These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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 Battleship
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
James Nikolas Tesla
Tesla Holdings
#41 - 2014-01-27 20:30:05 UTC
A trend I am seeing is all three of the Barges have their role bonuses so they can get the base yield of three strip miners regardless of skills i.e.(Skiff: 200% SM bonus, Mack: 50% SM bonus, and Hulk: No SM bonus.)
How about I have a role bonus as 25% reduction in SM yield?

CODE is just a bunch of pirates; smart, organized pirates. It doesn't help to rage at them because that is exactly what they want. Dust yourself off and get back on your feet, you don't even have to talk to them.
HandelsPharmi
Pharmi on CharBazaar
#42 - 2014-01-27 20:31:27 UTC  |  Edited by: HandelsPharmi
better!
less than a procurer

Drone bay 75 m³ with 50 MBit/s ?
PG and CPU like a BS with 4 highslots

James Nikolas Tesla wrote:
A trend I am seeing is all three of the Barges have their role bonuses so they can get the base yield of three strip miners regardless of skills i.e.(Skiff: 200% SM bonus, Mack: 50% SM bonus, and Hulk: No SM bonus.)
How about I have a role bonus as 25% reduction in SM yield?



no, better would be additional cycle time... why?
same yield amount but a longer cycle time makes it more difficult to avoid depleted asteorids
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#43 - 2014-01-27 20:49:09 UTC
A mining battleship. Interesting.

Ok, to make sense, it needs to fit an area not already defined by one of the existing options.

Mining Max yield: Hulk
Mining Max Ore hold: Mackinaw
Mining Max tank: Skiff

These three fit beautifully within high security space, especially since Concord gives the tank on the Skiff a value, rather than just demonstrating how more EHP can make a ship take a few more seconds before exploding.

But then, there is more to EVE than high sec space.

We have low, and null sec space as well. We do not have a practical exhumer or barge for this version of EVE, that lacks Concord. Gameplay here centers around total evasion, with expectation of exploding mining ships if the evasion should fail.

In a perfect world, noble pilots would jump in PvP ships, and spend countless hours guarding these industrious miners.
We think the server they played on must have crashed, since noone has reported seeing them online.
(Pictures on the sides of Quafe cases have not helped either)

On a compromise, groups of miners working together in an OP can sometimes pull together to defend themselves, making mining with 10 or more accounts practical under the right circumstances. (Multiboxers may find this challenging, since fighting ships needing to react quickly can be tricky)

So, we come down to a frequently seen scenario, one or two miners working a belt, often only in a fleet if someone has made boosting available.

I would suggest something that would have less yield and utility than existing exhumers, in exchange for the ability to function more effectively solo or in small groups without Concord support.

It's hook to inspire use, is the ability to fight well enough to prefer remaining active instead of docking up.
It needs no incentive to gank, it would be the countermeasure to anticipation of ganking, and one chosen by sacrificing yield and utility the other exhumers have as their valued aspects.

That said, it offers more of a chance to fight, since it would be less likely to run from a confrontation.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Your Dad Naked
Doomheim
#44 - 2014-01-27 23:07:57 UTC
In theory the idea is alright, but the suggestion stats I cannot agree too.

The ORE Battleship needs to have 3 main qualities:
- Less ore hold than any mining barge
- Less yield than any mining barge
- Better tank and DPS than any mining barge

As such I would make the orehold something like 6,000m3. Yield would be something like 75% of a yield-fitted Procurer.

Should be designed for use in hostile space, instead of a white-knighting mining barge for hi-sec.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#45 - 2014-01-27 23:35:57 UTC
Your Dad Naked wrote:
In theory the idea is alright, but the suggestion stats I cannot agree too.

The ORE Battleship needs to have 3 main qualities:
- Less ore hold than any mining barge
- Less yield than any mining barge
- Better tank and DPS than any mining barge

As such I would make the orehold something like 6,000m3. Yield would be something like 75% of a yield-fitted Procurer.

Should be designed for use in hostile space, instead of a white-knighting mining barge for hi-sec.

This makes sense.

In my opinion, it should be possible to DPS fit one of these, and rake in 50% yield or better, compared to the average Hulk with balanced fitting expectations.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
James Nikolas Tesla
Tesla Holdings
#46 - 2014-01-28 01:17:00 UTC
Your Dad Naked wrote:
In theory the idea is alright, but the suggestion stats I cannot agree too.

The ORE Battleship needs to have 3 main qualities:
- Less ore hold than any mining barge
- Less yield than any mining barge
- Better tank and DPS than any mining barge

As such I would make the orehold something like 6,000m3. Yield would be something like 75% of a yield-fitted Procurer.

Should be designed for use in hostile space, instead of a white-knighting mining barge for hi-sec.

I need some time to think but I like the direction I see you heading.

CODE is just a bunch of pirates; smart, organized pirates. It doesn't help to rage at them because that is exactly what they want. Dust yourself off and get back on your feet, you don't even have to talk to them.
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#47 - 2014-01-28 01:46:46 UTC
would it be used? i probably wouldnt encourage ppl to use it as long as they can retreat with complete safety.

a mining ship for dangerous space is a venture right? because it has built in GTFO-ability and a space for a cloak.

A mining battleship with teeth isnt a bad concept. its giving ppl an incentive to use it without obsoleting existing ships thats the hard part

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
Jeanne-Luise Argenau
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#48 - 2014-01-28 08:06:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Jeanne-Luise Argenau
why not create a ore bs along the line of the old rokh mining fit ^^. including a mining cruiser that way u could also introduce the skills mining cruiser and mining bs.

means for the bs it can only fit miners (no strip). gets bonus on shield tank and orehold per lvl or mining range. it will receive to decrease the yield abit only 6 turrets and 6launchers with 8 highs. Also it gets a 75m bandwith and 150m dronebay. Base Orehold could stay at covetor or maybe procurer lvl. So it can be a tough miner or a reasonable tough fleet defender.

and why not create a "t2 orca". Needing Exhumer 5 and Industrial Command Ship 5 as prereq for the t2 Orca skill [place a name]. The t2 Orca doesnt contain a ship maintanence bay an increased orehold to 120k m³ + normal hold + fleet hangar. it has 4 highslots, 4 mediums, 2 lows and 2 rigs. It will receive the t1 boni, t2 resists and a role bonus to fit a new module. Those Modules are Strip Miner platforms each contains 2 strip miners which have 75% mining yield of a t1 strip miner. Those platforms have to be dropped and can either be anchored to the t2 orca where they dump the ore directly in the orehold but the ship cant be moved for 5 minutes or anchored free in space where they jettison a can after each completed cycle. Those 2 platform strip miners will be used like a normal strip miner but a platform can only mine 1 roid of your choosing. Also those platforms should be able to be shot like the new structures with maybe a reinforcement of 5 minutes.

I know i have to much time to let my brain work, but hey ideas are free if they are good or bad is another matter ^^.
another of those ideas nobody reacts too ^^
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
#49 - 2014-01-28 08:23:44 UTC
Riot Girl wrote:
What makes this ship worth the cost of ganking it?


Question: What so different for ganking a Barge with some destroyer or ganking Battleship sized Exhumer with Tier3 Battlecruiser?

Cant see the better reward? (Serious Question)

Meet the Mario Kart 8 - Capsuleer Club Cup
Jeanne-Luise Argenau
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#50 - 2014-01-28 08:26:38 UTC
Lephia DeGrande wrote:
Riot Girl wrote:
What makes this ship worth the cost of ganking it?


Question: What so different for ganking a Barge with some destroyer or ganking Battleship sized Exhumer with Tier3 Battlecruiser?

Cant see the better reward? (Serious Question)


depends on fitting but i would say 99% cheap griefing, to grief a 100k ehp bs might be to expensive so :P
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
#51 - 2014-01-28 08:51:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Lephia DeGrande
Jeanne-Luise Argenau wrote:
Lephia DeGrande wrote:
Riot Girl wrote:
What makes this ship worth the cost of ganking it?


Question: What so different for ganking a Barge with some destroyer or ganking Battleship sized Exhumer with Tier3 Battlecruiser?

Cant see the better reward? (Serious Question)


depends on fitting but i would say 99% cheap griefing, to grief a 100k ehp bs might be to expensive so :P


Ok, just some Opinions from my side.

Gank Destroyer ~2mil ISK
Standard Barge ~ 25mil ISK

Gank ABC ~110mil ISK
Then Mining BS should ~1400mil ISK (i would suggest at least 2000mil or better 2500mil)

So, Mining BS should strong enough to withstand nearly two ABCs.

So the lost would be crushing but easier to avoid if the miner uses the dscan. (two/three Tornados Or 10 catalysts? Warp for your life!)

Meet the Mario Kart 8 - Capsuleer Club Cup
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#52 - 2014-01-28 14:47:01 UTC
I would say, that this BS should be relatively obsolete in high sec, unless the pilot is under an active war dec.

In other words, if you can expect Concord to show up, it should be pointless and an overall loss of more desirable yield and utility to use this.

Concord makes survival a matter of lasting out a clock, unless of course the attacker expects to take an overall loss on the exchange. You can't balance crazy.

The Venture gives a proven way of getting slightly diminished returns, (assuming the skills and fitting here), in exchange for much higher probability of evasion even after opposing forces appear on grid.

This should focus on diminished income in exchange for creating a fighting ship balanced to create enough sense of survivability in a stand your ground fight, for the pilot to want to choose not running at all.

Why?
The existing barges do tanking / evasion already.
The Venture does evasion focused over all else.
We need the DPS monster that can outfight the typical ship able to sneak past expected alliance defenses.

But what about roams, and existing DPS ships? Won't this become the new FOTM, and them a waste of ISK?
Not if done right. Make this ship bad at traveling. That means awful align times, and slow warp speed. A Hulk or possibly even an Orca as a good example. Noone wants a roam that moves this slow, so it won't be in any.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
#53 - 2014-01-28 14:57:34 UTC
Lephia DeGrande wrote:
Jeanne-Luise Argenau wrote:
Lephia DeGrande wrote:
Riot Girl wrote:
What makes this ship worth the cost of ganking it?


Question: What so different for ganking a Barge with some destroyer or ganking Battleship sized Exhumer with Tier3 Battlecruiser?

Cant see the better reward? (Serious Question)


depends on fitting but i would say 99% cheap griefing, to grief a 100k ehp bs might be to expensive so :P


Ok, just some Opinions from my side.

Gank Destroyer ~2mil ISK
Standard Barge ~ 25mil ISK

Gank ABC ~110mil ISK
Then Mining BS should ~1400mil ISK (i would suggest at least 2000mil or better 2500mil)

So, Mining BS should strong enough to withstand nearly two ABCs.

So the lost would be crushing but easier to avoid if the miner uses the dscan. (two/three Tornados Or 10 catalysts? Warp for your life!)

If it's going to cost 200m to gank the ship, then it needs to have the potential to be profitable for the ganker. I don't really see miners fitting deadspace mods to their barges or anything.

Oh god.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#54 - 2014-01-28 15:41:18 UTC
Riot Girl wrote:
If it's going to cost 200m to gank the ship, then it needs to have the potential to be profitable for the ganker. I don't really see miners fitting deadspace mods to their barges or anything.

Why does it need to be profitable for a ganker?
No ship does.

That said, just like any other ship already does, players will fit as much as they feel safe flying with.
If the excel sheet says it takes 300mil ISK to reliably gank this boat, then they will make that the top level for safe fitting.
If a ganker thinks they might score a profit, they'll roll the dice.

Ganking is an emergent play style, that adapts to fit inside the gaps created between EHP of a target and arrival time of Concord.

If you are in places where Concord won't show up, everything becomes gank-able.

Presumably in high sec, is the context here.
Players have the right to fly ships which simply are not cost effective to gank, much less profitable to consider.
This ability is always done the same way, by fitting low cost items or using low cost hulls.

Like using cheap mods on any ship, this BS should represent a fitting sacrifice to the user. It should be less yield and utility than an exhumer or barge, and be far less mobile than a Venture.

This makes it a trade off, and players who like ganking are the reason these sacrifices are even considered in the first place.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
#55 - 2014-01-28 16:26:26 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Why does it need to be profitable for a ganker?

If the excel sheet says it takes 300mil ISK to reliably gank this boat, then they will make that the top level for safe fitting.

I said it needs to have potential to be profitable, or to at least minimise losses significantly. The problem is, if there is no incentive for people to gank these ships, then the miners will be left alone to mine AFK all day long.

Oh god.
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
#56 - 2014-01-28 16:29:34 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:

Players have the right to fly ships which simply are not cost effective to gank, much less profitable to consider.
This ability is always done the same way, by fitting low cost items or using low cost hulls.

Yes, of course.

Quote:
Like using cheap mods on any ship, this BS should represent a fitting sacrifice to the user. It should be less yield and utility than an exhumer or barge, and be far less mobile than a Venture.

What about the issue of safety?

Quote:
This makes it a trade off, and players who like ganking are the reason these sacrifices are even considered in the first place.

I'm not convinced about that part.

Oh god.
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
#57 - 2014-01-28 16:46:20 UTC
Riot Girl wrote:
Lephia DeGrande wrote:
Jeanne-Luise Argenau wrote:
Lephia DeGrande wrote:
Riot Girl wrote:
What makes this ship worth the cost of ganking it?


Question: What so different for ganking a Barge with some destroyer or ganking Battleship sized Exhumer with Tier3 Battlecruiser?

Cant see the better reward? (Serious Question)


depends on fitting but i would say 99% cheap griefing, to grief a 100k ehp bs might be to expensive so :P


Ok, just some Opinions from my side.

Gank Destroyer ~2mil ISK
Standard Barge ~ 25mil ISK

Gank ABC ~110mil ISK
Then Mining BS should ~1400mil ISK (i would suggest at least 2000mil or better 2500mil)

So, Mining BS should strong enough to withstand nearly two ABCs.

So the lost would be crushing but easier to avoid if the miner uses the dscan. (two/three Tornados Or 10 catalysts? Warp for your life!)

If it's going to cost 200m to gank the ship, then it needs to have the potential to be profitable for the ganker. I don't really see miners fitting deadspace mods to their barges or anything.


Sry, i dont get it, whats the point ganking Barges then? They drop nearly nothing profitable, most gankers (that i know) dont even salvage that stuff whats left behind.

Meet the Mario Kart 8 - Capsuleer Club Cup
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#58 - 2014-01-28 16:46:50 UTC
Riot Girl wrote:
What about the issue of safety?

Nikk Narrel wrote:
This makes it a trade off, and players who like ganking are the reason these sacrifices are even considered in the first place.

I'm not convinced about that part.

The safest place in the game is docked up, presuming such details as being logged in already.

While docked up, no direct yield acquisition is possible.

Now, on the extreme other end, we have the player flying a defenseless ship with maximum possible fittings for yield. This ship may only exist in theory, as it would probably be the dream target of a ganker.

In between these two extremes, we have where most active play occurs.
Players compromise between hulls and fittings, in order to balance between income and survivability.

Too much survivability, and income is lost. Without income, competing in EVE becomes handicapped by limited resources.
In high sec, this battleship should be firmly in this category. Safer, yes, but not popular since comparable safety can be achieved with much better yield options.

Too much yield, and survivability is lost. That faction fit ratting ship, or group of zero tanked Hulks floating AFK while the player sits on another screen flying around in an indy hauling ore.
In high sec, the ideal ganking targets fit into this category.

Player choice in both cases are made purely by perception, since no ganking victim knows when or where they will be targeted. The perception of such a BS in high sec should be viewed as overkill, similar to using the Venture.

Sure, you can use it more safely than a barge, but why would you waste that income potential so needlessly?

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
#59 - 2014-01-28 16:56:56 UTC
Which brings me back to my previous question. If it has comparable tank and less yield than a barge, then what is for?

Oh god.
Scythi Magellen
Marmite Archaeologists
#60 - 2014-01-28 16:57:51 UTC
James Nikolas Tesla wrote:
So before I leave this thread to die, one more question.

On a scale of one to invade Russia in winter.

Exactly how bad is this idea?


I agree that there is more variety needed for mining ships. They have been neglected for too long because they are deemed as 'boring', ironically usually by the very same people who need everything the miners provide. Lots of miners = lots of pew-pew. One needs the other, and a T3 mining ship may encourage more to venture into low sec. Cool

"To know the true path, but yet, to never follow it. That is possibly the gravest sin"

- The Scriptures, Book of Missions 13:21.