These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[September] Mining Barge and Exhumer tweaks

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Brokk Witgenstein
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#261 - 2016-08-27 18:17:10 UTC
Oh. I thought you meant something substantial. Carry on pls.
Drago Shouna
Doomheim
#262 - 2016-08-27 18:20:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Drago Shouna
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Brokk Witgenstein wrote:
If it's not failfit he's right, no?
Or did you have a bigger DST than the rest of us?



... you mean like a bustard naked that gets 67.5k now i may not of graduated the 5th grade but i'm pretty sure 67>63


the smallest one unfit gets 65.6k


Uniwiki :)

Only checked the Occator as well.

The Fleet Hangar size is increased by the Transport Ships skill to 62,500 m³ (at level 5). And yeah, with the cargo hold it holds more. Still costs 200x more though.

Solecist Project...." They refuse to play by the rules and laws of the game and use it as excuse ..." " They don't care about how you play as long as they get to play how they want."

Welcome to EVE.
Kalido Raddi
Crown Mineworks
#263 - 2016-08-27 18:35:35 UTC
The Bustard is both capable of carrying more Ore, capable of tanking anom rats all the way down to -1.0, has the fitting to run remote shield reps to keep your Hulks on grid even if they are being beaten on by the aforementioned rats, and has a Fleet Hangar that you can set access to in order to permit your Hulks to dump Ore directly into the DST.

It's definitely superior to the Miasmos in every way... well, except cost. But if I've got 3 250mil+ Hulks on grid, what's against having a DST of similar value there?
Edward Perry
Signs of Life
#264 - 2016-08-27 21:19:02 UTC
Not a fan, from my perspective you just shuffled around the numbers seems like a lot of work for no gain.

I agree with some of the other comments, you need to add some PVP defence or abilities to the mining barges and exhumers.

I loose ships in WH because my opponents cloak (outside of descan range) warp to the anomalies and pop a bubble. The ships are dead before anyone can react. They have no hope to warp off fast enough, they have no speed to get outside a bubble and defense is crap even the skiff can't take on multiple ships with its drones.

They are just death traps, the only saving grace is that I can mine and replace them.


But still these ships are not PVP how about giving them what they need to avoid it too (or at least a way of a good pilot to escape or go undetects)

Like if your close enough to a roid you're not detectable on dscan ,

How about Roids block you on LOS on the overview. If you can't see them then they don't show up on the overview.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#265 - 2016-08-27 23:52:29 UTC
Lol why the hell are you mining in a WH after the moved the sites from sigs to anoms? THAT is what needs to be fixed before that you had all you needed as an atentive pilot to make it out

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#266 - 2016-08-28 01:05:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Nevyn Auscent
Kalido Raddi wrote:

Yeah, there's a reason why the Mackinaw is top of the list; AFK miners in HighSec.

And yeah, pretty much everyone does have multiple accounts. They Plex themselves several times over if you're doing it right.

Totally false. The average number of accounts per player is approx 1.5. Figures released by CCP directly, this is not infered or any sort of guesswork. Given there are people out there with 10 cyno alts or 272 SP Extractor alts, this actually means that 80-90% of players must have only a single account. (Yes the 80-90% is inferred, now please reveal how many alts you have and therefore how many solo account players are needed to offset you to create the 1.5 figure before complaining about it.)

And AFK mining in highsec simply doesn't exist. The only place AFK mining can exist is null/WH's, because it's the only place with large enough ore rocks to actually go afk. Glancing away from screen for 5-10 seconds is not AFK. It's what everyone does.

As for Lugh. Seriously 'LOL you mine in a WH' is your argument. Go back to kindergarten and learn how to behave.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#267 - 2016-08-28 01:15:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Lugh Crow-Slave
Nevyn Auscent wrote:

As for Lugh. Seriously 'LOL you mine in a WH' is your argument. Go back to kindergarten and learn how to behave.



... my argument was that the ore anoms need to be put back into sigs (at the very least in WH)

you seem to have omitted a key word WHY do you mine in a WH

the ore is worse than null and the risk is much higher. you are far better off finding a close null hole and mining there than mining in a WH site where you have 0 warning if a hostile until they have uncloaked in scram range


as for not afking in hs are you kidding? it happens plenty with ice and with the new audio queues for cargo hold you are now told when a rock dies and when your hold is full so you can watch a video and only actively be in game for 5-20s and then 1-4min when you are full that is no better than full on afk

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Khan Wrenth
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#268 - 2016-08-28 01:42:38 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Lol why the hell are you mining in a WH after the moved the sites from sigs to anoms? THAT is what needs to be fixed before that you had all you needed as an atentive pilot to make it out

That sounds like a really good idea!

When CCP changed mining sites to anoms, didn't they reason it was because miners shouldn't have to skill probing and appropriate frigates to get access to ores? Well, if you're in a wormhole, you're probing already!

If CCP changed *just* wormhole-space ore sites to sigs to require scanning, that would be an amazing change to make wormholes a little more different than k-space. Miners there would theoretically have a bit more of a heads-up, and give different incentives to mining in womholes verses null.

Let's discuss overhauling the way we get intel in EvE.
Scuzzy Logic
Space Spuds
#269 - 2016-08-28 02:03:12 UTC
Could we FINALLY get a gas mining hull?

Also, it seems as though the Tank / Capacity / Yield specialization has made the Hulk a bit left behind.

Also, am I the only one irked that we STILL don't have a way to use all 3 ''hardpoints'' on the Venture hull?

At least give the Endurance a visual update to hide the redundant 2 slots.

Also, on a purely personal standpoint, I actually liked the Skiff's single beam...
Lugh Crow-Slave
#270 - 2016-08-28 02:19:27 UTC
Scuzzy Logic wrote:
Could we FINALLY get a gas mining hull?

Also, am I the only one irked that we STILL don't have a way to use all 3 ''hardpoints'' on the Venture hull?

At least give the Endurance a visual update to hide the redundant 2 slots.

Also, on a purely personal standpoint, I actually liked the Skiff's single beam...


you mean like the venture and prospect?

that third spot is for the probe launcher

why should the endurance get that treatment no other t2 ship does

the duel beam opens up so many more options
Khan Wrenth wrote:

If CCP changed *just* wormhole-space ore sites to sigs to require scanning, that would be an amazing change to make wormholes a little more different than k-space. Miners there would theoretically have a bit more of a heads-up, and give different incentives to mining in womholes verses null.


we have been asking for this since the move to anom was announced all the way back then. mining ore in wh used to have a good mix of risk reward. sure you were not going to find 5-10% ores and you had no local but you could find all types of ore in large quantities and still had D-scan.

hell i would even let them keep ore anoms if they also added ore sigs if they reeaaaly want ore anoms in wh

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Scuzzy Logic
Space Spuds
#271 - 2016-08-28 02:45:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Scuzzy Logic
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Scuzzy Logic wrote:
Could we FINALLY get a gas mining hull?

Also, am I the only one irked that we STILL don't have a way to use all 3 ''hardpoints'' on the Venture hull?

At least give the Endurance a visual update to hide the redundant 2 slots.

Also, on a purely personal standpoint, I actually liked the Skiff's single beam...


you mean like the venture and prospect?

that third spot is for the probe launcher

why should the endurance get that treatment no other t2 ship does

the duel beam opens up so many more options


The probe launcher doesn't have a model, Jimbo.

Quote:

treatment no other t2 ship does


What is the Onyx?

Also, how is homogenizing a 1/2/3 beam model to 2 across the board ''opening options''?

In the case of the Endurance, it's even more flagrant than the Prospect: the cloak and the probe launcher leaves only a single beam on the rack just looking lonely.

Honestly, I'm still not over the fact you train Gas Cloud Harvesting V only to never actually use more than 2 of them at a time...
Also, the fact that they both have so much more inside room than barges bigger than them just hurts my head.

Finally, if they would take the 10 minutes in 3DS Max to squish and extend the Venture model's rack, would it kill CCP to make a third variant with a 5-long rack and 5 hardpoints for all our gas huffing needs?

-EDIT-

Now that I think about it, the Prospect could use some shifting of one of its slots to a high so we don't have to refit to use both of its hardpoints, a cloak and a bonused probe launcher.

The Endurance should have a high moved elsewhere, to give it, err, Endurance? Since it only needs one for the cloak and 1 for its lonely ice beam.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#272 - 2016-08-28 04:47:53 UTC
Khan Wrenth wrote:

That sounds like a really good idea!

When CCP changed mining sites to anoms, didn't they reason it was because miners shouldn't have to skill probing and appropriate frigates to get access to ores? Well, if you're in a wormhole, you're probing already!

If CCP changed *just* wormhole-space ore sites to sigs to require scanning, that would be an amazing change to make wormholes a little more different than k-space. Miners there would theoretically have a bit more of a heads-up, and give different incentives to mining in womholes verses null.

No, they changed it because mining barges DON'T HAVE UTILITY SLOTS.
Oh hey look, like mentioned earlier that's another reason to give them real fittings so they can actually fit things like that.
So that you 'could' (Not that I think it's a good move actually to turn all the anoms to sigs, because Sigs are too easy to warp to safety from to your citadel which can't be easily bubble camped as soon as you see combat probes, but that's a different story) have mining sigs without miners having to undock, probe, save bookmark, redock, change vessels, mine, and then delete bookmark afterwards.
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine
In Tea We Trust
#273 - 2016-08-28 05:02:03 UTC
And there was me thinking that only having one beam to look after was one of the advantages of the procurer/skiff.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#274 - 2016-08-28 05:43:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Lugh Crow-Slave
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Khan Wrenth wrote:

That sounds like a really good idea!

When CCP changed mining sites to anoms, didn't they reason it was because miners shouldn't have to skill probing and appropriate frigates to get access to ores? Well, if you're in a wormhole, you're probing already!

If CCP changed *just* wormhole-space ore sites to sigs to require scanning, that would be an amazing change to make wormholes a little more different than k-space. Miners there would theoretically have a bit more of a heads-up, and give different incentives to mining in womholes verses null.

No, they changed it because mining barges DON'T HAVE UTILITY SLOTS.
Oh hey look, like mentioned earlier that's another reason to give them real fittings so they can actually fit things like that.
So that you 'could' (Not that I think it's a good move actually to turn all the anoms to sigs, because Sigs are too easy to warp to safety from to your citadel which can't be easily bubble camped as soon as you see combat probes, but that's a different story) have mining sigs without miners having to undock, probe, save bookmark, redock, change vessels, mine, and then delete bookmark afterwards.





you never lived in a wh did you....

its much more team oriented back when they were sigs the miners a lot of the time were not the ones scanning them down they would be scanned down and BMed by ppl looking for holes/relic/data sites. they also were not all that safe as most skilled pilots in a fast ship could still probe you down and warp to you in the time it took you to see the probes align and warp. The difference was you had a chance if you were faster you could get out. now with them at anoms the only chance you have is if they entered from a WH in range of the site de-cloaked and re-cloaked in the same tick you scanned. Otherwise they warp to the anom cloaked at range asses the situation, warp out, warp back and you only know they are there once you are scrammed


also news flash if you really wanted to prob in your barge you could just do what ventures do and use a mobile depo rather than all your warping back and forth

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#275 - 2016-08-28 08:10:33 UTC
Khan Wrenth wrote:

When CCP changed mining sites to anoms, didn't they reason it was because miners shouldn't have to skill probing and appropriate frigates to get access to ores? Well, if you're in a wormhole, you're probing already!


If only there was a barge that could fit one in a utility high.

See this is the problem I keep on going on about. Miners have by far the most simplified and dumbed down gameplay in EVE. Even their ships come pre fitted with little to no options. The ships are the core of the problem, if we fix them so that they each have a role to play and are able to stand their ground vs a similar sized gang of cruisers then CCP can change up mining itself. They can bring about ore sites that need to be probed down, ice sites such as comets that need to be probed down, give the rorqual the ability to bridge mining vessels so mining fleets could roam around looking for these sites.

I simply do not understand why some of you here are so dead set against miners being able to defend themselves and having actual fun content.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#276 - 2016-08-28 09:21:14 UTC
... whats wrong with the venture/prospect/endurance utility highs? or a mobile depot

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#277 - 2016-08-28 09:54:32 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
... whats wrong with the venture/prospect/endurance utility highs? or a mobile depot


If its good for them why is it not good for the mack?
Lando Tarsadan
Doomheim
#278 - 2016-08-28 10:08:43 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Khan Wrenth wrote:

When CCP changed mining sites to anoms, didn't they reason it was because miners shouldn't have to skill probing and appropriate frigates to get access to ores? Well, if you're in a wormhole, you're probing already!


If only there was a barge that could fit one in a utility high.

See this is the problem I keep on going on about. Miners have by far the most simplified and dumbed down gameplay in EVE. Even their ships come pre fitted with little to no options. The ships are the core of the problem, if we fix them so that they each have a role to play and are able to stand their ground vs a similar sized gang of cruisers then CCP can change up mining itself. They can bring about ore sites that need to be probed down, ice sites such as comets that need to be probed down, give the rorqual the ability to bridge mining vessels so mining fleets could roam around looking for these sites.

I simply do not understand why some of you here are so dead set against miners being able to defend themselves and having actual fun content.


The utility on the endurance is one of the reasons I'm considering using it from time to time. I loose out on the yield big time but if in places where the chances of getting jumped is high then it is nice to use em.

I would actually love the barges to be something else than just about a copy fit from everyone whom takes mining just a little serious. The frigs do give that option. why did ore change their mind with the barges ?
Lugh Crow-Slave
#279 - 2016-08-28 10:27:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Lugh Crow-Slave
baltec1 wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
... whats wrong with the venture/prospect/endurance utility highs? or a mobile depot


If its good for them why is it not good for the mack?


cov ops frigs get a probe bonus why not blops and recons?

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#280 - 2016-08-28 10:51:38 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
... whats wrong with the venture/prospect/endurance utility highs? or a mobile depot


If its good for them why is it not good for the mack?


cov ops frigs get a probe bonus why not blops and recons?


Problem with your argument is all of those ships have the CPU, PG and slots to fit a wide range of fitting on them. Once again I point out you are arguing for very poor ships for miners.