These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Rebalanced mining - hulk vs mack - tweaks needed?

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#101 - 2012-10-03 02:18:36 UTC
ashley Eoner wrote:
Irrelevant details? More like inconvenient details for your "argument". It's blatantly obvious with your statements that you have no interest in an honest discussion and that you're only interested in an irrational crusade against Macks.

Wrong. It doesn't matter if it's one person rocking 3 mackinaws or 3 people running 3 mackinaws, they're still going to outperform 2 hulks and 1 orca, and it'll certainly be less work for more or less the same return in minerals.

And "irrational crusade against macks"? It's almost as if you haven't read the arguments, but just saw "nerf macks".

ashley Eoner wrote:
Your second point is completely irrelevant and your inability to see so doesn't bode well for your intellectual capabilities..

Oh look, an ad hominem. How quaint, I haven't seen that for at least a day.

The second point is completely relevant, it's not my problem if you insist on completely disregarding it because you don't like the conclusion it'll lead to. The full point is that the vast, vast majority of mining today is exactly that kind of mining, which means that the skiff is not desirable due to the lack of yield and the lack of ore hold space, and the hulk isn't desireable due to the amount of work you have to do compared to how much you get in return, and if you're multiboxing or just mining with a few friends you'll all end up with more for less until you reach a number of miners which very, very rarely ever happens.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
ashley Eoner
#102 - 2012-10-03 02:57:19 UTC  |  Edited by: ashley Eoner
Lord Zim wrote:
ashley Eoner wrote:
Irrelevant details? More like inconvenient details for your "argument". It's blatantly obvious with your statements that you have no interest in an honest discussion and that you're only interested in an irrational crusade against Macks.

Wrong. It doesn't matter if it's one person rocking 3 mackinaws or 3 people running 3 mackinaws, they're still going to outperform 2 hulks and 1 orca, and it'll certainly be less work for more or less the same return in minerals.

And "irrational crusade against macks"? It's almost as if you haven't read the arguments, but just saw "nerf macks".

ashley Eoner wrote:
Your second point is completely irrelevant and your inability to see so doesn't bode well for your intellectual capabilities..

Oh look, an ad hominem. How quaint, I haven't seen that for at least a day.

The second point is completely relevant, it's not my problem if you insist on completely disregarding it because you don't like the conclusion it'll lead to. The full point is that the vast, vast majority of mining today is exactly that kind of mining, which means that the skiff is not desirable due to the lack of yield and the lack of ore hold space, and the hulk isn't desireable due to the amount of work you have to do compared to how much you get in return, and if you're multiboxing or just mining with a few friends you'll all end up with more for less until you reach a number of miners which very, very rarely ever happens.
Your first point.. So what? The mack is supposed to be used by solo players and you're describing solo play so mission accomplished.

Your second point. You're saying that because something is popular then it needs to be nerfed. Thus you want solo mining to be nerfed. Why stop there? Why not nerf solo missioning solo FW solo market trading solo manufacturing solo everything because well "most" people tend to solo those activities. Your "argument" is so silly I'm not even sure why I'm wasting my time trying to get you to understand.

The hulk is exceedingly desirable... in large fleet operations which is what it's designed for so once again MISSION accomplished...
Darth Gustav
Sith Interstellar Tech Harvesting
#103 - 2012-10-03 03:00:22 UTC
ashley Eoner wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:
ashley Eoner wrote:
Irrelevant details? More like inconvenient details for your "argument". It's blatantly obvious with your statements that you have no interest in an honest discussion and that you're only interested in an irrational crusade against Macks.

Wrong. It doesn't matter if it's one person rocking 3 mackinaws or 3 people running 3 mackinaws, they're still going to outperform 2 hulks and 1 orca, and it'll certainly be less work for more or less the same return in minerals.

And "irrational crusade against macks"? It's almost as if you haven't read the arguments, but just saw "nerf macks".

ashley Eoner wrote:
Your second point is completely irrelevant and your inability to see so doesn't bode well for your intellectual capabilities..

Oh look, an ad hominem. How quaint, I haven't seen that for at least a day.

The second point is completely relevant, it's not my problem if you insist on completely disregarding it because you don't like the conclusion it'll lead to. The full point is that the vast, vast majority of mining today is exactly that kind of mining, which means that the skiff is not desirable due to the lack of yield and the lack of ore hold space, and the hulk isn't desireable due to the amount of work you have to do compared to how much you get in return, and if you're multiboxing or just mining with a few friends you'll all end up with more for less until you reach a number of miners which very, very rarely ever happens.
Your first point.. So what? The mack is supposed to be used by solo players and you're describing solo play so mission accomplished.

Your second point. You're saying that because something is popular then it needs to be nerfed. Thus you want solo mining to be nerfed. Why stop there? Why not nerf solo missioning solo FW solo market trading solo manufacturing solo everything because well "most" people tend to solo those activities. Your "argument" is so silly I'm not even sure why I'm wasting my time trying to get you to understand.

The hulk is exceedingly desirable... in large fleet operations which is what it's designed for so once again MISSION accomplished...


I might be able to accept the Hulk's desirability given the absolute miner obsession with yield, yield, yield.

How about that Skiff for some desirability?

D'oh!

He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom
ashley Eoner
#104 - 2012-10-03 03:05:31 UTC  |  Edited by: ashley Eoner
Darth Gustav wrote:
ashley Eoner wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:
ashley Eoner wrote:
Irrelevant details? More like inconvenient details for your "argument". It's blatantly obvious with your statements that you have no interest in an honest discussion and that you're only interested in an irrational crusade against Macks.

Wrong. It doesn't matter if it's one person rocking 3 mackinaws or 3 people running 3 mackinaws, they're still going to outperform 2 hulks and 1 orca, and it'll certainly be less work for more or less the same return in minerals.

And "irrational crusade against macks"? It's almost as if you haven't read the arguments, but just saw "nerf macks".

ashley Eoner wrote:
Your second point is completely irrelevant and your inability to see so doesn't bode well for your intellectual capabilities..

Oh look, an ad hominem. How quaint, I haven't seen that for at least a day.

The second point is completely relevant, it's not my problem if you insist on completely disregarding it because you don't like the conclusion it'll lead to. The full point is that the vast, vast majority of mining today is exactly that kind of mining, which means that the skiff is not desirable due to the lack of yield and the lack of ore hold space, and the hulk isn't desireable due to the amount of work you have to do compared to how much you get in return, and if you're multiboxing or just mining with a few friends you'll all end up with more for less until you reach a number of miners which very, very rarely ever happens.
Your first point.. So what? The mack is supposed to be used by solo players and you're describing solo play so mission accomplished.

Your second point. You're saying that because something is popular then it needs to be nerfed. Thus you want solo mining to be nerfed. Why stop there? Why not nerf solo missioning solo FW solo market trading solo manufacturing solo everything because well "most" people tend to solo those activities. Your "argument" is so silly I'm not even sure why I'm wasting my time trying to get you to understand.

The hulk is exceedingly desirable... in large fleet operations which is what it's designed for so once again MISSION accomplished...


I might be able to accept the Hulk's desirability given the absolute miner obsession with yield, yield, yield.

How about that Skiff for some desirability?

D'oh!
Just because you don't desire it doesn't mean others don't. They make excellent ninja miners for dangerous areas.

For giggles I actually used one to tank level 4s as a semi drone boat.


You're basically arguing that since you don't have a desire to use a skiff that macks should be nerfed? Well I don't feel a desire to use Fenrirs because the hold is too small so we should nerf Charons!!!! Now that I think about it. It's no fair that freighters should have such a huge hold compared to industrials. CCP should nerf freighter cargo space because I don't have a desire to use an industrial.
Darth Gustav
Sith Interstellar Tech Harvesting
#105 - 2012-10-03 03:08:04 UTC
ashley Eoner wrote:
Just because you don't desire it doesn't mean others don't. They make excellent ninja miners for dangerous areas.

For giggles I actually used one to tank level 4s as a semi drone boat.

Its usefulness for things other than its intended purpose aside, all you did is prove that it's a giant bag of hitpoints with moderately high resists with this post.

Seriously? Ninja mining in the lowest yield boat, huh? Roll

He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#106 - 2012-10-03 08:26:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Lord Zim
ashley Eoner wrote:
Your first point.. So what? The mack is supposed to be used by solo players and you're describing solo play so mission accomplished.

The skiff is supposed to be used by solo players who want to do something dangerous. There's literally no need to, due to the mackinaw's inherent EHP.

ashley Eoner wrote:
Your second point. You're saying that because something is popular then it needs to be nerfed.

I see you completely miss what the second point is about, again. The point isn't that "the mack is desirable, NERF IT", the point is that there's literally no point in flying a skiff (unless you're exceedingly paranoid), because the mackinaw's tank is more than sufficient, and there's literally no point in flying a hulk, because the mackinaw's output is more than sufficient, especially when you take into consideration the large ore hold it has.

ashley Eoner wrote:
Thus you want solo mining to be nerfed.

No. I want miners, as a whole, to have a reason to choose a ship other than the mackinaw (or the retriever if they're cheapasses). Currently there are none, until you reach 5+ people who are mining together, and even then you have to weigh the miniscule extra yield against the extra work figuring out who mined what, how much they need to get paid etc. Or you can just run all macks and let everyone keep track of their own ore.

ashley Eoner wrote:
Why stop there? Why not nerf solo missioning solo FW solo market trading solo manufacturing solo everything because well "most" people tend to solo those activities. Your "argument" is so silly I'm not even sure why I'm wasting my time trying to get you to understand.

This is a non sequitur. Just because you're angry, doesn't make me dumb.

ashley Eoner wrote:
The hulk is exceedingly desirable... in large fleet operations which is what it's designed for so once again MISSION accomplished...

http://i.imgur.com/H1DaN.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/TVm33.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/9lGgE.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/8kSSB.jpg

OH LOOK TWO HULKS OUT OF MORE THAN 150! Yeah, it's ~exceedingly desirable~. Roll

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Sisohiv
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#107 - 2012-10-03 09:30:10 UTC
Show me something besides an Ice belt.

Something I have done in EVE since 2005 is fly from belt to belt to belt, system after system looking for Shadow Serpentis, Dark Bloods, True Sansha, commanders. I've seen more belts than most people in EVE including Miners. I can tell you whats out there. Usually nobody. Mostly Ret's. Next up is Hulks and Orca, then Mackinaw and an occasional Skiff but in most belts, there is nobody. We talk about the min max of the various barges but you never see many mention the proff as a whole. Line up ISK/hr in mining with FW or level 4 missions or ratting in Null or Wormholes. All of sudden you have a whole new picture. Mining is still at the bottom of the totem pole. Even with 6 isk Trit and pyrite bouncing between 12.5 annd 14 it is better to do most other things in EVE.

You still see miners as easy targets to pad a kill board. Get over it, move on. Christmas came and went for you. Now its January in grieferville. Enjoy the boredom.
I Love Boobies
All Hail Boobies
#108 - 2012-10-03 11:15:47 UTC
The Hulk is meant to be a fleet operations ship, meaning it relies on the rest of the fleet to protect it, IE logistics ships and other combat ships. In return, you get the best yield from it. Said as much in the Dev blog about the mining ships.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#109 - 2012-10-03 11:19:06 UTC
Sisohiv wrote:
Show me something besides an Ice belt.

Something I have done in EVE since 2005 is fly from belt to belt to belt, system after system looking for Shadow Serpentis, Dark Bloods, True Sansha, commanders. I've seen more belts than most people in EVE including Miners. I can tell you whats out there. Usually nobody. Mostly Ret's. Next up is Hulks and Orca, then Mackinaw and an occasional Skiff but in most belts, there is nobody. We talk about the min max of the various barges but you never see many mention the proff as a whole. Line up ISK/hr in mining with FW or level 4 missions or ratting in Null or Wormholes. All of sudden you have a whole new picture. Mining is still at the bottom of the totem pole. Even with 6 isk Trit and pyrite bouncing between 12.5 annd 14 it is better to do most other things in EVE.

You still see miners as easy targets to pad a kill board. Get over it, move on. Christmas came and went for you. Now its January in grieferville. Enjoy the boredom.


The irony here is that I am trying to keep miners income as high as possible while you are defending lower miner income via the current mining imbalance.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#110 - 2012-10-03 11:24:16 UTC
Sisohiv wrote:
Show me something besides an Ice belt.

Why? The ice belts are where the ~mining fleets~ are, and they're predominantly mackinaw or its t1 cousin, a few skiffs and the occasional hulk.

Sisohiv wrote:
Mining is still at the bottom of the totem pole. Even with 6 isk Trit and pyrite bouncing between 12.5 annd 14 it is better to do most other things in EVE.

And what does this have to do with the mack having a leg over the hulk in literally all aspect except raw yield (while still kicking its ass in compound yield) until the mining fleet is larger than you'll ever see in most hisec asteroid belts? And where there actually are ~mining fleets~ ... it's of macks. In ice fields.

Sisohiv wrote:
You still see miners as easy targets to pad a kill board. Get over it, move on. Christmas came and went for you. Now its January in grieferville. Enjoy the boredom.

I haven't actually killed a single mining barge or exhumer, and swapping the tank from the hulk to the mackinaw (and vice versa) won't change that, but keep those ad hominems coming, I'm sure it'll strengthen your case.

This change would just mean that people will have to choose between either best tank (and ****** yield), okay yield (and good convenience, but the worst tank), or best yield (and ****** convenience but okayish tank). Currently it's best tank, second best convenience, worst yield for the skiff, it's second best tank, second best yield and best convenience for mack, and it's best yield, worst tank and worst convenience for the hulk.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Vith Rothe
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#111 - 2012-10-03 11:47:20 UTC
why is everyone so busy to get things back to how they were?
it changed... get a new ship and move on
Herr Hammer Draken
#112 - 2012-10-03 11:47:43 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Sisohiv wrote:
Show me something besides an Ice belt.

Why? The ice belts are where the ~mining fleets~ are, and they're predominantly mackinaw or its t1 cousin, a few skiffs and the occasional hulk.

Sisohiv wrote:
Mining is still at the bottom of the totem pole. Even with 6 isk Trit and pyrite bouncing between 12.5 annd 14 it is better to do most other things in EVE.

And what does this have to do with the mack having a leg over the hulk in literally all aspect except raw yield (while still kicking its ass in compound yield) until the mining fleet is larger than you'll ever see in most hisec asteroid belts? And where there actually are ~mining fleets~ ... it's of macks. In ice fields.

Sisohiv wrote:
You still see miners as easy targets to pad a kill board. Get over it, move on. Christmas came and went for you. Now its January in grieferville. Enjoy the boredom.

I haven't actually killed a single mining barge or exhumer, and swapping the tank from the hulk to the mackinaw (and vice versa) won't change that, but keep those ad hominems coming, I'm sure it'll strengthen your case.

This change would just mean that people will have to choose between either best tank (and ****** yield), okay yield (and good convenience, but the worst tank), or best yield (and ****** convenience but okayish tank). Currently it's best tank, second best convenience, worst yield for the skiff, it's second best tank, second best yield and best convenience for mack, and it's best yield, worst tank and worst convenience for the hulk.


I do not like your proposed change and I see no reason for it. Macs mine ice belts. So what. Unless you are but hurt over that.
Yes a lot of them bot mine ice. I understand why they do that. What I find odd is the active players that mine ice for isk. They can make 25% more isk/hour mining scordite. Like Sisohiv said once you get away from the major hubs nobody is out in most of those belts. Lots of empty unused space in high sec. Everybody wants to be in the same place in high sec and then they get but hurt and then they want game changes to serve them in their ideal place. Great but no. Move and solve your problems.

Herr Hammer Draken "The Amarr Prophet"
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#113 - 2012-10-03 13:01:46 UTC
Herr Hammer Draken wrote:
I do not like your proposed change

vOv

Herr Hammer Draken wrote:
and I see no reason for it.

The reason for the change is that the mack is so good at tanking that there's little reason for using the skiff, it's good enough at yield that there's little reason for the hulk, and it's good enough at convenience that there's little reason for the orca, unless you go past 4 or 5 people in the gang.

Herr Hammer Draken wrote:
Macs mine ice belts.

You're missing the point.

Herr Hammer Draken wrote:
Like Sisohiv said once you get away from the major hubs nobody is out in most of those belts. Lots of empty unused space in high sec. Everybody wants to be in the same place in high sec and then they get but hurt and then they want game changes to serve them in their ideal place. Great but no. Move and solve your problems.

I don't even

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#114 - 2012-10-03 16:27:20 UTC
Vith Rothe wrote:
why is everyone so busy to get things back to how they were?
it changed... get a new ship and move on


If things stay as they are then:

Miner profits will slump to near worthless (Ice has fallen by 2/3 already)

Gankers cannot make a profit on macks. No more ganks.

The Skiff will be pointless and unused

The hulk will be near poinless and unused

Mining bots will dominate high sec again (already happening).


There is nothing good for the game in this.
Imports Plus
Doomheim
#115 - 2012-10-03 16:42:31 UTC
Cross posting from the other mining thread Smile

In every other MMO 'gathering' is treated as a minor side profession, like a necessary evil to feed a primary profession such as crafting.

Where Eve Online has gone wrong, and gone very wrong for 9 years in treating Mining as a primary profession, like; something you do all day long.

Mining needs to be totally overhauled to something you do for like an hour each day, then move on to other things like crafting.

Make vastly diminishing returns after mining for one hour. This needs to happen now CCP, it will cure all your bot problems.
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy
Caldari State
#116 - 2012-10-03 16:59:59 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Gankers cannot make a profit on macks. No more ganks.


Why should you profit from ganking a ship with "worthless" cargo?
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#117 - 2012-10-03 17:11:03 UTC
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Gankers cannot make a profit on macks. No more ganks.


Why should you profit from ganking a ship with "worthless" cargo?


Because its not the cargo we are after.
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy
Caldari State
#118 - 2012-10-03 17:28:04 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Gankers cannot make a profit on macks. No more ganks.


Why should you profit from ganking a ship with "worthless" cargo?


Because its not the cargo we are after.


Higher ship and module prices?
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#119 - 2012-10-03 17:29:35 UTC
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Gankers cannot make a profit on macks. No more ganks.


Why should you profit from ganking a ship with "worthless" cargo?


Because its not the cargo we are after.


Higher ship and module prices?


Only raising this would not solve the "useless skiff" problem.
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy
Caldari State
#120 - 2012-10-03 17:44:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Jorma Morkkis
Lord Zim wrote:
It doesn't matter if it's one person rocking 3 mackinaws or 3 people running 3 mackinaws, they're still going to outperform 2 hulks and 1 orca, and it'll certainly be less work for more or less the same return in minerals.


Do you know that those Mack pilots have to stop their strip miners when they warp to station?
Have you calculated how much those Mack pilots lose when they have to warp around?
Do you know that those Mack pilots don't have 20km range on their strip miners?

Cycle time (no implant):
Mack: 180 sec
Hulk: 141 sec