GAWD some of you profesional gankers are such crybabies
shouting how unfair it is to them that they suddenly can't play this game anymore because with these new barges the game becomes unbalanced
Was it fair to hunt down hulks and barges of people that want to play this game THEIR way and not yours , no it isn't
You ve been claiming that the only thing you do is to root out macro s , all the while it was clear that the real problem was ratting bots in nullsec mining with guns

You claim that this this game should only be about pvp , but you are too scaredof real pvp because you are too aftraid of losing a fight to a real person who is actual better than you, ooh imagine the shame and embarrassment

You claim that miners only want to turn this game into a theme aprk game , while you don't realize that you only want to turn this game into a arcade game

during the last 10 months every price rise in minerals was blamed on miners and your answer to that , lets go and gank some more miners .... ouch why does my tornado suddenly costs me more than 75 mil

My opinion you brought these changes on to yourself , now deal with it , adapt or leave

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.

Ask the GSF for their data on Hulk KMs. See how many of them were tanked well.

This is where CCP acknowledges that gankers, as a group, are too chickenshiz to gank barges using wardecs, or venture out into gankland where wardecs are not needed and Concord cannot touch you.

Well then, perhaps they should crack down on bots...

I

Dec every hi-sec corp.


~deal with it~

All that aside I do wish the hulk had actually been left alone base HP wise and the focus shifted abit to just enhancing fittings. would be much more interesting IMHO.

to the OP learn to adapt you silly boy and be careful who you call stupid pigs , for some that is a serious insult

they not ungankable and there always will be silly miners going for maximum yield
besides now as a ganker you will need to put in some more work to 'pvp ' someone who can't shoot back

putting more work into it ..yeah that must be the reason you acting like a crybaby

silly boy

It is evolution miners had to adapt or faced extintion now it is the gankers turn to adapt or die out so simple , get over it

what is wrong with afk mining
somebody just give me one solid reason why i shouldn't be allowed to afk mine
people play this game how they want to play it not how you would like them to play the game and if you can not or will not understand this i advice you to start playing solo games so you can do whatever you want to do

Like someone mentioned a few days ago in another thread if i am not allowed to afk mine , why then are those nullsec idiots and other morons allow to AFK their moongoo

not really true over the last 2 months i ve seen a change in miner attitude , away from the max yield hulks , sure there are still plenty out there who still mine stupid
and i disagree with the second part of your answer , adapt you need to learn to adapt , somebody will come up with a method to gank them, it will only take more effort , effort keyword , here
and no i am not happy how mining actually works , it is long and boring work and very open to abuse by bots
but i can understand that some people after a long stressfull day at the office , watching their stripminers chew rocks relieves stress
what i find harder to understand why some people only want to ruin other gaming experience by acting like a bunch of white trash teenagers who s like nothing more than to set fire to the neigbours pet rabbit

AND NOW

You are now whining that it will take effort on your part to gank a barge.....REALLY.

and it's not wrong that a 3m ship can take down a 250m ship in a matter of seconds? i have no issue with a 3m ship taking down a 250m ship, i just have an issue with it happening in seconds.

I would PAY to see you destroying my Pilgrim with Catalyst.

that assumes the destroyer doesn't get it's ass handed to it by a ship that can shoot back; miners don't have that option. combat ships don't *have* to fit tanks to win fights, barges do since we have no control over our "guns" (concord).

if you're turning your ship in to a tank it defeats the purpose of the ship to begin with. you may as well be mining in a battleship which ccp obviously think is ******** due to the fact that they then introduced dedicated mining ships.

How long can you keep firing your blasters without cap?

no. however the point of it is that you're effectively mining in a battleship, which is not what ccp want as evident by the fact that when that was the only option they introduced ships that were dedicated to mining. however then we come to the issue that i just put in my other post in order to tank rat spawns you need deadspace modules etc

the tank buff was inevitable. have they gone too far with the skiff? yeah probably, however in their current state their tank is just bad.

yeah, you do. you can't be cap stable without a deadspace/faction booster.

self entitlement? how? all i said was it's not what ccp want you to do, and i've stated why it's obvious ccp don't want you to do that.

Your comparison is flawed, the Hulk only has 35 power grid, 4 mid slots and 2 low slots. Hulks have tanks more comparable to frigates than cruisers. Frigates that fly at less than 100m/s and are the size of a battleship.

Sure go do it and report back.

Oh wait, those T2 ships don't *need* to choose between black and white "all tank" vs "all gank" but have dozens of intermediate solutions to adapt to any circumstance. And they tend to come with guns. Yes, the guns you don't have the gonads to fight.

You can only fit those fabled "everybody should get" 32K EHP tanks with CPU implant, EFT "All skills to V" pilot and possibly an Orca boost.
Clearly the starter fitting for the starter profession.

Mimimimimi......check out on Sisi rigth now, seems CCP has listened to your whinning thread Herr Wilkus......they lowred the stats from the Miningships down again to something more fitting your needs beeing able to easy gank them.

So again the loudest vocal whiner voices from the PvP fraction have won again......Shame on you CCP.

armour, shield and hull hp has changed (don't have hard numbers on that)

and mining barge bonus seems to have gone from 7.5%/level to 5%/level (ship stats shows 7.5 as the bonus, but fitting window is only giving 5%)

test server values for the hulk
shield: 2530
armour: 2160
hull: 2300

live
shield: 1519
armour: 1013
hull: 2531

(don't forget to add skills like mechanic etc to those when working out your ehps etc)
sorry i don't have yesterdays sisi stats to compare with.

Not true. Proven many times over. 10 Catalysts can gank a Hulk and still make a profit, but gankers are doing it with far fewer. But even if it was true, too bad. That's their choice. Profitability in ganking is your delusion.

Yes, they can.

Do you gank and empty freighter?
Do you gank a transport with 2M worth of contents?
Do you gank an empty indy because it fits an experimental cloak?
Do you gank the T1 fitted Drake or the meta 4 fitted CNR?

If the reply is: "yes I do it for a profit" then you are hopeless.


Now, why should you gank an empty or T1 fit exhumer and feel entitled you must "do it for a profit" again?

You're exaggerating wildly. If 3 T1 Catalysts can gank a tanked Hulk now (which they easily can) it won't take 3 T3 Battlecruisers to do the same thing after this rebalance. Remove the ability to make profit from your ganking calculations. It doesn't belong.

This is outright bullshit. 3 Tech 1 fit Catalysts can gank a Hulk now at a cost of under 10mil ISK. If a Hulk drops half it's mods and even a modest amount of Salvage those 3 Catalyst pilots have just doubled their ISK. And that's not counting the 10mil ISK/Exhumer bounty that Jihadageddon has added to the profitability. That amount of profit is imbalanced. Plain and simple.

Nope. Wrong again. A Hulk with tank modules in every slot but 1 is still easily ganked by 3 T1 Catalysts. Expecting a Hulk to sacrifice every bit of yield and every mid, low and rig slot to maximize it's tank is stupid. No other ship needs to go to such lengths just to exist.

You also make a profit if they fit a tank that still lets them have a semblance of efficiency.
IE even if you fit a DC but still want to use 1 MLU (analogous +performance mods every other ship worth leaving an hangar allows to do) you'll still die for a profit because the tank drops considerably.

This is what I object to. Zero tank dying is OK (but should reward little, not from 16.5M upwards). Balanced tank dying is OK but should not be profitable.

10 mil for tank fit with T2 suitcase for Charon.

Brick tanked Hulk with SiSi stats has 22k EHP.

Cargoholds are smaller than they were before. And Mack gets only 5% per level bonus to ore bay.

[Hulk, Incredible Hulk]
Damage Control II
Reinforced Bulkheads II

Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
Small F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction
Small F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction

Modulated Strip Miner II, Veldspar Mining Crystal II
Modulated Strip Miner II, Veldspar Mining Crystal II
Modulated Strip Miner II, Veldspar Mining Crystal II

Medium Core Defense Field Extender II
Medium Core Defense Field Extender II

32k w/ Heat, T2 rigs, 3 CPU and 0 PG to spare. I'd LOVE to see the Hulk fit that has more. And this thing is an abomination. Nobody should be forced to fit this way just to survive a few Catalysts out for profit.

The last fit is realistic and yet can be easily busted by 3 T1 Catalysts worth less than a combined 10mil ISK.

You're wrong. Again.

http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=13920646

25k EHP w/ heat. 3 T1 Catalysts. 15mil in drops + whatever Salvage + Goon bounty. Highly profitable gank of well-fit Hulk.

Profitability in ganking is largely irrelevant.

If you lost X amount of isk per gank, but your income was that same X amount more than the miner, you could sustain your gank squad indefinitely. Eventually that would cause pilots who pay via PLEX to no longer play Eve. And at 200+mil a loss for the miner, it would not take long if one was 'singled out'.

Need waders for the **** piling up from pointless "Max tank" Hulk fits.

Need a snorkel to breathe with all the ganker tears.

Waders must be low slots...too bad my lows are all full of tank fittings. Snorkel is a high slot but it seems I only have one or two in most mining vessels.

The only PVP ships that max tank fit are bait...so why should miners be expected to give up Yield for max tank? This is akin to removing all damage mods on PVP or PVE ships..which is rarely ever done. Some slots used for tank makes sense surely, but the extreme bullshit suggested here is pathetic.

Fitting a tank is completely irrelevant, as much as people like to argue it.

(Gankers net profit per hour while not gankning) - (gankers net loss while ganking) = Gankers profit per hour.

(miners profit per hour) - (miners cost of operation per hour) = Miners profit per hour.

As long as the gankers profit is positive, I.E. actually profit, they will be able to keep the ganking campaign up indefinitely.

The miners can only mine indefinitely if they also have net profit. When you need 10 hours of work to replace your ship it puts the miner at a more than 10:1 disadvantage no matter how much tank they fit.

Oh this is getting even better. My bucket isn't big enough!

but i'm in a fleet with my orca alt. i'm flying my hulk!

10 + medium ecm drones!

more jammy than a sticky situation in a jam factory after a jamtastic afternoon.

Learn math before you condescend to me good sir. Very trollish to say the least.

There is no amount of tank that you can fit to stop from being ganked, ever. Its not possible. Alpha > tank = successful gank. There is your explanation and it is iron clad.

You cannot accurately determine something that is subjective to other people.

Thanks for your input however.

Profitability is irrelevant.

2. You are not reading, or at least not comprehending. I don't give a fat rats ass about the net profit/loss of the gank. The net profit of the person flying the ship does not have to come from the act of ganking. As long as the ganker is able to pay for the ships lost to concord they will be able to sustain ganking indefinitely.

When you've been told by a CCP dev that you're wrong and you still belabor the point, regurgitating it over and over it makes both you and your argument sound stupid. Get it?

What you just described is the epitome of subjective.

The only hulk I have ever had ganked by a dozen destoyers who did not loot, salvage, or profit from it. Maybe you just don't understand that "subjective" means "subject to a third parties opinion". Or maybe you just don't understand that ganking itself does not have to be profitable for people do continue to do it.

Just because you don't die from the plague does not mean that it is not pandemic.

Yes, you are absolutely ******* right. I cant run a mission, buy 10 thrashers for me and 9 of my closest friends, and kill a miner. How stupid of me to think that I could both run a mission and gank a miner. I cannot possibly do 2 things in eve.

I really used to believe you were not just a troll. I simply cannot believe that you don't understand the simple concept I am presenting. So I have to ask, do you really not understand that gankers DO NOT need to profit from ganking itself to be able to sustain the act of ganking indefinitely?

CCP stated ganking was not intended to be profitable but a valid mechanic to disrupt someone's activity.

This clearly implies something was wrong or just badly implemented and you guys just used/abused/overused this bad implementation mechanic/ships and now have the feeling this is some kind of "deserved" stuff.

Flash news: it isn't

You can still gank, just put the necessary effort to disrupt your target activity. Simple to understand isn't?

Your point has no meanings when you clearly don't want to recognise the initial point: ganking is not intended to be profitable.

All you do is fake propaganda and crocodile tears, point blank, so cry me a river.

My industry toon is good for 100 mil a day passive, easy. After I pay for 4 PLEX that leaves 35 million to gank with. I can easily gank on the other 3 accounts the whole time, and use the industry toon to scout, salvage, loot, and mine.

Doesn't matter if Hulks get 50k EHP et 35 and/or decent PG/CPU/Slots to fit a dam tank, you'll find ways to cry anyway, you foo no one else around but yourself.

Sry, but this is a fact.

No, to be fair in Baltec words the proper rebalance is mining barges with 1K ehp 1 mid 1low 1high and -25% tank if using drones, so he can kill those with a T1 rifter and say "hey fit a tank"

This thread and arguments is going beyond any possible reason and it's exactly what makes Eve so sad. Keep listening scrubs and make a scrub game, when they have nothing left but other scrubs to target and it gives the crap of null sec you have right now.

/bravo

Counterpoint: you use the term corpie ans thus are a halfwit.

This thread is really awesome and self explanatory of the game it self.

So the biggest alliances known guys/posters are crying because they can run their multiple xxxxxxxxx 10 high sec neutral and probably NPC alts but will have hard time ganking the eventual miner afk for peanuts/beer/fun with his wife or whatever.

So this is what is all about? -Eve got really really really down the hill in terms of mature community.

I have seen a number of ganks, now, the wrecks usually sit there. I just watched one two days ago, he ganked, sat in station for 15 minutes, then left the system. The hulk was still sitting there.

So ganking for fun is obviously done more often than your made up statistic would suggest.

Nice way to give roles. "I make this crappier so they will use the other. But hey, let's also make the other ship more crappier so people will have to pick the less worst".

Made with this mentality, the current Retriever keeps a fraction price tag and is almost a copy of the Mack.

I suggest you file for a position at CCP, the results would be pyroclastic.

How is the hulk getting buffed? Also what good is a big cargo hold, if you get ganked? Perhaps you should think a bit more. Also how is the nerf to hulk suppose to be helpful, if that gets gank. Lets imagine, I just finished doing one or two cycle, I have to dock now, since CCP nerfed the hulk, then I get ganked and lose it and the cargo. How did CCP buff me?

Lets say I am in a mack, I am half way filling my cargo hold, when I get ganked. How did that big cargo size help me? I lost the money in the bay, as well as the ship. I don't see any buff there.

I don't want to do procurer for you. Not all of us are in PL and don't have to worry about isk anymore.

First of all CCP posted a Tiericide devblog and the philosophy behind making all hulls worth flying by giving them different flavours.
One of those flavours is "tanky boat". Guess what, we are going to get such a tanky boat, with the drawback of mining worse than the best but still enough (this is debatable) not to make it relegated to abandoned hull any longer.

Deal with it.

After the patch Hulk with two MLU's will have ~9500 EHP. You can't gank that?

... profit which you shouldn't have.

It's not just because the lead game designer said so, but because you don't get that huge "for a profit" value if you gank most other empty / untanked ships.

a fully tanked hulk still out mines a max yield skiff, and a fully tanked hulk shouldn't die to suicide gankers unless they're packing more pewpew than they are now.

Ganking became too easy, i man ppl were making alts and were able to gank around pretty undisturbed. Just skill up your toon and u ll still be able to gank ships, bring a friend or 2 and there it is, so much more opportunities

very pretty, but you know what i meant. it's role isn't to be a tanky ship and as such it's paper thin unlike an exhumer.

agreed i was disappointed when it vanished, it seemed appropriate for a ship that promotes survivability.

and now a fit that can actually mine. forgot how much cpu a cyno takes but is there enough cpu left for 2 strips? (t2 strips)

I have, just not on this character.

Under the ageis of one of your...errmm..."BFFs" as it happens. (Ook, ook!)

It had its moments (Lucian James is/was an absolute scream on voice-comms ), to be sure, but:

It was, overall, the most grating, un-fun, un-rewarding experience I'd ever had in this game, and one I was damned glad to see disappearing in my rear-view.

Next!

E:

Come on, everybody, 100 pages! You know you can do it!

I am not 'bitching', I don't even mine. I support the buff of mining barges though since ganking is getting out of control. The sad thing is that people don't see that they are being manipulated by the alliance who controls the minerals required to make the barges. The buff to the tanks will help make that monopoly not as profitable as it currently is.

T2 Barges with the update are supposed to reflect the added cost in "Upgrading" from a regular mining barge with added tank and yield. Not to mention every single suicide gank iv seen in my EVE career has been simply about a small quick buck or just getting good kill mails.

Not to mention what about the Ice miners in 0.0? A Mackinaw right now can't tank the rats in almost any Ice belt, while a hulk preforms excellent in a regular belt.

CCP Please, listen the Miners on this one and not the people who get the jollies off on taking advantage of the Mackinaws Poor tank.

Awwwwww guess its time for the gankers to cry now

Ganker tears the best tears

Tal

No, "profitability" isn't that big an issue to most. It's getting more expensive kills cheaply - without anyone seeing that they lost anything in their "KB stats". 5 BC's ganking a single hulk... each PERSON involved will only show a hulk kill - no loss info shows.

Im interested in other opinions tho. (both ways)

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.

You should try flying a current retriever in a low SP character. Triple 0.6 sec frigs seriously risk to kill you - even shield repairing - before you warp away.

You know, the game as also to cater to those so despised and spat in face newbies.

go to 0.7 and nor does the current one.

survey scanner and mlus.

That's one thing I don't quite get, that mining ships are pretty near the only ships not expected to use modules that enhance their primary function to be viable.

your impel is the higest cargo space dst anyway.

who bothers tanking a hauler anyway? max cargo and mwd trick will save you more often.

Impel + DCU EHP > All mid/low/rig slot tank EHP on an exhumer.

Edit: Double actually while still having 2 free lows for expanders and not using the rig slots.

Ganking for profit lets see how that works, you have one ship topped out at 120 mil taking down a ship valued at 280 mil. The gank pilot makes a profit the miner loses. It goes beyond that though right? The gank toon grabs another nado and repeats the process, meanwhile that miner that just got ganked is busy grinding to replace his ****. Ok, fine he got ganked, miners arent bitching that they are getting ganked, they are bitching because the gankers lose such a small amount compared to the miner himself.

Granted, this is eve and dark bullshit is everywhere. However, with changes to barges it will take at least 2 nados if not 3 to drop a barge. Even at 3 that puts ship cost at 270 mil for a 280 mil ship. Sounds like a fair deal to me. High sec isnt a pretty playland where you can comb each other's hair, you can STILL be ganked, its just going to cost you just as much as your costing the miner. If you want to be a pirate try your luck in low sec. In a logical sense, why is it so damn important to gank miners for profit?

i lack the care to keep arguing the point, especially when you're comparing an extremely rare out of game situation to a common in game situation.

the simple fact is destroyers are intended to kill frigates that quickly, not cruiser + sized ships that quickly. mining ships can't shoot back and have to give up pretty much everything possible in order to fit a tank. no other ship has to give up so much just so they can be used.

if people can't see why that's an issue that does need addressing then *shrug* i don't know.

Ever heard of "more dps in groups"?

1) Don't AFK jihad
2) Stay aligned. Maybe you could gank somebody and warp off before concord gets you, if you have the skill
3) Bring moar deeps bro, safte in numbers
4) Risk more expensive boats bro, safety in larger ehp
5) Pay for and use a wardec for all griefing. Yes, we do provide you with weekly wardec permits at a modest fee. Please donate a few hundred mil isk in advance to absolute strangers prior to probably not receiving any notice on the success of your application.
6) Join an intel channel, maybe they can give you the 411 in the event that Concord jumps into local
7) Set your standings so you can spot Concord easy
8) Set your overviews properly broskies
9) Stay docked until Concord gets bored
10) Move to Low-sec where Concord doesn't care to gank you if you gank some mining bear
11) Move to 0.0 where Concord can't reach you and your brosefs can provide you with safe jihadding space with helpless miners to boot
12) Move into a WH where there is no Concord, or anything else for that matter.

:D

and when do other ships have to sacrifice ALL of their med and low slots to fit a tank? why do people have a hard time grasping this?

the difference is the intercepters have the option to tank with speed; other ships don't have that option.
haulers with expensive cargo are called orcas; you can fly a naked orca and nobody will gank you.
not quite sure what you mean with front line fleet armour ships so i'll just leave that one.

literally all the ships you listed have a alternate way to tank.

So now Mack is fleet ship too?

just because it's not a tank ship shouldn't mean it can't fit a tank.

except it can't without both rigs, which is exactly the point. when mining ice you can't fit the tank.

i don't want the best safety; i just want to be able to fit a tank without having empty slots because there's not enough cpu on the ship.

i love my drake and it fits 4 bcus and a full tank, that's 4 damage mods. mining barges can't even fit less than that and have a decent tank. do you really not see the issue?

103 barrels of ganker tears, I'd say this must be a good year !! -that stuff's gonna be hot !

if they are only for mining and not combat, why can people shoot at them and engage them in combat? outrageous statements on both sides.

i don't want max yield and a good tank; i want max yield and be able to fill all the slots. i know as soon as i drop the mlus i can fit bulkheads and damage control and have the best tank. by having mlus you're already trading dcu and bulkheads, why should i be further penalised by not being able to fill my mid slots?
again; i can fit a drake with a good tank and max damage is it really that absurd that miners should be able to fit max yield and a good tank? **** i think i can even squeeze a utility [prop mod, painter, scram whatever] mod on to my drake too with that setup. so saying no other ship can do it it is utter crap, the drake quite adequately does it.

Not all of them just the good ones, and those seems pretty clear nothing will stop them because they use "brains" before F1 so I have nothing against those, but I do against the majority of no brainers F1 mongoloids filling these barrels of tears.
I'm sure you've noticed it too.

i can't even be bothered to pyfa that to see how much ehp it has, besides it's almost lunch time.

It's not surprising that the devs are trying to appeal to the incredibly stupid baby masses - making changes or improvements for the hardc0re 1337 players doesn't help them as a business. Doing stuff like this will potentially draw in or retain the new terribad players. Thats why there's so much focus on frigates, destroyers, mining barges, etc.

OP and other "hardcore" PVP players spending their time ganking defenseless ships in hisec should listen to their own advice they've been shouting for so long and LEARN TO ADAPT !

There's a risk when you are in safe spot and cloaked. People can still find you.

What?!

nullsec is for large empires, not for irrelevant 10-man corps

When I endured my lone trip from Amarr to Stain, nowhere along the way I found a sign stating "VERBOTEN!" to being in a small NPC corp.

But hey, I was talking about risk / reward in 0.0 for various secs and sovs, I am not surprised you bunch always try to engross the OH SO HARD challenge of being in a blob with free replacements.

The CFC founders did all the risky work, the CFO and the "inner circle" do the maths and the hard work. The others enjoy the ride, for what I know you don't even have mandatory CTAs.

I was just thinking the same thing.

Oh delicious irony, I fill to bursting on thee.

ROFL what?

Because it bugs? Oh wait you don't have to deal with hundreds of these things a day so you did not even know.

To get all those Gankers still thinking Ganking has to be profitable, here again out from CCP Soundwave's pencil as Reminder lots of pages ago in this thread!





Also......the changes doesn't mean Hulks and other Exhumers will be ungankable, YOU the gankers now will bring in more efforts to bring them down to your pleasure, if you can't adapt to this change, simply lookout for other Easier prey PERIOD.

And actually seemingly CCP is listen to your damn whinning and screaming to CCP 'Foul' the actually changed some of their former changes back and make the Exhumers weaker again....so WHAT...you gankers won again now STFU and let this stupid thread come to an end!!

sincerly

Andre Jean Sarpantis ( Roleplayed Nephew from the Serpentis Founder )

Really hope your joking on the 350m3 cargo hold thats smaller than a SBs cargo hold, think CCP needs to add a specialty crystal hold in that case on the hulks for holding crystals.

and which other subcap needs 2 accounts to work properly?
in fact; think of it as rhetoric i don't want your answer. it'll just be stupid.

defeats the entire purpose of the ship's role. if i wanted to warp back and forth i'd get in a mackinaw and just go afk. until my 30 min alarm goes off.

infact, if the 3% -> 5% yield modifier happens then i might actually accept this almost stupid answer because it'd be an absolute mining behemoth and the yield bonus would make up for the inconvenience.

you won't be docking more at all; you'll just be jetcanning, like you always were.

So, now the buff to mining ships makes miners happy and gankers unhappy. Then in couple months with destroyer/cruiser balance the gankers will become happy and miners unhappy... such is the cycle in Eve...

That is the loophole the other poster was talking about. Gankers can bypass the punishment, with suck low isk ships in a gank, and still make money. They did try to reduce that loophole with no insurance payout. But that didn't help out enough yet.

Pipa is just too angry as a ganker or pvper, to let us miners mine in peace.

*cough* crucible changes *cough*
Destroyers had their ROF penalty removed, hybrids got something of a buff and tier 3's came out so your saying that didn't happen? :)

It's not name calling, it's an observation: Trashing a playmates toy out of anger or just to make the other one misrable is what children do... they know they get scolded for it... and they'll most likely get a toy of their own taken away from then as punishment... but they do it anyways...

It still doesn't mean CCP even predicted it would happen like it did...

But we are talking in circles, let's agree that we don't agree.^^

It was a tanked Badger II running a Dist mission... I got gate camped and never found it unfair, cause it was in 0.4... but whatever let's you sleep at night.

Whats that got to do with some fool transporting hundreds of millions in an untanked badger?

Actually, it's post #48 in this thread.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1698538#post1698538

The ONLY person responsible for a ship being destroyed are the people shooting at it.

No, it really doesn't. Those people went looking for someone worth killing in the case of searching for an untanked miner. If it were somehow purely the miner's fault they would explode upon contact with the "harshness of space" when undocking without a tank rather than need to wait for a ganker.

even after the dev told you, you still cling to your narrow minded perspective. There are other potential uses for cargo scanners besides just suicide ganks. I guess it takes a greater mind than yours to realize it.

they prob eventually came realize that suicide ganking involves zero risk, zero skill and only hurts the game to the benefit of low-life trash who dedicate countless hours to the goal of annoying others, probably out of their own frustrations in life. Why would CCP continue to enable a minority of d-bags when the majority of their income comes from people who just like spaceships? It doesn't make sense. Greifers are trash people and I'm glad CCP is finally taking away their easymode.

I've done both of the things you mentioned, and in each case thought to myself, "In hindsight, that was pretty dumb." But it doesn't change the fact that a friendly group of HIC's and nano pests in one instance and a mael (pre gank insurance nerf) were more than happy to make themselves available to teach me those lessons.

I find it somewhat amusing that people are getting all butthurt over the fact that a bunch of ships are getting a bit of a much needed tank upgrade rather than having a tank made of CardboardiumGäó Alloy and there T2 Counterparts being made of of TinFoiliumGäó enhanced CardboardiumGäó Alloy

I never said suicide ganking should be eliminated. I just don't think it should be profitable

How bout this? Vigilantes should be CONCORD-exempt. Free to shoot you, but free to be shot at.

Seems it would be a win for all? But I'm not thinking too deeply about it, second-order consequences and beyond... shrug.

See, I can be reasonable Richard :)

I'm curious to how you manage to fit a hulk currently with 35k ehp because atm without jumping to officer level fits which certainly become profitable to gank I'm topping out at around 20k ehp with completely scraping yield in favor of tank using T2 mods. I'm certain you could find quite a few gankers willing to go after a hulk with 45k EHP sporting a few billion in mods to get up to that 45k ehp that you speak of.

Since the consequence is a gank, that would make gankers responsible for ganking. Others just aid in target selection.

Note you've got the tool set for all your skills to V. In actual practice, that's probably not going to be true. That's a huge time investment.

Yea, totally has nothing to do with the ganker:

1. Undocking
2. Travelling to the victim's system
3. Warping to the victim's local
4. Targetting the victim
5. Shooting the victim

I love how you just love to try to dodge responsibility.

If there were no gankers tank wouldn't matter.

alright,, I guess i have to spell it out for you. Its obviously not supposed to be a viable profession. This has been confirmed by a DEV. Only with recent changes has minger ganking become reliably profitable, an obvious mistake. A dev TOLD YOU and you are still here saying the sky is black. Anyway, I'm done wasting my time arguing with forum dwellers that can't grasp risk/reward, simple concepts and other perspectives. Have fun dedicating your life to posting here, arguing like a radio.

Because they are too afraid to be lame. I am not that way, but they are. It is kind of irksome they are that way, but who knows what to do about it.

were talking about reliable profitability here and common occurrences. You can't go out daily and find cargholds full of loot like you can find miners in nearly every system in high sec.

ugh, why do i do it?

Well good point, a lot of views and gameplay kind of flows back and forth during these discussions, and its hard to always be in one flow.

I don't really support ganking being profitable, unless it npc ganking. Kind of like how missions are or ratting. (But people usually get bored ganking NPCs unless its a main boss or something. Like Sansha herself appearing in an incursion, people might line up to gank her.)

The other flow or gameplay, is how overwhelming the gankers seem to be. It seems like you are surrounded by them, and they will never leave or go away. That gameplay is the one I was talking about in that post. Like has been said here, even if ganking was unprofitable, pilots would still try to gank you. Which ends up leaving you feel, like you are surrounded by them, and they will never leave ya alone.

Umm you do realize Goonswarm was paying extra bounties for mining barge and exhumer kills? the whole hulkagedon forever thing.

i paid out like 5b the other day for like 4 days worth of ganks

i also convinced the guy who was handling your perma-mwd megathron reimbursement request to pay it out

You should respect the the plea for the reimbursement for the perma-mwd megathron, it is really hard to run from low sec camps, and he was doing his best.

Of course mining ISK varies with mineral value. Removal of drones and ganking was having an upward impact on mineral prices. Miners who adjusted were earning the highest income rate ever due to high min/ice prices.

Turning around and rebalancing the new barges to be both highly gank-resistance AND bot friendly?
Its almost like CCP wants miner income to be as low as possible by lowering the bar even further.

ahhhh hahahahahahahaaaha hahahahahahahaa!

Edit: You guys have the manpower and funds to keep ganking bots, don't let a little buff in hitpoints stop you. Use more ships.

Backs up the first quote lol

Gone are the days when eve was dangerous..

O wait still is lol...

Miners dumb hard to gank...

Frighter... cake... 4b freighters are being ganked haha...

Don't see CCP doing anything because eve is now about most tears = change not anything else.

Ok how bout looking at it this way. You have the manpower...use cheaper ships? It can't take that many destroyers to gank a mackinaw can it? Even tanked they only have around 30k ehp.

It should have never been a possibility for a destroyer to solo gank an EXHUMER in the first place. Barge..maybe, but not a weak destroyer a week old character could get into ganking the highest tier mining ship you could possibly ever train for. It made zero sense.

I do tank. But pre patch even a fully tanked hulk could be ganked by 2 low sp players in catalysts.
It's a serious balancing issue which would easily drive players to quit. Not saying ganking shouldn't be possible...of course it should but not to the extent that it was.
And now that griefers can't make any isk off of it...they are whining about it. Even if all it takes is a few more destroyers, it would seem most of them are to dumb to actually get a few more people together to do so.

EVEN tanked, exhumers were too weak. They are not too strong now...the only reason anyone has an issue with it is because you can't make profit off it anymore.

Only thing that will do is force botters into the skiff and make it even more hard for you to kill them.
So you get back the easier targets of players who don't tank their exhumers, but force the botters into harder to kill ships. That makes a worse situation than the one that already exists.

Has a 100k ehp if tanked, 15,000 ore hold and a 200% bonus to yield. Bots don't care if they lose a tiny bit of yield...they are not actually playing.

Sure... and while you're at it, rename it "Gankercandy"... you know, potentially the most ore in it's hold... most probably alone when encountered... AND lowest EHP, of course.

Come on!

Haha..but apparenlty miner tears aren't on the menu today.

Out of the same reason why you expect your T2 combat ship to keep you save while you do PvP/run missions... it's my playstyle. I invested 60+ days to just efficiently fly and fit the ship, and I am still skilling to get better at everything else surrounding mining.

So, please forgive me if I cannot have pitty on people whining because they can't simply gang gank me with characters/ships they didn't even invest half the time or money in, I did...

Id be ok with the hitpoints being brought down to that level if they gave us more CPU so we didn't need to waste a slot with a cpu upgrade or rig.

What do you mean by "brought in line", exactly? The way I see it, the exhumers have already been balanced with all other T2(!) ships... bringing their tank down again would throw off that balance again... and all because of players barking that have little to nill understanding of mining.

I didn't see miners complain... nor did I see CCP admit they did go overboard with the buff... or did I miss something there?

You see what the problem is here?

So instead of doing it in a calm, positive way...the lot of you ***** and moan on the forums constantly only making yourself look like cry babies who are angry because they didn't get their way. I have no problem with people suicide ganking miners, you don't tank you deserve to lose your ship... but this is not the way to go about it. Not all of us want unbalanced gameplay.

I'll bite, why is it important for mining ships to be suicide-gankable in high sec?

CCP deals with bots. You can report bots to CCP, so there's no need for you to shoot them.

As for the "everyone else also faces the risk of being ganked", other ships (e.g. freighters and loot pinata mission running ships) are normally ganked based on the value of their cargo or modules. Isn't ganking miners more about tears (i.e. griefing) than profit? It's not like you're going to make a mint selling their ore and/or T2 equipment. (OTOH, a miner equipped with deadspace boosters, faction hardeners, ORE lasers, and/or harvester drones would be fair game.)

I'm not seeing the problem. You can still suicide gank a miner but you just need to bring more friends. All that's happened is that suicide-ganking has gone from being a "simple," relatively inexpensive affair (a cheap destroyer or two) and has now become a serious game requiring numbers, planning, and a willingness to take a significant isk loss. So now you're probably ganking because of a personal vendetta, a mercenary contract, a chance at phat lewt, etc., and not as a way to pass the time.

tl;dr - High-sec suicide ganking isn't for casuals anymore.

Where? I see the occasional complaint about mining but nowhere have I ever seen the ungodly amount of complaining from miners that you guys keep saying happened.

They are still gankable, and they would still be gankable if you doubled their tanks again.

You said you were doing it for the good of humanity, to cripple the botting, and help educate the miners.... worth spending a few isk on if you ask me. Until your earlier post I was assuming it was all for the lulz!

Hulk/Covetor isn't for solo mining anymore...

Bigger bounty maybe...

Are you saying miner in a Mack mining solo in hisec mines more than one Hulk in fleet boosted by Rorqual in nullsec?

Even with three MLUs it's not even close.

"The Covetor and Hulk cater to group mining operations due to their large mining capability, low EHP and storage, forcing them to rely on others to haul and resupply them with mining crystals."
http://community.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&nbid=73098

[quote=baltec1]

Interesting point, but that's no consolation to legitimate miners.

So... Macks are only over-tanked in a high-sec context. Maybe the Skiff's tank is more for null/low-sec? (Or would be, if null/low had delayed local or belts had tougher NPCs or if Ring Mining(tm) requires a tanky Skiff.)

So what you're saying is: High sec exhumer suicide-gankers need CCP's help ensure that gankers can fly inexpensive ships with low-skill pilots (and low-skill players since macks are "easy to kill") to make a profit blowing up player ships that cost 200+ million isk, all in high security space.

Welfare/Socialism for gankers? Seriously?

We should make oil tankers easier to blow up so Somali pirates can destroy the ships with AK47s and RPGs so that they can sell a few scraps of salvage afterwards and buy more AK47s and RPGs!

Err... I mean, that's an interesting dynamic/paradigm. Have you considered applying for a business patent?

People get a Mack because of the large ore bay.

Anyway, it's apparent that CCP has sided with the miners on this one. Or at least miners bring in more revenue for CCP than high-sec suicide gankers do.

You can still tank a hulk to be gank proof from a cost effectiveness perspective as you always could no? So miners buying macks of hulks on account of the tank buff is speculation.

I would say many miners are solo, and they've made the obvious choice for the solo barge.... you havn't presented much evidence that its because of the tank.

BTW - are you allowed to bot on SiSi, I'm rather curious as to whether were allowed to test how good ccp is at detection... out of curiosity you understand.

Now you're just being silly. They are still suicide gankable. They don't have an infinite amount of HP you just have to bring friends and spend more. You will still lose your ship to concord. You say bring friends, but friends can't do anything against alpha. Now the gankers have to bring friends.

Gank freighters

Really at this point all I'm reading is crying.

I'm not clueless I just recognize crying when I read it. Y'all think you're entitled to easy profitable targets and now you have to work harder and your profits are marginalised. Things change. Go buy the board game. The rules and stats will never change.

War dec mining corps, bump em if they are in NPC Corps like James does of you want to mess with bots. Or just change careers.

Why it's only Mack? Max tanked Hulk has 38k EHP. That's only 6,4k EHP less than lol-triple-tanked Mack.

Skiff: 32,6k
Mack: 14,5k
Hulk: 11,1k

Mack is still closer to Hulk than Skiff.

Hulk has ~24% less EHP than Mack.
Mack has ~56% less EHP than Skiff.

You forgot one little thing you gankers keep repeating: "risk vs. reward"

Why should Mack get highest risk factor if it doesn't get highest yield (reward)?

Ok, so slightly lower the yield but leave everything else alone. That will solve your precious "IT'S UNBALANCED!" issue without needlessly nerfing its ehp.
Only..the yield isn't that great unless you have mining bonuses and multiple mining laser upgrades. So to get better yield we have to sacrifice tank like it's supposed to be. So why are you still complaining?

Im not, untanked exhumers should be easy to gank...AND THEY ARE. There is nothing that needs fixing/nerfing/changing with the Mackinaw.

Skiff can double the ehp of the mackinaw...and has a decent yield and good sized ore hold. There is plenty of reason to use Skiffs.

Safer in a Skiff, much less likely to be the target of a suicide gank while only giving up a tiny bit of yield/ore space.
I've seen lot's of Skiffs since the patch.
Mackinaw tanks enough to avoid a few destroyers looking for an easy gank if he is tanked, Mackinaw can still be brought down easily if he has no tank. So the stupid miners will still be easy targets.

I personally think it should have the same tank and tankability (approximately) as a Hulk.

Mack with worst tank would need support. Not for solo mining anymore.

So nerf our yield but leave the hit points alone.

Where's this offline isk faucet you're imagining?

Easy to suggest all these changes when you're not the one who uses that ship. It's not so easy to get onboard with those changes when you're strictly a miner. Our amount of choices already sucks, having to worry about the best one we got getting nerfed sucks too. Though I do agree it does need some changes, but to the base hp only...I don't see a point in changing anything else about it minus adding more cpu.

But current Mackinaws can't fit all tank without a cpu upgrade or cpu rig included. Or at least I haven't found a way.

I agree, but what is the problem with letting us have that extra cpu to fit a tiny bit of extra tank? You know that if we had the extra cpu most idiot miners will use it to fit a 3rd mining upgrade making it even easier to kill them. So I see no downside, more cpu, less base hitpoints, those of us who want to tank will be able to tank that little bit of extra while greedy miners and bots all fit for yield. Both sides win here.

Because miners have 6 ships (barges/exhumers)
Barges should be the harder ones to fit cpu/pg wise, not exhumers...but you have hundreds of ships outside of the mining profession. Not everyone will use the extra cpu to fit tank but whats wrong with giving the 3 exhumers more cpu to give us more fitting options? It's not like we can pick a different race or line of ships to fit...we are stuck with 3 exhumers.

Yeah, using standard fit.

[Skiff]

Republic Fleet Nanofiber Structure
Republic Fleet Nanofiber Structure

Gistum A-Type 10MN Afterburner
Federation Navy Stasis Webifier
Federation Navy Stasis Webifier
Domination Warp Disruptor
Domination Warp Disruptor

True Sansha Small EMP Smartbomb

Medium Ancillary Current Router II
Medium Ancillary Current Router II

Warrior II x5
Hornet EC-300 x5

But overall hundreds of ships that are combat based....mining still only has the 3 barges and 3 exhumers.

Yeah...but nobody specialized in logistic ships and nothing else unless it's an alt with that purpose...and in that case they have nothing to complain about since that was what they were created for. Just sayin...we have so few ships for our profession...sucks to not have any cool high end tough ships like you combat pilots have : \
But than again, it's mining...perhaps I am expecting a little too much out of it.

Interestingly, the majority of station game logis are Guardians.

I only mine...

I need to see this.