These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
Brave Collective
#261 - 2016-11-10 22:07:59 UTC
Penance Toralen wrote:
Cade Windstalker wrote:
As for the "ability to face combat"
...
Then let's talk about that. This ship just has four mids to fit a tank....


Ouuh, you are looking at the wrong place. You only need 2-3 modules for a proper tank. One mid-slot and both lows.

If you want to push it, you need one mid-slot and 2 high-slots and another Porpoise for tanking.

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever

Penance Toralen
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#262 - 2016-11-10 22:19:00 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.


The key point is "Frigate Only". It is a area which previously has not permitted hauling logistics. With its RR capability and reasonable drone bay it is a modest yet effective against sleepers. Because the Prospect only has its cloak for defense. (Endurances are only good for ice, ventures out gas/ore mine them). Shattered Wormholes are not effected by mass passage, plus the Prospects can double as scouts.
Feng Yotosashi
Yamato Inc.
#263 - 2016-11-12 18:29:04 UTC
About time we had something that at least ressembles a dedicated ninja-booster ship, but to be honest it felt short on my expectations.

With such a low value (~40-50 million is a bit too low IMO), it surely fits in the risk/value window where you can take the ship along sneaky mining ops in hostile systems. At first glance, cargo AND fleet hangar capacity looks fine too.

But I'd rather have a "half-Orca" (~half an Orca's price but lower mining boost, lower cargo capacity, etc) that came with truly COOL stuff for ninja industrialists like the abillity to fit Covert Ops Cloaking Device, scanning modules, improved mobility, maybe Covert Jump Portal, and things like that. Things that improved the time and effort it takes to get to the ore, and that is core to a ninja miner's experience. Hell, it would be fair if a ship like that was just about the same price or even more than an Orca, but it would certainly be funnier to fly too.

In time, the major letdown for me is the design... a green Noctis*? That's all? Nothing against the Noctis itself, but come on, CCP, you guys have been releasing awesome ship designs lately, specially for Caldari ships, why not on this one. What?



"The carp and the cutting board" - 忍者産業

Feng Yotosashi
Yamato Inc.
#264 - 2016-11-12 18:41:09 UTC
Quazided wrote:
Waited weeks to see a new ship design for the porpoise......

Clicked on the news link excitedly......

Saw the fugly Noctis with a skin job.......

Left disappointed......


Same here.

"The carp and the cutting board" - 忍者産業

Petrified
Old and Petrified Syndication
TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance
#265 - 2016-11-12 22:21:47 UTC
Feng Yotosashi wrote:
Quazided wrote:
Waited weeks to see a new ship design for the porpoise......

Clicked on the news link excitedly......

Saw the fugly Noctis with a skin job.......

Left disappointed......


Same here.


We can hope that they do a redesign like they have for other ships (griffin, blackbird, etc ) sooner rather than later. I understand they can get stretched with regards to working the designs in to the game so using the Noctis hull at present may just be a temporary placeholder until they have the time to make a proper design.

But like I said before: a streamlined, porpoise-like ship would be very appropriate. At least lose the extensions on the Noctis while keeping the industrial design (fitting in with the Orca and Bowhead being industrial in appearance) - just more streamlined.

Cloaking is the closest thing to a "Pause Game" button one can get while in space.

Support better localization for the Japanese Community.

Raw Matters
Brilliant Starfire
#266 - 2016-11-13 01:14:48 UTC
Penance Toralen wrote:
The key point is "Frigate Only".

The WHs with 5m mass top are extremely rare, but I agree: for these you now have a basic ore hauler. This is definitely a good thing, but then why leave the Porpoise in that niche? A few changes and it can actually be a good ship for more than a single, rare purpose.
Swirlar
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#267 - 2016-11-13 20:36:11 UTC
Thank you CCP, this ship is a needed addition to the fleet.
The orca has become too expensive to field in dangerous environments, while this cruiser is essentially expendable.
David Asanari
AmPro
#268 - 2016-11-15 20:01:15 UTC
Does anyone know what's the BPO price for Porpoise at ORE NPC stations?
Penance Toralen
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#269 - 2016-11-20 11:18:19 UTC
David Asanari wrote:
Does anyone know what's the BPO price for Porpoise at ORE NPC stations?


600,000,000
Cade Windstalker
#270 - 2016-11-20 19:22:22 UTC
Feng Yotosashi wrote:
About time we had something that at least ressembles a dedicated ninja-booster ship, but to be honest it felt short on my expectations.

With such a low value (~40-50 million is a bit too low IMO), it surely fits in the risk/value window where you can take the ship along sneaky mining ops in hostile systems. At first glance, cargo AND fleet hangar capacity looks fine too.

But I'd rather have a "half-Orca" (~half an Orca's price but lower mining boost, lower cargo capacity, etc) that came with truly COOL stuff for ninja industrialists like the abillity to fit Covert Ops Cloaking Device, scanning modules, improved mobility, maybe Covert Jump Portal, and things like that. Things that improved the time and effort it takes to get to the ore, and that is core to a ninja miner's experience. Hell, it would be fair if a ship like that was just about the same price or even more than an Orca, but it would certainly be funnier to fly too.

In time, the major letdown for me is the design... a green Noctis*? That's all? Nothing against the Noctis itself, but come on, CCP, you guys have been releasing awesome ship designs lately, specially for Caldari ships, why not on this one. What?


I don't think this ship is specifically intended for ninja-mining, it's just a cheaper boosting option. Nothing CCP has said regarding this ship suggests that it was going to meet your expectations here.

If there's a reasonable use-case for a cloaky mining booster then that might be an interesting T2 extension for the hull but I doubt we'll see a covert jump portal generator, since mining ships wouldn't be able to use it and a regular jump portal on a cheap ship would have a pretty massive impact on force projection in other areas of the game.

Raw Matters wrote:
Penance Toralen wrote:
The key point is "Frigate Only".

The WHs with 5m mass top are extremely rare, but I agree: for these you now have a basic ore hauler. This is definitely a good thing, but then why leave the Porpoise in that niche? A few changes and it can actually be a good ship for more than a single, rare purpose.


Because that's not the niche it's intended to fill, it's just a niche it can fill that other hulls can't. This is, first and foremost, intended as a cheaper boosting hull. Whether that's for newer miners who don't feel comfortable with an Orca's cost or for higher risk mining operations.

That "a few changes" line feels like it could just as accurately be ended with "a few changes and it could be really OP for the cost" or just completely invalidate the Orca as a boosting ship for the cost. Personally I think it's fine if the boosting starter ship is more niche and that seems to be CCP's intent here.
Cade Windstalker
#271 - 2016-11-20 19:38:32 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
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.


No BSes don't, which further makes your attempted comparison less relevant. Also they tend to have lower raw HP values as a balance to their slightly better base resists, being geared more towards active tank than raw EHP.

Tyberius Franklin wrote:
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.


Full brick tanks aren't really an instructive comparison here. A Battleship has more slots and fitting space so of course you can fit more tank onto it. If you fit the ships how they're actually flown though then the HICs come out ahead, especially after overheating. Most Battleships don't pass 100k in commonly flown fits, while most HICs easily pass that.

My point here is that there is no hard convention here regarding ship size and expected EHP values beyond those inherent in the speed vs raw hitpoints trade off that is inherent in Eve tanking. T1 and T2 Cruiser hulls range from 10k EHP for a reasonable fit to pushing 150k on a HIC or some bait tanked fits. Those are all for combat ships though, mining ships serve a different purpose and are therefore balanced along different lines, something I've said several times during this discussion thread, which is where the original size vs balancing issue came up.

Tyberius Franklin wrote:
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.


As I said in response to the original post, and to you several times now, mining ships are not combat ships. They have different balance concerns and are designed to fill different roles. They make different trade-offs for different bonuses and it's absurd to claim that they should be balanced to the same standard or perform at the same level as a combat hull.

It's not like we're talking about a purely horizontal change here either, anything you could do to make them perform more like combat ships would be a raw buff to mining capability, whether it's more slots, more fitting, or just more raw HP.

Tyberius Franklin wrote:
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.


You're saying these design decisions are an issue, but CCP have made it pretty clear through the last three rounds of tweaking these hulls have received that it's an intentional design decision on their part. Mining hulls making certain trade-offs to be able to mine which could be summed up as "they're mining ships, not combat ships."

It's also not a question of whether the changes you're proposing would be a buff or not, they absolutely would, and that's something CCP is very wary of since mining is the underpinning of the entire Eve economy. Any buffs or nerfs to mining affect the entire economy and thus the entire game.

Lastly there's nothing wrong with a lot of the function being baked into the hulls. The same thing happens with plenty of other hulls in choices about their capacitor, raw HP, resists, and other raw stats. That's why we have different classes of ships instead of a few hulls and a ton of modules. You may have an issue with this but it's the general design path Eve has gone down and it's worked just fine. You and others making these arguments aren't really presenting any case for changing this beyond vague allusions to more flexible hulls (when past experience has shown that this would largely just be used to min-max existing ship roles) and a seeming personal objection to this design philosophy, which while fair isn't going to change the minds of the design team that originally made the decision.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#272 - 2016-11-21 21:17:04 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
No BSes don't, which further makes your attempted comparison less relevant. Also they tend to have lower raw HP values as a balance to their slightly better base resists, being geared more towards active tank than raw EHP.
Yes, they do. I provided numbers backing that up.

Cade Windstalker wrote:
Full brick tanks aren't really an instructive comparison here. A Battleship has more slots and fitting space so of course you can fit more tank onto it. If you fit the ships how they're actually flown though then the HICs come out ahead, especially after overheating. Most Battleships don't pass 100k in commonly flown fits, while most HICs easily pass that.

My point here is that there is no hard convention here regarding ship size and expected EHP values beyond those inherent in the speed vs raw hitpoints trade off that is inherent in Eve tanking. T1 and T2 Cruiser hulls range from 10k EHP for a reasonable fit to pushing 150k on a HIC or some bait tanked fits. Those are all for combat ships though, mining ships serve a different purpose and are therefore balanced along different lines, something I've said several times during this discussion thread, which is where the original size vs balancing issue came up.
Even leaving max tank aside, tankier BSs still meet or exceed the tanks of HICs for a number of purposes. One really common one is incursions and there you have significant emphasis on DPS, tracking and webbing as well on single hulls. A HIC falls short of the same HP when fit with that variety of utility.


Cade Windstalker wrote:
As I said in response to the original post, and to you several times now, mining ships are not combat ships. They have different balance concerns and are designed to fill different roles. They make different trade-offs for different bonuses and it's absurd to claim that they should be balanced to the same standard or perform at the same level as a combat hull.

It's not like we're talking about a purely horizontal change here either, anything you could do to make them perform more like combat ships would be a raw buff to mining capability, whether it's more slots, more fitting, or just more raw HP.
As has been responded, no one is trying to make mining ships combat ships. Increasing the mid/low slot count does not a combat ship make, especially when base stats are reduced to account for the increased fitting capacity which should be the case.

Whatever you are trying to argue against here isn't what's being asked. If it's possible to make a 6 mid onyx that gets ~100k EHP purpose fitted it possible to do the same with a skiff without buffing it. As stated already you just rebalance the base stats accordingly. I'm not sure if ignoring that is intentional at this point as it was explicitly stated in the post you're responding to.

Cade Windstalker wrote:
You're saying these design decisions are an issue, but CCP have made it pretty clear through the last three rounds of tweaking these hulls have received that it's an intentional design decision on their part. Mining hulls making certain trade-offs to be able to mine which could be summed up as "they're mining ships, not combat ships."

It's also not a question of whether the changes you're proposing would be a buff or not, they absolutely would, and that's something CCP is very wary of since mining is the underpinning of the entire Eve economy. Any buffs or nerfs to mining affect the entire economy and thus the entire game.

Lastly there's nothing wrong with a lot of the function being baked into the hulls. The same thing happens with plenty of other hulls in choices about their capacitor, raw HP, resists, and other raw stats. That's why we have different classes of ships instead of a few hulls and a ton of modules. You may have an issue with this but it's the general design path Eve has gone down and it's worked just fine. You and others making these arguments aren't really presenting any case for changing this beyond vague allusions to more flexible hulls (when past experience has shown that this would largely just be used to min-max existing ship roles) and a seeming personal objection to this design philosophy, which while fair isn't going to change the minds of the design team that originally made the decision.
And we're stating we disagree with that direction because there is nothing mining specific about these limitations. There never has been. And frankly, that same argument suggests the skiff and proc shouldn't exist because at one point in time no mining ship could have that level of tank and yet mining worked just fine. Even still their introduction failed to become a specific boost to mining itself.

Your logic is making a number of assumptions that just don't hold under any reasonable scrutiny, especially when the opposite of those positions is being suggested here.

Also you're either missing or glossing over the point of hull flexibility due to the capacity to ignore some or all of a ships bonuses to create something not directly intended with a hull that's at the same time not an imbalance just because the hull is not constrained to the design intent.

With that in mind, why is mining specifically a task which needs such a consideration when the designers at all points have full control to limit the upper end of mining itself within those hulls? What possible scenario comes up that leaves mining unbalanceable?
Cade Windstalker
#273 - 2016-11-22 04:28:06 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Yes, they do. I provided numbers backing that up.


Marauders aren't a true tank class, they're never used as such except for PvE where their active tank is extremely strong, and even then they need a specific module to beat regular BS tank.

On top of that the numbers you provided for other hulls are all extremely unrealistic tank fits that never get used outside of extremely niche circumstances. In comparison a HIC is frequently fit to be extremely tanky since staying alive and running a bubble are generally the extent of its jobs.

Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Even leaving max tank aside, tankier BSs still meet or exceed the tanks of HICs for a number of purposes. One really common one is incursions and there you have significant emphasis on DPS, tracking and webbing as well on single hulls. A HIC falls short of the same HP when fit with that variety of utility.


First off most Incursion fits cap out around 100k EHP before fleet boosts. The only ones that go above that do so almost entirely due to the high base HP values for Pirate BSes. Lastly in order to hit that level of tank and mount any kind of utility they need to be faction fit, at which point with a comparable level of fitting the HIC will have significantly higher EHP.


Tyberius Franklin wrote:
As has been responded, no one is trying to make mining ships combat ships. Increasing the mid/low slot count does not a combat ship make, especially when base stats are reduced to account for the increased fitting capacity which should be the case.

Whatever you are trying to argue against here isn't what's being asked. If it's possible to make a 6 mid onyx that gets ~100k EHP purpose fitted it possible to do the same with a skiff without buffing it. As stated already you just rebalance the base stats accordingly. I'm not sure if ignoring that is intentional at this point as it was explicitly stated in the post you're responding to.


I think I may be making some assumptions that you're missing here, so let me spell those out for you.

If you add slots to the ships then you need to add fittings to make them usable. If you add fittings to mining ships you buff base yield and probably also durability and gank resistance for a given mining yield. Even if you reduce base stats somewhere, which for mining yield you would have to do on the mining lasers, then you're still giving a net buff to the ships.

The end point here is that you're advocating for a change that isn't necessary since mining ships are more or less where CCP want them. What you're saying is that you want CCP to give you more slots, but re-balance around those slots so the ships stay more or less where they are, which is a giant waste of CCP's time that could be better spent doing something far less niche and pointless.

Tyberius Franklin wrote:
And we're stating we disagree with that direction because there is nothing mining specific about these limitations. There never has been. And frankly, that same argument suggests the skiff and proc shouldn't exist because at one point in time no mining ship could have that level of tank and yet mining worked just fine. Even still their introduction failed to become a specific boost to mining itself.

Your logic is making a number of assumptions that just don't hold under any reasonable scrutiny, especially when the opposite of those positions is being suggested here.


You're taking my words and twisting them hilariously out of context here. When the Skiff was introduced there was basically one option for mining, which was the Hulk. It won in tank and mining amount so that's what everyone used. When they tiericided the mining ships the Skiff didn't become something weird, it basically became a very tank-fit Hulk and a bit more. It wasn't particularly breaking the mold, it was just taking an old hull that no one used and giving it a role.

Also I'm really not seeing the assumptions you're referring to here.

Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Also you're either missing or glossing over the point of hull flexibility due to the capacity to ignore some or all of a ships bonuses to create something not directly intended with a hull that's at the same time not an imbalance just because the hull is not constrained to the design intent.

With that in mind, why is mining specifically a task which needs such a consideration when the designers at all points have full control to limit the upper end of mining itself within those hulls? What possible scenario comes up that leaves mining unbalanceable?


Quite simply mining is raw economic activity, so if they get something wrong here the effects are greater than if they screw something up in the PvP space. On top of that there's just not any particular incentive on the designer's part to complicate their design space here, which is what you're proposing, on the off chance that it opens up some niche lol-fit options for players. The mining ships work fine as they are and those lol-fits already exist. CCP doesn't need to make more work for themselves so and spend a lot of time and effort balancing around extra mids just to get back to a point they were already at.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#274 - 2016-11-22 19:50:42 UTC
"Marauders aren't a true tank class, they're never used as such except for PvE where their active tank is extremely strong, and even then they need a specific module to beat regular BS tank." - Incorrect, aside from passive resist bonused BSs Marauders do tend to have more EHP in similar fits. That's before bastion.

"On top of that the numbers you provided for other hulls are all extremely unrealistic tank fits that never get used outside of extremely niche circumstances. In comparison a HIC is frequently fit to be extremely tanky since staying alive and running a bubble are generally the extent of its jobs." - I provided all around peaks concentrating first on primary tank layer. They all come down proportionally with similar levels of utility. The only exception you might have in HIC vs BS specifically is that one utility is shifted to a high, eliminating that mods need to reduce a tank slot.

And realistically high EHP is generally part of a BSs job as compensation for sig and speed loss compared to lower classes.

"First off most Incursion fits cap out around 100k EHP before fleet boosts. The only ones that go above that do so almost entirely due to the high base HP values for Pirate BSes. Lastly in order to hit that level of tank and mount any kind of utility they need to be faction fit, at which point with a comparable level of fitting the HIC will have significantly higher EHP." - Not true. 100k EHP is a typical minimum even among groups that allow non-pirate BSs. And that's still before boost and without requiring faction mods. Starter Hyperions don't require faction fitting to hit those numbers and those don't even have an EHP centric bonus. That's a shield hype too. Not even the intended primary tank layer.


Cade Windstalker wrote:
I think I may be making some assumptions that you're missing here, so let me spell those out for you.

If you add slots to the ships then you need to add fittings to make them usable. If you add fittings to mining ships you buff base yield and probably also durability and gank resistance for a given mining yield. Even if you reduce base stats somewhere, which for mining yield you would have to do on the mining lasers, then you're still giving a net buff to the ships.

The end point here is that you're advocating for a change that isn't necessary since mining ships are more or less where CCP want them. What you're saying is that you want CCP to give you more slots, but re-balance around those slots so the ships stay more or less where they are, which is a giant waste of CCP's time that could be better spent doing something far less niche and pointless.
Again, that's if you only buff slot could and CPU/PG without a corresponding reduction to the base hull capabilities. We aren't asking for the skiff to be turned into a 30k EHP base, 200k EHP peak monster with 6 mids and some fitting room. We're asking for a 15k EHP base, which means nerfing the base stats, and the fitting slots and room to better tailor the ship to a specific purpose which all in all will likely drop the EHP on builds since the peak is the same.

And realistically adding mids with tank capabilities ending up where they are now overall won't affect yield in the least since no midslot mods affect that.

Cade Windstalker wrote:
You're taking my words and twisting them hilariously out of context here. When the Skiff was introduced there was basically one option for mining, which was the Hulk. It won in tank and mining amount so that's what everyone used. When they tiericided the mining ships the Skiff didn't become something weird, it basically became a very tank-fit Hulk and a bit more. It wasn't particularly breaking the mold, it was just taking an old hull that no one used and giving it a role.

Also I'm really not seeing the assumptions you're referring to here.
Yes, the skiff did become and remains something wierd compared to pre-tiericide mining. While true the hulk was the peak mining ship, even fully tanked it came to 1/2 to 1/3 of the skiffs tank now. The selection of ships changed to introduce an EHP behemoth compared to all prior options.

The things is, both designs were representative of some design intent. That should make it clear that intent in malleable. Really the argument of current intent is a non-argument, unless coupled with maybe the idea that resources are best spent elsewhere. Even then that doesn't address the merit or lack thereof in the idea.

Cade Windstalker wrote:
Quite simply mining is raw economic activity, so if they get something wrong here the effects are greater than if they screw something up in the PvP space. On top of that there's just not any particular incentive on the designer's part to complicate their design space here, which is what you're proposing, on the off chance that it opens up some niche lol-fit options for players. The mining ships work fine as they are and those lol-fits already exist. CCP doesn't need to make more work for themselves so and spend a lot of time and effort balancing around extra mids just to get back to a point they were already at.
Possible yes, probable? No, not unless you go beyond the request into something silly. IE: A 6 mid skiff with more PG/CPU, and of course the base EHP reduction, could make a better trap fit with utility, but won't actually change peak yields or outtank the current version. And really I'm not sure why anyone would fear for the economy with mining ships able to fit mass appropriate MWDs. Those too have no yield effect.

Now if you gave it say, 5 lows you might have room for concern, but with mining mods in the slots they are you limit damage potential by looking at where you can get gains without imbalancing or buffing the ships in their core capacity.
Cade Windstalker
#275 - 2016-11-23 16:02:11 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Incorrect, aside from passive resist bonused BSs Marauders do tend to have more EHP in similar fits. That's before bastion.


I stand somewhat corrected on that, I was thinking of a past version of the Marauders. That said they barely edge out a few ships on base HP and even get beaten out by a few T1 hulls. Calling them at all tank focused compared to something like the Skiff or the HIC class is ridiculous. For example the actually tank focused T1 Rokh is almost even with the T2 Golem even before taking into account its resist bonus.

Tyberius Franklin wrote:
And realistically high EHP is generally part of a BSs job as compensation for sig and speed loss compared to lower classes.

Not true. 100k EHP is a typical minimum even among groups that allow non-pirate BSs. And that's still before boost and without requiring faction mods. Starter Hyperions don't require faction fitting to hit those numbers and those don't even have an EHP centric bonus. That's a shield hype too. Not even the intended primary tank layer.


First off, a PvP fleet BS will rarely if ever get close to 100k EHP. It's just not needed.

Beyond that your Incursion information is half accurate at best. First off, Gallente ships can generally tank Shield about as well as Armor, they don't really have a "Primary tank layer" they just have a slight bias towards Armor in slot layout. Beyond that I said that they couldn't hit those EHP numbers without faction fittings and maintain any reasonable degree of utility. A Hyperion fitted out with entirely T2 tank is going to be a block of shields and guns and not much else. In order to get large EHP values *and* utility modules you either need an armor fit (at which point you're trading heavily on DPS instead of utility) or faction mods.

Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Again, that's if you only buff slot could and CPU/PG without a corresponding reduction to the base hull capabilities. We aren't asking for the skiff to be turned into a 30k EHP base, 200k EHP peak monster with 6 mids and some fitting room. We're asking for a 15k EHP base, which means nerfing the base stats, and the fitting slots and room to better tailor the ship to a specific purpose which all in all will likely drop the EHP on builds since the peak is the same.

And realistically adding mids with tank capabilities ending up where they are now overall won't affect yield in the least since no midslot mods affect that.


I covered that in my comment that you just quoted, it's covered under "Even if you reduce base stats somewhere..." and goes from there.

Mining ships are, quite intentionally, very fitting crunched. They have trouble fitting a large tank and maxing out their mining capacity. If you add slots you make it *much* easier to min-max things and get both tank and mining yield. There is no way around this, when you add fitting space and slots to a ship the space of possible outcomes for the ship expands.

Even if you only add mid slots you're expanding the likely end result mining yield for a given tank since if it's reasonably possible to hit the old tank and yield with T2 then you can throw on some cheap faction and get a net buff to both, especially since fitting-focused faction is *really* cheap, for little cost or risk, because the extra fittings are very very useful on a mining ship.

Besides that you've completely ignored my point about essentially asking CCP to add two slots to everything and rebalance back to the point we're already at. There's no point in them spending the time to do that unless there's an actual need to shake up the mining fitting space. A desire for sillier gank-miner fits is far to niche to fit that requirement.

Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Yes, the skiff did become and remains something wierd compared to pre-tiericide mining. While true the hulk was the peak mining ship, even fully tanked it came to 1/2 to 1/3 of the skiffs tank now. The selection of ships changed to introduce an EHP behemoth compared to all prior options.

The things is, both designs were representative of some design intent. That should make it clear that intent in malleable. Really the argument of current intent is a non-argument, unless coupled with maybe the idea that resources are best spent elsewhere. Even then that doesn't address the merit or lack thereof in the idea.


That was something of the point here. Give miners a high-tank and very hard to gank option at the expense of their yield. That gives miners something to retreat to to avoid suicide ganks so if those ganks become too much of an issue to the point that mining in a Hulk is no longer profitable everyone just runs Skiffs and the gankers run out of viable targets. In response we've gotten bumping but that's something else entirely and isn't a problem with any of the ships it's a core design issue in the game that needs its own solution.

While design intent is certainly malleable you need to provide an argument in favor of changing it, and no one pushing this idea of more slots has done that, you've just suggested that more slots and fitting options is an inherently good enough thing that it makes it's own argument, and that's just not the case. More fitting options comes at the cost of making the design space harder to balance in addition to the cost of making the change and balancing around it.

I'd quote your last bit here but there's not much point, everything there is already covered elsewhere. I'll just reiterate that I specified mining yield for a given EHP as a concern here, and you seem to have completely ignored that in favor of the idea that more fitting options on a ship is this inherent golden shining dream that the designers should aspire to at the expense of all else, which is patently ridiculous. Also just because you can't think of a specific issue with an idea doesn't make it good, you also need a specific benefit, and you don't have one here.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#276 - 2016-11-23 22:20:32 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
I stand somewhat corrected on that, I was thinking of a past version of the Marauders. That said they barely edge out a few ships on base HP and even get beaten out by a few T1 hulls. Calling them at all tank focused compared to something like the Skiff or the HIC class is ridiculous. For example the actually tank focused T1 Rokh is almost even with the T2 Golem even before taking into account its resist bonus.
And there was a reason "closest to" was used as a descriptor there, but were descending into semantics at this point. Either way, aside from EHP enhancing bonused boats they typically come out on top.

Cade Windstalker wrote:
First off, a PvP fleet BS will rarely if ever get close to 100k EHP. It's just not needed.

Beyond that your Incursion information is half accurate at best. First off, Gallente ships can generally tank Shield about as well as Armor, they don't really have a "Primary tank layer" they just have a slight bias towards Armor in slot layout. Beyond that I said that they couldn't hit those EHP numbers without faction fittings and maintain any reasonable degree of utility. A Hyperion fitted out with entirely T2 tank is going to be a block of shields and guns and not much else. In order to get large EHP values *and* utility modules you either need an armor fit (at which point you're trading heavily on DPS instead of utility) or faction mods.
And I addressed the issue of utility as well. You aren't getting > 100K EHP HICs in 2 races with utility and without faction. The Phobos won't get that without a damage sacrifice BSs don't have to make. The Devoted has the same issue to a lesser extent.

Cade Windstalker wrote:
I covered that in my comment that you just quoted, it's covered under "Even if you reduce base stats somewhere..." and goes from there.

Mining ships are, quite intentionally, very fitting crunched. They have trouble fitting a large tank and maxing out their mining capacity. If you add slots you make it *much* easier to min-max things and get both tank and mining yield. There is no way around this, when you add fitting space and slots to a ship the space of possible outcomes for the ship expands.

Even if you only add mid slots you're expanding the likely end result mining yield for a given tank since if it's reasonably possible to hit the old tank and yield with T2 then you can throw on some cheap faction and get a net buff to both, especially since fitting-focused faction is *really* cheap, for little cost or risk, because the extra fittings are very very useful on a mining ship.

Besides that you've completely ignored my point about essentially asking CCP to add two slots to everything and rebalance back to the point we're already at. There's no point in them spending the time to do that unless there's an actual need to shake up the mining fitting space. A desire for sillier gank-miner fits is far to niche to fit that requirement.
No, the point isn't to be where we're already at because undeniably there are more options open when the fitting room exists. Looking at the peaks and determining hothing changed is an oversimplification.

And no, not all of the ships have that issue of not being able to devote resources to both. Again, you have the behemoths that are the Skiff and Proc in terms of what they can do comparatively. Then Mack isn't so bad but the Hulk has probably been shafted a couple times IMHO. Especially the latest run which nerfed yield and gave a lowslot, but didn't do jack to make it useful.

Cade Windstalker wrote:
That was something of the point here. Give miners a high-tank and very hard to gank option at the expense of their yield. That gives miners something to retreat to to avoid suicide ganks so if those ganks become too much of an issue to the point that mining in a Hulk is no longer profitable everyone just runs Skiffs and the gankers run out of viable targets. In response we've gotten bumping but that's something else entirely and isn't a problem with any of the ships it's a core design issue in the game that needs its own solution.

While design intent is certainly malleable you need to provide an argument in favor of changing it, and no one pushing this idea of more slots has done that, you've just suggested that more slots and fitting options is an inherently good enough thing that it makes it's own argument, and that's just not the case. More fitting options comes at the cost of making the design space harder to balance in addition to the cost of making the change and balancing around it.

I'd quote your last bit here but there's not much point, everything there is already covered elsewhere. I'll just reiterate that I specified mining yield for a given EHP as a concern here, and you seem to have completely ignored that in favor of the idea that more fitting options on a ship is this inherent golden shining dream that the designers should aspire to at the expense of all else, which is patently ridiculous. Also just because you can't think of a specific issue with an idea doesn't make it good, you also need a specific benefit, and you don't have one here.
We already provided reason. We want to do more with the ships in general. We'd like to use more of the size appropriate mods and be able to use even mining related utilities without throwing away significant portions of tank on the more limited ships. But with 4 mids on a shield tank fitting utility is a significant and disproportionate use of resources.

And no, I haven't ignored yield:EHP so much as recognized it doesn't exist as such. The Mack and Skiff have the same yield envelope, but one is far greater in tank. There is no straightforward equivalency there. The accusation is also explicitly false even if we did by that logic as I actually spelled out the methods of ensuring that those numbers remained the same despite the enhanced fitting.
elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
Brave Collective
#277 - 2016-11-23 22:50:37 UTC
Just leaving one observation on the Porpoise here:

One damage control unit and one t2 bulkhead + 3 t2 hull rigs and one adaptive invulnerability field II gives that ship approximately 79.000ehp.

Looks like fitting is not your strong suit.

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever

Cade Windstalker
#278 - 2016-11-24 07:12:59 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
And there was a reason "closest to" was used as a descriptor there, but were descending into semantics at this point. Either way, aside from EHP enhancing bonused boats they typically come out on top.


Yes, because larger ships tend to have more raw HP to make up for their lack of ability to mitigate damage and/or risk in other ways, but it's by no means universal. Carriers and Dreadnoughts tank far more than Freighters, Cruisers tank more than Industrials, and Battlecruisers tank more than Mining Barges and Exhumers, except for the tank focused ones.

That's because those ships are intended to be squishy as a balance parameter.

Tyberius Franklin wrote:
And I addressed the issue of utility as well. You aren't getting > 100K EHP HICs in 2 races with utility and without faction. The Phobos won't get that without a damage sacrifice BSs don't have to make. The Devoted has the same issue to a lesser extent.


You're getting all the utility the ship needs, and it's a commonly used PvP fit. The closest you could come up with for a BS equivalent was a single use role PvE fit that's very nearly all tank and nothing else. You're the one who brought Utility into it when you brought up Incursion ships, I just set you straight on that point.

Tyberius Franklin wrote:
No, the point isn't to be where we're already at because undeniably there are more options open when the fitting room exists. Looking at the peaks and determining hothing changed is an oversimplification.

And no, not all of the ships have that issue of not being able to devote resources to both. Again, you have the behemoths that are the Skiff and Proc in terms of what they can do comparatively. Then Mack isn't so bad but the Hulk has probably been shafted a couple times IMHO. Especially the latest run which nerfed yield and gave a lowslot, but didn't do jack to make it useful.


The Skiff and Procurers are tank focused ships intentionally and by design, their trade off in fitting is that you're not sitting in a Hulk and mining more than you could in the tankier hull. Also the last round of changes did not nerf the Hulk's yield. There were like three different people who spelled out the math on that one, the Hulk's max theoretical mining yield actually went up by a percent or two on the high end.

I'm also not suggesting nothing is going to change here, I'm saying that the end goal from CCP's perspective with any theoretical rebalance of mining ship slots is going to be to change the mining ecosystem as little as possible, but no change is impossible because you're adding slots and fittings to make those slots usable, and that's drastically increasing the likelihood that something will end up broken, either in favor of the gankers or against them in all likelihood.

Tyberius Franklin wrote:
We already provided reason. We want to do more with the ships in general. We'd like to use more of the size appropriate mods and be able to use even mining related utilities without throwing away significant portions of tank on the more limited ships. But with 4 mids on a shield tank fitting utility is a significant and disproportionate use of resources.

And no, I haven't ignored yield:EHP so much as recognized it doesn't exist as such. The Mack and Skiff have the same yield envelope, but one is far greater in tank. There is no straightforward equivalency there. The accusation is also explicitly false even if we did by that logic as I actually spelled out the methods of ensuring that those numbers remained the same despite the enhanced fitting.


I've already gone over why mining ships are so fitting constrained, so even with additional slots you're not going to get what you want unless they completely rebalance everything dealing with mining ships, modules, and their fittings, and that's fantastically unrealistic to be requesting just so you can maybe do some silly things with the hulls. The alternative is a bunch of weird glued on fitting bonuses for specific modules, like prop mods, but that's not really good design, would draw complaints from the general populous about the balance of the hulls, and be seen as a general buff to mining ships (which wouldn't be inaccurate).

You're just not understanding the trade-offs inherent in these hulls I think. There isn't just yield vs EHP at work here, but that is always the primary tradeoff for a miner. The Mack trades EHP and yield for a massive ore bay, the Skiff trades yield and ore storage for Tank, and the Hulk trades tank and ore storage for raw yield. Each of these individual ships has a set of fittings that give it various ratios of EHP to Ore Yield though, so yes Yield:EHP very much does exist as a balance parameter, as does the ratio of the EHP to the value of various gank ships.

You have spelled out nothing reasonable or concrete that would accomplish what you're suggesting, you've just hand waved around vague talk about changing base stats, which *still* shifts the EHP to Yield curve because there is no single change you can make to a base hull that is equivalent to two additional slots and fittings to use them. It just doesn't work that way, that's why base stats and slot layouts are separate balance parameters rather than every ship getting 24 slots and being tweaked solely on base stats.

The TLDR here is pretty much that balancing does not work how you seem to think it works, and your desires for these hulls are unrealistic because they are tangential at best to CCP's primary balance concerns in this design space.
Sergeant Pepper
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#279 - 2016-11-25 19:25:03 UTC
Hi there,

what about the announcement that the porpoise will fit in small wormholes? I have tried it out and i am not able to bring the porpoise in a C13. Bug? Works as designed?

Thank you...
Owen Levanth
Sagittarius Unlimited Exploration
#280 - 2016-11-25 20:07:57 UTC
Sergeant Pepper wrote:
Hi there,

what about the announcement that the porpoise will fit in small wormholes? I have tried it out and i am not able to bring the porpoise in a C13. Bug? Works as designed?

Thank you...


What do you have fitted? And do you have propulsion-modules active when trying to go through? Please remember stuff like armor mods will add mass to your ship.

The Porpoise is 4,5 million kg, which is below the 5 million kg mass limit for frigate-sized holes. If you have nothing mass-enlarging fitted and still can't go through, it's a bug.