These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[September] Mining Barge and Exhumer tweaks

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Tattoo Bob Onren
Doomheim
#541 - 2016-10-02 22:03:08 UTC
Ok guys

I have big trouble in the EVE universe. I have multiple players who are absolutely furious their HULKS now only have two strip miners. The spreadsheets and data seem to back up there claim it is now better to mine with the Venture instead of the costly exhumers?

I lost a few players when they made it more profitable to sell ore verse refine it. ( Who wants all that hassle, defending a giant space station flying around in NULL/WH space. ) Most of them conclude it is CCP's way to force people like us to fleet up the giant alliances.

Well guess what. Most of the miners I have already cancelled the account. As they put it they have real life bosses and the last thing they want to do is be yelled at by some twenty something issuing CTA and surrender the ORE here, log on here! Nuts to that. If they want grief they work overtime in real life for real money! CCP been doing a good job lately making the game more playable via technical improvements., well done CCP. I am certain there is sheet that contrast and compares the mining changes ship to ship. Can someone be useful and link that ASAP!

I would like to move away from people opinions and assurances and get some raw facts!


Penance Toralen
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#542 - 2016-10-03 04:13:27 UTC
Tattoo Bob Onren wrote:
Ok guys

I have big trouble in the EVE universe. I have multiple players who are absolutely furious their HULKS now only have two strip miners. The spreadsheets and data seem to back up there claim it is now better to mine with the Venture instead of the costly exhumers?

I lost a few players when they made it more profitable to sell ore verse refine it. ( Who wants all that hassle, defending a giant space station flying around in NULL/WH space. ) Most of them conclude it is CCP's way to force people like us to fleet up the giant alliances.

Well guess what. Most of the miners I have already cancelled the account. As they put it they have real life bosses and the last thing they want to do is be yelled at by some twenty something issuing CTA and surrender the ORE here, log on here! Nuts to that. If they want grief they work overtime in real life for real money! CCP been doing a good job lately making the game more playable via technical improvements., well done CCP. I am certain there is sheet that contrast and compares the mining changes ship to ship. Can someone be useful and link that ASAP!

I would like to move away from people opinions and assurances and get some raw facts!




Did they even both to check or just rage quit? In change for the high-slot, there is another low slot for a MLU and strips were buffed to meet the difference. Any miner worth the name should know how long it takes a fit a jetcan on the preferred fit. So they should before and after to be able to compare.

But since you want numbers: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6626486#post6626486
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#543 - 2016-10-03 04:18:18 UTC
Tattoo Bob Onren wrote:
Ok guys

I have big trouble in the EVE universe. I have multiple players who are absolutely furious their HULKS now only have two strip miners. The spreadsheets and data seem to back up there claim it is now better to mine with the Venture instead of the costly exhumers?

I lost a few players when they made it more profitable to sell ore verse refine it. ( Who wants all that hassle, defending a giant space station flying around in NULL/WH space. ) Most of them conclude it is CCP's way to force people like us to fleet up the giant alliances.

Well guess what. Most of the miners I have already cancelled the account. As they put it they have real life bosses and the last thing they want to do is be yelled at by some twenty something issuing CTA and surrender the ORE here, log on here! Nuts to that. If they want grief they work overtime in real life for real money! CCP been doing a good job lately making the game more playable via technical improvements., well done CCP. I am certain there is sheet that contrast and compares the mining changes ship to ship. Can someone be useful and link that ASAP!

I would like to move away from people opinions and assurances and get some raw facts!



They are using an old spreadsheet.
That's the only possible explanation if they believe a venture mines more than a hulk.

However the argument about RL Bosses is going to apply regardless.
Drago Shouna
Doomheim
#544 - 2016-10-03 08:24:15 UTC
Penance Toralen wrote:
Tattoo Bob Onren wrote:
Ok guys

I have big trouble in the EVE universe. I have multiple players who are absolutely furious their HULKS now only have two strip miners. The spreadsheets and data seem to back up there claim it is now better to mine with the Venture instead of the costly exhumers?

I lost a few players when they made it more profitable to sell ore verse refine it. ( Who wants all that hassle, defending a giant space station flying around in NULL/WH space. ) Most of them conclude it is CCP's way to force people like us to fleet up the giant alliances.

Well guess what. Most of the miners I have already cancelled the account. As they put it they have real life bosses and the last thing they want to do is be yelled at by some twenty something issuing CTA and surrender the ORE here, log on here! Nuts to that. If they want grief they work overtime in real life for real money! CCP been doing a good job lately making the game more playable via technical improvements., well done CCP. I am certain there is sheet that contrast and compares the mining changes ship to ship. Can someone be useful and link that ASAP!

I would like to move away from people opinions and assurances and get some raw facts!




Did they even both to check or just rage quit? In change for the high-slot, there is another low slot for a MLU and strips were buffed to meet the difference. Any miner worth the name should know how long it takes a fit a jetcan on the preferred fit. So they should before and after to be able to compare.

But since you want numbers: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6626486#post6626486



How exactly do you fit a jetcan to a Hulk?

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

Welcome to EVE.
Brokk Witgenstein
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#545 - 2016-10-03 08:27:50 UTC
He meant 'fill', obviously .....
Eric Lemmonte
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#546 - 2016-10-03 19:28:51 UTC
HarlyQ wrote:

Didnt you know the orca is being completely ignored. I mean why care about a crappy ore hold crappy cargo crappy agility i mean its just a crappy ship and no one should ever bother flying it. Unless they give it an ore hold of 2million m3.


I really feel like they need to drop the maintenance bay on the Orca to something negligible and boost the ore bay substantially. Maybe a 2-3000 maintenance bay just to have one and an ore bay in the hundreds of thousands. Somewhere around 2-300km3 range would be perfect.

I hope they don't lower it's tank when they make on-grid boosts a thing. I get a fair 400kehp with 2kehp/s rep on mine.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#547 - 2016-10-04 09:40:12 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Tattoo Bob Onren wrote:


I would like to move away from people opinions and assurances and get some raw facts!




Assuming we are putting 2x Modulated strip miner II fitted with veldspar mining crystal II on all 3 exhumers and fitting 2x Mining laser upgrade II with all skills to V (

Yield per second is as follows;

Hulk 28.4
Mackinaw 20
Skiff 20
Covetor 24
Retriever 18.04
Procurer 17.92
Kueyen
Angharradh's Aegis
#548 - 2016-10-04 18:27:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Kueyen
Eric Lemmonte wrote:
HarlyQ wrote:

Didnt you know the orca is being completely ignored. I mean why care about a crappy ore hold crappy cargo crappy agility i mean its just a crappy ship and no one should ever bother flying it. Unless they give it an ore hold of 2million m3.


I really feel like they need to drop the maintenance bay on the Orca to something negligible and boost the ore bay substantially. Maybe a 2-3000 maintenance bay just to have one and an ore bay in the hundreds of thousands. Somewhere around 2-300km3 range would be perfect.

I hope they don't lower it's tank when they make on-grid boosts a thing. I get a fair 400kehp with 2kehp/s rep on mine.

Done (well, not entirely, but still very commendable)

CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey folks! This will be the specific feedback thread for the Orca revamp coming this November.
You can check out the dev blog here for the whole context.
Other feedback threads are available for the Porpoise, Rorqual, and the mining foreman gameplay as a whole.

ORCA
Industrial Command Ships bonuses (per skill level):
5% bonus to ship cargo capacity and ore hold
3% bonus to Mining Foreman Burst Strength and Duration
1% bonus to Shield Command Burst Strength and Duration
10% bonus to drone hitpoints, damage and mining yield
-10% reduction in drone ice harvesting cycle time
Role bonus:
100% bonus to drone mining yield
-25% reduction in drone ice harvesting cycle time
100% bonus to drone damage
400% bonus to Remote Shield Booster optimal range
90% reduction to effective distance traveled for jump fatigue
Can fit three Command Burst modules
50% bonus to Command Burst Area of Effect Range
250% bonus to Tractor Beam range
100% bonus to Tractor Beam velocity
500% bonus to Survey Scanner range

Slot layout: 6H (+3), 5M (+1), 2L
Fittings: 1200 PWG (+240), 550 CPU (+120)
Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 30,000 (+19,250) / 7000 (+100) / 45,000 (-1000)
Base shield resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 0 / 20 / 40 / 50
Base armor resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 50 / 35 / 35 / 10
Capacitor (amount / recharge / cap per second) : 8000 (+3800) / 1200s (+400) / 6.67 (+1.42)
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 60 / 0.26 (+0.1) / 150,000,000 (-100,000,000) / 54.07s (-1.38)
Warp Speed: 2 au/s
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 50 / 200 (+125)
Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 70km (+10) / 75 / 7 (+5)
Sensor strength: 30 Magnetometric (+15)
Signature radius: 1000
Cargo Hold: 30,000m3
Ore Hold: 150,000m3 (+100,000)
Fleet Hangar: 40,000m3
Ship Maintenance Bay: 400,000m3

Cost: ~700m isk
Max Yield: ~1400m3 per minute + drone travel time
Max DPS: ~800 dps

that's 187500m³ at Industrial Command Ships V, + the 40000m³ fleet hangar and 37500m³ cargo hold, for a grand total of 265000m³ before modules or rigs (and given the increase in shield hp and the shield command burst bonus, a shield tank looks feasible, obviating the need for a cargohold-reducing hull tank)

Until all are free...
Eric Lemmonte
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#549 - 2016-10-04 18:47:12 UTC
Yeah push in the right direction. I still feel 150 is too small for a ship that massive.
Darrien
Ouroboros Logistics
#550 - 2016-10-04 19:19:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Darrien
Eric Lemmonte wrote:
Yeah push in the right direction. I still feel 150 is too small for a ship that massive.


187500m3 is more than enough for a ship that's supposed to stay in the field, buff, and be serviced by haulers ( 2.8 trips for a Miasmos / DST )
Eilos Faringen
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#551 - 2016-10-10 14:34:04 UTC
DONT TAKE AWAY THE PROC/SKIFF'S NEW STRIP MINER! imo it gives more defensively minded miners a better output with the defenses of the Proc/Skiff hull.

The Amarr Empire said im absolutly NUTS................. look into my eyes...peer into my very soul..... http://comic.naver.com/webtoon/detail.nhn?titleId=350217&no=31&weekday=tue/
13kr1d1
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#552 - 2016-10-11 19:29:34 UTC  |  Edited by: 13kr1d1
TigerXtrm wrote:
The new barges look sexy. And the new skins look even sexier, just sad they cost 10 F*CKING dollars!




Uh, no. I preferred the old ones. Procurer was my fav, I called it my space cadillac.

Eilos Faringen wrote:
DONT TAKE AWAY THE PROC/SKIFF'S NEW STRIP MINER! imo it gives more defensively minded miners a better output with the defenses of the Proc/Skiff hull.



you could still do that with 1 strip miner on a proc, since it has that 150% bonus.

I think its sad that they're genericizing the game by trying to make everything all look cookie cutter.

Don't kid yourselves. Even the dirtiest pirates from the birth of EVE have been carebears. They use alts to bring them goods at cheap prices and safely, rather than live with consequences of their in game actions on their main, from concord to prices
Ryder Lenberg
Lenberg Mining
#553 - 2016-11-27 19:45:48 UTC
in my view, nerfing mining ships like this, cutting off from 3 to 2 strip lasers, will make it alot more tedious to get the quantities needed, to make mining worth it..

this will encourage bot miners, and AFK miners.... and that is all ready a pain in the ass....

and also ruins player mining business branch...
(and WE that live on the mining business, are the base foundation for all other stuff like modules, ships, guns, ammo, structures, etc... No Ore/minerals, no fun those who don't mine.)

then the change on Orca!? What the F* are you doing!? Requirements, that is almost nowhere to be found!? or at a price tag like buying a entire planet!

EvilShockedEvil
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#554 - 2016-11-27 20:16:50 UTC
Ryder Lenberg wrote:


this will encourage bot miners, and AFK miners.... and that is all ready a pain in the ass....



It does the exact opposite...Roll

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#555 - 2016-11-29 01:06:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Mara Rinn
I really really like that the yield bonuses are now cycle time rather than quantity based.

I dislike that the Hulk can not fit T2 tank without a co-processor. Using difference in yield as the baseline, the hulk's tank should be ⅔ the skiff's :P

The reduced tank is something I can cope with, spending a few extra ISKies on deadspace amps to allow more CPU for that third MLU (on the hulks piloted by all-5 capsuleers) :D … though I will never make that ISK back thanks to super rorquals crashing the minerals market ;)

Mining these days is certainly not boring anymore, though you achieved that by raising the paranoia level of flying a loot piñata, rather than by making mining intellectually stimulating.

Day 0 Advice for New Players
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#556 - 2016-11-29 01:20:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Mara Rinn
Darrien wrote:
Eric Lemmonte wrote:
Yeah push in the right direction. I still feel 150 is too small for a ship that massive.


187500m3 is more than enough for a ship that's supposed to stay in the field, buff, and be serviced by haulers ( 2.8 trips for a Miasmos / DST )


This!

The revisions to the Orca make it really amazing to work with. The ore bay is excellent for the role, meaning one exhumer pilot can switch to the Miasmos in the SMB and do three unloading runs, even picking up new crystals and burst charges, and then get back to filling up that capacious ore hold.

The Orca has fitting flexibility, so on one hand you have an on-site mining command ship with bursts, on the other hand you have an ore hauler with improved warp speed and MWD to get into warp in 10 seconds flat, and on the gripping hand you have a shield logistics command ship with 800DPS from drones, suitable for defending hisec assets. The Orca is simply amazing!

If you need more ore hauling capacity, look to a freighter or ore compression. Though it would be nice to have something in-between the 200k capacity of the Orca and the 700k capacity of freighters. A dedicated ore hauler with 400k capacity, which would need sufficient speed and agility that six runs with a Miasmos wouldn't be faster ;)

Day 0 Advice for New Players
Chinaa Star
Conoco.
3OB POCCUU
#557 - 2017-01-08 10:01:40 UTC
Vincent Athena wrote:
I have to second the extra cap for the Skiff. My fit is just barely cap stable now. Add another strip and it will fail.

Morn: If you are using a Skiff, the extra strip means less switching, so for some of us, its a good change. Averaged across all the miners, it balances out. Also, the Hulk yield is not changing: It gets a 25% boost, and the strips get a 25% boost, together that cancels out the loss of a strip.




Actually your wrong. I don't see any useful bonuses in my Hulk's ship attributes/description of the ship. In fact all exhumers have same exact stats now. Makes owning a hulk seem like I wasted my 200million Isk. Thanks CCP for ruining the game. All I do is mine and now I can't do it anymore.
Chinaa Star
Conoco.
3OB POCCUU
#558 - 2017-01-08 10:32:36 UTC
Penance Toralen wrote:
msb4u wrote:

skiff +150% 1 laser +150% = same as 2,5 lasers
mackinaw +25% 2 lasers +25% = same like 2,5 lasers more training same yield ??
hulk +0% 3 lasers +0% = stays 3 lasers



I will start off by asking, did you actually bother to go into Sisi and try it for yourself?

It is just not only the hulls but also the Strips with receive a 25% increase.

So; 2 strips x 1.25 = 2.5 strips in yield. Which means you are not losing anything and do not require additional training.

The only difference I can point to is the Covetor/Hulk.

Current Time reduction:

4% per level, which takes 180 down to 144sec. Or 180 / 144 = 1.25 increase

3 strips x 1.25 = 3.75

The proposed changes are:

2% per level, which takes 180 down to 162sec. Or 180 / 162 = 1.111r increase

2 strips x 1.25 (flat hull bonus) x 1.25 (strip increase) x 1.111 = 3.472

The trade-off is supposed to be the additional low slot which allows for another MLU.

3.75 x 1.18 = 4.425 (using MLU2 at 1.09 each)
3.472 x 1.27 = 4.409

Achieving near parity with the pre-pass values. (anybody is welcome to de-bunk my short-hand maths).




So then where is the improvement, all I see in your math is all these mining ships are now equal.
The Hulk should be notably the cream of the crop. It should have the at least 25% more yield than any other mining ship.
It should have the most mining strips and most low and medium slots. Geez I played for a ship that 300% more costly than these other lower level ships only now to be the exact same ship. CCP might as well just have one mining ship and call it the Hulk. If we want to upgrade that ship it comes at a price for the proper upgrade skills as well as the adaptors to upgrade the ship.

We should do away with this whole ship type/name system that causes trade offs when going from ship to another of the same class of ship. For Example Destroyers: There should be entry level destroyer, then 2 or 3 higher linear leveled destroyers. I hate this ships that look similar but have trade offs. All ship categories should increase in abilities and skills in a completely vertically linear fashion, not this zigzag scheme that happens.
Owen Levanth
Sagittarius Unlimited Exploration
#559 - 2017-01-08 15:42:26 UTC
Chinaa Star wrote:
[quote=Penance Toralen][quote=msb4u]

We should do away with this whole ship type/name system that causes trade offs when going from ship to another of the same class of ship. For Example Destroyers: There should be entry level destroyer, then 2 or 3 higher linear leveled destroyers. I hate this ships that look similar but have trade offs. All ship categories should increase in abilities and skills in a completely vertically linear fashion, not this zigzag scheme that happens.


This doesn't work in a multiplayer game, or it would end with more and more people using only the good ships and leaving everything slightly worse in the dust.

A developer however wants (ideally) all ships to be used, at least somewhat. If all ships would just get better and better, you'd also never have a reason to go back and fly your favourite ship. Think about this: What if the best ship in a category looks really, really repulsive to you? With the current system you can go to another ship and learn how to fly that one best. In your system, you would heavily gimp yourself if you insist of flying the other, sub-optimal ships.

Overall, I think letting ships grow completely linear in power like you suggest doesn't even work that well in single player games: That's why in Rebel Galaxy for example, you can very well beat the game in one of the starter ships, if it is equipped well.

Sure, you can just buy one powerful ship after another, but you don't have to. (Also the ships all have their quirks, they aren't truly getting better in a purely linear way.)
Matthias Ancaladron
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#560 - 2017-02-12 10:05:34 UTC
Is there ever gonna be skins for these ships that don't have an ugly banana yellow trim? Yellow and blue are one of the worst color combinations. Back when i played a long time ago they were grayish/purple iirc maybe burgundy sort of?
Why change them to yellow and make them big ugly eye sores.

Even the skins for them don't get rid of all the nasty yellow