These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Penance Toralen
Compass Fox
#161 - 2016-08-24 22:51:33 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Ok, give me the options the covetor has.


Under the new fitting layout;

2x Strips + Crystals
Survey
MLU2 x 3

Med Mining Drone Aug2 x 2

or

2 x Strips + Crystals
Survey
Bulkhead2 x 2 + DCU2

Med Transverse1 x 3

(thats 22k ehp)
Coralas
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#162 - 2016-08-25 03:50:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Coralas
FT Cold wrote:



First, get your facts straight before you post. The skiff has the highest native buffer of any cruiser in the game, by something like a factor of two, and this includes ships like t3cs, which are still hilariously broken. It has more native buffer than most battlecruisers and some battle ships. For 40m isk worth of c-type hardeners, you can fit it to have almost 200k ehp vs kin/therm damage. There's no reason at all for it to be baked into the hull. Instead of 10k shield, 7k armor and 7500 hull it should probably look like 2k 1.5k 1.75k, with either the grid to fit a couple of shield extenders, a rework of the slot design all together to facilitate an armor tank, or a bonus to warp core strength and the ability to fit MJDs. Either would be fine really,



lol - Can you be any more wrong.

proteus + augmented plating + whatever you want to get 7 slots, no implants.

3x trimark II (using similar budget to your c-types - and not lootable items, always superior in a ganking scenario).

2x 1600mm rolled tungsten
1x dc II
2x kin hardener II
2x therm hardener II

760k ehp vs kin/therm from serps. If you change the hardeners to 2 explosive / 1 em and an adaptive (all t2), then you get 240k to everything at once, not _just_ antimatter. I'm sure fitting gurus can come up with even better tanks if they think about it. Even if other T3s can still only get to 200k vs everything, they still vastly outclass the skiff which is only 200k vs antimatter with bling, or 110k vs everything, and _all_ ganked skiffs are scanned for the hole before ganking.

There is a mining ship that has warp core stabilizing. There is a mining ship that fits a covops cloak. They already come with the necessary yield trade offs for those mobility features, and they have the special feature clearly written on them for casual players to see, and yes it is a reasonable presumption that the mining ship works straight out of the box without too much effort, for a casual player.

Quote:


Secondly, after all those words and meandering about balance within mining, you still can't address my point. I've never said anything about linear upgrading from t1-t2 barges. I don't care that mining ships are going to be mining ships. What I care about is that mining ships support the playstyles of the players who use them better. Granularity within the fitting system to manage risk/reward will help the game. The current system does it, but poorly. It could be far better than it is now.



This is the most absurd thing that I've heard. People that use mining ships, mine with them. The redesign was specifically to enable each of them to fill a useful role within that sphere. I've pointed out for you to understand exactly why they were redesigned as they are, why there is 3 of each, and why each of them are valid choices in the same system, mining the same stuff, under different tactical circumstances. You refit a mining ship by undocking in the right one, and since 4 of the 6 are expected to dock frequently, its not even that big an ask.

The ships do not need massive fitting flexibility because the requirements for all 3 T1 barges are the same, and they do the same thing - MINE. The requirements for all the t2 series are the same, and because you will use different rigs for different scenarios, which means in your scenario, someone owns 3 macks, and in the actual scenario, someone owns a hulk, a mack and a skiff, and gets the flexibility they need. The yield gap between a hulk in a group with a hauler and a solo skiff is more than sufficient to compensate for the risk.

if you mine exclusively in a skiff, then you lose a skiffs value in ore, every billion isk mined, when I was mining, that appears to me to be sufficient to stop mining population being exclusively skiffs, but if you keep shooting the same player, do not be suprised to find they adopt a solution that actually works.

Quote:



Let me ask you this, if you were mining, and you knew that you were capable of paying attention and spotting any potential ganker, would you sacrifice your shield hardeners for more mining upgrades if they were available? If ore hold rigs existed would you use them in this scenario? Do you think that miners who don't fit tanks and don't pay attention deserve to have a higher risk of being ganked than the guy that fits tank, or the guy that pays attention? That is what I'm asking for, that people who actively play the game be rewarded for their trouble, and for that to happen barges need to change.


Ah the way you *fit* a tank to a mining ship trading off yield is to dock your hulk/mackinaw and undock in a skiff or procurer.

We've already been through this, a yield fitted ship will want different rigs to a tank fitted ship, ergo, you would change hulls anyway. I don't know how much it will take to get this through your skull. Rigs means an individual hull is assembled for a role and left in that role.

Not only that, the way the skiff works is that if I tell everyone I've changed to a skiff because of a ganker in system, then the fleet knows I'm capable of being called on for defense, and the fleet knows that the target choice probabilities by gankers has changed, because the skiff has written on its box, "contents : 1 tank".
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#163 - 2016-08-25 06:35:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Nevyn Auscent
Coralas wrote:


lol - Can you be any more wrong.

proteus + augmented plating + whatever you want to get 7 slots, no implants.

Native = before fittings. Not after. Now try again on the before fittings basis.
(Though claims of the Skiff getting BS level EHP are silly, it doesn't get BS level EHP, it has cruiser level EHP, same as the other cruisers when brick tanked, BS when buffer tanked are way way higher EHP than the skiff).

Coralas wrote:

The ships do not need massive fitting flexibility because the requirements for all 3 T1 barges are the same, and they do the same thing - MINE.

And that is because we do not need 3 T1 barges. Or 3 T2 barges.
We only need a single T1 barge, with the ability to be fitted properly. And in terms of mining we only need a single T2 barge also.
If they are given a full rack of utility highslots then you 'could' introduce speciality T2's that do different things with the utility highslots, but otherwise you only need the one exhumer also.

CCP have just stayed in the boring box of 'because there were 3 before tiericide, even though only 1 was actually any good, we are going to keep 3'.
Drago Shouna
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#164 - 2016-08-25 07:39:20 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Coralas wrote:


lol - Can you be any more wrong.

proteus + augmented plating + whatever you want to get 7 slots, no implants.

Native = before fittings. Not after. Now try again on the before fittings basis.
(Though claims of the Skiff getting BS level EHP are silly, it doesn't get BS level EHP, it has cruiser level EHP, same as the other cruisers when brick tanked, BS when buffer tanked are way way higher EHP than the skiff).

Coralas wrote:

The ships do not need massive fitting flexibility because the requirements for all 3 T1 barges are the same, and they do the same thing - MINE.

And that is because we do not need 3 T1 barges. Or 3 T2 barges.
We only need a single T1 barge, with the ability to be fitted properly. And in terms of mining we only need a single T2 barge also.
If they are given a full rack of utility highslots then you 'could' introduce speciality T2's that do different things with the utility highslots, but otherwise you only need the one exhumer also.

CCP have just stayed in the boring box of 'because there were 3 before tiericide, even though only 1 was actually any good, we are going to keep 3'.



Rubbish, the reason for them is ore hold flexibility. You have to make a choice right now between yield, tank and hold capacity etc.

The skiff is the go to ship in null where tank is preferred, the hulk the fleet ship everywhere and the Mack in hs, yes they do go other places, that's all the flexibility they need.

They don't need a rack of utility slots, I ain't ever going to turn up at a battle with a Mack full of logi...it ain't ever going to happen.

Mining ships mine, Industrial ships haul, Logi ships provide logi support (thats why they were made) Exploration ships explore, Cov-Ops ships cloak etc etc etc, or do you want every ship in the game to be able to fill every single role?

Miners use mining ships to mine, it's what they were made for, nothing else.

I don't know where the **** you are all coming up with these weird ideas right now, but I think you need a fresh batch of whatever it is you're using P

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.

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#165 - 2016-08-25 08:39:11 UTC
Penance Toralen wrote:


Under the new fitting layout;

2x Strips + Crystals
Survey
MLU2 x 3

Med Mining Drone Aug2 x 2

Dies to anything, cant be used outside of highsec due to rats being able to kill it.

Penance Toralen wrote:

2 x Strips + Crystals
Survey
Bulkhead2 x 2 + DCU2

Med Transverse1 x 3

(thats 22k ehp)


Still cant be used outside of highsec due to rats, out classed by the procurer in every area.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#166 - 2016-08-25 08:56:52 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Drago Shouna wrote:


Rubbish, the reason for them is ore hold flexibility. You have to make a choice right now between yield, tank and hold capacity etc.

The skiff is the go to ship in null where tank is preferred, the hulk the fleet ship everywhere and the Mack in hs, yes they do go other places, that's all the flexibility they need.

They don't need a rack of utility slots, I ain't ever going to turn up at a battle with a Mack full of logi...it ain't ever going to happen.

Mining ships mine, Industrial ships haul, Logi ships provide logi support (thats why they were made) Exploration ships explore, Cov-Ops ships cloak etc etc etc, or do you want every ship in the game to be able to fill every single role?

Miners use mining ships to mine, it's what they were made for, nothing else.

I don't know where the **** you are all coming up with these weird ideas right now, but I think you need a fresh batch of whatever it is you're using P


Because these ships are bad.

Im going to use a mining fleet that was caught in O-JPKH (Branch) / 2016-08-21 14:00.

The fleet consisted of 14 exhumers and a jump freighter and faced off against 12 mixed pirate cruisers, 2 sabres, 4 interceptors. The 14 exhumers all died within 2 minutes, the attackers lost nothing.

This is the reality for miners with the current and proposed changes. They cannot do anything to protect themselves and even if they had the old defense fleet that used to be in deklien (multiple titans, supers and carriers on constant standby) by the time the call for help goes out the mining fleet is dead.

Why exactly should a fleet worth 5.6 billion be so utterly helpless and easy to kill?
Alexis Ford
Good Names All Gone
#167 - 2016-08-25 09:18:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Alexis Ford
if i didnt make a mistake

PLEASE IGNORE ... i made a mistake in my calculations
Text stays to maintain the answer History ^^

The changes with T2 fitting for maxium Yield for Exhumers @All L5 Skills no Imps:
3x MLU T2 + 2x Modulated Stripminer T2

Hulk:
-18,4 CPU
+21,4 PG

Mackinaw:
no changes

Skiff:
-18,5 CPU
-7 PG

After stating that Skiff and Hulk are to seldom used i cant understand :
Why a CPU nerf for Hulk
Why CPU + PG nerf for Skiff

I understand that its now possible to do some "special fittings" cause of the additional Highslot on Skiff and Low on Hulk.
But the changes making Skiff and Hulk much more tight on fitting and reducing its main use capability.

Making something better with a nerf to its "most used fitting" is not a way to improve them beeing used more often.


please correct me if i have missed something.
HandelsPharmi
Pharmi on CharBazaar
#168 - 2016-08-25 09:37:24 UTC  |  Edited by: HandelsPharmi
changes to ship / modified with skills level 5

Mackinaw: no changes

Skiff
+8 PG / + 10

Hulk
-5 PG / -6,25

Using the same fitting like now, adding or removing one Ice Harvester T2 or Modulated Strip Miner changes CPU and Powergrid as follows:

CPU and Power Grid Management 5

AttentionIce Harvester T2 = 66 CPU / 10 PG
Skiff: +0 PG
Hulk: +3.75 PG


AttentionModulated Strip Miner T2 = 60 CPU / 12 PG
Skiff: -2 PG
Hulk: +5.75 PG
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#169 - 2016-08-25 10:10:26 UTC
Drago Shouna wrote:


Rubbish, the reason for them is ore hold flexibility. You have to make a choice right now between yield, tank and hold capacity etc.

The skiff is the go to ship in null where tank is preferred, the hulk the fleet ship everywhere and the Mack in hs, yes they do go other places, that's all the flexibility they need.

They don't need a rack of utility slots, I ain't ever going to turn up at a battle with a Mack full of logi...it ain't ever going to happen.

That's why I said you really only need 1 mining barge. If you give them a decent cargo hold (Say give them an ore hold like the Covetor/Hulk has now then say..... 2000 cargo hold if Cargo extenders stack, I keep saying they should have a stacking penalty but as they do stack think that lands them about right, basically enough that with entirely Cargo Extenders and Cargo rigs they get to at least the current Mack, maybe a bit more if tank is weaker than present), then they get the ore hold flexibility by using cargo extenders also. And you have the same yield, tank or hold capacity trade off in your low slots. But also have more options and more flexibility to tailor to your exact needs.

As for utility slots, I never suggested a logi barge. But to explain my general point.
Barge. Capped at 2 strip miners but has 5 high slots, 5 medium slots, 4 low slots like a Moa (Using Moa as a shield tanker base, but basically cruiser slot layout, cruiser PG/CPU/Cap). Also has 3 Turret/Launcher slots. (Un-bonused, so the same as spare turret/launcher slots in combat ships that have no bonus, they are really utility slots with an option of weapons)

The high slots, even without going into weird roles.
Mining Lasers, want to go all out max miner, run 2 Strip miners and 3 Mining lasers.
General utility. Probe Launcher, Cloak, Cyno fill your three utility slots. 2 Strip Miners.
Bait. 3 RLML launchers (Or the equivalent turret if they ever make them. 1 Cyno, 1 Smart bomb(Assuming outside of highsec). Maybe Strip Miner instead of Smart bomb to be more believable bait.
Solo miner. 3 Weapons to fight off rats with, 2 Strip Miners.

This isn't any weird stuff. This is the sort of thing people currently do already with mining barges just with more variety.
Mid slots would typically be your buffer tank, maybe a mixed buffer/active tank for null to let you live long enough to kill the rats, and a bit of tackle for bait type mining setups. Low slots would be mix of MLU's, Cargo extenders or Bulkheads.

Minor apologies to Baltec, I misread your earlier post I replied to thinking you were still on your earlier claims that miners should have escorts, because a week or two ago you were going on about that. If there was a T2 Exhumer with utility slots and bonuses to logi cap use, that could actually be a viable exhumer provided it could still fit the (currently) 2 strip miners as well. 1 basic barge, 2 or 3 specialist T2 versions would work. The other 2 T1 barges could be totally re-purposed into a true ORE combat vessel and a true ORE hauler.

Obviously I am assuming Barges should be a cruiser here. Personally I'd like to see Industrial ships classified size wise more at the BC/BS range, and some of the barges physical sizes do actually fit better into the BC class already. But easy to find an analogy for whatever class it is decided they are comparable to.
Drago Shouna
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#170 - 2016-08-25 10:22:11 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Drago Shouna wrote:


Rubbish, the reason for them is ore hold flexibility. You have to make a choice right now between yield, tank and hold capacity etc.

The skiff is the go to ship in null where tank is preferred, the hulk the fleet ship everywhere and the Mack in hs, yes they do go other places, that's all the flexibility they need.

They don't need a rack of utility slots, I ain't ever going to turn up at a battle with a Mack full of logi...it ain't ever going to happen.

Mining ships mine, Industrial ships haul, Logi ships provide logi support (thats why they were made) Exploration ships explore, Cov-Ops ships cloak etc etc etc, or do you want every ship in the game to be able to fill every single role?

Miners use mining ships to mine, it's what they were made for, nothing else.

I don't know where the **** you are all coming up with these weird ideas right now, but I think you need a fresh batch of whatever it is you're using P


Because these ships are bad.

Im going to use a mining fleet that was caught in O-JPKH (Branch) / 2016-08-21 14:00.

The fleet consisted of 14 exhumers and a jump freighter and faced off against 12 mixed pirate cruisers, 2 sabres, 4 interceptors. The 14 exhumers all died within 2 minutes, the attackers lost nothing.

This is the reality for miners with the current and proposed changes. They cannot do anything to protect themselves and even if they had the old defense fleet that used to be in deklien (multiple titans, supers and carriers on constant standby) by the time the call for help goes out the mining fleet is dead.

Why exactly should a fleet worth 5.6 billion be so utterly helpless and easy to kill?



I don't dispute it, but at the end of the day you had mining barges and a freighter against a fully capable battle fleet, it was always going to be a slaughter....(why was a jump freighter on grid anyway)

Which brings it around very nicely to keeping local and intel channels open, unless someone got arrogant and overconfident? In which case they deserved what they got.

It doesn't change anything, mining ships are for mining, warships are for battle. You can show a thousand like that, it doesn't alter anything. Do you honestly think the outcome would have been any different if the barges had say 3 logi slots each?

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.

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#171 - 2016-08-25 10:28:12 UTC
Drago Shouna wrote:



I don't dispute it, but at the end of the day you had mining barges and a freighter against a fully capable battle fleet, it was always going to be a slaughter....(why was a jump freighter on grid anyway)

Which brings it around very nicely to keeping local and intel channels open, unless someone got arrogant and overconfident? In which case they deserved what they got.

It doesn't change anything, mining ships are for mining, warships are for battle. You can show a thousand like that, it doesn't alter anything. Do you honestly think the outcome would have been any different if the barges had say 3 logi slots each?


Frankly yes. if half of that number were logi, the ships themselves were able to actually fit a decent tank and it had a few combat skiffs then they could have stood a decent chance. At the very least they would have taken out a good few of them with them and bought time for help to arrive.

Miners should not be faced with just the options of running away or getting killed.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#172 - 2016-08-25 10:39:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Nevyn Auscent
Drago Shouna wrote:


I don't dispute it, but at the end of the day you had mining barges and a freighter against a fully capable battle fleet, it was always going to be a slaughter....(why was a jump freighter on grid anyway)

Which brings it around very nicely to keeping local and intel channels open, unless someone got arrogant and overconfident? In which case they deserved what they got.

It doesn't change anything, mining ships are for mining, warships are for battle. You can show a thousand like that, it doesn't alter anything. Do you honestly think the outcome would have been any different if the barges had say 3 logi slots each?

You are applying modern world mechanics to an era of rampant piracy.

If you want to look at the cargo vessels of era's where piracy on the high seas was a real thing.

Viking longships. They were the cargo vessels of their age. They also were filled to the brim with raiders ready for a fight.
Spanish Galleons. Some of the heaviest armed & armoured ships of their days as well. They were what was used to get treasure back to spain past all the pirates and the british.

Modern cargo vessels are only so defenceless because we live in an era where piracy is almost non existent, and what piracy does happen is a few men with guns boarding you, not other ships aiming guns at you.

EVE should be drawing it's inspirations from the eras of real piracy & raiding. Not from current industrial/modern age concepts primarily rooted in peace.
Drago Shouna
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#173 - 2016-08-25 10:45:17 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Drago Shouna wrote:


Rubbish, the reason for them is ore hold flexibility. You have to make a choice right now between yield, tank and hold capacity etc.

The skiff is the go to ship in null where tank is preferred, the hulk the fleet ship everywhere and the Mack in hs, yes they do go other places, that's all the flexibility they need.

They don't need a rack of utility slots, I ain't ever going to turn up at a battle with a Mack full of logi...it ain't ever going to happen.

That's why I said you really only need 1 mining barge. If you give them a decent cargo hold (Say give them an ore hold like the Covetor/Hulk has now then say..... 2000 cargo hold if Cargo extenders stack, I keep saying they should have a stacking penalty but as they do stack think that lands them about right, basically enough that with entirely Cargo Extenders and Cargo rigs they get to at least the current Mack, maybe a bit more if tank is weaker than present), then they get the ore hold flexibility by using cargo extenders also. And you have the same yield, tank or hold capacity trade off in your low slots. But also have more options and more flexibility to tailor to your exact needs.

As for utility slots, I never suggested a logi barge. But to explain my general point.
Barge. Capped at 2 strip miners but has 5 high slots, 5 medium slots, 4 low slots like a Moa (Using Moa as a shield tanker base, but basically cruiser slot layout, cruiser PG/CPU/Cap). Also has 3 Turret/Launcher slots. (Un-bonused, so the same as spare turret/launcher slots in combat ships that have no bonus, they are really utility slots with an option of weapons)

The high slots, even without going into weird roles.
Mining Lasers, want to go all out max miner, run 2 Strip miners and 3 Mining lasers.
General utility. Probe Launcher, Cloak, Cyno fill your three utility slots. 2 Strip Miners.
Bait. 3 RLML launchers (Or the equivalent turret if they ever make them. 1 Cyno, 1 Smart bomb(Assuming outside of highsec). Maybe Strip Miner instead of Smart bomb to be more believable bait.
Solo miner. 3 Weapons to fight off rats with, 2 Strip Miners.

This isn't any weird stuff. This is the sort of thing people currently do already with mining barges just with more variety.
Mid slots would typically be your buffer tank, maybe a mixed buffer/active tank for null to let you live long enough to kill the rats, and a bit of tackle for bait type mining setups. Low slots would be mix of MLU's, Cargo extenders or Bulkheads.

Minor apologies to Baltec, I misread your earlier post I replied to thinking you were still on your earlier claims that miners should have escorts, because a week or two ago you were going on about that. If there was a T2 Exhumer with utility slots and bonuses to logi cap use, that could actually be a viable exhumer provided it could still fit the (currently) 2 strip miners as well. 1 basic barge, 2 or 3 specialist T2 versions would work. The other 2 T1 barges could be totally re-purposed into a true ORE combat vessel and a true ORE hauler.

Obviously I am assuming Barges should be a cruiser here. Personally I'd like to see Industrial ships classified size wise more at the BC/BS range, and some of the barges physical sizes do actually fit better into the BC class already. But easy to find an analogy for whatever class it is decided they are comparable to.



Hmm, a lot of what you say makes sense :)

But it revolves a lot around ore hold extenders, if they were actually available I would probably agree (well 95%) :)

Yep some good ideas rather than just putting in utility highs which would probably get very little use.

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.

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#174 - 2016-08-25 10:51:28 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Drago Shouna wrote:


I don't dispute it, but at the end of the day you had mining barges and a freighter against a fully capable battle fleet, it was always going to be a slaughter....(why was a jump freighter on grid anyway)

Which brings it around very nicely to keeping local and intel channels open, unless someone got arrogant and overconfident? In which case they deserved what they got.

It doesn't change anything, mining ships are for mining, warships are for battle. You can show a thousand like that, it doesn't alter anything. Do you honestly think the outcome would have been any different if the barges had say 3 logi slots each?

You are applying modern world mechanics to an era of rampant piracy.

If you want to look at the cargo vessels of era's where piracy on the high seas was a real thing.

Viking longships. They were the cargo vessels of their age. They also were filled to the brim with raiders ready for a fight.
Spanish Galleons. Some of the heaviest armed & armoured ships of their days as well. They were what was used to get treasure back to spain past all the pirates and the british.

Modern cargo vessels are only so defenceless because we live in an era where piracy is almost non existent, and what piracy does happen is a few men with guns boarding you, not other ships aiming guns at you.

EVE should be drawing it's inspirations from the eras of real piracy & raiding. Not from current industrial/modern age concepts primarily rooted in peace.


EVE haulers have been known to kill impressive things.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#175 - 2016-08-25 10:54:34 UTC
baltec1 wrote:

EVE haulers have been known to kill impressive things.

Indeed, but usually from the other person being loltastically bad with their piloting, or going afk for 30 minutes.
The fact a few silly KM's exist is also no reason to not improve haulers by giving them real slot layouts also. (& again, cargo extenders need a stacking penalty so it's not all or nothing when using them)

But yea, back on the barges topic, CCP are sticking inside the safe boring box they are already in with this update. Really it's just normalising the strip miners as part of an art update and a couple of very minor changes alongside.
Circumstantial Evidence
#176 - 2016-08-25 12:39:47 UTC
Art suggestion: new fire and smoke effects are cool, but I don't think they should be displayed while docked. I imagine a huge layer of soot coating the docking bays over time. The pilot in the Astero in the bay next to mine, is complaining.

Consider connecting these effects to strip miner operation, or undocking with ore in the hold. Note that I don't think its necessary to STOP the effects when strip miners are deactivated, only to start the effects. "Internal processing and load balancing" may be continuous, once ore starts coming into the hold.
Mai Khumm
172.0.0.1
#177 - 2016-08-25 15:27:20 UTC
Circumstantial Evidence wrote:
Art suggestion: new fire and smoke effects are cool, but I don't think they should be displayed while docked. I imagine a huge layer of soot coating the docking bays over time. The pilot in the Astero in the bay next to mine, is complaining.


I'd actually position my ship so the Astero would get the maximum amount of soot on it as possible.
Mark O'Helm
Fam. Zimin von Reizgenschwendt
#178 - 2016-08-25 22:57:34 UTC
Beta Maoye wrote:
I want to join the defending fleet for our Citadel with my mining barge. I would like the following changes to barges.
For Procurer and Skiff:
+2 missile Launcher hardpoints
Role bonus: 50% to Light Missile, Heavy Missile and Heavy Assault Missile damage. 50% bouns to Drone hitpoints, damage and mining yield.

Both are already pretty good drone boats, when fitted for battle. Also they have lasers on board. Have you seen Rebel Galaxy? They making it right, by letting mining lasers also damaging ships.

"Frauenversteher wissen, was Frauen wollen. Aber Frauen wollen keine Frauenversteher. Weil Frauenversteher wissen, was Frauen wollen." (Ein Single)

"Wirklich coolen Leuten ist es egal, ob sie cool sind." (Einer, dem es egal ist)

Penance Toralen
Compass Fox
#179 - 2016-08-25 23:17:45 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Penance Toralen wrote:


Under the new fitting layout;

2x Strips + Crystals
Survey
MLU2 x 3

Med Mining Drone Aug2 x 2

Dies to anything, cant be used outside of highsec due to rats being able to kill it.

Penance Toralen wrote:

2 x Strips + Crystals
Survey
Bulkhead2 x 2 + DCU2

Med Transverse1 x 3

(thats 22k ehp)


Still cant be used outside of highsec due to rats, out classed by the procurer in every area.



The covetor has a 50m drone bay. To make the first fit work requires micro management and in high-sec space. But this is rewarding at almost 5 jetcans per hour. Recall the mining drones and use the 5 scouts to swiftly deal with any rats. No, it has deference against players or the cruiser plus rats outside of high-sec - but then I would not use this in an asteroid belt.

You asked for options - so I threw in the hull tanking fit. I do actually use this with a retriever which is a nasty surprise for gankers who make poor assumptions. But you are overlooking the range gain between procurer and covetor. I initially dismissed it when it was first listed - but really appreciate it now. But I guess you actually have to perform the activity to know the difference.

Look at this way, Eve has come four years since the tank options of the procurer/skiff were made available. Yet from CCP Fozzie's stats miners have not adopted the tank option in large numbers to seriously hamper ganking. Orehold and Yield remain the primary traits used. You are suggesting a lot of complexity into mining. Well miners have options of complexity with the expedition frigates which they have ignored - again looking at Fozzie's stats. Your suggestins are are a waste of dev effort, when there are so many other areas were players would like attention placed and rewarded.

If hulkagedden six was called tomorrow - I would doubt that there would shift in miner awareness. As much as I would like to see (merely for the hell if it), a "Procurer the Day" it would never happen.
FT Cold
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#180 - 2016-08-26 00:29:22 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Coralas wrote:


lol - Can you be any more wrong.

proteus + augmented plating + whatever you want to get 7 slots, no implants.

Native = before fittings. Not after. Now try again on the before fittings basis.
(Though claims of the Skiff getting BS level EHP are silly, it doesn't get BS level EHP, it has cruiser level EHP, same as the other cruisers when brick tanked, BS when buffer tanked are way way higher EHP than the skiff).

Coralas wrote:

The ships do not need massive fitting flexibility because the requirements for all 3 T1 barges are the same, and they do the same thing - MINE.

And that is because we do not need 3 T1 barges. Or 3 T2 barges.
We only need a single T1 barge, with the ability to be fitted properly. And in terms of mining we only need a single T2 barge also.
If they are given a full rack of utility highslots then you 'could' introduce speciality T2's that do different things with the utility highslots, but otherwise you only need the one exhumer also.

CCP have just stayed in the boring box of 'because there were 3 before tiericide, even though only 1 was actually any good, we are going to keep 3'.


Well put, I share the same sentiment. I would point out though that the skiff does in fact have native buffer close to many battleships as a way to show how much stats are simply cooked into the hull.