These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page123Next page
 

Orehold Rigs!!!

Author
Idris Helion
Doomheim
#21 - 2012-10-02 15:43:44 UTC
Futchmacht wrote:
I'm not afk mining.. im just mining.. It's people like you that assume that 100% of miners just log on turn there miners on and go play another game or watch youtube.


And as for afk and macro miners.. if CCP did what they were supposed to it would not be a problem.. they were supposed to make mining require scanning down you ore.. instead of going to a belt... ibut they always just trry and bandaid things. instead fo fixing them.


If you're solo mining, use a Mack. That's what it's for; that's what it's good at. You won't out-yield a Mack with a Hulk unless you have 3+ Hulks plus an Orca booster. Hulks are meant for fleet use. Just get used to it. Your rigs still work on your cargo hold, and if you have to carry a lot of crystals you'll still need them. It's not like they're wasted.

I can't believe people are still complaining about this. The Mack is the most pimp solo mining vessel in the game. If you can't be bothered to switch to a vessel that is clearly better-suited to your playstyle, then the problem is yours, not the game's.
Jin alPatar
Entertainment 7wenty
The Burning Contingent Alliance
#22 - 2012-10-02 17:18:39 UTC
Futchmacht wrote:

its not the best option but it will have to do.. in the end i think im going to re-sub my hauling alt again.. cause thats the best option lol

Maybe thats was CCP's idea in the first place.. lol


Are you suggesting that CCP has an ulterior motive? Something about profit and making money? CRAZY!


Mining Barge rigs would make sense (less damage to crystals, increased yield, etc). we've got implants, why not rigs!?


Note: If you re-sub your hauler, your best mining yield is still to use two miners (mackinaw + whatever your hauler can fly. retriever is quick to get into).


I think a bigger issue is now with the orca. The Hulks are made to be used with a fleet vehicle (orca or rorq). But you need 3 or more hulks working with one to outweigh a 4th person in a lesser miner.

But the orca doesn't really have the ore capacity to sustain 3+ hulks at the boosted mining rate.

Give the orca a 125k m3 ore hold (half the rorq but no compression). Then it can realistically support a small fleet of hulks
Asuka Solo
I N E X T R E M I S
Tactical Narcotics Team
#23 - 2012-10-03 04:31:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Asuka Solo
Futchmacht wrote:
I know a lot of miners have spent large amounts of money puting cargo expanding rigs on there mining ships. We did that to increase the ore holding maximum on our ships. Not to hold mining crystals in the cargo hold.

Cargo expanding rigs are now 50% more useless because the only real thing to use them for now is to expand cargo space on haulers.

I know CCP is trying to make mining ships more role set... but.

Solo mining is still something people do... and having ships with a super large ore hold but mines slow.. is retareded.

Same thing for having a ship that mines the largest amout have a small ore hold.. its just stupid.. and forces jet can mining on solo miners.. or making us look like macro miners cause we have to warp to station all the time. (which is a huge waste of time).

So.. new rigs... Medium Orehold Optimization I and II etc. all the needed ones


Why in the name of the Virgin Mary would you need MORE space in this ginormous ore hold we've been blessed with?

Before the patch, we barely had 2k-6k to work with. Now you have 5 times that. And still your moaning about ore hold size?????

And then you moan about the yield of something that mines faster than it did before.... when you didn't bother fitting for speed of cycles anyway.....

WTF you smoking foo!

Eve is about Capital ships, WiS, Boobs, PI and Isk!

Astroniomix
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#24 - 2012-10-03 04:45:59 UTC
Futchmacht wrote:

120 million in rigs

WHY THE HELL WERE YOU T2 RIGGING THE DAMN THING!?!

Seriously, the game should not be balanced around a few players bad decisions.
Ganthrithor
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#25 - 2012-10-03 05:32:42 UTC
Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha


(I loled at this op)

((IRL))

[Because seriously...]
TheSkeptic
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#26 - 2012-10-03 08:17:34 UTC  |  Edited by: TheSkeptic
Futchmacht wrote:

Ya i have 120 million in rigs on one ship alone that would argue with that...


Gold!, thanks for the laugh Lol

Jin alPatar wrote:
Give the orca a 125k m3 ore hold (half the rorq but no compression). Then it can realistically support a small fleet of hulks


Not required... the orca is fine as is... please stop trying to turn everything into a massive afk activity. Just warp the orca to station or pos and empty it instead of being so lazy

...

Jin alPatar
Entertainment 7wenty
The Burning Contingent Alliance
#27 - 2012-10-03 15:40:01 UTC
TheSkeptic wrote:

Not required... the orca is fine as is... please stop trying to turn everything into a massive afk activity. Just warp the orca to station or pos and empty it instead of being so lazy


That's not laziness. When the orca is in station it's not boosting. The more often it has to warp back and forth the less useful it's boost effects are.
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#28 - 2012-10-03 18:26:11 UTC

1.) The hulk / mack / skiff are well designed, imo. The hulk is meant to be used with a fleet, not solo... htfu!!!

2.) I also believe in choice.... I don't see any problems with ore-bay expander rigs... but they need to have an appropriate penalty. Something like -10% to shield resistances, or -15% to shields, or something potent enough to put you in jeopardy of suicide gankers.
Futchmacht
TERRA CORE INDUSTRIES
#29 - 2012-10-04 11:42:05 UTC
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:

1.) The hulk / mack / skiff are well designed, imo. The hulk is meant to be used with a fleet, not solo... htfu!!!

2.) I also believe in choice.... I don't see any problems with ore-bay expander rigs... but they need to have an appropriate penalty. Something like -10% to shield resistances, or -15% to shields, or something potent enough to put you in jeopardy of suicide gankers.



First smart thing anyone has had to say!

And i agree 100% to the loss of tank or any defences. If you like to mine.. and mine enough .. the chance of loss on a ship is what you pay for the extra mining bonuses.

Suicide ganks are bound to happen esp when alliances have "Campaigns" to wipe out mining ships.

And if they add rigs its not like you cant put them on what ever ORE ship you want.. or any ship for that matter. The rigs would be good even for all other mining ships .. maybe even the new ORE frig. that is coming out.

And as for having T2 rigs it was so that i could have 2x mining upgrades in lows an extra 18% ore and have the cargo space i needed from the rigs.

As for the old rigs being usless.. i would not care if i could replace them with something that is useful. Cargo rigs are not useful for any mining ships anymore.

If you think about it cargo rigsin the past were used for only two ship types really, mining ships and haulers. 50% of the ships they are designed for now have no use for them. Watch what happens to the price of those rigs over the next few months .. they are going to drop hard im sure.. because no where near as many people will use them or need them.





Ark Anhammar
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#30 - 2012-10-04 13:34:59 UTC
Futchmacht wrote:
I know a lot of miners have spent large amounts of money puting cargo expanding rigs on there mining ships. We did that to increase the ore holding maximum on our ships. Not to hold mining crystals in the cargo hold.

Cargo expanding rigs are now 50% more useless because the only real thing to use them for now is to expand cargo space on haulers.

I know CCP is trying to make mining ships more role set... but.

Solo mining is still something people do... and having ships with a super large ore hold but mines slow.. is retareded.

Same thing for having a ship that mines the largest amout have a small ore hold.. its just stupid.. and forces jet can mining on solo miners.. or making us look like macro miners cause we have to warp to station all the time. (which is a huge waste of time).

So.. new rigs... Medium Orehold Optimization I and II etc. all the needed ones

No. Simply, no.

You need to stop crying about this, because you're coming across as very stupid.

Besides, you can drag ore into your cargo hold anyway if you really wanted to. Drag it back and forth. Be happy. Also, thanks for the info about your Hulk and its juicy Tech 2 cargo rigs. I'm sure there's a goon somewhere around here who'll introduce you to their "Hulkageddon" initiative.

You know, I'm generally against in-game griefing, but I'll admit there's an exception for everything. You're just a locator-agent's call away from a fat kill mail from a suicide gank. Let that thought resonate with you when you go out in your belt tonight, mate.
Karl Hobb
Imperial Margarine
#31 - 2012-10-04 14:36:56 UTC
I support this idea, but it needs to be balanced.

First, reduce all ore holds to the point where mounting a full rack of T2 ore hold rigs results in a roughly 2~5% increase in ore hold size. This would include the Orca and the new frigate.

Next, the rigs need a good drawback. I'm thinking structure HP reduction, much like the cargo expanders. Cargo rigs reduce armor amount but ORE ships emphasize shields and, to a lesser extent, structure.

If the T2 rig bonus were 20% like the cargo expander, then a Hulk should get an ore hold of about 6250m3. Two T2 ore hold expanders would increase that to 9000m3. Similarly, a Mackinaw should have a base ore hold of 20000m3 which, including hull bonuses, would result in a 36000m3 ore hold with a pair of T2 ore hold expanders. The other hulls, Orca included, would follow the same pattern.

I feel this solution stays within the spirit of EVE's system of trade-offs when fitting ships.

A professional astro-bastard was not available so they sent me.

Alexila Quant
Versatility Production Corporation' LLC
#32 - 2012-10-04 15:12:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Alexila Quant
Lets actually do the math here;

Here's the stats of a Hulk: Yield 1547 / minute | 8,500 Ore bay

http://img.techpowerup.org/121004/Hulk1.jpg

And a mack: Yield 1339 / minute | 35k Ore bay

http://img.techpowerup.org/121004/Junk117.jpg

This means that if you are not afk mining you can turn your lasers off at about 5 Minutes and 30 seconds and have a full cargo hold in a Hulk. In a mack, you can leave your lasers on for 26 minutes and 10ish seconds and have a full hold. Average 3 minutes (optimistic) to warp to station and drop off the ore and get back to belt here are the rough net mining amounts for a 60 minute period for both ships

SOLO mining, the hulk nets about 464,100 M3 of ore in 60 minutes, while the Mack nets 714,100 M3 in the same period.
With a hauler however, the hulk nets 928,100 M3 while the mack only nets 803,400.

So to recap:
60 minutes No hauler
Mack: 714,100 M3
Hulk: 464,100

60 Minutes with hauler
Mack: 803,400
Hulk: 928,100

If I'm not mistaken that is exactly what CCP was going for. Solo miners have less yield but a larger cargo hold while fleet Ops can use a higher yield boat because they don't need the cargo space.

Discourages afking and solo mining (to a SLIGHT degree) and encourages teamwork and, you know, social things.

Seems balanced to me.

Long story short: Working as intended. Quit bitching about your rigs.

EDIT: Spelling.

P.S. I wont even get into the EHP difference.
Futchmacht
TERRA CORE INDUSTRIES
#33 - 2012-10-05 06:08:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Futchmacht
Ark Anhammar wrote:
Futchmacht wrote:
I know a lot of miners have spent large amounts of money puting cargo expanding rigs on there mining ships. We did that to increase the ore holding maximum on our ships. Not to hold mining crystals in the cargo hold.

Cargo expanding rigs are now 50% more useless because the only real thing to use them for now is to expand cargo space on haulers.

I know CCP is trying to make mining ships more role set... but.

Solo mining is still something people do... and having ships with a super large ore hold but mines slow.. is retareded.

Same thing for having a ship that mines the largest amout have a small ore hold.. its just stupid.. and forces jet can mining on solo miners.. or making us look like macro miners cause we have to warp to station all the time. (which is a huge waste of time).

So.. new rigs... Medium Orehold Optimization I and II etc. all the needed ones

No. Simply, no.

You need to stop crying about this, because you're coming across as very stupid.

Besides, you can drag ore into your cargo hold anyway if you really wanted to. Drag it back and forth. Be happy. Also, thanks for the info about your Hulk and its juicy Tech 2 cargo rigs. I'm sure there's a goon somewhere around here who'll introduce you to their "Hulkageddon" initiative.

You know, I'm generally against in-game griefing, but I'll admit there's an exception for everything. You're just a locator-agent's call away from a fat kill mail from a suicide gank. Let that thought resonate with you when you go out in your belt tonight, mate.



lol I already trashed the rigs.. do you know what 20% of 350m3 base cargo space is... in simple math it = USLESS.

So before you blab about coming across as stupid you should check your facts. Do you know how long it takes to fill 350m3 of cargo space when i mine at least 4800m3 in 3 minutes without support ships.

dragging back ore from orehold to cargo hold.. lol are you kidding???

The new empty rig slots will have better use for tanking rigs now.. or maybe something else.. ill have to look at them all to see whats worth using besides tanking rigs if anything.
Futchmacht
TERRA CORE INDUSTRIES
#34 - 2012-10-05 06:17:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Futchmacht
Quote:
Alexila Quant

This means that if you are not afk mining you can turn your lasers off at about 5 Minutes and 30 seconds and have a full cargo hold in a Hulk. In a mack, you can leave your lasers on for 26 minutes and 10ish seconds and have a full hold. Average 3 minutes (optimistic) to warp to station and drop off the ore and get back to belt here are the rough net mining amounts for a 60 minute period for both ships

SOLO mining, the hulk nets about 464,100 M3 of ore in 60 minutes, while the Mack nets 714,100 M3 in the same period.
With a hauler however, the hulk nets 928,100 M3 while the mack only nets 803,400.

So to recap:
60 minutes No hauler
Mack: 714,100 M3
Hulk: 464,100

60 Minutes with hauler
Mack: 803,400
Hulk: 928,100

If I'm not mistaken that is exactly what CCP was going for. Solo miners have less yield but a larger cargo hold while fleet Ops can use a higher yield boat because they don't need the cargo space.

Discourages afking and solo mining (to a SLIGHT degree) and encourages teamwork and, you know, social things.

Seems balanced to me.

Long story short: Working as intended. Quit bitching about your rigs.

EDIT: Spelling.

P.S. I wont even get into the EHP difference.


Your reasons are exactly why i have re-subed an alt. to haul. for the times i cant group mine. and as for the rig i have already destroyed them because they are usless now.. and i intend to replace them with something better if anything.

But that is not even the real reason for my post i really should have left the cargo rigs out of the main post because everyone thinks its a 100% whine post lol. That not what i wanted the discussion to be about.. I want it to be about introducing Rigs for the ore holds for "ALL" mining ships or for ships that are not designed to be mining ships but that are used as mining ships as well like some battleships. or none ORE mining ships.
Furry Commander
Furry Armada
#35 - 2012-10-05 20:36:40 UTC
I don't think you will see ore hold on battleships anytime soon, so i don't think this rig has a use there. as much as i like the idea of a new ore hold rig, i don't think miners will be getting that anytime soon.

that stated i will still try to be constructive.

i think either an ore hold rig, or a slight buff to the hulks ore hold is a good idea. in all likelihood the rig is a more balanced plan of attack, but the straight buff would make me super happy.

the reasoning:

a max yield hulk pulls between 1778 and 1961 M3 per cycle depending on implants, add in the conservative estimate for drone travel time of one drone cycle per strip cycle and my total yield every 104 seconds is 6218 M3 Mining larger ores shaves a bit off of this in practice, but still puts it at 6176 m3.

I agree that having a smaller ore hold on the hulk is balanced. but setting up the ship so at optimal performance it could still hold 2 cycles of ore is not unbalancing and is frankly far more proactical than having it set at one cycle. I think one rig devoted to this instead of tank is a fair tradeoff for peak efficiency at mining. the ship is still made of glass and needs the Orca handy for reps most of the time.

the size of the ore hold in a hulk as it stands is more tedious than anything. i still use it, but i occassionally miss cycles simply because i have less than two minutes with rorqual boosts (more time with an orca or unboosted) to clear all my hulks ore holds

another point i would like to make is this issue only crops up with harvesting normal ores. mercoxit and ice do not have this issue. this gave me an idea since bothe mercoxit and ice have special rigs, why not do this

Ore expander rig (no t2 version like the ice and mercoxit rigs) +50% to ore hold, - 50% structure 250 calibration

this way each specialization in mining (Ice Ore and Mercoxit) has a unique rig that you can only use one of on any given setup. it will be beneficial to all three barges while having a sufficient drawback to make it balanced.

i think this is by far the best approach to the ore hold complaint for all barges and will keep most people happy
Goldensaver
Maraque Enterprises
Just let it happen
#36 - 2012-10-05 21:43:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Goldensaver
Furry Commander wrote:


Ore expander rig (no t2 version like the ice and mercoxit rigs) +50% to ore hold, - 50% structure 250 calibration

this way each specialization in mining (Ice Ore and Mercoxit) has a unique rig that you can only use one of on any given setup. it will be beneficial to all three barges while having a sufficient drawback to make it balanced.

i think this is by far the best approach to the ore hold complaint for all barges and will keep most people happy

I like the looks of this rig, just change it to -50% shields. The shields are the only thing that miners care about since the primary tank was shifted to them. Make the penalty a real penalty, and then I see these as acceptable. Who cares about a bit of structure when the primary tank of choice is shield. Make people make sacrifices for that hold. Not token penalties meant to appease people.
Furry Commander
Furry Armada
#37 - 2012-10-05 22:16:10 UTC
Goldensaver wrote:
Furry Commander wrote:


Ore expander rig (no t2 version like the ice and mercoxit rigs) +50% to ore hold, - 50% structure 250 calibration

this way each specialization in mining (Ice Ore and Mercoxit) has a unique rig that you can only use one of on any given setup. it will be beneficial to all three barges while having a sufficient drawback to make it balanced.

i think this is by far the best approach to the ore hold complaint for all barges and will keep most people happy

I like the looks of this rig, just change it to -50% shields. The shields are the only thing that miners care about since the primary tank was shifted to them. Make the penalty a real penalty, and then I see these as acceptable. Who cares about a bit of structure when the primary tank of choice is shield. Make people make sacrifices for that hold. Not token penalties meant to appease people.



the other two specialization rigs have no penalty at all. their benefits are either 12% reduction in ice harvester cycle time, or 16% increase in mercoxit yield. looking at the effect of primary tank(shield) reduction is a very bad choice of drawback, especially for a rig hats purpose is to specialize the ship, not make it glaringly better.

a 50% boost to ore hold for each exhumer (obviously reduced for barges)

Hulk from 8500 to 12750
Mack from 35000 to 52500 (at level 5)
Skiff from 15000 to 22500

these are significant gains, but given the yields of conventional ores compared to mercoxit or ice. the numbers are pretty fair. in a world where miners aren't so persecuted for whatever reason people seem to hate on miners, this rig is easily balanced by the fact that you have to sacrifice a rig that would increase tank (in most fits) for this rig, which is a fair tradeoff. the token structure penalty isn't really a token penalty, because short of the skiff it is a significant decrease in EHP overall.

think of it this way. you slice much more off a hulks shields it will have less EHP than an assault ship, a way larger sig and way less speed. these things need to be capable of at least survivng nulsec belt spawns in time for some sort of logistics to show up because thats what they are designed for. just because its a mining ship that is getting max yield doesn't mean it needs to have a crappy tank. you can get maximum DPS out of a combat ship and still have a good shield tank ammo capacity etc, why cant the Mining ships do the same if you equate their DPS to ore yield
Goldensaver
Maraque Enterprises
Just let it happen
#38 - 2012-10-05 22:56:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Goldensaver
Furry Commander wrote:

the other two specialization rigs have no penalty at all. their benefits are either 12% reduction in ice harvester cycle time, or 16% increase in mercoxit yield. looking at the effect of primary tank(shield) reduction is a very bad choice of drawback, especially for a rig hats purpose is to specialize the ship, not make it glaringly better.

a 50% boost to ore hold for each exhumer (obviously reduced for barges)

Hulk from 8500 to 12750
Mack from 35000 to 52500 (at level 5)
Skiff from 15000 to 22500

these are significant gains, but given the yields of conventional ores compared to mercoxit or ice. the numbers are pretty fair. in a world where miners aren't so persecuted for whatever reason people seem to hate on miners, this rig is easily balanced by the fact that you have to sacrifice a rig that would increase tank (in most fits) for this rig, which is a fair tradeoff. the token structure penalty isn't really a token penalty, because short of the skiff it is a significant decrease in EHP overall.

think of it this way. you slice much more off a hulks shields it will have less EHP than an assault ship, a way larger sig and way less speed. these things need to be capable of at least survivng nulsec belt spawns in time for some sort of logistics to show up because thats what they are designed for. just because its a mining ship that is getting max yield doesn't mean it needs to have a crappy tank. you can get maximum DPS out of a combat ship and still have a good shield tank ammo capacity etc, why cant the Mining ships do the same if you equate their DPS to ore yield

Sorry, phone posting sucks.

Anyways, I disagree. Any ship fit for maximum DPS will be sacrificing all sorts of potential tank, and wont have enough spare fitting to fit a tank proper for its size.

Besides, perhaps I'm just too set in my ways, but I'm firmly of the belief that in order to mine in null, you should have a a PVP/PVE fit escort, as it has no security. I don't think you should have enough tank to keep alive for Logistics ships to show up, you should have allies nearby killing anything that spawns as it does, and you shouldn't have to worry about tanking anything but other players who show up looking for an easy kill, and even then, only tanking it long enough for your escort to kill it.

Edited to fix phone related errors and remove pyramid posting.
Furry Commander
Furry Armada
#39 - 2012-10-06 01:56:27 UTC
shield tanking requires mids DPS requires lows so its pretty easy to fit a max DPS ships with sufficient tank. look at the prevalence of shield canes for proof. especially when you skip out on a point and fit two LSEs mining ships don't really need points or prop mods to do their jobs, but most people will fit a survey scanner in one slot so there are still sacrifices being made.

as far as tanks and buffers are concerned, a pvp buffer can easily tank belt spawns or grav site spawns.

my biggest question is why do so many people seem to think industral/mining/hauling ships need to be week helpless easy kills. merchant vessels are armed when traveling hostile water in the real world. perhaps not as well as a battleship, but suffieciently to deter most minor threats.

I personally am a proponenet of making these types of ships actually fun to fly in pvp situation without making them murder machines. you might see more ballsey fun to chase industrialists if they had a chance to GTFO in PVP. basically non combat ships need a fun buff. the thrill of a pvp kill is either totally outclassing an oponent or winning by the skin of your teethe. in a world populated by the volume of combat ships in eve, flying a non combat ship is an i lose button. and it would really help if the game moved away from that mentality. as it stands, if your ship is good at anything other than PVP or PVE combat, it stands little to no chance of surviving a pvp situation, and you basically have to sacrifice a huge chunk of your industrial or hauling etc efficieny to even have a bad chance at surviving.
Alphaphi
KASK Heavy logistics
#40 - 2012-10-06 02:21:00 UTC
Futchmacht wrote:
Iris Bravemount wrote:
So you would like to get a refund for your now useless T2 cargo rigs, right?

You claim that a more expensive ship is always better: compare battleships and black ops. And while you're at it, compare the dps of a sieged dreadnought and the dps of a titan. Compare the dps of an interceptor and an attack frigate. Etc etc. A higher price does not equal overall better stats.

The ships are now specialized, which is good.

And finally, the hulk costs 5% more than a mack. Big deal.


Why are people bringing in all this usless stuff about other ships.. there was a time when black ops ships were better then standard battleships.

And titans lol.. there used to be a time when they could insta pop 300 ships if they didnt crash the whole cluster!!

When ever they change something in game some ships get left behind.. like black ops.. and as for titans there role as a almost system wide death star has been changed. and for the good.

Some of the changes they make are good ones and some are bad.. like what they did to the ORE ships.

And the easy way to offset this is to make proper rigs for all the ore ships.. ones that are actually usefull for ORE ships. not just the hulk. but all 3 of them.


what game have you've been playing?
black ops always have had a lower tank and DPS to compensate for the stealth and bridging.

titans DD's got changed because titans became a fairly frequent thing.
the DD was balanced back when it was a big thing to have 1 or 2 titans.
they changed it when a titan pretty much became a ''every mans asset'' (in the sense that there suddenly were hundreds of titans in alliances and even some NPC corps)


the change to mining ships was needed, no other ship class had a ''endgame'' ship like the ORE ships have. the hulk was the way to go, and once you had it, you had no other ships to train for.
this new change is pretty good and refreshing.

there have NEVER been the ''best'' ship in the different ship classes.
as mentioned, ships are specialized, hence why the noctis are better at salvaging than every ship.

this is exactly what exhumers and barges lacked... SPECIALIZATION.
the only one that truly had it was the skiff; it mined more mercoxit than any other barge but had a sucky hold and a bad tank, the bonus to gas cloud formation was useless because you were mining outside of the cloud range in the first place.

the difference in mining ice wasn't really that big between the hulk and the mack.

the barge revamp gives YOU a choice what you wan't to fly, and how you want to fly it.
no more ''GET IN THIS SHIP, PERIOD''
Previous page123Next page