These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Darwinism Died with Eve? How Space Ship Engineers Never Learned to Adapt - And Stopped Worrying.

Author
Jacob Holland
Weyland-Vulcan Industries
#41 - 2012-05-05 10:53:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Jacob Holland
Repost from here.

The industrial and industrial-related ships in EVE have always been "weak" of course, The Wreath for example barely has more HP than a rookie ship (99 Shield HP? The Ibis gets about 150 Big smile).
Part of this is that the industrial ships IIRC bypassed at least one of the HP buffs which were designed to prolong combat.

None of this, nor the changed 'landscape' in which the ships have to operate from the destroyer un-nerf or the introduction of the Tier 3 BCs can really be classed as a balance reason for a buff, but they could be classed as contributory factors...

Not just the environment has changed of course. MLUs saw an impressive increase in CPU draw with (deliberately I assume) no commensurate increase in Barge (no exhumers at the time) CPU... I remember scrounging around for a Photonic Co-Processor to try and get one on my Covetor. But the Exhumers made MLUs as ubiquitous as Mag Stabs on a Megathron or BCUs on a Raven. It makes sense to have choices of all upgrade, all tank or something in between reasonably viable - but at the moment the diiference between all upgrade and single upgrade with tank is too small IMHO leading to my CPU increase thoughts below.

For the Hulk specifically:
The Hulk has more slots than the Covetor, it has to fit the same modules but lacks PG to do so (every shield mod needs PG after all.) It does get plenty of CPU of course, sufficient for a shield mod in each extra slot but no PG.
I know that ships are balanced based on 'All Skills @ [5]' but, in general, there is a certain amount of flexibility to allow for slightly lower skills and downgraded meta modules. The MSE Hulk lacks that, because, sub T2, there is no difference in PG need between meta levels on shield mods (particularly the extender which is the largest single draw).
I'd like to see the Hulk's PG boosted, it would make sense to increase it by 3MW, 1MW for each additional mid over the Covetor, but I'd be happy with 1.5MW, and just 1 MW would remove the need for fitting implants for a tank akin to baltec's.

For other Mining Barges/Exhumers:
As anyone who's attempted to fit a Mackinaw knows, many of the ORE ships seem to run on 286s.
The Mackinaw could, with the addition of 50TF of CPU, fit a pretty reasonable 17k EHP tank while still retaining a single harvester upgrade. with only 40TF it could run a DCII tank for about 22k EHP.
The Covetor needs less to get a hulk style tank (and in doing so could encourage the tanking of Hulks) although obviously less hard. 25TF would be about ideal.
The Retriever is in at least as bad a way needing a T2 co-processor just to fit a DC and EM ward amp + rig tank... not enough to stand up to Empire 'rats alone and only offering 7k EHP. The change of the Covetor to Mining Barge [4] in Tiericide perhaps mitigates this but it's currently going to be weeks before a miner can move to a more survivable ship.
AureoBroker
Perkone
Caldari State
#42 - 2012-05-05 11:04:25 UTC
*you're.
Lexmana
#43 - 2012-05-05 14:57:43 UTC
Nothing wrong with the ships. The error is in the miner who thinks that a Hulk is always the best choice of ship.
None ofthe Above
#44 - 2012-05-05 14:57:44 UTC  |  Edited by: None ofthe Above
Kietay Ayari wrote:
The game is a game to be fun. The game relies on people adapting rather than releasing new better ships every few months. That is why the game is fun. The game is not realistic and not balanced in a realistic way, rather, it is balanced in a way to make it interesting and enjoyable.


That may work for you (since you apparently love the Ferox in its current form) but I can't imagine how loud the frustrated the PvP/E crowd would howl if they where told the same thing, and forced to live with the same old ships for as long as the miners have. No more Tiercide! And the Tier 3 BC introduction, destroyer and assault ship changes where a mistake by that logic. Pilots should have just HTFU.

I think an at least slowly evolving compliment of ships is a good thing, and As Jacob Holland shows above, there is some reason to consider a minor buff to Barges and Exhumers powergrid.

The ship rebalance looks to be tackling the problem of the Barge prerequisites. A little fiddling with PG would seem in order while they are at it.

The only end-game content in EVE Online is the crap that makes you rage quit.

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#45 - 2012-05-05 15:42:45 UTC
Mortimer Civeri
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#46 - 2012-05-05 16:58:08 UTC
seany1212 wrote:
INB4someone links 27+k ehp hulk tank...

EDIT: I'll do it myself since i've been in these threads more time than I can count:

[Hulk, New Setup 1]
Mining Laser Upgrade II
Damage Control II

Small Shield Extender II
Invulnerability Field II
Survey Scanner II
Magnetic Scattering Amplifier II

Modulated Strip Miner II, Pyroxeres Mining Crystal II
Modulated Strip Miner II, Pyroxeres Mining Crystal II
Modulated Strip Miner II, Pyroxeres Mining Crystal II

Medium Core Defence Field Extender I
Medium Core Defence Field Extender I


Mining Drone II x5
Warrior II x5

just over 22K ehp before boosts (you can use those orcas for more than mining boosts you know Roll)

courtesy of baltec1 from this thread just 2 weeks ago


EDIT EDIT: you can even squeeze in a MSE if you dropped out the mining upgrade for an auxiliary core making it 26k ehp before boosts, but HEAVEN FORBID WE SHOULD REDUCE A MINERS YIELD Shocked
Frankly I go for the MSE option. I never understood why, when it is obvious that NOWHERE is safe, that people forego all personal responsibility for their safety, and fit for maximum yield. Yet when they eventually get ganked they come on the forums and whine and bleat about how the Hulk can't tank, and it needs a tank NOW CCP!!! The Hulk can tank, it is just that you refuse to, because it is more ISKies for your toonies to fit for yield. It is not the hulls that have to adapt, it is the miners themselves. Everybody needs to take responsibility for their own safety in EVE online. Don't come whining on the forums, or asking for buffs to the Hulk, when you eventually get ganked, because you failed to take any precautions when undocking.

"I don't know which is worse, ...that everyone has his price, or that the price is always so low." Calvin

Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#47 - 2012-05-05 17:14:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Ranger 1
Quote:
Mining ships. It makes no sense, from any fluffy perspective that ships continuously ganked never develops and becomes able to counter that thread. Few times in history have people insisted on being so ******** as to continue doing the same mistake over and over. No place in Eve has ever been safe enough for any ship design as paper thin as an exhumer to be designed in the first place!


Obviously.

This is why fishing trawlers today are able to stand up to a naval destroyer, and why cruise ships are impervious to pirate attacks.

EVE should work like real life, where oil tankers can either out run warships and submarines or simply rely on their superior hull armor to withstand their bombardment/missile/torpedo attacks until help arrives.

Anything else is just silly.

Roll

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#48 - 2012-05-05 17:16:34 UTC
The adaptation is there — it always has been. It's just that the miners have chosen to move it in the exact opposite direction: towards weaker and weaker ships.
Darth Gustav
Sith Interstellar Tech Harvesting
#49 - 2012-05-05 17:17:10 UTC
Some of Thomas Edison's original incandescent bulbs are still burning.

Incandescent bulbs you buy at the store today last maybe 15k hours if you're lucky.

Darwin didn't say spit about product development or marketing.

He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom

Mortimer Civeri
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#50 - 2012-05-05 17:38:44 UTC
Darth Gustav wrote:
Some of Thomas Edison's original incandescent bulbs are still burning.

Incandescent bulbs you buy at the store today last maybe 15k hours if you're lucky.

Darwin didn't say spit about product development or marketing.

That is not marketing or product development, that is planned obsolescence.

"I don't know which is worse, ...that everyone has his price, or that the price is always so low." Calvin

Darth Gustav
Sith Interstellar Tech Harvesting
#51 - 2012-05-05 17:43:36 UTC
Mortimer Civeri wrote:
Darth Gustav wrote:
Some of Thomas Edison's original incandescent bulbs are still burning.

Incandescent bulbs you buy at the store today last maybe 15k hours if you're lucky.

Darwin didn't say spit about product development or marketing.

That is not marketing or product development, that is planned obsolescence.

If you don't think that planned obsolescence has anything to do with marketing and product development, then I'm not sure there's anything left to say to you.

That is exactly my point about the Hulk. It is planned obsolescence at its very best.

He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom

Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#52 - 2012-05-05 17:48:35 UTC
Darth Gustav wrote:
Mortimer Civeri wrote:
Darth Gustav wrote:
Some of Thomas Edison's original incandescent bulbs are still burning.

Incandescent bulbs you buy at the store today last maybe 15k hours if you're lucky.

Darwin didn't say spit about product development or marketing.

That is not marketing or product development, that is planned obsolescence.

If you don't think that planned obsolescence has anything to do with marketing and product development, then I'm not sure there's anything left to say to you.

That is exactly my point about the Hulk. It is planned obsolescence at its very best.

The Mittani planned the hulk, its main points:
1. Most mining yield (to trap miners)
2. No tank without reducing your mining yield (traps miners as well)
3. Uses lots of tech. (Yum!)

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?

Valerie Tessel
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#53 - 2012-05-05 17:56:30 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:
Quote:
Mining ships. It makes no sense, from any fluffy perspective that ships continuously ganked never develops and becomes able to counter that thread. Few times in history have people insisted on being so ******** as to continue doing the same mistake over and over. No place in Eve has ever been safe enough for any ship design as paper thin as an exhumer to be designed in the first place!


Obviously.

This is why fishing trawlers today are able to stand up to a naval destroyer, and why cruise ships are impervious to pirate attacks.

EVE should work like real life, where oil tankers can either out run warships and submarines or simply rely on their superior hull armor to withstand their bombardment/missile/torpedo attacks until help arrives.

Anything else is just silly.

Roll

Bingo...

The real adaptation to a situation like hi-sec ganking would be other ships / technology that could offer active defense (as opposed to after-the-fact defense). I proposed such under the Aegis destroyers thread in the Assembly Hall (see sig). But the most positive responses I've managed to get are "this seems like a good idea, but I'm not going to support it yet."

Tactical destroyers... I'll take a dozen Gallente, please.

Herping yourDerp
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#54 - 2012-05-05 17:57:40 UTC
I agree.
Darth Gustav
Sith Interstellar Tech Harvesting
#55 - 2012-05-05 18:00:00 UTC
Valerie Tessel wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:
Quote:
Mining ships. It makes no sense, from any fluffy perspective that ships continuously ganked never develops and becomes able to counter that thread. Few times in history have people insisted on being so ******** as to continue doing the same mistake over and over. No place in Eve has ever been safe enough for any ship design as paper thin as an exhumer to be designed in the first place!


Obviously.

This is why fishing trawlers today are able to stand up to a naval destroyer, and why cruise ships are impervious to pirate attacks.

EVE should work like real life, where oil tankers can either out run warships and submarines or simply rely on their superior hull armor to withstand their bombardment/missile/torpedo attacks until help arrives.

Anything else is just silly.

Roll

Bingo...

The real adaptation to a situation like hi-sec ganking would be other ships / technology that could offer active defense (as opposed to after-the-fact defense). I proposed such under the Aegis destroyers thread in the Assembly Hall (see sig). But the most positive responses I've managed to get are "this seems like a good idea, but I'm not going to support it yet."

Maybe I'm wrong but my sarcasm meter was through the roof on this post, to which you appear to have responded seriously.

Either this is dry Brit humor, or idiocy. I don't even

He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom

Valerie Tessel
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#56 - 2012-05-05 18:01:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Valerie Tessel
Darth Gustav wrote:
Valerie Tessel wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:
Quote:
Mining ships. It makes no sense, from any fluffy perspective that ships continuously ganked never develops and becomes able to counter that thread. Few times in history have people insisted on being so ******** as to continue doing the same mistake over and over. No place in Eve has ever been safe enough for any ship design as paper thin as an exhumer to be designed in the first place!


Obviously.

This is why fishing trawlers today are able to stand up to a naval destroyer, and why cruise ships are impervious to pirate attacks.

EVE should work like real life, where oil tankers can either out run warships and submarines or simply rely on their superior hull armor to withstand their bombardment/missile/torpedo attacks until help arrives.

Anything else is just silly.

Roll

Bingo...

The real adaptation to a situation like hi-sec ganking would be other ships / technology that could offer active defense (as opposed to after-the-fact defense). I proposed such under the Aegis destroyers thread in the Assembly Hall (see sig). But the most positive responses I've managed to get are "this seems like a good idea, but I'm not going to support it yet."

Maybe I'm wrong but my sarcasm meter was through the roof on this post, to which you appear to have responded seriously.

Either this is dry Brit humor, or idiocy. I don't even

I was agreeing with Ranger1's sarcasm. It would be silly to alter the mining vessel. It's tuned to its job. It would make more sense to have a way to protect the mining vessel without expecting it to go solo.

Tactical destroyers... I'll take a dozen Gallente, please.

Doctor Ungabungas
Doomheim
#57 - 2012-05-05 18:05:25 UTC
I'd really like for 'invention' to have a chance of making bpcs with varying stats.

Think about how much a hulk with a 4th turret slot could go for. Big smile
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#58 - 2012-05-05 18:05:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Alavaria Fera
Valerie Tessel wrote:
The real adaptation to a situation like hi-sec ganking would be other ships / technology that could offer active defense (as opposed to after-the-fact defense). I proposed such under the Aegis destroyers thread in the Assembly Hall (see sig). But the most positive responses I've managed to get are "this seems like a good idea, but I'm not going to support it yet."

Actually a "remote shield extender" would be interesting.

For sure, our logistics ships would be more easily able to deny the enemy killmails. It would also help reduce the whole "alpha" problem since you can also increase a buffer.

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?

Digital Messiah
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#59 - 2012-05-05 18:09:59 UTC
seany1212 wrote:
Oh look, another one of these threads, oh look, what's worse is it's a alliance member Blink

Show me a decent buffer tanked hulk that's lost to gankers (start with a DC2 Roll)... That's because pretty much everyone mining sticks survey scanners and cargohold expanders/mining upgrades in their respective mids and lows. When I start seeing actual tanked hulks on lossmails to gankers then i'll side with any one of these terrible threads Roll


Also a designers flaw. You do realize how very little isk / hour mining generates compared to about anything else right? I could make more trading in jita with no skills. But a hulk pilot with 19 million in mining skills will still make less. People don't fly a hulk to get the results of a retriever. And you might say they trade off to have more tank. Yet both the retriever and the hulk usually die under the same circumstances so why tank it?

Long story short, fix mining, increase the mineral cost for modules + ships, or make a T2 variant of a ship worth fitting with a tank. Combat wise there are titans that don't work as well as others, carriers, etc. People choose not to use them but at least they have options to use something better. Mining is the only career where you have so little choice.

And honestly would it hurt to have two variations of the hulk? One with strictly mining / cargo hold bonuses, another with buffer / tanking bonuses. It makes sense in the high sec / null sec idea everyone pushes.

Something clever

Valerie Tessel
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#60 - 2012-05-05 18:13:04 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Valerie Tessel wrote:
The real adaptation to a situation like hi-sec ganking would be other ships / technology that could offer active defense (as opposed to after-the-fact defense). I proposed such under the Aegis destroyers thread in the Assembly Hall (see sig). But the most positive responses I've managed to get are "this seems like a good idea, but I'm not going to support it yet."

Actually a "remote shield extender" would be interesting."

For sure, our logistics ships would be more easily able to deny the enemy killmails. It would also help reduce the whole "alpha" problem since you can also increase a buffer.

Absolutely. A remote shield extender with a cool down (75% on, 25% off per cycle for example) would mix things up a bit. I also thought it'd be cool to have a role for a new kind of destroyer, cheap, reduces damage, acts like a remote hardener almost. Personally, I'd like to see both of these things make it into the game.

Tactical destroyers... I'll take a dozen Gallente, please.