I’m not sure if this is the correct place to post this, but I was wondering if the CSM team could possibly discuss the idea of adjusting the CPU fitting requirements on the Deep Core Mining Laser I and the ORE Deep Core Mining Laser to be similar to the other Mining Laser Options as well as the Modulated Deep Core Miner with CCP?
Currently the CPU usage of the Deep Core Mining Laser I and the ORE Deep Core Mining Laser are at 150 tf while the other mining lasers have a CPU usage of 80 tf or less. It just feels off that the beginning laser option for ex[anding into deep core mining using the Frigate class Mining ships requires that one slot consume over 50% of the ships available CPU before you have added any other fittings and that you are being forced to compensate with a Rig.
I honestly would like to see both the Deep Core Mining Laser I and the ORE Deep Core Mining Laser have their CPU fitting lowered to be closer to that of the other mining lasers. This change would give some consistence to the mining laser series for frigates and become similar to the strip miner series for barges.
Nothing was said about the skill requirements. So lets go with the facts.
Endurance–Power Grid 40 CPU 280
Prospect–Power Grid 45 CPU 290
Venture–Power Grid 45 CPU 240
Deep Core Mining Laser I-- Power Grid 2 CPU 150
ORE Deep Core Mining Laser–Power Grid 2 CPU 150
Modulated Deep Core Miner II–Power Grid 3 CPU 80
Miner II–Power Grid 4 CPU 80
ORE Miner–Power Grid 4 CPU 80
Asking to have at modules reviewed and adjusted so that they can actually be fitted to the ships that would primarily use them isn’t an unreasonable request.
My arguement for the adjustment is that the Venture and Prospect both have two turret hardpoints and the CPU requirement on the two modules in question completely overload the CPU. A single laser on the Endurance uses 53% of the total CPU available. Having the CPU that high is frustrating and limits any choice of modules to use when making fitting decisions by the player all because they opted to use a Deep Core laser that wasn’t a T2 option. This isn’t unreasonable to try to get it looked at and adjusted.
To answer the question, I would like to have the option to use a 0% residue miner and a faster cycle time if I choose that option. As for your comment about the activation cost, I avoided that as it seemed irrelevant. No one cares about the m3/gj. They care about the m3/second which the ORE is better at short of using a type B crystal and going off the assumption that you have an unlimited supply of mercoxit. So since I generally don’t have an unlimited supply of mercoxit to justify using a type B Crystal, the option of reducing residue loss is more appealing.
Fair. On the other hand, it also does not seem unreasonable to me that a 0% waste option for the most advanced mineral ore in the game would come with a meaningful tradeoff, for example a fitting one.
I get it is frustrating to spend a precious rig — of 2 slots — to address a drawback, but this frustration I don’t see as something to fix: instead it indicates balance is positively working as intended, forcing meaningful tradeoffs and not having a „give me everything in a perfect fit“ scenario:
Don’t like the CPU usage?
use a different laser
use a cpu rig
use a cpu module
use a different hull
These will have impactful and meaningful consequences depending on your risk tolerance, level of greed (not meant in a negative stigma way, just degree of maxing rewards), desired gameplay, and other factors you decide for yourself whether you can compromise on them.
Usually the route is „stop setting artificial barriers for yourself“ and not „change the game“. Even with concrete numbers I’m not convinced there’s any underlying argument besides „I don’t like the meaningful tradeoff I have to make, it seems unreasonable“. That’s just Eve.
Once you have all the mining and fitting skills at level V, it will all fit like a glove and still gives you room to fit all kinds of things.
I never had any problems fittings my Prospect or Endurance for maximum yield at best possible survival. I even fit the probe launcher, so I have something else to do, while mining.
Here is another hint, free of charge. The regular mining lasers have no restrictions on them, for any ore. They yield less per minute than the deep core, but the deep core harvesters are strip miners, which cycle in 3-minute cycles, unless you have links. Mining lasers cycle 60 seconds or less.
All three mining fits for my Endurance include the t2 cloaking device, which also reqires lots of cpu, but it fits very well, without any fitting mods.
Interdictor destroyers are the only ships in EVE, that can even fit the interdictor launcher module. One of those modules are allowed per ship. They also need 100 cpu. Fitting those is difficult.
The combat probe launcher can be fit any almost any ship you like, but it requires about 200 cpu. Fitting this and a cloak cannot be done without massivly messing with your fitting choices.
I am asking for the CPU to be reviewed and adjusted to be closer in line with all of the other mining lasers, which includes normal mining lasers and ice mining lasers, I am not asking for a perfect fit. If you think the 0% waste trade off to mine minerals is a fair trade off, then make the argument that all mining lasers that have 0% percent residue should have there CPU increased instead of beating about the fact that the two I would like reviewed are specifically used for mining Mercoxit. or make the Argument that the Modulated Deep Core Miner II needs a CPU increase to fall in line with that module group.
I asked for two modules to be looked at and possibly be adjusted due to having an extremely high CPU fitting requirement when compared to all other resource harvesting modules for those slots regardless of the hull or fit and that the review have consideration for which hull and ship class the modules in question were intended to be used with.
You should take your own advice, and rather than missing the days when battleship mining was the best you could aspire to do for resource harvesting, look at where the game was and how it has changed overtime. Some of those changes may not have been great times, but those changes have also had an impact that pointed toward a more positive direction for the game to evolve towards. That’s just Eve.
This isn’t a skill issue like you make it out to be. It is a question of whether a review of the CPU cost of two modules could be done and have possible adjustments so that they are closer to the average fitting cost of the modules in question.
I haven’t mentioned adjusting any of the mining frigates. I think overall the mining frigates are in a good spot. You are looking at the situation with such a broad perspective that you are missing the point. Addressing the two extreme outliers has nothing to do with fitting or the hull. It is just questing and addressing two outliers on the bell curve for that module group fitting requirements and asking if they can be reviewed and adjusted.
I don’t. Use a normal T1 mining laser that isn’t Deep Core.
You don’t just get to declare Mercoxit as „not special“ just because it’s inconvenient for you. That is precisely my point. Mercoxit is special. For a gameplay reason. By design. And by account status.
Rather than get salty and upset that I am using your same logic to make a counter argument — which is that it seems completely reasonable that the special Mercoxit mining Deep Core T1 laser would have tradeoffs — you have devolved into trying to strawman my position (about Mercoxit) into something it isn’t (about all ores) and then demand some argument from me in order for any continued discussion from me to meet your newly made up „credible“ bar.
This is a troll tactic. I had hoped better from you.
Here’s my argument in review:
T1 Deep Core mining laser should have higher CPU cost because:
it mines Mercoxit
has 0% waste
adds meaningful fitting tradeoffs, which includes but not limited to:
CPU rigs,
CPU modules,
upship to barge hull,
give up Mercoxit ability and use T1 normal lasers
I say this as someone who first thing back into the game in 2021 was living solo out of N-DQ and had to mine Mercoxit next to SLYCE’s Ethereum Reach or in what was at the time Commonwealth / Commonwealth Vanguard territory, and faced these exact tradeoffs. I’m not a troll and I’m not Stockholmed Syndromed into the status quo, I just found the planning part of what was my ninja mining gameplay very meaningful, in part because of this fitting constraint. I played the game.
My argument for the review and adjustment is this:
The Lower Mining Yield for the Deep Core technology is a trade off already
It brings the entire resource harvest module group into a similar CPU range.
It deals with the only faction module that is not comparable with the T2 version closer together making all faction modules be competitive choices for the higher cost as a trade off.
The current CPU might still set as a limiting factor to the old mining cruisers, which in today’s game environment are being phased out by dedicated mining ships anyway.
It expands the fitting choices for low/rig/mid slots (Most of which require more CPU than PG)
increase variation of fittings.
Least evasive change when compared to adjusting ships.
Barrier of entry is still present (Omega required)
I will admit that I am more in favor to a decrease in the CPU, but an increase in the CPU requirement to the Tech II version of Frigate size Deep Core mining lasers would also be approriate,
I disagree that a fitting requirement on ships that are attempting to use a module that should be designed to fit them within reason adds any meaningful gameplay or decision making, especially at the frigate ship class size where you don’t really have the option to downsize a module. I want the decision to use deep core mining equipment to be across the board similar, rather than have a T2 version with a reasonable fitting and a T1 and faction fitting for the same slot have an unreasonable fitting.
Yes, it is clear we disagree: I view the benefit of mining Mercoxit being traded off against m3/s, additional fitting, and Omega account status, and believe these to be reasonable. You give the benefit of mining Mercoxit zero weight, the m3/s as a punishment, and find the fitting additions unreasonable (hence the impetus with this thread).
We’re not going to convince the other; my intention was to provide a counter point illustrating that the status quo is indeed reasonable, and still after all these posts there is not a game design reason to prefer one or the other.
It is simply asking CCP to make the game easier for you. Because you declared choices painful enough to create a thread about as „not meaningful“ (I use this very thread as evidence it is).