These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[September] Mining Barge and Exhumer tweaks

First post
Author
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#121 - 2016-08-24 01:44:54 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Coralas wrote:
[
In the baltec scenario, there are 6 generic exhumers in the belt, that you can't tell apart without them sitting there long enough for you to shipscan all of them. IMO thats entirely against the way that the rest of EVE is designed, and dull because it promotes only 1 strategy - always bring enough firepower to kill a generic exhumer that is fully tanked.


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.
FT Cold
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#122 - 2016-08-24 01:55:33 UTC
Coralas wrote:
FT Cold wrote:
Grognard Commissar wrote:
FT Cold wrote:



Under the correct circumstances it is possible to make a profit ganking barges, however is is absolutely minimal and not the primary motivation for gankers. I think it would fit the central themes of EVE better to shift that from trolling to reasons of economics.


the problem is that they don't NEED to make a profit, because CODE. gets money dumped on them by people. also, goonswarm. people kill miners just to kill things. don't care bout profit usually


It's not a problem that people will do things without profit motive and it's unrelated to my point. What I'm saying is that people who fly mining barges who sit afk and don't make use of widely available fitting resources should have a proportionately high risk of losing their ship.



The choice of a skiff is a fitting choice.


Removing an LSE worth of hitpoints and putting a slot for the LSE isn't going to change anything, the people that chose a skiff, chose it for the tank.

The entire rest of the game has absurd microspecialization for cruisers, which enables a target caller to recognize the role of the ship he is calling out to shoot next. If you go outside the role, you get a relatively weak fit as a trade off for the surprise.

ie in the current scenario there are 5 hulks and 1 skiff in the belt, depending on what you _brought_ to attack them with, will dictate your strategy.

In the baltec scenario, there are 6 generic exhumers in the belt, that you can't tell apart without them sitting there long enough for you to shipscan all of them. IMO thats entirely against the way that the rest of EVE is designed, and dull because it promotes only 1 strategy - always bring enough firepower to kill a generic exhumer that is fully tanked.


Giving exhumers and barges proper fitting space and modules to utilize that space will give them choices. Mid slot mining upgrades would give players the ability to chose between tank and optimized mining. Different fitting space and base stats on barges will give players a degree of granularity where they can chose the layout that fits their region and play style the best.

Your analogy towards combat ships is weak. It's true some ships are shoehorned into specific fits, but for the majority of ships, there are many, many viable fitting options. Barges will never have the degree of variety that combat ships have, but it doesn't mean they shouldn't have more than they have currently.

Ship scanning counts as preparation for a potential attacker, effort that increases chances of success and reduces risk, sounds like working as intended to me.
Gunrunner1775
Empire Hooligans
#123 - 2016-08-24 01:57:03 UTC
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
Gunrunner1775
Empire Hooligans
#124 - 2016-08-24 02:24:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Gunrunner1775
baltec1 wrote:
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.


coralas wrote:
The choice of a skiff is a fitting choice.

Removing an LSE worth of hitpoints and putting a slot for the LSE isn't going to change anything, the people that chose a skiff, chose it for the tank.


for all of you talking about changeing up the ships to give more or less slots in low or medium or high and alteration of the CPU/PG
to give more "options" for fittings

have to disagree with you here sir

first of all, yes, i am aware that this is a PvP game with PvE environment

mission running = pve
mineing = pve
incursions = pve

ships that perform these aspects of the game have evolved over time into very "by the book" fittings for the most part
a mission running caldari raven will have extremly similtar fits no batter were you go, the variations will be only noticeable based on the relavent skills of the pilot. an incursion running nightmare will have very similar fits across the board

the so called "fleet doctrin" that is used were everyone flys the same ship (back in the day, i remember huge fleets of drakes, have later seen massive fleets of tengu's ect ect)

mineing ships.. inspite of your suggestion.. will become standarized.. based off the fittings and the cpu/pg ect, yes players would have the option to fit for different stuff (ie bait ships with ecm or what ever) but the vast majority will eventualy fall into the "by the book" mentality

so again... based off those suggestion you all keep makeing.... a skiff will still be 110k+ ehp vs kin/therm (unless your talking flat out nurf to the skiff tank. and that is an entire can of worms no one wants to open up).. and people that feel "safe" will still fit for max yield on macks and hulks and say screw the tank

does the entire mineing / industrial aspect of the game need a complete and total overhaul... YES.... but that is a project that would take many many months and i very much prefer CCP working on the stuff they are already working on as well as new content at the moment... maybe later on down the road it could be looked at... but small changes like these... i think are good
Vailen Sere
The Pannion Domin
#125 - 2016-08-24 02:33:11 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:


We're very interested in your feedback and welcome you to try out the new stats (and new ship models) on SISI.
Thanks!


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.
Coralas
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#126 - 2016-08-24 02:38:11 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Coralas wrote:
[
In the baltec scenario, there are 6 generic exhumers in the belt, that you can't tell apart without them sitting there long enough for you to shipscan all of them. IMO thats entirely against the way that the rest of EVE is designed, and dull because it promotes only 1 strategy - always bring enough firepower to kill a generic exhumer that is fully tanked.


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.


Which is a recognized fact, and a game design problem CCP had to contend with, which is why the exhumers do their roles reasonably, straight out of the box.

Skiff EHP works for you every day (everyone knows what hitpoints the skiff will have at a minimum), logi will fail for you nearly every time you use it in highsec in a mining fleet, ie you are promoting a design with a role bonus that will not be used frequently, and will reliably, routinely fail to save ships when it is used.

Nothing worse than an EVE ship with a useless role bonus.
Abadayos
Zebra Corp
Goonswarm Federation
#127 - 2016-08-24 02:41:12 UTC
Gunrunner1775 wrote:

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



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.

Abadayos
Zebra Corp
Goonswarm Federation
#128 - 2016-08-24 02:46:23 UTC
Coralas wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Coralas wrote:
[
In the baltec scenario, there are 6 generic exhumers in the belt, that you can't tell apart without them sitting there long enough for you to shipscan all of them. IMO thats entirely against the way that the rest of EVE is designed, and dull because it promotes only 1 strategy - always bring enough firepower to kill a generic exhumer that is fully tanked.


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.


Which is a recognized fact, and a game design problem CCP had to contend with, which is why the exhumers do their roles reasonably, straight out of the box.

Skiff EHP works for you every day (everyone knows what hitpoints the skiff will have at a minimum), logi will fail for you nearly every time you use it in highsec in a mining fleet, ie you are promoting a design with a role bonus that will not be used frequently, and will reliably, routinely fail to save ships when it is used.

Nothing worse than an EVE ship with a useless role bonus.


If I had the option to have RR on a mining ship without severely hampering my minng yield, I would. However I run a small personal mining fleet so 6+ miners with rorq support, a hauler and the ability to RR, ecm (drones) and apply damage to the 2-4 man gang would prove to be interesting and fun gameplay for me as a multibox miner and potentially for the gankers and it would be hilarious if they got killed by mining ships or if they where unable to break the reps (granted you can kind of do that now with shield repair drones but hardly anyone ever carries them)
Coralas
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#129 - 2016-08-24 02:55:20 UTC
FT Cold wrote:


Your analogy towards combat ships is weak. It's true some ships are shoehorned into specific fits, but for the majority of ships, there are many, many viable fitting options. Barges will never have the degree of variety that combat ships have, but it doesn't mean they shouldn't have more than they have currently.



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.

Quote:


Ship scanning counts as preparation for a potential attacker, effort that increases chances of success and reduces risk, sounds like working as intended to me.


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.


Nfynity Prime
Nfynity Prime Corp
Shadow of Nfynity
#130 - 2016-08-24 03:20:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Nfynity Prime
So unless I'm mistaken, now my Skiff will use twice as much cap for the strip miners and burn twice as many T2 crystals in the process, for the same amount of ore, since the cycle times, as confirmed on Singularity, are the same and the yield per cycle is 1/2 of what it was with one strip miner (per strip miner). Any plans on addressing these two issues? If not, I'll gladly keep the old design, thank you.
Coralas
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#131 - 2016-08-24 03:31:35 UTC
Abadayos wrote:


If I had the option to have RR on a mining ship without severely hampering my minng yield, I would. However I run a small personal mining fleet so 6+ miners with rorq support, a hauler and the ability to RR, ecm (drones) and apply damage to the 2-4 man gang would prove to be interesting and fun gameplay for me as a multibox miner and potentially for the gankers and it would be hilarious if they got killed by mining ships or if they where unable to break the reps (granted you can kind of do that now with shield repair drones but hardly anyone ever carries them)


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.
FT Cold
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#132 - 2016-08-24 03:36:19 UTC  |  Edited by: FT Cold
Coralas wrote:
FT Cold wrote:


Your analogy towards combat ships is weak. It's true some ships are shoehorned into specific fits, but for the majority of ships, there are many, many viable fitting options. Barges will never have the degree of variety that combat ships have, but it doesn't mean they shouldn't have more than they have currently.



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.

Quote:


Ship scanning counts as preparation for a potential attacker, effort that increases chances of success and reduces risk, sounds like working as intended to me.


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.




There are literally only two sensible fitting options for a skiff. Either you fit a DC or another mining laser upgrade, a ice mining rig instead of a second shield rig. Everything else is accounted for. No, you're probably not going to fit a thorax with RR modules, but there are probably something on the order of two dozen viable fits on the thorax.

As for your second comment, I don't think that you're understanding my previous posts correctly. For example, under my proposed system, one might chose to use a mackinaw. The base hull would have more powergrid and CPU than the hulk, but less than the skiff. A player might decide that he's capable of paying attention and evading potential gankers, and thus decide to fit only modules designed to increase yield. Under my proposal, lows, mids and rigs would have more potential modules to make this possible. Risk is high, because the demand on attention is high, but potential rewards are also high.

That same player might decide that the demand for attention is too high, and thus decide to trade his rigs and mid slots for tanking modules. With a maximum tank, the mackinaw would have more yield and capacity than the skiff, but less potential tank, because the limiting factor in it's fitting choices would probably need to be power grid.

Extending this to the other barges, each would have a yield range and a tank range that approaches, but does not overlap with it's neighbors. Each hull would have a degree of risk/reward baked into the hull and a limited degree of freedom to move in both directions on that spectrum. There aren't any 'generic' barges. Each has it's own set of attributes, ranges tank and yield, and special attribute.

It's fine if you don't like the idea, but you haven't really shown a reason not to adopt it, and your analogy to other combat ships is still fallacious.
Coralas
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#133 - 2016-08-24 05:03:39 UTC
FT Cold wrote:

There are literally only two sensible fitting options for a skiff. Either you fit a DC or another mining laser upgrade, a ice mining rig instead of a second shield rig. Everything else is accounted for. No, you're probably not going to fit a thorax with RR modules, but there are probably something on the order of two dozen viable fits on the thorax.



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.

Quote:



As for your second comment, I don't think that you're understanding my previous posts correctly. For example, under my proposed system, one might chose to use a mackinaw.



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.

Quote:



The base hull would have more powergrid and CPU than the hulk, but less than the skiff. A player might decide that he's capable of paying attention and evading potential gankers, and thus decide to fit only modules designed to increase yield. Under my proposal, lows, mids and rigs would have more potential modules to make this possible. Risk is high, because the demand on attention is high, but potential rewards are also high.



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.
FT Cold
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#134 - 2016-08-24 05:37:40 UTC  |  Edited by: FT Cold
Coralas wrote:
FT Cold wrote:

There are literally only two sensible fitting options for a skiff. Either you fit a DC or another mining laser upgrade, a ice mining rig instead of a second shield rig. Everything else is accounted for. No, you're probably not going to fit a thorax with RR modules, but there are probably something on the order of two dozen viable fits on the thorax.



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.

Quote:



As for your second comment, I don't think that you're understanding my previous posts correctly. For example, under my proposed system, one might chose to use a mackinaw.



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.

Quote:



The base hull would have more powergrid and CPU than the hulk, but less than the skiff. A player might decide that he's capable of paying attention and evading potential gankers, and thus decide to fit only modules designed to increase yield. Under my proposal, lows, mids and rigs would have more potential modules to make this possible. Risk is high, because the demand on attention is high, but potential rewards are also high.



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.


Look a little further back for my own proposal. That's the only thing I've referenced. Your argument is still based on a fallacy that you've failed to correct, but I expected as much, people with nothing tend to pound the table. You completely ignored several key points in my last argument in your attempted rebuttal that invalidate your current arguments Also and again, there's no reason at all for barges to be special snowflakes. Supers, carriers titans, and dreads were just redesigned to be fit like normal ships.
Coralas
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#135 - 2016-08-24 05:40:57 UTC
FT Cold wrote:


Look a little further back for my own proposal. That's the only thing I've referenced. Your argument is still based on a fallacy that you've failed to correct, but I expected as much, people with nothing tend to pound the table.


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


FT Cold
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#136 - 2016-08-24 05:51:28 UTC
Coralas wrote:
FT Cold wrote:


Look a little further back for my own proposal. That's the only thing I've referenced. Your argument is still based on a fallacy that you've failed to correct, but I expected as much, people with nothing tend to pound the table.


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




Well, at least baltec1 was right. Didn't take long for the miners to resort to name calling. Come back with a cogent foundation for your argument I'll concede, otherwise I'll stick with my own ideas.
Coralas
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#137 - 2016-08-24 06:03:43 UTC
FT Cold wrote:
Coralas wrote:
FT Cold wrote:


Look a little further back for my own proposal. That's the only thing I've referenced. Your argument is still based on a fallacy that you've failed to correct, but I expected as much, people with nothing tend to pound the table.


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




Well, at least baltec1 was right. Didn't take long for the miners to resort to name calling. Come back with a cogent foundation for your argument I'll concede, otherwise I'll stick with my own ideas.


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.






Drago Shouna
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#138 - 2016-08-24 07:31:47 UTC
Moac Tor wrote:
I am actually surprised that the retriever and mackinaw are in the top spot with the skiff and the procurer all the way down towards the lower end. I would be interested to see figures on for instance, how much time is spent in space in the various barges rather than ore mined. I expect the top ships are used in highly optimised fleet mining setups which skew the usage results.

All in all though at a glance the changes look good and the new barge artwork looks great. Good job.



You might be surprised that the top ships also have the largest ore holds then.

Any serious miner wants to stay on grid as long as possible, warping back and forth wastes mining time.

Solecist Project...." They refuse to play by the rules and laws of the game and use it as excuse ..." " They don't care about how you play as long as they get to play how they want."

Welcome to EVE.

Drago Shouna
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#139 - 2016-08-24 07:54:30 UTC
Shoppaholic wrote:
Looking on Sisi at Hulk with max skills and rorq boosts and T2 implant, no Michi (yet, although we will come to that)

A Hulk with 2 T2 lasers and T2 crystals and 3 T2 MLUs

Yield

Each laser pulls 1924m3 per cycle, with a cycle time of 59.7 secs
This is an increase of 7.7% - this is a good thing for miners

Cargo

I mine with multiple chars, however this new arrangement is an issue

Previously, 2 cycles with hulks only just fits in the ore hold, nicely it might be said (there was a period where sporadic proccing made this overflow and was annoying, not the case at the moment)

Now with 2 cycles, there is plenty of room, but a 3rd cycle is out of the question, making multi-char mining quicker, which isnt a good thing, stuff we used to do in 141.6 secs now has to be done in 119.4 secs

I have avoided the Michi implant because of this nicely fit 2 cycle routine, but the new setup will allow the use of this, it doesnt mean i am not against the cycle time change

Fitting

I found with my regular fits, I was 6 CPU short compared to previous fits, possibly can work around with implant, but I had a char that had it fit nicely (had ore survey instead of hardener) - i can work with this

Range

No change

Image

I quite like the new animation of the industrial and units deplying and retracting during warp, also the fire and smoke venting seems more apparent. When I first saw it, it looked like it was chugging like a steam train

Bottom line - I like what has been done, however im concerned the cycle time change is going to be an annoyance based on the currently available ore hold. If it allowed a 3rd cycle then great, but currently max mining (minus michi) fits in the 8500m3 available after 2 cycles



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.

Solecist Project...." They refuse to play by the rules and laws of the game and use it as excuse ..." " They don't care about how you play as long as they get to play how they want."

Welcome to EVE.

Sylphy
TSOE Po1ice
TSOE Consortium
#140 - 2016-08-24 08:16:14 UTC
Who at CCP championed this change? What about diversity of mining ships?

Really, all mining ships will basically be the same now. Yields, mining lasers and such. Why don't you just scrap it all and make one mining barge and on exhumer and be done with this freaking ****.

The character does not represent the views/opinions of its Corporation or Alliance.