These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[Kronos] Mining Barges and Exhumers

First post First post First post
Author
Andronaxus
Greed is Good Inc.
#581 - 2014-05-05 21:28:03 UTC
Commander A9 wrote:


Hell, I miss the orange mining beams and audio sequences, which made me feel like I was actually blasting apart rocks...

...

...and I really don't like how all the barge/exhumer yields are pretty much the same. What's the benefit of having a Hulk now if you have no fleet to fly in?

And who thought it was a brilliant idea to give the Mackinaw a bigger hold than the Hulk? What was done was essentially parking a VW bug next to an 18-wheeler, and giving the Bug the cargo capacity of an aircraft carrier and calling it legit...

...

Long ago, I maximized my Hulk skills for a reason...



Agreed. I miss the sounds. I miss the orange laser. It felt more "real" in feel. It sounded more "real."

I strongly agree with your comparison of the VW to the 18-wheeler. I think it's insane for the Covetor/Hulk not to have the largest ore hold. It's silly.
Felicity Love
Doomheim
#582 - 2014-05-06 01:41:13 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:


The Retriever and Mackinaw keep the solo and low-attention mining crown thanks to their untouched massive ore bays. They'll be getting a slight decrease to their yield to help moderate their strength, as the previous round of balancing underestimated how much players value ore hold size.


So basically, you're screwing solo miners -- of which there are quite a few, I might add -- because this change will hardly affect anyone in a fleet that offers boosts to more than compensate for any "slight" reduction in yield.

Some folks just don't do the "group thing", so please don't tweak the rules at their expense.

"EVE is dying." -- The Four Forum Trolls of the Apocalypse.   ( Pick four, any four. They all smell.  )

Erutpar Ambient
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#583 - 2014-05-06 05:52:57 UTC
Felicity Love wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:


The Retriever and Mackinaw keep the solo and low-attention mining crown thanks to their untouched massive ore bays. They'll be getting a slight decrease to their yield to help moderate their strength, as the previous round of balancing underestimated how much players value ore hold size.


So basically, you're screwing solo miners -- of which there are quite a few, I might add -- because this change will hardly affect anyone in a fleet that offers boosts to more than compensate for any "slight" reduction in yield.

Some folks just don't do the "group thing", so please don't tweak the rules at their expense.

Basically the Mackinaw/Retriever are too convenient as they currently are. That is why they have the highest usage of all the mining barges/exhumers. This is called balancing. And all in all, you can potentially be mining more minerals/hour in the new system anyways. It's just that the skiff and hulk will be much more efficient.

Do you prefer convenience or efficiency? Since they changed barges you can't have both anymore.
Xearal
Dead's Prostitutes
The Initiative.
#584 - 2014-05-06 07:39:08 UTC
Ok, this post isn't about the exhumers or mining barges, but it's related.

Instead it's a little thing about the new T2 venture, the prospector.

While the ship is nicely thought out, you missed out on a small detail regarding the cloak.

Gas harvesters only have a range of 1500 meters, however in order to be able to cloak you need to be
at least 2000 meters away from anything. As such, a gas mining prospector will not be able to cloak up
as easily as compared to an ore mining one which can remain far enough away from rocks to be able
to cloak up as soon as somebody comes in.

So I propose to either increase the range of gas harvesters to 4-5km or give the prospector a role
bonus to it's gas harvesting range so it will be able to remain outside of the 2000 meter zone around
a gas cloud.

Does railgun ammunition come in Hollow Point?

Dave Stark
#585 - 2014-05-06 09:03:28 UTC
Felicity Love wrote:
Some folks just don't do the "group thing", so please don't tweak the rules at their expense.

why shouldn't we? this is an mmo where content is created by player interaction.

if you want to play solo, there are many other games that cater to that play style. they're called single player games.
Legion40k
Hard Knocks Inc.
Hard Knocks Citizens
#586 - 2014-05-06 11:07:29 UTC
preeeetty please bump the pwg on the skiff by 1. or 0.5. just a tiny tiny bit

because this could do with a DDA in the extra low after patchTwisted


<3
Bethan Le Troix
Krusual Investigation Agency
#587 - 2014-05-06 14:37:16 UTC
It worries me how many of the comments in here are from 'AFK/Macro/ISBoxer' type miners whingeing. Blink

GreasyCarl Semah
A Game as Old as Empire
#588 - 2014-05-06 14:37:24 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Felicity Love wrote:
Some folks just don't do the "group thing", so please don't tweak the rules at their expense.

why shouldn't we? this is an mmo where content is created by player interaction.

if you want to play solo, there are many other games that cater to that play style. they're called single player games.


I bet they will cater to him giving them $15 a month too, which is the problem with your idiotic post.
Dave Stark
#589 - 2014-05-06 15:23:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Dave Stark
GreasyCarl Semah wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Felicity Love wrote:
Some folks just don't do the "group thing", so please don't tweak the rules at their expense.

why shouldn't we? this is an mmo where content is created by player interaction.

if you want to play solo, there are many other games that cater to that play style. they're called single player games.


I bet they will cater to him giving them $15 a month too, which is the problem with your idiotic post.


confirming it's idiotic to promote player interaction and conflict in a game where content is fueled by player interaction and conflict

there is no problem with my post, but you sure are butthurt.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#590 - 2014-05-06 15:48:34 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
confirming it's idiotic to promote player interaction and conflict in a game where content is fueled by player interaction and conflict

there is no problem with my post, but you sure are butthurt.

I agree it is a good foundation in an MMO to promote group play.

There should be a linear scale, which accounts effort and cost, and gives group options a clear and decisive advantage to use whenever possible.

It is a reasonable expectation, on the other side as well, that solo play should be practical and rewarding for those times when group play options are missing.

I feel these concepts are not at all mutually exclusive, and should both be respected.
Dave Stark
#591 - 2014-05-06 15:51:26 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
confirming it's idiotic to promote player interaction and conflict in a game where content is fueled by player interaction and conflict

there is no problem with my post, but you sure are butthurt.

I agree it is a good foundation in an MMO to promote group play.

There should be a linear scale, which accounts effort and cost, and gives group options a clear and decisive advantage to use whenever possible.

It is a reasonable expectation, on the other side as well, that solo play should be practical and rewarding for those times when group play options are missing.

I feel these concepts are not at all mutually exclusive, and should both be respected.


you can't please all of the people, all of the time.

i'm fine with them sacrificing a bit of some one else's game to benefit the masses.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#592 - 2014-05-06 16:24:32 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
confirming it's idiotic to promote player interaction and conflict in a game where content is fueled by player interaction and conflict

there is no problem with my post, but you sure are butthurt.

I agree it is a good foundation in an MMO to promote group play.

There should be a linear scale, which accounts effort and cost, and gives group options a clear and decisive advantage to use whenever possible.

It is a reasonable expectation, on the other side as well, that solo play should be practical and rewarding for those times when group play options are missing.

I feel these concepts are not at all mutually exclusive, and should both be respected.


you can't please all of the people, all of the time.

i'm fine with them sacrificing a bit of some one else's game to benefit the masses.

As well you should, and I agree.

But, do not do so without need, and never simply because it is an easier choice.
Phoenix22
H.I.D.R.I.A Industries
#593 - 2014-05-06 18:17:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Phoenix22
Hulk need more cargo space with 2x t2 rig 8.500 m3 it to low for the hulk it does not match when mackinaw has 28.000 m3 with lvl 5 skills 35.000 m3 when hulk has 8.500 m3 + maybe some Role Bonus as well.
Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#594 - 2014-05-06 18:35:12 UTC
Vincent Athena wrote:
Changing the mining bonus to a duration based one is of some help to the issue I will bring up. But the Skiff, and to some extent the Mack, still have one big disadvantage compared to the Hulk: fewer strips. To see the issue, consider:

Most miners target a roid, and let the miner run its full cycle. If the roid is small, some fraction of the cycle will be wasted. With the Hulk, if one of your strips is on a small roid you will lose some small fraction of your total yield, up to a maximum of one third.

But with the Skiff, you could lose up to a complete cycle by targeting a small roid. As the single strip takes so much ore in one cycle, there is a greater chance the roid will pop and you lose part of the cycle.

The result is under most practical uses, the Skiff mines much less than your table of numbers would indicate.

How to fix? I see three methods.
1) Redo the models so all mining ships have the same number of strips.
2) Make the strips on the Skiff cycle faster (but still produce the same cubic meters per minute). Of course the player can do this manually, but it just makes mining even more of a click fest.
3) Make it so if you mine a small roid, the miner starts its cycle part way through, so its timed to end just as the roid runs out of minerals. (This would fail if there are two strips on the same roid. But, that is a rare case anyway).

#2 is the only one that can be done by just changing stats. The others require more coding.

Adding another to improve the real world yield of the Skiff: Reduce the number of asteroids in a belt while making each one larger, keeping the ore total the same. The result would be fewer wasted partial mining cycles. This change would also reduce server and client load, as both would have to deal with fewer objects.

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction

Aureus Ahishatsu
Deadspace Knights
#595 - 2014-05-06 19:32:35 UTC
Phoenix22 wrote:
Hulk need more cargo space with 2x t2 rig 8.500 m3 it to low for the hulk it does not match when mackinaw has 28.000 m3 with lvl 5 skills 35.000 m3 when hulk has 8.500 m3 + maybe some Role Bonus as well.


If the hulk had the same capacity as the mackinaw there would be NO REASON to ever use the mackinaw. However I agree there should be some boost to the hulk ore bay. Currently as it stands a pilot with exhumers 5 fills the hulk bay over 75% in a single cycle. At that rate you would need to empty the ore bay every single cycle. Couple an orca and/or a rorqual ad this becomes an extreme micromanage ship (one of the reasons i don't mine). This should be increased to the point I feel that you should be able to get at least 2 cycles before filling it even at max skill.
Phoenix22
H.I.D.R.I.A Industries
#596 - 2014-05-06 20:46:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Phoenix22
Aureus Ahishatsu wrote:
Phoenix22 wrote:
Hulk need more cargo space with 2x t2 rig 8.500 m3 it to low for the hulk it does not match when mackinaw has 28.000 m3 with lvl 5 skills 35.000 m3 when hulk has 8.500 m3 + maybe some Role Bonus as well.


If the hulk had the same capacity as the mackinaw there would be NO REASON to ever use the mackinaw. However I agree there should be some boost to the hulk ore bay. Currently as it stands a pilot with exhumers 5 fills the hulk bay over 75% in a single cycle. At that rate you would need to empty the ore bay every single cycle. Couple an orca and/or a rorqual ad this becomes an extreme micromanage ship (one of the reasons i don't mine). This should be increased to the point I feel that you should be able to get at least 2 cycles before filling it even at max skill.

wheel i didn't mine to say same cargo cap but a little more will be grate maybe 15.000 m3 will do + I think that Ice harvest duration is useless because there is no more ice belts is it is Crap on that ship and no one mine ice with hulk but with mackinaw.
mackinaw has that bonus on that ship but on hulk useless.
hulk shot have ore ming harvest bonus not ice
Paikis
Vapour Holdings
#597 - 2014-05-07 00:18:31 UTC
Aureus Ahishatsu wrote:
Currently as it stands a pilot with exhumers 5 fills the hulk bay over 75% in a single cycle. At that rate you would need to empty the ore bay every single cycle. Couple an orca and/or a rorqual ad this becomes an extreme micromanage ship (one of the reasons i don't mine).


That's kind of the point. If you want to AFK mine, use a Mackinaw.

I ran my mining fleet for a couple hours a day over the weekend. 4 Covetors, 3 Hulks, an Orca to boost and a Miasmos to haul the rocks (in LOW SEC). I had absolutely no problem emptying the ore holds every cycle, and I did it with 2 screens and good old alt+tab. No ISBoxer, and I only had to warp off once when someone jumped into local. Turns out it was a Black Frog shipment on the way through and I didn't actually have to leave.

Now if I can do that without ISBoxer, why can't you?
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#598 - 2014-05-07 00:26:27 UTC
Oxide Ammar wrote:
For the love of God, give Mach's more PWG and CPU, It's on extremely extremely tight fit to tank it with 1 invu and 2x amplifiers which doesn't work. It's like you are saying "No, you can't tank it you need to die for using this ship !!"


have u tried an auxiliary power core?

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

Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#599 - 2014-05-07 00:32:13 UTC
Anyone know if the cycle time changes are going to affect ice harvesters in a negative/positive way? Specifically inquiring about the skiff
Tar'z
Doomheim
#600 - 2014-05-07 02:20:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Tar'z
Can we please make a bigger yelp about the Hulk cargo bay? At 8,500 m3, you cannot get a 3rd round of cycles of ice. You're therefore jettisoning every 2 or so minutes.

Please add a measly 500m3 to the hulk cargo bay, making it an actual useable ice mining vessel.