These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Science & Industry

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

What do you think CCP is planning for the barge rework?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Gunrunner1775
Empire Hooligans
#101 - 2016-08-17 07:37:03 UTC
just messed around on test with the new stuff

love the graphics... as for fitting out the ships, tank vs yield ect

due to the current nature of the environment, the vast majority will probobly be sticking with the skiff still

as for the screams by code and other entities to nurf the skiff, i am not the least bit concerned. it was designed to tank belt rats in null sec, and will thus remain as it is,

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#102 - 2016-08-17 08:05:44 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Gunrunner1775 wrote:
just messed around on test with the new stuff

love the graphics... as for fitting out the ships, tank vs yield ect

due to the current nature of the environment, the vast majority will probobly be sticking with the skiff still

as for the screams by code and other entities to nurf the skiff, i am not the least bit concerned. it was designed to tank belt rats in null sec, and will thus remain as it is,



The problem is that the skiff and proc overshadow the other 4 barges. They should not be getting such a massive base tank, they should be getting the fitting options to get a good tank and the other barges should be getting an equal ability to be able to actually fit things to them.

Skiff and proc should get their base hp brought back down to normal levels, keep the combat bonus to drones, get a few more slots and fitting room to open up options and allow for a decent combat fit. They are now perfect mining escorts/defence boats for both fleet work and solo.

Retriever and mackinaw both need a good deal more slots and CPU/PG so they can actually have options when fitting them. CCP need to get creative here so I would say go radical. Give them two utility highs and a small bonus to remote shield boosters. Alter the cap to compensate. Again, they need the ability to actually fit a decent setup, 1 mid and 3 lows are next to useless.

Covetor and Hulk should be the go to strip miners, they also need more fitting slots and CPU/PG to actually fit things. Again, 1 mid and 3 lows does not a good ship make.
Gunrunner1775
Empire Hooligans
#103 - 2016-08-17 08:20:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Gunrunner1775
if they did as you suggest Baltec, lower the tank, and add add more cpu and more slots to the skiff / proc , then in theory, those fitting slots could be used to make the skiff mine more then the mak or hulk combined

would be right back in the same situation with everyone useing skiffs.. some fit as tank some fit for max yield, and you would never know which

their tank was ballanced around null sec - wormhole mining

they already mine worse then the others..... by serious sacrifice in yield they gain the tank,

the real question is WHY nurf the tank on the skiff??? to make it easier to gank?? game does not revolve around ganking, there be other aspects of the game,, wormhole, null sec industry ect were the tank is used

another option:
they could go back to the way it was years ago
give all them the same tank, have 1 ship specilized in ice, one in gas/mercocite, and one in astroids

if you nurf the tank all you would then see all the high sec miners mineing in either the mining frigates or mining with Dominix or Rokh or another trurret based battleship (like it was done years ago) .. Rokh can fit a good tank and still mine almost as much as a skiff
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#104 - 2016-08-17 08:43:26 UTC
Gunrunner1775 wrote:
if they did as you suggest Baltec, lower the tank, and add add more cpu and more slots to the skiff / proc , then in theory, those fitting slots could be used to make the skiff mine more then the mak or hulk combined


Diminishing returns on fitted mods, past 3 mining upgrade the improvement would be non existent. Just like weapon mods.



Gunrunner1775 wrote:

the real question is WHY nurf the tank on the skiff??? to make it easier to gank?? game does not revolve around ganking, there be other aspects of the game,, wormhole, null sec industry ect were the tank is used


Same reason the t3 ships need a massive nerf, they invalidate the other other ships. Notice that I am not saying lower the skiff and proc to covetor levels of tank and leave them there, I am saying reduce the base tank of the skiff/proc down to the level of the other miners then buff all of them so they are all useful.

The base profile of the hulk for example is not too different from a zealot, the difference is that it is lacking in slots, CPU and powergrid. The skiff should not get its huge tank from the hull it should come from the pilot actively choosing to fit a good tank.
Gunrunner1775
Empire Hooligans
#105 - 2016-08-17 08:44:19 UTC
for the most part, the miners are shield tanks,,

the only real way to ballance the tank vs yield issue

make them all armor tanks.

reduce them to only 2 midslots each (enough for an AB or mwd, and survey scanner)

give them bunch of low slots.. and now they choose, tank or yield since both armor tank and mining upgrades go in the low slot

but then again, you run into the situtation of crafty players comeing up with ways to tweek the tank or tweek the yield, and then right back were we started ... might as well have only 1 type of mining barge and 1 type of exhumer then and get rid of the others
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#106 - 2016-08-17 08:58:48 UTC
Gunrunner1775 wrote:
for the most part, the miners are shield tanks,,

the only real way to ballance the tank vs yield issue

make them all armor tanks.

reduce them to only 2 midslots each (enough for an AB or mwd, and survey scanner)

give them bunch of low slots.. and now they choose, tank or yield since both armor tank and mining upgrades go in the low slot

but then again, you run into the situtation of crafty players comeing up with ways to tweek the tank or tweek the yield, and then right back were we started ... might as well have only 1 type of mining barge and 1 type of exhumer then and get rid of the others


Making them armour tankers makes a lot of sense in terms of balance when it comes to fitting them. Personally I think cargo expanders should have an impact on the ore holds too simple to add more options to consider. The bays would naturally have to be altered to take that into account.
Gunrunner1775
Empire Hooligans
#107 - 2016-08-17 09:13:18 UTC
if they went with the armor tank method, then for the skiff to retain its tankability / survivability in null sec - wormhole space, it would have to have significant number of low slots to fit the tank

in return this would make for nearly ungankable ships in high sec ... or... would create a skiff that would have more yield then makinaw and hulk combined.. even with dimenishing returns on the mining laser upgrades...


then everyone would be flying skiffs again...
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#108 - 2016-08-17 09:31:17 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Gunrunner1775 wrote:
if they went with the armor tank method, then for the skiff to retain its tankability / survivability in null sec - wormhole space, it would have to have significant number of low slots to fit the tank

in return this would make for nearly ungankable ships in high sec ... or... would create a skiff that would have more yield then makinaw and hulk combined.. even with dimenishing returns on the mining laser upgrades...


then everyone would be flying skiffs again...


They used use to be more lowslot focused. The yield won't be an issue, all 4 of the other mining barges have bonuses to mining amount so putting them all on an even level in terms of ability to fit a tank will open up the options. Right now the reason why just about everyone is in the skiff and procurer is simply down to the fact the have a monster of a tank while the rest cant get close or even fit a tank at all.

To put the madness into perspective, the Iteron V gets 5 lows, 4 mids and two highs. The covetor has 3 lows, one mid, two highs on sisi. The skiff cannot be allowed to keep its large base hp, it much be lowered down to around the 10.6k ehp mark. The procurer should be dropped down to around 6.4k ehp. Then you
Gunrunner1775
Empire Hooligans
#109 - 2016-08-17 09:43:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Gunrunner1775
skiff has worst yield and best tank

if you nurf the tank, what do you give it in return??

almost everyone calling for nurf to skiff has been gankers because they want it easier gank in high sec, perhaps its because smart miners have chosen tank over yield and profit

the reason behind the tank on the skiff, was to allow them to survive belt rats in null sec wormhole space

should all us in wormhole space and null sec alter our play style to revolve around the crying of the 1% high sec gankers??

this is not an easy fix by any means
i just do not want to see CCP bend to the 1%

Needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few

another way to look at it

i can choose
skiff for greater survivability and make about 15 mil isk / hour
makinaw for about 19 mil isk / hour but alot less survivable
hulk if i got a fleet to work with and then make about 22 mil isk an hour
Eternus8lux8lucis
Guardians of the Gate
RAZOR Alliance
#110 - 2016-08-17 10:42:31 UTC
Kueyen wrote:
And for ice harvesting, max-cycle-time-fitted (but: unrigged, since you probably need some CPU rigs to even fit the Ice Harvester Upgrade II's), all skills to V, and no boosts or :

A) m³ per cycle:
All:        1000m³/c  »  1000m³/c    (unchanged)

B) ice harvesters per ship
Procurer:   1         »  2           (+50%)
Retriever:  2         »  2           (unchanged)
Covetor:    3         »  2           (-33%)
Skiff:      1         »  2           (+50%)
Mackinaw:   2         »  2           (unchanged)
Hulk:       3         »  2           (-33%)

C) seconds per cycle
Procurer:    55.90s/c »  111.79s/c   (+100% time = -50% m³/s)
Retriever:  101.73s/c »   81.39s/c   (-20% time = +25% m³/s)
Covetor:    124.22s/c »   76.30s/c   (-38.575% time = +62.8% m³/s)
Skiff:       45.78s/c »   91.56s/c   (+100% time = -50% m³/s)
Mackinaw:    91.56s/c »   73.25s/c   (-20% time = +25% m³/s)
Hulk:       105.58s/c »   64.85s/c   (-35.575% time = +62.8% m³/s)

F) m³ per second (= A*B/C)
Procurer:   17.89m³/s »  17.89m³/s   (unchanged)
Retriever:  19.66m³/s »  24.57m³/s   (+25%)
Covetor:    24.15m³/s »  26.21m³/s   (+8.53%)
Skiff:      21.84m³/s »  21.84m³/s   (unchanged)
Mackinaw:   21.84m³/s »  27.30m³/s   (+25%)
Hulk:       28.41m³/s »  30.84m³/s   (+8.53%)

If the procurer and the skiff lose the 60% duration bonus why is the cycle time being multiplied by 100% instead of 60%? This would change a lot in your calculations imo.

Have you heard anything I've said?

You said it's all circling the drain, the whole universe. Right?

That's right.

Had to end sometime.
Zerzzes Markarian
McCloud and Markarian Trade and Logistics Corp.
#111 - 2016-08-17 12:14:07 UTC
I don't know, maybe I'm doing something wrong. I've been mining for years in high-sec with Retrievers and Macks, and haven't lost a single one. And I see quite a lot of people using them as well in Ore belts. This whole discussion is just about yield vs. tank, while for me the ore hold is the reason I'm using the Mack. Because if you factor in the warp times to POS/station when you don't have a hauler in the belt, the Mack wins.
Kalido Raddi
Crown Mineworks
#112 - 2016-08-17 12:23:34 UTC
Eternus8lux8lucis wrote:
If the procurer and the skiff lose the 60% duration bonus why is the cycle time being multiplied by 100% instead of 60%? This would change a lot in your calculations imo.


If it were just a case of the Ship traits changing, then the Procurer's cycle time would increase by 150%. However, there have also been changes to the Strip Miner and Ice Harvester modules, which reduce the Ice Harvester's duration by 20%, thus keeping the overall cycle time of the Procurer identical to before.

http://i.imgur.com/CorMkCt.png
Kueyen
Angharradh's Aegis
#113 - 2016-08-17 12:27:16 UTC
Eternus8lux8lucis wrote:
If the procurer and the skiff lose the 60% duration bonus why is the cycle time being multiplied by 100% instead of 60%? This would change a lot in your calculations imo.
The part you are missing is the -20% cycle time bonus all ice harvesters are getting (which boils down to a 25% yield over time increase, identical to the +25% yield bonus all strip miners are getting), In total, Procurers and Skiffs lose their x0.4 (-60%) cycle time role bonus, get a yield doubling from fitting 2 ice harvesters instead of one, and gain the new 0.8 (-20%) cycle time bonus of the new ice harvesters.

  • new cycle time is 1 / 0.4 * 0.8 (losing the 0.4 role bonus, and gaining the 0.8 ice harvester bonus), and thus doubles
  • new yield is 1 * 2 (gaining a second ice harvester), and thus doubles.

Net result: double the yield in double the time = same yield per time unit.

Also, while I rewrote this post several times, I have been ninja-ed by Kalido Raddi Big smile

Until all are free...
Kalido Raddi
Crown Mineworks
#114 - 2016-08-17 12:46:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Kalido Raddi
Yours is more detailed :)

I'm still finding interesting things.

The Hulk still has it's crystal damage issue, although it's not quite as severe any more. It now eats Crystals only 40% faster than the Skiff (& Mackinaw) does, rather than almost 70%. Partly this is because the Skiff will eat more of them too. That part is good news for me as I make Tech2 Mining Crystals!

The Hulk is looking like the stand-out winner of this pass. It gains more of everything it was already superior in: It mines more than ever before, with a 40% better yield over time compared to the Skiff, it has an extra low slot. It also becomes the fastest cycler, which has tactical implications for competitive mining environments like Ice Rushes.

The downside is that the Hulk is going to be an awful pain to fit. Losing 40 tf (and 5 MW) is an obvious offset to the reduction in the number of Strip Miners it needs to fit, but the addition of a 3rd MLU is going to make for some very tight fits (unless the CPU requirements of Strips and Harvesters changed on SiSi - I haven't managed to log on and check yet). Mining Upgrades 5 just got a lot more worthwhile.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#115 - 2016-08-17 13:30:20 UTC
Gunrunner1775 wrote:


if you nurf the tank, what do you give it in return??


Nothing, you add it into the rework of ALL the barges, giving all of them the ability to actually fit the ships. The advantage of the skiff would be the offensive ability.


Gunrunner1775 wrote:

the reason behind the tank on the skiff, was to allow them to survive belt rats in null sec wormhole space

should all us in wormhole space and null sec alter our play style to revolve around the crying of the 1% high sec gankers??



The skiff wasn't made tanky for null and WH use, if that was the case it would have been tilted towards active tanking. The raw HP buff was purely for the whining highsec bears who refused to fit any tank. CCP decided to do it for them and ended up with these problem ship we have now. Null has already been forced to adapt to the wants of a minority of highsec, null can adapt again only this time all the barges should be useful, not just two.

Again I will point out, the covetor and retribution cannot fit a tank, they simply have no slots to do it and the hulk and mack are both short of CPU to make use of the slots they have. The barges are poorly balanced against eachother and against the other ships out there.
Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#116 - 2016-08-17 13:58:23 UTC
In figuring yield, there is one real world consideration.
Most miners do not scan the roid and try and time their strip cycle to avoid wasting time on a depleted roid. Thus, on average, the last cycle will have wasted time, on average half a cycle.
In high sec, right now, the average roid lasts 6 cycles of a Hulk, 4 cycles for a Mack, and 2 cycles for a Skiff. This is all due to the bonuses and the differing number of strips. As a result, the Hulk loses 8% yield due to wasted time, 12% for the Mack, and 25% for the Skiff.
All theses values will change to 16% for all exhumers due to all having 2 strips. Thus, with this real world consideration, Skiffs get a 13% buff and Hulks get a 4% nerf.

Stay in your Skiffs, folks.

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction
Gunrunner1775
Empire Hooligans
#117 - 2016-08-17 14:49:25 UTC
Quote:


DEV BLOG

Ship Balancing: Mining Barges

2012-08-03 18:10 |By CCP Tallest


The goal here is to allow players to choose a barge that fits their specific play style rather than lead them on a journey from the worst barge to the best one.
• The Covetor and Hulk cater to group mining operations due to their large mining capability, low EHP and storage, forcing them to rely on others to haul and resupply them with mining crystals.
• The Retriever and Mackinaw are specifically designed for autonomy purposes, as their large ore bays allow their pilot to stay inside an asteroid belt for longer without having to dock.
• The Procurer and Skiff are made for protection against suicide gank, or NPCs, by giving a large enough buffer to react to incoming attacks, while paying for that with a lower mining yield.



i dont see any problems with the design concept
hopefully they continue to stick with this one
Kueyen
Angharradh's Aegis
#118 - 2016-08-17 15:35:20 UTC
Vincent Athena wrote:
In figuring yield, there is one real world consideration.
Most miners do not scan the roid and try and time their strip cycle to avoid wasting time on a depleted roid. Thus, on average, the last cycle will have wasted time, on average half a cycle.
In high sec, right now, the average roid lasts 6 cycles of a Hulk, 4 cycles for a Mack, and 2 cycles for a Skiff. This is all due to the bonuses and the differing number of strips. As a result, the Hulk loses 8% yield due to wasted time, 12% for the Mack, and 25% for the Skiff.
All theses values will change to 16% for all exhumers due to all having 2 strips. Thus, with this real world consideration, Skiffs get a 13% buff and Hulks get a 4% nerf.

Stay in your Skiffs, folks.
Not entirely correct.

I refer you back to my earlier post that shows that Mackinaw and Skiff cycles will be 41% longer than Hulk cycles, and Mack cycles will be 25% more voluminous than Hulk or Skiff cycles. Regardless of how many cycles whatever asteroid would take you to mine in a Hulk, the Skiff will take exactly as many cycles to do so (the Hulk will just do it 41% faster); the Mackinaw will however take 20% fewer cycles, and thus lose a few more percents when not properly managed.

So, not all identical as you asserted. But Skiffs did get buffed in this regard, and Hulks (and Mackinaws) nerfed. but in other regards (total yield per time), Mackinaws got significant buffs. So, if you're on your own, and pay even moderate attention, Mackinaws are decent mining vessels. If you don't pay attention at all... stay in the Skiff, I suppose.

Until all are free...
Kalido Raddi
Crown Mineworks
#119 - 2016-08-17 15:52:45 UTC
@Kueyen: I can't get ontonSisi at the moment. Have the Grid & CPU requirements of the Strip Miners & Ice Harvesters changed with the changes to other stats?
Kueyen
Angharradh's Aegis
#120 - 2016-08-17 17:25:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Kueyen
Kalido Raddi wrote:
@Kueyen: I can't get ontonSisi at the moment. Have the Grid & CPU requirements of the Strip Miners & Ice Harvesters changed with the changes to other stats?
No changes detected. Fun fact: Sisi just went down for maintance... perhaps more changes might become apparent...

edit: as far as I can see, only new Barge/Exhumer/Orca/Rorqual SKINs "Morphite Shite" (red-black). I already noticed the redone "ORE Development" SKINs for Exhumers/Orca/Rorqual yesterday which are an awesome white-black as opposed to the current white-yellow. Police Exhumer ;-) (well, ok, still some yellow trimming here and there)

Until all are free...