These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Buff mining Ship Defences?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#41 - 2012-03-12 16:05:50 UTC
Risk Vs Reward with mining seems just a bit bent right now.

Right now, mining itself has little reward unless you do it for extended periods of time. For most other PvE pursuits, your time vs reward is far better rewarded.

And, strictly speaking of barges and exhumers as non-combat vessels, they deserve some kind of defense beyond what a normal PvP ship has.

Give them stupid two minute lock times, (only an asteroid would still be there after that long), but give them insane industrial shields and armor. Something only a Capital could break down. If you want them to not be used as transports, then make them go into some kind of siege mode to get these benefits.

A cruiser going against a Hulk should look like a pickup truck crashing into a bulldozer's plow.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#42 - 2012-03-12 16:37:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Vimsy Vortis
That analogy might actually make sense if you replaced "pickup truck" with "armored fighting vehicle" and "crashing into" with "firing anti-tank weapons". It isn't a case of two civilian vehicles ramming eachother, it is a case of a dedicated combat ship attacking a civilian industrial ship.

I don't know which universe, real or fictional, people live in where it seems reasonable for a combat ship to be unable to completely annihilate a civilian industrial ship in approximately the time it takes for whatever it shoots to hit the target.
Rapala Armiron
Arton Yachting and Angling Club
#43 - 2012-03-12 16:53:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Rapala Armiron
Miss Whippy wrote:
I'm just wondering if there's any particular reason why mining ships have such pathetic defenses? The small miner in high-sec has absolutely NO CHANGE against a wannabe ganker.

I just did a test with one of my alts. I dusted off my hulk and took it out for a mining OP in high-sec, and had my other alt hauling the rocks. Not 30 minutes after me doing this, a lone Thorax with a Sec of -1 had ganked my Hulk solo. Even with the extra buffage I'd added to the ship it was zapped in a matter of seconds.

With mining about to be taken as a serious profession again as the only real source of minerals, isn't it time we stopped making Mining Barges out of Glass?

I've been trying to work out what justification there could be for making mining barges so weak and pathetic, and I'm coming up with nothing. Wouldn't this solve a whole lot of problems? A lone Thorax shouldn't be able to wonder up to a barge in high-sec and destroy it long before CONCORD make an appearance.


Honestly -- as things are you can make a hulk with about 25k ehp which is sufficient to survive a causal gank attempt.

http://sledzina.killmail.org/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=9732099

As for barges -- they too can be fitted for buffer which will cause them to survive a causal gank.

http://sledzina.killmail.org/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=10704722

Of course nothing will prevent you from being ganked if the ganker is willing to throw numbers and isk at the problem.

edit -- I dont know why the links dont work -- just cut and past them for effect

The reason why people dont fit their ships for buffer -- is because they lose mining efficiency. Most carebear miners figure they make more isk by mining faster and thus can easily absorb the cost of an occasional gank as the price of doing business. So while I think suiciding has issues and requires addressing -- buffing the mining boats is not required.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#44 - 2012-03-12 16:55:03 UTC
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
That analogy might actually make sense if you replaced "pickup truck" with "armored fighting vehicle" and "crashing into" with "firing anti-tank weapons". It isn't a case of two civilian vehicles ramming eachother, it is a case of a dedicated combat ship attacking a civilian industrial ship.

I don't know which universe, real or fictional, people live in where it seems reasonable for a combat ship to be unable to completely annihilate a civilian industrial ship in approximately the time it takes for whatever it shoots to hit the target.

You have a good point.

Ok, this came to me a few moments ago, and it has solid precedent in most science fiction.

Asteroid belts are dangerous.

Forget armor or shields, these big massive rocks are bouncing around like pinballs once mining starts, and ships not designed to endure this punishment get flattened by it.

Similar in concept to cloaks don't work in dust clouds, ships not designed to operate in mining environments find it hazardous.

Effect 1: Mining debris flying everywhere is more than combat scanners can handle, and any ship inside this cloud of chaff is effectively screened from targeting by ships outside of it.

Effect 2: Big rocks, small mining debris, and the inability to see one rock rushing at you from behind another moving rock, actually being in the furball results in your ship being hit from random directions, jarring your targeting scanners into constantly rebooting, and tearing apart your shields and armor.

(Ever notice in movies how desperate space captains would hide in the asteroid belts? Big ships held back, and small ships would be crushed. It was like watching a giant space blender.)

Industrial ships are able to survive in this hostile environment. Their scanners and targeting, useless for combat, is ideally suited to locking onto the larger asteroids for mining.
The industrial shields, ineffective against missile blasts and lasers, are uniquely qualified to minimize and deflect impacts from small rocks to huge chunks of asteroid.

So long as the mining craft stays in it's element, not much can affect it.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Miss Whippy
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#45 - 2012-03-12 16:58:51 UTC
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
That analogy might actually make sense if you replaced "pickup truck" with "armored fighting vehicle" and "crashing into" with "firing anti-tank weapons". It isn't a case of two civilian vehicles ramming eachother, it is a case of a dedicated combat ship attacking a civilian industrial ship.


Wrong. For a start they are not civilian ships. Try reading the description which includes the words, " far more resilient, better able to handle the dangers of deep space."

They can't even handle the dangers of Empire Space.

[URL="https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=82348"]UI Iteration isn't enough, we need to start from scratch[/URL]
Mary Annabelle
Moonlit Bonsai
#46 - 2012-03-12 17:31:03 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
That analogy might actually make sense if you replaced "pickup truck" with "armored fighting vehicle" and "crashing into" with "firing anti-tank weapons". It isn't a case of two civilian vehicles ramming eachother, it is a case of a dedicated combat ship attacking a civilian industrial ship.

I don't know which universe, real or fictional, people live in where it seems reasonable for a combat ship to be unable to completely annihilate a civilian industrial ship in approximately the time it takes for whatever it shoots to hit the target.

You have a good point.

I can't let that one stand. This is not some lightweight civilian ship. The InterBus shuttles might be, but these are supposed to be the heavy duty industrial reinforced mining ship.
It's not an RV, its an armor plated dump truck.

The very idea that lasers or missiles should be more dangerous than the asteroids this thing swims through, is like saying that the guy who can walk away after getting hit by an avalanche should be worried by someone with a gun.

Nikk Narrel wrote:
Ok, this came to me a few moments ago, and it has solid precedent in most science fiction.

Asteroid belts are dangerous.

Forget armor or shields, these big massive rocks are bouncing around like pinballs once mining starts, and ships not designed to endure this punishment get flattened by it.

Similar in concept to cloaks don't work in dust clouds, ships not designed to operate in mining environments find it hazardous.

Effect 1: Mining debris flying everywhere is more than combat scanners can handle, and any ship inside this cloud of chaff is effectively screened from targeting by ships outside of it.

Effect 2: Big rocks, small mining debris, and the inability to see one rock rushing at you from behind another moving rock, actually being in the furball results in your ship being hit from random directions, jarring your targeting scanners into constantly rebooting, and tearing apart your shields and armor.

(Ever notice in movies how desperate space captains would hide in the asteroid belts? Big ships held back, and small ships would be crushed. It was like watching a giant space blender.)

Industrial ships are able to survive in this hostile environment. Their scanners and targeting, useless for combat, is ideally suited to locking onto the larger asteroids for mining.
The industrial shields, ineffective against missile blasts and lasers, are uniquely qualified to minimize and deflect impacts from small rocks to huge chunks of asteroid.

So long as the mining craft stays in it's element, not much can affect it.

Those PvP ships, which are not designed for this environment, need more respect for it.

You used the mining ship to mine, but keep in mind why it is special. It is designed for an insanely hostile environment.

Asteroid belts are the kinetic equivalent to the way a minefield is explosive. Now add to that it is specifically less predictable.

Being on grid with an asteroid belt should scream GTFO to any pilot not flying a ship designed for it, as rocks and roids come screaming all around them.
Not in nice little parking lots. These places are mined and reborn sometimes on a daily basis, they should be spinning and bouncing like insane blenders.

I should be able to dive into an asteroid belt with my exhumer, and hope some fool follows me in a combat ship.

I would be in my element, and they would be out of theirs.
Velicitia
XS Tech
#47 - 2012-03-12 18:01:49 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
That analogy might actually make sense if you replaced "pickup truck" with "armored fighting vehicle" and "crashing into" with "firing anti-tank weapons". It isn't a case of two civilian vehicles ramming eachother, it is a case of a dedicated combat ship attacking a civilian industrial ship.

I don't know which universe, real or fictional, people live in where it seems reasonable for a combat ship to be unable to completely annihilate a civilian industrial ship in approximately the time it takes for whatever it shoots to hit the target.

You have a good point.

Ok, this came to me a few moments ago, and it has solid precedent in most science fiction.

Asteroid belts are dangerous.

Forget armor or shields, these big massive rocks are bouncing around like pinballs once mining starts, and ships not designed to endure this punishment get flattened by it.

Similar in concept to cloaks don't work in dust clouds, ships not designed to operate in mining environments find it hazardous.

Effect 1: Mining debris flying everywhere is more than combat scanners can handle, and any ship inside this cloud of chaff is effectively screened from targeting by ships outside of it.

Effect 2: Big rocks, small mining debris, and the inability to see one rock rushing at you from behind another moving rock, actually being in the furball results in your ship being hit from random directions, jarring your targeting scanners into constantly rebooting, and tearing apart your shields and armor.

(Ever notice in movies how desperate space captains would hide in the asteroid belts? Big ships held back, and small ships would be crushed. It was like watching a giant space blender.)

Industrial ships are able to survive in this hostile environment. Their scanners and targeting, useless for combat, is ideally suited to locking onto the larger asteroids for mining.
The industrial shields, ineffective against missile blasts and lasers, are uniquely qualified to minimize and deflect impacts from small rocks to huge chunks of asteroid.

So long as the mining craft stays in it's element, not much can affect it.


I actually kinda like this ... with one caveat --> denial of targeting is a bad thing (just reduce sig radius of ships whilst inside)

One of the bitter points of a good bittervet is the realisation that all those SP don't really do much, and that the newbie is having much more fun with what little he has. - Tippia
Veluis
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#48 - 2012-03-12 18:28:34 UTC
Aquila Draco wrote:
ship that gank hulks cost millions.
hulk costs hundreds of millions.
Should ship that costs millions kill ship that costs hundreds of millions in under 20 secs - NO FU.CKING WAY


This.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#49 - 2012-03-12 18:39:36 UTC
Velicitia wrote:
I actually kinda like this ... with one caveat --> denial of targeting is a bad thing (just reduce sig radius of ships whilst inside)

I can see the reduced signature radius as a possible interpretation of this. But if taken from that aspect, it must also accept a nearly random shot blocking effect caused by the asteroids and their debris.

To use the running analogy, you are shooting at something in a blender, and things will block the shots unpredictably.

The "Effect 2" specifics on the ship itself, could be a combination of simulated bumping, and kinetic damage, depending on the relative size of the asteroids and debris involved. To follow the analogy, you are INSIDE the blender.

The further from the asteroid belt, the more frequent the shot blocking effect becomes involved.
The closer to the asteroid belt, the greater the intensity of the "Effect 2" consequences involved.

If you can handle both, you are either a mining barge or an exhumer.

Following this logic, the safest place for an Orca or a Rorqual, as specialized indy ships, should be inside the belts to take advantage of this protection. Not a POS necessarily.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Buzzy Warstl
Quantum Flux Foundry
#50 - 2012-03-12 18:45:11 UTC
Veluis wrote:
Aquila Draco wrote:
ship that gank hulks cost millions.
hulk costs hundreds of millions.
Should ship that costs millions kill ship that costs hundreds of millions in under 20 secs NO


This.

Is in error.

Fail fits fail.

http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm Richard Bartle: Players who suit MUDs
Mary Annabelle
Moonlit Bonsai
#51 - 2012-03-12 18:47:47 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Velicitia wrote:
I actually kinda like this ... with one caveat --> denial of targeting is a bad thing (just reduce sig radius of ships whilst inside)

I can see the reduced signature radius as a possible interpretation of this. But if taken from that aspect, it must also accept a nearly random shot blocking effect caused by the asteroids and their debris.

To use the running analogy, you are shooting at something in a blender, and things will block the shots unpredictably.

The "Effect 2" specifics on the ship itself, could be a combination of simulated bumping, and kinetic damage, depending on the relative size of the asteroids and debris involved. To follow the analogy, you are INSIDE the blender.

The further from the asteroid belt, the more frequent the shot blocking effect becomes involved.
The closer to the asteroid belt, the greater the intensity of the "Effect 2" consequences involved.

If you can handle both, you are either a mining barge or an exhumer.

Following this logic, the safest place for an Orca or a Rorqual, as specialized indy ships, should be inside the belts to take advantage of this protection. Not a POS necessarily.

I... like this.

It takes the 'kick me' sign off my back as a miner.

It makes me look tough and rugged, for being able to do heavy duty dangerous work. It makes me look, well, like a miner.

Asteroid belts are not embassies for Candy Land, and right now it feels like they are mistaken for that.

They are death blenders, where crazy people live on the edge to mine ore from psychotic spinning rocks in perpetual avalanche, and the unprepared are crushed without mercy.

/flex
J'Poll
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#52 - 2012-03-12 19:03:18 UTC  |  Edited by: J'Poll
As with the other post of you ( https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=79710 ):

1. Post with your main
2. Stop whining, EVE isn't a rollercoaster MMO. If you want safety go to this game
3. Unsub and give me your stuff.

Personal channel: Crazy Dutch Guy

Help channel: Help chat - Reloaded

Public roams channels: RvB Ganked / Redemption Road / Spectre Fleet / Bombers bar / The Content Club
Velicitia
XS Tech
#53 - 2012-03-12 19:32:32 UTC
Mary Annabelle wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Velicitia wrote:
I actually kinda like this ... with one caveat --> denial of targeting is a bad thing (just reduce sig radius of ships whilst inside)

I can see the reduced signature radius as a possible interpretation of this. But if taken from that aspect, it must also accept a nearly random shot blocking effect caused by the asteroids and their debris.

To use the running analogy, you are shooting at something in a blender, and things will block the shots unpredictably.

The "Effect 2" specifics on the ship itself, could be a combination of simulated bumping, and kinetic damage, depending on the relative size of the asteroids and debris involved. To follow the analogy, you are INSIDE the blender.

The further from the asteroid belt, the more frequent the shot blocking effect becomes involved.
The closer to the asteroid belt, the greater the intensity of the "Effect 2" consequences involved.

If you can handle both, you are either a mining barge or an exhumer.

Following this logic, the safest place for an Orca or a Rorqual, as specialized indy ships, should be inside the belts to take advantage of this protection. Not a POS necessarily.

I... like this.

It takes the 'kick me' sign off my back as a miner.

It makes me look tough and rugged, for being able to do heavy duty dangerous work. It makes me look, well, like a miner.

Asteroid belts are not embassies for Candy Land, and right now it feels like they are mistaken for that.

They are death blenders, where crazy people live on the edge to mine ore from psychotic spinning rocks in perpetual avalanche, and the unprepared are crushed without mercy.

/flex


yeah, that's kind of what I had in mind

1. As a non-miner you *can* target, but since there is so much dust/other stuff/whatever, it effectively blocks your sensors (i.e. barges look like frigs?)
2. As a non-miner you *can* shoot, but since there is so much stuff hurtling all over the place, you're never going to have zero transversal (because you're trying to not get squished).

Orca/rorq would be "safeish" in the belts (safer than now anyway), but since they're so effing big, they can still get hit relatively easily (compared to barges anyway)

One of the bitter points of a good bittervet is the realisation that all those SP don't really do much, and that the newbie is having much more fun with what little he has. - Tippia
J'Poll
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#54 - 2012-03-12 19:53:43 UTC
Or you could just use common sense and always be aligned to a safe / station / what so ever.

As soon as someone starts to yellow box you, you hit the warp button and off you go.

Personal channel: Crazy Dutch Guy

Help channel: Help chat - Reloaded

Public roams channels: RvB Ganked / Redemption Road / Spectre Fleet / Bombers bar / The Content Club
Mary Annabelle
Moonlit Bonsai
#55 - 2012-03-12 20:14:43 UTC
J'Poll wrote:
Or you could just use common sense and always be aligned to a safe / station / what so ever.

As soon as someone starts to yellow box you, you hit the warp button and off you go.

Common sense... your use of this here suggests that because you feel a certain way, then it must be a part of conventional wisdom.

The idea that a mining ship, something that should conjure images of tough and durable, should need to behave in such a timid and weak manner... this does not feel like 'common sense'.

This feel like a small child picking flowers in a sunlit field, being told to run the moment the big bad PvP ship shows up.
Oh, yeah, and the poor kid probably has a 'kick me' sign on her back.

Miners should not accept being treated like puffballs. Exhumers are not pinatas for cheap cruiser fits to beat up on.

The devs can declare anything they want balanced, granted. But this feels ridiculous, and I think it needs to be brought inline with a more believable set of gameplay mechanics.
Vertisce Soritenshi
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#56 - 2012-03-12 20:30:36 UTC
I have never been ganked in a Hulk. I have been attacked but always survived. That said I don't honestly fly a Hulk all that often. I have ganked a Hulk or two in my time however. My first time I found it suprisingly easy to kill. The problem is that this is a fine line to walk.

You can't buff the Hulk too much because then they would be impervious to attack. If the Hulk can tank too well then it can always hold out till CONCORD arrives. Can't have that...BUT...it also shouldn't be as easy as it is now with a single ship killing the Hulk and still having time to get away from CONCORD.

Frankly I think the solution is to give Hulks the ability to fight back. With drones. An all so slight improvement in tank can't really be a bad thing at this point. A 200 mil ship should have the tank of a 200 mil ship.

Frankly I think Hulk pilots should learn to use ECM drones. That's what I would do.

Bounties for all! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2279821#post2279821
GetSirrus
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#57 - 2012-03-12 21:11:08 UTC
Buzzy Warstl wrote:

Here's one solidly tanked, but pretty clearly not a suicide gank as well:
http://eve.battleclinic.com/killboard/killmail.php?id=15436306



thats interesting, the kill board shows only 9k to kill, but EFT showing EHP of 27k.
J'Poll
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#58 - 2012-03-12 22:05:37 UTC  |  Edited by: J'Poll
GetSirrus wrote:
Buzzy Warstl wrote:

Here's one solidly tanked, but pretty clearly not a suicide gank as well:
http://eve.battleclinic.com/killboard/killmail.php?id=15436306



thats interesting, the kill board shows only 9k to kill, but EFT showing EHP of 27k.


27k EHP does jack s*** if someone has a high enough volley to get through your shields, armor and structure in just 2 or 3 hits.

EHP is not actual hit points you have, your EHP is made up out of the following things:

* Shield hitpoints
* Armour hitpoints
* Structure hitpoints
* Resistance of the above mentioned 3 layers of defence
* Natural shield recharge rates
* Any modifications to shield or armour recharge (aka shield boosters, armor repair)

Personal channel: Crazy Dutch Guy

Help channel: Help chat - Reloaded

Public roams channels: RvB Ganked / Redemption Road / Spectre Fleet / Bombers bar / The Content Club
Ines Tegator
Serious Business Inc. Ltd. LLC. etc.
#59 - 2012-03-12 22:35:35 UTC
Supporting a base HP increase on hulks. They should still be gankable, but it should cost more to do it. Spending 2m isk (fitted thrasher) to create 200m in loss is out of line. It should, at minimum, take a kitted out brutix or something, which thanks to the locking time on this size ship gives a little more warning for the miner to react as well.

GetSirrus wrote:

thats interesting, the kill board shows only 9k to kill, but EFT showing EHP of 27k.

A common misunderstanding of EHP. That's EFFECTIVE hitpoints. your ACTUAL hitpoints is still 9k, it just acts like more because of resists. Damage logs will always show actual HP.

Overhaul Dscan!
Buzzy Warstl
Quantum Flux Foundry
#60 - 2012-03-13 02:22:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Buzzy Warstl
GetSirrus wrote:
Buzzy Warstl wrote:

Here's one solidly tanked, but pretty clearly not a suicide gank as well:
http://eve.battleclinic.com/killboard/killmail.php?id=15436306



thats interesting, the kill board shows only 9k to kill, but EFT showing EHP of 27k.

The killboard shows actual damage dealt, effective damage is raw damage *before* resists.

It would take 2 or 3 tier 3 BC's to alpha that fit.

http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm Richard Bartle: Players who suit MUDs