|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Rocky Deadshot
In The Goo EVE Trade Alliance
19
|
Posted - 2011.10.23 17:17:00 -
[1] - Quote
This game is a place for cyber bullies and dicks to come and play in an environment that praises their actions as nearly heroic.
While yes... an insurance company that is out to make money would probably find ways to shortchange on insurance policies... CCP and the CSM are run by individuals that have no interest in changing this... so your only hope is to actually vote in the next CSM for a strong high sec player, so just maybe your voice will be laughed at on the CSM table, instead of on the forums.
*EDIT* Calling goons to come flame this post. |
Rocky Deadshot
In The Goo EVE Trade Alliance
19
|
Posted - 2011.10.23 17:26:00 -
[2] - Quote
Ashley SchmidtVonGoldberg wrote:no consequences if you are in a tech 1 boat and you follow the rules. ie dont gank so you cant get into highsec.
once you are in a billion isk ship that cannot be insured things change. i can lose plat insured ships tech I ships all day and it does not matter but i cant lose plat insured tech II ships all day or tears may form in the corners of my eyes
And when you are webbed and scrammed by 50 people in a gate camp and you have a full set of pirate implants/faction fitted tengu/5 days of training to lose. Then the game has consequences.
Not if you are in an Arti mael 1400 or a thrasher :)
my work here is done
What was your work? To destroy the English language? |
Rocky Deadshot
In The Goo EVE Trade Alliance
26
|
Posted - 2011.10.24 04:44:00 -
[3] - Quote
Kengutsi Akira wrote:Rocky Deadshot wrote:so your only hope is to actually vote in the next CSM Which wont matter two ***** cause whoever DCF gets together to vote for will win. When 72% of 0.0 is aligned to vote for one person the rest of the game is pretty ****** for what theyll want. Oh what glorious tears there will be after the next CSM
Wait ... there is only one person on this council? I know the chairman has an ego, but is it big enough to call 1 person a council?
|
Rocky Deadshot
In The Goo EVE Trade Alliance
27
|
Posted - 2011.10.24 13:38:00 -
[4] - Quote
Kengutsi Akira wrote:Rocky Deadshot wrote:Kengutsi Akira wrote:Rocky Deadshot wrote:so your only hope is to actually vote in the next CSM Which wont matter two ***** cause whoever DCF gets together to vote for will win. When 72% of 0.0 is aligned to vote for one person the rest of the game is pretty ****** for what theyll want. Oh what glorious tears there will be after the next CSM Wait ... there is only one person on this council? I know the chairman has an ego, but is it big enough to call 1 person a council? I know its hard to figure things like this out by yourself so Ill help... DCF gets to vote for more than one person per CSM election correct? sooooooo... each person 72% of 0.0 wants in will GET IN sooooooo... noone else anyone wants in will get there cause theyll be outvoted. So all those people will come qqing to the forums afterwards. I hope that wasnt too hard for you.
I know this is difficult to get but I'll try and spell it out for you....
Its a council ... meaning more than one person is on it. Sure they may be able to ensure they get their guy as the chairman, but they don't have enough votes to completely silence high sec. IF high sec could get around a quarter of its inhabitants to actually vote for some representative.... they would make it onto the council... which that right there would be a enough to signal to CCP that high sec players are upset. If you want change, quit whining on the forum and start looking for a representative.... I would suggest starting with incursion runners.... looking for a strong FC people trust. |
Rocky Deadshot
In The Goo EVE Trade Alliance
31
|
Posted - 2011.10.24 15:47:00 -
[5] - Quote
I think the biggest issue that people are having is the relative cost of exhumers, how little they actually make, and how easy they are to kill.
With all the new stuff being brought in with the expansion... i expect mineral prices to go up, CCP could introduce a new method of mining that allows miners to use an UI to micromanage laser effeciency.
*THINKING*
*Remembers the original PI.
oh god no... ignore that
how about allow people to mine ice in a command ship? |
Rocky Deadshot
In The Goo EVE Trade Alliance
31
|
Posted - 2011.10.24 16:15:00 -
[6] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Rocky Deadshot wrote:I think the biggest issue that people are having is the relative cost of exhumers, how little they actually make, and how easy they are to kill. Whether it's an issue or not depends on whether they are able to earn back that cost between ganks. How much do they earn, net, after all costs are included?
Off the top of my head its to the order of 20+hrs (if ice mining) and about 15+hrs (for mining), depending on skills, fit, and a few other parameters. Doesn't seem like much.... but consider this... I can buy and fit a drake and pay it off doing lvl4 missions in about 2hrs. I can buy and pay of a scimitar in 2hrs doing incursions.... In fact... in 15hrs of doing incursions i can buy a loki (1bil isk fit) and 2hulks.
Both the missions and the incursion fits are inherently safer due to constantly moving, as well as, they all are harder to kill. And trust me after awhile of running vanguards, you begin to feel like your roleplaying a bot.
It would be one thing if the ship required to gank a hulk/mack required about the same amount of isk as those ships... but they dont, goons figured out the perfect formula for miner tears. This is specifically for mining... gankers should be able to take down those 2bil faction fit bs without spending that much. But for mining... the ship is being taken down by a single pilot most times... sometimes 2... and they have no hope of surviving. The fact of the matter is that Exhumers can't tank.. by design, is that fair? idk.
Maybe a new set of exhumer like ships that are similar, lower yield, but have the ability to tank ... at least more than the current ones is the path we should take. |
Rocky Deadshot
In The Goo EVE Trade Alliance
31
|
Posted - 2011.10.24 16:22:00 -
[7] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Rocky Deadshot wrote: The fact of the matter is that Exhumers can't tank.. by design, is that fair? idk.
Maybe a new set of exhumer like ships that are similar, lower yield, but have the ability to tank ... at least more than the current ones.
if you simply must mine and can't survive in eve without mining mine with a rokh simply stay out of our ice belts
I would rather jet can mine in a bantum that mine ice. |
Rocky Deadshot
In The Goo EVE Trade Alliance
32
|
Posted - 2011.10.24 16:47:00 -
[8] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Tanya Fox wrote:What makes me laugh is why do people that gank always think that somebody that speaks out against it mines. Just like how the victimes always think that someone who condones ganks is a ganker.
I just assume most people in this game are borderline sociopaths... then I'm not surprised by anything
|
Rocky Deadshot
In The Goo EVE Trade Alliance
32
|
Posted - 2011.10.24 16:53:00 -
[9] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Rocky Deadshot wrote:Off the top of my head its to the order of 20+hrs (if ice mining) and about 15+hrs (for mining), depending on skills, fit, and a few other parameters. Doesn't seem like much.... but consider this... I can buy and fit a drake and pay it off doing lvl4 missions in about 2hrs. I can buy and pay of a scimitar in 2hrs doing incursions.... GǪas can the gankers, but they don't because they don't want something as boring and as safe as L4s GÇö they want to gank. Just like the miners want to mine. The point here is instead that, unless those miners are losing a Hulk/Mac for every 15GÇô20h in the belts, their risk vs. reward is far better than the gankers, who generally operate at a loss or at best (if they have some help/alts) at break-even. So when people ask GÇ£how does the loss of the miner stack up against that of the gankerGÇ¥ or when they ask GÇ£where are the risksGÇ¥, there is the answer: the losses aren't nearly as bad, and the risks are significantGǪ GǪthe actual GÇ£problemGÇ¥ is that the gankers are not concerned about the risks GÇö in fact, one might rather suspect that the risk is the draw rather than some kind of hindrance. One might even venture to guess that this is why this whole discussion exists: because the miners assume that measure that would stop them from doing something will stop others, when it's not really a factor for those others and the solution will both fail to solve the perceived problem, and cause entirely new problems to pop up.
Good argument, but I do see one major difference that I should point out.
Gankers that gank to make money... (people who chase down faction fitted BSs) pretty much always make a good payday... they do risk that a bad drop will occur where nothing of extreme value drops, but that is why they go after the ones that have several high value items.
Gankers that gank miners, either for the lolz or as part of a corp initiative, aren't worried about loss of ship. There is no "risk" they know exactly what will happen and the ship is counted as a loss the second its fitted for the gank.
The miner's ship is what makes him money... most gankers probably have alts that make money to fund their tear farming. And 15 to 20hrs of actual in game work gone isn't something miners take lightly.
That being said... I'll stick to my previous suggestion... make a new set of t2 mining barges that have less yield but can actually tank... and ofc make them cost more. |
|
|
|