These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Lidia Caderu
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
#681 - 2014-05-20 21:05:50 UTC
Quote:
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.

You can fit a shield extender and Damage control, also shield rigs. Pretty decent tank you can get with shield. For example I dont use Survey scanner, shield tank would be ok for me.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#682 - 2014-05-20 21:15:04 UTC
Just give barges cruiser levels of fitting, 5/5/5 slot layout, hard cap Strips to 3, and maybe a hard cap on MLU to 3 also.
Then let players fit them how they want. Stabs, Inertia, Prop Mods, Scanners, Tractor beams, Pop guns for dealing with rats, pure bait fits.......
Of course this would cause 2 of the types of barges to become invalid and have to be turned into oh..... A pure hauler for ORE, and maybe an actual combat cruiser for ORE. Maybe like a Drone bonused Cruiser with a secondary weapon system option.

Hey, that'd be awesome. Industrialists could then just train ORE rather than having to fill in the gaps with racials as well as ORE skills, we could laugh at no tank fits as fail because they really would have a choice, and players would have real fitting decisions to make since they would have enough slots, PG & CPU to actually fit a good range of things.
Atum
Eclipse Industrials
Quantum Forge
#683 - 2014-05-21 06:02:23 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Darkblad wrote:
Limiting the maximum number of MLU won't make people fit a tank.

yes it will, as there's nothing else to put in those slots.

No, it won't. I could see inertial damps and warp stabs being popular options for a free low slot.
Darkblad
Doomheim
#684 - 2014-05-21 06:21:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Darkblad
Atum wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Darkblad wrote:
Limiting the maximum number of MLU won't make people fit a tank.

yes it will, as there's nothing else to put in those slots.

No, it won't. I could see inertial damps and warp stabs being popular options for a free low slot.
Or just be left empty, as it's currently very common. Taking a look at zKillboard reveals the number of Exhumers with lacking/no fitting (except MLU).

EDIT: This doesn't represent all but still a good portion of common Mackinaw fittings

NPE – ISD – RIP
Erutpar Ambient
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#685 - 2014-05-21 06:28:37 UTC
CCP Lebowski wrote:
Ariel Rin wrote:
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 meant three! Panic not! Blink

So by reducing the usable cap on a hulk you reduce it's potential tank even further than what it has been.

What is the ideology behind the current theory for mining vessels?

Why do mining barges/exhumers all have to be so fragile? Is the idea to have them susceptible to rats?

With the Industry dev blog "Building better Worlds" there was a statement regarding industry features.


1. Any industry feature must have an actual gameplay attached to it in order to exist.
2. Any industry feature must be balanced around our risk versus reward philosophy.
3. Any industry feature must be easily understandable and visible to our player base.

Does this not also apply to mining?

Is warping away from rats an actual gameplay? Is being undefendable in a hulk,covetor,retriever,mackinaw an actual gameplay?

Are a covetor a hulk and even retriever balanced around the risk versus reward philosophy?

Outside of combat ships, these are the only ships that are forced to sit, completely exposed, out in the middle of space to perform their intended function. Why would ORE design ships for dangerous space that were completely flimsy? It doesn't even make sense that they have such low survivability.

Why can't the covetor and hulk have much greater survivability at the expense of their drone bay? That makes it viable for fleet mining and non-viable for solo mining. Getting caught without a fleet is still certain death, but in having a fleet it certainly wouldn't be. In the current ideology, Hulks are basically the "Glass Cannon" of the barges. However unlike combat glass cannons, they don't have the same mechanic of killing them before they kill you because you're not killing anyone. Please change this parallel mindset because it doesn't quite translate the same way. The reason hulks and especially covetors are never used is because they're too tedius, too squishy, not enough fittings and inability to mine consistently(whether cap shortage or constantly warping away).

And actually on a related not with my last point. I know that even with the mining capacitor usage link, a covetor can barely run 3 Mercoxit crystal modulated stripminers even when you spread the cycles to almost exactly 1/3 of a cycle apart. Does this mean a covetor will now be completely unable to accomplish this task?
Darkblad
Doomheim
#686 - 2014-05-21 06:48:27 UTC
Erutpar Ambient wrote:

So by reducing the usable cap on a hulk you reduce it's potential tank even further than what it has been.

What is the ideology behind the current theory for mining vessels?

Why do mining barges/exhumers all have to be so fragile? Is the idea to have them susceptible to rats?
The current theory appears to be that you can choose what you prefer. Yield, comfort (more time staring at walls) or stability. The three variations of mining ships do that pretty well already and those roles are now enforced. The Procurer is by no means fragile.

Erutpar Ambient wrote:
Outside of combat ships, these are the only ships that are forced to sit, completely exposed, out in the middle of space to perform their intended function. Why would ORE design ships for dangerous space that were completely flimsy? It doesn't even make sense that they have such low survivability.
You mean the only ones next to haulers, logistics (and their T1 variations), T1 scanning frigates? But ok, logistics usually have a fleet protecting them.

Erutpar Ambient wrote:
Why can't the covetor and hulk have much greater survivability at the expense of their drone bay?

Not their role. Read the description of the Procurer/Skiff. Makes it pretty much "3. Any industry feature must be easily understandable and visible to our player base."

Erutpar Ambient wrote:
And actually on a related not with my last point. I know that even with the mining capacitor usage link, a covetor can barely run 3 Mercoxit crystal modulated stripminers even when you spread the cycles to almost exactly 1/3 of a cycle apart. Does this mean a covetor will now be completely unable to accomplish this task?
Mercoxit mining is pretty advanced. Better use an advanced ship for that task. "Back in the day" there was only one ORE ship capable of mining mercoxit (in a useful manner), but being able to do that now doesn't mean that it makes sense.

NPE – ISD – RIP
Zeera Tomb-Raider
Vega Farscape
#687 - 2014-05-21 10:56:33 UTC
Darkblad wrote:
Erutpar Ambient wrote:

So by reducing the usable cap on a hulk you reduce it's potential tank even further than what it has been.

What is the ideology behind the current theory for mining vessels?

Why do mining barges/exhumers all have to be so fragile? Is the idea to have them susceptible to rats?
The current theory appears to be that you can choose what you prefer. Yield, comfort (more time staring at walls) or stability. The three variations of mining ships do that pretty well already and those roles are now enforced. The Procurer is by no means fragile.

Erutpar Ambient wrote:
Outside of combat ships, these are the only ships that are forced to sit, completely exposed, out in the middle of space to perform their intended function. Why would ORE design ships for dangerous space that were completely flimsy? It doesn't even make sense that they have such low survivability.
You mean the only ones next to haulers, logistics (and their T1 variations), T1 scanning frigates? But ok, logistics usually have a fleet protecting them.

Erutpar Ambient wrote:
Why can't the covetor and hulk have much greater survivability at the expense of their drone bay?

Not their role. Read the description of the Procurer/Skiff. Makes it pretty much "3. Any industry feature must be easily understandable and visible to our player base."

Erutpar Ambient wrote:
And actually on a related not with my last point. I know that even with the mining capacitor usage link, a covetor can barely run 3 Mercoxit crystal modulated stripminers even when you spread the cycles to almost exactly 1/3 of a cycle apart. Does this mean a covetor will now be completely unable to accomplish this task?
Mercoxit mining is pretty advanced. Better use an advanced ship for that task. "Back in the day" there was only one ORE ship capable of mining mercoxit (in a useful manner), but being able to do that now doesn't mean that it makes sense.
howe do you defend the risk reward system then,it make no sens at all,1000% or more in disadvantage to the miner vs ganker in hostale space.
Darkblad
Doomheim
#688 - 2014-05-21 10:58:47 UTC
After fiddling with the files that add Kronos attributes to EFT, all I can say is:
I like it how the Hulk equipped with a 34k eHP fitting still yields more than a Mackinaw where we have to drop a lot of tank to equip 3 x MLUs

NPE – ISD – RIP
Darkblad
Doomheim
#689 - 2014-05-21 11:03:50 UTC
Zeera Tomb-Raider wrote:
howe do you defend the risk reward system then,it make no sens at all,1000% or more in disadvantage to the miner vs ganker in hostale space.
How exactly does this relate to what I wrote?

NPE – ISD – RIP
Sael Va'Tauri
Morgan Industry
Silent Infinity
#690 - 2014-05-21 16:26:05 UTC
Any chance of getting a mining drone bonus on the Hulk? Since I use mine in a fleet with proper protection, I'd like to be able to fully sell out and go into complete mining mode. Granted, I already do run 2 mining drones, but I'd love to be more encouraged to run 5 mining drones and let others make sure I'm safe.
Darkblad
Doomheim
#691 - 2014-05-22 06:57:00 UTC
Darkblad wrote:
Erutpar Ambient wrote:
And actually on a related not with my last point. I know that even with the mining capacitor usage link, a covetor can barely run 3 Mercoxit crystal modulated stripminers even when you spread the cycles to almost exactly 1/3 of a cycle apart. Does this mean a covetor will now be completely unable to accomplish this task?
Mercoxit mining is pretty advanced. Better use an advanced ship for that task. "Back in the day" there was only one ORE ship capable of mining mercoxit (in a useful manner), but being able to do that now doesn't mean that it makes sense.
Update: actually I had no trouble with a Covetor's capacitor when testing this on Sisi. 3 x Modulated Deep Core Strip Miners with Mercoxit Crystals on a Covetor w/ Mining Barge skill trained to 5, no Capacitor Modules/Rigs. Start the third laser a little later and just let them roll. You do have capacitor skills @ 5, right?

So even though Mercoxit Mining is advanced Mining, you still can do it with T1 Ships, when you get your core ship skills in order.

NPE – ISD – RIP
Dave Stark
#692 - 2014-05-22 07:01:25 UTC
Atum wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Darkblad wrote:
Limiting the maximum number of MLU won't make people fit a tank.

yes it will, as there's nothing else to put in those slots.

No, it won't. I could see inertial damps and warp stabs being popular options for a free low slot.

neither of those are useful.

it's trivial for most mining barges to tank themselves to require more than one catalyst to gank them; so you don't have enough low slots to fit enough WCS in order to actually escape a gank (even though concord will likely be responding faster than you'll be able to align).

and secondly, warping out isn't an option if you're scrammed, and if you're finishing up a belt, you can align as your cycle finishes and instantly warp when it's complete.

as i said, there's really nothing else to put in the lows.
Dave Stark
#693 - 2014-05-22 07:02:14 UTC
Darkblad wrote:
Atum wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Darkblad wrote:
Limiting the maximum number of MLU won't make people fit a tank.

yes it will, as there's nothing else to put in those slots.

No, it won't. I could see inertial damps and warp stabs being popular options for a free low slot.
Or just be left empty, as it's currently very common. Taking a look at zKillboard reveals the number of Exhumers with lacking/no fitting (except MLU).

EDIT: This doesn't represent all but still a good portion of common Mackinaw fittings


yeah, those empty slots are as i pointed out earlier... the limiting factor on most fits for exhumers are a lack of fittings (which has been addressed)

although, that fit just wasn't even trying...
Darkblad
Doomheim
#694 - 2014-05-22 07:08:07 UTC
Darkblad wrote:
Darkblad wrote:
Erutpar Ambient wrote:
And actually on a related not with my last point. I know that even with the mining capacitor usage link, a covetor can barely run 3 Mercoxit crystal modulated stripminers even when you spread the cycles to almost exactly 1/3 of a cycle apart. Does this mean a covetor will now be completely unable to accomplish this task?
Mercoxit mining is pretty advanced. Better use an advanced ship for that task. "Back in the day" there was only one ORE ship capable of mining mercoxit (in a useful manner), but being able to do that now doesn't mean that it makes sense.
Update: actually I had no trouble with a Covetor's capacitor when testing this on Sisi. 3 x Modulated Deep Core Strip Miners with Mercoxit Crystals on a Covetor w/ Mining Barge skill trained to 5, no Capacitor Modules/Rigs. Start the third laser a little later and just let them roll. You do have capacitor skills @ 5, right?

So even though Mercoxit Mining is advanced Mining, you still can do it with T1 Ships, when you get your core ship skills in order.
And with Orca boost, including Capacitor Efficiency Ganglink you even can activate all three lasers simultaneosly.

NPE – ISD – RIP
Darkblad
Doomheim
#695 - 2014-05-22 07:37:12 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Darkblad wrote:
Atum wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Darkblad wrote:
Limiting the maximum number of MLU won't make people fit a tank.

yes it will, as there's nothing else to put in those slots.

No, it won't. I could see inertial damps and warp stabs being popular options for a free low slot.
Or just be left empty, as it's currently very common. Taking a look at zKillboard reveals the number of Exhumers with lacking/no fitting (except MLU).

EDIT: This doesn't represent all but still a good portion of common Mackinaw fittings


yeah, those empty slots are as i pointed out earlier... the limiting factor on most fits for exhumers are a lack of fittings (which has been addressed)

although, that fit just wasn't even trying...
This kill is in good company, there's tons of such fittings on the receiving end of mining ship kills. Survivability isn't the preferred attribute of Highsec Miners, it's comfort, then yield. This kill analysis hints that (highsec at the bottom). Those who care for survivability (and don't appear on zKillboard due to that preference) already have the option of choosing Procurer/Skiff - with Skiff getting yield equal to Mackinaw with Kronos, raising the incentive to choose them.

Obviously, CCP wants survivability (against player attacks) something that only applies to Procurer/Skiff. Miners in general don't care for survivability when mining in Highsec.

Also: You already can limit yourself to just one (or no) MLU, there's no need to brute force this. Let the players decide what they prefer; Yield or (a bit of) survivability. Or other creative choices.

NPE – ISD – RIP
Dave Stark
#696 - 2014-05-22 07:46:00 UTC
Darkblad wrote:
This kill is in good company, there's tons of such fittings on the receiving end of mining ship kills. Survivability isn't the preferred attribute of Highsec Miners, it's comfort, then yield. This kill analysis hints that (highsec at the bottom). Those who care for survivability (and don't appear on zKillboard due to that preference) already have the option of choosing Procurer/Skiff - with Skiff getting yield equal to Mackinaw with Kronos, raising the incentive to choose them.

Obviously, CCP wants survivability (against player attacks) something that only applies to Procurer/Skiff. Miners in general don't care for survivability when mining in Highsec.

Also: You already can limit yourself to just one (or no) MLU, there's no need to brute force this. Let the players decide what they prefer; Yield or (a bit of) survivability. Or other creative choices.


yeah none of that changes the fact that fitting a tank on an exhumer was always limited by the poor fittings that exhumers had.

but, like i said, that issue won't be there soon.
Atum
Eclipse Industrials
Quantum Forge
#697 - 2014-05-22 13:06:58 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Atum wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Darkblad wrote:
Limiting the maximum number of MLU won't make people fit a tank.

yes it will, as there's nothing else to put in those slots.

No, it won't. I could see inertial damps and warp stabs being popular options for a free low slot.

neither of those are useful.

it's trivial for most mining barges to tank themselves to require more than one catalyst to gank them; so you don't have enough low slots to fit enough WCS in order to actually escape a gank (even though concord will likely be responding faster than you'll be able to align).

and secondly, warping out isn't an option if you're scrammed, and if you're finishing up a belt, you can align as your cycle finishes and instantly warp when it's complete.

as i said, there's really nothing else to put in the lows.

Actually, I'm thinking of null, where a stab (or two) would be the difference between life and death against the new bubble-immune, warp-enhanced interceptors.
Armin Arraeb
Doomheim
#698 - 2014-05-22 15:35:52 UTC
While your rebalancing these ships, you could give them a less ugly hull aswel!
Captain Finklestein
Doomheim
#699 - 2014-05-22 22:32:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Captain Finklestein
The hulk is still too much of a burden to use in ice belts. Please, for the love of christ CCP, make the following changes before you wash your hands of mining barge changes and move on to something else...

1) Increase the ore hold of the hulk/coveter by 500m3.
2) Do not make ice harvesters deactivate when cargo had just filled up; give it 1 more cycle.

This will allow us to jettison the cans after 3.99 full sets of cycles; versus the <1.99 it's at right now.

Without these changes, ice mining in a hulk/coveter will still be far too tedious than it's worth, and as such we will continue to see roughly 0 of them in any given ice belt.

It's just more financially viable for me.
Erutpar Ambient
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#700 - 2014-05-23 00:07:31 UTC
Darkblad wrote:
The current theory appears to be that you can choose what you prefer. Yield, comfort (more time staring at walls) or stability. The three variations of mining ships do that pretty well already and those roles are now enforced. The Procurer is by no means fragile.

My argument is for us to question the current theory. I believe that it is flawed. I do know what it is obviously, it's just not put together well. Currently the choice is between Yield, Convenience or Survivability. However why do "Yield" and "Convenience" have to have Low and Almost nonexistent Survivability?

I believe the choice should be between Yield, Convenience and Defensive Capability. They should all have Survivability, however, only one of those choices should be able to effectively fight back. With the changes they're making to the Procurer and Skiff it really brings up this question. If the idea is to make the Procurer and Skiff able to defend a mining fleet, then the rest of the fleet should at least be able to survive long enough to be able to be defended right?

Quote:
You mean the only ones next to haulers, logistics (and their T1 variations), T1 scanning frigates? But ok, logistics usually have a fleet protecting them.

Haulers don't sit in space. They travel through it are only exposed in certain circumstances. All ships can cloak while scanning, so scanning ships are not sitting in space completely exposed to perform their intended function. Logistics are part of a fleet, so they're not sitting in space completely exposed to perform their intended function. Logistics are intended to be used in combat, as such they count as combat ships. Mining ships are really the only ships sitting in space exposed to do their job with no way to defend themselves.
Quote:

Not their role. Read the description of the Procurer/Skiff. Makes it pretty much "3. Any industry feature must be easily understandable and visible to our player base."

Your response here is terribly short sighted. We could prevent any future change citing (not currently designed for that) which is obviously super silly. I'm asking the question "why do the roles have to be as such". The whole point is to get them to adjust their thought process in this regard.