These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#161 - 2012-05-07 15:31:39 UTC
Aron Croup wrote:


The two capital sized ships are not built for mining. They're support ships for mining fleets, not mining ships. The cruisers and frigates are entry level mining ships and are pointless after 2 weeks of skill training, leaving only the t1 and t2 mining barges, who all fit the same profile of having very little tank capability.

Instead of just instantly jumping on the "I am against miners and everything they want, say or do" bandwagon, try to give me a real reason why a tech-3 mining ship would not be a good idea? You have tech-3 combat ships, why not have a tech-3 mining ship? Hell, could be as easy as making mining subsystems for the existing tech-3 ships.



Both capital ships are built for mining which makes them mining ships. The cruisers are out classed in exactly the same way the other t1 cruisers are out classed in their jobs by specialised ships. Your t3 superhulk is unessesary, unbalanced and utterly pointless.
Jacob Holland
Weyland-Vulcan Industries
#162 - 2012-05-07 15:38:17 UTC
Andski wrote:
also hulks are getting an indirect buff in the form of CPU rigs

not that any of you will be using anything other than cargo rigs because you feel entitled to max-yield, max cargo and max tank

Except that the Hulk is OK on CPU. What it lacks is Powergrid because it has more slots than the Covetor and the same PG.
And if you’re fitting for tank you’ll have extenders in the rig slots.
The Mackinaw, as I said above, is totally shafted for CPU but, again, the CPU Rigs won’t be a viable option at the values I’ve seen because you’re exchanging a tanking rig for a rig which allows you to fit less tank.
The CPU rigs might be viable on the Covetor - and only because they’ll allow people to fit the thing with two mining upgrades... Which would mean a disposable Cov would outmine a max tank Hulk and therefore reduce the demand for the T2 vessel. No need to tank it because it’s insurable, only problem is that you need a cargo opt rig or to stagger your cycles or you’ll overfill the hold.

Now correct me if I’m wrong but that seems to be the opposite of the behaviour we want to encourage? Well, not entirely the opposite; it does imply an evaluation of the risks and the tools available and a selection of a tool appropriate to the environment.
highonpop
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#163 - 2012-05-07 15:46:03 UTC
The adaptation is


A - Protection Fleet

B - Train for a hulk, they can tank pretty hard.

C - ???

D - Profit?

FC, what do?

Archdaimon
Merchants of the Golden Goose
#164 - 2012-05-07 15:48:26 UTC
Except you can't do A & B tactically. Only Strategicly.

Wormholes have the best accoustics. It's known. - Sing it for me -

Welsige
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#165 - 2012-05-07 16:26:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Welsige
Archdaimon wrote:
Yet, if you fit the battleship with guns you'd make twice as much at half the speed?

Is that fair?

The question is really, why did so many of choose not to mine?

Might it be:

1) Low income
2) Boring game mechanic
3) High risk of ganks

in Short very low return of investment in mining. Ship design is a part of that.

The same people here whining that miners should not be invincible and demands they mine in battleship are the same people that would never put their pod in one. While at the same time complaining that mineral prices are to high.

Even at this extreme mineral prices miners have the lowest isk/h. And you ask them to make even less?



Hummm wrong, i have a hulk and do some mining when wishing for a mind numbing activity ingame.

Allways, of couse, with d-scan on and keeping an eye in my suroundings.

[b]~ 10.058 ~

Free The Mittani[/b]

Welsige
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#166 - 2012-05-07 16:28:21 UTC
highonpop wrote:
The adaptation is


A - Protection Fleet

B - Train for a hulk, they can tank pretty hard.

C - ???

D - Profit?



Yeah, mine in groups, assign a pilot for protection, share the yields evenly.

Problem solved.

[b]~ 10.058 ~

Free The Mittani[/b]

Mortimer Civeri
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#167 - 2012-05-07 16:47:38 UTC
Jacob Holland wrote:
The CPU rigs might be viable on the Covetor - and only because they’ll allow people to fit the thing with two mining upgrades... Which would mean a disposable Cov would outmine a max tank Hulk and therefore reduce the demand for the T2 vessel. No need to tank it because it’s insurable, only problem is that you need a cargo opt rig or to stagger your cycles or you’ll overfill the hold.

I need to test that out on SISI.

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

Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
#168 - 2012-05-09 16:29:46 UTC
I bet you if DMC where making ships they'd make them all tanked up.

Dust 514's CPM 1 Iron Wolf Saber Eve mail me about Dust 514 issues.

Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#169 - 2012-05-09 17:27:08 UTC
Welsige wrote:

Hummm wrong, i have a hulk and do some mining when wishing for a mind numbing activity ingame.

Allways, of couse, with d-scan on and keeping an eye in my suroundings.

when I'm fried after a hard day at work, it's either mining or spinning in station since they require about the same level of attention
Nefertiri Ra'apharo
Mabad Ilhba Alasw'd
#170 - 2012-05-09 19:05:58 UTC
Why don't they just release a TIII mining ship, with relevant interchangable components geared to mining and tanking?
Darth Gustav
Sith Interstellar Tech Harvesting
#171 - 2012-05-09 19:08:22 UTC
Nefertiri Ra'apharo wrote:
Why don't they just release a TIII mining ship, with relevant interchangable components geared to mining and tanking?

The answer is simple.

Carebears would fail at it because they would neglect to train the offensive and defensive subsystems, claiming that they are "pure miners."

Such a vividly interesting and utterly pointless suggestion.

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

Nefertiri Ra'apharo
Mabad Ilhba Alasw'd
#172 - 2012-05-09 19:11:53 UTC
Darth Gustav wrote:
Nefertiri Ra'apharo wrote:
Why don't they just release a TIII mining ship, with relevant interchangable components geared to mining and tanking?

The answer is simple.

Carebears would fail at it because they would neglect to train the offensive and defensive subsystems, claiming that they are "pure miners."

Such a vividly interesting and utterly pointless suggestion.


Then fk em they deserve to die.
Darth Gustav
Sith Interstellar Tech Harvesting
#173 - 2012-05-09 19:13:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Darth Gustav
Nefertiri Ra'apharo wrote:
Darth Gustav wrote:
Nefertiri Ra'apharo wrote:
Why don't they just release a TIII mining ship, with relevant interchangable components geared to mining and tanking?

The answer is simple.

Carebears would fail at it because they would neglect to train the offensive and defensive subsystems, claiming that they are "pure miners."

Such a vividly interesting and utterly pointless suggestion.


Then fk em they deserve to die.

My thoughts exactly.

[Edit: Congratulations on your first +1.]

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

Quaternary Target
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#174 - 2012-05-09 19:45:36 UTC
Any solution to the Hulk ganking "problem "will be insufficient simply because, unless and until Hulks are made invincible, someone will find a way to gank them.

so to hell with it, let them all burn
MortisLegati
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#175 - 2012-05-11 00:03:54 UTC
Debora Tsung wrote:
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:


Huh, I had a better proposal.... alllow bounty hunters to track down their targets in a way that gave a meaning to "being wanted"

Sahmelessly plugging it:

My "EVE Retaliation" proposal

Exceprt:

Quote:
Summary:

- unlimitedly transferable kill rights; if a hirer is fillthy rich and can throw 20 hunters on the agressor, let the agressor have it
- pay for destroying the target's stuff, not merely kill him. No longer self-killing for the bounty unless you're up to losing twice the reward.
- any other target in the prey's corporation can be punished too. If you gang together against bounty hunters, bounty hunters can gang together against you.
- bounty hunters can track the last moves of their target via stargates and stations. It sucks to be hunted.
- bounty hunters can pinpoint the last moves of the target via the target's appearences in local chat. It sucks a lot to be hunted.


Nice Idea, but what would stop You from putting bounties on all those juicy High-Sec miners?


I don't want to derail the wonderful rage here but I also want to go back to this for a moment, but it seems someone is forgetting that basic bounty mechanics require negative sec status?
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#176 - 2012-05-11 01:08:52 UTC
Nefertiri Ra'apharo wrote:
Darth Gustav wrote:
Nefertiri Ra'apharo wrote:
Why don't they just release a TIII mining ship, with relevant interchangable components geared to mining and tanking?

The answer is simple.

Carebears would fail at it because they would neglect to train the offensive and defensive subsystems, claiming that they are "pure miners."

Such a vividly interesting and utterly pointless suggestion.

Then fk em they deserve to die.

Would be hilarious..

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 ?