Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 35 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
327
|
Posted - 2016.05.04 08:52:54 -
[211] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:Gankers can go buy tags or they can go grind some rats and improve their security status, after all what was good for War Akini is good for you.
Enjoy the challenge... Why good for me? My sec status is fine thanks. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17610
|
Posted - 2016.05.04 08:56:31 -
[212] - Quote
Quote:
Liek Darz told that to people in local in Osmon when someone said he was funded to do this, but he ganks different ships, Hulks, Mac's, Retrivers, Covetors and the mining frigates, he even ganks mission running cruisers if that answers your question there. People fit their mac's for yield which is how he kills them with two Catalysts.
I have had people tell me they fit for yeild because they hate losing ISK, go kill them, I fit for tank and I accept the loss of yield from sitting in a tanked Skiff when I mine.
This is the reality, I liked Black Pedro's post even if I disagreed on this part of it, because hisec is going to change and become more fun in my opinion. Now come on baltec1 stop whining about the past and embrace the coming fun.
He lied to you. It's a loss making operation, there is simply not enough isk in the loot to cover the costs. It only ever worked when people fitted cargo expanders with no tank. After the hp buff combined with not needing cargo expanders the cost to gank exceeded the reward.
Same thing with all the old content with jetcan mining. Nobody jetcan mines so nobody is hunting for can which means I have no jetcan flippers to hunt myself. It was a mistake for CCP to make these changes to barges and it has resulted in less pvp in highsec. The loss in content also goes further. Less barges, haulers and combat ships and mod are getting killed which means fewer ships are getting bought, less ships getting bought means less reward for industrialists.
You tell me to adapt, well I adapted right up until the point they removed my gameplay. The people who didn't adapt were the people who demanded and celebrated CCP removing pirates from mining. |
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
1480
|
Posted - 2016.05.04 09:08:31 -
[213] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Quote:
Liek Darz told that to people in local in Osmon when someone said he was funded to do this, but he ganks different ships, Hulks, Mac's, Retrivers, Covetors and the mining frigates, he even ganks mission running cruisers if that answers your question there. People fit their mac's for yield which is how he kills them with two Catalysts.
I have had people tell me they fit for yeild because they hate losing ISK, go kill them, I fit for tank and I accept the loss of yield from sitting in a tanked Skiff when I mine.
This is the reality, I liked Black Pedro's post even if I disagreed on this part of it, because hisec is going to change and become more fun in my opinion. Now come on baltec1 stop whining about the past and embrace the coming fun.
He lied to you. It's a loss making operation, there is simply not enough isk in the loot to cover the costs. It only ever worked when people fitted cargo expanders with no tank. After the hp buff combined with not needing cargo expanders the cost to gank exceeded the reward. Same thing with all the old content with jetcan mining. Nobody jetcan mines so nobody is hunting for can which means I have no jetcan flippers to hunt myself. It was a mistake for CCP to make these changes to barges and it has resulted in less pvp in highsec. The loss in content also goes further. Less barges, haulers and combat ships and mod are getting killed which means fewer ships are getting bought, less ships getting bought means less reward for industrialists. You tell me to adapt, well I adapted right up until the point they removed my gameplay. The people who didn't adapt were the people who demanded and celebrated CCP removing pirates from mining.
Why would the most successful miner ganker in the game lie to me, you don't do it, he does. That said his reply did surprise me at the time. Regardless of that it still comes back to the fact that you feel that you should profit from a T2 fitted mining ship if you gank it, which seems like a silly benchmark in any game. Pirates gank haulers now, seriously your benchmark does not make any sense.
You can go after suspect baiters, there was a PL one outside the Preimeter X citadel, thats a fun challenge for you.
Lots of ships are dying in the game at the moment.
Pirates are going where the money is, which is interdicting haulers on gates, you should try it...
Ella's Snack bar. The Hisec sandbox is basically no longer a themepark for gankers now that CCP have rebalanced key areas. Well done CCP
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
1480
|
Posted - 2016.05.04 09:11:55 -
[214] - Quote
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:Dracvlad wrote:Gankers can go buy tags or they can go grind some rats and improve their security status, after all what was good for War Akini is good for you.
Enjoy the challenge... Why good for me? My sec status is fine thanks.
I meant Gankers in general when replying to your consequences post above.
Ella's Snack bar. The Hisec sandbox is basically no longer a themepark for gankers now that CCP have rebalanced key areas. Well done CCP
|
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
327
|
Posted - 2016.05.04 09:12:30 -
[215] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:He lied to you. It's a loss making operation,.... Come on Baltec, Dracvlad believes totally in the integrity and honesty of gankers.
Everything a ganker has told him in local has always been the truth. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17610
|
Posted - 2016.05.04 09:27:40 -
[216] - Quote
Quote:
Why would the most successful miner ganker in the game lie to me, you don't do it, he does. That said his reply did surprise me at the time.
To troll you. He is using the ships and tactics invented by my corp, I probably know more than he does on this subject and it's history as I was there from the start.
Quote: Regardless of that it still comes back to the fact that you feel that you should profit from a T2 fitted mining ship if you gank it, which seems like a silly benchmark in any game. Pirates gank haulers now, seriously your benchmark does not make any sense. Every other subcap bat maybe the abandon is profitable to gank when fitted in this way. It makes perfect sense for barges to be like this too. It's not like they would be at some kind of disadvantage, even the most token of tanks would push it above the limit of being profitable to gank. Hell if it was up to me I would give the barges the power grid they need to fit a large shield extender.
Quote: You can go after suspect baiters, there was a PL one outside the Preimeter X citadel, thats a fun challenge for you.
Lots of ships are dying in the game at the moment.
Pirates are going where the money is, which is interdicting haulers on gates, you should try it...
Being able to go do something else doesn't alter the fact that all of that content is gone. What happens when piracy against freighters is gone? When it becomes unprofitable to target haulers? You will point out that ganking is still possible but for a pirate it will mean their profession is gone. That is what has happened to mining piracy, it no longer exists all that is left is code style ganking to terrorise. |
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
1480
|
Posted - 2016.05.04 09:29:47 -
[217] - Quote
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:baltec1 wrote:He lied to you. It's a loss making operation,.... Come on Baltec, Dracvlad believes totally in the integrity and honesty of gankers. Everything a ganker has told him in local has always been the truth.
Liek Darz is a fine outstanding member of CODE and is a supremely efficient and active ganker who I respect greatly because I have gone after him a few times, he really knows his stuff and had no reason to lie to me.
Ella's Snack bar. The Hisec sandbox is basically no longer a themepark for gankers now that CCP have rebalanced key areas. Well done CCP
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
1480
|
Posted - 2016.05.04 09:41:00 -
[218] - Quote
baltec1 you are trying to push me into replying on ISK tanking so you can pull my chain on that. I disagree with your benchmark for reasons I explained earlier in terms of structure for a mining ship as compared to a combat ship. I still feel that you think you are entitled to gank every ship that can be fitted to a T2 level and profit from it, I don't agree with that benchmark
Freighters can still be ganked even with a full on correct 3 minute warp timer, its just become more difficult and more likely to be interdicted, more content...
Pirate is a profession, they have to adapt to changing circumstances, a Miner pirate is however a bit low brow to be honest.
Ella's Snack bar. The Hisec sandbox is basically no longer a themepark for gankers now that CCP have rebalanced key areas. Well done CCP
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17610
|
Posted - 2016.05.04 09:55:46 -
[219] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:baltec1 you are trying to push me into replying on ISK tanking so you can pull my chain on that. I disagree with your benchmark for reasons I explained earlier in terms of structure for a mining ship as compared to a combat ship. I still feel that you think you are entitled to gank every ship that can be fitted to a T2 level and profit from it, I don't agree with that benchmark
You have given a role play reason to justify barges not being balanced like every other subcap out there. You can avoid being profitable simply by fitting a tank, that's it. Why is this too much to ask from barge pilots?
Quote: Freighters can still be ganked even with a full on correct 3 minute warp timer, its just become more difficult and more likely to be interdicted, more content...
That's not what I was talking about. I said what happens to pirates when ganking haulers and freights becomes unprofitable? A rhetorical question granted but the point was the pirates have no other content to move to.
Quote:Pirate is a profession, they have to adapt to changing circumstances, a Miner pirate is however a bit low brow to be honest.
You can't adapt to impossible. Miner pirates were indeed to low bar of the profession with the poorest of payouts but it was where people started out. It was a newer pilot thing much like level 1 missions. They cut their teeth on it then progressed on to other things. There is still no reason that their profession, even it it was the lowest of low in the eyes of people such as yourself, should have been removed simply because people who fitted no tank on their expanded barges refused to adapt and fit a tank.
|
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
327
|
Posted - 2016.05.04 10:06:25 -
[220] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:Shae Tadaruwa wrote:Dracvlad wrote:EDIT: And a major point to make, the Change to bumping if CCP does it properly is also an end to no consequence PvP, where the gankers can toy with a victim for hours with no consequences. There's always anti-ganking. That's the real no consequence pvp and I don't think bumping changes are going to end that. First of all ganking will still happen, ... Of course it will. I totally agree.
However, you claimed no consequence pvp would come to an end, which is plainly false.
Anti-ganking is the most no consequence pvp there is in the game and it will continue no matter what bumping changes occur.
|
|
Tisiphone Dira
New Order Logistics CODE.
783
|
Posted - 2016.05.04 10:14:26 -
[221] - Quote
If you believe everything Liek Darz says (and you should, he is an honourable CODE. Agent) why haven't you purchased a permit from him? Or are you lying to us? |
Lucas Kell
Evolution. SpaceMonkey's Alliance
7609
|
Posted - 2016.05.04 10:41:41 -
[222] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:You have given a role play reason to justify barges not being balanced like every other subcap out there. You can avoid being profitable simply by fitting a tank, that's it. Why is this too much to ask from barge pilots? Again though you're talking about a versatile ship vs a ship with a rigid set of fitting options and crying that a ship built for defense has a naturally tougher defense than a more flexible ship built to fulfill multiple roles. Stop being terrible.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17610
|
Posted - 2016.05.04 10:47:41 -
[223] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:baltec1 wrote:You have given a role play reason to justify barges not being balanced like every other subcap out there. You can avoid being profitable simply by fitting a tank, that's it. Why is this too much to ask from barge pilots? Again though you're talking about a versatile ship vs a ship with a rigid set of fitting options and crying that a ship built for defense has a naturally tougher defense than a more flexible ship built to fulfill multiple roles. Stop being terrible.
I'm comparing barges to every single other subcap. |
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
1480
|
Posted - 2016.05.04 10:57:10 -
[224] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:baltec1 wrote:You have given a role play reason to justify barges not being balanced like every other subcap out there. You can avoid being profitable simply by fitting a tank, that's it. Why is this too much to ask from barge pilots? Again though you're talking about a versatile ship vs a ship with a rigid set of fitting options and crying that a ship built for defense has a naturally tougher defense than a more flexible ship built to fulfill multiple roles. Stop being terrible.
So much this.
Ella's Snack bar. The Hisec sandbox is basically no longer a themepark for gankers now that CCP have rebalanced key areas. Well done CCP
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17610
|
Posted - 2016.05.04 11:00:03 -
[225] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:baltec1 wrote:You have given a role play reason to justify barges not being balanced like every other subcap out there. You can avoid being profitable simply by fitting a tank, that's it. Why is this too much to ask from barge pilots? Again though you're talking about a versatile ship vs a ship with a rigid set of fitting options and crying that a ship built for defense has a naturally tougher defense than a more flexible ship built to fulfill multiple roles. Stop being terrible. So much this.
You are agreeing with a blatantly wrong comment. |
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
1484
|
Posted - 2016.05.04 11:01:56 -
[226] - Quote
Tisiphone Dira wrote:If you believe everything Liek Darz says (and you should, he is an honourable CODE. Agent) why haven't you purchased a permit from him? Or are you lying to us?
Why would I lie, he said that in local to me and another player.
As for buying a permit, I do not acept that CODE has any authority over me and therefore you have to fight for that right, furthermore from a legal point of view those permits are a waste of ISK because it is at the agents discretion whether he shoots holders or not. based on loose interpretation of imprecise rules.
Your legal team needs to go back over those rules and also tighten up the application of them with your agents.
Then you just have to defeat me to force me to pay and I don't see anyway that you are able to do that.
Does that answer your question.
EDIT: Liek Darz seems to have fits anywhere between 2.2m to 8.2m, he sccops his own wrecks and that of the target, so in one analysed he had 6m ISK worth of his own loot drop and gained 3m from the target, he used two 8.2m fitted catalysts which means he lost on that one. Checked a Mac kill he gained 10m loot but lost two Catalysts worth 16.4m. So yes he was being liberal with the truth. And he always says hello too.
Ella's Snack bar. The Hisec sandbox is basically no longer a themepark for gankers now that CCP have rebalanced key areas. Well done CCP
|
Lucas Kell
Evolution. SpaceMonkey's Alliance
7610
|
Posted - 2016.05.04 12:12:22 -
[227] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:I'm comparing barges to every single other subcap. Well you're not, are you. A fitted, empty occator with no tank wouldn't be profitable either, neither would any shuttle. What you're doing is completely ignoring the fact that most ships are built to be flexible so they can fulfil many roles meaning the empty ship itself is in a worse position but it has much broader fitting options which make it excel in whatever area you want and you're comparing it to an exhumer designed specifically to tank. Effectively you're complaining that other ships have more fitting options than Exhumers.
What you're fundamentally missing is that rather than having one single versatile exhumer, they have 3 rigid exhumers, one for yield, one for capacity and one for tank. You are suggesting that an untanked skiff should be the equivalent of an untanked Zealot, but it's not, as they've already opted to tank by choosing the skiff in the first place.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17612
|
Posted - 2016.05.04 13:14:42 -
[228] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:baltec1 wrote:I'm comparing barges to every single other subcap. Well you're not, are you. A fitted, empty occator with no tank wouldn't be profitable either, neither would any shuttle. What you're doing is completely ignoring the fact that most ships are built to be flexible so they can fulfil many roles meaning the empty ship itself is in a worse position but it has much broader fitting options which make it excel in whatever area you want and you're comparing it to an exhumer designed specifically to tank. Effectively you're complaining that other ships have more fitting options than Exhumers. What you're fundamentally missing is that rather than having one single versatile exhumer, they have 3 rigid exhumers, one for yield, one for capacity and one for tank. You are suggesting that an untanked skiff should be the equivalent of an untanked Zealot, but it's not, as they've already opted to tank by choosing the skiff in the first place.
You don't understand the point I am making at all. |
Lucas Kell
Evolution. SpaceMonkey's Alliance
7612
|
Posted - 2016.05.04 14:42:50 -
[229] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Which is bad for EVE. What we got is CCP effectively saying you miners are so ******** we have chosen to fit this ship for you. That's not how eve should work and an entire profession should not be wiped out of the game to make it happen. By all means make the skiff tanky but do it people can choose how to go about it. It should not come with an enormous tank or cargo hold right out of the box. It's should come via fitting room. But then all ships should be the same, and traits would no longer exist and everyone would come down to fittings. The zealot wouldn't get a laser bonus and the sacrilege wouldn't get a missile one. Either way, you'd still end up with players flying the same yield and tank as a skiff because the players smart enough to choose a skiff over a hulk now would still sacrifice the additional yield for additional tank. If anything all it would do is allow some of us to squeeze out a bit more yield and still have a tank that makes them unprofitable.
baltec1 wrote:What these ships represent is CCP trying to cure stupidity. They effectively said miners are too stupid to think for themselves and wiped out a lot of highsec content in the process. No, what these ships represent is a fixed directions for exhumers. One for yield, one for capacity, one for tank, and no way to balance it out with fittings. Honestly if you ant to push for a single superexhumer that can use fittings to reach each of thsoe current maximums independently, I'm behind you, since that will just mean I can get more yield while remaining unprofitable to gank, and the people getting killed will still be the dumb guys
baltec1 wrote:By all means give the skiff the ability to fit a battleship sized tank but make it a choice for the miner to make. I have the same issue with the deep space transports and t1 specialized haulers. They don't have any options with their holds which just limits choice. Yes fitting cargo expanders/ rigs makes ganking them easier but why should that not be an option for people? Less choice and less gameplay options is not a good thing. What would be the opposing choice though. So in yoru ideal world if a skiff chose not to fit tank, could they fit for yield and achieve hulk yield instead? or fit for ore hold and reach mackinaw capacity? Could they fit between the extremes and have both an improved yield an a formidable tank?
Because quite honestly it sounds like you just want a weak skiff and a separate "skiff tank module" that they have to choose to bolt on with no other viable choice. But if someone is making the decision to use a skiff now, they'll probably continue to make the decision to tank even if they made it that way, since they've already demonstrated that they choose tank over max yield by picking the Skiff.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
|
Soldarius
O C C U P Y Test Alliance Please Ignore
1497
|
Posted - 2016.05.04 14:56:08 -
[230] - Quote
It is not so much that CCP is hampering hisec content creators. It has more to do with the fact that industrial activities are hampered by pirate activity. So those that prefer to do those industrial activities naturally gravitate towards a safer environment.
Also, mining has almost no actual gameplay involvement. Its just warp to belt, press F1. Go afk. Come back in 20 minutes.
http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
|
|
Pandora Carrollon
Kingsman Tailors
209
|
Posted - 2016.05.04 15:02:40 -
[231] - Quote
Lucas-
Effectively, all ships are the same. You can make choices between certain efficient fits vs. other efficient fits that do different jobs, but despite all the options, you learn quickly that efficient fits win at a task, everything else just doesn't work well.
The issue is to modularity of the ships. If the ships weren't balanced against each other, you'd have most people belonging to the race that had the most efficient ships for the job, or a particular job would be by the race that did it effectively.
You could make an argument that this does apply to mining ships since ORE is about the only game in town there, but when it comes to warships, they are all shadows of each other.
Having had to personally work on balancing all the races of the Star Trek universe ships against each other, for a couple of years, this is probably the hardest task to do and creates the most conflict on teams. It almost inevitably ends up being modular and slightly mixed across racial lines to keep the sheer number of balance points down. Thus, the ships end up being basically the same cookie cutter frame that you frost and decorate differently. There are just right combinations and wrong combinations of that decoration. You wouldn't put Chocolate Syrup on Lobster Pasta, it's just not going to go down well...
Be Positive GÇó Change yourself first, New Eden will come later GÇó EVE is Awesome GÇó CCP isn't the enemy GÇó Players are people too GÇó Where're the clothing blueprints GÇó Yeah, I'm still learning this game
-- Pandora's Rules to EVE by
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17613
|
Posted - 2016.05.04 15:19:31 -
[232] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:But then all ships should be the same, and traits would no longer exist and everyone would come down to fittings. The zealot wouldn't get a laser bonus and the sacrilege wouldn't get a missile one. Either way, you'd still end up with players flying the same yield and tank as a skiff because the players smart enough to choose a skiff over a hulk now would still sacrifice the additional yield for additional tank. If anything all it would do is allow some of us to squeeze out a bit more yield and still have a tank that makes them unprofitable.
Bit of a leap off the deep end you are making there. Changing barges will do none of those things. You can give the skiff it's current tank simply by upping the fitting room to allow it. Reverse the hp buffs they made to the ship, keep the bonuses and simply add a few slots here and there and up the cpu and power grid to allow you to fit stuff. That's what should have happened.
Quote:No, what these ships represent is a fixed directions for exhumers. One for yield, one for capacity, one for tank, and no way to balance it out with fittings. You just said the same thing I did. CCP fitted the ships for you.
Quote:What would be the opposing choice though. So in yoru ideal world if a skiff chose not to fit tank, could they fit for yield and achieve hulk yield instead? or fit for ore hold and reach mackinaw capacity? Could they fit between the extremes and have both an improved yield an a formidable tank?
Because quite honestly it sounds like you just want a weak skiff and a separate "skiff tank module" that they have to choose to bolt on with no other viable choice. But if someone is making the decision to use a skiff now, they'll probably continue to make the decision to tank even if they made it that way, since they've already demonstrated that they choose tank over max yield by picking the Skiff.
I would give you the option to increase its hold at the expense of tank but also give you more options in terms of tank. Frankly I would change the barges to be armour tankers rather than shield as it would mean having to make real choices for yield, tank and cargo just like every other ship in eve. It makes eve a lot more interesting and varied. |
Lucas Kell
Evolution. SpaceMonkey's Alliance
7612
|
Posted - 2016.05.04 15:21:37 -
[233] - Quote
Pandora Carrollon wrote:Effectively, all ships are the same. You can make choices between certain efficient fits vs. other efficient fits that do different jobs, but despite all the options, you learn quickly that efficient fits win at a task, everything else just doesn't work well. Yeah totally, that's what I'm saying, just the way to choose between tank, yield or capacity on exhumers involves swapping the actual hull while with other ships it just means changing modules. Baltecs issue seems to be that when a player chooses tank (which they do by flying the skiff) they because unprofitable to gank, and is comparing it to picking a zealot and fitting no tank. But like I say the comparison is bad because by choosing the skiff the player already has chosen tank.
It sounds like what he wants is one single exhumer that has lower abse stats than all of the others but the ability to fit up to the same standards of the existing exhumers, but as I said in my previous post, the players smart enough to choose a skiff now will still be smart enough to fit a tank and the status quo would remain, we'd just have slightly less ships and we'd not need to swap hulls to change priorities.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
|
Lucas Kell
Evolution. SpaceMonkey's Alliance
7612
|
Posted - 2016.05.04 15:29:36 -
[234] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Bit of a leap off the deep end you are making there. Changing barges will do none of those things. You can give the skiff it's current tank simply by upping the fitting room to allow it. Reverse the hp buffs they made to the ship, keep the bonuses and simply add a few slots here and there and up the cpu and power grid to allow you to fit stuff. That's what should have happened. But don't you see that all that would do is mean they fit a few more modules to do exactly what they already do? Anyone making the choice of a skiff already will still be fitting
baltec1 wrote:You just said the same thing I did. CCP fitted the ships for you. No, what I said is that rather than making a super exhumer and giving you freedom of fittign choice they puroposly restricted you to one of three choices of hull so you can;t be as flexible as other ships. It's still the responsibility of the player to pick between tank, capacity and yield and it's still the choice of the players fittings to pick how much more tank or yield they want to add.
baltec1 wrote:I would give you the option to increase its hold at the expense of tank but also give you more options in terms of tank. Frankly I would change the barges to be armour tankers rather than shield as it would mean having to make real choices for yield, tank and cargo just like every other ship in eve. It makes eve a lot more interesting and varied. But surely the end result from a gankers perspective would be the same, since anyone smart enough to choose a skiff now would still be smart enough to tank their ship if it was fitting based. Switching to armor would just mean they have useless midslots and would be forced to sacrifice yield for tank since tank is a necessity. And since highsec miners are already at the bottom of the PVE income ladder, I'd question why you feel they need to be punished further, especially if they are the players already choosing the lower yield skiff over the higher yield hulk.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
|
Xiahou Altiska
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
8
|
Posted - 2016.05.04 15:42:19 -
[235] - Quote
baltec1 wrote: He lied to you. It's a loss making operation, there is simply not enough isk in the loot to cover the costs. It only ever worked when people fitted cargo expanders with no tank. After the hp buff combined with not needing cargo expanders the cost to gank exceeded the reward.
Same thing with all the old content with jetcan mining. Nobody jetcan mines so nobody is hunting for can which means I have no jetcan flippers to hunt myself. It was a mistake for CCP to make these changes to barges and it has resulted in less pvp in highsec. The loss in content also goes further. Less barges, haulers and combat ships and mod are getting killed which means fewer ships are getting bought, less ships getting bought means less reward for industrialists.
You tell me to adapt, well I adapted right up until the point they removed my gameplay. The people who didn't adapt were the people who demanded and celebrated CCP removing pirates from mining.
1. Why do you feel entitled to consistent profit in high-sec ganking when high-sec mining is not very profitable?
2. Why do you feel entitled to profitable high-sec ganking against players specifically fit and prepared against it and accepting the penalty in the form of reduced capacity and yield?
3. The loss of jetcan mining is due to player behavior, not game mechanics. Some people still do it, because mining ships still fill up very quickly. Many don't because they accept the additional travel time as the cost of doing business rather than putting up with can-flipping shenanigans.
Now you're really just complaining about a lack of stupid or careless people, which is quite funny. Welcome to EVE.
|
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
7633
|
Posted - 2016.05.04 16:00:19 -
[236] - Quote
baltec1 wrote: That's not how eve should work .........
um, Baltec....
entire articles are written when carebears who were ganked say things like that.
Bring back DEEEEP Space!
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17613
|
Posted - 2016.05.04 16:03:37 -
[237] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:But don't you see that all that would do is mean they fit a few more modules to do exactly what they already do? Anyone making the choice of a skiff already will still be fitting
Im fine with them choosing to fit a tank, its their choice. Equally I would be fine with someone choosing to fit no tank, slapping on some cargo expanders or going with max yield and even someone getting creative and fitting an ECM fit on them. The whole point would be its up to them how they use the ship.
Lucas Kell wrote:No, what I said is that rather than making a super exhumer and giving you freedom of fittign choice they puroposly restricted you to one of three choices of hull so you can;t be as flexible as other ships. It's still the responsibility of the player to pick between tank, capacity and yield and it's still the choice of the players fittings to pick how much more tank or yield they want to add.
You dont need to merge them into one super exhumer, they would work perfectly well being specialized for a certain task just like how every other class of ships has specializations. Remove the HP buff they got, add enough powergrid, cpu and slots to be able to fit the equipment the require and you will have fixed barges, brought back mining piracy and probably jetcan mining too. The barges would not be easy pickings and people would get the content back. Everyone wins.
Lucas Kell wrote:But surely the end result from a gankers perspective would be the same, since anyone smart enough to choose a skiff now would still be smart enough to tank their ship if it was fitting based. Switching to armor would just mean they have useless midslots and would be forced to sacrifice yield for tank since tank is a necessity. And since highsec miners are already at the bottom of the PVE income ladder, I'd question why you feel they need to be punished further, especially if they are the players already choosing the lower yield skiff over the higher yield hulk.
Am I getting punished for having to fit a tank on my Megathron rather than fill all the lows with magstabs and tracking? Everyone has to make the choice between more firepower, more speed, more tank, more utility and so on in every other ship. Why should miners not also have to think about these things? |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17613
|
Posted - 2016.05.04 16:09:16 -
[238] - Quote
Xiahou Altiska wrote:
1. Why do you feel entitled to consistent profit in high-sec ganking when high-sec mining is not very profitable?
I don't, but I do think there should be a chance to make a profit. Right now there isn't one.
Xiahou Altiska wrote: 2. Why do you feel entitled to profitable high-sec ganking against players specifically fit and prepared against it and accepting the penalty in the form of reduced capacity and yield?
I don't and never have. As I have said many time in this thread if you fit a tank you should expect to not be profitable to gank unless you are fitting silly things such as hundreds of millions in mods.
Xiahou Altiska wrote: 3. The loss of jetcan mining is due to player behavior, not game mechanics. Some people still do it, because mining ships still fill up very quickly. Many don't because they accept the additional travel time as the cost of doing business rather than putting up with can-flipping shenanigans.
The introduction of the much larger ore holds has resulted is the death of jetcan mining. Before the change you could find it happening everywhere in highsec. These days it is more rare than fining an active sentinel.
Xiahou Altiska wrote: Now you're really just complaining about a lack of stupid or careless people, which is quite funny. Welcome to EVE.
Why exactly should the stupid be protected from their own mistakes? |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17613
|
Posted - 2016.05.04 16:10:51 -
[239] - Quote
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:baltec1 wrote: That's not how eve should work ......... um, Baltec.... entire articles are written when carebears who were ganked say things like that.
Context is important here. |
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
1495
|
Posted - 2016.05.04 16:12:06 -
[240] - Quote
Xiahou Altiska wrote:baltec1 wrote: He lied to you. It's a loss making operation, there is simply not enough isk in the loot to cover the costs. It only ever worked when people fitted cargo expanders with no tank. After the hp buff combined with not needing cargo expanders the cost to gank exceeded the reward.
Same thing with all the old content with jetcan mining. Nobody jetcan mines so nobody is hunting for can which means I have no jetcan flippers to hunt myself. It was a mistake for CCP to make these changes to barges and it has resulted in less pvp in highsec. The loss in content also goes further. Less barges, haulers and combat ships and mod are getting killed which means fewer ships are getting bought, less ships getting bought means less reward for industrialists.
You tell me to adapt, well I adapted right up until the point they removed my gameplay. The people who didn't adapt were the people who demanded and celebrated CCP removing pirates from mining.
1. Why do you feel entitled to consistent profit in high-sec ganking when high-sec mining is not very profitable? 2. Why do you feel entitled to profitable high-sec ganking against players specifically fit and prepared against it and accepting the penalty in the form of reduced capacity and yield? 3. The loss of jetcan mining is due to player behavior, not game mechanics. Some people still do it, because mining ships still fill up very quickly. Many don't because they accept the additional travel time as the cost of doing business rather than putting up with can-flipping shenanigans. Now you're really just complaining about a lack of stupid or careless people, which is quite funny. Welcome to EVE.
Very well said and excellent points from Lucas Kell as per normal.
baltec1,
I seriously think you are trolling people, miner ganking for profit is a niche play style, CCP has to look at the whole rather than your niche, I had it with my play style which I no longer do, I was belt ratting in Stain, in poor systems, having the excitement of people trying to catch me, but playing hard to kill. I would loot and salvage, then at some point CCP added additional materials to get around adjusting ship cost upwards beause people had made loads of ships then reprocessed them and made a killing. Then they remoaved it and dropped yield to 50% for me, in a stroke they cut the main way I made ships by 50%. I complained and they ignored me, previously they had destroyed the drake as my ship of choice because everyone used it so they nerfed it and its weapons system making it more difficult. Then they introduced D-scan immune ships which meant that my window for GTFO was removed. And of course do not forget the changed warp speeds. Add that lot together and the poor returns against increased risk meant it was time to stop doing it.
To be blunt, I complained and dropped the game for a bit, but you are whining to a stupid degree or you are trolling. If I can accept that my play style is dead so can you. If you can't then it sucks to be you...
EDIT: And this is why I blasted the OP for this thread
Ella's Snack bar. The Hisec sandbox is basically no longer a themepark for gankers now that CCP have rebalanced key areas. Well done CCP
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 35 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |