These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Test Server Feedback

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Mining barge changes [now with feedback]
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Dave Stark
#561 - 2012-08-03 11:56:43 UTC
Carola Kessler wrote:
New Patch out, again no relevant changes to Mining Ships / Exhumers......disappointing. X

sincerly

Carola Kessler


how about changes to crystals?
Carola Kessler
Lost Sisters Of New Eden
#562 - 2012-08-03 12:39:14 UTC
Dave stark wrote:
Carola Kessler wrote:
New Patch out, again no relevant changes to Mining Ships / Exhumers......disappointing. X

sincerly

Carola Kessler


how about changes to crystals?




Nothing far as i could see, the current patch was for fixing some defects acording to an present Bughunter.

sincerly

Carola Kessler Smile
Jake Rivers
New Planetary Order
#563 - 2012-08-03 17:54:52 UTC
Are these feedback threads only one way?

Why no dev response.

Senex Legio
Jitaseller
Terrulian Exo Arcologies
#564 - 2012-08-03 20:08:09 UTC
I don't know why the left that third low on the mackinaw, it's eroded the hulks base 21% mining advantage into a 13% mining advantage as everyone and their dog will be fitting 3 MLU II to a mack. It still fits everything with the former faction amp and or sb hulk fittings cpu wise.

Congrats tallest ?
Arctos Canis
Ice Wolves
#565 - 2012-08-03 22:00:38 UTC
Jake Rivers wrote:
Are these feedback threads only one way?

Why no dev response.


maybe they are not permitted to reply to this thread cuz this issue is to sensitive to all miners and they try to avoid this matter to escalate even further... cuz as of yet we are not pleased of their intervention to how people mine. and after patch its gonna be "they're way or the high way" ...
Noslen Nosilla
Federal Logistics Initiative Conglomerate
United Interests
#566 - 2012-08-04 11:33:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Noslen Nosilla
Jake Rivers wrote:
Are these feedback threads only one way?

Why no dev response.



Here is your response pilots new Devblog

Although as of posting SISI does not reflect the devblog the Hulk has a 7500m3 ore hold.

Be polite.

Be professional.

But have a plan to kill everyone you meet.
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#567 - 2012-08-04 19:31:57 UTC
Jake Rivers wrote:
Are these feedback threads only one way?

Why no dev response.


we gave tellest a really hard time when he did weapon balance and now he wont talk to us...

pretty sure he still reads what we have to say... but an open convo with him is out of the question...

believe me i have tried and failed...

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#568 - 2012-08-04 20:25:36 UTC
Jitaseller wrote:
I don't know why the left that third low on the mackinaw, it's eroded the hulks base 21% mining advantage into a 13% mining advantage as everyone and their dog will be fitting 3 MLU II to a mack. It still fits everything with the former faction amp and or sb hulk fittings cpu wise.

Congrats tallest ?

That third low is the only yeald difference between the skiff and the mackinaw

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
RangerGord
Rothschild's Sewage and Septic Sucking Services
The Possum Lodge
#569 - 2012-08-05 22:59:27 UTC
29 pages and no dev response yet, gg CCP, actually not...

Anyhoo, as I was reading through some of the reasoning behind them making these changes because the Hulk was over used I realized something (which apparently they missed):

The Hulk is the highest level/tier mining ship in the game, therefore it is the goal of a mining character to fly a Hulk. If you had a highest level battleship, that was better than all the rest, but at the same time more expensive and took more SP to get into, would you be surprised if people trained to get that single ship and used it all the time?

These changes are like saying (for instance) to fly an Badger II took the same skills as an Badger I that you would be surprised if the Badger II was the most used of the two and you think that people should be using the Badger I instead? (I think thats how I wanted to phrase it, not that its actually going to be read by a dev anyways)
Frying Doom
#570 - 2012-08-05 23:31:45 UTC
RangerGord wrote:
29 pages and no dev response yet, gg CCP, actually not...

Anyhoo, as I was reading through some of the reasoning behind them making these changes because the Hulk was over used I realized something (which apparently they missed):

The Hulk is the highest level/tier mining ship in the game, therefore it is the goal of a mining character to fly a Hulk. If you had a highest level battleship, that was better than all the rest, but at the same time more expensive and took more SP to get into, would you be surprised if people trained to get that single ship and used it all the time?

These changes are like saying (for instance) to fly an Badger II took the same skills as an Badger I that you would be surprised if the Badger II was the most used of the two and you think that people should be using the Badger I instead? (I think thats how I wanted to phrase it, not that its actually going to be read by a dev anyways)

But what about if when they change industrials they give the Badger a better tank and the badger 2 a bigger cargo?

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Jitaseller
Terrulian Exo Arcologies
#571 - 2012-08-05 23:39:27 UTC
The tier removal is not the problem, nor is giving one ship a tank advantage, one an autonomous advantage, and the last a yield advantage. The problem is how these are lining up, and that they're using ship low slots to balance the three instead of ship hull bonuses (among other issues like crystal sizing).

If they don't want a skiff mining as much as a mackinaw, then the skiff should lose the yield bonus part of the exhumer skill (I don't think it should), or the mackinaw's exhumer skill yield bonus should be raised from 1 > 2% per level. That's a progressive fix, based on skill points rather then fitting requirements, and would reward people for maxing. The mack would be ~6% better then the skiff, and the hulk would still be ~17% better then the mackinaw. That's reasonable, and the hulk pays for it with the worst cargo, hp, align time, speed, crystal use ($), worst autonomy, etc.

Unfortunately they chose the absolute laziest way and gave the mack a third low, which erodes that base hull advantage the hulk gets, it's only advantage, by almost 50%.

Tallest has not commented once in any of the threads with substance, only saying there's no T2 rigs and cal costs are staying as is. Ytterbium's just rehashed that they want the skiff line to be tanky, the mack line to be autonomous, and the hulk line to mine the most. Lastly we also had a half-baked promise/answer by Goliath about the crystal sizing / cargo bay issue, of which nothing ever materialized. It's not hard to draw a conclusion that this team has zero public communication skills, nor are they letting QA staff know what's really happening. Contrast this with the UI team member Punkturis, it's rather sad to see how poor the lines of communication are.

The utter silence is pathetic.
Sigras
Conglomo
#572 - 2012-08-06 08:30:58 UTC
RangerGord wrote:
29 pages and no dev response yet, gg CCP, actually not...

Anyhoo, as I was reading through some of the reasoning behind them making these changes because the Hulk was over used I realized something (which apparently they missed):

The Hulk is the highest level/tier mining ship in the game, therefore it is the goal of a mining character to fly a Hulk. If you had a highest level battleship, that was better than all the rest, but at the same time more expensive and took more SP to get into, would you be surprised if people trained to get that single ship and used it all the time?

These changes are like saying (for instance) to fly an Badger II took the same skills as an Badger I that you would be surprised if the Badger II was the most used of the two and you think that people should be using the Badger I instead? (I think thats how I wanted to phrase it, not that its actually going to be read by a dev anyways)

you realize that youre basically giving CCP permission to invalidate 60% of the content in their game right?

The point of balance is that different ships/modules do different roles but are still equally balanced. Personally, im upset that the badger 2 supplants the badger 1, or that the iteron mark 5 is better in every way than the 1-4, they should have different roles, and there should be different reasons to fly any given ship at any given time.

IMHO, if you name a ship, I should be able to tell you a scenario where that ship is the best choice over every other in the game, and this should go for every ship.

For instance, the zealot and the harbinger are very similar in most cases, so most people fly the harbinger because its quite a bit cheaper, but a harbinger cant armor HAC because it doesnt have the low sig of the zealot, and its quite a bit slower. so in an AHAC gang, the zealot is better.
Arctos Canis
Ice Wolves
#573 - 2012-08-06 13:57:35 UTC
Today i started wondering if anyone has tried reaching CSM so they would point out this issue as per community voice is being ignored and not heard?
Noslen Nosilla
Federal Logistics Initiative Conglomerate
United Interests
#574 - 2012-08-06 15:27:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Noslen Nosilla
New Build on SISI,

All hulls but Skiff got a tank nerf Sad

Stats are pretty much as advertized in the DevBlog

I find it sad that I can't tank a "new" Hulk (on SISI) to what I have tanked on TQ. What?

Before this build I could get a Mackinaw to a nice 44k tank now I'm challenged to get it to 24k.

I haven't even looked at the T1 Barges I don't feel like being more depressed. Ugh

If I could figure out how to mount a gun on my Skiff I'd run missions in it. Or gank miners in Hulks and Gankinaws. Pirate

Yes I'm bitter about the tank issue....we started out with so much promise a miner that could mine a nice amount of ore and standoff a gank from a 1 misk ship. Now it will take 3?

I had hopes that for once CCP would follow through but no I don't see it.

I hate to put on the tinfoil hat here but maybe the conspiracy people are correct, that OTEC does wag the CCP dog. Shocked

It showed promise CCP but just once could I have a ship that is not nerfed?

I like the new orebay, (I wish the cargohold on the Hulk and Covetor was 50m3 larger but I can live with that) I like the smaller crystals, but the nerf to the tank is puzzling and just plain frustrating.

So here in advance are my tears. Cry

Be polite.

Be professional.

But have a plan to kill everyone you meet.
Sigras
Conglomo
#575 - 2012-08-06 16:01:13 UTC
so, CCP made 3 hulls with 2 roles (the mackinaw had both tank and cargo size) and now youre upset that they're making it 3 hulls with 3 different roles?

Does anyone else see the problem here?
Droxlyn
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#576 - 2012-08-06 16:21:01 UTC
Sigras wrote:
so, CCP made 3 hulls with 2 roles (the mackinaw had both tank and cargo size) and now you're upset that they're making it 3 hulls with 3 different roles?

Does anyone else see the problem here?


We have a meat lover's pizza (Hulk), a thick crust pizza (Mack), and a pizza with extra cheese (Skiff).
The problem is: the meat lover's pizza and the thick crust pizza don't come with any cheese at all.

Eve is a game of pick 2 good things, but the devs keep thinking it is pick 1.
Pick 2 to be good:
DPS (other ships)
DPS (asteroids)
DPS (wrecks (salvage))
DPA (other ships) (Damage Per Alpha)
Cargo (Cargo)
Cargo (Other hold)
Tank (Shield)
Tank (Armor)
Speed
Stealth
Utility (ECM)
Utility (Repair)
Utility (Disruption)
Utility (Other)

Hulk:
DPS (asteroids)

Mackinaw:
Cargo (Other Hold)

Skiff:
Tank (Shield)
Speed

Noctis:
DPS (wrecks)
Cargo (Hold)

Most combat ships have:
DPS (ships)
Tank/Speed

The ship designs in Eve needs to be 100% of two, 75% of one, and 50% of one or two, and token everything else.

Drox
Arctos Canis
Ice Wolves
#577 - 2012-08-06 16:22:19 UTC
Noslen Nosilla wrote:
New Build on SISI,

All hulls but Skiff got a tank nerf Sad

Stats are pretty much as advertized in the DevBlog

I find it sad that I can't tank a "new" Hulk (on SISI) to what I have tanked on TQ. What?

Before this build I could get a Mackinaw to a nice 44k tank now I'm challenged to get it to 24k.

I haven't even looked at the T1 Barges I don't feel like being more depressed. Ugh

If I could figure out how to mount a gun on my Skiff I'd run missions in it. Or gank miners in Hulks and Gankinaws. Pirate

Yes I'm bitter about the tank issue....we started out with so much promise a miner that could mine a nice amount of ore and standoff a gank from a 1 misk ship. Now it will take 3?

I had hopes that for once CCP would follow through but no I don't see it.

I hate to put on the tinfoil hat here but maybe the conspiracy people are correct, that OTEC does wag the CCP dog. Shocked

It showed promise CCP but just once could I have a ship that is not nerfed?

I like the new orebay, (I wish the cargohold on the Hulk and Covetor was 50m3 larger but I can live with that) I like the smaller crystals, but the nerf to the tank is puzzling and just plain frustrating.

So here in advance are my tears. Cry


I like the resent dev blog impression that they wanted to make exumers more sturdy cuz they could of blown up if someone sneezed on them and from the very beginning of the development of this project they were continuously nerfing what was not that bad at the very beginning. It just sedans me to
Barbara Nichole
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#578 - 2012-08-06 16:49:51 UTC
I am liking most of the barge changes right now (Aug 6th) on Sisi. The only thing I object to is the claim that barges have "new roles". If anything barges now have no roles. CCP has added stats to help with survival and bumped up the productivity of some barges to equal them out more... while removing the roles. Hulk is master of all roles now - except it can't solo as well.

Quote:
They might not make it any more exciting, but at least miners will have to make some meaningful decisions before they undock.

Our decisions were meaningful before. The change will make our decisions less about the "right ship for the job"
and more about risk vs reward. Frankly, I going to miss the role specific ships.

  - remove the cloaked from local; free intel is the real problem, not  "afk" cloaking -

[IMG]http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a208/DawnFrostbringer/consultsig.jpg[/IMG]
Denidil
Cascades Mountain Operatives
#579 - 2012-08-06 17:17:27 UTC
final build on sisi -

mackinaw has it's 450m3 cargo, 35000m3 ore (28k+5%/level), but it's tank was reduced
hulk now has it's 8500m3 ore

Tedium and difficulty are not the same thing, if you don't realize this then STFU about game design.
Dave Stark
#580 - 2012-08-06 17:52:13 UTC
Denidil wrote:
final build on sisi -

mackinaw has it's 450m3 cargo, 35000m3 ore (28k+5%/level), but it's tank was reduced
hulk now has it's 8500m3 ore


if it wasn't so ******** it'd be funny that the mack can hold even more crystals now....