These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#741 - 2014-05-29 22:27:35 UTC
see the trouble there is, ganking has been made harder over the years, not easier. the only change that made it easier to gank in a cat was it losing its RoF penalty. Where as:

concord response has been improved.
barge tanks have only improved.
ganking is more expensive because of insurance changes.
escaping concord has become impossible.

If i can make a hulk resist two cats and jam a third, so can u.

[Hulk, Hulk tank] 25k EHP (or 27k against blasters)
Mining Laser Upgrade I
Damage Control II

Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
Survey Scanner II
Thermic Dissipation Amplifier I

Modulated Strip Miner II, Veldspar Mining Crystal I
Modulated Strip Miner II, Veldspar Mining Crystal I
Modulated Strip Miner II, Veldspar Mining Crystal I

Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
Medium Core Defense Field Extender I

Hornet EC-300 x5
Hobgoblin II x5

but if u do fit for max yield, and u dnt pay attention and protect urself, then yeah ganks are going to happen and thats a good thing.

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

Ohhhh Feely Nice
Feely Good Logistics
#742 - 2014-05-29 23:11:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Ohhhh Feely Nice
I am here to bring forth attention to a fundamental imbalance with these mining changes: The Retriever is still overpowered compared to the Procurer.

As we can see, there are 3 factors at hand:
1) Yield
2) Cargo
3) Tank

The purpose of the mining rebalance was to make each barge excel at one factor, while being even in the other two categories with other non-specializing barges of it's class (T1 vs T2).

This means the Retriever should be great at cargo, the Procurer should be great at tank, and they should both be roughly even when it comes to yield. This applies perfectly to Mackinaw/Skiff, but unfortunately does NOT with Procurer/Retriever. The Retriever has an extra low-slot versus the Procurer, where as the Mackinaw does not versus the Skiff.

This allows the Retriever to fit almost 10% more yield than the Procurer.

For the sake of balance the Retriever/Procurer need the same amount of low slots. If not, the Procurer needs a role bonus to equate for the difference.


.
XMaxan
The Legion of X
#743 - 2014-05-30 02:03:51 UTC
I feel that the Skiff/Procurer should be the only ones with high tanks otherwise the tank levels should be lower. Ships that have bigger cargo and more mining yield have less HP and the like.
Erutpar Ambient
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#744 - 2014-05-30 02:45:59 UTC
XMaxan wrote:
I feel that the Skiff/Procurer should be the only ones with high tanks otherwise the tank levels should be lower. Ships that have bigger cargo and more mining yield have less HP and the like.

I would agree with lowering the tank of the skiff/procurer and normalizing them across the board. That would give them all the same viability in a fleet set up.

Currently the only place where a Hulk is viable is in a dead end null system with very reliable intel in the system(s) that lead there.
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#745 - 2014-05-30 02:49:48 UTC
Erutpar Ambient wrote:
XMaxan wrote:
I feel that the Skiff/Procurer should be the only ones with high tanks otherwise the tank levels should be lower. Ships that have bigger cargo and more mining yield have less HP and the like.

I would agree with lowering the tank of the skiff/procurer and normalizing them across the board. That would give them all the same viability in a fleet set up.

Currently the only place where a Hulk is viable is in a dead end null system with very reliable intel in the system(s) that lead there.

Lower the skiff and procurer?
Erutpar Ambient
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#746 - 2014-05-30 03:27:01 UTC
Rowells wrote:
Erutpar Ambient wrote:
XMaxan wrote:
I feel that the Skiff/Procurer should be the only ones with high tanks otherwise the tank levels should be lower. Ships that have bigger cargo and more mining yield have less HP and the like.

I would agree with lowering the tank of the skiff/procurer and normalizing them across the board. That would give them all the same viability in a fleet set up.

Currently the only place where a Hulk is viable is in a dead end null system with very reliable intel in the system(s) that lead there.

Lower the skiff and procurer?

I believe they should all have the same or similar survivability, where as the procurer/skiff should have greater defensive capability (ability to fight back/protect itself and others) instead.

Maybe the procurer/skiff currently have way too much survivability, and the mackinaw/hulk have way to little. I believe that survivability should not be one of the balancing features of Mining Bargers/Exhumers. They should all have the same Survivability.
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Asking a dedicated PVP ship to defend a mining fleet can often lead to mind numbing boredom for the PVP pilot, so we're providing the option for players to make sacrifices in their mining ships to allow self-defense.


They're adding more defensive capability to the Procurer/Skiff because PVP pilots will be too bored. Currently a Procurer/Skiff can defend themselves fairly well already so it would seem that the intent is to replace PVP babysitting with extra Procurer/Skiffs to protect a fleet. However because the Hulk/Covetor have such terrible EHP, they couldn't possibly be protected by a Procurer/Skiff. So the picture Fozzie is painting here are fleets full of Procurer/Skiffs, which is pretty much what we already have anyways.....

What I'm looking for is a dynamic and diverse Fleet. Hell it'd even be great to see some mining battleships again that can just refit for combat on the spot if needed.
Severn VonKarr
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#747 - 2014-05-30 04:27:41 UTC
I second Ohhhh Feely Nice's post. Also, I'd like to point out a general imbalance across the classes. The problem that this balance update is meant to address doesn't really seem to be handling the causes. I predict it will be mostly ineffective.

As mentioned, the problem is retrievers/mackinaws are over utilized compared to the other classes. The dev/CCP believes the primary cause of this is the appeal of AFK mining. Let's examine the mining barges and their uses to see if this assessment holds up. The usage scenarios are: risky low/null mining, afk highsec mining, and group mining. For risky lowsec mining, you need 1. a good align time/warp core points to evade blobs and 2. maybe the ability to fend off solo pirates and belt rats. Currently the procurer and retriever can both fill this role on the first point with only a bonus to the procurer's align time, while more yield or stabs with the retriever's extra low. Neither have the teeth for dealing with solo pirates, or the belt rats themselves in null.
What the update will do: The retriever will continue to be viable with it's extra low. Only the procurer will have the teeth for solo frigates if T2 light scout drones are used. Strong belt rats will still be an issue unless medium T2 drones are used, but doing so will impair your ability to kill solo pirate frigates as it only has a bay size of 50. So it will still be a question of mediocre staying power vs. more mining efficiency on the procurer vs. retriever front in low/null.

Now let's look at highsec mining. The retriever is supposed to be an excellent choice here for it's hold size, the idea being that a larger hold, means less attention. The procurer is more or less ungankable but with half of the hold of the retriever and less yield due to one less low. It is still seen in highsec, namely in areas prone to ganking. Now, although ice asteroids take a while to deplete, ore asteroids are another story. When using a retriever in an atypical highsec ore field, you'll have to target new asteroids almost every couple of cycles per laser. That is not very AFK. And there is a lot of time spent repositioning/navigating if you are following a particular ore and not just scooping everything. So if not for AFK mining, then what is the retriever's appeal? ...we'll get to that.

Group Mining Any miner know the site: Large blob of barges with an orca and/or a freighter. The coveter is not an uncommon choice for the obvious yield bonus. But so is the retriever and even the mackinaw and skiff. The low hit points of the coveter aren't a significant issue on a ship you can easily manufacture from your own spoils. But why the retriever, mackinaw and skiff; and why is the hulk not a more common sight? The reason for the skiff isn't obvious unless you mine in regular competition with multiboxers. Multiboxers have the power of many, but the will of one. Miners will compete with each other to scoop up the good roids and multiboxers will suck up a disproportionate amount of resources in the name of one player. This creates a great deal of animosity, resulting in bounties or gankers in npc corps showing up conveniently after solo players in corps leave the scene for no reason (alt characters). So the motivation for the skiffs is to deal with gankers that are not operating with a profit motive.

To answer the questions that have come up, we need to look at the characteristics motivating their use.
Retriever | Procurer | Coveter
Tank: Average | Best | Worst
Yield: Average | Worst | Best
Hold: Best | Average | Worst

The first thing that jumps out is that the retriever is a jack of all trades. The second is that by comparison the coveter only has one thing going for it and the procurer is situational in it's usefulness. Fundamentally, there is something wrong with naming one ship among a class the worst in terms of tank. You could argue that the coveter being group focused should rely on the group, but there is no defense against highsec gankers. You can't attack them preemptively. And in low/null, it just doesn't have enough of a hit point buffer to last to receive reps. With this characteristic weakness in mind, it's obvious why the hulk isn't a more common sight despite the rise of multiboxing blobs; although you can replace a tech 1 ship from your mined ore, you can't do that with a tech 2 ship, and the cost will be a magnitude greater.

Now that we understand the issue of tank between retrievers/mackinaws and coveters/hulks, let's look at the effect of hold size to get an idea of why this attribute might be so useful. For a solo miner or a very taxed multiboxer, hold can be important just as yield can be. At the end of a solo mining session, you need to dock up and unload; or for a multiboxer, jettison a can. Being able to remain on field mining longer means you are spending less time in transit and more time mining, increasing your effective yield. Retriever's lasers consume roids at a faster rate, so in belts multiboxers may still prefer coveters so they do not have to babysit individual lasers quite as much. This higher rate of consumption also is relevant to solo miners as it means increased attention for the supposedly low attention ship. The effect of the higher hold combined with the average yield from the extra low and the average tank is what gives the retriever is utilitarian usefulness. Outside of ice mining, attentiveness is NOT the driving factor.

So what can we do to fix this? These ships remind me of the wizard of oz, only the lion got the brain, the straw man got the heart and the tin man got courage. To start, the coveter and hulk should have an average tank. The procurer needs a bay size of 75 to carry both a full flight of mediums and lights. The retriever can stand to lose a low but gain a high and take the coveter's place as the three beam boat.
Erutpar Ambient
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#748 - 2014-05-30 04:58:41 UTC
Severn VonKarr wrote:
*snipped*

I agree with most of what you have to say. I'm not sure if the Retriever/Mackinaw's utilization has been attributed to AFKness, however i know it is definitely an issue of convenience.

One of the things you hit on was multiboxers. This is probably the biggest reason for the Ret/Mack trend. Multiboxers cannot easily jetcan mine because it would mean going through each ship individually and picking the right jet can and then doing that again when it fills up. They can freight can mine, but you'd have to dedicate a freighter to hauling that constantly and you'd have to constantly keep track of your ship's ore hold.

The reason multiboxers use mackinaws is because they require the least amount of attention to run. You just fill up on minerals dock your fleet, unload your fleet and head back out. Everything else either is less efficient, or requires a fairly high amount of effort and/or support ships to maintain the same level of efficiency.

With a Hulk, you have to pay attention to every mining laser and you have to unload all of your ships every cycle leaving no room for error or your efficiency suffers. And with a Procurer at 12,000 m3 ore bay, you have to pay attention at least once every 3 cycles. So for a multiboxer the obvious choice is going to be Rets/Macks. And it's all because of the ore bay.
Darkblad
Doomheim
#749 - 2014-05-30 06:01:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Darkblad
The initial change was to give the Procurer a third low slot, bringing its yield on par with the Retriever. This only got changed after 19 pages of discussion in this thread (here's the announcement post by Fozzy).

CCP Fozzie wrote:
Swapping the low back to a mid for the Procurer. As many of your correctly pointed out, watering down the Procurer's area of specialty to give it more yield just watered down its distinctiveness and value.

NPEISDRIP

DetKhord Saisio
Seniors Clan
#750 - 2014-05-30 22:01:49 UTC
I have yet to see any required changes to fix afk mining. The coming changes to mining are nothing but fail.

Mining has always been on the back burner and likely will always remain on the back burner. Since CCP Presents video announced feature update priorities in the 2011 Fanfest, this post pointed out ccp's lack of priorities with mining.

I suggest ccp to reduce the ore/cargohold (ore holding capacity) of all mining barges to only 1 cycle. I believe all those afk miners would no longer be able to afk mine cheaply.

Since way before 2011 fanfest, we needed something to fix mining profitability. Prevent afk mining once and for all. This is your chance to make changes to mining to fix it. Give us back the gravimetric site. Reduce the massive ore holds. Increase exhumer tank to equal a battleship tank. Do you guys think these changes or combination of changes would improve the game for miners?

Ganks would happen to mining barges, but training into exhumers would prevent cheap ganks. Improving mining profits would motivate more people to become miners and then train into exhumers. CCP please do the right thing and increase the viability of exhumers. Ganks would still happen cheaply to mining barges, but the expense to gank exhumers should equal the cost of replacing the exhumer.
Vhelnik Cojoin
Pandemic Horde High Sec Division
#751 - 2014-05-30 22:22:59 UTC
DetKhord Saisio wrote:
(Stuff.)

Could you please explain how I employ this amazing 'AFK mining' technique / mechanism you talk about, please?

Have you Communicated with your fellow capsuleers today? It is good for the EvE-oconomy and o-kay for you.

Vhelnik Cojoin
Pandemic Horde High Sec Division
#752 - 2014-05-30 22:46:42 UTC
Erutpar Ambient wrote:
The reason multiboxers use mackinaws is because they require the least amount of attention to run. You just fill up on minerals dock your fleet, unload your fleet and head back out. Everything else either is less efficient, or requires a fairly high amount of effort and/or support ships to maintain the same level of efficiency.

Multiboxing does not necessarily equal ISBoxer, or any similar method of simultaneously controlling multiple clients. Some of us simply manually controls a number of clients at once.

As for having multiple ships in a fleet, then the fourth should be an Orca, and the fifth a freighter. Beyond 5 ships just add more mining ships. Technically the yield per time is higher if your fifth ship was a mining vessel in place of the freighter, but it gets *really* tedious having to dock your mining ships at regular intervals.

With Orca and its fleet hangar plus the freighter on the field, then the importance of the ore bay size is significantly reduced. It is however not completely without significance. The 15'000 m3 of the Skiff is plenty, but currently the yield is slightly lower than that of the Mackinaw. This will change in Kronos, making the Skiff the probable top future choice in my little group of merry mining men.

On the other hand the ore bay size of the Hulk, 8'500 m3, *is* too low, as the risk is significant it will fill completely if you turn your attention away for just a minute to tinker with another client. The increased yield of the Hulk coming in Kronos is thus pretty pointless for people like myself, as it just exasperates the problem with the small ore bay size.

Increasing it to just 10'000 or maybe 12'000 m3 would help a lot here. (These numbers based on experience with the *current* yield of a fleet boosted Hulk. 10'000 m3 may not cut it in Kronos.)

Have you Communicated with your fellow capsuleers today? It is good for the EvE-oconomy and o-kay for you.

Vhelnik Cojoin
Pandemic Horde High Sec Division
#753 - 2014-05-30 22:59:43 UTC
Daichi Yamato wrote:
but if u do fit for max yield, ... (snip.)

If you don't fit a Hulk for max. yield, including mining drones, then you may as well fly a Skiff or a Mackinaw. Roll

Have you Communicated with your fellow capsuleers today? It is good for the EvE-oconomy and o-kay for you.

Navigation Boy
Edge Dancers
Pan-Intergalatic Business Community
#754 - 2014-05-31 00:12:19 UTC
Daichi Yamato wrote:
but if u do fit for max yield, and u dnt pay attention and protect urself, then yeah ganks are going to happen and thats a good thing.


It's not the tank that attracts gankers, it's the value of the ship compared to it's EHP.

Raising the EHP at the expense of yield is counter-productive. You can raise the EHP to value ratio massively just by switching to a tech I ship, and make yourself almost completely safe from ganking.

Daichi Yamato wrote:
see the trouble there is, ganking has been made harder over the years, not easier.

Maybe I have a different perspective on this, looking at it from the outside.

In 2004, you mined in battleships with significant EHP.
Today, you mine in barges with the EHP of a destroyer.
Easily 3 times less EHP... probably closer to 1/5th.

DPS since those days has approximately tripled (I still have fitting notes from 2004 that demonstrate this).
(There was the introduction of rigs, t2 guns, better ships, and every rebalance generally increased the overall dps present in the game.)
So I'd estimate it is ~10 times easier today, if we need to assign a value to it.

The penalties of ganking have increased *moderately* - that's completely true. But the ganking itself has become VASTLY less difficult.





Look, I don't mine. But if CCP wants to make the Hulk an attractive hull for anyone outside of Nullbear land, there is something CCP needs to understand:

Tears and killmails have real value in eve.
I mean, you can enter them into a spreadsheet - they are that reliable as motivators.
And the Hulk is currently providing so many tears for so little effort, it's a favorite target for ganking even when it's completely empty.

I really don't care if CCP barks up the wrong tree. It won't matter to me, but if they plan on making the hulk more attractive, they might want to think a little more about this. Small Ore holds are not the problem. Yield isn't the problem. EHP is the problem with the hulk, and why it is rarely used in HS anymore.

Or at least, this is how it seems to me.
Darkblad
Doomheim
#755 - 2014-05-31 00:45:33 UTC
Navigation Boy wrote:
Raising the EHP at the expense of yield is counter-productive. You can raise the EHP to value ratio massively just by switching to a tech I ship, and make yourself almost completely safe from ganking.
Sounds like a decent plan (between week 52/13 and 17/14), just choose the right T1 hull.

NPEISDRIP

Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#756 - 2014-05-31 01:17:47 UTC
Vhelnik Cojoin wrote:
Daichi Yamato wrote:
but if u do fit for max yield, ... (snip.)

If you don't fit a Hulk for max. yield, including mining drones, then you may as well fly a Skiff or a Mackinaw. Roll


why when u can still get higher yield tanking a hulk than the other two fit for max yield? Even more so once the changes go through.

I think a lot of ppl miss how u can get a substantial tank for a very minor loss in yield.

Navigation Boy wrote:
It's not the tank that attracts gankers, it's the value of the ship compared to it's EHP.


so u can still avoid ganking by tanking more than the guy next to u.

the gankers have a choice. use three destroyers to gank ur one hulk, or gank three hulks who dnt tank. Because in practice, gankers will not attack every miner in a system. They have limited amounts of time/cats to play with, so they focus on easy targets, emotional targets, white knights etc etc. But they dnt focus on the guy tanking his barge, not being butthurt in local, not pretending to be the protector of miners etc etc.

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

Navigation Boy
Edge Dancers
Pan-Intergalatic Business Community
#757 - 2014-05-31 01:27:26 UTC
Darkblad wrote:
]Sounds like a decent plan (between week 52/13 and 17/14), just choose the right T1 hull.

Interesting. But is a ship killed more often because it's under-powered (aka: Dies a lot) or over-powered (aka: flown a lot)? You can ask the same question of any ship kill statistics.

End of the day, if a retriever is the target, I feel like it's probably because there's no hulk present.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#758 - 2014-05-31 01:37:36 UTC
Navigation Boy wrote:
Darkblad wrote:
]Sounds like a decent plan (between week 52/13 and 17/14), just choose the right T1 hull.

Interesting. But is a ship killed more often because it's under-powered (aka: Dies a lot) or over-powered (aka: flown a lot)? You can ask the same question of any ship kill statistics.

End of the day, if a retriever is the target, I feel like it's probably because there's no hulk present.
Hulks aren't present because they aren't AFK friendly and require support which means a fleet size in which that support plus the hulk's yield advantage is more valuable than another miner.

If you don't reach that threshold there is no point using a Hulk/Covetor. This shifts a large portion of use to the other barges/Exhumers and with the Skiff/Proc being tank focused they won't be showing up on KB's nearly as often and are currently less desirable than Retrievers. Macks are probably rarer due to gank fears and cost leaving Rets kings of use and their low EHP helping them take an even larger portion of deaths.
Navigation Boy
Edge Dancers
Pan-Intergalatic Business Community
#759 - 2014-05-31 01:46:52 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Hulks aren't present because they aren't AFK friendly and require support which means a fleet size in which that support plus the hulk's yield advantage is more valuable than another miner.

That's the conclusion they drew from the data, and probably the only conclusion needed in Nullsec or WHs, but I don't feel it's telling the whole story in HS.

it's definitely part of it though.

Anyway, I don't want to belabor the topic. Like I said, it's not really that important to me. Personally I'd like to see mining ships a bit tougher as it just makes them more entertaining to kill. Blapping a barge in 2 seconds just feels anti-climactic and silly.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#760 - 2014-05-31 02:27:37 UTC
Navigation Boy wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Hulks aren't present because they aren't AFK friendly and require support which means a fleet size in which that support plus the hulk's yield advantage is more valuable than another miner.

That's the conclusion they drew from the data, and probably the only conclusion needed in Nullsec or WHs, but I don't feel it's telling the whole story in HS.

it's definitely part of it though.

Anyway, I don't want to belabor the topic. Like I said, it's not really that important to me. Personally I'd like to see mining ships a bit tougher as it just makes them more entertaining to kill. Blapping a barge in 2 seconds just feels anti-climactic and silly.
It's factual that there is a minimum fleet size at which a number of miners in retrievers is outmined by that same number -1 hulks. Unless you expect highsec to intentionally make mining more active, in which case the N.O. would be out of work, and intentionally reduce their own yields over time I don't see why miners in fleets below that size would chose the covetor/hulk.