He's the second prevalent "pro PvP" troll on the forums and fully motivated to bring as much nerf on miners as possible. I know it's pointless but that does not mean I will stay silent and see them manipulate the developers into creating unpractical features that bring nothing new on the table except inconvenience

I'm smelling bady Goon tears and I'm loving it ...

Maybe BoB killed you too many times that your only outlet is shooting unarmed ships in Hi Sec.

CCP Changed the War dec System when you cried about Hi Sec +1 to the Goons

CCP Changed the Mining Ships -1 Goons

Call it even ...



___________________________________________________________________________

Goons the only alliance so bad in Eve that the opposition left and played another game.

It boggles my mind how some of the seasoned players spend so much effort to prevent others from enjoying aspects of the game other than pvp. I have only ever mined in lowsec (and only briefly at that). I don't get all the hate toward miners. I wonder if all pvpers start life as asteroids? Maybe that would explain it...

As mentioned previously (hundreds of times, in fact so many times, that we can't find a spoon large enough to spoon-feed this information to you people), we don't try to prevent others from enjoying non-pvp aspects of the game. We are however trying to prevent people from removing the non-consensual pvp aspect of this game.

As mentioned previously (hundreds of times, in fact so many times, that we can't find a spoon large enough to spoon-feed this information to you people), we don't try to prevent others from enjoying non-pvp aspects of the game. We are however trying to prevent people from removing the non-consensual pvp aspect of this game.

Each of these changes moves the game closer and closer to their logical conclusion. I don't know how long you've been around, but I can tell you with certainty that due to the numerous CONCORD buffs, security status buffs/nerfs (depending on perspective), insurance removal, war nerfs, miscellaneous game mechanic nerfs (stuff like fleet aggression transfer), it's much more difficult to kill a player when he doesn't want to be killed today than it was in the years prior. The game has been moving along this unidirectional path for a long, long time now.

I mean, I can see the point you're trying to make here: "nothing changes, everything is the same because CCP hasn't yet made it impossible to shoot people in high-sec, so there's no need to worry." But it doesn't work like that. Wouldn't you be even remotely concerned if for example your government would follow the same pattern in diminishing your ability to express yourself? Or would you say "nah, everything is fine until they put troops on the street and tell us over loudspeakers that we can't talk anymore"?

Would you consider it an exploit if 100 people rolled new characters, and after spending a few hours training some basic combat skills, went out and killed mining barges using Velators? How would you deal with this exploit? Would you prevent characters under a month old from aggressing anyone in high-sec? Because that would be very sandbox-like, right? But there would be no other way to deal with something that is essentially a numbers game, so what would you say to that?

And you think that is remotly a serious threat.

Split your hulk spoils with a 100 people, not to mention 100 people fleets are fairly easy noticed, i people are willing to put up with such a trouble to shoot a single hulk, be my guest.

Oh I'm sure people will try it, I just think it won't be very effective.

A crowd draws attention.

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...

I was simply making an analogy.

And while this buff might not be a CONCORD buff, it's literally identical to one, since decreasing CONCORD response time and increasing barge EHP both have the same effect of decreasing the amount of damage a single person can do to a barge before his own ship is destroyed. Either change results in an increase to the amount of people required to pull off a suicide-gank.

Logic is a very interesting and useful tool in argument. I find it to provide quite a bit more utility than ad hominem.

A CONCORD buff would apply to any attacks in high sec, while barge buffs apply only to ....
Anyways I don't understand what the fuzz is all about, can still can gank the barges and exhumers ... just bring bigger and better guns.

^ What was the trade off for the destroyer buff and new T3 BCs? You should have spoken up then, about balance and not overdoing something. Its too late to stop the dumb train now.

He's the second prevalent "pro PvP" troll on the forums and fully motivated to bring as much nerf on miners as possible. I know it's pointless but that does not mean I will stay silent and see them manipulate the developers into creating unpractical features that bring nothing new on the table except inconvenience

Personally, if a EHP buff is unavoidable, I'd rather they swapped the EHP of the Hulk with the Mackinaw.

A) Hulk is 'traditionally' the toughest, and with its new Ore bay, its going to require micromanagement, or a script.
That means these miners are kept at their posts, moving Ore, swapping crystals, whatever.

B) People are already sitting down and figuring out the best 'AFK ice mining' set ups for the Mackinaw, how to best exploit its huge EHP and cargobay.


I think the best way to go - is keep the Hulk pilots in their seats with small cargo bays...

and keep Mackinaw pilots in their seats with lower EHP. (Besides, how well armored is a huge box in space going to be anyway?)

Give Hulks the EHP, and let them mine in groups.
Keep the AFK Mack pilots nervous by them more gankable.

Finally, nerf the yield of the Skiff a bit. Highest EHP, lowest yield, not 'tied with Mackinaw'.

The crystal thing is an argument where you keep trying to change the situation. First it's a multi-corp fleet. Then it's an orca but jetcans attract gankers and so you never use jetcans. Now it's mission pockets where you use jetcans. And somehow there's no way for the Hulk pilots to co-ordinate to bring the right mix of crystals for the belt.

It's not a situation change. It's a list of the myriads of different mining fleets you can put up to deal with the many game situations.

As of today they all work, they are all viable, they are the "macro" part of mining.

The single ships are the "micro" parts and as of today they also adapt to everything.
Their only flaw is the too large difference between ships, so there's the no brainer "best of all" that eclipses every other.

Altering the "micro" part so that all the ships become viable is good, as long as it does not affect the "macro" part, that is the adaptability to each situation. Today I can perfectly adapt to any situation with every ship.
Tomorrow I'd need to drop and change ships just to deal with the many different scenarios.
Now, they are not T1 BCs and they are due a large price increase.
This means rich enough people like me will be able to adapt but the others will have to suck it up and have it worse. With no actual reason why they should have it worse.

To all the HS gankers:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owzhYNcd4OM