EVE Search - Barge Fairy Tale: CCP saving stupid Pigs from themselves.

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Barge Fairy Tale: CCP saving stupid Pigs from themselves.

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 12 post(s)
Dramaticus Goonswarm Federation 188	Posted - 2012.07.26 14:50:00 - [1] - Quote CCP Soundwave wrote: Pipa Porto wrote: CCP Soundwave wrote: If I wanted to remove aggression, I'd just shut it off, instead of going through all these hoops to keep it alive. The reality is that suicide ganking is an integral part of the game that I quite like, but every now and then we need to make changes because the current setup doesn't work. Why do you think it doesn't work? Right now, Hulks can fit for Tank (sacrificing Yield and convenience), and be unprofitable to gank. Hulks can fit for convenience (sacrificing Yield and Tank), and be profitable to gank. Hulks can be fit for yield (sacrificing Tank and convenience), and be profitable to gank. Hulks can also fit themselves to make it easy to mine while aligned. If these changes weren't designed as a straight nerf to Suicide ganking, why has every Exhumer gotten a significant Tank increase? Why are you devaluing the Skiff's new role with both the Hulk and Mack tank buff before it's even on TQ? Why are you devaluing the Mack's new role with the Skiff's new cargo hold? And none of them can be profitable to gank. Yeah my point is that I don't think they should be profitable to gank. I think it should be possible, but not necessarily profitable (profitable might be the wrong word, but more that the expenses should be higher for the attacker than the defender). Should we expect a similar buff to all T2 ships in the future to prevent them from so easily dying to massed T1 ships
Dramaticus Goonswarm Federation 188	Posted - 2012.07.26 14:53:00 - [2] - Quote Adrenalinemax wrote: EvilweaselSA wrote: CCP Soundwave wrote: Yeah my point is that I don't think they should be profitable to gank. I think it should be possible, but not necessarily profitable (profitable might be the wrong word, but more that the expenses should be higher for the attacker than the defender). To put it in simple terms: the cost of your ship isn't a tank. EVE isn't supposed to be a game where more expensive things can't be killed by less expensive things. If a battleship dies to a rifter, we do not complain the cost to the attacker was lower than the cost to the defender. Battleship can shoot back So can a Hulk?
Dramaticus Goonswarm Federation 189	Posted - 2012.07.26 14:57:00 - [3] - Quote Dave stark wrote: EvilweaselSA wrote: CCP Soundwave wrote: Yeah my point is that I don't think they should be profitable to gank. I think it should be possible, but not necessarily profitable (profitable might be the wrong word, but more that the expenses should be higher for the attacker than the defender). To put it in simple terms: the cost of your ship isn't a tank. EVE isn't supposed to be a game where more expensive things can't be killed by less expensive things. If a battleship dies to a rifter, we do not complain the cost to the attacker was lower than the cost to the defender. that's not really the issue that a small ship can kill a big ship. that's fine. a small ship killing a bigger ship so quickly is the issue, to be honest. if you're in null in a battleship and an assault frigate attacks you you've got the chance to shoot him before he gets his transversal up and starts showing you that you're a fool. miners don't have the ability to issue that pre-emptive strike in high sec. they have no guns and concord have to finish their doughnut before they come help you out. Warrior II
Dramaticus Goonswarm Federation 189	Posted - 2012.07.26 15:01:00 - [4] - Quote Dave stark wrote: EvilweaselSA wrote: Dave stark wrote: that's not really the issue that a small ship can kill a big ship. that's fine. a small ship killing a bigger ship so quickly is the issue, to be honest. It's highsec: you simply must kill something within a specific amount of time. It's absolutely trivial to tank a hulk to resist a catalyst, and easy to resist two. I don't have an issue with them increasing the hulk's tank when the hulk has made a tradeoff for extra tank. I have a problem with increasing the tank of a 4x civilian shield booster hulk. if you're time limited; bring bigger guns. personally i don't think it's unreasonable for a hulk to be able to tank a ship worth more than it's module drops until concord arrives without giving up anything. being able to tank a ship of equal value until concord arrives without fitting for it would mean the ehp buff has gone too far. obviously you may feel differently to me about that. You do realize that right now, under current mechanics, it is possible for you to do that, right?
Dramaticus Goonswarm Federation 189	Posted - 2012.07.26 15:12:00 - [5] - Quote Dave stark wrote: Dramaticus wrote: Dave stark wrote: EvilweaselSA wrote: Dave stark wrote: that's not really the issue that a small ship can kill a big ship. that's fine. a small ship killing a bigger ship so quickly is the issue, to be honest. It's highsec: you simply must kill something within a specific amount of time. It's absolutely trivial to tank a hulk to resist a catalyst, and easy to resist two. I don't have an issue with them increasing the hulk's tank when the hulk has made a tradeoff for extra tank. I have a problem with increasing the tank of a 4x civilian shield booster hulk. if you're time limited; bring bigger guns. personally i don't think it's unreasonable for a hulk to be able to tank a ship worth more than it's module drops until concord arrives without giving up anything. being able to tank a ship of equal value until concord arrives without fitting for it would mean the ehp buff has gone too far. obviously you may feel differently to me about that. You do realize that right now, under current mechanics, it is possible for you to do that, right? no, you can't. that's the point. every fitting that will repel a destroyer fits fitting mods in the lows. (at least, every one i've seen) So what you're saying is that is possible, you just won't do it. How is this a problem CCP needs to fix exactly?
Dramaticus Goonswarm Federation 190	Posted - 2012.07.26 15:19:00 - [6] - Quote I HAVE TO FIT SOMETHING OTHER THAN MINING LASER UPGRADES IF I WANT TO SURVIVE THIS IS AN OUTRAGE CCP AS A LOYAL CUSTOMER I DEMAND SATISFACTION THIS IS AGAINST MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
Dramaticus Goonswarm Federation 190	Posted - 2012.07.26 15:23:00 - [7] - Quote Dramaticus wrote: I HAVE TO FIT SOMETHING OTHER THAN MINING LASER UPGRADES IF I WANT TO SURVIVE THIS IS AN OUTRAGE CCP AS A LOYAL CUSTOMER I DEMAND SATISFACTION THIS IS AGAINST MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS This is literally the argument being presented.

Copyright © 2006-2025, Chribba - OMG Labs. All Rights Reserved. - perf 0,08s, ref 20251110/0358
EVE-Online™ and Eve imagery © CCP.

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.