These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[November] Introducing the Porpoise

First post First post
Author
Cade Windstalker
#241 - 2016-10-28 19:41:36 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Actually they do need balancing along the same lines as combat ships. Just instead of DPS bonuses they get mining/hauling bonuses. But otherwise they should be balanced along the same lines as combat ships.

The fact that they haven't been till now is why we have such a cultural bias treating miners as second class citizens of EVE, because CCP themselves have been treating them as second class citizens and not allowing them to actually fit their ships with any variety. Compare the number of slots, PG & CPU to an equivalent size/cost Combat ship. If the answer is not 'Basically the same' then there is an issue, and Industrialists will continue to get mistreated.

And yes, giving them the same means people will come up with some combat uses for them, And? Why is this a bad thing if someone decided that a proper fittable freighter made a great pipe bombing ship. Who cares, it's out in space at risk doing stuff.

So yes it should have the range bonus.
And it should have the same fitting options.


This is just flawed logic. They're different hulls with different roles and different requirements. That something is about the size of a BC doesn't mean it should automatically fit BC class tank, deal BC class DPS, have BC level speed, or anything else, because size is not a determining parameter for anything except how easy a ship is to hit relative to its transversal.

If this were the case the Skiff wouldn't tank half as well as it does, just as an example.

So no, Mining Ships != Combat Ships of the same hull size. You're trading the ability to fight for the ability to mine ore, hold tons of the stuff, and do whatever else is specific to that hull, just like a Combat BC trades it's ability to mine well for moar dakka.

Penance Toralen wrote:
I disagree with segregation for industrial ships. At the beginning of the game the Osprey was a prime mining hull. There was certainly no need the balance its defence. Why should it now be a consideration? Will mining ships face less aggression because of their non-combat role? (CCP once thought so when mining barges were original released with a single mid slot and a shield tank intention. The playerbase has long since proven otherwise). If Industralists are treated the same as a target then they deserve to be treated the same for the scale of ability to face combat.


I never said industrial ships were or should be "segregated". If CCP want to introduce a combat-miner then great, but there should be trade-offs for that.

As for the "ability to face combat" thing, that's entirely a matter of ship choice, fitting, and tactics as it is with anything else. It also doesn't have any bearing on whether or not the Porpoise should get a range bonus on its Command Bursts. Mining ships aren't expected to move much, and they won't willingly be spread out to the same extent that you'll find in a combat engagement. The exception is extremely large belts, but simply making all Command Bursts big enough to cover the entire belt removes that as a consideration on where to mine and what boosting ship to bring. In effect it makes the game simpler and easier, by removing a potential problem a player might have to think there way around.
Nick Bison
Bison Industrial Inc
#242 - 2016-10-30 01:48:48 UTC
I can see this being a boon to WH folk who day-mine gas outside their home hole.
Good boosts, fair tank and not too big to cause issues.

Nothing clever at this time.

Cmdr Clawhammer
RHP Mining Company
Federation of Respect Honor Passion Alliance.
#243 - 2016-11-01 10:44:04 UTC
In short, how much ships can i boost with the Porpoise and how much Cycle Time and Mining Yield Boost do i get maxxed out? Thx!
Cade Windstalker
#244 - 2016-11-01 13:58:15 UTC
Cmdr Clawhammer wrote:
In short, how much ships can i boost with the Porpoise and how much Cycle Time and Mining Yield Boost do i get maxxed out? Thx!


The answer to your first question is in the dev blog, which is: all the ships you can fit in your fleet and within burst range. (so, 255 if you pack them in really tight)

The answer to your second question is a lot of math, but the simple answer is 10% more than the max value from pure skills and the link itself.
Cmdr Clawhammer
RHP Mining Company
Federation of Respect Honor Passion Alliance.
#245 - 2016-11-01 14:24:21 UTC
Thanks :)
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#246 - 2016-11-01 18:49:49 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Actually they do need balancing along the same lines as combat ships. Just instead of DPS bonuses they get mining/hauling bonuses. But otherwise they should be balanced along the same lines as combat ships.

The fact that they haven't been till now is why we have such a cultural bias treating miners as second class citizens of EVE, because CCP themselves have been treating them as second class citizens and not allowing them to actually fit their ships with any variety. Compare the number of slots, PG & CPU to an equivalent size/cost Combat ship. If the answer is not 'Basically the same' then there is an issue, and Industrialists will continue to get mistreated.

And yes, giving them the same means people will come up with some combat uses for them, And? Why is this a bad thing if someone decided that a proper fittable freighter made a great pipe bombing ship. Who cares, it's out in space at risk doing stuff.

So yes it should have the range bonus.
And it should have the same fitting options.


This is just flawed logic. They're different hulls with different roles and different requirements. That something is about the size of a BC doesn't mean it should automatically fit BC class tank, deal BC class DPS, have BC level speed, or anything else, because size is not a determining parameter for anything except how easy a ship is to hit relative to its transversal.

If this were the case the Skiff wouldn't tank half as well as it does, just as an example.

So no, Mining Ships != Combat Ships of the same hull size. You're trading the ability to fight for the ability to mine ore, hold tons of the stuff, and do whatever else is specific to that hull, just like a Combat BC trades it's ability to mine well for moar dakka.
Actually no, the skiff is fine tank wise when fitted. Look at a max tank skiff then look at a max tank onyx or broadsword. Yes, they need more slots to do the same but I can't think that anyone would complain if the skiff was in the same situation as another cruiser sized ship with a role revolving around strong tank.

And the support of a combat ships ability to fight typically revolves around the ability to fit and have bonuses to weapons or offensive mods. Fitting room/slots alone do not a combat ship make. They just ensure the hull is actually somewhat flexible rather than overly restricted.
Eternus8lux8lucis
Duckzer Mining Corporation
RAZOR Alliance
#247 - 2016-11-02 06:35:40 UTC
Im curious what the packaged and unpackaged m3 will be on the porpoise? Will it be in the BC m3 range, noctis m3 range?

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.

Cade Windstalker
#248 - 2016-11-02 14:12:14 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Actually no, the skiff is fine tank wise when fitted. Look at a max tank skiff then look at a max tank onyx or broadsword. Yes, they need more slots to do the same but I can't think that anyone would complain if the skiff was in the same situation as another cruiser sized ship with a role revolving around strong tank.

And the support of a combat ships ability to fight typically revolves around the ability to fit and have bonuses to weapons or offensive mods. Fitting room/slots alone do not a combat ship make. They just ensure the hull is actually somewhat flexible rather than overly restricted.


Now you're comparing to a T2 ship class that is *specifically* designed to be brick tanked and generally out-tanks even T2 Battleships. That's just proving my point that hull size is not a primary determiner of ship performance, it's the role the ship is intended to fill and how CCP thinks it should perform within that role.

Thus we have the Porpoise with an effect bonus and the Orca with both an effect and range bonus.

Similarly we have the T1 Battlecruisers with no bonus to effect strength but with a bonus to effect range.

There's nothing weird here about the Porpoise not having a bonus to effect range, it makes perfect sense.

If you want to argue that the bonus to magnitude should be replaced by a bonus to range then fine make your case for that, but personally I don't see that as particularly viable except in very niche and very non-ideal cases, since the fleet would have to be quite small for the extra mining potential to be worth the loss of yield from the 10% increase, and quite spread out on top of that. So, essentially you're looking for a case where you have a small number of ships mining on opposite sides of a large belt from each other. For any normal case the 10% extra yield is going to be more valuable or you're going to have enough value on grid that the Orca is a reasonable choice to get both range and yield.
Morgan Agrivar
Doomheim
#249 - 2016-11-02 21:01:53 UTC
I am more concerned what sound a Porpoise will make when it explodes in a brilliant flash of light...
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#250 - 2016-11-02 22:13:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Now you're comparing to a T2 ship class that is *specifically* designed to be brick tanked and generally out-tanks even T2 Battleships.
Well, yes, I don't think there's a better comparison role for role than looking at specific specialties. The error would be looking at a non-tank centric ship role and comparing the skiff t that. Also no, HICs don't tend to outtank tank oriented T2 BSs (marauders) on even some of the T1 tank oriented ones (when fitted the way one typically makes a tanked skiff).

Cade Windstalker wrote:
That's just proving my point that hull size is not a primary determiner of ship performance, it's the role the ship is intended to fill and how CCP thinks it should perform within that role.

Thus we have the Porpoise with an effect bonus and the Orca with both an effect and range bonus.

Similarly we have the T1 Battlecruisers with no bonus to effect strength but with a bonus to effect range.

There's nothing weird here about the Porpoise not having a bonus to effect range, it makes perfect sense.

If you want to argue that the bonus to magnitude should be replaced by a bonus to range then fine make your case for that, but personally I don't see that as particularly viable except in very niche and very non-ideal cases, since the fleet would have to be quite small for the extra mining potential to be worth the loss of yield from the 10% increase, and quite spread out on top of that. So, essentially you're looking for a case where you have a small number of ships mining on opposite sides of a large belt from each other. For any normal case the 10% extra yield is going to be more valuable or you're going to have enough value on grid that the Orca is a reasonable choice to get both range and yield.
Well, the point I put forth wasn't about the specific bonus so much as general fitting restrictions placed on industrial ships so I'm actually not really sure where your focus on that stems from here.

But on that specific point, size isn't even an argument with regard to that ability. you already pointed to the parallel and I agree. what I disagree with and was also pointed out by Nevyn Auscent is that the general way industrial ships work fitting wise could easily allow for the ships to work more closely to the slot and PG/CPU counts of other ships in their size class because they really aren't out of place when you consider equivalent function.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#251 - 2016-11-03 02:11:37 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:

Now you're comparing to a T2 ship class that is *specifically* designed to be brick tanked and generally out-tanks even T2 Battleships. That's just proving my point that hull size is not a primary determiner of ship performance, it's the role the ship is intended to fill and how CCP thinks it should perform within that role.

So comparing a T2 Ship designed to be tanked heavily (Skiff) to a T2 ship that is designed to be tanked heavily (HIC) is wrong?
Uh what. They are equivalent heavy tank designs, and the Skiff doesn't even come close to out tanking a battleship.
So thank you for making the opposite point than you intended.

Tyberious nicely framed the rest of my point, and at no point have I ever advocated for any change to the ships bonuses, just for a change in the fitting capabilities and some unbonused slots for turrets or launchers. & yes, just because it's BC sized doesn't mean it 'needs' BC stats, but those should be the default starting point and then modify slightly from there.
For example ABC's don't magically lose half their slots just because they fit large guns.
Penance Toralen
Compass Fox
#252 - 2016-11-03 06:25:47 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
As for the "ability to face combat" thing, that's entirely a matter of ship choice, fitting, and tactics as it is with anything else. It also doesn't have any bearing on whether or not the Porpoise should get a range bonus on its Command Bursts. Mining ships aren't expected to move much, and they won't willingly be spread out to the same extent that you'll find in a combat engagement. The exception is extremely large belts, but simply making all Command Bursts big enough to cover the entire belt removes that as a consideration on where to mine and what boosting ship to bring. In effect it makes the game simpler and easier, by removing a potential problem a player might have to think there way around.


Then let's talk about that. This ship just has four mids to fit a tank. Compared to battlecruisers and commands which commonly have 6 slots for tanking. So what about prop mod or utility like a Survey Scanner? (to which actually gets a bonus for). That's a tough compromise. Then also velocity and agility are also low-tier. But then on top of this, it is also gimped with a range bonus. (I would like a leather ship skin that has stitches). How much "compromise" is necessary? Are we talking about a step or two down OR please go to back of the bus, miner.

As for "not moving" I will point to The Higgs Anchor Rig, it allows mining ships to move over a asteroid belt slowly, yet aligned at a speed sufficient to warp instantly.

CCP Fozzie wrote:
We expect that this will have a few somewhat niche uses right away for miners and residents of wormholes (especially lower-class holes) and that players can come up with more creative ways to use it over time.
Raw Matters
Blind Berserker
Valkyrie Alliance
#253 - 2016-11-10 13:37:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Raw Matters
As much as I like the idea of a mini-Orca, I don't see much of a role for this ship. The Orca is far superior in every way except for the price-tag, but nowadays everyone can just insert 20€ to get enough money for an Orca + fitting in no time, so that is just another incentive to buy a Plex. Essentially this leaves the Porpoise with no Purpose (haha, the pun!), similar to what the old T1 frigates were like: you use them if you lack the (RL-)money.

This ship needs a more defined role if you want to see people flying it, and there are enough roles still open. My favorite would be to reduce the dps and give it a covert ops instead, which would be just the perfect addition for the cloaky miner ships we got earlier. Or at least some bonus to cloaking like the black ops get, but then I wouldn't know how to maneuver this thing through 0.0 with that align time. Also upping the cargo to 1000m³ would be a good thing to have, so that the player has at least the option to fit in some expanded cargo holds.

Essentially the ship as it is right now is a nice first try, but it won't find much use.
RainReaper
Bras-Tek Industries
#254 - 2016-11-10 15:31:44 UTC
Raw Matters wrote:
As much as I like the idea of a mini-Orca, I don't see much of a role for this ship. The Orca is far superior in every way except for the price-tag, but nowadays everyone can just insert 20€ to get enough money for an Orca + fitting in no time, so that is just another incentive to buy a Plex. Essentially this leaves the Porpoise with no Purpose (haha, the pun!), similar to what the old T1 frigates were like: you use them if you lack the (RL-)money.

This ship needs a more defined role if you want to see people flying it, and there are enough roles still open. My favorite would be to reduce the dps and give it a covert ops instead, which would be just the perfect addition for the cloaky miner ships we got earlier. Or at least some bonus to cloaking like the black ops get, but then I wouldn't know how to maneuver this thing through 0.0 with that align time. Also upping the cargo to 1000m³ would be a good thing to have, so that the player has at least the option to fit in some expanded cargo holds.

Essentially the ship as it is right now is a nice first try, but it won't find much use.


Lol. this thing is the perfect thing to use in wormhole space. it can enter frigate only wormholes, so you can bring 2-3 into a frig only shattered wormhole with some endurance/prospects and have accual mining ops. and because it is so cheap it can be brought into fleet low sec ops where a loss wouldent be a devastating 800m isk loss and instead just a 50-60m isk loss. its purpoise (i can pun to!) is to be a cheaper ship than the orca and being a good entry point for new players who want to learn about fleet boosting. and also having frig only wormhole access.
Raw Matters
Blind Berserker
Valkyrie Alliance
#255 - 2016-11-10 16:05:46 UTC
RainReaper wrote:
Lol. this thing is the perfect thing to use in wormhole space. it can enter frigate only wormholes, so you can bring 2-3 into a frig only shattered wormhole with some endurance/prospects and have accual mining ops. and because it is so cheap it can be brought into fleet low sec ops where a loss wouldent be a devastating 800m isk loss and instead just a 50-60m isk loss. its purpoise (i can pun to!) is to be a cheaper ship than the orca and being a good entry point for new players who want to learn about fleet boosting. and also having frig only wormhole access.


If the best thing about it is that it's explosion isn't so expensive, then it is not that much of a good ship. Yes you can push that into a C1 WH, but that's hardly worth the risk considering the low amount of ore you can find there. As soon as ore gets into reasonable levels of quantity you can already push an Orca through. Since the Porpoise can only hold the content of 2 retrievers, while the orca can hold about 10 retrievers worth of cargo, you in all cases want the Orca for most mining missions. Otherwise you will have to have a ship hauling ore back and forth, and then things get annoying and complicated. Also the Orca can store combat ships in case you get attacked, while the Portoise cannot.

Aside from WH space however the use-case of the Porpoise once again boils down to "cheap enough to loose it", which is barely a reason to use it. Now add a CovOps into that and suddenly this ship becomes a lot more useful, because once reds warp in, you can instantly hit the cloak button and then warp away to safety. If you don't have any cloak bonus the reds know where you are, trying to crawl away at 20 m/s, and the ship becomes a guaranteed loss.

If I had to plan a mining ops and would have to choose between a guaranteed 50m isk loss in case of an attack, that can't even hold enough ore to cover that loss on it's own, or a ship that is a lot more expensive but also durable and allows my miners to switch to combat ships and comes with 5 times the cargo... Well chances are good that I pick the Orca.
RainReaper
Bras-Tek Industries
#256 - 2016-11-10 16:20:51 UTC
Raw Matters wrote:
RainReaper wrote:
Lol. this thing is the perfect thing to use in wormhole space. it can enter frigate only wormholes, so you can bring 2-3 into a frig only shattered wormhole with some endurance/prospects and have accual mining ops. and because it is so cheap it can be brought into fleet low sec ops where a loss wouldent be a devastating 800m isk loss and instead just a 50-60m isk loss. its purpoise (i can pun to!) is to be a cheaper ship than the orca and being a good entry point for new players who want to learn about fleet boosting. and also having frig only wormhole access.


If the best thing about it is that it's explosion isn't so expensive, then it is not that much of a good ship. Yes you can push that into a C1 WH, but that's hardly worth the risk considering the low amount of ore you can find there. As soon as ore gets into reasonable levels of quantity you can already push an Orca through. Since the Porpoise can only hold the content of 2 retrievers, while the orca can hold about 10 retrievers worth of cargo, you in all cases want the Orca for most mining missions. Otherwise you will have to have a ship hauling ore back and forth, and then things get annoying and complicated. Also the Orca can store combat ships in case you get attacked, while the Portoise cannot.

Aside from WH space however the use-case of the Porpoise once again boils down to "cheap enough to loose it", which is barely a reason to use it. Now add a CovOps into that and suddenly this ship becomes a lot more useful, because once reds warp in, you can instantly hit the cloak button and then warp away to safety. If you don't have any cloak bonus the reds know where you are, trying to crawl away at 20 m/s, and the ship becomes a guaranteed loss.

If I had to plan a mining ops and would have to choose between a guaranteed 50m isk loss in case of an attack, that can't even hold enough ore to cover that loss on it's own, or a ship that is a lot more expensive but also durable and allows my miners to switch to combat ships and comes with 5 times the cargo... Well chances are good that I pick the Orca.


Att this point its down to opinions i guess. you say the porpoise isent good. i personaly see that it have worth in its roles of being cheap and being able to enter frig only wormholes and i think im not the only one who thinks that.

but yes if you cant see a reason to use one then you dont have a reason to use it lol. it wasent made for the ones who wont use it but rather the ones that will use it.
Cade Windstalker
#257 - 2016-11-10 20:40:35 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Well, yes, I don't think there's a better comparison role for role than looking at specific specialties. The error would be looking at a non-tank centric ship role and comparing the skiff t that. Also no, HICs don't tend to outtank tank oriented T2 BSs (marauders) on even some of the T1 tank oriented ones (when fitted the way one typically makes a tanked skiff).


A Marauder is not a tank oriented ship in the same way that a Skiff or a HIC is, it doesn't have the resists or brick-for-its-size tank that the Skiff or a HIC has. They get something like that with the Bastion module but that's at a significant trade off. You would also need to brick tank a Battleship to hit the same levels of tank you get on a HIC fit.

In general it's going to tank about as well as a HIC, which proves my point about size not dictating performance.

Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Well, the point I put forth wasn't about the specific bonus so much as general fitting restrictions placed on industrial ships so I'm actually not really sure where your focus on that stems from here.


I recommend you go back and read the chain of discussion you jumped into then. Start here or scroll up a bit if you want to read Goati's original post instead of my quote of it for some reason.

Tyberius Franklin wrote:
But on that specific point, size isn't even an argument with regard to that ability. you already pointed to the parallel and I agree. what I disagree with and was also pointed out by Nevyn Auscent is that the general way industrial ships work fitting wise could easily allow for the ships to work more closely to the slot and PG/CPU counts of other ships in their size class because they really aren't out of place when you consider equivalent function.


Possibly, but that's its own topic and well outside the scope of the introduction of this new hull or the general changes to Mining Support vessels. That would be an entire rework of all mining hulls and would introduce some pretty significant balance issues. If a ship has slots it should have the fitting to reasonably use them. Even discounting the high slots on a BC or Cruiser if you gave all mining ships mid and low slots to roughly match a Combat BC that's an extra 2 slots each. That's pretty much a straight buff to max mining yield, tank, and basically the ships in every way.

I believe part of the reason for the original limited slot layout was that it effectively constrains how high mining yields can get and how tanky you can be while mining. Even if you, somehow, only give these ships enough CPU and PG to add tank in those extra slots you're still giving them a pretty significant buff and I just don't see a good reason for that right now.
Cade Windstalker
#258 - 2016-11-10 20:46:03 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
So comparing a T2 Ship designed to be tanked heavily (Skiff) to a T2 ship that is designed to be tanked heavily (HIC) is wrong?
Uh what. They are equivalent heavy tank designs, and the Skiff doesn't even come close to out tanking a battleship.
So thank you for making the opposite point than you intended.


You seem to have miss-read what I wrote. I was saying that HICs generally out-tank battleships, not that Skiffs do.

Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Tyberious nicely framed the rest of my point, and at no point have I ever advocated for any change to the ships bonuses, just for a change in the fitting capabilities and some unbonused slots for turrets or launchers. & yes, just because it's BC sized doesn't mean it 'needs' BC stats, but those should be the default starting point and then modify slightly from there.
For example ABC's don't magically lose half their slots just because they fit large guns.


You're still using the logic that BC size means BC stats and fittings, and that's just not the case. In fact it hasn't been the case for most of Eve's history. For example Industrials are about the size and speed of a BC but they don't get anywhere near the fittings of a BC because they're designed to haul stuff.

For the rest of my point about limiting mining ship fittings see my response to Tyberious.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#259 - 2016-11-10 21:36:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Cade Windstalker wrote:
A Marauder is not a tank oriented ship in the same way that a Skiff or a HIC is, it doesn't have the resists or brick-for-its-size tank that the Skiff or a HIC has. They get something like that with the Bastion module but that's at a significant trade off. You would also need to brick tank a Battleship to hit the same levels of tank you get on a HIC fit.

In general it's going to tank about as well as a HIC, which proves my point about size not dictating performance.
For a BS a marauder is actually about as close as you get in raw HP, former tier 3 BSs coming shortly behind (or ahead in the case of the pair with resist bonuses). BSs don't actually have a true equivalent class, but in terms of HP their still the subcap kings.

As a side note, the skiff trails the onyx at around ~125k vs 150k EHP fully bricked. Rokh got just over 200k, Raven ~176k, Golem 195k (without bastion). Fully bricked vs fully bricked gives ~10%-50% raw HP benefit to the BSs. That's on top of the advantages of their inherent module use granting them greater DPS and range per their role. As stated prior, both the HICs and the Skiff are designed to tank outside of their class, and so so in the same size envelope with similar results. That means there's nothing to reign in (save the base HP in exchange for room to fir it decently), nor is there any idea that class conventions for balancing around size AND role are not being applied.

Cade Windstalker wrote:
I recommend you go back and read the chain of discussion you jumped into then. Start here or scroll up a bit if you want to read Goati's original post instead of my quote of it for some reason.
Sure, lets do that looking for the relevant bits being discussed:

Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Actually they do need balancing along the same lines as combat ships. Just instead of DPS bonuses they get mining/hauling bonuses. But otherwise they should be balanced along the same lines as combat ships.

The fact that they haven't been till now is why we have such a cultural bias treating miners as second class citizens of EVE, because CCP themselves have been treating them as second class citizens and not allowing them to actually fit their ships with any variety. Compare the number of slots, PG & CPU to an equivalent size/cost Combat ship. If the answer is not 'Basically the same' then there is an issue, and Industrialists will continue to get mistreated.

And yes, giving them the same means people will come up with some combat uses for them, And? Why is this a bad thing if someone decided that a proper fittable freighter made a great pipe bombing ship. Who cares, it's out in space at risk doing stuff.

So yes it should have the range bonus.
And it should have the same fitting options.
If you want to suggest the ONLY point here is about the bonus and not any comment about how industrial ships are balanced vs similarly sized combat ships then please present your reasoning. As it stands I'm not aware of any good reason not to address the content of the post and your counterclaim.

Cade Windstalker wrote:
Possibly, but that's its own topic and well outside the scope of the introduction of this new hull or the general changes to Mining Support vessels. That would be an entire rework of all mining hulls and would introduce some pretty significant balance issues. If a ship has slots it should have the fitting to reasonably use them. Even discounting the high slots on a BC or Cruiser if you gave all mining ships mid and low slots to roughly match a Combat BC that's an extra 2 slots each. That's pretty much a straight buff to max mining yield, tank, and basically the ships in every way.

I believe part of the reason for the original limited slot layout was that it effectively constrains how high mining yields can get and how tanky you can be while mining. Even if you, somehow, only give these ships enough CPU and PG to add tank in those extra slots you're still giving them a pretty significant buff and I just don't see a good reason for that right now.
How is the introduction of a ship that has all of the limitations and failings of industrial ships not relevant to the limitations and failings of industrial ships? This is just as good a place to bring it up as any because the philosophy directly affects the hull in question.

Yes, it's a greater issue than just this hull, but it applies to this hull so here we are.

As a aide note regarding the idea of a pure buff, you're making a bit of an assumption there. The complaint has 2 parts: 1) The limited slots and fitting pigeonhole the ships too much, which 2) Necessitates baking too much of their ideal function into the stats to make them work. A 6 mid/4 low skiff with room to fit could (and should) easily be a 15k unfitted EHP ship instead of 35K. Adding 2 lows does potentially increase yields, but again, stats baked into mods because the ships using the can't stack them deeply.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#260 - 2016-11-10 21:58:29 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
You seem to have miss-read what I wrote. I was saying that HICs generally out-tank battleships, not that Skiffs do.
Using T2 tank mods on a brick fit there is only a small difference between a skiff and onyx in the onyx's favor. Fitting for combat vs yield (while maintaining a DC on the skiff) only changes that slightly, and depending on the fit may favor the skiff. If one out tanks BSs, they both do.

Cade Windstalker wrote:
You're still using the logic that BC size means BC stats and fittings, and that's just not the case. In fact it hasn't been the case for most of Eve's history. For example Industrials are about the size and speed of a BC but they don't get anywhere near the fittings of a BC because they're designed to haul stuff.

For the rest of my point about limiting mining ship fittings see my response to Tyberious.
Yes, that's the issue were trying to address here.

Another stat comparison for reference as well. DSTs are actually pretty decent considering their lack of hardpoints. ~130k max EHP, 26.9k base and roughly half the sig of a ~140k EHP brick fitted or 24.9k base drake.