Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 .. 119 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 12 post(s) |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
430
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 14:16:00 -
[361] - Quote
We all know how terribly this is going to boil over. I wonder whose idea it was at CCP to do this. One thing's for sure, they ****** up pretty royally here.
Isn't it funny how CCP Soundwave stopped posting in this thread as soon as people started calling him out on his bullshit? "Suicide ganking wasn't meant to be profitable." Yeah, because that's TOTALLY what the issue is about, and not, you know, CCP coddling highsec carebears who don't give a **** about what this game is really supposed to be about and instead think that they are entitled to some blanket of protection.
Well they got that blanket. I can't wait until the hordes of miners come onto the forums and complain that they don't bother mining anymore because ore and mineral prices have dropped so much.
CCP Soundwave: Slowly turning EVE highsec into a risk free environment. EVE's 4th of July Fireworks |
Xearal
Black Thorne Corporation Black Thorne Alliance
316
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 14:17:00 -
[362] - Quote
Surfin's PlunderBunny wrote:I believe I was promised bacon?
here you go.. Bacon |
Kitty Bear
Disturbed Friends Of Diazepam
2
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 14:19:00 -
[363] - Quote
Roll Sizzle Beef wrote:It has rarely been about profit. Its usually people angry they are not pvping in their game. Thus a waste of space.
But mining IS pvp ...
stoicfaux wrote:Imagine the tears when the AFK miner comes back to see that his ore hold is nearly empty and his lasers shut off ten minutes ago because you and your wolfpack stripped the rocks out from under him!
|
Danel Tosh
EVE Protection Agency Intrepid Crossing
31
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 14:24:00 -
[364] - Quote
mission runners dont fit thier ships with PvP in mind. why should miners?
I dont even run missions, I run sites and i do so in the most pve efficient fit possible to make the most money. Its Isk vs yeild, Personally I dont see the difference (although mining is terribly boring). |
TheSkeptic
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
18
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 14:27:00 -
[365] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Danfen Fenix wrote:Wait, the dev blog about this has been up for weeks... Why has the complaining only started now ? The numbers hit SISI, so we've been shown that all of the Exhumers are getting a massive, free, tank buff.
Marginal tank buff for mining ships just rebalances things after the destroyer damage buff.
|
Jed Bobby
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 14:30:00 -
[366] - Quote
lol @ this thread |
gfldex
569
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 14:32:00 -
[367] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:Suicide ganking wasn't designed to be profitable, it's meant to be an option that let's you punish someone else at your expense. The money you paid for a ship to gank with compared to the money lost by your target was completely off and this change should bring that to a better spot. That said, the numbers can still be adjusted.
How do you plan to scale the HP of a freighter with the value of it's cargo? If you don't plan to do that then please tell me why miners are immune from profit seeking highsec pirates but haulers are not.
I'm in your forumz asking rhetorical questions.
When someone burns down your sandcastle, bring sausages. |
Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
1182
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 14:39:00 -
[368] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:Yeah my point is that I don't think they should be profitable to gank. I think it should be possible, but not necessarily profitable (profitable might be the wrong word, but more that the expenses should be higher for the attacker than the defender). Well, as long as you get the balance right i dont think anybody can seriously complain...
As it stands, we have cause for concern.
Just one example - Why should an Exhumer get a greater shield resists per level bonus than a HIC? My homeboys tried to warn me But that butt you got makes me so horny |
Alexzandvar Douglass
NUTS AND BOLTS MANUFACTURING En Garde
59
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 14:41:00 -
[369] - Quote
As a Ice miner I welcome the update, as finally CCP recognizes you should have some ability to not instantly die the minute anything shoots you.
All I see is miles upon miles of butthurt, with no end in sight. |
EvilweaselSA
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
241
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 14:42:00 -
[370] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote: Yeah my point is that I don't think they should be profitable to gank. I think it should be possible, but not necessarily profitable (profitable might be the wrong word, but more that the expenses should be higher for the attacker than the defender).
That's not a good metric to balance things against at all. Nobody's complaining that miners can defend themselves. What people are complaining about is you're doing it for them, by default. The hulk is getting a flat EHP buff for all fits. That's what people are annoyed about, the dumbing down of the game. I -and most people - would have no problem at all if you increased the ability of miner pilots to fit a tank if that's what they choose to do. But that's not what was done.
It's also immensely frustrating that highsec moneymaking gets buff after buff, while 0.0, which has needed better sources of individual moneymaking for the better part of a decade, gets nothing. And it's not like the problem has gone unseen: everyone admits 0.0 is broken but our fixes get pushed off to the infamous "Soon(TM)". A few miners, who can't fit their ships, get ganked and what happens? An entire line of ships is rapidly redesigned to eliminate all real risk.
The |
|
Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
1182
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 14:43:00 -
[371] - Quote
Alexzandvar Douglass wrote:As a Ice miner I welcome the update, as finally CCP recognizes you should have some ability to not instantly die the minute anything shoots you.
All I see is miles upon miles of butthurt, with no end in sight.
Would you pvp in an untanked ship?
Would you run a mission in an untanked ship?
What makes miners so special that they think they dont need to fit a tank? My homeboys tried to warn me But that butt you got makes me so horny |
gfldex
569
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 14:43:00 -
[372] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:Yeah my point is that I don't think they should be profitable to gank. I think it should be possible, but not necessarily profitable (profitable might be the wrong word, but more that the expenses should be higher for the attacker than the defender).
So if some cunning individuals are planning on ganking officer fit mission runners, they should have to come with 600 players for one gank? I'm sorry but your logic is flawed. That means you either lie to us or to yourself.
What you have done with the plain HP buff of dedicated mining ships is to remove the risk to field those ships even outside of hulkageddon down to 0. That will have consequences. I'm not going to talk you out of it. You wont change your mind anyway and I would lose the "told you so"-option. (And the consequences of that change will act in my favour, even without any need to mine on my side.) But please keep in mind that your job is not to make the game easier for the general public. It's to make it better for all players.
When someone burns down your sandcastle, bring sausages. |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
266
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 14:43:00 -
[373] - Quote
gfldex wrote:CCP Soundwave wrote:Suicide ganking wasn't designed to be profitable, it's meant to be an option that let's you punish someone else at your expense. The money you paid for a ship to gank with compared to the money lost by your target was completely off and this change should bring that to a better spot. That said, the numbers can still be adjusted. How do you plan to scale the HP of a freighter with the value of it's cargo? If you don't plan to do that then please tell me why miners are immune from profit seeking highsec pirates but haulers are not. I'm in your forumz asking rhetorical questions.
the modules dropped from an exhumer exceeds the cost of the ship destroying it. is that the same with a freighter? Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Adrenalinemax
Perkone Caldari State
23
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 14:45:00 -
[374] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:CCP Soundwave wrote:If I wanted to remove aggression, I'd just shut it off, instead of going through all these hoops to keep it alive. The reality is that suicide ganking is an integral part of the game that I quite like, but every now and then we need to make changes because the current setup doesn't work. Why do you think it doesn't work? Right now, Hulks can fit for Tank (sacrificing Yield and convenience), and be unprofitable to gank. Hulks can fit for convenience (sacrificing Yield and Tank), and be profitable to gank. Hulks can be fit for yield (sacrificing Tank and convenience), and be profitable to gank. Hulks can also fit themselves to make it easy to mine while aligned. If these changes weren't designed as a straight nerf to Suicide ganking, why has every Exhumer gotten a significant Tank increase? Why are you devaluing the Skiff's new role with both the Hulk and Mack tank buff before it's even on TQ? Why are you devaluing the Mack's new role with the Skiff's new cargo hold? And none of them can be profitable to gank. Yeah my point is that I don't think they should be profitable to gank. I think it should be possible, but not necessarily profitable (profitable might be the wrong word, but more that the expenses should be higher for the attacker than the defender).
I think what he is trying to say is suicide banking is a vital part of game mechanics that he in no way what to remove
however, it is supposed to be a measure taken to inflict pain on someone at all costs and those costs should be born by the ganker not the victim.
So go ahead and bank all you want, but if a Hulk costs 289mil, then it should take more than 289mil worth of ships to bank it
All the talk about profitability are about hull prices, not some dumbs carrying 40bil worth of a **** in a shuttle
|
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
266
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 14:45:00 -
[375] - Quote
Skippermonkey wrote:Alexzandvar Douglass wrote:As a Ice miner I welcome the update, as finally CCP recognizes you should have some ability to not instantly die the minute anything shoots you.
All I see is miles upon miles of butthurt, with no end in sight. Would you pvp in an untanked ship? Would you run a mission in an untanked ship? What makes miners so special that they think they dont need to fit a tank?
no because you're intending to go in to a combat situation, tanks are for combat. mining ships are not a combat ship.
that's like saying "would you wear a coat in the middle of summer?" "well the eskimos have to, so why don't you have to?" Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
1182
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 14:45:00 -
[376] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:gfldex wrote:CCP Soundwave wrote:Suicide ganking wasn't designed to be profitable, it's meant to be an option that let's you punish someone else at your expense. The money you paid for a ship to gank with compared to the money lost by your target was completely off and this change should bring that to a better spot. That said, the numbers can still be adjusted. How do you plan to scale the HP of a freighter with the value of it's cargo? If you don't plan to do that then please tell me why miners are immune from profit seeking highsec pirates but haulers are not. I'm in your forumz asking rhetorical questions. the modules dropped from an exhumer exceeds the cost of the ship destroying it. is that the same with a freighter? If you are doing it right, the cargo should suffice My homeboys tried to warn me But that butt you got makes me so horny |
Adrenalinemax
Perkone Caldari State
23
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 14:47:00 -
[377] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:We all know how terribly this is going to boil over. I wonder whose idea it was at CCP to do this. One thing's for sure, they ****** up pretty royally here.
Isn't it funny how CCP Soundwave stopped posting in this thread as soon as people started calling him out on his bullshit? "Suicide ganking wasn't meant to be profitable." Yeah, because that's TOTALLY what the issue is about, and not, you know, CCP coddling highsec carebears who don't give a **** about what this game is really supposed to be about and instead think that they are entitled to some blanket of protection.
Well they got that blanket. I can't wait until the hordes of miners come onto the forums and complain that they don't bother mining anymore because ore and mineral prices have dropped so much.
CCP Soundwave: Slowly turning EVE highsec into a risk free environment.
highsec is not risk free, you can gank anything at anytime
It is just that you can spend 10mil to gank a 250mil ship before. Now that will no longer be possible |
Josef Djugashvilis
The Scope Gallente Federation
378
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 14:47:00 -
[378] - Quote
I find it amusing that some folk believe that ganking miners is only really done for profit, and that tanking a Hulk etc would make it more or less gank proof as it would not yield a profit to the gankers.
Miner tears, my dear fellow Eve pilots, and the more expensive the tears from the miner, the better. You want fries with that? |
EvilweaselSA
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
243
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 14:48:00 -
[379] - Quote
Every form of suicide ganking has repeatedly been nerfed. It's nice that you claim it's not your goal to remove it. However, your stated goals are essentially to make it a once in a blue moon action that is systematically nerfed anytime it happens more often than that (because then its clearly not costing the attacker enough).
It's clear you respond to highsec whining, which will always be there until you remove risk from highsec. You claim you won't do that: but you'll clearly keep going to be moving closer and closer and closer until there's no practical risk, just theoretical risk |
Dramaticus
Goonswarm Federation
188
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 14:50:00 -
[380] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:CCP Soundwave wrote:If I wanted to remove aggression, I'd just shut it off, instead of going through all these hoops to keep it alive. The reality is that suicide ganking is an integral part of the game that I quite like, but every now and then we need to make changes because the current setup doesn't work. Why do you think it doesn't work? Right now, Hulks can fit for Tank (sacrificing Yield and convenience), and be unprofitable to gank. Hulks can fit for convenience (sacrificing Yield and Tank), and be profitable to gank. Hulks can be fit for yield (sacrificing Tank and convenience), and be profitable to gank. Hulks can also fit themselves to make it easy to mine while aligned. If these changes weren't designed as a straight nerf to Suicide ganking, why has every Exhumer gotten a significant Tank increase? Why are you devaluing the Skiff's new role with both the Hulk and Mack tank buff before it's even on TQ? Why are you devaluing the Mack's new role with the Skiff's new cargo hold? And none of them can be profitable to gank. Yeah my point is that I don't think they should be profitable to gank. I think it should be possible, but not necessarily profitable (profitable might be the wrong word, but more that the expenses should be higher for the attacker than the defender).
Should we expect a similar buff to all T2 ships in the future to prevent them from so easily dying to massed T1 ships |
|
EvilweaselSA
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
243
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 14:50:00 -
[381] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote: Yeah my point is that I don't think they should be profitable to gank. I think it should be possible, but not necessarily profitable (profitable might be the wrong word, but more that the expenses should be higher for the attacker than the defender).
To put it in simple terms: the cost of your ship isn't a tank. EVE isn't supposed to be a game where more expensive things can't be killed by less expensive things. If a battleship dies to a rifter, we do not complain the cost to the attacker was lower than the cost to the defender. |
Adrenalinemax
Perkone Caldari State
23
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 14:51:00 -
[382] - Quote
EvilweaselSA wrote:Every form of suicide ganking has repeatedly been nerfed. It's nice that you claim it's not your goal to remove it. However, your stated goals are essentially to make it a once in a blue moon action that is systematically nerfed anytime it happens more often than that (because then its clearly not costing the attacker enough).
It's clear you respond to highsec whining, which will always be there until you remove risk from highsec. You claim you won't do that: but you'll clearly keep going to be moving closer and closer and closer until there's no practical risk, just theoretical risk
what is wrong with making a ganker spend 350mil to gank a ship costing 290mil?
Did you like it better when a 10mil ship could gank a ship that cost 290mil? ( I bet you did) C'mon, lemme see those tears, I can tell you are welling up |
Adrenalinemax
Perkone Caldari State
23
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 14:52:00 -
[383] - Quote
EvilweaselSA wrote:CCP Soundwave wrote: Yeah my point is that I don't think they should be profitable to gank. I think it should be possible, but not necessarily profitable (profitable might be the wrong word, but more that the expenses should be higher for the attacker than the defender).
To put it in simple terms: the cost of your ship isn't a tank. EVE isn't supposed to be a game where more expensive things can't be killed by less expensive things. If a battleship dies to a rifter, we do not complain the cost to the attacker was lower than the cost to the defender.
Battleship can shoot back |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
266
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 14:52:00 -
[384] - Quote
Skippermonkey wrote:Dave stark wrote:gfldex wrote:CCP Soundwave wrote:Suicide ganking wasn't designed to be profitable, it's meant to be an option that let's you punish someone else at your expense. The money you paid for a ship to gank with compared to the money lost by your target was completely off and this change should bring that to a better spot. That said, the numbers can still be adjusted. How do you plan to scale the HP of a freighter with the value of it's cargo? If you don't plan to do that then please tell me why miners are immune from profit seeking highsec pirates but haulers are not. I'm in your forumz asking rhetorical questions. the modules dropped from an exhumer exceeds the cost of the ship destroying it. is that the same with a freighter? If you are doing it right, the cargo should suffice
that's the point though; cargo isn't factored in to this. people ganking mining barges are doing it because they make money from destroying a ship regardless of it's cargo (and even with a fully expanded and full cargo a hulk will still drop less in cargo than in modules). if you happen to be carrying a set of bpos when your charon goes pop; you're a ******* moron. if you went pop because some one gains isk from throwing a ship worth pocket change at you in exchange for scooping a bundle of modules worth more than the ship was then clearly some thing isn't right.
last time i checked (which, admittedly, was a while ago) a single t1 ice harvester turret was worth more than a thrasher. i'll wager most ships are packing t2 variants hence raising the ganker's profit even more (not to mention the insult that the mine replacing is ship is probably buying his own modules back). Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
1182
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 14:52:00 -
[385] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:no because you're intending to go in to a combat situation, tanks are for combat. mining ships are not a combat ship. Replace the words 'DPS' with 'isk per hour'
I dont fit a mission boat for MAX dps at expense of my survivability, because if i did my shiny billion isk faction ship would explode in no time at all
yet miners fit their mining barges and exhumers for 'max mining' at expense of their survivability in the face of warnings from CCP, countless threads about sucide gankers, eternal hulkageddon, etc
then they innevitably die, and point the finger at anybody but themselves
Miners as a collective group have clearly shown that they are incapable of looking after themselves, and so CCP has stepped in to hold their hand and protect them as if they were an endangered species My homeboys tried to warn me But that butt you got makes me so horny |
Dramaticus
Goonswarm Federation
188
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 14:53:00 -
[386] - Quote
Adrenalinemax wrote:EvilweaselSA wrote:CCP Soundwave wrote: Yeah my point is that I don't think they should be profitable to gank. I think it should be possible, but not necessarily profitable (profitable might be the wrong word, but more that the expenses should be higher for the attacker than the defender).
To put it in simple terms: the cost of your ship isn't a tank. EVE isn't supposed to be a game where more expensive things can't be killed by less expensive things. If a battleship dies to a rifter, we do not complain the cost to the attacker was lower than the cost to the defender. Battleship can shoot back
So can a Hulk? |
EvilweaselSA
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
243
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 14:53:00 -
[387] - Quote
Adrenalinemax wrote:what is wrong with making a ganker spend 350mil to gank a ship costing 290mil?
Did you like it better when a 10mil ship could gank a ship that cost 290mil? ( I bet you did) C'mon, lemme see those tears, I can tell you are welling up the cost of your ship isn't part of your tank |
Karl Hobb
Stellar Ore Refinery and Crematorium
401
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 14:54:00 -
[388] - Quote
Simple question: If the ore bay is full and you are still mining, is the asteroid still depleted?
If so, I'm training up for a Covetor post-haste. Nothing Found |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
266
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 14:55:00 -
[389] - Quote
EvilweaselSA wrote:CCP Soundwave wrote: Yeah my point is that I don't think they should be profitable to gank. I think it should be possible, but not necessarily profitable (profitable might be the wrong word, but more that the expenses should be higher for the attacker than the defender).
To put it in simple terms: the cost of your ship isn't a tank. EVE isn't supposed to be a game where more expensive things can't be killed by less expensive things. If a battleship dies to a rifter, we do not complain the cost to the attacker was lower than the cost to the defender.
that's not really the issue that a small ship can kill a big ship. that's fine. a small ship killing a bigger ship so quickly is the issue, to be honest.
if you're in null in a battleship and an assault frigate attacks you you've got the chance to shoot him before he gets his transversal up and starts showing you that you're a fool. miners don't have the ability to issue that pre-emptive strike in high sec. they have no guns and concord have to finish their doughnut before they come help you out. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Dramaticus
Goonswarm Federation
189
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 14:57:00 -
[390] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:EvilweaselSA wrote:CCP Soundwave wrote: Yeah my point is that I don't think they should be profitable to gank. I think it should be possible, but not necessarily profitable (profitable might be the wrong word, but more that the expenses should be higher for the attacker than the defender).
To put it in simple terms: the cost of your ship isn't a tank. EVE isn't supposed to be a game where more expensive things can't be killed by less expensive things. If a battleship dies to a rifter, we do not complain the cost to the attacker was lower than the cost to the defender. that's not really the issue that a small ship can kill a big ship. that's fine. a small ship killing a bigger ship so quickly is the issue, to be honest. if you're in null in a battleship and an assault frigate attacks you you've got the chance to shoot him before he gets his transversal up and starts showing you that you're a fool. miners don't have the ability to issue that pre-emptive strike in high sec. they have no guns and concord have to finish their doughnut before they come help you out.
Warrior II |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 .. 119 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |