eh mining is some of the worst income in game.... and now that they will be free to afk mine again lowends should crash making their income god awful again.

And yet they're giving the Hulk a tank buff, stealing thunder from the Skiff's role.
And yet they're giving the Skiff an enormous Ore bay, stealing thunder from the Mackinaw's role.
And yet they're giving the Mack a bigger tank buff than the new Hulk and better Yield than the new Skiff, stealing thunder from both.

A tanky ship, a cargoey ship, and a yield ship. Those are great. But make it a choice (though it's still certainly handholding because the Hulk could have done it).

The Tanky ship has an enormous Cargo.
The Cargoey ship has a pretty big Tank.
The Yield ship also has a pretty big Tank.

Why?

The new Hulk should be pretty flimsy, as should the new Mack. The Skiff shouldn't have an enormous Ore bay on top of its massive tank.

If you're gonna give each ship a role, don't diminish the value of the other roles.

Clearly they aren't fine as they are or CCP wouldn't be devoting their time to re-balancing them. I know, I know, you and your ilk are far better equipped to determine what CCP should be devoting their time to than the people who actually run the company, but you're just regurgitating the same tired rhetoric over and over at this point. Don't you get tired of being wrong all the time?

so "mercoxit ship", "ice ship", "everything else ship" is letting miners determine which tool is better for the job? Well fancy that.

That won't happen as long as I'm around, btw.

Suicide ganking wasn't designed to be profitable, it's meant to be an option that let's you punish someone else at your expense. The money you paid for a ship to gank with compared to the money lost by your target was completely off and this change should bring that to a better spot. That said, the numbers can still be adjusted.

Didn't you guys learn your lesson about Cost being used as a balancing factor after introducing Titans and Supers?

Using the balancing tool to compensate for a social problem is the way to go when you can put in the numbers but can't change the way people think/behave.

Unless you want to try "re-educating" them..

Given the choice between you and your ilk determining ship redesigns or CCP taking on that role I think it's pretty obvious who the level-headed among us would choose.

Protip: It isn't you.

You may have missed this. http://community.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&nbid=28628

CCP Screegs' team ramped up bot Hunting in March 2012

That makes a lot of "if'

Why CCP Shreegs hasn't come yet laughing and trolling you guys because of this idiot bot argument? -probably because he's still laughing.

No need to be an expert to realise a simple buff to some "pixels" will not and suddenly make bots be smarter.
Thinking or pretending the other way around is just being idiot, paranoid, lacking totally of software knowledge (this is harder than be able to count up to 3) and talking out of an hairy pubbie arse.

Penalizing bots should not be prioritized over giving non-botting players (AFK or otherwise) wider and more relevant choices.

Its mostly, cause we don't care about the bots. We want to mine, not worry about bots. You should pick up mining, would close off some of that free time you have to worry about bots so much.

I wasn't aware that considerable differences in tank yield and hold were the same thing behind each one.

^You should cut down on the time recruiting and add more time to reading the barge changes. That is some nice number, but the cargo holds are anything but similiar. As for tanks, the macks and retrievers are decent, the proc is too much propably, but who cares.

Its not as beautiful though these changes as you had hoped for (as well as me hoping for better as well), but its not as bad as you are saying it is either.

Hulk gets like what, 7k for ore hold compared to mack 30k or so?

For someone who hates bots so much, surely you would know what barge they would pick to bot in.

Not gonna, don't have a bot to do that with.

I forgot to prove my point after posting the numbers. The point is, that you only brought up mining yeild. And yes they are vastly the same. Which is glorious. The other glorius thing is that the mack get an ore hold the size of a jet can. That is the part you do not believe in. Also proc gets alot more armor, but who really cares, besides the happy go lucky cyno people.

Saying that they are homogenizing mining ships doesn't make it so. They are doing the opposite of what you suggest.

And?

Saying they are homogenizing mining ships still does not make it so. They are homogenized now if you mine for more than a few months...because then you'll have trained to be either in a hulk, or mining ice in a mack. That seems pretty homogenized. Quit posting numbers and put together a better synthesis of all the aspects of the proposed changes.

Yes, you did. And yield isn't everything. I did provide proof, by the way, just not in the form you seem to understand. You're letting numbers blind you to any other line of reasoning. Quit posting numbers and provide a better argument.

What you gave was a data section. If that was the extent of a paper you were turning in you would most assuredly get an 'F'. You need to flesh out your argument. Take your data and add a discussion section explaining why the differences you found were not significant. And if all you're going to do is provide numbers without a lot of reasoning, provide a statistical analysis of your numbers. How significant is the yield difference between them? How did you come to that conclusion? Are there any mitigating factors? Why should I take your yield numbers as proof that they are 'homogenized'?

You have stated something without backing it up, you just don't realize it.

Yeah the "discussion" in the feedback forum is going strong.

I don't get why a T2 ship should get T1 resists plus something. T2 ships are meant to get T2 resists else they should drop the cost from 250M to 25M and be T1.

i assume you've not tried tanking a triple bs rat spawn in 0.0 with a hulk have you? it's not exactly like running a level 2 in a drake...

For tanking ganks hopefully to the point that gankers move on to someone else obviously. Also like all the other ships in game they have trouble doing their job as a wreck.

Fun to see people whine who's motivation clearly is to only pvp when their targets cannot defend themselves :)

I doubt they can even see the joke in this.

this is way off. because beefing up low end mining barges wont make miners mine more.... It wont make miners yield more. it simply takes away the ability for effortless griefing and gives ships that were ignored a use again after reaching the hulk.

I think what's even worse is that you seem to feel entitled to safety in hisec.

No, you fail to understand.
Nothing to do with mining 'more'.

Ganked miners mine less. Supply is impacted, driving up mineral prices for those who mine intelligently and protect their T2 300M investments with 4-5 Million in T2 mods.

Stupid miners die, smart miners get higher returns on their efforts. As it should be.
Do all miners fail at economics as badly as you do?

Too bad that will never happen.

... and how is this a bad thing?

He knows this, and I'm pretty sure with most Goons and other CFC members like me, he's against further proliferation of supercaps.

Does anyone think, that if supers cost less, more would be out fighting. Or even with plummeting mineral costs, it would still cost to much to openly pvp or risk them?

fleet ships don't give up their damage mods when they fit a tank; miners do because they lack the cpu to fit a shield tank and a rack of mlus.

armour tanking cargo ships are a ******* retared idea and whoever at ccp came up with it need putting out of our misery and are in the same situation as miners except nobody is actively ganking them because when you've got orcas avalable the entire ship type is redundant anyway.

yeah snipers don't have give up their tank; they choose to do it for a bit more range, or a bit more damage. snipers not fitting tanks is akin to miners not fitting tanks. it's not because they can't it's because they choose not to.

i agree miners probably aren't alone in this; however their rebalancing came first so they're getting fixed first. i'm sure ccp will address the same issue with other ships when they get around to rebalacing those ship types.

So, did anyone answer this question regarding Exhumer resists vs HIC resists i posed the other day?

I'd really like to know

The only reason we can make money is because Miners are complicit in their own demise. Just like the only reason Hauler gankers can make money is that Hauler pilots are complicit in their own demise.

Every single miner that I've ganked has sat there like a log while I maneuver my ship into the perfect position to open up.

If you tank your Hulk, you cannot be ganked profitably in HS. In the higher sec bands, enough tank to be radically unprofitable fits in the mids/rigs.

If you mine aligned and pay even the slightest attention to the overview, you cannot ever be ganked.

Everyone else in EVE has to look at their screen on occasion to be effective. Why should miners be different?

- 1500 dps Catalyst
- Tornado

Should CCP give ganking ships a EHP buff too? Or maybe more damage?

After all full gank Catalyst can be two volleyd with 800mm AC Tornado.