|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 12 post(s) |

Herr Hammer Draken
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
45
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 03:17:00 -
[1] - Quote
I would like to know where it is written that you have to make money ganking a miner? I imagine after this change CCP is telling all of you the same thing. In fact reading between the lines of dev speak it seems it was never intended to be able to make isk while ganking miners.
Note none of these new barges are gank proof. So quite your whinning and adapt. Players can still effect their own economies of scale but they just can not do it as a career. Unless....
|

Herr Hammer Draken
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
45
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 03:25:00 -
[2] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Herr Hammer Draken wrote:I would like to know where it is written that you have to make money ganking a miner? I imagine after this change CCP is telling all of you the same thing. In fact reading between the lines of dev speak it seems it was never intended to be able to make isk while ganking miners.
Note none of these new barges are gank proof. So quite your whinning and adapt. Players can still effect their own economies of scale but they just can not do it as a career. Unless....
The only reason Ganking Hulks is profitable is the fact that Miners are too lazy to tank their ships. Now, they won't have to do anything to do so. A properly fit Hulk cannot be profitably ganked.
Why are you still whinning about the change. Adapt. Or complain about it like a proper carebear. |

Herr Hammer Draken
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
45
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 03:35:00 -
[3] - Quote
What is really funny about all of this. Right now in game only 1 out of 20 miners has any clue that these changes are comming. And for that 5% that do have a clue 90% of them are still going to use thier hulks without any changes. They are all worried that their hulks will get downgraded. When they find out that the hulk gets a slight boost they are all happy and content and almost to a man nobody cares about the rest of the changes.
I predict it will be months before these new barge changes impact any significant changes to miner behavior.
Note the people that post here on this forum represent far less than even 1% of the eve population. |

Herr Hammer Draken
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
45
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 04:01:00 -
[4] - Quote
Eh and there it is. |

Herr Hammer Draken
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
45
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 04:34:00 -
[5] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Also, I just thought of something. If suicide-ganking wasn't meant to be profitable, wouldn't it make more sense to simply remove T2 salvage from exhumer wrecks, instead of giving them more EHP than the average armor-buffer T3 pvp fit? Denidil wrote:now you're just QQ'ing like a *****. So you equate my promise that I will adapt to these changes and continue my activities to whining? Way to grasp at straws, little buddy. CCP Soundwave wrote:I don't want you to stop ganking nor am I going to remove aggression in high sec vOv You most definitely will if marketing tells you to.
No because you are only looking at this from one perspective that of the ganker. |

Herr Hammer Draken
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
49
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 22:06:00 -
[6] - Quote
I believe this change is themattic with the game in a very real way. It allows for a corp to dedicate itself to ganking miners in high sec for a fee. Anyone for any reason can hire these gankers to eliminate their problem for any reason, like maybe competition or what ever. Because miners are not profitable to gank anymore as they should be then it makes sense to charge a fee for service. This is adapting and is themattic with the game. Many other players run corps for services like freight hauling or whatever.
It did not make any sense to charge a fee before this because it was profitable for the most part. CCP is changing the dynamics so this is a viable option. When this happens and it will miners will not be safe in high sec. If you see a bot mining your area of operations report it to CCP and if you need faster resolution and it is worth it to you, hire a ganker corp to clear the problem. Note the gankers will still get quite a bit of cash from the gank so the fee need not be too high. But whatever the market will bear. Each miner can figure out for themselves what it is worth to them to have a problem eliminated. A price for this service will become set after a while. If the bots come back hire them again and again. Bots losing their ships are costly as well and at some point they will go elsewhere to bot. Until the next guy takes them out and so on.
Also this change makes it so that a player can not gank other ships for a living anymore. You can not PvP combat with war ships for a living. It will drain your funds. As should ganking miners. As said by CCP.
All of the above is adapting instead of whinning about it. Making high sec not safe for miners is possible if you want to do it.
Eve in my opinion has a method that the game was meant to be played. The rules often get bent by players trying to find a better way to maximize profit most often these are called exploits. IMHO this was almost an exploit but as the devs did not want to stop ganking all-together they allowed it to continue until such time as they could make the adjustment to end the exploit. In other words adapt to the change. Everything is still possible if you put your mind to it.
But now we may see people using mining hulls for unintended purposes. Another form of an exploit. There are always those players that will push a game into unintended directions just because they can. And this is the main reason why many other MMO's have failed. This is the reason why I left Asherons Call, and Dungeons and dragons online. If I leave EVE this woud be the reason as well. Players pushing a game into unintended direction trying to break it. Ganking miner hulls for a profit is an unintended direction for the game.
As I write this I know lots of it will be taken out of context because that is what people do to refute ideas. |

Herr Hammer Draken
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
50
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 22:22:00 -
[7] - Quote
Tarryn Nightstorm wrote:CCP Soundwave wrote: [multiple-quote snippy-snippy]
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). Pray tell, why do you think this? Ganking-for-profit and/or making a "career" of same is arguably one of the last few remaining examples of truly emergent gameplay left in hisec, IMHO. You've nerfed everything else into the ground, and the more pants-on-head ("Suspect-flag" but "suspect" can't shoot back without sec-loss and/or CONCORDokken-- What. The. F-word????!!!) aspects of the proposed Crimewatcg thingy look to only make this effectively carved in stone if implemented. No, really: No troll, dead serious: Why do you think this?
Nerfing emergent gameplay is very bad, OK?
IMHO the devs do not think of it as emergent game play but rather exploitive game play. Nice try though with an attempt to define it in preferable terms. |

Herr Hammer Draken
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
50
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 22:28:00 -
[8] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:Herr Hammer Draken wrote:It did not make any sense to charge a fee before this because it was profitable for the most part. The only "profitable" ganking was untanked, max-yield cargo-expanded hulks and mackinaws. If someone was to pay people to keep all miners out of the belts, that was possible too (Blue Ice interdiction is the most memorable case). Herr Hammer Draken wrote:CCP is changing the dynamics so this is a viable option. Nope. The barge buff means that it is much harder to blow up mining ships, which means that you'll need to pay people a lot more money to keep your competition out of the belts. Along with this will be a fall in the value of minerals, so it won't be worth as much to you to get the competition out of the belts. Herr Hammer Draken wrote:You can not PvP combat with war ships for a living. It will drain your funds. As should ganking miners. As said by CCP. Yet datacore harvesting was moved to FW to make FW profitable for the participants. Faction warfare is profitable if you're not stupid about losing ships. PvP is always profitable if you can get more ISK from the other pilot's loot and salvage than it cost you to blow up that ship. Now feel free to complain that I've quoted you out of context.
If you get to loot the salvage, if you win those are big ifs. In high sec ganking miners there are no ifs you always get the salvage, unless you are an idiot ganker. Big difference in risk for the player. Which would you rather do for a living? One that was had a chance to fail or one where you can control all of the outcome every last bit of it. One where once you pulled the trigger you knew you had everything covered and would make out like a bandit. |

Herr Hammer Draken
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
50
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 22:43:00 -
[9] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Herr Hammer Draken wrote:One where once you pulled the trigger you knew you had everything covered and would make out like a bandit. *miner launches medium ECM drones and permajams one of the catalysts, flubbing the gank entirely*
That would be an active miner. In my example I am refering to a bot miner. When you are ganking a miner you can determine if the target is a bot. If it is you have all day to plan the perfect gank and get away with profit. In my example I was also refering to being hired to kill this bot. Now it will cost the ganker more in ships to do it kill the bot after Aug 8th. But it is still just sitting there waiting to be killed and you still get all the salvage.
Killing an active miner is more problemattic and should be more costly to do. |

Herr Hammer Draken
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
50
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 23:15:00 -
[10] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:arcca jeth wrote:would ganking Hulks be profitable at all if the people who have a monopoly on building them weren't offering you 10M to blow one up? would you do it if there was no bounty on them? First, I don't grant your premise. Nobody has a monopoly on building Hulks. That said, Yep*. Yep. *If they continue to refuse to fit a tank. A Hulk can be tanked such that it is unprofitable to gank it in any sec band. Untanked, it's profitable in most sec bands.
So what you are really mad about is that CCP is taking away your prefered way to earn a living in EVE.
But you can and should form a player corp that is for hire to kill miners. You can charge a fee for this service. Plus you get the loot. You can still earn a living doing your thing. Just adapt to the change. The fee should be high enough to cover your expenses and make a profit margin when including the salvage, then there is what the market can bear vs how much competition you have in your field. With your knowledge of the subject you have an edge over most competitiors for this service. |
|

Herr Hammer Draken
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
50
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 23:18:00 -
[11] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Werst Dendenahzees wrote:
The new mack has a much better tank than the hulk, both old and new. It's going to be in the ''unlikely'' ganking bracket most of the time and the **** you bracket in a 0.9 and over.
Well it had half the Hulk tank for years, time for some revenge.  But joking aside, mining ships like that will fall in the same category of the others: you kill them because of an agenda or because they are pimped or because they are carrying valuable stuff. Not because it's completely free ISK even killing the bare hull.
I have never mined ice. But with the size of the ore bay on a mack how much is a full ore bay of ice worth?
Or for that matter a full ore bay of veldspar on a covetor of a procurer, or etc...
|

Herr Hammer Draken
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
50
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 23:26:00 -
[12] - Quote
Tarryn Nightstorm wrote:Herr Hammer Draken wrote:Tarryn Nightstorm wrote:CCP Soundwave wrote: [multiple-quote snippy-snippy]
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). Pray tell, why do you think this? Ganking-for-profit and/or making a "career" of same is arguably one of the last few remaining examples of truly emergent gameplay left in hisec, IMHO. You've nerfed everything else into the ground, and the more pants-on-head ("Suspect-flag" but "suspect" can't shoot back without sec-loss and/or CONCORDokken-- What. The. F-word????!!!) aspects of the proposed Crimewatcg thingy look to only make this effectively carved in stone if implemented. No, really: No troll, dead serious: Why do you think this?
Nerfing emergent gameplay is very bad, OK? IMHO the devs do not think of it as emergent game play but rather exploitive game play. Nice try though with an attempt to define it in preferable terms. Nice, weak little straw-man, used as an even weaker little appeal to authority, bru. Fail. If the devs really thought that it was "exploitative," then they would have declared it an exploit--because CCP has shown that they really don't like that sort of thing, as well they shouldn't--with the appropriate penalties for exploiting, and/or hard-mechanic fixing so it's not even do-able (ref.: The utterly senseless hard-nerf of the OPs "Tornado Bootlegger's Turn" manoeuvre). This has not happened now, nor has it ever. There is also nothing explicitly even implying that it will, that has been said by anyone with a blue tag by their avatar. Learn to debate. Next! E: I want to hear Soundwave's answer to this, not some fluffy/squishy little WoW-kid's answer who thinks that EVE should be like WoW so that he doesn't have to use brain or ::effort:: to succeed in it.
lol, WoW nice touch. Never played that title however. You but hurt? |

Herr Hammer Draken
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
50
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 01:22:00 -
[13] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:Evei Shard wrote:Ludi Burek wrote:One can only hope that this is a precursor to ice being removed from high sec  You don't understand, do you? This is the last update CCP will *evar!* make to Eve! Game over man! Game over!!! /sarc Glad to see someone else gets it in regards to this being a change that is a step along a path, not the final destination. Step 1: Halve Concord Response time, triple the sec status penalty. (ganker nerf) Step 2: Create the Noctis - destroying ninja income by crashing the value of salvage. Step 3: Kill the LVL 4 Loot, while leaving 'unstealable' bounties untouched. (ninja nerf) Step 4: Two stealth nerfs of the Orca's abilities, specifically so ninjas cannot benefit from them. (ninja nerf) Step 5: End enforcement of alliance hopping exploits. (merc nerf) Step 6: Remove insurance, but only for gankers, while leaving it in place for self-destruction. (ganker nerf) Step 7: Screw up RR and aggression flags, then provide helpful popups so nobody can hurt an Incursion bear. (Skunkworks) Step 8: Dramatically reduce the time and effort it takes to set-up or break-down a POS. (merc nerf) Step 9: Buff Concord by preventing pirates from boarding or bailing out of ships while GCC'd. (Smodab Ongalot nerf) Step 10: Buff Concord again, by making them appear instantly to prevent warping while GCC'd. (Herr Wilkus nerf) Step 11: Huge increase of wardec costs, while allowing free allies and unrestrained corp-dropping to the defender. (mercs) Step 12: Insane barge buff. (ganker nerf) Step 13: Crimewatch (major nerf to hauler/freighter ganking and ninjas) Step 14: Who knows? Instant Concord death ray? Quoting some fool in FF 2012: "Pewww!" And thats just high-sec.....I'm not even going to start a list of punitive measures taken against a certain nul-sec Alliance that will remain nameless. Factor in statements from DEVS, on this very thread: Quotable Winners like "Suicide ganking wasn't designed to be profitable", or "Gankers are expected to lose more than the victim..." Its pretty clear where these steps are taking us.........
Yes it is clear where this is going and whats worse why are you still fighting it. Obviously some of you need to be clobbered over the head with a two by four to get the message. Quit pushing the game in directions it was not meant to go.
Look at all of those steps the devs made. Are you getting the hint yet? Want to quit? Can I have your stuff? |

Herr Hammer Draken
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
51
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 03:42:00 -
[14] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Skogen Gump wrote:Matius Toskavich wrote:Sounds like someone needs a box of tissues as they are to stupid to adapt to the changes? Shoe is on the other foot so to speak.  A. Men. Seriously. A change only "necessary" because miners adamantly refused to adapt for ... counting on my fingers... 5 years of Hulkageddons? If miners had adapted to the situation, and gankers were crying, I'd be laughing at them. But that's not the situation. CCP has stepped in (yet again) because Miners cried loud and long that they were too lazy to adapt. CCP has decided to reward that.
I see what you did there and that is clearly not the case except in your own mind. The devs have stated that it was a mistake to make the miner vessels profitable to be ganked. But they do not intend to make them gank proof. They are supposed to cost more to gank than they cost to replace when fitted for their role. That was stated already by a dev in this thread. You are wrong. And it has nothing at all to do with a poor war fit as a miner is not a war vessel. It is intended for mining. Just because you can does not mean you should.
What happens in EVE when anyone pushes an exploit too far. It gets nerfed. How many times do you have to be nerfed before you get the hint? Obviously the devs have not nerfed you enough yet. You are still beating the dead horse. |

Herr Hammer Draken
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
51
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 03:47:00 -
[15] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:MeBiatch wrote:you guys that bored cuss you won 0.0?
how about you break the circle jerk and have some fun with your "allies" why do you want a risk-free hisec tell me that
Wow what an over statement. |

Herr Hammer Draken
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
51
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 03:56:00 -
[16] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Herr Hammer Draken wrote:They are supposed to cost more to gank than they cost to replace when fitted for their role. hint: they're not going to cost more to replace than what it costs to gank them even after 1.1
Poor choice of words. The ganker is not supposed to be able to profit from killing miners when fitted for their role. They are not war ships never intended to be war ships. But after this change I can see them getting used for some war ship type roles. Again unintended for EVE but then that never stopped most of the posters in this thread. |

Herr Hammer Draken
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
52
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 04:14:00 -
[17] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Herr Hammer Draken wrote:Wow what an over statement. let's see crimewatch, which will prevent you from ganking a freighter or an officer-fit faction battleship because otherwise looting it means that anyone can shoot you and bring all the neutral RR they want and you can't shoot at their RR this unnecessary change catering to afk miners who feel entitled to profit while only alt-tabbing from their movie to move ore to their orcas yeah, welcome to a risk-free hisec. a new game enhancement - err, experience!
In my experience in high sec more than 70% of the ganks are done right now un profitable. Contrary to all the almighty posters in this thread that want CCP and everyone reading this thread to think otherwise. So you are full of it when you suggest the ganks will stop just because of profitability. But ganks will require team work now. And to sustain them it will require funds as well. I can live with that. But they will still happen it just will not be the thing to do anymore because of costs involved. And I already explained how a corp can profit in high sec with the motto of ganking miners for a living. Charge a fee for service.
As an example I was only ganked once and I was in a retriever at the time. A destroyer took me out. Then he abandoned his wreck, turned it blue. I recovered my wreck and his without even getting a timer on me for looting his wreck. I made out enough to outfit almost two retrievers. He lost far more than I did and yet he still made the choice to do what he did with no input from me at all. He did not even get insurance but I did. This is the kind of players EVE has for the vast majority. You guys making these arguments represent almost nobody else except your selves when you say these things that are completely rediculous statement in the extreme. The vast majority of EVE players are no where near this level of play. They will still do it because it is fun. Even if it is costly. |

Herr Hammer Draken
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
53
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 04:34:00 -
[18] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:Herr Hammer Draken wrote:
Poor choice of words. The ganker is not supposed to be able to profit from killing miners when fitted for their role. They are not war ships never intended to be war ships. But after this change I can see them getting used for some war ship type roles. Again unintended for EVE but then that never stopped most of the posters in this thread.
"Killing miners when fitted for their role" translates to "I don't have to tank because I don't believe Exhumers were meant to tank. Therefore it is unfair when a Catalyst blows one up for a minimal cost..." Sorry, not a compelling argument.
It does not matter one bit if you do not agree. That is what is happening. |

Herr Hammer Draken
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
54
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 06:09:00 -
[19] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:It is for Miners. More minerals in market = cheaper mineral prices = cheaper ships and modules = good for ganker. No reason for you to whine here. Yeah, and Bad for Miners. I was for the Drone Poo nerf as well. Mining shouldn't be the worst profession in EVE by such a large margin. It should be halfway decent. I just find it weird that Miners keep wanting their profession to be easier and don't seem to get that that ease that they're calling for will hurt their income.
And that would be intentional by design and themattic with the game. So your point is irrelevant except perhaps if it would hurt your own bottom line and that is the real reason for your post. Supply and demand issues are supposed to define the choices players make in game.
Only right now the control of those choices lies mostly with the gankers and not the miners themselves. Which is not themattic with the game design. |

Herr Hammer Draken
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
55
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 10:11:00 -
[20] - Quote
Khanh'rhh wrote:Dave stark wrote:no, they won't do 500 dps to both targets because the ships will have different resistances.
not to mention the faction battleship can ignore the catalyst because it has enough ehp that concord will be there before the catalyst can even get through it's shield. OK, so people are laughing at you because EHP is the HP which includes the resists, but I won't derail and will instead make the point clearer. I can make a Vindicator do ~2000 dps and have 5 90% webs, which would make it most efficient in it's role. Sadly, it would only have 45k EHP and so 4 or 5 Catalysts fit for 1mil a piece could take down my 1.5bil battleship in highsec, as I autopiloted to my destination. However, you are more likely to see people fitting what is commonly known as a "tank" to their ships; this is when you add to the EHP or self rep capability. When you do this, it will break 200k EHP with ease. Sadly, it will no longer do as much DPS (1200-1300) which means you are gimping it's role by at least 40% Apparently, asking a miner to do what every one else does in the game is just TOO GOSH DARN hard. You are not a special case, you're just bad at EvE. Taking your 200mil ship and NOT TANKING IT is silly.
Mining ships are not warship, but since you guys intend them to be operated like they are then CCP is adjusting them to fit into their role like a war ship would. But of course that is where the disagrement comes in. |
|

Herr Hammer Draken
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
99
|
Posted - 2012.09.06 04:31:00 -
[21] - Quote
Buck Futz wrote:Yokai Mitsuhide wrote:
So nerf our yield but leave the hit points alone.
Unfortunately, that doesn't work. Obviously. Turn on your brain for a second. Why? With your half baked solution (AKA; take anything but AFK mode+EHP!!!) .....lower the Mack's yield and you end up with this: Yield: Hulk>Skiff>Mack Cargo: Mack>Skiff>Hulk EHP: Skiff>Mack>Hulk Hulk at 1-3-3. Mack is 1-2-3 and Skiff is 1-2-2. Hulk remains the worst in 2 of the 3 categories. The simplest way to do it is swap the EHP of the Hulk with the Mackinaw. Then each Exhumer is.... best in one category, 2nd in another, and worst in the last. Besides, its elegant: the 'easymode' temptation to AFK mine is balanced with higher vulnerability to ganking. Still, I'll give you credit, Yokai: Its clear you've accepted our premise that the Exhumers are badly balanced and need a revision.
My recent experience was not at all favorable toward this plan.
In the systems I normally mine in there have been lots of retrievers mining but they mostly just take what they need and leave. The belts always have the ore in them I need or I can find a belt in system that has what I need when I need it. But recent events a big mining corp moved in with mutiple Orca's and lots of Hulks. They strip mine every belt in system then move on to the next system and then the next. In 5 hours or so they clean out 4 + systems around me of every thing.
These are not retrievers or Macks doing this. They are fleets of Hulks and Orca's. So if ever I wanted to gank a miner those Hulks have my vote as they are like a locust. By all means leave the Hulk as the easiest miner to gank.
I admit I am looking at this from my perspective. But then so is everybody that posts. If they say different they are lying. Herr Hammer Draken "The Amarr Prophet" |
|
|
|