Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Mary Annabelle
State War Academy Caldari State
44
|
Posted - 2012.05.24 18:49:00 -
[31] - Quote
Hulks are weird that way, one of the few ships that can hold itself twice over repackaged.
It's like Mary Poppins bag when you assemble it, I guess. |
Dersen Lowery
Children of Armok Ushra'Khan
26
|
Posted - 2012.05.24 19:41:00 -
[32] - Quote
Callic Veratar wrote:mxzf wrote:02,531
There you go, I added a 0 to the Hulk's Hull HP. Are you happy now? You might want to read up on significant digits. That is not "added" as the current HP is 000...0002,531.000...000
Actually, the single leading zero means that it's octal, not decimal. 02531 would be 1,369 decimal.
So, actually, if you add a zero to the Hulk's hull points, it does become about as tough as an Ogre II. |
Jonuts
The Arrow Project CORE.
26
|
Posted - 2012.05.24 20:31:00 -
[33] - Quote
I fully support adding another digit to the structure of a hulk. Everyone is after carebear tears, but really, griefer tears are so much sweeter because they like to think they have none to shed :) |
Jayrendo Karr
Suns Of Korhal Terran Commonwealth
129
|
Posted - 2012.05.24 20:36:00 -
[34] - Quote
RR hulk drone/neut fleet? Sign me up! |
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
7439
|
Posted - 2012.05.24 20:44:00 -
[35] - Quote
Aqriue wrote:Tippia wrote: Because price is not a factor in balance, and because the exhumer is a resource collection vehicle, not a combat ship (and even then, the Hulk is already surprisingly strong for its size). To bad that RL money worth several months isn't taken into that account, because all you need a 21 day buddy trial and avoid the risk to your main. I still belive that all asteroid belts, reprocessing skills, and mining skills should be removed from game but if CCP won't do it just biomass your character as it works just as well. But funny that, I do recall this other vessel where price isn't taken into account...its just a pain to train, build, and fly. What was it called...oh yeah...a Titan. It was designed as a fleet buster and was ment to destroy every ship on grid until the whines of a million crybabies rose up out of the silence (even the Jedi felt that one). Funny that...XL guns did just that as well as an AoE DD until it was nerfed. Oh, and its funny....a hulk pilot needs to fit tank so it doesn't blow up but a dude in a subcap doesn't need to fly something with sufficent tank that a sub cap ship doesn't blow up. Which means...its not the fault of the guy blowing you up, both the fault of both the hulk pilot and the sub cap pilot by not adapting in a way that doesn't result in them exploding (one fits tank, other flys a cap ship instead of a sub cap)...so un nerf Titan guns. Titan's are not OP, you just suck and refuse to find a way to counter it without whining to CCP. But watch Tippia try to counter that logic...one needs to fit tank, other should fly anything but sub cap when facing a titan fleet. It is logical, fit tank on hulk or fly a bigger ship = you don't blow up to a destroyer or titan XL guns so easily. I'll have whatever you're smoking.
CCP Zulu..... Forcing players to dock at the captain's quarters is a form of what we actually wanted to get through, which is making Incarna a seamless part of the EVE Online experience. |
Jonuts
The Arrow Project CORE.
30
|
Posted - 2012.05.24 21:35:00 -
[36] - Quote
Come on guys! Admit it! You want to see an invincible hulk just to watch some guys cry because they couldn't 1-shot it! |
Aqriue
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
681
|
Posted - 2012.05.24 23:40:00 -
[37] - Quote
Trollin wrote:2,531 =/= 0.2531 Should of said that sooner, but the hulk so deserves that change. What a ******* pointless ship to fly, this would help reinforce the idea that 1) Nobody likes and Respect you and 2) Miners are not needed, as if gun mining and mission loot (pre-nerfing) could out produce you then in fact you chose the wrong profession (<-- good reason to return gun mining, all meta 0 loot, and pre-tyranis battleship pinata drops). **** yeah, hulks need that boost to have less then a fraction of a percent of a decimal for structure. |
Trollin
55
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 05:49:00 -
[38] - Quote
it would hardly be invincible, its a slight buffer
if anything got you into hull your probably dead anyways as active hull tanking is fail
60hp/24sec on the med hull rep II
def not something you would tank a belt spawn by running, even with a dcu II on . |
Eva Lawson
4
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 08:14:00 -
[39] - Quote
successfultroll.swf
Every time, OP. |
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy Tactical Narcotics Team
133
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 11:56:00 -
[40] - Quote
In my opinion all mining vessels deserve to be stronger - so that people can actually defend them in lowsec and nullsec... On the other hand empire rats should also be much stronger because they are not supposed to be safe.
10x structure is not a bad idea, however it's a little steep in my opinion... But certainly these ships will die if under attack anyway and a Tornado should be able to 1-volley even the T2 variant if they have a damage control but no other tank.
Pinky |
|
Tinu Moorhsum
Royal Scientific Research Enterprise
109
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 13:06:00 -
[41] - Quote
Quote:
The hulk costs 300 million because it's tech 2 and because it's THE BEST MINER IN THE GAME. You can get 75+% of the Hulk's yield with a Covetor and significantly reduce your risk of loss.
You can get 60-65% the yield with a mining Rokh. That will probably never be ganked.
Exactly the reason I never mine in a hulk even though I have three characters who can fly them......
CCP wants mining to be a major occupation again but they are completely oblivious to the fact that mining is the most risky occupation in the game and they are completely unwilling to provide us with mining ships better in terms of isk/hr (long term) than the covetor.
Miners need better ships..... Period. They are the foundation of the economy and deserve more than being "cannon fodder" to 1 or 2 destroyers.
really! sheeesh!
T-
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7349
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 13:18:00 -
[42] - Quote
Tinu Moorhsum wrote:Miners need better ships..... Period. They are the foundation of the economy and deserve more than being "cannon fodder" to 1 or 2 destroyers. Good news: they're already not cannon fodder for 1GÇô2 destroyers. One is simply not a threat, and two can be survived with a bit of luck and/or trickery. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Shift-click does nothing GÇö why the Unified Inventory isn't ready for primetime. |
Buzzy Warstl
The Strontium Asylum
162
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 13:57:00 -
[43] - Quote
sabre906 wrote:Buzzy Warstl wrote:The Hulk packages up so tight that you can fit a packaged one with all fittings and rigs into a GSC.
Not a whole lot of structure there, it is mostly empty space.
Just sayin'. An Ogre must be huge! Ogres are dense. A packaged Ogre is the *exact* same size as an unpackaged one.
A hulk increases in size by 2 orders of magnitude when unpackaged. There's a lot of thin members and joinery involved there that just isn't going to be as sturdy.
Of course, one could possibly use the same material to make a sturdier vessel, but that vessel would necessarily have less capability.
Given the packaged sizes of the exhumers, that means that the *Skiff* should have the highest structure of the lot, by about a factor of 2 over the Hulk. |
Jeniam Retriat
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
2
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 14:16:00 -
[44] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Tinu Moorhsum wrote:Miners need better ships..... Period. They are the foundation of the economy and deserve more than being "cannon fodder" to 1 or 2 destroyers. Good news: they're already not cannon fodder for 1GÇô2 destroyers. One is simply not a threat, and two can be survived with a bit of luck and/or trickery.
But 5 is a serious threat. I can't comment on the difficulty of getting 5 players together for a ganking op, as that's going to vary from player to player. I can comment on the difficulty of actually funding that though; it's 2-3 mil max for a ganking catalyst plus modules, so that's a 15 mil ISK investment on the part of the gankers. Assuming the very low target of 30 mil/hour income, easily achievable from L4 missions, that means it's 1 player spending 30 minutes to get the ISK to gank a hulk that represents 10+ hours investment by the owner. Better yet, even if it's just a T2 fit the Hulk is going to be carrying 20-30 million worth of modules and salvages to tech 2 components, so if you get a buddy in there to loot and salvage the wreck it can pay for itself easily.
That, right there, is the problem - suicide ganking should always be a possibility in EVE, I'm not asking for invincible mining barges, but it should require more than a trivial investment on the part of the gankers to destroy what is a major investment on the part of the hulk pilot.
Hypothetically, and I know this one's going to earn me some hatred, what would be your problem with ramping up the toughness on a Hulk so that a reasonably tanked one - and I want to emphasise this again, a Hulk that has been set up with defence in mind - requires the attentions of 2 Tornados to kill? That's a price tag for the gankers of about 150-170 mil, or 5-6 hours at our hypothetical 30mil/hour rate, but at the same time it's only half the investment the Hulk pilot made on his ship, and will have to make again if he wants to get another Hulk. The gankers can still gank, but if they want to do so and collect the tears from their victims they need to invest more to do it. Even so they still lose less than their victim though.
If you want to accuse me of asking for an exception to be made for Hulks, I've already posted a comparison with the other T2 Industrial ship class showing how much weaker exhumers are than their hauling brethren (which can be tanked to the point of taking those 2 ganknados to put down while still having useable cargo space). T1 ships, both combat and noncombat, also require a much higher proportionate investment from the ganker vs cost to the victim; Exhumers (and to a lesser extent T1 barges) are actually exceptions to the norm. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7357
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 14:53:00 -
[45] - Quote
Jeniam Retriat wrote:But 5 is a serious threat. Good.
Quote:I can comment on the difficulty of actually funding that though Too bad that cost isn't a balancing factor and that cheap ships killing much much more expensive ones with relative ease is rather part of the design.
Quote:what would be your problem with ramping up the toughness on a Hulk so that a reasonably tanked one - and I want to emphasise this again, a Hulk that has been set up with defence in mind - requires the attentions of 2 Tornados to kill? Because it's not particularly needed.
Also, if you absolutely have to use the economic argument, then it should be a hell of a lot easier to kill than that because otherwise it makes it impossible to gank for profit. Just using the numbers you mentioned: 30M worth of drops for a 150M expenditure in ships? Utterly unreasonable. They'd have to increase the cost of strip miners to 100M a pop for that to work. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Shift-click does nothing GÇö why the Unified Inventory isn't ready for primetime. |
Jeniam Retriat
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
4
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 15:24:00 -
[46] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Jeniam Retriat wrote:But 5 is a serious threat. Good.
Why?
Tippia wrote:Jeniam Retriat wrote:I can comment on the difficulty of actually funding that though Too bad that cost isn't a balancing factor and that cheap ships killing much much more expensive ones with relative ease is rather part of the design.
Give me one other example where cheap ships with a combined value of about 5% of their target can suicide gank a ship which has a reasonably defensive fit (obviously ignoring valuable cargo or faction/deadspace mods on the target raising the price)
Tippia wrote:Also, if you absolutely have to use the economic argument, then it should be a hell of a lot easier to kill than that because otherwise it makes it impossible to gank for profit. Just using the numbers you mentioned: 30M worth of drops for a 150M expenditure in ships? Utterly unreasonable. They'd have to increase the cost of strip miners to 100M a pop for that to work.
Exhumers are the ONLY ships in the game which can be ganked for profit when given a sensible fit. Any other ship that isn't given an extremely shiny deadspace/faction fit or carrying valuable cargo will require gankers to take an ISK loss if they want to kill it for tears. If they want a profit they have to look for the rare example of a ship that does have those shiny modules attached, and based on what I've seen on KBs these Hulks do exist. Why are you arguing that Exhumers should be the one exception to that rule?
Final point, it's now twice I've pointed out the huge difference between Exhumers and Transports when it comes to defence, and both times you've failed to respond. Any reason? |
Mary Annabelle
State War Academy Caldari State
47
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 15:35:00 -
[47] - Quote
Jeniam Retriat wrote:Exhumers are the ONLY ships in the game which can be ganked for profit when given a sensible fit. Any other ship that isn't given an extremely shiny deadspace/faction fit or carrying valuable cargo will require gankers to take an ISK loss if they want to kill it for tears. If they want a profit they have to look for the rare example of a ship that does have those shiny modules attached, and based on what I've seen on KBs these Hulks do exist. Why are you arguing that Exhumers should be the one exception to that rule?
Final point, it's now twice I've pointed out the huge difference between Exhumers and Transports when it comes to defence, and both times you've failed to respond. Any reason? A suicide gank should always represent a financial loss to the ganker. The name spells out the terms pretty clearly: suicide.
It should never be a valid business model, or profitable from salvageable loot.
If someone wants to pay you, then that is actually a hit contract, not a gank. It would be the dark side version of a bounty, and the ganker is then a hit-man. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7361
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 15:45:00 -
[48] - Quote
Jeniam Retriat wrote:Why? Because it's rather unreasonable that a single ship (one that isn't even a combat ship) should be able to stand up to a concerted attack from five actual combat ships, especially since we're just talking about small sub-caps here.
Quote:Give me one other example where cheap ships with a combined value of about 5% of their target can suicide gank a ship which has a reasonably defensive fit Still irrelevant. Cost is not a factor in balance. You're just arguing that more ships should be made far weaker than they are. Anyway, as it happens, quite a few T2 cruisers will fit into the mould you just described, as will some of the T2 transports.
Quote:Exhumers are the ONLY ships in the game which can be ganked for profit when given a sensible fit. No. Pretty much all ships can be ganked for profit, even when they have a sensible fit, especially once we move into T2 territory. There's a reason why they happen, you know. If you want to compare against ships that don't have valuable cargo or which don't use more expensive modules, then we should also compare that against an exhumer with only a single strip miner. A ship doing what it's good at can very often easily be ganked for profit GÇö exhumers do not represent some sort of exception to this rule.
Quote:Final point, it's now twice I've pointed out the huge difference between Exhumers and Transports when it comes to defence, and both times you've failed to respond. Any reason? Because what transports can do isn't relevant to what exhumers can do.
Also, you're comparing against a ship class which has as its intended purpose to be tanky as hell and to survive ganks by relying on that tank (and guess what: they still die). Did you read the description? GÇ£Possessing defensive capabilities far in excess of standard industrial shipsGÇ¥. Yes, the hulk is described as being GÇ£far more resilientGÇ¥, and guess what? It is. It can take the same amount of beating as some T2 combat cruisers. But you're still comparing a ship type that's just meant to be a bit stronger with one that's meant to be a brick. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Shift-click does nothing GÇö why the Unified Inventory isn't ready for primetime. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7361
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 15:47:00 -
[49] - Quote
Mary Annabelle wrote:A suicide gank should always represent a financial loss to the ganker. The name spells out the terms pretty clearly: suicide. Non sequitur. GÇ£SuicideGÇ¥ Gëá GÇ£non-profitGÇ¥. It just means you die in the process, and guess what? You do!
Quote:It should never be a valid business model, or profitable from salvageable loot. Of course it should be. Or do you want to restrict what people are allowed to fit to (and load into) their ships? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Shift-click does nothing GÇö why the Unified Inventory isn't ready for primetime. |
Mary Annabelle
State War Academy Caldari State
48
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 16:23:00 -
[50] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Mary Annabelle wrote:A suicide gank should always represent a financial loss to the ganker. The name spells out the terms pretty clearly: suicide. Non sequitur. GÇ£SuicideGÇ¥ Gëá GÇ£non-profitGÇ¥. It just means you die in the process, and guess what? You do! Keeping in the context, it is accepted that with clones suicide is signifying a loss of ventured resources, not an end to life. You are suiciding your ship, the cost to replace your med clone, and any cargo or implants carried by either.
Your best case result is mutual destruction. You are assured of your own destruction regardless of outcome.
Balance is not relevant here, that has been pointed out and accepted mutually.
Risk vs reward, however... so long as the attacking ship's total risk profile is below the expected possible gain, the deterrent is meaningless. The Hulk pilot will always be risking more.
Tippia wrote:Quote:It should never be a valid business model, or profitable from salvageable loot. Of course it should be. Or do you want to restrict what people are allowed to fit to (and load into) their ships? It reduces the reprisal by concord into an acceptable cost of doing business.
Here's an idea: Drop the related hardware costs of flying a Hulk to 10% of what they are now. Problem solved. |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7365
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 16:42:00 -
[51] - Quote
Mary Annabelle wrote:Risk vs reward, however... so long as the attacking ship's total risk profile is below the expected possible gain, the deterrent is meaningless. The Hulk pilot will always be risking more. Setting aside for a minute that I don't really buy that, it is also quite meaningless if the Hulk risks more. That is just a part of the risk assessment he has to do: is the reward worth the extra risk? This is the same cost-benefit analysis you have to do when flying any kind of T2 (or T3) ship. Given the popularity of the ship, it certainly seems to be the case for the Hulk.
Also, the deterrent isn't meaningless GÇö after all, for most people, that cost is more than enough to keep them from blowing up anyone they come across. Highsec is simply a place where aggression comes at a cost, be it in ISK (wardecs) or items (suicide ganks), and where you can eke out some baseline of security by gambling that people's miserliness will keep them from attacking you for no reason.
It's meaningless if you can no longer appeal to that miserliness (carrying too much goodies) or when you give people a reason to overcome it, but that's part of the design and part of how you choose to manipulate the gambling decision you make when you undock.
Quote:It reduces the reprisal by concord into an acceptable cost of doing business. Yup. That's not a problem. That's how all highsec aggression works. The only difference is that it's costlier if you do it via gank than via wardec, but that you're more likely to catch your target unaware which lowers the total risk.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Shift-click does nothing GÇö why the Unified Inventory isn't ready for primetime. |
Barbara Nichole
Cryogenic Consultancy Black Sun Alliance
158
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 17:49:00 -
[52] - Quote
Xhaiden Ora wrote:I thought we covered this.
If I toss a $50 hand grenade into a Porche, it doesn't survive by virtue of its price tag. Its a Porche. Not a tank.
if you do this you go to jail for a good long time.. and insurance fully pays for the porsche replacement. ....not so eve. [IMG]http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a208/DawnFrostbringer/OldST.jpg[/IMG] |
Barbara Nichole
Cryogenic Consultancy Black Sun Alliance
158
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 17:51:00 -
[53] - Quote
Buzzy Warstl wrote:The Hulk packages up so tight that you can fit a packaged one with all fittings and rigs into a GSC.
Not a whole lot of structure there, it is mostly empty space.
Just sayin'.
it's not about the space in side.. it's about the armor outside. [IMG]http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a208/DawnFrostbringer/OldST.jpg[/IMG] |
Barbara Nichole
Cryogenic Consultancy Black Sun Alliance
158
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 17:54:00 -
[54] - Quote
Jonuts wrote:Come on guys! Admit it! You want to see an invincible hulk just to watch some guys cry because they couldn't 1-shot it!
you assume I care about your tears ... at all? [IMG]http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a208/DawnFrostbringer/OldST.jpg[/IMG] |
Barbara Nichole
Cryogenic Consultancy Black Sun Alliance
158
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 17:56:00 -
[55] - Quote
Danika Princip wrote:Cost has nothing whatsoever to do with balance. You do know that, right?
This is actually not true. if you are talking about loss and insurance, balance most definetly does have something to do with cost. [IMG]http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a208/DawnFrostbringer/OldST.jpg[/IMG] |
Barbara Nichole
Cryogenic Consultancy Black Sun Alliance
158
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 17:59:00 -
[56] - Quote
sabre906 wrote:Not just Hulk, but all the other exhumers and barges that have even less structure. Most of them have less structure than a heavy drone, it's ret4rd3d. Sure, barges should gankable, but this is over the top.
It reminds me of my brothers old D&D group... whose DM made a town full of women with high comeliness and low strength so they'd be attractive to the teen players and unable to resist their.... advances.
We have really expensive ships with little hope of survival against other ships many times lesser in cost. and whats more we can't even insure them at anywhere close to full value. that's fair.. (sic) [IMG]http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a208/DawnFrostbringer/OldST.jpg[/IMG] |
Snow Burst
nul-li-fy RED.OverLord
3
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 20:36:00 -
[57] - Quote
0HP so your saying what a hulk should be made of literally paper? your understanding of physics fails. the **** the armour meant to go on?! think it through. A less ******** thing would be LESS structure not 0... jees There Is A 90% Chance All Of What You Just Read Is Wrong, Inaccurate Or Just Me Being Controversial In Some Way.-áOr By Some Chance It's Completely Right In Every Way... At Least To Me :3 |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
158
|
Posted - 2012.05.26 01:19:00 -
[58] - Quote
Tippia wrote: miserliness
Had to break out the thesaurus for that one, +1. Interestingly enough I found some gems from synonyms of it. |
Jonuts
The Arrow Project CORE.
56
|
Posted - 2012.05.26 02:05:00 -
[59] - Quote
Just playing devils advocate...
Quote:
Also, if you absolutely have to use the economic argument, then it should be a hell of a lot easier to kill than that because otherwise it makes it impossible to gank for profit. Just using the numbers you mentioned: 30M worth of drops for a 150M expenditure in ships? Utterly unreasonable. They'd have to increase the cost of strip miners to 100M a pop for that to work.
Well, on the flip side, who says Suicide Ganking SHOULD be profitable? By all means, if you want to go kill civi's, knock yourself out. I don't see why you should be able to profit off it though. THAT'S just silly. As it is, you can make a decent profit at essentially zero risk.
Now, if they got a bunch of REALLY fancy mods on their hulk, that's kinda different. I'm talking just straight T2 fit. None of that absurdly expensive deadspace stuff. Fitting that onto a hulk is just asking to get ganked :) |
Jeniam Retriat
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
5
|
Posted - 2012.05.26 03:54:00 -
[60] - Quote
Tippia wrote:it's rather unreasonable that a single ship (one that isn't even a combat ship) should be able to stand up to a concerted attack from five actual combat ships, especially since we're just talking about small sub-caps here.
I'm not certain I'm following here; it looks like you're arguing that any subcap ship should be gankable by 5 destroyers. Umm, really? A passive-tanking Drake or active-tanking Raven should be defeatable by any 5 non-Industrial ships? In hisec? Before CONCORD can spawn and kill the attackers? Seriously?
Tippia wrote:You're just arguing that more ships should be made far weaker than they are. Anyway, as it happens, quite a few T2 cruisers will fit into the mould you just described, as will some of the T2 transports.
You were the one who said that it's normal and part of the design. If that's the case, it should be easy to provide one other example of this happening. This reply seems like a cheap dodge out of doing that after you ran the same numbers I've looked at and realised like I did that Hulks and other Exhumers are disproportionately weak. As for me arguing that more ships should be made weaker, nope - I just want Exhumers brought in to line with every other ship in the game.
Oh, and for the not-actual-examples you gave: A quick check in Jita shows that most T2 cruisers go for about 160-180mil, plus say 50mil for a good T2 fit (which is pretty generous) so please point me to all the hisec gank KMs showing a force worth 11.5mil taking one down. Transports are mostly around 150mil, so again with a 50mil fit that should be plenty of kills to ships/fleets worth 10mil. KMs please.
Tippia wrote:Pretty much all ships can be ganked for profit, even when they have a sensible fit, especially once we move into T2 territory.
Once again, KMs or it didn't happen. Show me an example of a sensible T2 fit mission Raven being ganked in hisec outside of a war or aggression and dropping fitted modules/salvage worth more than the losses from the gankers and I will blank all my previous posts in this thread and make a new one conceding that Exhumers are perfectly balanced as is right now.
Tippia wrote:If you want to compare against ships that don't have valuable cargo or which don't use more expensive modules, then we should also compare that against an exhumer with only a single strip miner.
Why, exactly?
Tippia wrote:what transports can do isn't relevant to what exhumers can do. Also, you're comparing against a ship class which has as its intended purpose to be tanky as hell and to survive ganks by relying on that tank (and guess what: they still die). Did you read the description? GÇ£Possessing defensive capabilities far in excess of standard industrial shipsGÇ¥. Yes, the hulk is described as being GÇ£far more resilientGÇ¥, and guess what? It is. It can take the same amount of beating as some T2 combat cruisers. But you're still comparing a ship type that's just meant to be a bit stronger with one that's meant to be a brick.
Transports are the only other Tech 2 non-combat ships in the game aside from JFs. If we can't compare them to Exhumers, what can we compare? Both ships are designed to fill specific non-combat roles in hostile space without dying. Both ships get bonuses to survivability in addition to bonuses to their primary role. I guess Transports don't necessarily represent the pinnacle of the hauling profession, but I know more than a few players for whom a cloaky T2 Transport is their endgame. Aside from the most basic "one hauls lots of cargo, one mines lots of ore" difference, what else is there that we can't compare?
Your point is that the Transports (which you are comparing to Exhumers despite saying we shouldn't) have a line in the description saying that they are tough ships, and so they should be tough, while the Exhumers have a line in the description saying they are tough ships, and so they should be... paper thin and easily gankable? I'm sorry, what? |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |