Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 .. 16 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
68
|
Posted - 2012.06.04 03:41:00 -
[241] - Quote
Beekeeper Bob wrote:Price Check Aisle3 wrote:Exhumers don't belong in high-sec, but they're not a dead ship line. So no Tech 2 ships belong in highsec?
That could be interesting to see how nullsec dwellers would get stuff in and out of Jita without jump freighters. |
baltec1
1322
|
Posted - 2012.06.04 04:34:00 -
[242] - Quote
Tippia wrote:baltec1 wrote:Tippia wrote:GǪat this point, I really have to ask.
When was the last time anyone actually sat down and clocked the CONCORD response times at various sec levels? My corp did before the caldari ice interdiction. We also tested all sorts of tank on barges to see what we could do and to get the best out of our gank ships. GǪI decided to go find out for myself. The results were interesting.
Looks right. The window is a lot shorter than many assume and a barge only needs to have enough buffer to last untill CONCORD jams the ganker. This is why a supertank hulk in 0.7 spaceis left alone most of the time as its so hard to kill. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1763
|
Posted - 2012.06.04 04:38:00 -
[243] - Quote
Beekeeper Bob wrote:Price Check Aisle3 wrote:Exhumers don't belong in high-sec, but they're not a dead ship line. So no Tech 2 ships belong in highsec?
That's not at all what he said. He said Exhumers weren't designed for HS use. He said nothing about ALL T2 Ships. Reductio ad Absurdum that transparent just makes you look stupid.
Read the Ship description of the Hulk (paraphrasing)"designed with extra tank to survive the rats in Nullsec." Single-Shard, Player Driven-áSandbox.
5 words. That's what makes it special. |
baltec1
1322
|
Posted - 2012.06.04 04:40:00 -
[244] - Quote
Hey ruby did you get paid yet because Im still 10 mil short |
Tallian Saotome
Fractured Core Fatal Ascension
767
|
Posted - 2012.06.04 04:41:00 -
[245] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Beekeeper Bob wrote:Price Check Aisle3 wrote:Exhumers don't belong in high-sec, but they're not a dead ship line. So no Tech 2 ships belong in highsec? That could be interesting to see how nullsec dwellers would get stuff in and out of Jita without jump freighters. Once the JF has jumped to a highsec border, its already more effective to use a conventional freighter anyway. So we would function just fine, because we would adapt. Inappropriate signature removed, CCP Phantom. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1763
|
Posted - 2012.06.04 04:44:00 -
[246] - Quote
Nawt Ovarpwiced wrote:
If mining wasnt so fuckbear boring, people wouldent afk mine. CCP knows this, CCP Doesnt care, you all know this, you prefer to trolololo
If you don't like Mining, why are you doing it? If it's so boring you have to AFK, why are you doing an activity you dislike in a game you play for enjoyment?
Single-Shard, Player Driven-áSandbox.
5 words. That's what makes it special. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1765
|
Posted - 2012.06.04 04:46:00 -
[247] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Hey ruby did you get paid yet because Im still 10 mil short
Naw, nothing yet. I think Jorma Morrkis is going to back out on our deal. Maybe I should write a lengthy See&Pee post about it? Single-Shard, Player Driven-áSandbox.
5 words. That's what makes it special. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
68
|
Posted - 2012.06.04 04:49:00 -
[248] - Quote
Tallian Saotome wrote:Once the JF has jumped to a highsec border, its already more effective to use a conventional freighter anyway. So we would function just fine, because we would adapt.
But what about those Orphans at Jita 4-4 undock? |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1765
|
Posted - 2012.06.04 04:52:00 -
[249] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Tallian Saotome wrote:Once the JF has jumped to a highsec border, its already more effective to use a conventional freighter anyway. So we would function just fine, because we would adapt. But what about those Orphans at Jita 4-4 undock?
Who does HS freightering in-Corp? Single-Shard, Player Driven-áSandbox.
5 words. That's what makes it special. |
Tallian Saotome
Fractured Core Fatal Ascension
768
|
Posted - 2012.06.04 05:02:00 -
[250] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:Tallian Saotome wrote:Once the JF has jumped to a highsec border, its already more effective to use a conventional freighter anyway. So we would function just fine, because we would adapt. But what about those Orphans at Jita 4-4 undock? Who does HS freightering in-Corp? People who like getting ganked as if they were flying hulks? Inappropriate signature removed, CCP Phantom. |
|
baltec1
1323
|
Posted - 2012.06.04 05:05:00 -
[251] - Quote
Tallian Saotome wrote: People who like getting ganked as if they were flying hulks?
People who lose their frieghters to a solo bomber in high sec are on a whole other level of daft. |
Anya Ohaya
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
123
|
Posted - 2012.06.04 06:53:00 -
[252] - Quote
Commit Sudoku wrote:hauling in the abc ore just fine in null, sorry you guys are mining small son ore in high~
Thought goons never mined?
You need to haul less ore, and start towing the party line.
|
Tallian Saotome
Fractured Core Fatal Ascension
772
|
Posted - 2012.06.04 06:57:00 -
[253] - Quote
Anya Ohaya wrote:Commit Sudoku wrote:hauling in the abc ore just fine in null, sorry you guys are mining small son ore in high~ Thought goons never mined? You need to haul less ore, and start towing the party line. Shhh.... Its a scam! Inappropriate signature removed, CCP Phantom. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1766
|
Posted - 2012.06.04 06:57:00 -
[254] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Tallian Saotome wrote: People who like getting ganked as if they were flying hulks?
People who lose their frieghters to a solo bomber in high sec are on a whole other level of daft.
I've seen 2 POSes get Solo Kills on JFs in Low, and one JF loss to a Faction Navy [Protip: Check your Standings before going to HS]
A loss to a Bomber is much more reasonable. Single-Shard, Player Driven-áSandbox.
5 words. That's what makes it special. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1118
|
Posted - 2012.06.04 07:14:00 -
[255] - Quote
Tallian Saotome wrote:Its almost engaging, but if you fail to pay attention you die to your enemies. We can do it, what makes you incapable?
Duh it's red crosses if you die it's not because you did not pay attention but because your fitting sucked or you went really away for a long time.
Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1118
|
Posted - 2012.06.04 07:19:00 -
[256] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Beekeeper Bob wrote:Price Check Aisle3 wrote:Exhumers don't belong in high-sec, but they're not a dead ship line. So no Tech 2 ships belong in highsec? That's not at all what he said. He said Exhumers weren't designed for HS use. He said nothing about ALL T2 Ships. Reductio ad Absurdum that transparent just makes you look stupid. Read the Ship description of the Hulk (paraphrasing)"designed with extra tank to survive the rats in Nullsec."
I know plenty of way the games tells me when something is not designed for a ship in a certain place. Not only the obvious bomber / bubble but also every deadspace gate will tell "Only ships allowed are ...... with a list".
Some high sec pockets mention "mining barge, exhumers"... and believe it or not, unlike a carrier, you can undock in an hulk in hi sec.
Therefore hi sec was designed for those ships to be there.
It's legitimate that for some agenda you or others don't want to see them there, but the game does not think like you. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1767
|
Posted - 2012.06.04 07:43:00 -
[257] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Beekeeper Bob wrote:Price Check Aisle3 wrote:Exhumers don't belong in high-sec, but they're not a dead ship line. So no Tech 2 ships belong in highsec? That's not at all what he said. He said Exhumers weren't designed for HS use. He said nothing about ALL T2 Ships. Reductio ad Absurdum that transparent just makes you look stupid. Read the Ship description of the Hulk (paraphrasing)"designed with extra tank to survive the rats in Nullsec." I know plenty of way the games tells me when something is not designed for a ship in a certain place. Not only the obvious bomber / bubble but also every deadspace gate will tell "Only ships allowed are ...... with a list". Some high sec pockets mention "mining barge, exhumers"... and believe it or not, unlike a carrier, you can undock in an hulk in hi sec. Therefore hi sec was designed for those ships to be there. It's legitimate that for some agenda you or others don't want to see them there, but the game does not think like you.
They were designed for the demands of tanking Rats in NullSec. Nobody's (at least I'm not) saying they shouldn't be allowed in HiSec, just recognize that they weren't designed with the needs of HS anti-ganking in mind. Single-Shard, Player Driven-áSandbox.
5 words. That's what makes it special. |
Tallian Saotome
Fractured Core Fatal Ascension
773
|
Posted - 2012.06.04 07:55:00 -
[258] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Tallian Saotome wrote:Its almost engaging, but if you fail to pay attention you die to your enemies. We can do it, what makes you incapable? Duh it's red crosses if you die it's not because you did not pay attention but because your fitting sucked or you went really away for a long time. Or you got ganked
Point being, if I can stand staring at red crosses for hours while my drones eat them so that I am watching local/intel, miners can stand staring at rocks for hours while their lazors eat them while watching local, and I hear they even have started intel channels themselves to keep up with the gankers. Inappropriate signature removed, CCP Phantom. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1119
|
Posted - 2012.06.04 09:05:00 -
[259] - Quote
Tallian Saotome wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Tallian Saotome wrote:Its almost engaging, but if you fail to pay attention you die to your enemies. We can do it, what makes you incapable? Duh it's red crosses if you die it's not because you did not pay attention but because your fitting sucked or you went really away for a long time. Or you got ganked
That's why they sell a 3rd party software (forbidden but ofc lots use it) to buzz when someone enters in local. So you can watch boobs in relax. Nobody in 0.0 will report anom farmer #47396 anyway, only CCP Sreegs might one day find you due to a new anti-detection routine. Of course that thing does not work in hi sec.
Tallian Saotome wrote: Point being, if I can stand staring at red crosses for hours while my drones eat them so that I am watching local/intel, miners can stand staring at rocks for hours while their lazors eat them while watching local, and I hear they even have started intel channels themselves to keep up with the gankers.
If you need hours to do red crosses it means you are using an AFK domi. You are being more passive than afk ice miners.
Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1119
|
Posted - 2012.06.04 09:10:00 -
[260] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote: They were designed for the demands of tanking Rats in NullSec. Nobody's (at least I'm not) saying they shouldn't be allowed in HiSec, just recognize that they weren't designed with the needs of HS anti-ganking in mind.
If they were not designed with the needs of HS-anti ganking (I wonder what that means) then the most logic course of action is not being defeatist: "don't use them" but update them for the needs of HS anti-ganking.
Sadly CCP (and YOU said they learn from their mistakes) never understood that anti-ganking does not mean remove ganking options (see boomerang nerf and others) but adding active defense tools that a diligent and skilled target can use to fend off the attacks.
Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
|
|
Chribba
Otherworld Enterprises Otherworld Empire
3634
|
Posted - 2012.06.04 09:16:00 -
[261] - Quote
I did laugh a bit at the "or remove them" comment. We can pretty much say the same about other ships such as BOs, Industrials and Shuttles. Fix them or remove them...
Exhumers are not dead, but yes they would need a boost in terms of ability to keep it alive, but they're deffo not a dead line.
|
|
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1767
|
Posted - 2012.06.04 09:18:00 -
[262] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:RubyPorto wrote: They were designed for the demands of tanking Rats in NullSec. Nobody's (at least I'm not) saying they shouldn't be allowed in HiSec, just recognize that they weren't designed with the needs of HS anti-ganking in mind.
If they were not designed with the needs of HS-anti ganking (I wonder what that means) then the most logic course of action is not being defeatist: "don't use them" but update them for the needs of HS anti-ganking. Sadly CCP (and YOU said they learn from their mistakes) never understood that anti-ganking does not mean remove ganking options (see boomerang nerf and others) but adding active defense tools that a diligent and skilled target can use to fend off the attacks.
No, the logical course of action is for Miners to adapt to changing circumstances. The Hulk was not designed to fulfill the needs of HS anti-ganking duty because it wan't intended to fulfill that role. HS Miner's shoehorned it into the role of a HS mining boat. So the Hulk doesn't need to be buffed to fulfill a role it was never intended for. That would be like saying the Cerberus needs to be buffed because I want to use it as bait and it needs a better tank to fill that role.
There are active defense tools that a diligent and skilled target can use to fend off the attacks (Local and D-Scan). None need to be added. Tanking your Hulk is an option to use IF you don't want want to be diligent or are not skilled enough to avoid ganks using Local and the D-Scan. Single-Shard, Player Driven-áSandbox.
5 words. That's what makes it special. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1768
|
Posted - 2012.06.04 10:34:00 -
[263] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Hey ruby did you get paid yet because Im still 10 mil short
You know, I just want to say, Jorma Morkkis actually paid the 10m Single-Shard, Player Driven-áSandbox.
5 words. That's what makes it special. |
Tallian Saotome
Fractured Core Fatal Ascension
774
|
Posted - 2012.06.04 10:43:00 -
[264] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:If you need hours to do red crosses it means you are using an AFK domi. You are being more passive than afk ice miners. Carrier, actually, those new drone damage mods work wonders for ogre IIs.
And I pay attention, thats the difference. I may have boobies, or forums, or the Daily Show on my other monitor, but I have a billion isk ship on the line so I dam well have one eye on local.
And if one day I screw up and lose a carrier because of that, I guarantee I am not gonna come crying to the forums about how I'm not safe enough.
Oh, and as far as doing it for hours, some of us chain hubs or havens, which means good isk, but you still spend a fair amount of time doing it(have enough isk to replace a carrier, or buy a dreadnaught, or a rorqual takes time, even carrier ratting in havens) Inappropriate signature removed, CCP Phantom. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1119
|
Posted - 2012.06.04 10:54:00 -
[265] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote: No, the logical course of action is for Miners to adapt to changing circumstances.
Not saying it's right or wrong but humans don't easily adapt to the ever changing environment but adapt the environment to them. They will determine that going around a mountain is not what they want and will drill the mountain. If the harshest sandbox of all (RL) works like this, expect to find the same reactions in a virtual sandbox.
Also, if there is 1 guy who is right and 10000000 saying he's wrong, the will be made wrong and stomped over. Not just EvE, but life too is unfair.
So, you may be totally right yet the logical course of action <> what will be the course of action.
RubyPorto wrote: The Hulk was not designed to fulfill the needs of HS anti-ganking duty because it wan't intended to fulfill that role. HS Miner's shoehorned it into the role of a HS mining boat. So the Hulk doesn't need to be buffed to fulfill a role it was never intended for. That would be like saying the Cerberus needs to be buffed because I want to use it as bait and it needs a better tank to fill that role.
You think like a game developer and like them you share the same limitations. In an actual sandbox, past a certain "breaking point", players would invent specific guns and specific hardened shields to add the ship while not losing performance. It would be retooled to fill the new role, maybe re-branded "Hulk 2000" or something.
If Cerberus was deemed worth being a bait ship then someone would invent a way to slap added tank on it with a minumum drop of performance. Minumum as in some % not 20-30-40%. This is how humanity works, sad that games don't and thus show all their lack of ingenuity and dynamism.
RubyPorto wrote:
There are active defense tools that a diligent and skilled target can use to fend off the attacks (Local and D-Scan). None need to be added. Tanking your Hulk is an option to use IF you don't want want to be diligent or are not skilled enough to avoid ganks using Local and the D-Scan.
[/quote]
Define "active". For me spamming a button is not "active", nor is "go mad tank and pray for the best".
Active is the role.
The attacker has many advantages (initiative, knows the target tank and so on). He is active for sure. The defender as of now can only "take". I.e. he may fit to hope and "outlive" the attack, he may D-Scan to cower away. Nothing making him respond fire with fire. Plus, the attacker can sometimes do all by himself, the target has to resort to passively hope in canned static gimnicks like Concord, if he had a supporting fleet all they can do is to passively wait till the attacker opens fire. If there was any sense of realism a target's friends would not wait for a guy with huge blazing guns to have shot his liver away before shooting themselves.
One of the fair ways (besides removing Concord, which would be the best solution) would be to be able to launch a small "FFA bubble" (static, can't be moved, pops when the ship it was anchored to warps out). Whoever initiates lock at ships inside that bubble won't be affected by Concord but all those in fleet with the guy in the bubble can immediately and pre-emptively retaliate.
You'll notice how I go to great lengths about ability to assist miners (so it's miners who DID accept to go in a team and don't go AFK). It's because I want to be the player made content who shoots at those locking inside that bubble. No Concord and other bull in the way.
Tallian Saotome wrote: And if one day I screw up and lose a carrier because of that, I guarantee I am not gonna come crying to the forums about how I'm not safe enough.
Of course, you went there with the mindset of risking more to earn more. Those who come on the forum are those who wanted to earn less in exchange of risking less. Not saying who is right and who is wrong (if there is any), just about how human things work. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
baltec1
1326
|
Posted - 2012.06.04 10:55:00 -
[266] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
If they were not designed with the needs of HS-anti ganking (I wonder what that means) then the most logic course of action is not being defeatist: "don't use them" but update them for the needs of HS anti-ganking.
Sadly CCP (and YOU said they learn from their mistakes) never understood that anti-ganking does not mean remove ganking options (see boomerang nerf and others) but adding active defense tools that a diligent and skilled target can use to fend off the attacks.
Boomerang was a silly thing and deserved to get stopped. Also while hulks were not built with alpha ganks in mind they can still tank them. |
Tallian Saotome
Fractured Core Fatal Ascension
775
|
Posted - 2012.06.04 11:04:00 -
[267] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Tallian Saotome wrote: And if one day I screw up and lose a carrier because of that, I guarantee I am not gonna come crying to the forums about how I'm not safe enough.
Of course, you went there with the mindset of risking more to earn more. Those who come on the forum are those who wanted to earn less in exchange of risking less. Not saying who is right and who is wrong (if there is any), just about how human things work.
The problem is that they won't accept ANY risk, but still want some kind of reward. Mining in a hulk in highsec is a 0 risk thing, without gankers. These miners are trying so hard to make themselves ungankable through a dues ex machina simply because they want a reward without any risk. I might sympathize with their plight during hulkageddon, if the faced any real risk when it was not going on, but since they don't and get so terribly upset when it is on because they have to deal with some risk, I am dead set to see them HTFU or GTFO.
I would much prefer the former. They don't need to be so hard they go to low/null, but they should be hard enough that they are willing to think about it.
Funny story. Recently bought a rorq. That rorq was VERY obviously set up to go ninja mining. This tells me that despite everything being said about how mining is low/null, or during hulkageddon is dumb, and unprofitable, that SOMEONE felt it was worth their while to sneak into someone elses backyard and steal their ores, which tells me that the people claiming otherwise are simply not cut out for EVE, or have been taught wrongly by people who say its impossible to tank a hulk. Inappropriate signature removed, CCP Phantom. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1771
|
Posted - 2012.06.04 11:26:00 -
[268] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Not saying it's right or wrong but humans don't easily adapt to the ever changing environment but adapt the environment to them. They will determine that going around a mountain is not what they want and will drill the mountain. If the harshest sandbox of all (RL) works like this, expect to find the same reactions in a virtual sandbox.
Also, if there is 1 guy who is right and 10000000 saying he's wrong, the will be made wrong and stomped over. Not just EvE, but life too is unfair.
So, you may be totally right yet the logical course of action <> what will be the course of action.
Every single successful PvPer ADAPTs their tactics and fits to their circumstances. In the real world, there's no way to mine in a combat vessel, and it just takes a little dynamite to disable even the biggest mining vessels, so let's not talk about the real world.
EvE is all about adapting to changing circumstances. If people don't want to do that, EvE may not be the right game for them. It's a niche game; I don't expect everyone to like it.
Quote: You think like a game developer and like them you share the same limitations. In an actual sandbox, past a certain "breaking point", players would invent specific guns and specific hardened shields to add the ship while not losing performance. It would be retooled to fill the new role, maybe re-branded "Hulk 2000" or something.
If Cerberus was deemed worth being a bait ship then someone would invent a way to slap added tank on it with a minumum drop of performance. Minumum as in some % not 20-30-40%. This is how humanity works, sad that games don't and thus show all their lack of ingenuity and dynamism.
Ok, then in an Actual Sandbox, past a certain "breaking point", players would invent specific guns that would counter that without losing ISK performance. That's not what a sandbox game means. A Sandbox is an Open Ended game that allows you to choose your own goals *within* the mechanics of the game. If you want a new mining ship that's better in every way than the Hulk, fine, but that's not a good way to let the Hulk have it's own niche role.
Quote:
Define "active". For me spamming a button is not "active", nor is "go mad tank and pray for the best".
Active is the role.
Active = Player Actively Controlling his Ship. If the function you want to perform (mining safely in a Hulk) is possible with the tools available in the game (it is), then the ship you're using is fine. Spamming a button is what all activity in EvE boils down to.
If the cost to use the tool is one you're not WILLING to pay, then you're choosing not to perform the function you would like to perform, unless you adapt another tool for the job.
Quote: One of the fair ways (besides removing Concord, which would be the best solution) would be to be able to launch a small "FFA bubble" (static, can't be moved, pops when the ship it was anchored to warps out). Whoever initiates lock at ships inside that bubble won't be affected by Concord but all those in fleet with the guy in the bubble can immediately and pre-emptively retaliate.
If you dislike CONCORD, or want to be able to preemptively shoot someone, there are areas of space without CONCORD. Not everybody likes playing EvE under the same aggression mechanics, and that's just fine.
Everybody gets to CHOOSE what mechanics to fight under. They even get to choose how capable their ship is at fighting in those mechanics.
Quote: Those who come on the forum are those who wanted to earn less in exchange of risking less.
No, those who come on the forum want to risk less while earning the same amount. If they wanted to avoid risk while mining, and were actually willing to earn less in exchange, they would mine in Covetors and Rokhs. But instead they whine on the forums. Single-Shard, Player Driven-áSandbox.
5 words. That's what makes it special. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1122
|
Posted - 2012.06.04 11:56:00 -
[269] - Quote
Tallian Saotome wrote: The problem is that they won't accept ANY risk, but still want some kind of reward. Mining in a hulk in highsec is a 0 risk thing, without gankers.
No, you also talk from an uninformed position.
I take some statistics to see how a merc corp I know performs. They are specialized in defending targets, so the less the losses the better they did. Sometimes I also fleet with them, mostly for providing bonuses and I bring some larger ships as deterrent. They mostly assist guys with Orca + 4+ mining ships but also take free shots in case some ganker after somebody else lands close enough to be shot at. They cover about 16h a day.
Before this year Hulkageddon the average amount of succesfully ganked ships per day was 24. When they operate, the average goes down to 7. During Hulkageddon (the 1st month, with prizes etc.) the amount of succesfully ganked ships went up to 73 and judging by the colorful local chat they were mostly non bots. When the mercs operate the average goes down to 16.
What does the above mean? That even in a completely tranquil, non Hulkageddon time there are 24 ships a day that get popped just in that system. The miners DO accept such risk, in fact I don't recall particular forum complaints before Hulkageddon.
So, don't take free shots at absolutes like "won't accept ANY risk", because it's simply not true. There's simply a thresold of risk beyond which the average miner starts wondering what's going on and another thresold (probably when they get ganked 2-3 times) beyond which the average miner goes berserker on the forums. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Tallian Saotome
Fractured Core Fatal Ascension
778
|
Posted - 2012.06.04 12:17:00 -
[270] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Tallian Saotome wrote: The problem is that they won't accept ANY risk, but still want some kind of reward. Mining in a hulk in highsec is a 0 risk thing, without gankers.
No, you also talk from an uninformed position. I take some statistics to see how a merc corp I know performs. They are specialized in defending targets, so the less the losses the better they did. Sometimes I also fleet with them, mostly for providing bonuses and I bring some larger ships as deterrent. They mostly assist guys with Orca + 4+ mining ships but also take free shots in case some ganker after somebody else lands close enough to be shot at. They cover about 16h a day. Before this year Hulkageddon the average amount of succesfully ganked ships per day was 24. When they operate, the average goes down to 7. During Hulkageddon (the 1st month, with prizes etc.) the amount of succesfully ganked ships went up to 73 and judging by the colorful local chat they were mostly non bots. When the mercs operate the average goes down to 16. What does the above mean? That even in a completely tranquil, non Hulkageddon time there are 24 ships a day that get popped just in that system. The miners DO accept such risk, in fact I don't recall particular forum complaints before Hulkageddon. So, don't take free shots at absolutes like "won't accept ANY risk", because it's simply not true. There's simply a thresold of risk beyond which the average miner starts wondering what's going on and another thresold (probably when they get ganked 2-3 times) beyond which the average miner goes berserker on the forums. Not saying that applies to all miners, I think I have made that abundantly clear. 'They' refers to the people whining on the forums.
However, when you have people advocating no PVP at all in 1.0 and 0.9, sure sounds to me like they want a 0 risk environment. When you have people asking CCP to make it so that its not possible to gank their hulk, whether it be via a CONCORD buff, a hulk buff, and direct nerf to gankers, whatever, it sure sounds like they want a 0 risk environment.
Maybe I have been misreading all this time, and all the crying and screaming about how they want all the ganking stopped doesn't actually mean they want the ganking stopped, but somehow I doubt that. Its been pretty straight forward, for the most part.
Did you see the one where the guy wanted L5s in highsec, and went on to explain how hardcore WoW arena PVP is?
In the end, all I have to go on about what they want is what they say they want, and the same goes for CCP. Inappropriate signature removed, CCP Phantom. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 .. 16 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |