These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
123Next page
 

Suggestion for bigger mining ship

Author
Leehams DaWildabeast
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#1 - 2014-12-26 03:13:26 UTC
As ISOboxer drops from the game, so will a large supply of minerals and ice. In order to prevent a crazy inflation rate from coming into effect, i propose a new class of ORE vessel. The Excavator. A battleship class mining vessel that has the power to expunge ore from belts and rip ice from... ice. I give you: the Baggor (named after the Bagger 228).


4H, 3M, 5L, 3R
96,000 m3 ore hold
25mb drone bandwidth

Comes with a new mining module- Excavation Strip Miner (35 km range, 150 sec cycle, mines a base of 1500 m3)

Ore Excavator: 5% bonus to shield resists per level, 4% increase in excavation miner amount per level.
Ore Industrial: 5% reduction in miner cycle time per level, 5% reduction in miner capacitor use per level.

Role bonus: 50% reduction is ice harvester cycle duration, 100% increase in ice harvester amount. 200% increase in drone damage, hp, and mining amount. 50% reduction in mining upgrade cpu penalty.

Has relatively low base shield/armor/hull hp (like 5K 4K 5K), relies on resist tanking. Pretty much would be a very expensive ship that is very effective at mining, but since it is a battleship sized vessel, it is very vulnerable to getting ganked by high alpha ships. (but could be fitted to about 100K ehp if lows are put to tank)
HiddenPorpoise
Jarlhettur's Drop
United Federation of Conifers
#2 - 2014-12-26 03:27:05 UTC
It's better than a barge at everything, no.
Anhenka
The New Federation
Sigma Grindset
#3 - 2014-12-26 03:31:55 UTC
Heyo! This idea again.

No. Go use the search tool for the other thousand times large than barge mining ships have been proposed.


TLDR: It's a bad idea. It further marginalizes any miner unable to fly one, it would be used en mass in nullsec, highsec would be stripped by small groups of miners even faster than megamining corps strip entire systems, and a number of things would happen.


1: Miner income stays the same as the market rapidly corrects itself to the mass amount of ore incoming vs flat demand.

2: Nullsec ores go from barely worth veldspar to even worse than veldspar as these ships feast upon high level anoms.

3: Miners can't figure out why they are not making more than they used to, even though they are raking in massively more ore, and come to the forums to whine about it.


TLDR TLDR: No.
Esmanpir
Raccoon's with LightSabers
#4 - 2014-12-26 03:32:02 UTC
I'm not sure how much of an impact the loss of ISOBoxer fleets will have on mining, specifically ICE. I don't think we're going to see much of a price difference because when my alt has been mining ice there have been a lot of non-ISOBoxer characters mining. I think the loss of ISOBoxers will mean that the ice fields might take a little longer to mine, but that probably won't last as people who quit mining due to the ISOBoxers come back to mine.
Leehams DaWildabeast
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#5 - 2014-12-26 03:32:59 UTC
that's kinda the point. but require ore industrial 4 to train ore excavator, and ore excavator is a 1x skill
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#6 - 2014-12-26 03:42:39 UTC
Not just no, but hell no.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

shimiku
Zircron Industries
#7 - 2014-12-26 04:03:25 UTC
if you remove the 200% drone dmg and add not usable in high sec then im fine
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#8 - 2014-12-26 04:05:18 UTC
If there is to be a Battleship sized mining vessel (not saying there needs to be) then it should have the same number of slots as other Battleships.
Industrial ships should not have less slots just because they are industrial. That's part of the issue with Industrial ships of all kind in general, that they are treated as automatically weaker than other ships, which instantly makes the meta treat them as second class citizens.
Anhenka
The New Federation
Sigma Grindset
#9 - 2014-12-26 04:09:04 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
If there is to be a Battleship sized mining vessel (not saying there needs to be) then it should have the same number of slots as other Battleships.
Industrial ships should not have less slots just because they are industrial. That's part of the issue with Industrial ships of all kind in general, that they are treated as automatically weaker than other ships, which instantly makes the meta treat them as second class citizens.


You can have the same stats as other ships in the same size class if you want to have the same cargohold as the other ships in that class.

Unless you don't think gutting the interior, including propulsion, fitting, slots, and shields/armor to make space for more cargo/ore hold space should effect the ship stats? Indy ships are basically giant hollow boxes with minimal engineering attached.

P.S Mining Rohk? Still completely possible.
Arya Regnar
Darwins Right Hand
#10 - 2014-12-26 04:14:18 UTC
I will use this ship to pvp. 200% dps bonus on light drones, that's like two worms.

Oh yeah this thing has far too much ehp to be easily gankable.

What exactly is the downside.
It would have to be 3 minute deployment to mine and no highsec use.

EvE-Mail me if you need anything.

Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#11 - 2014-12-26 04:18:29 UTC
Anhenka wrote:

You can have the same stats as other ships in the same size class if you want to have the same cargohold as the other ships in that class.

Unless you don't think gutting the interior, including propulsion, fitting, slots, and shields/armor to make space for more cargo/ore hold space should effect the ship stats? Indy ships are basically giant hollow boxes with minimal engineering attached.

P.S Mining Rohk? Still completely possible.

Removing all those control runs, fittings etc for gun slots is where the cargo space comes from. (or should)
Go back and look at 'cargo ships' in the era's that actually had real pirates. Stop thinking modern freighters where piracy on the high seas has almost been eradicated (Yes there is a tiny amount).
Look at the Spanish treasure galleons for one of the best examples of a 'cargo' ship which existed during a real pirate era.

That's the problem with the line of thought you are trying to push, Indy ships in an era with real pirates would not be simply hollow giant boxes. It's stupid, it's suicidal, and the way they get constantly treated as second class players & ships simply there to be ganked for lols & profit say so.
Anhenka
The New Federation
Sigma Grindset
#12 - 2014-12-26 04:47:28 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Anhenka wrote:

You can have the same stats as other ships in the same size class if you want to have the same cargohold as the other ships in that class.

Unless you don't think gutting the interior, including propulsion, fitting, slots, and shields/armor to make space for more cargo/ore hold space should effect the ship stats? Indy ships are basically giant hollow boxes with minimal engineering attached.

P.S Mining Rohk? Still completely possible.

Removing all those control runs, fittings etc for gun slots is where the cargo space comes from. (or should)
Go back and look at 'cargo ships' in the era's that actually had real pirates. Stop thinking modern freighters where piracy on the high seas has almost been eradicated (Yes there is a tiny amount).
Look at the Spanish treasure galleons for one of the best examples of a 'cargo' ship which existed during a real pirate era.



The issue is that EVE's current indy ships are the EVE version of modern cargo ships, not Spanish treasure galleons.

And said Spanish treasure galleons dedicated only a relatively small amount of their total cubage to actually hauling the dense,compact silver and gold, silks, or spices they carried.

So if you want an eve equivalent of an armed and armored Spanish treasure galleon, you will have to sacrifice cargo space for additional armor and armament, just like they did.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#13 - 2014-12-26 04:51:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Nevyn Auscent
Anhenka wrote:

The issue is that EVE's current indy ships are the EVE version of modern cargo ships, not Spanish treasure galleons.

And said Spanish treasure galleons dedicated only a relatively small amount of their total cubage to actually hauling the dense,compact silver and gold, silks, or spices they carried.

So if you want an eve equivalent of an armed and armored Spanish treasure galleon, you will have to sacrifice cargo space for additional armor and armament, just like they did.

Or realise that compared to the total volume, they already are only allocating a tiny amount of their total cubage to their hauling space.
And that a lot of the rest of the comparison would be taken care of by their fittings.
If you fit with cargo extenders you are giving up those armour plates that you could have fitted instead.
Even with the same slot layout an industrial ship that chose tank would not have as much a cargo space.

But with the currently utterly gimped fittings on nearly all of them, they are utterly laughable.
Gunrunner1775
Empire Hooligans
#14 - 2014-12-26 05:04:19 UTC
we need to stop with all these desires for improved mineing ships....

pretty much entire economy revolves around minerals and makeing ships and modules out of those minerals.....

any suggestions to increase the amount of minerals acquired only devalues the minerals

supply vs demand
Jenshae Chiroptera
#15 - 2014-12-26 06:00:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenshae Chiroptera
You pay about 200M for a battleship.
You pay about 200M for an exhumer.

Battleships are horribly slow.
Exhumers are horribly slow.

Battleships can do some damage
Mining barges .... they can die.

Battleships need more tank to compensate for all the penalties and costs they now have.

Hulks and Covetors should be upgraded to a "battleship size". Then Hulks should be given more tank and cargo space.

As it stands, mining ships and industrials are things someone has to fly and they are created to be victims. Not citizens but targets to be slaughtered, easily.

The closest you come to any sanity for miners and industrials is Procurers (cost / tank) and jump freighters (avoid gate camps).

Naturally Hulks would get some yield bonus. However, even better would be for strip miners to be able to rip a module out of a ship and then jam that strip miner (needing station repairs)

You don't need a new ship with more yield. You need a ship that does not have to run all the time from every silly little three man gang of destroyers or interceptors and waste time docking / undocking and sitting in stations.
It is all those cycles you keep losing and cans being shot by a few brats in a tantrum that is losing you so much potential ore.

I look forward to the bans and the rising costs of ore and minerals.

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.

McChicken Combo HalfMayo
The Happy Meal
#16 - 2014-12-26 06:04:48 UTC  |  Edited by: McChicken Combo HalfMayo
The ISBoxer fleets are going to be just fine besides the nuttahs with 20+ at once, but there is only so many of those.

It's the bombers, smartbombers and gankers that take the hit with the new changes.

There are all our dominion

Gate camps: "Its like the lowsec watercooler, just with explosions and boose" - Ralph King-Griffin

Sean Parisi
Blackrise Vanguard
#17 - 2014-12-26 06:25:25 UTC
I would rather they just allowed the rorqual in highsec.
Celthric Kanerian
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#18 - 2014-12-26 12:15:36 UTC
Are you insane? This would be one of the strongest battleships in the game, besides making exhumers look like a childrens toy.

Absolutely not.
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#19 - 2014-12-26 12:53:39 UTC
No.

Even if there was a massive rise in mineral prices. Thats not a bad thing. Learn2economy.

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

Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#20 - 2014-12-26 13:31:17 UTC
Isn't a tanky, damage dealing exhumer called a skiff?

I don't know much about fitting barges, but isn't 114k EHP with a yield of 1117 per cycle, with no boosts, not actually that bad at all? All that needs is a couple of cheap fitting implants, so you'd even have room to make it better with whatever other implants or bling you care to add.

Since there is already a barge that tanks as hard as you want, and puts out a smidge over 200 DPS too, more if you sacrifice some yield, what's the point of this thing other than to make sure the mineral market doesn't bounce back up?
123Next page