These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Ore hold expanders
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Eric Raeder
No Fee Too High
#1 - 2013-04-09 06:31:37 UTC
Before the revamp of mining barges, one popular fitting option was to fit them with cargo expanders so they could hold more ore before filling up and having to haul the ore somewhere. However, with the introduction of barge cargo holds, this option is lost, since conventional cargo expanders have very little effect on current barges, only increasing the size of the very small cargo hold and not the much bigger ore hold.

I propose that CCP bring back the "big hold" fitting option for mining ships by introducing ore hold expanders. These would work much like cargo expanders, except increasing the size of the ore hold instead of the cargo hold.

Its not a big issue to me, but I suppose for completeness a hangar expander module could also be introduced that expands the size of fleet hangars and/or ship maintenance bays.
Luc Chastot
#2 - 2013-04-09 07:11:33 UTC
For people who read this: Before you post on bad ideas such as this, remember that doing so will keep them on top of the few good ones. Please take that into consideration and just let this thread die.

Thank you.

Make it idiot-proof and someone will make a better idiot.

Guido Tye
RvB Industries
#3 - 2013-04-09 08:09:44 UTC
Honestly im for it, gives another angle for miners by taking up a low slot, instead of just tank or output, it also drastically improves the viability of both the other barges other than the mack/retri.
Admittedly the ore hold is big as it is, tho the option to increase it would be a welcome addition to miners who prefer less trips to station over longer mining times or less tank..
Super spikinator
Hegemonous Conscripts
#4 - 2013-04-09 08:23:01 UTC
Luc Chastot wrote:
For people who read this: Before you post on bad ideas such as this, remember that doing so will keep them on top of the few good ones. Please take that into consideration and just let this thread die.

Thank you.


This is F&I, the only non bad ideas are the ones posted by CCP.

The current penalty for cargo expanders is struct. I say the penalty for an ore bay, since they are generally bigger base would be penalty on arm and struct.
Hakan MacTrew
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#5 - 2013-04-09 17:01:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Hakan MacTrew
Luc Chastot wrote:
For people who read this: Before you post on bad ideas such as this, remember that doing so will keep them on top of the few good ones. Please take that into consideration and just let this thread die.

Thank you.

I wasn't going to post, in the hope this thread would die. But I can't let the only voices in this thread be in agreement.

Ore bay expanders are not needed. The barge rebalancing gave us the amazing Mackinaw. It will hold more than double the ore that the old Hulk did, It tanks almost twice as much damage and the output matches the old solo Hulk as well!

Seriously, what more do you want?

Actually, sod it. Give them ore bay expanders. Make it remove resists across the board as well as structure so whoever does fit them are stupidly easy to gank. Make the hull glow as well, like a neon light saying "Im a moron!"

With the prevalence of miner ganking, you would think the majority would have the sense to tank their barges properly. You would also think that they would pay more attention. But no...

Friends
Dave Stark
#6 - 2013-04-09 17:41:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Dave Stark
gonna say no, because it'll be % based and the mackinaw is already ahead. a % based modifier just puts the mackinaw further ahead and goes against the changes required to balance mining barges.

this idea is bad, and you should feel bad.

Guido Tyeit wrote:
also drastically improves the viability of both the other barges other than the mack/retri.

actually, it does the exact reverse. it hammers the final nail in their coffin.
Xe'Cara'eos
A Big Enough Lever
#7 - 2013-04-09 18:43:05 UTC
I say each ore bay expander gives 1000 extra ore hold, and reduces armour and structure by a percentage, maybe reducing resists too....

and yes some kind of visual to make it clear that they've done it!

For posting an idea into F&I: come up with idea, try and think how people could abuse this, try to fix your idea - loop the process until you can't see how it could be abused, then post to the forums to let us figure out how to abuse it..... If your idea can be abused, it [u]WILL[/u] be.
Dave Stark
#8 - 2013-04-09 21:53:09 UTC
Xe'Cara'eos wrote:
I say each ore bay expander gives 1000 extra ore hold, and reduces armour and structure by a percentage, maybe reducing resists too....

and yes some kind of visual to make it clear that they've done it!


worthless module. a hulk still couldn't hold 2 full cycles of ore. it'd be about 400m3 short.
even with 3 low slots on a mack/ret a full cycle of their lasers is more than 3k.

not that it matters, the idea of an ore bay expanding module is stupid and will further skew the balance issues in favour of the mackinaw.
androch
LitlCorp
#9 - 2013-04-09 22:08:31 UTC
no... theres enough afk botting done in hisec 35k in a mackie is plenty of ore hold
WolfSchwarzMond
Doomheim
#10 - 2013-04-10 00:23:30 UTC
I make my account payments by mining, and this is a BAD idea. The entire point of the Barge rebalance was to hurt botters. This will HELP them and hurt normal miners. You wanna enlarge something how about the cargo hold so we can carry more crystals?
Dave Stark
#11 - 2013-04-10 06:47:27 UTC
WolfSchwarzMond wrote:
The entire point of the Barge rebalance was to hurt botters.


no it wasn't. it was to stop 5 ships being all but irrelevant.
it partially succeeded, only 3 of them are irrelevant now.
Ersahi Kir
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#12 - 2013-04-10 07:34:09 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Guido Tyeit wrote:
also drastically improves the viability of both the other barges other than the mack/retri.

actually, it does the exact reverse. it hammers the final nail in their coffin.


I actually support low power ore hold expanders. If someone wants to fill their lows with negative tank who am I to object?

Dave Stark wrote:
WolfSchwarzMond wrote:
The entire point of the Barge rebalance was to hurt botters.


no it wasn't. it was to stop 5 ships being all but irrelevant.
it partially succeeded, only 3 of them are irrelevant now.


What 3 do you consider to be useful?
Dave Stark
#13 - 2013-04-10 07:39:42 UTC
Ersahi Kir wrote:
What 3 do you consider to be useful?


same 3 as every one else (source, dev blog that showed volume mined by each ship)
hulk.
mack.
ret.
Ersahi Kir
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#14 - 2013-04-10 07:48:15 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Ersahi Kir wrote:
What 3 do you consider to be useful?


same 3 as every one else (source, dev blog that showed volume mined by each ship)
hulk.
mack.
ret.


Wow, I am apparently the odd one out. Don't generally read the dev blogs, but I may have to go look this up.

I'll stick to my skiffs though, they are sexy and have a beast mode tank.
Dave Stark
#15 - 2013-04-10 07:53:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Dave Stark
Ersahi Kir wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Ersahi Kir wrote:
What 3 do you consider to be useful?


same 3 as every one else (source, dev blog that showed volume mined by each ship)
hulk.
mack.
ret.


Wow, I am apparently the odd one out. Don't generally read the dev blogs, but I may have to go look this up.

I'll stick to my skiffs though, they are sexy and have a beast mode tank.


here.

for example, the 3 listed ships mine ~84% of all veldspar, and ~84% of all scordite.

edit because i failed at reading properly.
Ersahi Kir
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#16 - 2013-04-10 08:16:08 UTC
Thanks for the link, it was an interesting read. I'm still sticking with my skiff though. :)