Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center

They have different names in the overview. 3 skiffs with 2 macks would mean 3 dps and 2 logi. Its also perfectly in line with the rest of EVE to not know how people might be fitting their barges due to them having options. Just look at the thorax, it has a rather large number of ways of fitting it.

CCP fitting your ships for you is a very poor way of doing things, its basically saying you are incapable of doing it for yourself.

what exactly is this AFK mineing everyone keeps speaking of,

cause in my experience (and it will be even more evident with the comeing changes)

i can not even get up to use the restroom without a laser turning off or a hold getting full up (especialy if im feeling safe and mineing in a hulk, it aint happening. no such thing as AFK mineing in a Hulk) as for mack or skiff... yea, i MIGHT have enough time to get up and use the restroom if i am mineing ice... but if i am mineing regular astroids... nope, aint happening

you are non stop clicking dragging dropping nowadays

this AFK mineing you speak of , might have occured back in the day when ice mining lasers had some crazy insane timer like 15 min and with skills could get it down to 5 min ?? hell i dont remember,

previous comments on this forum by another he was commenting on how the new hulk would be crazy stupid insane fast mineing, most definatly non-stop clicking,

yea, the changes are good, slight imballance between the skiff and the mackinaw that i noticed but eh, it will work itself out in the end

as a side note... AFK means away from keyboard.... if your trying to apply that to someone that just isnt paying attention, its not the same thing (or it could be)... and the "automated" mineing that used to take place years ago, befor the banning of 3rd party programs, i have not personaly witnessed that scale of mineing in AGES.... massive fleets of 30+ miners with orca and freighter support swooping in like a swarm of locusts gobbling up everything in an entire sector

TL/DR
AFK mineing does not exist... just those that pay attention and those that do not
Multi-box Hulk pilots are gonna be non-stop clicking maniacs and not have time to pay attention to local as they alt tab between hulks and cans and freighters / orcas

Fozzie,

None of this changes the fact mining is less lucrative and more risk than anomaly running (unless your in a skiff.. than its just less risk.)

To bring mining in a better place (in player's eyes), need to get the isk per hour closer to anomaly level. eitherwise its just not worth it unless you do it for ADM's or to build t1 ships.

I hate to correct you there but in null with a decent alliance with intel, you can semi afk mine in your ships. Procurers can be left alone for 3 cycles, have a 90k tank and be pretty afk'able.

Now with these changes IU don't see the point of them. They are simply 'change for changes sake' and they don't seem to really change the mining meta at all.

Yield: Hulk
AFK: Mack
Tank: Skiff

Same as right now, replace exhumer with barge and there you go. Also as some have said the fittings are so tight, or apparently impossible (not tested personally, only going from what others have stated so take that as it where), that you effectively have no choice as to how you fit your mining ships. Granted right now you have no true choice, unless you go for a slight or big bling fit to fit that A type small shield booster or faction hardeners etc.

What I would like to see is new rigs that increase ore cargohold size for both mining ships and the orca/rorq (rorq really doesn't need it with 250,000m3 of space, but having the option never hurt, even with compression...hilarious loss mails would result). Have them giving an agility penalty on the capitals and maybe increase the cycle time on mining lasers for the mining ships. That way you sacrifice some yield for space (obviously reduced with skills, but that's EvE in a nutshell, rewarding specialization).

Whilst we are looking at mining barges and exhumers, why not look into mining drones. With the Rorqual having the mining fighter sized drones, why not do a rehash of the mining drones for the mining ships? They are useless right now due to slow speed and kind of crappy yield. Maybe have one of the ships have a baked in increase to mining drone yield and travel speed? Most miners I know have never used them because they are trash compared to combat drones. Maybe making them useful would promote people using them over lights/mediums, especially in a fleet where some use combats and others use mining drones.

Finally mid slots, why not have something that could reduce cap usage, increase range, increase ore cargo hold (or have that one as a low like expanded cargoholds). Giving the option to fit tank or something to boost efficiency would be good as risk/reward and all that jazz.

You aren't ever going to put a full rack of RR on a thorax, and then shoot with an exeq. the fitting option is too weak overall and gives opposition too much time to manage it. The thorax will shoot. At most it might have _a_ module used for RR or supporting RR, but the further you go into the game (ie to t2 ships), and the more defined those roles become and the less effective role sharing or role switching is. ie you guys are all claiming the myriad variations of shooting thoraxes as anything important. its not.



This means that when someone floats around highsec in a solo catalyst, that the belts will be full of

- venture
- generic barge with potentially 25k+ hps (since one presumes there is going to be a t1 logi barge, and thus t1 barges all need to be suitable t1 logi targets).
- generic exhumer with potentially 50k+ hps.

and thus the catalyst pilot will be resigned to having to either just seek ventures, or having to go to each belt and hand check each and every stupid space ship. Which is fine if you are a scout for a 50 man industrial ganking outfit, but sucks royally if you are a solo pilot.

You aren't allowed to broadcast commands anymore, as soon as they switch target, you'll be screwed unless that target has skiff scale hitpoints.

The proc works now, because you can hull tank it, and you can fit a full rack of tackle (2x webs, long point and scram) and you can pin down one of the attacking ships which forces them to commit to the attack, and kill your proc before your corps combat ships reach the battle. If they don't kill the proc in time, they lose whatever thing the proc has pinned. if they try to sit at range to avoid committing too much isk, the proc kills their pinned tackle frigate and leaves.

ie a couple of bait procs is a thing you can commit to dangling in front of a gang, a fleet of t2 mining ships, is always going to more sensible to dock it.

DC, point, sebo, explosive drones for catalyst targets instead of hobs for npcs is a perfectly reasonable fit for a highsec unit intended to engage -10s by warping to the same belt that fleet barges are in, and its an intended role for the ship, since you can mine in the month interval between the visits from the ganker in your timezone.

Any pilot actively choosing that role is not going to lose their ship to a large group of gankers, and often as not, facing down a non -10 ganker is as much fun as a kill anyway. I enjoyed warping to the fleet barges directly and winding up between the ganker and the barge. The non -10s never actually shoot, and the ship _needs_ be able to clearly face down gankers without becoming an efficient combat cruiser in its own right, so it has to be tank centric.



You added into a chain of discussion about BALTECS proposal, which was that mining fleets have inherent RR, which thus requires all mining ships protected by RR to have sufficient hitpoints to be suitable targets for RR, and thus the belts would be full of generic high hitpoint barges and exhumers as a result, thus making d-scan largely irrelevant to the solo cat pilot, it might as well say forgetaboutit and venture.



So you first complain about not encompassing your proposal when discussing someone elses proposal, and then you give me your proposal. Possibly an error in the matrix ?

Calling my point that all thoraxes shoot is weak, is not a reasonable counter to the point. all it is weak debating.

The reason I do not like your concept is that instead of owning a skiff and a mack, I'd own 2 macks because of rigs (rigs as a whole, not CCPs finest hour in terms of making fits configurable). Then I'd have to (a) remember to be in the right mack, and (b) if there was some fleet role to perform, I'd have to explain endlessly my fit and that this fit was a nearly skiff, if I was in a skiff like role, which makes no sense, because all exhumers use the same skills, ie there is no reason to not own a skiff for all skiff like roles, and being remotely tempted to own 2 macks is bad, and then the FC would probably make me get a skiff anyway.

Its understandable when we have different weapon systems on combat ships that individuals might need to be in the alternative hulls to fulfill similar roles, but alliances even clamp down on that and require people train for and use doctrine fits anyway - ie the playerbase works hard to get rid of excess configurations, ie say one thing, but want another.

and this post is basically the forum equivalent of the chewbacca defense.

If you want to discuss the points in my quoted post do so, if you want to dismiss the points without discussing them, then expect to be called on that dismissal.

I'm not actually calling you any names, I'm calling you out on specific actions of yours.

I agree that a 7% increase is good, but where it will fall down is in a boosted fleet where you jetcan to an Orca, you just might find yourself sat around waiting out the timer to jettison your ore more, so it could end up as a net loss or just the same.