These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Ships & Modules

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
12Next page
 

T3 MINING BARGES

Author
Clarisa JitaPrime
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#1 - 2016-08-27 09:56:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Clarisa JitaPrime
As our game EVE ONLINE is moving slowly to the small guys at the moment, I think that a T3 MINING Barge could be really cool and useful for small groups in eve that want to gather resources from null sec or a wormhole. With sub systems similar to the current t3 cruiser sub systems able to refit for cloaky, nullified, agility, and even for ice harvesters, ore harvesters and deep core mining. Plus it will give some the challenge of catching one for a tasty killmail. It could have a sub system for smaller industrial core where it can extract rsources at a much higher rate and could make it tankier aswell so it's not an entirely sitting duck with drone bonuses and a pretty decent sized drone bay depending on the sub system chosen.

I am just throwing out an idea for industrialists and for pvp for the killmail. I would like to know what others think about this please coment with your thoughts or just this is a terrible idea. I think it would be a cool addition to EVE with the Industrial Arrays coming out this fall.
Valkin Mordirc
#2 - 2016-08-27 12:24:01 UTC
As with every 'T3 this class of ship' thread.


Every T3 that get's released is broken, and OP.

We are still suffering from T3C imbalance,

And we are now dealing with T3D Imbalance.


I would personally like for CCP to deal with the current balance issues at hand before adding in more, the AF/T3D relation's need to be worked on. The T3C line up needs to be reworked, the Svip needs to hefty nerf bat beat down. It's taken the five-ever for them to finally get to work on fixing OGB, and the Roq, lets not spoil it now.
#DeleteTheWeak
Soel Reit
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#3 - 2016-08-27 13:10:12 UTC
why t3 so unbalanced?
t3d
t3 cruiser

we only need t3 bs to balance the game and it's gg
no need to nerf anything Cool
Valkin Mordirc
#4 - 2016-08-27 15:01:08 UTC
Soel Reit wrote:
why t3 so unbalanced?
t3d
t3 cruiser

we only need t3 bs to balance the game and it's gg
no need to nerf anything Cool



I'm honestly hoping that is sarcasm.

It's hard to tell with you,


In case not,


Power creep.
#DeleteTheWeak
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
#5 - 2016-08-27 15:22:04 UTC
To stay on topic no to a T3 mining ship.

Soel Reit wrote:
why t3 so unbalanced?[

T3C concept was for a ship you could use to perform many different roles simply by changing sub systems. These ships were supposed to have capabilities in all of the various roles that put them somewhere between the T1 and T2 counterparts does this sound to you like the T3C ships we have in the game right now?

I have no idea what CCP was trying to do with the T3D ships.
Something just a little more than the T1 destroyers, something with about the same tank and DPS but in a smaller and more agile platform was where the AF class of ships fit. In a fit of stupid CCP gave us the T3D class, ships with at or near T1 cruiser class tank and DPS all in a smaller and more agile hull and instantly the entire AF class is rendered virtually useless.

If these are not enough to convince you that the T3 line up needs a mauling at the hands of the nerf bat then perhaps there is nothing that anyone can say.
Soel Reit
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#6 - 2016-08-27 15:47:30 UTC
Donnachadh wrote:
To stay on topic no to a T3 mining ship.

Soel Reit wrote:
why t3 so unbalanced?[

T3C concept was for a ship you could use to perform many different roles simply by changing sub systems. These ships were supposed to have capabilities in all of the various roles that put them somewhere between the T1 and T2 counterparts does this sound to you like the T3C ships we have in the game right now?

I have no idea what CCP was trying to do with the T3D ships.
Something just a little more than the T1 destroyers, something with about the same tank and DPS but in a smaller and more agile platform was where the AF class of ships fit. In a fit of stupid CCP gave us the T3D class, ships with at or near T1 cruiser class tank and DPS all in a smaller and more agile hull and instantly the entire AF class is rendered virtually useless.

If these are not enough to convince you that the T3 line up needs a mauling at the hands of the nerf bat then perhaps there is nothing that anyone can say.


???

t1 cruiser requires an amount of SP
t2 another one
t3 another one again.

don't see the problem really!
the logic says that 3>2>1 so t3 cruisers should be better than t1, both for price/Sp required.
for better price/sp i mean higher.

sounds kinda logic to me. can't see your point
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#7 - 2016-08-27 16:32:48 UTC  |  Edited by: ShahFluffers
Soel Reit wrote:
sounds kinda logic to me. can't see your point

Here is how it supposed to work:

http://content.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/8742/1/Shiptech.jpg

How it is supposed to work:

- Tech 1 ships are the "baseline."

- Tech 2 ships are supposed to be "specialized" versions of Tech 1 ships with better stats., but some drawbacks (see: they are not always "better" than Tech 1 ships)

- Navy and Pirate ships are supposed to be more powerful (in terms of stats and bonuses) but are more "generalist" in terms of what roles they can play.

- Tech 3 ships are supposed to be more "generalist" (see: more flexible) versions of Navy and Pirate ships with slightly more power than a Tech 1 ship.
Essentially, they should have bonuses like a Tech 2 ship... but none of the bonuses or stats should step on the toes of Tech 2, Navy, or Pirate ships.


What we actually have:

- Navy and Pirate ships are more specialized in what they can do. While some of their bonuses makes them very unique, they have other bonuses (along with other stats) that kinda step on the toes of Tech 2 ships.
Example: There is no point in bringing an armor fit Huggin when you can bring along an Ashimmu. The Ashimmu may have less webbing range versus the Huggin, but it can tank FAR more and has some nasty neuting bonuses.

- Tech 3 ships by and large stick to their more "generalist" ideals in terms of bonuses (for the most part)... however it is their stats and the subsystem combinations you can pull off that makes them "out of balance" compared to other ships.
Example: Between a Huggin and a Loki, it is generally better to bring a Loki that has been fitted to web. The Huggin has more range, but the Loki can tank an order of magnitude more. The Huggin can fly (slightly) faster, but the Loki has more bonuses, slots, and can deal more damage... giving it much more tactical flexibility.

Tech 3 Destroyers are weird in that they step on the toes of multiple classes at the same time. They can do what Assault Frigates can do... but better and with more flexibility. They may have less tank than a Cruiser, but their small "Sensor Footprint" means that it is difficult to apply damage to them... which, when combined with their mobility, makes them stronger than a cruiser in most situations outside of brawling.



tldr; the point is that there is not supposed to be "one class that is better than the rest." Everything should have tradeoffs and weaknesses. Right now... T3s are as good (or better) than some classes of ships as they do not possess the same weaknesses as those classes.





If you are serious about a Tech 3 Mining Barge then it needs to adhere to the following:

- it cannot outmine the Hulk (it should not even come close). Being the kind of mining yield is the Tech 2 specialty of this ship.

- It cannot out-tank a Skiff.

- It cannot be more mobile than a Skiff (don't even suggest the Venture or Prospect... those are frigates).

- It cannot hold more ore than a Mackinaw.


Allowing a Tech 3 barge to do any of these well... or even 80% well all at the same time... makes this ship far more ideal compared to any of the current barges.

After all... why have a Hulk when you can mine 80% as effectively as one with 80% of ore bay of a Mack (28,000 m3) and 80% of the tank of a Skiff (100k ehp)?
Soel Reit
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#8 - 2016-08-27 16:50:26 UTC
ShahFluffers wrote:
http://content.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/8742/1/Shiptech.jpg


so basically right now t3s are straight over the pirate ships in that img...
so the problem is the img, not the t3s!

It requires more SP and more money to fly one of those properly.... i don't see the problem.
why would you want something that requires more SP and more money to be less powerful than a t2??
it makes no sense.

Quote:
Tech 3 ships are supposed to be more "generalist" (see: more flexible)

they are indeed more flexible!
they can do pretty much everything, pretty much better than anything else.
but we are talking of 700mil/1bill against 300mil max.

based on facts and not on images it seems fair.
Valkin Mordirc
#9 - 2016-08-27 18:24:11 UTC
Price should never be a balance factor
#DeleteTheWeak
Soel Reit
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#10 - 2016-08-27 18:28:21 UTC
Valkin Mordirc wrote:
Price should never be a balance factor


you are right, i'd opt for 100k isk 1 titan, and 100 bil isk for 1 interceptor. SeemsGood
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#11 - 2016-08-27 18:36:39 UTC  |  Edited by: ShahFluffers
Soel Reit wrote:
why would you want something that requires more SP and more money to be less powerful than a t2??
it makes no sense.

Because money and time are not good balancing factors.

Eventually, these factors can be overcome and what you end up with are many, many people flying the same thing... because it is better than everything else (see: it obsoletes other ships).


Instead, you ideally want all ships to be able to compete with all other ships in some form.

A good example of this is the relationship between capital ships and subcapitals.

Subcapitals are relatively generalized and cheap with relatively low skill investments.
Capitals are extremely specialized and require large investments of time and resources.

Capitals have VERY high stats... but a single subcapital can be a potential threat to them by being smaller than their weapons or mobility can cope with.
Example 1: a single Tech 1 Frigate can almost indefinitely "pin" a Dreadnought or Carrier. However, the Frigate by itself can't kill a Dred or Carrier.
Both sides will need help from others to get an edge.

This is balanced.


Soel Reit wrote:
ShahFluffers wrote:
]Tech 3 ships are supposed to be more "generalist" (see: more flexible)

they are indeed more flexible!
they can do pretty much everything, pretty much better than anything else.

This is actually the problem exactly. They should not be "better than anything else."

They should be good at many things, but not so much so that you will not consider using a "specialist" ship for a specific job.

Quote:
but we are talking of 700mil/1bill against 300mil max.

And? An officer module can cost anywhere from several hundred million to several billion ISK.

On average, they only give 10 to 20% better bonuses than a Tech 2 module... which costs only about 500 to 1 million isk.


Being more expensive should not make something (anything) overpowered.
You want to maintain a healthy balance between all ships... giving some advantages to older, richer players without allowing them the ability outright curbstomp younger, poorer players.
Sheeth Athonille
Rabid Dogz Mining
#12 - 2016-08-27 18:42:09 UTC
You are trolling, right?

Titans are a wonderful example of why price shouldn't be a balancing figure. It used to be though they were so expensive that only the largest alliances would have them and they would only have one or two. Now virtually every alliance has them and has entire wings worth.

And you think the price of t3's stops their use? Again, fleets of hundreds of these things are common. Price obviously isn't a limiting factor.
Soel Reit
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#13 - 2016-08-27 18:49:38 UTC
Sheeth Athonille wrote:
You are trolling, right?


you got me Straight
Tiddle Jr
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#14 - 2016-08-28 02:38:14 UTC
I remember several discussions about improvements of mining fleet vessels from ORE BC hull up to Tech 2 Orca. There also was a suggestion of addin a couple of more sub systems to current T3 cruisers which is more acceptable vs. brand new and stand alone T3 Exhumers.

"The message is that there are known knowns. There are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say there are things that we now know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know" - CCP

Sonya Corvinus
Grant Village
#15 - 2016-09-02 18:38:44 UTC
We already have a cloaky mining ship that has high agility.

It's been the only ship I mine in for a while now
elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
Brave Collective
#16 - 2016-09-02 23:21:16 UTC
Sonya Corvinus wrote:
We already have a cloaky mining ship that has high agility.

It's been the only ship I mine in for a while now


She even has a sister which can mine ice in dangerous space and cloak if it gets too dangerous. I like them both.

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever

motie one
Secret Passage
#17 - 2016-09-03 21:41:12 UTC  |  Edited by: motie one
Soel Reit wrote:
ShahFluffers wrote:
http://content.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/8742/1/Shiptech.jpg


so basically right now t3s are straight over the pirate ships in that img...
so the problem is the img, not the t3s!

It requires more SP and more money to fly one of those properly.... i don't see the problem.
why would you want something that requires more SP and more money to be less powerful than a t2??
it makes no sense.

Quote:
Tech 3 ships are supposed to be more "generalist" (see: more flexible)

they are indeed more flexible!
they can do pretty much everything, pretty much better than anything else.
but we are talking of 700mil/1bill against 300mil max.

based on facts and not on images it seems fair.


Sometimes people forget, that if a t3 performed worse than a t2 no one would ever fly one.

Every fit on a t3 is a compromise, yes there are massive tanks available, on pyfa etc but those become quick lossmails. Lasting more shots but dying anyway.

Actual practical fits are more realistic, yes better than t1 cruisers and thank god for that! They bloody should be.

And there is a reason neuts are called T3 killers.

Rock paper scissors applies more to t3 than almost any other class

Edit for clarity, Nothing in this post refers to TD3 they are a whole different thing.
Morgan Agrivar
Doomheim
#18 - 2016-09-04 22:33:24 UTC
I wubba my Svipul. <3 <3 <3

Her name is Hylda (named after my grandmother) and she goes everywhere I do.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#19 - 2016-09-04 23:09:09 UTC
Valkin Mordirc wrote:
Price should never be a balance factor


This is demonstrably incorrect. Price must always be a balancing factor.


However, it shouldn't ever be the only balancing factor.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Colonel Carter
Black Spot on Parchment
#20 - 2016-09-06 14:08:01 UTC
A t3 mining cruiser would kick ass, if they go with a way to swap subsystems like t3 cruiser or just switch modes like on t3ds to get different bonuses.
Would give you a few more choices + a shiny ship for pvp players to hunt down in wh's wouldn't be bad?
12Next page