First off, I have no idea what your comment is trying to say, tbh.
Second, sure, I’m okay with “emergent styles of play,” but i’m not okay with basing that off OP’s idea.
I don’t see why we need this exact thing for more “emergent” gameplay. What would this even do? You warp to a belt, lock an asteroid, turn on your mining laser, and then what?
What would either players in the same ship even do?
The emergent style of play would be that with the extra alt pilot the alt pilot could operate a defense turret or similar directed defensive system that the first pilot would not be able to operate.
Now whats wrong with a husband and wife or two friends, family or relatives sitting down and playing Eve Online with a ship such as the two player controlled ship?
Isn’t the best ship in Eve Online friendship?
Why would the first pilot not be able to operate a “defense turret” or “other similar directed defense system”?
Because why would they need to when they can just pilot one ship each for a total of 2?
I don’t see what the point of this is. Are you suggesting that there is no “friendship” between 2 pilots who each control their own separate ship?
I get what you’re trying to say it’s never going to happen that require total rewrite of the game
It would be kind of neat to have like a multiple pilot ship though make rorquals maybe more interactive but it’s not going to happen good dream keep dreaming
Fly safe
This idea has been mooted before for structures. The idea is that you could have more than one “gunner” in place, it would allow for greater defence.
In the context of mining/ hisec, greater structure defence might make more people want to put up moon ore refineries in 0.5 systems. It might also boost wardecs, if attackers thought they might actually have a greater chance of getting a fight out of it?
Or… You could bring an extra ship with that extra pilot instead?
That idea would give extra firepower at no additional risk.
However, back to the previous idea, the success of the Procurer shows that a lot of miners do like some firepower. Command ships show you can limit an item without limiting slots so you could easily have a 6 high slot, 4 turret barge that can only fit strip miners, not mining lasers, and a maximum of 3 strip miners.
(Disclaimer, obviously I’m making no comment on any other balance issues around such a ship, just that it is possible under CCP’s current code base)
Which almost never happens. Partly because miners don’t “do” PvP. And partly because structures are seen as too weak to defend on standalone basis. (Bit of a circular argument there.) The counter-argument is that having dual or more pilots in a structure does not involve buffing them, it just involves maximising what is already there.
Which is pretty much the point. Miners will not fly PvP craft, but they will defend mining craft. Why not also apply that thinking to mining structures? It is just an idea. Not disagreeing with you otherwise.
Because it makes them too powerful at zero risk. That’s why. If I can add 10 pilots to a structure to make it a death star, I will. Even if I bring a fleet of 50 I’ll still also deathstar the structure, because it risks no more than 1 pilot in said structure.
If instead, mining ships got more normalized for life in a combat zone and all got some decent combat capability and slot layouts if not as good as a dedicated combat ship, ala WW2 engineering tanks, I suspect you would see a lot more miners prepared to fight, because their standard day includes fighting.
(Note, obviously this would need follow on impacts on belt rats being more than a sneeze to deal with, and ganking would need some balancing to compensate for the greater tank & firepower potentials also if this happened)
The way development is headed, it won’t be long before someone decides that’s a good thing, despite the original design philosophy for Upwell structures.
I have to agree on this one - mission runners have combat skills, and with (at most) few weeks of training to cover missing skills they are perfectly fine as pilots in fleets. Mining ships on another hand…
The massive Rorq boosts destroyed the economy…that was the worst decision.
I suspect you wouldn’t. Mainly because this would involve PvP. And miners as a class (including me) don’t do PvP. Why would having combat-capable mining vessels change that?
Such vessels could work in low sec and null, but why would anyone in hisec bother? The only thing that would change in hisec is cost of a fitted ship would increase to account for extra combat mods. Meaning I would have to mine for longer to replace it when ganked.
Ganking would still be the only way to initiate immediate combat in hisec and Concord response time would not change. Being in a “combat barge” would simply require gankers to bring more fire power, due to my effective buff, giving me no incentive to actually fight. (And yes, you did say that knock-on balance changes would be required to address this.)
@darkestkhan_Eriker and @Penance_Toralen have arguments that “forced” combat training in order to fly a barge will increase cross-over skills. I’m just sceptical about whether that would actually change the behavior of those pilots who mine because they didn’t want to use such skills in the first place.
One way to test which position has more merit might be to remove nerf on drones at Invasion sites. If several battle procurers and skiffs (as exist now) had a chance to collectively clear conduits so they could mine, I would definitely have a go at that. I’ve already tried my barge drones and didn’t manage to down a single frigate, so stopped. But, give me (us) both an incentive and an opportunity to PVE a battle-barge first (in Invasions), and maybe we might all get towards closer agreement/ outcomes as a result?
Because changes to belt rats? So you would have it for PvE reasons but the skills related would then transfer over to PvP unlike at present.
Also because it just makes sense. During WW2 freighters got armed and as time went on they got properly designed for combat while still a freighter. Not a match alone but in convoy potentially. Plus always a lucky hit or taking out an outdated sub or raider.
During the Spanish main, the great era of piracy, the ‘freighters’ actually had more guns and armour than the pirates. they were just slower and could be outmanouvered.
Engineering tanks were a thing for bridging ditches, hedges, rivers, mine clearing etc, anything that happened in a dangerous space.
The whole hyperspecialisation idea is a modern idea brought about by relative peace.
Just to interject here but don’t miners already have the option to run combat drones and modules? I mean, you can push a Proc to almost 200DPS if you wanted to while still having good yield and a great tank.
EVE already has what you are talking about IMO…hyperspecialisation that is…
Combat drones yes. But light combat drones don’t carry over well to PvP as a primary weapon. Nor do Mediums.
And yes, EVE has hyperspecialisation in the industry ships. My point is that it is actually a bad thing for EVE to have. Not a good thing.
Never heard that one before.
Hyper-specialization just allows for niche rolls (in the simplest way put) rather than just a “vanilla is the best flavor for all situation” mentality. I mean ship flexibility through customization is one of the cornerstones of EVE and without it, it would be dead.
T2 drones, lights or meds (which can be fielded by the Proc) are more than enough to deal with frigates and destroyers. Remember your ship analogy: these ships armed themselves to make them less appealing targets rather than actually to deal damage. Same can be said for the Proc. You shouldn’t be flying it if you are looking for PVP.
Agree with all of that. Although I am sceptical that enough carebears would actually use any PvP cross-over.
A better analogy might be the armed East Indiamen, which were still fit for purpose as transports but no push-overs to attack. Which begs the question whether this discussion is better directed towards armed freighters in EvE, not mining vessels?
Another good reference for armed vessels that aren’t warships.
I think it covers both, there are just fewer examples of industrial vehicles given they are far more recent. So only the ww2 engineering tanks really apply, being also the only era of widespread war and industrial vehicles overlapping.
@Runa_Yamaguchi You don’t need hyper specialisation. Specialisation would still exist. A mining vessel would still be specialised. Just it wouldn’t be hyper focused to the utter cost of any self defence.
Because let’s be honest, no one likes escort missions. Even if it’s another player who isn’t as dumb. You want to do things yourself. So allow packs of miners to defend themselves in various ways with decent fittings.
(Yeah proc drones are sort of ok for defence, but procs have basically no fitting space, miserable cap, and the other barges are an utter joke when it comes to fitting)
This is where your argument has the potential to go a little pear-shaped. Barges are very much fit-for purpose, which is mining. Although you do still have to make compromises between tank, hold space and yield.
The training for barges might not be cross-linked to PvP, but the old chestnut of having to compromise between risk vs reward, because of limited fitting options for barges, is most certainly linked to every other aspect of EvE.
Well this is perception then as I think they are well balanced. I use Covs in LS as I’m on hyper alert and know I wont be bounced but while in HS I switch to the tougher ships as risks are higher (oddly enough).
A barge is a ship first and foremost to mine and all three ships do that better than anything else for that price. Hyper-specialization is a pilot takes a barge and then adds a secondary “roll”. So like the armed transports of WWII they become more than their original design…but of course, there is a cost to this.
If you give more in one area you must take away at least the same amount in another…What you are suggesting amounts to a free lunch really…