These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Mining subsystems, first thought
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Kiddoomer
The Red Sequence
#1 - 2016-04-02 16:04:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Kiddoomer
o/

So before beginning the idea, I know and saw myself a lot of proposals about T3 mining ship, and I'm mostly against those. T3 ships are hard to balance correctly and adding even one more of that kind of ship is bad imo. And besides T3 are about them being modular, so adding subsystems instead of a new ship is common sense to me.

I'll only be talking about adding 2 sets of subsystems for each T3 cruiser, and why ? because mining is the only thing these ships cant do for the jack-of-all-trade they are. They can scout (covert, cyno and go-trough bubbles capabilities), they can do PVE very well (null-sec anom, exploration sites, l4 missions), and PVP too (frontline fighters, boosters, logistic, and EW). But mining is the only thing left over, I dont count hauling because it should stick to ship dedicated for that (still these T3 are still good at moving little shiny stuff). And why 2 subsystems slot because mining ships are supposed to be pray, I don't want them to kill or tank too easily threats that they should have avoided, thing that they can do easily), so I choose the offensive and defensive subsystem to give a option to transform a T3 into a miner.

The first one would be a offensive subsystem, that gives access to strip/ice miners, with a yield around a skiff or mackinaw (both no boosted), with a slot or two and bonuses to accomodate long-range weaponry belonging to each races (drone, artillery, railgun and missiles or beam). I don't think it will really make miners want to go all the time for them because a T3 ship cost around 3-4 time the price of a exhumer, and even if easier to keep alive I'm sure people will still lose them as much as miners lose their 3 types of exhumers quite regulary, but make a miner lose 3 Hulk in one ship will make him think twice before buying a second one.

The second one would give a ore hold, and use the defensive slot of the ship, it could give a bonus too to armor/shield, like passive shield, active shield, active armor and active hull. With a ore hold of someting like 20k m3.

As for why anyone would want that, its because moving mining ships for pvpers that want to give for mining op a hand for some time is more a pain that anything, mining skills will still be needed though. And miners (that are not the most rich people ever in EVE) could have a "goal ship" that they could use everywhere and under the size of a Rorqual, that could give them a preview too to other parts of the mid-game like logistic, ewar and covert cyno. And adding some subsystems is way less work than thinking entire new ships.

Any opinion I welcome, I'm not really sure how to differenciate the 4 races better than proposed (racial weapons and tank), but one thing sure is that will be only about standard ore (no mercoxit) and ice. I could give some numbers once I got some feedback, but dps of each should be between 160-200 dps and a passive tank of 60-70k EHP with very good skills.

In the name of Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen : “Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.”
Bumblefck
Kerensky Initiatives
#2 - 2016-04-02 19:28:09 UTC
This has 50k HP and does about 150DPS...why would you need anything more?


[Procurer, I ♡ Veldspar]
Damage Control II
Power Diagnostic System II

Medium Shield Extender II
Republic Fleet Medium Shield Extender
Stasis Webifier II
Warp Scrambler II

Strip Miner I

Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I


Warrior II x5
Hobgoblin II x5

Perfection is a dish best served like wasabi .

Bumble's Space Log
Kiddoomer
The Red Sequence
#3 - 2016-04-02 19:33:12 UTC
I'm not asking for better, why is there pve tengu when you can use a drake ? why is there a booster loki when you can use a sleipnir ? or why use a ecm tengu where you can use a rook ? I'm talking about that kind of choices.

In the name of Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen : “Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.”
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#4 - 2016-04-02 21:05:21 UTC  |  Edited by: ShahFluffers
Kiddoomer wrote:
I'm not asking for better

Ummm... yeah. You kinda are.

Kiddoomer wrote:
why is there pve tengu when you can use a drake ?

Because the Tengu is faster, tankier, and hits harder. Oh yeah... and it can be reconfigured at a safespot to cloak and pass through bubbles at the same time.

If ISK and survival are not considerations, there is really no reason you should be flying a Drake over a Tengu.

Kiddoomer wrote:
why is there a booster loki when you can use a sleipnir ?

Because the Loki warps faster and can be configured to cloak and pass through bubbles.

Sure, the Loki gives lower warfare link bonuses than a Sleipnir... but it can evade danger FAR more effectively.

Kiddoomer wrote:
or why use a ecm tengu where you can use a rook ?

Because the Tengu can be made into a tanky BRICK. A Rook has the tank of a wet paper sack.

Sure, you lose some jamming strength... but you have MUCH higher odds of seeing the fight through in a Tengu.

Kiddoomer wrote:
I'm talking about that kind of choices.

Look... if you want a Tech 3 barge (and for the record, I am not against the idea of one) it should probably be an ORE brand ship.

The trick will be to make it so that it isn't a flat out superior choice to any of the current barges/exhumers the same way some Tech 3 cruiser configurations are to some other ships.
This means it can't outmine the Hulk, out-capacity the Mackinaw, or out-tank the Skiff.
You could even give it minor hauling abilities... but then you have to worry about it stepping on the toes of Tech 2 Transports (cloaky and super tanky respectively).

How did you Veterans start?
Bumblefck
Kerensky Initiatives
#5 - 2016-04-02 21:48:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Bumblefck
Kiddoomer wrote:
I'm not asking for better, why is there pve tengu when you can use a drake ? why is there a booster loki when you can use a sleipnir ? or why use a ecm tengu where you can use a rook ? I'm talking about that kind of choices.




Why eat a pizza and **** in the toilet separately, when you can save time and eat a **** pizza?



Basically, more choices don't necessarily always mean better choices.

Perfection is a dish best served like wasabi .

Bumble's Space Log
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#6 - 2016-04-02 21:57:30 UTC
Bumblefck wrote:
Basically, more choices don't necessarily always mean better choices.

I think this needs to be enshrined and emphasized everywhere... even in real life.

How did you Veterans start?
Kiddoomer
The Red Sequence
#7 - 2016-04-03 12:13:01 UTC
ShahFluffers wrote:
Bumblefck wrote:
Basically, more choices don't necessarily always mean better choices.

I think this needs to be enshrined and emphasized everywhere... even in real life.


Well, I understant what you said, but I dont really undestand then, when people make t3 mining ship proposal (even when it's quite well balanced looking at stats), its recieved more or like "dafuk is that ****** up sh**, just proposed subs instead", so why only a few subsystems to existing ships would be a bad idea ? (I don't get what you mean by better, its under the stats of the 3 exhumers, but way better at escaping and cost way more to compensate).
And besides I think, a tengu with mining subs would be far better at escaping than any barges, because of their very slow align time for their class, and moving them anywhere takes ages and is very risky without putting them in a transport ship.

By saying not better than a mining ship I was mostly talking about the stats compared to each three exhumers, so as you said under the thank of a skiff, the ore hold of a mack and the yield/range of a hulk, but with the ability to become other ships with the same hull and a station or mobile depot for other purposes at the cost of a higher price than the dedicated ship they mimic.
I could look at the t3 mining ships ideas already proposed and take a look at their feedback, compare stats with mining and hauling ships, and post my own T3 ore ship idea, but honestly I don't think it could go above all of the drowning negative responses.
To me a few subsystems could be better accepted than a brand new ship, and finally gives to miners (those that need to dish out big amount of ores, not explorers) something else than just mining barges/exhumers or just get lost.


Edit : dammit, as i wanted to click post yesterday tranquility and the forum crashed lol

In the name of Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen : “Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.”
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#8 - 2016-04-03 17:17:08 UTC  |  Edited by: ShahFluffers
Kiddoomer wrote:
Well, I understant what you said, but I dont really undestand then, when people make t3 mining ship proposal (even when it's quite well balanced looking at stats)

We must have different definitions of "balanced."

I have yet to see a "balanced" T3 mining barge proposal.
Part of the issue is that people use current Tech 3 ships as a template for bonuses and abilities... and they shouldn't. Current Tech 3 ships are actually pretty overpowered when all things are considered.


Kiddoomer wrote:
(I don't get what you mean by better, its under the stats of the 3 exhumers, but way better at escaping and cost way more to compensate).

Cost is not a very good limiting factor. In fact, cost is a meaningless thing to a person like myself or a well funded organization.

And by "better" I mean this;

Your idea proposes to have a mining subsystem option in the T3 Cruiser Offensive slot.
This still allows a T3 Cruiser to fit the following because they are different subsystem slots.
- massive tank
- interdiction nullification ability
- lots of Ewar
- extra slots, CPU, and/or Powergrid to fit more modules.

Even if the mining subsystems provide lower mining yield than barges/exhumers, the overall ship will still be superior to a barge/exhumer in all other respects.

Kiddoomer wrote:
I could look at the t3 mining ships ideas already proposed and take a look at their feedback, compare stats with mining and hauling ships, and post my own T3 ore ship idea, but honestly I don't think it could go above all of the drowning negative responses.

Pro-tips:

- When proposing a ship idea, NEVER. Give. Stats. Not precise ones at least (and clearly state this too).
Sell the concept of the ship first (see: why is this needed?). Leave the stat details up to the DEVs. Even if other players start goading you into providing more precise stats, be a little vague.
----------- Example: "ZZ stat on this ship concept should be lower than the one achieved on XXX ship... to compensate, it will have higher YY stat, but even that stat won't be as high as the one found on VVV ship... "

- Show how said ship will not "step on the toes" of current ships.
If you create a ship that is, in general, preferable to ships we currently have... you probably need to tone down the ship concept a bit or introduce a nasty penalty.

- Cost is not a good limiting factor and should never be used to justify something "being better."
Remember; for us older and more well funded players, cost is not a big factor (or a factor at all) in our decision making process. For younger, poorer, and less financially stable players... it is.
What high cost does is set up a "barrier to entry" for the latter group to be as effective/safe/strong as the former group. It also create a sense of entitlement (ex: "my ship is expensive and it died to general rabble... it should be buffed so this can't happen).

- Format, format, format.
You are on an online forum. Creating large paragraphs for a single idea is going to make peoples' eyes glaze over.
Break things down, bullet point things, use line breaks, make things easy to digest, keep the sentences short and to the point.
I can't tell you the number of ideas that I have seen on this forum that were actually decent... but the OP formatted it so badly that it was simply ignored.



And yes, I understand the pain of being ripped to pieces on this forum. I have posted some ideas on this forum too. Smile
You need thick skin to be here and understand that most of comments are not attacks on you personally. Most people here are just passionate about how they feel the game should be. I am no exception to this.

Then again... a lot of REALLY bad ideas do come though here too. So most of us are a little jaded. Sad

How did you Veterans start?
Kiddoomer
The Red Sequence
#9 - 2016-04-03 17:46:57 UTC
Thanks for the clarification, It's clearly understandable for me now.

I know T3 are too good in certain cases now, people have been asking a lot for their rebalance, I keep in mind that their modularity is their advantage, not any real better stat somewhere, and that the price of a T3 cruiser is meaningless to people who can buy capitals.

But about prices again, the actual T3 can do pve activities that can gives lot of money, like ratting tengu and legion and data/relic site in wh, but the ore t3 will not bring 20M per tick with mining/salvaging/hauling most of the time, and it will be only a PVE ship given its purposes, so I don't really about what range of price to give him.

I created ideas that have been well recieved like the survey scanner tweak one and making mining drone ship able to work with the same shortcut key as all other drones to send them mine repeadly, but ships are an other thing to discuss. I'll try what you suggested by using mostly comparisons between the T3 and ships imitated by it.

One thing for sure is that I will rethink the subsystems class, this ore T3 will need to be modular differently than strategic cruisers, with less and different subsystem classes.

In the name of Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen : “Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.”
unidenify
Deaf Armada
#10 - 2016-04-03 19:51:29 UTC  |  Edited by: unidenify
I admit I like idea about Mining Subsystem

but problem is how to balance it so it don't outperform Mining Barge/Frigate in their specialization role

Other thing to consider is which type of sub-system it should fall
DrysonBennington
Eagle's Talon's
#11 - 2016-04-04 14:16:12 UTC
A Mining Ship with Subsystems sounds to me like a Combat Barge that can be configured using a Mobile Depot to change its configuration when needed.

While in mining mode the Mining Sub would have a large ore bay of 10,000 m/3 plus bonuses based on skills along with bonuses and penalties for mining range, mining yield, cycle times as well as well being able to overload its mining lasers to generate a faster cycle and better yields. Another sub would be that T3 Barge would be able to have a Mining Crystal Sub added that would mine more of the specific type of ore based on the Sub Module.


While in Combat Mode or Mining Mode the barge could warp while cloaked but would uncloak upon landing thus needing to re cloak. Would have the DPS of a cruiser of around 450 base, could mount any type of weapon up to cruiser size without any penalties that would be augmented by skills.


The Combat Barge would allow High Sector Capsuleer's to recon into Low and Null mine some of the good ore and then escape back into High Sector.