These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Kronos] Mining Barges and Exhumers

First post First post First post
Author
DrysonBennington
Eagle's Talon's
#561 - 2014-05-01 19:55:40 UTC
A New Type Of Mining Barge - The Amalgamation - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amalgamation

The Amalgamation would be built similar the ORCA but would instead have the ability to recover precious minerals from ore by combining them with several types of chemicals.

The Amalgamation would have two high slot strip miners that could be fitted with modulated strip miners if desired. Once ore has been mined and placed into the amalgamation bay scripts would then be used to recover precious minerals in the ore that would not otherwise be able to be recovered with the normal refining process.

Erutpar Ambient
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#562 - 2014-05-02 01:46:10 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Erutpar Ambient wrote:
This would create a dynamic and diverse mining fleet.
Hulks would now be viable and desirable for fleet mining but would lose the last shred of solo viablility (drones).
Mackinaws would now have a role to play in a mining fleet. There would be no impact on their solo viability.
Skiffs should lose some solo survivability only to regain it in conjunction with a diverse mining fleet.
Mining fleets would now have greater self sustainability that would scale with size, while the size of the fleet will be soft capped by the size of the resource field. (how many miners can mine 1 high sec belt at a time?)

Would this be a idea worth considering?

I find this idea of exhumer roles in relation to each other fascinating.

I think we want at least one exhumer kept as a choice for solo play, since this is inevitable for game play.

I really like the idea of the skiff being competent at fighting. I would not want to see it diminished in this role.
Especially for those choosing between not playing or mining solo.

I could see the Mack in a mining logistics role.
Give it a mad bonus for repping drones, and have it prop up the mining fleet. Two of them together could cross rep each other, and the fun begins. Much more than two, and you might actually stabilize the dynamic enough to bring in a Rorqual.

Imagine the mining ships actually able to sustain a realistic defensive posture. It sounds too good to be true.

I would like to see that.

I guess nobody else really cared about my idea ;(
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#563 - 2014-05-02 13:39:06 UTC
Erutpar Ambient wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Erutpar Ambient wrote:
This would create a dynamic and diverse mining fleet.
Hulks would now be viable and desirable for fleet mining but would lose the last shred of solo viablility (drones).
Mackinaws would now have a role to play in a mining fleet. There would be no impact on their solo viability.
Skiffs should lose some solo survivability only to regain it in conjunction with a diverse mining fleet.
Mining fleets would now have greater self sustainability that would scale with size, while the size of the fleet will be soft capped by the size of the resource field. (how many miners can mine 1 high sec belt at a time?)

Would this be a idea worth considering?

I find this idea of exhumer roles in relation to each other fascinating.

I think we want at least one exhumer kept as a choice for solo play, since this is inevitable for game play.

I really like the idea of the skiff being competent at fighting. I would not want to see it diminished in this role.
Especially for those choosing between not playing or mining solo.

I could see the Mack in a mining logistics role.
Give it a mad bonus for repping drones, and have it prop up the mining fleet. Two of them together could cross rep each other, and the fun begins. Much more than two, and you might actually stabilize the dynamic enough to bring in a Rorqual.

Imagine the mining ships actually able to sustain a realistic defensive posture. It sounds too good to be true.

I would like to see that.

I guess nobody else really cared about my idea ;(


I suspect that not enough made it this far into the thread to see your idea. Too many do little more than just read the dev posts, and gloss over the rest.

I believe you have a good idea.
Tramar
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#564 - 2014-05-02 17:50:32 UTC
So now we will burn mining crystals faster than before. Maybe they should lower the damage they get over time? Because crystals were designed with mining amount bonuses in mind.

Also how will mining link bonus stack with the new ship bonus? Will it reduce the mining time from the default value or from the skills based value (futher decreasing the mining amounts)?
Erutpar Ambient
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#565 - 2014-05-02 19:55:17 UTC
Tramar wrote:
So now we will burn mining crystals faster than before. Maybe they should lower the damage they get over time? Because crystals were designed with mining amount bonuses in mind.

Also how will mining link bonus stack with the new ship bonus? Will it reduce the mining time from the default value or from the skills based value (futher decreasing the mining amounts)?


Yes i mentioned the crystals too just a few posts ago also.


The order in which the bonuses apply makes no difference thanks to the communicative property of multiplication.
For instance 35% reduction for hulk and 40% reduction for max Rorqual boost.
.65 x .60 = .39 = 61% cycle time reduction
or
.60 x .65 = .39 = 61% cycle time reduction
61% cycle time reduction = 156% increase in yield.

These % bonuses have never been additive. If they were then this would be quite out of line. ( 35% + 40% = 75% cycle time reduction = 400% increase in yield)
GreasyCarl Semah
A Game as Old as Empire
#566 - 2014-05-02 20:13:10 UTC
Erutpar Ambient wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Erutpar Ambient wrote:
This would create a dynamic and diverse mining fleet.
Hulks would now be viable and desirable for fleet mining but would lose the last shred of solo viablility (drones).
Mackinaws would now have a role to play in a mining fleet. There would be no impact on their solo viability.
Skiffs should lose some solo survivability only to regain it in conjunction with a diverse mining fleet.
Mining fleets would now have greater self sustainability that would scale with size, while the size of the fleet will be soft capped by the size of the resource field. (how many miners can mine 1 high sec belt at a time?)

Would this be a idea worth considering?

I find this idea of exhumer roles in relation to each other fascinating.

I think we want at least one exhumer kept as a choice for solo play, since this is inevitable for game play.

I really like the idea of the skiff being competent at fighting. I would not want to see it diminished in this role.
Especially for those choosing between not playing or mining solo.

I could see the Mack in a mining logistics role.
Give it a mad bonus for repping drones, and have it prop up the mining fleet. Two of them together could cross rep each other, and the fun begins. Much more than two, and you might actually stabilize the dynamic enough to bring in a Rorqual.

Imagine the mining ships actually able to sustain a realistic defensive posture. It sounds too good to be true.

I would like to see that.

I guess nobody else really cared about my idea ;(


I really like the idea of a mining fleet that can defend itself using industry specific ships. Are you listening here CCP? If you want people to mine and build things in null this is something to think about.
Beidorion eldwardan
Tactically Armed Vanguard
Tactical Narcotics Team
#567 - 2014-05-02 23:00:51 UTC
Well for once im going to be positive and give useful feedback

skiff - wonderful CCP finally understood that miners can't get pvp'ers to babysit them whilst mining...

mackinaw - that just great by nerfing the yield all you've done is making ore mining even less lucrative. and trust it was bad to begin with.

the reason that you didnt see much other than mackinaws was this - its the ONLY exhumer that can make you money, because back when you invented the newest versions of the interceptors. can mining in null sec died just as it had done in high due to can flipping.

when you have hostiles that can burn an unstoppable fleet 10-15 jumps in half as many minutes with NO possible counter, that makes economical sense, well then miners are forced to go for the safe bet = mackinaw, as that ship will take the ore with it.

also the hulk does NOT work in a gang setup if you hav more than a few to control
1) the point I already made that can mining is not viable due to hostiles killing your earnings
2) the miniscule orebay means that in order for me to actually use the hulk i have to empty the hulk EVERY CYCLE. which makes for bored and energy draining gameplay for the already bored miner.

hulks are to much work for the real miner ( multi account owners )

earnings with ore mining. as it is right now you make more ISK by taking your mining toon and use them for ratting. or if you really want to mine. well bummer ice mining pays between 2 & 4 times more every hour, than ore mining does. and combine that wth the other changes your making this time around. miners are going to be the poor bored slow kid on the bloc. unless mine ice.

just because you change the way we play the game does rarely mean it turns out how your trying to FORCE us into playing, so could you please stop. start making changes that are more in tune with how the players do stuff, rather than what you want us to do....
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#568 - 2014-05-02 23:06:39 UTC
well the hulk doesnt work well multi-boxing. but it does work brilliantly in fleets. even more so now.

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs

Leza MercenaryS
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#569 - 2014-05-03 08:07:07 UTC
I mine in null sec. I used to mine with hulks, but after the warp speed changes I switched to mackinaws. My previous setup i'd use 8 hulks and haul the ore with a rorqual. Now i just fill up the 35k m3 ore bay on the mackinaws and warp them back.

The problem for me isn't the hulk, I'd love to use the hulk. The issue is hauling the ore back. After the warp speed changes, hauling ore turned into russian roulette with the hauler. If the ore site is a reasonable distance away, the rorqual would litterly sit in warp the entire time i was mining. If anyone entered and warped to the mining site it would be a 50% chance the rorqual was there or enroute.

I don't see how nerfing the yield on the mackinaw or giving the hulk more range is gonna change my choice of exhumers.
Leeloo Alizee
Orion Constellation Inc.
#570 - 2014-05-03 11:38:13 UTC
Giving range to mining lasers only nerfs stuff from ORE LP store, can you at least change harvest set and ORE strip miner bonuses, allso ORE ice harvester bonuses, i dont think people need extra range when they are mining ice. ORE mining drones are same as t2 but enormus making them useless in eve, Meta 4 mining upgrade is expensive as hell, not to mention there is no faction upgrade, Fiting hulk to be efective as it should be totaly kills tank, but i mean TOTALY, 1 catalyst from trial acc is enough to kill hulk. Mining foreman mindlink is only one left from balancing and dont do dual bonuses like other boost implants, Orca and Rorqual are only command ships with only one boost bonus even that on orca nowbody use link for strip miner cap use, but they use shield resist link.
Oh, that you dont say i am only bitching, congratulation on crystal size reduction, finaly i will be able to put them in cargo. Any thinking of ORE mining crystal? One type of crystal that give small bonuses to yield of any ore, but not bonuses like specilized crystal for specific ore

I am not talking from Jovian space or from singularity like CCP does, i am talking from TQ belts
Leeloo Alizee
Orion Constellation Inc.
#571 - 2014-05-03 11:51:28 UTC
Vincent Athena wrote:
Changing the mining bonus to a duration based one is of some help to the issue I will bring up. But the Skiff, and to some extent the Mack still have one big disadvantage compared to the Hulk: fewer strips. To see the issue consider:

Most miners target a roid and let the miner run its full cycle. If the roid is small some fraction of the cycle will be wasted. With the Hulk if one of your strips is on a small roid you will lose some small fraction of your yield, up to a maximum of one third.

But with the Skiff you could lose up to a complete cycle by targeting a small roid. As the single strip takes so much ore in one cycle there is a greater chance the roid will pop and you lose part of the cycle.

The result is under most practical uses, the Skiff mines much less than your table of numbers would indicate.

How to fix? I see three methods.
1) Redo the models so all mining ships have the same number of strips.
2) Make the strips on the Skiff cycle faster (but still produce the same cubic meters per minute). Of course the player can do this manually, but it just makes mining even more of a click fest.
3) Make it so if you mine a small roid the miner starts its cycle part way through so its timed to end just as the roid runs out of minerals. (This would fail if there are two strips on the same roid. But that is a rare case anyway).

#2 is the only one that can be done by just changing stats. The others require more coding.


Nothing different than in pve/pvp, if destroyer overkill something with small damage, no1 cares, but if you stack 7 1400 guns from machariel and kill target that have 100 ehp left, that is your ownstupidity. Use surway scanner
Hir Miriel
Elves In Space
#572 - 2014-05-03 13:49:05 UTC
My ideal mining ship.

1. Doesn't mine partial cycle asteroids.
2. Has a large ore hold.
3. Automatically returns drones to bay when heading into warp.

Currently I use a Mackinaw.

I'm not terribly enthused by these changes, and will let the update happen to see what eventuates.

Basically I want to mine.

Not kill stuff while mining, or fight other players while mining.

So whichever mining ship best does that will be the one I go for.

From the looks of it I'll be staying with the Mackinaw even with its lessened abilities.

~ ~~ Thinking inside Schrodinger's sandbox. ~~ ~

Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#573 - 2014-05-03 14:04:23 UTC
Hir Miriel wrote:
My ideal mining ship.

1. Doesn't mine partial cycle asteroids.
2. Has a large ore hold.
3. Automatically returns drones to bay when heading into warp.

Currently I use a Mackinaw.

I'm not terribly enthused by these changes, and will let the update happen to see what eventuates.

Basically I want to mine.

Not kill stuff while mining, or fight other players while mining.

So whichever mining ship best does that will be the one I go for.

From the looks of it I'll be staying with the Mackinaw even with its lessened abilities.

I agree, noone should have choices made for them by the game.

That said, if I encounter a hostile player trying to kill me, I want to be able to kill him with my mining boat too.
It is not that far fetched, really.

The poor soul has to come looking for me, and why shouldn't I be trouble for him when he drops his cloak?
(It's not like I can hunt down combat ships in an exhumer, so I can only lure in victems by being the helpless miner in a skiff)

Seems fair.

I am hoping the new skiff delivers here.
Kiram Gaterau
MyLeftArmy
#574 - 2014-05-05 00:18:40 UTC
Is there going to be any retduction on the Jetcan timer. As a player that uses Covetors and Hulks. I am concerned about this. I am not at Max skills as of yet but I feel that the rate to which I am pulling in ore with full Boosts seems to fill me up quick and i am worried that I might have to wait to empty my load.

Just a thought reduce the Jet can timer.

My only other option would be to be clustered up to an ORca all the time and dump into the fleet hanger.

Just some thoughts.
Maldiro Selkurk
Radiation Sickness
#575 - 2014-05-05 04:33:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Maldiro Selkurk
You should keep mack as is but put three strips on it to reduce partial cycle loss when afk mining.

Give retriever more cap also put three strips on it.

Combine hulk and skiff ship lines into one. Hulk yield and strip miner count at current levels with procuror ore hold and skiff tank.

Now you have Mack happy pilots and low null fleets using the new hybrid hulk/Skiffs.

Yawn,  I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.

Arronicus
The Untraceable
M A R A K U G A
#576 - 2014-05-05 07:42:12 UTC
The new changes look pretty awesome, might actually drag my hulk gang back out sometime after the patch, but with how incredibly tight capacitor was before, running active tanked hulks for 0.0, the capacitor regen on hulks needs to be tweaked slightly, to accomodate for the faster cycle times. Unless it is intentional that exhumers should have less capacitor now?
Oxide Ammar
#577 - 2014-05-05 10:59:01 UTC
For the love of God, give Mach's more PWG and CPU, It's on extremely extremely tight fit to tank it with 1 invu and 2x amplifiers which doesn't work. It's like you are saying "No, you can't tank it you need to die for using this ship !!"

Lady Areola Fappington:  Solo PVP isn't dead!  You just need to make sure you have your booster, remote rep, cyno, and emergency Falcon alts logged in and ready before you do any solo PVPing.

Aureus Ahishatsu
Deadspace Knights
#578 - 2014-05-05 18:24:12 UTC
Brewlar Kuvakei wrote:
How about reducing all barge tanks abck down to sensible levels again, like you know when eve was good and not this brainless dross? Where going afk, botting or ISboxing was frowned upon and punished hard. You really are just milking this game dry now.


I don't really understand what you mean by "sensible" levels if anything most mining barges (aside from the skiff) would benefit some from a slight buff.Either that or a reduction in the catalyst dps. I'm not saying that I enjoy hours on end of mining. That's not really my cup of tea TBH i prefer other methods to make money but for some it is. It is also one of the only professions new pilots who don't have the skills to run higher missions or incursions can make isk. The fact that a ship such as the hulk which fit for tank cost upwards of 250 mil and its capable of being eliminated by 2-3 catalyst that cost maybe 10 mil each well before concord showing up is absurd. In any other form of gameplay if one wants to take on a ship bigger and more expensive than it's self it generally requires finding the right fit. For indy pvp this is not case though as NO fit is required short of a catalyst and blasters. What's more is that even non mining expensive ships have "correct" fits for any opponent such as higher tracking guns for smaller targets or bigger damage guns for larger. Mining ships have nothing. You can tank out a hulk/ mack as much as you want but it will still die to anyone with 2 toons and 30 mil all the same.

There should be a sense of loss if one is taking on t2 ships. right now the hulk/ retriever are essentially throw away gankable. What i mean by this is that the generally mentality is "got free time? grab a catalyst and shoot a hulk. you'll probably win and if you do OR DON'T who cares! your ship isn't even worth the cargo the hulk is carrying anyway!" That my friend is broken mechanic.
GreasyCarl Semah
A Game as Old as Empire
#579 - 2014-05-05 19:17:17 UTC
Aureus Ahishatsu wrote:
Brewlar Kuvakei wrote:
How about reducing all barge tanks abck down to sensible levels again, like you know when eve was good and not this brainless dross? Where going afk, botting or ISboxing was frowned upon and punished hard. You really are just milking this game dry now.


I don't really understand what you mean by "sensible" levels if anything most mining barges (aside from the skiff) would benefit some from a slight buff.Either that or a reduction in the catalyst dps. I'm not saying that I enjoy hours on end of mining. That's not really my cup of tea TBH i prefer other methods to make money but for some it is. It is also one of the only professions new pilots who don't have the skills to run higher missions or incursions can make isk. The fact that a ship such as the hulk which fit for tank cost upwards of 250 mil and its capable of being eliminated by 2-3 catalyst that cost maybe 10 mil each well before concord showing up is absurd. In any other form of gameplay if one wants to take on a ship bigger and more expensive than it's self it generally requires finding the right fit. For indy pvp this is not case though as NO fit is required short of a catalyst and blasters. What's more is that even non mining expensive ships have "correct" fits for any opponent such as higher tracking guns for smaller targets or bigger damage guns for larger. Mining ships have nothing. You can tank out a hulk/ mack as much as you want but it will still die to anyone with 2 toons and 30 mil all the same.

There should be a sense of loss if one is taking on t2 ships. right now the hulk/ retriever are essentially throw away gankable. What i mean by this is that the generally mentality is "got free time? grab a catalyst and shoot a hulk. you'll probably win and if you do OR DON'T who cares! your ship isn't even worth the cargo the hulk is carrying anyway!" That my friend is broken mechanic.


Excuse me sir, you are only allowed to use the "risk vs. reward" metric when it justifies null sec entities filling their pockets at the expense of the rest of the playerbase. Please justify your position with something else.
Aureus Ahishatsu
Deadspace Knights
#580 - 2014-05-05 19:30:30 UTC
GreasyCarl Semah wrote:
Aureus Ahishatsu wrote:
Brewlar Kuvakei wrote:
How about reducing all barge tanks abck down to sensible levels again, like you know when eve was good and not this brainless dross? Where going afk, botting or ISboxing was frowned upon and punished hard. You really are just milking this game dry now.


I don't really understand what you mean by "sensible" levels if anything most mining barges (aside from the skiff) would benefit some from a slight buff.Either that or a reduction in the catalyst dps. I'm not saying that I enjoy hours on end of mining. That's not really my cup of tea TBH i prefer other methods to make money but for some it is. It is also one of the only professions new pilots who don't have the skills to run higher missions or incursions can make isk. The fact that a ship such as the hulk which fit for tank cost upwards of 250 mil and its capable of being eliminated by 2-3 catalyst that cost maybe 10 mil each well before concord showing up is absurd. In any other form of gameplay if one wants to take on a ship bigger and more expensive than it's self it generally requires finding the right fit. For indy pvp this is not case though as NO fit is required short of a catalyst and blasters. What's more is that even non mining expensive ships have "correct" fits for any opponent such as higher tracking guns for smaller targets or bigger damage guns for larger. Mining ships have nothing. You can tank out a hulk/ mack as much as you want but it will still die to anyone with 2 toons and 30 mil all the same.

There should be a sense of loss if one is taking on t2 ships. right now the hulk/ retriever are essentially throw away gankable. What i mean by this is that the generally mentality is "got free time? grab a catalyst and shoot a hulk. you'll probably win and if you do OR DON'T who cares! your ship isn't even worth the cargo the hulk is carrying anyway!" That my friend is broken mechanic.


Excuse me sir, you are only allowed to use the "risk vs. reward" metric when it justifies null sec entities filling their pockets at the expense of the rest of the playerbase. Please justify your position with something else.


Of course... how silly of me i forgot there is only one type of gameplay allowed in this game.. lol