These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Jake Rivers
New Planetary Order
#161 - 2012-07-25 15:29:45 UTC
Nagarythe Tinurandir wrote:
Jake Rivers wrote:

{....}
If you only cherry pick ABCs sure its plenty.


havent touched acb. but i mine in a fleet with purpose and concept.
5 minutes of preparation and 500m³ is all you need on crystals when serious mining is on.

Gimboid wrote:

Be realistic here. Our ice-mining fleets get more enjoyment out of talking **** to eachother on voice chat and making fun of each other than the mining itself.

At the moment, I can just about get up, go for a toilet break and make a new drink before all my cycles screw up and I loose them (which means, I loose ISK and ice is wasted). With the above changes, cycle times will be even faster, than means a legitimate player wanting to mine ice will have trouble going to the bathroom without coming back to find their cargohold full and more ISK loss.

This is "bot friendly" because bots don't need to take toilet breaks. So if the cycle times get too fast, it emppowers automated play more than short cycles hinder it. Really the minute the patch goes live and these bots are mining 10% faster, they will adjust their bot scripts to drag their ore 10% more often, no negative impact on them what so ever.


to be realistic: mining in its current form in generelly isnt very exciting.
voice chat surely helps :)
i can accept your statement as an opinion one can have but i do not agree.
from my point of view longer cycles will male it only more boring than it is right now. potentionally more ice bots.
faster cycles at least gives you something to do. (with still enough time to watch an episode on the side, go to the bathroom'n'stuff. unless you have this big session ahead of you... XD)

the bot problem needs a out pof the box solution. but i guess botting is nothing you can fix with a new gamemechanic.


When I mine, I have my own fleet (others are always welcome to join), and certainly do not want to be running around swapping out crystals when I am cleaning out a grav site.

Senex Legio
Infinite Force
#162 - 2012-07-25 15:35:55 UTC
Overall, these changes are good, but there are still some facts that need to be remembered for the Cargohold - for ALL the mining ships:

FACT: There are 16 Ore types.
FACT: T2 crystals are 50 m3 each.

Leaving out Mercoxit as it's a speciality Ore, let's do some calcs with T2 crystals.

First, for you "gotta have it all whiners", that's 1,500 m3 of crystals for one "complete" set of crystals with 1 spare -- for each Strip (15 crystals * 2 * 50m3). That means (and no, this will NOT happen) you would need the following cargohold sizes:
> Procurer / Skiff : 1,500 m3
> Retriever / Mackinaw : 3,000 m3
> Covetor / Hulk : CH range: 4,500 m3

Question So, what is REALISTICALLY being asked for?

1. For the T1 Barges, it's being asked that they be able to carry 3 Ore Crystal types + 1 spare. That is 20% of the total Ore types ( 3 / 15), Mercoxit excluded.

2. For the T2 Exhumers, it's being asked that they carry 5 Ore crystal types + 2 spares. That is 33% of the total Ore types (5 / 15), Mercoxit excluded.

Anything more than this, and you can have it delivered or dock up to get more.

From my prior post in this thead:

Quote:

The Cargohold of a Barge needs to be able to hold 3 types of Ore crystals with 1 spare.
The Cargohold of an Exhumer needs to be able to hold 5 types of Ore crystals with 2 spares.
(see the T1 / T2 advantage progression there?)

So, let's compare: T1 crystals are 30 m3 each, T2 are 50 m3.

We'll use T2 crystal math (since they are bigger).

Cargohold Size = T2 Crystal Size * # of Strips * # of crystals (active + spares) * # of ore types

Procurer / Skiff : CH range is : 300 - 750 m3
- T1: 2 crystals / 3 ores: 50 * 1 * 2 * 3 = 300 m3
- T2: 3 crystals / 5 ores: 50 * 1 * 3 * 5 = 750 m3

Retriever / Mackinaw : CH range: 600 - 1500 m3
- T1: 2 crystals / 3 ores: 50 * 2 * 2 * 3 = 600 m3
- T2: 3 crystals / 5 ores: 50 * 2 * 3 * 5 = 1500 m3

Covetor / Hulk : CH range: 900 - 2250 m3
- T1: 2 crystals / 3 ores: 50 * 3 * 2 * 3 = 900 m3
- T2: 3 crystals / 5 ores: 50 * 3 * 3 * 5 = 2250 m3
..
Either reduce crystal size or increase the cargoholds - it's that simple.

Combat vessels - which specialize in shooting things - can carry up to 8 different types of ammo.

Mining vessels - which specialize in gathering Ore - need the same relative flexibility - to carry a sub-set of crystals - as I have pointed out.

CCP Devs - take a hard look at these numbers & crystal sizes before finalizing any cargohold changes, please.

HROLT CEO Live Free; Die Proud

http://tinyurl.com/95zmyzw - The only way to go!
Arctos Canis
Ice Wolves
#163 - 2012-07-25 15:42:17 UTC
Dave stark wrote:
Arctos Canis wrote:
So everyone is just raging here about the 500m3 in hulks cargo hold :) but no one is even remotely raging about nerfed ice mining outputs and profit drops per same time spent mining it :) as mack looses ice mining barge role, after patche rest wont gonna compare to it. I wounder how is that so?


the hulk was never that far behind the mackinaw anyway, not to mention ice is the most afkable mining out there, it's really not an issue. especially since we've also got new ice mining rigs.



lots of ice miners made calculations with the new rig and the statistics still go lower then current effective yield we get. and after patch hulk will be best yield exumer for ice not considering tank.
Dave Stark
#164 - 2012-07-25 15:47:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Dave Stark
Arctos Canis wrote:
Dave stark wrote:
Arctos Canis wrote:
So everyone is just raging here about the 500m3 in hulks cargo hold :) but no one is even remotely raging about nerfed ice mining outputs and profit drops per same time spent mining it :) as mack looses ice mining barge role, after patche rest wont gonna compare to it. I wounder how is that so?


the hulk was never that far behind the mackinaw anyway, not to mention ice is the most afkable mining out there, it's really not an issue. especially since we've also got new ice mining rigs.



lots of ice miners made calculations with the new rig and the statistics still go lower then current effective yield we get. and after patch hulk will be best yield exumer for ice not considering tank.


it won't be much lower. as i said, the hulk was only like 4 blocks/hour behind the mackinaw as it was. the bonus for cycle time on ice harvesters has gone from 3% per level to 4% per level, closing that gap further, add in the new ice rigs and i refuse to believe that ice yield has dropped that much below what you can currently get from a mackinaw.

feel free to present the maths that proves me wrong, i welcome it, i love me a bit of maths.

edit; if the maths in halada's mining guide still holds (which i assume it does) you get 36 ice/hour with the hulk, and 44 ice/hour with the mackinaw.
infact, they are using ihu I in his calculations, with ihu II the hulk is getting 39 ice. the mackinaw is getting 48

after the changes the hulk will mine 48 ice/hour.
500*0.75(ice harvesting v)*0.8(exhumer v)*0.8281(2x ihu II)*0.88(new ice rig) = 218.blah cycle time = 16 cycles an hour = 48 ice per hour

as you see, ice yield is unchanged.
Infinite Force
#165 - 2012-07-25 16:15:33 UTC
Arctos Canis wrote:
So everyone is just raging here about the 500m3 in hulks cargo hold :) but no one is even remotely raging about nerfed ice mining outputs and profit drops per same time spent mining it :) as mack looses ice mining barge role, after patche rest wont gonna compare to it. I wounder how is that so?

The hulk is getting most of the attention on this issue, it does apply to ALL the barges.

The reason everyone is "raging" about the cargoholds is because it's something quickly identifable with these new changes only having been out for a bit over a day or two now.

The speciality Ore / Ice mining will receive their notes as soon as people have had adequate time to test out fits and such on SiSi. I'd expect to see more charts / tables / comparisons in the next few days on these other issues.

But for now, we're just trying to make sense of the initial changes.

As long as CCP is reading this thread and listening to us, we should see some more changes.

HROLT CEO Live Free; Die Proud

http://tinyurl.com/95zmyzw - The only way to go!
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy
Caldari State
#166 - 2012-07-25 16:39:40 UTC
Dave stark wrote:
Arctos Canis wrote:
Dave stark wrote:
Arctos Canis wrote:
So everyone is just raging here about the 500m3 in hulks cargo hold :) but no one is even remotely raging about nerfed ice mining outputs and profit drops per same time spent mining it :) as mack looses ice mining barge role, after patche rest wont gonna compare to it. I wounder how is that so?


the hulk was never that far behind the mackinaw anyway, not to mention ice is the most afkable mining out there, it's really not an issue. especially since we've also got new ice mining rigs.



lots of ice miners made calculations with the new rig and the statistics still go lower then current effective yield we get. and after patch hulk will be best yield exumer for ice not considering tank.


it won't be much lower. as i said, the hulk was only like 4 blocks/hour behind the mackinaw as it was. the bonus for cycle time on ice harvesters has gone from 3% per level to 4% per level, closing that gap further, add in the new ice rigs and i refuse to believe that ice yield has dropped that much below what you can currently get from a mackinaw.

feel free to present the maths that proves me wrong, i welcome it, i love me a bit of maths.

edit; if the maths in halada's mining guide still holds (which i assume it does) you get 36 ice/hour with the hulk, and 44 ice/hour with the mackinaw.
infact, they are using ihu I in his calculations, with ihu II the hulk is getting 39 ice. the mackinaw is getting 48

after the changes the hulk will mine 48 ice/hour.
500*0.75(ice harvesting v)*0.8(exhumer v)*0.8281(2x ihu II)*0.88(new ice rig) = 218.blah cycle time = 16 cycles an hour = 48 ice per hour

as you see, ice yield is unchanged.


Mack only gets 1 cube/harvester instead of 2 cubes/harvester after the change. It will be far behind Hulk in ice mining.
Dave Stark
#167 - 2012-07-25 16:43:29 UTC
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
Dave stark wrote:
Arctos Canis wrote:
Dave stark wrote:
Arctos Canis wrote:
So everyone is just raging here about the 500m3 in hulks cargo hold :) but no one is even remotely raging about nerfed ice mining outputs and profit drops per same time spent mining it :) as mack looses ice mining barge role, after patche rest wont gonna compare to it. I wounder how is that so?


the hulk was never that far behind the mackinaw anyway, not to mention ice is the most afkable mining out there, it's really not an issue. especially since we've also got new ice mining rigs.



lots of ice miners made calculations with the new rig and the statistics still go lower then current effective yield we get. and after patch hulk will be best yield exumer for ice not considering tank.


it won't be much lower. as i said, the hulk was only like 4 blocks/hour behind the mackinaw as it was. the bonus for cycle time on ice harvesters has gone from 3% per level to 4% per level, closing that gap further, add in the new ice rigs and i refuse to believe that ice yield has dropped that much below what you can currently get from a mackinaw.

feel free to present the maths that proves me wrong, i welcome it, i love me a bit of maths.

edit; if the maths in halada's mining guide still holds (which i assume it does) you get 36 ice/hour with the hulk, and 44 ice/hour with the mackinaw.
infact, they are using ihu I in his calculations, with ihu II the hulk is getting 39 ice. the mackinaw is getting 48

after the changes the hulk will mine 48 ice/hour.
500*0.75(ice harvesting v)*0.8(exhumer v)*0.8281(2x ihu II)*0.88(new ice rig) = 218.blah cycle time = 16 cycles an hour = 48 ice per hour

as you see, ice yield is unchanged.


Mack only gets 1 cube/harvester instead of 2 cubes/harvester after the change. It will be far behind Hulk in ice mining.


yes, which is intended.

i was comparing the pre-change mackinaw to the post change hulk, they both do 48 ice per hour. ice mining is effectively unchanged.
Arctos Canis
Ice Wolves
#168 - 2012-07-25 16:56:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Arctos Canis
Dave stark wrote:
Arctos Canis wrote:
Dave stark wrote:
Arctos Canis wrote:
So everyone is just raging here about the 500m3 in hulks cargo hold :) but no one is even remotely raging about nerfed ice mining outputs and profit drops per same time spent mining it :) as mack looses ice mining barge role, after patche rest wont gonna compare to it. I wounder how is that so?


the hulk was never that far behind the mackinaw anyway, not to mention ice is the most afkable mining out there, it's really not an issue. especially since we've also got new ice mining rigs.



lots of ice miners made calculations with the new rig and the statistics still go lower then current effective yield we get. and after patch hulk will be best yield exumer for ice not considering tank.


it won't be much lower. as i said, the hulk was only like 4 blocks/hour behind the mackinaw as it was. the bonus for cycle time on ice harvesters has gone from 3% per level to 4% per level, closing that gap further, add in the new ice rigs and i refuse to believe that ice yield has dropped that much below what you can currently get from a mackinaw.

feel free to present the maths that proves me wrong, i welcome it, i love me a bit of maths.

edit; if the maths in halada's mining guide still holds (which i assume it does) you get 36 ice/hour with the hulk, and 44 ice/hour with the mackinaw.
infact, they are using ihu I in his calculations, with ihu II the hulk is getting 39 ice. the mackinaw is getting 48

after the changes the hulk will mine 48 ice/hour.
500*0.75(ice harvesting v)*0.8(exhumer v)*0.8281(2x ihu II)*0.88(new ice rig) = 218.blah cycle time = 16 cycles an hour = 48 ice per hour

as you see, ice yield is unchanged.

my post Nr. 99 in this thread has the calculations :) feel free to read.
its based on how fast u can mine one block and afterwords its simple math u can convert thous numbers what ever way u want to houerly block rate and so on.. all the skills are LVL5 including max skilled orca and impacting modules named also midclass yeti implant was on while i tested so mentioned it too. (P.S. these results are from LIVE test from bouth servers)
Stefan1978
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#169 - 2012-07-25 17:41:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Stefan1978
After 24 Hours, i have had time to calm down and now i have the solution.

Hulk 0m³ for all and 0m³ for Ore

And lets mining till 8 August and then sell Minerals for little bit higher Price than normal. Now i am fine with these **** from CCP.
Urgg Boolean
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#170 - 2012-07-25 17:47:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Urgg Boolean
There seem to be some recurring themes that I'll address without quoting a wall of indented text:
1) insufficient space for crystals:
While I agree it would better to have max crystal storage space for flexibility as a soloist, in a fleet you can just assign boats to ONLY certain rocks such that each boat only needs a few different crystals. ALso, I know it's archaic, but you can have your hauler jettison crystals for you and/or refit if you have to haul solo style. DOes not seem like a big issue to me.
2) Mining is boring:
Yes it is. I personally prefer longer cycles so I can relax, sip barley wine, read a book, and occassionally look at my screen and tweak things. My main is the Orca pilot in our fleet Ops for this very reason. But when I tested the Mack out on SiSi, I was really liking the long cycle times and huge ore bay so I could enjoy some quality time with a good book while doing otherwise brainless mining. Faster cycle/jettison/move ore times would only make STOP mining. I couldn't do it - it's mindless keystroking. The new Mack is just what the doctor ordered from my perspective. I finally can give CCP some applause.
3) Ice yield
Yup - the Mack is the loser. Hulk is the winner. I got back on SiSI and mined ice in 0.0. The Mack is a pathetic shade of it's former self. The Hulk is fine at ice though in terms of yield. Looks like CCP wants the gankers to still have ice mining bots available as paper thin tanked gank bait. I think it fits the new "role" based functions for each boat. I'm good with that. Yes - it means ice mining is just as dangerous as it was before IF you want max yield. Or, use the Mack wirth a good tank and less yield more safely. It's your choice - but I am glad we have these choices available now.
4) Rigs determine the role:
This bugs me a little. It eans you have to buy two boats and rig them differently if you want to mine ice compared to ore. Ditto for Merx. Since this is no different than before (Hulk = ore / Mack = ice) I guess I'm okay with that part of it.

The part I don't like is that if I burn a rig slot for an Ice thingy, my tank is wimpier. This defeats the new role of the Mack and therefore should not be done in this way. One strange idea is to allow the mining rigs to be removed without destruction, but I'll bet that would be a hot button item for some people.
Dave Stark
#171 - 2012-07-25 17:59:23 UTC
Arctos Canis wrote:
Dave stark wrote:
Arctos Canis wrote:
Dave stark wrote:
Arctos Canis wrote:
So everyone is just raging here about the 500m3 in hulks cargo hold :) but no one is even remotely raging about nerfed ice mining outputs and profit drops per same time spent mining it :) as mack looses ice mining barge role, after patche rest wont gonna compare to it. I wounder how is that so?


the hulk was never that far behind the mackinaw anyway, not to mention ice is the most afkable mining out there, it's really not an issue. especially since we've also got new ice mining rigs.



lots of ice miners made calculations with the new rig and the statistics still go lower then current effective yield we get. and after patch hulk will be best yield exumer for ice not considering tank.


it won't be much lower. as i said, the hulk was only like 4 blocks/hour behind the mackinaw as it was. the bonus for cycle time on ice harvesters has gone from 3% per level to 4% per level, closing that gap further, add in the new ice rigs and i refuse to believe that ice yield has dropped that much below what you can currently get from a mackinaw.

feel free to present the maths that proves me wrong, i welcome it, i love me a bit of maths.

edit; if the maths in halada's mining guide still holds (which i assume it does) you get 36 ice/hour with the hulk, and 44 ice/hour with the mackinaw.
infact, they are using ihu I in his calculations, with ihu II the hulk is getting 39 ice. the mackinaw is getting 48

after the changes the hulk will mine 48 ice/hour.
500*0.75(ice harvesting v)*0.8(exhumer v)*0.8281(2x ihu II)*0.88(new ice rig) = 218.blah cycle time = 16 cycles an hour = 48 ice per hour

as you see, ice yield is unchanged.

my post Nr. 99 in this thread has the calculations :) feel free to read.
its based on how fast u can mine one block and afterwords its simple math u can convert thous numbers what ever way u want to houerly block rate and so on.. all the skills are LVL5 including max skilled orca and impacting modules named also midclass yeti implant was on while i tested so mentioned it too. (P.S. these results are from LIVE test from bouth servers)



if you give me some time i'll plug numbers in and figure out the blocks/hour with orca bonuses and 3% implant.
Gevlin
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#172 - 2012-07-25 18:17:14 UTC
Infinite Force wrote:
Overall, these changes are good, but there are still some facts that need to be remembered for the Cargohold - for ALL the mining ships:

FACT: There are 16 Ore types.
FACT: T2 crystals are 50 m3 each.

Leaving out Mercoxit as it's a speciality Ore, let's do some calcs with T2 crystals.

First, for you "gotta have it all whiners", that's 1,500 m3 of crystals for one "complete" set of crystals with 1 spare -- for each Strip (15 crystals * 2 * 50m3). That means (and no, this will NOT happen) you would need the following cargohold sizes:
> Procurer / Skiff : 1,500 m3
> Retriever / Mackinaw : 3,000 m3
> Covetor / Hulk : CH range: 4,500 m3

Question So, what is REALISTICALLY being asked for?

1. For the T1 Barges, it's being asked that they be able to carry 3 Ore Crystal types + 1 spare. That is 20% of the total Ore types ( 3 / 15), Mercoxit excluded.

2. For the T2 Exhumers, it's being asked that they carry 5 Ore crystal types + 2 spares. That is 33% of the total Ore types (5 / 15), Mercoxit excluded.

Anything more than this, and you can have it delivered or dock up to get more.

From my prior post in this thead:

Quote:

The Cargohold of a Barge needs to be able to hold 3 types of Ore crystals with 1 spare.
The Cargohold of an Exhumer needs to be able to hold 5 types of Ore crystals with 2 spares.
(see the T1 / T2 advantage progression there?)

So, let's compare: T1 crystals are 30 m3 each, T2 are 50 m3.

We'll use T2 crystal math (since they are bigger).

Cargohold Size = T2 Crystal Size * # of Strips * # of crystals (active + spares) * # of ore types

Procurer / Skiff : CH range is : 300 - 750 m3
- T1: 2 crystals / 3 ores: 50 * 1 * 2 * 3 = 300 m3
- T2: 3 crystals / 5 ores: 50 * 1 * 3 * 5 = 750 m3

Retriever / Mackinaw : CH range: 600 - 1500 m3
- T1: 2 crystals / 3 ores: 50 * 2 * 2 * 3 = 600 m3
- T2: 3 crystals / 5 ores: 50 * 2 * 3 * 5 = 1500 m3

Covetor / Hulk : CH range: 900 - 2250 m3
- T1: 2 crystals / 3 ores: 50 * 3 * 2 * 3 = 900 m3
- T2: 3 crystals / 5 ores: 50 * 3 * 3 * 5 = 2250 m3
..
Either reduce crystal size or increase the cargoholds - it's that simple.

Combat vessels - which specialize in shooting things - can carry up to 8 different types of ammo.

Mining vessels - which specialize in gathering Ore - need the same relative flexibility - to carry a sub-set of crystals - as I have pointed out.

CCP Devs - take a hard look at these numbers & crystal sizes before finalizing any cargohold changes, please.


This why in null sec often Multi box miners often use miner Is , as we move the max yield we specialize in the crystals we use we will require team work to plow through a field as a group.

I am looking forward to the changes except the level bonus for the skiff and Mach, ie move away from yield increase of 1 percent to another aspect of the ship and have a increase per level that matters

Someday I will have the time to play. For now it is mining afk in High sec. In Cheap ships
Dave Stark
#173 - 2012-07-25 18:22:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Dave Stark
Dave stark wrote:
if you give me some time i'll plug numbers in and figure out the blocks/hour with orca bonuses and 3% implant.


delivering results.

orca bonuses and 3% implant....

new hulk = 75/hour
new mack = 63/hour (69/hour if it can support a third mlu)
old mack = 72

ice yields are going up, not down if you bother to switch ship.
Buzzy Warstl
Quantum Flux Foundry
#174 - 2012-07-25 18:35:15 UTC
Won't the Skiff mine Ice better than the Mack now?

Skiff gets 3/cycle by the bonuses, Mack only gets 2/cycle.

I'll check soon, but I need to resinstall Sisi, so maybe someone who's already on can check.

http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm Richard Bartle: Players who suit MUDs
Draconyx
Oort Cloud Industries
The OORT Cloud
#175 - 2012-07-25 18:37:52 UTC
Unit757 wrote:
Draconyx wrote:
Not bad BUT

Hulk and Covetor Ore holds need to be increased so that 2 cycles can be done before you have to empty.

Here is the break down using only T1 strips, T2 Upgrades, 3% implant and without fleet bonuses.

Cycles Before Full (CBF)

Hulk (4096.59 m^3/cycle) = 1 CBF
Covetor (3717.12 m^3/cycle) = 1 CBF
Mackinaw (3545.20 m^3/cycle) = 10 CBF
Retriever ( 3376.34 m^3/cycle) = 8 CBF
Skiff ( 3252.48 m^3/cycle) = 5 CBF
Procure (3097.60 m^3/cycle)r = 4 CBF

The ore hold should be based on Fleet bonuses + T2 + max yield implants.

PS - Option if you don't want to add it in for solo miners then how about adding in the bonus to one of the Command links so that you have to be in a fleet with links to get it. That works as well.


The hulk is not mean't to hold more then one cycle, it is a transition point for ore between space, and the orca/rorq. If you want a ship to hold more then one cycle, use a machinaw or skiff.


One cycle, I would like to see where that is stated.
I am not asking for anything even remotely close to a mack or skiff, but if you have ever done any mining just adding one more cycle can make a big difference.
Examples when it will come in handy - partial cycle, waiting on Hauler, resinking lasers over time.
And yes it is even more important when you have a hauler and someone running links cause your cycle time goes down which means less time.
Dave Stark
#176 - 2012-07-25 18:46:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Dave Stark
Buzzy Warstl wrote:
Won't the Skiff mine Ice better than the Mack now?

Skiff gets 3/cycle by the bonuses, Mack only gets 2/cycle.

I'll check soon, but I need to resinstall Sisi, so maybe someone who's already on can check.


no it's identical.

actually the mack comes out ahead due to the third low slot, but before fittings it's identical.
Arctos Canis
Ice Wolves
#177 - 2012-07-25 19:03:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Arctos Canis
Dave stark wrote:
Dave stark wrote:
if you give me some time i'll plug numbers in and figure out the blocks/hour with orca bonuses and 3% implant.
Orca bonus and implants and everything else were already included on LIVE test

delivering results.

orca bonuses and 3% implant....

new hulk = 75/hour
new mack = 70/hour (69/hour if it can support a third mlu) IT supports 3 MLU + an ICE RIG
old mack = 73

ice yields are going up, not down if you bother to switch ship.


Ok so i see everyone is using blocks per hour as comparing stuff so i shall convert the numbers i had myself then...

Old mack = 73.4 block per hour (3600/49 = 73.469)
new mack = 70 block per hour (3600/51.5 = 70)
new hulk = 76 block per hour (3600/47.6 = 76)
new skiff = 63 block per hour (3600/56.79 = 63)

(P.S. this is with all max boosts modules for max yield rigs and skills and so on and on and on , U can't max anything else out except a yeti implant 5% instead i used 3%)
Arctos Canis
Ice Wolves
#178 - 2012-07-25 19:15:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Arctos Canis
Dave stark wrote:
Buzzy Warstl wrote:
Won't the Skiff mine Ice better than the Mack now?

Skiff gets 3/cycle by the bonuses, Mack only gets 2/cycle.

I'll check soon, but I need to resinstall Sisi, so maybe someone who's already on can check.


no it's identical.


Really happy that more people have started looking in to this :) cuz there will be a lot more people who will come to same conclusion then.
Buzzy everything maxed out - numbers are like this :)

new skiff cycle time is 56.79 seconds 1block
new mack cycle time is 103.35s 2 blocks
new hulk cycle time is 143.47s 3 blocks
Denidil
Cascades Mountain Operatives
#179 - 2012-07-25 19:23:54 UTC
remember the new rigs

Tedium and difficulty are not the same thing, if you don't realize this then STFU about game design.
Arctos Canis
Ice Wolves
#180 - 2012-07-25 19:26:02 UTC
Denidil wrote:
remember the new rigs

the rigs are in sisi and they were included during test