Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Hulk over Mac, never going to happen, you still under estimated the Ore hold bonus that the Mac gives, so no change there, Peeps will still use the Mac.

EHP, again tanked to the max a Hulk is still going to get chewed up by belt ratz unless the fleet employs Pve cover, so nothing gained there, Tanked Mac does just that and will happily sit there fleet mining being blasted by BS ratz all day, again you missed the point here, it's not all about the Stats.

So were has your attempt got you trying to force players to group together so far, utterly no where, and this is the point you keep missing in EVE, you cannot force players to do something they will not find advantage in, fleeting up with a number of other players comes down to bonuses, and if they cannot get them from others they will provide there own or happily just go without and continue 'Solo' mining.

Tinker with the fits all you want you will still find that Ore Hold and Tank come out on top to a miner over yield when is comes to Null sec in particular, jet mining works for some, but it means that they have to stop mining to collect the cans, Solo you see, so stopping mining means lost income, large ore holds mean less stoppages equals more income overall, Hulk might pull more but you have to stop more so you loose out, it's not all about the stats.

If you really want to do something that makes your upgraded Hulk a possible option, same size the Ore Hold as the Mac and stop making clever, but ultimately futile excuses for not doing so, you may just give the impetus to group mining in Null Sec a boost and the Hulk a reason to be used.

Go on CCP chance your arm on something for once, do something useful

Hopefully he just mixed up names and meant the skiff, so that Mack has the best hold but the other two have equal hold. That would make the Hulk not so frustrating to use.

Hi
Ive tested on SISI and theres an issue with the cycle time bonus on the hulk capping out hulks with just the lazers and 2 invul running

is it possible to get the capacitor requirements for the lazers reduced to compensate for the faster cycle times please

many thanks

This leads onto another related aspect - crystal changing cap usage

As CCP Lebowski said over in the Kronos Featues on Sisi post, i understand he said "I've checked this out and this is expected with the new design, you will not be able to run two inulvn fields and two mining lasers without worrying about your cap usage!" [SIC] i beleive he meant three strip miners??

I'm off to test this now, but if it truly is the case i feel this is a change to reduce afkness, but may unintentionally change crystal mechanics, with the change to mining crystal size attempting to make our lives easier (and allow greater crystal changing) this may have been over looked

Currently on TQ i run drone mining augmenters (hulks are all about yield yeah??), it makes the CPU incredibly tight and forces passive shield modules anyway... meaning cap isn't tight, but with the added hulk fitting it will lead to more invulnerability field fitting

UPDATE: Okay, max mining char, core fitting skills top whats relevant for mining and cap skills to management 4 operations 5

its not bad, 70GJ to switch crystals, thats ~10% of the hulks total capacitor whereas 180GJ for an operation of the lasers for perspective. Yes the hulk doesnt have a great deal of cap to work with but its damn FAST

Current skills 750GJ over 140.62s with roughly 8.9GJ excess, ( I hate capacitor mechanics so im not even going to pretend to math them, instead STOPWATCH!)

750/540 = 72% of cap for three strip miners
in reality it took closer to 45 seconds to recharge enough cap for another mining cycle
but srsly, stagger them out a little... especially with a cycle ~120s before boosts

750/210 = 28% cap for changing crystals (convenient number)
~5 seconds from 0% cap for first crystal
~5 seconds form 10% cap for second crystal
~7 seconds from 20% cap for third crystal

Result, its nothing - will continue testing

UPDATE2: Hulk Fitting changes still dont allow for a well tanked fit with a drone mining augmentor and a processor overclocker, happy with this, it is very powerful yield and sacrificing active for passive is fair enough

lastly, 35 mining crystals..... thats 11 sets and two lonely crystals :C

I meant three! Panic not!

Just a small question:

This change is meant to reduce the usage of Macks/Retrievers as most used Mining ship so people switch to Hulk/Covetor or Skiff/Procurer again. So: Where in that plan does a 'massive' nerf to cap stability of the Hulk fit in?

When I started playing Eve (a little over a year ago) I took up mining. I was particularly saddened by the loss of efficency required by going to a station to unload. I took up the retreiver (and then mack) because the large ore holds cut that loss better than anything else.

I kept looking for a way to mine without losing my production to thieves. I was getting very frustrated. The answer to that problem was provided last fall in the Mobile Tractor Unit (MTU).

The Mackinaw and Retriever can each carry 4 MTUs, while the other mining barges and exhumers can carry 3 (the Venture can't carry them).

The MTU can store 27,000m3, tractor any wreck or jetcan the MTU's owner has rights to from OVER 100 km, and the thief can not access the MTU's cargo... making the MTU an excellent 'ghost support' for the solo miner.

The one failing of the MTU is Concord does NOT react to the MTU being attacked. Concord reacts to your wreck being accessed, but not if any deployed mobile unit is attacked. This is like saying the police will arrest a man for breaking a window in your wrecked car, but will ignore him raping your daughter.

This does work in the miner's favor, though. If a ganker comes calling and the miner has MTUs deployed, the MTU will loot any wrecks that occur, miner or ganker. This loot is available to the MTU's owner, nobody else.

So the ganker has a choice of ganking the miner and having the MTU loot the wrecks, or killing the MTU (allowing the miner to escape).

As for solo miners (and many fleet miners) staying in high sec. The reason is simple. The mining ship is unarmed (except drones) and the miner feels helpless and like he's a target in low sec or null sec.

The PvP player choses his target. No PvPer worth his salt would go after a combat vessel when a mining ship is 'right over there'.

The PvPer knows the mining ship can NOT fight back, so he has no trouble blitzing in to take the mining ship down fast. What if that were not ALWAYS the case, though? What is some of those 'mining ships' COULD SHOOT BACK?

They are called 'Q-ships'. They look like non-combatants, but blitz any attacker that comes in thinking he's got an easy, quick kill.

If Q-ships were available to miners, too expensive to be 'expendable' for suicide ganking, and tank enough to hold up to those 'expendable' ganking ships... many gankers would hesitate to take on ships that look like they may be 'Q' (giving the actual miner a chance to get away).

making Q-ships available to the miner and the cargo hauler may well be the key to enabling the solo player to go into low sec and null sec.

It is

Wait, what? No. What do you do when that BC is not using launchers? BTW, I believe you meant to say auto-targeting missiles (not launchers). Also, no offense intended, but your spelling and grammar are horrible.

Limiting the maximum number of MLU won't make people fit a tank. And Retriever/Covetor will pop no matter what you put in their low slots.
And special special ships for Ice is sooo 2012