Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Elemental Dark
|
Posted - 2009.06.26 15:44:00 -
[1]
Hi all , was reacently ganked by a megathron in a 0.6 system , needless to say I didnt know this person nor the corp and have never had dealings with them in the past . I had t2 strips with some t2 crystals in them and 2 cargo rigs t1 . Just wondering whate the possable proffit from ganking/salveging the wreck and loosing a mega would be ??
Not complaining , lets just say that mining in semi high sec made me complacent , just wondering !
Cheers in advance , ED
|
yani dumyat
Minmatar Tribal Liberation Force
|
Posted - 2009.06.26 15:54:00 -
[2]
Suicide gankathron is 40 mill ish after insurance though ganking hulks is a bit of a c+p fad at the moment so they probably wanted the e-peen as much as the loot.
Sig_________________________________________________________________________________
My alliance, corp, psychiatrist and parole officer claim no responsibility for my actions on these forums. |
Elemental Dark
|
Posted - 2009.06.26 15:58:00 -
[3]
Cheers for the quick response , just thought that I should also not that they left the 110k of conc veld , albit they turned it over to a con of there own , but still , sorta validates the theory of the E-peen lol .
Also what does the C+P ( think thats what you said) mean ?
ED |
Karox Lominax
|
Posted - 2009.06.26 16:14:00 -
[4]
C + P is crime and punishment, a subforum of these forums, where basically all the piratey types hang out.
And to put it quite simply, they gank you because they can, in order to spoil your day. They see it as a victory that no matter what it costs them, they have made your life miserable. Although, as has rightly been said, the cost is fairly low with t1 mods and insurance. Typically ships like thoraxes are used for massive firepower, and very minimal cost.
Sometimes there is a tactical reason for doing it (cutting off supply lines to known affiliated corps with war targets) but more often than not, its just for laughs.
Think playground bullies in the digital age I guess.
Mind you, it is fun when they come in all red and flashy from losing so much sec status, and you catch them on the gate with a warp disrupter whilst the appropriate response team comes charging in to blow them to little bits. |
yani dumyat
Minmatar Tribal Liberation Force
|
Posted - 2009.06.26 16:23:00 -
[5]
It started in this thread.
Agreeing with Karox that carrying a sensor booster and point in high sec can get you a surprising amount of kills. |
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.06.26 17:30:00 -
[6]
I know the guy who ganked you. Suffice it to say, more will come...and not just from him.
Jihad is coming.
|
Clair Bear
Perkone
|
Posted - 2009.06.26 17:50:00 -
[7]
Oh hi there! You might recognize me from the lossmail. It's definitely not epeen I'm after. I mean, I'm an industry carebear, what use do I have for killboards?
It costs me approximately 76M to manufacture a megathron 1 jump from Jita (*). The guns on it were 400k each, magstabs 21k per. 28 rounds of navy antimatter is reasonably cheap. Scrams, tracking mods and drones are inexpensive as well.
By the time the dust settles I'm paying about 80M for my ship and fittings, of which 73.5 million is covered by insurance. Strip miners usually pay for the gank, and the occasional t2 armor plate is the profit.
My actions have had the exact desired effect -- you are much less complacent about mining in highsec. BTW, you had the best tank of the two hulks I ganked that day. A guy in Soba lasted only two volleys, which made me a sad panda. And as cores said, there's a storm coming!
(*) actual megathron cost significantly lower since I obtain mountains of minerals through mission trash buy orders and own a researched BPO And in summary, bigger blobs are the answer. Now what was the question? |
BackAlley Butch
Caldari Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2009.06.26 18:14:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Clair Bear And as cores said, there's a storm coming!
What's hilarious is that you don't realize how incredibly pathetic you look! Excellent comedy, thanks! |
Soldis
Minmatar Privateers Privateer Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.06.26 18:55:00 -
[9]
Edited by: Soldis on 26/06/2009 18:58:03
It used to be possible to gank a Hulk with a single Brutix battlecruiser, but CCP fixed it so that Concord responds faster, and now it requires the firepower of a battleship.
Hulks seem to be the primary users of Gisti Small Shield Boosters. Even if this precious shield booster is found in your wreck 1/4 of the time, then it's worth losing 4 battleships. The T2 miners and crystals help a little too.
On top of that, the salvage from your Hulk wreck can also be very interesting.
There is also the possibility of stockpiling Gisti boosters and reselling them as they get scarce temporarily, and the same with the minerals the Hulk in high-sec mine the most. Though, I expect only the Great Prophet to have the resources to dabble in this business.
|
Kurfin
|
Posted - 2009.06.26 19:41:00 -
[10]
Even if you weren't complacent there isn't much you can do if you're in a belt. Staying aligned can be easily mitigated by a bumping frigate, and after that Hulks really can't take much of a beating. They don't have enough CPU and Grid to fit a cruiser sized tank, to match their cruiser size sig radius, and they don't have the agility to GTFO after a bumping.
Mining missions is probably the best defence. Yes you can be scanned down, but when there are plenty of easy to find hulks in the belts the gankers are unlikely to bother.
I just wish our fellow miners would stop whining about it (I know the OP isn't, but lots do) as it only encourages the gankers. Likewise faction mods, you're just painting a big bullseye on yourself. In high sec you don't need faction gear to resist the rats, and against a suicide gank it's doubtful that it would even make you survive another volley let alone save your ship. Rant over.
On a positive note though, of all the hundreds and thousands of hulks mining high sec it is still only a tiny percentage that get ganked. |
|
Tesal
|
Posted - 2009.06.26 19:52:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Clair Bear Oh hi there! You might recognize me from the lossmail. It's definitely not epeen I'm after. I mean, I'm an industry carebear, what use do I have for killboards?
It costs me approximately 76M to manufacture a megathron 1 jump from Jita (*). The guns on it were 400k each, magstabs 21k per. 28 rounds of navy antimatter is reasonably cheap. Scrams, tracking mods and drones are inexpensive as well.
By the time the dust settles I'm paying about 80M for my ship and fittings, of which 73.5 million is covered by insurance. Strip miners usually pay for the gank, and the occasional t2 armor plate is the profit.
My actions have had the exact desired effect -- you are much less complacent about mining in highsec. BTW, you had the best tank of the two hulks I ganked that day. A guy in Soba lasted only two volleys, which made me a sad panda. And as cores said, there's a storm coming!
(*) actual megathron cost significantly lower since I obtain mountains of minerals through mission trash buy orders and own a researched BPO
Crime and Punishment had an interesting thread on this topic that vanished from the forums for some reason. The hulk killing has gone viral now I think, and people are starting to talk about doing it all around. I worked on a little research contract on this on how to defeat it and looked at various options and tested them. Basically it can't be stopped. There isn't an in game mechanic that can adequately defend against it. This is risk free isk topped off with mountains of emo rage for the people who do it. My advice is to start fitting a damage control unit, but that won't be enough if they bring a battleship.
|
Vasundhara
|
Posted - 2009.06.26 20:07:00 -
[12]
Pretty refreshing to see this type of thread handled so politely on both sides of the table. I feel a little sorry for empire miners in that not only is their profession less profitable than L4 missions, they are a far easier target for gank. Not that you can't gank a mission runner, but mission runners certainly fit a broader profile of defense capability than the typical Hulk does. Be interesting to see how this all plays out. |
Mavolio
Viziam
|
Posted - 2009.06.26 20:17:00 -
[13]
doesn't using some alt to shoot your self to get concord in the belt already work any more?
|
Shiangti
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.06.26 20:22:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Tesal
There isn't an in game mechanic that can adequately defend against it. This is risk free isk topped off with mountains of emo rage for the people who do it.
Right now no, but actually there was talk of removing the insurance payout from those people who are killed by concord a couple of patches/expansions ago. If insurance was removed (from those concordokkened) that would make the financial aspect much more perilous for the ganker because it would cost them the full amount for their ship loss and get no insurance back. (only from what ever drops from the gankee) I can just imagine the emo rage/quit from C+P if CCP were to actually implement it. It would not stop ganking entirely, but would make it as not profitable or at least MUCH more costly to the ganker.
|
Vasundhara
|
Posted - 2009.06.26 20:23:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Mavolio doesn't using some alt to shoot your self to get concord in the belt already work any more?
Now there is a service for an enterprising new player to get involved in ;)
|
Vasundhara
|
Posted - 2009.06.26 20:30:00 -
[16]
Edited by: Vasundhara on 26/06/2009 20:30:43
Originally by: Shiangti Right now no, but actually there was talk of removing the insurance payout from those people who are killed by concord a couple of patches/expansions ago.
I wouldn't go as far as to remove the insurance but adding a penalty for death due by Concord would be a control CCP could do to alter the incentive. You want there to be an element of risk but in empire that risk should hover relatively low. The incentive should be set such that a really sweet target in empire is probably worth it but most of the time it's more questionable. For a pirate to make a consistent profit, or even break even, by just popping normally fitted Hulks in empire is probably something that should be looked at. Honestly, orchestrating a huge Jihad is probably the best way to get this addressed.
|
Dariah Stardweller
|
Posted - 2009.06.26 21:54:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Mavolio doesn't using some alt to shoot your self to get concord in the belt already work any more?
I think it does.
Hm, would smartbombing a few secured containers in a belt to get multiple concord spawns be possible? |
Miranda Ricsko
Gallente Federal Navy Academy
|
Posted - 2009.06.26 22:18:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Shiangti
Originally by: Tesal
There isn't an in game mechanic that can adequately defend against it. This is risk free isk topped off with mountains of emo rage for the people who do it.
Right now no, but actually there was talk of removing the insurance payout from those people who are killed by concord a couple of patches/expansions ago. If insurance was removed (from those concordokkened) that would make the financial aspect much more perilous for the ganker because it would cost them the full amount for their ship loss and get no insurance back. (only from what ever drops from the gankee) I can just imagine the emo rage/quit from C+P if CCP were to actually implement it. It would not stop ganking entirely, but would make it as not profitable or at least MUCH more costly to the ganker.
I think that would be a great system, and it's actually more realistic. If your ship gets trashed by the authorities while you're engaged in criminal activity, an insurance company should in no way pay out. |
Mavolio
Viziam
|
Posted - 2009.06.26 22:36:00 -
[19]
This is a game for fun tho not real life. How much fun would it be if some 4-5 month old char who had just spent their last isk on a ship accidentaly got it concorded. So in my opinion no payout isn't rly a good solution. At the most it should just be a reduction in the payout to make it less profitable.
|
Vasundhara
|
Posted - 2009.06.26 22:48:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Miranda Ricsko I think that would be a great system, and it's actually more realistic. If your ship gets trashed by the authorities while you're engaged in criminal activity, an insurance company should in no way pay out.
Personally I would prefer things be modeled in a way that parallels reality but creating a desirable game dynamic is going to trump having things be realistic. Ganking in empire is a dynamic that I think adds positively to the risk management nature of the game. Having secure space not be totally secure means that you can reduce your risk in empire but not eliminate it. In order to preserve that margin of risk in empire you need to create some incentive for the Ganker apart from just taking a loss in return for lulz / tears. Reducing insurance payouts for Concord kills is one way to re-tune the risk / reward balance for gankers, but if you totally remove the payout it should be replaced with something else.
Some may disagree with me, but I don't think that EvE would be better off on either extreme of having empire be totally risk free or being basically 0.0 space. Having some sense of realism would be nice but I could go on for hours arguing about how you would basically need to re-write EvE from the ground up to even start to approach a modest sense of realism (i.e. Eddison forgot how to make the light-bulb he just invented after he used his plans up). I've written it off as a lost cause ;) |
|
Shiangti
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.06.26 23:02:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Mavolio This is a game for fun tho not real life. How much fun would it be if some 4-5 month old char who had just spent their last isk on a ship accidentaly got it concorded. So in my opinion no payout isn't rly a good solution. At the most it should just be a reduction in the payout to make it less profitable.
There is an annoying pop up warning box that you have to click ok to before you can do a criminal act that will rate being concorddokkened. If a relatively new character such as you describe is in that situation, although I would feel bad, I would use the standard CCP line: "We are sorry for your loss, and hope that you will quickly recover." Also, a Hulk's insurance payout is peanuts since it is a T2 ship compared to the actual amount of isk sunk into them. Plus, if the character was accidentally concorded, I am sure he could petition it and get his ship back if he was concorded through no fault of his own. |
Miranda Ricsko
Gallente Federal Navy Academy
|
Posted - 2009.06.26 23:18:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Mavolio This is a game for fun tho not real life. How much fun would it be if some 4-5 month old char who had just spent their last isk on a ship accidentaly got it concorded. So in my opinion no payout isn't rly a good solution. At the most it should just be a reduction in the payout to make it less profitable.
Like was stated, there's a popup box warning before you do something illegal. A newbie making a mistake and learning from it is a lot less costly than people being able to gank Hulks with practically no loss in highsec space due to the ******ed insurance company blindly funding their criminal (and idiotic, since it doesn't make sense) activities. Going after a target in highsec should be costly enough where you only do it if you have a very good reason, or if you just want to eat the cost and grief. Deciding to live in the criminal element should involve giving up the luxury of insurance in highsec.
|
Tesal
|
Posted - 2009.06.27 00:07:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Vasundhara
Originally by: Miranda Ricsko I think that would be a great system, and it's actually more realistic. If your ship gets trashed by the authorities while you're engaged in criminal activity, an insurance company should in no way pay out.
Personally I would prefer things be modeled in a way that parallels reality but creating a desirable game dynamic is going to trump having things be realistic. Ganking in empire is a dynamic that I think adds positively to the risk management nature of the game. Having secure space not be totally secure means that you can reduce your risk in empire but not eliminate it. In order to preserve that margin of risk in empire you need to create some incentive for the Ganker apart from just taking a loss in return for lulz / tears. Reducing insurance payouts for Concord kills is one way to re-tune the risk / reward balance for gankers, but if you totally remove the payout it should be replaced with something else.
Some may disagree with me, but I don't think that EvE would be better off on either extreme of having empire be totally risk free or being basically 0.0 space. Having some sense of realism would be nice but I could go on for hours arguing about how you would basically need to re-write EvE from the ground up to even start to approach a modest sense of realism (i.e. Eddison forgot how to make the light-bulb he just invented after he used his plans up). I've written it off as a lost cause ;)
I would prefer a mechanic that lets people fight them. Gate guns should be changed to kill more slowly in .5 maybe and do less damage, and maybe be strengthened in a .8, and people should be able to tackle any reds on the gate and fight them. Another option might be to have faction navy ships arrive in waves every 30 seconds bringing progressively more DPS. With weaker gate guns they would be able to stand and fight. I think that would be the most fun. You would be able to do gate fights in high sec this way against bandits. It would allow some pvp outside of a wardec.
|
Nuzzy Futs
Amarr Hedion University
|
Posted - 2009.06.27 00:29:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Shiangti ..... I can just imagine the emo rage/quit from C+P if CCP were to actually implement it. It would not stop ganking entirely, but would make it as not profitable or at least MUCH more costly to the ganker.
Emo-rage fake gangster tears are the best tears - That would be hilarious to see the forum **** that would create. |
RedSplat
Heretic Army
|
Posted - 2009.06.27 01:02:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Nuzzy Futs
Originally by: Shiangti ..... I can just imagine the emo rage/quit from C+P if CCP were to actually implement it. It would not stop ganking entirely, but would make it as not profitable or at least MUCH more costly to the ganker.
Emo-rage fake gangster tears are the best tears - That would be hilarious to see the forum **** that would create.
Well for a start most of us would actually make a point of introducing risk into Highsec in retaliation, rather than as the hobby it is for most of us.
I can guarantee you that after a week the tears would be flowing profusely everywhere but C&P.
Originally by: CCP Mitnal
I don't sleep. I am always here. Watching. Waiting.
Originally by: CCP Mitnal it does get progressively longer.
|
Miranda Ricsko
Gallente Federal Navy Academy
|
Posted - 2009.06.27 01:21:00 -
[26]
Originally by: RedSplat
Originally by: Nuzzy Futs
Originally by: Shiangti ..... I can just imagine the emo rage/quit from C+P if CCP were to actually implement it. It would not stop ganking entirely, but would make it as not profitable or at least MUCH more costly to the ganker.
Emo-rage fake gangster tears are the best tears - That would be hilarious to see the forum **** that would create.
Well for a start most of us would actually make a point of introducing risk into Highsec in retaliation, rather than as the hobby it is for most of us.
I can guarantee you that after a week the tears would be flowing profusely everywhere but C&P.
I'd prefer that and gankers just throw money away if that's their choice, rather than griefing like babies under the umbrella of insurance claims. |
Breaker77
Reclamation Industries New Eden Research
|
Posted - 2009.06.27 03:09:00 -
[27]
As the carebears keep whining, CCP keeps nerfing ganking in highsec (warp to 0, increased Concord response, ect...). Eventually they will get their way where you won't even be able to lock or agress a non NPC ship in highsec and their is zero risk.
It's just depends on how fast the gankers keep attacking people in highsec. The more you gank, the harder the nerfs will be. With 40,000 people logged on and over 10% of them are located in highsec trade hubs, CCP won't lose that monthly income.
TLDR: Eve is dieing |
Musagetes
Gallente Taggart Transdimensional Virtue of Selfishness
|
Posted - 2009.06.27 04:11:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Breaker77 The more you gank, the harder the nerfs will be.
And that's bad because ...?
And while you're on the topic of "zero risk", what risks are there in ganking mining barges and exhumers in a scenario where you know you're going to get blown up by CONCORD anyway?
-- Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand And Eternity in an hour. |
Future Mutant
|
Posted - 2009.06.27 05:27:00 -
[29]
This topic started off well- hulks were going splat and plenty of lol's were had by all.... Then the unimaginative came in with their O M G they r killing our ships! How can that be fair? NERF NERF NERF NERF
Heres a tip- you dont like losing your ship learn to fit a tank already. Learn a skill not ore related. I would suggest one of the shield variety. Theyre called extenders get some. |
Krylon Rhae
|
Posted - 2009.06.27 06:25:00 -
[30]
First off... I am a miner/industrialist and not a ganker.
That said, I do not believe stopping the insurance payout 100% to someone zapped by concord is a good idea. I would rather see a scalable hit to their insurance payout so that their free wheeling ganking can be mitigated by sector status.
For instance, the insurance payout could be multiplied by the system security status to reduce the payout in such a way that their insurance is reduced by 90% in a .9 system and 50% in a .5 system. New players learning to mine in 1.0 and .9 systems would be relatively safe since risk/reward is associated with the system security status.
The true risk averse can mine in relative safety in the higher security zones but the reward is reduced by the types of roids present. The lower the security status the better the roids and the better the opportunity to get ganked by someone more willing to risk a lower payout in anticipation of a better drop.
Fitting stronger tanks, mining in teams with a command ship booster, pre-aligning and suicide ganking an alt to get concord in system are all effective deterrents. |
|
Miranda Ricsko
Gallente Federal Navy Academy
|
Posted - 2009.06.27 06:59:00 -
[31]
Has nothing to do with "carebears" (hate that term, so f'ing stupid), it's just a discussion on how to make idiot tactics have some kind of consequence for those that undertake them. Not really any skill or consequence for jumping a Hulk in highsec with a BS. If it weren't for insurance then there'd be no reason to at all except just wanting to gank, which is the only reason there should be. |
Future Mutant
|
Posted - 2009.06.27 07:15:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Krylon Rhae
That said, I do not believe stopping the insurance payout 100% to someone zapped by concord is a good idea. I would rather see a scalable hit to their insurance payout so that their free wheeling ganking can be mitigated by sector status.
For instance, the insurance payout could be multiplied by the system security status to reduce the payout in such a way that their insurance is reduced by 90% in a .9 system and 50% in a .5 system.
If i have to live with crappy insurance for a t2 ship then miners need to learn to live with their crappy insurance for their t2 ships. Just because they dont know how to fit a tank to their t2 miner doesnt mean my t1 ship should get less insurance. We already deal with to many restrictions already. Concord responds almost instantly in a .5 system- their damage is incredibly high. Security standings go all the way down to -10 but only up to +5. Everything about hi sec game mechanics protects ships from pirates- it doesnt need to be buffed further. The main problem as i see it is the t2 miners- ie hulk- are fit for mining and only mining. Seriously would it kill them to fit a tank? Adapt or Die- i know miners can do the latter now try the former. |
Kurfin
|
Posted - 2009.06.27 07:37:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Future Mutant This topic started off well- hulks were going splat and plenty of lol's were had by all.... Then the unimaginative came in with their O M G they r killing our ships! How can that be fair? NERF NERF NERF NERF
Heres a tip- you dont like losing your ship learn to fit a tank already. Learn a skill not ore related. I would suggest one of the shield variety. Theyre called extenders get some.
The trouble is that even when you have the skills you can't fit much tank to a hulk. You don't have the grid or CPU for medium extenders, you can only fit small which don't bring much extra HP to the party. Fire up EFT and have a go at fitting one. I think the big problem is that the Exhumers are just too delicate. They are pretty much defenceless against bigger than a frigate. They need more grid, more CPU, and either more base HP or more mids. Throw in +2 warp strength too and you just might get some out in lowsec.
And on the subject of risk, where is the gankers risk? Their ships plus fittings are nearly covered by insurance, so the loss of their ship is only pocket change. If there is risk to the miners of losing a mostly uninsurable 100 mill ship plus fittings, where is the corresponding risk to the gankers?
Removing the insurance payout from concorded ships would help. As for the newbies who may accidentally get concorded, just provide better documentation for them as to what is a concordable offence then if they get concorded it's their own stupid fault.
|
RedSplat
Heretic Army
|
Posted - 2009.06.27 07:45:00 -
[34]
I ganked a Hulk Retriever, and i liked it The taste of his salty tears, *schlick* |
BackAlley Butch
Caldari Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2009.06.27 08:06:00 -
[35]
Originally by: Future Mutant This topic started off well- hulks were going splat and plenty of lol's were had by all.... Then the unimaginative came in with their O M G they r killing our ships! How can that be fair? NERF NERF NERF NERF
Heres a tip- you dont like losing your ship learn to fit a tank already. Learn a skill not ore related. I would suggest one of the shield variety. Theyre called extenders get some.
Awesome job with (lack of) reading comprehension. :) Keep up the good work!! |
BackAlley Butch
Caldari Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2009.06.27 08:11:00 -
[36]
Edited by: BackAlley Butch on 27/06/2009 08:11:55 This is the same old topic that everyone, in every line of "work", here in Eve eventually whines about. Claire Bear of Perkone made the point perfectly: don't play the game her (his) way with his/her play style, he/she is gonna f*ck with you. Same goes for PVP v PVE, PVP v Instrials, Free-Ore v All-Ore-Costs, etc.
Don't play the game their way, you're not playing it right. Sad. F'cking sad.
If I had one ounce of the pathetic "play my way or else" I'd declare war on Perkone, kill all of Claire's alts, and just laugh at the irony.
Play Eve your way. F*ck Claire and her pathetic "my way or else" boolsh!te. I hope you sheep can see this campaign for what it it.
ps: I don't fly a Hulk, and never will. Monumental waste of f'cking time IMHO. |
Albert O'Balsam
|
Posted - 2009.06.27 08:35:00 -
[37]
The topic started well but soon devolved into a slanging match. Changing insurance payouts could work well enough but in realitly all that need to be done is change mining ships so they have the ability to tank.
It's all well and good the gankers glibly saying that the miners need to learn how to tank their ships but I am pretty sure it is simply not possible to tank a hulk to withstand a battleship attack for long enough for concord to intervene. In my mind that is simply a broken game mechanic, but I doubt that CCP agree with my views - lol
|
Simply Human
|
Posted - 2009.06.27 09:00:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Future Mutant Just because they dont know how to fit a tank to their t2 miner doesnt mean my t1 ship should get less insurance.
Since people have said it's not possible to fit a hulk to stop a BS from ganking them could you please post a fitting that would stop that. They wouldn't be able to complain then. |
Kurfin
|
Posted - 2009.06.27 09:14:00 -
[39]
Originally by: BackAlley Butch Edited by: BackAlley Butch on 27/06/2009 08:11:55 This is the same old topic that everyone, in every line of "work", here in Eve eventually whines about. Claire Bear of Perkone made the point perfectly: don't play the game her (his) way with his/her play style, he/she is gonna f*ck with you. Same goes for PVP v PVE, PVP v Instrials, Free-Ore v All-Ore-Costs, etc.
Don't play the game their way, you're not playing it right. Sad. F'cking sad.
If I had one ounce of the pathetic "play my way or else" I'd declare war on Perkone, kill all of Claire's alts, and just laugh at the irony.
Play Eve your way. F*ck Claire and her pathetic "my way or else" boolsh!te. I hope you sheep can see this campaign for what it it.
ps: I don't fly a Hulk, and never will. Monumental waste of f'cking time IMHO.
This.
The great thing about Eve versus other MMOs is that there are so many things you can do and make a living out of. You can PvE, PVP, mine, manufacture, trade, plus probably some other things I've forgotten about. It's a sandbox game, probably the greatest example of one, you play it how you want to.
All the activities are dependant on each other, the game would fall apart if one of them fell out of favour and very few player participated, benefiting no one. In this case of industrialist vs PvP; if the PvPers get the loads of easy hulk kills they want, discouraging players from mining the supply of minerals drops. Drop in supply leads to an increase in price, which will lead to more expensive ships and modules causing the PvPers to whine. On the flip side a healthy level of PvPing keeps demand for ships and modules high, along with their price, so nerfing PvP would crash ship, module and ore prices causing the industrialists to whine. It's a balance.
|
Barbara Nichole
Cryogenic Consultancy Black Sun Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.06.27 10:33:00 -
[40]
Edited by: Barbara Nichole on 27/06/2009 10:34:56
Hulk Ganking? I thought this is what you meant...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndWUlntJ58U
|
|
Matthew
Caldari BloodStar Technologies
|
Posted - 2009.06.27 11:03:00 -
[41]
Now, first let me say that I accept suicide ganking in high-sec should be possible. However, there are two very different types of ganking, which I have very differing views on:
1) Gank for profit - This is a perfectly legitimate part of the risk vs reward balance of high-sec. In fact, I'd go as far as to say it's an essential part, for one very good reason. Optimizing your performance in high-sec almost inevitably makes you more vulnerable to suicide ganking for profit. Whether it's expanding your cargo rather than your HP, making your mission-running ship a juicy faction-fitted target etc, increased risk of getting ganked is a part of the balance.
2) Gank for fun - This is the element I view as being outside the risk vs reward balance, because the ganker is not looking for a conventional reward, and there is limited scope for the victim to discourage someone who really wants to gank them. I would like to see this element discouraged by the game mechanics as far as possible.
However, the problem is that what discourages one, discourages the other. Making it harder to gank for fun invariably means increasing the punishments for ganking. Which invariably means increasing the cost (either in isk or time) imposed on the gank-for-profit case, which in turn reduces the gank-vulnerability risk of high-sec residents.
For this reason, I think we have to be very careful with wholesale changes such as removing insurance. Instead, I think we need to look at individual ganking scenarios on their own merits, and balance those individual cases accordingly.
The issue of mining barges in general (not just the hulk) has been one I've always felt was a little out of whack, given the cost of ganking them vs the potential loot drop. Even a vanilla Tech 1 fitting of the tier-3 barges are guaranteed to be packing 4mill worth of strip miner I's, and given Claire Bear's figure of 6.5mill net cost for a sure ganking, even the absolute worst case for the ganker is approaching break-even. Which means that there's a balance issue there regardless of whether you're considering gank-for-profit or gank-for-fun.
Now, I do agree that ganking a barge stacked with Modulated Strip Miner IIs, faction shield boosters and zero tank should be of at least passing interest to the gank-for-profit crowd.
However, ganking a barge that has sacrificed yield to ram on the best tank possible (note that in this case "best tank" would exclude faction modules as the potential loot reward they offer would likely outweigh the increased tank they offer), should incur a cost more significant than it does now.
The question is how to do it. There seem to be two general trains of thought on this:
1) Nerf insurance payouts/increase sec status penalty/generally nerf the ganker - While it would fix this case, it would break all the other gank cases that are currently fairly well balanced.
2) Boost the barges - I think this option has more potential, but it very much depends on the proposed boost. Boosting the base stats of the barge will increase it's gank-resistance in all cases. You can't go too far with this, otherwise you protect the tech2strip-factionfitted-notank case too much. I think there is scope for a minor tweak upwards in the barge base stats, however the majority of the tanking boost needs to come from the modules it can fit - hence opening up the difference between the highyield-notank and lowyield-hightank fitting options. ------- There is no magic Wand of Fixing, and it is not powered by forum whines. |
Matthew
Caldari BloodStar Technologies
|
Posted - 2009.06.27 11:06:00 -
[42]
Because it's that difference that is key. Gank viability moves in discrete steps - do you need a cruiser? do you need a battlecruiser? do you need a battleship? do you need 2 battleships? etc If an untanked barge requires 0.7 battleships and a fully tanked barge requires 0.9 battleships, then fitting a tank on the barge is absolutely irrelevant to discouraging the gank, and tanks will not be fitted because they offer no real benefit for the yield they sacrifice, not because they are "silly carebears who don't know how to fit a ship"
If however the fully tanked barge requires 1.5 battleships to gank, then fitting the tank becomes significant, and there is then a genuine risk vs reward decision to be made by the barge pilot.
Of course, what form this tank takes is also important - clearly to be effective against a gank it has to be a HP buffer. However it has to be done in such a way that does not give them too powerful a sustained tank.
Personally, for barges, I would be inclined to go with a structure buffer tank, for a couple of reasons:
1) There's only two modules that really boost structure - Damage Control and Reinforced Bulkheads. Both of these are low-slot modules, so they compete with the mining laser upgrade, hence forcing a compromise between extra yield or extra tank.
2) The Damage Control is a perfect module for generating a significant difference between the tanked and untanked case. You'd struggle to generate an equivalent difference using either shield or armor modules without having to give the barge so much CPU and Grid headroom that you could make ridiculous untanked fittings. It also means that you could add a specific balancing bonus/penalty to the barge for this one module, should the default damage control stats not be ideal for this ship.
3) Although relying on the damage control is a resistance bonus, which increases the effectiveness of active tanking, structure repair modules are in no way competitive with their shield or armor alternatives, either in terms of HP/sec or HP/cap, even with the damage control. Hence structure is a good choice for granting a good HP buffer without boosting active tanking. ------- There is no magic Wand of Fixing, and it is not powered by forum whines. |
Elemental Dark
|
Posted - 2009.06.27 12:21:00 -
[43]
Wow , I must admit that I really didnt expect this much disscusion to come from my simple little Question ! Just thought to check in and see if there were any replys .
Carry on and lets see if ccp do implement any sort of changes in the future for us CareBears !
ED |
Hithero Wolf
Caldari Mahatma Productions
|
Posted - 2009.06.27 13:03:00 -
[44]
Originally by: corestwo I know the guy who ganked you. Suffice it to say, more will come...and not just from him.
Jihad is coming.
A goon tired to kill my totaly unprotected mackinaw last night. Concord made swift work of his Armageddon, i lived.
How bob lost to you f beyond me, the incompetence among your members are astonishing.
Failing to gank a mackinaw...
|
Smokin' Dragon
Holy Grail Construction
|
Posted - 2009.06.27 14:28:00 -
[45]
best tank i can currently fit to my hulk.... (no faction mods or rigs used)
[Hulk, New Setup 1] Micro Auxiliary Power Core I Micro Auxiliary Power Core I
Medium C5-L Emergency Shield Overload I Medium Shield Extender II Magnetic Scattering Amplifier II Heat Dissipation Amplifier II
Strip Miner I Strip Miner I Strip Miner I
[empty rig slot] [empty rig slot]
Mining Drone I x5
this comes out at the following
EHP:14211 Shields HP: 3083 (not including boost)
defence: 97 sust / 129 for 1m 12s
ok, all you gankers who are truly intersted in debating: if i have a sustained def of 129 for 1 min (more than enough for concord response) and 14k EHP, how many BS's approx will it take to kill me?
if we assume 600dps per BS
20 seconds x 600 = 12000 damage = fail (but im in structure)
its enough to stop most battleships that are solo ganking, and will certainly tank a solo BC
alternatively you can try to fit a giant FO armour plate (but im not an armour tanker)
|
Frobos
|
Posted - 2009.06.27 16:26:00 -
[46]
Originally by: corestwo ...Jihad is coming.
Originally by: Hithero Wolf
A goon tired to kill my totaly unprotected mackinaw last night...
So, whatever happened to Jihadswarm?!?
Last I seen it was barely struggling to keep a killboard populated just after the changes to sec status loss for hisec aggro last year. Now, the domain name looks expired and everything. I must say it was enjoyable watching you insta pop an ice macro. Kinda broke up the monotony!
To me the title of the thread, Jihadswarm, whatever you want to call it is the same. People playing the game as it was intended. I have responded this time around in the exact same way as the last iteration of Hulk exterminating in hisec......first, take some of the profits from doing all that mining and buy a second Hulk. Fit it out and just keep it in dock. For the most part, a Hulk will always be valued to someone somewhere so if anything, think of it as an investment. EvE inflation seems alive and kicking. And regarding the whole cost issue with this subject, I have saved up and spent stupid amounts of money just to get drunk and do a Clint Eastwood gauntlet run into low/null sec to see how long I would last before someone in a t1 frig costing one fifth the amount pwns me. So how much it costs someone to shoot at you is almost irrelevant cause you have no idea where they got their ship. Stole it. Given to them by an alliance or simply played for ISK for a few days and built/bought their own. I personally feel if you have any ship that takes you longer than 2-3 weeks to buy, build or acquire, then perhaps you need to find another profession, a different ship or simply don't freak out if you get it blown up just because you didn't want to or because you thought that day was a good day to do a bunch of AFK mining.
Second, If I have a hauler/orca or someone flying CAP for me, I try to have them fit a remote shield transfer mod. Even a cheapo tech 1 transfer can be run for a few seconds from a good number of different types of ships. This alone can be a deal breaker for even multiple gankers as a shield xfer cycles quicker than an armor rep and means they gotta throw x2 or x3 more volleys to get the job done. And from what it sounds, most only have one or maybe two volleys of weapons before getting concordoken. The types of off-beat tactics that are being used by all the bad people can be applied to you as well. Imagine the look on someone's face when they see an Iteron V light up two shield xfers on a Hulk as they are in the middle of a target lock. I imagine it would be about as shocking (pun intended) as a Hulk pilot seeing a couple flashes of light before being in their pod.
So, depending on where you mine, this game is all a roll of the dice. I played right through a number of months of the GS Jihadswarm with only once even seeing a roaming suicide gang and they didn't even go for my ship out of the lot. If you see them every time you undock, then move somewhere else. Another suggestion is to set your personal standing for anyone or corp you know is ganking to -5 so to see the red sign in local and all that. Then deal with the fact it doesn't matter if you run missions, do PVP, or even mine, everyone risks losing whatever ship you click undock with at anytime and just about anywhere.
I know it's easy to say to yourself you understand that last statement. But you really have to treat it as gospel. The title of this game should be "Get Blown Up -- EVE Online." If it's not someone you don't know, then it's some bored corpmate who decided to get at least one killboard post that day. The point being, it's just a ship, get over it. Have a laugh in local and go get a pint while you get in another ship. Rinse and repeat.
|
Future Mutant
|
Posted - 2009.06.27 18:23:00 -
[47]
Let me clear up a few misconceptions- I never said that you must "play the game my way" If you are playing the game- PLAY THE GAME If you fly a t2 expensive ship- realize that you are flying a mostly uninsurable ship. Im sorry if game mechanics prevent you from doing whatever you want, how you want, when you want. The answer to game mechanics is to ADAPT. Instead i see endless forum posts about how its not fair. |
Tesal
|
Posted - 2009.06.27 18:33:00 -
[48]
Originally by: Future Mutant The main problem as i see it is the t2 miners- ie hulk- are fit for mining and only mining. Seriously would it kill them to fit a tank? Adapt or Die- i know miners can do the latter now try the former.
The audacity of you wit and keen intellect is beyond compare. I salute you sir for this amazing post. |
Miranda Ricsko
Gallente Federal Navy Academy
|
Posted - 2009.06.27 18:40:00 -
[49]
Originally by: Future Mutant Let me clear up a few misconceptions- I never said that you must "play the game my way" If you are playing the game- PLAY THE GAME If you fly a t2 expensive ship- realize that you are flying a mostly uninsurable ship. Im sorry if game mechanics prevent you from doing whatever you want, how you want, when you want. The answer to game mechanics is to ADAPT. Instead i see endless forum posts about how its not fair.
The discussion was how there's basically zero risk for griefers and no good way to adapt to the ganking with the way Exhumers currently operate. There should always be risk no matter what you're doing, and steps to take to try and alleviate said risks. Therefore something in this situation needs to change on both sides.
|
Future Mutant
|
Posted - 2009.06.27 21:19:00 -
[50]
Originally by: Miranda Ricsko
The discussion was how there's basically zero risk for griefers and no good way to adapt to the ganking with the way Exhumers currently operate. There should always be risk no matter what you're doing, and steps to take to try and alleviate said risks. Therefore something in this situation needs to change on both sides.
Suicide gankers have zero risk? THEY LOSE THEIR SHIP! how much more risk do you want? The fact that they use a t1 insurable ship and miners use a t2 ship is besides the point. No ones stopping miners from using a t1 ship now are they? And besides that check out the whole security status issue they have to deal with.
|
|
Albert O'Balsam
|
Posted - 2009.06.27 22:14:00 -
[51]
Originally by: Future Mutant Let me clear up a few misconceptions- I never said that you must "play the game my way" If you are playing the game- PLAY THE GAME If you fly a t2 expensive ship- realize that you are flying a mostly uninsurable ship. Im sorry if game mechanics prevent you from doing whatever you want, how you want, when you want. The answer to game mechanics is to ADAPT. Instead i see endless forum posts about how its not fair.
Fair Points clearly made - but I have to pull you up on one thing - The OP never claimed it wasnt fair - he quite openly accepted his fate - he was simply asking if the act was profitable by the ganker - which after reading the posts here may not be overly profitable - but certainly is not a huge loss maker either. |
Musagetes
Gallente Taggart Transdimensional Virtue of Selfishness
|
Posted - 2009.06.27 22:32:00 -
[52]
Originally by: Future Mutant Suicide gankers have zero risk? THEY LOSE THEIR SHIP!
Not really a risk if they know what the inevitable outcome is, now is it? :)
-- Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand And Eternity in an hour. |
Future Mutant
|
Posted - 2009.06.27 22:46:00 -
[53]
to the post directly above- its not like they absolutely know the outcome- though i gotta admit with most hulks not fitting a tank they know the likely outcome. But then again thats true for most pvp and pve. you always try to stack the odds in your favor..
to the post above that post- i have not directed my comments at the op..
|
Miranda Ricsko
Gallente Federal Navy Academy
|
Posted - 2009.06.27 23:00:00 -
[54]
Originally by: Future Mutant
Originally by: Miranda Ricsko
The discussion was how there's basically zero risk for griefers and no good way to adapt to the ganking with the way Exhumers currently operate. There should always be risk no matter what you're doing, and steps to take to try and alleviate said risks. Therefore something in this situation needs to change on both sides.
Suicide gankers have zero risk? THEY LOSE THEIR SHIP! how much more risk do you want? The fact that they use a t1 insurable ship and miners use a t2 ship is besides the point. No ones stopping miners from using a t1 ship now are they? And besides that check out the whole security status issue they have to deal with.
Almost full insurance claim back + knowing that the target ship has no realistic way to defend against the attack = no real risk.
|
Firvain
|
Posted - 2009.06.27 23:52:00 -
[55]
try fitting a tank on your hulk instead, you might survive longer..
[Hulk, New Setup 1] Mining Laser Upgrade II [empty low slot]
Survey Scanner II Gistii B-Type Small Shield Booster Photon Scattering Field II Heat Dissipation Field II
Modulated Strip Miner II, Veldspar Mining Crystal I Modulated Strip Miner II, Veldspar Mining Crystal I Modulated Strip Miner II, Veldspar Mining Crystal I
Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I Anti-Thermal Screen Reinforcer I
Mining Drone II x5
has 111 defence with maxed skills, i get 110 for 6 minuts. I still have a good minign yield and even got a spare low slot to play with(barely no pg or cpu though :P), and can probally squeeze in two named MLU's. yes it is a 40 mil shield booster, but hey its saving my 100 mil ship |
yani dumyat
Minmatar Tribal Liberation Force
|
Posted - 2009.06.27 23:55:00 -
[56]
Originally by: Smokin' Dragon
best tank i can currently fit to my hulk....
Medium C5-L Emergency Shield Overload I Medium Shield Extender II Magnetic Scattering Amplifier II Heat Dissipation Amplifier II
EHP:14211 Shields HP: 3083 (not including boost)
defence: 97 sust / 129 for 1m 12s
ok, all you gankers who are truly intersted in debating: if i have a sustained def of 129 for 1 min (more than enough for concord response) and 14k EHP, how many BS's approx will it take to kill me?.........if we assume 600dps per BS
It's not DPS you need to worry about but volley damage, if someone's already killed you they won't care about waiting 8 seconds for their guns to cycle, the tempest can get 7000 volley damage pretty easily so i'll let you do the maths. Also your shield booster is irrelevant because it takes far less than a minute to get the kill so you'd be better off with more EHP.
For everyone who says you can't tank a hulk try this setup:
[Hulk, New Setup 1] Damage Control II Reinforced Bulkheads II
Invulnerability Field II Small F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction Small F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction Invulnerability Field II
Modulated Strip Miner II, Veldspar Mining Crystal I Modulated Strip Miner II, Veldspar Mining Crystal I Modulated Strip Miner II, Veldspar Mining Crystal I
Core Defence Field Extender I Core Defence Field Extender I
For all the miners who are complaining about risk vs reward i'd like to know what risks you are taking for your reward? I'd bet that the number of hulks that die from suicide ganks is considerably less than 1% of the total number in high sec so really your risk is very low compared to reward.
Asside from the hulk tank question there's plenty of ways to increase risk for the pirate - hints, velator alts have a special call concord button and suicide dessies are great for squishing pods |
Abrazzar
|
Posted - 2009.06.28 00:29:00 -
[57]
If you find yourself a target or are generally afraid for the safety of your hulk, use this:
[Hulk, 30,000 EHP Mother****er] Damage Control II Micro K-Exhaust Core Augmentation
Medium Shield Extender II V-M15 Braced Multispectral Shield Matrix V-M15 Braced Multispectral Shield Matrix Domination Magnetic Scattering Amplifier
Ice Harvester II Ice Harvester II Ice Harvester II
Core Defence Field Extender I Core Defence Field Extender I
-------- Ideas for: Mining
|
Future Mutant
|
Posted - 2009.06.28 01:00:00 -
[58]
Originally by: yani dumyat
For all the miners who are complaining about risk vs reward i'd like to know what risks you are taking for your reward?
This exactly.. The common complaint here is the low "risk" of suicide ganking- though tbh the risk is a 100% guarantee of your ship being lost somehow thats not enough. The ones complaining want a zero amount of risk when they mine. Doesnt work like that. you want zero risk- stay docked. you want reduced risk- mine in .8 or higher and fit a tank
|
Dodgy Past
|
Posted - 2009.06.28 01:22:00 -
[59]
Edited by: Dodgy Past on 28/06/2009 01:24:20
Originally by: Smokin' Dragon
ok, all you gankers who are truly intersted in debating: if i have a sustained def of 129 for 1 min (more than enough for concord response) and 14k EHP, how many BS's approx will it take to kill me?
if we assume 600dps per BS
20 seconds x 600 = 12000 damage = fail (but im in structure)
its enough to stop most battleships that are solo ganking, and will certainly tank a solo BC
alternatively you can try to fit a giant FO armour plate (but im not an armour tanker)
Gank fit BS could easily be well over 800 DPS. Plates and damage mods in the lows, sensor boosters in the mids. Admittedly 1600 plates would add to the cost of a gank.
|
Ghoest
|
Posted - 2009.06.28 02:16:00 -
[60]
Its called "griefing". Its also called "EVE". Get used to it.
Wherever you went - Here you are.
|
|
Clair Bear
Perkone
|
Posted - 2009.06.28 05:25:00 -
[61]
Originally by: Dodgy Past Gank fit BS could easily be well over 800 DPS. Plates and damage mods in the lows, sensor boosters in the mids. Admittedly 1600 plates would add to the cost of a gank.
What on earth would you need plates for? You are dead as soon as concord shows up. There is absolutely no need for tank.
FWIW, if I step up to a Hyperion (at an additional 7M cost) I can get 1024 DPS with a 4553 alpha out of the turrets alone. The "All Vs" guy would be even better with a staggering 1051 DPS using nothing but mission garbage guns. If I splurge on T2 guns and MFS spewing Void that goes to 5446 alpha with 1313 DPS from guns (1399 for the all Vs guy). Heck, let's throw four Ogre IIs on top for a ~5700 alpha and 1562 DPS for giggles.
Compare this maximum theoretical damage output with the several viable tankish hulk builds posted (hint: NOT active). Assuming a 10-15 second CONCORD response time and you can readily see that it'd take far more than just me to asplode a tanked hulk.
As is, I feel sad collecting 2 round (out of 4) ammo stacks apres solo gank vs. AFK, untanked, EHP reduced cargo rigged and expanded hulks and mackinaws.
|
Victoria Akmea
Gallente Taishite Kami
|
Posted - 2009.06.29 01:41:00 -
[62]
Edited by: Victoria Akmea on 29/06/2009 01:42:45 This is with all level V skills, but you could artificially make that with implants.
--Hulk--
--Lows-- Damage Control II N-Type Adaptive Nano Membrane I
--Mediums-- Small F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction Small F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction Invulnerability Field II Invulnerability Field II
--Highs-- Ice Harvester II Ice Harvester II Ice Harvester II
My EFT may be out of date, but anyway. That's a 22,483 EHP.
Next I did a Hype, All level V skills no implants, Neutron Blaster IIs with Caldari Navy Antimatter, Mag Stab IIs in bot, as well as 3 Ogre IIs and 2 Hammerheads IIs for full damage possible. 1418 dps 4829 volley + drone volley, whatever that is. 1418 DPS would take a good 15 or so seconds to kill that Hulk? By then, CONCORD is there going OMGLAIKHAI2U2HYPE!!11!1!1oneoneeleven. Even if this Hype could kill the Hulk, it wouldn't drop enough to be profitable. Even 2 cheaply fitted Hypes would probably cost more than you'd get.
--TL;DR--
Fit a tank on your hulk and quit whining. |
Steve Hawkings
|
Posted - 2009.06.29 13:05:00 -
[63]
Originally by: Clair Bear
What on earth would you need plates for? You are dead as soon as concord shows up. There is absolutely no need for tank.
lol Time is not Money and minerals i mine are free!! |
Sergo Mor'Zert
|
Posted - 2009.06.29 14:57:00 -
[64]
Originally by: Victoria Akmea [Even if this Hype could kill the Hulk, it wouldn't drop enough to be profitable. Even 2 cheaply fitted Hypes would probably cost more than you'd get.
Huh you forget overheated guns, only moronic suicidal ganker dont use that option. Also hulks in high sec tend to be active tanked with costly modules plus chance to get t2 rig components, it is profitable.
But with good EHP buffer tank on Hulk its possible to survive ~90% of the suicidal attackers. Makeing miner risk as close to zero as possible in EVE. Few good setups was already posted here ~30k EHP is enough for almost every suicider. |
Ana Vyr
|
Posted - 2009.06.29 15:00:00 -
[65]
I wonder if CCP should allow us to insure T2 barges with some decent coverage to help offset this?
|
Zuhlaetah
|
Posted - 2009.06.29 15:48:00 -
[66]
Quote:
And while you're on the topic of "zero risk", what risks are there in ganking mining barges and exhumers in a scenario where you know you're going to get blown up by CONCORD anyway?
Like they don't know what to do to not trigger concord response despite aggressing. Do you REALLY believe anyone of the "many hulks killed" are actually coping with the single downside of that, security loss? No, there are multiple ways to kill them and lose minimal standing at all, it's how it's done.
Zero risk, maximum grief, zero cost.
Quote:
If i have to live with crappy insurance for a t2 ship then miners need to learn to live with their crappy insurance for their t2 ships. Just because they dont know how to fit a tank to their t2 miner doesnt mean my t1 ship should get less insurance
Feel free to show a fitting that would save an hulk off a determined suicide ganker. In case you did not notice, hulks are not exactly made to tank players.
Quote:
The main problem as i see it is the t2 miners- ie hulk- are fit for mining and only mining. Seriously would it kill them to fit a tank
Because even fully mining fitted they earn a QUARTER of the second-last worst profession?
Nice, then give mining ships 3-4 more high slots and the grid to sustain a real tank?
Quote:
2) Gank for fun - This is the element I view as being outside the risk vs reward balance, because the ganker is not looking for a conventional reward, and there is limited scope for the victim to discourage someone who really wants to gank them. I would like to see this element discouraged by the game mechanics as far as possible.
Gank for fun is still fair in an unconsensual PvP game. What's out of whack is the:
- stacking and one sided-ness of the "deal": defensless sitting duck vs determined "pros". Defensless regardless of any other factor, even by being aligned, even hypotetically fitting warp stabs... in any case you get 1-3 shot.
- complete lack of any downside for doing it. You are ALWAYS insured a kill, you are ALWAYS insured for the kill to be profitable (T2 fittings), you are ALWAYS getting paid by insurance at almost full. Basically, in a "pros and cons" game like EvE is, there's this particular fight where there's no downside and only upsides.
Quote:
If you are playing the game- PLAY THE GAME If you fly a t2 expensive ship- realize that you are flying a mostly uninsurable ship. Im sorry if game mechanics prevent you from doing whatever you want, how you want, when you want.
A barge is crap and will be targetted even more. Same fitting required (covetor) but a fraction of the HP. Losing the ship and having to find another and the always scarce or thief costly modules is the factor, not the < 100M. Using a barge won't fix this.
Moreover there's no "cheap" miners. The T1 are 2M each here, they are not gifted due to them requiring high amounts of megacyte to make.
Quote: The fact that they use a t1 insurable ship and miners use a t2 ship is besides the point
No, it's not. Being repeatedly stripped off an income source does not change: someone else just did it and because it's free.
Quote:
And besides that check out the whole security status issue they have to deal with.
Read above: those who do it in a professional way can avoid the security status issue in several ways.
Quote:
has 111 defence with maxed skills, i get 110 for 6 minuts. I still have a good minign yield and even got a spare low slot to play with(barely no pg or cpu though :P), and can probally squeeze in two named MLU's. yes it is a 40 mil shield booster, but hey its saving my 100 mil ship
This is 40M that EVERYONE with a brain will want to try to get. It's almost free to them to try after all.
|
Karentaki
Gallente Oberon Incorporated Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.06.29 16:35:00 -
[67]
Originally by: Future Mutant This topic started off well- hulks were going splat and plenty of lol's were had by all.... Then the unimaginative came in with their O M G they r killing our ships! How can that be fair? NERF NERF NERF NERF
Heres a tip- you dont like losing your ship learn to fit a tank already. Learn a skill not ore related. I would suggest one of the shield variety. Theyre called extenders get some.
This. Really, I don't see what's so hard to understand about this being a PVP game.
Quote:
EVE is like a sandbox with landmines. Deal with it.
|
Governor LePetomane
Rock Ridge Brokerage Solutions
|
Posted - 2009.06.29 18:01:00 -
[68]
The ones who are really going to suffer from this are the freighter gankers. If insurance gets removed from suicide ganks that line of work will effectively be killed. And if the current level of noise about this gets goon antics piled on top of it that's probably what'll happen; CCP said they were "looking at that" or similar just prior to the last suicide nerf.
All of which suits me just fine of course, since I don't mine any more but I do occasionally have a freighter in play. *ganks a hulk and comes back to post about it*
|
buttesauce
|
Posted - 2009.06.29 19:21:00 -
[69]
not gonna lie if you are talking about suicide gankig using tier 3 BSes and t2 modules you should probably just go back to pvping
|
Jauqs
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.06.29 19:57:00 -
[70]
Originally by: Zuhlaetah Quote:
And while you're on the topic of "zero risk", what risks are there in ganking mining barges and exhumers in a scenario where you know you're going to get blown up by CONCORD anyway?
Like they don't know what to do to not trigger concord response despite aggressing.
Do you REALLY believe anyone of the "many hulks killed" are actually coping with the single downside of that, security loss? No, there are multiple ways to kill them and lose minimal standing at all, it's how it's done.
I call BS. We are talking Suicide Ganking of hulks - you trigger CONCORD. We aren't talking can-flipping, which by the way, the miner deserves to lose his nice shiny t2 exhumer if he falls for a can flipper. Suiciding a miner costs security standing - no ifs ands or buts - it is an unprovoked attack subject to CONCORD (i.e. game) rules.
Originally by: Zuhlaetah
Quote:
The main problem as i see it is the t2 miners- ie hulk- are fit for mining and only mining. Seriously would it kill them to fit a tank
Because even fully mining fitted they earn a QUARTER of the second-last worst profession?
Nice, then give mining ships 3-4 more high slots and the grid to sustain a real tank?
The problem with giving mining ships 3-4 more high slots and grid to sustain a tank is 1). highs don't help you tank, and 2). a miner will STILL fill it with stuff to improve his yield and forgo a tank. It is the "herd mentality" solution to risk vs. reward. Miners see it as: "if I can run my mining op XX out of YY times without getting ganked (i.e. they gank someone else in the herd), than it is more ISK to just forget the tank".
Originally by: Zuhlaetah
Quote:
If you are playing the game- PLAY THE GAME If you fly a t2 expensive ship- realize that you are flying a mostly uninsurable ship. Im sorry if game mechanics prevent you from doing whatever you want, how you want, when you want.
A barge is crap and will be targetted even more. Same fitting required (covetor) but a fraction of the HP. Losing the ship and having to find another and the always scarce or thief costly modules is the factor, not the < 100M. Using a barge won't fix this.
Obviously flawed logic is obvious. 1) If a Hulk and a Covetor are presented to a ganker in a belt, the HUlk will get targeted over the Covertor 100% of the time: the Hulk has a greater chance of being pimped out and/or being flown by a macroer
2). If the "Same fitting required (covertor) but a fraction of the HP." and "Defensless regardless of any other factor" than flying a covetor is logical because your LOSS to a gank is less with a barge (insurance) than with an exhumer (uninsured). You are simply refusing to recognize that it isn't the ship that is foremost in the miners thoughts, it is the ISK/hour. You WANT to fly a Hulk because it makes more ISK, but the game mechanics means the finacial loss is more. So your plan if action is NERF!!
Originally by: Zuhlaetah
Quote:
And besides that check out the whole security status issue they have to deal with.
Read above: those who do it in a professional way can avoid the security status issue in several ways.
Name it or it doesn't happen. Unprovoked attack = CONCORD security loss defined by the security status of the system it occured in. You take several sec hits and then you go off and work your security status back up to do it again. Rinse and repeat: there is no minimizing it.
|
|
skye orionis
|
Posted - 2009.06.29 21:30:00 -
[71]
Goons recently attempted to gank one of my character's hulks (not saying who, because this will just mean more gankattention - goons can be very stubborn), they failed, I salvaged the wreck and made plenty of cash from the fittings and salvage parts.
Now I know there are carebearish types who're probably going to think twice about mining in the same location after a gank attempt, but you should endeavour to get back to where you were, because now you'l have a concord escort with instant reaction time.
|
Tesal
|
Posted - 2009.06.29 21:50:00 -
[72]
Originally by: Governor LePetomane The ones who are really going to suffer from this are the freighter gankers. If insurance gets removed from suicide ganks that line of work will effectively be killed. And if the current level of noise about this gets goon antics piled on top of it that's probably what'll happen; CCP said they were "looking at that" or similar just prior to the last suicide nerf.
All of which suits me just fine of course, since I don't mine any more but I do occasionally have a freighter in play. *ganks a hulk and comes back to post about it*
I think it would be a mistake to nerf suicide ganking too much more. That has already been done. I think the part that is missing is the retribution part. Suicide ganking is like guerilla warfare, its asymetric. Small lightly armed groups swoop in and strike and disappear and can't be shot at or forced to fight. A viable way to bring in pvp to shoot -10 players and suicide gankers would be a lot more interesting than nerfing suicide ganking more. I think extending kill rights to 90 days, giving pod killing rights, and making them transferable would be a better way of dealing with this. You could sign over your kill rights to a merc corp with a contract that gives payment upone death, they will hunt them down for fun, and there will be pew pew and explosions and all will be set right.
Other steps that could be taken would be transferring low security status players into NPC pirate corps. That would be fun to shoot at. You could also make security status transfer to your corp with a corp security status. You can have corp standings for agents, why not for security status as well. You could also remove the bottom for security status. A person could go to -500 then. That could bring some fun new mechanics, perhaps giving them positive standings with pirates. I also think there should be an eve wide criminal organization to rival concord. That would be fun too and would be a way to create an inverse benefit to being an outlaw and a way to attack them.
I think any changes should be fun and build on the EvE story and enhance the game. These evil acts are taking place already, they should be brought into the story and mechanics of the game in a fun way for everyone.
|
Chainsaw Plankton
IDLE GUNS IDLE EMPIRE
|
Posted - 2009.06.30 01:53:00 -
[73]
Originally by: yani dumyat It started in this thread.
Agreeing with Karox that carrying a sensor booster and point in high sec can get you a surprising amount of kills.
it started way before that thread
|
BezerkFury
|
Posted - 2009.06.30 02:49:00 -
[74]
Would grief gankers be less inclined to pick on hulks that have an escort? (such as a BC) Just wondering.
|
Rip Minner
|
Posted - 2009.06.30 05:10:00 -
[75]
Edited by: Rip Minner on 30/06/2009 05:11:52 I would love to see the insurence payout removed when Condorked.
I am even been helping to bring this into action by Fiting Dominix's for gank and Insurence. If you do it right you can fit a Dominix for gank at around 60mil pluse 18.5mil Insurence thats 78.5mil the pay out is 85mil. Pluse salvage loot and if mybe there jetcaning :)
Its funner then running level 4's or mining.
Edit: I am ganking Hulks becouse its geting them to mine less and the lost in high sec mins will be felt if there are more and more of us doing it.
|
Zuhlaetah
|
Posted - 2009.06.30 09:08:00 -
[76]
Quote:
I call BS. We are talking Suicide Ganking of hulks - you trigger CONCORD. We aren't talking can-flipping, which by the way, the miner deserves to lose his nice shiny t2 exhumer if he falls for a can flipper
Inform yourself better (and no, I am not going to tell you how to do it, CCP does not appreciate. Hint: they talk about it in game in some chats).
Quote:
2). a miner will STILL fill it with stuff to improve his yield and forgo a tank.
They changed how strip miners fit already, so the precedent is here. They can add a maximum of them like they do for turret and missiles available slots already.
Quote:
Obviously flawed logic is obvious. 1) If a Hulk and a Covetor are presented to a ganker in a belt, the HUlk will get targeted over the Covertor 100% of the time: the Hulk has a greater chance of being pimped out and/or being flown by a macroer
You suggested to switch to lower barges, I just proved it's worthless. Moreover the non-fleet miners are 80% of the time alone at belts, the "hulk or covetor" dilemma does not even happen, there'll be one ship there.
Quote:
2). If the "Same fitting required (covertor) but a fraction of the HP." and "Defensless regardless of any other factor" than flying a covetor is logical because your LOSS to a gank is less with a barge (insurance) than with an exhumer (uninsured). You are simply refusing to recognize that it isn't the ship that is foremost in the miners thoughts, it is the ISK/hour. You WANT to fly a Hulk because it makes more ISK, but the game mechanics means the finacial loss is more. So your plan if action is NERF!
The ISK loss for being without a mining ship and the annoy factor to find all the bits again (ie lasers at 2M in another region and not 3.5M each here) can easily deny days of difference in ISK generated by an hulk vs a covetor.
Quote:
Name it or it doesn't happen
Sure, I am gonna get myself banned to tell the internet anonymous what he can easily read himself.
Quote:
I think it would be a mistake to nerf suicide ganking too much more.
Suicide ganking is fine as long as the general consensus is that high sec is high sec enough. It's common sense to acknowledge that a guy carrying 1B item in a indy is a fool, none would side with him. Plus ganking the fool actually costs a possibly T2 fitted boat and sensible security loss.
But now enter a scenario where the victim cannot do anything "real", where the gank ship is an insurance freebie T1 ship with meta 0-1 items and where security loss can be often circumvented (with a trick you can't do vs indys) and the idea of high sec changes into a big "WTF NERF THEM!"
Result: to please some hooligans you kill the gate suicide camp profession as soon as CCP enters with one of their elephant delicate nerfs.
|
Abrazzar
|
Posted - 2009.06.30 10:31:00 -
[77]
I wonder. Can you put your hulk into the orca ship bay when you're under fire? -------- Ideas for: Mining
|
David Jason
|
Posted - 2009.06.30 11:49:00 -
[78]
i think if you get concorded the insurance should not pay up. if i ramraided a shop in my car the insurance would not pay for my car why should it in eve. but i dont think it will happen.
|
Abrazzar
|
Posted - 2009.06.30 12:00:00 -
[79]
Originally by: David Jason i think if you get concorded the insurance should not pay up. if i ramraided a shop in my car the insurance would not pay for my car why should it in eve. but i dont think it will happen.
You should discuss that here. This thread here is about something slightly different. -------- Ideas for: Mining
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |