EVE Search - att: CCP. Miners v's Suicide Gankers, a Risk v's Reward imbalance.

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

att: CCP. Miners v's Suicide Gankers, a Risk v's Reward imbalance.

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Venkul Mul Gallente	Posted - 2009.07.20 13:26:00 - [91] Originally by: Nian Banks Btw, I agree, level 4's should be low sec but in a slightly differtent way. Lvl 4 agents should be mostly in 0.5 systems and the missions should be the closest system that's low sec. E.g. Lvl4 agent 0.5 system, kill something ine jump away in a 0.4 system. That way carebears have some modi****of safety but still have to put their neck out to do the mission. Out of curiosity, you are joking, don't have even thought about what you have suggested or simply you are a hardcore gatecamper? Send mission runners to the nearest low sec system is identical to say: "Gatecamp the first gate in low sec, the agents will sen you your preys."
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2009.07.20 13:36:00 - [92] Originally by: Nian Banks Originally by: Malcanis The post above is correct. Rather than messing about with ship replacement for this circumstance but not that, mining, industry, R&D, POS and therefore sovereignty need a complete rework. Risk must be a part of mining, even in 1.0, but mining should also be worthwhile. But the people who want 0.0 rewards - "the value of a triple 1.8 spawn" in 1.0 safety conditions can frankly suck it. I doubt ccp will completely redesign all things industrial, hence small changes like modifying loot tables and insurance are the best way to change mining. They may sound like major changes, some even cry 'the sky is falling' but in truth if you force miners to mine in low sec to aquire the more precious minerals, just by removing the mineral injection from mission loot, gankers will gain more legitimate targets without fear of concord and miners may complain but their income will go up because those high end ores will be worth considerably. Changing the insurance by removing payouts when you have run afoul of concord is to keep the new miners in mining and to keep trit prices as low as possible. If there is little risk in highsec mining then the price of those high sec ores shouldn't drastically increase. Gankers keep their kills up but also keep their ships, miners loose more ships but are compensated with better mineral prices. The best part is that missions net less income. Btw, I agree, level 4's should be low sec but in a slightly differtent way. Lvl 4 agents should be mostly in 0.5 systems and the missions should be the closest system that's low sec. E.g. Lvl4 agent 0.5 system, kill something ine jump away in a 0.4 system. That way carebears have some modi***of safety but still have to put their neck out to do the mission. You know that removing insurance wont actually stop the "for the lulz" ganks, right? It will only discourage genuince economic warfare. Let's say I'm having a slow day in Immensea and decide to pop back to empire to buy a couple of skills books and then - why not? - burn off all this excess +sec I have. I can pick up and fit a bomb geddon for less than 60 mill. As a one off expensiture, that's pretty trivial for me, and if I'd had a bad day at the office and maybe a couple of beers, I'd just do it. For laughs. I am having a bad day, by the way. Alternatively, let's say that I want to eg: drive a gang of actual macro miners out of "my" hi-sec ice belt. I will need to gank them over and over and over again before they move. That's* when the insurance nerf will start to bite. And what if my alliance wants to kill a freighter belonging to a known NPC alt of another alliance? (or perhaps we just get wind of a movement by a main that will take place before the wardec can start) Removing insurance for the 40+ BS needed to kill it in hi-sec means that the attempt - by no means gauranteed to succeed - will cost around 4 billion ISK. That's a serious problem that you'll need to address. When it costs as much as 4 carriers to even try and kill a single freighter, then there is a serious balance issue.
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2009.07.20 13:44:00 - [93] Originally by: Venkul Mul Originally by: Nian Banks Btw, I agree, level 4's should be low sec but in a slightly differtent way. Lvl 4 agents should be mostly in 0.5 systems and the missions should be the closest system that's low sec. E.g. Lvl4 agent 0.5 system, kill something ine jump away in a 0.4 system. That way carebears have some modi***of safety but still have to put their neck out to do the mission. Out of curiosity, you are joking, don't have even thought about what you have suggested or simply you are a hardcore gatecamper? Send mission runners to the nearest low sec system is identical to say: "Gatecamp the first gate in low sec, the agents will sen you your preys." because every gate into or out of every lo-sec system is camped, right? Seriously, have you been* to lo-sec lately? If you're not in Rancer or one of the FW nexuses like Tama, then you simply dont see people on the gate. If you do then 9 times out of 10 it's a frigate or shuttle or Blockade Runner travelling from A to B. Even most 0.0 gateways are usually deserted.
Kyra Felann Gallente Noctis Fleet Technologies	Posted - 2009.07.20 19:26:00 - [94] First, I wonder why GoonSwarm don't gank mission-runners this time instead. They'd be harder to find, but probing mission runners isn't that hard. The ships are likely to be worth more, also. If I were a Goon, I think I'd have more fun ganking mission-runners. Second, there shouldn't be insurance payouts for ships destroyed by CONCORD. It's just silly that an insurance company would pay you for a ship you intentionally lost to the Space Police when you tried to destroy someone's ship.
ElanMorin6 GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.07.20 19:30:00 - [95] Originally by: Kyra Felann there shouldn't be insurance payouts for ships destroyed by CONCORD. It's just silly that an insurance company would pay you for a ship you intentionally lost to the Space Police when you tried to destroy someone's ship. It's also silly that an insurance company would ensure ships being flown into 0.0 space, or shpis of pilots with wardecs, or the ships of pilots who fly into the strongholds of hostile factions like Gurista on a daily basis. I agree completely though, ship insurance in EVE should follow actuarial principles at all times and for all ships and all pilots.
Tippia Raddick Explorations	Posted - 2009.07.20 19:34:00 - [96] Originally by: Kyra Felann First, I wonder why GoonSwarm don't gank mission-runners this time instead. Because after the last time, the miners whined so hard that the only possible target right now is miners. Quote: It's just silly that an insurance company would pay you for a ship you intentionally lost to the Space Police when you tried to destroy someone's ship. Hardly relevant, now is it? ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki
Hanso Sparxx Deep Penetration Inc.	Posted - 2009.07.20 19:41:00 - [97] I can flipped a miner a while back, and he was slick enough to come out in his hauler, align to the station start his warp and yoink the ore I so expertly flipped, back into his cargo and enter warp before I could target/scram him... =( Oh well, props for turning the tables on me and getting his ore back!! GJ... but the smack... he just wouldn't stop smacking me! Taunting me in local endlessly as he waited out his agro timer... So I logged in my 5.0 security status mission running alt - who just happened to have a few t1 fit gank thoraxes lying around... and I taught him a lesson about smack talking. If this part of the game gets nerfed any more... it's just not going to be fun anymore... Sometimes, suicide ganks are an effective form of retribution. There must be consequences for all your actions in game! ------------------ Go Deep!
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2009.07.20 19:57:00 - [98] Originally by: Tippia Originally by: Kyra Felann First, I wonder why GoonSwarm don't gank mission-runners this time instead. Because after the last time, the miners whined so hard that the only possible target right now is miners. This is completely true and deliciously ironic.
Kyra Felann Gallente Noctis Fleet Technologies	Posted - 2009.07.20 20:09:00 - [99] Edited by: Kyra Felann on 20/07/2009 20:10:58 Originally by: ElanMorin6 It's also silly that an insurance company would ensure ships being flown into 0.0 space, or shpis of pilots with wardecs, or the ships of pilots who fly into the strongholds of hostile factions like Gurista on a daily basis. I don't disagree with this. At the least, the more often you get blown up, the more expensive insurance should be. And in reply to the person saying that miners whined last time, I'd agree that there were many tears, but don't you think mission-runners would whine at least as much, maybe even more? Look at the whining about salvage-theft--imagine if CNRs and other pimped ships started getting blown up left and right in mission-hubs. It's not uncommon for mission battleships to cost over a billion, versus the 200 million or 500 million for a fitted hulk or orca. If any high-sec career has imbalanced risk (very low--can be done semi-AFK) vs reward (the highest in high-sec other than perhaps trading), it's mission-runners.
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2009.07.20 20:21:00 - [100] Originally by: Kyra Felann Edited by: Kyra Felann on 20/07/2009 20:10:58 Originally by: ElanMorin6 It's also silly that an insurance company would ensure ships being flown into 0.0 space, or shpis of pilots with wardecs, or the ships of pilots who fly into the strongholds of hostile factions like Gurista on a daily basis. I don't disagree with this. At the least, the more often you get blown up, the more expensive insurance should be. And in reply to the person saying that miners whined last time, I'd agree that there were many tears, but don't you think mission-runners would whine at least as much, maybe even more? Look at the whining about salvage-theft--imagine if CNRs and other pimped ships started getting blown up left and right in mission-hubs. It's not uncommon for mission battleships to cost over a billion, versus the 200 million or 500 million for a fitted hulk or orca. If any high-sec career has imbalanced risk (very low--can be done semi-AFK) vs reward (the highest in high-sec other than perhaps trading), it's mission-runners. The point being that the last bout of whines resulted in faster CONCORD response times. So now only low-EHP targets can be ganked - like miners. Mission runners are pretty much ungankable now. Unintended consequences...
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2009.07.20 20:51:00 - [101] Originally by: Kyra Felann First, I wonder why GoonSwarm don't gank mission-runners this time instead. They'd be harder to find, but probing mission runners isn't that hard. The ships are likely to be worth more, also. If I were a Goon, I think I'd have more fun ganking mission-runners. Second, there shouldn't be insurance payouts for ships destroyed by CONCORD. It's just silly that an insurance company would pay you for a ship you intentionally lost to the Space Police when you tried to destroy someone's ship. More or less silly than private individuals or uncertain - or even hostile - loyalty being allowed to fly kilometre-long warships armed with vastly powerful weapons?
Kyra Felann Gallente Noctis Fleet Technologies	Posted - 2009.07.21 00:35:00 - [102] Edited by: Kyra Felann on 21/07/2009 00:39:48 Originally by: Malcanis More or less silly than private individuals or uncertain - or even hostile - loyalty being allowed to fly kilometre-long warships armed with vastly powerful weapons? Given the Eve setting and how capsuleers fit into it, considerably less silly. Capsuleers are legally not part of any empire and are their own legal entities and are thus free to own their own fleets of military ships. Besides, once a capsuleer has shown that he is hostile to a faction (low standings), that faction's navy will attack him on sight. Plus there are restrictions on ships above a certain size, which might threaten an empire's space. It may or may not seem odd to us today on Earth, but it's a major part of the setting, so it's something that must be accepted. Insurance companies selling policies to very high-risk clients and not having rules against intentionally getting your ship blown up, however, violates every known rule of economics--there's no way they could stay in business. Pend Insurance is a corporation, not some government agency, so have to keep in mind the bottom line. I've never read any chronicle or other piece of official backstory stating that Pend Insurance has a magic money-making machine allowing for infinite losses without ever going out of business and that they exist solely to help out capsuleers rather than actually make a profit, but if you're aware of one, please point me in its direction.
Dagobert Dog	Posted - 2009.07.21 00:53:00 - [103] Edited by: Dagobert Dog on 21/07/2009 00:54:51 What goonswarm does is griefing other players. While others do suicide ganking for profit goons do it just to destroy the gameplay experience of other players. This is clearly an eula violation. The eula clearly states that griefing is not allowed. Yes eve is a pvp game, which is a good thing, but that is not the point here. Pvp is about competition with other players which can happen on many levels and pewpew is only one of them. But as said thats not the point here. Goonswarm isnt after profit or something. They are just bored now and try to drive away other players from the game. They gain nothing from their actions except the one or other hatemail from angry players. They even startet to gank orcas in highsec with battleship gangs. Those something awful forum members are just a bunch of morons that have no better things to do than to destroy what other people build up. And by that i dont mean the stuff highsec players build but the game itself. They are trying to destroy the game CCP made. They tried the same with other games and even not game relatet things like their wikipedia vandalaziation project they had or still have. The sad thing is that in the end CCP will be forced to adjust game mechanics wich will kill viavle playstyles like suicide ganking for profit even more.
Tippia Raddick Explorations	Posted - 2009.07.21 01:08:00 - [104] Originally by: Dagobert Dog What goonswarm does is griefing other players. No. What they do is economic warfare. Quote: This is clearly an eula violation. The eula clearly states that griefing is not allowed. To be considered griefing, it must be an active campaign against a single person — this is completely random and therefore does not fall under the griefing flag. Quote: They are just bored now and try to drive away other players from the game. …or just out of highsec, which is an admirable goal. Quote: They gain nothing from their actions except the one or other hatemail from angry players. …and increased hulk sales, obviously, hopefully at a higher price than usual. And (with some luck) increased mineral prices as well. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki
Dagobert Dog	Posted - 2009.07.21 01:33:00 - [105] Originally by: Tippia …and increased hulk sales, obviously, hopefully at a higher price than usual. And (with some luck) increased mineral prices as well. That maybe a sideaffect of their actions but its not what they are after. They said it themselfes that they want to destroy the game for everyone else. Their goal is not to sell a few more hulks, there goals is to destroy the game itself as it is now.
Nian Banks Minmatar Berserkers of Aesir	Posted - 2009.07.21 04:22:00 - [106] Originally by: Tippiaàand increased hulk sales, obviously, hopefully at a higher price than usual. And (with some luck) increased mineral prices as well.[/quote Sorry mate, I believe you picked up the wrong thinking hat today, you must be wearing the 'I am a moron' hat instead. Killing hulks will indeed increase mineral prices but only because all the miners will start to leave the game or just stop mining. Its not a positive thing. If you want to increase the mineral prices but make people stay playing EvE you need to keep the incentive up and enough profit to be able to replace a hulk if someone blows it up.
m3rb3aSt Minmatar Advanced Component Research Enterprise GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.07.21 04:25:00 - [107] Originally by: Dagobert Dog Edited by: Dagobert Dog on 21/07/2009 00:54:51 What goonswarm does is griefing other players. While others do suicide ganking for profit goons do it just to destroy the gameplay experience of other players. thats totally not true. goons do it for profit too. how else are you supposed to make money doing it?
Nian Banks Minmatar Berserkers of Aesir	Posted - 2009.07.21 05:42:00 - [108] Edited by: Nian Banks on 21/07/2009 05:46:20 Originally by: m3rb3aSt Originally by: Dagobert Dog Edited by: Dagobert Dog on 21/07/2009 00:54:51 What goonswarm does is griefing other players. While others do suicide ganking for profit goons do it just to destroy the gameplay experience of other players. thats totally not true. goons do it for profit too. how else are you supposed to make money doing it? Often the goons do it for the **** and giggles. Its like a swarm of prepubescent boys causing havoc while riding their bikes/scooters. The main reason Goons can keep it up is because they get their isk back in insurance. Yes they will continue to do it without insurance, but then they have to earn isk to replace those ships after a while. So it means more specific ganking of high profit targets or on rare occasions ganking because they can. Not what it is now, Ganking anything because they can and sometimes bothering with a high profit target.
Tauranon Gallente Wandering Provocateurs Communitas	Posted - 2009.07.21 06:06:00 - [109] Originally by: Malcanis The point being that the last bout of whines resulted in faster CONCORD response times. So now only low-EHP targets can be ganked - like miners. Mission runners are pretty much ungankable now. Unintended consequences... There are so many mission runners, mission runners leave entire fields of cans to flip, their cans have a specific high value/low volume component (salvage), and mission runners are by nature far more likely to aggress. ie this is much less of a problem than than it sounds, unless you want to grief a specific player. For which wardecs, or just plain eating the cost of the gank amongst friends will suffice. Lastly mission runners don't have infeasibly high EHP. My hulk alt is currently fitted for 21k EHP (high for a hulk, but still with rock scanner and 1x MLU II), and my mission battleship is fitted for 54k EHP with a partial resist hole. In a gank, the repper would only cycle once, so its hardly a factor, and faction items are at least as common on mission runners as hulks. If you can do the logistics to put X amount of pilots to kill my hulk, you can do the logistics x2 to put X x2 pilots on my battleship. In some ways its probably less, because you need only 1 scout for either task.
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2009.07.21 06:29:00 - [110] Originally by: Kyra Felann Edited by: Kyra Felann on 21/07/2009 00:39:48 Originally by: Malcanis More or less silly than private individuals or uncertain - or even hostile - loyalty being allowed to fly kilometre-long warships armed with vastly powerful weapons? Given the Eve setting and how capsuleers fit into it, considerably less silly. Capsuleers are legally not part of any empire and are their own legal entities and are thus free to own their own fleets of military ships. Besides, once a capsuleer has shown that he is hostile to a faction (low standings), that faction's navy will attack him on sight. Plus there are restrictions on ships above a certain size, which might threaten an empire's space. It may or may not seem odd to us today on Earth, but it's a major part of the setting, so it's something that must be accepted. Insurance companies selling policies to very high-risk clients and not having rules against intentionally getting your ship blown up, however, violates every known rule of economics--there's no way they could stay in business. Pend Insurance is a corporation, not some government agency, so have to keep in mind the bottom line. I've never read any chronicle or other piece of official backstory stating that Pend Insurance has a magic money-making machine allowing for infinite losses without ever going out of business and that they exist solely to help out capsuleers rather than actually make a profit, but if you're aware of one, please point me in its direction. Lol! Violates every known rule of economics?! Are you SERIOUSLY using that as an argument? OK where can I insure my car for 35% above purchase value for a single 40% premium, and then instantly collect the full policy for setting it on fire? EVERYTHING about eve insurance "violates every known rule of economics" because it's a ship replacement mechanism, not a RL insurance company. You're just selecting one specific instance of PEND not acting like a normal RL insurance company, but in fact a normal RL insurance comany would (a) pretty much not insure any pod pilot in eve in the first place and (b) not pay out for >99% of ship losses in the first place. What you are in fact doing is asking for a specific playstyle to be nerfed because you dont like it. Just be honest and say that. It's OK to say that you know. All you have to do is provide a viable alternate mechanism for things like economic warfare with NPC corp miners and interdicting hostile freighter alts and we can go right ahead from there. I dont think that suicide ganking is a particularly elegant mechanism, and of course it's "unrealistic", but the REASON it's unrealistic is because - deny this if you will - CONCORD are unrealistic. Unrealistic protection mechanism --> unrealistic methods of evading or mitigating that mechansism. See how that works? You know what would largely stop ganking? If Concord were a little less omnipotent and had longer memories.
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2009.07.21 06:31:00 - [111] Originally by: Tauranon Originally by: Malcanis The point being that the last bout of whines resulted in faster CONCORD response times. So now only low-EHP targets can be ganked - like miners. Mission runners are pretty much ungankable now. Unintended consequences... There are so many mission runners, mission runners leave entire fields of cans to flip, their cans have a specific high value/low volume component (salvage), and mission runners are by nature far more likely to aggress. ie this is much less of a problem than than it sounds, unless you want to grief a specific player. For which wardecs, or just plain eating the cost of the gank amongst friends will suffice. Lastly mission runners don't have infeasibly high EHP. My hulk alt is currently fitted for 21k EHP (high for a hulk, but still with rock scanner and 1x MLU II), and my mission battleship is fitted for 54k EHP with a partial resist hole. In a gank, the repper would only cycle once, so its hardly a factor, and faction items are at least as common on mission runners as hulks. If you can do the logistics to put X amount of pilots to kill my hulk, you can do the logistics x2 to put X x2 pilots on my battleship. In some ways its probably less, because you need only 1 scout for either task. I love the way you say this as if it were obviously true. Hint: it's not.
Tauranon Gallente Wandering Provocateurs Communitas	Posted - 2009.07.21 07:00:00 - [112] Originally by: Malcanis[/quote I love the way you say this as if it were obviously true. Hint: it's not. I love the way you pretend its impossible. Hint: it's not.
Nian Banks Minmatar Berserkers of Aesir	Posted - 2009.07.21 09:32:00 - [113] Originally by: Tauranon Originally by: Malcanis[/quote I love the way you say this as if it were obviously true. Hint: it's not. I love the way you pretend its impossible. Hint: it's not. if a few crazy people say the sky is green and they say it loud enough and all the time, laughing at anyone who corrects them saying it's blue. You will eventually see more and more people believing it is in fact green. Logic and reason rarely works when someone is adament in keeping their status quo. In this case it's gankers.
Venkul Mul Gallente	Posted - 2009.07.21 09:56:00 - [114] Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: Venkul Mul Originally by: Nian Banks Btw, I agree, level 4's should be low sec but in a slightly differtent way. Lvl 4 agents should be mostly in 0.5 systems and the missions should be the closest system that's low sec. E.g. Lvl4 agent 0.5 system, kill something ine jump away in a 0.4 system. That way carebears have some modi***of safety but still have to put their neck out to do the mission. Out of curiosity, you are joking, don't have even thought about what you have suggested or simply you are a hardcore gatecamper? Send mission runners to the nearest low sec system is identical to say: "Gatecamp the first gate in low sec, the agents will sen you your preys." because every gate into or out of every lo-sec system is camped, right? Seriously, have you been* to lo-sec lately? If you're not in Rancer or one of the FW nexuses like Tama, then you simply dont see people on the gate. If you do then 9 times out of 10 it's a frigate or shuttle or Blockade Runner travelling from A to B. Even most 0.0 gateways are usually deserted. Malc, don't play the stupid. I was replying to this part of the suggestion "Lvl 4 agents should be mostly in 0.5 systems and the missions should be the closest system that's low sec." If level 4 agents always send the mission running characters to the same low sec system from the same high sec system, that gate will be camped 23/7 without any doubt. Sometime your fanaticism against mission make you blind.
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2009.07.21 09:59:00 - [115] Originally by: Tauranon Originally by: Malcanis[/quote I love the way you say this as if it were obviously true. Hint: it's not. I love the way you pretend its impossible. Hint: it's not. I didn't say it was "impossible". OP implied that it's just as easy to get 10 guys together to do something as it is to get 5. It is trivially obvious that this is not so.
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2009.07.21 10:11:00 - [116] Originally by: Nian Banks Originally by: Tauranon Originally by: Malcanis[/quote I love the way you say this as if it were obviously true. Hint: it's not. I love the way you pretend its impossible. Hint: it's not. if a few crazy people say the sky is green and they say it loud enough and all the time, laughing at anyone who corrects them saying it's blue. You will eventually see more and more people believing it is in fact green. Logic and reason rarely works when someone is adament in keeping their status quo. In this case it's gankers. FYI: I have never ganked.
Alekanderu GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.07.21 10:20:00 - [117] jihading is really really fun, you should try it sometime, i bet it's more fun than staring at veldspar slowly filling your cargohold
Nian Banks Minmatar Berserkers of Aesir	Posted - 2009.07.21 11:19:00 - [118] Edited by: Nian Banks on 21/07/2009 11:21:25 Originally by: Alekanderu jihading is really really fun, you should try it sometime, i bet it's more fun than staring at veldspar slowly filling your cargohold Oh I know ganking is great fun, in truth if they were more worthy oppenents I wouldn't have an issue, you see the problem isn't miners loosing a ship, it's that to replace it is so damned hard because mining is not as profitable as it should be. I want more pvp to happen, my suggestion isn't to stop pirates from pvp. All I want to do is rebalance the system so that high sec minerals are not as expensive and low sec minerals are way more expensive. What I want is for high sec mining to become the casual and newbie mining area, you can make moderate isk with minimal risk but nothing to get excited about. I then want the low sec areas filled with hardened miners, I want the isk potential to be so good that they can recover a lost hulk without fleeing back to empire space till the end of time. Basically I want the newbies to learn to mine and get used to it free of gankers ruining their day, when they know the game well enough they will move to low sec to earn a good income. Same for mission runners, send them over the borders into low sec to do the lvl4's. If your worried about gate camps at the border gate then easily enough, have the gate on the low sec side with so much concord/npc faction firepower That a player couldn't tank the gate guns. Think "border security" I was thinking btw that we could have strip miners become low/null sec only, quote some new law to do with empire enviromental protection. If your worried about mining barges getting pwned in low sec and new budding miners not been able to use barges in high sec, well how about adding a big bonus to normal mining lasers to mining barges. (leave the current bonuses there tho.) So yes, some simple changes and you will see low sec vastly more populated.
Tauranon Gallente Wandering Provocateurs Communitas	Posted - 2009.07.21 13:33:00 - [119] Originally by: Malcanis I didn't say it was "impossible". OP implied that it's just as easy to get 10 guys together to do something as it is to get 5. It is trivially obvious that this is not so. Its a ship size change for a 5 guy team ganking hulks in destroyers. (switch destroyers for battlecruisers). No its not as easy, but thats always understandable given the target is a combat profession pilot. Personally I think its not done that often, simply because you can usually find someone who will aggress whilst piloting a mission fitted ship.
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2009.07.21 13:46:00 - [120] Originally by: Tauranon Originally by: Malcanis I didn't say it was "impossible". OP implied that it's just as easy to get 10 guys together to do something as it is to get 5. It is trivially obvious that this is not so. Its a ship size change for a 5 guy team ganking hulks in destroyers. (switch destroyers for battlecruisers). No its not as easy, but thats always understandable given the target is a combat profession pilot. Personally I think its not done that often, simply because you can usually find someone who will aggress whilst piloting a mission fitted ship. There is a qualitative difference in using battlecruisers vs destroyers, apart from anything else.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.