These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Fix the Hulk(ageddon)

Author
Xe'Cara'eos
A Big Enough Lever
#61 - 2015-04-07 09:33:37 UTC
did exhumers ever get their production costs rebalanced as part of their round of teiricide?

For posting an idea into F&I: come up with idea, try and think how people could abuse this, try to fix your idea - loop the process until you can't see how it could be abused, then post to the forums to let us figure out how to abuse it..... If your idea can be abused, it [u]WILL[/u] be.

Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#62 - 2015-04-07 10:02:43 UTC
Extreme wrote:
The hulk should had been the number 1 miner, at least it still is when you see the total costs for construction parts, but it got badly nerfed by poor cargohold. So for a few years now the Mackinaw has become the most populair miningship just because the cargohold is better and way cheaper to build and way nicer profits to make.

But Mackageddon?


Seriously, the Hulk should get some love from CCP and so do the 'Hulka Gankers'


CCP make Hulkageddon possible again, fix what you broke 2.5 years ago!


/Extreme



Extreme wrote:
I just checked the bpo's of skif/mack/hulk and they do have the same production times now.

BUT


Using the industry information it will cost 239.5M isk in materials to produce 1 hulk (BPO original with no research)
and can sell it at 216M isk on market.
(exclusive 6.6M production costs and exclusive 1.5M sales tax per ship)

Mack bpo with no research, at the Industry tool, it costs 203M to produce a mack and it sells at 200M on market


Skiff, BPO with no research, 165M to build and selling 165M on market

Conclusion:
Hulk 23.5M loss per produced ship
Mack 3M loss per produced ship
Skiff breaks even

As i used bpo non researched and same market materials (Jita), market fluctuations have no role nor influence on this basic outcome.

Question is why the Industry tool generates at best a break even on the Skiff and a 10% loss (excluding production costs and sales tax of 8M isk). The loss on a produced Hulk is 23.5M plus 8M production costs and tax, 31.5M per ship!

There is also a huge overstock on market so i can conclude Exhumers have become way to strong and/or the penalties in Empire ganking Exhumers have become too strong?



hulks are NOT meatn to mine alone. They are meant to mine in large fleets and groups where you jet can your stuff and haulers collect it. Yup.. that means OUTSIDE HIGH SEC.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"

Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#63 - 2015-04-07 10:59:10 UTC
Xe'Cara'eos wrote:
did exhumers ever get their production costs rebalanced as part of their round of teiricide?

Yes they did, but it takes a long time for the market to fully catch up. Years, yes, years. That initial change you may see on the graphs is a result of speculation by the ones who hold large amounts of market shares, giving the impression that it will even out quickly when in reality they are simply looking ahead to take advantage of the changes.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."

Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#64 - 2015-04-07 11:00:27 UTC
Actually you can group mine in high sec just fine also.
Outside highsec hulks are at even more risk unless you have massive blue space to spot people coming because 5 seconds and they blow up. While a fleet of Skiffs might actually last long enough to support, and skiffs have much more dangerous drones on their own also.
So outside of blue ball space you aren't going to see hulk fleets either.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#65 - 2015-04-07 11:51:18 UTC
It's more balanced now that the other barge yields were nerfed, but I still think Covetor and Hulk yields need a buff to make them more significant. It's almost there. Just change those 3% yield bonuses to 5% and you're golden.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."

Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#66 - 2015-04-07 12:07:12 UTC
Try just giving Hulks the same ore hold as the Skiff, Covetors the same as the Proc. I think at that point you would see them used in a more balanced fashion also. As the ore hold would still be less than the Mack, but no longer the utter worst of the three and not able to hold 2 cycles with boosts.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#67 - 2015-04-07 12:24:23 UTC
I'd like to see pilots be able to shunt the ore automatically into a jettison canister. You wouldn't have to click every three minutes, but you'd still need some support for getting the ore back home, and you're also electing to put it in danger if there isn't someone nearby to collect it for you. Now you could run and get an industrial once it fills up, and the time spent in the industrial will significantly reduce the profit margin over the Mackinaw/Retriever without eliminating it.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."

PJRiddick
CherryHill
#68 - 2015-04-14 18:00:00 UTC
[quote=Reaver Glitterstim]My point was more that its EHP with a perfect tank fitting is barely higher than its base EHP. The damage control module makes a lot more difference than everything else put together.

I don't think a catalyst should be able to gank a properly-tanked barge, not by any stretch.

YOU, MY FRIEND GET A COOKIE.

You are so correct, one CAT should not ever be able to gank a hulk, the problem is they come at you, 3,..4 and the past time i got poped, 5 in the bunch. and yes i had a decent tank on my Hulk, they just had more dps,...but thats not where the problem lies
My issue here is that the skiff is the first in the tree of mining, give it a serious tank but not to outmine the hulk

With my skills, i do just as good in the skiff as i do in the hulk, and honestly, that really ticks me off. AND to beet all, the skiff has a better tank?
SERIOUSLY?
The skiff is faster to warp,
The skiff has a bigger hold,
The skiff has as good as if not better output than the Hulk OR the Mac.
AND it has a BIGGER/BETTER tank,..
So who was it that was drinking Islandic VODKA the night they thought this up,..
SERIOUSLY!

Answer me this, with the way that the mining barges are now, WHY GO PAST THE SKIFF?
I thought that the further up the tree of barges the better the barge is?
My outputs
Hulk = 29** pr 89 sec
SKIFF 12** or there abouts pr 98 sec,...
Im getting more per cycle but just a little longer cycle

Im confused,....
My brain hurts.
PJRiddick
CherryHill
#69 - 2015-04-14 18:03:57 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
It's more balanced now that the other barge yields were nerfed, but I still think Covetor and Hulk yields need a buff to make them more significant. It's almost there. Just change those 3% yield bonuses to 5% and you're golden.


im good with the yields of the hulk,.I just want a better tank.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#70 - 2015-04-14 19:57:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Nevyn Auscent
PJRiddick wrote:

My issue here is that the skiff is the first in the tree of mining, give it a serious tank but not to outmine the hulk

You sir, have not bothered looking at the ship requirements since tiericide happened.
All of them now have the same requirements, Skiff is not first on the tree, they are all equal but different.

I still maintain they should be trimmed down to just a single barge with real fittings, and repurpose the other two hulls to a combat cruiser & hauler that can still fit a strip miner or two but no mining bonuses, so your hauler sits there mining a bit rather than wasted time. And your escort can also contribute to ore while waiting for combat.

I.E.
Repurpose Procurer to match Navy Vexor Bonuses, but no gun slots (To avoid model redesign, if model redesign is possible I'd add unbonused missile/gun hardpoints), Can still fit one strip miner but no bonuses, maybe only 100 Drone Bandwidth or something. Very small ore hold.
Repurpose Retriever to match the Gal ore hauler, but with real slot numbers (matching cruiser or even BC depending on final size). Can fit 2 strip miners but no bonuses towards them. And at least 1 utility high above & beyond the strip miners. Leave drone capability intact for defence but no guns at all.
Covetor then gets treated as if it were a Cruiser or BC (My preference goes towards treating Barges as BC's so they are bigger lumbering vessels that feel appropriate for chewing through ore). Slots, PG/CPU & base EHP per Cruisers. Ore Hold to match current Proc hold. New stacking penalised module to increase ore hold or cargo expansions now stacking penalise and affect ore hold also. 3 Strip Miners, 4/5 highslots, new 'Mining Processor' that works like Command Processor but lets you fit an additional strip miner.

This then lets you think about what you really want to fit on your Barges, do you go for 5 strip miners but sacrifice all your CPU to do this (Ala 6 link T3's) so have utterly no tank. Do you take a Moderate balance in the middle with prop mods, do you go dual buffer tank for brick. Etc.
Just as reference for the gankers whining that 'I'm just wanting to Buff EHP' an untanked Cyclone has 20k EHP vs Omni, & basically identical 20k vs blasters. Which should be achievable by a max skill solo catalyst in a 0.5 system. Proc's start at 26k and go up from there with fittings. You could insist that they only count as cruisers, but then they get Cruiser align times, speed & sig bonuses compared to BC's, making them harder to catch. But having only 8kish EHP unfitted. If they get real fittings and opportunities, I'm not fussed either way, the current problem is the lack of options when you only have 3-4 slots to even think about on the T1's, of which at least 1 has to be an MLU for any real mining ability (How many of you make a DPS fit with no DPS enhancing mods of any sort after all), and no PG or CPU to put anything decent into those slots also.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#71 - 2015-04-15 02:38:12 UTC
PJRiddick wrote:
im good with the yields of the hulk,.I just want a better tank.

You said earlier that you're getting similar yields on a Skiff, if I'm understanding you correctly. I assume you mean if you fit the Skiff for max yield and the Hulk for max tank, then they have about the same yield but Skiff gets a bigger hold and much MUCH better tank. This is my problem. People are willing to accept small marginal improvements but it doesn't mean it's fair. Given the way the tradeoff works in terms of tank vs. yield, the Hulk and Covetor should have a larger margin in yield even if their tank were improved.

But I'm with Nevyn in thinking the base HP is fine on the barges (and should be nerfed on the Procurer/Skiff), and that they should be given more slots and powergrid/CPU so the player can either fit tank modules or other modules as they choose.



Nevyn Auscent wrote:
I.E.
Repurpose Procurer to match Navy Vexor Bonuses, but no gun slots (To avoid model redesign, if model redesign is possible I'd add unbonused missile/gun hardpoints), Can still fit one strip miner but no bonuses, maybe only 100 Drone Bandwidth or something. Very small ore hold.

I'm thinking a nice setup would be 5 high slots (much like a combat cruiser), with innate ability to fit one strip miner, and 2 launcher hardpoints. 4 mid slots and 4 low slots, with a lowish amount of powergrid, like 300mw. Two popular setups maybe:
1.) 1 strip miner, 2 RLMLs, probe launcher, cloaking device
2.) 2 strip miners, 2 RLMLs, probe launcher, command processor in mid slot

It would have much higher base shield HP than armor. This combined with the low powergrid (and CPU not very high) would manage a few balance points:
1.) low powergrid makes HP-increasing modules less available, skewing the balance in favor of shield tanking
1.a) since shield tanking is easier to fit, command processors are more likely to cost defense whereas MLUs are mostly going to cost cargo space or evasiveness
2.) RLMLs preferrable to save powergrid which reduces sustained combat viability while improving its ability to defend itself in the occasional gank
3.) more than one command processor will not be particularly viable as it will cost too much in tank and use up a lot of powergrid and most of the CPU

I already think there should be a special type of ore pockets you have to scan down which would contain small asteroids of richer ore, spread apart enough to make normal barges useless in there. This would be useful to Ventures and Prospects. But some of these could perhaps have asteroids a bit larger and a bit closer together in exchange for some rats you must fight off. These pockets would be more ideal for Procurers and Skiffs, but still useful for the more daring Venture or Prospect pilots. The richer ores will improve the value of a single haul--if the abundant asteroids in highsec are sufficiently marginalized into limited mineral yields, and if the richer ore types (+5% and +10% yield) are improved to make a larger margin, then it could become viable to spent a significant amount of time hunting for a small ore haul. This would help bridge the gap between mining and exploration, and expand the versatility of the mining profession.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."

Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#72 - 2015-04-15 03:03:58 UTC
I was specifically meaning Cruiser PG, so take oh..... a Moa as the base PG/CPU. Being shield tanked also.
So that they can actually fit a full set of cruiser fittings. Like, oh, Prop mods, they can actually use shield extenders or plates if they want to brick tank, etc.
Rather than continuing the current line of gimped fitting thinking.

The best analogy for EVE in terms of historical time period is actually the Spanish treasure galleons, not the super tankers of today. The Spanish sailed in an era of true piracy, and often had more guns and heavier hull than the pirates attacking them, despite hauling massive cargo's in their ships. They were just slow to manoeuvre so could be out sailed, or a pack of pirates might attack a single galleon.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#73 - 2015-04-15 05:17:09 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
So that they can actually fit a full set of cruiser fittings. Like, oh, Prop mods, they can actually use shield extenders or plates if they want to brick tank, etc.
Rather than continuing the current line of gimped fitting thinking.

Oh I know, but remember that after you put guns on your cruiser, most of the powergrid is already gone.

If it was given 400mw powergrid, it could easily fit 2 launchers, a MWD, and a command processor. The strip miners only take 1mw. Now it would struggle to fit on a 1600mm armor plate but so do other cruisers, without gimping their weapons anyway. At 300mw, it needs to be a bit more cautious with powergrid expenditure. It can fit a 200mm armor plate, but a large shield extender is a lot more forgiving. I'm not suggesting putting its fitting anywhere near as limited as the Procurer or Skiff are currently, with 45mw/50mw of powergrid. 300mw is very much within the cruiser range, just on the low end. We'll chalk that up to it being an industrial ship, probably has its hull more focused on carrying capacity than power routing capacity.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."

Eve Solecist
Shitt Outta Luck - GANKING4GOOD
#74 - 2015-04-15 05:20:07 UTC
Hulk ... smash?
  • All incoming connection attempts are being blocked. If you want to speak to me you will find me either in Hek local, you can create a contract or make a thread about it in General Discussions. I will call you back. -
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#75 - 2015-04-15 05:23:50 UTC
please let this thread die, and for good.
PJRiddick
CherryHill
#76 - 2015-04-16 13:22:13 UTC
~-=+>shakes head<+=-~
Kiddoomer
The Red Sequence
#77 - 2015-04-16 13:39:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Kiddoomer
I don't want to see weapons on any barge nor exhumer, but a drone damage and hitpoints (maybe drone yield) bonus would be far better for defensive capabilities of mackinaw and hulk (ORE is a "pirate" Gallente faction after all, trying to put missiles in the picture seems silly).

And being able to put large shield extender without fitting module on hulk or mackinaw (and skiff too !) is something I don't like, a damage control and active/passive shield resistance is all these ships need IMO.

About roles of the three sizes, I would really like way more emphasis on the player brain to "make" his/her own mining ship, with modules or subsystem for ore hold, cpu/pg or number of strip miners, with each bigger ship size having a larger customization space.

In the name of Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen : “Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.”

Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#78 - 2015-04-16 21:15:14 UTC
Kiddoomer wrote:
(ORE is a "pirate" Gallente faction after all, trying to put missiles in the picture seems silly).

Mercenaries are known to fly Caldari hulls and fit lasers to them. There's no reason a pirate faction needs to be held to the same old limited views as the Navy of the faction they ran away from. If anything, it makes sense for a pirate faction to cover obvious flaws in the Navy's design philosophy. Missiles would work well with mining barges, if they were to try to fit weapon systems in the high slots. They work well with the fitting space available, too, being cheaper on powergrid and costing more CPU instead.



Why do you feel that the barges should not be able to fit a large shield extender, if you do feel they should have more fitting options than current? It's not like they'll suddenly get too much EHP. Their base HP should be nerfed to be more like combat ships of their size, and then giving them powergrid and fitting slots will not make them overpowered but will instead make fitting them yield more possible options, and put the power in the player's hands.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."

Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#79 - 2015-04-17 00:56:31 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:

Oh I know, but remember that after you put guns on your cruiser, most of the powergrid is already gone.

If it was given 400mw powergrid, it could easily fit 2 launchers, a MWD, and a command processor. The strip miners only take 1mw. Now it would struggle to fit on a 1600mm armor plate but so do other cruisers, without gimping their weapons anyway. At 300mw, it needs to be a bit more cautious with powergrid expenditure. It can fit a 200mm armor plate, but a large shield extender is a lot more forgiving. I'm not suggesting putting its fitting anywhere near as limited as the Procurer or Skiff are currently, with 45mw/50mw of powergrid. 300mw is very much within the cruiser range, just on the low end. We'll chalk that up to it being an industrial ship, probably has its hull more focused on carrying capacity than power routing capacity.

Yet Vexors & Ishtars don't suddenly have half the PG of other ships despite the fact they don't have to fit guns as drone ships. If you give them real PG they get real fitting options. You might also give Strip Miners some PG costs along side I suppose, but it also allows for a greater variety of 'surprise, a full rack of neut' fits. Rather than continuing to artifically restrict them.
Kiddoomer
The Red Sequence
#80 - 2015-04-17 10:37:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Kiddoomer
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Kiddoomer wrote:
(ORE is a "pirate" Gallente faction after all, trying to put missiles in the picture seems silly).

Mercenaries are known to fly Caldari hulls and fit lasers to them. There's no reason a pirate faction needs to be held to the same old limited views as the Navy of the faction they ran away from. If anything, it makes sense for a pirate faction to cover obvious flaws in the Navy's design philosophy. Missiles would work well with mining barges, if they were to try to fit weapon systems in the high slots. They work well with the fitting space available, too, being cheaper on powergrid and costing more CPU instead.


Fair point, but missile need space in cargohold, space already used by mining crystals. But yes, lasers could be cool too I guess (but maybe the cap needed by both strip miner and lasers would be too much without a cap buff).


Reaver Glitterstim wrote:

Why do you feel that the barges should not be able to fit a large shield extender, if you do feel they should have more fitting options than current? It's not like they'll suddenly get too much EHP. Their base HP should be nerfed to be more like combat ships of their size, and then giving them powergrid and fitting slots will not make them overpowered but will instead make fitting them yield more possible options, and put the power in the player's hands.


Large shield extender add a lot of ehp to a cruiser ship, and is a no-brainer for passive tank, since ganker go for the dps spike to the face to be able to gank before Concord comes. Resistances imo need more thinking (thermal+kin or rat (nullsec)).
But if strip miners start to consume PG then I'm totally fine with slightly buffing PG by mining barge modules or native to give more fitting options to the player.

In the name of Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen : “Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.”