Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Archdaimon
NorCorp Enterprise No Holes Barred
32
|
Posted - 2012.05.05 00:05:00 -
[1] - Quote
Disclaimer: Not a carebear blah blah, didn't lose any hulks blah blah, don't live in Hi blah blah.
Matter at Hand:
Eve is a Sandbox or tries to be as much as possible. What is not "sandboxable" is the ship designs of Eve. They are sort of given to us by magical beings deciding what we can fly and what we can't.
As with any thing in Human history when one thing failed things started to adapt. We see this in fleet doctrines or fits for ships.
What we do not see is the ship design itself change. What am I getting at?
Mining ships. It makes no sense, from any fluffy perspective that ships continuously ganked never develops and becomes able to counter that thread. Few times in history have people insisted on being so ******** as to continue doing the same mistake over and over. No place in Eve has ever been safe enough for any ship design as paper thin as an exhumer to be designed in the first place!
One should think that an Engineer had at least enough some entrepreneurial spirit as to create a mining design not popin on sight. The resource is worth it. Current ship design just plain weird.
Faq: q) omfg omfg omfg carebear don't want suicide ganks. a) Yes I do. But lets put some fun into it. School Yard bully only fun for so long?
q) Your a botter a) No.
q) You just butthurt a) Not really. I just haven't lost faith in common sense
q) Don't fly what you can't afford to lose a) I don't
q) Have you tried mining a) Yes
q) Why should I care? a) Dunno, maybe you just will?
tbc |
Nick Bison
Bison Industrial Inc Thundering Herd
214
|
Posted - 2012.05.05 00:09:00 -
[2] - Quote
Yup, that is actually pretty accurate.
+1
Nothing clever at this time. |
Alara IonStorm
2082
|
Posted - 2012.05.05 00:10:00 -
[3] - Quote
Business 101.
Guy buys Mining Ship > Mining Ship is destroyed > Guy buys new Mining Ship.
They don't have much incentive to put money into designing something when everyone just keeps buying new current Mining Ships after getting ganked.
Like how new light bulbs burn out quicker then ones made in the 30's. |
Rezig Huruta
AD ASTRA Interstellar
8
|
Posted - 2012.05.05 00:12:00 -
[4] - Quote
So, how about using a buffer ship... maybe I don't know... shield transfer arrays and other such things to last a bit longer until the baddies get Concorded?
|
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4012
|
Posted - 2012.05.05 00:13:00 -
[5] - Quote
There's this one hull that can be fit to mine pretty well and fit a great tank.
You may have heard of it, it's called the Rokh. "WeGÇÖre a professional Merc Alliance, like PL" ~ snot shot, 2012 |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
575
|
Posted - 2012.05.05 00:14:00 -
[6] - Quote
Andski wrote:There's this one hull that can be fit to mine pretty well and fit a great tank.
You may have heard of it, it's called the Rokh. Yay for the rokh ! Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd |
Archdaimon
NorCorp Enterprise No Holes Barred
33
|
Posted - 2012.05.05 00:18:00 -
[7] - Quote
Hi Goons. Yeah I heard of the Rokh. It is also a battleship designed for combat able to fit mining lasers (wtf?).
My point is. If this was a sandbox and I spent 100 bil isk designing a better tanked mining ship I am pretty sure I'd find investors pretty fast.
I mean I would almost be able to find investors on this real planet called earth:
http://www.economist.com/node/21553419 |
Sycho Pathic
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
41
|
Posted - 2012.05.05 00:25:00 -
[8] - Quote
As far as the Hulk goes... A fool and his ISK are soon parted. |
Alara IonStorm
2083
|
Posted - 2012.05.05 00:27:00 -
[9] - Quote
Archdaimon wrote:Hi Goons. Yeah I heard of the Rokh. It is also a battleship designed for combat able to fit mining lasers (wtf?).
My point is. If this was a sandbox and I spent 100 bil isk designing a better tanked mining ship I am pretty sure I'd find investors pretty fast.
That's great but no one would buy it. ORE holds pattens on all their Mining Gear and would never sell permission to use it to you.
Your Ship would Mine less then a Hulk, about as much as a Rokh really if you are lucky. No one would invest the capital you need because surprise, surprise they are all investing in ORE.
Why are they investing in ORE? Besides being industry leaders all their Ships are easily destroyed so they end up triple billing everyone. You would never make enough to reverse engineer the technology.
|
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4014
|
Posted - 2012.05.05 00:27:00 -
[10] - Quote
Archdaimon wrote:Hi Goons. Yeah I heard of the Rokh. It is also a battleship designed for combat able to fit mining lasers (wtf?). My point is. If this was a sandbox and I spent 100 bil isk designing a better tanked mining ship I am pretty sure I'd find investors pretty fast. I mean I would almost be able to find investors on this real planet called earth: http://www.economist.com/node/21553419
This is about balance - the Hulk has great mining abilities, but that comes at the expense of the ability to take damage.
It does not take much to kill a gank-fit Catalyst - one HAC/BC will take care of it quickly. "WeGÇÖre a professional Merc Alliance, like PL" ~ snot shot, 2012 |
|
Archdaimon
NorCorp Enterprise No Holes Barred
33
|
Posted - 2012.05.05 00:31:00 -
[11] - Quote
Andski wrote:Archdaimon wrote:Hi Goons. Yeah I heard of the Rokh. It is also a battleship designed for combat able to fit mining lasers (wtf?). My point is. If this was a sandbox and I spent 100 bil isk designing a better tanked mining ship I am pretty sure I'd find investors pretty fast. I mean I would almost be able to find investors on this real planet called earth: http://www.economist.com/node/21553419 This is about balance - the Hulk has great mining abilities, but that comes at the expense of the ability to take damage. It does not take much to kill a gank-fit Catalyst - one HAC/BC will take care of it quickly.
Of course it is about balance. But currently the setup is so off balance it should be obvious.
Another piece of evidence is the weird manifesto from our dear James(whatever)(tm) about carebears destroying Eve. What he is right about is that no one dares to mine. Those that do either failed math at school or I don't know is masochists or something.
If we want a game of hunted and hunters, there must be a food chain. Currently Mining itself has ******** gameplay but combine it with ******** ship designs make it even more inbearable.
In short. Bad mining design kills pew!
|
Merrc
Shrike Technologies
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.05 01:16:00 -
[12] - Quote
I would like to see a new ship also, unkillable no, but damn Hulks are dated ( I cant even remember are they circa 2006?) There is a larger consumption of ore now but no one designs a larger mining vessel? Carriers, Dreads,Titans...but the ship that helps build many of these... sometimes I think the Orca was initially designed to be a mining vessel but was viewed as too powerful, lets pull the srtip miners and give it Tractors |
Vaal Erit
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
207
|
Posted - 2012.05.05 01:19:00 -
[13] - Quote
Good point. You know there has been many additions to mining vessels with t2 macks and hulks and the orca but zero vessels dedicated to suicide ganking. This obviously needs rectifying.
I mean there should certainly be advances in suiciding ships so how about a cruiser with 8 gun hardpoints that can fit medium guns with a 60%/lvl bonus to damage. Ship costs about 5m and after firing dies in 20s, no matter what! |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Divine Power. Cascade Imminent
828
|
Posted - 2012.05.05 01:23:00 -
[14] - Quote
lol space ship designers have to adapt so incompetent pilots don't have to |
Darth Tickles
Dark Sun Consortium
288
|
Posted - 2012.05.05 01:25:00 -
[15] - Quote
Vaal Erit wrote:Good point. You know there has been many additions to mining vessels with t2 macks and hulks and the orca but zero vessels dedicated to suicide ganking. This obviously needs rectifying.
I mean there should certainly be advances in suiciding ships so how about a cruiser with 8 gun hardpoints that can fit medium guns with a 60%/lvl bonus to damage. Ship costs about 5m and after firing dies in 20s, no matter what!
wololololol
******* owned
end thread
|
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4021
|
Posted - 2012.05.05 01:40:00 -
[16] - Quote
Vaal Erit wrote:Good point. You know there has been many additions to mining vessels with t2 macks and hulks and the orca but zero vessels dedicated to suicide ganking. This obviously needs rectifying.
I mean there should certainly be advances in suiciding ships so how about a cruiser with 8 gun hardpoints that can fit medium guns with a 60%/lvl bonus to damage. Ship costs about 5m and after firing dies in 20s, no matter what!
I'm down with this. "WeGÇÖre a professional Merc Alliance, like PL" ~ snot shot, 2012 |
ivar R'dhak
STK Scientific
41
|
Posted - 2012.05.05 01:48:00 -
[17] - Quote
VERY good thread. Actually OP, the Exhumers were supposed to be these ships.
CCP just dumped them on the miners then promptly ignored ALL their failings, then killed mining with drone alloys and nobody really cared much afterwards.
Stupidly CCP now killed "gun mining" for good thinking there was some actual viable gameplay to replace that. Well, whoopidy-effin-doodah, there isn-¦t!
Hulkageddon perfectly proves that, which I-¦m actually glad the Goons are doing. Nothing like cold hard data to show how stupid the whole mining gameplay is ATM. Which after all now provides the minerals and thus the whole backbone of EVE-¦s industry.
The food chain metaphor is perfect here. There is now indeed NO real food chain left. Only big fish eating the smaller ones.
The PVP masterminds will eventually have to start their own mining OPs, and I can-¦t wait to watch how that one will pan out. Bet Goonswarm mining will be a sight to behold.
Or rather not .. as even the Mitani can-¦t polish that turd shiny enough for his merry bunch of bastiches. |
Merrc
Shrike Technologies
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.05 01:50:00 -
[18] - Quote
Vaal Erit wrote:Good point. You know there has been many additions to mining vessels with t2 macks and hulks and the orca but zero vessels dedicated to suicide ganking. This obviously needs rectifying.
I mean there should certainly be advances in suiciding ships so how about a cruiser with 8 gun hardpoints that can fit medium guns with a 60%/lvl bonus to damage. Ship costs about 5m and after firing dies in 20s, no matter what!
Something like the TIII battlecruisers ? |
Thomas Orca
Northstar Cabal Fatal Ascension
87
|
Posted - 2012.05.05 01:51:00 -
[19] - Quote
ivar R'dhak wrote: The food chain metaphor is perfect here. There is now indeed NO real food chain left. Only big fish eating the smaller ones.
I'm curious as to what you think a food chain is. |
ivar R'dhak
STK Scientific
41
|
Posted - 2012.05.05 01:55:00 -
[20] - Quote
Thomas Orca wrote:I'm curious as to what you think a food chain is. It begins with plankton or in EvE-¦s case miner "pond scum". "Food chainy" enough for you? |
|
seany1212
eXceed Inc. No Holes Barred
157
|
Posted - 2012.05.05 01:57:00 -
[21] - Quote
Oh look, another one of these threads, oh look, what's worse is it's a alliance member
Show me a decent buffer tanked hulk that's lost to gankers (start with a DC2 )... That's because pretty much everyone mining sticks survey scanners and cargohold expanders/mining upgrades in their respective mids and lows. When I start seeing actual tanked hulks on lossmails to gankers then i'll side with any one of these terrible threads |
Thomas Orca
Northstar Cabal Fatal Ascension
87
|
Posted - 2012.05.05 01:57:00 -
[22] - Quote
ivar R'dhak wrote:Thomas Orca wrote:I'm curious as to what you think a food chain is. It begins with plankton or in EvE-¦s case miner "pond scum". "Food chainy" enough for you? And what we have now is not reminiscent of that how? |
ivar R'dhak
STK Scientific
42
|
Posted - 2012.05.05 02:01:00 -
[23] - Quote
Thomas Orca wrote:ivar R'dhak wrote:Thomas Orca wrote:I'm curious as to what you think a food chain is. It begins with plankton or in EvE-¦s case miner "pond scum". "Food chainy" enough for you? And what we have now is not reminiscent of that how? And what we have now is reminiscent of that how? |
Torneach
Hedion University Amarr Empire
28
|
Posted - 2012.05.05 02:04:00 -
[24] - Quote
seany1212 wrote:Oh look, another one of these threads, oh look, what's worse is it's a alliance member Show me a decent buffer tanked hulk that's lost to gankers (start with a DC2 )... That's because pretty much everyone mining sticks survey scanners and cargohold expanders/mining upgrades in their respective mids and lows. When I start seeing actual tanked hulks on lossmails to gankers then i'll side with any one of these terrible threads
Agreed 100%.
With halfway decent skills, anyone can tank a Hulk extremely well, at the cost of mining output.
But for some reason, that would be just terrible.
|
Thomas Orca
Northstar Cabal Fatal Ascension
87
|
Posted - 2012.05.05 02:11:00 -
[25] - Quote
ivar R'dhak wrote: And what we have now is reminiscent of that how?
Miners are the bottom of our food chain; they are the producers of our little food chain. With the removal of gun mining, the vast majority of minerals produced comes from them.
Next, one of our primary consumers, if you subscribe to the carebear philosophy that ganking is solely for those who are terrible as "Real PvP", is the ganker. They kill the miners for their modules and maybe some ore.
Thirdly, if you again subscribe that carebear philosophy with the addition of the ideals of Nullsec alliances that lowsec pilots are terrible, are the lowsec pilots, who kill miners and other unprepared people who wander into lowsec. They make up our secondary consumers.
Forth, you have the nullsec alliances. Again, consuming everything below them in the food chain, especially if they wander into their respective nullsec territories. They are our tertiary consumers.
Finally, you have the leet pvpers, who are our apex predators.
EDIT: Then industrialists are our decomposers, who take the remains of all the other trophic levels, and turn them into usable resources. |
Nick Bison
Bison Industrial Inc Thundering Herd
217
|
Posted - 2012.05.05 02:18:00 -
[26] - Quote
Thomas Orca wrote:... blah blah ... words to stroke my epeen
I'd like to see your permission slip allowing pets to post.
Nothing clever at this time. |
Emiko Luan
Ekchuah's Shrine Comporium Kill It With Fire
55
|
Posted - 2012.05.05 02:21:00 -
[27] - Quote
You can already trade tank for yield, Battleships have more tank for less yield. The final result is what matters, not the ORE logo on the side of the ship. +welcome to my world+ http://venomzer0.deviantart.com |
Thomas Orca
Northstar Cabal Fatal Ascension
87
|
Posted - 2012.05.05 02:21:00 -
[28] - Quote
Nick Bison wrote:
I'd like to see your permission slip allowing pets to post.
You're just jealous because you have no owner alliance to love and adore you. |
Nick Bison
Bison Industrial Inc Thundering Herd
217
|
Posted - 2012.05.05 02:23:00 -
[29] - Quote
Thomas Orca wrote:Nick Bison wrote:
I'd like to see your permission slip allowing pets to post.
You're just jealous because you have no owner alliance to love and adore you.
Bwaa haa haa ... good one.
Nothing clever at this time. |
Thomas Orca
Northstar Cabal Fatal Ascension
87
|
Posted - 2012.05.05 02:27:00 -
[30] - Quote
Nick Bison wrote: Bwaa haa haa ... good one.
Whatever helps you sleep at night. |
|
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4025
|
Posted - 2012.05.05 02:53:00 -
[31] - Quote
Nick Bison wrote:Thomas Orca wrote:... blah blah ... words to stroke my epeen I'd like to see your permission slip allowing pets to post.
since when were hisec miners allowed to post "WeGÇÖre a professional Merc Alliance, like PL" ~ snot shot, 2012 |
XIRUSPHERE
Deadly Intent. Ninja Unicorns with Huge Horns
277
|
Posted - 2012.05.05 02:54:00 -
[32] - Quote
If it's more of a challenge why not? Even if a hulk had a BS tank it could be done by small organized groups on the cheap. Make the tanky ship a new ship, and with greater security comes greater cost. You won't get hit by casuals much but you're still a target, as it should be. The advantage of a bad memory is that one can enjoy the same good things for the first time several times.
One will rarely err if extreme actions be ascribed to vanity, ordinary actions to habit, and mean actions to fear. |
Sri Nova
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
65
|
Posted - 2012.05.05 03:12:00 -
[33] - Quote
Do not see any guns on these
i dont even think this has shields much less a gun
yet again no guns whats with this ?
yet still no guns ...
this ones even in the military and it dont have no guns neither
even the **** super truck on that page did not have any guns .
even broadening our range and these do not have any guns .. maybe one has a grenade or tear gas launcher but still no guns.
im sure i did not try hard enough but im guessing our current doctrine just dose not allow for such creations maybe when al-Qaeda starts attacking our mining vehicles will then have armed mining vehicles . but i would not count on it i dont think they have started equipping sky scrappers with aa guns yet . |
Nir Ice
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.05 03:37:00 -
[34] - Quote
Most of that equipment is guarded by humans with guns, or fences, or cops who will put you into jail for many years. You can still shoot at the stuff, bust it, etc.
Concord only does one thing, blow up your ship, that would be the equivalent of the cops taking your car mounted RPG away and busting the whole thing, allowing you to file an insurance claim, and giving you a lecture about shooting huge mining equipment with RPGs. Then doing nothing as you walk into the dealership to buy a new car with an RPG on it.
The point is that the consequences are far less in EvE for a given action then the real world, because in the real world we figured out that if you dont have consequences that line up to the action you just took then you will never get anyplace
If shooting people in space would cause concord to Pod you then ban you from even Jumping into Highsec at the gate, and moving your clone to low sec. Then people might think twice.
O ya, and the cops are corrupt so if your guards with dog who shoot bees from there mouths shoot at the bandit before he shoots first then the cops kill your guards. |
Jessie-A Tassik
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
126
|
Posted - 2012.05.05 03:45:00 -
[35] - Quote
The Null Bear only cares about what benfits Null Bear.
The key is to attack something that will force the Null Bear to do what you want or openly admit to being a shameless coward.
So push for the removal of Local. Without Local the absolute safety the Null Bear enjoys in Null Sec goes POOF in an instant.
And in that same instant, the Null Bear will begin whining about how useless the Hulk is. And no, it won't take longer than a second.
You want mining ships buffed?
REMOVE LOCAL.
Local does f**** all for High Sec anyway.
DOWN WITH LOCAL. |
Sri Nova
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
66
|
Posted - 2012.05.05 03:48:00 -
[36] - Quote
Nir Ice wrote:Most of that equipment is guarded by humans with guns
to bad we can not do this eve ..
heck sure would be nice if you could have some one with some kinda shield thingy that kinda likes remote repairs you shields or some thing .
but yeah this whole thread was about lack of consequences for those who gank . |
Kietay Ayari
Caldari State
391
|
Posted - 2012.05.05 05:23:00 -
[37] - Quote
The game is a game to be fun. The game relies on people adapting rather than releasing new better ships every few months. That is why the game is fun. The game is not realistic and not balanced in a realistic way, rather, it is balanced in a way to make it interesting and enjoyable. Ferox #1 |
Archdaimon
NorCorp Enterprise No Holes Barred
38
|
Posted - 2012.05.05 10:18:00 -
[38] - Quote
seany1212 wrote:Oh look, another one of these threads, oh look, what's worse is it's a alliance member Show me a decent buffer tanked hulk that's lost to gankers (start with a DC2 )... That's because pretty much everyone mining sticks survey scanners and cargohold expanders/mining upgrades in their respective mids and lows. When I start seeing actual tanked hulks on lossmails to gankers then i'll side with any one of these terrible threads
Yeah, I am not surprised we disagree here but I'd still turn it around.
Maybe there is a reason why you have not seen any decently tanked hulks? Because the can't... Every now and then people find a new way to try it, and they fail too.
It is not really about adapting ship fits, more that current ship designs does not allow for tactical game play.
|
Takseen
University of Caille Gallente Federation
147
|
Posted - 2012.05.05 10:39:00 -
[39] - Quote
The answer to your question is the Covetor. Reduced mining yield in exchange for reduced losses in the event of attack. |
seany1212
eXceed Inc. No Holes Barred
157
|
Posted - 2012.05.05 10:49:00 -
[40] - Quote
Archdaimon wrote:seany1212 wrote:Oh look, another one of these threads, oh look, what's worse is it's a alliance member Show me a decent buffer tanked hulk that's lost to gankers (start with a DC2 )... That's because pretty much everyone mining sticks survey scanners and cargohold expanders/mining upgrades in their respective mids and lows. When I start seeing actual tanked hulks on lossmails to gankers then i'll side with any one of these terrible threads Yeah, I am not surprised we disagree here but I'd still turn it around. Maybe there is a reason why you have not seen any decently tanked hulks? Because the can't... Every now and then people find a new way to try it, and they fail too. It is not really about adapting ship fits, more that current ship designs does not allow for tactical game play.
INB4someone links 27+k ehp hulk tank... |
|
Jacob Holland
Weyland-Vulcan Industries Alliance not Found
32
|
Posted - 2012.05.05 10:53:00 -
[41] - Quote
Repost from here.
The industrial and industrial-related ships in EVE have always been "weak" of course, The Wreath for example barely has more HP than a rookie ship (99 Shield HP? The Ibis gets about 150 ). Part of this is that the industrial ships IIRC bypassed at least one of the HP buffs which were designed to prolong combat.
None of this, nor the changed 'landscape' in which the ships have to operate from the destroyer un-nerf or the introduction of the Tier 3 BCs can really be classed as a balance reason for a buff, but they could be classed as contributory factors...
Not just the environment has changed of course. MLUs saw an impressive increase in CPU draw with (deliberately I assume) no commensurate increase in Barge (no exhumers at the time) CPU... I remember scrounging around for a Photonic Co-Processor to try and get one on my Covetor. But the Exhumers made MLUs as ubiquitous as Mag Stabs on a Megathron or BCUs on a Raven. It makes sense to have choices of all upgrade, all tank or something in between reasonably viable - but at the moment the diiference between all upgrade and single upgrade with tank is too small IMHO leading to my CPU increase thoughts below.
For the Hulk specifically: The Hulk has more slots than the Covetor, it has to fit the same modules but lacks PG to do so (every shield mod needs PG after all.) It does get plenty of CPU of course, sufficient for a shield mod in each extra slot but no PG. I know that ships are balanced based on 'All Skills @ [5]' but, in general, there is a certain amount of flexibility to allow for slightly lower skills and downgraded meta modules. The MSE Hulk lacks that, because, sub T2, there is no difference in PG need between meta levels on shield mods (particularly the extender which is the largest single draw). I'd like to see the Hulk's PG boosted, it would make sense to increase it by 3MW, 1MW for each additional mid over the Covetor, but I'd be happy with 1.5MW, and just 1 MW would remove the need for fitting implants for a tank akin to baltec's.
For other Mining Barges/Exhumers: As anyone who's attempted to fit a Mackinaw knows, many of the ORE ships seem to run on 286s. The Mackinaw could, with the addition of 50TF of CPU, fit a pretty reasonable 17k EHP tank while still retaining a single harvester upgrade. with only 40TF it could run a DCII tank for about 22k EHP. The Covetor needs less to get a hulk style tank (and in doing so could encourage the tanking of Hulks) although obviously less hard. 25TF would be about ideal. The Retriever is in at least as bad a way needing a T2 co-processor just to fit a DC and EM ward amp + rig tank... not enough to stand up to Empire 'rats alone and only offering 7k EHP. The change of the Covetor to Mining Barge [4] in Tiericide perhaps mitigates this but it's currently going to be weeks before a miner can move to a more survivable ship. |
AureoBroker
Natural Inventions
36
|
Posted - 2012.05.05 11:04:00 -
[42] - Quote
*you're. |
Lexmana
Imperial Stout
404
|
Posted - 2012.05.05 14:57:00 -
[43] - Quote
Nothing wrong with the ships. The error is in the miner who thinks that a Hulk is always the best choice of ship. |
None ofthe Above
178
|
Posted - 2012.05.05 14:57:00 -
[44] - Quote
Kietay Ayari wrote:The game is a game to be fun. The game relies on people adapting rather than releasing new better ships every few months. That is why the game is fun. The game is not realistic and not balanced in a realistic way, rather, it is balanced in a way to make it interesting and enjoyable.
That may work for you (since you apparently love the Ferox in its current form) but I can't imagine how loud the frustrated the PvP/E crowd would howl if they where told the same thing, and forced to live with the same old ships for as long as the miners have. No more Tiercide! And the Tier 3 BC introduction, destroyer and assault ship changes where a mistake by that logic. Pilots should have just HTFU.
I think an at least slowly evolving compliment of ships is a good thing, and As Jacob Holland shows above, there is some reason to consider a minor buff to Barges and Exhumers powergrid.
The ship rebalance looks to be tackling the problem of the Barge prerequisites. A little fiddling with PG would seem in order while they are at it.
|
baltec1
1142
|
Posted - 2012.05.05 15:42:00 -
[45] - Quote
Mining in 1920
Mining in 2012 |
Mortimer Civeri
Aliastra Gallente Federation
52
|
Posted - 2012.05.05 16:58:00 -
[46] - Quote
seany1212 wrote:INB4someone links 27+k ehp hulk tank... EDIT: I'll do it myself since i've been in these threads more time than I can count: [Hulk, New Setup 1] Mining Laser Upgrade II Damage Control II Small Shield Extender II Invulnerability Field II Survey Scanner II Magnetic Scattering Amplifier II Modulated Strip Miner II, Pyroxeres Mining Crystal II Modulated Strip Miner II, Pyroxeres Mining Crystal II Modulated Strip Miner II, Pyroxeres Mining Crystal II Medium Core Defence Field Extender I Medium Core Defence Field Extender I Mining Drone II x5 Warrior II x5 just over 22K ehp before boosts (you can use those orcas for more than mining boosts you know ) courtesy of baltec1 from this thread just 2 weeks ago EDIT EDIT: you can even squeeze in a MSE if you dropped out the mining upgrade for an auxiliary core making it 26k ehp before boosts, but HEAVEN FORBID WE SHOULD REDUCE A MINERS YIELD Frankly I go for the MSE option. I never understood why, when it is obvious that NOWHERE is safe, that people forego all personal responsibility for their safety, and fit for maximum yield. Yet when they eventually get ganked they come on the forums and whine and bleat about how the Hulk can't tank, and it needs a tank NOW CCP!!! The Hulk can tank, it is just that you refuse to, because it is more ISKies for your toonies to fit for yield. It is not the hulls that have to adapt, it is the miners themselves. Everybody needs to take responsibility for their own safety in EVE online. Don't come whining on the forums, or asking for buffs to the Hulk, when you eventually get ganked, because you failed to take any precautions when undocking. "I don't know which is worse, ...that everyone has his price, or that the price is always so low." Calvin
|
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
1795
|
Posted - 2012.05.05 17:14:00 -
[47] - Quote
Quote:Mining ships. It makes no sense, from any fluffy perspective that ships continuously ganked never develops and becomes able to counter that thread. Few times in history have people insisted on being so ******** as to continue doing the same mistake over and over. No place in Eve has ever been safe enough for any ship design as paper thin as an exhumer to be designed in the first place!
Obviously.
This is why fishing trawlers today are able to stand up to a naval destroyer, and why cruise ships are impervious to pirate attacks.
EVE should work like real life, where oil tankers can either out run warships and submarines or simply rely on their superior hull armor to withstand their bombardment/missile/torpedo attacks until help arrives.
Anything else is just silly.
When I check troll in the dictionary, it has a photo shopped picture of you standing somewhere in the vicinity of a point.
Also, I can kill you with my brain. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6416
|
Posted - 2012.05.05 17:16:00 -
[48] - Quote
The adaptation is there GÇö it always has been. It's just that the miners have chosen to move it in the exact opposite direction: towards weaker and weaker ships. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Darth Gustav
Sons Of 0din Fatal Ascension
531
|
Posted - 2012.05.05 17:17:00 -
[49] - Quote
Some of Thomas Edison's original incandescent bulbs are still burning.
Incandescent bulbs you buy at the store today last maybe 15k hours if you're lucky.
Darwin didn't say spit about product development or marketing. He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom |
Mortimer Civeri
Aliastra Gallente Federation
52
|
Posted - 2012.05.05 17:38:00 -
[50] - Quote
Darth Gustav wrote:Some of Thomas Edison's original incandescent bulbs are still burning.
Incandescent bulbs you buy at the store today last maybe 15k hours if you're lucky.
Darwin didn't say spit about product development or marketing. That is not marketing or product development, that is planned obsolescence. "I don't know which is worse, ...that everyone has his price, or that the price is always so low." Calvin
|
|
Darth Gustav
Sons Of 0din Fatal Ascension
531
|
Posted - 2012.05.05 17:43:00 -
[51] - Quote
Mortimer Civeri wrote:Darth Gustav wrote:Some of Thomas Edison's original incandescent bulbs are still burning.
Incandescent bulbs you buy at the store today last maybe 15k hours if you're lucky.
Darwin didn't say spit about product development or marketing. That is not marketing or product development, that is planned obsolescence. If you don't think that planned obsolescence has anything to do with marketing and product development, then I'm not sure there's anything left to say to you.
That is exactly my point about the Hulk. It is planned obsolescence at its very best. He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
588
|
Posted - 2012.05.05 17:48:00 -
[52] - Quote
Darth Gustav wrote:Mortimer Civeri wrote:Darth Gustav wrote:Some of Thomas Edison's original incandescent bulbs are still burning.
Incandescent bulbs you buy at the store today last maybe 15k hours if you're lucky.
Darwin didn't say spit about product development or marketing. That is not marketing or product development, that is planned obsolescence. If you don't think that planned obsolescence has anything to do with marketing and product development, then I'm not sure there's anything left to say to you. That is exactly my point about the Hulk. It is planned obsolescence at its very best. The Mittani planned the hulk, its main points: 1. Most mining yield (to trap miners) 2. No tank without reducing your mining yield (traps miners as well) 3. Uses lots of tech. (Yum!) Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd |
Valerie Tessel
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
117
|
Posted - 2012.05.05 17:56:00 -
[53] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:Quote:Mining ships. It makes no sense, from any fluffy perspective that ships continuously ganked never develops and becomes able to counter that thread. Few times in history have people insisted on being so ******** as to continue doing the same mistake over and over. No place in Eve has ever been safe enough for any ship design as paper thin as an exhumer to be designed in the first place! Obviously. This is why fishing trawlers today are able to stand up to a naval destroyer, and why cruise ships are impervious to pirate attacks. EVE should work like real life, where oil tankers can either out run warships and submarines or simply rely on their superior hull armor to withstand their bombardment/missile/torpedo attacks until help arrives. Anything else is just silly. Bingo...
The real adaptation to a situation like hi-sec ganking would be other ships / technology that could offer active defense (as opposed to after-the-fact defense). I proposed such under the Aegis destroyers thread in the Assembly Hall (see sig). But the most positive responses I've managed to get are "this seems like a good idea, but I'm not going to support it yet." Support Aegis Destroyers: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=97610 |
Herping yourDerp
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
551
|
Posted - 2012.05.05 17:57:00 -
[54] - Quote
I agree. |
Darth Gustav
Sons Of 0din Fatal Ascension
531
|
Posted - 2012.05.05 18:00:00 -
[55] - Quote
Valerie Tessel wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:Quote:Mining ships. It makes no sense, from any fluffy perspective that ships continuously ganked never develops and becomes able to counter that thread. Few times in history have people insisted on being so ******** as to continue doing the same mistake over and over. No place in Eve has ever been safe enough for any ship design as paper thin as an exhumer to be designed in the first place! Obviously. This is why fishing trawlers today are able to stand up to a naval destroyer, and why cruise ships are impervious to pirate attacks. EVE should work like real life, where oil tankers can either out run warships and submarines or simply rely on their superior hull armor to withstand their bombardment/missile/torpedo attacks until help arrives. Anything else is just silly. Bingo... The real adaptation to a situation like hi-sec ganking would be other ships / technology that could offer active defense (as opposed to after-the-fact defense). I proposed such under the Aegis destroyers thread in the Assembly Hall (see sig). But the most positive responses I've managed to get are "this seems like a good idea, but I'm not going to support it yet." Maybe I'm wrong but my sarcasm meter was through the roof on this post, to which you appear to have responded seriously.
Either this is dry Brit humor, or idiocy. I don't even He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom |
Valerie Tessel
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
117
|
Posted - 2012.05.05 18:01:00 -
[56] - Quote
Darth Gustav wrote:Valerie Tessel wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:Quote:Mining ships. It makes no sense, from any fluffy perspective that ships continuously ganked never develops and becomes able to counter that thread. Few times in history have people insisted on being so ******** as to continue doing the same mistake over and over. No place in Eve has ever been safe enough for any ship design as paper thin as an exhumer to be designed in the first place! Obviously. This is why fishing trawlers today are able to stand up to a naval destroyer, and why cruise ships are impervious to pirate attacks. EVE should work like real life, where oil tankers can either out run warships and submarines or simply rely on their superior hull armor to withstand their bombardment/missile/torpedo attacks until help arrives. Anything else is just silly. Bingo... The real adaptation to a situation like hi-sec ganking would be other ships / technology that could offer active defense (as opposed to after-the-fact defense). I proposed such under the Aegis destroyers thread in the Assembly Hall (see sig). But the most positive responses I've managed to get are "this seems like a good idea, but I'm not going to support it yet." Maybe I'm wrong but my sarcasm meter was through the roof on this post, to which you appear to have responded seriously. Either this is dry Brit humor, or idiocy. I don't even I was agreeing with Ranger1's sarcasm. It would be silly to alter the mining vessel. It's tuned to its job. It would make more sense to have a way to protect the mining vessel without expecting it to go solo. Support Aegis Destroyers: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=97610 |
Doctor Ungabungas
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
98
|
Posted - 2012.05.05 18:05:00 -
[57] - Quote
I'd really like for 'invention' to have a chance of making bpcs with varying stats.
Think about how much a hulk with a 4th turret slot could go for. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
589
|
Posted - 2012.05.05 18:05:00 -
[58] - Quote
Valerie Tessel wrote:The real adaptation to a situation like hi-sec ganking would be other ships / technology that could offer active defense (as opposed to after-the-fact defense). I proposed such under the Aegis destroyers thread in the Assembly Hall (see sig). But the most positive responses I've managed to get are "this seems like a good idea, but I'm not going to support it yet." Actually a "remote shield extender" would be interesting.
For sure, our logistics ships would be more easily able to deny the enemy killmails. It would also help reduce the whole "alpha" problem since you can also increase a buffer. Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd |
Digital Messiah
Midnight Elites Echelon Rising
208
|
Posted - 2012.05.05 18:09:00 -
[59] - Quote
seany1212 wrote:Oh look, another one of these threads, oh look, what's worse is it's a alliance member Show me a decent buffer tanked hulk that's lost to gankers (start with a DC2 )... That's because pretty much everyone mining sticks survey scanners and cargohold expanders/mining upgrades in their respective mids and lows. When I start seeing actual tanked hulks on lossmails to gankers then i'll side with any one of these terrible threads
Also a designers flaw. You do realize how very little isk / hour mining generates compared to about anything else right? I could make more trading in jita with no skills. But a hulk pilot with 19 million in mining skills will still make less. People don't fly a hulk to get the results of a retriever. And you might say they trade off to have more tank. Yet both the retriever and the hulk usually die under the same circumstances so why tank it?
Long story short, fix mining, increase the mineral cost for modules + ships, or make a T2 variant of a ship worth fitting with a tank. Combat wise there are titans that don't work as well as others, carriers, etc. People choose not to use them but at least they have options to use something better. Mining is the only career where you have so little choice.
And honestly would it hurt to have two variations of the hulk? One with strictly mining / cargo hold bonuses, another with buffer / tanking bonuses. It makes sense in the high sec / null sec idea everyone pushes. "Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn"
|
Valerie Tessel
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
117
|
Posted - 2012.05.05 18:13:00 -
[60] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Valerie Tessel wrote:The real adaptation to a situation like hi-sec ganking would be other ships / technology that could offer active defense (as opposed to after-the-fact defense). I proposed such under the Aegis destroyers thread in the Assembly Hall (see sig). But the most positive responses I've managed to get are "this seems like a good idea, but I'm not going to support it yet." Actually a "remote shield extender" would be interesting." For sure, our logistics ships would be more easily able to deny the enemy killmails. It would also help reduce the whole "alpha" problem since you can also increase a buffer. Absolutely. A remote shield extender with a cool down (75% on, 25% off per cycle for example) would mix things up a bit. I also thought it'd be cool to have a role for a new kind of destroyer, cheap, reduces damage, acts like a remote hardener almost. Personally, I'd like to see both of these things make it into the game. Support Aegis Destroyers: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=97610 |
|
Doctor Ungabungas
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
98
|
Posted - 2012.05.05 18:13:00 -
[61] - Quote
Digital Messiah wrote:[quote=seany1212]Mining is the only career where you have so little choice.
Use a mining rokh. Own the hell out of some space rocks.
|
Valerie Tessel
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
118
|
Posted - 2012.05.05 18:21:00 -
[62] - Quote
Digital Messiah wrote:Also a designers flaw. You do realize how very little isk / hour mining generates compared to about anything else right? I could make more trading in jita with no skills. But a hulk pilot with 19 million in mining skills will still make less. People don't fly a hulk to get the results of a retriever. And you might say they trade off to have more tank. Yet both the retriever and the hulk usually die under the same circumstances so why tank it?
Long story short, fix mining, increase the mineral cost for modules + ships, or make a T2 variant of a ship worth fitting with a tank. Combat wise there are titans that don't work as well as others, carriers, etc. People choose not to use them but at least they have options to use something better. Mining is the only career where you have so little choice.
And honestly would it hurt to have two variations of the hulk? One with strictly mining / cargo hold bonuses, another with buffer / tanking bonuses. It makes sense in the high sec / null sec idea everyone pushes. Right, CCP could do things like removing drone poo and... CCP has actually made mining more valuable in Inferno. Prices have already started to increase. Support Aegis Destroyers: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=97610 |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
590
|
Posted - 2012.05.05 18:24:00 -
[63] - Quote
Valerie Tessel wrote:Alavaria Fera wrote:Valerie Tessel wrote:The real adaptation to a situation like hi-sec ganking would be other ships / technology that could offer active defense (as opposed to after-the-fact defense). I proposed such under the Aegis destroyers thread in the Assembly Hall (see sig). But the most positive responses I've managed to get are "this seems like a good idea, but I'm not going to support it yet." Actually a "remote shield extender" would be interesting." For sure, our logistics ships would be more easily able to deny the enemy killmails. It would also help reduce the whole "alpha" problem since you can also increase a buffer. Absolutely. A remote shield extender with a cool down (75% on, 25% off per cycle for example) would mix things up a bit. I also thought it'd be cool to have a role for a new kind of destroyer, cheap, reduces damage, acts like a remote hardener almost. Personally, I'd like to see both of these things make it into the game. Just make sure you can't use them on Titans, please... Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6418
|
Posted - 2012.05.05 18:36:00 -
[64] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Actually a "remote shield extender" would be interesting. Hmm. Sure. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Valerie Tessel
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
118
|
Posted - 2012.05.05 18:53:00 -
[65] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Alavaria Fera wrote:Actually a "remote shield extender" would be interesting. Hmm. Sure. And how many of those can you have in a fleet?
Quote:Note: The Fleet bonus only works if you are the assigned fleet booster. In talking about a mining vessel, yes, probably only one as the fleet booster would be enough. But wouldn't you want mining vessels to be boosted by an Orca or mining links? There should be a way to protect others without being in the fleet, and without having to play clean up afterward (reps, shield transfer). Support Aegis Destroyers: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=97610 |
Doctor Ungabungas
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
98
|
Posted - 2012.05.05 18:56:00 -
[66] - Quote
Valerie Tessel wrote:Tippia wrote:Alavaria Fera wrote:Actually a "remote shield extender" would be interesting. Hmm. Sure. And how many of those can you have in a fleet? Quote:Note: The Fleet bonus only works if you are the assigned fleet booster. In talking about a mining vessel, yes, probably only one as the fleet booster would be enough. But wouldn't you want mining vessels to be boosted by an Orca or mining links? There should be a way to protect others without being in the fleet, and without having to play clean up afterward (reps, shield transfer).
Have your Rorq as wing leader and your Vulture as squad leader or vice versa. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6418
|
Posted - 2012.05.05 19:03:00 -
[67] - Quote
Valerie Tessel wrote:And how many of those can you have in a fleet? All in all? 31. Of course, only three at a time can affect any one ship. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Serene Repose
Perkone Caldari State
727
|
Posted - 2012.05.05 19:11:00 -
[68] - Quote
I have to agree. It's counter-intuitive to have a large, industrial purpose vessel that's flimsy. The structural requirement alone, to keep ships from bursting at the seams with a huge load of ore, seem to be overlooked here. Here's a case: Park an M1 Abrams on a train track and hit it with a diesel locomotive doing 60mph. Who do you think would win, the tank? Uh huh. Better yet, put a train of coal cars behind the loco. EVE's metrics on this just doesn't make sense.
Conversely, the ship of choice for suicide ganks, the destroyer, is by nature a light, maneuverable and fast ship. Destroyers, traditionally, were intended to take out submarines. Again. It's incongruous.
I'm not saying make mining and industrial vessels indestructable, but damn near to it just for them to do the job they're intended to perform, without regard to tanking an attacker. Sure, line up enough dessies and have that fabulous Alpha strike possible, but make it proportionate. Easy enough to calculate with a COMPUTER. Sum total of dessie loss, w/fittings (roughly) that can alpha a hulk would cost the price of a hulk to replace. If that's twenty, then that's twenty.
LOPSIDED - I think a two year old can tell if something is LOPSIDED. Aren't EVE devs supposed to be edjumicated? I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility toward every form of tyranny over the mind of man.-á |
Indahmawar Fazmarai
The I and F Taxation Trust
554
|
Posted - 2012.05.05 19:17:00 -
[69] - Quote
My own insane proposal is: allow miner capitals to be used in hisec.
Imagine a Dread firing 8 strip miners at 8 asteroids at once... a weapon of asteroidal mass destruction! EVE residents: 5% WH; 8% Lowsec; 15% Nullsec; 72% Highsec. CSM 7: 1 highsec resident out of 14.-á
CSM demographics vs EVE demographics, nothing to worry about... |
Valerie Tessel
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
119
|
Posted - 2012.05.05 19:17:00 -
[70] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Valerie Tessel wrote:And how many of those can you have in a fleet? All in all? 31. Of course, only three at a time can affect any one ship. Right.
I suppose my idea is aimed toward lower-skilled players, cheap ships, and directed defense (targeting the friendly). This mechanism would work external to fleet mechanics. Support Aegis Destroyers: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=97610 |
|
Valerie Tessel
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
119
|
Posted - 2012.05.05 19:19:00 -
[71] - Quote
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:My own insane proposal is: allow miner capitals to be used in hisec. Imagine a Dread firing 8 strip miners at 8 asteroids at once... a weapon of asteroidal mass destruction! Alas there is only one Veldnaught. Support Aegis Destroyers: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=97610 |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
592
|
Posted - 2012.05.05 19:22:00 -
[72] - Quote
Valerie Tessel wrote:Tippia wrote:Valerie Tessel wrote:And how many of those can you have in a fleet? All in all? 31. Of course, only three at a time can affect any one ship. Right. I suppose my idea is aimed toward lower-skilled players, cheap ships, and directed defense (targeting the friendly). This mechanism would work external to fleet mechanics. You know who would end up crying because of such a mechanic?
Not us. Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd |
Valerie Tessel
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
119
|
Posted - 2012.05.05 19:28:00 -
[73] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Valerie Tessel wrote:Tippia wrote:Valerie Tessel wrote:And how many of those can you have in a fleet? All in all? 31. Of course, only three at a time can affect any one ship. Right. I suppose my idea is aimed toward lower-skilled players, cheap ships, and directed defense (targeting the friendly). This mechanism would work external to fleet mechanics. You know who would end up crying because of such a mechanic? Not us. LOL. Does this mean I can get 10K likes on the Aegis destroyers thread? Support Aegis Destroyers: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=97610 |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6419
|
Posted - 2012.05.05 19:29:00 -
[74] - Quote
Serene Repose wrote:I have to agree. It's counter-intuitive to have a large, industrial purpose vessel that's flimsy. The structural requirement alone, to keep ships from bursting at the seams with a huge load of ore, seem to be overlooked here. Here's a case: Park an M1 Abrams on a train track and hit it with a diesel locomotive doing 60mph. Who do you think would win, the tank? Uh huh. Better yet, put a train of coal cars behind the loco. EVE's metrics on this just doesn't make sense. GǪexcept that this isn't what's happening. Instead, take that train and shoot it with a T72 tank. Note how the train is now a pile of smouldering rubble. Now, shoot the M1 with the same tank, and note that the maintenance crew will be pretty angry about having to spend overtime to buff out that dent.
Quote:Conversely, the ship of choice for suicide ganks, the destroyer, is by nature a light, maneuverable and fast ship. Destroyers, traditionally, were intended to take out submarines. GǪand these days, they traditionally carry various forms of long-range missiles, which can quite easily take out mobile resource extraction vessels such as, say, an oil rig.
Valerie Tessel wrote:I suppose my idea is aimed toward lower-skilled players, cheap ships, and directed defense (targeting the friendly). This mechanism would work external to fleet mechanics. The problem is that it would immediately be co-opted by those higher-skilled (and larger-numbered) fleets and would have to be balanced with those in mind, making it about as effective as the current crop of command and logistics ships. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
stoicfaux
1013
|
Posted - 2012.05.05 19:41:00 -
[75] - Quote
Bah, the ships' tanks aren't the problem. The problem is law enforcement. Gankers are artificially "subsidized" with relatively weak penalties to ganking and with aggression mechanics that favor the ganker tremendously.
If you really want to help miners, then gankers should be flagged for longer than 15 minutes. Criminal flags should last months to years in the faction space where the crime occurred. If you gank, then the offended faction navy and sentry guns will open fire on you immediately. Deputized players can also engage you. This continues until you pay restitution to the miner and pay a fine.
Deputized Players could either patrol the mining belts looking for outlaws to shoot and/or miners could pay to "upgrade" the system with faction navy (or mercenary) patrols of the mining belts.
This would help shutdown small time "l33t" suicide gankers (/roll), while still making it possible for organized groups of outlaws to "raid" high-sec, i.e. make Hulkageddon less of a pigeon shoot and more of a hunt where the line between prey and predator is blurred.
You can tell me what is and isn't Truth when you pry the tinfoil from my cold, lifeless head.
|
Zverofaust
Martyr's Vengence Test Alliance Please Ignore
103
|
Posted - 2012.05.05 19:48:00 -
[76] - Quote
Relevant.
Your arguement is invalid given the prevalence of real-world non-military designs susceptible to attack and damage that have not "evolved". During WW2 the primary cargo transport ship, the Liberty linked above, barely changed from first design to the final hull ever built. Non-military ships like these depend on actual military forces to protect them. No oil tanker or cargo ship existing today could so easily strap on tons of extra armour and other defenses like the Hulk currently can by throwing on Invulns, Shield Extenders and defensive Rigs. They are 100% mining ships. Want a quasi-military, quasi-mining ship? Throw 8 mining lasers on a Tier3 Battleship and call it a day. |
Mars Theran
EVE Rogues EVE Rogues Alliance
175
|
Posted - 2012.05.05 19:53:00 -
[77] - Quote
seany1212 wrote:Oh look, another one of these threads, oh look, what's worse is it's a alliance member Show me a decent buffer tanked hulk that's lost to gankers (start with a DC2 )... That's because pretty much everyone mining sticks survey scanners and cargohold expanders/mining upgrades in their respective mids and lows. When I start seeing actual tanked hulks on lossmails to gankers then i'll side with any one of these terrible threads
..and you can still fit 5 ships for half the price and bring a group of guys out to alpha it.
The argument that mining exhumers can mine lots having something to do with ship balance is ********. Like that should somehow offset the fitting capabilities and tank vs. gank of the ship.
Here's an argument for you: You can fit a few HACs for less than it costs to buy an Exhumer HULL and go ratting, running Incursions, ganking in Lowsec, complexing, mission running, etc.. and make equal to or better ISK than a Hulk can mining. Alliance Auction - EVE Rogues: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1215438#post1215438 |
Valerie Tessel
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
119
|
Posted - 2012.05.05 19:53:00 -
[78] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Valerie Tessel wrote:I suppose my idea is aimed toward lower-skilled players, cheap ships, and directed defense (targeting the friendly). This mechanism would work external to fleet mechanics. The problem is that it would immediately be co-opted by those higher-skilled (and larger-numbered) fleets and would have to be balanced with those in mind, making it about as effective as the current crop of command and logistics ships. Agreed, which is why I have a few posts on how to counter and scale the effectiveness of such a ship or module. I'd much appreciate it if you can poke holes in the notion on that thread. It would help refine the idea if it really is worthwhile.
I do like stoicfaux's idea of deputation. *checks to see if character name Barney Fife is taken* Support Aegis Destroyers: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=97610 |
Mars Theran
EVE Rogues EVE Rogues Alliance
175
|
Posted - 2012.05.05 19:58:00 -
[79] - Quote
Zverofaust wrote:Relevant.Your arguement is invalid given the prevalence of real-world non-military designs susceptible to attack and damage that have not "evolved". During WW2 the primary cargo transport ship, the Liberty linked above, barely changed from first design to the final hull ever built. Non-military ships like these depend on actual military forces to protect them. No oil tanker or cargo ship existing today could so easily strap on tons of extra armour and other defenses like the Hulk currently can by throwing on Invulns, Shield Extenders and defensive Rigs. They are 100% mining ships. Want a quasi-military, quasi-mining ship? Throw 8 mining lasers on a Tier3 Battleship and call it a day.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZq-XdykpGU&feature=player_detailpage#t=79s <--- gank that. Alliance Auction - EVE Rogues: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1215438#post1215438 |
Indahmawar Fazmarai
The I and F Taxation Trust
555
|
Posted - 2012.05.05 20:00:00 -
[80] - Quote
stoicfaux wrote:Bah, the ships' tanks aren't the problem. The problem is law enforcement. Gankers are artificially "subsidized" with relatively weak penalties to ganking and with aggression mechanics that favor the ganker tremendously.
If you really want to help miners, then gankers should be flagged for longer than 15 minutes. Criminal flags should last months to years in the faction space where the crime occurred. If you gank, then the offended faction navy and sentry guns will open fire on you immediately. Deputized players can also engage you. This continues until you pay restitution to the miner and pay a fine.
Deputized Players could either patrol the mining belts looking for outlaws to shoot and/or miners could pay to "upgrade" the system with faction navy (or mercenary) patrols of the mining belts.
This would help shutdown small time "l33t" suicide gankers (/roll), while still making it possible for organized groups of outlaws to "raid" high-sec, i.e. make Hulkageddon less of a pigeon shoot and more of a hunt where the line between prey and predator is blurred.
Huh, I had a better proposal.... alllow bounty hunters to track down their targets in a way that gave a meaning to "being wanted"
Sahmelessly plugging it:
My "EVE Retaliation" proposal
Exceprt:
Quote:Summary:
- unlimitedly transferable kill rights; if a hirer is fillthy rich and can throw 20 hunters on the agressor, let the agressor have it - pay for destroying the target's stuff, not merely kill him. No longer self-killing for the bounty unless you're up to losing twice the reward. - any other target in the prey's corporation can be punished too. If you gang together against bounty hunters, bounty hunters can gang together against you. - bounty hunters can track the last moves of their target via stargates and stations. It sucks to be hunted. - bounty hunters can pinpoint the last moves of the target via the target's appearences in local chat. It sucks a lot to be hunted. EVE residents: 5% WH; 8% Lowsec; 15% Nullsec; 72% Highsec. CSM 7: 1 highsec resident out of 14.-á
CSM demographics vs EVE demographics, nothing to worry about... |
|
Sri Nova
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
67
|
Posted - 2012.05.06 02:07:00 -
[81] - Quote
GANKED by Warthog
i really wished we had stuff like this in game |
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
3849
|
Posted - 2012.05.06 02:20:00 -
[82] - Quote
Rezig Huruta wrote:So, how about using a buffer ship... maybe I don't know... shield transfer arrays and other such things to last a bit longer until the baddies get Concorded?
Doesnt work in current fleet envrionment ships die before logi's could cycle. Even with shield xporters.
|
Xython
Merch Industrial Goonswarm Federation
852
|
Posted - 2012.05.06 04:30:00 -
[83] - Quote
Archdaimon wrote:Mining ships. It makes no sense, from any fluffy perspective that ships continuously ganked never develops and becomes able to counter that thread. Few times in history have people insisted on being so ******** as to continue doing the same mistake over and over. No place in Eve has ever been safe enough for any ship design as paper thin as an exhumer to be designed in the first place!
One should think that an Engineer had at least enough some entrepreneurial spirit as to create a mining design not popin on sight. The resource is worth it. Current ship design just plain weird.
Er, you could fly any battleship in the game and mine in it with a decent tank. I suggest a Dominix with Mining Drones.
The Exhumers are glass cannons because they were never meant as solo ships. You are supposed to have a combat escort, even if it's someone on a gate that can shout out when a combat ship from a known griefing corp shows up.
Edit: Also, postin' in another "Wah, I should be invincible" thread. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
593
|
Posted - 2012.05.06 05:07:00 -
[84] - Quote
Xython wrote:Edit: Also, postin' in another "Wah, I should be invincible" thread. Heh. They're pretty common, I guess. Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd |
Archdaimon
NorCorp Enterprise No Holes Barred
43
|
Posted - 2012.05.06 09:48:00 -
[85] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Xython wrote:Edit: Also, postin' in another "Wah, I should be invincible" thread. Heh. They're pretty common, I guess.
Cry baby. THis has nothing to do with being invincible, in the same way one could argue that you just want a challenge even two-year olds could handle in kinder garden. Your just sad that someone is actually interested in balance instead of sadism. |
seany1212
eXceed Inc. No Holes Barred
157
|
Posted - 2012.05.06 11:14:00 -
[86] - Quote
Mars Theran wrote:seany1212 wrote:Oh look, another one of these threads, oh look, what's worse is it's a alliance member Show me a decent buffer tanked hulk that's lost to gankers (start with a DC2 )... That's because pretty much everyone mining sticks survey scanners and cargohold expanders/mining upgrades in their respective mids and lows. When I start seeing actual tanked hulks on lossmails to gankers then i'll side with any one of these terrible threads ..and you can still fit 5 ships for half the price and bring a group of guys out to alpha it. The argument that mining exhumers can mine lots having something to do with ship balance is ********. Like that should somehow offset the fitting capabilities and tank vs. gank of the ship. Here's an argument for you: You can fit a few HACs for less than it costs to buy an Exhumer HULL and go ratting, running Incursions, ganking in Lowsec, complexing, mission running, etc.. and make equal to or better ISK than a Hulk can mining.
2-3 tornados can alpha a multi-billion isk shield boosting tengu, what's your point? The fact is miners have ways to reduce their chances of getting ganked, most in highsec choose to be afk and defend their ship with cargo extenders and mining upgrades. And for digital Messiah that's the funniest post I've read in a while considering mining just got the biggest boost in the game. There are lots of ways to make more isk than mining, but it comes down to risk vs. reward and if you were paying attention when mining (dscan and all) there would be no risk |
Cutter Isaacson
Peace n Quiet
64
|
Posted - 2012.05.06 11:29:00 -
[87] - Quote
Archdaimon wrote:Hi Goons. Yeah I heard of the Rokh. It is also a battleship designed for combat able to fit mining lasers (wtf?). My point is. If this was a sandbox and I spent 100 bil isk designing a better tanked mining ship I am pretty sure I'd find investors pretty fast. I mean I would almost be able to find investors on this real planet called earth: http://www.economist.com/node/21553419
You also wouldn't sell very many would you? Numpty.
If a ship is that gank resistant, then they don't get blown up, no repeat business, business dies. Well done you just failed simple business logic 101. |
Internet Lawyer Steve
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
24
|
Posted - 2012.05.06 11:45:00 -
[88] - Quote
Archdaimon wrote: Mining ships. It makes no sense, from any fluffy perspective that ships continuously ganked never develops and becomes able to counter that thread. Few times in history have people insisted on being so ******** as to continue doing the same mistake over and over. No place in Eve has ever been safe enough for any ship design as paper thin as an exhumer to be designed in the first place!
One should think that an Engineer had at least enough some entrepreneurial spirit as to create a mining design not popin on sight. The resource is worth it. Current ship design just plain weird.
Interenet Lawyer Steve on the scene...
Miners get ganked because they are not paying attention or fit no tank to their high sec ship. Mostly its not paying attention.
Internet Lawyer Steve and Associates,
Bringing Justice to New Eden, One post at a time... |
Scien Inkunen
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
37
|
Posted - 2012.05.06 11:49:00 -
[89] - Quote
Archdaimon wrote:Disclaimer: Not a carebear blah blah, didn't lose any hulks blah blah, don't live in Hi blah blah.
Matter at Hand:
Eve is a Sandbox or tries to be as much as possible. What is not "sandboxable" is the ship designs of Eve. They are sort of given to us by magical beings deciding what we can fly and what we can't.
.......... ?
Than hire players who will protect you - spend some ISK in that - they get the fight, you get the (relative) security. Read the "Fart file" and you will understand the meaning of life ! |
Debora Tsung
The Investment Bankers Guild
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.06 11:59:00 -
[90] - Quote
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:Huh, I had a better proposal.... alllow bounty hunters to track down their targets in a way that gave a meaning to "being wanted" Sahmelessly plugging it: My "EVE Retaliation" proposalExceprt: Quote:Summary:
- unlimitedly transferable kill rights; if a hirer is fillthy rich and can throw 20 hunters on the agressor, let the agressor have it - pay for destroying the target's stuff, not merely kill him. No longer self-killing for the bounty unless you're up to losing twice the reward. - any other target in the prey's corporation can be punished too. If you gang together against bounty hunters, bounty hunters can gang together against you. - bounty hunters can track the last moves of their target via stargates and stations. It sucks to be hunted. - bounty hunters can pinpoint the last moves of the target via the target's appearences in local chat. It sucks a lot to be hunted.
Nice Idea, but what would stop You from putting bounties on all those juicy High-Sec miners? There's nothing a million chinese guys can't do cheaper. |
|
Solstice Project
I'm So Meta Even This Acronym
1509
|
Posted - 2012.05.06 12:12:00 -
[91] - Quote
I agree to the OP, 100%.
Buff miners !
Inappropriate signature removed. Spitfire |
Debora Tsung
The Investment Bankers Guild
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.06 12:14:00 -
[92] - Quote
Scien Inkunen wrote:Archdaimon wrote:Disclaimer: Not a carebear blah blah, didn't lose any hulks blah blah, don't live in Hi blah blah.
Matter at Hand:
Eve is a Sandbox or tries to be as much as possible. What is not "sandboxable" is the ship designs of Eve. They are sort of given to us by magical beings deciding what we can fly and what we can't.
.......... ? Than hire players who will protect you - spend some ISK in that - they get the fight, you get the (relative) security.
Nice idea, but how can other players effectively protect Your Hulk?
A group of lets say 3 - 4 destroyers will Kill the Hulk in less than 10 seconds + approximately two seconds of lock time, that's not really a lot of time. If You wanted to protect Your miners You'd either have to suicide gank the destroyers before they can do the same to Your hulky friends or You'd have to have ridiculous amounts of repping power.
Don't get me wrong, having so much repping power is entirely possible. You just need a lot of logistic ships to do so, but then those same players flying the logistics ships could be earning ridiculous amounts of isk by doing some incursions or doing plexes in null or low sec...
So there's two options I see there. You have enough money to pay for protection, in which case You'll probably end up bankrupt pretty soon, or You have enough friends, corp mates, companions etc. to protect You on a regular basis during Your mining "adventures", in which case You'll probably end up mining in null, pretty soon. There's nothing a million chinese guys can't do cheaper. |
Scien Inkunen
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
37
|
Posted - 2012.05.06 13:00:00 -
[93] - Quote
Debora Tsung wrote:Scien Inkunen wrote:Archdaimon wrote:Disclaimer: Not a carebear blah blah, didn't lose any hulks blah blah, don't live in Hi blah blah.
Matter at Hand:
Eve is a Sandbox or tries to be as much as possible. What is not "sandboxable" is the ship designs of Eve. They are sort of given to us by magical beings deciding what we can fly and what we can't.
.......... ? Than hire players who will protect you - spend some ISK in that - they get the fight, you get the (relative) security. Nice idea, but how can other players effectively protect Your Hulk? A group of lets say 3 - 4 destroyers will Kill the Hulk in less than 10 seconds + approximately two seconds of lock time, that's not really a lot of time. If You wanted to protect Your miners You'd either have to suicide gank the destroyers before they can do the same to Your hulky friends or You'd have to have ridiculous amounts of repping power. Don't get me wrong, having so much repping power is entirely possible. You just need a lot of logistic ships to do so, but then those same players flying the logistics ships could be earning ridiculous amounts of isk by doing some incursions or doing plexes in null or low sec... So there's two options I see there. You have enough money to pay for protection, in which case You'll probably end up bankrupt pretty soon, or You have enough friends, corp mates, companions etc. to protect You on a regular basis during Your mining "adventures", in which case You'll probably end up mining in null, pretty soon.
Well, any protection is better than none. Read the "Fart file" and you will understand the meaning of life ! |
Debora Tsung
The Investment Bankers Guild
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.06 13:44:00 -
[94] - Quote
Scien Inkunen wrote:
Well, any protection is better than none.
True, but the main problem here is, that the protection You need will just cost so much that it's not really something the average miner can afford. There's nothing a million chinese guys can't do cheaper. |
Seleia O'Sinnor
Drop of Honey
218
|
Posted - 2012.05.06 14:00:00 -
[95] - Quote
Andski wrote:There's this one hull that can be fit to mine pretty well and fit a great tank.
You may have heard of it, it's called the Rokh.
Since the Rokh is the best mining ship these days, it may be viable that the bonuses get readjusted. At last a purpose for the Rokh! Everyone hail the Rokh. EGD: If you jettison what's in your brain, at least expect can flipping. |
Scien Inkunen
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
37
|
Posted - 2012.05.06 14:08:00 -
[96] - Quote
Debora Tsung wrote:Scien Inkunen wrote:
Well, any protection is better than none.
True, but the main problem here is, that the protection You need will just cost so much that it's not really something the average miner can afford.
Well, then they only can peacefully lose their ships. Or they can have members with fighting skills, not only miner or industrials. Read the "Fart file" and you will understand the meaning of life ! |
Nick Bison
Bison Industrial Inc Thundering Herd
228
|
Posted - 2012.05.06 14:46:00 -
[97] - Quote
seany1212 wrote: ... The fact is miners have ways to reduce their chances of getting ganked, most in highsec choose to be afk and defend their ship with cargo extenders and mining upgrades. ...
I would not call that a fact at all but your supposition. I can definitely see how you would come to that conclusion as the KBs mostly show Hulk kills fit that way.
My Hulks are all fit with what I call a deterant-tank; Shield resist rigs, DCUII, shield boost, Inv Fld etc ... is it gank-proof? Hell no! But, it does keep the guys looking for the quick gank away.
So, I guess I am saying "Thank you" for thinning out the herd of the dumb-miners and leaving more ore for me!
Nothing clever at this time. |
Gloomy Gus
GoonWaffe
303
|
Posted - 2012.05.06 14:51:00 -
[98] - Quote
It's been said a billion times before, enough times that I'm ashamed to even post it, but since someone else hasn't ITT here I go.
HIRE COMBAT SHIPS.
EVE is intended to work that way. Noone is ever everything solo, at least not at anything close to peak effectiveness. EVE is designed to make many ship types work together. Do that.
"DIE N***ERS1 DIE!!!" - EVENEWS24's Riverini |
Pyotr Kamarovi
EVE University Ivy League
4
|
Posted - 2012.05.06 15:06:00 -
[99] - Quote
Gloomy Gus wrote:It's been said a billion times before, enough times that I'm ashamed to even post it, but since someone else hasn't ITT here I go.
HIRE COMBAT SHIPS.
EVE is intended to work that way. Noone is ever everything solo, at least not at anything close to peak effectiveness. EVE is designed to make many ship types work together. Do that.
Wait, what? How do combat ships help? Are you saying they should sacrifice themselves by trying to alpha the gankers before they can get a volley off and take down the mining ship? How the hell does that work?
|
stoicfaux
1015
|
Posted - 2012.05.06 15:07:00 -
[100] - Quote
Gloomy Gus wrote:It's been said a billion times before, enough times that I'm ashamed to even post it, but since someone else hasn't ITT here I go.
HIRE COMBAT SHIPS.
EVE is intended to work that way. Noone is ever everything solo, at least not at anything close to peak effectiveness. EVE is designed to make many ship types work together. Do that.
Right idea (solo is bad,) wrong solution though (guards are expensive and and guard duty is boring.)
If criminals are perma-flagged as criminals (i.e. they're shoot on sight) after their first criminal act, then the community of players can effectively police high-sec. Gankers can still gank, high-sec carebears become more social in protecting themselves. Win win.
You can tell me what is and isn't Truth when you pry the tinfoil from my cold, lifeless head.
|
|
Sigurd Sig Hansen
Hedion University Amarr Empire
141
|
Posted - 2012.05.06 15:08:00 -
[101] - Quote
Alara IonStorm wrote:Business 101.
Guy buys Mining Ship > Mining Ship is destroyed > Guy buys new Mining Ship.
They don't have much incentive to put money into designing something when everyone just keeps buying new current Mining Ships after getting ganked.
Like how new light bulbs burn out quicker then ones made in the 30's.
And yet theres ones burning from Ben Franklin's time
It would be rather neat if you could research on the ship youre in to increase the stats on the ship. Like as though you were revising the design of the ship. Expand the ship you have rather than just looking for the next ship up. Make jury-Rigging exactly that. The ship gets jury rigged to get more ability to fit a PROPER tank yet it compromises it in another fasion tat DOESNT screw it over and make it a Covetor. Have the jury rigging have a chance to fail entirely making everything on the ship fail till you get it repaired. IMO THATD be funny Make it insanely, prohibitively expensive or require 6 mnths of training, W/E that makes ships better.
Mining is the "Deadliest Catch" in this game |
Nick Bison
Bison Industrial Inc Thundering Herd
228
|
Posted - 2012.05.06 15:12:00 -
[102] - Quote
Gloomy Gus wrote:It's been said a billion times before, enough times that I'm ashamed to even post it, but since someone else hasn't ITT here I go.
HIRE COMBAT SHIPS.
EVE is intended to work that way. Noone is ever everything solo, at least not at anything close to peak effectiveness. EVE is designed to make many ship types work together. Do that.
Unfortunately, hiring combat ships, or bringing your own have NO EFFECT on an Empire Gank. The gankers have already factored in the loss of their ship so it doesn't matter to them if they die to CONCORD or your combat support guys. They have already ganked the miner before you can shoot!
In fact, I would guess they would prefer to be blown up by a combat support guy as they would then still get their insurance.
Nothing clever at this time. |
Aron Croup
Incompatible Protocol Bittervet Mercenaries
63
|
Posted - 2012.05.06 15:21:00 -
[103] - Quote
Alara IonStorm wrote:Business 101.
Guy buys Mining Ship > Mining Ship is destroyed > Guy buys new Mining Ship.
They don't have much incentive to put money into designing something when everyone just keeps buying new current Mining Ships after getting ganked.
Like how new light bulbs burn out quicker then ones made in the 30's.
Yes and no. Planned obsolescence has not prevented us from making technological improvements over the years, it has just ensured that the lifespan of these new products is kept short enough that we will buy the next wave of improved products.
Logic would dictate that if low defense & high-yield mining vessels are too fragile, someone would design either an equally high-yield version that has more defensive capability (but would be more expensive), or that some of the mining yield and cargo capacity would be sacrificed in the design of an equally priced yet more sturdy vessel.
|
Thomas Orca
Northstar Cabal Fatal Ascension
90
|
Posted - 2012.05.06 15:53:00 -
[104] - Quote
Aron Croup wrote:
Yes and no. Planned obsolescence has not prevented us from making technological improvements over the years, it has just ensured that the lifespan of these new products is kept short enough that we will buy the next wave of improved products.
Logic would dictate that if low defense & high-yield mining vessels are too fragile, someone would design either an equally high-yield version that has more defensive capability (but would be more expensive), or that some of the mining yield and cargo capacity would be sacrificed in the design of an equally priced yet more sturdy vessel.
You can already do the second one.
|
Debora Tsung
The Investment Bankers Guild
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.06 16:17:00 -
[105] - Quote
Scien Inkunen wrote:
Well, then they only can peacefully lose their ships. Or they can have members with fighting skills, not only miner or industrials.
I believe this argument has already been discussed and, if I remember correctly, invalidated somewere else in this thread, right?
Having combat ships doesn't prevent any losses since the mining ships are so fragile that they'll die before the guard ships can even react. Taking into account the current ship insurance system it's even counterproductive to have an armed guard since the suicide ganking party won't receive their insurance payout as long as CONCORD kills them. There's nothing a million chinese guys can't do cheaper. |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Divine Power. Cascade Imminent
848
|
Posted - 2012.05.06 16:23:00 -
[106] - Quote
We're still on this stupid thread where whiny carebears insist that ship designers have to adapt before mindless hulk pilots do |
Archdaimon
NorCorp Enterprise No Holes Barred
50
|
Posted - 2012.05.06 16:38:00 -
[107] - Quote
Still seems like a place where sadists only wants easy mode because they can't handle a challenge when presented with one. |
Mortimer Civeri
Aliastra Gallente Federation
53
|
Posted - 2012.05.06 16:46:00 -
[108] - Quote
Still seems like a place where miners only wants easy mode because they can't handle a challenge when presented with one. "I don't know which is worse, ...that everyone has his price, or that the price is always so low." Calvin
|
Thomas Orca
Northstar Cabal Fatal Ascension
91
|
Posted - 2012.05.06 16:49:00 -
[109] - Quote
Archdaimon wrote:Still seems like a place where sadists only wants easy mode because they can't handle a challenge when presented with one.
You see, the problem is the things you are asking for (i.e adaptability in your internet spaceships) are already doable under current mechanics. There is no need for a new ship, because the role that you wish to be filled is already filled by existing ships. |
Mortimer Civeri
Aliastra Gallente Federation
53
|
Posted - 2012.05.06 16:53:00 -
[110] - Quote
Aron Croup wrote:Logic would dictate that if low defense & high-yield mining vessels are too fragile, someone would design either an equally high-yield version that has more defensive capability (but would be more expensive), or that some of the mining yield and cargo capacity would be sacrificed in the design of an equally priced yet more sturdy vessel. They have already built the second type, it is called the Hulk. "I don't know which is worse, ...that everyone has his price, or that the price is always so low." Calvin
|
|
Antisocial Malkavian
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
65
|
Posted - 2012.05.06 17:21:00 -
[111] - Quote
Sigurd Sig Hansen wrote:Alara IonStorm wrote:Business 101.
Guy buys Mining Ship > Mining Ship is destroyed > Guy buys new Mining Ship.
They don't have much incentive to put money into designing something when everyone just keeps buying new current Mining Ships after getting ganked.
Like how new light bulbs burn out quicker then ones made in the 30's. And yet theres ones burning from Ben Franklin's time It would be rather neat if you could research on the ship youre in to increase the stats on the ship. Like as though you were revising the design of the ship. Expand the ship you have rather than just looking for the next ship up. Make jury-Rigging exactly that. The ship gets jury rigged to get more ability to fit a PROPER tank yet it compromises it in another fasion tat DOESNT screw it over and make it a Covetor. Have the jury rigging have a chance to fail entirely making everything on the ship fail till you get it repaired. IMO THATD be funny Make it insanely, prohibitively expensive or require 6 mnths of training, W/E that makes ships better.
I can hear the QQ now after dude spet 6 months and 100 billion yo retrofit his hulk into a battlehulk and it gets ganked
"It would be rather neat if you could research on the ship youre in to increase the stats on the ship. Like as though you were revising the design of the ship. Expand the ship you have rather than just looking for the next ship up. Make jury-Rigging exactly that. The ship gets jury rigged to get more ability to fit a PROPER tank yet it compromises it in another fasion tat DOESNT screw it over and make it a Covetor. Have the jury rigging have a chance to fail entirely making everything on the ship fail till you get it repaired. IMO THATD be funny Make it insanely, prohibitively expensive or require 6 mnths of training, W/E that makes ships better."
lol http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.2317/JKES0811.17.1 Bees That Drink Human Tears -- ITS SCIENCE!!! |
Ibrihm Esenhorn
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.06 18:39:00 -
[112] - Quote
Alara IonStorm wrote:Business 101.
Guy buys Mining Ship > Mining Ship is destroyed > Guy buys new Mining Ship.
They don't have much incentive to put money into designing something when everyone just keeps buying new current Mining Ships after getting ganked.
Like how new light bulbs burn out quicker then ones made in the 30's.
That's not how business works - competition means that designers have an incentive to build a ship that is better than their rivals as a means to gain market share. The only way that mantaining the staus quo works is if there's collusion between providers, aka a cartel (and hey, what do you know - there's only one real supplier of ship designs in the EVE metaverse).
In the real world, incentive to undercut rivals tends to break apart cartels rather quickly unless there's some sort of governmental alliance to leverage the power of the state to force compliance with the cartel's policies.
Real world evidence - your tv is better than anything that could be bought 40 years ago, despite the fact that people keep buying them when they break.
And lightbulbs last longer than they did in the 1930's. |
Ibrihm Esenhorn
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.06 18:42:00 -
[113] - Quote
And a reply actually realted to the OP
Most of the play mechanics of EVE are multiplayer - i.e. require grouping
Miners are unarmed and squshy because you're sort of expected to group up and hire people specialized to defend you while you are specialized in mining and then share the profits between everyone.
Ideally the specialization means that everyone is the most efficient at their roles and total income is increased over having a bunch of miner/warship hybrids running around.
Man up, fleet up, and keep the **** up.
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
600
|
Posted - 2012.05.06 19:18:00 -
[114] - Quote
Ibrihm Esenhorn wrote:And a reply actually realted to the OP
Most of the play mechanics of EVE are multiplayer - i.e. require grouping
Miners are unarmed and squshy because you're sort of expected to group up and hire people specialized to defend you while you are specialized in mining and then share the profits between everyone.
Ideally the specialization means that everyone is the most efficient at their roles and total income is increased over having a bunch of miner/warship hybrids running around.
Man up, fleet up, and keep the **** up. Of course the problem is you gotta be careful about your fleet commanders or such. "Enemy incoming, take fleetwarp" which takes the lot of you into smartbombing typhoons would make things way too easy.
An awoxer would probably find it worthwhile to be able to take out a whole op worth of afk miners and their pods.
Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd |
Archdaimon
NorCorp Enterprise No Holes Barred
51
|
Posted - 2012.05.06 20:27:00 -
[115] - Quote
Ibrihm Esenhorn wrote:And a reply actually realted to the OP
Most of the play mechanics of EVE are multiplayer - i.e. require grouping
Miners are unarmed and squshy because you're sort of expected to group up and hire people specialized to defend you while you are specialized in mining and then share the profits between everyone.
Ideally the specialization means that everyone is the most efficient at their roles and total income is increased over having a bunch of miner/warship hybrids running around.
Man up, fleet up, and keep the **** up.
Wut, I mean, Wut?
So mr. experienced fleet commander. How would you tactically defend a hulk?
On a strategic level I get it. But not on a tactical level.
|
Eric Konway
Silverwing Explorers Unfamiliar Presence
1
|
Posted - 2012.05.06 21:30:00 -
[116] - Quote
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:lol space ship designers have to adapt so incompetent pilots don't have to
Sounds like the design description of the Myrm. |
Ocih
Space Mermaids Somethin Awfull Forums
172
|
Posted - 2012.05.06 22:01:00 -
[117] - Quote
Using mining as an example, ship spinners who use the forums to entertain themselves use dumbass ideas like 'Mine aligned' because it works in missions or null bear belt ratting. A Hulk can be as aligned as it wants, it won't get to warp speed before the lock and insta volley kills it. Even with perfect nav skills that won't happen. No logistics will save it from death either. The dps stucture is designed to kill any ship without a buffer tank and barges don't have buffer tanks.
To the OP's point, its like this in all ships of EVE. What are the chances of a true battleship being slowly eaten by a frigate? None, no chance in hell. In EVE? It's very easy to lose a battleship to a frigate. It just takes an eternity of structure grind.
T3 is in fact the adaptation. When CCP implement T3 as an all and any hull augmentation, then we will be able to bonus fit any ship. Bonus comes from subsystems, not from a preordained list that has too many boundaries to be effective. It will only happen when the mantra is changed from blow stuff up to Combat and PvP though. |
Mars Theran
EVE Rogues EVE Rogues Alliance
179
|
Posted - 2012.05.07 00:18:00 -
[118] - Quote
Ibrihm Esenhorn wrote:And a reply actually realted to the OP
Most of the play mechanics of EVE are multiplayer - i.e. require grouping
...
Sorry, I read that, "groping." Alliance Auction - EVE Rogues: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1215438#post1215438 |
Jacob Staffuer
State War Academy Caldari State
120
|
Posted - 2012.05.07 07:12:00 -
[119] - Quote
Quote:zero vessels dedicated to suicide ganking.
Hi. Tier3 BattleCruisers would like to have a word with you. |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4118
|
Posted - 2012.05.07 07:19:00 -
[120] - Quote
Ocih wrote:Using mining as an example, ship spinners who use the forums to entertain themselves use dumbass ideas like 'Mine aligned' because it works in missions or null bear belt ratting. A Hulk can be as aligned as it wants, it won't get to warp speed before the lock and insta volley kills it.
you don't know what "being aligned" means do you
it means moving at 75% or more of your maximum speed in the direction you wish to warp
every ship can instantly enter warp by doing this, from frigates to titans "WeGÇÖre a professional Merc Alliance, like PL" ~ snot shot, 2012 |
|
MotherMoon
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
637
|
Posted - 2012.05.07 07:23:00 -
[121] - Quote
Andski wrote:There's this one hull that can be fit to mine pretty well and fit a great tank.
You may have heard of it, it's called the Rokh.
This, OP, your right. we can make ships able to mine and take gank damage. However, this requires more room for defense. That means less mining. So... just do that. Fit less mining upgrades, fit more defense. Lots of mining fits will save you from ganks, but you won't mine as much. Just like real life design.
Also you CAN change the ships stats. It's called rigs. Try fitting some, increase your defense. It's the miners who keep doing the same things over and over again. |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4118
|
Posted - 2012.05.07 07:27:00 -
[122] - Quote
the problem with mining in a rokh is that you have to stagger lasers and move minerals more often
this does not suit their afk playstyle "WeGÇÖre a professional Merc Alliance, like PL" ~ snot shot, 2012 |
Ocih
Space Mermaids Somethin Awfull Forums
173
|
Posted - 2012.05.07 07:31:00 -
[123] - Quote
Andski wrote:Ocih wrote:Using mining as an example, ship spinners who use the forums to entertain themselves use dumbass ideas like 'Mine aligned' because it works in missions or null bear belt ratting. A Hulk can be as aligned as it wants, it won't get to warp speed before the lock and insta volley kills it. you don't know what "being aligned" means do you it means moving at 75% or more of your maximum speed in the direction you wish to warp every ship can instantly enter warp by doing this, from frigates to titans
And I have said 100 times before, YOU - CAN'T - MINE - HIGH SEC - THAT - WAY.
Rocks aren't big enough, range on strip miners isn't high enough, you would need 200 bookmarks per belt or slowboat to ideal align range at the back side of a rock. It's the stupidest fail troll solution I've seen the armchair forum gang regurgitate over and over but feel free to regurgitate it again. You are only fooling yourself.
|
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4118
|
Posted - 2012.05.07 07:34:00 -
[124] - Quote
Ocih wrote:And I have said 100 times before, YOU - CAN'T - MINE - HIGH SEC - THAT - WAY.
Rocks aren't big enough, range on strip miners isn't high enough, you would need 200 bookmarks per belt or slowboat to ideal align range at the back side of a rock. It's the stupidest fail troll solution I've seen the armchair forum gang regurgitate over and over but feel free to regurgitate it again. You are only fooling yourself.
yeah 15km on strip miners is simply ~not enough~ "WeGÇÖre a professional Merc Alliance, like PL" ~ snot shot, 2012 |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
704
|
Posted - 2012.05.07 07:50:00 -
[125] - Quote
Ocih wrote:Andski wrote:Ocih wrote:Using mining as an example, ship spinners who use the forums to entertain themselves use dumbass ideas like 'Mine aligned' because it works in missions or null bear belt ratting. A Hulk can be as aligned as it wants, it won't get to warp speed before the lock and insta volley kills it. you don't know what "being aligned" means do you it means moving at 75% or more of your maximum speed in the direction you wish to warp every ship can instantly enter warp by doing this, from frigates to titans And I have said 100 times before, YOU - CAN'T - MINE - HIGH SEC - THAT - WAY. Rocks aren't big enough, range on strip miners isn't high enough, you would need 200 bookmarks per belt or slowboat to ideal align range at the back side of a rock. It's the stupidest fail troll solution I've seen the armchair forum gang regurgitate over and over but feel free to regurgitate it again. You are only fooling yourself.
It's actually fun reading 0.0 players suggesting to stay aligned. Every time I played alone in neut / hostile space in 0.0 I immediately got bumped or attempted to be bumped away from stations and similar. So they should know better.
Now, I have seen the identical same behavior done in hi sec. You will NOT realign in time with a slowass mining ship if you get bumped and they DO it.
Another thing I noticed is that they very often fit a warp scrambler on the destroyers. Unless the miner really spams D-Scan like a madman and NEVER moves the eyes out of the screen, he'll get a warp on top of his head and then he's scrambled and won't be able to warp away even if aligned.
Now, I have never, never needed such rabid eyesighting around outside of first person shooter games. When I did missions in low and 0.0 sec (only times when you sit there in prey position for long time without a cloackie) I never needed to pay that much attention. The incoming guys usually don't come in a long range scram ship and they land on the warp in buoy at 40-50km away. Now you can see them and warp out. And you can drop cans to uncloak incoming hostiles (mission not in pockets) and alts at warp in to catch them.
Nothing of this is possible to miners.
Now, I don't care about the whole never ending arguments about miners being popped or not, but I feel people forum white knights should stop lieing their ass like this.
They either know sh!t about the game or are just rationalizing their arguments a la Bush / crusader way: create a synthetic enemy and push everybody against them. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Jacob Holland
Weyland-Vulcan Industries Alliance not Found
34
|
Posted - 2012.05.07 07:56:00 -
[126] - Quote
The defences on oil rigs and so forth ignore the various international anti-piracy agreements...
Looking back to a time where the "terrain" was similar to that of EVE however we see merchantmen as heavily armed as ships of the line, where the fact that the water barrels were stored on deck, between the guns, to free space up below decks was what generally distinguished them. |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4119
|
Posted - 2012.05.07 07:57:00 -
[127] - Quote
yeah because they can lock you the instant they're on your overview
"hey look at that flashy catalyst landing in the belt he must be here to mine with me" "WeGÇÖre a professional Merc Alliance, like PL" ~ snot shot, 2012 |
Mars Theran
EVE Rogues EVE Rogues Alliance
179
|
Posted - 2012.05.07 07:58:00 -
[128] - Quote
For your amusement:
[Hulk, Malign Hulk] 200mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II
'Hypnos' Ion Field ECM I Enfeebling Phase Inversion ECM I Passive Targeting Array I Drone Navigation Computer II
Strip Miner I Strip Miner I Improved Cloaking Device II
Medium Anti-Kinetic Pump I Medium Anti-Explosive Pump I
Hornet EC-300 x5 Light Armor Maintenance Bot II x5
Just a thought, but Hulks have really ****** powergrid. CPUs not so bad. Alliance Auction - EVE Rogues: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1215438#post1215438 |
Shian Yang
80
|
Posted - 2012.05.07 07:58:00 -
[129] - Quote
Archdaimon wrote:Mining ships. It makes no sense, from any fluffy perspective that ships continuously ganked never develops and becomes able to counter that thread. Few times in history have people insisted on being so ******** as to continue doing the same mistake over and over. No place in Eve has ever been safe enough for any ship design as paper thin as an exhumer to be designed in the first place!
Greetings capsuleer,
Whilst I am not an industrialist I have made a point of studying old Earth technology. I've found that in ancient, historical battles they often struggled with their logistics. No, this is not a fully fitted Scimitar - but a convoy of vehicles, similar to those employed by mercenaries in New Eden, that would supply troops on the battlefield.
Those vehicles were built for a specific purpose - namely supply and boasted much more cargo space than the average mobile battle tank. They were lightly armoured and students of warfare often made a point of finding ways to ensure the security of their supply lines and their convoys. This was often accomplished by escorts of armoured and armed vehicles.
If I were to translate this to what I understand of ship construction, and being Minmatar you will forgive me for a more ... jury rigged approach. But I can understand that to equip a vessel the manufacturers often need to make rather painful design decisions. For example, a heavily armoured mining hull would have insufficient cargo room. Or the additional weight consumes so much power the mining turrets operate at reduced efficiency.
To make the most effective mining vessels they've had to rely on a pilots' common sense in securing their operations; such as using escorts, fitting appropriately or remaining aware of space around you. They simply could not make the trade-offs necesary to create a mining vessel that is capable of out-tanking a battleship hull, be as maneuverable as a frigate and have the cargo hold of a Fenrir.
Fortunately we as capsuleers have tools at our disposal. We can engage in activities with others in our corporation for the benefit of all. We can fit our ships for greater defenses, instead of achieving the optimal mineral yield. All trade-offs we make. Alternatively, you can, believe it or not - mine in a battleship. It is not as efficient as mining in a Hulk, or so I am told, but you do have a much greater measure of safety.
I hope this has been of help to you,
Regards,
Shian Yang |
Ocih
Space Mermaids Somethin Awfull Forums
173
|
Posted - 2012.05.07 08:01:00 -
[130] - Quote
Andski wrote:Ocih wrote:And I have said 100 times before, YOU - CAN'T - MINE - HIGH SEC - THAT - WAY.
Rocks aren't big enough, range on strip miners isn't high enough, you would need 200 bookmarks per belt or slowboat to ideal align range at the back side of a rock. It's the stupidest fail troll solution I've seen the armchair forum gang regurgitate over and over but feel free to regurgitate it again. You are only fooling yourself.
yeah 15km on strip miners is simply ~not enough~
The thing is, I have done what you are saying. Not with Ore but with Ice because I didn't need to update a bookmark grid to do it with ice and was able to come in on the other side of the Ice shard and mine a cycle before I was on the station near side. While it worked, the amount of Ice I was mining was cut in half by transit and dock, undock times. It's not a practical solution. If it gets that harsh for miners, train to use T2 deep core and fit a Rokh or a Hyperion. Either one will get 60% of the Hulk and have well over 70K EHP. That's a stable mining solution but still leaves the question, why the hell is a Hulk even in the game?
|
|
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4119
|
Posted - 2012.05.07 08:04:00 -
[131] - Quote
Ocih wrote:That's a stable mining solution but still leaves the question, why the hell is a Hulk even in the game?
Because it is capable of outmining every possible setup of any other hull in the game? "WeGÇÖre a professional Merc Alliance, like PL" ~ snot shot, 2012 |
Ocih
Space Mermaids Somethin Awfull Forums
173
|
Posted - 2012.05.07 08:05:00 -
[132] - Quote
Andski wrote:Ocih wrote:That's a stable mining solution but still leaves the question, why the hell is a Hulk even in the game? Because it is capable of outmining every possible setup of any other hull in the game?
Not if it blows up every time you undock it?
|
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4119
|
Posted - 2012.05.07 08:06:00 -
[133] - Quote
also hulks are getting an indirect buff in the form of CPU rigs
not that any of you will be using anything other than cargo rigs because you feel entitled to max-yield, max cargo and max tank "WeGÇÖre a professional Merc Alliance, like PL" ~ snot shot, 2012 |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4119
|
Posted - 2012.05.07 08:07:00 -
[134] - Quote
Ocih wrote:Not if it blows up every time you undock it?
we both know this is untrue, stop playing dumb "WeGÇÖre a professional Merc Alliance, like PL" ~ snot shot, 2012 |
Lapine Davion
Outer Ring Applied Logistics
398
|
Posted - 2012.05.07 08:09:00 -
[135] - Quote
Ocih wrote:Andski wrote:Ocih wrote:And I have said 100 times before, YOU - CAN'T - MINE - HIGH SEC - THAT - WAY.
Rocks aren't big enough, range on strip miners isn't high enough, you would need 200 bookmarks per belt or slowboat to ideal align range at the back side of a rock. It's the stupidest fail troll solution I've seen the armchair forum gang regurgitate over and over but feel free to regurgitate it again. You are only fooling yourself.
yeah 15km on strip miners is simply ~not enough~ The thing is, I have done what you are saying. Not with Ore but with Ice because I didn't need to update a bookmark grid to do it with ice and was able to come in on the other side of the Ice shard and mine a cycle before I was on the station near side. While it worked, the amount of Ice I was mining was cut in half by transit and dock, undock times. It's not a practical solution. If it gets that harsh for miners, train to use T2 deep core and fit a Rokh or a Hyperion. Either one will get 60% of the Hulk and have well over 70K EHP. That's a stable mining solution but still leaves the question, why the hell is a Hulk even in the game?
Too bad~ Don't worry about posting with your main! -áPost with your brain! "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4119
|
Posted - 2012.05.07 08:12:00 -
[136] - Quote
worthless mining pond scum complained about brutixes killing their hulks and mackinaws before the insurance nerf
worthless mining pond scum now complain about catalysts killing their hulks and mackinaws after the insurance nerf (and removal of the destroyer RoF penalty)
worthless mining pond scum will continue to complain until the ability to attack ships in hisec is removed "WeGÇÖre a professional Merc Alliance, like PL" ~ snot shot, 2012 |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
704
|
Posted - 2012.05.07 08:14:00 -
[137] - Quote
Andski wrote:yeah because they can lock you the instant they're on your overview
"hey look at that flashy catalyst landing in the belt he must be here to mine with me"
It takes how long, 5 seconds to land and lock such a big hull?
Yeah, the guys are supposed to BURN thru their monitor without a second of respite for 8 hours a day like they were assigned a Black ops fleet super delicate operation.
Oh wait it's totally apples and oranges.
On one side you have active and heart pumping gameplay involving very high focus on a time limited activity you don't repeat. And you will have significant impact and responsibility in the outcome.
On the other side you have the most absurdly BORING mechanic of any MMO to be performed for 2-8 hours, every day the same crap nobody cares about.
Don't be ridicolous, the former WILL have to apply skillful gameplay mastered in years, totally on their toes. The latter do the classic minimal wage "sweatshop" garbage for prolonged amounts of time. No way they will be ever attentive for 2-8 consecutive hours for that.
Also LOL terrible self liking with alts. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4120
|
Posted - 2012.05.07 08:21:00 -
[138] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Also LOL terrible self liking with alts.
Shian Yang liked your forum post: Darwinism Died... 22 minutes ago
yeah shian yang is totally my alt "WeGÇÖre a professional Merc Alliance, like PL" ~ snot shot, 2012 |
Shian Yang
80
|
Posted - 2012.05.07 08:23:00 -
[139] - Quote
Andski wrote:yeah shian yang is totally my alt
Greetings capsuleer,
Not with a hairstyle like yours.
Regards,
Shian Yang
|
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4120
|
Posted - 2012.05.07 08:23:00 -
[140] - Quote
maybe you could turn off your macro and stop expecting to be safe
also "lol" people whining about having to be attentive "WeGÇÖre a professional Merc Alliance, like PL" ~ snot shot, 2012 |
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
704
|
Posted - 2012.05.07 08:25:00 -
[141] - Quote
Andski wrote:maybe you could turn off your macro and stop expecting to be safe
also "lol" people whining about having to be attentive
The only macro user I see here is you.
Using AutoKey for F5 on the browser amirite? Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Aron Croup
Incompatible Protocol Bittervet Mercenaries
66
|
Posted - 2012.05.07 08:32:00 -
[142] - Quote
Thomas Orca wrote:Archdaimon wrote:Still seems like a place where sadists only wants easy mode because they can't handle a challenge when presented with one. You see, the problem is the things you are asking for (i.e adaptability in your internet spaceships) are already doable under current mechanics. There is no need for a new ship, because the role that you wish to be filled is already filled by existing ships.
Sure you can tank a hulk so that it will survive a single catalyst or two, but that's besides the point. All hulkageddon aside I think it would be a great addition to the game to get a new mining ship that supports a different role. Lord knows there are plenty of different roles for combat ships, but on the industry side we have much fewer options. For mining I was thinking the possibilities out last night and came up with this idea.
A Tech-3 Class Mining Vessel:
Priced in the same range as other tech-3 ships, and built around the same modular design. It could have many different roles, just like normal tech-3. Here's a proposal for some subsystems:
- Defensive - Supplemental Screening - 10% bonus to shield HP pr. level.
- Defensive - Warfare Processor - 99% bonus to link CPU need, 5% bonus to mining links pr. level.
- Defensive - Adaptive Shielding - 5% bonus to shield resist pr. level and 10% bonus to shield transfer pr. level.
- Defensive - Industrial Conversion - +10% cargo hold pr. level and a 25% penalty to shield HP.
- Electronic - Emergent locust analyser - 10% bonus to scan probes, 20% bonus to tractor beams pr. level.
- Electronic - CPU Efficiency gate - 5% to CPU pr. level
- Electronic - Crystal amplification - 3% to range of strip miners pr. level, and a 25% penalty to targeting range.
- Electronic - Dissolution sequencer - 5% to targeting range and 15% to sensor strength pr. level.
- Engineering - Identical to the other T3, so powergrid, capacitor regen, max capacitor and heat damage to modules.
- Offensive - Industrial Flux - 3 high-slots, 3 turrets, 5% bonus to ore mining yield. Can equip strip miners
- Offensive - Cold Flux - 3 high-slots, 3 turrets, 5% bonus to ice mining yield. Can equip ice miners
- Offensive - Non-solid Flux - 8 high-slots, 8 turrets, 5% bonus to gas mining yield.
- Offensive - Covert reconfiguration - 2 high-slots 2 turrets, no bonus to mining yield, can equip strip and ice miners.
- Propulsion - Cargo Hold Optimization - 25% penalty to agility & velocity and 5% to cargo pr. level.
- Propulsion - Fuel catalyst - 10% to afterburner pr. level.
- Propulsion - Gravitational Capacitor - 15% to warp speed pr. level, 10% capacitor bonus to initiate warp pr. level.
- Propulsion - Interdiction Nullifier - 5% agility pr. level and immunity to non targeted interdiction.
There's obviously more tweaking to do with the numbers for shield, armor and structure HP, base numbers for drone hold, bandwidth, cargo hold, ship velocity, etc. The idea here being you can either tank it like a tengu or go all out industrial and have a ship that's even more effective than the hulk, but also far more expensive, and therefore much more likely to be ganked.
Before you scuff this idea as just another miner whiner, consider that there will without question be stupid and careless miners flying around in ultra-high yield versions of these ships, in busy empire systems, begging to be ganked. There will also be people trying to balance tank and mining yield as much as possible, who will be harder targets, but still viable. Finally there will be the ultra-safe miners who will make this a tough nut to crack.
Give it some thought. |
Shian Yang
80
|
Posted - 2012.05.07 08:34:00 -
[143] - Quote
Aron Croup wrote:Give it some thought.
Greetings capsuleer,
Do you currently use a battleship class hull to mine?
Regards,
Shian Yang
|
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4120
|
Posted - 2012.05.07 08:34:00 -
[144] - Quote
I offered somebody a mining permit and he told me that I have no honour :(((( "WeGÇÖre a professional Merc Alliance, like PL" ~ snot shot, 2012 |
Vaju Enki
Secular Wisdom
7
|
Posted - 2012.05.07 08:39:00 -
[145] - Quote
I think Darwinism died with EvE carebear noobs. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
704
|
Posted - 2012.05.07 08:44:00 -
[146] - Quote
Aron Croup wrote: Sure you can tank a hulk so that it will survive a single catalyst or two, but that's besides the point. All hulkageddon aside I think it would be a great addition to the game to get a new mining ship that supports a different role. Lord knows there are plenty of different roles for combat ships, but on the industry side we have much fewer options. For mining I was thinking the possibilities out last night and came up with this idea.
A Tech-3 Class Mining Vessel:
Priced in the same range as other tech-3 ships, and built around the same modular design. It could have many different roles, just like normal tech-3. Here's a proposal for some subsystems:
Give it some thought.
Hulks are already extremely good at their job why would any developer with a brain make a better version of them?
Also, you have to understand that once you make a ship able to survive 2 catalysts, they'll just bring in 3 and pop it anyway.
The only "buff" needed is to completely trash the whole ancient garbage mechanic and put in something like... fun. Like EvE was a game you know.
If it was any fun, people would not alt tab to watch TV and the ebil ganksta would not have 10 minutes of free time to do whatever he wants on them. I think the only similar garbage game play I have seen was botted hunters in WoW and renown leeching autokey jumpers in Warhammer Online. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Aron Croup
Incompatible Protocol Bittervet Mercenaries
66
|
Posted - 2012.05.07 08:54:00 -
[147] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Aron Croup wrote: Sure you can tank a hulk so that it will survive a single catalyst or two, but that's besides the point. All hulkageddon aside I think it would be a great addition to the game to get a new mining ship that supports a different role. Lord knows there are plenty of different roles for combat ships, but on the industry side we have much fewer options. For mining I was thinking the possibilities out last night and came up with this idea.
A Tech-3 Class Mining Vessel:
Priced in the same range as other tech-3 ships, and built around the same modular design. It could have many different roles, just like normal tech-3. Here's a proposal for some subsystems:
Give it some thought.
Hulks are already extremely good at their job why would any developer with a brain make a better version of them? Also, you have to understand that once you make a ship able to survive 2 catalysts, they'll just bring in 3 and pop it anyway. The only "buff" needed is to completely trash the whole ancient garbage mechanic and put in something like... fun. Like EvE was a game you know. If it was any fun, people would not alt tab to watch TV and the ebil ganksta would not have 10 minutes of free time to do whatever he wants on them. I think the only similar garbage game play I have seen was botted hunters in WoW and renown leeching autokey jumpers in Warhammer Online.
I agree that hulks are good at their job, but they have certain limitations, one being that they have a frigate class tank. I'm not kidding, an assault frigate is better tanked than most hulk configurations.
The argument that "the hulk can already be tanked" doesn't really make much sense. That would be the same as saying there should only be one combat ship of each class, because you can just refit it for a different purpose, but that's not how EVE works! There are many combat ships that are specifically designed for tanking or ganking. The Hulk is the equivalent of a ganking ship, a high yield for highslots and a paper tank. Why not have a tank version of it? And a modular version of it? Why can't the industrialists have some freaking love in this game without combat pilots whining and moaning like it'd be the end of the world?
|
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4120
|
Posted - 2012.05.07 08:57:00 -
[148] - Quote
Aron Croup wrote:Why not have a tank version of it? And a modular version of it? Why can't the industrialists have some freaking love in this game without combat pilots whining and moaning like it'd be the end of the world?
It's called "balance." You want a ship that can mine just like a Hulk with ten times the tank. That's absolutely dumb. "WeGÇÖre a professional Merc Alliance, like PL" ~ snot shot, 2012 |
Aron Croup
Incompatible Protocol Bittervet Mercenaries
66
|
Posted - 2012.05.07 08:58:00 -
[149] - Quote
Andski wrote:Aron Croup wrote:Why not have a tank version of it? And a modular version of it? Why can't the industrialists have some freaking love in this game without combat pilots whining and moaning like it'd be the end of the world? It's called "balance." You want a ship that can mine just like a Hulk with ten times the tank. That's absolutely dumb.
[EDIT] Clarification:
I propose a ship that either has LESS yield than a hulk and MORE tank, or a ship that has a much higher cost than a hulk to achieve MORE tank with roughly the same yield. Like I said, I didn't specify any actual hitpoint values, these would have to be balanced.
The reason I thought it'd cool with a modular design is that you can redo it for many purposes. Cloaky travel, fleet boosting, gas mining, etc. It would be perfect for wormhole operations, for instance. |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Divine Power. Cascade Imminent
868
|
Posted - 2012.05.07 09:22:00 -
[150] - Quote
Aron Croup wrote:
I propose a ship that either has LESS yield than a hulk and MORE tank, or a ship that has a much higher cost than a hulk to achieve MORE tank with roughly the same yield. Like I said, I didn't specify any actual hitpoint values, these would have to be balanced.
i propose that too, it's called fitting tanking modules on your hulk lol |
|
Aron Croup
Incompatible Protocol Bittervet Mercenaries
66
|
Posted - 2012.05.07 09:58:00 -
[151] - Quote
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:Aron Croup wrote:
I propose a ship that either has LESS yield than a hulk and MORE tank, or a ship that has a much higher cost than a hulk to achieve MORE tank with roughly the same yield. Like I said, I didn't specify any actual hitpoint values, these would have to be balanced.
i propose that too, it's called fitting tanking modules on your hulk lol
I will refer you to my post on this very page addressing that non-argument. Combat ships have different varieties, some that tank, some that gank, some that have other useful bonuses. By your logic there should only be one frigate, cruiser, battlecruiser and battleship for each race - because you can just refit it?
It's not how everything else in EVE is done. It makes no sense that it should be the only solution for miners either. Let's have some options on the table. Why do you care? Would just mean you got to gank different kinds of ships, and you know if someone has a Tech-3 mining ship, they will try and faction fit it to get the most out of the tank... loot pinata. |
baltec1
1149
|
Posted - 2012.05.07 11:08:00 -
[152] - Quote
Aron Croup wrote:
I will refer you to my post on this very page addressing that non-argument. Combat ships have different varieties, some that tank, some that gank, some that have other useful bonuses. By your logic there should only be one frigate, cruiser, battlecruiser and battleship for each race - because you can just refit it?
It's not how everything else in EVE is done. It makes no sense that it should be the only solution for miners either. Let's have some options on the table. Why do you care? Would just mean you got to gank different kinds of ships, and you know if someone has a Tech-3 mining ship, they will try and faction fit it to get the most out of the tank... loot pinata.
There are six barges, four frigates, four cruisers and two capital sized ships built for mining. There are several other battleships which can be adapted for mining too. You have a wide choice of mining ships. |
Cipher Jones
The Thomas Edwards Taco Tuesday All Stars
516
|
Posted - 2012.05.07 11:17:00 -
[153] - Quote
Archdaimon wrote:Disclaimer: Not a carebear blah blah, didn't lose any hulks blah blah, don't live in Hi blah blah.
Matter at Hand:
Eve is a Sandbox or tries to be as much as possible. What is not "sandboxable" is the ship designs of Eve. They are sort of given to us by magical beings deciding what we can fly and what we can't.
As with any thing in Human history when one thing failed things started to adapt. We see this in fleet doctrines or fits for ships.
What we do not see is the ship design itself change. What am I getting at?
Mining ships. It makes no sense, from any fluffy perspective that ships continuously ganked never develops and becomes able to counter that thread. Few times in history have people insisted on being so ******** as to continue doing the same mistake over and over. No place in Eve has ever been safe enough for any ship design as paper thin as an exhumer to be designed in the first place!
One should think that an Engineer had at least enough some entrepreneurial spirit as to create a mining design not popin on sight. The resource is worth it. Current ship design just plain weird.
Faq: q) omfg omfg omfg carebear don't want suicide ganks. a) Yes I do. But lets put some fun into it. School Yard bully only fun for so long?
q) Your a botter a) No.
q) You just butthurt a) Not really. I just haven't lost faith in common sense
q) Don't fly what you can't afford to lose a) I don't
q) Have you tried mining a) Yes
q) Why should I care? a) Dunno, maybe you just will?
tbc
Edit:
q) But there are many other ships that doesn't make sense. How about t1 cruisers and ****? a) Indeed. But our Engineers said they were going to do something about that in the Tiercide. Lets have those same engineers invest a bit of time on mining as well?
Last year CCP was going to implement a bunch of stuff and the player base cried and they scrapped it.
This year they came out and said they were gonna do new stuff.
What you are asking for is in the new stuff.
So what the **** is the problem, quite bluntly?
We now return you to your regularly scheduled **** poast. |
Aron Croup
Incompatible Protocol Bittervet Mercenaries
66
|
Posted - 2012.05.07 11:27:00 -
[154] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Aron Croup wrote:
I will refer you to my post on this very page addressing that non-argument. Combat ships have different varieties, some that tank, some that gank, some that have other useful bonuses. By your logic there should only be one frigate, cruiser, battlecruiser and battleship for each race - because you can just refit it?
It's not how everything else in EVE is done. It makes no sense that it should be the only solution for miners either. Let's have some options on the table. Why do you care? Would just mean you got to gank different kinds of ships, and you know if someone has a Tech-3 mining ship, they will try and faction fit it to get the most out of the tank... loot pinata.
There are six barges, four frigates, four cruisers and two capital sized ships built for mining. There are several other battleships which can be adapted for mining too. You have a wide choice of mining ships.
The two capital sized ships are not built for mining. They're support ships for mining fleets, not mining ships. The cruisers and frigates are entry level mining ships and are pointless after 2 weeks of skill training, leaving only the t1 and t2 mining barges, who all fit the same profile of having very little tank capability.
Instead of just instantly jumping on the "I am against miners and everything they want, say or do" bandwagon, try to give me a real reason why a tech-3 mining ship would not be a good idea? You have tech-3 combat ships, why not have a tech-3 mining ship? Hell, could be as easy as making mining subsystems for the existing tech-3 ships.
|
RAP ACTION HERO
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
18
|
Posted - 2012.05.07 11:29:00 -
[155] - Quote
Aron Croup wrote:Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:Aron Croup wrote:
I propose a ship that either has LESS yield than a hulk and MORE tank, or a ship that has a much higher cost than a hulk to achieve MORE tank with roughly the same yield. Like I said, I didn't specify any actual hitpoint values, these would have to be balanced.
i propose that too, it's called fitting tanking modules on your hulk lol I will refer you to my post on this very page addressing that non-argument. Combat ships have different varieties, some that tank, some that gank, some that have other useful bonuses. By your logic there should only be one frigate, cruiser, battlecruiser and battleship for each race - because you can just refit it? It's not how everything else in EVE is done. It makes no sense that it should be the only solution for miners either. Let's have some options on the table. Why do you care? Would just mean you got to gank different kinds of ships, and you know if someone has a Tech-3 mining ship, they will try and faction fit it to get the most out of the tank... loot pinata.
sounds like you want a super-hulk with the same yield and cargo and the tank of a rokh
request denied. |
JitaPriceChecker2
State War Academy Caldari State
126
|
Posted - 2012.05.07 11:41:00 -
[156] - Quote
Alara IonStorm wrote:Business 101.
Guy buys Mining Ship > Mining Ship is destroyed > Guy buys new Mining Ship.
They don't have much incentive to put money into designing something when everyone just keeps buying new current Mining Ships after getting ganked.
Like how new light bulbs burn out quicker then ones made in the 30's.
This.
Op you suck and know nothing about "modern economy" based on planned obsolescence. |
Welsige
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
60
|
Posted - 2012.05.07 12:02:00 -
[157] - Quote
OP, think with me...
Get a miner ship, tank it, arm it, buff it, make it more of a war vessel..... in the end the engeneering process would get to a Battleship.
Its easier to you to take a Rokh then and go mine.
What do you want, a Mining deathstar?
Case closed. ~ 10.058 ~
Free The Mittani |
Bouh Revetoile
The Rough Riders Ares Protectiva
19
|
Posted - 2012.05.07 12:24:00 -
[158] - Quote
Welsige wrote:
OP, think with me...
Get a miner ship, tank it, arm it, buff it, make it more of a war vessel..... in the end the engeneering process would get to a Battleship.
Its easier to you to take a Rokh then and go mine.
What do you want, a Mining deathstar?
Case closed.
This : get a BS ; fit it with mining lasers ; lought at the gankers. Engineer did their job : the heaviest armored space ship is the BattleShip ; it is even so modular it can fit mining lasers for those who want an armored mining ship. Wow ! These engeneer are crazy effective in fact ! You said Darwin ? You should learn from him. Highsec carebear would be an endangered species ; sad days but eveolution is harsh. |
Archdaimon
NorCorp Enterprise No Holes Barred
52
|
Posted - 2012.05.07 13:41:00 -
[159] - Quote
Yet, if you fit the battleship with guns you'd make twice as much at half the speed?
Is that fair?
The question is really, why did so many of choose not to mine?
Might it be:
1) Low income 2) Boring game mechanic 3) High risk of ganks
in Short very low return of investment in mining. Ship design is a part of that.
The same people here whining that miners should not be invincible and demands they mine in battleship are the same people that would never put their pod in one. While at the same time complaining that mineral prices are to high.
Even at this extreme mineral prices miners have the lowest isk/h. And you ask them to make even less? |
Xython
Merch Industrial Goonswarm Federation
857
|
Posted - 2012.05.07 13:50:00 -
[160] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Welsige wrote:
OP, think with me...
Get a miner ship, tank it, arm it, buff it, make it more of a war vessel..... in the end the engeneering process would get to a Battleship.
Its easier to you to take a Rokh then and go mine.
What do you want, a Mining deathstar?
Case closed.
This : get a BS ; fit it with mining lasers ; lought at the gankers. Engineer did their job : the heaviest armored space ship is the BattleShip ; it is even so modular it can fit mining lasers for those who want an armored mining ship. Wow ! These engeneer are crazy effective in fact ! You said Darwin ? You should learn from him. Highsec carebear would be an endangered species ; sad days but eveolution is harsh.
While your spelling could possibly be better, you have the right idea.
I said it before in this thread, I'll say it again: The Hulk is not meant to be a solo, AFK, highsec mining ship. It's actually meant for nullsec mining ops, with a group of PVPers guarding it, perhaps scouts and bubbles on the gates into the system, et cetera.
It can certainly be used in highsec, but the idea that CCP should pander to the scrubs who wish to mine stuff while perpetually AFK and disengaged with the game (or, lets be honest, while Botting) is the worst kind of entitlement bullshit.
Why should CCP cater to a group of players who don't like their game enough to actually play it?
No, the good minerals and ice should be moved to low and null, where the sandbox can take care of anyone stupid enough to AFK or bot mine. And CCP should take a good, long hard look at harvesting in EVE -- if there's something so utterly boring and unfun that it can be done while AFK and/or with a cheap bot, then perhaps that particular part of the game should get a new coat of paint.
I do have to feel bad about those who aren't bot mining and are honestly trying to mine, however. If you're trying to be competitive with AFK Botters running glass cannon mining ships, well, you don't have much choice but to act as much like an Botter yourself. |
|
baltec1
1149
|
Posted - 2012.05.07 15:31:00 -
[161] - Quote
Aron Croup wrote:
The two capital sized ships are not built for mining. They're support ships for mining fleets, not mining ships. The cruisers and frigates are entry level mining ships and are pointless after 2 weeks of skill training, leaving only the t1 and t2 mining barges, who all fit the same profile of having very little tank capability.
Instead of just instantly jumping on the "I am against miners and everything they want, say or do" bandwagon, try to give me a real reason why a tech-3 mining ship would not be a good idea? You have tech-3 combat ships, why not have a tech-3 mining ship? Hell, could be as easy as making mining subsystems for the existing tech-3 ships.
Both capital ships are built for mining which makes them mining ships. The cruisers are out classed in exactly the same way the other t1 cruisers are out classed in their jobs by specialised ships. Your t3 superhulk is unessesary, unbalanced and utterly pointless. |
Jacob Holland
Weyland-Vulcan Industries Alliance not Found
34
|
Posted - 2012.05.07 15:38:00 -
[162] - Quote
Andski wrote:also hulks are getting an indirect buff in the form of CPU rigs
not that any of you will be using anything other than cargo rigs because you feel entitled to max-yield, max cargo and max tank Except that the Hulk is OK on CPU. What it lacks is Powergrid because it has more slots than the Covetor and the same PG. And if youGÇÖre fitting for tank youGÇÖll have extenders in the rig slots. The Mackinaw, as I said above, is totally shafted for CPU but, again, the CPU Rigs wonGÇÖt be a viable option at the values IGÇÖve seen because youGÇÖre exchanging a tanking rig for a rig which allows you to fit less tank. The CPU rigs might be viable on the Covetor - and only because theyGÇÖll allow people to fit the thing with two mining upgrades... Which would mean a disposable Cov would outmine a max tank Hulk and therefore reduce the demand for the T2 vessel. No need to tank it because itGÇÖs insurable, only problem is that you need a cargo opt rig or to stagger your cycles or youGÇÖll overfill the hold.
Now correct me if IGÇÖm wrong but that seems to be the opposite of the behaviour we want to encourage? Well, not entirely the opposite; it does imply an evaluation of the risks and the tools available and a selection of a tool appropriate to the environment.
|
highonpop
Void.Tech Fatal Ascension
51
|
Posted - 2012.05.07 15:46:00 -
[163] - Quote
The adaptation is
A - Protection Fleet
B - Train for a hulk, they can tank pretty hard.
C - ???
D - Profit? My post was probably full of typos. I don;t care... |
Archdaimon
NorCorp Enterprise No Holes Barred
52
|
Posted - 2012.05.07 15:48:00 -
[164] - Quote
Except you can't do A & B tactically. Only Strategicly. |
Welsige
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
61
|
Posted - 2012.05.07 16:26:00 -
[165] - Quote
Archdaimon wrote:Yet, if you fit the battleship with guns you'd make twice as much at half the speed?
Is that fair?
The question is really, why did so many of choose not to mine?
Might it be:
1) Low income 2) Boring game mechanic 3) High risk of ganks
in Short very low return of investment in mining. Ship design is a part of that.
The same people here whining that miners should not be invincible and demands they mine in battleship are the same people that would never put their pod in one. While at the same time complaining that mineral prices are to high.
Even at this extreme mineral prices miners have the lowest isk/h. And you ask them to make even less?
Hummm wrong, i have a hulk and do some mining when wishing for a mind numbing activity ingame.
Allways, of couse, with d-scan on and keeping an eye in my suroundings. ~ 10.058 ~
Free The Mittani |
Welsige
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
61
|
Posted - 2012.05.07 16:28:00 -
[166] - Quote
highonpop wrote:The adaptation is
A - Protection Fleet
B - Train for a hulk, they can tank pretty hard.
C - ???
D - Profit?
Yeah, mine in groups, assign a pilot for protection, share the yields evenly.
Problem solved. ~ 10.058 ~
Free The Mittani |
Mortimer Civeri
Aliastra Gallente Federation
53
|
Posted - 2012.05.07 16:47:00 -
[167] - Quote
Jacob Holland wrote:The CPU rigs might be viable on the Covetor - and only because theyGÇÖll allow people to fit the thing with two mining upgrades... Which would mean a disposable Cov would outmine a max tank Hulk and therefore reduce the demand for the T2 vessel. No need to tank it because itGÇÖs insurable, only problem is that you need a cargo opt rig or to stagger your cycles or youGÇÖll overfill the hold. I need to test that out on SISI. "I don't know which is worse, ...that everyone has his price, or that the price is always so low." Calvin
|
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
3850
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 16:29:00 -
[168] - Quote
I bet you if DMC where making ships they'd make them all tanked up.
|
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Divine Power. Cascade Imminent
877
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 17:27:00 -
[169] - Quote
Welsige wrote: Hummm wrong, i have a hulk and do some mining when wishing for a mind numbing activity ingame.
Allways, of couse, with d-scan on and keeping an eye in my suroundings.
when I'm fried after a hard day at work, it's either mining or spinning in station since they require about the same level of attention |
Nefertiri Ra'apharo
Mabad Ilhba Alasw'd
1
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 19:05:00 -
[170] - Quote
Why don't they just release a TIII mining ship, with relevant interchangable components geared to mining and tanking? |
|
Darth Gustav
Sons Of 0din Fatal Ascension
641
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 19:08:00 -
[171] - Quote
Nefertiri Ra'apharo wrote:Why don't they just release a TIII mining ship, with relevant interchangable components geared to mining and tanking? The answer is simple.
Carebears would fail at it because they would neglect to train the offensive and defensive subsystems, claiming that they are "pure miners."
Such a vividly interesting and utterly pointless suggestion. He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom |
Nefertiri Ra'apharo
Mabad Ilhba Alasw'd
1
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 19:11:00 -
[172] - Quote
Darth Gustav wrote:Nefertiri Ra'apharo wrote:Why don't they just release a TIII mining ship, with relevant interchangable components geared to mining and tanking? The answer is simple. Carebears would fail at it because they would neglect to train the offensive and defensive subsystems, claiming that they are "pure miners." Such a vividly interesting and utterly pointless suggestion.
Then fk em they deserve to die. |
Darth Gustav
Sons Of 0din Fatal Ascension
641
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 19:13:00 -
[173] - Quote
Nefertiri Ra'apharo wrote:Darth Gustav wrote:Nefertiri Ra'apharo wrote:Why don't they just release a TIII mining ship, with relevant interchangable components geared to mining and tanking? The answer is simple. Carebears would fail at it because they would neglect to train the offensive and defensive subsystems, claiming that they are "pure miners." Such a vividly interesting and utterly pointless suggestion. Then fk em they deserve to die. My thoughts exactly.
[Edit: Congratulations on your first +1.] He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom |
Quaternary Target
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 19:45:00 -
[174] - Quote
Any solution to the Hulk ganking "problem "will be insufficient simply because, unless and until Hulks are made invincible, someone will find a way to gank them.
so to hell with it, let them all burn |
MortisLegati
Caldari War Materiel
3
|
Posted - 2012.05.11 00:03:00 -
[175] - Quote
Debora Tsung wrote:Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:Huh, I had a better proposal.... alllow bounty hunters to track down their targets in a way that gave a meaning to "being wanted" Sahmelessly plugging it: My "EVE Retaliation" proposalExceprt: Quote:Summary:
- unlimitedly transferable kill rights; if a hirer is fillthy rich and can throw 20 hunters on the agressor, let the agressor have it - pay for destroying the target's stuff, not merely kill him. No longer self-killing for the bounty unless you're up to losing twice the reward. - any other target in the prey's corporation can be punished too. If you gang together against bounty hunters, bounty hunters can gang together against you. - bounty hunters can track the last moves of their target via stargates and stations. It sucks to be hunted. - bounty hunters can pinpoint the last moves of the target via the target's appearences in local chat. It sucks a lot to be hunted. Nice Idea, but what would stop You from putting bounties on all those juicy High-Sec miners?
I don't want to derail the wonderful rage here but I also want to go back to this for a moment, but it seems someone is forgetting that basic bounty mechanics require negative sec status?
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
664
|
Posted - 2012.05.11 01:08:00 -
[176] - Quote
Nefertiri Ra'apharo wrote:Darth Gustav wrote:Nefertiri Ra'apharo wrote:Why don't they just release a TIII mining ship, with relevant interchangable components geared to mining and tanking? The answer is simple. Carebears would fail at it because they would neglect to train the offensive and defensive subsystems, claiming that they are "pure miners." Such a vividly interesting and utterly pointless suggestion. Then fk em they deserve to die. Would be hilarious.. Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 :: [one page] |