Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Sounds like baby needs a nap.

is there any logical economic / game play balance reason why there can not be a battleship sized version the 3 existing miner types that is better... a battleship hulk that mines more, a battleship mak that holds ect ect?? figuring 10%-20% more

or is it only about the gankability of said ships?

the ability to suicide gank another player is not a game balance factor and all decisions should not be revolved around that factor alone

I want to see reasons why in the bigger picture of things... will it drive the economy up or down or maintain a form of balance, would it drastically alter the state of the game....

I am focusing on a mining ship that will give miners the ability to bite back while having some versatility on whether or not you want to sacrifice some damage to increase mining yield or to fit a Foreman Link or some other combination of high slots.

Well for starters, they have stated that they don't want anything more powerful than the hulk in terms of yield. I don't know where, it's probably everywhere. So more yield than a hulk is already a no no. Secondly, if you look at the trend between the three classes of current mining ships you'll see that they always trade off something for something else. Usually trading off the primary fuction for utility. The procurer/skiff has the highest EHP and in consequence has the second highest capacity and lowest yield. The retriever/mackinaw has the highest cargohold but second highest yield and second highest EHP. The hulk is max yield but sacrificing everything else.

Yield is the primary function of a mining ship, so they sacrifice yield to get secondary utility. What you propose gains yield and sacrifices nothing in fact it gains in all areas except cargo. it is very clear that they do not want people mining freely in high sec, which is why these ships aren't indestructible. The hardest ones to kill have the lowest yield, so if you want to get more ore per hour you need to do it in a riskier ship.

I don't have statistics (but I'm sure CCP does) but yes I believe it would very likely hurt the economy. Something like this would be excessively cost-inefficient to gank, most groups just would not be able to afford it and allowing mass mining freely like that does hurt the economy. Not only from botting but from multiboxing too. Not being able to explode them stops us from disrupting the supply driving prices down. It's not healthy for the economy.

Could be an overestimation of how much high sec mining affects the economy when nullbear miners are mining in almost complete safety on vastly superior ore with much larger roid sizes.

I think you should focus less on numbers are more about the high level detail of the ship. Leave the numbers to CCP if they end up making it. Number of turrets, what the role bonus is maybe, but no hard numbers and not for the rest of the stuff either. Capacitor, fitting require testing, leave that to CCP (to not do, release on TQ anyway and then tweak after it's been abused for a few days/months/years/still going).

You want a battleship that can mine a respectable amount and still fight back, yes?

the point of this ship, from what im reading, is to deal with gankers like you. there should never be an incentive for something to be ganked. CCP doesnt design ships with an incentive to be ganked.

Did I?


Because AFK mining in complete safety is such hard work.


Wow, such prejudice. You don't even know if I'm a ganker or pirate and you're already labelling an entire group of people unrelated to me. So much for progress.

Suicide ganking was a factor in the mining barge rebalancing. Since then, I believe they've even stated they got the numbers wrong and gave mining barges too much EHP.

Really, where? Are they going to adjust them down at all? Now you've got me excited, don't you ******* tease me.

Dammit, now I'm all disappointed.