Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
stoicfaux
1019
|
Posted - 2012.05.07 18:55:00 -
[1] - Quote
After digesting the myriad threads bouncing between "protect lazy miners!" and "easy suicide ganking is a fundamental right!" I have the solution: Mining Drones. Specifically, Heavy Mining Drones and Sentry Mining Drones.
If we assume a similar scale in base firepower between combat drones and mining drones, then that gives us: * 5x Heavy Mining Drones: ~998 m3 of ore per minute * 5x Sentry Mining Drones: ~1040 m3 of ore per minute * plus whatever Miner IIs you can fit versus * Hulk with 3x strip miners, 2xMLUs and t2 crystals: 1547 m3 of ore per minute
How is this a solution? Simple, it allows: * miners to mine in battleships * gankers to smartbomb the miners' expensive mining drones (drones have even less tanking options than Hulks.) thus * keeping miner ship loss costs down (just the drones are lost) * reducing the amount of minerals coming into the game, thus making minerals more expensive and mining more profitable * requiring human miners be at the keyboard due to the smaller cargoholds of battleships filling up more often * making miner bots super-hard to detect, thus eliminating the need for CCP to investigate mining bots (because, let's face it, investigating claims of botting is even more booooooooooooooooooooring than mining.) * depressing mineral values since bots are now much harder to detect and thus can run 23x7. * increases the LOL factor as a bot miner sits there for the rest of the day with no drones after the drones were ganked * increases the LOL factor as bot miners are bumped out of range of their sentry mining drones. * increases the LOL factor as Heavy Mining Drones get caught up in the geometry and the mining bot warps away without recovering it
Disclaimer: This thread brought to you by the "Center to Consolidate Thread Topics" society.
You can tell me what is and isn't Truth when you pry the tinfoil from my cold, lifeless head.
|
Blatant Forum Alt
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
156
|
Posted - 2012.05.07 18:57:00 -
[2] - Quote
Came here expecting butthurt, and found a genuinely decent proposal instead. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
617
|
Posted - 2012.05.07 18:58:00 -
[3] - Quote
stoicfaux wrote:* requiring human miners be at the keyboard due to the smaller cargoholds of battleships filling up more often * making miner bots super-hard to detect, thus eliminating the need for CCP to investigate mining bots (because, let's face it, investigating claims of botting is even more booooooooooooooooooooring than mining.) Heh, nice one. Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd |
Surfin's PlunderBunny
Hulkageddon Orphanage
1122
|
Posted - 2012.05.07 19:01:00 -
[4] - Quote
Mining should have a captcha everytime cargo gets full or it jettisons |
Fredfredbug4
The Scope Gallente Federation
286
|
Posted - 2012.05.07 19:15:00 -
[5] - Quote
This actually isn't a bad idea. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
617
|
Posted - 2012.05.07 19:20:00 -
[6] - Quote
Surfin's PlunderBunny wrote:Mining should have a captcha everytime cargo gets full or it jettisons Isn't that good though? Auto-jetcannng? Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
3688
|
Posted - 2012.05.07 19:28:00 -
[7] - Quote
I am in favour of expanding the range of mining drones.
Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Eric Konway
Silverwing Explorers Unfamiliar Presence
4
|
Posted - 2012.05.08 07:14:00 -
[8] - Quote
The proud and noble battleship, reduced to a common mining boat... that's a depressing thought.... |
Darth Gustav
Sons Of 0din Fatal Ascension
556
|
Posted - 2012.05.08 07:16:00 -
[9] - Quote
Eric Konway wrote:The proud and noble battleship, reduced to a common mining boat... that's a depressing thought.... Which miners will then fit for max yield and simultaneously complain about the excessive ease of ganking it.
Some things will never change... He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom |
Eric Konway
Silverwing Explorers Unfamiliar Presence
4
|
Posted - 2012.05.08 07:25:00 -
[10] - Quote
Darth Gustav wrote:Eric Konway wrote:The proud and noble battleship, reduced to a common mining boat... that's a depressing thought.... Which miners will then fit for max yield and simultaneously complain about the excessive ease of ganking it. Some things will never change...
Meh, they can take an Iowa's 16" and shove it up their... eh... nevermind. |
|
Degren
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
283
|
Posted - 2012.05.08 07:29:00 -
[11] - Quote
http://www.hark.com/clips/gbwlfhtdsg-im-strangely-comfortable-with-it Passive aggression, huh? -áNo, that's fine. |
Marlona Sky
Massive PVPness Psychotic Tendencies.
899
|
Posted - 2012.05.08 07:57:00 -
[12] - Quote
I like the idea, but there is no kill mails for suicide ganking drones. So you will never get any real support due to that. Make no mistake. They do not suicide gank to deal with bots or any of that. It is all about destroying high costing ships while risking nothing at all. They come for the kill mails and make no effort to distinguish between bots or actual human at the keyboard.
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
Copine Callmeknau
Kangaroos With Frickin Lazerbeams Ninja Unicorns with Huge Horns
121
|
Posted - 2012.05.08 08:18:00 -
[13] - Quote
stoicfaux wrote: * gankers to smartbomb the miners' expensive mining drones (drones have even less tanking options than Hulks.)
lol wtf
stoicfaux wrote: * reducing the amount of minerals coming into the game, thus making minerals more expensive and mining more profitable * depressing mineral values since bots are now much harder to detect and thus can run 23x7.
lol wtf
stoicfaux wrote: * requiring human miners be at the keyboard due to the smaller cargoholds of battleships filling up more often * making miner bots super-hard to detect, thus eliminating the need for CCP to investigate mining bots (because, let's face it, investigating claims of botting is even more booooooooooooooooooooring than mining.)
lol wtf There should be a rather awesome pic here |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
3695
|
Posted - 2012.05.08 08:19:00 -
[14] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:I like the idea, but there is no kill mails for suicide ganking drones. So you will never get any real support due to that. Make no mistake. They do not suicide gank to deal with bots or any of that. It is all about destroying high costing ships while risking nothing at all. They come for the kill mails and make no effort to distinguish between bots or actual human at the keyboard.
Not that there's anything wrong with that, of course. Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
RubyPorto
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
1478
|
Posted - 2012.05.08 08:56:00 -
[15] - Quote
I'd say that the numbers are off, since the total of the maxed out BS + Drones shouldn't pull more than a Hulk, but I think this is the first anti-ganker idea I've seen here that I like. Also, Sentries should have a lower yield than heavies to compensate for travel time.
There is one other glaring problem. Carriers. 15 of those would let Carriers once again take the lead in mineral m3/hr after only a week and a half of Hulks regaining their rightful place.
Otherwise, well thought out, sir. +1/2 Internets*.
*was gonna be +1, then I thought of Carriers. Single-Shard, Player Driven-áSandbox.
5 words. That's what makes it special. |
Cipher Jones
The Thomas Edwards Taco Tuesday All Stars
520
|
Posted - 2012.05.08 09:45:00 -
[16] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:I like the idea, but there is no kill mails for suicide ganking drones. So you will never get any real support due to that. Make no mistake. They do not suicide gank to deal with bots or any of that. It is all about destroying high costing ships while risking nothing at all. They come for the kill mails and make no effort to distinguish between bots or actual human at the keyboard.
And you wake up every morning because you are a pedophile.
Are we done speaking for other people yet or do I need to tell you more about yourself?
Now to the OP.
Sure, you can make mining sentry drones that replace the need for barges. Just make sure you add scouting drones to the game. Because I don't like the risk of scanning. And add cyno drones, as I don't like the risk of opening a cyno. And gas mining drones. And Ice. Because it wont hurt now that orcas can mine 700 cubic meters a minute completely AFK with 250k EHP. We now return you to your regularly scheduled **** poast. |
Antisocial Malkavian
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
68
|
Posted - 2012.05.08 09:55:00 -
[17] - Quote
stoicfaux wrote:After digesting the myriad threads bouncing between "protect lazy miners!" and "easy suicide ganking is a fundamental right!" I have the solution: Mining Drones. Specifically, Heavy Mining Drones and Sentry Mining Drones.
If we assume a similar scale in base firepower between combat drones and mining drones, then that gives us: * 5x Heavy Mining Drones: ~998 m3 of ore per minute * 5x Sentry Mining Drones: ~1040 m3 of ore per minute * plus whatever Miner IIs you can fit versus * Hulk with 3x strip miners, 2xMLUs and t2 crystals: 1547 m3 of ore per minute
How is this a solution? Simple, it allows: * miners to mine in battleships * gankers to smartbomb the miners' expensive mining drones (drones have even less tanking options than Hulks.) thus * keeping miner ship loss costs down (just the drones are lost) * reducing the amount of minerals coming into the game, thus making minerals more expensive and mining more profitable * requiring human miners be at the keyboard due to the smaller cargoholds of battleships filling up more often * making miner bots super-hard to detect, thus eliminating the need for CCP to investigate mining bots (because, let's face it, investigating claims of botting is even more booooooooooooooooooooring than mining.) * depressing mineral values since bots are now much harder to detect and thus can run 23x7. * increases the LOL factor as a bot miner sits there for the rest of the day with no drones after the drones were ganked * increases the LOL factor as bot miners are bumped out of range of their sentry mining drones. * increases the LOL factor as Heavy Mining Drones get caught up in the geometry and the mining bot warps away without recovering it
Disclaimer: This thread brought to you by the "Center to Consolidate Thread Topics" society.
Yes but it reduces the antisocial personality disorder need to cause harm to others so they may get sexual release. Im betting the gankers will say no. Not for THAT reason ofc
http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.2317/JKES0811.17.1 Bees That Drink Human Tears -- ITS SCIENCE!!! |
Antisocial Malkavian
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
68
|
Posted - 2012.05.08 10:02:00 -
[18] - Quote
Cipher Jones wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:I like the idea, but there is no kill mails for suicide ganking drones. So you will never get any real support due to that. Make no mistake. They do not suicide gank to deal with bots or any of that. It is all about destroying high costing ships while risking nothing at all. They come for the kill mails and make no effort to distinguish between bots or actual human at the keyboard. And you wake up every morning because you are a pedophile. Are we done speaking for other people yet or do I need to tell you more about yourself? Now to the OP. Sure, you can make mining sentry drones that replace the need for barges. Just make sure you add scouting drones to the game. Because I don't like the risk of scanning. And add cyno drones, as I don't like the risk of opening a cyno. And gas mining drones. And Ice. Because it wont hurt now that orcas can mine 700 cubic meters a minute completely AFK with 250k EHP.
Yeah its SUUUUCH a slippery slope. We could add combat drones cause you wouldnt wanna do combat anymore after that and EWAR drones and...
Oh wait we HAVE those?!
http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.2317/JKES0811.17.1 Bees That Drink Human Tears -- ITS SCIENCE!!! |
Radoico
The Children of New Eden The Periphery
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.08 15:25:00 -
[19] - Quote
Well, it seems a good idea... I will go for it it (must improve some skills). Let's see what happen.
|
Aqriue
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
642
|
Posted - 2012.05.08 15:30:00 -
[20] - Quote
Get rid of everything related to the mining profession, seed minerals once again with trit starting at 1000 isk (oh yeah, its going to be expensive losses for everyone!)
Problem solved, no source for ganking means miners cannot be ganked (as they do not exist). Simple, well though logic to fix the problem. |
|
Five Thirty
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
67
|
Posted - 2012.05.08 15:36:00 -
[21] - Quote
Darth Gustav wrote:Which miners will then fit for max yield and simultaneously complain about the excessive ease of ganking it. Some things will never change...
Even fit for max yield, it won't be terribly cost effective to gank it. Figuring you stuff the lows with cargohold expanders, you can still fit a large tank in the midslots, especially for natural shield tanking battleships. Even untanked, you're looking at at least 1.5 tornados to gank a battleship that only costs a bit more than the ganking ships.
At least it will force gankers to spend some money instead of getting off in cheap destroyers. |
Eric Konway
Silverwing Explorers Unfamiliar Presence
6
|
Posted - 2012.05.08 17:58:00 -
[22] - Quote
Antisocial Malkavian wrote:
[quote=Eric Konway]The proud and noble battleship, reduced to a common mining boat... that's a depressing thought....
Well.... theyre currently mothballed and completely unused IRL lol
It makes sense to start using combat ships in a noncombat role when the need is dire. [quote=Antisocial Malkavian]
True. But once we figure out EM Propulsion weapons and refit them with Nuclear reactors, they'll be kings of the water again, Baby! |
stoicfaux
1033
|
Posted - 2012.05.08 18:22:00 -
[23] - Quote
Cipher Jones wrote: Sure, you can make mining sentry drones that replace the need for barges. Just make sure you add scouting drones to the game. Because I don't like the risk of scanning. And add cyno drones, as I don't like the risk of opening a cyno. And gas mining drones. And Ice. Because it wont hurt now that orcas can mine 700 cubic meters a minute completely AFK with 250k EHP.
Three Words: Learning Implant Drones.
You can tell me what is and isn't Truth when you pry the tinfoil from my cold, lifeless head.
|
RubyPorto
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
1479
|
Posted - 2012.05.08 18:30:00 -
[24] - Quote
Antisocial Malkavian wrote: Battleship only mining drone class? There are no mods in gave that are only one class of ship?
Sloppy. Balance them with an eye for the fact that Carriers (the "I specialize in having ALL-THE-DRONES boat) should be able to use all the drones. Single-Shard, Player Driven-áSandbox.
5 words. That's what makes it special. |
stoicfaux
1035
|
Posted - 2012.05.08 20:28:00 -
[25] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Antisocial Malkavian wrote: Battleship only mining drone class? There are no mods in gave that are only one class of ship?
Sloppy. Balance them with an eye for the fact that Carriers (the "I specialize in having ALL-THE-DRONES boat) should be able to use all the drones. Balancing might not be needed.
Mining bonuses don't affect drones. With a Rorqual's foreman links, the Hulk's m3 per minute goes up to ~2,100 (plus any medium mining drones.) By comparison a hypothetical Archon with 15 Heavy/Sentry Mining Drones would pull in ~3,000 m3/min. Given the cost difference, tactical considerations, etc., carrier mining may be balanced.
You can tell me what is and isn't Truth when you pry the tinfoil from my cold, lifeless head.
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
630
|
Posted - 2012.05.08 20:30:00 -
[26] - Quote
stoicfaux wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Antisocial Malkavian wrote: Battleship only mining drone class? There are no mods in gave that are only one class of ship?
Sloppy. Balance them with an eye for the fact that Carriers (the "I specialize in having ALL-THE-DRONES boat) should be able to use all the drones. Balancing might not be needed. Mining bonuses don't affect drones. With a Rorqual's foreman links, the Hulk's m3 per minute goes up to ~2,100 (plus any medium mining drones.) By comparison a hypothetical Archon with 15 Heavy/Sentry Mining Drones would pull in ~3,000 m3/min. Given the cost difference, tactical considerations, etc., carrier mining may be balanced. I heard that CCP said no higher mining yield than a hulk. Is that actually true or not? Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd |
Lady Spank
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
2201
|
Posted - 2012.05.08 20:34:00 -
[27] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:I like the idea, but there is no kill mails for suicide ganking drones. So you will never get any real support due to that. Make no mistake. They do not suicide gank to deal with bots or any of that. It is all about destroying high costing ships while risking nothing at all. They come for the kill mails and make no effort to distinguish between bots or actual human at the keyboard. LOL No Risk? They lose their ship every time they gank something. You sound like a moron. Suicide ganking is very dangerous and every time you even try it you lose something even if you are successful or not. (a¦á_a¦â) ~ http://getoutnastyface.blogspot.com/ ~ (a¦á_a¦â) |
AureoBroker
Natural Inventions
37
|
Posted - 2012.05.08 20:55:00 -
[28] - Quote
Lady Spank wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:I like the idea, but there is no kill mails for suicide ganking drones. So you will never get any real support due to that. Make no mistake. They do not suicide gank to deal with bots or any of that. It is all about destroying high costing ships while risking nothing at all. They come for the kill mails and make no effort to distinguish between bots or actual human at the keyboard. LOL No Risk? They lose their ship every time they gank something. You sound like a moron. Suicide ganking is very dangerous and every time you even try it you lose something even if you are successful or not. And this, good sirs, is why pvpers are more often than not hilariously bad at economics. When i build a ship, i'm not "risking" my minerals disappear. It's not an hard concept. I can understand defending the right to suicide gank as a balancing and sandboxy factor in EVE, but thinking that suicide ganking is an activity that could be classified under "PVP" is hilarious. |
Basher Razbaz
State War Academy Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2012.05.08 22:41:00 -
[29] - Quote
you guys care too much about this game |
Melodee619
The Scope Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2012.05.08 22:52:00 -
[30] - Quote
Without trying to start another flame war that these forums are so famous for, Why are miners demanding intervention on CCP's part. EVE is "meant" to be about personal responsibility. If a Miner is lazy/afk mining he deserves to be killed, its as simple as that.
if your paying attention you dont die.
1. DONT mine in hub system area's/high population. 2. ALWAYS watch local (yes, even in HS) If local spikes dock up. 3.make sure you ask the locals who the gankers are in the area (someone will know), add them to your list an -10 them. 4.Keep aligned an moving around a central point be it an empty can or whatever... this way there's a reasonable chance your facing a celestial/moon etc etc. 5. If someone warps into belt an then leaves, LEAVE!! 50% chance you were just bookmark'ed.
What I find sad is everyone here knows these rules an yet people still want intervention by CCP. it boggles my mind that every time miners start one of their crusades CCP holds their hand an panders to them. Take Jihad few years ago, direct result, Concord immunity, removal of timer in higher sec systems.
I've been a miner an I've been a killer, an both are equally as important in EVE. Stop demanding CCP play for you, an use your brains an you will never die in highsec min9ng. it's as easy as that. |
|
EvEa Deva
State War Academy Caldari State
30
|
Posted - 2012.05.08 22:54:00 -
[31] - Quote
A battleship cost 150 million now, a freaking drake is 56 million I would say the miners/indy people are winning this fight.
Its your sandbox to crap in BUT you have to smell it too.
On topic: sentry mining drones sounds cool to me |
Melodee619
The Scope Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2012.05.08 22:55:00 -
[32] - Quote
AureoBroker wrote:Lady Spank wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:I like the idea, but there is no kill mails for suicide ganking drones. So you will never get any real support due to that. Make no mistake. They do not suicide gank to deal with bots or any of that. It is all about destroying high costing ships while risking nothing at all. They come for the kill mails and make no effort to distinguish between bots or actual human at the keyboard. LOL No Risk? They lose their ship every time they gank something. You sound like a moron. Suicide ganking is very dangerous and every time you even try it you lose something even if you are successful or not. And this, good sirs, is why pvpers are more often than not hilariously bad at economics. When i build a ship, i'm not "risking" my minerals disappear. It's not an hard concept. I can understand defending the right to suicide gank as a balancing and sandboxy factor in EVE, but thinking that suicide ganking is an activity that could be classified under "PVP" is hilarious.
How is it not pvp mate ?. In EVE it's meant to be an open Universe yes?, as in life most things come with risk, why should miners be allowed to be completely safe?. There really is no such thing as ganking in EVE anyway its all part of the game, an designed that way as we all know. The onus is on you the player to avoid getting killed. |
Copine Callmeknau
Kangaroos With Frickin Lazerbeams Ninja Unicorns with Huge Horns
125
|
Posted - 2012.05.08 23:01:00 -
[33] - Quote
AureoBroker wrote:but thinking that suicide ganking is an activity that could be classified under "PVP" is hilarious. Oh? It must be classified as booster production then? Manufacturing? Invention?
No, it's PvP. Fuckin idiot There should be a rather awesome pic here |
Desert Ice78
Cobra Kai Dojo WHY so Seri0Us
101
|
Posted - 2012.05.08 23:04:00 -
[34] - Quote
The whining about the rising cost of minerals and hence everything else has become well-nigh deafening in the past few days. Yet people still want the option of happly ganking miners when and where they please.
Well, no. You can't have it both ways. You all need to accept that either you continue to pay through the nose for everything, or else you let miners be miners and let them get on with their chosen profession.
That is all. I am a pod pilot: http://dl.eve-files.com/media/corp/DesertIce/POD.jpg
CCP Zulu: Came expecting a discussion about computer monitors, left confused. |
Melodee619
The Scope Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2012.05.08 23:08:00 -
[35] - Quote
Desert Ice78 wrote:The whining about the rising cost of minerals and hence everything else has become well-nigh deafening in the past few days. Yet people still want the option of happly ganking miners when and where they please.
Well, no. You can't have it both ways. You all need to accept that either you continue to pay through the nose for everything, or else you let miners be miners and let them get on with their chosen profession.
That is all.
So you want miners to be totally immune to EVE's central point of gameplay?...
I kill miners an yet I build ships, I am still making money so I dont see an issue. |
Copine Callmeknau
Kangaroos With Frickin Lazerbeams Ninja Unicorns with Huge Horns
125
|
Posted - 2012.05.08 23:09:00 -
[36] - Quote
Desert Ice78 wrote:The whining about the rising cost of minerals and hence everything else has become well-nigh deafening in the past few days. Yet people still want the option of happly ganking miners when and where they please.
Well, no. You can't have it both ways. You all need to accept that either you continue to pay through the nose for everything, or else you let miners be miners and let them get on with their chosen profession.
That is all. Nobody I know is bitching about high prices, but that's because we're all rich ass piratebears, and high prices just means more lulz when we blow up your expensive ship. There should be a rather awesome pic here |
Desert Ice78
Cobra Kai Dojo WHY so Seri0Us
101
|
Posted - 2012.05.08 23:12:00 -
[37] - Quote
Melodee619 wrote:Desert Ice78 wrote:The whining about the rising cost of minerals and hence everything else has become well-nigh deafening in the past few days. Yet people still want the option of happly ganking miners when and where they please.
Well, no. You can't have it both ways. You all need to accept that either you continue to pay through the nose for everything, or else you let miners be miners and let them get on with their chosen profession.
That is all. So you want miners to be totally immune to EVE's central point of gameplay?... I kill miners an yet I build ships, I am still making money so I dont see an issue.
You build ships? And do you build everything else in game also? I am a pod pilot: http://dl.eve-files.com/media/corp/DesertIce/POD.jpg
CCP Zulu: Came expecting a discussion about computer monitors, left confused. |
Desert Ice78
Cobra Kai Dojo WHY so Seri0Us
101
|
Posted - 2012.05.08 23:14:00 -
[38] - Quote
Copine Callmeknau wrote:Desert Ice78 wrote:The whining about the rising cost of minerals and hence everything else has become well-nigh deafening in the past few days. Yet people still want the option of happly ganking miners when and where they please.
Well, no. You can't have it both ways. You all need to accept that either you continue to pay through the nose for everything, or else you let miners be miners and let them get on with their chosen profession.
That is all. Nobody I know is bitching about high prices, but that's because we're all rich ass piratebears, and high prices just means more lulz when we blow up your expensive ship.
If you wanted to blow up my expensive ship, you would have to find yourself a way out of your (fail wana-be pvp) hi-sec bubble, and go so far into nul-sec that if you don't remember to pack sunlight, you'll shat yourself. I am a pod pilot: http://dl.eve-files.com/media/corp/DesertIce/POD.jpg
CCP Zulu: Came expecting a discussion about computer monitors, left confused. |
Melodee619
The Scope Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2012.05.08 23:15:00 -
[39] - Quote
Desert Ice78 wrote:Melodee619 wrote:Desert Ice78 wrote:The whining about the rising cost of minerals and hence everything else has become well-nigh deafening in the past few days. Yet people still want the option of happly ganking miners when and where they please.
Well, no. You can't have it both ways. You all need to accept that either you continue to pay through the nose for everything, or else you let miners be miners and let them get on with their chosen profession.
That is all. So you want miners to be totally immune to EVE's central point of gameplay?... I kill miners an yet I build ships, I am still making money so I dont see an issue. You build ships? And do you build everything else in game also?
No, but I dont get killed either because I pay attention. What you lot want, is freedom to afk play an never be at risk :)... Take responsibility for yourselves an stop demanding CCP play for you. |
Copine Callmeknau
Kangaroos With Frickin Lazerbeams Ninja Unicorns with Huge Horns
125
|
Posted - 2012.05.08 23:33:00 -
[40] - Quote
Desert Ice78 wrote:Copine Callmeknau wrote:Desert Ice78 wrote:The whining about the rising cost of minerals and hence everything else has become well-nigh deafening in the past few days. Yet people still want the option of happly ganking miners when and where they please.
Well, no. You can't have it both ways. You all need to accept that either you continue to pay through the nose for everything, or else you let miners be miners and let them get on with their chosen profession.
That is all. Nobody I know is bitching about high prices, but that's because we're all rich ass piratebears, and high prices just means more lulz when we blow up your expensive ship. If you wanted to blow up my expensive ship, you would have to find yourself a way out of your (fail wana-be pvp) hi-sec bubble, and go so far into nul-sec that if you don't remember to pack sunlight, you'll shat yourself. Oh yeh, great wildlands, cool story bro. You must be hardcore to live that 'far' into nullsec
I don't live in hisec btw, I live in placid :p There should be a rather awesome pic here |
|
Bootleg Jack
Potters Field
71
|
Posted - 2012.05.08 23:48:00 -
[41] - Quote
The root issue has nothing to do with mining or miners.
There is so much disposable wealth in the game that people can afford to lose dozens of ships.
The risk model is hosed, people who can afford to lose that many ships are not actually taking any risk.
So essentially you have a part of the population participating in zero risk PvP with another part of the population who are so broke they cannot replace the ship they are flying. |
Desert Ice78
Cobra Kai Dojo WHY so Seri0Us
101
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 00:00:00 -
[42] - Quote
Copine Callmeknau wrote:Oh yeh, great wildlands, cool story bro. You must be hardcore to live that 'far' into nullsec
You'll have to go just a little bit further than that.
Copine Callmeknau wrote:I see you however have under 100 kills and a 5.0 sec status, maybe you should give up on forum PvP and just go back to ratting you cute widdle carebear
And yet I have murdered countless asteroids. Its the topic at hand, remember. I am a pod pilot: http://dl.eve-files.com/media/corp/DesertIce/POD.jpg
CCP Zulu: Came expecting a discussion about computer monitors, left confused. |
Melodee619
The Scope Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 00:42:00 -
[43] - Quote
Bootleg Jack wrote:The root issue has nothing to do with mining or miners.
There is so much disposable wealth in the game that people can afford to lose dozens of ships.
The risk model is hosed, people who can afford to lose that many ships are not actually taking any risk.
So essentially you have a part of the population participating in zero risk PvP with another part of the population who are so broke they cannot replace the ship they are flying.
Hang on, why cant you the miner pay attention? why do you have to be able to afk mine?. You will NEVER die in EVE as a miner if you use your head an go find a nice quiet system to mine in.
This is 100% fact. Only reason you get killed is you mine in systems with 50 people in it, or your sitting 2 jumps out of Jita.... Stop being lazy an use your head. In 6 years I have died 5 times in Highsec, twice to Jihad 3 years ago when I lost 2 hulks, an rest to bad judgment on my part. |
Copine Callmeknau
Kangaroos With Frickin Lazerbeams Ninja Unicorns with Huge Horns
128
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 00:45:00 -
[44] - Quote
Desert Ice78 wrote:Copine Callmeknau wrote:Oh yeh, great wildlands, cool story bro. You must be hardcore to live that 'far' into nullsec You'll have to go just a little bit further than that. I'll just leave this here...
Quote:I found Desert Ice78 for you. From: xxxxxxxxxx Sent: 2012.05.08 23:31
I've found your sleazebag.
He is in the 1C-953 system, T-W4L3 constellation of the Great Wildlands region.
With regards, There should be a rather awesome pic here |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
633
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 00:48:00 -
[45] - Quote
Bootleg Jack wrote:The root issue has nothing to do with mining or miners.
There is so much disposable wealth in the game that people can afford to lose dozens of ships. Well if the miners can afford to replace their hulks, meh I guess their risk is actually only when they are on their last hulk wth no money to buy another one ...
I never thought of it that way. Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd |
Brooks Puuntai
Nomadic Asylum Alliance 99000802
541
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 01:14:00 -
[46] - Quote
Would think reducing the yield and increasing the defenses of barges/exhumers would be a better solution. Though expanding mining drones wouldn't be bad. I would think that Heavys would yield more then sentries though. Free-áKugutsumen from censorship and end the bitterness. |
MadMuppet
Kerguelen Station
309
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 02:30:00 -
[47] - Quote
It is all too soon. The changes in mission loot tables and the loss of drone poop need time to realistically change the market. After THAT then the ideas can come to the table. While many proclaim the improved UI functionality is great, you make cargo management tedious. So many little things are being lost that this is shaping up to be another 'Incarna with Door' event. If CCP is at all being honest that it is listening to its players, they will put this on hold until it is better or they will address the issues before May 22. |
Conrad Makbure
Phoibe Enterprises
7
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 02:38:00 -
[48] - Quote
I fully support buffing the hell out of mining drones and overhauling mining ships for role stats. here, here sir. |
Katalci
Creative Cookie Procuring Veto Corp
73
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 03:07:00 -
[49] - Quote
This is a terrible idea. It serves no purpose -- mining yield/tank are already very well balanced; it's just that miners are too stupid to fit their ships properly.
Brooks Puuntai wrote:Would think reducing the yield and increasing the defenses of barges/exhumers would be a better solution. You can already do this by, you know, fitting your ship differently.
Bootleg Jack wrote:The root issue has nothing to do with mining or miners.
There is so much disposable wealth in the game that people can afford to lose dozens of ships.
The risk model is hosed, people who can afford to lose that many ships are not actually taking any risk.
So essentially you have a part of the population participating in zero risk PvP with another part of the population who are so broke they cannot replace the ship they are flying. You misunderstand the "risk" part of it. It doesn't matter if the gankers have much risk, because the reward is very slim (in terms of in-game tangible value), maybe a strip miner or two that'll sell for a few million. (And they do have risk; it's just that the risk is 100% -- you lose your ship every time. What makes you convert 100% to 0%, I have no idea.) It's a very, very low ISK/hour activity, worse than actual mining on average. You also risk failing to gank and get any reward at all.
The risk needs to come to the miners, whose ONLY risk is ganking while they continuously profit. |
Achtung Waffle
Nex quod Principatus SRS.
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 04:40:00 -
[50] - Quote
Desert Ice78 wrote:The whining about the rising cost of minerals and hence everything else has become well-nigh deafening in the past few days. Yet people still want the option of happly ganking miners when and where they please.
Well, no. You can't have it both ways. You all need to accept that either you continue to pay through the nose for everything, or else you let miners be miners and let them get on with their chosen profession.
That is all.
This is an excellent point. Every Hulkageddon raises the prices of anything and just about everything player-made due to the higher mineral costs. I can see the appeal of it but really, one has to be realistic about the consequences. |
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
641
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 04:49:00 -
[51] - Quote
Achtung Waffle wrote:Desert Ice78 wrote:The whining about the rising cost of minerals and hence everything else has become well-nigh deafening in the past few days. Yet people still want the option of happly ganking miners when and where they please.
Well, no. You can't have it both ways. You all need to accept that either you continue to pay through the nose for everything, or else you let miners be miners and let them get on with their chosen profession.
That is all. This is an excellent point. Every Hulkageddon raises the prices of anything and just about everything player-made due to the higher mineral costs. I can see the appeal of it but really, one has to be realistic about the consequences. All the people with tons of accounts out here don't mind so much because their mining isk per hour goes up (even adjusting for maybe being ganked, of course).
Apparently some guy multiboxes 20 hulks... wow Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd |
Xython
Merch Industrial Goonswarm Federation
858
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 04:56:00 -
[52] - Quote
stoicfaux wrote:* miners to mine in battleships
But you already can mine in battleships.
|
Xython
Merch Industrial Goonswarm Federation
858
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 04:57:00 -
[53] - Quote
Achtung Waffle wrote:Desert Ice78 wrote:The whining about the rising cost of minerals and hence everything else has become well-nigh deafening in the past few days. Yet people still want the option of happly ganking miners when and where they please.
Well, no. You can't have it both ways. You all need to accept that either you continue to pay through the nose for everything, or else you let miners be miners and let them get on with their chosen profession.
That is all. This is an excellent point. Every Hulkageddon raises the prices of anything and just about everything player-made due to the higher mineral costs. I can see the appeal of it but really, one has to be realistic about the consequences.
You do realize that's a huge reason why a good number of us are doing this, right? Because driving up prices of everything is a good thing -- when you've stockpiled things to sell.
And hell, 70% of the price of every single Hulk is OTEC Technetium. So we have a distinct economic incentive to kill as many hulks as we can.
In short: Working as intended! :D |
Antisocial Malkavian
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
74
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 05:33:00 -
[54] - Quote
Lady Spank wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:I like the idea, but there is no kill mails for suicide ganking drones. So you will never get any real support due to that. Make no mistake. They do not suicide gank to deal with bots or any of that. It is all about destroying high costing ships while risking nothing at all. They come for the kill mails and make no effort to distinguish between bots or actual human at the keyboard. LOL No Risk? They lose their ship every time they gank something. You sound like a moron. Suicide ganking is very dangerous and every time you even try it you lose something even if you are successful or not.
risk =/= business expense.
If its a definite expenditure thats not a risk, thats an expense
you got one part of that right though
Lady Spank wrote: You sound like a moron.
pointed it at the wrong person tho... try a mirror http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.2317/JKES0811.17.1 Bees That Drink Human Tears -- ITS SCIENCE!!! |
RubyPorto
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
1483
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 05:36:00 -
[55] - Quote
Antisocial Malkavian wrote:Lady Spank wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:I like the idea, but there is no kill mails for suicide ganking drones. So you will never get any real support due to that. Make no mistake. They do not suicide gank to deal with bots or any of that. It is all about destroying high costing ships while risking nothing at all. They come for the kill mails and make no effort to distinguish between bots or actual human at the keyboard. LOL No Risk? They lose their ship every time they gank something. You sound like a moron. Suicide ganking is very dangerous and every time you even try it you lose something even if you are successful or not. risk =/= business expense. If its a definite expenditure thats not a risk, thats an expense you got one part of that right though Lady Spank wrote: You sound like a moron.
pointed it at the wrong person tho... try a mirror
The risk they face is the risk of a failed or unprofitable gank. Assuming they're running their ganking as a business. Single-Shard, Player Driven-áSandbox.
5 words. That's what makes it special. |
Helicity Boson
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
456
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 05:39:00 -
[56] - Quote
And here I thought, I HAD the solution to mining.
Some might say it was...final.
Ok, that's pushing it too far, and not funny. |
RubyPorto
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
1483
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 05:41:00 -
[57] - Quote
Helicity Boson wrote:And here I thought, I HAD the solution to mining. Some might say it was...final. Ok, that's pushing it too far, and not funny.
Well, what do people call Carebears in less ... moderated... circles than this one?
Fast Times at Godwin High, here we come. Single-Shard, Player Driven-áSandbox.
5 words. That's what makes it special. |
Helicity Boson
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
456
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 05:47:00 -
[58] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Helicity Boson wrote:And here I thought, I HAD the solution to mining. Some might say it was...final. Ok, that's pushing it too far, and not funny. Well, what do people call Carebears in less ... moderated... circles than this one? Fast Times at Godwin High, here we come.
They pretty much call them carebears. Sometimes they add some colourful expletive as an adjective.
I don't think any intelligent players actually dislike carebears, they dislike whiny, lazy and uneducated ones. i.e. the ones who actually manage to die to hulkageddon or burn jita despite the massive effort that goes into publicizing the event.
No industrialist or miner of good quality and with a sharp mind should dislike these things; rather they benefit from them in a variety of (highly profitable) ways. |
RubyPorto
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
1483
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 05:52:00 -
[59] - Quote
Helicity Boson wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Helicity Boson wrote:And here I thought, I HAD the solution to mining. Some might say it was...final. Ok, that's pushing it too far, and not funny. Well, what do people call Carebears in less ... moderated... circles than this one? Fast Times at Godwin High, here we come. They pretty much call them carebears. Sometimes they add some colourful expletive as an adjective. I don't think any intelligent players actually dislike carebears, they dislike whiny, lazy and uneducated ones. i.e. the ones who actually manage to die to hulkageddon or burn jita despite the massive effort that goes into publicizing the event. No industrialist or miner of good quality and with a sharp mind should dislike these things; rather they benefit from them in a variety of (highly profitable) ways.
Maybe I come from the more colorful end of Null. Oh well.
As to the rest, 100% agreed.
I know plenty of die hard carebears who I am proud to call friends, plenty more who I respect, and then there are the carebears active on the forums who are mostly the whiny/lazy/uneducated ones you mention. Single-Shard, Player Driven-áSandbox.
5 words. That's what makes it special. |
AureoBroker
Natural Inventions
37
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 09:40:00 -
[60] - Quote
While i hold no hope about honorable engagements and such (it's part of the EVE beauty having the lack of those), it's SUPPLY DISRUPTION, which would be qualified under "market" and not under "pvp". You're engaging in an activity which is VERY akin to ratting. People won't shoot back in any form. Won't react. The outcome of the activity is expected with less than 1% of variance. Now, excuse me for that, but i thought pvp was about surviving AND killing. The simple fact that you're interacting with another player does not make it PVP, unless any market activity (be it on the supply or demand side) is considered pvp. |
|
Andrea Roche
State War Academy Caldari State
74
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 09:56:00 -
[61] - Quote
ROFL. so the solution is not to use barges at all. So when hulkageddon is finished and since suicide on hulk is still gonna go on after, one should only mine from now on on a battleship? You do get it that this renders the barges useless unless you are safe in 0.0 (which is safer than high sec)! Why dont you ask CCP to remove mining barges from the game then? This is fundamentally wrong when every ship class besides th barges have received a recent buff. I am not a miner but i see that this is the wrong way to go around it. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
3715
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 09:59:00 -
[62] - Quote
Andrea Roche wrote:ROFL. so the solution is not to use barges at all. So when hulkageddon is finished and since suicide on hulk is still gonna go on, one should only mine from now on on a battleship? You do get it that this renders the barges useless unless you are safe in 0.0 (which is safer than high sec)! Why dont you ask CCP to remove mining barges from the game then? This is fundamentally wrong when every ship class besides th barges have received a recent buff. I am not a miner but i see that this is the wrong way to go around it.
Do you live in hi-sec or 0.0? Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Andrea Roche
State War Academy Caldari State
74
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 10:01:00 -
[63] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Andrea Roche wrote:ROFL. so the solution is not to use barges at all. So when hulkageddon is finished and since suicide on hulk is still gonna go on, one should only mine from now on on a battleship? You do get it that this renders the barges useless unless you are safe in 0.0 (which is safer than high sec)! Why dont you ask CCP to remove mining barges from the game then? This is fundamentally wrong when every ship class besides th barges have received a recent buff. I am not a miner but i see that this is the wrong way to go around it. Do you live in hi-sec or 0.0?
i live in a momment in a wh but i do venture into all parts as you can imagine. |
Brooks Puuntai
Nomadic Asylum Alliance 99000802
547
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 10:03:00 -
[64] - Quote
Andrea Roche wrote: Why dont you ask CCP to remove mining barges from the game then?
I wouldn't mind them doing this. So long as they replace them with a T3 version that allows customization based off of need.
Free-áKugutsumen from censorship and end the bitterness. |
Killer Gandry
V I R I I Ineluctable.
414
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 10:07:00 -
[65] - Quote
Lady Spank wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:I like the idea, but there is no kill mails for suicide ganking drones. So you will never get any real support due to that. Make no mistake. They do not suicide gank to deal with bots or any of that. It is all about destroying high costing ships while risking nothing at all. They come for the kill mails and make no effort to distinguish between bots or actual human at the keyboard. LOL No Risk? They lose their ship every time they gank something. You sound like a moron. Suicide ganking is very dangerous and every time you even try it you lose something even if you are successful or not.
Risk is when you have the chance of getting away with something. As soon as you know the outcome and the following loss before the action even took place it isn't a risk but a calculated loss.
Learn what risk is before slapping it on everything.
|
Andrea Roche
State War Academy Caldari State
74
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 10:12:00 -
[66] - Quote
Killer Gandry wrote:Lady Spank wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:I like the idea, but there is no kill mails for suicide ganking drones. So you will never get any real support due to that. Make no mistake. They do not suicide gank to deal with bots or any of that. It is all about destroying high costing ships while risking nothing at all. They come for the kill mails and make no effort to distinguish between bots or actual human at the keyboard. LOL No Risk? They lose their ship every time they gank something. You sound like a moron. Suicide ganking is very dangerous and every time you even try it you lose something even if you are successful or not. Risk is when you have the chance of getting away with something. As soon as you know the outcome and the following loss before the action even took place it isn't a risk but a calculated loss. Learn what risk is before slapping it on everything.
good point. The outcome is predetermined already. |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4163
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 10:14:00 -
[67] - Quote
yes they should make concord chance-based so that there's "risk" by worthless pubbie standards "WeGÇÖre a professional Merc Alliance, like PL" ~ snot shot, 2012 |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4163
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 10:17:00 -
[68] - Quote
Andrea Roche wrote:unless you are safe in 0.0 (which is safer than high sec)!
is the "safety" in hisec the end result of gameplay or instakill scripts
that's a trick question "WeGÇÖre a professional Merc Alliance, like PL" ~ snot shot, 2012 |
AureoBroker
Natural Inventions
37
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 12:32:00 -
[69] - Quote
Andski wrote:yes they should make concord chance-based so that there's "risk" by worthless pubbie standards CONCORD can be sweeped up (or annulled) when the system makes more sense. That means: Hulks being tough enough to need a proper assault, uncarriable by two-weeks alts. Sec status lowerings are NOT reverseable in any way or shape, and especially not by ratting. Criminal status means no market/contract access, and no hisec docking. Then concord can be abolished. |
Tobiaz
Spacerats
377
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 12:47:00 -
[70] - Quote
Andrea Roche wrote:Killer Gandry wrote:Lady Spank wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:I like the idea, but there is no kill mails for suicide ganking drones. So you will never get any real support due to that. Make no mistake. They do not suicide gank to deal with bots or any of that. It is all about destroying high costing ships while risking nothing at all. They come for the kill mails and make no effort to distinguish between bots or actual human at the keyboard. LOL No Risk? They lose their ship every time they gank something. You sound like a moron. Suicide ganking is very dangerous and every time you even try it you lose something even if you are successful or not. Risk is when you have the chance of getting away with something. As soon as you know the outcome and the following loss before the action even took place it isn't a risk but a calculated loss. Learn what risk is before slapping it on everything. good point. The outcome is predetermined already.
The value of the dropped modules is not predetermined. The risk in ganking is in the uncertainty to make a profit and if it's worth enough to validate spending time repairing your sec standing.
Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!-á Check out the list at http://bit.ly/wdatt Collecting and compiling all fixes and ideas for EVE. Looking for more editors! |
|
Killer Gandry
V I R I I Ineluctable.
417
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 13:45:00 -
[71] - Quote
Tobiaz wrote: The value of the dropped modules is not predetermined. The risk in ganking is in the uncertainty to make a profit and if it's worth enough to validate spending time repairing your sec standing.
And you want to tell me with a straight face that the majority of the hulk gankers looks at making profit from the ganks. You really have to try better.
|
Tanya Powers
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1199
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 14:43:00 -
[72] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:I like the idea, but there is no kill mails for suicide ganking drones. So you will never get any real support due to that. Make no mistake. They do not suicide gank to deal with bots or any of that. It is all about destroying high costing ships while risking nothing at all. They come for the kill mails and make no effort to distinguish between bots or actual human at the keyboard. Not that there's anything wrong with that, of course.
Of course I agree with Malcanis, if people want easy kill mails they can always fly in groups and go there where pvp happens.
Unless of course those "gankers" are there only for griefing easy preys
|
Zyress
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
65
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 15:12:00 -
[73] - Quote
Seems like it would be more appropriate to change Mining Barges to allow battleship size tanks, if it decreases their capacity a little thats ok, but a mining barge should be a mining barge and a battleship should be a battleship, more diversity, not less. |
Andrea Roche
State War Academy Caldari State
76
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 16:20:00 -
[74] - Quote
Tobiaz wrote:Andrea Roche wrote:Killer Gandry wrote:Lady Spank wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:I like the idea, but there is no kill mails for suicide ganking drones. So you will never get any real support due to that. Make no mistake. They do not suicide gank to deal with bots or any of that. It is all about destroying high costing ships while risking nothing at all. They come for the kill mails and make no effort to distinguish between bots or actual human at the keyboard. LOL No Risk? They lose their ship every time they gank something. You sound like a moron. Suicide ganking is very dangerous and every time you even try it you lose something even if you are successful or not. Risk is when you have the chance of getting away with something. As soon as you know the outcome and the following loss before the action even took place it isn't a risk but a calculated loss. Learn what risk is before slapping it on everything. good point. The outcome is predetermined already. The value of the dropped modules is not predetermined. The risk in ganking is in the uncertainty to make a profit and if it's worth enough to validate spending time repairing your sec standing.
we are talking about ganking a hulk. This very rarelly will drop things of much value. Therefore we are not talking about ganking a hulk for profit based on the loot it drops but more cos of a general vandetta. |
Andrea Roche
State War Academy Caldari State
76
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 16:30:00 -
[75] - Quote
Zyress wrote:Seems like it would be more appropriate to change Mining Barges to allow battleship size tanks, if it decreases their capacity a little thats ok, but a mining barge should be a mining barge and a battleship should be a battleship, more diversity, not less.
this is very true. May i point out also that during the many years all the other ship classes got buffs (including new recent buffs) and barges havent had any since they came out first time. Barges are one if not the only class of ships that has had no buffs since they came out. One should NOT have to get into a Battleship to do mining specially in high sec. This is ridiculous. hy have mining barges after all?
I dont dispute that one should not be safe in high sec BUT i do dispute that the price loss of 6m for a destroyer vs a hulk is just nuts.
Buff mining barges shields or reduce its price significantly. |
RubyPorto
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
1484
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 20:02:00 -
[76] - Quote
Andrea Roche wrote:Zyress wrote:Seems like it would be more appropriate to change Mining Barges to allow battleship size tanks, if it decreases their capacity a little thats ok, but a mining barge should be a mining barge and a battleship should be a battleship, more diversity, not less. this is very true. May i point out also that during the many years all the other ship classes got buffs (including new recent buffs) and barges havent had any since they came out first time. Barges are one if not the only class of ships that has had no buffs since they came out.One should NOT have to get into a Battleship to do mining specially in high sec. This is ridiculous. Why have mining barges after all? I dont dispute that one should not be safe in high sec BUT i do dispute that the price loss of 6m for a destroyer vs a hulk is just nuts. Buff mining barges shields or reduce its price significantly.
T2 Gang Links buffed the Hulk.
You don't need to be in a battleship to mine in HS. Mining barges are maximum yield at the expense of everything else, so if you want a tanky mining ship, you get a battleship. But any of the mining barges can tank the HS rats.
If someone else's playstyle is messing with yours, that's how a multiplayer sandbox works, and you can choose to figure out how to weather the storm, how to fight back, or how to join the fun. Single-Shard, Player Driven-áSandbox.
5 words. That's what makes it special. |
Katalci
Creative Cookie Procuring Veto Corp
76
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 23:59:00 -
[77] - Quote
AureoBroker wrote:While i hold no hope about honorable engagements and such (it's part of the EVE beauty having the lack of those), it's SUPPLY DISRUPTION, which would be qualified under "market" and not under "pvp". You're engaging in an activity which is VERY akin to ratting. People won't shoot back in any form. Won't react. The outcome of the activity is expected with less than 1% of variance. Now, excuse me for that, but i thought pvp was about surviving AND killing. The simple fact that you're interacting with another player does not make it PVP, unless any market activity (be it on the supply or demand side) is considered pvp. "Killing miners isn't pvp because they're so stupid that they're effectively NPCs." Did you think before you wrote this horrific post?
Brooks Puuntai wrote:Andrea Roche wrote: Why dont you ask CCP to remove mining barges from the game then?
I wouldn't mind them doing this. So long as they replace them with a T3 version that allows customization based off of need. How mind-bogglingly stupid do you have to be to think that something has to have subsystems for it to be customizable? |
Digital Messiah
Midnight Elites Echelon Rising
211
|
Posted - 2012.05.10 00:20:00 -
[78] - Quote
If they just got rid of mining lasers all together and made it all drone based that would be preferable. Keep the same values and bonuses change the slot layout and mining is than perfectly fine. I hate when people try to argue about a feature but won't admit it's pros and cons. Increasing the ease or difficulty of ganking hulks isn't the problem. The problem is more so the popularity of doing it. And when it starts costing more to gank I assume people will do it less. But that is also why hulkageddon is not year round . "Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn"
|
RubyPorto
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
1485
|
Posted - 2012.05.10 00:53:00 -
[79] - Quote
Digital Messiah wrote:If they just got rid of mining lasers all together and made it all drone based that would be preferable. Keep the same values and bonuses change the slot layout and mining is than perfectly fine. I hate when people try to argue about a feature but won't admit it's pros and cons. Increasing the ease or difficulty of ganking hulks isn't the problem. The problem is more so the popularity of doing it. And when it starts costing more to gank I assume people will do it less. But that is also why hulkageddon is not year round .
HAG was a weeklong event supported by donations.
Now it's a monthlong event supported by the CFC. They're paying 10m bounties on every hulk or mack killed. (in a 10kills 100m package)
Given that OTEC makes around 200m ISK in tech sales per hulk destroyed, I would guess that the GSF finance team is considering making HAG a year-round thing.
So, good luck with your economic analysis given your lack of looking at the bigger picture. Single-Shard, Player Driven-áSandbox.
5 words. That's what makes it special. |
Andrea Roche
State War Academy Caldari State
76
|
Posted - 2012.05.10 08:32:00 -
[80] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Andrea Roche wrote:Zyress wrote:Seems like it would be more appropriate to change Mining Barges to allow battleship size tanks, if it decreases their capacity a little thats ok, but a mining barge should be a mining barge and a battleship should be a battleship, more diversity, not less. this is very true. May i point out also that during the many years all the other ship classes got buffs (including new recent buffs) and barges havent had any since they came out first time. Barges are one if not the only class of ships that has had no buffs since they came out.One should NOT have to get into a Battleship to do mining specially in high sec. This is ridiculous. Why have mining barges after all? I dont dispute that one should not be safe in high sec BUT i do dispute that the price loss of 6m for a destroyer vs a hulk is just nuts. Buff mining barges shields or reduce its price significantly. T2 Gang Links buffed the Hulk. You don't need to be in a battleship to mine in HS. Mining barges are maximum yield at the expense of everything else, so if you want a tanky mining ship, you get a battleship. But any of the mining barges can tank the HS rats. If someone else's playstyle is messing with yours, that's how a multiplayer sandbox works, and you can choose to figure out how to weather the storm, how to fight back, or how to join the fun.
well while you can tank rats easelly, you cant tank 2 destroyers. This is a vulnerability thats new due to the buff of destroyers. Since destroyers now are way too strong, i move for a buff to hulks. Its too easy to blow up a hulk. Mind you, i am not a minr by any means but i see this been wrong in the game. This needs fixing. If you think that this is gonna be over by the time hulkaggedon is finished then you are very wrong. While I am ok and i like eve been hard, this is ridiculously op and its no different from a titan tracking a frigate, that also needs fixing. |
|
Helicity Boson
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
460
|
Posted - 2012.05.10 09:25:00 -
[81] - Quote
Andrea Roche wrote: a titan tracking a frigate, that also needs fixing.
|
RubyPorto
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
1486
|
Posted - 2012.05.10 09:27:00 -
[82] - Quote
Andrea Roche wrote:
well while you can tank rats easelly, you cant tank 2 destroyers. This is a vulnerability thats new due to the buff of destroyers. Since destroyers now are way too strong, i move for a buff to hulks. Its too easy to blow up a hulk. Mind you, i am not a minr by any means but i see this been wrong in the game. This needs fixing. If you think that this is gonna be over by the time hulkaggedon is finished then you are very wrong. While I am ok and i like eve been hard, this is ridiculously op and its no different from a titan tracking a frigate, that also needs fixing.
1) Ever seen a Dev say that the Hulks were designed to be competent PvP ships? Neither have I.
2) 2 Destroyers have always been able to kill a hulk. The reason people used bigger ships was that you only needed one and it cost the same.
2a) Destroyers are now useful, not overpowered. The fact that they happen to excel at activities that seem to be right up a glass cannon's alley is fine by me. But the buff wasn't about suicide ganks, it was about making the ship class more broadly viable.
3) Why should a mining ship, designed to give up everything (save enough tank for unsupported 0.0 ops) for maximum yield be able to tank anything?
4) Any ship engaged in PvP without the ability to fire back cannot win, and likely will die barring some intervention, so the idea of "tanking" an enemy ship is a misnomer.
5) Titans tracking is an issue with the overall mechanics of tracking in EvE. I don't really want to get into the specifics, but expect to see a lot of Supers with mids full of Target Painters in the near future. Single-Shard, Player Driven-áSandbox.
5 words. That's what makes it special. |
Antisocial Malkavian
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
78
|
Posted - 2012.05.10 14:59:00 -
[83] - Quote
AureoBroker wrote:Andski wrote:yes they should make concord chance-based so that there's "risk" by worthless pubbie standards CONCORD can be sweeped up (or annulled) when the system makes more sense. That means: Hulks being tough enough to need a proper assault, uncarriable by two-weeks alts. Sec status lowerings are NOT reverseable in any way or shape, and especially not by ratting. Criminal status means no market/contract access, and no hisec docking. Then concord can be abolished.
and gate/station guns kill pods
none of this BS driving anywhere you want in a pod http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.2317/JKES0811.17.1 Bees That Drink Human Tears -- ITS SCIENCE!!! |
AureoBroker
Natural Inventions
39
|
Posted - 2012.05.10 15:21:00 -
[84] - Quote
Katalci wrote:AureoBroker wrote:While i hold no hope about honorable engagements and such (it's part of the EVE beauty having the lack of those), it's SUPPLY DISRUPTION, which would be qualified under "market" and not under "pvp". You're engaging in an activity which is VERY akin to ratting. People won't shoot back in any form. Won't react. The outcome of the activity is expected with less than 1% of variance. Now, excuse me for that, but i thought pvp was about surviving AND killing. The simple fact that you're interacting with another player does not make it PVP, unless any market activity (be it on the supply or demand side) is considered pvp. "Killing miners isn't pvp because they're so stupid that they're effectively NPCs." Did you think before you wrote this horrific post? I'll return the question: did you? The activity is: Pick up ship. Warp to belt Shoot.
Sure, you can organize it better, with baits, orcas and wtz's: but mostly, is done as solo, wandering affairs.
It's not about miners being dumb. Both mining only onscreen and fitting tanks are net economic losses superior to the problem they would solve. The system is engineered this way.
And did you read the rest of the post, or you extrapolated something on the single purpose of whining about it? |
Andrea Roche
State War Academy Caldari State
76
|
Posted - 2012.05.10 15:48:00 -
[85] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Andrea Roche wrote:
well while you can tank rats easelly, you cant tank 2 destroyers. This is a vulnerability thats new due to the buff of destroyers. Since destroyers now are way too strong, i move for a buff to hulks. Its too easy to blow up a hulk. Mind you, i am not a minr by any means but i see this been wrong in the game. This needs fixing. If you think that this is gonna be over by the time hulkaggedon is finished then you are very wrong. While I am ok and i like eve been hard, this is ridiculously op and its no different from a titan tracking a frigate, that also needs fixing.
2) 2 Destroyers have always been able to kill a hulk. The reason people used bigger ships was that you only needed one and it cost the same.
this is incorect. A bigger ship like a BC cos a heck of alot more specially when you add fittings. you are talking of a difference from 6m to 40m and thats without fittings. Big difference. The loss versus the loss of a hulk is much higher. I woulds care much to loss to BC but to destroyers worth 6m.....come on....you are pushing it. Its too easy and too abusive. You can train a destoryer in 2 week but to train to a BC takes almost a 2 month. Thats with gunnery/missiles skills for both.
Before with BC it was more expnsive so not many did it. Now thats dirt cheap everyone can afford it. Its too easy my friend, too easy. |
Zyress
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
69
|
Posted - 2012.05.10 15:52:00 -
[86] - Quote
If any ******* in a 500,000 isk hull can gank your 200 million isk hulk which cannot be fully insured, then the risk vs reward is just out of whack for the miner. I'm all for reasonable risk but this is excessive and cannot be sustained. |
Katalci
Creative Cookie Procuring Veto Corp
76
|
Posted - 2012.05.10 16:03:00 -
[87] - Quote
AureoBroker wrote:It's not about miners being dumb. Yes it is. |
RubyPorto
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
1487
|
Posted - 2012.05.10 18:06:00 -
[88] - Quote
Andrea Roche wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Andrea Roche wrote:
well while you can tank rats easelly, you cant tank 2 destroyers. This is a vulnerability thats new due to the buff of destroyers. Since destroyers now are way too strong, i move for a buff to hulks. Its too easy to blow up a hulk. Mind you, i am not a minr by any means but i see this been wrong in the game. This needs fixing. If you think that this is gonna be over by the time hulkaggedon is finished then you are very wrong. While I am ok and i like eve been hard, this is ridiculously op and its no different from a titan tracking a frigate, that also needs fixing.
2) 2 Destroyers have always been able to kill a hulk. The reason people used bigger ships was that you only needed one and it cost the same. this is incorect. A bigger ship like a BC cos a heck of alot more specially when you add fittings. you are talking of a difference from 6m to 40m and thats without fittings. Big difference. The loss versus the loss of a hulk is much higher. I would not care much to loss to BC but to destroyers worth 6m.....come on....you are pushing it. Its too easy and too abusive. You can train a destoryer in 2 week but to train to a BC takes almost a 2 month. Thats with gunnery/missiles skills for both. Before with BC it was more expensive so not many did it. Now thats dirt cheap everyone can afford it. Its too easy my friend, too easy.
Before the insurance nerf, it was about the same cost to use a Thorax or Brutix as it was to use a pair of Catalysts. Because of insurance and because you could use low meta equipment on the Thorax or Brutix instead of T2 on the pair of Catalysts.
A T1 fit suicide Brutix would run somewhere around 40m with an insurance payout of 35m A pair of T2 fit suicide Catalysts would run somewhere around 25m with an insurance payout of 2m.
Brutix costs 5m to use, Catalysts cost 23m to use. Good job knowing how ganking works, really, fantastic. Single-Shard, Player Driven-áSandbox.
5 words. That's what makes it special. |
Celebranna
Shadowforge War Industries
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.10 20:49:00 -
[89] - Quote
Why not just have CCP add Tech II ORE ships that give the option to tank heavier? |
Andrea Roche
State War Academy Caldari State
76
|
Posted - 2012.05.10 21:23:00 -
[90] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Andrea Roche wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Andrea Roche wrote:
well while you can tank rats easelly, you cant tank 2 destroyers. This is a vulnerability thats new due to the buff of destroyers. Since destroyers now are way too strong, i move for a buff to hulks. Its too easy to blow up a hulk. Mind you, i am not a minr by any means but i see this been wrong in the game. This needs fixing. If you think that this is gonna be over by the time hulkaggedon is finished then you are very wrong. While I am ok and i like eve been hard, this is ridiculously op and its no different from a titan tracking a frigate, that also needs fixing.
2) 2 Destroyers have always been able to kill a hulk. The reason people used bigger ships was that you only needed one and it cost the same. this is incorect. A bigger ship like a BC cos a heck of alot more specially when you add fittings. you are talking of a difference from 6m to 40m and thats without fittings. Big difference. The loss versus the loss of a hulk is much higher. I would not care much to loss to BC but to destroyers worth 6m.....come on....you are pushing it. Its too easy and too abusive. You can train a destoryer in 2 week but to train to a BC takes almost a 2 month. Thats with gunnery/missiles skills for both. Before with BC it was more expensive so not many did it. Now thats dirt cheap everyone can afford it. Its too easy my friend, too easy. Before the insurance nerf, it was about the same cost to use a Thorax or Brutix as it was to use a pair of Catalysts. Because of insurance and because you could use low meta equipment on the Thorax or Brutix instead of T2 on the pair of Catalysts. A T1 fit suicide Brutix would run somewhere around 40m with an insurance payout of 35m A pair of T2 fit suicide Catalysts would run somewhere around 25m with an insurance payout of 2m. Brutix costs 5m to use, Catalysts cost 23m to use. Good job knowing how ganking works, really, fantastic.
A thorax with low meta equipment would have a hard time killing a hulk before concord shows up. So this is incorrect i belive also but must check it.
A brutix with fiting probably yes will run you to around 40m amd would kill a hulk, do doubt.
But to tell me that you are spending 23m on a suicide destroyer is just BS. 15m is more than enough to gank a hulk. You dont need tank at all. So who are you trying to sell that story? That is at normal jita prices. Now if you build it all yourself, then its even cheaper. XD |
|
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3090
|
Posted - 2012.05.10 21:29:00 -
[91] - Quote
Andrea Roche wrote: A thorax with low meta equipment would have a hard time killing a hulk before concord shows up. So this is incorrect i belive also but must check it.
thousands of dead hulks say you're wrong
before the nerf it was brutix everything, except thorax hulks in .5-.6, or thorax macks |
Zyress
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
72
|
Posted - 2012.05.10 22:19:00 -
[92] - Quote
Celebranna wrote:Why not just have CCP add Tech II ORE ships that give the option to tank heavier?
Barges are Tech 2 ships, thats why you can't fully insure them |
Celebranna
Shadowforge War Industries
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.10 23:54:00 -
[93] - Quote
Zyress wrote:Celebranna wrote:Why not just have CCP add Tech II ORE ships that give the option to tank heavier? Barges are Tech 2 ships, thats why you can't fully insure them
Ok, then make a Tech 3 class for Mining that can tank better, with all the extra training and requirements needed for it. Either way it still makes someone "work" for the better ship.
|
RubyPorto
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
1488
|
Posted - 2012.05.11 00:12:00 -
[94] - Quote
Andrea Roche wrote:
A thorax with low meta equipment would have a hard time killing a hulk before concord shows up. So this is incorrect i belive also but must check it.
Weaselior wrote:Andrea Roche wrote: A thorax with low meta equipment would have a hard time killing a hulk before concord shows up. So this is incorrect i belive also but must check it.
thousands of dead hulks say you're wrong before the nerf it was brutix everything, except thorax hulks in .5-.6, or thorax macks
I trust the GSF representative. And a thorax might, but that's why I used a Brutix for price comparison.
Quote: A brutix with fiting probably yes will run you to around 40m amd would kill a hulk, do doubt.
But to tell me that you are spending 23m on a suicide destroyer is just BS. 15m is more than enough to gank a hulk. You dont need tank at all. So who are you trying to sell that story? That is at normal jita prices. Now if you build it all yourself, then its even cheaper. XD
Read it again. ~25m is for 2 Suicide Destroyers, T2 Fit. Looking at pyfa, I get 15.3m per Catalyst. So I was lowballing the price.
The Brutix, pre-insurance nerf would have been low meta fit and cost less than 10m to lose in a gank.
Again, the reason for the switch to Destroyers is the Insurance nerf no longer subsidizing larger ships. That's it. The dessy buff was a bonus, but the switch happened because of the insurance nerf that every single carebear was clamoring for and cheered when it happened.
Finally: MINERALS YOU MINE/STUFF YOU BUILD ISN'T FREE. Single-Shard, Player Driven-áSandbox.
5 words. That's what makes it special. |
RubyPorto
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
1488
|
Posted - 2012.05.11 00:23:00 -
[95] - Quote
Celebranna wrote:Zyress wrote:Celebranna wrote:Why not just have CCP add Tech II ORE ships that give the option to tank heavier? Barges are Tech 2 ships, thats why you can't fully insure them Ok, then make a Tech 3 class for Mining that can tank better, with all the extra training and requirements needed for it. Either way it still makes someone "work" for the better ship.
You're looking for the Rokh. Mines 1233.6 m3/min compared to the Hulk's 1506.6 m3/min.
In exchange for that small loss in efficiency, you get 48k EHP to the Hulk's 12k EHP.
If you drop another hundred m3/min (to 1132.8 m3/min), you can get 106k EHP.
If someone wants to gank 106k EHP, they're going to gank an Orca, not your T3 Mining Barge... err Rokh.
(By the Way, CCP has said that the Hulk is the highest yield mining ship, so any T3 mining ship is going to have reduced yield, ...like the Rokh) Single-Shard, Player Driven-áSandbox.
5 words. That's what makes it special. |
Celebranna
Shadowforge War Industries
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.11 00:29:00 -
[96] - Quote
I'm not looking for anything, I am just offering a suggestion. However I shouldn't have to turn to a battleship to do mining, you would think lorewise that ORE would see it as an opening for another type of ship for them to market. Also, I would expect a T3 ship that is tankier to have lower yield anyway. It just give better options, and options are a good thing. |
RubyPorto
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
1488
|
Posted - 2012.05.11 00:51:00 -
[97] - Quote
Celebranna wrote:I'm not looking for anything, I am just offering a suggestion. However I shouldn't have to turn to a battleship to do mining, you would think lorewise that ORE would see it as an opening for another type of ship for them to market. Also, I would expect a T3 ship that is tankier to have lower yield anyway. It just give better options, and options are a good thing.
You don't need a battleship to mine.
You were asking for a mining ship that tanks better, and I pointed out a ship that will do that.
A T3 with lower yield would be used about as often for mining as the Rokh is, so it would be a waste of dev time on a redundant and unused niche. Single-Shard, Player Driven-áSandbox.
5 words. That's what makes it special. |
Zyress
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
72
|
Posted - 2012.05.11 15:32:00 -
[98] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Celebranna wrote:Zyress wrote:Celebranna wrote:Why not just have CCP add Tech II ORE ships that give the option to tank heavier? Barges are Tech 2 ships, thats why you can't fully insure them Ok, then make a Tech 3 class for Mining that can tank better, with all the extra training and requirements needed for it. Either way it still makes someone "work" for the better ship. You're looking for the Rokh. Mines 1233.6 m3/min compared to the Hulk's 1506.6 m3/min. In exchange for that small loss in efficiency, you get 48k EHP to the Hulk's 12k EHP. If you drop another hundred m3/min (to 1132.8 m3/min), you can get 106k EHP. If someone wants to gank 106k EHP, they're going to gank an Orca, not your T3 Mining Barge... err Rokh. (By the Way, CCP has said that the Hulk is the highest yield mining ship, so any T3 mining ship is going to have reduced yield, ...like the Rokh)
If the solution to suicide ganking is use a Rohk instead of a Mining barge then every miner in the game should ask for their skill points back they spent skilling into barges instead of Batlleships. |
Darth Gustav
Sons Of 0din Fatal Ascension
681
|
Posted - 2012.05.11 17:49:00 -
[99] - Quote
Zyress wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Celebranna wrote:Zyress wrote:Celebranna wrote:Why not just have CCP add Tech II ORE ships that give the option to tank heavier? Barges are Tech 2 ships, thats why you can't fully insure them Ok, then make a Tech 3 class for Mining that can tank better, with all the extra training and requirements needed for it. Either way it still makes someone "work" for the better ship. You're looking for the Rokh. Mines 1233.6 m3/min compared to the Hulk's 1506.6 m3/min. In exchange for that small loss in efficiency, you get 48k EHP to the Hulk's 12k EHP. If you drop another hundred m3/min (to 1132.8 m3/min), you can get 106k EHP. If someone wants to gank 106k EHP, they're going to gank an Orca, not your T3 Mining Barge... err Rokh. (By the Way, CCP has said that the Hulk is the highest yield mining ship, so any T3 mining ship is going to have reduced yield, ...like the Rokh) If the solution to suicide ganking is use a Rohk instead of a Mining barge then every miner in the game should ask for their skill points back they spent skilling into barges instead of Batlleships. The solution to Frigates are Destroyers. That means everybody in a Frigate...
The solution to Battleships are Strategic Cruisers. That means everybody in a Battleship...
Your logic is so sound it reverberates throughout space-time like gravity waves around your mom's mumu. He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom |
RubyPorto
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
1488
|
Posted - 2012.05.11 19:30:00 -
[100] - Quote
Zyress wrote:
If the solution to suicide ganking is use a Rohk instead of a Mining barge then every miner in the game should ask for their skill points back they spent skilling into barges instead of Batlleships.
Ok, all of your barge SP in exchange for Cal Cruiser 4, Cal BS 1. Way to think through that deal.
Besides, the Rokh is just way to sacrifice yield for EHP, it isn't by itself a solution to anything. It does make you tankier than the next guy, so people are less likely to gank you (in favor of the guy next to you in a hulk).
Other solutions to avoid getting ganked: Mine aligned (yes it's a pain, PvP is like that even[especially] when you don't want it) Keep an eye on D-Scan Keep an eye on local Keep a Logi presence to discourage Destroyer ganks (alpha is more expensive than dps) Mine in Lowsec Mine in Nullsec
The list goes on. The problem that the whiney miners have is not the ship, it's not the gankers, it's the lack of any ability to adapt.
The gankers lost insurance payouts, they adapted and moved to destroyers. The miners see this adaption, so they cry and shit their pants. The gankers (and friends) offer the miners ways to make the ganker's lives harder. The miners hear this, so they cry and shit their pants.
Besides all that, FotM changes have never resulted in SP refunds, and that's what any large scale shift to BS mining would be. One ship becomes less useful and another more as a result of player actions. Single-Shard, Player Driven-áSandbox.
5 words. That's what makes it special. |
|
Darrow Hill
Vodka and Vice
54
|
Posted - 2012.05.11 20:21:00 -
[101] - Quote
I have not read the entire thread, so I apologize if this has already been covered.
Do the new drone modules that affect drone dps also increase drone mining yield? |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page] |