield on the table by not using a Hulk. (And it's not a trivial amount -- the difference in yield between a Mack and a Hulk is significant).

It used to be that you simply skilled up to use a Hulk and that's the only hull you ever flew. Now you have to consider what you'll be mining, whether you'll be fleeted/boosted or not, and whether you'll be facing only belt rats or other hostiles in system.

Another note: you're going to see the same lazy miners who used to fly lousy Hulk fits doing the same with Macks. They'd lose fewer ships and hence make better ISK by tanking properly (or flying a Skiff), but no: they'll just sit out there in the belts like big quacking ducks and whine on the boards when some joyriding Goon pops them and their expensive ship.
Atum
Eclipse Industrials
Quantum Forge
#506 - 2012-08-15 03:27:01 UTC
Idris Helion wrote:
Infinite Force wrote:
The feedback was not listened to in general, so is it any wonder why the Mack is now "king of the Barges"?
It used to be that you simply skilled up to use a Hulk and that's the only hull you ever flew. Now you have to consider what you'll be mining, whether you'll be fleeted/boosted or not, and whether you'll be facing only belt rats or other hostiles in system.

This might have been (will be?) true in high sec, but not in null. The old roles (hulk - yield, mack - ice, skiff - mercox) were definitely a part of life, and people did use the correct tool for the job. Granted, not many people bothered with skiffs, and would leave the mercox sitting there, hoping someone else in USTZ would clear it and respawn the belt, but macks were far and away the choice for ice. Now? We're left with ice rigs, mercox rigs, and hulks that can't carry enough crystals to get the job done anymore.

Nobody Ever wrote:
I want ore bays on my barges!!!
Dave stark
#507 - 2012-08-15 07:46:30 UTC
Idris Helion wrote:
Infinite Force wrote:
The feedback was not listened to in general, so is it any wonder why the Mack is now "king of the Barges"?



Except it's not...or at least it shouldn't be. The Hulk was clearly superior in nearly any role prior to the patch, so it made sense for miners to use it regardless of the use-case. But now, each barge/exhumer hull has a well-defined role -- that doesn't mean miners will use different hulls, but using a "one size fits all" approach now will hurt miners in some critical area: yield, ore capacity, or tank. Yeah, lots of miners jumped into the Mack (including me), but I think that gankers are going to come up with strategies to efficiently kill Macks, and that will bring miners out of their trance: lose a couple of expensive hulls to gankers and all of a sudden a Skiff is looking pretty good, lower yield notwithstanding.

The novelty will wear off the new mining boats pretty soon, and good miners will start focusing on the strengths and weaknesses of the hulls.

The Mack/Retriever's role is a solo/small-gang mining boat. The preponderance of the hull in hisec just means that most miners in hisec are solo miners (or dual-box with an alt), and simply mentally replaced the Hulk with the Mack without thinking much about what the change would mean. For example, if you're mining with a Mack in a fleet that already has haulers, an Orca, and/or a Rorqual, you're leaving a lot of yield on the table by not using a Hulk. (And it's not a trivial amount -- the difference in yield between a Mack and a Hulk is significant).

It used to be that you simply skilled up to use a Hulk and that's the only hull you ever flew. Now you have to consider what you'll be mining, whether you'll be fleeted/boosted or not, and whether you'll be facing only belt rats or other hostiles in system.

Another note: you're going to see the same lazy miners who used to fly lousy Hulk fits doing the same with Macks. They'd lose fewer ships and hence make better ISK by tanking properly (or flying a Skiff), but no: they'll just sit out there in the belts like big quacking ducks and whine on the boards when some joyriding Goon pops them and their expensive ship.


except it is, and we knew it from the moment it hit sisi.

the mackinaw is superior in every way now. it has immense space for ore and crystals alike, +1 over the hulk, it has more ehp than the hulk and more than enough to deter suicide gankers +1 over the hulk, and +1 over the skiff where you have unnecessary amounts of ehp by sacrificing everything else (pure overkill), and a 3mlu mack mines more than the old cargo expanded hulk. let's face it, the new mack beats the old shitfit cargo hulks in every single way possible.

sure a 2x mlu hulk is going to outmine a mackinaw, but that tiny extra yield for all the hassle and tedium of moving ore every cycle, dealing with swapping crystals between ships, etc... no, simply isn't worth it when you can set a few mackinaws to work and tab out to your favourite porn site.

the real issue that makes the mack the king of miners at the moment is that the hulk simply doesn't provide enough extra yield for people to want to deal with it's ****** little cargo bay and having to rely on other people feeding it. it's simply not as fun as tabbing out and having a ****, nor is that hassle worth the extra yield.
Idris Helion
Doomheim
#508 - 2012-08-15 15:46:36 UTC
Dave stark wrote:
the mackinaw is superior in every way now. it has immense space for ore and crystals alike, +1 over the hulk, it has more ehp than the hulk and more than enough to deter suicide gankers +1 over the hulk, and +1 over the skiff where you have unnecessary amounts of ehp by sacrificing everything else (pure overkill), and a 3mlu mack mines more than the old cargo expanded hulk. let's face it, the new mack beats the old shitfit cargo hulks in every single way possible.


Which is pure win in my view. Cargo-fit Hulks were pure FAIL nine times out of ten, and I secretly rejoiced every time a ganker killed one. If you can't be bothered to tank your ~400M ISK ship properly, you deserve to lose it.

If you're a solo miner (or a dual-boxer), then of course the Mack is better than the Hulk. That's the point. The Retriever/Mack's role is a solo/small-gang mining hull. And it's actually possible to tank it properly without sacrificing yield, which is a huge plus over the old Hulk.

The Hulk used to be the end-all, be-all mining hull in EVE. Now it's not. The other hulls actually have a purpose in the game, and a smart miner is going to pick and choose which one to use depending on the mining op. Yes, lots won't and will simply use a Mack for everything, but lazy miners are a feature of EVE and always have been. Gankers will find a way to profitably kill them and I will continue to rejoice when this happens.

I've actually salted a lot of my mining systems with T1 Retrievers. It's a cheap way to build a mining fleet with good yield, and cost differential between a Ret and a Mack is huge. I can buy ten Rets for the cost of one Mack, and get in the same ballpark yield-wise. Plus, if I want to skill up a new mining toon, a Retriever can be achieved in a few weeks; a Mack is going to take quite a bit longer.

The Procurer/Skiff is already starting to appeal to me, both as a ninja mining platform and as a non-mining mission drone boat -- that huge tank can outlast any mission rat in hisec while the drones chew them up. Skiffs would also be great for running hot grav sites.
Zigne Nardieu
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#509 - 2012-08-15 21:19:14 UTC
This patch where bad...

This patch support bots/solo miner / poor ppl

The hulk is now a terribal ship in fleet up if u multi box cargo hold is to litte... can hold 1,½ cikle... and u cent even make it bigger -..-... Old crago rigs are uless now on them... great ty for +100 mill gone on noting aswell there

and the retivers cost 15 mill and can carry amost 3 times as much as the hulk... and have better bonus on the ships per strips miner on or then the hulk?
Dont know who got the idear to buff the bad ships that much... and neft the good ones that mucj... just seem retared that the cheap and chearfull ship... all can buy ahve a better role bonus to mining then the " best mining ship"
Just looks like the ppl there where trying to do this patch did not think aboute that they where doing a all...

year sure u want to make all ships " ues more" but this where not the right way... wrongs groups in the game u support... and u will see that on the long run -.-

So guess what u realy want is more ppl afk mining in retriver and mac... and more bots...

And punish ppl in fleet or mulit box set up's.. dont see the point in this patch... just bad bad and even more bad...


The way i see the game... is aboute team play and "get toghter and do somting" to get to a goal done... "can be bashing a poss.... taking over a system" getting the minerals needed for a ship or just suply ur corp or allaicne whit fules to poss or what ever ur goal are in the game...

This patch just kinda ruined mining... in a mac in a ice belt u can problay go afk for around a h if ur skill are bad and whit out orca support...

Buff the hulk(tank and cargo bay... or realy buff the mining yeil , and Nerf the Retriver /Covoter/Producer
Neft the mac cargo bay buff...
Dont see the reason that the retiver/convoter is almost as good as the mac/hulk

btw i have 7 mac pilots atm... and a orca... mac needed a nerf in cargo bays .... i can be afk around 30 min whit all my mac pilots...
Whit peftceft boost

3 ice minger upgrades
2 ice miners2
1 rig ice

and still have +20k efh
Idris Helion
Doomheim
#510 - 2012-08-15 22:26:20 UTC
Zigne Nardieu wrote:
stuff


Yet another dumbass who didn't read the patch notes, didn't actually think about what the mining ships do now, and can only express themselves in a badly-spelled stream-of-consciousness rant.

CCP just gave you a massively pimp set of new ships for mining, and all you idiots can do is complain.
Atum
Eclipse Industrials
Quantum Forge
#511 - 2012-08-15 22:40:41 UTC
Idris Helion wrote:
Which is pure win in my view. Cargo-fit Hulks were pure FAIL nine times out of ten, and I secretly rejoiced every time a ganker killed one. If you can't be bothered to tank your ~400M ISK ship properly, you deserve to lose it.

I'll meet you halfway on this one.... I also got a laugh every time a cargo-fit hulk got popped, especially in highsec, even though I did the same to mine. The big difference, to me, is that I knew exactly what tradeoff I was making, and that if a hostile came within two systems of me, I'd be passively aligning, getting ready to spam that warp button as soon as they showed up in local.

Quote:
If you're a solo miner (or a dual-boxer), then of course the Mack is better than the Hulk. That's the point. The Retriever/Mack's role is a solo/small-gang mining hull. And it's actually possible to tank it properly without sacrificing yield, which is a huge plus over the old Hulk.

Only so far... I'd still rather have the output of the hulk, since my dual-boxing config is generally me in the hulk, never leaving the belt, while my command ship alt either tanks or chains (depending on what spawned) and makes the change to a hauler every 1h55m. While I'm sure some will jump on me with "Well???!?! You've got your own personal hauler, why are you complaining about crystals???!!" comments, they're still missing the entire point that for a ship which is supposed to be the king of output, not being self-sufficient enough to carry the tools for the job is a pretty sorry state of affairs.

Quote:
The Hulk used to be the end-all, be-all mining hull in EVE. Now it's not. The other hulls actually have a purpose in the game, and a smart miner is going to pick and choose which one to use depending on the mining op. Yes, lots won't and will simply use a Mack for everything, but lazy miners are a feature of EVE and always have been. Gankers will find a way to profitably kill them and I will continue to rejoice when this happens.

Were people really using hulks for ice and mercox that much? Lots of folks keep harping on "hulks were the answer to everything," but I never saw it. Seems an awful waste to leave profit on the table.
Zigne Nardieu
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#512 - 2012-08-15 22:40:59 UTC
Idris Helion wrote:
Zigne Nardieu wrote:
stuff


Yet another dumbass who didn't read the patch notes, didn't actually think about what the mining ships do now, and can only express themselves in a badly-spelled stream-of-consciousness rant.

CCP just gave you a massively pimp set of new ships for mining, and all you idiots can do is complain.



why are u even in this post? it is not aboute spelling dude? But great comment or not Shocked

What patch note did i not read :)? link, show?
Dave stark
#513 - 2012-08-15 22:46:12 UTC
Zigne Nardieu wrote:
Idris Helion wrote:
Zigne Nardieu wrote:
stuff


Yet another dumbass who didn't read the patch notes, didn't actually think about what the mining ships do now, and can only express themselves in a badly-spelled stream-of-consciousness rant.

CCP just gave you a massively pimp set of new ships for mining, and all you idiots can do is complain.



why are u even in this post? it is not aboute spelling dude? But great comment or not Shocked

What patch note did i not read :)? link, show?


you mean all the dev blogs, sisi, etc...

the fact you people love to ***** and moan about things yet where was your feedback when it was on the test server, when the announcements came out in BOTH dev blogs etc?

honestly, the vast majority of people who are complaining about the barge changes are like people who complain about the government, and when you asked who they voted for tell you that they didn't vote.

well guess what, if you don't give your feedback saying you're unhappy with the proposed changes you have nobody but yourself to blame when the game gets changed in a way that you perceive to be negative.
Idris Helion
Doomheim
#514 - 2012-08-15 22:51:00 UTC
Atum wrote:
Only so far... I'd still rather have the output of the hulk, since my dual-boxing config is generally me in the hulk, never leaving the belt, while my command ship alt either tanks or chains (depending on what spawned) and makes the change to a hauler every 1h55m. While I'm sure some will jump on me with "Well???!?! You've got your own personal hauler, why are you complaining about crystals???!!" comments, they're still missing the entire point that for a ship which is supposed to be the king of output, not being self-sufficient enough to carry the tools for the job is a pretty sorry state of affairs.


So anchor a secure can (or several) in the damned belt and stuff it full of crystals before you start your op. Of all the things to **** and moan about with the changes to the Hulk, this still strikes me as the lamest one.
Zigne Nardieu
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#515 - 2012-08-15 23:00:12 UTC
[/quote]

why are u even in this post? it is not aboute spelling dude? But great comment or not Shocked

What patch note did i not read :)? link, show?[/quote]

you mean all the dev blogs, sisi, etc...

the fact you people love to ***** and moan about things yet where was your feedback when it was on the test server, when the announcements came out in BOTH dev blogs etc?

honestly, the vast majority of people who are complaining about the barge changes are like people who complain about the government, and when you asked who they voted for tell you that they didn't vote.

well guess what, if you don't give your feedback saying you're unhappy with the proposed changes you have nobody but yourself to blame when the game gets changed in a way that you perceive to be negative.[/quote]



Well sorry i play on the real server and do not play on the test server?
I KNOW aboute the dev blogs? but? how does that help me? " ohh i do not help me a all great anwser"

well it is just a bad patch? the way ccp want it to work is just supporting poor/bots/ afk miners... it is not improving the game a all... u are probaly just a happy carebear... great for u to be able to be afk in a ice belt in a h whit out doing any thing...

hulk's in 0.0 in small gank or solo miners die very fast if they get agro now from a bs... :/ the way i see it... it is just supporting the wrong things in the game...
Atum
Eclipse Industrials
Quantum Forge
#516 - 2012-08-15 23:02:31 UTC
Idris Helion wrote:
[So anchor a secure can (or several) in the damned belt and stuff it full of crystals before you start your op. Of all the things to **** and moan about with the changes to the Hulk, this still strikes me as the lamest one.

Way back on page 4, I addressed this option. Basically, for a fixed planetary belt, using anchored secure works perfectly fine. You can (usually) strip the entire belt with only two or three warp-in bookmarks. For grav sites, though, it's a pain in the rear, since you'll need to either shuttle back and forth to the can in a ship slower than a freighter (well, ok, not quite THAT bad, but it feels like it sometimes), or re-ship either yourself or your multibox alt to move the stupid thing around. No matter which solution you choose, it's additional pain for negative return on time invested.
BellaSina
Fusion Tech
#517 - 2012-08-15 23:11:12 UTC
The Hulk name doesn't really seem fitting any more.
Dave stark
#518 - 2012-08-16 04:15:05 UTC
Zigne Nardieu wrote:

Well sorry i play on the real server and do not play on the test server?
I KNOW aboute the dev blogs? but? how does that help me? " ohh i do not help me a all great anwser"

well it is just a bad patch? the way ccp want it to work is just supporting poor/bots/ afk miners... it is not improving the game a all... u are probaly just a happy carebear... great for u to be able to be afk in a ice belt in a h whit out doing any thing...

hulk's in 0.0 in small gank or solo miners die very fast if they get agro now from a bs... :/ the way i see it... it is just supporting the wrong things in the game...


i actually want to respond to you, but jesus christ google translator is your friend.
Sigras
Conglomo
#519 - 2012-08-16 05:56:43 UTC
Atum wrote:
Idris Helion wrote:
[So anchor a secure can (or several) in the damned belt and stuff it full of crystals before you start your op. Of all the things to **** and moan about with the changes to the Hulk, this still strikes me as the lamest one.

Way back on page 4, I addressed this option. Basically, for a fixed planetary belt, using anchored secure works perfectly fine. You can (usually) strip the entire belt with only two or three warp-in bookmarks. For grav sites, though, it's a pain in the rear, since you'll need to either shuttle back and forth to the can in a ship slower than a freighter (well, ok, not quite THAT bad, but it feels like it sometimes), or re-ship either yourself or your multibox alt to move the stupid thing around. No matter which solution you choose, it's additional pain for negative return on time invested.

you mean like how the "Large Asteroid Cluster" (the most valuable belt and the only one that anyone bothers mining out anyway) can be mined from two warp in points? you mean like that?

And yes, I know the other belts cant be mined like that, but the optimal strategy is to cherrypick the ABCM from the other belts and only mine out the Large Asteroid Cluster. If you're doing anything else, youre already being sub optimal so it doesnt matter what you do, because everything you do is already less than the best you could be doing.
Atum
Eclipse Industrials
Quantum Forge
#520 - 2012-08-16 11:35:46 UTC
Sigras wrote:
And yes, I know the other belts cant be mined like that, but the optimal strategy is to cherrypick the ABCM from the other belts and only mine out the Large Asteroid Cluster. If you're doing anything else, youre already being sub optimal so it doesnt matter what you do, because everything you do is already less than the best you could be doing.

This is the problem faced by USTZ miners everywhere... the Aussies, Russians, and Euros cherry pick everything before we have a chance to get in there Sad