These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Devil's Advocate: Is lack of interactivity in mining a good thing?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Dave stark
#61 - 2013-04-26 18:28:22 UTC
Lady Areola Fappington wrote:
The fundamental idea of parking ship in space for hours on end while non-interactive modules cycle is just flawed. I don't think it could be salvaged. Fixing mining for good would require a grand overhaul that just isn't going to happen.

At best, I see CCP implementing some type of mining minigame, that effectively makes you be ATK doing something for max yield.


they aren't, according to the presentation they just gave.
Lady Areola Fappington
#62 - 2013-04-26 18:33:34 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:


they aren't, according to the presentation they just gave.


Well, that just kinda sucks. Really wish I could have made fanfest this year, but ohh no. Gotta get your PhD. they said. Video games are for kids they said....

7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided. --Eve New Player Guide
Darth Gustav
Sith Interstellar Tech Harvesting
#63 - 2013-04-26 18:34:48 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Lady Areola Fappington wrote:
The fundamental idea of parking ship in space for hours on end while non-interactive modules cycle is just flawed. I don't think it could be salvaged. Fixing mining for good would require a grand overhaul that just isn't going to happen.

At best, I see CCP implementing some type of mining minigame, that effectively makes you be ATK doing something for max yield.


they aren't, according to the presentation they just gave.

The equation's relevant, Dave. They're changing ice mining because of it.

Thanks for your unfinformed disagreement.

He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom
Georgina Parmala
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#64 - 2013-04-26 18:49:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Georgina Parmala
Dave Stark wrote:
Georgina Parmala wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:

a start to making the mackinaw completely useless. it'll be out tanked by the skiff (which is already a redundant role, more or less) and out yielded by the hulk, leaving the mackinaw the best at... nothing.

There's a difference between "I have more cargo capacity so you don't NEED to jet with a dedicated hauler" and "I got this, go watch TV for half an hour"

Here's a crazy idea. What if you cut that ore bay in half. You still have 17.5km3. Make the skiff like 10 instead of the current 15. Drop the T1 barges accordingly. That would be a start.

I really don't see any reason for a dedicated mining ship to hold one and a quarter jetcans of cargo and surpass the capacity of dedicated haulers. That's a max skill, cargo fitted and rigged mammoth using giant containers worth of space. That's as much as a cargo expanded and rigged Occator/Impel, the T2 transports with the largest potential cargo bays.


then it's too small to be efficient, so you're better off jetcanning with a hulk again.

Key question - is the efficiency the point?

How efficient is the hulk that gets their can stolen? I always saw it as something you "ship down" into when jet mining is not safe or you have a fleet too small to warrant a dedicated hauler.

Is being at the keyboard with a jetting hulk becoming more efficient than afk printing isk into an oversized hold, not the whole point?

Why should jet canning with a paper tank hulk NOT be more efficient?
Why does a Mining ship need to haul more out of the box than a dedicated T2 hauler fitted for max capacity?

Science and Trade Institute [STI] is an NPC entity and as such my views do not represent those of the entity or any of its members

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=276984&p=38
Dave stark
#65 - 2013-04-26 18:51:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Dave Stark
Darth Gustav wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Lady Areola Fappington wrote:
The fundamental idea of parking ship in space for hours on end while non-interactive modules cycle is just flawed. I don't think it could be salvaged. Fixing mining for good would require a grand overhaul that just isn't going to happen.

At best, I see CCP implementing some type of mining minigame, that effectively makes you be ATK doing something for max yield.


they aren't, according to the presentation they just gave.

The equation's relevant, Dave. They're changing ice mining because of it.

Thanks for your unfinformed disagreement.


and how does ice mining have anything to do with removing the mackinaw's ore bay and how useful the ship is?
also they've not changed anything about ice mining, other than the dropdown menu that you use to warp to an ice belt.

now it's in bookmarks not asteroid belts.
Dave stark
#66 - 2013-04-26 18:54:34 UTC
Georgina Parmala wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Georgina Parmala wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:

a start to making the mackinaw completely useless. it'll be out tanked by the skiff (which is already a redundant role, more or less) and out yielded by the hulk, leaving the mackinaw the best at... nothing.

There's a difference between "I have more cargo capacity so you don't NEED to jet with a dedicated hauler" and "I got this, go watch TV for half an hour"

Here's a crazy idea. What if you cut that ore bay in half. You still have 17.5km3. Make the skiff like 10 instead of the current 15. Drop the T1 barges accordingly. That would be a start.

I really don't see any reason for a dedicated mining ship to hold one and a quarter jetcans of cargo and surpass the capacity of dedicated haulers. That's a max skill, cargo fitted and rigged mammoth using giant containers worth of space. That's as much as a cargo expanded and rigged Occator/Impel, the T2 transports with the largest potential cargo bays.


then it's too small to be efficient, so you're better off jetcanning with a hulk again.

Key question - is the efficiency the point?

How efficient is the hulk that gets their can stolen? I always saw it as something you "ship down" into when jet mining is not safe or you have a fleet too small to warrant a dedicated hauler.

Is being at the keyboard with a jetting hulk becoming more efficient than afk printing isk into an oversized hold, not the whole point?

Why should jet canning with a paper tank hulk NOT be more efficient?
Why does a Mining ship need to haul more than a dedicated T2 hauler?


more efficient than the mackinaw doing the same because it has just had it's ore bay removed, because the hulk has more yield.

but you're not afk printing isk if the mackinaw has no ore hold. (also you're never really afk mining ore anyway due to asteroid depletion, you're just not paying attention to the client (subtle difference)).

i didn't say it should, i said it would if the mack had no ore bay.

not sure what you're getting at with that last question?
Captain Tardbar
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#67 - 2013-04-26 19:17:30 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Lady Areola Fappington wrote:
The fundamental idea of parking ship in space for hours on end while non-interactive modules cycle is just flawed. I don't think it could be salvaged. Fixing mining for good would require a grand overhaul that just isn't going to happen.

At best, I see CCP implementing some type of mining minigame, that effectively makes you be ATK doing something for max yield.


they aren't, according to the presentation they just gave.


I just woke up. What did the presentation say?

Looking to talk on VOIP with other EVE players? Are you new and need help with EVE (welfare) or looking for advice? Looking for adversarial debate with angry people?

Captain Tardbar's Voice Discord Server
Georgina Parmala
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#68 - 2013-04-26 19:22:08 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:

more efficient than the mackinaw doing the same because it has just had it's ore bay removed, because the hulk has more yield.

but you're not afk printing isk if the mackinaw has no ore hold. (also you're never really afk mining ore anyway due to asteroid depletion, you're just not paying attention to the client (subtle difference)).

i didn't say it should, i said it would if the mack had no ore bay.

not sure what you're getting at with that last question?

I didn't say remove, I said cut it in half to start. 17km is still a sizeable hold that can be used to mine without jet canning and offers an advantage over the hulk in niche usability, like the skiff's tank. A solo mack vs a solo jetting hulk docking to get a hauler, the mack would still be similar in efficiency while being easier and safer in many ways. For one, try jet mining while orbiting to avoid bumpers.

Mining ships are supposed to mine. Transport ships are supposed to move goods. The mack largely obsoletes the use of transports to move ore/ice to station. Why would you have a hauler move ice mined by an active hulk to station, when a yield fit afk Mack has 92% of the iced yield and the same cargo space as an Occator with two cargo rigs and 6 cargo expander 2's?

Why does a mining ship with the second best yield need a cargo hold that matches the largest, max cargo fitted transport ship short of a Freighter/Orca?

Science and Trade Institute [STI] is an NPC entity and as such my views do not represent those of the entity or any of its members

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=276984&p=38
Dave stark
#69 - 2013-04-26 20:07:44 UTC
Captain Tardbar wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Lady Areola Fappington wrote:
The fundamental idea of parking ship in space for hours on end while non-interactive modules cycle is just flawed. I don't think it could be salvaged. Fixing mining for good would require a grand overhaul that just isn't going to happen.

At best, I see CCP implementing some type of mining minigame, that effectively makes you be ATK doing something for max yield.


they aren't, according to the presentation they just gave.


I just woke up. What did the presentation say?


less than the dev blogs, check them out.
Dave stark
#70 - 2013-04-26 20:08:20 UTC
Georgina Parmala wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:

more efficient than the mackinaw doing the same because it has just had it's ore bay removed, because the hulk has more yield.

but you're not afk printing isk if the mackinaw has no ore hold. (also you're never really afk mining ore anyway due to asteroid depletion, you're just not paying attention to the client (subtle difference)).

i didn't say it should, i said it would if the mack had no ore bay.

not sure what you're getting at with that last question?

I didn't say remove, I said cut it in half to start. 17km is still a sizeable hold that can be used to mine without jet canning and offers an advantage over the hulk in niche usability, like the skiff's tank. A solo mack vs a solo jetting hulk docking to get a hauler, the mack would still be similar in efficiency while being easier and safer in many ways. For one, try jet mining while orbiting to avoid bumpers.

Mining ships are supposed to mine. Transport ships are supposed to move goods. The mack largely obsoletes the use of transports to move ore/ice to station. Why would you have a hauler move ice mined by an active hulk to station, when a yield fit afk Mack has 92% of the iced yield and the same cargo space as an Occator with two cargo rigs and 6 cargo expander 2's?

Why does a mining ship with the second best yield need a cargo hold that matches the largest, max cargo fitted transport ship short of a Freighter/Orca?


i know what you said, but my original point was to the removal of the ore bay.