These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

So, Barge Info?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#61 - 2016-08-17 00:00:30 UTC
Sargon Matrix wrote:


Does anybody have a link to these stats?


On sisi right now.

To point out, the skiff lost its 150% bonus but gained a second mining laser. The hulk has changed from the king of yield to fastest miner, the mack got the yield bonus (25% bonus to yeild plus a pair of 2% bonuses to duration. On the face of it the bonuses are not terrible. The issue is with the fitting limitations and the very high base hp of the skiff and procurer.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#62 - 2016-08-17 00:07:30 UTC
Moac Tor wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Moac Tor wrote:

Is this including processor overclocking unit rigs?


At least one rig or one low needs a CPU mod/rig in it to actually fit it.


That's not too bad then because rigs slots aren't as valuable as lows, and a T2 POU rig is good value whilst still leaving room to be able to fit 2 core defence extenders with the remaining 100 calibration or a single T2 shield rig for the T2 barges.


Its terrible. The fitting slots on the cov and ret are simply not there. On the hulk and mack you lose either yield or tank to actually use the slots given to you. Meanwhile the skiff isnt far behind in yield but is easily hitting 80K+ ehp plus gets harder hitting drones.

Its a no brainer, the skiff and proc are hands down better ships than the other barges.
Arnold Ace Rimmsy
Doomheim
#63 - 2016-08-17 00:43:28 UTC
I believe that the upcoming updates will see mining barges granted the ability to fit doomsday weapons along with a fighter bay with space for 50 fighters.
Kueyen
Angharradh's Aegis
#64 - 2016-08-17 07:17:13 UTC
Sargon Matrix wrote:
Does anybody have a link to these stats?
Links to screenshots of the new stats can be found in my post in another thread, as well as analyses of mining yield changes and ice harvesting cycle time changes.

Until all are free...
Pandora Carrollon
Provi Rapid Response
#65 - 2016-08-17 14:50:06 UTC
Baltec1 has the right of it. The changes are really not good for the ships. It's basically killed off the value of the previous Two Slot barges. They should have just eliminated them and given all of us with them refunds of ISK value if they are going to do this.

It's also entirely the wrong direction to take mining. It doesn't need to be simpler, it needs to be more interactive and gun slinging. Stop treating mining like it's a break from a fight. Give the barges teeth, big ones, take away some shield and armor tank and boost structure tank. Give them more targets to be shot by and shoot at.

8 Golden Rules of EVE • EVE is entirely PvP
Solecist Project
#66 - 2016-08-17 14:54:32 UTC
Pandora Carrollon wrote:
Baltec1 has the right of it. The changes are really not good for the ships. It's basically killed off the value of the previous Two Slot barges. They should have just eliminated them and given all of us with them refunds of ISK value if they are going to do this.

It's also entirely the wrong direction to take mining. It doesn't need to be simpler, it needs to be more interactive and gun slinging. Stop treating mining like it's a break from a fight. Give the barges teeth, big ones, take away some shield and armor tank and boost structure tank. Give them more targets to be shot by and shoot at.

They should introduce a seperate ore line for all those clowns who mine afk to get blown up.

That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breathe of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly PULVERISED by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds. - Tippia
Pandora Carrollon
Provi Rapid Response
#67 - 2016-08-17 16:11:54 UTC
Solecist Project wrote:
They should introduce a seperate ore line for all those clowns who mine afk to get blown up.


I actually have nothing against the AFK mining play style. Their money to CCP helps pay for the game just as much as mine does, and before someone comments about ISK and Plex, buying the Plex with ISK earned in game creates the market for the Plex to be purchased out of game, so it still gets purchased...

They have their place, much to the dismay of the James Worship crowd.

I don't think they should get the same level of reward that an active miner should get and they should have higher risk from NPC's as well as from folks like the JW crowd.

A different type of asteroid field that doesn't spawn NPC's and maybe has a single Concord frigate to cover a 'new' type of ore might work, so it's not a bad idea either.

I'm still a fan of the diminishing return of yield to a given mining target. It would force you to be active to get maximum return which is kind of the point.

Also, letting mining ships mount weapons would be another step in the right direction.

8 Golden Rules of EVE • EVE is entirely PvP
Moac Tor
Cyber Core
Immediate Destruction
#68 - 2016-08-17 17:07:52 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Moac Tor wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Moac Tor wrote:

Is this including processor overclocking unit rigs?


At least one rig or one low needs a CPU mod/rig in it to actually fit it.


That's not too bad then because rigs slots aren't as valuable as lows, and a T2 POU rig is good value whilst still leaving room to be able to fit 2 core defence extenders with the remaining 100 calibration or a single T2 shield rig for the T2 barges.


Its terrible. The fitting slots on the cov and ret are simply not there. On the hulk and mack you lose either yield or tank to actually use the slots given to you. Meanwhile the skiff isnt far behind in yield but is easily hitting 80K+ ehp plus gets harder hitting drones.

Its a no brainer, the skiff and proc are hands down better ships than the other barges.

How exactly is it terrible. Your the one complaining that barge users should have to make choices when fitting their ship, and then on the other hand you complain about having to give up a single RIG slot to fit for max yield.

Pandora Carrollon wrote:
Baltec1 has the right of it. The changes are really not good for the ships. It's basically killed off the value of the previous Two Slot barges. They should have just eliminated them and given all of us with them refunds of ISK value if they are going to do this.

Except that Baltec wouldn't buff any of the barges at all, but would nerf the Procurer closer to the level of the under performing retriever and covetor hulls. So it is actually completely the opposite of what you claim to want.
Elinarien
Doomheim
#69 - 2016-08-17 17:44:40 UTC
Pandora Carrollon wrote:
Solecist Project wrote:
They should introduce a seperate ore line for all those clowns who mine afk to get blown up.


I actually have nothing against the AFK mining play style. Their money to CCP helps pay for the game just as much as mine does, and before someone comments about ISK and Plex, buying the Plex with ISK earned in game creates the market for the Plex to be purchased out of game, so it still gets purchased...

They have their place, much to the dismay of the James Worship crowd.

I don't think they should get the same level of reward that an active miner should get and they should have higher risk from NPC's as well as from folks like the JW crowd.

A different type of asteroid field that doesn't spawn NPC's and maybe has a single Concord frigate to cover a 'new' type of ore might work, so it's not a bad idea either.

I'm still a fan of the diminishing return of yield to a given mining target. It would force you to be active to get maximum return which is kind of the point.

Also, letting mining ships mount weapons would be another step in the right direction.


Perhaps if you played Eve and were involved in alliance industry & logistics you'd know that such ideas are rubbish. But thankfully CCP understands the game better than you and isn't focussed solely on the evils of high sec mining to the detriment of the wider game.

Still, keep trying to suck up with to the Codies....
Solecist Project
#70 - 2016-08-17 17:50:24 UTC
Pandora Carrollon wrote:
Solecist Project wrote:
They should introduce a seperate ore line for all those clowns who mine afk to get blown up.


I actually have nothing against the AFK mining play style. Their money to CCP helps pay for the game just as much as mine does, and before someone comments about ISK and Plex, buying the Plex with ISK earned in game creates the market for the Plex to be purchased out of game, so it still gets purchased...

They have their place, much to the dismay of the James Worship crowd.

I don't think they should get the same level of reward that an active miner should get and they should have higher risk from NPC's as well as from folks like the JW crowd.

A different type of asteroid field that doesn't spawn NPC's and maybe has a single Concord frigate to cover a 'new' type of ore might work, so it's not a bad idea either.

I'm still a fan of the diminishing return of yield to a given mining target. It would force you to be active to get maximum return which is kind of the point.

Also, letting mining ships mount weapons would be another step in the right direction.

I don't care whqt they do, as long as it makes the game interesting.
If they get blown up for being afk, then that makes the game more interesting.
If they stop being blown up AND are afk then something is wrong!

And no, playing afk is not a playstyle. It's literally not playing!

And anyone who starts with afk cloakers now may be reminded that afk cloakers are the exception to the rule.
They are afk and still manage to influence everyone around them.


You mean well, at least...

That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breathe of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly PULVERISED by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds. - Tippia
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#71 - 2016-08-17 17:54:06 UTC
Moac Tor wrote:

How exactly is it terrible. Your the one complaining that barge users should have to make choices when fitting their ship, and then on the other hand you complain about having to give up a single RIG slot to fit for max yield.


There is a difference between making choices and getting a ship with one mid and three low slots to play with.

Moac Tor wrote:

Except that Baltec wouldn't buff any of the barges at all, but would nerf the Procurer closer to the level of the under performing retriever and covetor hulls. So it is actually completely the opposite of what you claim to want.


Don't lie.

I have clearly said several times in numerous threads that barges need more fitting slots, CPU and powergrid.
Solecist Project
#72 - 2016-08-17 17:54:11 UTC
Elinarien wrote:

Perhaps if you played Eve and were involved in alliance industry & logistics you'd know that such ideas are rubbish. But thankfully CCP understands the game better than you and isn't focussed solely on the evils of high sec mining to the detriment of the wider game.

Still, keep trying to suck up with to the Codies....

npc forum alts have no voice worth recognizing.

If you are involved in alliance industry then post with your main or stop pretending.
And learn to read, because she gave neither positive or negative reactions about code.

That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breathe of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly PULVERISED by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds. - Tippia
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#73 - 2016-08-17 18:08:51 UTC
Darth Terona wrote:
lol. this is like the third time bardges have been reworked since I been here.

but the reason the new order exists still hasn't been addressed.

Its not the damn ships that need overhauling. Its mining itself.

It needs to be made more interactive.

So boters can be detected and addressed.

pitiful waste of our money chasing this ship rework.


When somebody comes up with an interesting and interactive method for mining you'll have a point. Until then you won't. I have argued that part of the positive view of the current method of mining is that it is low demand for the player. They can mine and do other things, either in game or even out if they have another screen.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Moac Tor
Cyber Core
Immediate Destruction
#74 - 2016-08-17 19:05:03 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Moac Tor wrote:

How exactly is it terrible. Your the one complaining that barge users should have to make choices when fitting their ship, and then on the other hand you complain about having to give up a single RIG slot to fit for max yield.


There is a difference between making choices and getting a ship with one mid and three low slots to play with.

Moac Tor wrote:

Except that Baltec wouldn't buff any of the barges at all, but would nerf the Procurer closer to the level of the under performing retriever and covetor hulls. So it is actually completely the opposite of what you claim to want.


Don't lie.

I have clearly said several times in numerous threads that barges need more fitting slots, CPU and powergrid.

Ok, so from what I have read you think the procurer is overpowered and needs to be bought down to the level of the other two hull classes. Correct me if I mistaken but that makes my original statement a pretty accurate reflection of your view.

If not then please elaborate on how you would buff the other two. And giving them more fitting options isn't a buff if it doesn't result in an increase in power.
Viktor Amarr
#75 - 2016-08-17 20:01:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Viktor Amarr
Moac Tor wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Moac Tor wrote:

How exactly is it terrible. Your the one complaining that barge users should have to make choices when fitting their ship, and then on the other hand you complain about having to give up a single RIG slot to fit for max yield.


There is a difference between making choices and getting a ship with one mid and three low slots to play with.

Moac Tor wrote:

Except that Baltec wouldn't buff any of the barges at all, but would nerf the Procurer closer to the level of the under performing retriever and covetor hulls. So it is actually completely the opposite of what you claim to want.


Don't lie.

I have clearly said several times in numerous threads that barges need more fitting slots, CPU and powergrid.

Ok, so from what I have read you think the procurer is overpowered and needs to be bought down to the level of the other two hull classes. Correct me if I mistaken but that makes my original statement a pretty accurate reflection of your view.

If not then please elaborate on how you would buff the other two. And giving them more fitting options isn't a buff if it doesn't result in an increase in power.


It doesn't need more "power". What EVE needs is ships and game mechanics that require common sense, understanding of the game mechanics involved and initiative. THAT is how you keep people playing this game.

The Procurer, Skiff and Orehold in general are a direct result of CCP giving up on expecting miners to fit their ships intelligently and instead giving them ships that have tank and cargo right out of the box. They removed the choice to fail because over the years it became apparent that miners are incapable of making the right decisions based on understanding and initiative. As such we need to move away from shoehorned "pre-fit" ships, remove the base stats back to normal, lower the ore holds and then add extra fitting slots for miners to make their own choices (just as with almost every other ship) to give miners a CHOICE to fit as they want.

That's how you "breed" capable players, this experiment with barges as is, orehold etc is yet another example of the handholding carebear style CCP had/has been advocating for so many years now. It's with so many aspects of this game atm and it has been an ongoing change over the years, even back in 2008 it was obvious what was going to happen and in my case I predicted Incarnage and the current situation we're in, simply because it's an obvious consequence of the choices CCP has been making. That is why we have these massive coalitions in 0.0, they're not fierce pvpers they are in fact carebears who are actually detrimental to the game.

The problem isn't EVE being too harsh, it's CCP having been busy trying to cater to a more mainstream type of customer who, for obvious reasons, can't hack it in this EVE environment. HTFU.
Moac Tor
Cyber Core
Immediate Destruction
#76 - 2016-08-17 20:24:49 UTC
Viktor Amarr wrote:
Moac Tor wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Moac Tor wrote:

How exactly is it terrible. Your the one complaining that barge users should have to make choices when fitting their ship, and then on the other hand you complain about having to give up a single RIG slot to fit for max yield.


There is a difference between making choices and getting a ship with one mid and three low slots to play with.

Moac Tor wrote:

Except that Baltec wouldn't buff any of the barges at all, but would nerf the Procurer closer to the level of the under performing retriever and covetor hulls. So it is actually completely the opposite of what you claim to want.


Don't lie.

I have clearly said several times in numerous threads that barges need more fitting slots, CPU and powergrid.

Ok, so from what I have read you think the procurer is overpowered and needs to be bought down to the level of the other two hull classes. Correct me if I mistaken but that makes my original statement a pretty accurate reflection of your view.

If not then please elaborate on how you would buff the other two. And giving them more fitting options isn't a buff if it doesn't result in an increase in power.


It doesn't need more "power". What EVE needs is ships and game mechanics that require common sense, understanding of the game mechanics involved and initiative. THAT is how you keep people playing this game.

The Procurer, Skiff and Orehold in general are a direct result of CCP giving up on expecting miners to fit their ships intelligently and instead giving them ships that have tank and cargo right out of the box. They removed the choice to fail because over the years it became apparent that miners are incapable of making the right decisions based on understanding and initiative. As such we need to move away from shoehorned "pre-fit" ships, remove the base stats back to normal, lower the ore holds and then add extra fitting slots for miners to make their own choices (just as with almost every other ship) to give miners a CHOICE to fit as they want.

That's how you "breed" capable players, this experiment with barges as is, orehold etc is yet another example of the handholding carebear style CCP had/has been advocating for so many years now. It's with so many aspects of this game atm and it has been an ongoing change over the years, even back in 2008 it was obvious what was going to happen and in my case I predicted Incarnage and the current situation we're in, simply because it's an obvious consequence of the choices CCP has been making. That is why we have these massive coalitions in 0.0, they're not fierce pvpers they are in fact carebears who are actually detrimental to the game.

The problem isn't EVE being too harsh, it's CCP having been busy trying to cater to a more mainstream type of customer who, for obvious reasons, can't hack it in this EVE environment. HTFU.

I agree with flexible fitting options. I'd like to see drones play a much larger role in mining precisely so that we are given more interesting choices when fitting.

The issue being discussed though is that we currently have 3 types of barge, and after tiericide each needs to have a place in the meta. Currently the Procurer/Skiff is the only decent one. So this is precisely why either the Procurer/Skiff needs less power and the Retriever/Covetor hulls need more power. Extra fitting options are a bonus but are irrelevant if the power of the hull is such that no one uses it.
Ralph King-Griffin
New Eden Tech Support
#77 - 2016-08-17 20:53:56 UTC
they're up on sisi for anyone who fancy's a look

also the mallus and executioner got a face lift, dont think the stats changed at all though

Murderers of Negotiable Motivations

=]|[=
Wanda Fayne
#78 - 2016-08-17 23:34:44 UTC
Please tell me that at least one of these ships got a utility highslot?

"your comments just confirms this whole idea is totally pathetic" -Lan Wang-

  • - "hub humping station gamey neutral logi warspam wankery" -Ralph King-Griffin-
Kueyen
Angharradh's Aegis
#79 - 2016-08-18 00:01:18 UTC
Wanda Fayne wrote:
Please tell me that at least one of these ships got a utility highslot?
Since none of them can mount any turrets or launchers, I'm pleased to report that all of them have no less than two utility high slots!

Of course, being mining vessels, one would usually put a pair of strip miners or ice harvesters in them...

Until all are free...
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#80 - 2016-08-18 05:06:09 UTC
Moac Tor wrote:



Ok, so from what I have read you think the procurer is overpowered and needs to be bought down to the level of the other two hull classes. Correct me if I mistaken but that makes my original statement a pretty accurate reflection of your view.


Lets delve into the procurer. As I don't have access to sisi I'll be using the current tranq stats.

Right now the procurer gets 32,450 ehp at all V with nothing fitted while the covetor gets 8140 ehp. To put this into perspective the thorax gets 8020 ehp, the brutix gets 23,700 and the megathron 36,890. So its safe to say the procurer is getting a battleship level tank while the covetor is getting a cruiser level tank. This is why people say the procurer is over powered, the base tank is simply far too high for a cruiser sized ship.

What I want to happen is for the procurer to drop down to cruiser level base stats like the other barges have and then we add more slots, cpu and powergrid to all the barges so they can be fitted like the thorax or any other cruiser can be. The selling point of the proc would go from having a HUGE base tank to having the ability to defend itself and other barges via the drone damage bonus.


Moac Tor wrote:

If not then please elaborate on how you would buff the other two. And giving them more fitting options isn't a buff if it doesn't result in an increase in power.


It very much does give them more power, again let me demonstrate.

Take the thorax and give it 1 mid and 3 low slots, now fit it for combat. Simple answer here is you can't. With just 1 mid and 3 lows you cant fit a tank worth mentioning and if you try you have poor firepower. Fit it for damage and it vaporizes to the first thing it goes up against. This is the situation the covetor and retriever are facing with this change.

Adding slots, cpu and powergrid to the ships allows them to fit like every other ship can. You don't go mad and allow them to fit the very best of everything at the same time but you do let them fit like the thorax can, mixing tank, gank, speed and utility to their preference. It has always been mad that for a cruiser sized ship that barges cannot fit a large shield extender.