Player Features and Ideas Discussion

The current size of Ore Holds are completely arbitrary as far as i can tell. It wouldnt change the game much if the end result was a buff to ore hold sizes. But it would increase QoL for miners. But it comes with a trade off course, as usual.

Are you suggesting i buy a rorqual? You cant be serious. Expandable ore holds is a neat "middle groound", altho its much more casual than getting a rorqual. Dont forget the casual players. Besides its an insult to the game when ships have attributes tlike ore holds that cannot be altered with fittings.

Or they could just not do that since its uneeded and is simpler.
Op didn't say nerf orehold and add ore expanders.
He said add to ore expanders thats it. Don't read into it more than that.
Mining ships need low slots for mining upgrade.
It's. a balanced trade off.

Yield or ore space. Anyone who uses these would automatically be losing out on yield in favor of ore space.
It's perfectly fine like op asked.
Ore holds stay as they are. Expanders are changed so they do more. If someone wants more space they can trade off.
Personally I go yield if I mine. I like jetcanning still, that how I mined 7 years ago. Just fill up a few cand and come back with a transport ships.
But I don't blame someone for wanting more capacity. That's his choice if we wants to sit all day trying to fill up a big hold.

Youre adding conditions where there are none

Isn't part of the reason why mining barges were balanced the way they were because people felt they had "no choices" between tank, mining yield, and cargobay size?


If memory serves me right, before the mining rebalance all mining barges did not have Ore bays. This allowed them to use cargohold expanders to increase their ore holding capacity.

Unfortunately, doing this came at the cost of tank and/or mining yield.

But people fitted for capacity and yield (and little to no tank) because one would not be "efficient" unless they fit for capacity or yield.
And then said people would then complain about the "lack of tank" on their barges (hence why we have the barges we have now).


I don't think the OP knows what he is asking for.
There is a reason the barges are the way they are.

One is SUPPOSED to choose between tank, yield, or ore capacity.

This disrupts that paradigm and will only result in more complaint about balance down the road.


You can read as much or as little as you want.
History has shown that CCP doesn't give "straight buffs."

If they add a module that increases ore capacity, you can bet hard money they will nerf native ore capacity for ships.

It happened with Freighters.
It happened with drone-centric ships when drone modules were added.
It happened when new capital modules were added.

What the Op may be asking for be simple... but how it realistically will be implemented will not be.

The current level 4 mining mission im doing requires 44800m3 ore hold, but afaik no barge can keep that much.

For example my mackinaw has 35000m3 ore hold with my skills. Also why does skills affect the size of the ore hold? Makes no sense

Anyway, 35000m3. In order to be able to fit all the ore needed for this level 4 mission, it just needs an increase of 30% from modules. Would that be so bad? Im sacrificing possibly Yield and/or Tank.


To the people who think that Ore hold size needs to be nerfed when introducing Ore Hold increasing modules, get a grip. The ore hold sizes are arbitrary and do not affect PVP or PVE. If we could increase them by 30% or more with modules what excactly would be the harm?

Thanks for the input captain Obvious. But thats not what i meant by PVE. In fact nobody uses PVE to refer to mining. So why dont you go back to your wormhole with your definitions?

Nobody is thinking it 'needs' to be dufus, we are telling you exactly what CCP "will" do, because that is what they have always done in the past.

Freighters comes to mind on this point.

You do pick between tank, ore hold, and yield, you just do it when you pick the hull and then the fitting is secondary.

The reason there aren't rigs or modules for or hold is because there's nothing there that would be a good trade-off except for an AFK player, and AFK play isn't something CCP wants to encourage. Low slot? You're losing yield, there's no good reason to ever do that. Mid slot? You're losing tank, and that turns the mid-slot layout of the Hulk and Skiffs into a potential balance problem for the Mackinaw.

You could still do rigs, but Mining Ships are shield tanked and the standard trade off for cargo space is rigs, making that something of a non-tradeoff in most cases since your other options are a little more tank, more drone yield that is becoming increasingly non-optimal to take advantage of, or a Higgs anchor. Of those options the others win for most players most of the time outside of someone who is mostly or entirely AFK.

You seem to be missing the point here, in spectacular fashion.

AFK play is not something CCP wants to encourage. It's not playing the game it's deriving benefit from not playing the game, and as you yourself point out here it has impact on players who are actually playing by increasing the supply of goods and/or ISK and that impacts prices. Whether it's ore prices impacted by AFK mining or the ISK Supply impacted by AFK ratting.

As to tradeoffs, there would need to be an absolutely ridiculous bonus to ore-hold size for swapping a low from yield or ore hold size to be worthwhile for a player who isn't AFK. Even for rigs an actually present player would get more benefit out of a warp speed rig than an increase in ore hold size the majority of the time and that's assuming they're docking up constantly when their ore bay gets full rather than having an Orca or something similar to do the hauling.

There just aren't any interesting stats to trade off with here besides those that are objectively more valuable for the vast majority of legitimate use-cases or conflict with existing patterns of design and module use.

The main use of such a module would be by AFK miners, and as stated above CCP have good reason not to incentivize AFK play.

AFK play means you're doing stuff while not actually at the keyboard. If I'm in a Skiff and watching for hostiles while mining, that's at keyboard, even if I watch Netflix while I mine. AFK play would be firing up a Retriever's mining lasers and then tabbing out to play another game. Mining and ratting can be AFK play, but they don't have to be.